If 15 is a 'reasonable' P/E then i'm assuming your shorting QQQ? If not, then maybe its not as reasonable as you think? Put your money where your mouth is.. If you're right, then you'll make a boatload!
There is no equality when you start from an immensely unbalanced power structure.
What about lead shoes for the people who run fast? Ugly masks for beautiful people? Everbody would have to go to a government day care center at birth so that they would all be raised the same and instilled with the same values? Equality for all!
Money is just a way to keep score. The reasons they have the money has nothing to do with the money itself.
He doesn't want references. He wants to believe that only rich people can be rich, cause that gives him an excuse for not having to work hard. He said as much in an earlier post.
Why should he work hard, if there isn't a chance in the world he'll get rich? Which of course dooms him to failure anyway. Sad really.
Why do I complain? Because I'm not here to compete, I dont care about being rich, I'm not interested in working longer hours than everyone else in the world for pride, I do want universal healthcare, I do want more than 50% of highschool students to earn their diploma.
Am I not American? Do you actually believe in freedom of speech?
So you don't want to compete, but you want people who do compete to give you stuff for free?
Freedom of speech has nothing to do with it. Feel free to beg all you want, but just cause you're free to spout out how difficult it is for people who don't want to work, or who aren't born into rich families, dont' expect me to give a shit. Everybody in this country is free to starve, but nobody has to.
And I'll go you one better, I expect 100% of high school diplomas to be earned. If you don't earn it, you shouldn't get it.
Nothing in life is gauranteed, whether you were born poor, rich, or in-between. Life sucks, to varying degrees, but its better than the alternative.
Just a nitpick, but a house IS an asset. It may not be a money-making asset for you, because of the loan (a liability) you have against it, but its still an asset, otherwise you wouldn't be able to borrow money using nothing but it as collateral.
Just because an asset loses money does not mean it ceases to be an asset. Just changes the value equate of owning said asset.
Bezos was a successful investment banker before founding Amazon. He wasn't a billionaire, but he wasn't poor either. And the money you use to buy shares in Amazon.com do not go to Bezos (or even Amazon) they go to OTHER SHAREHOLDERS.
Re:which taxes? Income taxes? Social Security tax?
on
Tech Rich Get Richer
·
· Score: 1
As far as "reeking" of redistribution, what's wrong with that? Aren't we all part of a society? Aren't the strong supposed to help the weak? Shouldn't the lucky help the unlucky? Why shouldn't the rich help the poor?
First of all the "rich" do give to the "poor", otherwise the total charitable contributions in a given period would be zero. What else is a charity than the "haves" giving to the "have nots"?
But where in the government charter is it written that the weak are supposed to confiscate (by force) from the strong? Or the unlucky confiscate (again by force) from the "lucky"?
What appears to someone as "Luck" may sometimes just be good business sense. And what appears to be "unlucky" may just be stupid decisions. And if there isn't consequences to a bad decision and rewards for a good decision, then there isn't a feedback loop, and society loses out overall.
Lets assume you do redistribute all the wealth though. Everybody gets an equal share of everything. Then why would anyone want to work? If get the same slice of the pie whether I work or study hard or make right decisions, or if I don't, whats the difference then? I'll just sit around and drink beer and watch the clouds go by...
Depending on the altitude (in sea level) of the field and the current temperature, it might need closer to a whole mile of relatively flat terrain. 8k ft PA, 30deg C, Max GW, grass field 50 ft obstacle, etc.
Of course on a cold day, near sea level, on a paved surface, with 18kts of headwind and no tall obstacles at the end of the runway (powerlines... *shudder*) one might be able to take off in: (flipping to the performance tables in my C172N POH) 556ft!
Also check out AirNav for information about airfields near you, including FBO's on the field, fuel prices (although typically way out of date), etc.
Dang.. I had paragraph symbols in there, but when I previewed it showed up as two blank lines. Thought that slashdot had gotten all automagical on me and was inserting the paragraph symbols in there for me....
Definitely not working mans wages.
