Most of the statics that are cited today are actually full of bs. You should listen to Thomas Sowell debunking them. They talk about "earning power" of the bottom 20%. But what they don't mention is that most people don't stay in those bottom 20% and move between those categories. Upward and downward mobility is not a myth. And your pathological comments about Fox News are a prime example of Al Gore's triangle: fear stops reason, faith stops fear, reason stops faith. You are not and I mean, not at all, being reasonable. This pathology you exhibit about Fox News makes you sound exactly like any other bigot I've heard. Try making any argument to an antisemite and you'll get "oh, that's just Jewish propaganda" in response. You are doing an exactly same thing. But, of course, my appeal won't convince you (cause remember fear stops reason). Go on, you heard the cue... time to knee jerk with "oh, like there is no fear peddling on Fox News." Now you want to knee jerk with "well, if the shoe fits..." But you know what? This is not a reasonable response. There is both upward and downward mobility to a greater degree than it ever existed. By the way, the argument from authority (eg, "most economists agree") falls on deaf ears when you are talking to an educated person (which you are). It's an argument which states conclusions that other "experts" made based on facts which the presents of the argument from authority usually does not understand. State the facts and if you hear someone state conclusions and avoiding facts, it doesn't mean they are wrong, but it does mean you take their conclusions with a grain of salt.
Putin is not an oligarch. Oligarch in the modern parlance are the economic elite which leverages its economic power to become inseparable from the power of the state. The key has to be the rise to power through economic means. You seem to be using the word for all elites. But there are also political elites and bureaucratic elites. Putin clearly falls into the classification of political elites. He core power always derived from the power of the state -- never from the ability to corrupt with money (as so-called Oligarch's power did). Medvedev, by the way, is not an oligarch either. His core power was derived from bureaucracy (as is the case for most lawyers ascending to power). The Oligarchs, ie the people who made their fortunes by selling (or building and selling) that which people bought out of their own volition, have all been disenfranchised by now.
So far all I see is aggressive exploitation of natural resources, so as to maximize short-term profit. In some cases they do so even while directly hurting long-term viability. For example, some of the drilling techniques used are such that they maximize current production rate, but would lead to earlier abandonment of the oil well.
You are talking about specific economic endeavors. I am talking about something else. I am talking about the whole chess game they are playing rather any one specific move they make. They are crafting certain state apparatus that is meant to take roots and achieve a semi-permanent status. The long-term game is not economic -- it's political. As for your comment about oil-well, it is my understanding that until fairly recently, most oil wells were tapped until 50% of oil was removed. After that, the excess pressure of the well wasn't enough to bring the oil up. In other words, they are behind on technology, but that's a rational economic decision. Many of the old wells (in the US) are now retrofitted to pump in the lesser-pressure environment.
It is also a necessary component of establishing an "us vs them" mentality, where "them" (= US, NATO etc) are portrayed as strong and aggressive bullies, and therefore "we all need to set aside our differences and stand together" against any such purported bullying - which is used to suppress dissent.
This is the traditional definition of "nationalism". I don't disagree with you on this. But I hope agree that one of the mechanisms of making the state supreme to all other institutions is creating an environment of fear so as to prioritize safety over other concerns.
My point is that the existing arrangement is worse than fascist, because it has all authoritarianism with absolutely no benefits (you know, "trains run on time" and all that).
I strongly doubt that Mussolini was the one who made trains run on time. I strongly suspect it was the fact that he was able to dispense with the leftist labor policies (by being more leftist than the alternative -- the capitalists) combined with increased competition that the railroads had from the newly-build public highways. But more generally, I am talking about the balance of power between political and economic classes (the old merchants vs aristocracy conflict). Fascism makes them one and the same but with ultimate authority in the hands of the state. Oligarchy makes them one and the same but with ultimate authority in the hands of a few merchants.
The scale of the balance of power that I suggested has all the political power on the left and all the economic power on the right. While one may argue that "power is power", that is a faulty argument. The power through volition is not the same as power through coercion. It's the old carrot and stick. Power through being useful is the power of carrot while the power through coercion is the power of the stick. Fascism is literally the power of the stick (the word derives fr
We unquestionably do NOT have an oligarchy. The mobility between classes is very rapid. If you take the bottom 20% and observe them in 30 years, only 5% of them will remain in the bottom 20%. 29% of them will have moved to the top 20%. In an oligarchy, movement between levels is near impossible without an all-out war (with bullets flying and all).
