I'm not a tax advisor, but I believe you can deduct gambling losses against gambling winnings, now finding recipts for all the rolls of quarters or chips purchased and not sold could be more difficult.
If you didn't pay the taxes on your gambling winnings, than legal should have an asterisk. Just because income isn't reported to the IRS, doesn't mean that you aren't legally supposed to pay the taxes on all income.
Christianity as originally practiced was very communal (which works great in small groups where everyone values the group interest higher than their own self interest but does not work when the group is so large that they shift back to self). In that setting it makes sense that there would be no charges for the use of most productive assets including money. Take an example of your parents letting you live rent free or giving you a down payment loan, why then would it be ok to charge for the use of a home, but not for the money used to buy a home? Is the difference more substantial than just semantics? Christianity has prohibitions on borrowing as well as lending, I find it interesting that I don't recall ever seeing a prohibition on interest in Jewish law, but there is much strong advice not to be a borrower.
Islamic mortgages are structured similar to a rent to own contract. I love discussions of finance and religion, as both are important to me professionally and personally.
Yup, AMTRAK just leases time on them. Passenger rail service makes a ton of sense (and is, surprise, profitable in the North East US). Where it is a very pleasant way to go from Boston to perhaps Richmond and everywhere between. The problem is that since it is a government institution Congress provides rail service from Seattle to Chicago (and similar places) which are a huge sinkhole of money that more than offsets the profitable rail service in the relativly dense locations. It would be better to privatize it and let the unprofitable lines die, but no politician wants to be behind something that would result in job losses in their district, so AMTRAK remains a boondoggle and investments in techonolgy and capital (Accela) that could occur in the i-95 corridor gets shunted to maintaining systems in the Midwest and West where it should never have occured.
Yeah, but the value of the whole thing was almost solely due to the complete ownership of the national local phone loops. The companies you mention were all either ways to extract more value from the loops (lease them equipment to access the loops) or something to do with the money that looks better in the papers than swimming in it Scrooge McDuck style.
That said, the environment is considerably different now, and just as AMTRAK has a monopoly on passenger rail but hemmorages money, I'm not sure that a phone monopoly is worth all that much today.
What if it were $0.50/gigabyte? I'd sign up for that in a heartbeat as I'd save some money. At $3/gig I'd shy away from that plan, but I know plenty of people on broadband who probably would save a substantial amount at $3/gig, and I love 'em because without them I wouldn't get unlimited access (pulling say 30 gigs a month) for $35. I dislike government intrusion especially intrusion to limit the use of private property that favors one group over another. I grant that some regulation is necessary in a field like telecom that has very high network effects.
I brought up housing becuase a portion of the reason housing has risen so rapidly is that it is a highly tax advantaged place to store capital, and most homeowners would be quite upset if the tax advantages were removed. As a partial result of those rules home prices have risen substantially reflecting the advantages (to the point that their price is starting to become a limiting factor on economic activity in many locations). That was an unintended consequence of the rules placed (that are very difficult to remove now). In most cases a rule placed with the best intentions has substantial impacts years down the road, and I fear that most of the time congress does not heed the potential for these impacts until they are living in the midst of them.
What right do we (heavy interent uses) have to expect light users to subsidize our usage? If they can figure out a way to charge commensurate with expensive usage (data or phone services or something else) why shouldn't they? If you aren't a home owner do you like the idea that people who bought million houses get to write off most of the annual operating cost of owning that home (and get no taxes on most of the appreciation)? Thereby shifting more of the burden of the government onto you?
That isn't the game that is addictive, humans are pretty much hardwired to continue activities that grant a random reward. See slot machines for the same principle (there isn't even much fun except the occasional reward).
I believe that since television was used in campaigns the tallest candidate, who has the most hair has won an overwhelming majority of presidential elections. More interestingly, a recent study found that the candidate whose voice timbre changed to match the others in the debates has always lost, it stated that when two people converse one voice almost always changes timbre to match the others.
While I think it has more to do with why each becomes more conservative or liberal (conservatives are generally protecting something they fear losing while liberals are concerned with promoting equality). The cynic in me believes it is because both sides suspect (or perhaps know) that those voters hardest to identify are highly likely to vote Democratic.
It works great until one of your investors gets wise to you intending to fail and they sue you for fraud (that's why the producers needed to produce a bomb so no one would worry about the fact that they failed). You also better get enough that you never have to try it again for life, only the Donald's investors are stupid enough to finance his bankroll twice.
