Short term, yes. But longer term, the economy takes the money and redirects it - because someone will use the money on business costs, and that person will take business away from those that don't.
As long as those business costs include predatory pricing- but never will the money go to the worker.
According to your logic, why don't they just lower your wages?
Because the law sets a floor in Oregon at $7.50/hr.
Why don't they just raise their price to the customer?
They will as soon as they use predatory pricing to eliminate the competition.
They don't do that because they do not set prices, they do not set wages, and therefore they do not set profits.
Wal*Mart has done it nationwide with great success.
The markets do that!
As long as by "The markets" you mean the C-level exectutives, you are correct.
Inefficiencies exist (Monopolies, borders, regulations), but in general it works.
It hasn't worked since 1886, when corporations became legal people with more rights than citizens.
It's usually best to handle these things with fake racism. Tell them that you resent somebody in another nation having your phone number, and would they please stay on the line long enough for you to target their GPS co-ordinates with a bioweapon designed for their genome, to wipe out them and all their family.
They are usually so superstitious about first world technology, that they actually believe this and hang up.
You don't seriously think your employer doesn't take that into account when deciding wage issues, do you? That additional social security would either be used to pay you more, or pay someone else more. The money does not magically appear.
Hmm, I'm an employer. I suddenly no longer have to pay my share of FICA tax. I have the choice of returning that money to my worker's paycheck, or keeping it myself. In addition, I'm the standard capitalistic heartless bastard who believes that Greed is Good and Profit is King. Which do you think I'm going to do? Where do you think that money will be going?
Remember- the federal bank, is the same pyramid scheme. If you have your money in fiat-dollars that have no other value than the full faith and credit of a federal government that has now promised to NOT PAY A $1.5 TRILLION LOAN that they took out of the pyramid scheme, then you've got a lost cause anyway as far as retirement goes, because once the federal government removes that money from the pyramid scheme for real, there will be no reason to believe that dollars are worth anything at all.
Wrong. Social Secuirty is an INSURANCE COMPANY, not an INVESTMENT COMPANY. Your FICA taxes go directly to CURRENT BENEFITS and SAVINGS FOR FUTURE BENEFITS, not SAVINGS FOR YOUR BENEFITS. This is an essential difference that none of the neoliberals, like Clinton, or the neoconservatives, like Bush, understand. And that's why this stupid "personal accounts" spin in the NYSE Casino will only make the stock brokers rich- and everybody else poor.
Re:Typical assinine name-calling
on
State of the Union
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Really? I'll submit that while it's a flawed system,
I'd submit that it hasn't been a flawed system since the 1980s when we repaired it the last time. What is flawed is the neoliberal and neoconservative attempt to steal money out of the system by calling it a loan and then never paying back that loan.
What's the matter with that? Would it be better if he said "It's broken and I have no ideas..."
It would be better if he admited the truth: "Clinton and I conspired to break it, by cutting the war on terror and taking back the tax cuts we ought to be able to pay back the $5 trillion that we promised Social Security we'd repay."
SS won't be solvent forever...it *will* start running a deficit and eventually be bankrupt.
Uh, no...theoretically once the baby boomers have died and we have returned to a more reasonable population age distribution, say about 2075 or so, there's no reason at all for SS to continue on forever. Likewise, SS will not start runing a deficit unless the Federal Government decides to do something that they have *never* done, and default on a bunch of treasury bonds. If they do that, you might as well kiss whatever economic independance we have goodbye- because that action will instantly cause France, Germany, Saudi Arabia, China, and India to demand payment on the bonds THEY own, causing American citizens to have to pay 100% income taxes for a few years to pay back the loan- essentially becoming slaves to foreign interests.
So either SS will be solvent for all of our lifetimes and have to cut back on benefits in 2042 and there is NO real crisis, OR the crisis is much bigger than Social Security because the Neo* idiots on both the conservative and liberal sides want to do an action that will destroy the ability of the United States to have a federal government at all.
Just because the AC responded with no intelligent thought whatsoever- I have to respond to this charge:
And Cheney is obviously some kind of cyborg.
With a "you are absolutely correct". A cyborg is anybody who has artificial parts in their body- not neccessarily Steve Austin or the Terminator. And since Cheney has a pacemaker- he is indeed a cyborg.