No, quite. We've taken steps in that direction. But we aren't there. For every victory that the statist regulator apparatus makes, it suffers one defeat. In a fascist state, the regulatory apparatus would rule supreme.
You are equating the rule of oligarchs with fascism. It's not. The current system that Russia has -- the one which broke the rule of the oligarchs -- is the fascism. What Russia lacked was the rule of law to moderate the rule of oligarchs and the effects of complete lawlessness. What it got instead of the rule of law is the rule of the fascist elite. They DO hold the state as the supreme. I've heard Putin's speeches. He is generally populist (just as Mussolini was). But he uses the apparatus of the state not to distribute the power held by oligarchs, but rather to concentrate that power in the hands of the state. Putin's Russia is a post-oligarch society. To pretend otherwise would be shortsighted. It is fascist through and through. The only reason they don't call themselves such is because of the negative connotations of the word. But they have, in practice, adapted every single mechanism of statehood practiced by Mussolini. If you think they don't have a long-term view, you are impressed by the immediate details of the runnings of the state as described by the popular media. Take a step back. You can't see if there is a long-term plan unless you take a long-term view. China is getting there, but it's not there yet. It's still closer to a Communist society than it is to a fascist one. But Mussolini envisioned fascism as a compromise between capitalism and communism with mild militarism in order ensure élan. Russians get their élan from the mythology of "slavic soul" and such pretend that all their military overtures are defensive. Defensive posture doesn't at all explain their continued support for Iran, Venezuela or NK. I suspect that while you don't admire Russia, you still circle the mental wagons when it gets called "fascist". Despite all the negative connotations, the word does have a meaning. No reason to conflate it with Nazi'ism. But, to get back to the original point, the most perfect example of the fascism in the modern world is Russia. If the left to right scale had Communism somewhere at 0 and laissez faire at 100, Russia (as a fascist state) would be at 50; China at 25 and US at 75.
And where does the authority of the Constitution derive from?
It claims its authority from the people. But, as anyone who studied logic for more than 10 minutes knows, any system of logical deductions relies on base assumptions. In the same way, any authority derives from a root authority. In a Republic the root authority is the law. The authority of the law derives from the Constitution. So all government power derives from The Constitution (as a legal document -- not a living document). Don't even go down the road of "you haven't answered my question" type of reasoning. I have. The root authority is the assumed and accepted authority establishing all other authority.
Despite your "no not really" none-arguments, Russia is most definitely a most perfect example of Mussolini's Fascism. Russia implements his theory pretty much by the book. And having a democracy doesn't preempt being a fascism. Votes only determine who gets to occupy the seats of power. They don't determine what type of government system a country has. Fascism is state capitalism, at least Mussolini's fascism (as opposed to Hitler's National Socialism). It's precisely what Mussolini wanted. He saw it as state merged with business through a regulatory apparatus (with state being the dominant partner in that marriage). Which is exactly what Russia has. I wouldn't recommend admiring it. When Gazprom can show up on your door and in the best of mobs' ways tell you that "we are now partners", the rule of law is gone. And in Russia, this is precisely how business is done. This is what happens when people are supreme to the law and not the other way around.
Bull Shit. If you want to see a neo-fascism, go to Russsia. One company, Gazprom, in Russia controls all monopolies. It uses the state to intimidate any up-and-coming companies into selling majority stake to Gazprom. The state officials hold positions in Gazprom while holding public offices (not after under big secret like its done in the US). The only equivalent in the US would be if Haliburton owned all of S&P 500 companies. Oh, and the current President of Russia is an ex-CEO of Gazprom.
Don't confuse actual fascism with what we have -- a republic corrupted by populist demagoguery into giving state enough power to consolidate power into fewer hands. And don't even start with "we have a democracy." The authority of the government derives from the Constitution. So it derives from the rule of law -- not from the votes (voting determines who gets to occupy positions authorized to exist by the law).
No, its membership is not exclusive to those who have sworn loyalty. Its leadership is decentralized. Al Qaeda connections was only one of many reasons for invading Iraq. There was no one reason that was given for the invasion. It was the totality of reasons that made the case compelling. Anyone who claims that the sole reason given for the invasion was WMDs is an outrageous lair. We weren't putting Iraq on trial on multiple charges where each charge had to be proven in some sort of a court case. Iraq was acting as a military enemy. So we treated it as such.
Al Qaeda is network bound by philosophy rather than by actual personal affiliations. The individual cells or subgroups may not actively cooperate, but that doesn't mean they are not part of the same network.
