The form for submitting a patent application will become cryptic and archaic. An entire segment of attorneys will be bred to deal with the proper preparation of the papers. The fees to enter the auction will be prohibitively expensive but the sale price of the patents themselves will be subject to a downward spiral of lowest bidding.
In the end, it will cost an unlimited amount of money to submit patents to auction and the patents will all be sold for a penny--or one penny above the set minimum bid. There will be no change. Corporations will rule the patent world and individuals will be forced to sign their lives away in the ubiquitous employee agreement.
I may take a minority opinion when I say distributing copyrighted files you don't have the copyright for or a license to distribute should be against the law
You're in the majority when you lump up with trolls. May I point out that no one put a gun to the recording industry and said,"YOU MUST SELL THIS CD!" They sold the CD, voluntarily, now deal with the consequences rather than whining about a 14-year old sharing music. It's no secret that CDs are easily ripped, easily copied, and easily distributed.
Someone else pointed out a good analogy: Give a child a jar of 100 cookies, tell them to take one, but let them keep the jar for as long as they want.
Why are the courts rewarding corporate America for what amounts to either ridiculous stupidity or blatant entrapment?
Well, if they failed due to lack of revenue, what other solution makes sense?
If the government failed due to lack of revenue it's a prime indicator that the government shouldn't have been involved in that field in the first place.
The media industry suffers from the same complex. They like to blame their failure on "pirates" but, in reality, their business model is outdated and unrealistic.
If one cannot access the campus network because of another's AP
I agree. What we have here is a blanket policy which is completely devoid of consideration for a responsible neighbor. The University is taking the easy way out and using ethically questionable powers to enforce it.
One thing for certain though is they do own the infrastructure you are trying to access
We'll just leave out the technicality that the "owners" are primarily taxpayer funded.
I don't mind having the product of my work (money) being used to write rules against me. Why should anyone else?
You want to use my money to pass laws which limit me to 40 sq ft? Sure. You want to use my money to pass laws to re-enable the buying and selling of employees? Sure. You want to use my money to send politicians to conferences to dream of ways to set up companies like Enron? Sure. You want to use my money to create databases which allow insurance companies to profile me and have an excuse to raise the rates on government mandated insurance, again? Sure.
The fact is, those students are subject to the rules and regulations of their student handbook and University policies
At what point can you sign away all your rights as an American citizen to live in little micro-Chinas just because it's in the contract?
There isn't a fair contract in this nation. I've never even seen a contract that wasn't 100% sided to give all rights to the entity with more financial resources. When was the last time anyone signed a contract which outlined provisions for their personal rights?
"You have the right to be employed. Should we decide to no longer employ you, you have the right to contest involuntary unemployment and seek appropriate compensation."
"You have the right to own your own house. Should the bank decide to repossess your house you have the right to contest the terms of repossession and the amount of monetary compensation that the bank receives from any resale of your property."
"You have the right to be free of any rules, regulations, sanctions which were not officially passed by Congress of the state or local in which you live."
We're setting up mini-fiefdoms using taxpayer money, that's all.
Since this refers to photos which are sought by FOIA there's a time delay factor. It's not even logical to think about this in terms of real time aerial photographs. Rather, this is a move to block people who are trying to gather evidence of events that occurred months or even years ago.
Will the government suddenly be buying up all the rights to the aerial photographs of New York on 9/11 and the days prior? Will all the private photographs of Oklahoma City begin disappearing?
can tell you your statement, (which ammounts to "satallite imagery is useless for intelligence gathering")
That's rule #1 of the troll handbook, isn't it, jump to the extreme? Here... have a chestnut.
I didn't say that satellite imagery is useless for intelligence gathering. Unless they plan on blacking out the entirety of the US the rail lines and public infrastructure will still be available. Obviously the bill is not intended to stop intelligence gathering. The bill doesn't even limit intelligence ownership as there are bound to be multiple sources for the same aerial photo.
