Businesses' primary role is the efficient distribution of capital. Limited liability is not required for that.
No, that's the role of the limited liability corporation. Businesses's primary role is to provide goods and services of value. Without corporations you have much more inefficient distribution of capital (you could have some equivalent game - it'd still be limited liability investing). But obviously, you can still have businesses.
The thing people don't get is that most people who invest in a business don't run the business and they often don't understand it. They are just providing capital.
Just because you don't agree with a democratically elected government doesn't mean that it is corrupt
You could read his post. As noted, the Obama administration has decided which parts of the law to delay and which not to, even though they weren't given that option (in other words, illegally). Various waivers of Obamacare provisions have been made to Democrat party allies. And there is indeed an exemption for certain government employees (I just know of Congress and its staff having a specific exemption).
When certain people have to follow the law and other, better connected people don't, that's corruption whether you agree with it or not.
and it doesn't mean that its policies are unpopular
There, I would go by public opinion too. Polls indicate most people don't have a clue. So it's not unpopular as I would see it - yet.
I also find it mildly ironic that a person who accuses the government of corruption seems to feel that the current situation is normal, since misappropriating a law that deals with the government's budgetary process in order to combat a law that would otherwise pass through the legislature strikes me as corruption.
Why is that corruption? This is how the law is meant to be used. It's incentive for people to compromise rather than not pass some sort of funding legislation (real budgets or the current continuing resolutions) for years on end.
These people will not be part of the community in which the buildings exist. They will not give back to the community. Hell, I bet some tax loopholes will ensure their money doesn't even make it into the local economy.
The problem with this assertion is that Facebook in this scenario would be doing what you claim they aren't. Their community just isn't your community. Just because people live nearby doesn't mean they are part of the same community.
They say they are making the world more connected. However, I feel way less connected to my friends and Family now that I see their updates on Facebook.
Why is that Facebook's fault? Sounds to me like you aren't "giving back" to the "community".
Now, you might be a bit puzzled why I'm jumping on this post. I don't like false obligations or how easily they get bandied about politically. Claiming some nonsensical obligation to "give back" is an example of this. The "community" in question will no doubt provide basic infrastructure services. In return, it will no doubt get considerable tax or fee income even if Facebook itself somehow weasels out of paying property taxes. Receive services, give payment. That should be the sole extent of these obligations.
The "give back" demand is just another demand for money and resources by the undeserving.
Such plasma is solidly in the MHD regime, where magnetic fields are all from macroscopic current densities, not microscopic currents.
Hmmm, glancing at the equations, I don't see that assertion. The local current density is proportional to the curl of the magnetic field. If the magnetic field doesn't change much spatially or just happens to have a low curl for other reasons at a given scale, then it doesn't have a strong current at that scale. So you can have a strong macroscopic magnetic field without a strong macroscopic current in an MHD regime.
An example would be a static MHD regime plasma with a strong external magnetic field going through it (this incidentally being crudely the model I'm thinking of with the region in the shape of a spherical shell, excluding a neighborhood of the Sun and the interstellar environment).
In the case of the solar wind, I gather the primary dynamic is a more or less spherically symmetric outflow of plasma from the Sun (at least till you get near the edge of the heliosphere). That flow, being near curlless, wouldn't contribute to the curl of any magnetic fields pinned to the plasma in question.
So I have to say that I still don't see the comparable macroscopic currents.
Having said all this, I must admit that I overstated my original claim. I should not have been as confident in it as I was.
Well, the current word is that it was a dental hygienist from Connecticut. Looks to me like the people saying it was a police overreaction are right this time.
Unlike the pursuit of knowledge of the universe, the accumulation of material and monetary wealth deprives others.
It can, but that isn't a necessary condition even of obsessive wealth building. I think a big problem here is the conflating of people who take wealth versus those who create wealth by providing something of value.
And theft isn't inherently immoderate. For example, college campuses frequently steal small amounts from students, staff, and visitors via monopoly control of food facilities on campus.
The obvious difference with slavery is that the worker could leave legally. That makes it not slavery. And as a practical manner debt would at that time be hard to collect when the person moved out of the state (unless it were enough to involve someone like the Pinkertons).
Would you like no healthcare; or a stupid healthcare law.
That isn't the choice. It was between a bad situation and another bad situation where people were forced to do things in a unliberal manner.
