I'll bite -- educate me why fiat currency is better than notes that are backed by gold or some other security. In particular, you might argue why Nixon made the right move in 1972, unilaterally withdrawing the US from the Bretton Woods system.
There's absolutely nothing banks do that couldn't be done more efficiently by credit unions. Credit unions do have higher deposit rates, partly because they have a significant tax advantage as not-for-profit organizations (at least in the US). However, if credit unions can offer loans or securities brokerage, that's news to me.
I suppose, but I think it would make for bad policy. For-profit financial institutions play a vital role in the efficient application of capital in an economy; there are arguments to be made that gov'ts exert too much control through the manipulation of fiat currencies.
It's no more 'government entitlement' than normal car insurance is 'private entitlement'. The government issues loans all the time, and additionally has the ability to revoke your license if you can't pay the damages you've racked up while driving recklessly. The purpose of insurance is indemnify one's self again one-time, catastrophic events which may entail damages to another party, or high expenses for one's own recovery. If you are a high risk and can't find affordable insurance, the last resort is to self-insure through a surety bond.
How would your scheme provide this service? I suppose one could always buy private insurance that pays off the bond under your scheme; those who cannot find affordable insurance will just have to pay the bond back as you describe.
The problem is that running an insurance service involves many short term transactions, and the lack of competition in a gov't service breeds inefficiency (I hear magical things about how well the gov't works in BC, but I'll eat my hat if the same system worked in the United States). On the other hand, you raise a good point that if a gov't mandates a service, private providers can leave you high and dry, since they must mind their bottom lines.
In the US, there is a provision called SR-22 to help fill the gap; moreover, there is no recognized right to operate a motor vehicle, even roads are paid with taxes (thus justifying licensing and insurance mandates). Finally, being uninsured during any stretch while owning a vehicle registered for normal operation is indeed a bad sign to prospective insurers.
I think the Swiss healthcare model is an excellent example of the union between public policy and private providers. Perhaps something comparable could be devised for auto insurance.
* Since when is a wiretap of American phone calls not a search? I am not referring to the FBI and DHS searches granted by "National Security Letters," which are a problem in themselves.
While Gonzalez has stated that the President would not reauthorize the NSA surveillance program and would seek FISA warrants, the court case is still pending appeal, granting leave to resume the program without public notification.
* The TSA carry-on policy unjustifiably creates a choice between two inconveniences: playing with your toiletries or checking in luggage. No one has ever demonstrated a mixed fluids bomb. This is hardly in the same class as the choice between not traveling with knives or placing them in checked luggage, as knives are obvious weapons.
* It takes money and effort to launch a court case. In the meantime, First Amendment rights continue to be abridged by the police.
* RealID legislation is in fact real, having passed in 2005 as rider to a spending bill. The money for enforcement has been postponed only until 2009, and many states such as California are on board.
No matter how much it offends your authoritarian sentiments, the lack of outrage is indeed proof that the terrorists have won. Terrorism has claimed 3000 lives in the entire history of the United States. More men and women have died our little $500 billion misadventure in the Middle East, while life stateside grows increasingly hostile.
Ok, so if you get into a crash your ass belongs to a private company who has underwritten the bond, usually secured by real estate. So there is no gov't entitlement here in the form of a long-term loan in the event you have to pay damages -- you are effectively self-insured.
That's how it works in California, and most US states I believe: if you can't get private insurance but still want to drive, you have pay a bond for some fixed amount of damages on the order of $100,000.
When the NSA stops conducting warrantless searches, I no longer have to pour my shampoo in cute little bottles to get through airport security, I can peaceably take photos at any public place, and I'm not toting a National ID with a bar code within 10 years, I'll grant you your point.
I'd rather have insurers compete for my business, rather than the gov't mandating what security-related features should or should not come with my vehicle.
Also:
A well regulated market has many useful places in society, but financial services is not one of them. What does this mean? Should the gov't provide securities brokerage, or financial instruments like loans or annuities?
In principle, enforcement could price illegal labor out of the market; labor, unlike addictive drugs, have legal alternatives. But we'll see how much traction such measures will really have.
[...] "protection from private data warehousing" whatever that's supposed to be. [...] All state databases would be linked in a federal system, giving the feds access to a host personal information on every American holding a driver's license, including all driver's license data fields, social security number, and driving histories. This is indeed a 4th amendment catastrophe, and presents a chilling effect on the right to assemble for people with minority political views.
Moreover, the uniform card reading technology will be used by private businesses to verify identity, as driver's license numbers are used already. Having read the data, this information can then be sold/leaked to private data warehouses who in turn sell the data to marketers, stalkers or the gov't.
[...] They aren't tracking your movement. [...] RealIDs would be registered at federal security checkpoints (airports, borders, national parks, etc.). Given the ubiquity of air travel and the frequency of traffic stops, this does amount to tracking movement.
