When I say Capitalism I'm talking about the very core of the idea of building capital. Using your gains to further your gains to further your gains to further your gains. This economic system cannot result in anything but a single unbeatable corporation owning life and limb and first born sons just like in feudalism.
Seriously, we have plenty of evidence of diminishing returns to massive concentrations of capital and wealth. The more you have, the harder it is to manage things and the harder it is to find profitable opportunities. A few threads ago, people were complaining that government was unfairly characterized as being more inefficient than private organizations. A common argument was that big businesses were very inefficient. Well, that part is true.
And to the second part of the claim, there just aren't that many opportunities for extreme wealth. So no, I don't see all wealth being concentrated in a few holders, because that much wealth just isn't efficiently managed nor has the profitable opportunities that smaller amounts of wealth have.
Yep. I work for one now, the second one I've worked for. And I've seen the inner workings of a few government organization. That's why I have the opinions I have on the relative efficiency of the two.
then you'd sleep well at night knowing that we'd rather have people never have sex, or if they do, pay dearly (or fail to and be destitute, with a destitute kid), so that you don't have to spare a fraction of a cent of your tax dollars to help society a little bit, right?
It's a bit small for me to sleep on. But sure, this is a good move towards a better society. I simply don't believe in using tax dollars to help society or that such expenditures actually work as advertised. Tax dollars should only be used for services that society needs to function. Providing birth control for free doesn't qualify.
If you think that providing free birth control is a good use of your money, then by all means donate your money to groups that do such things.
It's very hard to measure the efficiency of theoretical science.
Of course. But it's like the newspaper. One can't know the accuracy of stories about which one has no independent knowledge. But when you see a newspaper consistently get wrong stories about which you or your associates do have independent knowledge, then that's a solid indication that they aren't getting anything right.
Well, that's the case with US research funding. My experience has been that there are vast inefficiencies in the areas where I have some direct experience, here, theoretical physics and aerospace technology development. Further, there are times when one can see private and public projects operating side by side, for example, the Human Genome Project. Again, vast inefficiencies in the publicly funded science appear.
In others, there may be no practical value to the discovery, merely a stepping stone to something greater or merely a better grasp of the universe.
Why doesn't that have practical value? I tire of arguments that supposedly suppose basic research by claiming that research is too useless for privately funded organizations to attempt, but not too useless for publicly funded organizations to attempt. It is a fundamentally unscientific attitude.
The same can largely be said of the private sector as well.
But not said without error. The difference is that the private sector has to provide something of value at some point or eventually they run out of money.
Consider that education 80 years ago may have included antiquated beliefs about what children are capable of learning and/or may not have arrived a effective methods for teaching more.
Consider that education in the US has gotten worse since then.
He just happens to be slightly less of a villain than Romney.
And I'll probably be voting for Romney for the same reason. Because he's less of a villain than Obama. I could as I usually do, vote for the Libertarian candidate, but I decided to vote differently this time.
Here is a clue: Tax dollars aren't yours. Ever. They are all ours, societies.
Sure, I grant that my tax dollars are gone squandered on whatever fads we think we need. But I'll also strive to make sure as much of my pre-tax income (and everyone else's pre-tax income) doesn't fall into our incompetent, greedy hands.
Every branch of government and every government funded project wastes money. Every. Single. One. Are we to conclude that we should just shutdown all government because it isn't 100% efficient with its cash flow?
How about shutting down programs that are 10% efficient with their cash flow? That's pretty much where I see big science in the US (and a lot of defense spending as well). One loses an order of magnitude just from the approach. Maybe it can be made much more efficient. But if so, I'd like to see that demonstrated first.
TPAs are not being paid according to the return. They are paid on per case and by the hour basis.
The taxpaying client doesn't care how they bill, but whether they're worth what they bill.
The gist was that the lower the taxes go, the more valuable the next tax cut gets - both in work needed to achieve it and in the actual money gotten from the cut.
Think about that a bit. The lower taxes go, the less there is to save from taxation. So there's less value (since there is less money) to protect not more. And work doesn't magically become more valuable when there's less benefit (such as less tax savings to be had) to the work. Instead it becomes less valuable.
The cost of work by TPAs is NOT the primary motivator for lobbying for lower taxes - it's the higher taxes themselves.
Unless, of course, the taxes weren't actually any higher in reality and the tax avoidance schemes were complex and costly. Then the cost of the tax avoidance schemes can dominate tax savings.
