Taking a risk != being careless with your money. Or, why not be critical of the rich person, he also lost. And probably lost more. Risking a lower amount for the not rich guy is likely stupid, and unlikely to produce a reward ( or I would assume he would not have risked it, being not rich is not the same as being stupid ).
Sticking to lottery tickets would be careless.
Your post smacks of "you arent rich, learn your place".
Yes, because that is exactly how we got here to begin with.
What happens in the mean time? People trying to reduce their expenses*, businesses/wealthy trying not to get stuck with it all.
*walking away from mortgages, bankruptcy suicide, disappearing
If we have to adjust to a global wage scale, I would say lets do that, now, and try to make it as painless as we can for as many as we can. Right now, it is a game of musical chairs, and the "chair owners" want to profit off the arbitrage while it goes on, then sit on the few remaining chairs at the end, devil take the hindmost ( but leave the bank account for them ). It seems to me that it is a painful time. Why those profiting from the madness should get to drink champagne at the after party while others are in pain is quite beyond me.
The US needs a major restructure. Yes. I think there are a few govt departments that are useful, and some regulations that are required, but there are many we could do better without. The govt monopolies and the tendency for businesses to legislate to protect their garden of profits / cripple opponents is absolutely wrong.
I agree fully that what needs to be done wont be done, and that we are in a mouse trap of our own design. Shame.
"...can also look at dozens of other countries offering them better deals"
Sounds like a race to the bottom. When does it stop?
"Exactly, they're creating jobs in other countries which consider them to be something more than cash cows to be milked for taxes'
They are creating them there because of the difference in wages. Taxes might be a part of that, but costs more directly related to living expenses ( rent/mortgate/food/etc ) are a big part of that difference.
Printing and spending have been happening for a long time now, and while I can appreciate that there is a debate to be had on it's positive or negative effects, I think the notion that government is completely and only the thing that is holding back business overstates the case to a large degree. Your statement seems to be arguing for no government at all, which leads me to suspect that you might be being dramatic in your presentation.
Because as an individual, there is nothing special about being "American" that provides a lot of additional value. There are a few minor things, location ( nearness ), language, timezone, etc.
I cant speak to regulation per se, but taxes have been higher and businesses have been created here. Businesses currently enjoy even lower tax rates in effect with all the loopholes they have managed to buy themselves.
The "extra income would just go to the government in new taxes" seems hyperbole to me. Taxes are quite low now, and are only supposed to be going back to levels where they were a bit ago. It is not going to go to the hyper taxation that Britain had back in the days after WWII ( which you would be right to condemn ). And the wealthy "job creators" are not creating jobs here. Note the unemployment figures. But they have plenty of money to do it with.
So, I stand on my statement, The economy is bad because the people who would buy things aren't, because they don't have jobs and because those that do fear losing them.
Will BOA reduce my mortgage to numbers similar to China/India/? Will the grocery store reduce their prices? And the other stores I have to buy things from to keep alive? I can do things to reduce how much I need to live on to some degree, but there is a bottom to it all. And their bottom is lower than ours.
"The outsourcing is a good thing in this case, it saves the ability of certain businesses to produce without paying the artificially high costs imposed by US gov't regulations and taxation and subsidies to monopolies"
Except that 70% of the us economy is Americans buying things. How can they do that when the jobs have been exported? For a while, it might seem good, but who here are they going to sell to when enough us consumers lose their jobs?
It isnt the regulations and taxations that are killing the US economy, it is the lack of decent jobs.
I never said anything about anything going to the government. I wasn't speaking about government at all. I was talking about the off shoring phenomena.
If people have jobs and can afford to buy things, then maybe it is. If everything costs twice as much, but you make twice as much, it is level. And really, have prices fallen that much with outsourcing? Not for the items that are essential.
The problem we have right now is that not enough people have jobs here in the US paying enough to afford the amounts required to live here.
Very realistic, and true. I have grown to question the proposition that wealth is value with time. I do not hold it true today. I know many do, and that I have to live in that world. I find it disagreeable that so many bright people still hold it true. It strikes me as a modern day "divine right of Kings".
I commend you for your insight, you read much of me from a short post.
"The assumption is that in a free market, competition would reward corporations that avoid waste, and consumers purchasing responsibly would reward corporations that avoid abuse."
That only works when the consumer is picking. When intermediates get involved ( the insurance companies in this case ), market forces often become non-existent, become perverse, and otherwise don't work for the consumer.
"The other issue is personal liberty - if I have the right to refuse treatment, shouldn't I also have the right to refuse to buy insurance for that treatment? I don't think "it's good for you, you have to do it" is what was meant by "promote the general welfare," although that's a hotly debated idea these days."
