I'm not going to touch your comment on the political process -- another poster has defined "election" for you.
Citizen and corporate interests are never going to be perfectly aligned -- hell, citizen interests are never aligned with other citizen interests. So what is your point there? Government representatives strike the balance and if they don't do so to your liking, you should practice what the Iraqis are doing now -- vote. Anything else is just whining. Something my 5 year-old niece does well too.
I would be particulary interested though if you might expand on your taxation point. Do you think corporations are under taxed? In the US, corporate taxes (state + federal) are about 40%! 40%! These taxes are simply passed on to customers anyway so what the point in raising them (or having them at all). While we are on the subject, in my opinion the ideal tax is purely consumption-based (sales) tax with a fixed refund paid to every filing citizen of, say, $5000. Simple, effective, elective, and not regressive. Never happen, but hey....
Why should you have any control of what a corporation does? As a shareholder you do -- as represented by and proportional to your ownership stake and therefore risk. As a citizen, all you can require is for the corporation and its officers to obey the laws. What more control do you want? I'd like to control a Ferrari -- doesn't mean it should happen...
Haliburton's contracts were not no-bid. They bid on contracts to provide quick turn services to the DoD at pre-defined rates. Other companies bid -- and there were multiple awards. What you are mistaking for "no-bid" is the DoD executing these contracts at pre-defined rates for previously unknown needs -- for example fuel services in Iraq.
Please give me one example of a US corporation that is incorporated in Bermuda. No US corporation is incorporated (based) in Bermuda. What you are mistaking for "based" is probably an office. Companies do repatriate funds in interesting ways through Bermuda, the Caymans, and even Ireland, but these are completely legal methods much like you might deduct mortgage interest. Tax avoidance != tax fraud.
The capital markets and the concept or corporations have provided the engine that has driven our amazing economic progress this century. Do some research and think of the the corporate structure as a technology -- because it really is. To think of corporations as "evil," or "immoral," is like accusing my iPod of a crime. Corporations are run by people -- sometimes bad ones. Corporate financial liability is limited to the assets of the firm. Criminal responsibility is not.
Respectfully, you comment on corporate influence is a bit naive. Politics is how large numbers of people make decisions. It is not evil or immoral either. If you don't like what is going on, get involved -- get into politics.
A firm has a monopoly when it has exclusive control over the means of production or distribution. It's pretty obvious that MS doesn't have exclusive control over the means of producing OSs (there are several others) or the distribution of OSs (see also, the internet, OS X via Apple, etc.).
if you are not personally affected by some action now, it does not mean that you will not be affected later.
True -- but it does not mean that I will be affected later too. So...what now?
Btw, you might want to look at history for examples of people who found that their freedoms had beed taken way too late to do anything.
But I haven't lost a single freedom yet -- what is your point?
About your comment on the 4 safe years: as someone else said somewhere on this thread, you are confusing correlation with causation. Since 9/11 there have been no attacks here in Argentina either, and I would be a fool to think that that is because of the measures taken by the USian government, wouldn't I?
Well, yeah, but you haven't given me any proof that there isn't a correlation -- so what do we do now? I think there is, you think there isn't -- it's a matter of opinion.
I guess you are referring to my supposedly lost freedoms -- but I haven't lost any, so I don't see your point... All I know is that we have seen no terrorist attacks on American soil in over 4 years...
Where? Certainly not on American soil. Terrorism is confined, perhaps barely, to overseas. This is largely due to the fact that the terrorists are all drawn to Iraq. Better to have the fighting there than here.
In fact, wouldn't it be more news-worthy if the NSA wasn't engaged in this activity? Isn't that what the president swore an oath to do? To execute the office of the president?
No, he's just got a bajillion more supporters thanks to our "backbone". Great job!
Who cares? Anyone who supports this nutjob now or then is just that -- a nutjob. And they always have been. The key difference is that now they are confined to overseas. Have you seen any more planes flying into buildings since 9/11?
You can beat around the bush all you want, but everyone knows that Iraq supported terrorism in several forms. The country also had a program to develop WMDs -- maybe they weren't very good at it when we invaded, or maybe they shipped all the material over the border to Syria -- but they were doing it. Sat recon makes that obvious.
Mr. Hussein didn't play by the rules set after the first Gulf War. Therefore, he got a second Gulf War. Between the two, he aided terrorist organizations -- even funding suicide bombers. Given the chance (and the skill), he would have loved to execute his own little 9/11.
It seems you might invest some time investigating the facts. But you knew these facts didn't you? You've simply found a way to enjoy our protection while complaining about it. I suppose that's your choice.
MS *does* have European assets that could be seized
Try getting any corporations to invest in the EU-playground after that...
It's the same old socialist europe cry-baby game -- we want to be treated like adults (capitalism) but we cry when things don't go our way (socialism).
Not at all -- I understand that EU can impose a fine, but so can I, and MS is just as likely to pay mine as the EU's. MS certainly isn't going to open up their code to some wanna-be government -- as a stockholder I'd much rather them just throw the collection letters in the trash.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not going to touch your comment on the political process -- another poster has defined "election" for you.
Citizen and corporate interests are never going to be perfectly aligned -- hell, citizen interests are never aligned with other citizen interests. So what is your point there? Government representatives strike the balance and if they don't do so to your liking, you should practice what the Iraqis are doing now -- vote. Anything else is just whining. Something my 5 year-old niece does well too.
