Being against most governement regulation, without specifying what government regulation is okay, but it is wishy-washy
My objective was merely to point out that the Libertarian though process does not necessitate the destruction of all government entities. My goal wasn't to list the specifics that I am against (I could) but merely to point out that it is possible to be Libertarian and believe govt. body X should still exist. I was encouraging the idea that as Libertarians, we can discuss which Xs are not needed (as is being done in this thread with the SEC).
Again, you missed what I was saying about Point 2. Internal audits can fail. Having a second level of regulation can catch those failures. How is that bad?
Two points: In your rebuttal, you cite an example that the SEC did not catch. I would wager that it is not terribly common for internal auditors to (accidentally) miss something, and have the SEC catch it (please provide examples if you have them.
Secondly, you did not address my point about the SEC being an institution subsidized by taxes without choice. 'A second level of regulation' could catch when I need an oil change, but as an automobile owner that is my responsibility to look after. The problem with taxes is that everyone pays them, whether or not they receive benefit. The good thing about private auditors is that only those who receive benefit pay for them.
Unless a company cannot keep any of its profits, an unsustainable model for growth, dividends would not have helped in the Enron situation. The board would have been able to say "We need that cash for [infrastructure|purchasing|etc.] purposes. They knowingly committed fraud. Dividends would have just caused them to commit it a different way.
I say it doesn't make sense to force a company to give dividends. Oracle wouldn't be able to buy PeopleSoft if they had paid out dividends when they were profitable. The board kept the profit to help with growth. When a board doesn't feel it needs that money, it can already give a dividend, just like Microsoft is doing.
You have consistently exaggerated my statements and put words in my mouth. I have said this several times, but I am going to repeat it again....
Just make payment of dividends an equal option!
Again
I am just stating that dividends should be an equal option for investors to use in getting their money
Please note... nowhere did I say required or forced. I am saying that investors should have that option.
This negates your Enron and Peoplesoft statements. These statements, by the way, hint at a lack of understanding of cooperate boards, who are beholden by the shareholders. If they are lying to shareholders, then they can be taken off the board (and there is possible legal action as well... this is an area I don't know much about)
Oracle wouldn't be able to buy PeopleSoft if they had paid out dividends when they were profitable.
Again, no where did I say that Oracle would be required to pay dividends. If the shareholders wanted their money back, then they could require it to, if not, then they wouldn't. Even if they did, there are other methods for raising money for purchases such as this, corporate bonds being one.
If you really believe that dividends can protect you, buy stock that gives dividends.
Agreed, but I am saying dividends are an investor protection mechanism that the governments (albeit with 'good intentions') actually discourages. That is akin to saying 'if you like seat-belts, only buy cars that have them' when I say 'I think we should stop taxing seat-belts being installed in cars, so more cars can have them'. The two statements aren't really talking to each other.
That Angry Economist link you provided is arguing the exact same thing I am:
Second, because dividends keep a company honest. Enron got into trouble because they falsified earnings. T
A 50% estate tax would be necessary to stop large amounts of money just accumulating in a family over generations.
You know, statistically, the children of most millionaires to a better job at that, as the parent said... why not allow poor people to accumulate money and pass it on to their children.
Very few people in America are 'idle rich'... those that are, are just burning money and will leave their children with nothing, starting the cycle over. My points are backed up by facts, as most American millionaires are first generation rich, and typically immigrants working to make their children's lives better... why take away that dream because of your view on the subject (which was most likely shaped by the statistical anomaly of Paris Hilton).
This is the central problem with the current Libertarian party. When I say I'm libertarian, I mean I want lower taxes, and don't care what two gay guys do.... I know tons of people who think the same thing but see Libertarian nut jobs talking about "guns for tots" or whatever, and they are turned off. Like many groups, Libertarians are often their own worst enemy
Wrong. Point 1 is important. Your reply only stems from your 1 dimensional view of politics (left/right). I know this is a tired old argument, and many people are sick of Libertarians 'educating' them. In this case it is necessary though: Republicans want less government (will they ever do it?) and a more restrictive social environment (pro-life, war on drugs, no gay rights, etc..). This does not suit many peoples view and therefore they look for others.
Yeah, coporate auditing is nice, but it can't replace the SEC. Look at Arthur Andersen.
Interesting that you critic my logic, then say something like this. Let me summarize: We can't get rid of X, because X failed and so did Y. (Enron happened under both groups watch).
My point is three-fold
Expecting any system to work 100 percent is foolish, and often leads to less desirable outcomes. With Arthur Anderson, they are toast now. All the other accounting firms are covering their collective arses as well, because they don't want to go down like Anderson, therefore they regulate the company better because they are held responsible.
