What makes you think the human desire for more will ever cease? By the standards of 300-500 years ago, 99% of the modern world is thriving. So why is everyone working as hard as they are? Because humans want. And unless everyone becomes ascetic Buddhists, or advanced AI coupled with nanotech replicators removes virtually all resource and technical constraints, that will continue for a long time yet.
An interesting question, to be sure. Another interesting question: the sociological and economic effects of drastically-extended lifespans.
"People don't even do escrow when they buy a house. But they should. But I guess the real estate lobby wouldn't like that at all."
You are entirely incorrect: Every house purchased using a bank loan (i.e 95+%) is transacted through an escrow company with title insurance, and the entities involved in the escrow process are, in fact, the real estate industry.
Paulson's 3 page plan was never a bill. It was proposed as an amendment to an existing bill, and that amendment was voted down in the House.
The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, which was part of H.R. 1424, and when enacted part of Public Law 110-343, was over 451 pages of legislation.
And it didn't allow the Federal Reserve to give out money to banks, it allowed the U.S. Treasury to BUY assets, in the market.
"Are you sure your source wasn't already inflation adjusted?"
It was, and his point stands.
40 years of productivity growth and technological advancement, with the average worker no better off financially (fn1).
fn1: at least per CPI/PCE deflators; there is some debate about the impact of BLS's hedonic adjustments and how the value of technological progress is included in inflation metrics.
Because the dealerships, by law, have to be independently owned - the idea being that somehow that was/is a check on the power of major automobile manufacturers. In reality, dealers are usually exclusive to, and financed by, the manufacturers, and bound by long-term and complex contracts the mostly erase any putative 'freer-market' gains from the independent dealership laws.
Interesting comment (but I want to reply, so can't moderate)
"More Americans died in [the Civil War] than WWI, Korea, Vietnam, and the Revolution... combined. Only WWII had more."
re: WWII had more deaths: Yes (KIA) and No (total military deaths).
Also, disease prevention and battlefield medicine had and has advanced, so while the proportion of non-combat military deaths to total military deaths decreased from the Civil War to WWII (better disease prevention/treatment), the proportion of combat deaths to total injuries also decreased from the Civil War to WWII, and has kept on decreasing through Vietnam and to Afghanistan/Iraq (better battlefield medicine)
2/3 of Civil War military deaths were by disease, not combat injuries (dysentery, typhoid, TB, malaria, pneumonia). And if you got seriously injured, you were likely to die.
By contrast, 77% of U.S. military deaths in the Afghanistan/Iraq wars (post-2001) are combat deaths, not due to diseases. However, if you get shot, even severely wounded, you have a good chance of surviving.
Sure, but here you have the CEO telling the other shareholders that as long as he works for them, he can't improve the value of the company above $13 and change per share, but if they go away, he has great structural and product ideas to improve that value. (and no, the compliance costs of being a public company is not the difference)
He cannot argue both of those points simultaneously and expect not to get pushback from shareholders who think he is pulling a fast on on them. If he is correct in his view of the future, then he should be fired as current CEO immediately.
The fact that Google went to lengths to say the sales were negotiated and finalized in Ireland, and that UK Googlers were just there to provide marketing 'support', undermines your assertion.
Because in fact, the UK employees have titles like "Sales manager", and publicly describe their roles as negotiating sales, making sales, closing deals.
If that is true, then the sales occur in the UK, regardless of the fact to whom the invoice payment was addressed.
Google is being asked to explain the discrepancy between their testimony before Parliament (sales are negotiated and closed by Google Ireland employees), and the apparent contrary facts (sales are negotiated and closed by Google UK employees).
Perjury before Parliament is a right matter for the Parliament to investigate.
mark-t wrote: ""life as we know it" happens to be limited to life that originated on Earth."
They are not saying that, they are saying the opposite of that. That "life as we know it" here on Earth does not happen to be limited to life that originated on Earth, and that life not originated on Earth is, in fact, the life that we know.
It may very well be completely wrong, but the premise per the summary is not inherently illogical.
"Should I be paying taxes on what those items would cost me if I had to pay for them?"
Yes.
Deminimis rules apply, but you are generally taxed-as-income on the compensation you receive in exchange for your labor.
That includes cash wages, health care benefits paid by your employer, 401k matching, car allowance if you are not driving miles for work purposes, $1,000/year worth of gym membership, or $5,000/year of food.
Would you do the job for only popcorn? Of course not. Would I take a lower wage if my employer paid my mortgage? Yes, and I should be taxed on that. Somewhere in between those extremes are what IRS Revenue Rulings define. And in this case, the IRS is taking a look at the changes in how companies provide food to employees, and is redefining the rules of what counts an "income".
