How's it crapping all over the free market to oppose... regulation? "A free market is a market economy in which the forces of supply and demand are not controlled by a government or other authority."
When will the Republicans and their backers promote the removal of local monopolies for telecoms and Internet communications? Until then, their claims about "free markets" are just posturing for the benefit of the naive.
No. Not really. There is this prevailing myth that you need to be dependent on your employer for health insurance coverage. It's pretty bogus really.
The ACA does not improve the state of things.
Says the person who either has a good health record or never actually shopped for private insurance.
Pre-ACA, if you had anything less than a very good health record and shopped for private health insurance, you would find yourself either paying very high premiums or being pushed into your state's last-resort health schemes.
Who gets to even buy these presses if quite tightly controlled.
Are you talking about Canada or the USA?
To a naive person (me), it would seem that (in the USA) controlling who can buy a printing press would fall foul of the First Amendment. Tracking I can see, but controlling? It looks like the top of a very slipperly slope, since one could find an illegal use for just about any type of press.
I am not an accountant, but, you can probably get away with (not pay penalties) having zero deductions until just before the end of the year, as long as you have a year's worth of taxes deducted from your last few paychecks (however many it takes).
Is this legal, or even a good plan? I have idea!
What makes me most angry is the treatment for Giardia. From what I have read, the most effective treatment is Panacur, which is available without prescription.
Yet, I have experienced vets prescribing something else before the cheap and effective Panacur, because Panacur is not approved for use against Giardia. Panacur is approved for use by dogs, just not for treatment of Giardia.
Ineffective treament means more diarrhea and more tests ($$$$) -- more discomfort for both dog and owner.
That $140,000 is per instance of copyright infringement. Even though they are lumping the cases together, they are still claiming that each John Doe engaged in at least one instance of copyright infringement.
And at least one judge ( in a Prenda case, I think) has said that the plaintiffs can't claim that they are all part of the same infringement for the purposes of joining all the defendants to a single case, and then claim that each person seperately committed the purported copyright infringement for the purposes of assessing damages.
Does it matter if the costs go up 100-fold or the potential damage award goes down 100-fold? It still makes the process too expensive for the plaintiffs.
I think that at least one judge has suggested that, if there are many defendents in one case, then the plaintiffs can only ask for each defendant to pay his or her proportion of the damages (in other words, some fraction of $140,000 if the maximum is applied). That might be better for an individual.
Also, we need to turn poor, stupid 18 year olds who make a mistake with drugs into felons so they will either be trapped in minimum wage jobs when they get out, or will become hardened criminals who will then scare the white middle class enough to justify the taxation required for the police state.
Let's not forget that we also need to deprive those people of their votes.
I'll end with this quote from scienceblogs: "Sugar may be mechanistically similar to crack in terms of addictiveness, but I have never heard of someone stealing a car radio to get a Twinkie."
Perhaps that has more to do with the legal status of sugar (legal and cheap) than its addictiveness?
Bank anti-laundering rules in the UK have reached absurd proportions. Some years ago, I was sitting in my bank, talking face to face with a bank employee, trying to open a savings account to go along with the checking account that I have had for decades. The bank wanted proof of identity and proof of address. Really? What about the account that I have had for decades?
Well, I think your kind of people are exactly the problem. Companies have been screaming for years that education does not align with the work field......The Germans have found an elegant solution to this problem,....The company pays all the bills (the student even gets paid)
I think that you described what needs to change. Companies are not doing their part in creating an educated workforce. Instead of companies screaming that the education system isn't turning out the job-trained people they need, companies should pay to train the people they need .
And then there are the unpaid internships, but let's not go there......
And that is better than those that say "spend more on things that benefit me"? That's a race upwards; to add bloat.
There are other alternatives. Some of us can recognize the value of government spending that doesn't directly benefit me, but benefits society in ways that may benefit me or my decendents in the future.
They want something new. Libertarians are the new popular party to belong to. They believe in gay rights and legalizing pot and lower taxes and small govt and no surveillance or drone attacks. What's not to love?
The problem is that most of the people who claim to want small government really mean: spend less on everything except the things that benefit me.
You could do that, but the housing market is just as subject to ups and downs as any other market, and on average stays reasonably close to inflation.
You either missed or did not comprehend the concept of leverage. That amplifies the effect of inflation at the time you come to cash out. People with higher incomes in CA will benefit more from the leverage than people with lower incomes (but similar lifestyles) in lower cost-of-living areas.
The problem can be that family can tie you to an area so that you can't actually cash out.
So, when buyers agree -- such as on various "review" sites -- that a particular product or service is overpriced, it must be prosecuted?
Let me take your example and run with it: the buyers at an auction get together and decide to not compete with each other for certain items and later have a separate, private auction to trade those items amongst themselves.
Do you think that this legal? If so, try searching for "auction ring".
