So it's just a cost of doing business, paid by the shareholders, and the people who actually made the decisions aren't affected.
The other guy was telling me that the risks were "socialized" for shareholders. Here, we see they weren't. Plus this is money laundering. My take is that it shouldn't be a crime.
You'd have to be crazy to leave Boulder as long as Ball is still based there--not to mention Lockheed Martin's rocket-building headquarters, Raytheon, and Sierra Nevada. Florida and Texas wish they had the manufacturing base to handle commercial launch. At best the company would expand into Florida or Texas just for logistical reasons.
The obvious rebuttal is that Houston is in Texas not in Colorado. That's by far the largest industrial center of the three states. If SpaceX really does operate a viable launch site in Brownsville, Texes, that would seal the deal as far as I'm concerned. Of course, these people are probably shopping for perks not viable locations so I doubt these considerations matter that much.
One problem is that the current system does not have an effective mechanism to unwind itself. There's more positive feedback than negative feedback in the system, which means it will inevitably halt as the system collapses under its own strain. I wish that weren't so, but so far nobody has figured a way out.
Check out how many small-time crooks are in prison for money laundering vs. how many HSBC executives are for laundering trillions of dollars for the drug cartels.
I wonder just how many HSBC executives do you think there are? There's vastly more small-time crooks doing money laundering so one would expect vastly more of them in jail for doing money laundering.
Second, I see that HSBC had to pay a significant fine (almost 2 billion dollars) for its money laundering activities in the US even though it is headquartered outside of the US's territory. A small time crook doing the same would have to pay nothing unless the US managed to extradite them.
It came into being post-Civil War at the behest (bribes) of John D. Rockefeller, for the benefit of Standard Oil. Before that, corporations were only granted for limited times, and for public purposes. The Founders had learned the lessons of Mercantalism under the British Empire.
Uh, no. Standard Oil started as an Ohio incorporated limited liability company (in 1870), but it became a corporate trust in 1881. And the UK has long experience with limited liability corporations prior to the 19th century.
Further, the limited liability corporation is just a very useful organization structure which is widespread throughout the business world. I see no reason or value to going back to the special purpose corporations of the early 19th century in the US.
Then I guess it worked real well in the 19th century, when governments didn't step in and bail out the industries and or insurance companies. Except it didn't.
Lloyd's of London worked out fine and they weren't the only successful insurer of that era. What example are you thinking of?
Libertarianism: being based on axioms, how can it be wrong?!
Why single out libertarianism? There's a lot of half-baked ideological crap out there which happens to appear on Slashdot. At least, the various flavors of libertarianism are based on various components like reciprocity, contract law, markets, etc which work in practice even if the whole hasn't been show to do so.
Or for that matter why even post at all? The observation made by the grandparent is not based on libertarian beliefs. One can look at actual examples of self-regulation. A good real world example that I deal with is Payment Card Industry data security standards. That's standards of operation that a lot of credit card operators have to comply with now or simply be unable to receive payments via credit card.
For a spicier example, consider the Commission which was an crime oligopoly set up by the American Mafia (who originally consisted of early 20th century Sicilian immigrants from the Sicily Mafia) in 1931 and apparently still functioning to some degree today. The sitting members are apparently members of six Mafia "families", five from New York City area and one from Chicago. They also represent to some degree families from other regions of the US and Canada.
In the past, they had considerable power to regulate disputes between families, decide territories of operation, and reign in the more aggressive and reckless mob leaders (including killing people who were considered enough of a danger. Jimmy Hoffa, an infamous labor leader might be one such victim).
You mouth off about platonic ideals and such, but there really is self-regulation going on in the world.
Yeah, it's extremely useful for the investor because the risks are socialized while the gains are privatized.
The risks are privatized as well. The investor can lose what they put in. The directors and executives of the company are directly in the line of fire, if something illegal happens.
Meanwhile, this system has completely destroyed what used to be a promising system of government, at least in the US.
That has nothing to do with limited liability. It's been kicking around for centuries.
It's far too high of a cost and unnecessary for the advancement of commerce (assuming a more reasonable judicial system can be established to make the handling of liability claims reasonable).It's far too high of a cost and unnecessary for the advancement of commerce (assuming a more reasonable judicial system can be established to make the handling of liability claims reasonable)
Why would such an assumption be made? You were saying limited liability was the problem. Now you're saying that a relatively unreasonable liability is the problem. Sure, they could both be true, but I'd like a little more clarity about what you think the actual problem is here?