Interesting comment. What do you mean by that? Only people who do low-wage jobs are "working men"? Only people who earn low amounts should be felt sorry for? I have a feeling you mean that anybody in the 50% bracket is so "lucky" that they deserve to be soaked with taxes.
Of course, this would require that corporations start pulling their weight and be subject to this as well.
Except corporations don't pay tax. They just raise prices, or lower wages. So their customers or employees pay the tax.
Every cost that a business has is reflected in the price of their products. Taxes, labor, fuel costs, etc. So basically all your saying by the statement "corporations should pull their weight" is that we the people should pay taxes, just hidden from us, so we don't complain about it to the government
See this paper for some examples.
I'm all for your argument for a flat tax however. And the EIC is a fraud where people think they are paying taxes, but actually get a welfare payment. Just be careful with the class warfare rhetoric.
Accept they were all watched. Investigated, etc. Hell they were practically imprisoned at Los Alamos.
Yes, the US government used foreign scientists in the development of the bomb. But they didn't just hand over the research project to them (and all the funds) without being able to investigate them.
The problem is, not everyone is making more than the minimum wage. The more money people make, the more those people can spend and the stronger our economic cycles will be.
This is an invalid statement. The more money people make (through an artificial minimum set by the government) the more labor costs. The more labor costs, the more things cost (inflation). The more things cost the less likely people can afford to buy things. Increasing the minimum wage DECREASES the amount of things people can buy. Price controls and wage controls just don't work, no matter how many times they are tried or what they are called.
If I'm a business and can "get away with" paying people $5.15 an hour, I might think I'm doing great. But in reality, those people are going to be poor consumers of my products/services. A rising tide lifts all boats.
Under your theory then lets raise the minimum wage to 1 million dollars a year. In that way everybody will be a millionaire. Talk about raising all boats.
Oh wait, but then a value meal at the local McDonald's will cost $480 (1 hour of work at $1mil/year), and then you'll be complaining about inflation eating away at peoples savings.
The cost of goods has to be related to the cost of the labor to produce those goods. If you raise labor costs (by setting an artificial wage floor) you raise the costs of goods created by that labor. Indexing the minimum wage to inflation will cause one of two things: a) runaway inflation or b) labor to move off-shore locations where there aren't minimum wage laws.
So in the effect of trying to do good things and "raising all boats" you've caused everybody to drown. I recommend you read a good book on basic economics theory Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy by Thomas Sowell. It should be required reading to vote in this country.
Its called the United States of America for a reason.
The electoral college was a pragmatic solution for a world where communication was difficult and slow. Since neither of these are the case in 2002 (and havent been since the telegraph was widely used), our system is terribly outdated
That is NOT why the electoral college was instituted. It was so small states like Rhode Island wouldn't have been kicked around by the large states at the time like New York and Virginia.
The whole point of the electoral college is so that candidates have to appeal to a broad range of states. Without the electoral college, candidates for president could basically campaign in NYC, LA, Chicago, etc. The largest population centers. While that might be fine for NYC, LA, and Chicago and other big population cities, its not good for the smaller states.
Without the electoral college, the candidates in the last election wouldn't have visited/campaigned in states like Missouri and Ohio, big battleground states.
Politicians will then have to campaign on issues and performance rather than money and influence
Whos issues? In your scenario its only the big cities issues that will be addressed.
We have one of the best systems of government in the entire history of man, and people keep wanting to fuck with it. Oh I'm sorry "fine-tune".
When something is complicated, 99% of the time thats a sign of corruption.
This is just bullshit....
Weather systems are complicated, yet I don't accuse my weatherman of corruption because it rained when he said it wasn't going to.
Medicine is complicated, but I don't accuse my heart surgeon of corruption because he has to use a bunch of very technical terms to explain how my heart works.
Or are these examples just the 1% your talking about?
Financial results can be complicated too. That doesn't mean that every company that has complicated 10-q's is corrupt. If it were that easy people wouldn't have been hoodwinked
One of life's greatest pleasures is living above your means and getting away with it...
