I e-mailed my state senator about a year ago regarding the tech tax that the state had just passed. I got a follow up call from the senator himself the following day on my cell phone. What was particularly notable was that the day of the follow up was Thanksgiving. They definitely care when they're contacted, especially about hot-button issues.
That money didn't just go away. It went to extremely rich people.
Not exactly. The money was lent to unqualified borrowers that were unable to pay their mortgages at the behest of the Congressional Black Caucus and the Democrats.
Here are some quotes from the Fannie/Freddie Fraud Investigation in 2004
BAKER (R-LA): It is indeed a very troubling report, but it is a report of extraordinary importance not only to those who wish to own a home, but as to the taxpayers of this country who would pay the cost of the clean up of an enterprise failure.
WATERS (D-CA): Through nearly a dozen hearings where, frankly, we were trying to fix something that wasn't broke, Mr. Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and particularly at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines.
MEEKS (D-NY): As well as the fact that I'm just pissed off at OFHEO, because if it wasn't for you, I don't think that we'd be here in the first place, and now the problem that we have and that we're faced with is: maybe some individuals who wanted to do away with GSEs in the first place, you've given them an excuse to try to have this forum so that we can talk about it and maybe change the, uh, the direction and the mission of what the GSEs had, which they've done a tremendous job. There's been nothing that was indicated that's wrong, you know, with Fannie Mae! Freddie Mac has come up on its own. And the question that then presents is the competence that -- that -- that -- that your agency uh, uh, with reference to, uh, uh, deciding and regulating these GSEs. Uh, and so, uh, I wish I could sit here and say that I'm not upset with you, but I am very upset because, you know, what you do is give -- you know, maybe giving any reason to, as Mr. Gonzales said, to give someone a heart surgery when they really don't need it.
ROYCE (R-CA): In addition to our important oversight role in this committee, I hope that we will move swiftly to create a new regulatory structure for Fannie Mae, for Freddie Mac, and the federal home loan banks.
CLAY (D-MO): This hearing is about the political lynching of Franklin Raines.
FALCON (OFHEO Regular to MEEKS (D-NY)): Sir, Congressman, OFHEO did not improperly apply accounting rules. Freddie Mac did. OFHEO did not fail to manage earnings properly. Freddie Mac did. So this isn't about the agency engaging in improper conduct. It's about Freddie Mac.
SHAYS (R-CT): Fannie Mae has manipulated, in my judgment, OFHEO for years -- and for OFHEO to finally come out with a report as strong as it is, tells me that's got to be the minimum, not the maximum.
FRANK (D-MA):...etcetera. Uh, I -- This -- You -- you -- you seem to me saying, "Well, these are areas which could raise safety and soundness problems." I don't see anything in your report that raises safety and soundness problems.
WATERS (D-CA): Under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines, everything in the 1992 has worked just fine. In fact, the GSEs have exceeded their housing goals. What we need to do today is to focus on the regulator, and this must be done in a manner so as not to impede their affordable housing mission, a mission that has seen innovation flourish from desktop underwriting to 100% loans.
MANZULLO (R-IL): Mr. Raines, 1.1 million bonus and a $526,000 salary. Jamie Gorelick, $779,000 bonus on a salary of 567,000. This is -- what you state on page 11 is nothing less than -- than staggering. The 1998 earnings per share number turned out to be $3.23 and 9.mills, a result that Fannie Mae met the EPS maximum payout goal right down to the penny. Fannie Mae understood the rules and simply chose not to follow them. If Fannie Mae had followed the practices, there wouldn't have been a bonus that year.
One person governed a state with a very low population, a massive influx of money from the oil trade, and the least divisive population in the US. Governorship of Alaska is a sinecure.
The other was on the floor of the most important legislative house in the country, debating affairs which affected the entire nation from mundane budgetary concerns to whether or not we send troops into another nation and kill other human beings.
And managed to a do a fine job of avoiding voting on controversial issues. In an executive position, you can't vote present. You actually have to make a decision. One is a leader, and the other is a follower.
So you actually believe that the cog in the machine (factory worker) created and put in place by the management adds the value to products? If your job is simple enough that it can be performed just as well, if not better, by a robot, then perhaps you add no value.
It's not BULLSHIT. Lets make it a FREE market system and force every citizen to pay the same tax rates. Even the "MORAL" citizens.
Free Market doesn't mean what you think it means.
Then we will see how menial certain jobs are. The fact that we use preferential treatment in our laws to prop up certain citizens does not mean that the janitor has a lower value than the CEO or a writer. Remove the TAX loop holes and lets make a uniform tax system.
But the Janitor does have a lower value than the CEO or the writer. While the CEO or the writer could do the job of the janitor, the janitor couldn't do the job of the CEO or the writer. Both the CEO and the writer have additional natural abilities, training, and experience that the janitor doesn't have, which increases their value. By the way, 80% of all federal income taxes are paid by the top 20% of income earners, so I don't think forcing everyone to pay the same tax rates is what you're actually after. Sounds like you would like to see greater efforts to take from the capable and give to the incapable.