Let us keep in mind that none of the options have been "no healthcare". You could always get as much health care as you could pay for. Even now, it's not a choice of health care, but subsidized health insurance. You still have to pay the deductibles which may still be high enough to be a problem for the people who have a problem buying health care.
Would you like to pay more overall [...] Or would you like to pay less...
Why do people think Obamacare is "pay less"? Someone has to pay for all those subsidies and expanded health insurance coverage. It looks to me like it generates similarly inflationary dynamics as subsidized student loans did for educational costs.
But it is useful. I don't think the world is worse off just because there is a lofty "end game" for people who want to be rich. Or knowledgeable/curious. Or ambitious. Or whatever.
A lot can be gained from being immoderate and going over the top with whatever it is that you want.
Ah but you don't see, if an individual, living person causes harm to another, that said person faces punitive action. Such actions as law suits, indictments, prison and in the most extreme, death. How do you punish a corporation?
The corporation doesn't act. It doesn't do anything. The people that comprise that corporation are the ones who act and who have the potential to commit harm.
The more they get paid, the easier they are to bribe.
I agree with the original poster here. The first reason is that as many have observed, money has declining utility. If you don't have a cent to your name then finding $10 is a big deal. It means meals or a place to stay for a day or two. If you have a million dollars, it might not even be worth your while to pick it up.
Second, it increases the downside to getting caught doing something illegal. You can lose that nice income and pension.
There are other factors like the likelihood of getting caught and punished in a meaningful way, which I'd consider more important than how much they're getting paid.
But a well-made lithium battery is orders of magnitude more desirable than highly volatile and very toxic gasoline.
Not by mass. Even with the inherently greater inefficiency of the internal combustion engine there's more stored energy per kg for gasoline. That's because it reacts with air. And then the reaction products go out the tailpipe. The lithium battery has to hold everything and the electric car has to carry all of that around.
I'm speaking of the magnitude 9 earthquake. By their nature, earthquakes shift ground (since the energy is released by movement of large masses of earth) with magnitude 9 earthquakes doing a lot of shifting.
Personally I go off of evidence. The evidence for this danger is in the nature of bioaccumulation and the quantity and type of radionuclides being released, which is being suppressed. I get really tired of people ranting about "it isn't a threat to life on this planet" who couldn't even figure out basic risk management. Risk management can handle long term risks as well as short term ones.
At least, you have the language down. Now all you need is the thinking. I suggest starting by looking at evidence.
So, pu-239 presents to the metabolism as a micro-nutrient. In Plutonium's case it presents as Iron to a metabolism. In the ocean a *lack* of iron is what stops metabolic processes, so Iron is readily absorbed ergo Plutonium is readily absorbed. So a small sea creature absorbs the plutonium and it gets eaten by steadily larger creatures, like a fish and then it's in the human food chain. Considering the size and variety of the human food chain, this is inevitable more than once.
Scary, dangerous radiation isn't the only thing that dissolves in water. Let us keep in mind that there is a lot of steel in the structure of Fukushima and that dissolves in water as well. So we have trace amounts of plutonium mixed in with non-trace amounts of iron. Iron bio-accumulates too.
A single micro gram of plutonium is a fatal dose to a human being when ingested.
Nope. If it is breathed in, that's the claimed lethal dosage. We need to recall that this may be a bit of Cold War fiction since exaggerating the danger of plutonium would hinder nuclear proliferation to some degree.
Depending on the radionuclide, there are different cancers, radon 220 that causes lung cancer, or radium 226 that causes bone cancers, strontium 90, americium, iodine 131, cesium 137, the list goes on. The exposure vectors are many and varied. What has protected us is the likelihood of encountering one was low. Everyday this continues the possibility increases.
Not really. These things have a half life too. So while there are ways for them to enter the environment, there are also ways that they exit the environment.
However using an established case of Chernobyl. 5% of a 160 ton Nuclear reactor core that was about to be refueled - let's call it 100 tons, that's 5 tons of radioactive core into the atmosphere.
Complete bullshit. There was a fire pushing considerable mass into the atmosphere from Chernobyl. Even the fuel rod fire wasn't comparable.
At conservative estimates thats 5000,000,000,000 fatal doses.
A completely laughable claim.
If we accept that an extremely conservative estimate of 1% of this makes it into the food chain via bio-accumulation and of that a conservative estimate of 1% of people are exposed and a conservative 1% of those exposed actually get some sort of fatal cancer that's 5,000,000 fatalities.