I think so, while seeing that there are many issues and nothing seems to do well on all fronts. My personal opinion is that we should go single payer, as the least worst option. Then you would have the option to opt out of treatment. You would not have the option to opt out of the tax burden allocated to you, though. Single payer with exemptions? But if you opt out, you *really* opt out. Course that doesn't answer the objection that what if your illness is communicable and likely to spread to other untreated, causing worse problems for others. Quarantine if you have opted out for that case?
"waste and abuse than a free market for insurance"
I would argue that the waste and abuse get transferred to a corporation where any profitability in such waste and abuse require that waste and abuse.
If you want the market to affect what is going on, you need a free market for the fundamental care, not in the insurance on top of it. Why would a doctor or practice change their pricing? There is no market to capture, just what the bureaucrats at the insurance company thing is "correct".
I agree that the quality of care is good here, but I would say that the insurance snarl on top keeps prices higher than they "should" be.
Either go all the way to single payer, or go all the way to people paying doctors and practices directly. They both have good and ugly points.
Spending discipline is definitely required. So are higher taxes on the wealthy.
The 0th step needs to be removing corporate and unlimited direct campaign contributions. Then we can have democracy again, and not plutarchy. Political office should not be a matter of who has the most money, but who has the best ideas, and real support.
I can speak for vb.net ( may be true in c#.net, not sure ), but you can leak memory as well as other resources. I bought into the "garbage collection handles it" mindset, until it was rudely pushed into my face that some UI elements have to have dispose called, or they stay in memory ( IIRC, forms will not collect, so incompetent programmers that put properties on their forms can come later and get those properties from the form after it is closed, other things like that ).
Slashdot Mirror
Somehow I think you missed the point.
Taking a risk != being careless with your money.
Or, why not be critical of the rich person, he also lost. And probably lost more.
Risking a lower amount for the not rich guy is likely stupid, and unlikely to produce a reward ( or I would assume he would not have risked it, being not rich is not the same as being stupid ).
Sticking to lottery tickets would be careless.
Your post smacks of "you arent rich, learn your place".
There you go, injecting facts into my jokes. :-)
Maybe if we had a group of sovereign states put together, we could have the advantages without having to take it all apart. Hmm.
Yes, because that is exactly how we got here to begin with.
What happens in the mean time? People trying to reduce their expenses*, businesses/wealthy trying not to get stuck with it all.
*walking away from mortgages,
bankruptcy
suicide,
disappearing
If we have to adjust to a global wage scale, I would say lets do that, now, and try to make it as painless as we can for as many as we can.
Right now, it is a game of musical chairs, and the "chair owners" want to profit off the arbitrage while it goes on, then sit on the few remaining chairs at the end, devil take the hindmost ( but leave the bank account for them ).
It seems to me that it is a painful time. Why those profiting from the madness should get to drink champagne at the after party while others are in pain is quite beyond me.
Hmm.
The US needs a major restructure. Yes. I think there are a few govt departments that are useful, and some regulations that are required, but there are many we could do better without. The govt monopolies and the tendency for businesses to legislate to protect their garden of profits / cripple opponents is absolutely wrong.
I agree fully that what needs to be done wont be done, and that we are in a mouse trap of our own design.
Shame.
Thanks for an enlightening exchange.
With C/C++, everything can be!
"...can also look at dozens of other countries offering them better deals"
Sounds like a race to the bottom. When does it stop?
"Exactly, they're creating jobs in other countries which consider them to be something more than cash cows to be milked for taxes'
They are creating them there because of the difference in wages. Taxes might be a part of that, but costs more directly related to living expenses ( rent/mortgate/food/etc ) are a big part of that difference.
There has been discussion in the news of the USD being replaced as a "reserve currency" for a bit now.
Is that what you are speaking of? If so, shouldn't the fundamentals stay the same? I.E., what knock on effect are you saying this will have?
Printing and spending have been happening for a long time now, and while I can appreciate that there is a debate to be had on it's positive or negative effects, I think the notion that government is completely and only the thing that is holding back business overstates the case to a large degree. Your statement seems to be arguing for no government at all, which leads me to suspect that you might be being dramatic in your presentation.
And the corollary to that is?
Because as an individual, there is nothing special about being "American" that provides a lot of additional value.
There are a few minor things, location ( nearness ), language, timezone, etc.
I cant speak to regulation per se, but taxes have been higher and businesses have been created here.
Businesses currently enjoy even lower tax rates in effect with all the loopholes they have managed to buy themselves.