With Arthur Anderson, they were hired by an extension of the shareholders for auditing. This means, even when they did a crappy job, they were still charging the shareholders (as that is who owns Enron). If the shareholders didn't think they were getting a good deal, they could have gotten new auditors (how would they know, more on that later).
This means however, that all money paid to Arthur Anderson was paid voluntarily by the shareholders, as no one is forcecd to own Enron stock. The distinction here is very important, because you can not voluntarily pay the SEC (taxes). This means you have no choice, even if you want nothing to to with stocks, or can't afford them. Therefore all the poor are paying taxes to support a regulatory agency that protects just the rich. If rich people want to be protected, they should hire their own auditors (protectors).
How would Arthur Anderson know how to audit Enron? Accounting would become much more simplified if a dividend system were used for paying shareholders. This is because of all the other complicated schemes that are developed to do so in the current system (stock buy back, re-investment, etc).
To respond to you Point 3 'points':
Saying that is so does not make it so, please give examples. Furthermore, even if somehow dividends were faked, the investor still has money in the bank instead of the memories of '$100 a share stock that they were supposed to know to sell because that bounce was their dividend'. My basic premise is Enron could not have happened if they were expected to mail everyone $1.75 a share when they said that's what they made. I suppose they could have written 'hot checks' to everyone, but seriously. I also suppose they could have continued as they did, but merely paid out money while hiding debt. This has problems in two places: 1) This is much less sustainable, as I've said before because you actually have to pay money instead of saying you have it. 2) It favors investors, as they then get money in the bank... whereas Enron favored those at the top with insider knowledge.
Yes, indeed they should, and this is the prerogative of the shareholders. My point was just that they should just have the option of getting dividends. You reply is basically "sometimes they shouldn't do that, so they should never have that option", and does not make logical sense.
Again, my argument was not that dividends should not be taxed, it was more that they should not be taxed more than other income. Doing so causes companies to use more convoluted ways to transfer wealth to their shareholders that only further alienates the small investor who can't know the intricacies of what is going on, therefore more often than not they get stuck holding the bag.
Also, there is still motivation for corporations to have their stock price go up and because of this there still motivation to decieve investors.
And that motivation is? Seriously, I'm waiting. If a company could pay its investors 100 percent in dividends, why would they want the price to go up? Because it 'looks nice'? People are a little smarter than that.
I think the original poster was thinking more along these lines: Fraud may still be illegal, but under a "perfect" libertarian government, would an entity like the SEC even exist? After all, it is the job of the SEC to regulate the markets. Doesn't that very job contradict the libertarian ideals? If the there isn't an entity regulating the markets, how do you catch the Enron's, the WorldCom's, the CNBC talking heads that are hyping a company that they have money invested in, etc?
1) Not all government regulation must entirely disappear under Libertarian ideas, this is a grey area... we can debate about where to put the stopping point, but we all agree that the start needs to happen
2) Other posters have mentioned that there would be many 'private SECs'... these people apparently don't know much about current corporate auditing as they are describing nearly an identical system
3) I would like to show that Enron was caused by government regulation, and would have been stopped if there were less government regulation: Back in the day, rich people invested in stocks. They owned shares of companies that made money. When a company made money, it divided this money among its owners (shareholders) and mailed it to them in the form of dividends. One day some government genius said "Look at this, this is a massive form of income and it is only being used by rich people. Therefore, we can tax this, and only tax the rich people, it is a great new source of income!". This was done, and the tax on dividends went up. Now the rules of the game have changed, so it will not be played the same way as in the past. Under the new system, it is cheaper to sell off shares for a profit. Companies realize they can still distribute the money to their investors, but they do so by buying their own shares with their profits (or just sit on the profits). This causes the outstanding share value to rise, allowing the current share holders to sell the shares and get their money under the less heavily taxed capital gains rate.
The problem now, is that the emphasis is shifted to raising the share price. The share price can be raised through dubious means, which is how Enron happened. If the system were not messed with, Enron could not happen, because if the CEO said "we have just made X billion dollars" investors would then rightly say "ok, fine send me a check". This can not be faked. Investors become the regulators, and they can decide to call back their money (dividends) or re-invest it in the company (by letting them keep it).
How many times have good ideas been... voted in by the other party..
So, wait.. you are saying this system is broken because good ideas don't get voted in by those who originally posted them? As a citizen, I don't care who votes in good ideas, as long as they get in.
