Perhaps I should backup a little. My point is that if every voter that cares to check knows that Coca-Cola contributed $X to Alice then all is fine and the voter can make her decision accordingly.
If a voter does not care then no amount of jack-booted-election-reform on your part is going to make him want to.
Humm, so a candidate's popularity has no impact on his ability to raise money and garner general votes?
Also, assuming that generally (with many notable exceptions like Huffington) the person that gathers the most funds, due to his popularity with people that provide funds, has a better showing in terms of votes than the person that is rejected by all long before the campaign begins?
From your comment you just don't want something described in "capitalistic" terms, but in fact this IS a market we are discussing.
Also note, when the general USA public percieves the political system to be "corrupt" they stop voting.
Why should a candidate who is winning pre-election polls by 30% be given the same amount of money by the party that a closely contested candidate is given?
Obviously that candidate should not be given more party support than the one that is in a close race. The system of redistribution presented only benefitis individuals and groups with no general support, essentually those that have been rejected long before any election campaign began.
As far as the defense of this nonsense being "fair", it is only "fair" to the people that could not wage a campaign on their own. It is completely unfair to EVERYBODY ELSE, the contributors, the other candidates, the people that did not want to support any candidate or Party financially, the list goes on.
.....every candidate gets the same money. som in a closely contested election both candidates get the same resources and that makes the final vote that much better since one candidate cannot just saturate the airwaves.
Obviously, you truly believe this to be a "reasonable" system, but in fact it is not.
When one gives a political Party money it usually is because they support that Parties general ideas.
Your system redistributes moneys to Parties that have little or no support from the general public. That includes both the Greens and the Libritarians.
The problem is not that their "message" somehow is not getting out because of a lack of funds, it is that their ideas are rejected by the vast majority of political supporters and voters.
I am still at a complete loss as to how anybody thinks what you suggest is "fair", other than being fair as a welfare system for people and groups with "ideas" that have no general support.
The topic is not bribery, it is campaign contributions and it is a well known fact that in any Republic, actually anyplace with a competitive party system, that when one makes a donation to a candidate or Party they garner more notice. Extend market theory to this and you might have some better insight on how irrelevant it really is.
Different topic. As for the self contradicting "story" that we are commenting on, just who is demanding influence? The writer says that the contributers make demands and the Parties make opposite demands. What version is correct?
CEOs are making out like bandits, but the people being screwed over by this are the investors, not the employees.
Quite correct. Just adding that the CEOs that *are* making out like bandits should fall by the wayside in time and the CEOs that are making out like value-added-assets will replace the former in time.
Now for some general rambling not related to your post at all but relevant to the general topic.
The lemming investors chasing after bad deals because of some star-struck vision, they will fall by the wayside in time too and people that more deserve those assets will replace them. Many ways for this to happen and it happens all the time, through a cessation of operations, bankruptcy, hostile takeover, etc.
As for the deceptive/. title to this story, the author of that title obviously has never been near a real factory, much less worked in one.
As for the topic, if you are a true professional you do not have a need for a union. If you are just a layman, then you will have a very rough time creating a successful union, these are just historical facts. Of course there are some exceptions, but extreme outliers are not a good way to make policy or to hang the livelyhoods of your fellow laymen on. If you are a craftsman you have a good historical standing for a successful union effort as well as a good historical standing to strike out on your own and take all of the risks associated with that venture.
Believe it or not, the normal business building process is: 1. Invest your own money. 2. Seek others to join you, or not. 3. Get things going working long hours while you try to make ends meet, working sometimes months or years before the doors open. 4. Pray that you start making a profit before your house is forclosed on.
Unfortunately, discussions like this general topic get a lot of comments suggesting that somehow the operation just sprang up making tons of money while the workers were screwed at every turn. That is just not typical.
Ahem... I saw a documentry about the super-secret sooped-up Space Shuttles with some famous actors supporting it, like Bruce Willis.
