No, that's stupid. My house reached $1 million in estimated value at the peak of the bubble. Now it's back down to $800K. If I sell now, I should pay taxes on the $200K I never got? That's rational to you? Fuck that!
How did you manage to afford such an expensive house with such poor reading comprehension? He even gave you a formula in his post making it as clear as possible and you still fucked it up. No wonder silicon valley's going down the tubes is this is an example of its 'talent'.
If you think that these ridiculously high paying jobs require no skills and nothing other than a buddy from the tennis club downtown, then why aren't you doing that?
Perhaps because he doesn't have a buddy from the tennis club downtown, isn't a member of the right country club, and didn't go to the right school/fraternity?
Many of these jobs require skills that you may consider "talent-less", but unless you are able to do them, the demand for those talents becomes higher. And lets face it, you can't do them.
Funny how no-one ever actually manages to tell us what these skills actually are. I mean, other than knowing the right people. How do you know he can't do them? The average drone never actually gets the chance to show whether he can do these jobs or not. How often do you see a CEO job advertised, either in the newspaper or on your company's notice board? The average company, when looking for a CEO, asks a recruiter, who goes round trying to poach everyone else's CEO. Your ex-CEO will probably be recycled onto another one of those companies.
The shuttle is the government's doing. SpaceX could do it for less than a million$ as it is.
I didn't realise SpaceX could take stuff down from orbit.
tmosley:
If SpaceX fails, there will be five other companies ready to pick up where they left off. This is what drives free markets to produce goods and services that are ever cheaper and ever higher quality. Leave it up to governments that don't have any personal skin in the game, but have access to ostensibly infinite resources, and you get boondoggles like Apollo or the Shuttle program that waste huge amounts of resources without generating a profit for anyone other than no-bid contractors.
It took the free market about 20 years to take the first prototype airplane and turn it into a profitable industry (airlines). Put a stop to NASA's monopoly on space, and shut down the regulations that are hamstringing entrepreneurs now, and you will see a similar growth profile for space travel.
OK a couple of points to this:
1. Commercial airlines only exist today thanks to a history of huge military contracts, endless bailouts, government protection and subsidies. Even today, Boeing and Airbus are addicted to defence spending, and airlines never have to pay for their externalities.
2. NASA doesn't have a monopoly on space, nor do government regulations. What, you thought there was a roof over everywhere else in the world other than the US? Believe it or not, hundreds of other countries have access to space, and would welcome external investment from private space companies. If it were as viable as you said it was.
3. If it weren't for those 'unprofitable boondoggles', where the fuck would SpaceX be today? Did they just invent modern rocket technology from scratch, out of their basement, or have they benefited from well over half a century of massive government investment?
Yet again, capitalism stands on the shoulders of government giants, then internet libertarians declare the glory of the market.
PS: I like the way you consider the moon landings a bad idea because they weren't profitable. That's the problem with private investment, it only considers monetary profit to be a worthwhile goal.
The ethics of manned commercial space flight are scary. One accident and the whole thing is going to be held back 50 years.
If a corporation's rich or well-connected enough, they can get away with just about anything. Especially if their activities aren't based in the first world.
You are right! There used to be a time when people used to drink alcohol and drive their cars. Then new laws came about that made is so that you'd lose your license and spend a few months in jail. After that, no one ever drove while drunk anymore. Problem solved!
Drink driving has plummeted, and is even now completely socially unacceptable.
They tried that with alcohol too! (From 1920 to 1933) It also worked like a champ! No one ever drank alcohol and crime sunk to all-time lows.
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic here. You do realise that crime and drinking did actually go down during prohibition, and the idea that it didn't work is an urban legend?
In defense of those who live here in Oregon, it's really not a lot of fun getting out of your car to fill it in the rain. We'll let the folks in Washington do that, if they want.
Over here, petrol stations have roofs over the forecourts. Maybe they haven't invented those in Oregon. At any rate, you're going to have to get out of the car to open the cap. Unless you want to trust your keys to some minimum wage flunky. One possible scam would be to dress up as one of these people, then when they give you the keys, run away and rob their house at a later date.
Assuming you're talking about the US, driving isn't expensive at all. Oil is dirt cheap, the supply guaranteed by the military and CIA, taxes are low, roads are heavily subsidised through general taxation, car makers are routinely bailed out or given endless incentives to keep producing, laws are weak and barely enforced, passing the driving test is laughably easy and cheap compared to other countries.
Drivers kill thousands of people every year and pretty much get away with it, then whine when they're not allowed to drive whilst applying their make-up and eating their breakfast simultaneously, as if it's some sort of infringement of their constitutional rights to operate a lethal projectile.
I think that the third world is more capable of building its own sewers than it is developing its own malaria vaccines. Ancient civilisations managed sanitation.
Because the US healthcare system is aimed at catering to a small number of the elite, whereas other countries aim to care for the majority of their populations.
I like the way you're proud of attracting dictators, as if that's something to aspire to. I sure wish my country modelled its health-care system on attracting the most evil people...
