You're probably a too smart for the rest of us figuring out these conspiracies of political power.
It always puzzles me when people refuse to see an obvious thing. Is it a medical condition you have?
Which is this 'politically powerful group' that you're talking about, that has such deep roots just about everywhere where Uber is having legal problems?
Taxi companies, investors who own medallions, labor unions, etc.
No, they are reporting that the Soylent stuff has concentrations of certain heavy metals above a certain threshold. They aren't reporting on the regulation itself.
Trump is also the most likely of the candidates to start World War III.
I'd say he's probably middle of the pack actually. I'm most concerned about reactive rather than proactive war makers. They're the ones most likely to involve the US in losing wars which are the costliest of wars by handing initiative to would be foes and reacting weakly, if at all, to provocation and strategic imbalance.
In the 1930s in California, the term (often used in contempt) came to refer to very poor migrants from Oklahoma (and nearby states). The Dust Bowl, and the "Okie" migration of the 1930s brought in over a million newly displaced people; many headed to the farm labor jobs advertised in California's Central Valley.
This section is unreferenced as well. Moving on, I since found a rival article which states the following while discussing "Steinbeck's myth":
It should be emphasized, however, that the received story of the great Okie Exodus was not entirely an invention. Instead of Steinbeckâ(TM)s 300,000, there were actually about 90,000 agricultural workers fitting the Okie category who migrated to and settled in Californian farming valleys in the 1930s.
There would have been other immigrants, working outside of the agricultural sector, but it does indicate the level was substantially less than a million people over this time span.
Further, most of the US Midwest wasn't actually affected directly by the dust storms. I gather the Dust Bowl was on the western side of the US Midwest while most of the immigrants to California would have been from outside that region.
Private sector money creation is occurring at the rate of $30 trillion per year
No, the report in question refers to capital not money. The huge distinction is that most capital is not liquid (meaning among other things, low velocity of money for trade in that capital) nor easy to transport and hence, can't be used in the sense of money.
Total world capital is approaching $1 quadrillion, exceeding world GDP by at least an order of magnitude. Where's the devaluation? The dollar is getting stronger.
And next year, it might be worth a tenth that. Valuation of capital is very treacherous both because it depend in huge degree on what other people will pay for it and second, because most such capital would not retain its nominal value where someone to try to sell the entire asset as a whole. A classic example is a high tech company which has a high valuation, but only a small fraction of the company's stock is actually for sale. Hence, an artificially high valuable can be maintained merely because there isn't much to pump up.
Your quantity theory of money has very serious empirical problems.
My argument had nothing to do with that. Instead, it's strictly about using the right tool for the right job. A desalination plant, which incidentally would be considered capital (and hence, "money" by your ludicrously broad meaning even though no one will ever trade anything, including desalination plants, in units of desalination plants), is an appropriate tool for delivering water to a population. True money is not. Same goes for your assertion that "knowledge" is somehow lacking here. More money won't help any more than more cheerleaders or more paperclips will help.
Sometimes you quantity theorists like to cite "velocity of money" as the reason we haven't seen the predicted rise in inflation.
Which is a true observation and not just something that "quantity theorists" like to "cite". It's also worth noting that money creation is not as large as you cite.
Private sector money turns over a lot. Banks are constantly lending and borrowing in the Fed Funds and Repo markets, putting off final settlement for another day. Money created by the private sector does not simply sit in bank accounts; it is turning over, daily. So you can't use Velocity of money as an excuse why your Quantity Theory of Money fails to predict.
Just because I wake up every morning doesn't mean that I'm equally active the rest of the day. And not all turnover is equal. For example, constant lending and borrowing in Fed markets doesn't matter much, if you're not in those markets.
What of it? The people profiting most from any business venture aren't the ones that do the grunt work. Shall we do as Marx proposed and pay only the laborers?
The previous AC claimed the taxi business was competitive beyond my imagination while completely ignoring that a significant and politically powerful group was both making the profit and not experiencing the competition.
And what is this bizarre insistence on including Marx in the discussion? While I'm aware that grunt work just isn't that valuable, I'm also aware that neither is rent seeking established via politics. You also seem unaware of the point of libertarianism which traditionally has opposed the sort of government favoritism and corruption that goes into taxi regulation.