In your own words you left them holding the bag.
And just because you paid more in interest than the original loan amount means nothing. You contracted with the company to pay that interest rate, remember? It was on the agreement form you signed when you got the card. Or did you think those 20% rates didn't apply to you? Or were you to stupid to realize what a 20% interest rate was?
Oh, but some companies can afford to charge only 10-12% ? Mhm... right
And there are some companies that only charge 10-12%, certainly some that do less than 20%. Typically you have to have a good credit rating to get them. Which means they have a lower default ratio.
I think one of the reasons is that as a society we're programmed into thinking what we get is what we can spend. Their paycheck is their allowance.
It seems nobody calculates their net worth Assets-Liabilities
The one caveat I have to your points above. The 400k in debt for the farmer is most certainly ont unsecured debt. So its not really 400k. Its more likely tied to the sizable land they have to farm on. Its not like they have 400k of credit card bills.
I can give one explaination for your "inequity" above. Baby boomers income grew substantially throughout this period, because they were moving into higher paying jobs as they grew older. They represent a large part of the population, a large part of which were college educated.
Most of the time these studies piss me off. Because they don't take age into factor. When you start off in life, you are poor for the most part. As you gain experience and skills and mostly time from savings/investments you enjoy an increase in wealth.
These factors are usually never considered in studies like this. A good book that covers similar issues is: Basic Economics
Then why would I want to start a company under your rules? Irrespective of this specific little asinine rule, the whole concept of you telling me how much I can make would cause me to look elsewhere to keep and run the company. Remember, noone HAS to make Reardon Steel in your neighborhood.
Well, we have free healthcare, free care of children, free culture (museums, art, music, etc), lots of things that cost hardearned bucks in the US
All that free stuff. Except its not free, as you point out.
I'd rather have the moeny and pay for it myself. Why? Because that way I get to choose where it goes. I don't have any kids, so why do I want free care for children? Might like modern art, but couldn't care less about classical concerts. So why should I pay a reduced salary to get all this "free" stuff, that I don't want in the first place?
The only reason its "free" is because you pay for it ahead of time. And if you don't, somebody else does, and your stealing it from them.
Its been outsourced because thats more efficient. If it wasn't, it wouldn't have been outsourced.
Somewhere, somebody did a cost-benifit analysis, and moved it out of the country, or it was moved out of the country for them, when they went out of business.
Oh, but I feel so guilty for defaulting on those nice people commiting usury at 20%. NOT!
The reason its 20% isn't because they are "greedy" its because people default on the debt (like you), and they get stuck holding the bag. They aren't going to give it to you as a charity case, so they charged it to everybody else in the form of a high interest rate. Im sure everybody here thanks you for your contribution to their high credit card interest rate.
But you get to decide how the CEO is selected. You elected the Board of Directors. You invested right? You voted in the shareholders meetings, right?
don't pay that slug 400x more than the front-line employees (the people who actually create value within the company).
But you agreed with that philosophy.. You bought the stock of a company that payed their CEO's 400x the average worker. Or you kept it when they raised his salary to 400x the average worker. So quit your bitchin...
Slashdot Mirror
If 15 is a 'reasonable' P/E then i'm assuming your shorting QQQ? If not, then maybe its not as reasonable as you think? Put your money where your mouth is.. If you're right, then you'll make a boatload!
What about lead shoes for the people who run fast? Ugly masks for beautiful people? Everbody would have to go to a government day care center at birth so that they would all be raised the same and instilled with the same values? Equality for all!
Money is just a way to keep score. The reasons they have the money has nothing to do with the money itself.
Why should he work hard, if there isn't a chance in the world he'll get rich? Which of course dooms him to failure anyway. Sad really.
Am I not American? Do you actually believe in freedom of speech?
So you don't want to compete, but you want people who do compete to give you stuff for free?