There hasn't been a lot of contact between Portugal and Japan historically
Despite my agreement with you on the etimology of the word, where did you get this fact from? It varies with my understanding of the Shogun centuries, where the ONLY contact Japan had for trade was a single yearly Portugese ship. My understanding is that this is also why Roman Catholicism is the third most popular traditional religion in Japan (behind the more famous Shintoism (both state and secular) and Zen Buddhism).
I still love that line from the Emperor Mej when a western reporter noticed that if you add up all the Shintos, Buddhists, and Catholics in Japan you get a number larger than the actual population of Japan. "There are many roads up Mt. Fuji. It doesn't matter if you take one, or many of them. What matters is that you get to the top". That winds hands down for best piece of far eastern spirituality EVER in my book.
I mean, how do you constitute major label? Granted, we all know the big ones. But do you actually keep track of the gazillions of record labels, big and small, who gets bought out by who etc.?
Simple- I never buy CD's at all. I long ago finished collecting all the old music I'll ever need for my life. Small artists who I support, also support their fans- by making money off of their CONCERTS instead of their RECORDINGS, and by releasing lower quality, but still good, recordings for free on the web themselves under the Creative Commons License. To me- it's the only way to insure that I'm listening to what I consider to be good music. YMMV- if you listen to music for reasons other than why I do for instance (the only new music I've supported recently has been people like Baby Gramps and Complex Numbers- people who actually have something to say with their music other than "Look at me I'm a big rock star out to make millions")
The financial incentive will be removed the day that EVERYBODY fails to buy their CDs merely because they are a major label. When artists become blacklisted by the public for signing a deal with a major label, other artists will cease signing deals with that label. It not only can change things- it's the only way to change things.
Seems to me that the character of Wesley Crusher, in the end, could very easily turn into a star-trek vehicle of his own. I could see it now- a grown-up Wesley, with the power to be anywhere in the universe he wants, introduces us to our own 21st century planet- no need for makeup, camera crew, anything other than just Wesley, a tripod, a backpack, and a Sony digital camcorder with some good editing software. He wouldn't even need to do anything other than syndicate it- and Paramont could do that for him. Wouldn't even need to necessarily be on UPN- could just be an addition to the WilWheaton.com blog.
I haven't seen it yet... but I can't imagine that it's fixed some of the basic problems I've seen with Star Trek recently.
Oddly enough, it did- the episodes surrounding the fact that the Vulcan High Command was a Rommulan plot to supress the works of Surak were wonderfull. The episodes with Data (really a "Dr. Soong" from the past) weren't terribly good from a canon perspective but were GREAT from an originality perspective. And it appears with the new "Babel One Parts One and Two" that started Friday and continues this Friday, we're going to get some good Canon episodes again (and to top off originality- an early form of Cloaking technology in a remote control Romulan vessel that uese holograms to mimic other ships).
Still having said that- 10 good episodes out of a 3 year run does not a good series make, and thus, in the end analysis, I have to agree with your last line:
I still think this is a good thing in the long run. Star Trek needs the humiliation of being cancelled to sort it's crap out.
Or, they could just hire Wil Wheaton as the next captain - playing a different character than Wesley Crusher, natch - give him a starship, and set him loose.
Heck, I wouldn't mind a very imaginative "Star Trek: Traveler" staring Wil Wheaton making a statement about the Multiverse Paradox...which has got to be the most interesting thing in modern 21st century quantum dynamics, bar none. And the best thing is he doesn't need a freakin' ship, or crew, or fancy transporter, or warp drive- none of it....and it could take off right after the TNG episode where Wesley left. Be darned cheap to make and even cheaper to show- no need for any really fancy special effects at all.
I don't visualize other people's body language while talking on the phone. But then again I'm autistic- body language means absolutely NOTHING to me at all.
It's a small matter, but a crucial one: it requires far less attention to communicate with someone who is physically present than with someone who's a disconnected voice on the other end of a telephone line.
I disagree- but possibly because I have Asperger's. It takes a lot more energy and attention to communicate with somebody physically present due to the increased data from body language, than to talk to a disconnected voice on the other end of a telephone line. Still- I find that saying "oops- hold on a second" usually gets the person on the other end of the line to shut up- especially if they know you're driving.
