All major news outlets are too close to the political parties. You want to know who is to blame for that? The NEWS OUTLETS. (FTFY)
Moderator note: your personal disagreement with the following analysis does not make it less relevant or true. Please keep your post election rage/safe space down-mod votes to yourself.
The reality is that for about 30 years, the MSM has been in the tank for the progressive left. They started teaching journalists in school that their goal shouldn't be to "get the scoop" or "get to the truth" or "accurately report the facts." They started teaching them that their goal should be to "change the world." Once that happened, objective journalism died a quick death but the American people have been slow to catch on, but they have caught on, and only 6% of the population now believes that the MSM gives the news without bias/selective filtering/manipulation etc. In the 90s, Rush Limbaugh and later Fox news began providing a counter point to this pervasive bias, and in the case of Fox news, their formula is quite simple, they have guests on from both positions, and their commentators provide relevant history, background, and challenge both positions with facts. (If you are a Fox news hater, realize that doesn't change why Fox has been so successful or what their formula is or why they are the most trusted news network in the US.) Fox is also one of the best researched, best sourced news outlets on the planet. The news they put out is more accurate than most of the other MSM outlets (not necessarily what guests say though, who by definition are supporting a POV but whom are usually challenged by the host/other guest when they are wrong on the facts)
While the MSM usually does not outright fabricate a lie, what they do is source lies from Media Matters/HuffPo/other alt left sources. They take half truths, clips out of context etc that fit their narrative, irregardless of the complete facts. Occasionally they get caught and a producer somewhere gets fired. The level of dishonesty has created an atmosphere where fake news sites have more credibility than the MSM, which is a credibility problem for the MSM, not a commentary on the gullibility of news consumers. The fake news sites have still lied less than the MSM, which has a history of lying going back decades. Why the younger generation is using social media as its news source shows just how hard the MSM has fallen and how low their credibility is. The solution is for Fox news to improve and extend it's online presence so that all those who see the MSM for the shills they are can have a reliable, accurate online news outlet.
The more mature and wiser conservative crowd moved to Fox news or main stream talk radio news sources 20 years ago, and those left consuming MSM pap have been so brainwashed that even the mention, let alone watching Fox news is like salt on a slug. I challenge anyone reading this to take the Fox news challenge. Tune into their primetime lineup for a week before you call them the great satan. Un-brainwashing may be a little unpleasant at first, but it is a liberating experience on the whole.
So first off, there was a bit of sarcasm in my original post, sorry if you missed it.
Second off, calm down for a minute and and think through what you are saying:
--Foxconn is now implementing a lot of automation in order to cut costs and improve reliability.
This automation could just as easily be implemented in the US.
--Do you have any concept how big these factories are?
Yes, actually I have seen Shenzhen among other manufacturing hubs. I am confident that the US has enough space to build equivalent factories (really they are just assembly buildings, not factories in the traditional sense).
--Do you have any concept about how long they take to build ?
Actually, you can crank out 100k plus square foot buildings with cement walls and steel roofs in under 6 months if you push all the little shit bureaucrats out of the way. Build 10 in parallel and you have 1M square feet to work with. The floor space is not really a barrier.
--Do you have any concept of the infrastructure they need, just to build the factories ?
Foxconn is not a factory, they are a CM (contract manufacturer). All the parts are delivered to Foxconn and then Apple sends hundreds of US engineers to train the people over at Foxconn (usually for months at a time) on how to assemble each component. Most of the chips and components that go into an iPhone can just as easily be manufactured here in the US (and at one time that type of component was, but has been moved to China because of the virtually nonexistent environmental regs combined with very cheap labor).
--Do you have any concept about the design times of industrial manufacturing processes ?
I have designed over 30 products from whiteboard concept to manufacturing release, and it varies from about 6 months to more than 4 years depending on the starting point, level of complexity, production volume, etc. With the iPhone these days, the level of innovation is about as revolutionary as the automotive industry; it has become more iterative than revolutionary.
Lets be honest, it would be almost trivial from a logistics standpoint for Apple, based in the US, with their huge stash of cash to start to shift their manufacturing back to the US. No one thinks that it would happen all at once, but it would be easier than their shift to manufacturing in China, so saying that it is impossible makes your position questionable.
In developed countries, like the US, we have this thing called automation. It is more reliable than manual assembly, it just requires initial investment. Once you invest in automation, you can hire Americans who have a manufacturing engineering degree to work at the plant and let them work to ensure that the automated systems run smoothly/get updated/maintained. Instead of 10,000 workers making $20k/year, you have 1000 engineers making $90k/year.
This is just PR BS from Apple because they know that Trump is going to start a trade war with China until we have a level playing field. All of the mega-corporations have been screwing over the US and the environment to squeeze out a few more bucks, and that is going to end with Trump.
China didn't invent climate change, they have just been funding the useful idiots (Democrats) to hobble our economy with onerous environmental regulations (far beyond clean air and clean water, which we all want) a la CO2 cap and trade while they steal our jobs and manufacturing capacity by manipulating their currency and producing our products with 10X more pollution while those same Democrats say nothing.
If we are smart, and heres hoping Trump is, we will start assessing an import tax that not only accounts for the currency manipulation of other countries, but also accounts for the actual amount of pollution that the country generates. Clean, green countries get no environmental import tax, but China, that creates nearly half of all pollution on the planet and who is killing nearly 4000 people per day with their pollution, should get slapped with a massive import tax.
