Unlike America China does not have any ambition of global control
Not yet, it takes a while for rising powers to get to the point of having global ambitions. For China this time is still in the future. If and when their GDP becomes the #1 in the world then it would be time to re-discuss this issue.
Just for your information, bicycles are part of the traffic!
Bikes are only appropriately part of traffic in places where we haven't yet built bike lanes. The two types of transportation have different maximum speeds, mixing them isn't a good idea.
Nonsense, I bike & drive and bicycles definitely belong in dedicated bike lanes. On the sidewalk they menace pedestrians, on the street they interfere with traffic.
Assumptions to test this hypothesis:
1) Countries other than the US (with carriers) are making rational decisions on how many carriers to buy
2) The total number of carriers a country can support is based on it's GDP
3) Data from Wikipedia about Carriers and GDP is accurate
So, based on that metric it takes $2.28 Trillion of GDP to rationally support one aircraft carrier and the US could support 7 of them.
Problems with this logic:
1) Not all countries have an equal need for aircraft carriers, it depends on the importance of sea lanes and force projection
2) Most countries listed are US allies who are underspending on their military establishment since they know the US will be there to protect them
3) China is an outlier since they have $8.3 trillion in GDP and only one carrier, if they are removed suddenly the data shows it only takes $1.4 Trillion of GDP and the US could support 11 carriers
Conclusion:
Given the US need for open sea lanes in order to maintain trade, a political desire for forward force projection in order to avoid conflict in the continental US and the gigantic size of the US economy it's likely that the current number of US carriers is actually appropriate.
Following those same lines I predict China will build five more carriers amidst rising tensions in the Pacific.
It's a technicality, but it's an important one. The federal government can't actually run out of money, but that doesn't mean they have unlimited spending power, it just means their spending is limited by inflation instead of dollar bills on hand. The situation is actually much more complicated than that since most money is actually created by banks rather than the feds, but that's a much more involved conversation.
You and the likes of you are a good reason NOT to expose young children to violence!
Thought control through censorship doesn't work. A better approach is gradual exposure combined with thoughtful reflection and ethical training, of course that takes work and who wants that?
The two most prominent examples are Modern Monetary Theory and Monetary Realism. Here's a pretty detailed paper to get you started: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/pa...
The neo-chartalists predicted this outcome and their models for what is happening in Europe appear to be more accurate as well. For now, they appear to have a better handle on things than the Austrians, Neo Keynesians, or mainstream economists.
Predictions that Quantitative Easing was going to cause massive inflation are probably the most recent and well known example.
I'm not letting Bernanke or Krugman off either, their models predicted a robust rebound that hasn't happened.
At present I'm not too impressed by any school that doesn't accept some degree of neo-chartalism, circuit theory and see some weaknesses in the ISLM model.
While they make some good points the predictions based on their theories have consistently turned out to be sub-optimal compared to other economic schools of thought.
That doesn't make any sense. Of course you correct the data, however you also publish the uncorrected data and the correction method you used so that others can verify your work.
There should be a professional "Software Engineering" (or call it something else if the Engineers get upset about the term) program for those that want to actually build code.
Most developers are doing engineering work not science so I'd have to agree.
Wheat, Rice, Potatoes, Maize... notice a pattern here?
That is what the modern world has been eating since the dawn of recorded time.
In evolutionary terms the "Dawn of recorded time" isn't really that long ago. True writing isn't considered to have started until around 3200 BCE or so. Agriculture probably began somewhere around 12000 BCE though it took several thousand years to spread widely enough to be considered the dominant form. Pretty much all accounts suggest that nutrition, height and lifespan all decreased when the switch was made.
My understanding is that Global Warming will tend to accentuate both flooding and drought. Essentially by adding more energy to the system we're creating greater volatility in weather patterns.
It seems like specifying a contract where you're going to pay for the well digging and he gets as many tries as he wants to select well sites isn't likely to lead to a good outcome whether he's a dowser or a geologist. Pay for performance seems like a lot better model than pay for consultation in this instance. Of course, I dare you to find a dowser who would actually agree to that kind of contract, heh.
It seems to me the problem is that there is no trade off continuum, it's a binary choice. Either I can have a well paid job and not enough free time, or I can be poor/unemployed.
AS for the calculation, you are not taking into account benefits such as SSI, Food Stamps, etc, that the poor receive as part of the redistribution of taxes
I'm not sure it's really appropriate to refer to everyone in the bottom 50% as "the poor", that seems overly broad, but the rest of your point has some merit.
Government transfers are a bit tricky since they're given for a variety of different reasons, but lets assume the case most favorable for your argument, that they should all be figured in. Using the CBO data http://www.cbo.gov/sites/defau..., which is a bit harder since it's in quintiles, I integrated that into the equation. (This was quick math with approximate data but it should be close enough for this discussion) Given that scenario their profit is $39,362.20 and an appropriate tax burden would be 2.3% So even in the case where every government transfer should be taxable (which I don't think is true) their appropriate tax burden is still lower than what they're currently paying.