Yes,
I agree that the library case is different.. I was just commenting on this, because I see the same logic applied all the time to personal connections. However, just because something is a public resource does not mean an individual can use it as they see fit (Think roads, or Central Park) There are still rules governing these things, and the individuals must obey them, even if they are as asinine as "must use wireless connection inside the Library". What makes it a public resource is that it is possible for an individual to change these rules (ie voting), not that they can just do what they want.
I think this case has no grand legal implications however... it is just a cop abusing some sense of authority that he really doesn't have
so they aren't paying anything more if someone accesses it...
Bzzztt... wrong. This is always the biggest fault of this argument, and I hear it often. When I pay for my connection, I pay for all the speed. If someone is using that bandwidth they are reducing my service that I paid for.
As a hint, the "If they didn't want me using it, they should have secured it better" argument does not work either. Try applying it to anything else.
Have some jackass who insists they're right about some obscure factoid, and want to make them admit they're full of crap now, before they can deny it ever happened?
This is how the Guinness Book of World Records began,... no really
I agree with your post, and do think billboards should be regulated. (I'm from VT originally and believe that very strongly). But: I'm forced to put up with advertising that is shoved in my face everywhere I go, and I get no say about it is not a statement condemning current zoning procedures.
It is a statement that is a symptom of a problem with todays left: Acceptance and Freedom, except when it is something we disagree with. (Note: The right does not have this problem, only because they don't pretend to be accepting)
I do not believe that you have ever had a conversation with an "indymedia type"
You are overestimating these people... I've read some great quotes on that site... In regards to Eco-terrorists burning down a building: "It's ok, corporations are not people, they don't have feelings" Nice logic. Indymedia is basically a place where the far left can go where they can be sure not to hear any dissenting views or commentary, so they can continue to convince themselves of their self rigorousness.
My point still stands about the parent post however: it is basically just whining by someone who can't figure out why he can't have the end-all say on what is acceptable for society.
I'm forced to put up with advertising that is shoved in my face everywhere I go, and I get no say about it.
Honestly Slashdot, this got modded up? That is just embarrassing. Ironically, I've found people like this are often the first to complain about restrictions on free speech. A small revelation might be: if people have control over their private property (aka freedom) they can use if for their own speech, or to advertise, they are one and the same.
I've talked with enough people of this 'indymedia' type mentality to know what the conversation typically goes like:
Anon: I'm so sick of being bombarded with this advertising against my will
Me: But wait, isn't most of this in TV or Radio. Don't you voluntarily listen to these things? More over, most of it is provided free to you, because of advertising. Couldn't you just stop watching?
Now, this is the time I point out, I only listen to NPR and I don't own a TV ( this is the honest truth). It is possible to forgo these things, if you decide they aren't worth it to you. This point will have to be conceded, because it only leaves 'Anon' to realize they are just whining... their argument becomes "This stuff should be just provided to me" Which is only a function of their typical false sense of entitlement. This means they are only left with this recourse...
Anon: Fine, but I am forced to watch billboards and ads on buildings... I can't 'change the channel' on those. Me: Fine, but do you believe in freedom of speech? Anon: Yes, but that doesn't mean advertising should be allowed Me: Fine, so if I own property, the government should be allowed to say what I put on my barn? Or if I put a billboard up to make extra money on my farmland? Anon: Yes Me: (Ok, so now individual freedom of speech is out.. or at least people aren't allowed to see it. The argument could be made that you could just restrict 'commercial speech'.. so I will allow this and explore it:) So should businesses be allowed to put up signs? (If not, how the hell will anyone know where anything is?) Anon: Yes, fine.. but just identifying ones, on the business, saying what business it is. Me: There we have it... now what you've just done is made high-traffic real-estate unattainably expensive. Since now the only people will only know about businesses that are in well known locations. Now only big 'corporate' chains can afford to start a new store, because the good (aka exposed) land is insanely expensive. The question is... when someone starts a new business, how do they succeed? They can't afford high traffic land, and without that, no one will come to their business because no one will know about it. Think life is irritating now because you have to suffer the 'extreme discomfort' of glancing at a billboard? Imagine a world where only Walmart can afford to open a new store.
Please cite a source. The ad in question I am referring to is by "Swiftboat veterans for truth" which is an independent 527 group, and therefore not funded by the GOP. It is often reported to be, as a large donor to this group is a prominent GOP member, but as a private citizen he is allowed to do so.
Whether these 527s are truly independent, and whether they should be regulated is another matter, and I am mainly dealing with your statement in the context of the current laws.
The damage he caused was no worse than if he had simply been infected himself.
I agree, he should be celebrated, alongside those who have sex knowing they're HIV positive. After all, the damage is no worse than if they didn't know.
I'm sorry, but if you can't see that this kid willingly contributed to the problem, and that is wrong, then you have no sense.