Buh... nm. This one is squarely on Slashdot's new "features". It didn't show Livius' post. So it looked like cforciea's post was replying to my post rather than to Livius'.
What are you talking about? I am just telling you the facts. Banks have paid back the TARP with interest long time ago. $50 billion of the TARP money was not spent on bailing out the banks, but on GM. GM has not repaid that money. Conspiracy involves a secret. I am just stating facts which are open to the public. Where do you see a conspiracy in this? Or are you just out of accusation to make up?
I don't know why you would be reminding them "gently". The left are complete and utter boneheads on this issue. Hussein agreed to every condition he was accused of violating. He agreed to have US planes fly over to ensure he wasn't bombing Kurds. He agreed to weapons inspections. And then he DID play cat'n'mouse with the inspectors. The fact alone that he locked radar on our planes and took shots at them is an act of war. There is not need to apologize for invading Iraq. That is NOT to say that Bush did the right thing. Invading was the right thing. Not winning quickly and, in fact, nearly losing is where he went it wrong. And the fact that Al Qaeda was drawn into Iraq was actually not a bad strategy. Fighting them in Iraq (even if it did mean that there would be more of them fight) is still much better than fighting them on US territory.
There is an obvious response to "correcting mistakes is not interfering with free speech". First, who's to be watching the watchers. And second, choosing which mistakes get a priority in getting corrected is a decision very heavily weighted by political priorities of those in power.
Clinton was acquitted in the Senate. But that does not remove the impeachment record. The acquittal allowed him to remain in power. He is still the only President to have been impeached in the House of Representatives. And while he is not a President who has been removed from power through impeachment, the fact that he has been voted to be impeached by the House does make him an impeached President. The use an analogy, the criminal court equivalent of impeachment is not a guilty verdict, but rather an indictment. Here's a quote from another uncontested Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States): "Impeachment in the United States is an expressed power of the legislature that allows for formal charges against a civil officer of government for crimes committed in office. The actual trial on those charges, and subsequent removal of an official on conviction on those charges, is separate from the act of impeachment itself."
Here. I'll do the fact checking for you. No charge to the tax payers.
From the (uncontested!!!)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_impeachment page: "Bill Clinton, President of the United States, was impeached by the House of Representatives on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice on December 19, 1998..."
Or do you actually think that a government organization dedicated to correcting free speech produced on the Internet somehow doesn't merit the name "Ministry of Truth?"
Perhaps it's the summary that is wrong? And so are the numerous sites on the internet reporting that it was Bill Clinton who proposed the idea?
You have been beaten. While it is not natural for me to gloat, I'll make an exception and do it this time. You deserve as much.
If you are gonna be a knee jerk leftist, at least quote the right meme. You are supposed knee jerk into "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11." Cause "Iraq had nothing to do with Osama" is a boneheaded lie. Thousands of Al Qaeda operatives were killed in Iraq. And Osama headed Al Qaeda.
We "defeated" USSR? Are you implying that a socialist system is not inherently self-destructive economically? We broke the Warsaw Pact. The economic collapse of the USSR was brought about by the USSR.
about your signature... I still don't believe in Apple... mostly because of the hardcore faithful. I won't touch an Apple product until they are a forgotten myth.
No, my definition is more precise. It is exclusively a token for enumerating exchange. It is NOT, in itself, a store of value. It only preserves value as long as it remains the accepted token for enumerating exchanges. So the value is not preserved in money, but in the context in which it exists as the token. If the context disappears, the value is gone even if the token remains. It is not a unit of account, but a token for enumerating exchange. A unit of account would mean that every transaction would be translatable into that unit. It isn't. There is a large number of classes of transactions which are not enumerated with money. This is because they don't involve an exchange or involve an exchange of that which cannot be enumerated.
In fact 3 monitors are probably ideal. Development, as a mental process, involves a lot of switching between medium-term and short term views. It also often takes context switching. I prefer the development screen in front of me, the api descriptions on one screen and the details pertaining to the context of the project on the left. I like having 3 screens when I write code for the same reason that I like to do math on the dinner table. Bringing multiple contexts together takes a lot of space.