It shows that you are a stupid hypocritical idiot troll. You root for rent-seeking when you like the rent-seeker, and accuse third parties of 'rent-seeking' when you have a grudge against them for whatever reason.
Rent seekers can be preyed on by other rent seekers. I already addressed this concern with the observation that it was an example which applied no matter how impure Tesla happens to be. It was not meant to be philosophically perfect.
There's a reason for your hate of taxis. Did you get busted while doing the scenic drive, and weren't able to find a better job since? It seems so.
I already explained why. You don't need to embarrass yourself with incompetently applied amateur psychology.
Nope, money creation takes it out of the hands (or devalues the hands) of the rich - those that need, and use money effectively, the least.
"Need" doesn't mean "use money effectively". The two tend to be inverse correlations IMHO with people who need money the most being ones who use it remarkably ineffectively.
I repeat: the real shortage in California is knowledge.
You can't learn money either. Money creation just devalues money that is already in use in exchange for concentrating wealth in the hands of some of the most notably incompetent and corrupt organizations of our day. I'm not just not feeling it.
At most this exodus was numbered in the thousands, not millions or anything.
According to Wikipedia, it was over a million people moving to California alone from the US Midwest. Overall emigration from Oklahoma and neighboring states to regions outside the area, mostly to the western US, was around four million people.
Ignoring the multiple penalties and bans that Uber is on the receiving end of in the US and worldwide because they believe laws don't apply to 'online services'
No, it's because taxi companies can buy political influence. When rent seekers protect their turf, you see this. The same thing is going on with Tesla Motors trying to sell cars direct. They're received multiple bans as well.
Keep denying the facts. That's what you idiots are best at.
You need a fact first. It's worth noting, again, that most of your accusations aren't crimes in the first place (such as the empty accusations about not paying taxes which aren't owed) and the rest require a very aggressive interpretation of the law (such as accusing Uber of running an illegal taxi or public transportation service while ignoring that Uber doesn't actually provide the service in question).
Even you know that's bullshit. But you won't give up pretending it isn't, because you're an idiot.
Then where's the crime?
Of course. Changing a law is work. Idiots don't like it, they prefer breaking the 'unjust and tyrannical laws' instead. And then they are angry when they are dealt with according to the law. That's why they are idiots.
But just because a random idiot like yourself doesn't understand the concept of law doesn't mean much to the normal people. You're like the loon from the old joke, who's driving in the wrong lane and complaining that everyone else is in violation. That is, you're an idiot.
The thing is here, you're hiding behind the law as you think it happens to be because you think it serves your argument of the moment. When authorities seize your home just because a tenant was selling small amounts of drugs, I'm confident you'll continue to lecture us on the sanctity of law.
There has to be a remedy to bad law aside from the possibility of reversing it at some point in the distant future. Uber's way is particularly parsimonious, by merely rendering the corrupt business model obsolete. I think that's why there are so many attacks on Uber these days. But it's like the *IAA business model, if you need the law to be screwed up to protect your business model, then you should be out of business.
Shops on the high street cost a lot to buy as well, is that because they are venal and corrupt?
How many shops can you squeeze into a street? They're expensive just like medallions are expensive because they are scarce. The difference is that these shops are expensive because a natural resource is expensive. Medallions are expensive because a local government is deliberately restricting supply. That is inherently a corrupt action since the government is acting to benefit a small group, medallion owners, at the expense of everyone else who might use a taxi.
Uber shirks from paying licenses and taxes they owe, which is a crime just about everywhere they operate.
Except that's not illegal anywhere. Tax evasion is illegal by definition. Tax avoidance - which almost everyone does - isn't.
Yes. You want to change the law? Everywhere Uber operates, there's a proper procedure to do that. Until the law is changed, you are no different than everyone else, and must obey it and not complain when you're facing the consequences, one of which is being called out on your illegal behavior.
Or we could just completely ignore your idiocy here. It's worth noting that what Uber does isn't actually illegal. It's grandstanding by a vast array of special interests and the politicians they bought.
And widespread lawbreaking is indeed one way to overturn bad law. Let us keep in mind that there is plenty of evidence that laws don't magically change just because I want them to. For example, the US War on Drugs is in the process of dissolving, but it's taking a very long time. Meanwhile we still have outrageous abuses like seizure of property in the complete absence of a crime.