What I wish Amazon would do is give me preferences settings in the account configuration where I can turn off non-certified sellers from any of a number of foreign countries, China being one of them. This would let the users vote with their wallets and Amazon would soon figure out that it is better off cultivating a number of key relationships with quality vendors in China, rather than flooding their marketplace with junk. On the other end, in China becoming a quality producer of goods for Amazon would become a coveted and valuable commodity to be protected from the jeopardy caused by shoddy goods.
If you are hysterical over the election, please keep your mod points to yourself. Your personal feelings do not change the facts in this post.
No candidate is perfect, no president is perfect. Trump was not my first or even second choice. He is not a politician and he does not have much of an internal filter. That said, the hysteria on the left is ridiculous. People need to realize that he is only 1/3 of the government, he has no more power that Obama took and used with his phone and his pen. As long as you are not actively breaking any laws, you will be fine. If you are breaking laws, well, you have made that choice. (Criminals are ~5x more likely to be Democrat than Republican, which makes sense seeing Dems want criminals to be treated as if they are ill or at worst just made a mistake, whereas Republicans want to protect society from criminals, and if that means a long drop at the end of a short rope, thems the brakes for the criminal.)
We who did not vote for Obama have suffered through 8 years of his mismanagement and assaults on our constitutional rights. He has repeatedly attempted to infringe on 1st amendment free speech, and the 2nd amendment. The middle east is on fire, ISIS is on the rise, Europe is being invaded, the country is bankrupt with $19,190,000,000 in debt ($10.6T when Obama took office, but he called Bush un-American after Bush incurred $5.8T due in large part to 9-11 and the subsequent war on terror). Obama the dove was one bloodthirsty president, he has killed 3,491 people abroad by direct order using drone strikes.
Domestically there are 42% more people on food stamps than when Obama took office, home ownership is as low as it was in the 70's, we have the lowest labor participation rate (real unemployment) in 38 years (94,044,000 people not working). 1 in 5 households have no one working (just think about that for a minute)! Welfare enrollment is up 30% under Obama as well. Obamacare has turned out to be a colossal lie and everyone now knows that it is a massive indirect tax on the middle class to give insurance to the non-productive/uneducated/economically unproductive class in exchange for votes.
Bush inherited the war on terror from Clinton and Bush dealt with the 9-11 economic impact and took the fight to the terrorists. He did not blame Clinton and whine like a 4 year old.
Obama inherited the housing market crisis and a pacified, free Iraq and Afghanistan from Bush. Obama blamed Bush for 8 years, he took the real solution that had been crafted to deal with the housing market crisis (the government was going to buy up distressed properties in foreclosure and then slowly re-sell or rent them out to the residents as the housing market improved, which would have recouped most of the money laid out by the taxpayer). Instead Obama pissed it away on corporate give aways to his cronies (Solyndra/Tesla/NRG/etc. 75% of all stimulus money went to Obama supporters) which left the housing crisis largely un-solved and 5 years later had created zero new jobs directly from the stimulus. Obama compounded our economic problems with Obamacare, more environmental regulations, and the destruction of our coal industry. Obama left Iraq for political reasons, and EXACTLY what Bush said would happen in the power vacuum happened. Obama created ISIS and now we have over 4000 troops back in Iraq and Syria and ISIS has spread to 40 countries. Obama has presided over the weakest economic recovery since the great depression. Median household income is down thousands of dollars since Obama took office.
We on the other side have had a pretty bumpy 8 years, so suck it up, act like an adult and judge your new president by his actions and the new jobs that will likely be coming your way. Trump may truly want to improve the country for everyone, give him the chance to show you one way or the other before you become apoplectic.
"His goal is to disrupt the power of a legislature that's getting things done."
If the legislature is passing good legislation, the sunlight has no impact. If they are a bunch of slimy bastards making backroom deals that are bad for the people, they shouldn't be surprised that the voters are unhappy with the BS they are pulling.
California would be better off firing all of their crooked politicians and passing all legislation directly by referendum every 2 years. Much like stable software, the government has most things already nailed down. They don't need a full time legislature to meddle with their lives. Let the governor run the state based on the current law, and update the law every 2 years. Pass a line item budget every year. In the internet age there is no need for corrupt political representatives at the state level.
If I were Zuckerberg, I would remind the German fascists that he is Jewish and then block all German Facebook accounts, instead showing a big banner saying that Germany hates free speech and/or Jewish run businesses and put up the name and office phone number of the Attourneys General for everyone to complain to.
It is not a big shock after the tactics that MS has used. They have burned a lot of bridges with win 10 and those of us stuck in the Windows ecosystem are snatching up the best, most stable version, Windows 7. Be prepared for lawsuits though, as it looks like MS is going to try and shove the crappiest parts of Windows 10 on us through bundled updates...
I think the point is it is an unnecessary risk. You can fuel first and make sure there is no issue, then when the unavoidable danger (actually riding in the vehicle loaded with tons of rocket fuel), you accept the risk because there is no getting into space without it.
In other news, men still at 0.0% birthing rates. When will we be able to get these numbers up? Since the dawn of time, women have given birth to 100% of all babies. This is rank discrimination against men to deny us the wonder of childbirth./sarc off
In all truthfulness men and women are different, and while there are outliers among both (men who WANT to stay home to raise the kids or women who get all excited about writing code or mathematical theorems) stereotypes exist for a reason, because in most cases they are true. On top of that, we are dealing with basic, biological differences in men and women.