I would be particulary interested though if you might expand on your taxation point. Do you think corporations are under taxed? In the US, corporate taxes (state + federal) are about 40%! 40%! These taxes are simply passed on to customers anyway so what the point in raising them (or having them at all). While we are on the subject, in my opinion the ideal tax is purely consumption-based (sales) tax with a fixed refund paid to every filing citizen of, say, $5000. Simple, effective, elective, and not regressive. Never happen, but hey....
Why should you have any control of what a corporation does? As a shareholder you do -- as represented by and proportional to your ownership stake and therefore risk. As a citizen, all you can require is for the corporation and its officers to obey the laws. What more control do you want? I'd like to control a Ferrari -- doesn't mean it should happen...
Haliburton's contracts were not no-bid. They bid on contracts to provide quick turn services to the DoD at pre-defined rates. Other companies bid -- and there were multiple awards. What you are mistaking for "no-bid" is the DoD executing these contracts at pre-defined rates for previously unknown needs -- for example fuel services in Iraq.
Please give me one example of a US corporation that is incorporated in Bermuda. No US corporation is incorporated (based) in Bermuda. What you are mistaking for "based" is probably an office. Companies do repatriate funds in interesting ways through Bermuda, the Caymans, and even Ireland, but these are completely legal methods much like you might deduct mortgage interest. Tax avoidance != tax fraud.
The capital markets and the concept or corporations have provided the engine that has driven our amazing economic progress this century. Do some research and think of the the corporate structure as a technology -- because it really is. To think of corporations as "evil," or "immoral," is like accusing my iPod of a crime. Corporations are run by people -- sometimes bad ones. Corporate financial liability is limited to the assets of the firm. Criminal responsibility is not.
Respectfully, you comment on corporate influence is a bit naive. Politics is how large numbers of people make decisions. It is not evil or immoral either. If you don't like what is going on, get involved -- get into politics.
A firm has a monopoly when it has exclusive control over the means of production or distribution. It's pretty obvious that MS doesn't have exclusive control over the means of producing OSs (there are several others) or the distribution of OSs (see also, the internet, OS X via Apple, etc.).
The #1 priority of the American government is to keep American soil safe. Everything else is frosting.
Lack of competition != monopoly
if you are not personally affected by some action now, it does not mean that you will not be affected later.
True -- but it does not mean that I will be affected later too. So...what now?
Btw, you might want to look at history for examples of people who found that their freedoms had beed taken way too late to do anything.
But I haven't lost a single freedom yet -- what is your point?
About your comment on the 4 safe years: as someone else said somewhere on this thread, you are confusing correlation with causation. Since 9/11 there have been no attacks here in Argentina either, and I would be a fool to think that that is because of the measures taken by the USian government, wouldn't I?
Well, yeah, but you haven't given me any proof that there isn't a correlation -- so what do we do now? I think there is, you think there isn't -- it's a matter of opinion.
I guess you are referring to my supposedly lost freedoms -- but I haven't lost any, so I don't see your point... All I know is that we have seen no terrorist attacks on American soil in over 4 years...
What monopoly?
I've seen trains and buses blown up.
Where? Certainly not on American soil. Terrorism is confined, perhaps barely, to overseas. This is largely due to the fact that the terrorists are all drawn to Iraq. Better to have the fighting there than here.
And which part of this war don't you see?
The president has much broader reaching powers during war.
In fact, wouldn't it be more news-worthy if the NSA wasn't engaged in this activity? Isn't that what the president swore an oath to do? To execute the office of the president?
Because the request is completely unreasonable -- provide your source. Yeah EU, we'll get right on that...
No, he's just got a bajillion more supporters thanks to our "backbone". Great job!
Who cares? Anyone who supports this nutjob now or then is just that -- a nutjob. And they always have been. The key difference is that now they are confined to overseas. Have you seen any more planes flying into buildings since 9/11?
The groupthink around here is nuts.
You can beat around the bush all you want, but everyone knows that Iraq supported terrorism in several forms. The country also had a program to develop WMDs -- maybe they weren't very good at it when we invaded, or maybe they shipped all the material over the border to Syria -- but they were doing it. Sat recon makes that obvious.
I didn't bring up either individual...
Like I care what my slashdot karma is. I'm not even sure I know what it is...
Let's stay civil now...
SH funded terrorists -- terrorists just like those that executed 9/11. Guess what -- he doesn't anymore.
I could care less if bin laden and Hussein were friends or enemies.
Mr. Hussein didn't play by the rules set after the first Gulf War. Therefore, he got a second Gulf War. Between the two, he aided terrorist organizations -- even funding suicide bombers. Given the chance (and the skill), he would have loved to execute his own little 9/11.
It seems you might invest some time investigating the facts. But you knew these facts didn't you? You've simply found a way to enjoy our protection while complaining about it. I suppose that's your choice.
MS *does* have European assets that could be seized
Try getting any corporations to invest in the EU-playground after that...
It's the same old socialist europe cry-baby game -- we want to be treated like adults (capitalism) but we cry when things don't go our way (socialism).
...Osama bin Laden hates us screwing around in the middle east?
Why should I give $0.02 what some freak east of here thinks? Who mentioned bin laden anyway?
And where's bin Laden now?
Who cares? He's probably eating toe jam in a cave someplace. He's certainly not crashing planes into buildings though thanks to our backbone.
get out of Afghanistan, get out of Iraq
Sure, because I like to see jets smashing into my buildings.
Grow a freaking backbone.
Authors must be a very unique kind of people in French society.
Not at all -- I understand that EU can impose a fine, but so can I, and MS is just as likely to pay mine as the EU's. MS certainly isn't going to open up their code to some wanna-be government -- as a stockholder I'd much rather them just throw the collection letters in the trash.
Better question -- why would MS even care what the EU fines them?