not in the perfect "free-market" that has no entry-level jobs for college graduates.
and you have been apparently similarly indoctrinated with social propaganda if you think we have a free market. Government intervention is what is responsible for BOTH the high cost of college and the fact there there is so much OVER supply of degree'ed job candidates that candidates without a degree need not apply.
This situation is not the young high school graduates fault, they are a victim, but not a victim of the market a victim of government distortions in the market.
"equivalent experience" never was I hung around the library and read for years. It always basically means if you have been doing the same work for someone else.
Ordinarily I'd be inclined to agree with you but this is a case where GOVERNMENT gave people little choice. College tuition has gone up because there was money available to pay it. A school on the short term can't increase supply, only so many seats in class rooms, so faced with all the demand raised prices. Now college tuition has increased in great excess of inflation. Why because student loans were to easy to get.
Now ordinarily student loans would not be easy to get; you'd have to either have some collateral assets you'd earned from working for some years or be able to make a powerful good case why a lender should expect you will succeed in school and then be successful after. The free market would probably only provide loans to people who have some work history and assets or are absolutely the top of their class.
Now comes along dear old Uncle Sam, who does two things. He first makes it very hard to default on Student Load debt, even a declared bankruptcy won't do it, and he secures the loans. Now suddenly as lender my principle is mostly safe the government will re-reimburse me if nothing else I'd be fool not to lend it to practically any kid who will take it. Hell I might borrow some money form someone else at even lower rate and then turn around and lend that...
So now the kid graduating from high school looks at the job market. He finds there is little or know hope of securing white collar work without a degree. Why? Because government has made it possible for just about anyone to be able to afford to make an investment in higher education immediately post high school. Employers have basically decided to use under graduate college as a per-screening process for employment. Which they might as well do because there is now an artificially large pool of potential workers with degrees to select from, so they can fill there needs, and lets be honest while its not all the difficult obtaining an undergraduate degree does prove you are able to understand direction, and self manage a bit. Those are usually desirable qualities in employees.
Now if fewer young workers had degrees then employees would have to do what they used to do. Actually interview people themselves, take some chances on young workers, and develop talent. Prove yourself in the mail room and you might be able to move into the accounting department. Now you can't get in the door without a degree and even if you do somehow get into the mail room HR won't interview you for any other position no matter how long you have been a reliable employee because they have binary test, requiring you have a degree. You can thefefore never earn enough money to get a secured loan to go back to school and earn a degree.
Government has left kids today only one real option if they want a desk job, and that is post secondary education either payed for by their family or they go into debt. They don't really have a choice.
Keep telling yourself that. I got news for you the EU mostly controls your currency. Has the power to make treaties, and has courts. In most cases EU law has supremacy over member states laws. That is pretty much a nation by any definition. The EU is a central government. It might not be as strong as the Federal government we have here in the states but it is none the less a central government.
Its time EU citizens face up to the fact YOU FOOLS gave up the sovereignty of your to make quick buck by streamlining some trade and travel restrictions. That worked out short term but just like here in the USA globalism is hollowing you out; and EU membership is going to make your own local government impotent and powerless to protect you. The EU just like dear old Uncle Sam here is far enough removed and fractured enough in represented interests, it either does not care to or won't chose to protect you.
There are plenty of ARM boards out there now that draw VERY little power. You can get these in formats like Mini-ITX now that will fit in standard cases; which you probably want so you can fit enough drives. They use regular DDR memory in most cases now as well, or have the memory integrated on a SOC type controller. Your favorite Linux distro is most likely available for ARM now as well. There are even four-core arm chips to choose from that are inexpensive.
There is no good reason to be building something on this out of x86 or x86-64 hardware unless you need pretty extreme performance, like I running ten VMs and SQL server for a moderately used E-commerce site type performance. If that is the case electrical consumption falls down the list a bit in terms of things you want to optimize for and you should be looking at low end SAN rather than NAS solution anyway.
Why can't we have politicians who can think rationally?
