Why do people say things like this. There isn't a probability associated with it at all, it is completely predictable, as were the last two bubbles. If global political leadership keeps doing what they've been doing, and people keep listening to them, a global economic collapse is a certainty. You simply can't expend resources continually without regard for where they are coming from and what you are using them for. Sooner or later, the economy will become so bogged down and inefficient that production will fall below demand. Since life relies on continued growth (or at least sustainability) to continue functioning, it will then collapse in on itself and shrink to the point where it is sustainable.
It's just like when people say that the current "economic climate" was unlikely. People pouring money into a housing bubble is pretty damed certain to cause a market correction. I don't know why people say it was unexpected. The same with the.com crash. Is it really so hard to understand that money has to come from somewhere, and if it doesn't produce anything, it will eventually run out. It's common sense.
"Maybe it's cause I'm from Europe, but what does guns have to do with government being answerable to the people?"
I take it you are not a student of history. Whenever a group of people wishes to control another group, the first thing they do is prohibit that group from having weapons. Most Americans do not like the sound of it when our leaders say "we will prohibit you from having these for your own protection".
First of all, it's totally disrespectful and hypocritical to imply that someone else is unable to handle weapons responsibly, while claiming you are able to do so.
Secondly, no good will come of it. The threat of force can be used to coerce others through fear. If people have weapons, there is only so far you can push then before they fight back. This is a natural and healthy balance of power. On the other hand, if people lack weapons they will only fight back once they've literally decided it is not worthwhile to live.
There is simply no good reason for a "benevolent" government to ban weapons. That means that any government that wishes to do so must be malevolent, hence the general fear of weapons restrictions.
Who cares about these things? Who is to say that one trait is better than another? Maybe if you were making people for a specific purpose, but then you moved from the realm of bizarre and silly to the realm of creepy and evil.
This is the problem I have with in-vitro fertilization in general. If you can't reproduce naturally, it is more healthy psychologically to accept it and look into other alternatives (like adoption, or helping your friends and siblings raise their children). Going to extreme lengths to have children means that you are obsessed with it. Parents who are obsessed with their children are bad parents.
If you are planning to have children, and planning what your children will be like, and planning to send them to the best college so they can be a doctor and make you proud, all you plans are really about you and your child's role as an extension of yourself. You can say that you are doing it for their good, buy you have no way to know them or what they will want so any decision you make is really a projection of your own feelings. This is generally what passes for parenting in our society, so I can't really fault someone who does this anymore than someone who tells their children they are worthless unless they go to college.
What country do you live in? Just because someone gets fired doesn't mean that person was accountable. Government officials are almost completely immune to the effects of their decisions, the worst that can happen is they will be voted out of office. Even if they were held responsible for their actions (and they usually aren't), how could a handful of senators be accountable for wasting trillions of dollars or destroying thousands of lives? A couple people can't reconcile mistake that big, not even close.
The article clearly compares the environmental impact on the basis of passenger miles (per kilometre for each traveller on board). You can't measure freight hauling in passenger miles. You are not talking about the same thing as the article.
It is impossible to say for certain who will pay a tax. All taxes are actually paid by individuals. "Business" taxes are simply a why to try to hit the pocket-book of a specific set of individuals more than others.
If you don't believe me, ask yourself this: "What does a business want to buy?". Nothing. A business is not a person. It does not have any motives or desires whatsoever. It is actually a collection of individuals, all of whom have come together with a common goal (writing software, or whatever). So when you say "I have to pay my taxes, businesses should too." All you're really saying is "I have to pay my taxes, other people should too."
So who pays business taxes? The shareholders (in reduced dividends), the employees (in reduced wages), the businesses with which the business does business (due to reduced spending power), and the customers (in increased prices). If you've taken an economics class, you've probably learned to compute the portion of tax paid by each party in a transaction based on the supply and demand curves. But in real life, this information is not known. So while it's actually impossible to say who pays how much in corporate taxes, it' safe to say that everyone pays a bit of it.
In reality, the people in power (business executives and shareholders) have a lot of say in who ends up paying. It has been generally shown that they will actually hold on to their money while the rest of the company collapses. So obviously, they don't pay the tax. In reality it all falls on the employees and the consumers. And once the business folds, but burden is shifted, ironically, to the taxpayer who initially opted for the corporate taxes as a way of avoiding higher personal taxes.
Corporate taxes are a joke. They are nothing more than a hidden tax. We should not support them.
This is true, actually. They've prohibited real work and taxed everyone to oblivion. There are so many state workers that the government can't fire them because they're too significant a voting block. As the remaining work-doing people flee the state, the problem will only get worse. Democracy in action. The rest of the country is soon to follow. . .