You are entirely mis-reading the proposed law, and it is not unconstitutional at all.
There would have been no search without a warrant, because this would not have been a governmental search. Therefore it would not have been unconstitutional. This would have been an employer asking an employee for information. It would not have been law enforcement or the employer going to Facebook and demanding the employee's information under the color of this law.
This law would have allowed the employer to ask the employee to voluntarily provide the information, because previously the law specifically disallowed the employer to ask.
This law would have returned to the status quo of several years ago, which is that the employer can ask the employee to voluntarily turn over certain information, or else employment is terminated.
I run corporate investigations, and the basic premise in at-will employment is "your continued employment is dependent on you answering our questions. You may choose to not answer them - that is your right; however, if you do not, it is our right to no longer employ you."
In at-will situations, that is allowed. You might disagree with that, but there is no constitutional implication here - it is a private employment issue between a company and an employee.
Per the OECD, the "Average annual hours actually worked per worker" in the United States has been around 1,800 hours per year for the last decade. (1,787 in 2011)
The comment was talking about the stealth bomber, the B-2 Spirit, which was designed during the Carter administration. Not the B-52, about which you're correct.
You re-read the law - ALL OF IT. If I open the front door to my home, and someone I don't know begins punching me in the face, in the eyes of the law I have a reasonable fear of sustaining great bodily harm.
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
"The Community Reinvestment Act was obviously at the root of the MMM (mortgage meltdown mess)"
Ridiculous, partisan hogwash. A conservative meme discredited a thousand times by people who know more than you. Step out of your ignorance into the cleansing light of reality.
"It gets better": a slogan not just for for bullied kids, but for victims of Rush Limbaugh, too.
That link has no pictures of the inside, nor descriptions of what makes it so rugged. You completely missed the only two points of the post you replied to, and effectively restated the nothing-burger that is the submission.
Grocery inflation is running at under 2% a year. Overall inflation is about the same. Credible alternative measures of inflation support the BLS data. You are wrong.
Money was lent, not spent. It has been repaid. The actions happened in a Liquidity Trap, where evidence for crowding out is non-existent. And evidence for even soft Ricardian Equivalence is weak, so your argument doesn't even make sense under your misconstruction. You are wrong for several reasons.
But interesting! Don't fall too far down the Austrian School hole, though. The past 6 years have proven that modern Keynesian economic models are a very good description of how the global economy actually responded to the recent massive financial problems. Saltwater is simply (and rightfully) abusing Freshwater at this point - certain conservative economists and pundits should be embarrassed to continue to flog their dead talking points.
I just read a fascinating article about how a guy learned a simple language in 22 total hours of studying (over several months).
He had previously learned a lot of memory tricks and techniques, and the person he learned them from went on to start an online learning site that used all of those techniques (with some algorithms that learned how you were learning).
One of the main techniques was studying in 4-10 minute chuncks, as research shows that reinforcing memories multiple times (recall, remember, think about, re-encode stronger) works better than cramming in long sessions. To your point about allowing the information to sink into your mind over time instead of force feeding it...
Fluctuation in the exchange rate of the dollar against other currencies do not make you individually worth less or worth more.
Currencies have little to do with wealth - they are tools to make trade easier.
Importers love a strong dollar. Exporters love a weak dollar. China loves a strong dollar (for now), and in fact intervenes to keep to RNB weak against the USD - does the Chinese government do this because it wants to keep its citizens poor?. Switzerland wants a weaker SFR - are you saying that the Swiss government wants to make its citizens poorer?
It is true that relative currency values are affect by political decisions (trade and monetary policy), but those decisions are not made in way you think: China wants the RNB weak against the dollar because they think it will make Chinese citizens wealthier over time than if China pursued a strong-renmibi policy right now.
But in any event, "If the president wants the dollar to be weak, you'll be worth less, and if he wants the dollar to be strong, you'll be worth more. Regardless of what you do for a living." is flat out wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
What makes you think the human desire for more will ever cease? By the standards of 300-500 years ago, 99% of the modern world is thriving. So why is everyone working as hard as they are? Because humans want. And unless everyone becomes ascetic Buddhists, or advanced AI coupled with nanotech replicators removes virtually all resource and technical constraints, that will continue for a long time yet.
An interesting question, to be sure. Another interesting question: the sociological and economic effects of drastically-extended lifespans.
It's 'situational irony': the one who tried to stop the "merchant of death" became a merchant of death. It's the reversal...
"People don't even do escrow when they buy a house. But they should. But I guess the real estate lobby wouldn't like that at all."