Because most of us don't enjoy arguing all day long which is pretty much what politicians do. Unlike the court room where they may be jurist or jury who is somewhat interested in facts to convince, these people win or lose principally on whether they can last longer than the other guys. You must have strong opinions to prevail in that system. The type of person attracted to that job is fundamentally not the type let facts get in the way of their opinions.
BTW I am not a psychologist, sociologist, nor do I have any academic background which would permit me any special understanding of the above. You may consider it fact, that this post is only my opinion.
Most States don't give you the legal freedom to do violence to someone after the fact over property. Texas used to I think, I am not aware of anywhere else. I agree if someone tries to take property from I am going to fight, and make them regret they ever even thought about mugging me. Going after someone though over something like a stolen laptop is stupid because you WILL get prosecuted over it and it will cost you way more than a new laptop would.
Someone appropriated my GPS, I left in unlocked(stupid) car on my drive way. Now I live in a lilly white suburban neighborhood so I figured I'd be dealing with most likely some stupid kid. I watched Craigs list for a few days and sure enough my exact model appeared a few blocks away. I called the poster said I was interested and wanted to come take a look. I matched the serial number to the warrantee card I had at home. I told the kid, listen I have the registration card at home and when phone the cops, they are going to wonder why I have that and why my name is on file with Garmin, we both you took it out my car last week so I why don't we both be cool and just let me take this home, and have nothing more about it. Otherwise I am going to police. He was smart enough to recognize that was probably the best option for both of us. \
Frankly I doubt the police would have done anything useful. After all the kid easily could have said I sold it to him or something. I certainly was not going to do any sort of violence over a $130 bit of kid either, the potential risk to me is way to high. I did suggest as I left he stay away from my car and home in future, because if he was unfortunate enough to be seen by me on my property I would assume he was up to no good and shoot him.
The problem was that even though the rules only applied to Freddie and Fanny the reality of them applied everywhere. How can you as a commercial operator expect to hold on to investors if your returns are way under that of Freddie and Fanny?
You would be unable, more over Freddie's and Fanny's actions are still blowing the bubble so they are going to be apparently successful until the whole thing goes POP; but whether you see that POP coming or not what choice do you have? You can't sit there and be under cut but the GSEs, so you lower your lending standards too.
Is it as simple as the CRA did this, no, but it was a big factor. Even if it was not holding a gun anyone's head the market distortion it created may as well have.
It might not technically be a valid form of argument; but this is forum were we are reacting to and pontificating on a protest movement. Its hardly an academic debate we are having here. So even if its not a valid argument form its still worth pointing out the hypocritical nature of some of what they are doing and asking for.
Generally in my practical experience when you find people preaching something other than what they practice one or both of the following is true. They are profoundly lacking in self awareness and understanding of their own situation, or they preaching something that is impractical and often impossible. They may or may not admit it.
I listened to NPR interviewing one of these protesters, he talked about no knowing how he was going to pay all the debt he had, yet called himself middle class. This is the United States, class here is supposed to be about what you have and what you do not what you are. If your net worth is negative, you are not middle class. That is called poor. Is it good to be poor, no, but it does not have to be a permanent condition. I can understand the desire to protest over the lack of mobility, even support it. I find it hard to take political prescriptions from someone who can't even admit or can't understand, perhaps both; his own situation though.
This president has no concept of the limitations of his power. He make Bush and his signing statements, which were outrages, fond memories.
You can add selective enforcement of immigration and deportation law to your list as well. The law does specify how to prioritize enforce but Obama seems to think he have INS do that. Seems like if violates Equal Protection to me but what do I know?
We also have the EPA essentially legislating environmental standards, so much for simply enforcing and advising the legislature.
Right that is not politically motivated at all. Obama for doing nothing gets a Nobel prize, Bush gets an arrest warrant.
I am sorry but international law is BULLSHIT, the soon this nations take George Washington's advice and STOPS making treaties, and stops participating in organizations like the World Bank, IMF, and UN which limit our sovereignty, the sooner we will all be better off.