In my experience it is rare that you will find people who achieved their position all by themselves. Most have received a hand here and there. It is easier achieving CEO status when you start off in a well to do family. Just the connections that your family established will help you climb faster.
This same rule applies to the menial tasks. If you are not connected or know influential people you may have the right degrees but may be unable to open the right opportunities. Maybe we should abolish inheritance and place job placement in a lottery.
Or, instead of a lottery, people could work hard, prove their value, and get what they've earned. You aren't entitled to anything, if you want it, work for it. Nobody is going to give it to you. It's entirely possible to make it to the top without coming from a wealthy and powerful family, and to suggest otherwise besmirches those who have.
Ever heard of Andrew Carnegie? What about John D. Rockefeller? Surely you must have heard of Bill Clinton, or Larry Ellison, or Ralph Lauren. All those people have something in common, none of them came from wealthy "well to do families", yet they all made it to the top without winning a communist job lottery.
The value of a society is in how it treats it's citizens. The idea that a person's EMPLOYMENT designates their worth is a repulsive idea to me. Unfortunately that is the direction we are headed and why we value a CEO more that the teacher who instructed the CEO. That is why we have an ACTOR of a governor signing a law that discriminates against IT (creators of p2p, mp3 DeCSS) Payback? Why just IT and not ALL overtime? Why not just abolish overtime pay?/RANT
So how should people be valued then, if not by how they occupy their time, their achievements, and what they accomplish? I know that the idea of having to work to achieve success sounds totally unfair to you, and you would much rather have someone gift wrap it and hand it to you, but there are some crazy people out there that actually think you should have to work to be successful. I think you're probably right though, about the actors conspiracy to retaliate against IT (creators of p2p, mp3, DeCSS). It couldn't possibly have had anything to do with the people that had been suing their employers for not paying overtime, knowing full well they weren't going to be paid overtime when they took the position. And the reason that the CEO is more valuable that the teacher, is that the CEO is able to collect information from a variety of teachers, then apply that information to real-world problems, whereas the teacher only regurgitates the information in the halls of academia.
Bullshit. You can't pay people that perform menial tasks non-menial wages simply because they should be able to live the lifestyle that you think they should be able to live. Arbitrarily attempting to raise the cost of labor will lead to automation and outsourcing. It's not like the factory that you're describing is unable to attract staff, people are willing to work for those wages.
To take this a bit further, I was working with a financial services company, and for years the staff was allowed to listen to internet radio at their desks, which virtually everyone did. Recently, their partner company was taken over my a much larger organization, that filtered out the internet radio as well as many other "time wasters" with their web filtering.
Not only did this filtering interfere with getting actual work done (e.g. couldn't access some websites that could provide valuable information), they found that at the end of the quarter productivity had dropped a full 15%. The internet radio helped prevent the mental fatigue associated with performing mentally taxing tasks all day. Sometimes people need a context switch to stay productive.
People have always found ways to waste time at work, and that's not going to change any time soon. Trying to make it stop will only breed resentment, lower employee morale, and reduce productivity. I frequently take short work breaks to work on personal stuff, especially when I am trying to think through a problem.
Perhaps Halo Wars isn't living up to the hype and expectations and Microsoft is looking to cut there losses. On the other hand, the AoE series was always excellent, so that would be pretty surprising.
Your primary concern should probably be tin poisoning given the composition and extreme size of your helmet. Do you really believe that you're interesting or special enough for anybody to care about?
You don't seem to understand how much R&D can actually cost. Say goodbye to drug development if 100% of the cost recovery must occur within 3-6 months. Pricey innovation is impossible without the ability to achieve ROI.
There is zero incentive to perform complex R&D if your competition can skip the R&D and directly copy and sell your product. In that case, "the market, paying users, that rewards innovation" will choose the product without the bundled R&D costs. You have an incomplete understanding of economics if you truly believe otherwise.
NiMH batteries are going to be used in the 08 Chevy Malibu Hybrid. In fact, Cobasys has a large contract with GM*.
*Energy companies want to make money, they don't give two shits how. You don't make money selling expensive large format batteries one at a time, you make money selling in bulk.
Slashdot Mirror
I e-mailed my state senator about a year ago regarding the tech tax that the state had just passed. I got a follow up call from the senator himself the following day on my cell phone. What was particularly notable was that the day of the follow up was Thanksgiving. They definitely care when they're contacted, especially about hot-button issues.
So $700 Billion on black then?
That money didn't just go away. It went to extremely rich people.
Not exactly. The money was lent to unqualified borrowers that were unable to pay their mortgages at the behest of the Congressional Black Caucus and the Democrats.