You have failed to consistently address my central thesis... You are not born with 'life knowledge' or 'knowledge of the domain of your problems'. This knowledge comes to you from an external source. If even any percentage of your external source is from advertising, then your point that "that advertising really does not generate any sales" is false.
It has become clear that your opinion is not based off of reason, or understanding of my argument, but more from a lack of world experience and an overestimation of your own independence:
when I want to boil some rice,
What rice did you buy? why? Did you get the cheapest.. if so, was it because it suited your needs (price) better than more expensive, enriched rice (nutrition). Where did you go to buy this rice? How did you know they sold rice there? Why did you choose that place over another?
I put it in a pot
What pot did you choose? Was it non-stick or not? Where do you go to buy a pot?
Somebody can come up with a better stove, that would use electricity more efficiently. [...] It is simply not worth it.
Spoken like someone who has truly never paid their own electric bill. Anyone else would say that if they saw an oven advertised that used less electricity, they would investigate it. They would then do a mental cost/benefit check and see if it is worth it to them.
And if I do come across one in a store (which is really the only form of advertising that the world needs), I will not buy it.
Nice logic... how do you know where the stores are? Are they allowed to put signs outside? Is that advertising? (yes). If your answer is "you just know" then how do you know where stores in out-of-the-way locations are? In your utopia, only stores such as Walmart would exist as local and startup stores would not be able to afford the price of visible retail locations... and would not be able to attract customers. Sounds good?
product sufficient to suit your needs, not just a "better product"
A better product is one that better at suiting your needs. Your needs are never 'sufficiently' suited.. as they are always things to be improved. In your case, it could be price. Are you seriously saying that you would spend $100 on a bottle of detergent because it is 'sufficient to suit your needs?'. If you saw an ad entitled 'Just like your bottle of detergent, but $1 cheaper... you wouldn't buy it because you learned about it in an 'evil ad'?
it makes no sense for me to spend more money on a better detergent just to keep them black. False logic alert If you buy 2 bottles of detergent, you use each one half as much. Therefore you spend the same amount on detergent, but have more of your needs (cleaning your clothes and keeping them new looking) met. This is of course, presuming that both bottles cost the same, but that was not part of your augment. It is also not central to my point whether something is 'worth it' because that is an individual assessment based on an individuals cost/benefit analysis.
Can you see why I don't want to see any stupid clothes ads?
Cry me a river. If ads really irked you... you wouldn't watch them. Seriously, that is the net benefit of ads... they are voluntary and reduce the cost of associated goods (You don't pay for network television or radio). If you really dislike ads, don't watch... personally, I only listen to NPR and I don't own a TV (no, seriously).
That's why you should wash your car with rain water. Or, heck, just let the rain wash it
Your obviously from an area of nicer climes than me. Where they don't put salt on the roads that will rust your car if you don't wash it off. You can wax it to add a nice little layer of protection against this.
So, I hope I have shown sufficiently the holes in your argument, and how it isn't based off logic, but merely whining. I would like to hear your re
It's called knowledge of life. I have everything I need to live comfortably. All other things are unnecessary and I find any suggestion that I waste my money on them offensive. I don't care if black T-shirts stay black; gray doesn't look that bad either. And I have never seen a "water splotch" on my car, so I have no idea why you would have them.
I realize you are probably just trolling, but what the hell....
Again.. where does this 'knowledge of life' come from? You have repeatedly failed to answer this question, which I'll take to mean you are conceding your point.... Advertising works, because at some point you heard about the products you are using and said 'this sounds like I'd find it useful'. Therefore you bought it. That's all advertising is... you just sound like someone who is disgruntled because they have to see ads for products others might find useful. Basically you are just whining: "I only want to see things for me! No one else!"
'Water splotches' are caused when you wash your car with water that contains minerals... when the water droplets evaporate they leave visible mineral deposits on your car.
You black t-shirts comment shows that you are trolling... if you are going to spend the money anyway, why not get a better product? You might be buying 2 detergents now, but you'll use each one half as much... plus have to spend less money on new cloths as the old ones will stay in better condition. Again.. it is you going out of your way to be difficult: This may be better, but I'm going to purposely make my life difficult.... Yeah.. that will show 'the man'
>No, because I always know exactly what I need and when I need it
GOTO: Original Post, read (aka, were you born with this knowledge?)
>And recently, there really have been no new products
Recently, I learned they make a detergent that is really good at keeping black T-shirts black... and Mr. Clean makes a car wash system that does not require you to dry (to avoid water splotches)... cool, thanks advertising
If this is the same bet I remember... he wanted to be wrong. His expectation, and hope was that he would loose the bet... he took the bet because if his theories turn out to be wrong, at least he gets the prize of the bet as consolation.