The best job in the UK is MP. You don't even need and skills or qualifications, you can only be fired once every five years, you get several multiples of the average wage, and the same again in expenses. You don't even have to turn up for work other than to file expense claims. And you can smoke in the subsidised bar.
I agree that many US policies were constructed in fear, but I don't think we're the reason cuba is a disaster. Unlike Cuba, China threw away much of their communist control over the economy, and has reaped the rewards.
The rewards being a lower income than Cuba, lower HDI, worse healthcare, worse education, lower literacy, lower life expectancy, horrendous pollution, millions in prison, sweatshop labour etc.
No, the reason the US hates Cuba is because unlike the rest of Latin America, they won't bend over to American imperialism. The US has spent the last half a century overthrowing various democratic governments and replacing them with murdering, right-wing dictators who support American interests. Cuba, right on their doorstep, kicked out the US puppet and American nationalists have been sore ever since.
Unlike Capitalism however, communism only tends to survive when supports by an authoritarian regime, and normally they tend to be more totalitarian than anything.
Where does capitalism survive without a heavily-armed state there to enforce business interests? How would modern Western capitalism ever have evolved without government people coming along and forcing native people off common land at the point of a gun (or spear), to hand it over to the gentry?
Why did America, via the CIA, spend so much money on so many guns to force free-market capitalism on Latin Americans who didn't want it? Why did it need a totalitarian dictator like Batista to enforce the business rights of American corporations and mafias? Why did Pinochet have to torture so many people before they'd agree to the benefit of privatising national resources and handing them over to the rich?
Indeed - conservative support for the military is surely conditioned on the president being white.
Where were these teabaggers when the white presidents like Reagan were jacking up the debt?
On a side note, I've been thinking - now that you classy libs have moved political discourse a step forward by bringing sexual slurs to straight 'news' reporting with the teabag explosion, how should Fox et al keep the populist edge?
They came up with the term themselves. They probably didn't even know what it meant. Maybe it's just a delicious convenience.
Yet they keep voting for big government. What does that tell you about polls? Funny how they say they want small government now it's a black president spending money on health care for black people, but want a big government when it's a white president spending money on defence contracts for white people.
I'd imagine that many Americans are totally unaware how much they actually depend on the government for damn near everything.
or perhaps consistently and copiously write articles that everyone wants to read because they are high quality... which, oddly enough, brings back advertisers when there are lots of eyeballs
Except it doesn't. Advertising revenue is spread so thin these days even papers with millions of readers are struggling to keep afloat. At any rate, the biggest sellers are always the shitty tabloids.
God forbid a newspaper use its visibility to highlight injustice. They could have used that space for more stories about celebrities fucking each other.
Your post would be more interesting if you could define 'liberal' and 'centre right'. The NY Times is not left-wing. The Guardian is left-wing. Unless you're using the American definition of 'left' which is basically anyone who objects to bringing back the workhouses. How can a newspaper with such deference to Wall Street and capitalism be left-wing?
In any given election, 99% of Americans vote for candidates who support large government spending on social projects, so I'm not sure how right-wing the population really is. Bear in mind the teabaggers are a very small group of Fox News astroturfers who had no problems with big government when a white president was giving blank cheques to the military.
How many people are in the cantons where many decisions are made? Of course, the minaret ban shows the populist failings of democracy on any scale. On the smallest scale, you have home-owner associations which are utterly horrendous.
Slashdot Mirror
How did you manage to afford such an expensive house with such poor reading comprehension? He even gave you a formula in his post making it as clear as possible and you still fucked it up. No wonder silicon valley's going down the tubes is this is an example of its 'talent'.
Perhaps because he doesn't have a buddy from the tennis club downtown, isn't a member of the right country club, and didn't go to the right school/fraternity?
Funny how no-one ever actually manages to tell us what these skills actually are. I mean, other than knowing the right people. How do you know he can't do them? The average drone never actually gets the chance to show whether he can do these jobs or not. How often do you see a CEO job advertised, either in the newspaper or on your company's notice board? The average company, when looking for a CEO, asks a recruiter, who goes round trying to poach everyone else's CEO. Your ex-CEO will probably be recycled onto another one of those companies.
If big business was constantly hammering you with endless FOI requests designed to cost you time and money, why wouldn't you avoid them?
And throw-it-away-and-buy-another-one-from-China is the American motto.
I didn't realise SpaceX could take stuff down from orbit.
tmosley:
OK a couple of points to this:
1. Commercial airlines only exist today thanks to a history of huge military contracts, endless bailouts, government protection and subsidies. Even today, Boeing and Airbus are addicted to defence spending, and airlines never have to pay for their externalities.
2. NASA doesn't have a monopoly on space, nor do government regulations. What, you thought there was a roof over everywhere else in the world other than the US? Believe it or not, hundreds of other countries have access to space, and would welcome external investment from private space companies. If it were as viable as you said it was.
3. If it weren't for those 'unprofitable boondoggles', where the fuck would SpaceX be today? Did they just invent modern rocket technology from scratch, out of their basement, or have they benefited from well over half a century of massive government investment?