Why would we want to eliminate limited liability? It's an extremely useful means for someone who has no role in operating a business to invest in a business.
You're just assuming that the costs associated with those services are greater than the power they generate.
I don't know really, but TVA apparently is losing money (compensated for by taxpayer money). That when combined with the somewhat increased externalities it enjoys indicates possible negative GDP.
I would start out by saying, "Is the government more efficient, less efficient or as efficient as private enterprise? What are the facts?"
Then when you're given multiple examples of the inefficiency of government you would conclude what? That you even are talking about this as a question seems to indicate to me that you are already ignoring facts.
For example, I have some experience with aerospace related R&D with respect to the US. My experience has been that US government funded R&D is so inefficient that you start estimating government costs by increasing the private equivalent by an order of magnitude. It's that bad IMHO. European and Japanese govermment aerospace isn't quite as bad, but I'd still start with considerable cost multipliers.
Similar cost multipliers seem to hold for construction projects and IT infrastructure. For example, there was a failed billion dollar IT project that was intended to provide various logistics and payroll support for the entire US armed forces. In the private world, that could have gotten you a lot more than just a payroll system.
About the only thing that government seems really efficient at is signing checks. And there, I think it's because they don't really care who cashes them, as long as someone does.
So how does this inefficiency manifest? One way is ridiculously difficult and changing specifications. Such things provide plenty of opportunity for corruption since the contractor has some degree of influence over the specifications (either through legal contributions to the specs or bribing the government side into changing the specs). The more often this stuff changes, the more money they can milk from the contract without appearing to default on things.
Second, is the prevalence of "cost plus" contracts for many government services. These are particularly open to abuse since they allow politicians to tout the smaller base number rather than the base + cost number which is usually the actual cost. It also provides considerable incentive to the contractor to not actually complete the job (in hopes that more money is tossed on the contract).
Very few bureaucrats in the developed world have any real accountability. They're mostly invisible unless a particularly scandal happens to unearth them. And there are dynamics like regulatory capture that can suborn the bureaucracies in favor of those with money.
Ultimately, there's no real incentive to be efficient or accountable. There's no profit motive. Few care whether you even get in an order of magnitude of an efficient solution. And modern governments are so large and opaque that it's easy to hide mistakes and misdoings. For me, hypothesizing an efficient government is like hypothesizing a talking dog. It's pretty mythical, but it could happen at some point to someone.
What I did was show how by using your second statement, I created an explanation how there's no relation between Western actions and the speed of the race, thus disproving your claim that something the West did sped up the race.
Well, I don't see your point here. Lots of things are triggered by events outside of our control, here, the addition of billions of people to the international labor markets. But lot's of stuff are within our control, such as ineffective protectionism in response to this flood of labor.
Note that "fail to improve" is not the same as speeding up. The girl "failed to improve" the way she dresses herself and where she walks at night, alone. Now she's stuck with the unintended consequence of speed up her getting raped!
Ok, how about when countries just throw extra costs on the already expensive cost of employing people. For example, in the US for employers that employ more than 50 "full-time" people, they suddenly have a $2k per person marginal charge (excluding the first 30 employees). This is a result of Obamacare which is turning out to be one of the most counterproductive pieces of legislation the US has ever produced - this particular aspect is resulting in a massive shift from full time labor to part time labor.
Of course, and I don't disagree. I'm just saying this (this being the race to the bottom and its speed) is not a failure of the West, but a success of the East.
Why isn't it a failure of the West? It's an entirely predictable phenomenon, which remains so. Eventually, virtually all of the labor of the world is going to be tied in and the total population is going to hit somewhere around 10 billion people, maybe peak there. So perhaps 6-8 billion workers, depending on demographics of the time.
Either there will be a reason for developed world labor to command a large premium or its just not going to be very different in cost than the rest of the world, no matter what is tried.
No, it absolutely is something that must come businesses.
This is delusional. If developed world labor remains inordinately expensive, then any such innovation will move elsewhere just because it is cheaper and that's where the actual economy will move to over time.