Here are some quotes from the Fannie/Freddie Fraud Investigation in 2004
BAKER (R-LA): It is indeed a very troubling report, but it is a report of extraordinary importance not only to those who wish to own a home, but as to the taxpayers of this country who would pay the cost of the clean up of an enterprise failure.
WATERS (D-CA): Through nearly a dozen hearings where, frankly, we were trying to fix something that wasn't broke, Mr. Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and particularly at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines.
MEEKS (D-NY): As well as the fact that I'm just pissed off at OFHEO, because if it wasn't for you, I don't think that we'd be here in the first place, and now the problem that we have and that we're faced with is: maybe some individuals who wanted to do away with GSEs in the first place, you've given them an excuse to try to have this forum so that we can talk about it and maybe change the, uh, the direction and the mission of what the GSEs had, which they've done a tremendous job. There's been nothing that was indicated that's wrong, you know, with Fannie Mae! Freddie Mac has come up on its own. And the question that then presents is the competence that -- that -- that -- that your agency uh, uh, with reference to, uh, uh, deciding and regulating these GSEs. Uh, and so, uh, I wish I could sit here and say that I'm not upset with you, but I am very upset because, you know, what you do is give -- you know, maybe giving any reason to, as Mr. Gonzales said, to give someone a heart surgery when they really don't need it.
ROYCE (R-CA): In addition to our important oversight role in this committee, I hope that we will move swiftly to create a new regulatory structure for Fannie Mae, for Freddie Mac, and the federal home loan banks.
CLAY (D-MO): This hearing is about the political lynching of Franklin Raines.
FALCON (OFHEO Regular to MEEKS (D-NY)): Sir, Congressman, OFHEO did not improperly apply accounting rules. Freddie Mac did. OFHEO did not fail to manage earnings properly. Freddie Mac did. So this isn't about the agency engaging in improper conduct. It's about Freddie Mac.
SHAYS (R-CT): Fannie Mae has manipulated, in my judgment, OFHEO for years -- and for OFHEO to finally come out with a report as strong as it is, tells me that's got to be the minimum, not the maximum.
FRANK (D-MA): ...etcetera. Uh, I -- This -- You -- you -- you seem to me saying, "Well, these are areas which could raise safety and soundness problems." I don't see anything in your report that raises safety and soundness problems.
WATERS (D-CA): Under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines, everything in the 1992 has worked just fine. In fact, the GSEs have exceeded their housing goals. What we need to do today is to focus on the regulator, and this must be done in a manner so as not to impede their affordable housing mission, a mission that has seen innovation flourish from desktop underwriting to 100% loans.
MANZULLO (R-IL): Mr. Raines, 1.1 million bonus and a $526,000 salary. Jamie Gorelick, $779,000 bonus on a salary of 567,000. This is -- what you state on page 11 is nothing less than -- than staggering. The 1998 earnings per share number turned out to be $3.23 and 9.mills, a result that Fannie Mae met the EPS maximum payout goal right down to the penny. Fannie Mae understood the rules and simply chose not to follow them. If Fannie Mae had followed the practices, there wouldn't have been a bonus that year.
RAINES: Because
wow, how subjective and wrong.
Governor Senator.
One person governed a state with a very low population, a massive influx of money from the oil trade, and the least divisive population in the US. Governorship of Alaska is a sinecure.
The other was on the floor of the most important legislative house in the country, debating affairs which affected the entire nation from mundane budgetary concerns to whether or not we send troops into another nation and kill other human beings.
And managed to a do a fine job of avoiding voting on controversial issues. In an executive position, you can't vote present. You actually have to make a decision. One is a leader, and the other is a follower.
Mayor > "Community Organizer"
Governor > Senator
McCain's Experience >>> Obama's Experience
You are voting for a candidate that has less executive experience than Sarah Palin. Just sayin'
So you actually believe that the cog in the machine (factory worker) created and put in place by the management adds the value to products? If your job is simple enough that it can be performed just as well, if not better, by a robot, then perhaps you add no value.
It's not BULLSHIT. Lets make it a FREE market system and force every citizen to pay the same tax rates. Even the "MORAL" citizens.
Free Market doesn't mean what you think it means.
Then we will see how menial certain jobs are. The fact that we use preferential treatment in our laws to prop up certain citizens does not mean that the janitor has a lower value than the CEO or a writer. Remove the TAX loop holes and lets make a uniform tax system.
But the Janitor does have a lower value than the CEO or the writer. While the CEO or the writer could do the job of the janitor, the janitor couldn't do the job of the CEO or the writer. Both the CEO and the writer have additional natural abilities, training, and experience that the janitor doesn't have, which increases their value. By the way, 80% of all federal income taxes are paid by the top 20% of income earners, so I don't think forcing everyone to pay the same tax rates is what you're actually after. Sounds like you would like to see greater efforts to take from the capable and give to the incapable.