You are entirely incorrect: Every house purchased using a bank loan (i.e 95+%) is transacted through an escrow company with title insurance, and the entities involved in the escrow process are, in fact, the real estate industry.
"That bill was only a few pages long"
Paulson's 3 page plan was never a bill. It was proposed as an amendment to an existing bill, and that amendment was voted down in the House.
The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, which was part of H.R. 1424, and when enacted part of Public Law 110-343, was over 451 pages of legislation.
And it didn't allow the Federal Reserve to give out money to banks, it allowed the U.S. Treasury to BUY assets, in the market.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Economic_Stabilization_Act_of_2008#History
"Are you sure your source wasn't already inflation adjusted?"
It was, and his point stands.
40 years of productivity growth and technological advancement, with the average worker no better off financially (fn1).
fn1: at least per CPI/PCE deflators; there is some debate about the impact of BLS's hedonic adjustments and how the value of technological progress is included in inflation metrics.
Because the dealerships, by law, have to be independently owned - the idea being that somehow that was/is a check on the power of major automobile manufacturers. In reality, dealers are usually exclusive to, and financed by, the manufacturers, and bound by long-term and complex contracts the mostly erase any putative 'freer-market' gains from the independent dealership laws.
Interesting comment (but I want to reply, so can't moderate)
"More Americans died in [the Civil War] than WWI, Korea, Vietnam, and the Revolution... combined. Only WWII had more."
re: WWII had more deaths: Yes (KIA) and No (total military deaths).
Also, disease prevention and battlefield medicine had and has advanced, so while the proportion of non-combat military deaths to total military deaths decreased from the Civil War to WWII (better disease prevention/treatment), the proportion of combat deaths to total injuries also decreased from the Civil War to WWII, and has kept on decreasing through Vietnam and to Afghanistan/Iraq (better battlefield medicine)
2/3 of Civil War military deaths were by disease, not combat injuries (dysentery, typhoid, TB, malaria, pneumonia). And if you got seriously injured, you were likely to die.
By contrast, 77% of U.S. military deaths in the Afghanistan/Iraq wars (post-2001) are combat deaths, not due to diseases. However, if you get shot, even severely wounded, you have a good chance of surviving.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_of_war
Sure, but here you have the CEO telling the other shareholders that as long as he works for them, he can't improve the value of the company above $13 and change per share, but if they go away, he has great structural and product ideas to improve that value. (and no, the compliance costs of being a public company is not the difference)
He cannot argue both of those points simultaneously and expect not to get pushback from shareholders who think he is pulling a fast on on them. If he is correct in his view of the future, then he should be fired as current CEO immediately.
The fact that Google went to lengths to say the sales were negotiated and finalized in Ireland, and that UK Googlers were just there to provide marketing 'support', undermines your assertion.
Because in fact, the UK employees have titles like "Sales manager", and publicly describe their roles as negotiating sales, making sales, closing deals.
If that is true, then the sales occur in the UK, regardless of the fact to whom the invoice payment was addressed.
Google is being asked to explain the discrepancy between their testimony before Parliament (sales are negotiated and closed by Google Ireland employees), and the apparent contrary facts (sales are negotiated and closed by Google UK employees).
Perjury before Parliament is a right matter for the Parliament to investigate.
mark-t wrote: ""life as we know it" happens to be limited to life that originated on Earth."
They are not saying that, they are saying the opposite of that. That "life as we know it" here on Earth does not happen to be limited to life that originated on Earth, and that life not originated on Earth is, in fact, the life that we know.
It may very well be completely wrong, but the premise per the summary is not inherently illogical.
"Should I be paying taxes on what those items would cost me if I had to pay for them?"
Yes.
Deminimis rules apply, but you are generally taxed-as-income on the compensation you receive in exchange for your labor.
That includes cash wages, health care benefits paid by your employer, 401k matching, car allowance if you are not driving miles for work purposes, $1,000/year worth of gym membership, or $5,000/year of food.
Would you do the job for only popcorn? Of course not. Would I take a lower wage if my employer paid my mortgage? Yes, and I should be taxed on that. Somewhere in between those extremes are what IRS Revenue Rulings define. And in this case, the IRS is taking a look at the changes in how companies provide food to employees, and is redefining the rules of what counts an "income".
I trust that the U.S. Government won't expropriate my bank account more than I trust that private Bitcoin servers won't get hacked.
Sleeping well is relative.
You are entirely mis-reading the proposed law, and it is not unconstitutional at all.
There would have been no search without a warrant, because this would not have been a governmental search. Therefore it would not have been unconstitutional. This would have been an employer asking an employee for information. It would not have been law enforcement or the employer going to Facebook and demanding the employee's information under the color of this law.