Yes, except that such a transparent and self-serving abuse of ambassadorial powers would also reflect poorly on Ecuador, and no doubt cause them serious diplomatic repercussions, as well.
What this means is that Ecuador *could* designate him ad hoc as a courier, but that as soon as his courier duties were finished, he would cease to have any immunities provided to diplomatic agents, and thus be subject to immediate arrest and detention, as before.
Except that he might be in Ecuador rather than the UK when those duties are finished.
Not only technically, by every moral standard unless you grew up in some really really backward place, this would constitute rape. You do not have sex with a sleeping woman, even if you had it an hour before when she was awake, and certainly not if she is your partner, what kind of sick person are you?
Perhaps you ought to describe this broad family of "moral standards" so that the rest of us can spot one, should we ever come across it. I'm not just speaking of pseudo-rape here. This attitude seems very common on the internet. That something you think is right, you also think is near universal, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary.
However the UK is in a bind, they are caught between an internationally agreed legal obligation to extradite Assange to Sweden which has been confirmed in every level of court in the land
Where's the bind? There are legal tactics that the UK can carry out to make Assauge's asylum difficult to impossible to succeed, but the UK has no obligation to violate its own laws in order to fulfill an extradition request.
so "didn't also take out the Taliban"... basically the response after 11 years of war... hasn't been effective either. The cost in lives both foreign and domestic has been very high.
They did take out the Taliban. It turns out more difficult to keep them out. Somehow I doubt a "strategic" token bombing effort would have discouraged Al Qaeda or its allies.
4 - prices of tax prep advisers are peanuts compared to actual taxes.
For the moderately rich, right now. Note that in the article, despite those "peanuts" pricing, most people do taxes themselves. That should tell you what income bracket these people are in. In 1955, they wouldn't be risking paying 90+% of any additional income as taxes.
Slashdot Mirror
When I say Capitalism I'm talking about the very core of the idea of building capital. Using your gains to further your gains to further your gains to further your gains. This economic system cannot result in anything but a single unbeatable corporation owning life and limb and first born sons just like in feudalism.
Seriously, we have plenty of evidence of diminishing returns to massive concentrations of capital and wealth. The more you have, the harder it is to manage things and the harder it is to find profitable opportunities. A few threads ago, people were complaining that government was unfairly characterized as being more inefficient than private organizations. A common argument was that big businesses were very inefficient. Well, that part is true.
And to the second part of the claim, there just aren't that many opportunities for extreme wealth. So no, I don't see all wealth being concentrated in a few holders, because that much wealth just isn't efficiently managed nor has the profitable opportunities that smaller amounts of wealth have.
Here's some clue. "Rich", "elite", and "powerful" do not mean the same thing.
Why not just put the money where you want it to go in the first place by subsidizing clean energy programs?
Because that's not where you want it to go. Especially after passing through several layers of bureaucracy.
They had communal sharing of property and capital.
I, of course, refer to Celera Corporation and its "shotgun method" which radically sped up the Human Genome Project.
Yep. I work for one now, the second one I've worked for. And I've seen the inner workings of a few government organization. That's why I have the opinions I have on the relative efficiency of the two.
Well, what makes Russian communism not communism? The fact it didn't work? I don't see that a label is inappropriate merely because it's not pure.
then you'd sleep well at night knowing that we'd rather have people never have sex, or if they do, pay dearly (or fail to and be destitute, with a destitute kid), so that you don't have to spare a fraction of a cent of your tax dollars to help society a little bit, right?
It's a bit small for me to sleep on. But sure, this is a good move towards a better society. I simply don't believe in using tax dollars to help society or that such expenditures actually work as advertised. Tax dollars should only be used for services that society needs to function. Providing birth control for free doesn't qualify.
If you think that providing free birth control is a good use of your money, then by all means donate your money to groups that do such things.
It's very hard to measure the efficiency of theoretical science.
Of course. But it's like the newspaper. One can't know the accuracy of stories about which one has no independent knowledge. But when you see a newspaper consistently get wrong stories about which you or your associates do have independent knowledge, then that's a solid indication that they aren't getting anything right.
Well, that's the case with US research funding. My experience has been that there are vast inefficiencies in the areas where I have some direct experience, here, theoretical physics and aerospace technology development. Further, there are times when one can see private and public projects operating side by side, for example, the Human Genome Project. Again, vast inefficiencies in the publicly funded science appear.
In others, there may be no practical value to the discovery, merely a stepping stone to something greater or merely a better grasp of the universe.