What if I told you there was a job that only women could do, and that the employer injects the employees on a daily basis with an addictive drug (oxytocin) that makes the employees want to stay at the job, even though the job entails sleep deprivation, severe body modification and even intentional infliction of pain on a frequent basis? That is essential motherhood. And everything I described is biologically done to the mother over the course of pregnancy, childbirth and nursing.
Conversely, when you watch the Olympics, in the physical strength events (running, throwing etc.), the women you see taking home the gold are at about the level of your average high school track star. If we integrated the sexes in those events, no woman would ever medal again, it is basic biology, which is why Olympic cheaters have been trying for years to pass off men as women.
The real, government sanctioned discrimination these days is inflicted on the white male, and indirectly on his family. Thus we have the rapidly shrinking middle class. It is shameful and there is no excuse. The white male is Boxer the horse from Animal Farm. The white male built western civilization and defended it with his blood for generations and when he is gone (i.e. unemployed/broken/welfare recipient, etc.), it will crumble (we already see the cracks).
Yep, funny how it is always 10 years out, and how 90% of what they are talking about are man fighting over resources. If we start to not have enough rainfall, we build aqueducts, or desalinization plants or both. If we need more land, we go the way of the Dutch and build seawalls (more than 50% of Netherlands is under sea level). This is far more efficient and effective than fighting with each other.
We have the technology and the ability to cope with these minor issues effectively. Unless you are worried about the savages who live to kill each other and rape at every opportunity. Not sure that the 70% of the world that is civilized and modern should really care that the savages may murder each other a little faster than before, or not reproduce as effectively or be forced to modernize and civilize. We should certainly not jeopardize the best quality of human life (longest life span, lowest violence rates, highest equality of sexes and races, best sanitation and highest levels of freedom in known history) for the savages.
The press can (and has) suppressed stories in the past about presidential affairs, among other things, but that is a bad thing for the American people. I see no reason to publish steamy emails between husband and wife or other legitimate but embarrassing messages. However, if you are talking about sexual harassment (CEO Bill Clinton banging an intern in the board room (white house) would have gotten anyone else fired from their job immediately) or affairs where the president or politician could be blackmailed about the affair or pretty much any other underhanded, illegal activity should be published.
One of the key functions of the press is to be constantly investigating politicians for corruption and other criminal or undesirable activity. The reason that the Democratic party was hacked is the stench of corruption and illegality were pervasive and why the Dems are freaking out is that it turns out that the progressive Democrats are basically going down the fascist, Nazi path, and the media has been largely complicit in not doing their job of asking the tough questions and digging in to politicians and their actions in search of real news. Just look at Hillary, she has already been the least available to the press of any modern candidate, and the media says nothing. When she is interviewed, she gets softballs, and now due to the leaks we learn that even these are apparently at least sometimes given to her ahead of time so she can prepare a response. Our only hope is the serious, investigative journalists online.
That is a cannard floated by the left wing Hillary shills. Bush more or less presided over the conversion to email of the federal government, and at the time the laws and rules were not the same as they are now and were at the very least ambiguous on emails.
Anyone who cites mediamatters, who is absolutely in the tank for liberal progressives, loses all credibility. How you got modded informative just shows that you can fool some of the people, some of the time.
Fact: The globe has been both warmer and cooler than it is now, by a lot over the last 500,000 years: http://www.climate4you.com/ima...
By claiming any scientist or study that doesn't agree with you is "industry sponsored" you are engaging in the logical fallacy "damning the source." It is irrelevant what the source is. If there is evidence of fraud in the work, then cite it (you cant). You have to look at the facts as they stand, regardless of the source. I am pretty sure that the only ones who have been found out committing fraud were the climate scientists at NASA. http://principia-scientific.or...
Saying that it is what the majority of scientists believes is demonstrably false (see the link below) as well as a logical fallacy "appeal to majority logical fallacy." http://www.naturalnews.com/052...
So you are equating the pipeline workers to Saddam Hussein the mass murderer? Good to know.
FYI keeping your objectivity inherently means reporting the facts as accurately as possible. Yes, everyone has a point of view, but the point of journalism is to be as accurate as possible with objective truth. There are also these things called opinions, and when both sides are held by generally good actors, you report both sides.
I call bullshit on your example of the Iraq war, seeing all the negative on the US reporting that came out of the Iraq war (ever heard of Abu Ghraib?) That was clearly not pro US reporting but also clearly recognized as journalism.
The annual rate of return on an S&P 500 index fund over the last 30 years is ~9% per year, which doubles your money every ~8 years. If you are looking for a return of less than 1%, you are part of the problem and a parasite that will likely help cause the next market crash, in which you will lose your shirt.
Technically stocks and bonds are not your property. Because of past experience and the peculiarities of the stock market, there are already a lot of restrictions on trading (insider trading anyone?)
The goal of the government should be in ensuring a fair and equal playing field that maximizes wealth for all, not just those with access to microsecond transactions. We have seen time and again that short term investing is bad for the long term health and stability of the market, as well as the larger economy. We need to discourage this behavior sooner rather than later, either make it illegal or use the tax code, I don't care.