The genius who took home most of the $15 million in salaries (and probably a decent chunk of the consulting fees), but that's just my guess. Without hype, there would not have been any VC money, or secondary money to have paid those $60 million in other expenses. Welcome to the pink sheets and boiler rooms of Wall Street (probably Boca Raton or Brooklyn, actually).
This is exactly what the HardOCP story exposed, and the $25 million payday for the insiders is why they sued to get them to hush up. Since the VCs invested after that story the expose was published, it is always nice to see fools separated from their money (hopefully they will have less foolishness or less money next time).
One of the primary duties of a CEO is lead stock salesman, it can be a tougher sell than some electronics goods, but Wall St and Madison Ave should intersect if the map reflected their operations.
The only factor Greenspan had in most models was "the Greenspan put" which impacted growth only indirectly (because it freed an awful lot of risk capital). Macro forecasts are not worthe the paper they are printed on, my models were designed to interrpet when others were missing things like market share shifts and competitive advantages that were forming or decaying. The economy played a relativly small role in how those dynamics shifted (ie Dell was a better competitor than HP in good times 1998-2000, and bad 2001-2003) but to what extent did investors give Dell too much credit and HP too little credit for their successes and failures. Spotting that early is what most analysts are paid to do.
I think the smartest thing I've ever read about Wal-mart is that they are one of the best global logistics company that happens to have a retail front end. My favorite anecdote about Wal-Mart is that they know that Strawberry poptart sales rise 300% in the days following a hurricane, so when hurricanes headed to the gulf coast, who had truckloads of strawberry poptarts headed to the gulf coast? Walmart. Incidentally, beer and ice sales rose prior to the hurricanes.
I was a traditional 'Wall Street research analyst' (on the buy side) and found this to be the source of several fruitful ideas (MS/DOJ settlement release half a day before everyone else, Apple G5, AMD/Intel competitive dynamics, and the post 9/11 Akamai vs everyone else's news sites report). You might be surprised how valuable some of the info is around here.
Greenspan's genious was not in his handling of the Federal Reserve, he was an expert at utilizing the power he built through control of the FOMC to push politicians into deregulating the national economy. Regardless of your opinion of deregulating the national economy, I think anyone can appreciate the level of genious required for a single person to have such a substantial impact on that many decisions without publicly revealing the level of such influence until they near retirement.
Cocaine, heroin, tobacco, and alcohol are all bad for the user and have impacts on the society at large. However, the fact that they impact society shouldn't be the basis of making them illegal, nor the only consideration, rather the cost of the incremental impact of use should be weighed against the cost of enforcment and would be a better basis to judge their legality. Because of the unique history of prohibition it was highly obvious that the costs of enforcement greatly outweighed the social costs of using alcohol. It would not surprise me if there were additional substances which have higher enforcement than use costs.
Why is it better to have a company that is owned, managed, and manufactures in China than one that is owned and managed in the US but manufactures in China?
The last time an Asian nation was in this position it was 20-25 years ago and it was Japan who had built up amazing trade surpluses and political pressure was pressuring them to raise the value of their currency and writing new anti-dumping laws. However, we prospered through that as they (like the Chinese) spent a large portion of their trade wealth buying vastly overpriced assets in the US (then selling them for huge losses (sometimes nominal other times just real losses) months and years later. Effictivly their years of mercantilism got them ownership of lots of corporations and real estate that proceeded to lose a substantial amount of value after they bought (does the Rockefeller center or Pebble Beach ring any bells). I fail to see how it was bad that they first sold us frequently at or below their costs of production, then they gave us the money back through trading or domestic investments. The more successful companies invested in new production assets (look at the foreign auto plants in the South). How would you classify those in your economics is the new warfare paradigm?
Imports include the value of any good shipped across borders. So when Quanta builds a laptop or rackmont server for HP, the product shipped to the US is added to our bill of imports while the chips fabbed and sold from the US would be exports. If a buyer in Europe buys the laptop it would be an export. Multinationals make import/export calculations considerably more complex, and result in lots of odd partners for mercantilists.
Trading sure, those are most interesting live (that's why traders are so hesitant to give up open outcry trading). But you cannot simulate say bank/interest rate risk managment without a computer model. The stanford bank game (don't let the game fool you it's not something most people would sit down for a few rounds of) is an example of a pretty accurate model of a specialized type of business, yeah some numbers go up and down, but it's multiplayer and competitive even if some of the numbers are semi-random.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not a tax advisor, but I believe you can deduct gambling losses against gambling winnings, now finding recipts for all the rolls of quarters or chips purchased and not sold could be more difficult.
