In an efficient and competitive market (such as the computer game market) some of that additional revenue will have to be passed on as savings to customers if all computer game makers gain the additional revenue stream, because there will always be incentives for competing companies to lower prices and gain market share. Unless there is collusion, since they all have this incentive, and would lose out if other companies lowered prices and they did not, all of the game companies will thus have to lower prices until the profits they make are equal to what could be made in other markets.
Astonishingly, hole punching also works with TCP. After an outgoing SYN packet the firewall / NAT router will forward incoming packets with suitable IP addresses and ports to the LAN even if they fail to confirm, or confirm the wrong sequence number (ACK). Linux firewalls at least, clearly fail to evaluate this information consistently. Establishing a TCP connection in this way is, however, not quite so simple, because Alice does not have the sequence number sent in Bob's first packet. The packet containing this information was discarded by her firewall.
I guess I would disagree that because people are unsure what the punishment should be, that means they don't really think that abortion should be illegal. I mean, the question asked "should abortion be legal?"
But, second, even if people have conflicting views, it is unclear which side is causing the conflict. Just because some people can see both sides of an issue doesn't mean that they've been brainwashed by the 'idiotic rants of insane people.' Get a grip. It is a complex issue.
The first one isn't saying that. It asks "should abortion be legal?" That's a separate question from "should we do other things [in addition to / in place of] changing laws to reduce the number of abortions, such as education, poverty reduction, etc." You're right that most pro-lifers would answer yes to the question, not because they've been coached, but because they want fewer abortions! (that's the whole idea)
What's the difference between asking people if abortion should be legal and asking them what should actually be done with abortion laws? I'd be interested to see a poll asking if doctors should be fined (not jailed) if they break a potential abortion law.
In any case, I think the issue is sufficiently complex that saying most people are closer to Democrats on this issue is too simplistic, and probably wrong.
Based on my experience with one of the issues you mentioned (abortion), your theory that 70% of people are between 60 to 70 (i.e. closer to Dems) is factually incorrect. Almost any poll that asks a more detailed question on abortion than "are you pro-life or pro-choice" shows that more people are in line with the Republican view. For example: http://www.nrlc.org/Polling/zogbyapril2004.pdf I realize that this poll was sponsored by the NRLC, but it was easiest for me to find, and I've seen these results over and over again if you ask people detailed questions about what should be legal and what shouldn't. (Note that only a small fraction of abortions are a result of rape, incest, or threat to the life of the mother, so it is fair to count people who think abortion should only be legal in those circumstances as closer to Republicans, many of whom support those exceptions as well.)
There certainly is an issue of phrasing of the question affecting the results, as polls that ask if abortion should be legal in all or most cases show a majority pro-choice, but questions asking if abortion should be legal just to end an unwanted pregnancy show a majority pro-life. For example: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/aborti on_poll030122.html
Other people have commented that this law does not apply to political messages. (because there is an exemption in a separate portion of the US Code) Do you have a source you could post showing this to be false?
Oh course, the hourly rate could be variable. For example, $1/hr for the first 10 hours per month, and $.10/hr for any hours after that. Then you would be able to address both the casual and hardcore gamers.
As an individual, you pay tax on what you make and then spend what's left over. A corporation spends from it's income and is then taxed on what's left over. That's a huge difference in terms of how much money you have to work with!
Are you referring to individuals with non-corporation businesses here? If so, sole proprietorships can deduct business expenses just like a corporation. See IRS form 1040-C. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040sc.pdf
There are tax differences between sole proprietorships and corporations, but this isn't one of them. Individuals, of course, are taxed on everything they make, but whether the business they own is a corporation or a sole proprietorship doesn't change that.
A sample size of 40 (if the randomization was good) is sufficient to distinguish treatement effects from random chance with fairly high probability if the effect is large enough. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-test.
Actually, that's not true. The incidence of the tax depends on the slopes of the supply and demand curves. Assuming neither curve is vertical, both producer surplus and consumer surplus will decrease, and consumption will decrease as well.
(This result is due to the fact that when producers raise prices in order to pass the tax on to consumers, consumers reduce consumption to some extent, which reduces profit for the producer. If, however, consumer demand for the product is price inelastic (i.e. consumers buy the same amount regardless of the price), then yes, the tax will be borne completely by consumers. But demand for oil is not inelastic.)
I think you need to qualify the statement that the atomic bomb is a "failure as a deterrent." Certainly there have been proxy wars, and other small conflicts, but there haven't been large-scale direct conflicts between superpowers. I think most people would agree that the bomb deterred conventional war between Russia and parts of Europe during the cold war, and there haven't been any nuclear wars, so it seems to have deterred those. Of course, other factors contributed to these, so it's hard to say that the atomic bomb was the deterrent, but on the other side there haven't been any 'large-scale' incidents where you can say they failed to deter.