Why doesn't that have practical value? I tire of arguments that supposedly suppose basic research by claiming that research is too useless for privately funded organizations to attempt, but not too useless for publicly funded organizations to attempt. It is a fundamentally unscientific attitude.
The same can largely be said of the private sector as well.
But not said without error. The difference is that the private sector has to provide something of value at some point or eventually they run out of money.
Consider that education 80 years ago may have included antiquated beliefs about what children are capable of learning and/or may not have arrived a effective methods for teaching more.
Consider that education in the US has gotten worse since then.
He just happens to be slightly less of a villain than Romney.
And I'll probably be voting for Romney for the same reason. Because he's less of a villain than Obama. I could as I usually do, vote for the Libertarian candidate, but I decided to vote differently this time.
You think we rode to the moon on civilian hardware?
Who wouldn't think that? It's true after all. The taint of private enterprise is all over any government endeavor, much less Apollo.
Here is a clue: Tax dollars aren't yours. Ever. They are all ours, societies.
Sure, I grant that my tax dollars are gone squandered on whatever fads we think we need. But I'll also strive to make sure as much of my pre-tax income (and everyone else's pre-tax income) doesn't fall into our incompetent, greedy hands.
Every branch of government and every government funded project wastes money. Every. Single. One. Are we to conclude that we should just shutdown all government because it isn't 100% efficient with its cash flow?
How about shutting down programs that are 10% efficient with their cash flow? That's pretty much where I see big science in the US (and a lot of defense spending as well). One loses an order of magnitude just from the approach. Maybe it can be made much more efficient. But if so, I'd like to see that demonstrated first.
TPAs are not being paid according to the return. They are paid on per case and by the hour basis.
The taxpaying client doesn't care how they bill, but whether they're worth what they bill.
The gist was that the lower the taxes go, the more valuable the next tax cut gets - both in work needed to achieve it and in the actual money gotten from the cut.
Think about that a bit. The lower taxes go, the less there is to save from taxation. So there's less value (since there is less money) to protect not more. And work doesn't magically become more valuable when there's less benefit (such as less tax savings to be had) to the work. Instead it becomes less valuable.
The cost of work by TPAs is NOT the primary motivator for lobbying for lower taxes - it's the higher taxes themselves.
Unless, of course, the taxes weren't actually any higher in reality and the tax avoidance schemes were complex and costly. Then the cost of the tax avoidance schemes can dominate tax savings.
We can fund this worthy project with popcorn futures.
Is that a numerical figure or a bodily figure?
Yes, except that such a transparent and self-serving abuse of ambassadorial powers would also reflect poorly on Ecuador, and no doubt cause them serious diplomatic repercussions, as well.
What would make it "self-serving"?
What this means is that Ecuador *could* designate him ad hoc as a courier, but that as soon as his courier duties were finished, he would cease to have any immunities provided to diplomatic agents, and thus be subject to immediate arrest and detention, as before.
Except that he might be in Ecuador rather than the UK when those duties are finished.
Not only technically, by every moral standard unless you grew up in some really really backward place, this would constitute rape. You do not have sex with a sleeping woman, even if you had it an hour before when she was awake, and certainly not if she is your partner, what kind of sick person are you?
Perhaps you ought to describe this broad family of "moral standards" so that the rest of us can spot one, should we ever come across it. I'm not just speaking of pseudo-rape here. This attitude seems very common on the internet. That something you think is right, you also think is near universal, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary.
However the UK is in a bind, they are caught between an internationally agreed legal obligation to extradite Assange to Sweden which has been confirmed in every level of court in the land
Where's the bind? There are legal tactics that the UK can carry out to make Assauge's asylum difficult to impossible to succeed, but the UK has no obligation to violate its own laws in order to fulfill an extradition request.
so "didn't also take out the Taliban"... basically the response after 11 years of war... hasn't been effective either. The cost in lives both foreign and domestic has been very high.
They did take out the Taliban. It turns out more difficult to keep them out. Somehow I doubt a "strategic" token bombing effort would have discouraged Al Qaeda or its allies.
Why would either side be considered unprofessional for naming more witnesses than they need?
Almost four times as many witnesses as they could possibly question?
4 - prices of tax prep advisers are peanuts compared to actual taxes.
For the moderately rich, right now. Note that in the article, despite those "peanuts" pricing, most people do taxes themselves. That should tell you what income bracket these people are in. In 1955, they wouldn't be risking paying 90+% of any additional income as taxes.