These things can take off right next to each other and have super hard skin, so the boosters flying off and the little pieces bouncing everyplace does not damage them. These things would be perfect for this mission, since the third stage is up there waiting to explode (another poster noted this), so these Shuttles would be better than regular ones.
I am not sure how many of these Shuttles are left, because the documentry showed one that crashed on a comet. They have great range, since they flew around the Moon, blew up a comet and one came back. Some people think it was a regular movie, but if it was they would have used something fake, like a big giant bunch of lasers that make lots of noise in space and when you cross them they bounce off each other. They used an atomic bomb, so it wasn't made up or nothing.
If anybody remembers the name of this show can you post it? Thanks in advance!
Apparently, the Star, while reporting on this story, has let the cat out of the bag about a previous incident. I tried to submit it earlier yesterday but I guess it looked a little shrill. Not so hysterical now huh;-)
Iraq does indeed have oil contracts, and they do matter quite a bit. China, France and Russia have all expressed concern that the USA is trying to get a new regieme into Iraq that will break their existing agreements. These contract involve the development and exploitation of oil fields in Iraq and on an international scale are both politically and economically very significant. Rather than responding to this with more schoolboy economics why don't you try searching some good news sites for information about Iraq and oil contracts?
The question at hand is how a war with Iraq benefits US economic interest. Now you have tossed up how leaving Saddam in power benefits a bunch of other nations, NOT the US.
Like I said to begin with, the quickest, easiest way to drop the price of oil is to drop the embargo. BTW, all the countries YOU mention have expressed and interest in dropping the embargo. All of the countries YOU mention have sold finished goods to Iraq in the past and may still.
Now, I have already explained this to you several different ways, try explaining to the rest of us just how an expensive military operation to remove a brutal dictator is more econonimically beneficial to the US (not these other countries) than just removing the embargo and sanctions?
Oh yes, before you go spouting off with more ad homonym attacks, just try answering the question.
Of course it's about oil. If the Middle East had no oil, we would pay no attention to them, and let them all kill each other in peace (see: Rwanda).
Yea! Like Haiti, Somolia, the former Yugolsavia, Granada, etc. Yea, those places are just busting full of oil and US econimic interest! Yes, you have opened my eyes!
We do need to go back to examples from the 1970's and before to show what the US is REALLY up to now! Like that nasty incersion into the waters of Tripoli under Jefferson.
Did I? I missed that. I thought I was talking about how a regieme change in Bagdad would be financially advantageous to the USA. I never mentioned the price of oil.
Perhaps that was a bad assumption on my part, since the only thing that Iraq exports is terrorism and petrolium products, I assumed that your statement meant the price of oil would be less if a different person was selling it. It would be a slight economic advantage to the US if the terrorism bit were eliminated, this must be what you meant. Perhaps we are not really disagreeing, my apologies.
I can see I am in the presence of an intellect far superior to my own. Forgive my stupidity, but what exactly is your point about oil being a fungible commodity? Do you mean to say that, because it is a fungible commodity, the contracts that countries and oil companies have with oil producing contries don't really matter? If you think that then maybe you should pass the news on to Putin, Jintao, Chirac, etc. I'm sure it will be a great weight off their minds when they realise how simple the economics of international oil agreements is, and that they've just been worrying about nothing.
Okay, very simply, it is a demand/price problem. The more oil on the market, the cheaper it is and it does not matter one bit where it originated. Your comments about contracts and such are still subjuct to this basic economic law. Not sure what "contracts" you are speaking of, since nobody makes a fixed price oil contract any more, unless you are speaking of fututres contracts and even at that you are really missing the basics here.
All of the people you named are in control of places that have companies/organizations that buy oil on the free market. They all buy it at the same price, just like we do in the USA. I fail to see your point.
Please do not bring up the end-user price, since that has nothing to do with this discussion as the price of crude is almost lost in the rounding after processing costs (includes government rules on processing) and taxes (includes all taxes from entry at port to consumer purchase).
You are linking the regime to the price of oil, not me.
