we are not in 19th century anymore. we already have discovered the approximate limits of human body. so why should i care if someone increases the world record in some field from 9.125 to 9.124 seconds ? and that is if some record is broken. if not, people get medals. they compete, some win some lose, and some get medals. so ? life IS a competition these days. we're having more than we ask for. we dont need to watch competition in our leisure time too.
Though I agree with you the olympics aren't as interesting, your reasoning is misguided. I guess you missed all the fun of the 20th century when the olympics meant a lot in terms of global politics. The Olympics provided a major Cold War "battleground." Without the feeling of "us" vs "them" it's not quite as interesting.
Though one area of Olympic competition that might interest you is the technology behind training and equipment. The human body can only go so far, but technical advances are contributing to that world record going from 9.125 to 9.124. Just look at the new Speedo swimsuit and how it's helping set multiple records.
I think the point is that anything that needs judges is not a sport, due to it being subjectively instead of objectively scored.
I'd consider boxing a sport. My definition of sport is direct interaction between competitors. Golf, darts, gymnastics, bowling are not sports - they are exhibitions of skills. The key difference is that in exhibition of skill there is nothing I can do to stop somebody if they are "feeling it" that day. Meanwhile in a sport I can use different tactics to disrupt your skills.
Capping upper limit on malpractice lawsuits saves everyone money.
Just let people sue for damage, it should be up to the FDA to institute punitive measures in the form of fines. Right now you have a system where health care companies are required to jump through numerous hoops to demonstrate safety, but if the system doesn't catch an issue they are still on the hook for multi-millions in damages. No wonder health care is expensive.
If I tell you to jump out of building will you jump? Who is guilty if you decide to jump?
Depends on how you ask and the circumstances. Some ways where such an act could be considered abusive - Clear social control (parent telling child), threatening them (pointing a gun), while they are under the influence of drugs/alcohol (usually a party killer), mentally unable to understand the situation (retardation/emotional problems), or deceiving them (telling them you're only 1 floor up).
Yes and the internet shows the power of the written word. Those fraudulent emails are just words, doesn't mean that scamming online should be protected speech.
You know saying 'Well you think of something!' is conceding to a criticism?
No it's pointing out that any system you come up with will run into the issues of humanity which was my original point. "They are inherent components of human civilzation, doesn't matter what form of economy you have." Trying to fix certain issues strictly with economics won't work, however, economics can create an environment where problems can be minimized.
Most of the people starving are under 5 years of age. Perhaps they should've 'taken responsibility' and invested more of their earnings when they were in the womb?
Or their caretakers should have - even if food was free it wouldn't distribute itself (unless you want 5 year olds driving trucks)
Here is the part where you switch to a vaguely racist/eugenic argument about how much African people 'breed'.
I didn't comment whether I thought their sexual culture was "right" or "wrong." But it would be ignorant to say it wasn't a contributing factor to the spread of HIV; just as there are subcultures in the west that participate in higher risk sexual activity.
You are so absurdly wrong. The country has a Gini coefficient of 63 (fucking huge) so ordinary people are not seeing any of that growth. Its all going into the pockets of Diamond magnates. It also has the second highest HIV infection rate in the world despite the aggressive promotion of ARV drugs.
Which are cultural and geographical distribution issues. Rural vs urban living as well as cultural hurdles surrounding sex contributing to HIV are contributing to a general depression in wealth distribution. You're trying to get an economic system to fix problems it's not designed to. Economics can't force people to move to where the jobs are - though it does give them incentive and many of those living in rural Botswana live off of income from relatives working in the cities. It certainly can't force people to change their sexual behavior. No economic system is perfect, so it begs the question - if you're not happy with the capitalistic mixed economy of the west, what would be a better one?
Western societies are not closed systems. The UK, for instance, has little manufacturing but a great many manufactured goods. You can't just take the economic growth of a country then ignore the consequences of that growth that exist out of the country.
You also can't just ignore progress and complain rather than change - at some point people need to take responsibility for themselves. If food is cheap find something else other than farming, the world can't be handed to you. The economies that are thriving are those that can change.
Not true. Botswana, for example, follows all the trade rules laid down by the west and is still mired in poverty
"Botswana has maintained one of the world's highest economic growth rates since independence in 1966, though growth slowed to 4.7% annually in 2006-07. Through fiscal discipline and sound management, Botswana has transformed itself from one of the poorest countries in the world to a middle-income country with a per capita GDP of nearly $15,000 in 2007." - CIA Factbook
Meanwhile, Cuba is a pariah nation and manages notably better standards of living than many of its regional neighbours who are on board with the Washington conesnsu.