Obviously before any real changes were made a much more detailed and accurate study would need to be made, but I stand by my original assertion that the bottom 50% don't pay an unfairly low rate of taxation. Oh, and before you start drawing all sorts of unwarranted assumptions about my politics I should mention I'm registered as a Libertarian.
That depends on the tax. Property taxes for example are a wealth tax.
The bottom 50% make about 14.6% of the all income earned. A naive analysis would then suggest that they should be paying 14.6% of the taxes, but that doesn't take into account costs. For the same reason we don't tax businesses on their gross revenue, we shouldn't be taxing gross income for individuals.
So, what constitutes "profit" for an individual? Their income minus the living wage for that number of household members. Using the income and household size data presented here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H... we can the calculate that the bottom 50% of society earn -$110,797.80 in profit, which means they should pay -6.47% in taxes if things were set up fairly. If they currently pay +2.5% then they're being heavily over-taxed.
Obviously this analysis makes the assumption that people deserve to make a living wage. If instead you assume that half of our population should live at the poverty line, then their profit is $86,001.00 and they should be paying 5.02% of the taxes and they'd be under-taxed. Personally I don't think it's a rational society design for half of our citizens to be expected to live in poverty, if for no other reason than it would create significant social unrest.
Based on my analysis the bottom 50% of society are overtaxed on both a wealth share and income share basis.
We don't have foreknowledge of shit. It's a pretty epic level of arrogance to think we've suddenly acquired the ability to accurately see 100 years into the future when EVERY SINGLE ATTEMPT in the past to accurately predict anything even 20 years in the future has failed MISERABLY and has been LAUGHABLY wrong.
The only thing that I predict about what this planet is going to look like 100 years from now is that it's going to be nothing like what anyone expects today.
That's true, but there are steps we could take that we should be doing anyways. For example, externalized costs should always be re-internalized. Currently we allow coal power plants to spew pollution into the air without paying for it. A simply air pollution tax, set at different rates for different pollutants would solve much of that in a market friendly way.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a Democracy, one dollar one vote.
Unlike America China does not have any ambition of global control
Not yet, it takes a while for rising powers to get to the point of having global ambitions. For China this time is still in the future. If and when their GDP becomes the #1 in the world then it would be time to re-discuss this issue.
Just for your information, bicycles are part of the traffic!
Bikes are only appropriately part of traffic in places where we haven't yet built bike lanes. The two types of transportation have different maximum speeds, mixing them isn't a good idea.
Nonsense, I bike & drive and bicycles definitely belong in dedicated bike lanes. On the sidewalk they menace pedestrians, on the street they interfere with traffic.
An 11 carrier Navy fleet is not sustainable.
Assumptions to test this hypothesis:
1) Countries other than the US (with carriers) are making rational decisions on how many carriers to buy
2) The total number of carriers a country can support is based on it's GDP
3) Data from Wikipedia about Carriers and GDP is accurate
So, based on that metric it takes $2.28 Trillion of GDP to rationally support one aircraft carrier and the US could support 7 of them.
Problems with this logic:
1) Not all countries have an equal need for aircraft carriers, it depends on the importance of sea lanes and force projection
2) Most countries listed are US allies who are underspending on their military establishment since they know the US will be there to protect them
3) China is an outlier since they have $8.3 trillion in GDP and only one carrier, if they are removed suddenly the data shows it only takes $1.4 Trillion of GDP and the US could support 11 carriers
Conclusion:
Given the US need for open sea lanes in order to maintain trade, a political desire for forward force projection in order to avoid conflict in the continental US and the gigantic size of the US economy it's likely that the current number of US carriers is actually appropriate.
Following those same lines I predict China will build five more carriers amidst rising tensions in the Pacific.
It's a technicality, but it's an important one. The federal government can't actually run out of money, but that doesn't mean they have unlimited spending power, it just means their spending is limited by inflation instead of dollar bills on hand. The situation is actually much more complicated than that since most money is actually created by banks rather than the feds, but that's a much more involved conversation.
You and the likes of you are a good reason NOT to expose young children to violence!
Thought control through censorship doesn't work. A better approach is gradual exposure combined with thoughtful reflection and ethical training, of course that takes work and who wants that?
The two most prominent examples are Modern Monetary Theory and Monetary Realism. Here's a pretty detailed paper to get you started: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/pa...
The neo-chartalists predicted this outcome and their models for what is happening in Europe appear to be more accurate as well. For now, they appear to have a better handle on things than the Austrians, Neo Keynesians, or mainstream economists.
Predictions that Quantitative Easing was going to cause massive inflation are probably the most recent and well known example.
I'm not letting Bernanke or Krugman off either, their models predicted a robust rebound that hasn't happened.