If you're a genius, are you able to retire? I've been labeled a genius several times- stock options are not worth the paper they are printed on no matter what the company is, and in the end, genius will get screwed by good liars in marketing EVERY time.
What's wrong with that combination? Store all your music in MP3 and then just have an MP3 player of some sort on each laptop on the 802.11g connection. Seems simple enough to me....not centrally controlled, but VNC can fix that....
Um- I think you need to be a bit less security concious, especially if you want to play UT2004 over a combination LAN/WLAN connection. Here's how: Your access point is a 2nd NAT router. It needs to be within the same subnet as the rest of your system. You need to open up so that no TCP/UDP ports are filtered. In addition to that, you'd probably need all the computers for the LAN party in the DMZ. If none of these acronyms are familiar- you need to learn about networking.
It seems to me you could do it easily on a USB key- AND make it change at least once per login by writing an entirely new user code out to the device (thus making a "lost key" worthless once a new key was issued).
Not arms for protection from each other, not arms for gathering food. Those things of course were allowed as there were no laws against them, but they were not garaunteed by the 2nd ammendment. It's just not in there. Your personal right to bear arms is a side effect of this intent.
And thus, we need weapons that are the equal OR BETTER compared to those of the federalist army.
Now, any "armed militia" that protests federalism is by current definitions "a terrorist group". The Bush "Global War on Terror" is therefore a war on "armed militia" and by extension a war on the the intended protections of the 2nd ammendment. We must therefore repeal the 2nd ammendment in the name of Homeland security, to outlaw the "domestic terrorist militia".
Yep- that's how I read it to. And given John Titor's prediction that the inevitable result of November's election in 2004 would be civil war in 2005- it's got me scared.
Rhetoric asside, who has successfully used the 2nd ammendment to protect the 1st?
Nobody since 1860- the last time we actually had constitutional rights granted by God instead of by the corporations.
I think you're wrong on so many counts. I don't know of a single person who voted for EITHER candidate in November who based their decision on the 1st Amendment. It simply wasn't an issue. I listened to NPR, CNN, FoxNews, AirAmerica -- it wasn't an issue. Stop flaming.
You must have missed Randi Rhodes show on Air America- but I'll grant you it wasn't an issue- and I believe it should have been THE central issue.
The First Amendment is the cornerstone of our democracy.
Granted
Religious freedom is the primary reason for our existence as an independent state.
Yep, but too bad we haven't had THAT since the 1950s or earlier. Between first forcing, then removing, prayer from schools, then the overreaction by enforcing establishment over expression clauses, to today's enforced atheism, it's gotten pretty bad for religious freedom here.
t's the only reason we can argue about politics at all.
According to the Bush Campaign, arguing about politics is a terrorist act that requires some time spent in jail- so better be carefull who you argue with.
It's only reason Kerry showed as well as he did; he had the better part of the national media in his corner,
He did? Could have fooled me- looked to me that the national media was giving loads more air time to Bush & Co than to Kerry.
there's nothing the ruling party could do to silence them.
You mean other than filling up their time with fake terrorism alerts every time something went bad in Iraq?
The press is ultimately the voice of the people. Once it's been silenced or censored, there's no point in holding elections any more.
Well, near as I can tell, that already happened. The only candidates you hear from anymore are those with huge corporate campaign contributions (or as I like to call them, Bribes), and the rate of payola in this election was downright staggering.
Yes, Bush voted for McCain-Feingold (the worst hit the 1st Amendment has ever taken), but Kerry would have voted for it quicker.
More stupid perception overcoming reality I see. Hint- Bush not only never voted for McCain-Feingold, he very quickly decided that the spending limits in it applied to everybody other than him- and raised hundreds of millions for his campaign.
No one was betrayed by this. In fact, the people were empowered (they are able to make trade decisions that formerly were left just to government elites).
Nope, sorry. It's just a different set of government elites is all- instead of our elected representatives, all trade must now be vetted by the World Trade Organization- and individual citizens are still left out. MORE left out if anything- as part of our sovereign rights as a nation have now been turned over to the WTO who has the sole right to write, interpret, or nullify our trade agreements.