The US isn't the only western nation. One of the major industries in Cuba is tourism, primarily from Canada and Europe.
These are problems, but most of the time people simply cannot afford enough food for their families. Markets have no mechanism to ensure the price of food stays within the income of the hungry.
Yet western societies manage to feed their people with enough excess to export to other countries. One of the keys is development of other industries has contributed to improvements in food productivity. In fact until recently food produced by the west is too cheap which negatively impacts developing agricultural nations. Again they aren't starving because there isn't food, it's more about political stability.
That is because we are a labour aristocracy. The poverty that results from our wealth is outsourced to the 'developing world'. The idea that this is somehow inevitable is a pure lie.
Generally, the more the "developing world" trades with the west, the better their conditions from all the invested capital. Of course depending on the politics of the area the mileage may vary.
There is enough food in the world for everyone, it just isn't getting to those who need it.
This isn't because of captialism, it's because of political instability. Food is rotting on the harbor in Haiti because it hasn't cleared customs or gets stolen by warlords in Africa so they can maintain control. You can send the food but unless you want war you can't necessarily get it to those who need it.
Poverty, suffering and hunger are inherent components of capitalism. Enjoy your dinner people.
They are inherent components of human civilzation, doesn't matter what form of economy you have. "Poverty" in western capitalist societies is far from starvation and suffering.
If one accepts the premise that the actual words of the document have meaning - and I know that this is a radical concept in our legal system as it is practices, but still - then the fact that something is "consistent with history" does not mean it is Constitutional.
I guess you want to accept the Constitution as some "holy" document, where the words must be followed to the letter. I prefer to see the Constitution as a document that tried to succinctly caputre ideas with which to guide the country with the understanding that there was a legal history with which such ideas could be framed. This is especially true given the it pulled ideas from various pre-existing sources. If two of the most important contributors (Jefferson & Madison) couldn't agree whether something was Constitutional after it was ratified, clearly just reading the words is not enough.
No, actually, it doesn't. The Constitution is very clear that rights are to be construed expansively and government powers narrowly - Amendment IX and X.
That war was fought and lost in the mid 1800's. Personal rights are limited as are government powers. Border searches were upheld by common law predating the establishment of the US and subsequently has been upheld numerous times. This isn't some abusive interpretation like the commerce clause, this is consistent with history - sorta like how judicial review came about.
If your business isn't sustainable after ALL your expenses are paid, including your salary, r&d costs, and any other costs you might incurr and there is still money left over (hint - that's the 'profit'), then you are completely incompetent.
You missed opportunity cost and risk. Even if you are turning a profit it may be considered "unsustainable" because the risk vs reward isn't enough. If you are making 5% during boom times, knowing that won't last one may decide that it would be better to exit the business. Even 50% profit can be considered "unsustainable" depending on longterm outlook. In response a corporation may change business strategy, spin off part of the business, or selling out.
So in the case of big-oil, record profits are just that: an opportunity for them to grow and to further line the pockets of shareholders and investors.
Which includes diversifying into other forms of energy production, since it's obvious that oil won't be as profitable in the future and there are some risks looming from environmental regulation and changes in consumption.
Then what could I do that wouldn't rationally maximize my utility? No matter what I did I could always claim it maximized my utility.
That's one of the basic assumptions of economics. Just like in science there is an assumption that the laws of physics are the same everywhere. At a fundamental level the rationality assumption of economics just means that if you know all the inputs to the system you can calculate the outputs and this can be related all the way down to the individual level. The problem is like any extremely complex system you don't know all the inputs so you fake it with statistics.
When a company makes more money ina quater than has EVER been made by any company their profit margins a moot point. 11.88 billion in 3 months? While families are struggling to heat their homes? put food on the table? and get to work? They made $38 dollars off of every single man, woman, and child in the united states over 3 months. pure profit after paying their upper management insane levels of salary. That sir is gouging markup % be damned.
The reason % is important is because it tells you the amount of captial they risked vs the reward. If somehow the market crashed If you put in a law saying they were only allowed 1% profit on gas, they'd close up shop and just invest in government bonds. What happens when prices crash and they are left with huge amounts of depreciating equipment and excess inventory - I guess you support government bail outs.
That doesn't make it so. There's no "except at the border" clause in the Fourth Amendment.
It works both ways, there's no telephone communication clause either, but the amendment has been interpreted to include it. The border exception has a long legal precedent even before the United States was formed.
Do I get to enforce equally silly rules on other parents, such as "don't let Johnny watch any Fox News when he's over there.. we don't want to poison his mind with that garbage". Yah think the "Fox News" watching parents might be more than a little offended by that request?