Now that we've decided that this bill has nothing to do with intelligence or military or terrorism why don't you concede that it's just a cheap way for some CEO with a satellite website to fleece the taxpayers?
It does NOT say that CNN, NBC, Washington Post, or Joe Blow can't buy the data from the same place the govt got it
I'm pretty certain that, if the government buys it, they'll ensure that they have a contract for exclusive ownership. None of this licensed for use crap that the rest of us deal with.
but has anyone considered that being able to obtain detailed government satallite imagery might not be the best thing in the world?
Do you really think our military leaders are so short-sighted that they don't take this into consideration? If it's important enough they'll do it when or in a manner that it can't be caught on satellite. If it's caught on satellite then it wasn't important enough to hide in the first place. Strategic planners in the military don't make it to their rank because they're complete retards.
It's a general, carte-blanche method for the government to hide information from the public
I don't even buy the tin-foil anymore. It's just a way for CEOs with lobbyists in Washington to have another excuse to subsidize their profits with taxpayer dollars.
1. Offer "sensitive" satellite pictures 2. Talk with lobbyists 3. Charge the taxpayers enormous prices 4. PROFIT!
It only seems to apply to images the government buys
Which means it's only a taxpayer subsidized pyramid scheme for those CEOs who know lobbyists in Washington. If there was ever going to be a competitive market, we'll know right quick which stock market winner our taxpayer dollars is subsidizing.
Hmmmmm... do I remember this happening in the software industry...?
That means the domestic satellite imagery market, when confronted by the government, RAKES IN THE MONEY
Great. Another taxpayer funded pyramid scheme. Another way for you and I to subsidize some businessman that we've never met who happens to have a lobbying buddy in Washington.
The government has been doing this for *DECADES*
And not just in the satellite industry. My pocketbook is pleading for this crap to stop.
The only thing about this story anyone has any right to bitch about is:
Lobbying groups get Congress to steal our tax money, again, as usual?
Aren't there local, state, federal, and international laws against exposing the vulnerability of a private system? Haven't many people already been harassed by the FBI for doing much the same thing with corporate systems? Or do these people get a free pass because they're from a University?
I can speak about using a less main-stream Linux distro, such as Debian
I'm puzzled. How is Debian not a "main-stream Linux distro"? Is it just because it doesn't have a for-profit model? The majority of real-time (IRC) help forums are more comfortable supporting Debian than any other distro that I'm aware of. It seems that Debian is the "main-stream" and the others are specialty, proprietary considerations.
What's the difference between renting and licensing, anyway? In terms of what you, the consumer, are entitled to--it's close to nothing.
The industry will never move into renting because the gig is too good with licensing. Consider this from the point of view of enforcement:
Violation of a rental agreement is a civil matter which requires the provider to retain their own legal counsel and make a case against the offender. Violation of a license agreement is a felony which the FBI will be happy to investigate and the US Attorney General will prosecute for you.
On the other hand, this could be a political push to broaden the powers of the provider for the violation of a rental agreement. Now your landlord can have your butt thrown in jail by the FBI if you're late with your rent.
There is a rather old case about reselling books that setup this precedent. Basically the onwer of the book can resell it for any price they want. Of course, this is why computer software is LICENSED and you don't actually own it
If piracy and redistribution really were as big of an impending industry decimating problem as the *AA would have us believe, and if licensing content really is a legal alternative to selling a product...
Why didn't book publishers start selling licenses to read books decades ago? Or is this another prime demonstration that the *AA is full of crap and is fleecing the consumer market for everything they can get?
"In 2001, 20% of all income went to the top-earning 1% of households, which held 33.4% of all net worth. The 90% of households with the lowest incomes received 54.8% of all income but only had 28.5% of all net worth."
"Since 1983, the top 1% of wealth holders consistently owned more than 30% and the bottom 80% held less than 16% of all wealth from 1983 to 2001."