Yes,
The world applauds freedom fighters like yourself. Without people like you to make up our minds about what we should and should not do, I don't know what we'd do. The ignorant masses are grateful for those anointed ones like yourself who are wise enough to make these decisions for us. God forbid we be allowed to choose where we want to shop, we can not handle such power.
atm a large proportion of the population of China are really benefiting from its governments rule.
'A Large proportion of the population' also benefited from segregation.... Free societies are judged by how well they protect the rights of the individual.... not how many they sacrifice 'for the greater good'
Firstly, it explains simple economic fundamentals for those who are not aware of them.
Secondly, and more importantly... it explains something important about why people loose a lot of money on Wall Street: They compete against the pros on Wall Street. Don't invest in IBM, or Ford, or the big blue chips because thousands of analysts who are better at these things are doing so also.
Peter Lynch explains how to use your status as an amateur as an advantage.
The video game industry says not buying a game stifles creativity.
Seriously, how does this stifle creativity? If X people want a game, and want to continue playing it then X people will do so.
All resale prevents is from a game selling wildly upon high expectations, and not backing it up with long term playability. It sounds like it actually encourages creativity, because it makes them need to have an actually solid game
Slashdot Mirror
Being against most governement regulation, without specifying what government regulation is okay, but it is wishy-washy
My objective was merely to point out that the Libertarian though process does not necessitate the destruction of all government entities. My goal wasn't to list the specifics that I am against (I could) but merely to point out that it is possible to be Libertarian and believe govt. body X should still exist. I was encouraging the idea that as Libertarians, we can discuss which Xs are not needed (as is being done in this thread with the SEC).
Again, you missed what I was saying about Point 2. Internal audits can fail. Having a second level of regulation can catch those failures. How is that bad?
Two points: In your rebuttal, you cite an example that the SEC did not catch. I would wager that it is not terribly common for internal auditors to (accidentally) miss something, and have the SEC catch it (please provide examples if you have them.
Secondly, you did not address my point about the SEC being an institution subsidized by taxes without choice. 'A second level of regulation' could catch when I need an oil change, but as an automobile owner that is my responsibility to look after. The problem with taxes is that everyone pays them, whether or not they receive benefit. The good thing about private auditors is that only those who receive benefit pay for them.
Unless a company cannot keep any of its profits, an unsustainable model for growth, dividends would not have helped in the Enron situation. The board would have been able to say "We need that cash for [infrastructure|purchasing|etc.] purposes. They knowingly committed fraud. Dividends would have just caused them to commit it a different way.
I say it doesn't make sense to force a company to give dividends. Oracle wouldn't be able to buy PeopleSoft if they had paid out dividends when they were profitable. The board kept the profit to help with growth. When a board doesn't feel it needs that money, it can already give a dividend, just like Microsoft is doing.
You have consistently exaggerated my statements and put words in my mouth. I have said this several times, but I am going to repeat it again....
Just make payment of dividends an equal option!
Again
I am just stating that dividends should be an equal option for investors to use in getting their money
Please note... nowhere did I say required or forced. I am saying that investors should have that option.
This negates your Enron and Peoplesoft statements. These statements, by the way, hint at a lack of understanding of cooperate boards, who are beholden by the shareholders. If they are lying to shareholders, then they can be taken off the board (and there is possible legal action as well... this is an area I don't know much about)
Oracle wouldn't be able to buy PeopleSoft if they had paid out dividends when they were profitable.
Again, no where did I say that Oracle would be required to pay dividends. If the shareholders wanted their money back, then they could require it to, if not, then they wouldn't. Even if they did, there are other methods for raising money for purchases such as this, corporate bonds being one.
If you really believe that dividends can protect you, buy stock that gives dividends.
Agreed, but I am saying dividends are an investor protection mechanism that the governments (albeit with 'good intentions') actually discourages. That is akin to saying 'if you like seat-belts, only buy cars that have them' when I say 'I think we should stop taxing seat-belts being installed in cars, so more cars can have them'. The two statements aren't really talking to each other.
That Angry Economist link you provided is arguing the exact same thing I am:
Second, because dividends keep a company honest. Enron got into trouble because they falsified earnings. T
Do you write professionally?
Yes, mainly in C
---Lane
A 50% estate tax would be necessary to stop large amounts of money just accumulating in a family over generations.
You know, statistically, the children of most millionaires to a better job at that, as the parent said... why not allow poor people to accumulate money and pass it on to their children.