Freedom of speech has nothing to do with it. Feel free to beg all you want, but just cause you're free to spout out how difficult it is for people who don't want to work, or who aren't born into rich families, dont' expect me to give a shit. Everybody in this country is free to starve, but nobody has to.
And I'll go you one better, I expect 100% of high school diplomas to be earned. If you don't earn it, you shouldn't get it.
Nothing in life is gauranteed, whether you were born poor, rich, or in-between. Life sucks, to varying degrees, but its better than the alternative.
Just because an asset loses money does not mean it ceases to be an asset. Just changes the value equate of owning said asset.
Bezos was a successful investment banker before founding Amazon. He wasn't a billionaire, but he wasn't poor either. And the money you use to buy shares in Amazon.com do not go to Bezos (or even Amazon) they go to OTHER SHAREHOLDERS.
First of all the "rich" do give to the "poor", otherwise the total charitable contributions in a given period would be zero. What else is a charity than the "haves" giving to the "have nots"?
But where in the government charter is it written that the weak are supposed to confiscate (by force) from the strong? Or the unlucky confiscate (again by force) from the "lucky"?
What appears to someone as "Luck" may sometimes just be good business sense. And what appears to be "unlucky" may just be stupid decisions. And if there isn't consequences to a bad decision and rewards for a good decision, then there isn't a feedback loop, and society loses out overall.
Lets assume you do redistribute all the wealth though. Everybody gets an equal share of everything. Then why would anyone want to work? If get the same slice of the pie whether I work or study hard or make right decisions, or if I don't, whats the difference then? I'll just sit around and drink beer and watch the clouds go by...
Really>? When was the last time Queen Elizabeth issued a governmental decree? Or fired the minister of defence? Or ordered troops to the Falklands?
Of course on a cold day, near sea level, on a paved surface, with 18kts of headwind and no tall obstacles at the end of the runway (powerlines... *shudder*) one might be able to take off in: (flipping to the performance tables in my C172N POH) 556ft!
Also check out AirNav for information about airfields near you, including FBO's on the field, fuel prices (although typically way out of date), etc.
Sorry for the poor formatting.
Definitely not working mans wages. Interesting comment. What do you mean by that? Only people who do low-wage jobs are "working men"? Only people who earn low amounts should be felt sorry for? I have a feeling you mean that anybody in the 50% bracket is so "lucky" that they deserve to be soaked with taxes. Of course, this would require that corporations start pulling their weight and be subject to this as well. Except corporations don't pay tax. They just raise prices, or lower wages. So their customers or employees pay the tax. Every cost that a business has is reflected in the price of their products. Taxes, labor, fuel costs, etc. So basically all your saying by the statement "corporations should pull their weight" is that we the people should pay taxes, just hidden from us, so we don't complain about it to the government See this paper for some examples. I'm all for your argument for a flat tax however. And the EIC is a fraud where people think they are paying taxes, but actually get a welfare payment. Just be careful with the class warfare rhetoric.
Their daily report shows plenty of examples of media bias.
Of course I meant EXCEPT and not ACCEPT. Hit the submit button too quickly.
Yes, the US government used foreign scientists in the development of the bomb. But they didn't just hand over the research project to them (and all the funds) without being able to investigate them.
This is an invalid statement. The more money people make (through an artificial minimum set by the government) the more labor costs. The more labor costs, the more things cost (inflation). The more things cost the less likely people can afford to buy things. Increasing the minimum wage DECREASES the amount of things people can buy. Price controls and wage controls just don't work, no matter how many times they are tried or what they are called.
If I'm a business and can "get away with" paying people $5.15 an hour, I might think I'm doing great. But in reality, those people are going to be poor consumers of my products/services. A rising tide lifts all boats.
Under your theory then lets raise the minimum wage to 1 million dollars a year. In that way everybody will be a millionaire. Talk about raising all boats.
Oh wait, but then a value meal at the local McDonald's will cost $480 (1 hour of work at $1mil/year), and then you'll be complaining about inflation eating away at peoples savings.