"In 2001, the top fifth of households held 84.4% of all wealth; the middle fifth held only 3.9% -- the smallest share since 1962. The bottom fifth had negative net worth -- owing more than they owned."
If 20% of the American population is kept in debt I don't need to be a statistician to know there's something wrong with the economic system.
"In 2001, 17.6% of all households had a zero or negative net worth; just over 30% had a net worth of less than $10,000."
Since net worth includes any equity for their homes it's pretty reasonable to think they're living with some form of credit debt. Not all of their net worth is in their incomes.
"Average wealth grew by $2.8 million from 1989 to 2001 for the top 1% of households -- a 2.1% annual increase. For the middle 20%, average wealth increase by $11,100 -- or 1.3% per year."
Net flow is moving up the economic ladder. It's a pyramid scheme not a conspiracy.
"For the past 40 years, approximately 80% of all wealth has been held by 20% of households."
I've always thought of it as 95/5, but same thing.
"The top 1% of stock owners hold 44.9% of all stocks, by value, while the bottom 80% own just 5.8% of total stock holdings."
According to these snippets I've been right on the money while you've been a typical propaganda lemming:
"Prolonged weakness in the labor market has left the nation with over a million fewer jobs than when the recession began. This is a worse position, in terms of recouping lost jobs, than any business cycle since the 1930's."
I don't know anything about the fire of conspiracy, but I smell the smoke of collusion.
What is happening is nothing less than a deterioration in the standard of living in the United States. Despite the statistical growth in the economy, the continued slack in the labor market has resulted in declining real wages for anxious American workers and a marked deterioration in job quality.
If the American workers aren't reaping those extra benefits, I wonder who is?
From 2000 through 2003 the median household income fell by $1,500 (in 2003 dollars) - a significant 3.4 percent decrease. That information becomes startling when you consider that during the same period there was a strong 12 percent increase in productivity among U.S. workers.
That's making it difficult to pay back debt. I wonder where the profits from that productivity are going.
"So the economic pie is growing gangbusters and the typical household is falling behind," said Jared Bernstein, the institute's senior economist and a co-author of the new book.
Keep that debtor society turning!
This is the part of the story that spotlights the unfairness at the heart of the current economic setup in the U.S. While workers have been remarkably productive in recent years, they have not participated in the benefits of their own increased productivity. That doesn't sound very much like the American way.
And that's exactly what I've been saying for the last 20-some posts.
According to the institute, "Between 1947 and 1973 productivity and real median family income both grew 104 percent, a golden age of growth for both variables." That parallel relationship began to break down in the 1970's, but it is only recently that it fell apart altogether, leaving us with the following evidence of unrestrained inequity:
So the preceeding generations didn't stay out of debt because of their browbeating frugality. They were part of generations which were treated to some very favorable conditions.
"In the 2000-03 period income shifted extremely rapidly and extensively from labor compensation to capital income (profits and interest)," so that the "benefits of faster productivity growth" went overwhelmingly to capital.
More cash for the lenders to lend out to the families slipping behind... at 19% interest.
The end result of all this is a portrait of American families struggling just to hang on, rather than to get ahead. The benefits of productivity gains and economic growth are flowing to profits, not worker compensation. The fat cats are getting fatter, while workers, at least for the time being, are watching the curtain come down on the heralded American dream.
But yet void* would have you think it's just a conspiracy theory.
While I do agree with the majority of what you've said I have to take issue with this:
Also, our system of government and our Constituion was set up long ago in order to protect the wealth of slaveowners who exploited slaves and indentured servants
I don't see that as being so. The Constitution was envisioned to be a document to keep government from meddling in the affairs of citizens. The Constitution wasn't protecting slavery then any more than its protecting slavery now. What is slavery but unfair compensation for work and the ability to buy and sell people as property? Sure, we've made it look prettier today, but we have headhunters, and temp agencies aren't really any better, and companies have no qualms about dropping 1500 workers at a shot so they can be recycled to the lowest bidder...