You just highlighted at least part of the difference between an individual and a member of the press:
"...the Press are often given passes to be present"
However, you are wrong, the press does get special consideration: the constitution provides special protections specifically for the press and they are given a special responsibility to accurately report the facts. The question in this case hinges around whether she was acting as an impartial observer/member of the press, or as a promoter of the riot/violence/vandalism. Just writing a popular post of FB does not make you a journalist, especially if it only reports/promotes one side of the story/facts.
Q: Why is the law and the force of law enforcement always on the side of the entrenched, obsolete and now destructive interests? A: Probably because the minority is acting like thugs and terrorists and assaulting people (which happened in this violent attack, it was not a peaceful protest).
Q: When will law and law enforcement actually be supporting the implementation of the absolutely clearly necessary changes to our energy system? A: When the minority is able to make a reasonable, well supported argument to the majority to the point where it is convinced that it is worth the time and effort. Stop all the irrational bullshit. Statements like: everyone says it must be this way, therefore it is (appeal to majority/bandwagon logical fallacy) and all the climate scientists who make a living getting grants to study global warming say man made climate change is the apocalypse (appeal to biased authority logical fallacy) even though they do not. All our complicated, untestable (except over time) mathematical models, that have been wildly wrong for decades must now be magically accurate, say the end is coming (deus ex machina logical fallacy? just made that one up).
The climate change nuts (as opposed to clean air/clean water classical environmentalists, of which I am one) have been wrong too often, cried wolf too many times and are losing the case for anthropogenic global warming in the court of public opinion, regardless of what they may tell you. The reality is that if you look at the facts, the globe has been a lot warmer and a lot colder in the past.
Typically humans do better as a species in warmer weather. Add that to the fact that there used to be palm trees on Antarctica and that all of the fossil fuels that we are burning were once organisms living on the surface of the planet (i.e. not buried underground), and you realize that it is not reasonable to spend trillions of dollars to curb carbon dioxide emissions so that 0.00001% of the population doesn't have to either build 2 foot seawalls or move. Environmental nutjobs have no comprehension of cost benefit analysis, among other things.
While it may not be illegal, to be a journalist, you must report the facts accurately and report both sides of the story (yes, I know most MSM have completely thrown this out the window, but they have name recognition and at least a history of reporting the facts).
If you are grossly negligent in this responsibility, you may be considered a mouth piece for the protesters instead of a journalist, and therefore not given the special protection afforded to journalists covering a story. She was probably trespassing, and since she was not acting as an impartial journalist, she may be charged as a co-conspirator in the act that occurred in her presence. Its likely that they also have evidence of collusion before the fact; i.e. she knew of the attack ahead of time and discussed it with the organizers.
I am a fan of capping medical care at some reasonable level once you reach a certain age. We should as a society be willing to pay a million or two to save a child, who has their whole life ahead of them, but once you hit the median life expectancy, you should accept the fact that you are going to die soon. Everyone dies, be thankful that you have now lived longer than half (the day after you pass the median life expectancy). In the US we have socialized medicine for those over 65 (medicare) so the US tax payer ends up paying 20% of all health care spending on 55 million retirees (.37% spent per million people), along with another 16% for medicaid to care for the 65 million poor (0.25% spent per million people). Meanwhile, just 33% is spent on/by private insurance that covers 58% (~186 million; 0.17% spent per million people). So to recap, the working insured are footing 100% of the bill and only receiving 33% of the benefits. Theoretically they will eventually use Medicare as well, if they live long enough.
The problem is that the retired block all votes, so it is the political third rail to talk about capping medical benefits past a certain age. The working insured are the cheapest block to provide health care for. It is also widely known that Medicaid is heavily used by emigrants from other countries either legally or often illegally. Anyone venture a guess as to how often Canada or Mexico puts up with that from a US citizen?
"Horse. Shit. Insulin, Rhogam, the Salk polio vaccine trial, T - cells, AIDS medications, the ebola vaccine, etc."
Pretty sure that you didn't invent horse shit (or is that horses and shit), or T-cells.
95% of the tens of thousands of medications, tests, procedures and medical equipment are developed in the US, even though it is extremely expensive and difficult to do so. So that makes it what 6:40,000 in favor of the US? Most companies don't want to develop in Canada because it is too difficult to make back their money unless they are also concurrently approved by the US FDA. The private US health care system bankrolls all of these things, and we are also the guinea pigs. Those life saving drugs developed in the US go around the globe and save lives.
Why do wealthy Canadians sneak down to the US every day to have medical procedures performed if it is so great in Canada? My guess is you have never had to have a life saving operation and your opinion of Canadian health care is based on the occasional cold and your annual physical?
I think the point of the OP was to have a very small tax, say 0.1%, per trade. Therefore, if I purchase 1,000 shares for $50,000 to hold, I pay $50 in tax, which is insignificant to my purchase. That's painless to me as a long term investor. However, the organizations out there that are trading $5,000,000 at 1000 times a day in microsecond transactions to suck money out of the market will pay $5,000,000 per day in taxes. They are probably netting around 0.1% on these microsecond transactions or less, so this takes away all profit and makes this parasitic practice no longer economical.
The alternative is less attractive and involves setting a minimum hold time of 7 days or some such, which may put certain people in a bind.
Slashdot Mirror
All major news outlets are too close to the political parties. You want to know who is to blame for that? The NEWS OUTLETS. (FTFY)
Moderator note: your personal disagreement with the following analysis does not make it less relevant or true. Please keep your post election rage/safe space down-mod votes to yourself.