Yet again, capitalism stands on the shoulders of government giants, then internet libertarians declare the glory of the market.
PS: I like the way you consider the moon landings a bad idea because they weren't profitable. That's the problem with private investment, it only considers monetary profit to be a worthwhile goal.
If a corporation's rich or well-connected enough, they can get away with just about anything. Especially if their activities aren't based in the first world.
Drink driving has plummeted, and is even now completely socially unacceptable.
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic here. You do realise that crime and drinking did actually go down during prohibition, and the idea that it didn't work is an urban legend?
Over here, petrol stations have roofs over the forecourts. Maybe they haven't invented those in Oregon. At any rate, you're going to have to get out of the car to open the cap. Unless you want to trust your keys to some minimum wage flunky. One possible scam would be to dress up as one of these people, then when they give you the keys, run away and rob their house at a later date.
Assuming you're talking about the US, driving isn't expensive at all. Oil is dirt cheap, the supply guaranteed by the military and CIA, taxes are low, roads are heavily subsidised through general taxation, car makers are routinely bailed out or given endless incentives to keep producing, laws are weak and barely enforced, passing the driving test is laughably easy and cheap compared to other countries.
Drivers kill thousands of people every year and pretty much get away with it, then whine when they're not allowed to drive whilst applying their make-up and eating their breakfast simultaneously, as if it's some sort of infringement of their constitutional rights to operate a lethal projectile.
I think that the third world is more capable of building its own sewers than it is developing its own malaria vaccines. Ancient civilisations managed sanitation.
Unfortunately, modern capitalism requires endless consumerism to thrive. Economies stagnate when people save.
Because the US healthcare system is aimed at catering to a small number of the elite, whereas other countries aim to care for the majority of their populations.
I like the way you're proud of attracting dictators, as if that's something to aspire to. I sure wish my country modelled its health-care system on attracting the most evil people...
The best job in the UK is MP. You don't even need and skills or qualifications, you can only be fired once every five years, you get several multiples of the average wage, and the same again in expenses. You don't even have to turn up for work other than to file expense claims. And you can smoke in the subsidised bar.
On the other hand, you get a massive salary, all expenses paid, and even if you're absolutely terrible at the job you can't be fired for four years.
That this, if you see games as time filler rather than entertainment, and value quantity over quality.
How many of the first 129 attempted flights landed safely?
The rewards being a lower income than Cuba, lower HDI, worse healthcare, worse education, lower literacy, lower life expectancy, horrendous pollution, millions in prison, sweatshop labour etc.
No, the reason the US hates Cuba is because unlike the rest of Latin America, they won't bend over to American imperialism. The US has spent the last half a century overthrowing various democratic governments and replacing them with murdering, right-wing dictators who support American interests. Cuba, right on their doorstep, kicked out the US puppet and American nationalists have been sore ever since.
Where does capitalism survive without a heavily-armed state there to enforce business interests? How would modern Western capitalism ever have evolved without government people coming along and forcing native people off common land at the point of a gun (or spear), to hand it over to the gentry?
Why did America, via the CIA, spend so much money on so many guns to force free-market capitalism on Latin Americans who didn't want it? Why did it need a totalitarian dictator like Batista to enforce the business rights of American corporations and mafias? Why did Pinochet have to torture so many people before they'd agree to the benefit of privatising national resources and handing them over to the rich?
Does the US not have nukes within spitting distance of Cuba?
Where were these teabaggers when the white presidents like Reagan were jacking up the debt?
They came up with the term themselves. They probably didn't even know what it meant. Maybe it's just a delicious convenience.
Don't even get me started on the 'birthers'.
Yet they keep voting for big government. What does that tell you about polls? Funny how they say they want small government now it's a black president spending money on health care for black people, but want a big government when it's a white president spending money on defence contracts for white people.
I'd imagine that many Americans are totally unaware how much they actually depend on the government for damn near everything.
Really? I thought the tea campaigns were a few hundred people blown out of proportion by Fox News.
Except it doesn't. Advertising revenue is spread so thin these days even papers with millions of readers are struggling to keep afloat. At any rate, the biggest sellers are always the shitty tabloids.
God forbid a newspaper use its visibility to highlight injustice. They could have used that space for more stories about celebrities fucking each other.
Your post would be more interesting if you could define 'liberal' and 'centre right'. The NY Times is not left-wing. The Guardian is left-wing. Unless you're using the American definition of 'left' which is basically anyone who objects to bringing back the workhouses. How can a newspaper with such deference to Wall Street and capitalism be left-wing?
In any given election, 99% of Americans vote for candidates who support large government spending on social projects, so I'm not sure how right-wing the population really is. Bear in mind the teabaggers are a very small group of Fox News astroturfers who had no problems with big government when a white president was giving blank cheques to the military.
How many people are in the cantons where many decisions are made? Of course, the minaret ban shows the populist failings of democracy on any scale. On the smallest scale, you have home-owner associations which are utterly horrendous.