I am saying that if the price were the only factor then we would not care who was in charge. They sell and it affects price no matter who is in there, period. It would be a much cheaper and more efficent financial benefit if we just let him sell all he wants. I see you looked up the definition and have yet to grasp how it applies to a commodity.
The objective is obviously as has been stated by 3 different US administrations. This regime is just bad, unless you think they made up history for Kurds, Kuwait and Iran. They export terrorism against the west, gas their own people, etc, etc. The objective is removing a regime like Saddam's.
Oh, sorry kinda misread your post while I was waking up.
As far as the tactics of Greenpeace and other economic benefactors of environmental hysteria, what I stated is exactly the way they raise funds.
As for that "margin of error", being as far from right as wrong gets is a pretty wide margin.
The "challenge" you have given me is like proving to you over the net that objects fall.
Now, I was a bit off for saying to look it up yourself, for the proof you will have to actually enter a library and look through the microfiche or paper stacks for their literature, unless you find it online.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps I should backup a little. My point is that if every voter that cares to check knows that Coca-Cola contributed $X to Alice then all is fine and the voter can make her decision accordingly.
If a voter does not care then no amount of jack-booted-election-reform on your part is going to make him want to.
Humm, so a candidate's popularity has no impact on his ability to raise money and garner general votes?
Also, assuming that generally (with many notable exceptions like Huffington) the person that gathers the most funds, due to his popularity with people that provide funds, has a better showing in terms of votes than the person that is rejected by all long before the campaign begins?
From your comment you just don't want something described in "capitalistic" terms, but in fact this IS a market we are discussing.
Also note, when the general USA public percieves the political system to be "corrupt" they stop voting.
Why should a candidate who is winning pre-election polls by 30% be given the same amount of money by the party that a closely contested candidate is given?
Obviously that candidate should not be given more party support than the one that is in a close race. The system of redistribution presented only benefitis individuals and groups with no general support, essentually those that have been rejected long before any election campaign began.
As far as the defense of this nonsense being "fair", it is only "fair" to the people that could not wage a campaign on their own. It is completely unfair to EVERYBODY ELSE, the contributors, the other candidates, the people that did not want to support any candidate or Party financially, the list goes on.
.....every candidate gets the same money. som in a closely contested election both candidates get the same resources and that makes the final vote that much better since one candidate cannot just saturate the airwaves.
Obviously, you truly believe this to be a "reasonable" system, but in fact it is not.
When one gives a political Party money it usually is because they support that Parties general ideas.
Your system redistributes moneys to Parties that have little or no support from the general public. That includes both the Greens and the Libritarians.
The problem is not that their "message" somehow is not getting out because of a lack of funds, it is that their ideas are rejected by the vast majority of political supporters and voters.
I am still at a complete loss as to how anybody thinks what you suggest is "fair", other than being fair as a welfare system for people and groups with "ideas" that have no general support.
I was not very clear...the idea was that soft money would get spread out. hard money would still go to the candidate.
So, when I contribute to the Constitution Party you want to send MY money to the Greens/Democrats/Republicans, etc?
Still not supporting that, sorry, go peddle your politician welfare/wealth distribution system elsewhere.
Well, it obviously is not Constitutional. Hopely the USSC will agree with us rather than the rank-in-file Left.
The topic is not bribery, it is campaign contributions and it is a well known fact that in any Republic, actually anyplace with a competitive party system, that when one makes a donation to a candidate or Party they garner more notice. Extend market theory to this and you might have some better insight on how irrelevant it really is.
Different topic. As for the self contradicting "story" that we are commenting on, just who is demanding influence? The writer says that the contributers make demands and the Parties make opposite demands. What version is correct?
ROFLMAO!!! Great! I contribute to Harry Browne and you/your beuracts give my money to Ralph Nader!
Yea, makes great sense.
No thank you.
Actually, the only thing these successive "reform" measures do is limit the contributions of idividuals and no, that is not what I want at all.
What you describe is the state we are in *now* and you are supporting more of the same.
I also happen to be agaist this "30/90 day gagg rule" on third parties commenting on the election issues/candidates/whatever.
