Imagine further that the trading block cost $30 million per day and that they also hated you because you don't think that Germany is fit to run your country. Additionally imagine that they want to directly tax an industry that only exists in your country to the tune of $11 billion every year. I understand trade harmonisation, I do not understand paying for Spanish art galleries, or paying Italy, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Poland, the Czech republic and others because they don't want to tax their people as much as they spend. On a side note I don't understand either giving financial aid to Brazil whose economy overtook the UK and wants to give British land to Argentina, or India who has a space programme when we don't, or Pakistan who wants to kill anyone who doesn't believe the claims of an illiterate pedophile.
Also Holyrood is the ugliest building ever built, and all MSPs are second raters who didn't get in to Westminster. Also Alex Salmond is a megalomaniacal idiot.
Because if you don't want to watch Sky you don't have to pay for it, whereas you are forced to pay for the BBC, even if you never watch it, and only use your TV for paid channels and/or consoles.
Surely a world with Sherlock Holmes would provide a good deterrent to criminals, or at least make their exploits really interesting reading for those of us who still read newspapers?
Music, Art, and Literature are things which are generally easily enjoyed, if not understood, (especially in the forms of popular music and film). The equivalent with science and maths is balancing the weekly budget, DIY (engineering), and gardening (biology). Having spent a lot of time with scientists, in general they have no more knowledge of literature than the average man on the street. Enjoying is not studying or understanding in any depth.
Should I live (be), or should I kill myself (not be).
Simple.
Re:Well of course it will be downgraded...
on
Debt Deal Reached
·
· Score: 1
The reason we (the west) produce in china, is that manufacturing is low margin, whereas inventing stuff and marketing stuff is where most of the money is to be made. So long as we keep designing stuff better than the chinese do, and branding it well we have nothing to worry about. ARM don't actually make anything, nor do they want to, they design advanced stuff, then sell the intellectual property for much more profit than the chinese get making it.
Re:Why tax cuts work, I know it sounds wrong
on
Debt Deal Reached
·
· Score: 1
Which side of the laffer curve do you think we're on? We should really try to be on the left, with the amount of tax we want, rather than the right. Current evidence suggests we're on the right hand side.
Re:Could Someone Help Me Out With This?
on
Debt Deal Reached
·
· Score: 1
I'm reasonably sure there's a problem with the way that budgets are passed in the US, regarding this debt ceiling nonsense.
Nonetheless, I don't think we can really blame any president for acting on the will of the electorate (socialised medicine) or the prevailing economic theory (such as happened in the great depression). All we can do is strive to improve the science of economics, and for politicians to better explain their cases, and the flaws of their opponents.
Re:Could Someone Help Me Out With This?
on
Debt Deal Reached
·
· Score: 1
The problem with the government subsidising investment is that it often misallocates resources. Take, for example, subsidised mortgages of recent financial crash fame, and now subsidised car manufacturing. Not forgetting the disaster that was ethanol subsidies, and the disaster that is sugar subsidies. Also farm subsidies (amazing how some countries can prosper without these). If private sector investment is sensible, the market will finance it through corporate bonds; at best, the government can do as well as the market, at worst, it does depressions.
I have no argument with that, it was more about an optimum, which is argued in the style of a laffer curve argument by Richard Armey that it's 11.42 of GDP, a misremembering on my part. I'm not really arguing what it is, but where it would be best. I'm sure it's possible to reduce tax to that level.
Or, taking it logically, in that 100% taxation would mean no growth in the economy, and 0% would mean less than the optimal due to war and raiding, there is an optimum between 0% and 100% taxation. Look for the Armey Curve.
My argument was more that the principle of ownership under Common Law is the entire justification for imposing certain limits on the roads, and since the government owns them, the government gets to set the rules. Though thinking about it more, regulations pertaining to safe driving, however, fall within other common law statutes, such as assault and wilful negligence.
Speed limits and insurance requirements should be set by whoever owns the roads. If the people own the roads through the state, it seems perfectly reasonable the government would control these things. There is, however, no need for the government to own roads.
This argument is only true if you will not otherwise heat your house. Light bulbs reduce the need for central heating in cold areas. They also provide a better light spectrum. They also aren't as toxic when you break them. This is not a straightforward issue.
All major parties have anti-EU MPs, but the main problem is that party divisions don't run that way, but rather (ostensibly) on a small government/big government and socially conservative/socially progressive agenda. There is also the fact that EU jobs pay better, a lot of politicians see the EU as a promotion and don't want to derail the gravy train.
At the last European elections, winning anti-EU parties got 23% of the vote, and there are a number of MEPs from other parties also against. A recent poll showed 47% of Britons want to leave, vs. 33% who wish to stay. I can only hope that the tide in politics turns, and we can leave this massively expensive disaster (Estimates put costs of between £4bn and £125bn per year).
Well, in the UK, unless you are in your fifties, you haven't voted for it, and even then all that was voted for was a trading community. Sadly no major political party is anti-EU (unless you count UKIP, which is the 2nd biggest in the EU, but has no representation at Westminster).
The House of Lords has no power to veto laws, it's only real power is to delay them for up to a year. Generally, however, subject experts in the Lords propose amendments to make laws work properly, because people who are democratically elected are not always, able to craft a bill without loopholes or which violates the constitution.
Please explain how the Irish potato famine would have been solved by subsidies from the British government. Please include where this money would come from.
Slashdot Mirror
Agree. A lot of the job of being president is to think about stuff, and you can literally do that anywhere.