Why I grant your first number may be close to accurate, the other two are laughably off by orders of magnitude. Nobody eats fish directly from Fukushima. The biosphere of the Japanese coastal area is vast and people don't eat 1% of that mass. And that's a ridiculous exaggeration of the chances of getting cancer.
The magnetic fields involved in such things do involve macroscopic currents
That's an assertion without evidence. For example, solar system magnetic fields aren't generated by the weak current sheets that happen to be present, but rather by the intense and energetic processes happening in the star at the center.
how the magnetic fields are carried by plasma
Via microscopic currents in the plasma which pin the magnetic fields.
Well, if you weaken any statement enough, it'll eventually become not false. I will agree that scientists tend to be more welcoming of change and correction than other groups. I don't see the question as "is it perfect?", but "is there anything better out there for the task at hand?"
For me, there are occasionally better tools out there than science. For example, if the outcomes you can measure are clearly definable and easy to impartially determine, then markets are a better approach. Losing money automatically when you're wrong is a far stronger and more effective correction than grudgingly admitting a few decades from now that you might have been on the wrong side of a scientific argument.
Recall, if you can, that corporations' primary role is the efficient distribution of capital. The secondary roles are a neat and demonstrated way to organize a bunch of people and second, a set of means for legally compartmentalizing economic activity. It's not to make the world a less worse place to live. That just happens to be a happy outcome of these benefits.
Now, as I understand it, most systems of law do not require normal people to serve the public good. So why should the law require corporations, which are just tools for normal people to conduct mundane business and other activities, to do so?
Perhaps we should require you to serve the public good. If that turns out well, then we might consider enlarging the pool to other legal entities.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't use that word with respect to the Democrat party. It's a free propaganda gift to an undeserving target.
Businesses' primary role is the efficient distribution of capital. Limited liability is not required for that.
No, that's the role of the limited liability corporation. Businesses's primary role is to provide goods and services of value. Without corporations you have much more inefficient distribution of capital (you could have some equivalent game - it'd still be limited liability investing). But obviously, you can still have businesses.
The thing people don't get is that most people who invest in a business don't run the business and they often don't understand it. They are just providing capital.
Here's a somewhat biased article, but it does describe the sorts of waivers issued.
Just because you don't agree with a democratically elected government doesn't mean that it is corrupt
You could read his post. As noted, the Obama administration has decided which parts of the law to delay and which not to, even though they weren't given that option (in other words, illegally). Various waivers of Obamacare provisions have been made to Democrat party allies. And there is indeed an exemption for certain government employees (I just know of Congress and its staff having a specific exemption).
When certain people have to follow the law and other, better connected people don't, that's corruption whether you agree with it or not.
and it doesn't mean that its policies are unpopular
There, I would go by public opinion too. Polls indicate most people don't have a clue. So it's not unpopular as I would see it - yet.
I also find it mildly ironic that a person who accuses the government of corruption seems to feel that the current situation is normal, since misappropriating a law that deals with the government's budgetary process in order to combat a law that would otherwise pass through the legislature strikes me as corruption.
Why is that corruption? This is how the law is meant to be used. It's incentive for people to compromise rather than not pass some sort of funding legislation (real budgets or the current continuing resolutions) for years on end.
These people will not be part of the community in which the buildings exist. They will not give back to the community. Hell, I bet some tax loopholes will ensure their money doesn't even make it into the local economy.
The problem with this assertion is that Facebook in this scenario would be doing what you claim they aren't. Their community just isn't your community. Just because people live nearby doesn't mean they are part of the same community.
They say they are making the world more connected. However, I feel way less connected to my friends and Family now that I see their updates on Facebook.
Why is that Facebook's fault? Sounds to me like you aren't "giving back" to the "community".
Now, you might be a bit puzzled why I'm jumping on this post. I don't like false obligations or how easily they get bandied about politically. Claiming some nonsensical obligation to "give back" is an example of this. The "community" in question will no doubt provide basic infrastructure services. In return, it will no doubt get considerable tax or fee income even if Facebook itself somehow weasels out of paying property taxes. Receive services, give payment. That should be the sole extent of these obligations.
The "give back" demand is just another demand for money and resources by the undeserving.
Such plasma is solidly in the MHD regime, where magnetic fields are all from macroscopic current densities, not microscopic currents.