The "extra income would just go to the government in new taxes" seems hyperbole to me. Taxes are quite low now, and are only supposed to be going back to levels where they were a bit ago. It is not going to go to the hyper taxation that Britain had back in the days after WWII ( which you would be right to condemn ). And the wealthy "job creators" are not creating jobs here. Note the unemployment figures. But they have plenty of money to do it with.
So, I stand on my statement, The economy is bad because the people who would buy things aren't, because they don't have jobs and because those that do fear losing them.
How can that happen?
Will BOA reduce my mortgage to numbers similar to China/India/? Will the grocery store reduce their prices? And the other stores I have to buy things from to keep alive? I can do things to reduce how much I need to live on to some degree, but there is a bottom to it all. And their bottom is lower than ours.
"The outsourcing is a good thing in this case, it saves the ability of certain businesses to produce without paying the artificially high costs imposed by US gov't regulations and taxation and subsidies to monopolies"
Except that 70% of the us economy is Americans buying things. How can they do that when the jobs have been exported?
For a while, it might seem good, but who here are they going to sell to when enough us consumers lose their jobs?
It isnt the regulations and taxations that are killing the US economy, it is the lack of decent jobs.
I never said anything about anything going to the government. I wasn't speaking about government at all.
I was talking about the off shoring phenomena.
If people have jobs and can afford to buy things, then maybe it is.
If everything costs twice as much, but you make twice as much, it is level.
And really, have prices fallen that much with outsourcing? Not for the items that are essential.
The problem we have right now is that not enough people have jobs here in the US paying enough to afford the amounts required to live here.
Very realistic, and true. I have grown to question the proposition that wealth is value with time. I do not hold it true today. I know many do, and that I have to live in that world. I find it disagreeable that so many bright people still hold it true. It strikes me as a modern day "divine right of Kings".
I commend you for your insight, you read much of me from a short post.
"The assumption is that in a free market, competition would reward corporations that avoid waste, and consumers purchasing responsibly would reward corporations that avoid abuse."
That only works when the consumer is picking. When intermediates get involved ( the insurance companies in this case ), market forces often become non-existent, become perverse, and otherwise don't work for the consumer.
"The other issue is personal liberty - if I have the right to refuse treatment, shouldn't I also have the right to refuse to buy insurance for that treatment? I don't think "it's good for you, you have to do it" is what was meant by "promote the general welfare," although that's a hotly debated idea these days."
I think so, while seeing that there are many issues and nothing seems to do well on all fronts. My personal opinion is that we should go single payer, as the least worst option. Then you would have the option to opt out of treatment. You would not have the option to opt out of the tax burden allocated to you, though. Single payer with exemptions? But if you opt out, you *really* opt out. Course that doesn't answer the objection that what if your illness is communicable and likely to spread to other untreated, causing worse problems for others. Quarantine if you have opted out for that case?
"So somehow we must have some people who do not receive our best care. And some who do"
Why is that? And why is wealth allowed to be the determinant of this?
By that logic, National Defense should not include forcefully taking money from one group of people only to give it to "Defense Contractors".
"waste and abuse than a free market for insurance"
I would argue that the waste and abuse get transferred to a corporation where any profitability in such waste and abuse require that waste and abuse.
If you want the market to affect what is going on, you need a free market for the fundamental care, not in the insurance on top of it. Why would a doctor or practice change their pricing? There is no market to capture, just what the bureaucrats at the insurance company thing is "correct".
I agree that the quality of care is good here, but I would say that the insurance snarl on top keeps prices higher than they "should" be.
Either go all the way to single payer, or go all the way to people paying doctors and practices directly. They both have good and ugly points.
Spot on.
It is not all one and none of the other.
Spending discipline is definitely required. So are higher taxes on the wealthy.
The 0th step needs to be removing corporate and unlimited direct campaign contributions.
Then we can have democracy again, and not plutarchy. Political office should not be a matter of who has the most money, but who has the best ideas, and real support.
"If an object is still in scope and referenced such that you can still access its properties, then there's no way it can be collected anyway."
True. I do know we had memory leaks, though. We ended up buying a leak detection program and using it to get rid of them.
I can speak for vb.net ( may be true in c#.net, not sure ), but you can leak memory as well as other resources.
I bought into the "garbage collection handles it" mindset, until it was rudely pushed into my face that some UI elements have to have dispose called, or they stay in memory ( IIRC, forms will not collect, so incompetent programmers that put properties on their forms can come later and get those properties from the form after it is closed, other things like that ).
He/She/It did not call communism or socialism altruistic, he/she/it objected to having altruism lumped in with communism or socialism.