If that's taking so long to change, how long is it going to take taxis to change? Probably longer than I'll be alive. Uber shortcuts that process by destroying the corrupt business model outright.
Proof all laws you dislike are 'unjust, foolish or tyrannical' or STFU, you 'libertarian' idiot.
Laws that advantage an elite such as taxi medallion owners (many whom otherwise have nothing to do with taxis) are inherently unjust, foolish, and tyrannical.
Read up on it. We have such things as a significant fraction of such things owned by people who don't run taxis and don't even live in the cities in question. Sometimes the medallions are so expensive that a cabbie can barely afford to rent one.
The previous poster's use of the word "precedent" doesn't mean what you think it means. Being the very first person to use executive orders ever is not the only novel use of executive orders possible.
Here, Obama has both been issuing a lot of executive memorandum in a way that is normally reserved for executive orders, but also using both orders and memorandum to aggressively effect new laws and regulations in a way that is normally the purview of Congress. And Congress has not acted to curb these transgressions. As the previous poster noted, what happens when someone you don't like gets in and starts abusing those new powers? The US just gave them a head start.
"I just know she has classified email on that server" or Trey Gowdy saying "I feel like someone may have sent here a TS email."
Here, the facts came out and she did have classified email (classified at the time the email was sent), including top secret material, on that server. The hunches turned out to be right. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Rule of law and sustainable government fiscal practices should be one of those things that a lot of people, including the ultra-rich should have common interest on.
Slashdot Mirror
You're probably a too smart for the rest of us figuring out these conspiracies of political power.
It always puzzles me when people refuse to see an obvious thing. Is it a medical condition you have?
Which is this 'politically powerful group' that you're talking about, that has such deep roots just about everywhere where Uber is having legal problems?
Taxi companies, investors who own medallions, labor unions, etc.
No, they are reporting that the Soylent stuff has concentrations of certain heavy metals above a certain threshold. They aren't reporting on the regulation itself.
Trump is also the most likely of the candidates to start World War III.
I'd say he's probably middle of the pack actually. I'm most concerned about reactive rather than proactive war makers. They're the ones most likely to involve the US in losing wars which are the costliest of wars by handing initiative to would be foes and reacting weakly, if at all, to provocation and strategic imbalance.
In the 1930s in California, the term (often used in contempt) came to refer to very poor migrants from Oklahoma (and nearby states). The Dust Bowl, and the "Okie" migration of the 1930s brought in over a million newly displaced people; many headed to the farm labor jobs advertised in California's Central Valley.
This section is unreferenced as well. Moving on, I since found a rival article which states the following while discussing "Steinbeck's myth":
It should be emphasized, however, that the received story of the great Okie Exodus was not entirely an invention. Instead of Steinbeckâ(TM)s 300,000, there were actually about 90,000 agricultural workers fitting the Okie category who migrated to and settled in Californian farming valleys in the 1930s.
There would have been other immigrants, working outside of the agricultural sector, but it does indicate the level was substantially less than a million people over this time span.
Further, most of the US Midwest wasn't actually affected directly by the dust storms. I gather the Dust Bowl was on the western side of the US Midwest while most of the immigrants to California would have been from outside that region.
Private sector money creation is occurring at the rate of $30 trillion per year
No, the report in question refers to capital not money. The huge distinction is that most capital is not liquid (meaning among other things, low velocity of money for trade in that capital) nor easy to transport and hence, can't be used in the sense of money.
Total world capital is approaching $1 quadrillion, exceeding world GDP by at least an order of magnitude. Where's the devaluation? The dollar is getting stronger.
And next year, it might be worth a tenth that. Valuation of capital is very treacherous both because it depend in huge degree on what other people will pay for it and second, because most such capital would not retain its nominal value where someone to try to sell the entire asset as a whole. A classic example is a high tech company which has a high valuation, but only a small fraction of the company's stock is actually for sale. Hence, an artificially high valuable can be maintained merely because there isn't much to pump up.
Your quantity theory of money has very serious empirical problems.