Hmmm, glancing at the equations, I don't see that assertion. The local current density is proportional to the curl of the magnetic field. If the magnetic field doesn't change much spatially or just happens to have a low curl for other reasons at a given scale, then it doesn't have a strong current at that scale. So you can have a strong macroscopic magnetic field without a strong macroscopic current in an MHD regime.
An example would be a static MHD regime plasma with a strong external magnetic field going through it (this incidentally being crudely the model I'm thinking of with the region in the shape of a spherical shell, excluding a neighborhood of the Sun and the interstellar environment).
In the case of the solar wind, I gather the primary dynamic is a more or less spherically symmetric outflow of plasma from the Sun (at least till you get near the edge of the heliosphere). That flow, being near curlless, wouldn't contribute to the curl of any magnetic fields pinned to the plasma in question.
So I have to say that I still don't see the comparable macroscopic currents.
Having said all this, I must admit that I overstated my original claim. I should not have been as confident in it as I was.
It won't work any different. Either you bring the people who cause the crimes to justice or you don't.
or forced labor in debtors prison
Oh, yea, this practice had started in the UK. I was thinking of the US version and had forgotten that it started elsewhere.
Well, the current word is that it was a dental hygienist from Connecticut. Looks to me like the people saying it was a police overreaction are right this time.
Unlike the pursuit of knowledge of the universe, the accumulation of material and monetary wealth deprives others.
It can, but that isn't a necessary condition even of obsessive wealth building. I think a big problem here is the conflating of people who take wealth versus those who create wealth by providing something of value.
And theft isn't inherently immoderate. For example, college campuses frequently steal small amounts from students, staff, and visitors via monopoly control of food facilities on campus.
The obvious difference with slavery is that the worker could leave legally. That makes it not slavery. And as a practical manner debt would at that time be hard to collect when the person moved out of the state (unless it were enough to involve someone like the Pinkertons).
Would you like no healthcare; or a stupid healthcare law.
That isn't the choice. It was between a bad situation and another bad situation where people were forced to do things in a unliberal manner.
Let us keep in mind that none of the options have been "no healthcare". You could always get as much health care as you could pay for. Even now, it's not a choice of health care, but subsidized health insurance. You still have to pay the deductibles which may still be high enough to be a problem for the people who have a problem buying health care.
Would you like to pay more overall [...] Or would you like to pay less ...
Why do people think Obamacare is "pay less"? Someone has to pay for all those subsidies and expanded health insurance coverage. It looks to me like it generates similarly inflationary dynamics as subsidized student loans did for educational costs.
ACA trumps the shit you guys have now.
I don't buy it.
I like how every time a new comment is posted it scrolls, so I can't actually ready anything.
Yea, that would be a good safety feature.
The pursuit of extreme wealth isn't necessary
But it is useful. I don't think the world is worse off just because there is a lofty "end game" for people who want to be rich. Or knowledgeable/curious. Or ambitious. Or whatever.
A lot can be gained from being immoderate and going over the top with whatever it is that you want.
Ah but you don't see, if an individual, living person causes harm to another, that said person faces punitive action. Such actions as law suits, indictments, prison and in the most extreme, death. How do you punish a corporation?
The corporation doesn't act. It doesn't do anything. The people that comprise that corporation are the ones who act and who have the potential to commit harm.
The more they get paid, the easier they are to bribe.
I agree with the original poster here. The first reason is that as many have observed, money has declining utility. If you don't have a cent to your name then finding $10 is a big deal. It means meals or a place to stay for a day or two. If you have a million dollars, it might not even be worth your while to pick it up.
Second, it increases the downside to getting caught doing something illegal. You can lose that nice income and pension.
There are other factors like the likelihood of getting caught and punished in a meaningful way, which I'd consider more important than how much they're getting paid.
I recall the eternal struggle between shorts and longs in the Yahoo stock discussion comments. So much naughty language and broken logic.
But a well-made lithium battery is orders of magnitude more desirable than highly volatile and very toxic gasoline.
Not by mass. Even with the inherently greater inefficiency of the internal combustion engine there's more stored energy per kg for gasoline. That's because it reacts with air. And then the reaction products go out the tailpipe. The lithium battery has to hold everything and the electric car has to carry all of that around.
