How does anyone know Apple doesn't do it the other way arround? Pay 70% of the sales of gift-cards? Doing this, they would completely get arround the problem you describe. This way, the downloading and use of the card would simply be an accounting change on the apple servers.
Sure, they would not get the money they would get if you actually payed for the stuff in the first place, but there won't be the real currency transfer error that you describe.
The only reason I could see for Apple not doing this is that they get free interest on the money people pay for the card before they actually use them. I guess it's left as an exercise to the reader, or the people running Apple, to actually figure out which one is the better move.
Again, nice calculations. I haven't bothered to look into them as such. Perhaps that sounds presumptuous.
I'd just like to warn you slightly. Odds are you have not considered the time-value of money in your calculations. It's a common enough error and I won't try to go into detail too much here. I'm just noting it for your own (and others) benefit. Suffice it to say that a dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow. By paying off a loan faster you are paying it off with more expensive dollars (the earliest the most so).
If you were to delve into the banks calculations and look at things, you would most likely find that there is not that great a difference as to if you pay it of in 15 or 30 years. Of course they make a profit from you if they have you as a customer for longer, but the difference will be smaler than you would be led to believe from your calculations.
My philosophy with them is to look for companies that I think are undervalued, preferably ones that have a long history of paying dividends. The dividends go into reinvestment (i.e: more shares) and give me a better rate of return than I'd get with most cash investments.
There are several points to touch on in your post, but I'll just bring this one to light. If you are re-investing the dividends then clearly you are of the opinion that the company in question is more capable of (would do a better job) than you of earning an interest on your money (which you later on are planing on taking advantage of).
This means that it would be more efficient for them to simply keep the money to start with. Why put the money through a carousel of dividends-to-reinvestment if they could just sit tight? Why pay taxes on dividends (which I assume you do) when it's not needed?
Again, I'm not saying that your investments are bad. A lot of people like dividends. It should be noted though that a company that doesn't pay dividends doesn't just 'hang on' to the money. They think that they can make them grow at a rate equal to, or higher than, the demands made by the investors. (Or rather, the weighted demands of the equity investors and the 'lenders'.)
A better sollution for you would be to look for companies that are undervalued (though who looks for anything else?) that have a policy of stock re-purchases. This would have the same positive effects that you are looking for without the negative tax effects.
Trackball. Seriously. It has all the advantages of a mouse and needs no hard surface. I use mine regularly while 'balanced' on the arm rest of my sofa or just plain on the seat next to me. Logitech TrackMan Wheel works like magic.
You might not have had a problem with 1600 Pennsylvania ave for the past six years, but that is missing the point. The day they do have a problem with you, they will get you for providing false information. Like all the other stupid questions, they don't try to keep you from lying. It fills the formal need to do things later on when there is vague suspicions of something or other.
I don't know though. They should be able to turn around and sell that water to someone else. It's not like it's poisonous or anything. I'm sure there is a hotel less than 500 meters away in need of water for their pools.
Now, if keeping that pool with water is wasteful or not is another question, but not one that is made worse by the data center's use of water.
He wasn't particularly technical, but was very good at navigating through the political issues that often come up with organizational change.
followed by
I'm sure he'll spend the rest of his life second-guessing what he should have done better. Hired different people? Brought in an outside auditor?
Not founding, starting and runnign a business you don't understand just because you 'get it'? Seriously, I agree that a CEO can't know of all little details and technicalities. But surely, if you run a shoe store, you should know about shoes. If you run a pet store, you should know how to take care of animals properly. If you run an IT consulting company, you should know enough to be able to tell that "heeeey, wait a second".
Although the OP is correct; the Canadians who depend on the US for their defense do not have the means to defend their claim even if they wanted to. That's reality for you I guess. The defense from what?!