Slashdot Mirror
Short term, yes. But longer term, the economy takes the money and redirects it - because someone will use the money on business costs, and that person will take business away from those that don't.
As long as those business costs include predatory pricing- but never will the money go to the worker.
According to your logic, why don't they just lower your wages?
Because the law sets a floor in Oregon at $7.50/hr.
Why don't they just raise their price to the customer?
They will as soon as they use predatory pricing to eliminate the competition.
They don't do that because they do not set prices, they do not set wages, and therefore they do not set profits.
Wal*Mart has done it nationwide with great success.
The markets do that!
As long as by "The markets" you mean the C-level exectutives, you are correct.
Inefficiencies exist (Monopolies, borders, regulations), but in general it works.
It hasn't worked since 1886, when corporations became legal people with more rights than citizens.
It's usually best to handle these things with fake racism. Tell them that you resent somebody in another nation having your phone number, and would they please stay on the line long enough for you to target their GPS co-ordinates with a bioweapon designed for their genome, to wipe out them and all their family.
They are usually so superstitious about first world technology, that they actually believe this and hang up.
You don't seriously think your employer doesn't take that into account when deciding wage issues, do you? That additional social security would either be used to pay you more, or pay someone else more. The money does not magically appear.
Hmm, I'm an employer. I suddenly no longer have to pay my share of FICA tax. I have the choice of returning that money to my worker's paycheck, or keeping it myself. In addition, I'm the standard capitalistic heartless bastard who believes that Greed is Good and Profit is King. Which do you think I'm going to do? Where do you think that money will be going?
Remember- the federal bank, is the same pyramid scheme. If you have your money in fiat-dollars that have no other value than the full faith and credit of a federal government that has now promised to NOT PAY A $1.5 TRILLION LOAN that they took out of the pyramid scheme, then you've got a lost cause anyway as far as retirement goes, because once the federal government removes that money from the pyramid scheme for real, there will be no reason to believe that dollars are worth anything at all.
I mean, your social security is YOUR money.
Wrong. Social Secuirty is an INSURANCE COMPANY, not an INVESTMENT COMPANY. Your FICA taxes go directly to CURRENT BENEFITS and SAVINGS FOR FUTURE BENEFITS, not SAVINGS FOR YOUR BENEFITS. This is an essential difference that none of the neoliberals, like Clinton, or the neoconservatives, like Bush, understand. And that's why this stupid "personal accounts" spin in the NYSE Casino will only make the stock brokers rich- and everybody else poor.
Really? I'll submit that while it's a flawed system,
I'd submit that it hasn't been a flawed system since the 1980s when we repaired it the last time. What is flawed is the neoliberal and neoconservative attempt to steal money out of the system by calling it a loan and then never paying back that loan.
What's the matter with that? Would it be better if he said "It's broken and I have no ideas..."
It would be better if he admited the truth: "Clinton and I conspired to break it, by cutting the war on terror and taking back the tax cuts we ought to be able to pay back the $5 trillion that we promised Social Security we'd repay."
SS won't be solvent forever...it *will* start running a deficit and eventually be bankrupt.
Uh, no...theoretically once the baby boomers have died and we have returned to a more reasonable population age distribution, say about 2075 or so, there's no reason at all for SS to continue on forever. Likewise, SS will not start runing a deficit unless the Federal Government decides to do something that they have *never* done, and default on a bunch of treasury bonds. If they do that, you might as well kiss whatever economic independance we have goodbye- because that action will instantly cause France, Germany, Saudi Arabia, China, and India to demand payment on the bonds THEY own, causing American citizens to have to pay 100% income taxes for a few years to pay back the loan- essentially becoming slaves to foreign interests.
So either SS will be solvent for all of our lifetimes and have to cut back on benefits in 2042 and there is NO real crisis, OR the crisis is much bigger than Social Security because the Neo* idiots on both the conservative and liberal sides want to do an action that will destroy the ability of the United States to have a federal government at all.
Which do you believe the correct story to be?
Just because the AC responded with no intelligent thought whatsoever- I have to respond to this charge:
And Cheney is obviously some kind of cyborg.
With a "you are absolutely correct". A cyborg is anybody who has artificial parts in their body- not neccessarily Steve Austin or the Terminator. And since Cheney has a pacemaker- he is indeed a cyborg.
