Some people do look for "safe" investments, stocks that return more than a savings account or a certificate of deposit. For many years, owning bank stocks and insurance company stocks was considered just such a safe investment. People who buy safe investments tend to be long-term holders, multi-decade and even multi-generation.
Such companies do tend to grow slowly or not at all (so how is that a problem?) rather than get regulated out of business. What does happen is that go-go companies see the stable company as an opportunity, and a buyout happens.
Corruption is not a necessary part of this process. And if you don't think that having a big cash-out is necessary to "winning", you can win without either fast gains or corruption.
As a general rule, businesses grow and keep a dominant position by providing value. Governments provide a mix of protection and destruction, and the government leaders gain power by appealing to the worst desires of the gullible.
It's much harder to stop a rogue government than a rogue business. And before you say "they can be stopped by voting them out of office", consider that it's only been a month since Nancy Pelosi proposed cancelling the next election.
why do we even have a huge army, when a standing army in peacetime is expressly forbidden by the constitution?
Historically, like Topsy, it just grew.
Practically, changes in modern warfare, particularly transportation, mean that any major national power that wishes to remain intact must be able to field a trained army in days, and in some cases hours. Not having a standing army is an invitation to disaster. The Constitution probably needs to be amended to account for the change in technology, just as it was when inauguration day was moved forward. (Important note: this is one of the few instances when technology should affect the Constitution. Most of the proposals I see that say things like "The internet means the Constitution is invalid" are garbage.)
That said, the US military is overextended and a financial burden. It should be intelligently, slowly, and moderately reduced in geographical scope.
For all practical purposes, the President decides where and how a war will be fought.
Historically, the shift can be seen from WWII, with Roosevelt luring the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor, through Truman acting with the U.N. in Korea, to Vietnam with Kennedy/Johnson leading and Congress being sucked along.
However, my point is that it is NOT the military that brings about the wars that the US fights. It's primarily the jokers we vote into high office, and secondarily the other drivers of political forces such as "power brokers", agitators, and the press.
There's at least one capacitor manufacturer (alas, I forget which) that has two lines of parts with essentially the same specifications. The more expensive line is made in the U.S..
The US political system is based on an understanding of human nature, and that hasn't changed since 1700 (either CE or BCE) nor is it likely to change in the future. The quality of the Constitution is show by the fact that the country has held together for 185 years since the last founder (Monroe) was President, during which time there have been no more than 5 honorable Presidents.
If things keep going as they are now, we'll have seen the last of freedom in the US before 6 years go by.
He's pretty good at pointing out flaws, but he's incapable of building a coherent system: he can't see his own errors. His politics generally are off base.
Out of the many paragraphs in TFA, I found only two sentences that weren't substantially flawed:
___Imagine being able to go to one website to see the best arguments for and against every issue, with links to support or refute every factual claim.
___If you think my ideas for fixing the republic are ridiculous and impractical, you're probably right.
Two things are required to temporarily fix the US gov't: cut the size by 80% and remove the tyrant who is currently president.
Long term, the Constitution needs to be rejiggered to make it much harder for the gov't to grow, and the populace needs to be better educated.
What you're doing/saying right now is that 36% of the US population is in support of a cause that has no purpose.
A majority of those who support the "Occupiers" are Democrats, mostly those who either follow the demagogue Obama or who correctly recognize that OWS's muddled slogans are what they want. Also among the supporters are anarchists of the chaotic variety, who explicitly endorse lack of constructive purpose.
Among the 36% of those who claim to support the OWS are those who haven't examined what they stand for, just as there are among the opponents those who haven't examined what OWS stands for. Indeed, there are more reasons to oppse them than just what they stand for; their methods are also subject to valid condemnation.
It is not in my self-interest (it is not selfish) to lack vision.
The best government that we can come up with is not merely a representative republic. An optimum government must first and foremost recognize and protect a proper set of rights. Those rights must be formally defined (A "Bill of Rights"). The rest of government must be a mechanism for protecting those rights; and it must do nothing else (for any action beyond protecting rights inevitably violates rights). Because people are what have rights, and people are what are hurt when rights are violated, people must have a way to the provide feedback that keeps the government on its proper course. One mechanism for doing this is called a "representative republic", and there are good reasons for believing that it is the best. However, there are many things that make up such a republic, and you can't just slap one together and get good results. The devil's in the details.