It's a matter, as I wrote, of getting rid of the societal and political attempts to preserve an ideal of privilege that is no longer sustainable.
Who do you think can get rid of those things? Who's going to end all the welfare? Do you think the masses living on welfare or the government who feed them bread and circuses would vote to remove themselves from the system?
It has to come from private individuals and their private businesses. All too often people like you speak of "I'll pay for my [education/healthcare/insurance/retirement/etc]". The same applies here. You have to put up your own money, time, and even life for the solution you want, including the solution of dismantling what's present.
Edward Snowden put his life and freedom on the line, but I suppose if he "failed to improve" the situation, it'll be his fault for speeding up America's demise.
I pointed out what I think would fix things, and you complain that the voting populace wouldn't go with it? Too bad. Lose the free lunch or lose the society.
I'm perfecting willing to forgo this. Nobody seems keen to call my bluff. I know there's some who echo these sentiments, but draw the line at their bit of squeeze (eg, we need to cut spending, but not my medicare/social security/education loan subsidies, etc). That never has worked. If you want others to sacrifice, you need to do the same.
And what of Snowden and his allegations of massive, prevalent spying on the public? The same government that has all that power to give me stuff happens to be the same one that is spying on me. What a coincidence! Cut the welfare and the a
f you want to know that Global Warming is real, simply look at the main goal of every Geo-Engineering project running. "control weather and cool planet". Never mind the part where the metals they are using cause more harm than good and don't work like they think they do.. those people are idiots and truly believe that they are always right. Point is, if there is no Global Warming why are they dumping aluminum and barium particles in the air?
Chemtrails are a case of hysteria not geoengineering.
Only Karl Marx's vision of Communism can save us now. And no, It has never been applied the way it was intended
Sure, it has. But it'll never be applied in a way that works because human nature will always get in the way,
Again, think Future here. Business and Money as it exists now is not a sustainable empire and will inevitably lead the end of Human life as we know it and the end of everything Green, that is the Earth. Money makes pollution, Drugs, Corruption and has taken the lives of both Human Beings and Extinct Creatures to name a few of the monstrosities Money has created and destroyed.
And one merely can look at the developed world to see that such a world of "Business and Money" hasn't prevailed. London's killer smogs of the 50s no longer happen. The Cuyahoga River no longer burns. When a legitimate problem surfaced that threatened us, we fixed it.
We're taking care of our planet, you just aren't acknowledging it.
There are interesting longitudinal lines across the scorched area - is the composite body laid down in strips?
I understand that the body itself is formed in rings and glued together in a row. The photo I'm looking at seems to show the scorch marks near the beginning of the tail fin. I wouldn't be surprised if Boeing laid down a bunch of strips to improve the structural integrity of that area and perhaps to streamline the aircraft a bit.
There are groups in the government that want to take those programs away from UC, and privatize them (or whatever). UC wants to keep them because they bring in a lot of money from the federal government. Janet will help with that because of her connections.
A simple solution here would be to get rid of the facilities in question. Then you don't need to employ someone like Napolitano. You know, don't lie down with dogs, don't get up with fleas.
And for the record, according to catholic teaching, Polosi, Biden and the like are responsible for upholding, encouraging and creating policies that
are responsible for many millions more deaths then the inquisition ever was, because they support legalized abortion, which to date has killed 75million people in this country alone since the 70's, So they certainly deserve excommunication more than the king of Spain could.
How many of those deaths are they personally responsible for? I could similarly state that the kings of Spain supported tyranny, which probably has a body count well north of a billion deaths these days.
Poverty is an incredibly deep gravitational well. It doesn't matter how it begins
Sure, it does. Programs like food assistance are one cause. That $5 comes from in large part from people who would have employed other people or invested in those who would. Months in employment limbo happens because the job is not there.
Back in college and even graduate school I had plenty of acquaintances on food stamps.
So what? They could have paid for their food and still be university professors and whatnot. ROI is not just that money was spent and good things happened afterward. You have to show that the outcome was better than it otherwise would have been.
If the purpose of the people was to serve the economy, that would be well and good, but in fact, the economy is a construct that is supposed to serve the people.
That's irrelevant. Developed world labor just isn't as valuable as it used to be. Trying and failing to force the economy to change that valuation hasn't worked yet nor will it.