Very few people in America are 'idle rich'... those that are, are just burning money and will leave their children with nothing, starting the cycle over. My points are backed up by facts, as most American millionaires are first generation rich, and typically immigrants working to make their children's lives better... why take away that dream because of your view on the subject (which was most likely shaped by the statistical anomaly of Paris Hilton).
This is the central problem with the current Libertarian party. When I say I'm libertarian, I mean I want lower taxes, and don't care what two gay guys do.... I know tons of people who think the same thing but see Libertarian nut jobs talking about "guns for tots" or whatever, and they are turned off. Like many groups, Libertarians are often their own worst enemy
Wrong. Point 1 is important. Your reply only stems from your 1 dimensional view of politics (left/right). I know this is a tired old argument, and many people are sick of Libertarians 'educating' them. In this case it is necessary though: Republicans want less government (will they ever do it?) and a more restrictive social environment (pro-life, war on drugs, no gay rights, etc..). This does not suit many peoples view and therefore they look for others.
Yeah, coporate auditing is nice, but it can't replace the SEC. Look at Arthur Andersen.
Interesting that you critic my logic, then say something like this. Let me summarize: We can't get rid of X, because X failed and so did Y. (Enron happened under both groups watch).
My point is three-fold
This means however, that all money paid to Arthur Anderson was paid voluntarily by the shareholders, as no one is forcecd to own Enron stock. The distinction here is very important, because you can not voluntarily pay the SEC (taxes). This means you have no choice, even if you want nothing to to with stocks, or can't afford them. Therefore all the poor are paying taxes to support a regulatory agency that protects just the rich. If rich people want to be protected, they should hire their own auditors (protectors).
I am int
Also, there is still motivation for corporations to have their stock price go up and because of this there still motivation to decieve investors.
And that motivation is? Seriously, I'm waiting. If a company could pay its investors 100 percent in dividends, why would they want the price to go up? Because it 'looks nice'? People are a little smarter than that.
---Lane
The problem now, is that the emphasis is shifted to raising the share price. The share price can be raised through dubious means, which is how Enron happened. If the system were not messed with, Enron could not happen, because if the CEO said "we have just made X billion dollars" investors would then rightly say "ok, fine send me a check". This can not be faked. Investors become the regulators, and they can decide to call back their money (dividends) or re-invest it in the company (by letting them keep it).
How many times have good ideas been ... voted in by the other party..
So, wait.. you are saying this system is broken because good ideas don't get voted in by those who originally posted them? As a citizen, I don't care who votes in good ideas, as long as they get in.
Yes, I agree that the library case is different.. I was just commenting on this, because I see the same logic applied all the time to personal connections. However, just because something is a public resource does not mean an individual can use it as they see fit (Think roads, or Central Park) There are still rules governing these things, and the individuals must obey them, even if they are as asinine as "must use wireless connection inside the Library". What makes it a public resource is that it is possible for an individual to change these rules (ie voting), not that they can just do what they want.
I think this case has no grand legal implications however... it is just a cop abusing some sense of authority that he really doesn't have
so they aren't paying anything more if someone accesses it...
Bzzztt... wrong. This is always the biggest fault of this argument, and I hear it often. When I pay for my connection, I pay for all the speed. If someone is using that bandwidth they are reducing my service that I paid for.
As a hint, the "If they didn't want me using it, they should have secured it better" argument does not work either. Try applying it to anything else.
---Lane
Have some jackass who insists they're right about some obscure factoid, and want to make them admit they're full of crap now, before they can deny it ever happened?
This is how the Guinness Book of World Records began,... no really
---Lane
I agree with your post, and do think billboards should be regulated. (I'm from VT originally and believe that very strongly). But: I'm forced to put up with advertising that is shoved in my face everywhere I go, and I get no say about it is not a statement condemning current zoning procedures.
It is a statement that is a symptom of a problem with todays left: Acceptance and Freedom, except when it is something we disagree with. (Note: The right does not have this problem, only because they don't pretend to be accepting)
I do not believe that you have ever had a conversation with an "indymedia type"
You are overestimating these people... I've read some great quotes on that site... In regards to Eco-terrorists burning down a building: "It's ok, corporations are not people, they don't have feelings" Nice logic. Indymedia is basically a place where the far left can go where they can be sure not to hear any dissenting views or commentary, so they can continue to convince themselves of their self rigorousness.
My point still stands about the parent post however: it is basically just whining by someone who can't figure out why he can't have the end-all say on what is acceptable for society.
I'm forced to put up with advertising that is shoved in my face everywhere I go, and I get no say about it.
Honestly Slashdot, this got modded up? That is just embarrassing. Ironically, I've found people like this are often the first to complain about restrictions on free speech. A small revelation might be: if people have control over their private property (aka freedom) they can use if for their own speech, or to advertise, they are one and the same.