The reality is that for about 30 years, the MSM has been in the tank for the progressive left. They started teaching journalists in school that their goal shouldn't be to "get the scoop" or "get to the truth" or "accurately report the facts." They started teaching them that their goal should be to "change the world." Once that happened, objective journalism died a quick death but the American people have been slow to catch on, but they have caught on, and only 6% of the population now believes that the MSM gives the news without bias/selective filtering/manipulation etc. In the 90s, Rush Limbaugh and later Fox news began providing a counter point to this pervasive bias, and in the case of Fox news, their formula is quite simple, they have guests on from both positions, and their commentators provide relevant history, background, and challenge both positions with facts. (If you are a Fox news hater, realize that doesn't change why Fox has been so successful or what their formula is or why they are the most trusted news network in the US.) Fox is also one of the best researched, best sourced news outlets on the planet. The news they put out is more accurate than most of the other MSM outlets (not necessarily what guests say though, who by definition are supporting a POV but whom are usually challenged by the host/other guest when they are wrong on the facts)
While the MSM usually does not outright fabricate a lie, what they do is source lies from Media Matters/HuffPo/other alt left sources. They take half truths, clips out of context etc that fit their narrative, irregardless of the complete facts. Occasionally they get caught and a producer somewhere gets fired. The level of dishonesty has created an atmosphere where fake news sites have more credibility than the MSM, which is a credibility problem for the MSM, not a commentary on the gullibility of news consumers. The fake news sites have still lied less than the MSM, which has a history of lying going back decades. Why the younger generation is using social media as its news source shows just how hard the MSM has fallen and how low their credibility is. The solution is for Fox news to improve and extend it's online presence so that all those who see the MSM for the shills they are can have a reliable, accurate online news outlet.
The more mature and wiser conservative crowd moved to Fox news or main stream talk radio news sources 20 years ago, and those left consuming MSM pap have been so brainwashed that even the mention, let alone watching Fox news is like salt on a slug. I challenge anyone reading this to take the Fox news challenge. Tune into their primetime lineup for a week before you call them the great satan. Un-brainwashing may be a little unpleasant at first, but it is a liberating experience on the whole.
http://www.washingtontimes.com...
http://www.poynter.org/2014/th...
http://www.newsweek.com/faults...
So first off, there was a bit of sarcasm in my original post, sorry if you missed it.
Second off, calm down for a minute and and think through what you are saying:
--Foxconn is now implementing a lot of automation in order to cut costs and improve reliability.
This automation could just as easily be implemented in the US.
--Do you have any concept how big these factories are?
Yes, actually I have seen Shenzhen among other manufacturing hubs. I am confident that the US has enough space to build equivalent factories (really they are just assembly buildings, not factories in the traditional sense).
--Do you have any concept about how long they take to build ?
Actually, you can crank out 100k plus square foot buildings with cement walls and steel roofs in under 6 months if you push all the little shit bureaucrats out of the way. Build 10 in parallel and you have 1M square feet to work with. The floor space is not really a barrier.
--Do you have any concept of the infrastructure they need, just to build the factories ?
Foxconn is not a factory, they are a CM (contract manufacturer). All the parts are delivered to Foxconn and then Apple sends hundreds of US engineers to train the people over at Foxconn (usually for months at a time) on how to assemble each component. Most of the chips and components that go into an iPhone can just as easily be manufactured here in the US (and at one time that type of component was, but has been moved to China because of the virtually nonexistent environmental regs combined with very cheap labor).
--Do you have any concept about the design times of industrial manufacturing processes ?
I have designed over 30 products from whiteboard concept to manufacturing release, and it varies from about 6 months to more than 4 years depending on the starting point, level of complexity, production volume, etc. With the iPhone these days, the level of innovation is about as revolutionary as the automotive industry; it has become more iterative than revolutionary.
Lets be honest, it would be almost trivial from a logistics standpoint for Apple, based in the US, with their huge stash of cash to start to shift their manufacturing back to the US. No one thinks that it would happen all at once, but it would be easier than their shift to manufacturing in China, so saying that it is impossible makes your position questionable.
In developed countries, like the US, we have this thing called automation. It is more reliable than manual assembly, it just requires initial investment. Once you invest in automation, you can hire Americans who have a manufacturing engineering degree to work at the plant and let them work to ensure that the automated systems run smoothly/get updated/maintained. Instead of 10,000 workers making $20k/year, you have 1000 engineers making $90k/year.
This is just PR BS from Apple because they know that Trump is going to start a trade war with China until we have a level playing field. All of the mega-corporations have been screwing over the US and the environment to squeeze out a few more bucks, and that is going to end with Trump.
China didn't invent climate change, they have just been funding the useful idiots (Democrats) to hobble our economy with onerous environmental regulations (far beyond clean air and clean water, which we all want) a la CO2 cap and trade while they steal our jobs and manufacturing capacity by manipulating their currency and producing our products with 10X more pollution while those same Democrats say nothing.
If we are smart, and heres hoping Trump is, we will start assessing an import tax that not only accounts for the currency manipulation of other countries, but also accounts for the actual amount of pollution that the country generates. Clean, green countries get no environmental import tax, but China, that creates nearly half of all pollution on the planet and who is killing nearly 4000 people per day with their pollution, should get slapped with a massive import tax.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...