What I mean is, after cost-of-living adjustments, they'd have to pay me $180k/yr or more to match the same level of financial comfort that I enjoy where I am now. Meet or beat that comfort level, and I'll move. Otherwise, unless I have no real alternative? I'll turn it down with a smile.
You are missing part of the equation. Buy a house in Slicon Valley and when you come to retire, move to a region with low cost of living, taking with you a much larger cash pile from selling that much more expensive house. Leverage can produce wonderful effects (it can also bankrupt you as many people found out during the recession).
I would also argue that start-ups tend to be in California because employment agreements that prevent you from moving to a competitor are not enforcable in CA.
Slashdot Mirror
That depends on your intent. The articles hint that some people will be very happy that this data no longer exists.
When will the Republicans and their backers promote the removal of local monopolies for telecoms and Internet communications? Until then, their claims about "free markets" are just posturing for the benefit of the naive.
He grew up in a privileged environment but didn't make it into IIT. What does that say about him and his technology skills?
Says the person who either has a good health record or never actually shopped for private insurance.
Pre-ACA, if you had anything less than a very good health record and shopped for private health insurance, you would find yourself either paying very high premiums or being pushed into your state's last-resort health schemes.
Are you talking about Canada or the USA?
To a naive person (me), it would seem that (in the USA) controlling who can buy a printing press would fall foul of the First Amendment. Tracking I can see, but controlling? It looks like the top of a very slipperly slope, since one could find an illegal use for just about any type of press.
I thought that the Mythbusters broke that myth?
You probably need to find a new CPA
Yeah, I accidentally missed the word "no" in my posting. I genuinely meant to type "I have no idea"
Yeah, I mean to write: "I have no idea".
Yeah, I haven't tried this approach and I use an accountant to prepare my taxes. Risking the wrath of the IRS isn't a good idea.
I am not an accountant, but, you can probably get away with (not pay penalties) having zero deductions until just before the end of the year, as long as you have a year's worth of taxes deducted from your last few paychecks (however many it takes). Is this legal, or even a good plan? I have idea!
What makes me most angry is the treatment for Giardia. From what I have read, the most effective treatment is Panacur, which is available without prescription.
Yet, I have experienced vets prescribing something else before the cheap and effective Panacur, because Panacur is not approved for use against Giardia. Panacur is approved for use by dogs, just not for treatment of Giardia.
Ineffective treament means more diarrhea and more tests ($$$$) -- more discomfort for both dog and owner.
And at least one judge ( in a Prenda case, I think) has said that the plaintiffs can't claim that they are all part of the same infringement for the purposes of joining all the defendants to a single case, and then claim that each person seperately committed the purported copyright infringement for the purposes of assessing damages.
Does it matter if the costs go up 100-fold or the potential damage award goes down 100-fold? It still makes the process too expensive for the plaintiffs.
I think that at least one judge has suggested that, if there are many defendents in one case, then the plaintiffs can only ask for each defendant to pay his or her proportion of the damages (in other words, some fraction of $140,000 if the maximum is applied). That might be better for an individual.
Let's not forget that we also need to deprive those people of their votes.
Perhaps that has more to do with the legal status of sugar (legal and cheap) than its addictiveness?
Bank anti-laundering rules in the UK have reached absurd proportions. Some years ago, I was sitting in my bank, talking face to face with a bank employee, trying to open a savings account to go along with the checking account that I have had for decades. The bank wanted proof of identity and proof of address. Really? What about the account that I have had for decades?
And by the Spanish Inquisition, who documented it amongst their methods of torture.
I think that you described what needs to change. Companies are not doing their part in creating an educated workforce. Instead of companies screaming that the education system isn't turning out the job-trained people they need, companies should pay to train the people they need .
......
And then there are the unpaid internships, but let's not go there
Did you actually read the decision? Because this was not the result of an appeal. That is yet to come. This was a decision by the trial judge.
There are other alternatives. Some of us can recognize the value of government spending that doesn't directly benefit me, but benefits society in ways that may benefit me or my decendents in the future.
The problem is that most of the people who claim to want small government really mean: spend less on everything except the things that benefit me.
FTFY
You either missed or did not comprehend the concept of leverage. That amplifies the effect of inflation at the time you come to cash out. People with higher incomes in CA will benefit more from the leverage than people with lower incomes (but similar lifestyles) in lower cost-of-living areas.
The problem can be that family can tie you to an area so that you can't actually cash out.
Let me take your example and run with it: the buyers at an auction get together and decide to not compete with each other for certain items and later have a separate, private auction to trade those items amongst themselves.
Do you think that this legal? If so, try searching for "auction ring".
You are missing part of the equation. Buy a house in Slicon Valley and when you come to retire, move to a region with low cost of living, taking with you a much larger cash pile from selling that much more expensive house. Leverage can produce wonderful effects (it can also bankrupt you as many people found out during the recession).
I would also argue that start-ups tend to be in California because employment agreements that prevent you from moving to a competitor are not enforcable in CA.