If your DNS goes tits up you are doing it wrong, DNS is teir1 infrastructure it should be AT LEAST as redundant and well protected/maintained as your mail server.
If MY DNS goes tits up don't worry I can't resolve your domain to send you any mail anyway.
If BGP gets hosed up, then DNS servers are no more able to reach each other than anything else, they won't be able to resolve A,AAA, and MX queries any more than they can PTR queries, and our mail servers won't be able to connect with each other even if we could get DNS results.
Doing PTR checks does nothing to reduce reliability.
Its right, its not fair; but its needed. Legitimate sites should have no problems setting up reverse records or getting their provider to do if for them.
Anyone who is not in a position get PTR records in place for their mail server is not actually in a position to be running a mail server anyway. Sorry that is just the way it is. PTR records are nice to have for any number of mail delivery troubleshooting and validation issues outside of SPAM.
As a mail admin I'd kinda consider them a requirement anyway. Its not easy to work transmission problems when I can't figure out who the admin of the other server is and how to get in touch with them.
I know its not within the standards, but I say no PTR record no, mail accepted.
Wow, just wow. YOu have fallen for the 'everything is "Obama's fault, especially stuff that isn't" hook line and sinker
Obama is the chief and as a very famous former chief said, the buck stops here, Its not his fault but he has done very little to change things.
Almost everything he does, even stuff the republicans wanted, is castrated by the republicans the pubs are holding up the government, and everyone blames Obama.
Who is falling for political myths here? I mean its not like his party did not have a majority in BOTH houses of Congress for the better part of his presidency to date. He has also made plenty of executive moves that the Republicans have had not ability to block. He did a troop surge, he has not closed the secret interrogation centers, has had HIS justice department argue in support of all kinds of surveillance measures, and plenty more.
Look at historic trends of unemployment. Notice that in contrast to all increase in unemployment, This round it capped and leveled instead of peaked at a hirer value. It was cut short. This also jives with similar situation in other countries.
That one is tough to argue either way. Its not as if there is really very much data, handfuls of historical events, that hardly amount to a pattern, and non of these policies has ever been tried with any type of control group, so real scientists would say we don't know. Partisans and economists looking to get published would say different.
The fact that it is known what do do to best help the economy. Seen historically and in other countries, doesn't happen isn't because of Obama, it's because the pubs are just a bunch of Zealots trying to get a radical religious extremist to be president.
That would make all kinds of sense except that the Tea Party, currently a major part of the GOP support is NOT largely made up of social conservatives just fiscal. The current lead candidate in the GOP primary race is a Mormon, not even recognized as a Christian by the traditional Moral Majority Zelots.
I am NOT Obama's biggest fan. What he is trying to do is the right thing, and any failure regarding the economy or wall street lies squarely on the pubs shoulders.
Right...Because non of economic problems can be traced to policy decisions made by people like Barny Frank or Chris Dodd, and Bill Clinton, with is lunatic FED appointee Greenspan.
Sorry pal it looks like you are just as delusional as anyone who may be found supporting the other side of aisle.
There should be a legal way of being a "superhero", which lets face it, unless they have something wrong with them means the person is not a vigilante but just wants to help.
Contact you local police force and find out if they have an "Auxiliary"
I don't know about London but lots of US police forces have Auxiliarys that citizens can join. They usually volunteers, they get some weekend training, but nothing on the level of an actual office, and some more limited police powers, depends on the state and local laws.
Rand essentially sought to combine Ethical Egoist philosophy with anarchic capitalism. You can certainly be one without being the other and the former does not clearly apply here.
Second, the economic depression has been on for a while now and wiped out emergency funds and other savings they'd accrued. There was a lot of money lost in investments that are now worthless, largely thanks to the gambling by our financial industry, but not exclusively.