No, a good reasonable parent would respect the boundaries other parents set for their children. It's like a parent asking that their child not have to attend church sunday morning if they stay over on a saturday night.
If you attribute it to "unethical entrepreneurs" you are saying nearly the entire financial system is run by "unethical entrepreneurs" which was my original point. Thanks for seeing things my way.
Just because a large portion of the financial system was involved doesn't mean half were corrupt. Momentum spurred by the inflation of housing prices brought capital from other portions of the market into the mortgage industry which is why the impact is so great. Institutions leveraged capital from other parts of the economy and "good" investments were turned into high risk investments down the line, ultimately finishing with the highest risk investment - individuals understanding how to manage their debt. The finanical industry does not represent all of business, and the mortgage industry is only a portion of the financial industry. Just as the tech bubble impacted the whole economy even though it represents a portion of GDP, the mortgage collapse had a ripple effect throughout financial institutions.
A difference with the tech bubble is when it crashed it didn't take down the global economy and the U.S. government didn't have to step in and bail them out with billions of tax dollars.
It probably would have with a weakening dollar, massive government debt, and sky-high oil prices.
People who can create web sites are a substantially lower class of people than real scientists and engineers. Almost anyone can do it for better or worse.
Those are unethical entrepreneurs that have nothing to do with studying business. They are the equivalent of perpetual motion and cold fusion "scientists" who make up data to collect money from investors. Besides, the engineers had their turn to cash in and take people's money during the tech bubble - business and science are areas of studies and have nothing to do with how dishonest people exploit them.
Slashdot Mirror
Well the term "sports" has been applied to just about any form of competition which dilutes any specific meaning.
Though I agree with you the olympics aren't as interesting, your reasoning is misguided. I guess you missed all the fun of the 20th century when the olympics meant a lot in terms of global politics. The Olympics provided a major Cold War "battleground." Without the feeling of "us" vs "them" it's not quite as interesting.
Though one area of Olympic competition that might interest you is the technology behind training and equipment. The human body can only go so far, but technical advances are contributing to that world record going from 9.125 to 9.124. Just look at the new Speedo swimsuit and how it's helping set multiple records.
I'd consider boxing a sport.
My definition of sport is direct interaction between competitors. Golf, darts, gymnastics, bowling are not sports - they are exhibitions of skills.
The key difference is that in exhibition of skill there is nothing I can do to stop somebody if they are "feeling it" that day. Meanwhile in a sport I can use different tactics to disrupt your skills.
Just let people sue for damage, it should be up to the FDA to institute punitive measures in the form of fines.
Right now you have a system where health care companies are required to jump through numerous hoops to demonstrate safety, but if the system doesn't catch an issue they are still on the hook for multi-millions in damages. No wonder health care is expensive.
Depends on how you ask and the circumstances.
Some ways where such an act could be considered abusive - Clear social control (parent telling child), threatening them (pointing a gun), while they are under the influence of drugs/alcohol (usually a party killer), mentally unable to understand the situation (retardation/emotional problems), or deceiving them (telling them you're only 1 floor up).
Yes and the internet shows the power of the written word.
Those fraudulent emails are just words, doesn't mean that scamming online should be protected speech.
Don't worry, we'll freeze you.... Interested in joining the closed beta so we can work out the bugs?
No it's pointing out that any system you come up with will run into the issues of humanity which was my original point.
"They are inherent components of human civilzation, doesn't matter what form of economy you have."
Trying to fix certain issues strictly with economics won't work, however, economics can create an environment where problems can be minimized.
Or their caretakers should have - even if food was free it wouldn't distribute itself (unless you want 5 year olds driving trucks)
I didn't comment whether I thought their sexual culture was "right" or "wrong." But it would be ignorant to say it wasn't a contributing factor to the spread of HIV; just as there are subcultures in the west that participate in higher risk sexual activity.
Which are cultural and geographical distribution issues. Rural vs urban living as well as cultural hurdles surrounding sex contributing to HIV are contributing to a general depression in wealth distribution. You're trying to get an economic system to fix problems it's not designed to. Economics can't force people to move to where the jobs are - though it does give them incentive and many of those living in rural Botswana live off of income from relatives working in the cities. It certainly can't force people to change their sexual behavior.
No economic system is perfect, so it begs the question - if you're not happy with the capitalistic mixed economy of the west, what would be a better one?
You also can't just ignore progress and complain rather than change - at some point people need to take responsibility for themselves. If food is cheap find something else other than farming, the world can't be handed to you. The economies that are thriving are those that can change.