If you didn't pay the taxes on your gambling winnings, than legal should have an asterisk. Just because income isn't reported to the IRS, doesn't mean that you aren't legally supposed to pay the taxes on all income.
Christianity as originally practiced was very communal (which works great in small groups where everyone values the group interest higher than their own self interest but does not work when the group is so large that they shift back to self). In that setting it makes sense that there would be no charges for the use of most productive assets including money. Take an example of your parents letting you live rent free or giving you a down payment loan, why then would it be ok to charge for the use of a home, but not for the money used to buy a home? Is the difference more substantial than just semantics? Christianity has prohibitions on borrowing as well as lending, I find it interesting that I don't recall ever seeing a prohibition on interest in Jewish law, but there is much strong advice not to be a borrower.
Islamic mortgages are structured similar to a rent to own contract. I love discussions of finance and religion, as both are important to me professionally and personally.
Would it change your mind if you were strip searched down each time you left through any but the exit without RFID scanners.
Yup, AMTRAK just leases time on them. Passenger rail service makes a ton of sense (and is, surprise, profitable in the North East US). Where it is a very pleasant way to go from Boston to perhaps Richmond and everywhere between. The problem is that since it is a government institution Congress provides rail service from Seattle to Chicago (and similar places) which are a huge sinkhole of money that more than offsets the profitable rail service in the relativly dense locations. It would be better to privatize it and let the unprofitable lines die, but no politician wants to be behind something that would result in job losses in their district, so AMTRAK remains a boondoggle and investments in techonolgy and capital (Accela) that could occur in the i-95 corridor gets shunted to maintaining systems in the Midwest and West where it should never have occured.
Yeah, but the value of the whole thing was almost solely due to the complete ownership of the national local phone loops. The companies you mention were all either ways to extract more value from the loops (lease them equipment to access the loops) or something to do with the money that looks better in the papers than swimming in it Scrooge McDuck style.
That said, the environment is considerably different now, and just as AMTRAK has a monopoly on passenger rail but hemmorages money, I'm not sure that a phone monopoly is worth all that much today.
What if it were $0.50/gigabyte? I'd sign up for that in a heartbeat as I'd save some money. At $3/gig I'd shy away from that plan, but I know plenty of people on broadband who probably would save a substantial amount at $3/gig, and I love 'em because without them I wouldn't get unlimited access (pulling say 30 gigs a month) for $35. I dislike government intrusion especially intrusion to limit the use of private property that favors one group over another. I grant that some regulation is necessary in a field like telecom that has very high network effects.
I brought up housing becuase a portion of the reason housing has risen so rapidly is that it is a highly tax advantaged place to store capital, and most homeowners would be quite upset if the tax advantages were removed. As a partial result of those rules home prices have risen substantially reflecting the advantages (to the point that their price is starting to become a limiting factor on economic activity in many locations). That was an unintended consequence of the rules placed (that are very difficult to remove now). In most cases a rule placed with the best intentions has substantial impacts years down the road, and I fear that most of the time congress does not heed the potential for these impacts until they are living in the midst of them.
What right do we (heavy interent uses) have to expect light users to subsidize our usage? If they can figure out a way to charge commensurate with expensive usage (data or phone services or something else) why shouldn't they? If you aren't a home owner do you like the idea that people who bought million houses get to write off most of the annual operating cost of owning that home (and get no taxes on most of the appreciation)? Thereby shifting more of the burden of the government onto you?
Or you could enter the modern era and get a TV with a DVI/HDMI input.
That isn't the game that is addictive, humans are pretty much hardwired to continue activities that grant a random reward. See slot machines for the same principle (there isn't even much fun except the occasional reward).
I believe that since television was used in campaigns the tallest candidate, who has the most hair has won an overwhelming majority of presidential elections. More interestingly, a recent study found that the candidate whose voice timbre changed to match the others in the debates has always lost, it stated that when two people converse one voice almost always changes timbre to match the others.
While I think it has more to do with why each becomes more conservative or liberal (conservatives are generally protecting something they fear losing while liberals are concerned with promoting equality). The cynic in me believes it is because both sides suspect (or perhaps know) that those voters hardest to identify are highly likely to vote Democratic.
I'm not sure I care about any new DVD formats, but if ice weasels ever go on sale, I'm picking up a dozen. Neighborhood kids beware!!
It works great until one of your investors gets wise to you intending to fail and they sue you for fraud (that's why the producers needed to produce a bomb so no one would worry about the fact that they failed). You also better get enough that you never have to try it again for life, only the Donald's investors are stupid enough to finance his bankroll twice.