I'm speaking of the magnitude 9 earthquake. By their nature, earthquakes shift ground (since the energy is released by movement of large masses of earth) with magnitude 9 earthquakes doing a lot of shifting.
I hope you're right. Hard to say what their priorities will be in the future though.
Personally I go off of evidence. The evidence for this danger is in the nature of bioaccumulation and the quantity and type of radionuclides being released, which is being suppressed. I get really tired of people ranting about "it isn't a threat to life on this planet" who couldn't even figure out basic risk management. Risk management can handle long term risks as well as short term ones.
At least, you have the language down. Now all you need is the thinking. I suggest starting by looking at evidence.
So, pu-239 presents to the metabolism as a micro-nutrient. In Plutonium's case it presents as Iron to a metabolism. In the ocean a *lack* of iron is what stops metabolic processes, so Iron is readily absorbed ergo Plutonium is readily absorbed. So a small sea creature absorbs the plutonium and it gets eaten by steadily larger creatures, like a fish and then it's in the human food chain. Considering the size and variety of the human food chain, this is inevitable more than once.
Scary, dangerous radiation isn't the only thing that dissolves in water. Let us keep in mind that there is a lot of steel in the structure of Fukushima and that dissolves in water as well. So we have trace amounts of plutonium mixed in with non-trace amounts of iron. Iron bio-accumulates too.
A single micro gram of plutonium is a fatal dose to a human being when ingested.
Nope. If it is breathed in, that's the claimed lethal dosage. We need to recall that this may be a bit of Cold War fiction since exaggerating the danger of plutonium would hinder nuclear proliferation to some degree.
Depending on the radionuclide, there are different cancers, radon 220 that causes lung cancer, or radium 226 that causes bone cancers, strontium 90, americium, iodine 131, cesium 137, the list goes on. The exposure vectors are many and varied. What has protected us is the likelihood of encountering one was low. Everyday this continues the possibility increases.
Not really. These things have a half life too. So while there are ways for them to enter the environment, there are also ways that they exit the environment.
However using an established case of Chernobyl. 5% of a 160 ton Nuclear reactor core that was about to be refueled - let's call it 100 tons, that's 5 tons of radioactive core into the atmosphere.
Complete bullshit. There was a fire pushing considerable mass into the atmosphere from Chernobyl. Even the fuel rod fire wasn't comparable.
At conservative estimates thats 5000,000,000,000 fatal doses.
A completely laughable claim.
If we accept that an extremely conservative estimate of 1% of this makes it into the food chain via bio-accumulation and of that a conservative estimate of 1% of people are exposed and a conservative 1% of those exposed actually get some sort of fatal cancer that's 5,000,000 fatalities.
Why I grant your first number may be close to accurate, the other two are laughably off by orders of magnitude. Nobody eats fish directly from Fukushima. The biosphere of the Japanese coastal area is vast and people don't eat 1% of that mass. And that's a ridiculous exaggeration of the chances of getting cancer.
The magnetic fields involved in such things do involve macroscopic currents
That's an assertion without evidence. For example, solar system magnetic fields aren't generated by the weak current sheets that happen to be present, but rather by the intense and energetic processes happening in the star at the center.
how the magnetic fields are carried by plasma
Via microscopic currents in the plasma which pin the magnetic fields.
ah but you see, many of us believe that corporations should not be blatantly malicious.
People shouldn't be either. I guess we ought to make a law for that.
Well, if you weaken any statement enough, it'll eventually become not false. I will agree that scientists tend to be more welcoming of change and correction than other groups. I don't see the question as "is it perfect?", but "is there anything better out there for the task at hand?"
For me, there are occasionally better tools out there than science. For example, if the outcomes you can measure are clearly definable and easy to impartially determine, then markets are a better approach. Losing money automatically when you're wrong is a far stronger and more effective correction than grudgingly admitting a few decades from now that you might have been on the wrong side of a scientific argument.
Recall, if you can, that corporations' primary role is the efficient distribution of capital. The secondary roles are a neat and demonstrated way to organize a bunch of people and second, a set of means for legally compartmentalizing economic activity. It's not to make the world a less worse place to live. That just happens to be a happy outcome of these benefits.
Now, as I understand it, most systems of law do not require normal people to serve the public good. So why should the law require corporations, which are just tools for normal people to conduct mundane business and other activities, to do so?
Perhaps we should require you to serve the public good. If that turns out well, then we might consider enlarging the pool to other legal entities.