I'm not an American lawyer, nor even a Swedish one, but I'm going to make one assumption about both places that seem logical enough. In order to bind your company to any deal you need power of attorney. This can be limited in scope and range from such things as being allowed to exchange store kept gods for money at a fixed rate of exchange (store clerk) to binding your company to extensive deals concerning billions of dollars. Just because a guy working at MS signs a paper stating that MS agrees to give you a zillion billion dollars and sharks with lasers mounted on them doesn't make it legally binding. You (and MS) might have a case against the moron trying to fraudulently enter into the contract, but that is a different thing.
I can't really say if you are right or wrong, but being as this comment seems to be on its way to being moderated upwards, I thought I should point out something. The usage of the word 'negligent' in the law (I haven't read the section, I'm just assuming you are correct) is one of those vague usages that to an American audience might seem strange but is actually there per design in Swedish codifications. It doesn't mean that the law becomes flexible from case to case (negligent is negligent) but the definition might be allowed to change over time. What was not negligent a year ago might be today. It allows the laws to adapt in small ways without requiring a five year debate in the various comities, subcomities and the parliament.
Are there dangers with this? Of course. But there is with anything. Putting all your faith into one single leader, depending on the judgment on others, letting lawyers interpret texts written 40 years ago (or 150 years ago). There is danger in most things. This is a calculated risk.
I can't help but notice your immense knowledge of the Swedish law. The ins and outs, if you will. A professor in the subject per chance? Intent is a major concern with Swedish law and regulation and trust me, it's doable. We've made it for quite a while with this system and even thought it might not be perfect (I can't believe I'm defending it) it has its advantages.
And I just wanted to point out that being a prosecutor in Sweden is not an elected official but a civil servant. (Not much lawyers in politics in Sweden actually)
But plenty of high school drop-outs that preferred to play soccer instead of study, or temporary expatriates that felt a store bought degree would look nifty.
He might very well be if he lets it sit there for a long time, de facto publishing it. I'm not saying the law is right, I'm just pointing out the flaw in your example.
Might I suggest "Typing of the dead. There was a version of it for the DC, but I don't think it was the only port available. I know it's more of a speed typing game than a spell-checking game and I know your question wasn't entirely serious, but still...
At $2,200 to $3,200 an acre, you cannot purchase new land and go into farming and survive, even with considerable governmental support. You have to have a base of inherited land that has nearly zero cost as a base, and even then you're dependent upon subsidized government crop insurance.
Then you shouldn't be growing corn! (Or rather, this many people shouldn't be doing it.) There is an 'opportunity cost' to everything. If your example is true, then that means the following. If you can't buy land and plant corn and turn a profit on it because the price of land is too high, that means someone else is prepared to pay more for the land than you are. They are willing to do this because they can use that land for something that gives a higher rate of return than corn growing. Simple enough, right? Here's the kicker though. That same statement means that you are better of selling your land instead of growing corn on it (if you, as stated in your example, have less than 2000 acres). Why? Because you can use the money from the sale to do something that generates a high enough 'interest rate' to be profitable. (I say profitable, but the economist living inside of me screams that it's a break even game.)
I understand if there are people out there that don't want to sell the land. Your family has been living on it since you kicked of the native Americans or whatever. It has sentimental value. But you can't use that as a whine-whine argument. You might use it while deciding things for yourself, but you can't use it as an argument to receive subsidises or to explain why the price of corn according to your reality is too low.
One could argue that an area is just a volume with a 0 length size and thus that area is just a subset of volumes. Or one could conclude that this is Wired and they wanted it to sound cool.
+3 Interesting? Come on! What do you people think happens to the money? They put them in a hole in the ground, never to be seen anymore? Not that even that would matter. You could set money on fire and in the end, the economy as such doesn't suffer. There are other drawbacks like a currency shortage if you burn enough, but really.
The money just changes hands. There is no inherently bad thing about this. The money keeps spinning around in the economic system and gets spent/invested just like anything else. Over and over and over again. What is next? A post that explains how evil banks are for being black holes of the economy, hoarding all our coins in their pockets.
And as we've all learned from Dr House, you can even get by on half a brain. It will take up the functions of the other part. I'm sure there is a Bush joke in there as well, but I'll refrain.