At present I'm not too impressed by any school that doesn't accept some degree of neo-chartalism, circuit theory and see some weaknesses in the ISLM model.
While they make some good points the predictions based on their theories have consistently turned out to be sub-optimal compared to other economic schools of thought.
That doesn't make any sense. Of course you correct the data, however you also publish the uncorrected data and the correction method you used so that others can verify your work.
There should be a professional "Software Engineering" (or call it something else if the Engineers get upset about the term) program for those that want to actually build code.
Most developers are doing engineering work not science so I'd have to agree.
VME Freedom Protector would have better marketing spin.
Wheat, Rice, Potatoes, Maize... notice a pattern here?
That is what the modern world has been eating since the dawn of recorded time.
In evolutionary terms the "Dawn of recorded time" isn't really that long ago. True writing isn't considered to have started until around 3200 BCE or so. Agriculture probably began somewhere around 12000 BCE though it took several thousand years to spread widely enough to be considered the dominant form. Pretty much all accounts suggest that nutrition, height and lifespan all decreased when the switch was made.
Mine does... "Printing" is considered a security hazard. We have more secured paper disposal bins than we have printers.
Umm ok. So if you're doing so little printing, why do you need paper disposal bins?
My understanding is that Global Warming will tend to accentuate both flooding and drought. Essentially by adding more energy to the system we're creating greater volatility in weather patterns.
Most work environments still don't have e-devices available sufficiently to replace paper in all circumstances.
It seems like specifying a contract where you're going to pay for the well digging and he gets as many tries as he wants to select well sites isn't likely to lead to a good outcome whether he's a dowser or a geologist. Pay for performance seems like a lot better model than pay for consultation in this instance. Of course, I dare you to find a dowser who would actually agree to that kind of contract, heh.
Rotating shifts are pure evil.
It seems to me the problem is that there is no trade off continuum, it's a binary choice. Either I can have a well paid job and not enough free time, or I can be poor/unemployed.
As long as the contract stipulates payment only after confirmation of findings, who cares if they use geology or dowsing?
AS for the calculation, you are not taking into account benefits such as SSI, Food Stamps, etc, that the poor receive as part of the redistribution of taxes
I'm not sure it's really appropriate to refer to everyone in the bottom 50% as "the poor", that seems overly broad, but the rest of your point has some merit.
Government transfers are a bit tricky since they're given for a variety of different reasons, but lets assume the case most favorable for your argument, that they should all be figured in. Using the CBO data http://www.cbo.gov/sites/defau..., which is a bit harder since it's in quintiles, I integrated that into the equation. (This was quick math with approximate data but it should be close enough for this discussion) Given that scenario their profit is $39,362.20 and an appropriate tax burden would be 2.3% So even in the case where every government transfer should be taxable (which I don't think is true) their appropriate tax burden is still lower than what they're currently paying.
Obviously before any real changes were made a much more detailed and accurate study would need to be made, but I stand by my original assertion that the bottom 50% don't pay an unfairly low rate of taxation. Oh, and before you start drawing all sorts of unwarranted assumptions about my politics I should mention I'm registered as a Libertarian.
That depends on the tax. Property taxes for example are a wealth tax.
The bottom 50% make about 14.6% of the all income earned. A naive analysis would then suggest that they should be paying 14.6% of the taxes, but that doesn't take into account costs. For the same reason we don't tax businesses on their gross revenue, we shouldn't be taxing gross income for individuals.
So, what constitutes "profit" for an individual? Their income minus the living wage for that number of household members. Using the income and household size data presented here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H... we can the calculate that the bottom 50% of society earn -$110,797.80 in profit, which means they should pay -6.47% in taxes if things were set up fairly. If they currently pay +2.5% then they're being heavily over-taxed.
Obviously this analysis makes the assumption that people deserve to make a living wage. If instead you assume that half of our population should live at the poverty line, then their profit is $86,001.00 and they should be paying 5.02% of the taxes and they'd be under-taxed. Personally I don't think it's a rational society design for half of our citizens to be expected to live in poverty, if for no other reason than it would create significant social unrest.
Based on my analysis the bottom 50% of society are overtaxed on both a wealth share and income share basis.
We don't have foreknowledge of shit. It's a pretty epic level of arrogance to think we've suddenly acquired the ability to accurately see 100 years into the future when EVERY SINGLE ATTEMPT in the past to accurately predict anything even 20 years in the future has failed MISERABLY and has been LAUGHABLY wrong.
The only thing that I predict about what this planet is going to look like 100 years from now is that it's going to be nothing like what anyone expects today.
That's true, but there are steps we could take that we should be doing anyways. For example, externalized costs should always be re-internalized. Currently we allow coal power plants to spew pollution into the air without paying for it. A simply air pollution tax, set at different rates for different pollutants would solve much of that in a market friendly way.