What I wish Amazon would do is give me preferences settings in the account configuration where I can turn off non-certified sellers from any of a number of foreign countries, China being one of them. This would let the users vote with their wallets and Amazon would soon figure out that it is better off cultivating a number of key relationships with quality vendors in China, rather than flooding their marketplace with junk. On the other end, in China becoming a quality producer of goods for Amazon would become a coveted and valuable commodity to be protected from the jeopardy caused by shoddy goods.
If you are hysterical over the election, please keep your mod points to yourself. Your personal feelings do not change the facts in this post.
No candidate is perfect, no president is perfect. Trump was not my first or even second choice. He is not a politician and he does not have much of an internal filter. That said, the hysteria on the left is ridiculous. People need to realize that he is only 1/3 of the government, he has no more power that Obama took and used with his phone and his pen. As long as you are not actively breaking any laws, you will be fine. If you are breaking laws, well, you have made that choice. (Criminals are ~5x more likely to be Democrat than Republican, which makes sense seeing Dems want criminals to be treated as if they are ill or at worst just made a mistake, whereas Republicans want to protect society from criminals, and if that means a long drop at the end of a short rope, thems the brakes for the criminal.)
We who did not vote for Obama have suffered through 8 years of his mismanagement and assaults on our constitutional rights. He has repeatedly attempted to infringe on 1st amendment free speech, and the 2nd amendment. The middle east is on fire, ISIS is on the rise, Europe is being invaded, the country is bankrupt with $19,190,000,000 in debt ($10.6T when Obama took office, but he called Bush un-American after Bush incurred $5.8T due in large part to 9-11 and the subsequent war on terror). Obama the dove was one bloodthirsty president, he has killed 3,491 people abroad by direct order using drone strikes.
Domestically there are 42% more people on food stamps than when Obama took office, home ownership is as low as it was in the 70's, we have the lowest labor participation rate (real unemployment) in 38 years (94,044,000 people not working). 1 in 5 households have no one working (just think about that for a minute)! Welfare enrollment is up 30% under Obama as well. Obamacare has turned out to be a colossal lie and everyone now knows that it is a massive indirect tax on the middle class to give insurance to the non-productive/uneducated/economically unproductive class in exchange for votes.
Bush inherited the war on terror from Clinton and Bush dealt with the 9-11 economic impact and took the fight to the terrorists. He did not blame Clinton and whine like a 4 year old.
Obama inherited the housing market crisis and a pacified, free Iraq and Afghanistan from Bush. Obama blamed Bush for 8 years, he took the real solution that had been crafted to deal with the housing market crisis (the government was going to buy up distressed properties in foreclosure and then slowly re-sell or rent them out to the residents as the housing market improved, which would have recouped most of the money laid out by the taxpayer). Instead Obama pissed it away on corporate give aways to his cronies (Solyndra/Tesla/NRG/etc. 75% of all stimulus money went to Obama supporters) which left the housing crisis largely un-solved and 5 years later had created zero new jobs directly from the stimulus. Obama compounded our economic problems with Obamacare, more environmental regulations, and the destruction of our coal industry. Obama left Iraq for political reasons, and EXACTLY what Bush said would happen in the power vacuum happened. Obama created ISIS and now we have over 4000 troops back in Iraq and Syria and ISIS has spread to 40 countries. Obama has presided over the weakest economic recovery since the great depression. Median household income is down thousands of dollars since Obama took office.
We on the other side have had a pretty bumpy 8 years, so suck it up, act like an adult and judge your new president by his actions and the new jobs that will likely be coming your way. Trump may truly want to improve the country for everyone, give him the chance to show you one way or the other before you become apoplectic.
"His goal is to disrupt the power of a legislature that's getting things done."
If the legislature is passing good legislation, the sunlight has no impact. If they are a bunch of slimy bastards making backroom deals that are bad for the people, they shouldn't be surprised that the voters are unhappy with the BS they are pulling.
California would be better off firing all of their crooked politicians and passing all legislation directly by referendum every 2 years. Much like stable software, the government has most things already nailed down. They don't need a full time legislature to meddle with their lives. Let the governor run the state based on the current law, and update the law every 2 years. Pass a line item budget every year. In the internet age there is no need for corrupt political representatives at the state level.
If I were Zuckerberg, I would remind the German fascists that he is Jewish and then block all German Facebook accounts, instead showing a big banner saying that Germany hates free speech and/or Jewish run businesses and put up the name and office phone number of the Attourneys General for everyone to complain to.
It is not a big shock after the tactics that MS has used. They have burned a lot of bridges with win 10 and those of us stuck in the Windows ecosystem are snatching up the best, most stable version, Windows 7. Be prepared for lawsuits though, as it looks like MS is going to try and shove the crappiest parts of Windows 10 on us through bundled updates...
I think the point is it is an unnecessary risk. You can fuel first and make sure there is no issue, then when the unavoidable danger (actually riding in the vehicle loaded with tons of rocket fuel), you accept the risk because there is no getting into space without it.
In other news, men still at 0.0% birthing rates. When will we be able to get these numbers up? Since the dawn of time, women have given birth to 100% of all babies. This is rank discrimination against men to deny us the wonder of childbirth. /sarc off
In all truthfulness men and women are different, and while there are outliers among both (men who WANT to stay home to raise the kids or women who get all excited about writing code or mathematical theorems) stereotypes exist for a reason, because in most cases they are true. On top of that, we are dealing with basic, biological differences in men and women.