In my experience it is rare that you will find people who achieved their position all by themselves. Most have received a hand here and there. It is easier achieving CEO status when you start off in a well to do family. Just the connections that your family established will help you climb faster.
This same rule applies to the menial tasks. If you are not connected or know influential people you may have the right degrees but may be unable to open the right opportunities. Maybe we should abolish inheritance and place job placement in a lottery.
Or, instead of a lottery, people could work hard, prove their value, and get what they've earned. You aren't entitled to anything, if you want it, work for it. Nobody is going to give it to you. It's entirely possible to make it to the top without coming from a wealthy and powerful family, and to suggest otherwise besmirches those who have.
Ever heard of Andrew Carnegie? What about John D. Rockefeller? Surely you must have heard of Bill Clinton, or Larry Ellison, or Ralph Lauren. All those people have something in common, none of them came from wealthy "well to do families", yet they all made it to the top without winning a communist job lottery.
The value of a society is in how it treats it's citizens. The idea that a person's EMPLOYMENT designates their worth is a repulsive idea to me. Unfortunately that is the direction we are headed and why we value a CEO more that the teacher who instructed the CEO. That is why we have an ACTOR of a governor signing a law that discriminates against IT (creators of p2p, mp3 DeCSS) Payback? Why just IT and not ALL overtime? Why not just abolish overtime pay? /RANT
So how should people be valued then, if not by how they occupy their time, their achievements, and what they accomplish? I know that the idea of having to work to achieve success sounds totally unfair to you, and you would much rather have someone gift wrap it and hand it to you, but there are some crazy people out there that actually think you should have to work to be successful. I think you're probably right though, about the actors conspiracy to retaliate against IT (creators of p2p, mp3, DeCSS). It couldn't possibly have had anything to do with the people that had been suing their employers for not paying overtime, knowing full well they weren't going to be paid overtime when they took the position. And the reason that the CEO is more valuable that the teacher, is that the CEO is able to collect information from a variety of teachers, then apply that information to real-world problems, whereas the teacher only regurgitates the information in the halls of academia.
Bullshit. You can't pay people that perform menial tasks non-menial wages simply because they should be able to live the lifestyle that you think they should be able to live. Arbitrarily attempting to raise the cost of labor will lead to automation and outsourcing. It's not like the factory that you're describing is unable to attract staff, people are willing to work for those wages.
To take this a bit further, I was working with a financial services company, and for years the staff was allowed to listen to internet radio at their desks, which virtually everyone did. Recently, their partner company was taken over my a much larger organization, that filtered out the internet radio as well as many other "time wasters" with their web filtering.
Not only did this filtering interfere with getting actual work done (e.g. couldn't access some websites that could provide valuable information), they found that at the end of the quarter productivity had dropped a full 15%. The internet radio helped prevent the mental fatigue associated with performing mentally taxing tasks all day. Sometimes people need a context switch to stay productive.
People have always found ways to waste time at work, and that's not going to change any time soon. Trying to make it stop will only breed resentment, lower employee morale, and reduce productivity. I frequently take short work breaks to work on personal stuff, especially when I am trying to think through a problem.
Microsoft owned Bungie before Halo 1 was released.
Perhaps Halo Wars isn't living up to the hype and expectations and Microsoft is looking to cut there losses. On the other hand, the AoE series was always excellent, so that would be pretty surprising.
With your logic anyone that runs for the presidency, by default, has adequate executive experience since they have to be involved in a campaign.
Fuck you.
If you want to talk about experience, keep in mind Obama's total lack of executive experience.
You honestly believe Democrats are more conservative than Republicans?
It would be hard to sweep a 30-ton transformer under a rug, unless there is a black hole under said rug.
Your primary concern should probably be tin poisoning given the composition and extreme size of your helmet. Do you really believe that you're interesting or special enough for anybody to care about?
You don't seem to understand how much R&D can actually cost. Say goodbye to drug development if 100% of the cost recovery must occur within 3-6 months. Pricey innovation is impossible without the ability to achieve ROI.
There is zero incentive to perform complex R&D if your competition can skip the R&D and directly copy and sell your product. In that case, "the market, paying users, that rewards innovation" will choose the product without the bundled R&D costs. You have an incomplete understanding of economics if you truly believe otherwise.
Please refrain from commenting on things that you don't understand.
The inability to profit from innovation will certainly result in further innovation. Brilliant.
The environment is only an issue on the radar of fringe groups. And you can't disqualify candidates just because you don't agree with them.
You're grasping at straws son.
NiMH batteries are going to be used in the 08 Chevy Malibu Hybrid. In fact, Cobasys has a large contract with GM*.
*Energy companies want to make money, they don't give two shits how. You don't make money selling expensive large format batteries one at a time, you make money selling in bulk.