First, it is fine if it takes a while for price to affect consumption. We're not in 'disaster-mode' yet, so gradually reducing consumption is all we need.
Second, high fuel prices will not drive the economy into the ground. Gas prices have recently been almost as high as ever, and yet if it weren't for a slow housing market, the fed would still be raising interest rates in an attempt to slow down the economy. Further, many other developed countries have higher gas prices and haven't had their economies driven to the ground, while the prices do seem to have affected consumption.
Finally, a tax on a negative externality does not have to change consumption in order to be effective. The goal of a tax on a negative externality is to be able to (theoretically) compensate others for the harm done by the externality. The tax should be set at the amount at which we (society) are indifferent between more gas being used and the extra revenue, which would ideally be distributed to those who are harmed by the externality. Thus, the tax essentially allows transfer of money from those who produce more than average of the externality to those who produce less than average of the externality, to compensate them for having to deal with the effects of the negative externality caused by others' actions.
But I agree that taxes are what are usually called for in the case of a negative externality such as car pollution. Incentives don't make as much sense.
No. Corporations maximize profits independently across separated markets. The profit or loss taken in one market should have no effect on pricing in another market. (assuming it is difficult to transfer goods between these markets)
You can't compare companies that underwent significant layoffs to other companies so simply, because the companies that underwent layoffs are likely to be different than the other companies. (they underwent the layoffs for a reason!) If you wanted to know the independent effect of the layoffs, you'd have to get a sample of companies that were about to undergo layoffs, randomly disallow some of the companies from doing the layoffs, and then compare the performance of the two groups. (and hope that your intervention didn't change anything else about their situations.)
In the GPs defense, Colbert actually had 17 million votes before people running the vote changed the rules. Colbert mentioned that this was more than Hungary's population.
The IRS does get their programs and activities audited frequently, both by the Treasury Inspector General (http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/oa.shtml) and the Government Accountability Office. (http://www.gao.gov/docdblite/form.php?subhead=Tax +Policy+and+Administration&Submit=Submit+Search)
Slashdot Mirror
In an efficient and competitive market (such as the computer game market) some of that additional revenue will have to be passed on as savings to customers if all computer game makers gain the additional revenue stream, because there will always be incentives for competing companies to lower prices and gain market share. Unless there is collusion, since they all have this incentive, and would lose out if other companies lowered prices and they did not, all of the game companies will thus have to lower prices until the profits they make are equal to what could be made in other markets.
From page 2 of the article:
Astonishingly, hole punching also works with TCP. After an outgoing SYN packet the firewall / NAT router will forward incoming packets with suitable IP addresses and ports to the LAN even if they fail to confirm, or confirm the wrong sequence number (ACK). Linux firewalls at least, clearly fail to evaluate this information consistently. Establishing a TCP connection in this way is, however, not quite so simple, because Alice does not have the sequence number sent in Bob's first packet. The packet containing this information was discarded by her firewall.
If you give me a $20 for a $14 purchase, and I tell you I'm giving you a $5 and a $1, will you trust me?
Legally, money from sale of a PS3 is not tax free.
I guess I would disagree that because people are unsure what the punishment should be, that means they don't really think that abortion should be illegal. I mean, the question asked "should abortion be legal?"
But, second, even if people have conflicting views, it is unclear which side is causing the conflict. Just because some people can see both sides of an issue doesn't mean that they've been brainwashed by the 'idiotic rants of insane people.' Get a grip. It is a complex issue.
The first one isn't saying that. It asks "should abortion be legal?" That's a separate question from "should we do other things [in addition to / in place of] changing laws to reduce the number of abortions, such as education, poverty reduction, etc." You're right that most pro-lifers would answer yes to the question, not because they've been coached, but because they want fewer abortions! (that's the whole idea)
What's the difference between asking people if abortion should be legal and asking them what should actually be done with abortion laws? I'd be interested to see a poll asking if doctors should be fined (not jailed) if they break a potential abortion law.
In any case, I think the issue is sufficiently complex that saying most people are closer to Democrats on this issue is too simplistic, and probably wrong.
Based on my experience with one of the issues you mentioned (abortion), your theory that 70% of people are between 60 to 70 (i.e. closer to Dems) is factually incorrect. Almost any poll that asks a more detailed question on abortion than "are you pro-life or pro-choice" shows that more people are in line with the Republican view. For example: http://www.nrlc.org/Polling/zogbyapril2004.pdf I realize that this poll was sponsored by the NRLC, but it was easiest for me to find, and I've seen these results over and over again if you ask people detailed questions about what should be legal and what shouldn't. (Note that only a small fraction of abortions are a result of rape, incest, or threat to the life of the mother, so it is fair to count people who think abortion should only be legal in those circumstances as closer to Republicans, many of whom support those exceptions as well.)
i on_poll030122.html
There certainly is an issue of phrasing of the question affecting the results, as polls that ask if abortion should be legal in all or most cases show a majority pro-choice, but questions asking if abortion should be legal just to end an unwanted pregnancy show a majority pro-life. For example: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/abort
Other people have commented that this law does not apply to political messages. (because there is an exemption in a separate portion of the US Code) Do you have a source you could post showing this to be false?