Bull, nobody lost any money EXCEPT people who were gambling. The banks that failed were FDIC reimbursed, and if you had more than 250K in the banks you could afford the effort to spread it around multiple banks. Virtually nobody lost money in AAA bonds, the ones that might have been lost to bankruptcy got TARP bailouts. So no, unless they gambled with the money and put it in equities, or less than investment grade bonds they lost nothing.
The issue is that there were gambling, because you make money by taking risk nothing wrong with that but be honest about what it is.
I think all these people at these occupy protests shows there is lots of anger and frustration out there and that the fear and attachment to the status quo are diminishing.
This is a ripe time for a charismatic leader to tell them what to think, and gin up some will to act decisively. Its also notable that heading into presidential elections none of the candidates are that person. Obama is out there trying to be and its not working. These people even if most would be unwilling to say it actually want the current political system gone.
There does need to be a leader though. A friend of mine lives next to a Cleveland Federal Reserve employee, who went down to the street to see what the Occupy Cleveland folks wanted. What he tells us is that he told them look, I am one of these guys, I will be getting on airplanes and talking to Congressmen, Senators, Federal Reserve Board members, some European and World Banks reps and others all next month. What would you like me to tell them?
They protesters were not able to come up with an answer. The group could not come up with a single actionable statement. He was not looking for anything real specific, he just wanted something a little clearer than "JOBS!"
That ignores the time value. If we expend resources now before we have to meet our needs other ways we will have sacrificed growth, in order to have reserves in the future. Usually that is not a good trade, which is why evolution has bread human instincts against that trade off.
It would be best growth the economy as much as possible today on mad oil binge So that we can afford the contraction when it comes out and maybe with a little luck a bunch of un-taxed, un-regulated money running around will find its way to some developing the next big energy source. We have tried "planned economics" around alt-engergy and its failed. Ethanol did not work out, solar is STILL not remotely viable without tons of subsidy, and wind is basically stalled, yea there are a few big projects but the will to see them through is not there and has not been there. Political solutions won't work in the USA, an organic market solution is whats needed, and you can't legislate that into being. No matter how much HOPE you have.
Also saving it won't benefit our economy in the future either because our traitors politicians would give half of it way in aide to supposedly keep the poor people of North Bumbfuck from freezing, while their cronies embezzle the proceeds, and use the other half to kill brown people in the middle east; while our own citizens freeze and stave.
Those of us real Christians understand that God will keep in Heaven as we have kept on earth. If this is how Phelps wants to treat others and the standards of behavior he wants to apply God will cast his own judgement upon him.
As you point out "judge not lest ye be judged" does not mean don't use you judgement to try and recognize Evil where it exits, but it does imply that caution and prudence should govern. My judgement is Phelps is pretty confused about some of the most basic cornerstones of Christianity and someone really ought to sit him down and suggest he read "Sermon on the Mount" slowly and carefully, perhaps few times in row, and then give some serious thought about her deeds, and perhaps praying God grant her a little wisdom so she may honor him going forward.
I don't see the evidence. I see plenty of cases where we can't get things done because the "rules" don't allow it. All they way down to the girl down the street can't open a Day Care or a Hair Salon because compiling with Government requirements written in by existing rent seeking industry or liberals who put risk avoidance ahead of basic pragmatism always seeking to eliminate any personal responsibility from everyone.
We have never ever "deregulated" anything! Financial deregulation did not make it any more possible for me and few neighbors to get together and open bank! What it did was simply remove oversight from a group "winners" government had already picked, and continued to preserve them with barriers to entry.
Real deregulation would be just that it would be repealing laws, WITHOUT writing new ones. Its never been tried, on any kind of scale. Still everyone points at "deregulation" as some failure of libertarian policy ideas when what the "deregulation" that has actually occurred does not even remotely resemble what and real libertarian would call deregulation!
Slashdot Mirror
not in the perfect "free-market" that has no entry-level jobs for college graduates.
and you have been apparently similarly indoctrinated with social propaganda if you think we have a free market. Government intervention is what is responsible for BOTH the high cost of college and the fact there there is so much OVER supply of degree'ed job candidates that candidates without a degree need not apply.