"Botswana has maintained one of the world's highest economic growth rates since independence in 1966, though growth slowed to 4.7% annually in 2006-07. Through fiscal discipline and sound management, Botswana has transformed itself from one of the poorest countries in the world to a middle-income country with a per capita GDP of nearly $15,000 in 2007." - CIA Factbook
The US isn't the only western nation. One of the major industries in Cuba is tourism, primarily from Canada and Europe.
Yet western societies manage to feed their people with enough excess to export to other countries. One of the keys is development of other industries has contributed to improvements in food productivity. In fact until recently food produced by the west is too cheap which negatively impacts developing agricultural nations. Again they aren't starving because there isn't food, it's more about political stability.
Generally, the more the "developing world" trades with the west, the better their conditions from all the invested capital. Of course depending on the politics of the area the mileage may vary.
This isn't because of captialism, it's because of political instability. Food is rotting on the harbor in Haiti because it hasn't cleared customs or gets stolen by warlords in Africa so they can maintain control. You can send the food but unless you want war you can't necessarily get it to those who need it.
They are inherent components of human civilzation, doesn't matter what form of economy you have. "Poverty" in western capitalist societies is far from starvation and suffering.
I'm waiting for it to come out on CD
I guess you want to accept the Constitution as some "holy" document, where the words must be followed to the letter. I prefer to see the Constitution as a document that tried to succinctly caputre ideas with which to guide the country with the understanding that there was a legal history with which such ideas could be framed. This is especially true given the it pulled ideas from various pre-existing sources.
If two of the most important contributors (Jefferson & Madison) couldn't agree whether something was Constitutional after it was ratified, clearly just reading the words is not enough.
That war was fought and lost in the mid 1800's. Personal rights are limited as are government powers.
Border searches were upheld by common law predating the establishment of the US and subsequently has been upheld numerous times. This isn't some abusive interpretation like the commerce clause, this is consistent with history - sorta like how judicial review came about.
You missed opportunity cost and risk. Even if you are turning a profit it may be considered "unsustainable" because the risk vs reward isn't enough. If you are making 5% during boom times, knowing that won't last one may decide that it would be better to exit the business. Even 50% profit can be considered "unsustainable" depending on longterm outlook. In response a corporation may change business strategy, spin off part of the business, or selling out.
Which includes diversifying into other forms of energy production, since it's obvious that oil won't be as profitable in the future and there are some risks looming from environmental regulation and changes in consumption.
That's one of the basic assumptions of economics. Just like in science there is an assumption that the laws of physics are the same everywhere.
At a fundamental level the rationality assumption of economics just means that if you know all the inputs to the system you can calculate the outputs and this can be related all the way down to the individual level. The problem is like any extremely complex system you don't know all the inputs so you fake it with statistics.
And people were crying about higher oil prices but still consuming more and more.
The reason % is important is because it tells you the amount of captial they risked vs the reward. If somehow the market crashed If you put in a law saying they were only allowed 1% profit on gas, they'd close up shop and just invest in government bonds. What happens when prices crash and they are left with huge amounts of depreciating equipment and excess inventory - I guess you support government bail outs.
Emotion is part of utility maximization. If you donate $20 to your favorite charity you are maximizing the utility because you feel good.
It works both ways, there's no telephone communication clause either, but the amendment has been interpreted to include it.
The border exception has a long legal precedent even before the United States was formed.
Welcome to the Gitmo interrogation team... you're a braver man than I.
No, a good reasonable parent would respect the boundaries other parents set for their children. It's like a parent asking that their child not have to attend church sunday morning if they stay over on a saturday night.
Just because a large portion of the financial system was involved doesn't mean half were corrupt. Momentum spurred by the inflation of housing prices brought capital from other portions of the market into the mortgage industry which is why the impact is so great. Institutions leveraged capital from other parts of the economy and "good" investments were turned into high risk investments down the line, ultimately finishing with the highest risk investment - individuals understanding how to manage their debt.
The finanical industry does not represent all of business, and the mortgage industry is only a portion of the financial industry. Just as the tech bubble impacted the whole economy even though it represents a portion of GDP, the mortgage collapse had a ripple effect throughout financial institutions.
It probably would have with a weakening dollar, massive government debt, and sky-high oil prices.
Same goes for mortgage brokers.
Those are unethical entrepreneurs that have nothing to do with studying business. They are the equivalent of perpetual motion and cold fusion "scientists" who make up data to collect money from investors. Besides, the engineers had their turn to cash in and take people's money during the tech bubble - business and science are areas of studies and have nothing to do with how dishonest people exploit them.