My argument had nothing to do with that. Instead, it's strictly about using the right tool for the right job. A desalination plant, which incidentally would be considered capital (and hence, "money" by your ludicrously broad meaning even though no one will ever trade anything, including desalination plants, in units of desalination plants), is an appropriate tool for delivering water to a population. True money is not. Same goes for your assertion that "knowledge" is somehow lacking here. More money won't help any more than more cheerleaders or more paperclips will help.
Sometimes you quantity theorists like to cite "velocity of money" as the reason we haven't seen the predicted rise in inflation.
Which is a true observation and not just something that "quantity theorists" like to "cite". It's also worth noting that money creation is not as large as you cite.
Private sector money turns over a lot. Banks are constantly lending and borrowing in the Fed Funds and Repo markets, putting off final settlement for another day. Money created by the private sector does not simply sit in bank accounts; it is turning over, daily. So you can't use Velocity of money as an excuse why your Quantity Theory of Money fails to predict.
Just because I wake up every morning doesn't mean that I'm equally active the rest of the day. And not all turnover is equal. For example, constant lending and borrowing in Fed markets doesn't matter much, if you're not in those markets.
What of it? The people profiting most from any business venture aren't the ones that do the grunt work. Shall we do as Marx proposed and pay only the laborers?
The previous AC claimed the taxi business was competitive beyond my imagination while completely ignoring that a significant and politically powerful group was both making the profit and not experiencing the competition.
And what is this bizarre insistence on including Marx in the discussion? While I'm aware that grunt work just isn't that valuable, I'm also aware that neither is rent seeking established via politics. You also seem unaware of the point of libertarianism which traditionally has opposed the sort of government favoritism and corruption that goes into taxi regulation.
It shows that you are a stupid hypocritical idiot troll. You root for rent-seeking when you like the rent-seeker, and accuse third parties of 'rent-seeking' when you have a grudge against them for whatever reason.
Rent seekers can be preyed on by other rent seekers. I already addressed this concern with the observation that it was an example which applied no matter how impure Tesla happens to be. It was not meant to be philosophically perfect.
There's a reason for your hate of taxis. Did you get busted while doing the scenic drive, and weren't able to find a better job since? It seems so.
I already explained why. You don't need to embarrass yourself with incompetently applied amateur psychology.
Nope, money creation takes it out of the hands (or devalues the hands) of the rich - those that need, and use money effectively, the least.
"Need" doesn't mean "use money effectively". The two tend to be inverse correlations IMHO with people who need money the most being ones who use it remarkably ineffectively.
approximately 3.5 million people moved out of the Plains states
There you go.
I repeat: the real shortage in California is knowledge.
You can't learn money either. Money creation just devalues money that is already in use in exchange for concentrating wealth in the hands of some of the most notably incompetent and corrupt organizations of our day. I'm not just not feeling it.
What would be the point? You can't drink money.
At most this exodus was numbered in the thousands, not millions or anything.
According to Wikipedia, it was over a million people moving to California alone from the US Midwest. Overall emigration from Oklahoma and neighboring states to regions outside the area, mostly to the western US, was around four million people.
You obviously have no idea how competitive the taxi business is and how thin the margins.
I already explained that. The people profiting the most off the taxi business don't drive taxis.
Tesla Motors is the proverbial product of rent-seeking and government subsidies.
Doesn't matter, my observation is still true.
Ignoring the multiple penalties and bans that Uber is on the receiving end of in the US and worldwide because they believe laws don't apply to 'online services'
No, it's because taxi companies can buy political influence. When rent seekers protect their turf, you see this. The same thing is going on with Tesla Motors trying to sell cars direct. They're received multiple bans as well.
Medallions are one proxy for the desired number of taxis on the street.
And genocides are one proxy for the desired number of people I don't like. Let's get a better proxy, or even none at all.
Keep denying the facts. That's what you idiots are best at.
You need a fact first. It's worth noting, again, that most of your accusations aren't crimes in the first place (such as the empty accusations about not paying taxes which aren't owed) and the rest require a very aggressive interpretation of the law (such as accusing Uber of running an illegal taxi or public transportation service while ignoring that Uber doesn't actually provide the service in question).
Even you know that's bullshit. But you won't give up pretending it isn't, because you're an idiot.
Then where's the crime?