I've talked with enough people of this 'indymedia' type mentality to know what the conversation typically goes like:
Anon: I'm so sick of being bombarded with this advertising against my will
Me: But wait, isn't most of this in TV or Radio. Don't you voluntarily listen to these things? More over, most of it is provided free to you, because of advertising. Couldn't you just stop watching?
Now, this is the time I point out, I only listen to NPR and I don't own a TV ( this is the honest truth). It is possible to forgo these things, if you decide they aren't worth it to you. This point will have to be conceded, because it only leaves 'Anon' to realize they are just whining... their argument becomes "This stuff should be just provided to me" Which is only a function of their typical false sense of entitlement. This means they are only left with this recourse...
Anon: Fine, but I am forced to watch billboards and ads on buildings... I can't 'change the channel' on those.
Me: Fine, but do you believe in freedom of speech?
Anon: Yes, but that doesn't mean advertising should be allowed
Me: Fine, so if I own property, the government should be allowed to say what I put on my barn? Or if I put a billboard up to make extra money on my farmland?
Anon: Yes
Me: (Ok, so now individual freedom of speech is out.. or at least people aren't allowed to see it. The argument could be made that you could just restrict 'commercial speech'.. so I will allow this and explore it:) So should businesses be allowed to put up signs? (If not, how the hell will anyone know where anything is?)
Anon: Yes, fine.. but just identifying ones, on the business, saying what business it is.
Me: There we have it... now what you've just done is made high-traffic real-estate unattainably expensive. Since now the only people will only know about businesses that are in well known locations. Now only big 'corporate' chains can afford to start a new store, because the good (aka exposed) land is insanely expensive. The question is... when someone starts a new business, how do they succeed? They can't afford high traffic land, and without that, no one will come to their business because no one will know about it. Think life is irritating now because you have to suffer the 'extreme discomfort' of glancing at a billboard? Imagine a world where only Walmart can afford to open a new store.
Nothing's legit unless money transfers hands.
Again, this is embarrassing. Do you think if a billboard donated space to this guy he would be arrested? Of course not. Stop saying such drivel and making the entire left wing seem like a bunch of whiney upper class college kids with a false sense of entitlement and no critical thinking skills
Please cite a source. The ad in question I am referring to is by "Swiftboat veterans for truth" which is an independent 527 group, and therefore not funded by the GOP. It is often reported to be, as a large donor to this group is a prominent GOP member, but as a private citizen he is allowed to do so.
Whether these 527s are truly independent, and whether they should be regulated is another matter, and I am mainly dealing with your statement in the context of the current laws.
Those Swift boat veterans who appeared in that GOP-funded advert
Republicans distort the truth
Congratulations, you just proved the parent poster correct.
P.S. If you don't 'get it' then you don't know much about campaign finance laws
The damage he caused was no worse than if he had simply been infected himself.
I agree, he should be celebrated, alongside those who have sex knowing they're HIV positive. After all, the damage is no worse than if they didn't know.
I'm sorry, but if you can't see that this kid willingly contributed to the problem, and that is wrong, then you have no sense.
You have failed to consistently address my central thesis... You are not born with 'life knowledge' or 'knowledge of the domain of your problems'. This knowledge comes to you from an external source. If even any percentage of your external source is from advertising, then your point that "that advertising really does not generate any sales" is false.
It has become clear that your opinion is not based off of reason, or understanding of my argument, but more from a lack of world experience and an overestimation of your own independence:
when I want to boil some rice,
What rice did you buy? why? Did you get the cheapest.. if so, was it because it suited your needs (price) better than more expensive, enriched rice (nutrition). Where did you go to buy this rice? How did you know they sold rice there? Why did you choose that place over another?
I put it in a pot
What pot did you choose? Was it non-stick or not? Where do you go to buy a pot?
Somebody can come up with a better stove, that would use electricity more efficiently. [...] It is simply not worth it.
Spoken like someone who has truly never paid their own electric bill. Anyone else would say that if they saw an oven advertised that used less electricity, they would investigate it. They would then do a mental cost/benefit check and see if it is worth it to them.
And if I do come across one in a store (which is really the only form of advertising that the world needs), I will not buy it.