Slashdot Mirror
Most of the statics that are cited today are actually full of bs. You should listen to Thomas Sowell debunking them. They talk about "earning power" of the bottom 20%. But what they don't mention is that most people don't stay in those bottom 20% and move between those categories. Upward and downward mobility is not a myth. And your pathological comments about Fox News are a prime example of Al Gore's triangle: fear stops reason, faith stops fear, reason stops faith. You are not and I mean, not at all, being reasonable. This pathology you exhibit about Fox News makes you sound exactly like any other bigot I've heard. Try making any argument to an antisemite and you'll get "oh, that's just Jewish propaganda" in response. You are doing an exactly same thing. But, of course, my appeal won't convince you (cause remember fear stops reason). Go on, you heard the cue... time to knee jerk with "oh, like there is no fear peddling on Fox News." Now you want to knee jerk with "well, if the shoe fits..." But you know what? This is not a reasonable response. There is both upward and downward mobility to a greater degree than it ever existed. By the way, the argument from authority (eg, "most economists agree") falls on deaf ears when you are talking to an educated person (which you are). It's an argument which states conclusions that other "experts" made based on facts which the presents of the argument from authority usually does not understand. State the facts and if you hear someone state conclusions and avoiding facts, it doesn't mean they are wrong, but it does mean you take their conclusions with a grain of salt.
Who is Putin but not an oligarch?
Putin is not an oligarch. Oligarch in the modern parlance are the economic elite which leverages its economic power to become inseparable from the power of the state. The key has to be the rise to power through economic means. You seem to be using the word for all elites. But there are also political elites and bureaucratic elites. Putin clearly falls into the classification of political elites. He core power always derived from the power of the state -- never from the ability to corrupt with money (as so-called Oligarch's power did). Medvedev, by the way, is not an oligarch either. His core power was derived from bureaucracy (as is the case for most lawyers ascending to power). The Oligarchs, ie the people who made their fortunes by selling (or building and selling) that which people bought out of their own volition, have all been disenfranchised by now.
So far all I see is aggressive exploitation of natural resources, so as to maximize short-term profit. In some cases they do so even while directly hurting long-term viability. For example, some of the drilling techniques used are such that they maximize current production rate, but would lead to earlier abandonment of the oil well.
You are talking about specific economic endeavors. I am talking about something else. I am talking about the whole chess game they are playing rather any one specific move they make. They are crafting certain state apparatus that is meant to take roots and achieve a semi-permanent status. The long-term game is not economic -- it's political. As for your comment about oil-well, it is my understanding that until fairly recently, most oil wells were tapped until 50% of oil was removed. After that, the excess pressure of the well wasn't enough to bring the oil up. In other words, they are behind on technology, but that's a rational economic decision. Many of the old wells (in the US) are now retrofitted to pump in the lesser-pressure environment.
It is also a necessary component of establishing an "us vs them" mentality, where "them" (= US, NATO etc) are portrayed as strong and aggressive bullies, and therefore "we all need to set aside our differences and stand together" against any such purported bullying - which is used to suppress dissent.
This is the traditional definition of "nationalism". I don't disagree with you on this. But I hope agree that one of the mechanisms of making the state supreme to all other institutions is creating an environment of fear so as to prioritize safety over other concerns.
My point is that the existing arrangement is worse than fascist, because it has all authoritarianism with absolutely no benefits (you know, "trains run on time" and all that).
I strongly doubt that Mussolini was the one who made trains run on time. I strongly suspect it was the fact that he was able to dispense with the leftist labor policies (by being more leftist than the alternative -- the capitalists) combined with increased competition that the railroads had from the newly-build public highways. But more generally, I am talking about the balance of power between political and economic classes (the old merchants vs aristocracy conflict). Fascism makes them one and the same but with ultimate authority in the hands of the state. Oligarchy makes them one and the same but with ultimate authority in the hands of a few merchants.
The scale of the balance of power that I suggested has all the political power on the left and all the economic power on the right. While one may argue that "power is power", that is a faulty argument. The power through volition is not the same as power through coercion. It's the old carrot and stick. Power through being useful is the power of carrot while the power through coercion is the power of the stick. Fascism is literally the power of the stick (the word derives fr
We unquestionably do NOT have an oligarchy. The mobility between classes is very rapid. If you take the bottom 20% and observe them in 30 years, only 5% of them will remain in the bottom 20%. 29% of them will have moved to the top 20%. In an oligarchy, movement between levels is near impossible without an all-out war (with bullets flying and all).
No, quite. We've taken steps in that direction. But we aren't there. For every victory that the statist regulator apparatus makes, it suffers one defeat. In a fascist state, the regulatory apparatus would rule supreme.