Is it really too much to ask that people keep the sick and elderly company? And if the only thing that wants to spend time with you is a robotic seal, is it even worth it to keep living. . .
Did you mean to say moronic twice? It seems redundant.
I think it's moded up because many people have notticed it as well. You have to be a workaholic to do those things, and as any addiction, it is a coping mechanism. If it makes you feel better, it was origionally flamebait.
I've never met a person who was a PHD, or who had straight A's that didn't have a personality disorder of some kind. Something has to be wrong with anyone who would be willing to put up with that much bs for that many years for almost no reason at all. It says something about your priorities.
Nothing looks better to your employer than actual work experience. Think about it this way: if you were hiring a programmer, would you rather hire someone with two years experience, or someone with no experience but a master's degree? Someone with a proven track record is a safer bet, and the employers that stay in business usually play it safe.
I figure that as long as I live out my ideals, other people may see it and give it a try. I can't fathom why a man would choose to live like a child or an animal their whole life if they really knew there is an alternative. On the other hand, the power of denial is strong and people have an aversion to change. At the very least, I will thrive (until they kill me, but it's better than being dead from the start as they are).
The whole idea of gathering a select group of leaders to lord over us is childish. We have build an elaborate system of punishments and rewards to heard ourselves though life like cattle. I don't want to be poked and prodded through life, and accepting such a "system" would make me inhuman. I need to drive myself through life.
There are sociopaths, but no system can protect me from them. People are contrary by nature and they do not like being categorized or controlled. They are not compliant, they simply find ways to accomplish their goals from within the system, or learn to live outside it.
By trying to control these people and denying the realities of human existence you are only making the problem worse.
Slashdot Mirror
"but still a very low probability event"
.com crash. Is it really so hard to understand that money has to come from somewhere, and if it doesn't produce anything, it will eventually run out. It's common sense.
Why do people say things like this. There isn't a probability associated with it at all, it is completely predictable, as were the last two bubbles. If global political leadership keeps doing what they've been doing, and people keep listening to them, a global economic collapse is a certainty. You simply can't expend resources continually without regard for where they are coming from and what you are using them for. Sooner or later, the economy will become so bogged down and inefficient that production will fall below demand. Since life relies on continued growth (or at least sustainability) to continue functioning, it will then collapse in on itself and shrink to the point where it is sustainable.
It's just like when people say that the current "economic climate" was unlikely. People pouring money into a housing bubble is pretty damed certain to cause a market correction. I don't know why people say it was unexpected. The same with the
Do you mean "Who is John Gault?"
Best laugh I've had all day.
"Maybe it's cause I'm from Europe, but what does guns have to do with government being answerable to the people?"
I take it you are not a student of history. Whenever a group of people wishes to control another group, the first thing they do is prohibit that group from having weapons. Most Americans do not like the sound of it when our leaders say "we will prohibit you from having these for your own protection".
First of all, it's totally disrespectful and hypocritical to imply that someone else is unable to handle weapons responsibly, while claiming you are able to do so.
Secondly, no good will come of it. The threat of force can be used to coerce others through fear. If people have weapons, there is only so far you can push then before they fight back. This is a natural and healthy balance of power. On the other hand, if people lack weapons they will only fight back once they've literally decided it is not worthwhile to live.
There is simply no good reason for a "benevolent" government to ban weapons. That means that any government that wishes to do so must be malevolent, hence the general fear of weapons restrictions.
Not taking "proper" drugs can save your life too. It's a bit of a toss-up.
Who cares about these things? Who is to say that one trait is better than another? Maybe if you were making people for a specific purpose, but then you moved from the realm of bizarre and silly to the realm of creepy and evil.
This is the problem I have with in-vitro fertilization in general. If you can't reproduce naturally, it is more healthy psychologically to accept it and look into other alternatives (like adoption, or helping your friends and siblings raise their children). Going to extreme lengths to have children means that you are obsessed with it. Parents who are obsessed with their children are bad parents.
If you are planning to have children, and planning what your children will be like, and planning to send them to the best college so they can be a doctor and make you proud, all you plans are really about you and your child's role as an extension of yourself. You can say that you are doing it for their good, buy you have no way to know them or what they will want so any decision you make is really a projection of your own feelings. This is generally what passes for parenting in our society, so I can't really fault someone who does this anymore than someone who tells their children they are worthless unless they go to college.
Still, it's all screwed up.
I just had the best laugh I've had in a while.
"In government , someone is accountable."