Nice logic... how do you know where the stores are? Are they allowed to put signs outside? Is that advertising? (yes). If your answer is "you just know" then how do you know where stores in out-of-the-way locations are? In your utopia, only stores such as Walmart would exist as local and startup stores would not be able to afford the price of visible retail locations... and would not be able to attract customers. Sounds good?
product sufficient to suit your needs, not just a "better product"
A better product is one that better at suiting your needs. Your needs are never 'sufficiently' suited.. as they are always things to be improved. In your case, it could be price. Are you seriously saying that you would spend $100 on a bottle of detergent because it is 'sufficient to suit your needs?'. If you saw an ad entitled 'Just like your bottle of detergent, but $1 cheaper... you wouldn't buy it because you learned about it in an 'evil ad'?
it makes no sense for me to spend more money on a better detergent just to keep them black.
False logic alert If you buy 2 bottles of detergent, you use each one half as much. Therefore you spend the same amount on detergent, but have more of your needs (cleaning your clothes and keeping them new looking) met. This is of course, presuming that both bottles cost the same, but that was not part of your augment. It is also not central to my point whether something is 'worth it' because that is an individual assessment based on an individuals cost/benefit analysis.
Can you see why I don't want to see any stupid clothes ads?
Cry me a river. If ads really irked you... you wouldn't watch them. Seriously, that is the net benefit of ads... they are voluntary and reduce the cost of associated goods (You don't pay for network television or radio). If you really dislike ads, don't watch... personally, I only listen to NPR and I don't own a TV (no, seriously).
That's why you should wash your car with rain water. Or, heck, just let the rain wash it
Your obviously from an area of nicer climes than me. Where they don't put salt on the roads that will rust your car if you don't wash it off. You can wax it to add a nice little layer of protection against this.
So, I hope I have shown sufficiently the holes in your argument, and how it isn't based off logic, but merely whining. I would like to hear your re
It's called knowledge of life. I have everything I need to live comfortably. All other things are unnecessary and I find any suggestion that I waste my money on them offensive. I don't care if black T-shirts stay black; gray doesn't look that bad either. And I have never seen a "water splotch" on my car, so I have no idea why you would have them.
I realize you are probably just trolling, but what the hell....
Again.. where does this 'knowledge of life' come from? You have repeatedly failed to answer this question, which I'll take to mean you are conceding your point.... Advertising works, because at some point you heard about the products you are using and said 'this sounds like I'd find it useful'. Therefore you bought it. That's all advertising is... you just sound like someone who is disgruntled because they have to see ads for products others might find useful. Basically you are just whining: "I only want to see things for me! No one else!"
'Water splotches' are caused when you wash your car with water that contains minerals... when the water droplets evaporate they leave visible mineral deposits on your car.
You black t-shirts comment shows that you are trolling... if you are going to spend the money anyway, why not get a better product? You might be buying 2 detergents now, but you'll use each one half as much... plus have to spend less money on new cloths as the old ones will stay in better condition. Again.. it is you going out of your way to be difficult: This may be better, but I'm going to purposely make my life difficult.... Yeah.. that will show 'the man'
>No, because I always know exactly what I need and when I need it
... cool, thanks advertising
GOTO: Original Post, read (aka, were you born with this knowledge?)
>And recently, there really have been no new products
Recently, I learned they make a detergent that is really good at keeping black T-shirts black... and Mr. Clean makes a car wash system that does not require you to dry (to avoid water splotches)
Because you were born with an innate knowledge of all products being made currently?
If this is the same bet I remember... he wanted to be wrong. His expectation, and hope was that he would loose the bet... he took the bet because if his theories turn out to be wrong, at least he gets the prize of the bet as consolation.
---Lane
Yes, The world applauds freedom fighters like yourself. Without people like you to make up our minds about what we should and should not do, I don't know what we'd do. The ignorant masses are grateful for those anointed ones like yourself who are wise enough to make these decisions for us. God forbid we be allowed to choose where we want to shop, we can not handle such power.
atm a large proportion of the population of China are really benefiting from its governments rule.
'A Large proportion of the population' also benefited from segregation.... Free societies are judged by how well they protect the rights of the individual.... not how many they sacrifice 'for the greater good'
I've skimmed, but never fully read 'Random Walk'.
A Book I would recommend for new investors is Peter Lynch's One up on Wall Street
Firstly, it explains simple economic fundamentals for those who are not aware of them.
Secondly, and more importantly... it explains something important about why people loose a lot of money on Wall Street: They compete against the pros on Wall Street. Don't invest in IBM, or Ford, or the big blue chips because thousands of analysts who are better at these things are doing so also.
Peter Lynch explains how to use your status as an amateur as an advantage.
The video game industry says not buying a game stifles creativity.
Seriously, how does this stifle creativity? If X people want a game, and want to continue playing it then X people will do so.
All resale prevents is from a game selling wildly upon high expectations, and not backing it up with long term playability. It sounds like it actually encourages creativity, because it makes them need to have an actually solid game