Oh course, the hourly rate could be variable. For example, $1/hr for the first 10 hours per month, and $.10/hr for any hours after that. Then you would be able to address both the casual and hardcore gamers.
As an individual, you pay tax on what you make and then spend what's left over. A corporation spends from it's income and is then taxed on what's left over. That's a huge difference in terms of how much money you have to work with!
Are you referring to individuals with non-corporation businesses here? If so, sole proprietorships can deduct business expenses just like a corporation. See IRS form 1040-C. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040sc.pdf
There are tax differences between sole proprietorships and corporations, but this isn't one of them. Individuals, of course, are taxed on everything they make, but whether the business they own is a corporation or a sole proprietorship doesn't change that.
A sample size of 40 (if the randomization was good) is sufficient to distinguish treatement effects from random chance with fairly high probability if the effect is large enough. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-test.
The Bowflex actually works.
You should install the DurabilityStatus addon for her. (part of Cosmos) http://www.wowwiki.com/DurabilityStatus
Actually, that's not true. The incidence of the tax depends on the slopes of the supply and demand curves. Assuming neither curve is vertical, both producer surplus and consumer surplus will decrease, and consumption will decrease as well.
(This result is due to the fact that when producers raise prices in order to pass the tax on to consumers, consumers reduce consumption to some extent, which reduces profit for the producer. If, however, consumer demand for the product is price inelastic (i.e. consumers buy the same amount regardless of the price), then yes, the tax will be borne completely by consumers. But demand for oil is not inelastic.)
Real wages have not been falling, if wage includes total compensation.
1 997/cflmar97.pdf
See figure 1: http://www.chicagofed.org/publications/fedletter/
I think you need to qualify the statement that the atomic bomb is a "failure as a deterrent." Certainly there have been proxy wars, and other small conflicts, but there haven't been large-scale direct conflicts between superpowers. I think most people would agree that the bomb deterred conventional war between Russia and parts of Europe during the cold war, and there haven't been any nuclear wars, so it seems to have deterred those. Of course, other factors contributed to these, so it's hard to say that the atomic bomb was the deterrent, but on the other side there haven't been any 'large-scale' incidents where you can say they failed to deter.
First, it is fine if it takes a while for price to affect consumption. We're not in 'disaster-mode' yet, so gradually reducing consumption is all we need.
Second, high fuel prices will not drive the economy into the ground. Gas prices have recently been almost as high as ever, and yet if it weren't for a slow housing market, the fed would still be raising interest rates in an attempt to slow down the economy. Further, many other developed countries have higher gas prices and haven't had their economies driven to the ground, while the prices do seem to have affected consumption.
Finally, a tax on a negative externality does not have to change consumption in order to be effective. The goal of a tax on a negative externality is to be able to (theoretically) compensate others for the harm done by the externality. The tax should be set at the amount at which we (society) are indifferent between more gas being used and the extra revenue, which would ideally be distributed to those who are harmed by the externality. Thus, the tax essentially allows transfer of money from those who produce more than average of the externality to those who produce less than average of the externality, to compensate them for having to deal with the effects of the negative externality caused by others' actions.
An excise tax is a disincentive.
But I agree that taxes are what are usually called for in the case of a negative externality such as car pollution. Incentives don't make as much sense.
No. Corporations maximize profits independently across separated markets. The profit or loss taken in one market should have no effect on pricing in another market. (assuming it is difficult to transfer goods between these markets)
You can't compare companies that underwent significant layoffs to other companies so simply, because the companies that underwent layoffs are likely to be different than the other companies. (they underwent the layoffs for a reason!) If you wanted to know the independent effect of the layoffs, you'd have to get a sample of companies that were about to undergo layoffs, randomly disallow some of the companies from doing the layoffs, and then compare the performance of the two groups. (and hope that your intervention didn't change anything else about their situations.)
In the GPs defense, Colbert actually had 17 million votes before people running the vote changed the rules. Colbert mentioned that this was more than Hungary's population.
The IRS does get their programs and activities audited frequently, both by the Treasury Inspector General (http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/oa.shtml) and the Government Accountability Office. (http://www.gao.gov/docdblite/form.php?subhead=Tax +Policy+and+Administration&Submit=Submit+Search)
Huh?
> I know the Einstein types out there don't believe in the ether. They also don't know how a magnet works.
Are you trying to insult people by comparing them to Einstein?
Let me know how that strategy works...