Reducing wages is not really a viable option unless we can also reduce rent and mortgages, food, etc.
I wasn't saying that reducing wages was an option. I said it was happening.
Perhaps we need to outsource the overpriced management so there's more money for wages and the stockholders can still get a reasonable return on their investment. There's plenty of competent CEOs out there who are accustomed to salaries and bonuses of under a million a year.
The very same forces who try to insist that not reducing wages are an "option" are the same ones creating this sort of dynamic. The shareholders don't control most of their shares. Institutions do. And they're quite satisfied with the current state of affairs. Many of those institutions are public pension funds or state sanctioned investment funds. In the US, 401k plans and IRA funds, which have tax subsidies of various sorts, are mostly sunk into mutual funds. These don't directly contribute to wage inflation, but they do encourage the passive investing that leads to your CEO complaint.
The concept greatly predates the Magna Carta. For example, the first known code of laws, the Code of Hammurabi addresses abuse of power in the first paragraph of its preamble:
When Anu the Sublime, King of the Anunaki, and Bel, the lord of Heaven and earth, who decreed the fate of the land, assigned to Marduk, the over-ruling son of Ea, God of righteousness, dominion over earthly man, and made him great among the Igigi, they called Babylon by his illustrious name, made it great on earth, and founded an everlasting kingdom in it, whose foundations are laid so solidly as those of heaven and earth; then Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should not harm the weak; so that I should rule over the black-headed people like Shamash, and enlighten the land, to further the well-being of mankind.
Abuse of power is not a recent concept, but a fundamental concept driving the very formation of law to the point that it is one of the three justifications given in the very first known written system of law.
If somehow we could hop in a time machine and go back to the first stories uttered by men, I think we would find that the idea of abuse of power is that old.
Slashdot Mirror
So it's just a cost of doing business, paid by the shareholders, and the people who actually made the decisions aren't affected.
The other guy was telling me that the risks were "socialized" for shareholders. Here, we see they weren't. Plus this is money laundering. My take is that it shouldn't be a crime.
A landlocked state further from the equator? A smaller industrial base? Smaller population?
You'd have to be crazy to leave Boulder as long as Ball is still based there--not to mention Lockheed Martin's rocket-building headquarters, Raytheon, and Sierra Nevada. Florida and Texas wish they had the manufacturing base to handle commercial launch. At best the company would expand into Florida or Texas just for logistical reasons.
The obvious rebuttal is that Houston is in Texas not in Colorado. That's by far the largest industrial center of the three states. If SpaceX really does operate a viable launch site in Brownsville, Texes, that would seal the deal as far as I'm concerned. Of course, these people are probably shopping for perks not viable locations so I doubt these considerations matter that much.
One problem is that the current system does not have an effective mechanism to unwind itself. There's more positive feedback than negative feedback in the system, which means it will inevitably halt as the system collapses under its own strain. I wish that weren't so, but so far nobody has figured a way out.
Economic recession.
Check out how many small-time crooks are in prison for money laundering vs. how many HSBC executives are for laundering trillions of dollars for the drug cartels.
I wonder just how many HSBC executives do you think there are? There's vastly more small-time crooks doing money laundering so one would expect vastly more of them in jail for doing money laundering.
Second, I see that HSBC had to pay a significant fine (almost 2 billion dollars) for its money laundering activities in the US even though it is headquartered outside of the US's territory. A small time crook doing the same would have to pay nothing unless the US managed to extradite them.
It came into being post-Civil War at the behest (bribes) of John D. Rockefeller, for the benefit of Standard Oil. Before that, corporations were only granted for limited times, and for public purposes. The Founders had learned the lessons of Mercantalism under the British Empire.
Uh, no. Standard Oil started as an Ohio incorporated limited liability company (in 1870), but it became a corporate trust in 1881. And the UK has long experience with limited liability corporations prior to the 19th century.
Further, the limited liability corporation is just a very useful organization structure which is widespread throughout the business world. I see no reason or value to going back to the special purpose corporations of the early 19th century in the US.
Then I guess it worked real well in the 19th century, when governments didn't step in and bail out the industries and or insurance companies. Except it didn't.
Lloyd's of London worked out fine and they weren't the only successful insurer of that era. What example are you thinking of?