This is a power grab by the federal gov't, leveraging driver's licenses, whose expressed purpose is merely to license drivers. Hell, even the DHS's own privacy committee opposes RealID.
IANAL or an immigration agent, but the law seems to give some protection for employers who exhibit "good faith" in employing properly documented immigrants. Then, shell contracting agencies can provide illegal labor and the employer can have plausible deniability.
In short, the law seems rather hard to enforce, not even considering the lack of popular support in areas where illegal immigrants are integrated into the economy.
The 9/11 terrorists were legitimate visa holders; the Oklahoma City terrorists were born-and-raised American citizens. How would RealID prevent another major terrorist attack?
As for illegal immigration, the major problem is that citizens of our poor neighbors to the south have great incentives to come up here: gov't benefits (e.g., schooling for children) and readily available jobs. The first can be solved, by giving gov't benefits only to green card holders; the latter, not so easily.
Finally, RealID is indeed a disaster for 4th amendment rights, the right to assemble, states' rights, and protection from private data warehousing. There is no reason for the US federal gov't to track the movements of citizens, or Constitutional power to assert a national identity system. Social security numbers have already been abused.
Switzerland's healthcare system would probably work better in the US than France's. It features universal coverage, private providers, private supplementary insurance, and no employer link. By contrast, France has a single-payer system (aggregation of "private" funding by employee union/federation) and set disbursement rates for various services.
I think the consumer orientation and private payers are better aligned with the US culture and economy, Constitutional federalism, and the current pathetic state of the federal government itself.
I have decommissioned my Palm Pilot and MP3 player. I don't answer half the calls I get on my cell phone. I watch less than 1 hour of TV a day, and am thinking of getting rid of it. I run Gentoo on my laptop, but I spend less than five minutes a week administering it, saving any work for major upgrades.
I got to this place by realizing that screwing with this crap is boring. I have better things to do, involving some worthwhile project that will give greater returns in the future. For example, I have continued to improve my motorcycling skills, and have made some long scenic trips, with more planned. And, my work has improved and become less stressful with greater focus.
So find something better to do, perhaps with more depth than a zoetrope or pigeon training:)
The researchers said that their findings "opened a window" for new treatments not only for baldness, but for other aspects of wound healing and regeneration.
The self-indulgent preoccupation with male pattern baldness couldn't be more banal.
Naively, if you want to write gravity as a gauge theory, you take the weak field limit and quantize the linear perturbation on a flat Lorentzian background. The linear perturbation has a local gauge freedom with Lorentz symmetry (flat Minkowski space has a global Lorentz symmetry).
So, if your gravity looks anything like general relativity, it should exhibit this property.
Anyway, these are indeed technical points that I was curious about -- thanks for fielding my questions.
Slashdot Mirror
I suppose, but I think it would make for bad policy. For-profit financial institutions play a vital role in the efficient application of capital in an economy; there are arguments to be made that gov'ts exert too much control through the manipulation of fiat currencies.
How would your scheme provide this service? I suppose one could always buy private insurance that pays off the bond under your scheme; those who cannot find affordable insurance will just have to pay the bond back as you describe.
That is your prerogative.
The problem is that running an insurance service involves many short term transactions, and the lack of competition in a gov't service breeds inefficiency (I hear magical things about how well the gov't works in BC, but I'll eat my hat if the same system worked in the United States). On the other hand, you raise a good point that if a gov't mandates a service, private providers can leave you high and dry, since they must mind their bottom lines.
In the US, there is a provision called SR-22 to help fill the gap; moreover, there is no recognized right to operate a motor vehicle, even roads are paid with taxes (thus justifying licensing and insurance mandates). Finally, being uninsured during any stretch while owning a vehicle registered for normal operation is indeed a bad sign to prospective insurers.
I think the Swiss healthcare model is an excellent example of the union between public policy and private providers. Perhaps something comparable could be devised for auto insurance.
Wow, strawmen:
* Since when is a wiretap of American phone calls not a search? I am not referring to the FBI and DHS searches granted by "National Security Letters," which are a problem in themselves.
While Gonzalez has stated that the President would not reauthorize the NSA surveillance program and would seek FISA warrants, the court case is still pending appeal, granting leave to resume the program without public notification.
* The TSA carry-on policy unjustifiably creates a choice between two inconveniences: playing with your toiletries or checking in luggage. No one has ever demonstrated a mixed fluids bomb. This is hardly in the same class as the choice between not traveling with knives or placing them in checked luggage, as knives are obvious weapons.
* It takes money and effort to launch a court case. In the meantime, First Amendment rights continue to be abridged by the police.
* RealID legislation is in fact real, having passed in 2005 as rider to a spending bill. The money for enforcement has been postponed only until 2009, and many states such as California are on board.
No matter how much it offends your authoritarian sentiments, the lack of outrage is indeed proof that the terrorists have won. Terrorism has claimed 3000 lives in the entire history of the United States. More men and women have died our little $500 billion misadventure in the Middle East, while life stateside grows increasingly hostile.