Good luck in your limits, I prefer no limits with a record.
Actually, since this information is well known and available to all it probably matters very little.
This is not the first assertion nor report of this kid, they go back for centuries. If it is news to you then welcome to the information age.
Well, if you wish to call that "reform", fine.
True reform would be allowing any contribution recorded for the public record to be allowed from anybody.
In the spirit of Statistical fairness, the next interview will be with Jon Katz, thus bringing the arithmatic mean interview length back to normal.
Although I guess that his cover of 'Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds' is a crime against sound that we're all trying *very* hard to forget...
I never try to forget, since I am just that way about pain. So don't forget 'Rocketman', my personal favorite Shatner butchering of music!
I was just imagining an HO railyard of these things.
Personally, I don't like advertisements tapdancing on the chest of my own free will...What do you think?
I think you need a nice refreshing Coke.
If you aren't interested in a story, don't follow the link and don't read it.
Normally I would give the same advice. But as I read the story it got more horrible and more horrible, I could not look away.
It was like watching a trainwreck...
CEOs are making out like bandits, but the people being screwed over by this are the investors, not the employees.
/. title to this story, the author of that title obviously has never been near a real factory, much less worked in one.
Quite correct. Just adding that the CEOs that *are* making out like bandits should fall by the wayside in time and the CEOs that are making out like value-added-assets will replace the former in time.
Now for some general rambling not related to your post at all but relevant to the general topic.
The lemming investors chasing after bad deals because of some star-struck vision, they will fall by the wayside in time too and people that more deserve those assets will replace them. Many ways for this to happen and it happens all the time, through a cessation of operations, bankruptcy, hostile takeover, etc.
As for the deceptive
As for the topic, if you are a true professional you do not have a need for a union. If you are just a layman, then you will have a very rough time creating a successful union, these are just historical facts. Of course there are some exceptions, but extreme outliers are not a good way to make policy or to hang the livelyhoods of your fellow laymen on. If you are a craftsman you have a good historical standing for a successful union effort as well as a good historical standing to strike out on your own and take all of the risks associated with that venture.
Believe it or not, the normal business building process is:
1. Invest your own money.
2. Seek others to join you, or not.
3. Get things going working long hours while you try to make ends meet, working sometimes months or years before the doors open.
4. Pray that you start making a profit before your house is forclosed on.
Unfortunately, discussions like this general topic get a lot of comments suggesting that somehow the operation just sprang up making tons of money while the workers were screwed at every turn. That is just not typical.
Ahem... I saw a documentry about the super-secret sooped-up Space Shuttles with some famous actors supporting it, like Bruce Willis.
These things can take off right next to each other and have super hard skin, so the boosters flying off and the little pieces bouncing everyplace does not damage them. These things would be perfect for this mission, since the third stage is up there waiting to explode (another poster noted this), so these Shuttles would be better than regular ones.
I am not sure how many of these Shuttles are left, because the documentry showed one that crashed on a comet. They have great range, since they flew around the Moon, blew up a comet and one came back. Some people think it was a regular movie, but if it was they would have used something fake, like a big giant bunch of lasers that make lots of noise in space and when you cross them they bounce off each other. They used an atomic bomb, so it wasn't made up or nothing.
If anybody remembers the name of this show can you post it? Thanks in advance!
From The Toronto Star: Tuesday's failed launch followed an accident on Oct. 15, when a Russian unmanned Soyuz-U rocket blew up half a minute after liftoff. Space officials said later that an alien object was found in the rocket's fuel line.
;-)
Apparently, the Star, while reporting on this story, has let the cat out of the bag about a previous incident. I tried to submit it earlier yesterday but I guess it looked a little shrill. Not so hysterical now huh
I think that I can help, but I need more information.
Can you send me a copy of the code in question and I can get back to you on what to do.