This situation is not the young high school graduates fault, they are a victim, but not a victim of the market a victim of government distortions in the market.
"equivalent experience" never was I hung around the library and read for years. It always basically means if you have been doing the same work for someone else.
Ordinarily I'd be inclined to agree with you but this is a case where GOVERNMENT gave people little choice. College tuition has gone up because there was money available to pay it. A school on the short term can't increase supply, only so many seats in class rooms, so faced with all the demand raised prices. Now college tuition has increased in great excess of inflation. Why because student loans were to easy to get.
Now ordinarily student loans would not be easy to get; you'd have to either have some collateral assets you'd earned from working for some years or be able to make a powerful good case why a lender should expect you will succeed in school and then be successful after. The free market would probably only provide loans to people who have some work history and assets or are absolutely the top of their class.
Now comes along dear old Uncle Sam, who does two things. He first makes it very hard to default on Student Load debt, even a declared bankruptcy won't do it, and he secures the loans. Now suddenly as lender my principle is mostly safe the government will re-reimburse me if nothing else I'd be fool not to lend it to practically any kid who will take it. Hell I might borrow some money form someone else at even lower rate and then turn around and lend that...
So now the kid graduating from high school looks at the job market. He finds there is little or know hope of securing white collar work without a degree. Why? Because government has made it possible for just about anyone to be able to afford to make an investment in higher education immediately post high school. Employers have basically decided to use under graduate college as a per-screening process for employment. Which they might as well do because there is now an artificially large pool of potential workers with degrees to select from, so they can fill there needs, and lets be honest while its not all the difficult obtaining an undergraduate degree does prove you are able to understand direction, and self manage a bit. Those are usually desirable qualities in employees.
Now if fewer young workers had degrees then employees would have to do what they used to do. Actually interview people themselves, take some chances on young workers, and develop talent. Prove yourself in the mail room and you might be able to move into the accounting department. Now you can't get in the door without a degree and even if you do somehow get into the mail room HR won't interview you for any other position no matter how long you have been a reliable employee because they have binary test, requiring you have a degree. You can thefefore never earn enough money to get a secured loan to go back to school and earn a degree.
Government has left kids today only one real option if they want a desk job, and that is post secondary education either payed for by their family or they go into debt. They don't really have a choice.
Keep telling yourself that. I got news for you the EU mostly controls your currency. Has the power to make treaties, and has courts. In most cases EU law has supremacy over member states laws. That is pretty much a nation by any definition. The EU is a central government. It might not be as strong as the Federal government we have here in the states but it is none the less a central government.
Its time EU citizens face up to the fact YOU FOOLS gave up the sovereignty of your to make quick buck by streamlining some trade and travel restrictions. That worked out short term but just like here in the USA globalism is hollowing you out; and EU membership is going to make your own local government impotent and powerless to protect you. The EU just like dear old Uncle Sam here is far enough removed and fractured enough in represented interests, it either does not care to or won't chose to protect you.
There are plenty of ARM boards out there now that draw VERY little power. You can get these in formats like Mini-ITX now that will fit in standard cases; which you probably want so you can fit enough drives. They use regular DDR memory in most cases now as well, or have the memory integrated on a SOC type controller. Your favorite Linux distro is most likely available for ARM now as well. There are even four-core arm chips to choose from that are inexpensive.
There is no good reason to be building something on this out of x86 or x86-64 hardware unless you need pretty extreme performance, like I running ten VMs and SQL server for a moderately used E-commerce site type performance. If that is the case electrical consumption falls down the list a bit in terms of things you want to optimize for and you should be looking at low end SAN rather than NAS solution anyway.
I would consider cribbing code like more a kin to plagiarism than theft.
Why can't we have politicians who can think rationally?
Because most of us don't enjoy arguing all day long which is pretty much what politicians do. Unlike the court room where they may be jurist or jury who is somewhat interested in facts to convince, these people win or lose principally on whether they can last longer than the other guys.