What if I told you there was a job that only women could do, and that the employer injects the employees on a daily basis with an addictive drug (oxytocin) that makes the employees want to stay at the job, even though the job entails sleep deprivation, severe body modification and even intentional infliction of pain on a frequent basis? That is essential motherhood. And everything I described is biologically done to the mother over the course of pregnancy, childbirth and nursing.
Conversely, when you watch the Olympics, in the physical strength events (running, throwing etc.), the women you see taking home the gold are at about the level of your average high school track star. If we integrated the sexes in those events, no woman would ever medal again, it is basic biology, which is why Olympic cheaters have been trying for years to pass off men as women.
The real, government sanctioned discrimination these days is inflicted on the white male, and indirectly on his family. Thus we have the rapidly shrinking middle class. It is shameful and there is no excuse. The white male is Boxer the horse from Animal Farm. The white male built western civilization and defended it with his blood for generations and when he is gone (i.e. unemployed/broken/welfare recipient, etc.), it will crumble (we already see the cracks).
Yep, funny how it is always 10 years out, and how 90% of what they are talking about are man fighting over resources. If we start to not have enough rainfall, we build aqueducts, or desalinization plants or both. If we need more land, we go the way of the Dutch and build seawalls (more than 50% of Netherlands is under sea level). This is far more efficient and effective than fighting with each other.
We have the technology and the ability to cope with these minor issues effectively. Unless you are worried about the savages who live to kill each other and rape at every opportunity. Not sure that the 70% of the world that is civilized and modern should really care that the savages may murder each other a little faster than before, or not reproduce as effectively or be forced to modernize and civilize. We should certainly not jeopardize the best quality of human life (longest life span, lowest violence rates, highest equality of sexes and races, best sanitation and highest levels of freedom in known history) for the savages.
The press can (and has) suppressed stories in the past about presidential affairs, among other things, but that is a bad thing for the American people. I see no reason to publish steamy emails between husband and wife or other legitimate but embarrassing messages. However, if you are talking about sexual harassment (CEO Bill Clinton banging an intern in the board room (white house) would have gotten anyone else fired from their job immediately) or affairs where the president or politician could be blackmailed about the affair or pretty much any other underhanded, illegal activity should be published.
One of the key functions of the press is to be constantly investigating politicians for corruption and other criminal or undesirable activity. The reason that the Democratic party was hacked is the stench of corruption and illegality were pervasive and why the Dems are freaking out is that it turns out that the progressive Democrats are basically going down the fascist, Nazi path, and the media has been largely complicit in not doing their job of asking the tough questions and digging in to politicians and their actions in search of real news. Just look at Hillary, she has already been the least available to the press of any modern candidate, and the media says nothing. When she is interviewed, she gets softballs, and now due to the leaks we learn that even these are apparently at least sometimes given to her ahead of time so she can prepare a response. Our only hope is the serious, investigative journalists online.
That is a cannard floated by the left wing Hillary shills. Bush more or less presided over the conversion to email of the federal government, and at the time the laws and rules were not the same as they are now and were at the very least ambiguous on emails.
Anyone who cites mediamatters, who is absolutely in the tank for liberal progressives, loses all credibility. How you got modded informative just shows that you can fool some of the people, some of the time.
Fact: Climate models have been wrong for years:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp...
Fact: The globe has been both warmer and cooler than it is now, by a lot over the last 500,000 years:
http://www.climate4you.com/ima...
By claiming any scientist or study that doesn't agree with you is "industry sponsored" you are engaging in the logical fallacy "damning the source." It is irrelevant what the source is. If there is evidence of fraud in the work, then cite it (you cant). You have to look at the facts as they stand, regardless of the source. I am pretty sure that the only ones who have been found out committing fraud were the climate scientists at NASA.
http://principia-scientific.or...
Saying that it is what the majority of scientists believes is demonstrably false (see the link below) as well as a logical fallacy "appeal to majority logical fallacy."
http://www.naturalnews.com/052...
So you are equating the pipeline workers to Saddam Hussein the mass murderer? Good to know.
FYI keeping your objectivity inherently means reporting the facts as accurately as possible. Yes, everyone has a point of view, but the point of journalism is to be as accurate as possible with objective truth. There are also these things called opinions, and when both sides are held by generally good actors, you report both sides.
I call bullshit on your example of the Iraq war, seeing all the negative on the US reporting that came out of the Iraq war (ever heard of Abu Ghraib?) That was clearly not pro US reporting but also clearly recognized as journalism.
The annual rate of return on an S&P 500 index fund over the last 30 years is ~9% per year, which doubles your money every ~8 years. If you are looking for a return of less than 1%, you are part of the problem and a parasite that will likely help cause the next market crash, in which you will lose your shirt.
Technically stocks and bonds are not your property. Because of past experience and the peculiarities of the stock market, there are already a lot of restrictions on trading (insider trading anyone?)
The goal of the government should be in ensuring a fair and equal playing field that maximizes wealth for all, not just those with access to microsecond transactions. We have seen time and again that short term investing is bad for the long term health and stability of the market, as well as the larger economy. We need to discourage this behavior sooner rather than later, either make it illegal or use the tax code, I don't care.
Bloggers, for the most part are not journalists, they are commentators. If you don' t know the difference, google is your friend.