There hasn't been a lot of contact between Portugal and Japan historically
Despite my agreement with you on the etimology of the word, where did you get this fact from? It varies with my understanding of the Shogun centuries, where the ONLY contact Japan had for trade was a single yearly Portugese ship. My understanding is that this is also why Roman Catholicism is the third most popular traditional religion in Japan (behind the more famous Shintoism (both state and secular) and Zen Buddhism).
I still love that line from the Emperor Mej when a western reporter noticed that if you add up all the Shintos, Buddhists, and Catholics in Japan you get a number larger than the actual population of Japan. "There are many roads up Mt. Fuji. It doesn't matter if you take one, or many of them. What matters is that you get to the top". That winds hands down for best piece of far eastern spirituality EVER in my book.
I mean, how do you constitute major label? Granted, we all know the big ones. But do you actually keep track of the gazillions of record labels, big and small, who gets bought out by who etc.?
Simple- I never buy CD's at all. I long ago finished collecting all the old music I'll ever need for my life. Small artists who I support, also support their fans- by making money off of their CONCERTS instead of their RECORDINGS, and by releasing lower quality, but still good, recordings for free on the web themselves under the Creative Commons License. To me- it's the only way to insure that I'm listening to what I consider to be good music. YMMV- if you listen to music for reasons other than why I do for instance (the only new music I've supported recently has been people like Baby Gramps and Complex Numbers- people who actually have something to say with their music other than "Look at me I'm a big rock star out to make millions")
The financial incentive will be removed the day that EVERYBODY fails to buy their CDs merely because they are a major label. When artists become blacklisted by the public for signing a deal with a major label, other artists will cease signing deals with that label. It not only can change things- it's the only way to change things.
Completely agreed. Which is why I haven't bought major label music since college- and won't.
Seems to me that the character of Wesley Crusher, in the end, could very easily turn into a star-trek vehicle of his own. I could see it now- a grown-up Wesley, with the power to be anywhere in the universe he wants, introduces us to our own 21st century planet- no need for makeup, camera crew, anything other than just Wesley, a tripod, a backpack, and a Sony digital camcorder with some good editing software. He wouldn't even need to do anything other than syndicate it- and Paramont could do that for him. Wouldn't even need to necessarily be on UPN- could just be an addition to the WilWheaton.com blog.
I haven't seen it yet... but I can't imagine that it's fixed some of the basic problems I've seen with Star Trek recently.
Oddly enough, it did- the episodes surrounding the fact that the Vulcan High Command was a Rommulan plot to supress the works of Surak were wonderfull. The episodes with Data (really a "Dr. Soong" from the past) weren't terribly good from a canon perspective but were GREAT from an originality perspective. And it appears with the new "Babel One Parts One and Two" that started Friday and continues this Friday, we're going to get some good Canon episodes again (and to top off originality- an early form of Cloaking technology in a remote control Romulan vessel that uese holograms to mimic other ships).
Still having said that- 10 good episodes out of a 3 year run does not a good series make, and thus, in the end analysis, I have to agree with your last line:
I still think this is a good thing in the long run. Star Trek needs the humiliation of being cancelled to sort it's crap out.
Or, they could just hire Wil Wheaton as the next captain - playing a different character than Wesley Crusher, natch - give him a starship, and set him loose.
Heck, I wouldn't mind a very imaginative "Star Trek: Traveler" staring Wil Wheaton making a statement about the Multiverse Paradox...which has got to be the most interesting thing in modern 21st century quantum dynamics, bar none. And the best thing is he doesn't need a freakin' ship, or crew, or fancy transporter, or warp drive- none of it....and it could take off right after the TNG episode where Wesley left. Be darned cheap to make and even cheaper to show- no need for any really fancy special effects at all.
I don't visualize other people's body language while talking on the phone. But then again I'm autistic- body language means absolutely NOTHING to me at all.
It's a small matter, but a crucial one: it requires far less attention to communicate with someone who is physically present than with someone who's a disconnected voice on the other end of a telephone line.
I disagree- but possibly because I have Asperger's. It takes a lot more energy and attention to communicate with somebody physically present due to the increased data from body language, than to talk to a disconnected voice on the other end of a telephone line. Still- I find that saying "oops- hold on a second" usually gets the person on the other end of the line to shut up- especially if they know you're driving.