You are equating the rule of oligarchs with fascism. It's not. The current system that Russia has -- the one which broke the rule of the oligarchs -- is the fascism. What Russia lacked was the rule of law to moderate the rule of oligarchs and the effects of complete lawlessness. What it got instead of the rule of law is the rule of the fascist elite. They DO hold the state as the supreme. I've heard Putin's speeches. He is generally populist (just as Mussolini was). But he uses the apparatus of the state not to distribute the power held by oligarchs, but rather to concentrate that power in the hands of the state. Putin's Russia is a post-oligarch society. To pretend otherwise would be shortsighted. It is fascist through and through. The only reason they don't call themselves such is because of the negative connotations of the word. But they have, in practice, adapted every single mechanism of statehood practiced by Mussolini. If you think they don't have a long-term view, you are impressed by the immediate details of the runnings of the state as described by the popular media. Take a step back. You can't see if there is a long-term plan unless you take a long-term view. China is getting there, but it's not there yet. It's still closer to a Communist society than it is to a fascist one. But Mussolini envisioned fascism as a compromise between capitalism and communism with mild militarism in order ensure élan. Russians get their élan from the mythology of "slavic soul" and such pretend that all their military overtures are defensive. Defensive posture doesn't at all explain their continued support for Iran, Venezuela or NK. I suspect that while you don't admire Russia, you still circle the mental wagons when it gets called "fascist". Despite all the negative connotations, the word does have a meaning. No reason to conflate it with Nazi'ism. But, to get back to the original point, the most perfect example of the fascism in the modern world is Russia. If the left to right scale had Communism somewhere at 0 and laissez faire at 100, Russia (as a fascist state) would be at 50; China at 25 and US at 75.
And where does the authority of the Constitution derive from?
It claims its authority from the people. But, as anyone who studied logic for more than 10 minutes knows, any system of logical deductions relies on base assumptions. In the same way, any authority derives from a root authority. In a Republic the root authority is the law. The authority of the law derives from the Constitution. So all government power derives from The Constitution (as a legal document -- not a living document). Don't even go down the road of "you haven't answered my question" type of reasoning. I have. The root authority is the assumed and accepted authority establishing all other authority.
Despite your "no not really" none-arguments, Russia is most definitely a most perfect example of Mussolini's Fascism. Russia implements his theory pretty much by the book. And having a democracy doesn't preempt being a fascism. Votes only determine who gets to occupy the seats of power. They don't determine what type of government system a country has. Fascism is state capitalism, at least Mussolini's fascism (as opposed to Hitler's National Socialism). It's precisely what Mussolini wanted. He saw it as state merged with business through a regulatory apparatus (with state being the dominant partner in that marriage). Which is exactly what Russia has. I wouldn't recommend admiring it. When Gazprom can show up on your door and in the best of mobs' ways tell you that "we are now partners", the rule of law is gone. And in Russia, this is precisely how business is done. This is what happens when people are supreme to the law and not the other way around.
Bull Shit. If you want to see a neo-fascism, go to Russsia. One company, Gazprom, in Russia controls all monopolies. It uses the state to intimidate any up-and-coming companies into selling majority stake to Gazprom. The state officials hold positions in Gazprom while holding public offices (not after under big secret like its done in the US). The only equivalent in the US would be if Haliburton owned all of S&P 500 companies. Oh, and the current President of Russia is an ex-CEO of Gazprom.
Don't confuse actual fascism with what we have -- a republic corrupted by populist demagoguery into giving state enough power to consolidate power into fewer hands. And don't even start with "we have a democracy." The authority of the government derives from the Constitution. So it derives from the rule of law -- not from the votes (voting determines who gets to occupy positions authorized to exist by the law).
not-for-profit endeavors?
No, its membership is not exclusive to those who have sworn loyalty. Its leadership is decentralized. Al Qaeda connections was only one of many reasons for invading Iraq. There was no one reason that was given for the invasion. It was the totality of reasons that made the case compelling. Anyone who claims that the sole reason given for the invasion was WMDs is an outrageous lair. We weren't putting Iraq on trial on multiple charges where each charge had to be proven in some sort of a court case. Iraq was acting as a military enemy. So we treated it as such.
Al Qaeda is network bound by philosophy rather than by actual personal affiliations. The individual cells or subgroups may not actively cooperate, but that doesn't mean they are not part of the same network.
Buh... nm. This one is squarely on Slashdot's new "features". It didn't show Livius' post. So it looked like cforciea's post was replying to my post rather than to Livius'.