The genius who took home most of the $15 million in salaries (and probably a decent chunk of the consulting fees), but that's just my guess. Without hype, there would not have been any VC money, or secondary money to have paid those $60 million in other expenses. Welcome to the pink sheets and boiler rooms of Wall Street (probably Boca Raton or Brooklyn, actually).
This is exactly what the HardOCP story exposed, and the $25 million payday for the insiders is why they sued to get them to hush up. Since the VCs invested after that story the expose was published, it is always nice to see fools separated from their money (hopefully they will have less foolishness or less money next time).
One of the primary duties of a CEO is lead stock salesman, it can be a tougher sell than some electronics goods, but Wall St and Madison Ave should intersect if the map reflected their operations.
The only factor Greenspan had in most models was "the Greenspan put" which impacted growth only indirectly (because it freed an awful lot of risk capital). Macro forecasts are not worthe the paper they are printed on, my models were designed to interrpet when others were missing things like market share shifts and competitive advantages that were forming or decaying. The economy played a relativly small role in how those dynamics shifted (ie Dell was a better competitor than HP in good times 1998-2000, and bad 2001-2003) but to what extent did investors give Dell too much credit and HP too little credit for their successes and failures. Spotting that early is what most analysts are paid to do.
I think the smartest thing I've ever read about Wal-mart is that they are one of the best global logistics company that happens to have a retail front end. My favorite anecdote about Wal-Mart is that they know that Strawberry poptart sales rise 300% in the days following a hurricane, so when hurricanes headed to the gulf coast, who had truckloads of strawberry poptarts headed to the gulf coast? Walmart. Incidentally, beer and ice sales rose prior to the hurricanes.
I was a traditional 'Wall Street research analyst' (on the buy side) and found this to be the source of several fruitful ideas (MS/DOJ settlement release half a day before everyone else, Apple G5, AMD/Intel competitive dynamics, and the post 9/11 Akamai vs everyone else's news sites report). You might be surprised how valuable some of the info is around here.
Greenspan's genious was not in his handling of the Federal Reserve, he was an expert at utilizing the power he built through control of the FOMC to push politicians into deregulating the national economy. Regardless of your opinion of deregulating the national economy, I think anyone can appreciate the level of genious required for a single person to have such a substantial impact on that many decisions without publicly revealing the level of such influence until they near retirement.
Cocaine, heroin, tobacco, and alcohol are all bad for the user and have impacts on the society at large. However, the fact that they impact society shouldn't be the basis of making them illegal, nor the only consideration, rather the cost of the incremental impact of use should be weighed against the cost of enforcment and would be a better basis to judge their legality. Because of the unique history of prohibition it was highly obvious that the costs of enforcement greatly outweighed the social costs of using alcohol. It would not surprise me if there were additional substances which have higher enforcement than use costs.
Why is it better to have a company that is owned, managed, and manufactures in China than one that is owned and managed in the US but manufactures in China?
The last time an Asian nation was in this position it was 20-25 years ago and it was Japan who had built up amazing trade surpluses and political pressure was pressuring them to raise the value of their currency and writing new anti-dumping laws. However, we prospered through that as they (like the Chinese) spent a large portion of their trade wealth buying vastly overpriced assets in the US (then selling them for huge losses (sometimes nominal other times just real losses) months and years later. Effictivly their years of mercantilism got them ownership of lots of corporations and real estate that proceeded to lose a substantial amount of value after they bought (does the Rockefeller center or Pebble Beach ring any bells). I fail to see how it was bad that they first sold us frequently at or below their costs of production, then they gave us the money back through trading or domestic investments. The more successful companies invested in new production assets (look at the foreign auto plants in the South). How would you classify those in your economics is the new warfare paradigm?
Imports include the value of any good shipped across borders. So when Quanta builds a laptop or rackmont server for HP, the product shipped to the US is added to our bill of imports while the chips fabbed and sold from the US would be exports. If a buyer in Europe buys the laptop it would be an export. Multinationals make import/export calculations considerably more complex, and result in lots of odd partners for mercantilists.
Trading sure, those are most interesting live (that's why traders are so hesitant to give up open outcry trading). But you cannot simulate say bank/interest rate risk managment without a computer model. The stanford bank game (don't let the game fool you it's not something most people would sit down for a few rounds of) is an example of a pretty accurate model of a specialized type of business, yeah some numbers go up and down, but it's multiplayer and competitive even if some of the numbers are semi-random.