I guess I envision that the authors of the Constitution wanted it to be a document which kept government (especially federal) to a small size that did little more than interact with other governments--none of this micromanaging meddling in the affairs of everyday citizens. I will agree that the usage of the Constitution has been twisted by those in positions of power to do what you say it has.:(
I agree, however, that abuse of the welfare system is wrong
True.
and such systems should supply just enough funds to survive and maybe supply education fee waivers and college book vouchers so those who need it can become even more productive.
That's what the economy is predominantly. Most people have just enough funds to survive, their taxes pay for education, many states have vouchers, et cetera et cetera et cetera.
Reason being is its unregulated and the sky is the limit
I agree wholly with your sentiment but have a little problem with the perspective here. You're implying that the solution is more regulation.
It's not. Here's why.
More regulation means more money going from you to Washington. More money in Washington means the people closest to Washington (socially, though sometimes geographically) are closest to your money. The people who are socially closest to Washington are always going to be the people on Wall Street.
ITs very sad but CEO's make 100x as much here in the states than your country in Australia or the UK
Indeed. They make that much because they're the closest people to your money. They're the closest to your money because they're closer to Wall Street than you are. Wall Street is closer to your money because they're closer to Washington.
They way to remove this inequity is to REMOVE the millions of unnecessary and redundant regulations which do nothing more than funnel more of your money to Washington (and Wall Street, and CxOs)
Slashdot Mirror
have people bid on the patents in an auction
The form for submitting a patent application will become cryptic and archaic. An entire segment of attorneys will be bred to deal with the proper preparation of the papers. The fees to enter the auction will be prohibitively expensive but the sale price of the patents themselves will be subject to a downward spiral of lowest bidding.
In the end, it will cost an unlimited amount of money to submit patents to auction and the patents will all be sold for a penny--or one penny above the set minimum bid. There will be no change. Corporations will rule the patent world and individuals will be forced to sign their lives away in the ubiquitous employee agreement.
I may take a minority opinion when I say distributing copyrighted files you don't have the copyright for or a license to distribute should be against the law
You're in the majority when you lump up with trolls. May I point out that no one put a gun to the recording industry and said,"YOU MUST SELL THIS CD!" They sold the CD, voluntarily, now deal with the consequences rather than whining about a 14-year old sharing music. It's no secret that CDs are easily ripped, easily copied, and easily distributed.
Someone else pointed out a good analogy: Give a child a jar of 100 cookies, tell them to take one, but let them keep the jar for as long as they want.
Why are the courts rewarding corporate America for what amounts to either ridiculous stupidity or blatant entrapment?
Well, if they failed due to lack of revenue, what other solution makes sense?
If the government failed due to lack of revenue it's a prime indicator that the government shouldn't have been involved in that field in the first place.
The media industry suffers from the same complex. They like to blame their failure on "pirates" but, in reality, their business model is outdated and unrealistic.
If one cannot access the campus network because of another's AP
I agree. What we have here is a blanket policy which is completely devoid of consideration for a responsible neighbor. The University is taking the easy way out and using ethically questionable powers to enforce it.
One thing for certain though is they do own the infrastructure you are trying to access
We'll just leave out the technicality that the "owners" are primarily taxpayer funded.
I don't mind having the product of my work (money) being used to write rules against me. Why should anyone else?
You want to use my money to pass laws which limit me to 40 sq ft? Sure. You want to use my money to pass laws to re-enable the buying and selling of employees? Sure. You want to use my money to send politicians to conferences to dream of ways to set up companies like Enron? Sure. You want to use my money to create databases which allow insurance companies to profile me and have an excuse to raise the rates on government mandated insurance, again? Sure.
Why not? It's all part of life. BOHICA.
The fact is, those students are subject to the rules and regulations of their student handbook and University policies
At what point can you sign away all your rights as an American citizen to live in little micro-Chinas just because it's in the contract?