Libertarianism: being based on axioms, how can it be wrong?!
Why single out libertarianism? There's a lot of half-baked ideological crap out there which happens to appear on Slashdot. At least, the various flavors of libertarianism are based on various components like reciprocity, contract law, markets, etc which work in practice even if the whole hasn't been show to do so.
Or for that matter why even post at all? The observation made by the grandparent is not based on libertarian beliefs. One can look at actual examples of self-regulation. A good real world example that I deal with is Payment Card Industry data security standards. That's standards of operation that a lot of credit card operators have to comply with now or simply be unable to receive payments via credit card.
For a spicier example, consider the Commission which was an crime oligopoly set up by the American Mafia (who originally consisted of early 20th century Sicilian immigrants from the Sicily Mafia) in 1931 and apparently still functioning to some degree today. The sitting members are apparently members of six Mafia "families", five from New York City area and one from Chicago. They also represent to some degree families from other regions of the US and Canada.
In the past, they had considerable power to regulate disputes between families, decide territories of operation, and reign in the more aggressive and reckless mob leaders (including killing people who were considered enough of a danger. Jimmy Hoffa, an infamous labor leader might be one such victim).
You mouth off about platonic ideals and such, but there really is self-regulation going on in the world.
Yeah, it's extremely useful for the investor because the risks are socialized while the gains are privatized.
The risks are privatized as well. The investor can lose what they put in. The directors and executives of the company are directly in the line of fire, if something illegal happens.
Meanwhile, this system has completely destroyed what used to be a promising system of government, at least in the US.
That has nothing to do with limited liability. It's been kicking around for centuries.
It's far too high of a cost and unnecessary for the advancement of commerce (assuming a more reasonable judicial system can be established to make the handling of liability claims reasonable).It's far too high of a cost and unnecessary for the advancement of commerce (assuming a more reasonable judicial system can be established to make the handling of liability claims reasonable)
Why would such an assumption be made? You were saying limited liability was the problem. Now you're saying that a relatively unreasonable liability is the problem. Sure, they could both be true, but I'd like a little more clarity about what you think the actual problem is here?
Why would we want to eliminate limited liability? It's an extremely useful means for someone who has no role in operating a business to invest in a business.
My brain swelled three sizes when I read that.
You're just assuming that the costs associated with those services are greater than the power they generate.
I don't know really, but TVA apparently is losing money (compensated for by taxpayer money). That when combined with the somewhat increased externalities it enjoys indicates possible negative GDP.
I would start out by saying, "Is the government more efficient, less efficient or as efficient as private enterprise? What are the facts?"
Then when you're given multiple examples of the inefficiency of government you would conclude what? That you even are talking about this as a question seems to indicate to me that you are already ignoring facts.
For example, I have some experience with aerospace related R&D with respect to the US. My experience has been that US government funded R&D is so inefficient that you start estimating government costs by increasing the private equivalent by an order of magnitude. It's that bad IMHO. European and Japanese govermment aerospace isn't quite as bad, but I'd still start with considerable cost multipliers.
Similar cost multipliers seem to hold for construction projects and IT infrastructure. For example, there was a failed billion dollar IT project that was intended to provide various logistics and payroll support for the entire US armed forces. In the private world, that could have gotten you a lot more than just a payroll system.
About the only thing that government seems really efficient at is signing checks. And there, I think it's because they don't really care who cashes them, as long as someone does.
So how does this inefficiency manifest? One way is ridiculously difficult and changing specifications. Such things provide plenty of opportunity for corruption since the contractor has some degree of influence over the specifications (either through legal contributions to the specs or bribing the government side into changing the specs). The more often this stuff changes, the more money they can milk from the contract without appearing to default on things.
Second, is the prevalence of "cost plus" contracts for many government services. These are particularly open to abuse since they allow politicians to tout the smaller base number rather than the base + cost number which is usually the actual cost. It also provides considerable incentive to the contractor to not actually complete the job (in hopes that more money is tossed on the contract).
Very few bureaucrats in the developed world have any real accountability. They're mostly invisible unless a particularly scandal happens to unearth them. And there are dynamics like regulatory capture that can suborn the bureaucracies in favor of those with money.