If you're a genius, are you able to retire? I've been labeled a genius several times- stock options are not worth the paper they are printed on no matter what the company is, and in the end, genius will get screwed by good liars in marketing EVERY time.
What's wrong with that combination? Store all your music in MP3 and then just have an MP3 player of some sort on each laptop on the 802.11g connection. Seems simple enough to me....not centrally controlled, but VNC can fix that....
Um- I think you need to be a bit less security concious, especially if you want to play UT2004 over a combination LAN/WLAN connection. Here's how: Your access point is a 2nd NAT router. It needs to be within the same subnet as the rest of your system. You need to open up so that no TCP/UDP ports are filtered. In addition to that, you'd probably need all the computers for the LAN party in the DMZ. If none of these acronyms are familiar- you need to learn about networking.
It seems to me you could do it easily on a USB key- AND make it change at least once per login by writing an entirely new user code out to the device (thus making a "lost key" worthless once a new key was issued).
Not arms for protection from each other, not arms for gathering food. Those things of course were allowed as there were no laws against them, but they were not garaunteed by the 2nd ammendment. It's just not in there. Your personal right to bear arms is a side effect of this intent.
And thus, we need weapons that are the equal OR BETTER compared to those of the federalist army.
Now, any "armed militia" that protests federalism is by current definitions "a terrorist group". The Bush "Global War on Terror" is therefore a war on "armed militia" and by extension a war on the the intended protections of the 2nd ammendment. We must therefore repeal the 2nd ammendment in the name of Homeland security, to outlaw the "domestic terrorist militia".
Yep- that's how I read it to. And given John Titor's prediction that the inevitable result of November's election in 2004 would be civil war in 2005- it's got me scared.
Rhetoric asside, who has successfully used the 2nd ammendment to protect the 1st?
Nobody since 1860- the last time we actually had constitutional rights granted by God instead of by the corporations.
I think you're wrong on so many counts. I don't know of a single person who voted for EITHER candidate in November who based their decision on the 1st Amendment. It simply wasn't an issue. I listened to NPR, CNN, FoxNews, AirAmerica -- it wasn't an issue. Stop flaming.
You must have missed Randi Rhodes show on Air America- but I'll grant you it wasn't an issue- and I believe it should have been THE central issue.
The First Amendment is the cornerstone of our democracy.
Granted
Religious freedom is the primary reason for our existence as an independent state.
Yep, but too bad we haven't had THAT since the 1950s or earlier. Between first forcing, then removing, prayer from schools, then the overreaction by enforcing establishment over expression clauses, to today's enforced atheism, it's gotten pretty bad for religious freedom here.
t's the only reason we can argue about politics at all.
According to the Bush Campaign, arguing about politics is a terrorist act that requires some time spent in jail- so better be carefull who you argue with.
It's only reason Kerry showed as well as he did; he had the better part of the national media in his corner,
He did? Could have fooled me- looked to me that the national media was giving loads more air time to Bush & Co than to Kerry.
there's nothing the ruling party could do to silence them.
You mean other than filling up their time with fake terrorism alerts every time something went bad in Iraq?
The press is ultimately the voice of the people. Once it's been silenced or censored, there's no point in holding elections any more.
Well, near as I can tell, that already happened. The only candidates you hear from anymore are those with huge corporate campaign contributions (or as I like to call them, Bribes), and the rate of payola in this election was downright staggering.
Yes, Bush voted for McCain-Feingold (the worst hit the 1st Amendment has ever taken), but Kerry would have voted for it quicker.
More stupid perception overcoming reality I see. Hint- Bush not only never voted for McCain-Feingold, he very quickly decided that the spending limits in it applied to everybody other than him- and raised hundreds of millions for his campaign.
No one was betrayed by this. In fact, the people were empowered (they are able to make trade decisions that formerly were left just to government elites).
Nope, sorry. It's just a different set of government elites is all- instead of our elected representatives, all trade must now be vetted by the World Trade Organization- and individual citizens are still left out. MORE left out if anything- as part of our sovereign rights as a nation have now been turned over to the WTO who has the sole right to write, interpret, or nullify our trade agreements.