There isn't a fair contract in this nation. I've never even seen a contract that wasn't 100% sided to give all rights to the entity with more financial resources. When was the last time anyone signed a contract which outlined provisions for their personal rights?
"You have the right to be employed. Should we decide to no longer employ you, you have the right to contest involuntary unemployment and seek appropriate compensation."
"You have the right to own your own house. Should the bank decide to repossess your house you have the right to contest the terms of repossession and the amount of monetary compensation that the bank receives from any resale of your property."
"You have the right to be free of any rules, regulations, sanctions which were not officially passed by Congress of the state or local in which you live."
We're setting up mini-fiefdoms using taxpayer money, that's all.
Since this refers to photos which are sought by FOIA there's a time delay factor. It's not even logical to think about this in terms of real time aerial photographs. Rather, this is a move to block people who are trying to gather evidence of events that occurred months or even years ago.
Will the government suddenly be buying up all the rights to the aerial photographs of New York on 9/11 and the days prior? Will all the private photographs of Oklahoma City begin disappearing?
can tell you your statement, (which ammounts to "satallite imagery is useless for intelligence gathering")
That's rule #1 of the troll handbook, isn't it, jump to the extreme? Here... have a chestnut.
I didn't say that satellite imagery is useless for intelligence gathering. Unless they plan on blacking out the entirety of the US the rail lines and public infrastructure will still be available. Obviously the bill is not intended to stop intelligence gathering. The bill doesn't even limit intelligence ownership as there are bound to be multiple sources for the same aerial photo.
Now that we've decided that this bill has nothing to do with intelligence or military or terrorism why don't you concede that it's just a cheap way for some CEO with a satellite website to fleece the taxpayers?
It does NOT say that CNN, NBC, Washington Post, or Joe Blow can't buy the data from the same place the govt got it
I'm pretty certain that, if the government buys it, they'll ensure that they have a contract for exclusive ownership. None of this licensed for use crap that the rest of us deal with.
but has anyone considered that being able to obtain detailed government satallite imagery might not be the best thing in the world?
Do you really think our military leaders are so short-sighted that they don't take this into consideration? If it's important enough they'll do it when or in a manner that it can't be caught on satellite. If it's caught on satellite then it wasn't important enough to hide in the first place. Strategic planners in the military don't make it to their rank because they're complete retards.
So, let me get this straight: Terrorists
For certain I thought you were going to tie in the children.
Can we please lay off the buzzword bandwagon?
It's a general, carte-blanche method for the government to hide information from the public
I don't even buy the tin-foil anymore. It's just a way for CEOs with lobbyists in Washington to have another excuse to subsidize their profits with taxpayer dollars.
1. Offer "sensitive" satellite pictures
2. Talk with lobbyists
3. Charge the taxpayers enormous prices
4. PROFIT!
It only seems to apply to images the government buys
Which means it's only a taxpayer subsidized pyramid scheme for those CEOs who know lobbyists in Washington. If there was ever going to be a competitive market, we'll know right quick which stock market winner our taxpayer dollars is subsidizing.
Hmmmmm... do I remember this happening in the software industry...?
Government wants to protect data
It's always for our protection.
That means the domestic satellite imagery market, when confronted by the government, RAKES IN THE MONEY
Great. Another taxpayer funded pyramid scheme. Another way for you and I to subsidize some businessman that we've never met who happens to have a lobbying buddy in Washington.
The government has been doing this for *DECADES*
And not just in the satellite industry. My pocketbook is pleading for this crap to stop.
The only thing about this story anyone has any right to bitch about is:
Lobbying groups get Congress to steal our tax money, again, as usual?
I'm all for it, but...
Was this legal?
Aren't there local, state, federal, and international laws against exposing the vulnerability of a private system? Haven't many people already been harassed by the FBI for doing much the same thing with corporate systems? Or do these people get a free pass because they're from a University?