Ultimately, there's no real incentive to be efficient or accountable. There's no profit motive. Few care whether you even get in an order of magnitude of an efficient solution. And modern governments are so large and opaque that it's easy to hide mistakes and misdoings. For me, hypothesizing an efficient government is like hypothesizing a talking dog. It's pretty mythical, but it could happen at some point to someone.
Which is a demand that's absolutely impossible to meet, so you can sleep comfortably that nobody will ever "defeat" your argument.
Opportunity cost is always very difficult to show. It's not so funny now when you have to do that rather than me.
What I did was show how by using your second statement, I created an explanation how there's no relation between Western actions and the speed of the race, thus disproving your claim that something the West did sped up the race.
Well, I don't see your point here. Lots of things are triggered by events outside of our control, here, the addition of billions of people to the international labor markets. But lot's of stuff are within our control, such as ineffective protectionism in response to this flood of labor.
Note that "fail to improve" is not the same as speeding up. The girl "failed to improve" the way she dresses herself and where she walks at night, alone. Now she's stuck with the unintended consequence of speed up her getting raped!
Ok, how about when countries just throw extra costs on the already expensive cost of employing people. For example, in the US for employers that employ more than 50 "full-time" people, they suddenly have a $2k per person marginal charge (excluding the first 30 employees). This is a result of Obamacare which is turning out to be one of the most counterproductive pieces of legislation the US has ever produced - this particular aspect is resulting in a massive shift from full time labor to part time labor.
Of course, and I don't disagree. I'm just saying this (this being the race to the bottom and its speed) is not a failure of the West, but a success of the East.
Why isn't it a failure of the West? It's an entirely predictable phenomenon, which remains so. Eventually, virtually all of the labor of the world is going to be tied in and the total population is going to hit somewhere around 10 billion people, maybe peak there. So perhaps 6-8 billion workers, depending on demographics of the time.
Either there will be a reason for developed world labor to command a large premium or its just not going to be very different in cost than the rest of the world, no matter what is tried.
No, it absolutely is something that must come businesses.
This is delusional. If developed world labor remains inordinately expensive, then any such innovation will move elsewhere just because it is cheaper and that's where the actual economy will move to over time.
It's a matter, as I wrote, of getting rid of the societal and political attempts to preserve an ideal of privilege that is no longer sustainable.
Who do you think can get rid of those things? Who's going to end all the welfare? Do you think the masses living on welfare or the government who feed them bread and circuses would vote to remove themselves from the system?
It has to come from private individuals and their private businesses. All too often people like you speak of "I'll pay for my [education/healthcare/insurance/retirement/etc]". The same applies here. You have to put up your own money, time, and even life for the solution you want, including the solution of dismantling what's present.
Edward Snowden put his life and freedom on the line, but I suppose if he "failed to improve" the situation, it'll be his fault for speeding up America's demise.
I pointed out what I think would fix things, and you complain that the voting populace wouldn't go with it? Too bad. Lose the free lunch or lose the society.
I'm perfecting willing to forgo this. Nobody seems keen to call my bluff. I know there's some who echo these sentiments, but draw the line at their bit of squeeze (eg, we need to cut spending, but not my medicare/social security/education loan subsidies, etc). That never has worked. If you want others to sacrifice, you need to do the same.
And what of Snowden and his allegations of massive, prevalent spying on the public? The same government that has all that power to give me stuff happens to be the same one that is spying on me. What a coincidence! Cut the welfare and the a
I got your number there. I'll just emphasize that there's too much going to obsess over delusions and non-existent problems.
f you want to know that Global Warming is real, simply look at the main goal of every Geo-Engineering project running. "control weather and cool planet". Never mind the part where the metals they are using cause more harm than good and don't work like they think they do.. those people are idiots and truly believe that they are always right. Point is, if there is no Global Warming why are they dumping aluminum and barium particles in the air?
Chemtrails are a case of hysteria not geoengineering.
The kind of asshole who still owns something.
Only Karl Marx's vision of Communism can save us now. And no, It has never been applied the way it was intended
Sure, it has. But it'll never be applied in a way that works because human nature will always get in the way,
Again, think Future here. Business and Money as it exists now is not a sustainable empire and will inevitably lead the end of Human life as we know it and the end of everything Green, that is the Earth. Money makes pollution, Drugs, Corruption and has taken the lives of both Human Beings and Extinct Creatures to name a few of the monstrosities Money has created and destroyed.