The "Occupy" movement consists of three overlapping groups and no others. They are "useful idiots", paid protestors, and organised manipulators. The lack of a coherent message is due to the dominance of the idiots and conflicting goals of different manipulators.
Although it strikes as "ad hominemism", the phrase "consider the source" comes to mind. If a failure gives me advice, I'm likely to think "His advice led him to where he is, so it's likely not good advice." Given that the "Occupiers" are suffering from fleas, lice, STDs, and failure to meet normal standards of sanitation, a wise person looks to other places for advice.
When a person chooses to live in a subhuman manner, it is that person who "dehumanizes" himself, not his critic.
The word "meritocracy" is a smokescreen; it's hiding who determines merit. It ends up being what is today being called "technocracy", government by "technicians", self-proclaimed experts in the profession of government.
Questions that seem too rote and specific can have value. If you know the answers, it shows you can hit the ground running. If you demonstrate that you understand the questions, you may be qualified. If you don't understand the questions or try to BS answers, most likely you should be eliminated without any other consideration.
Cheap foreign labor, if the foreigners are not prohibited from saving their earnings, is a self-solving "problem." They get our money in exchange for their goods. Over time they accumulate money, and the more they have, the less they are willing to work cheaply. Eventually they come close to parity, like Japan. "Problem" solved.
We are out of natural gas in north america, at least out of conventional natural gas. Current gas supplies are thanks to fracking, something that didn't exist prior to early 2000s.
The fact that doomsayers base their predictions on static technology is just one reason among many that they so often turn out wrong.
Some analysts are saying that the North American natural gas supplies now becoming practical represent a 100 year supply. Sounds overly optimistic to me, but there's surely enough to give lots of breathing room for the development of unrelated energy technologies.
That at least some of environmental legislation is set by politics rather than good science. That the EPA is forbidden by law to do cost analysis of its regulations.
That a company will go out of business if nobody buys its products, and almost nobody will buy its products if they're priced absurdly higher than similar products.
Slashdot Mirror
Some people do look for "safe" investments, stocks that return more than a savings account or a certificate of deposit. For many years, owning bank stocks and insurance company stocks was considered just such a safe investment. People who buy safe investments tend to be long-term holders, multi-decade and even multi-generation.
Such companies do tend to grow slowly or not at all (so how is that a problem?) rather than get regulated out of business. What does happen is that go-go companies see the stable company as an opportunity, and a buyout happens.
Corruption is not a necessary part of this process. And if you don't think that having a big cash-out is necessary to "winning", you can win without either fast gains or corruption.
As a general rule, businesses grow and keep a dominant position by providing value. Governments provide a mix of protection and destruction, and the government leaders gain power by appealing to the worst desires of the gullible.
It's much harder to stop a rogue government than a rogue business. And before you say "they can be stopped by voting them out of office", consider that it's only been a month since Nancy Pelosi proposed cancelling the next election.
Historically, like Topsy, it just grew.
Practically, changes in modern warfare, particularly transportation, mean that any major national power that wishes to remain intact must be able to field a trained army in days, and in some cases hours. Not having a standing army is an invitation to disaster. The Constitution probably needs to be amended to account for the change in technology, just as it was when inauguration day was moved forward. (Important note: this is one of the few instances when technology should affect the Constitution. Most of the proposals I see that say things like "The internet means the Constitution is invalid" are garbage.)
That said, the US military is overextended and a financial burden. It should be intelligently, slowly, and moderately reduced in geographical scope.
Using foreigners to protect your country is almost guaranteed to end badly. It's part of the reason Rome was repeatedly overrun.
Words like "mercenary" and "Hessian" still anger knowledgeable US citizens to this very day.
You are obviously a person who can't understand how a person might happily work unpaid overtime.
For all practical purposes, the President decides where and how a war will be fought.
Historically, the shift can be seen from WWII, with Roosevelt luring the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor, through Truman acting with the U.N. in Korea, to Vietnam with Kennedy/Johnson leading and Congress being sucked along.
However, my point is that it is NOT the military that brings about the wars that the US fights. It's primarily the jokers we vote into high office, and secondarily the other drivers of political forces such as "power brokers", agitators, and the press.
There's at least one capacitor manufacturer (alas, I forget which) that has two lines of parts with essentially the same specifications. The more expensive line is made in the U.S..