The cost of goods has to be related to the cost of the labor to produce those goods. If you raise labor costs (by setting an artificial wage floor) you raise the costs of goods created by that labor. Indexing the minimum wage to inflation will cause one of two things: a) runaway inflation or b) labor to move off-shore locations where there aren't minimum wage laws.
So in the effect of trying to do good things and "raising all boats" you've caused everybody to drown. I recommend you read a good book on basic economics theory Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy by Thomas Sowell. It should be required reading to vote in this country.
The electoral college was a pragmatic solution for a world where communication was difficult and slow. Since neither of these are the case in 2002 (and havent been since the telegraph was widely used), our system is terribly outdated
That is NOT why the electoral college was instituted. It was so small states like Rhode Island wouldn't have been kicked around by the large states at the time like New York and Virginia.
The whole point of the electoral college is so that candidates have to appeal to a broad range of states. Without the electoral college, candidates for president could basically campaign in NYC, LA, Chicago, etc. The largest population centers. While that might be fine for NYC, LA, and Chicago and other big population cities, its not good for the smaller states.
Without the electoral college, the candidates in the last election wouldn't have visited/campaigned in states like Missouri and Ohio, big battleground states.
Politicians will then have to campaign on issues and performance rather than money and influence
Whos issues? In your scenario its only the big cities issues that will be addressed.
We have one of the best systems of government in the entire history of man, and people keep wanting to fuck with it. Oh I'm sorry "fine-tune".
This is just bullshit....
Weather systems are complicated, yet I don't accuse my weatherman of corruption because it rained when he said it wasn't going to.
Medicine is complicated, but I don't accuse my heart surgeon of corruption because he has to use a bunch of very technical terms to explain how my heart works.
Or are these examples just the 1% your talking about?
Financial results can be complicated too. That doesn't mean that every company that has complicated 10-q's is corrupt. If it were that easy people wouldn't have been hoodwinked
In your own words you left them holding the bag.
And just because you paid more in interest than the original loan amount means nothing. You contracted with the company to pay that interest rate, remember? It was on the agreement form you signed when you got the card. Or did you think those 20% rates didn't apply to you? Or were you to stupid to realize what a 20% interest rate was?
Oh, but some companies can afford to charge only 10-12% ? Mhm... right
And there are some companies that only charge 10-12%, certainly some that do less than 20%. Typically you have to have a good credit rating to get them. Which means they have a lower default ratio.
It seems nobody calculates their net worth Assets-Liabilities
The one caveat I have to your points above. The 400k in debt for the farmer is most certainly ont unsecured debt. So its not really 400k. Its more likely tied to the sizable land they have to farm on. Its not like they have 400k of credit card bills.
Most of the time these studies piss me off. Because they don't take age into factor. When you start off in life, you are poor for the most part. As you gain experience and skills and mostly time from savings/investments you enjoy an increase in wealth.
These factors are usually never considered in studies like this. A good book that covers similar issues is: Basic Economics
Just remember the unintended consequences.
All that free stuff. Except its not free, as you point out.
I'd rather have the moeny and pay for it myself. Why? Because that way I get to choose where it goes. I don't have any kids, so why do I want free care for children? Might like modern art, but couldn't care less about classical concerts. So why should I pay a reduced salary to get all this "free" stuff, that I don't want in the first place?
The only reason its "free" is because you pay for it ahead of time. And if you don't, somebody else does, and your stealing it from them.
Somewhere, somebody did a cost-benifit analysis, and moved it out of the country, or it was moved out of the country for them, when they went out of business.
The reason its 20% isn't because they are "greedy" its because people default on the debt (like you), and they get stuck holding the bag. They aren't going to give it to you as a charity case, so they charged it to everybody else in the form of a high interest rate. Im sure everybody here thanks you for your contribution to their high credit card interest rate.
don't pay that slug 400x more than the front-line employees (the people who actually create value within the company).
But you agreed with that philosophy.. You bought the stock of a company that payed their CEO's 400x the average worker. Or you kept it when they raised his salary to 400x the average worker. So quit your bitchin...