Of course. Changing a law is work. Idiots don't like it, they prefer breaking the 'unjust and tyrannical laws' instead. And then they are angry when they are dealt with according to the law. That's why they are idiots.
But just because a random idiot like yourself doesn't understand the concept of law doesn't mean much to the normal people. You're like the loon from the old joke, who's driving in the wrong lane and complaining that everyone else is in violation. That is, you're an idiot.
The thing is here, you're hiding behind the law as you think it happens to be because you think it serves your argument of the moment. When authorities seize your home just because a tenant was selling small amounts of drugs, I'm confident you'll continue to lecture us on the sanctity of law.
There has to be a remedy to bad law aside from the possibility of reversing it at some point in the distant future. Uber's way is particularly parsimonious, by merely rendering the corrupt business model obsolete. I think that's why there are so many attacks on Uber these days. But it's like the *IAA business model, if you need the law to be screwed up to protect your business model, then you should be out of business.
You have something useful to say or are you just an idiot?
The water is nowhere near boiling temperature, so evaporation cannot happen due to heat.
Then care to explain how evaporation can happen in the dark?
Alfalfa also gets fed to plants. It's probably the biggest source of nitrogen fixing in soil after methane gas (converted to ammonia).
Shops on the high street cost a lot to buy as well, is that because they are venal and corrupt?
How many shops can you squeeze into a street? They're expensive just like medallions are expensive because they are scarce. The difference is that these shops are expensive because a natural resource is expensive. Medallions are expensive because a local government is deliberately restricting supply. That is inherently a corrupt action since the government is acting to benefit a small group, medallion owners, at the expense of everyone else who might use a taxi.
"Corporations are people, my friend," Romney said.
Some people in the front of the audience shouted, "No, theyâ(TM)re not!"
"Of course they are," Romney said. "Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to people. Where do you think it goes?"
He was making the obvious point that corporations are constituted of people and work for the benefit of people.
Uber shirks from paying licenses and taxes they owe, which is a crime just about everywhere they operate.
Except that's not illegal anywhere. Tax evasion is illegal by definition. Tax avoidance - which almost everyone does - isn't.
Yes. You want to change the law? Everywhere Uber operates, there's a proper procedure to do that. Until the law is changed, you are no different than everyone else, and must obey it and not complain when you're facing the consequences, one of which is being called out on your illegal behavior.
Or we could just completely ignore your idiocy here. It's worth noting that what Uber does isn't actually illegal. It's grandstanding by a vast array of special interests and the politicians they bought.
And widespread lawbreaking is indeed one way to overturn bad law. Let us keep in mind that there is plenty of evidence that laws don't magically change just because I want them to. For example, the US War on Drugs is in the process of dissolving, but it's taking a very long time. Meanwhile we still have outrageous abuses like seizure of property in the complete absence of a crime.
If that's taking so long to change, how long is it going to take taxis to change? Probably longer than I'll be alive. Uber shortcuts that process by destroying the corrupt business model outright.
Proof all laws you dislike are 'unjust, foolish or tyrannical' or STFU, you 'libertarian' idiot.
Laws that advantage an elite such as taxi medallion owners (many whom otherwise have nothing to do with taxis) are inherently unjust, foolish, and tyrannical.
Do you have proof that it's venal and corrupt?
Read up on it. We have such things as a significant fraction of such things owned by people who don't run taxis and don't even live in the cities in question. Sometimes the medallions are so expensive that a cabbie can barely afford to rent one.
The previous poster's use of the word "precedent" doesn't mean what you think it means. Being the very first person to use executive orders ever is not the only novel use of executive orders possible.
Here, Obama has both been issuing a lot of executive memorandum in a way that is normally reserved for executive orders, but also using both orders and memorandum to aggressively effect new laws and regulations in a way that is normally the purview of Congress. And Congress has not acted to curb these transgressions. As the previous poster noted, what happens when someone you don't like gets in and starts abusing those new powers? The US just gave them a head start.
"I just know she has classified email on that server" or Trey Gowdy saying "I feel like someone may have sent here a TS email."
Here, the facts came out and she did have classified email (classified at the time the email was sent), including top secret material, on that server. The hunches turned out to be right. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Rule of law and sustainable government fiscal practices should be one of those things that a lot of people, including the ultra-rich should have common interest on.