What country do you live in? Just because someone gets fired doesn't mean that person was accountable. Government officials are almost completely immune to the effects of their decisions, the worst that can happen is they will be voted out of office. Even if they were held responsible for their actions (and they usually aren't), how could a handful of senators be accountable for wasting trillions of dollars or destroying thousands of lives? A couple people can't reconcile mistake that big, not even close.
If you let someone access your information, they can do with it what they want. It seems obvious and self-explanatory to me.
The article clearly compares the environmental impact on the basis of passenger miles (per kilometre for each traveller on board). You can't measure freight hauling in passenger miles. You are not talking about the same thing as the article.
You're talking about the trans-continental railroads in the US. Others have been built without subsidy.
I know, that's what the comment I was replying to said.
You can bomb a highway. . .
It is impossible to say for certain who will pay a tax. All taxes are actually paid by individuals. "Business" taxes are simply a why to try to hit the pocket-book of a specific set of individuals more than others.
If you don't believe me, ask yourself this: "What does a business want to buy?". Nothing. A business is not a person. It does not have any motives or desires whatsoever. It is actually a collection of individuals, all of whom have come together with a common goal (writing software, or whatever). So when you say "I have to pay my taxes, businesses should too." All you're really saying is "I have to pay my taxes, other people should too."
So who pays business taxes? The shareholders (in reduced dividends), the employees (in reduced wages), the businesses with which the business does business (due to reduced spending power), and the customers (in increased prices). If you've taken an economics class, you've probably learned to compute the portion of tax paid by each party in a transaction based on the supply and demand curves. But in real life, this information is not known. So while it's actually impossible to say who pays how much in corporate taxes, it' safe to say that everyone pays a bit of it.
In reality, the people in power (business executives and shareholders) have a lot of say in who ends up paying. It has been generally shown that they will actually hold on to their money while the rest of the company collapses. So obviously, they don't pay the tax. In reality it all falls on the employees and the consumers. And once the business folds, but burden is shifted, ironically, to the taxpayer who initially opted for the corporate taxes as a way of avoiding higher personal taxes.
Corporate taxes are a joke. They are nothing more than a hidden tax. We should not support them.
This is true, actually. They've prohibited real work and taxed everyone to oblivion. There are so many state workers that the government can't fire them because they're too significant a voting block. As the remaining work-doing people flee the state, the problem will only get worse. Democracy in action. The rest of the country is soon to follow. . .
If we didn't have an interstate highway system, we'd have better railroads.
Is that what you call it when you go into massive debt to pay others to do your work for you?
News flash! This is not a model for a real economy, it's a model for an imaginary one.
Is it really too much to ask that people keep the sick and elderly company? And if the only thing that wants to spend time with you is a robotic seal, is it even worth it to keep living. . .
Did you mean to say moronic twice? It seems redundant.
I think it's moded up because many people have notticed it as well. You have to be a workaholic to do those things, and as any addiction, it is a coping mechanism. If it makes you feel better, it was origionally flamebait.
There is more of an environmental cost to producing a new car than the just the energy used to produce it. . .
I've never met a person who was a PHD, or who had straight A's that didn't have a personality disorder of some kind. Something has to be wrong with anyone who would be willing to put up with that much bs for that many years for almost no reason at all. It says something about your priorities.
Nothing looks better to your employer than actual work experience. Think about it this way: if you were hiring a programmer, would you rather hire someone with two years experience, or someone with no experience but a master's degree? Someone with a proven track record is a safer bet, and the employers that stay in business usually play it safe.
Just because you can imagine something doesn't mean it's actually going to happen. . . Take flying cars, for example.
Isn't subverting democracy kind of like framing OJ Simpson? Sure, people do it, but does it really matter?
I thought part of the reason a signature is important in the first place is to verify the signers presence at the time of signing.
I figure that as long as I live out my ideals, other people may see it and give it a try. I can't fathom why a man would choose to live like a child or an animal their whole life if they really knew there is an alternative. On the other hand, the power of denial is strong and people have an aversion to change. At the very least, I will thrive (until they kill me, but it's better than being dead from the start as they are).
The whole idea of gathering a select group of leaders to lord over us is childish. We have build an elaborate system of punishments and rewards to heard ourselves though life like cattle. I don't want to be poked and prodded through life, and accepting such a "system" would make me inhuman. I need to drive myself through life.
There are sociopaths, but no system can protect me from them. People are contrary by nature and they do not like being categorized or controlled. They are not compliant, they simply find ways to accomplish their goals from within the system, or learn to live outside it.
By trying to control these people and denying the realities of human existence you are only making the problem worse.