Warmest Regards
Guy Montag
Iraq does indeed have oil contracts, and they do matter quite a bit. China, France and Russia have all expressed concern that the USA is trying to get a new regieme into Iraq that will break their existing agreements. These contract involve the development and exploitation of oil fields in Iraq and on an international scale are both politically and economically very significant. Rather than responding to this with more schoolboy economics why don't you try searching some good news sites for information about Iraq and oil contracts?
The question at hand is how a war with Iraq benefits US economic interest. Now you have tossed up how leaving Saddam in power benefits a bunch of other nations, NOT the US.
Like I said to begin with, the quickest, easiest way to drop the price of oil is to drop the embargo. BTW, all the countries YOU mention have expressed and interest in dropping the embargo. All of the countries YOU mention have sold finished goods to Iraq in the past and may still.
Now, I have already explained this to you several different ways, try explaining to the rest of us just how an expensive military operation to remove a brutal dictator is more econonimically beneficial to the US (not these other countries) than just removing the embargo and sanctions?
Oh yes, before you go spouting off with more ad homonym attacks, just try answering the question.
Of course it's about oil. If the Middle East had no oil, we would pay no attention to them, and let them all kill each other in peace (see: Rwanda).
Yea! Like Haiti, Somolia, the former Yugolsavia, Granada, etc. Yea, those places are just busting full of oil and US econimic interest! Yes, you have opened my eyes!
We do need to go back to examples from the 1970's and before to show what the US is REALLY up to now! Like that nasty incersion into the waters of Tripoli under Jefferson.
Did I? I missed that. I thought I was talking about how a regieme change in Bagdad would be financially advantageous to the USA. I never mentioned the price of oil.
Perhaps that was a bad assumption on my part, since the only thing that Iraq exports is terrorism and petrolium products, I assumed that your statement meant the price of oil would be less if a different person was selling it. It would be a slight economic advantage to the US if the terrorism bit were eliminated, this must be what you meant. Perhaps we are not really disagreeing, my apologies.
I can see I am in the presence of an intellect far superior to my own. Forgive my stupidity, but what exactly is your point about oil being a fungible commodity? Do you mean to say that, because it is a fungible commodity, the contracts that countries and oil companies have with oil producing contries don't really matter? If you think that then maybe you should pass the news on to Putin, Jintao, Chirac, etc. I'm sure it will be a great weight off their minds when they realise how simple the economics of international oil agreements is, and that they've just been worrying about nothing.
Okay, very simply, it is a demand/price problem. The more oil on the market, the cheaper it is and it does not matter one bit where it originated. Your comments about contracts and such are still subjuct to this basic economic law. Not sure what "contracts" you are speaking of, since nobody makes a fixed price oil contract any more, unless you are speaking of fututres contracts and even at that you are really missing the basics here.
All of the people you named are in control of places that have companies/organizations that buy oil on the free market. They all buy it at the same price, just like we do in the USA. I fail to see your point.
Please do not bring up the end-user price, since that has nothing to do with this discussion as the price of crude is almost lost in the rounding after processing costs (includes government rules on processing) and taxes (includes all taxes from entry at port to consumer purchase).
You are linking the regime to the price of oil, not me.
I am saying that if the price were the only factor then we would not care who was in charge. They sell and it affects price no matter who is in there, period. It would be a much cheaper and more efficent financial benefit if we just let him sell all he wants. I see you looked up the definition and have yet to grasp how it applies to a commodity.
The objective is obviously as has been stated by 3 different US administrations. This regime is just bad, unless you think they made up history for Kurds, Kuwait and Iran. They export terrorism against the west, gas their own people, etc, etc. The objective is removing a regime like Saddam's.
Oh, sorry kinda misread your post while I was waking up.
As far as the tactics of Greenpeace and other economic benefactors of environmental hysteria, what I stated is exactly the way they raise funds.
As for that "margin of error", being as far from right as wrong gets is a pretty wide margin.
The "challenge" you have given me is like proving to you over the net that objects fall.
Now, I was a bit off for saying to look it up yourself, for the proof you will have to actually enter a library and look through the microfiche or paper stacks for their literature, unless you find it online.