I.e. Money spent lobbying (for/against), by/for politicians re: fossil fuels?
Just like bribes, these are not money spent in a real macro economical sense. At least not in the way you try to make it seem. It is more of a transfer of wealth. As for the military presence that's a completely different thing.
Slashdot Mirror
How does anyone know Apple doesn't do it the other way arround? Pay 70% of the sales of gift-cards? Doing this, they would completely get arround the problem you describe. This way, the downloading and use of the card would simply be an accounting change on the apple servers.
Sure, they would not get the money they would get if you actually payed for the stuff in the first place, but there won't be the real currency transfer error that you describe.
The only reason I could see for Apple not doing this is that they get free interest on the money people pay for the card before they actually use them. I guess it's left as an exercise to the reader, or the people running Apple, to actually figure out which one is the better move.
I think you already have that one. ;)
Again, nice calculations. I haven't bothered to look into them as such. Perhaps that sounds presumptuous.
I'd just like to warn you slightly. Odds are you have not considered the time-value of money in your calculations. It's a common enough error and I won't try to go into detail too much here. I'm just noting it for your own (and others) benefit. Suffice it to say that a dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow. By paying off a loan faster you are paying it off with more expensive dollars (the earliest the most so).
If you were to delve into the banks calculations and look at things, you would most likely find that there is not that great a difference as to if you pay it of in 15 or 30 years. Of course they make a profit from you if they have you as a customer for longer, but the difference will be smaler than you would be led to believe from your calculations.
There are several points to touch on in your post, but I'll just bring this one to light. If you are re-investing the dividends then clearly you are of the opinion that the company in question is more capable of (would do a better job) than you of earning an interest on your money (which you later on are planing on taking advantage of).
This means that it would be more efficient for them to simply keep the money to start with. Why put the money through a carousel of dividends-to-reinvestment if they could just sit tight? Why pay taxes on dividends (which I assume you do) when it's not needed?
Again, I'm not saying that your investments are bad. A lot of people like dividends. It should be noted though that a company that doesn't pay dividends doesn't just 'hang on' to the money. They think that they can make them grow at a rate equal to, or higher than, the demands made by the investors. (Or rather, the weighted demands of the equity investors and the 'lenders'.)
A better sollution for you would be to look for companies that are undervalued (though who looks for anything else?) that have a policy of stock re-purchases. This would have the same positive effects that you are looking for without the negative tax effects.
Trackball. Seriously. It has all the advantages of a mouse and needs no hard surface. I use mine regularly while 'balanced' on the arm rest of my sofa or just plain on the seat next to me. Logitech TrackMan Wheel works like magic.
You might not have had a problem with 1600 Pennsylvania ave for the past six years, but that is missing the point. The day they do have a problem with you, they will get you for providing false information. Like all the other stupid questions, they don't try to keep you from lying. It fills the formal need to do things later on when there is vague suspicions of something or other.
I don't know though. They should be able to turn around and sell that water to someone else. It's not like it's poisonous or anything. I'm sure there is a hotel less than 500 meters away in need of water for their pools.
Now, if keeping that pool with water is wasteful or not is another question, but not one that is made worse by the data center's use of water.
followed by
Not founding, starting and runnign a business you don't understand just because you 'get it'? Seriously, I agree that a CEO can't know of all little details and technicalities. But surely, if you run a shoe store, you should know about shoes. If you run a pet store, you should know how to take care of animals properly. If you run an IT consulting company, you should know enough to be able to tell that "heeeey, wait a second".
I'm not an American lawyer, nor even a Swedish one, but I'm going to make one assumption about both places that seem logical enough. In order to bind your company to any deal you need power of attorney. This can be limited in scope and range from such things as being allowed to exchange store kept gods for money at a fixed rate of exchange (store clerk) to binding your company to extensive deals concerning billions of dollars. Just because a guy working at MS signs a paper stating that MS agrees to give you a zillion billion dollars and sharks with lasers mounted on them doesn't make it legally binding. You (and MS) might have a case against the moron trying to fraudulently enter into the contract, but that is a different thing.