The US political system is based on an understanding of human nature, and that hasn't changed since 1700 (either CE or BCE) nor is it likely to change in the future. The quality of the Constitution is show by the fact that the country has held together for 185 years since the last founder (Monroe) was President, during which time there have been no more than 5 honorable Presidents.
If things keep going as they are now, we'll have seen the last of freedom in the US before 6 years go by.
He's pretty good at pointing out flaws, but he's incapable of building a coherent system: he can't see his own errors. His politics generally are off base.
Out of the many paragraphs in TFA, I found only two sentences that weren't substantially flawed:
Two things are required to temporarily fix the US gov't: cut the size by 80% and remove the tyrant who is currently president.
Long term, the Constitution needs to be rejiggered to make it much harder for the gov't to grow, and the populace needs to be better educated.
A majority of those who support the "Occupiers" are Democrats, mostly those who either follow the demagogue Obama or who correctly recognize that OWS's muddled slogans are what they want. Also among the supporters are anarchists of the chaotic variety, who explicitly endorse lack of constructive purpose.
Among the 36% of those who claim to support the OWS are those who haven't examined what they stand for, just as there are among the opponents those who haven't examined what OWS stands for. Indeed, there are more reasons to oppse them than just what they stand for; their methods are also subject to valid condemnation.
It is not in my self-interest (it is not selfish) to lack vision.
The best government that we can come up with is not merely a representative republic. An optimum government must first and foremost recognize and protect a proper set of rights. Those rights must be formally defined (A "Bill of Rights"). The rest of government must be a mechanism for protecting those rights; and it must do nothing else (for any action beyond protecting rights inevitably violates rights). Because people are what have rights, and people are what are hurt when rights are violated, people must have a way to the provide feedback that keeps the government on its proper course. One mechanism for doing this is called a "representative republic", and there are good reasons for believing that it is the best. However, there are many things that make up such a republic, and you can't just slap one together and get good results. The devil's in the details.
The "Occupy" movement consists of three overlapping groups and no others. They are "useful idiots", paid protestors, and organised manipulators. The lack of a coherent message is due to the dominance of the idiots and conflicting goals of different manipulators.
Although it strikes as "ad hominemism", the phrase "consider the source" comes to mind. If a failure gives me advice, I'm likely to think "His advice led him to where he is, so it's likely not good advice." Given that the "Occupiers" are suffering from fleas, lice, STDs, and failure to meet normal standards of sanitation, a wise person looks to other places for advice.
When a person chooses to live in a subhuman manner, it is that person who "dehumanizes" himself, not his critic.
The word "meritocracy" is a smokescreen; it's hiding who determines merit. It ends up being what is today being called "technocracy", government by "technicians", self-proclaimed experts in the profession of government.
Don't get fooled again.
What if she takes her top off like Bender, by unscrewing her head?
Questions that seem too rote and specific can have value. If you know the answers, it shows you can hit the ground running. If you demonstrate that you understand the questions, you may be qualified. If you don't understand the questions or try to BS answers, most likely you should be eliminated without any other consideration.
Misspelling lottery is. Not knowing that dice is plural, the singular of which is die, is.
Particularly appealing is the interviewer who asks you to solve a problem the company has been working on and failed to find a solution to.
For an optional bonus, you provide a solution, the company doesn't hire you but implements your solution profitably.
I gave up on those racquets after two in a row broke with the first zap.
Set up a sprinkler to run at night.
Cheap foreign labor, if the foreigners are not prohibited from saving their earnings, is a self-solving "problem." They get our money in exchange for their goods. Over time they accumulate money, and the more they have, the less they are willing to work cheaply. Eventually they come close to parity, like Japan. "Problem" solved.
The fact that doomsayers base their predictions on static technology is just one reason among many that they so often turn out wrong.
Some analysts are saying that the North American natural gas supplies now becoming practical represent a 100 year supply. Sounds overly optimistic to me, but there's surely enough to give lots of breathing room for the development of unrelated energy technologies.
Earth to be destroyed in giant fireball. The poor to be hardest hit.
According to T.J.Rogers, Solyndra had inferior technology.
What part of context have you ignored?
That at least some of environmental legislation is set by politics rather than good science. That the EPA is forbidden by law to do cost analysis of its regulations.
That a company will go out of business if nobody buys its products, and almost nobody will buy its products if they're priced absurdly higher than similar products.