I can speak about using a less main-stream Linux distro, such as Debian
I'm puzzled. How is Debian not a "main-stream Linux distro"? Is it just because it doesn't have a for-profit model? The majority of real-time (IRC) help forums are more comfortable supporting Debian than any other distro that I'm aware of. It seems that Debian is the "main-stream" and the others are specialty, proprietary considerations.
What's the difference between renting and licensing, anyway? In terms of what you, the consumer, are entitled to--it's close to nothing.
The industry will never move into renting because the gig is too good with licensing. Consider this from the point of view of enforcement:
Violation of a rental agreement is a civil matter which requires the provider to retain their own legal counsel and make a case against the offender. Violation of a license agreement is a felony which the FBI will be happy to investigate and the US Attorney General will prosecute for you.
On the other hand, this could be a political push to broaden the powers of the provider for the violation of a rental agreement. Now your landlord can have your butt thrown in jail by the FBI if you're late with your rent.
There is a rather old case about reselling books that setup this precedent. Basically the onwer of the book can resell it for any price they want. Of course, this is why computer software is LICENSED and you don't actually own it
If piracy and redistribution really were as big of an impending industry decimating problem as the *AA would have us believe, and if licensing content really is a legal alternative to selling a product...
Why didn't book publishers start selling licenses to read books decades ago? Or is this another prime demonstration that the *AA is full of crap and is fleecing the consumer market for everything they can get?
More numbers from the Economic Policy Institute, specifically from the here.
"In 2001, 20% of all income went to the top-earning 1% of households, which held 33.4% of all net worth. The 90% of households with the lowest incomes received 54.8% of all income but only had 28.5% of all net worth."
"Since 1983, the top 1% of wealth holders consistently owned more than 30% and the bottom 80% held less than 16% of all wealth from 1983 to 2001."
"In 2001, the top fifth of households held 84.4% of all wealth; the middle fifth held only 3.9% -- the smallest share since 1962. The bottom fifth had negative net worth -- owing more than they owned."
If 20% of the American population is kept in debt I don't need to be a statistician to know there's something wrong with the economic system.
"In 2001, 17.6% of all households had a zero or negative net worth; just over 30% had a net worth of less than $10,000."
Since net worth includes any equity for their homes it's pretty reasonable to think they're living with some form of credit debt. Not all of their net worth is in their incomes.
"Average wealth grew by $2.8 million from 1989 to 2001 for the top 1% of households -- a 2.1% annual increase. For the middle 20%, average wealth increase by $11,100 -- or 1.3% per year."
Net flow is moving up the economic ladder. It's a pyramid scheme not a conspiracy.
"For the past 40 years, approximately 80% of all wealth has been held by 20% of households."
I've always thought of it as 95/5, but same thing.
"The top 1% of stock owners hold 44.9% of all stocks, by value, while the bottom 80% own just 5.8% of total stock holdings."
It's not a conspiracy. It's a pyramid scheme.
According to these snippets I've been right on the money while you've been a typical propaganda lemming:
"Prolonged weakness in the labor market has left the nation with over a million fewer jobs than when the recession began. This is a worse position, in terms of recouping lost jobs, than any business cycle since the 1930's."
I don't know anything about the fire of conspiracy, but I smell the smoke of collusion.
What is happening is nothing less than a deterioration in the standard of living in the United States. Despite the statistical growth in the economy, the continued slack in the labor market has resulted in declining real wages for anxious American workers and a marked deterioration in job quality.
If the American workers aren't reaping those extra benefits, I wonder who is?
From 2000 through 2003 the median household income fell by $1,500 (in 2003 dollars) - a significant 3.4 percent decrease. That information becomes startling when you consider that during the same period there was a strong 12 percent increase in productivity among U.S. workers.
That's making it difficult to pay back debt. I wonder where the profits from that productivity are going.