Imagine further that the trading block cost $30 million per day and that they also hated you because you don't think that Germany is fit to run your country. Additionally imagine that they want to directly tax an industry that only exists in your country to the tune of $11 billion every year.
I understand trade harmonisation, I do not understand paying for Spanish art galleries, or paying Italy, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Poland, the Czech republic and others because they don't want to tax their people as much as they spend.
On a side note I don't understand either giving financial aid to Brazil whose economy overtook the UK and wants to give British land to Argentina, or India who has a space programme when we don't, or Pakistan who wants to kill anyone who doesn't believe the claims of an illiterate pedophile.
Also Holyrood is the ugliest building ever built, and all MSPs are second raters who didn't get in to Westminster. Also Alex Salmond is a megalomaniacal idiot.
Because if you don't want to watch Sky you don't have to pay for it, whereas you are forced to pay for the BBC, even if you never watch it, and only use your TV for paid channels and/or consoles.
Surely a world with Sherlock Holmes would provide a good deterrent to criminals, or at least make their exploits really interesting reading for those of us who still read newspapers?
Music, Art, and Literature are things which are generally easily enjoyed, if not understood, (especially in the forms of popular music and film). The equivalent with science and maths is balancing the weekly budget, DIY (engineering), and gardening (biology).
Having spent a lot of time with scientists, in general they have no more knowledge of literature than the average man on the street. Enjoying is not studying or understanding in any depth.
Should I live (be), or should I kill myself (not be).
Simple.
The reason we (the west) produce in china, is that manufacturing is low margin, whereas inventing stuff and marketing stuff is where most of the money is to be made. So long as we keep designing stuff better than the chinese do, and branding it well we have nothing to worry about. ARM don't actually make anything, nor do they want to, they design advanced stuff, then sell the intellectual property for much more profit than the chinese get making it.
Which side of the laffer curve do you think we're on? We should really try to be on the left, with the amount of tax we want, rather than the right. Current evidence suggests we're on the right hand side.
I'm reasonably sure there's a problem with the way that budgets are passed in the US, regarding this debt ceiling nonsense.
Nonetheless, I don't think we can really blame any president for acting on the will of the electorate (socialised medicine) or the prevailing economic theory (such as happened in the great depression). All we can do is strive to improve the science of economics, and for politicians to better explain their cases, and the flaws of their opponents.
The problem with the government subsidising investment is that it often misallocates resources. Take, for example, subsidised mortgages of recent financial crash fame, and now subsidised car manufacturing. Not forgetting the disaster that was ethanol subsidies, and the disaster that is sugar subsidies. Also farm subsidies (amazing how some countries can prosper without these). If private sector investment is sensible, the market will finance it through corporate bonds; at best, the government can do as well as the market, at worst, it does depressions.
Well, it's taking me 14 hours on my piece of shit connexion. Better be worth both £21 and the time it takes.
I have no argument with that, it was more about an optimum, which is argued in the style of a laffer curve argument by Richard Armey that it's 11.42 of GDP, a misremembering on my part. I'm not really arguing what it is, but where it would be best. I'm sure it's possible to reduce tax to that level.
http://www.house.gov/jec/growth/govtsize/govtsize.htm
This I completely understand. That does not make it wrong, just unlikely to happen, two vary different things.
Apparently it's somewhere between 6 and 11%, but I believe it can vary, and is different for different countries.
Or, taking it logically, in that 100% taxation would mean no growth in the economy, and 0% would mean less than the optimal due to war and raiding, there is an optimum between 0% and 100% taxation. Look for the Armey Curve.
Blaspemy, Blasphe-you, Blasphe-everybody in the room!
That would've been 1992BC, or 2774 on the Roman Republican calendar, or possibly the Jewish year 2012. All of which are over 3700 years ago.
My argument was more that the principle of ownership under Common Law is the entire justification for imposing certain limits on the roads, and since the government owns them, the government gets to set the rules. Though thinking about it more, regulations pertaining to safe driving, however, fall within other common law statutes, such as assault and wilful negligence.
Speed limits and insurance requirements should be set by whoever owns the roads. If the people own the roads through the state, it seems perfectly reasonable the government would control these things. There is, however, no need for the government to own roads.
This argument is only true if you will not otherwise heat your house. Light bulbs reduce the need for central heating in cold areas. They also provide a better light spectrum. They also aren't as toxic when you break them. This is not a straightforward issue.
All major parties have anti-EU MPs, but the main problem is that party divisions don't run that way, but rather (ostensibly) on a small government/big government and socially conservative/socially progressive agenda. There is also the fact that EU jobs pay better, a lot of politicians see the EU as a promotion and don't want to derail the gravy train.
At the last European elections, winning anti-EU parties got 23% of the vote, and there are a number of MEPs from other parties also against.
A recent poll showed 47% of Britons want to leave, vs. 33% who wish to stay. I can only hope that the tide in politics turns, and we can leave this massively expensive disaster (Estimates put costs of between £4bn and £125bn per year).
Well, in the UK, unless you are in your fifties, you haven't voted for it, and even then all that was voted for was a trading community. Sadly no major political party is anti-EU (unless you count UKIP, which is the 2nd biggest in the EU, but has no representation at Westminster).
The House of Lords has no power to veto laws, it's only real power is to delay them for up to a year. Generally, however, subject experts in the Lords propose amendments to make laws work properly, because people who are democratically elected are not always, able to craft a bill without loopholes or which violates the constitution.
Please explain how the Irish potato famine would have been solved by subsidies from the British government. Please include where this money would come from.