You must have strong opinions to prevail in that system. The type of person attracted to that job is fundamentally not the type let facts get in the way of their opinions.
BTW I am not a psychologist, sociologist, nor do I have any academic background which would permit me any special understanding of the above. You may consider it fact, that this post is only my opinion.
f you look at history although Columbus (re)discovered North America in 1492 it was over 100 years before the first colony.
North America, sure but the Spanish had multiple colonies in the Caribbean by the 1510's.
There is already software in the market place that does this? Even McAfee offers it in their mobile device management solution.
Most States don't give you the legal freedom to do violence to someone after the fact over property. Texas used to I think, I am not aware of anywhere else. I agree if someone tries to take property from I am going to fight, and make them regret they ever even thought about mugging me. Going after someone though over something like a stolen laptop is stupid because you WILL get prosecuted over it and it will cost you way more than a new laptop would.
Someone appropriated my GPS, I left in unlocked(stupid) car on my drive way. Now I live in a lilly white suburban neighborhood so I figured I'd be dealing with most likely some stupid kid. I watched Craigs list for a few days and sure enough my exact model appeared a few blocks away. I called the poster said I was interested and wanted to come take a look. I matched the serial number to the warrantee card I had at home. I told the kid, listen I have the registration card at home and when phone the cops, they are going to wonder why I have that and why my name is on file with Garmin, we both you took it out my car last week so I why don't we both be cool and just let me take this home, and have nothing more about it. Otherwise I am going to police. He was smart enough to recognize that was probably the best option for both of us. \
Frankly I doubt the police would have done anything useful. After all the kid easily could have said I sold it to him or something. I certainly was not going to do any sort of violence over a $130 bit of kid either, the potential risk to me is way to high. I did suggest as I left he stay away from my car and home in future, because if he was unfortunate enough to be seen by me on my property I would assume he was up to no good and shoot him.
The problem was that even though the rules only applied to Freddie and Fanny the reality of them applied everywhere. How can you as a commercial operator expect to hold on to investors if your returns are way under that of Freddie and Fanny?
You would be unable, more over Freddie's and Fanny's actions are still blowing the bubble so they are going to be apparently successful until the whole thing goes POP; but whether you see that POP coming or not what choice do you have? You can't sit there and be under cut but the GSEs, so you lower your lending standards too.
Is it as simple as the CRA did this, no, but it was a big factor. Even if it was not holding a gun anyone's head the market distortion it created may as well have.
It might not technically be a valid form of argument; but this is forum were we are reacting to and pontificating on a protest movement. Its hardly an academic debate we are having here. So even if its not a valid argument form its still worth pointing out the hypocritical nature of some of what they are doing and asking for.
Generally in my practical experience when you find people preaching something other than what they practice one or both of the following is true. They are profoundly lacking in self awareness and understanding of their own situation, or they preaching something that is impractical and often impossible. They may or may not admit it.
I listened to NPR interviewing one of these protesters, he talked about no knowing how he was going to pay all the debt he had, yet called himself middle class. This is the United States, class here is supposed to be about what you have and what you do not what you are. If your net worth is negative, you are not middle class. That is called poor. Is it good to be poor, no, but it does not have to be a permanent condition. I can understand the desire to protest over the lack of mobility, even support it. I find it hard to take political prescriptions from someone who can't even admit or can't understand, perhaps both; his own situation though.
This president has no concept of the limitations of his power. He make Bush and his signing statements, which were outrages, fond memories.
You can add selective enforcement of immigration and deportation law to your list as well. The law does specify how to prioritize enforce but Obama seems to think he have INS do that. Seems like if violates Equal Protection to me but what do I know?
We also have the EPA essentially legislating environmental standards, so much for simply enforcing and advising the legislature.
Right that is not politically motivated at all. Obama for doing nothing gets a Nobel prize, Bush gets an arrest warrant.