"So the economic pie is growing gangbusters and the typical household is falling behind," said Jared Bernstein, the institute's senior economist and a co-author of the new book.
Keep that debtor society turning!
This is the part of the story that spotlights the unfairness at the heart of the current economic setup in the U.S. While workers have been remarkably productive in recent years, they have not participated in the benefits of their own increased productivity. That doesn't sound very much like the American way.
And that's exactly what I've been saying for the last 20-some posts.
According to the institute, "Between 1947 and 1973 productivity and real median family income both grew 104 percent, a golden age of growth for both variables." That parallel relationship began to break down in the 1970's, but it is only recently that it fell apart altogether, leaving us with the following evidence of unrestrained inequity:
So the preceeding generations didn't stay out of debt because of their browbeating frugality. They were part of generations which were treated to some very favorable conditions.
"In the 2000-03 period income shifted extremely rapidly and extensively from labor compensation to capital income (profits and interest)," so that the "benefits of faster productivity growth" went overwhelmingly to capital.
More cash for the lenders to lend out to the families slipping behind... at 19% interest.
The end result of all this is a portrait of American families struggling just to hang on, rather than to get ahead. The benefits of productivity gains and economic growth are flowing to profits, not worker compensation. The fat cats are getting fatter, while workers, at least for the time being, are watching the curtain come down on the heralded American dream.
But yet void* would have you think it's just a conspiracy theory.
While I do agree with the majority of what you've said I have to take issue with this:
:(
Also, our system of government and our Constituion was set up long ago in order to protect the wealth of slaveowners who exploited slaves and indentured servants
I don't see that as being so. The Constitution was envisioned to be a document to keep government from meddling in the affairs of citizens. The Constitution wasn't protecting slavery then any more than its protecting slavery now. What is slavery but unfair compensation for work and the ability to buy and sell people as property? Sure, we've made it look prettier today, but we have headhunters, and temp agencies aren't really any better, and companies have no qualms about dropping 1500 workers at a shot so they can be recycled to the lowest bidder...
I guess I envision that the authors of the Constitution wanted it to be a document which kept government (especially federal) to a small size that did little more than interact with other governments--none of this micromanaging meddling in the affairs of everyday citizens. I will agree that the usage of the Constitution has been twisted by those in positions of power to do what you say it has.
A Libertarian who doesn't vote Libertarian isn't really a Libertarian.
A real libertarian knows that the voting system is rigged.
I agree, however, that abuse of the welfare system is wrong
True.
and such systems should supply just enough funds to survive and maybe supply education fee waivers and college book vouchers so those who need it can become even more productive.
That's what the economy is predominantly. Most people have just enough funds to survive, their taxes pay for education, many states have vouchers, et cetera et cetera et cetera.
Not only is ignoring debt collectors stupid, it's also a superb way to fuck up your credit.
This is no different than a bully mentality.
There are three ways to deal with a bully (credit agency):
1. Appease them (pay them)
2. Bully them back, harder (bombing banks is illegal)
3. Refuse to acknowledge them or otherwise avoid them.
Incidentally, psychologists will tell you that number 2 is the only viable option to earn respect but yet it's the one option which is illegal.
Reason being is its unregulated and the sky is the limit
I agree wholly with your sentiment but have a little problem with the perspective here. You're implying that the solution is more regulation.
It's not. Here's why.
More regulation means more money going from you to Washington. More money in Washington means the people closest to Washington (socially, though sometimes geographically) are closest to your money. The people who are socially closest to Washington are always going to be the people on Wall Street.
ITs very sad but CEO's make 100x as much here in the states than your country in Australia or the UK
Indeed. They make that much because they're the closest people to your money. They're the closest to your money because they're closer to Wall Street than you are. Wall Street is closer to your money because they're closer to Washington.
They way to remove this inequity is to REMOVE the millions of unnecessary and redundant regulations which do nothing more than funnel more of your money to Washington (and Wall Street, and CxOs)