Ok, laugh at the Republican creationists, but if you really want to see some fancy political tap-dancing on a political issue, just try mentioning the well-documented and annoyingly persistent relationship between race and IQ to a liberal. It's like arguing with a creationist that goes to 11.
Apparently somebody didn't care for your point, despite having documented your claim.
Except I never said I was for a free market, actually I never mentioned anything about free market. I'm simply explaining the difference between fiction and reality. Calling something "evil" is lazy and not more useful than pointing fingers.
Excuse me, I mistook you for someone who was contesting my point. If I'd realized I was getting into a pissing match over semantics with a sophomoric twit with aspirations of being the next Nietzsche, I wouldn't have bothered responding.
I understand that their goal is to maximize profit. That's the object of a corporation.
Hey, I'm as free-market as they get, but if you look at IBM's business practices, they aren't operating on free-market principals, they're practicing crony-capitalism, which isn't the same thing. Google their habit of accepting government subsidies to retain jobs, and then off-shoring those jobs anyway. You might be interested in knowing they've formed an entire division to capture stimulus (taxpayer) dollars, but the chances those dollars will actually be pumped back into US economy are slim to none. Basically, they're trying to play both ends against the middle. Yes, they are evil, and treacherous bastards as well. I didn't make that comment based on this incident alone. This is just another, and rather minor, example of their duplicity.
Considering we've had wars and genocides throughout human history and we're still here, did it ever occur to you that they might serve some biological function you're not aware of? The 20th century set a record for bloodbaths. We still started it with a world population of 1.6 billion, and ended it with a population of over 6.5 billion.
Growing up in the 20th century the mission to mars was always just around the corner when presented in science books and media in general.
Actually, it could have been, it was within our grasp and we let it go.
Personally, I've always figured the day the US jumped the shark as a nation was 12/19/1972 - the day Apollo 17 returned to earth, and we never went back.
You may want to consider that those who try to defend your position often say, "If we have a more progressive tax policy it will destroy the United States!" No, it will not. We know it will not, because we know it did not.
Ah, but it is! it just took a number of years before all the effects became obvious.
The reason it didn't have that effect in the '50's is because there were no alternatives. So corporations and capital had to put up with confiscatory taxation and labor unions and all that other progressive happy-crappy. Where would a company have outsourced to in the '50's?
But they do have alternatives now. And they are leaving. And your answer to their leaving is to ratchet up the policies causing them to leave?
First off, the assertion that the New Deal propelled America into a period of rapid economic growth is ridiculous - the economy remained in a depression until the onset of WWII. Secondly, you might want to consider that the subsequent economic boom of the 50's was due in a large part to the fact that our largest possible competitor, Europe, was devastated by that war, and didn't recover for decades. It had little if anything to do with the tax rate.
You might also want to consider that one of the reasons these multinationals are now leaving the US is due to more favorable tax rates available in countries like India and China.
Large corporations remained in the US in the 50's despite the prohibitive tax rates was due to a lack of alternatives. They have plenty of alternatives now. Unless you're planning on bombing the BRIC nations into the stone age, don't count on being able to get away with that now.
False. It requires access to concentrated doses, roughly 15k mcg, but to claim "no one" is simple ignorance.
Find me a single documented case where a coroner has ever determined somebody died of an LSD overdose. I can tell you for sure you aren't going to find one.
There are any number of subject upon which I can be accused of ignorance, but this isn't one of them.
Not surprising at all - no one has ever died of an overdose of LSD. Not to mention the link between LSD use and long-term psychosis is tenuous, at best. I would take that physics teacher's story with a big grain of salt.
Same as they say - the amount of noise an individual makes about "the good of society" will be inverse to the value that individual contributes to society themselves...
Once one has grown so large that the vast majority of its competitors are insignificant, the best way for it to do that is to rape the worker and the consumer as hard is it can.
oops forgot the/sarcasm tag on that one, actually capitalism worked just fine for ages before Reaganomics came along, just ask anyone over 40 or 50.
I'm over 50, and I can tell you for sure the reason Reagan got elected was because under Carter capitalism had stopped working. Assuming you want to call what we had under Carter capitalism, that is.
You might want to remember the economic boom that started in the late 80's and ran right through the 90's. Would you call that "not working"?
Race has nothing to do with intelligence. I can take some African kid, raise him in America by American standards and he will be just as "smart" as your typical American - he will be an American with dark skin and relatives on another continent.
You can? Then you need to explain why the average IQ of American blacks is a standard deviation lower than the average IQ of American whites.
You can bet that if the IQ test included intelligence and observations on how nature behaves outside of the constraints of 'the scientific method' the Europeans would have their asses handed to them by the native americans, the australian aboriginals, or any other culture that couldn't give two pig shits about European science or technology.
So, presumably, after 40 years of trying hard, somebody would surely have been able to devise a test that native americans or australian aboriginals would consistently outscore whites and east asians on. Ok, where is it?
Slashdot Mirror
Apparently somebody didn't care for your point, despite having documented your claim.
Ha! He's a liberal. Have you ever met a liberal that wasn't proud to be sorry? You must have missed Bill Clinton's Apologize to the World Tour.
Except I never said I was for a free market, actually I never mentioned anything about free market. I'm simply explaining the difference between fiction and reality. Calling something "evil" is lazy and not more useful than pointing fingers.
Excuse me, I mistook you for someone who was contesting my point. If I'd realized I was getting into a pissing match over semantics with a sophomoric twit with aspirations of being the next Nietzsche, I wouldn't have bothered responding.
Please disregard!
Sorry, but it really does seem to get off on abusing American firms.
Ouch. Prepare to be viciously flamed by every whiny leftist on Slashdot....
I understand that their goal is to maximize profit. That's the object of a corporation.