I am sorry but international law is BULLSHIT, the soon this nations take George Washington's advice and STOPS making treaties, and stops participating in organizations like the World Bank, IMF, and UN which limit our sovereignty, the sooner we will all be better off.
If your DNS goes tits up you are doing it wrong, DNS is teir1 infrastructure it should be AT LEAST as redundant and well protected/maintained as your mail server.
If MY DNS goes tits up don't worry I can't resolve your domain to send you any mail anyway.
If BGP gets hosed up, then DNS servers are no more able to reach each other than anything else, they won't be able to resolve A,AAA, and MX queries any more than they can PTR queries, and our mail servers won't be able to connect with each other even if we could get DNS results.
Doing PTR checks does nothing to reduce reliability.
Its right, its not fair; but its needed. Legitimate sites should have no problems setting up reverse records or getting their provider to do if for them.
Anyone who is not in a position get PTR records in place for their mail server is not actually in a position to be running a mail server anyway. Sorry that is just the way it is. PTR records are nice to have for any number of mail delivery troubleshooting and validation issues outside of SPAM.
As a mail admin I'd kinda consider them a requirement anyway. Its not easy to work transmission problems when I can't figure out who the admin of the other server is and how to get in touch with them.
I know its not within the standards, but I say no PTR record no, mail accepted.
Wow, just wow. YOu have fallen for the 'everything is "Obama's fault, especially stuff that isn't" hook line and sinker
Obama is the chief and as a very famous former chief said, the buck stops here, Its not his fault but he has done very little to change things.
Almost everything he does, even stuff the republicans wanted, is castrated by the republicans the pubs are holding up the government, and everyone blames Obama.
Who is falling for political myths here? I mean its not like his party did not have a majority in BOTH houses of Congress for the better part of his presidency to date. He has also made plenty of executive moves that the Republicans have had not ability to block. He did a troop surge, he has not closed the secret interrogation centers, has had HIS justice department argue in support of all kinds of surveillance measures, and plenty more.
Look at historic trends of unemployment. Notice that in contrast to all increase in unemployment, This round it capped and leveled instead of peaked at a hirer value. It was cut short. This also jives with similar situation in other countries.
That one is tough to argue either way. Its not as if there is really very much data, handfuls of historical events, that hardly amount to a pattern, and non of these policies has ever been tried with any type of control group, so real scientists would say we don't know. Partisans and economists looking to get published would say different.
The fact that it is known what do do to best help the economy. Seen historically and in other countries, doesn't happen isn't because of Obama, it's because the pubs are just a bunch of Zealots trying to get a radical religious extremist to be president.
That would make all kinds of sense except that the Tea Party, currently a major part of the GOP support is NOT largely made up of social conservatives just fiscal. The current lead candidate in the GOP primary race is a Mormon, not even recognized as a Christian by the traditional Moral Majority Zelots.
I am NOT Obama's biggest fan. What he is trying to do is the right thing, and any failure regarding the economy or wall street lies squarely on the pubs shoulders.
Right...Because non of economic problems can be traced to policy decisions made by people like Barny Frank or Chris Dodd, and Bill Clinton, with is lunatic FED appointee Greenspan.
Sorry pal it looks like you are just as delusional as anyone who may be found supporting the other side of aisle.
There should be a legal way of being a "superhero", which lets face it, unless they have something wrong with them means the person is not a vigilante but just wants to help.
Contact you local police force and find out if they have an "Auxiliary"
I don't know about London but lots of US police forces have Auxiliarys that citizens can join. They usually volunteers, they get some weekend training, but nothing on the level of an actual office, and some more limited police powers, depends on the state and local laws.
Rand essentially sought to combine Ethical Egoist philosophy with anarchic capitalism. You can certainly be one without being the other and the former does not clearly apply here.
Second, the economic depression has been on for a while now and wiped out emergency funds and other savings they'd accrued. There was a lot of money lost in investments that are now worthless, largely thanks to the gambling by our financial industry, but not exclusively.