And one merely can look at the developed world to see that such a world of "Business and Money" hasn't prevailed. London's killer smogs of the 50s no longer happen. The Cuyahoga River no longer burns. When a legitimate problem surfaced that threatened us, we fixed it.
We're taking care of our planet, you just aren't acknowledging it.
There are interesting longitudinal lines across the scorched area - is the composite body laid down in strips?
I understand that the body itself is formed in rings and glued together in a row. The photo I'm looking at seems to show the scorch marks near the beginning of the tail fin. I wouldn't be surprised if Boeing laid down a bunch of strips to improve the structural integrity of that area and perhaps to streamline the aircraft a bit.
I know that politics makes for strange bedfellows, but this seems to head a little out of the norm.
They want something in Oklahoma and he's an Oklahoma politician. I think the chain of custody is clear.
The need to have political mercenaries. Don't have that infrastructure, don't need the protection racket.
There are groups in the government that want to take those programs away from UC, and privatize them (or whatever). UC wants to keep them because they bring in a lot of money from the federal government. Janet will help with that because of her connections.
A simple solution here would be to get rid of the facilities in question. Then you don't need to employ someone like Napolitano. You know, don't lie down with dogs, don't get up with fleas.
This is the UC, not your local community college.
True, they should be hiring Kiefer Sutherland for his extensive acting experience in these matters.
And for the record, according to catholic teaching, Polosi, Biden and the like are responsible for upholding, encouraging and creating policies that are responsible for many millions more deaths then the inquisition ever was, because they support legalized abortion, which to date has killed 75million people in this country alone since the 70's, So they certainly deserve excommunication more than the king of Spain could.
How many of those deaths are they personally responsible for? I could similarly state that the kings of Spain supported tyranny, which probably has a body count well north of a billion deaths these days.
Poverty is an incredibly deep gravitational well. It doesn't matter how it begins
Sure, it does. Programs like food assistance are one cause. That $5 comes from in large part from people who would have employed other people or invested in those who would. Months in employment limbo happens because the job is not there.
Back in college and even graduate school I had plenty of acquaintances on food stamps.
So what? They could have paid for their food and still be university professors and whatnot. ROI is not just that money was spent and good things happened afterward. You have to show that the outcome was better than it otherwise would have been.
If the purpose of the people was to serve the economy, that would be well and good, but in fact, the economy is a construct that is supposed to serve the people.
That's irrelevant. Developed world labor just isn't as valuable as it used to be. Trying and failing to force the economy to change that valuation hasn't worked yet nor will it.
Reducing wages is not really a viable option unless we can also reduce rent and mortgages, food, etc.
I wasn't saying that reducing wages was an option. I said it was happening.
Perhaps we need to outsource the overpriced management so there's more money for wages and the stockholders can still get a reasonable return on their investment. There's plenty of competent CEOs out there who are accustomed to salaries and bonuses of under a million a year.
The very same forces who try to insist that not reducing wages are an "option" are the same ones creating this sort of dynamic. The shareholders don't control most of their shares. Institutions do. And they're quite satisfied with the current state of affairs. Many of those institutions are public pension funds or state sanctioned investment funds. In the US, 401k plans and IRA funds, which have tax subsidies of various sorts, are mostly sunk into mutual funds. These don't directly contribute to wage inflation, but they do encourage the passive investing that leads to your CEO complaint.
When Anu the Sublime, King of the Anunaki, and Bel, the lord of Heaven and earth, who decreed the fate of the land, assigned to Marduk, the over-ruling son of Ea, God of righteousness, dominion over earthly man, and made him great among the Igigi, they called Babylon by his illustrious name, made it great on earth, and founded an everlasting kingdom in it, whose foundations are laid so solidly as those of heaven and earth; then Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should not harm the weak; so that I should rule over the black-headed people like Shamash, and enlighten the land, to further the well-being of mankind.
Abuse of power is not a recent concept, but a fundamental concept driving the very formation of law to the point that it is one of the three justifications given in the very first known written system of law.
If somehow we could hop in a time machine and go back to the first stories uttered by men, I think we would find that the idea of abuse of power is that old.