Hey, I'm as free-market as they get, but if you look at IBM's business practices, they aren't operating on free-market principals, they're practicing crony-capitalism, which isn't the same thing. Google their habit of accepting government subsidies to retain jobs, and then off-shoring those jobs anyway. You might be interested in knowing they've formed an entire division to capture stimulus (taxpayer) dollars, but the chances those dollars will actually be pumped back into US economy are slim to none. Basically, they're trying to play both ends against the middle. Yes, they are evil, and treacherous bastards as well. I didn't make that comment based on this incident alone. This is just another, and rather minor, example of their duplicity.
Anyone that hasn't figured out that IBM is just plain evil by this time probably never will. This is not a company you want to turn your back on.
Considering we've had wars and genocides throughout human history and we're still here, did it ever occur to you that they might serve some biological function you're not aware of? The 20th century set a record for bloodbaths. We still started it with a world population of 1.6 billion, and ended it with a population of over 6.5 billion.
Growing up in the 20th century the mission to mars was always just around the corner when presented in science books and media in general.
Actually, it could have been, it was within our grasp and we let it go.
Personally, I've always figured the day the US jumped the shark as a nation was 12/19/1972 - the day Apollo 17 returned to earth, and we never went back.
Somehow, I don't seriously think we ever will.
You may want to consider that those who try to defend your position often say, "If we have a more progressive tax policy it will destroy the United States!" No, it will not. We know it will not, because we know it did not.
Ah, but it is! it just took a number of years before all the effects became obvious.
The reason it didn't have that effect in the '50's is because there were no alternatives. So corporations and capital had to put up with confiscatory taxation and labor unions and all that other progressive happy-crappy. Where would a company have outsourced to in the '50's?
But they do have alternatives now. And they are leaving. And your answer to their leaving is to ratchet up the policies causing them to leave?
Good luck with that!
First off, the assertion that the New Deal propelled America into a period of rapid economic growth is ridiculous - the economy remained in a depression until the onset of WWII. Secondly, you might want to consider that the subsequent economic boom of the 50's was due in a large part to the fact that our largest possible competitor, Europe, was devastated by that war, and didn't recover for decades. It had little if anything to do with the tax rate.
You might also want to consider that one of the reasons these multinationals are now leaving the US is due to more favorable tax rates available in countries like India and China.
Large corporations remained in the US in the 50's despite the prohibitive tax rates was due to a lack of alternatives. They have plenty of alternatives now. Unless you're planning on bombing the BRIC nations into the stone age, don't count on being able to get away with that now.
False. It requires access to concentrated doses, roughly 15k mcg, but to claim "no one" is simple ignorance.
Find me a single documented case where a coroner has ever determined somebody died of an LSD overdose. I can tell you for sure you aren't going to find one.
There are any number of subject upon which I can be accused of ignorance, but this isn't one of them.
Surprisingly, the man survived
Not surprising at all - no one has ever died of an overdose of LSD. Not to mention the link between LSD use and long-term psychosis is tenuous, at best. I would take that physics teacher's story with a big grain of salt.
Same as they say - the amount of noise an individual makes about "the good of society" will be inverse to the value that individual contributes to society themselves...
Um, because that would be a 1/3 drop in revenue?
Small problem there - if taxes are raised per your prescription, their revenue here will be considerably less than 1/3.
All very nice, but American workers apparently can't even catch a break in America.
Yes, it is a most fucktarded idea that taxing corporations would lead to them leaving the US entirely.
Do you really think IBM is going to just say, "screw it, we'll relocate to India, and do no business in the US whatsoever"?
Considering they already earn 65% of their revenue outside of the US, can you tell me why they wouldn't?
Too bad that's not stopping IBM from laying off Irish workers, too.
Instead of blaming them for leaving, why don't we stop chasing them away?
I have a better idea - bar them from operating in the US altogether, and give their smaller competitors an opportunity to fill the void.
Once one has grown so large that the vast majority of its competitors are insignificant, the best way for it to do that is to rape the worker and the consumer as hard is it can.
And rape the worker they do.
oops forgot the /sarcasm tag on that one, actually capitalism worked just fine for ages before Reaganomics came along, just ask anyone over 40 or 50.
I'm over 50, and I can tell you for sure the reason Reagan got elected was because under Carter capitalism had stopped working. Assuming you want to call what we had under Carter capitalism, that is.
You might want to remember the economic boom that started in the late 80's and ran right through the 90's. Would you call that "not working"?
I hate to go Godwin on the thread here, but it isn't like IBM hasn't found ways to use data to do evil things before.
Yes, and IBM has a thing about getting into bed with governments, although not always with good results. And you can be pretty sure nothing IBM is up to will be good for Americans given their tendency to take the money and run.
No, the people that were running it 60 years ago were unethical, but smart. This bunch is unethical without the smarts.
Not good, not good at all.
Indeed. Let's face it - regardless of whether or not it supports open source, IBM has become a plain evil company. Again.
Race has nothing to do with intelligence. I can take some African kid, raise him in America by American standards and he will be just as "smart" as your typical American - he will be an American with dark skin and relatives on another continent.
You can? Then you need to explain why the average IQ of American blacks is a standard deviation lower than the average IQ of American whites.
The IQ test has, built into it, the cultural bias of the white, european, while completely disregarding other values.
Oddly, the most exhaustive research on the matter shows no such evidence in support of that proposition.
You can bet that if the IQ test included intelligence and observations on how nature behaves outside of the constraints of 'the scientific method' the Europeans would have their asses handed to them by the native americans, the australian aboriginals, or any other culture that couldn't give two pig shits about European science or technology.
So, presumably, after 40 years of trying hard, somebody would surely have been able to devise a test that native americans or australian aboriginals would consistently outscore whites and east asians on. Ok, where is it?