What conflict of interest? If you don't like your bank's credit rating, services or fees, move your money to a different one.
SR-22 that's what I was thinking of.
Ok, so if you get into a crash your ass belongs to a private company who has underwritten the bond, usually secured by real estate. So there is no gov't entitlement here in the form of a long-term loan in the event you have to pay damages -- you are effectively self-insured.
That's how it works in California, and most US states I believe: if you can't get private insurance but still want to drive, you have pay a bond for some fixed amount of damages on the order of $100,000.
A freedom troll -- now I've seen everything.
When the NSA stops conducting warrantless searches, I no longer have to pour my shampoo in cute little bottles to get through airport security, I can peaceably take photos at any public place, and I'm not toting a National ID with a bar code within 10 years, I'll grant you your point.
Also: A well regulated market has many useful places in society, but financial services is not one of them. What does this mean? Should the gov't provide securities brokerage, or financial instruments like loans or annuities?
In principle, enforcement could price illegal labor out of the market; labor, unlike addictive drugs, have legal alternatives. But we'll see how much traction such measures will really have.
Moreover, the uniform card reading technology will be used by private businesses to verify identity, as driver's license numbers are used already. Having read the data, this information can then be sold/leaked to private data warehouses who in turn sell the data to marketers, stalkers or the gov't. [...] They aren't tracking your movement. [...] RealIDs would be registered at federal security checkpoints (airports, borders, national parks, etc.). Given the ubiquity of air travel and the frequency of traffic stops, this does amount to tracking movement.
This is a power grab by the federal gov't, leveraging driver's licenses, whose expressed purpose is merely to license drivers. Hell, even the DHS's own privacy committee opposes RealID.
IANAL or an immigration agent, but the law seems to give some protection for employers who exhibit "good faith" in employing properly documented immigrants. Then, shell contracting agencies can provide illegal labor and the employer can have plausible deniability.
In short, the law seems rather hard to enforce, not even considering the lack of popular support in areas where illegal immigrants are integrated into the economy.
The 9/11 terrorists were legitimate visa holders; the Oklahoma City terrorists were born-and-raised American citizens. How would RealID prevent another major terrorist attack?
As for illegal immigration, the major problem is that citizens of our poor neighbors to the south have great incentives to come up here: gov't benefits (e.g., schooling for children) and readily available jobs. The first can be solved, by giving gov't benefits only to green card holders; the latter, not so easily.
Finally, RealID is indeed a disaster for 4th amendment rights, the right to assemble, states' rights, and protection from private data warehousing. There is no reason for the US federal gov't to track the movements of citizens, or Constitutional power to assert a national identity system. Social security numbers have already been abused.
Switzerland's healthcare system would probably work better in the US than France's. It features universal coverage, private providers, private supplementary insurance, and no employer link. By contrast, France has a single-payer system (aggregation of "private" funding by employee union/federation) and set disbursement rates for various services.
I think the consumer orientation and private payers are better aligned with the US culture and economy, Constitutional federalism, and the current pathetic state of the federal government itself.
Mod parent up x 100
... if properly motivated.
:)
I have decommissioned my Palm Pilot and MP3 player. I don't answer half the calls I get on my cell phone. I watch less than 1 hour of TV a day, and am thinking of getting rid of it. I run Gentoo on my laptop, but I spend less than five minutes a week administering it, saving any work for major upgrades.
I got to this place by realizing that screwing with this crap is boring. I have better things to do, involving some worthwhile project that will give greater returns in the future. For example, I have continued to improve my motorcycling skills, and have made some long scenic trips, with more planned. And, my work has improved and become less stressful with greater focus.
So find something better to do, perhaps with more depth than a zoetrope or pigeon training
Once you get used to it nothing is faster for typesetting mathematical content or Feynman diagrams, even GUI tools.
a) I was specifically referring to male pattern baldness. Read more carefully.
b) If a person has low self-esteem because of a natural process, the self-esteem is the problem, not the hair.
Well, MBAs may not be representative of the whole population of well-to-do people. Beauty may be causative for them, but not others.
I imagine it's a matter of degree, depending on how rationalistic the culture is in a given field. I prefer rationalism.
For guys, having money makes up for everything else :)
And, anecdotally, having money doesn't seem well-correlated with handsomeness.
The self-indulgent preoccupation with male pattern baldness couldn't be more banal.
I bet she was yanking your chain for her own amusement or to test you.
Naively, if you want to write gravity as a gauge theory, you take the weak field limit and quantize the linear perturbation on a flat Lorentzian background. The linear perturbation has a local gauge freedom with Lorentz symmetry (flat Minkowski space has a global Lorentz symmetry).
So, if your gravity looks anything like general relativity, it should exhibit this property.
Anyway, these are indeed technical points that I was curious about -- thanks for fielding my questions.