What are you talking about? I am just telling you the facts. Banks have paid back the TARP with interest long time ago. $50 billion of the TARP money was not spent on bailing out the banks, but on GM. GM has not repaid that money. Conspiracy involves a secret. I am just stating facts which are open to the public. Where do you see a conspiracy in this? Or are you just out of accusation to make up?
I don't know why you would be reminding them "gently". The left are complete and utter boneheads on this issue. Hussein agreed to every condition he was accused of violating. He agreed to have US planes fly over to ensure he wasn't bombing Kurds. He agreed to weapons inspections. And then he DID play cat'n'mouse with the inspectors. The fact alone that he locked radar on our planes and took shots at them is an act of war. There is not need to apologize for invading Iraq. That is NOT to say that Bush did the right thing. Invading was the right thing. Not winning quickly and, in fact, nearly losing is where he went it wrong. And the fact that Al Qaeda was drawn into Iraq was actually not a bad strategy. Fighting them in Iraq (even if it did mean that there would be more of them fight) is still much better than fighting them on US territory.
There is an obvious response to "correcting mistakes is not interfering with free speech". First, who's to be watching the watchers. And second, choosing which mistakes get a priority in getting corrected is a decision very heavily weighted by political priorities of those in power.
Clinton was acquitted in the Senate. But that does not remove the impeachment record. The acquittal allowed him to remain in power. He is still the only President to have been impeached in the House of Representatives. And while he is not a President who has been removed from power through impeachment, the fact that he has been voted to be impeached by the House does make him an impeached President. The use an analogy, the criminal court equivalent of impeachment is not a guilty verdict, but rather an indictment. Here's a quote from another uncontested Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States): "Impeachment in the United States is an expressed power of the legislature that allows for formal charges against a civil officer of government for crimes committed in office. The actual trial on those charges, and subsequent removal of an official on conviction on those charges, is separate from the act of impeachment itself."
Here. I'll do the fact checking for you. No charge to the tax payers.
From the (uncontested!!!) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_impeachment page: "Bill Clinton, President of the United States, was impeached by the House of Representatives on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice on December 19, 1998..."
Or do you actually think that a government organization dedicated to correcting free speech produced on the Internet somehow doesn't merit the name "Ministry of Truth?"
Perhaps it's the summary that is wrong? And so are the numerous sites on the internet reporting that it was Bill Clinton who proposed the idea?
You have been beaten. While it is not natural for me to gloat, I'll make an exception and do it this time. You deserve as much.
If you are gonna be a knee jerk leftist, at least quote the right meme. You are supposed knee jerk into "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11." Cause "Iraq had nothing to do with Osama" is a boneheaded lie. Thousands of Al Qaeda operatives were killed in Iraq. And Osama headed Al Qaeda.
We "defeated" USSR? Are you implying that a socialist system is not inherently self-destructive economically? We broke the Warsaw Pact. The economic collapse of the USSR was brought about by the USSR.
Not really hosed, actually. Remote controlled drones significantly reduce air forces expenses... like by 2 orders of magnitude.
about your signature... I still don't believe in Apple... mostly because of the hardcore faithful. I won't touch an Apple product until they are a forgotten myth.
This attrition strategy is known in modern parlance as "death by a million paper cuts."
No, not large portion. All of it. With interest. The only part of TARP which hasn't been repaid is the part given to the GM.
No, my definition is more precise. It is exclusively a token for enumerating exchange. It is NOT, in itself, a store of value. It only preserves value as long as it remains the accepted token for enumerating exchanges. So the value is not preserved in money, but in the context in which it exists as the token. If the context disappears, the value is gone even if the token remains. It is not a unit of account, but a token for enumerating exchange. A unit of account would mean that every transaction would be translatable into that unit. It isn't. There is a large number of classes of transactions which are not enumerated with money. This is because they don't involve an exchange or involve an exchange of that which cannot be enumerated.
In fact 3 monitors are probably ideal. Development, as a mental process, involves a lot of switching between medium-term and short term views. It also often takes context switching. I prefer the development screen in front of me, the api descriptions on one screen and the details pertaining to the context of the project on the left. I like having 3 screens when I write code for the same reason that I like to do math on the dinner table. Bringing multiple contexts together takes a lot of space.
Proposed by an ex-President impeached for perjury. The irony is so obvious that I am ashamed of stating it.
Reality doesn't have a bias.