You just highlighted at least part of the difference between an individual and a member of the press:
"...the Press are often given passes to be present"
However, you are wrong, the press does get special consideration: the constitution provides special protections specifically for the press and they are given a special responsibility to accurately report the facts. The question in this case hinges around whether she was acting as an impartial observer/member of the press, or as a promoter of the riot/violence/vandalism. Just writing a popular post of FB does not make you a journalist, especially if it only reports/promotes one side of the story/facts.
Q: Why is the law and the force of law enforcement always on the side of the entrenched, obsolete and now destructive interests?
A: Probably because the minority is acting like thugs and terrorists and assaulting people (which happened in this violent attack, it was not a peaceful protest).
Q: When will law and law enforcement actually be supporting the implementation of the absolutely clearly necessary changes to our energy system?
A: When the minority is able to make a reasonable, well supported argument to the majority to the point where it is convinced that it is worth the time and effort. Stop all the irrational bullshit. Statements like: everyone says it must be this way, therefore it is (appeal to majority/bandwagon logical fallacy) and all the climate scientists who make a living getting grants to study global warming say man made climate change is the apocalypse (appeal to biased authority logical fallacy) even though they do not. All our complicated, untestable (except over time) mathematical models, that have been wildly wrong for decades must now be magically accurate, say the end is coming (deus ex machina logical fallacy? just made that one up).
The climate change nuts (as opposed to clean air/clean water classical environmentalists, of which I am one) have been wrong too often, cried wolf too many times and are losing the case for anthropogenic global warming in the court of public opinion, regardless of what they may tell you. The reality is that if you look at the facts, the globe has been a lot warmer and a lot colder in the past.
Typically humans do better as a species in warmer weather. Add that to the fact that there used to be palm trees on Antarctica and that all of the fossil fuels that we are burning were once organisms living on the surface of the planet (i.e. not buried underground), and you realize that it is not reasonable to spend trillions of dollars to curb carbon dioxide emissions so that 0.00001% of the population doesn't have to either build 2 foot seawalls or move. Environmental nutjobs have no comprehension of cost benefit analysis, among other things.
While it may not be illegal, to be a journalist, you must report the facts accurately and report both sides of the story (yes, I know most MSM have completely thrown this out the window, but they have name recognition and at least a history of reporting the facts).
If you are grossly negligent in this responsibility, you may be considered a mouth piece for the protesters instead of a journalist, and therefore not given the special protection afforded to journalists covering a story. She was probably trespassing, and since she was not acting as an impartial journalist, she may be charged as a co-conspirator in the act that occurred in her presence. Its likely that they also have evidence of collusion before the fact; i.e. she knew of the attack ahead of time and discussed it with the organizers.
I am a fan of capping medical care at some reasonable level once you reach a certain age. We should as a society be willing to pay a million or two to save a child, who has their whole life ahead of them, but once you hit the median life expectancy, you should accept the fact that you are going to die soon. Everyone dies, be thankful that you have now lived longer than half (the day after you pass the median life expectancy). In the US we have socialized medicine for those over 65 (medicare) so the US tax payer ends up paying 20% of all health care spending on 55 million retirees (.37% spent per million people), along with another 16% for medicaid to care for the 65 million poor (0.25% spent per million people). Meanwhile, just 33% is spent on/by private insurance that covers 58% (~186 million; 0.17% spent per million people). So to recap, the working insured are footing 100% of the bill and only receiving 33% of the benefits. Theoretically they will eventually use Medicare as well, if they live long enough.
The problem is that the retired block all votes, so it is the political third rail to talk about capping medical benefits past a certain age. The working insured are the cheapest block to provide health care for. It is also widely known that Medicaid is heavily used by emigrants from other countries either legally or often illegally. Anyone venture a guess as to how often Canada or Mexico puts up with that from a US citizen?
http://kff.org/other/state-ind...
https://www.cms.gov/research-s...
So Canada is responsible for inventing:
"Horse. Shit. Insulin, Rhogam, the Salk polio vaccine trial, T - cells, AIDS medications, the ebola vaccine, etc."
Pretty sure that you didn't invent horse shit (or is that horses and shit), or T-cells.
95% of the tens of thousands of medications, tests, procedures and medical equipment are developed in the US, even though it is extremely expensive and difficult to do so. So that makes it what 6:40,000 in favor of the US? Most companies don't want to develop in Canada because it is too difficult to make back their money unless they are also concurrently approved by the US FDA. The private US health care system bankrolls all of these things, and we are also the guinea pigs. Those life saving drugs developed in the US go around the globe and save lives.
Why do wealthy Canadians sneak down to the US every day to have medical procedures performed if it is so great in Canada? My guess is you have never had to have a life saving operation and your opinion of Canadian health care is based on the occasional cold and your annual physical?
I think the point of the OP was to have a very small tax, say 0.1%, per trade. Therefore, if I purchase 1,000 shares for $50,000 to hold, I pay $50 in tax, which is insignificant to my purchase. That's painless to me as a long term investor. However, the organizations out there that are trading $5,000,000 at 1000 times a day in microsecond transactions to suck money out of the market will pay $5,000,000 per day in taxes. They are probably netting around 0.1% on these microsecond transactions or less, so this takes away all profit and makes this parasitic practice no longer economical.
The alternative is less attractive and involves setting a minimum hold time of 7 days or some such, which may put certain people in a bind.