This law would have allowed the employer to ask the employee to voluntarily provide the information, because previously the law specifically disallowed the employer to ask.
This law would have returned to the status quo of several years ago, which is that the employer can ask the employee to voluntarily turn over certain information, or else employment is terminated.
I run corporate investigations, and the basic premise in at-will employment is "your continued employment is dependent on you answering our questions. You may choose to not answer them - that is your right; however, if you do not, it is our right to no longer employ you."
In at-will situations, that is allowed. You might disagree with that, but there is no constitutional implication here - it is a private employment issue between a company and an employee.
Per the OECD, the "Average annual hours actually worked per worker" in the United States has been around 1,800 hours per year for the last decade. (1,787 in 2011)
Source: http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=ANHRS
The comment was talking about the stealth bomber, the B-2 Spirit, which was designed during the Carter administration. Not the B-52, about which you're correct.
Municipal building codes are "the man" trying to keep you down?
You re-read the law - ALL OF IT. If I open the front door to my home, and someone I don't know begins punching me in the face, in the eyes of the law I have a reasonable fear of sustaining great bodily harm.
Don't believe me? Read the statute that gives me the benefit of the doubt:
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
"The Community Reinvestment Act was obviously at the root of the MMM (mortgage meltdown mess)"
Ridiculous, partisan hogwash. A conservative meme discredited a thousand times by people who know more than you. Step out of your ignorance into the cleansing light of reality.
"It gets better": a slogan not just for for bullied kids, but for victims of Rush Limbaugh, too.
That link has no pictures of the inside, nor descriptions of what makes it so rugged. You completely missed the only two points of the post you replied to, and effectively restated the nothing-burger that is the submission.
Your arguments:
Inflation:
Grocery inflation is running at under 2% a year. Overall inflation is about the same. Credible alternative measures of inflation support the BLS data. You are wrong.
Source: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm
Taxing:
Money was lent, not spent. It has been repaid. The actions happened in a Liquidity Trap, where evidence for crowding out is non-existent. And evidence for even soft Ricardian Equivalence is weak, so your argument doesn't even make sense under your misconstruction. You are wrong for several reasons.
But interesting! Don't fall too far down the Austrian School hole, though. The past 6 years have proven that modern Keynesian economic models are a very good description of how the global economy actually responded to the recent massive financial problems. Saltwater is simply (and rightfully) abusing Freshwater at this point - certain conservative economists and pundits should be embarrassed to continue to flog their dead talking points.
"I don't think its value is in whether or not we succeeded in any of those areas, but in how much we learned about each of those things."
A fair enough point: that fundamental research is worth pursuing even without a specific profit motive.
But the ISS has cost $150 billion.
Is it impolite to even ask if what we've learned is worth $150 billion, or if that knowledge might have been gained in a more cost-conscious manner?
I just read a fascinating article about how a guy learned a simple language in 22 total hours of studying (over several months).
He had previously learned a lot of memory tricks and techniques, and the person he learned them from went on to start an online learning site that used all of those techniques (with some algorithms that learned how you were learning).
One of the main techniques was studying in 4-10 minute chuncks, as research shows that reinforcing memories multiple times (recall, remember, think about, re-encode stronger) works better than cramming in long sessions. To your point about allowing the information to sink into your mind over time instead of force feeding it...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/nov/09/learn-language-in-three-months
"Saddam never got any weapons from Reagan. You got the wrong country."
Incorrect. The United States supplied plenty of weapons, materials and intelligence to Saddam Hussein in the 1980s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war
Fluctuation in the exchange rate of the dollar against other currencies do not make you individually worth less or worth more.
Currencies have little to do with wealth - they are tools to make trade easier.
Importers love a strong dollar. Exporters love a weak dollar. China loves a strong dollar (for now), and in fact intervenes to keep to RNB weak against the USD - does the Chinese government do this because it wants to keep its citizens poor?. Switzerland wants a weaker SFR - are you saying that the Swiss government wants to make its citizens poorer?
It is true that relative currency values are affect by political decisions (trade and monetary policy), but those decisions are not made in way you think: China wants the RNB weak against the dollar because they think it will make Chinese citizens wealthier over time than if China pursued a strong-renmibi policy right now.
But in any event, "If the president wants the dollar to be weak, you'll be worth less, and if he wants the dollar to be strong, you'll be worth more. Regardless of what you do for a living." is flat out wrong.
An interesting 2012 article (w/ pics) by Google Maps UI designers about the evolution of Google Maps over the years: http://www.core77.com/blog/case_study/google_maps_designing_the_modern_atlas_21486.asp