I can't really say if you are right or wrong, but being as this comment seems to be on its way to being moderated upwards, I thought I should point out something. The usage of the word 'negligent' in the law (I haven't read the section, I'm just assuming you are correct) is one of those vague usages that to an American audience might seem strange but is actually there per design in Swedish codifications. It doesn't mean that the law becomes flexible from case to case (negligent is negligent) but the definition might be allowed to change over time. What was not negligent a year ago might be today. It allows the laws to adapt in small ways without requiring a five year debate in the various comities, subcomities and the parliament.
Are there dangers with this? Of course. But there is with anything. Putting all your faith into one single leader, depending on the judgment on others, letting lawyers interpret texts written 40 years ago (or 150 years ago). There is danger in most things. This is a calculated risk.
I can't help but notice your immense knowledge of the Swedish law. The ins and outs, if you will. A professor in the subject per chance? Intent is a major concern with Swedish law and regulation and trust me, it's doable. We've made it for quite a while with this system and even thought it might not be perfect (I can't believe I'm defending it) it has its advantages.
But plenty of high school drop-outs that preferred to play soccer instead of study, or temporary expatriates that felt a store bought degree would look nifty.
He might very well be if he lets it sit there for a long time, de facto publishing it. I'm not saying the law is right, I'm just pointing out the flaw in your example.
That anyone who reads /. would even read the article, before or after buying this hypothetical computer, is by far the most distant possibility.
Might I suggest "Typing of the dead. There was a version of it for the DC, but I don't think it was the only port available. I know it's more of a speed typing game than a spell-checking game and I know your question wasn't entirely serious, but still...
Then you shouldn't be growing corn! (Or rather, this many people shouldn't be doing it.) There is an 'opportunity cost' to everything. If your example is true, then that means the following. If you can't buy land and plant corn and turn a profit on it because the price of land is too high, that means someone else is prepared to pay more for the land than you are. They are willing to do this because they can use that land for something that gives a higher rate of return than corn growing. Simple enough, right? Here's the kicker though. That same statement means that you are better of selling your land instead of growing corn on it (if you, as stated in your example, have less than 2000 acres). Why? Because you can use the money from the sale to do something that generates a high enough 'interest rate' to be profitable. (I say profitable, but the economist living inside of me screams that it's a break even game.)
I understand if there are people out there that don't want to sell the land. Your family has been living on it since you kicked of the native Americans or whatever. It has sentimental value. But you can't use that as a whine-whine argument. You might use it while deciding things for yourself, but you can't use it as an argument to receive subsidises or to explain why the price of corn according to your reality is too low.
If the myriad of different boot screens for windows (and linux for that matter) is anything to judge by, it isn't entirely useless it would seem.
One could argue that an area is just a volume with a 0 length size and thus that area is just a subset of volumes. Or one could conclude that this is Wired and they wanted it to sound cool.
+3 Interesting? Come on! What do you people think happens to the money? They put them in a hole in the ground, never to be seen anymore? Not that even that would matter. You could set money on fire and in the end, the economy as such doesn't suffer. There are other drawbacks like a currency shortage if you burn enough, but really.
The money just changes hands. There is no inherently bad thing about this. The money keeps spinning around in the economic system and gets spent/invested just like anything else. Over and over and over again. What is next? A post that explains how evil banks are for being black holes of the economy, hoarding all our coins in their pockets.
And as we've all learned from Dr House, you can even get by on half a brain. It will take up the functions of the other part. I'm sure there is a Bush joke in there as well, but I'll refrain.
You own a co-operative? Wow. Is that like "sharing with yourself"?
The 'different thing' refers to what I said about bribes being only a transfer of wealth.
Did you even read what I wrote?
Just like bribes, these are not money spent in a real macro economical sense. At least not in the way you try to make it seem. It is more of a transfer of wealth. As for the military presence that's a completely different thing.