Bull, nobody lost any money EXCEPT people who were gambling. The banks that failed were FDIC reimbursed, and if you had more than 250K in the banks you could afford the effort to spread it around multiple banks. Virtually nobody lost money in AAA bonds, the ones that might have been lost to bankruptcy got TARP bailouts. So no, unless they gambled with the money and put it in equities, or less than investment grade bonds they lost nothing.
The issue is that there were gambling, because you make money by taking risk nothing wrong with that but be honest about what it is.
I think all these people at these occupy protests shows there is lots of anger and frustration out there and that the fear and attachment to the status quo are diminishing.
This is a ripe time for a charismatic leader to tell them what to think, and gin up some will to act decisively. Its also notable that heading into presidential elections none of the candidates are that person. Obama is out there trying to be and its not working. These people even if most would be unwilling to say it actually want the current political system gone.
There does need to be a leader though. A friend of mine lives next to a Cleveland Federal Reserve employee, who went down to the street to see what the Occupy Cleveland folks wanted. What he tells us is that he told them look, I am one of these guys, I will be getting on airplanes and talking to Congressmen, Senators, Federal Reserve Board members, some European and World Banks reps and others all next month. What would you like me to tell them?
They protesters were not able to come up with an answer. The group could not come up with a single actionable statement. He was not looking for anything real specific, he just wanted something a little clearer than "JOBS!"
That ignores the time value. If we expend resources now before we have to meet our needs other ways we will have sacrificed growth, in order to have reserves in the future. Usually that is not a good trade, which is why evolution has bread human instincts against that trade off.
It would be best growth the economy as much as possible today on mad oil binge So that we can afford the contraction when it comes out and maybe with a little luck a bunch of un-taxed, un-regulated money running around will find its way to some developing the next big energy source. We have tried "planned economics" around alt-engergy and its failed. Ethanol did not work out, solar is STILL not remotely viable without tons of subsidy, and wind is basically stalled, yea there are a few big projects but the will to see them through is not there and has not been there. Political solutions won't work in the USA, an organic market solution is whats needed, and you can't legislate that into being. No matter how much HOPE you have.
Also saving it won't benefit our economy in the future either because our traitors politicians would give half of it way in aide to supposedly keep the poor people of North Bumbfuck from freezing, while their cronies embezzle the proceeds, and use the other half to kill brown people in the middle east; while our own citizens freeze and stave.
Those of us real Christians understand that God will keep in Heaven as we have kept on earth. If this is how Phelps wants to treat others and the standards of behavior he wants to apply God will cast his own judgement upon him.
As you point out "judge not lest ye be judged" does not mean don't use you judgement to try and recognize Evil where it exits, but it does imply that caution and prudence should govern. My judgement is Phelps is pretty confused about some of the most basic cornerstones of Christianity and someone really ought to sit him down and suggest he read "Sermon on the Mount" slowly and carefully, perhaps few times in row, and then give some serious thought about her deeds, and perhaps praying God grant her a little wisdom so she may honor him going forward.
The dot com bubble, was a new market, and what big players were hurt by it? The post office, video rental stores, not exactly powerful lobbies.
Most of the more "regulated" industries benefited greatly from the dot com boom.
I don't see the evidence. I see plenty of cases where we can't get things done because the "rules" don't allow it. All they way down to the girl down the street can't open a Day Care or a Hair Salon because compiling with Government requirements written in by existing rent seeking industry or liberals who put risk avoidance ahead of basic pragmatism always seeking to eliminate any personal responsibility from everyone.
We have never ever "deregulated" anything! Financial deregulation did not make it any more possible for me and few neighbors to get together and open bank! What it did was simply remove oversight from a group "winners" government had already picked, and continued to preserve them with barriers to entry.
Real deregulation would be just that it would be repealing laws, WITHOUT writing new ones. Its never been tried, on any kind of scale. Still everyone points at "deregulation" as some failure of libertarian policy ideas when what the "deregulation" that has actually occurred does not even remotely resemble what and real libertarian would call deregulation!