Except for those people who don't want the government running the pipe through which they talk to family, entertain, telecommute, handle their finances, etc.
No. The federal government gets to own and run something that vital when they show they can maintain things like interstate highway bridges or other less complicated and less sensitive things well and on budget. The federal government can't even fix completely broken, highly scrutinized VA hospital administrative staff, let alone become a giant new ISP.
Siri is being advertised using Sesame Street's cookie monster (check out TFA). That's absolutely targeted at children.
Nah. The ad (which is aired during adult-oriented, disposable-income prime time) is aimed at busy parents, and is intentionally ironic, playing off of that familiar character's notable impatience.
Really? You'd rather that the person who wants choice is killed or put in jail, because you can't wrap your head around the concept of simply turning off a thing you don't want your kids using?
How is this not simply the parents' choice? Kids aren't buying Echo units and installing/using them. It's parents. If they make the conscious decision to introduce such a device into their homes, and decide to use them, that's all there is to it. They have chosen to be a household that uses this device and its associated services. If they don't like the implications of that, they can simply choose not to put the device in a space where kids will interact with it, or choose not to use it at all.
People who are trying to make it more complicated than that are just looking for ways to get government more involved in what goes on inside the home.
Who's anti-government? I'm talking about your desire to see things banned. It's that instinct - "I don't like this. Ban it! Ban it! Ban it!" - that we're talking about. Too often, people who think like that like to extend that same controlling urge to government activity at every level. They see the exercise of authority over other people's actions to be the first and best choice, rather than simply speaking with their wallet and encouraging others to do the same. This isn't about government, it's about your default solution for things you don't like.
Perhaps crowdfunding sites should ban corps that exceed a certain market cap, say $100 million, from participating. Crowdfunding should be limited to small companies trying to bootstrap.
Yes, this. Whenever you are annoyed with something or you think it is unseemly somehow, it should definitely be banned. Definitely use the power of law to smack down people using marketing techniques that you think should only be used by companies that are one person smaller, or one dollar poorer in revenue, than the company you don't like. Ban! Ban ban ban. Where is our powerful Bannocrat leader when we need her? Save us from things we don't like the sound of, dear leader!
Or, you know, you could just ignore this sort of thing, and if you have to waste your breath on it, do so by pointing out to others why a given crowd funding play doesn't suit your philosophy and try to talk people out of giving them money. I know, that's work. Definitely better to make them criminals if they try it, right? Yeah.
Oh, right, because Sanders wouldn't DREAM of using the executive branch to enforce his own policy vision - he'll just let congress do as they will. Yup. Other than, of course, all of the crap he's promising that congress will never do, which means he's either lying, or planning on acting just like Obama in that regard.
But I'd think listing on an exchange in a country is a way for a corporation to declare their national citizenship.
Why would you think that? Do you think that a Japanese company is really a US company just because you, in the US, can buy some shares in it that Japanese company?
But my main issue is with the deplorable situation that US citizens are put in, and their banks too! No other country does this, except North Korea.
Which situation is that, the US citizens share with North Korean citizens? That just like in NK, US citizens can be sent to starve to death in labor gulags if they express political dissent? WTF are you talking about?
And yet US corporations can pretty much ignore this?
Why would you call a company incorporated in Ireland a "US corporation?" That's like saying a German citizen is a US citizen. Brands that do business all around the world and are comprised of companies chartered and operated out of multiple countries aren't anything like US citizens. Regardless, if you think that being a publicly traded company means you're not dealing with incomprehensibly onerous reporting requirements and scrutiny, then you need to spend a little time working with such a company and watching what they go through. The real tax they pay is the gigantic (non-productive) cost of compliance in that regard. Untold billions every year, chasing itself around in circles, with only lawyers and CPAs benefiting (well, and the car dealers and realtors that have those people as customers).
Let me guess: you're also moving to Canada if the wrong person gets elected in November. Really, you swear you'll do it. That's how totally serial you are.
OK then. Excellent. We'll just stick with things like all of the baby deaths. And the lack of antibiotics, refrigeration, clean water to drink, that sort of thing. All provided as-is now by nature, just not before! Nature sure is funny.
Who says they're poor and put-upon? I'm addressing someone else's complaint that these very large, global companies are not-at-all-mysteriously parking their cash where it's less confiscated than it is elsewhere. Places with very high taxes chase money away. This surprises you? Why?
Human beings rely entirely on the natural order of the Earth to survive.
Not true. If that were true, the population would be living in forests, losing almost all of its babies at birth, and dying at 30 like they used to... and there'd be about 6 billion fewer of us.
That's not how it works. The economy ground to a halt because money was too easy to get and people borrowed way more than they could afford (mostly on houses), which drove up a bubble, cramped credit, and combined with other factors (like huge international competition for things that the US never used to have to compete for) to impact the entire economy. The companies you're complaining about are doing exactly what most households are now doing: saving money so they don't get burned again by relying on debt. Want those companies to park money in US banks instead of overseas? Reduce the egregious tax rate.
Really? You're comparing polluting the air with not providing a particular type of entertainment for paying customers who are choosing to use a service? Are you even listening to yourself?
No, Netflix has indeed invested a lot of its money (which it collects from the customer who pay money as they choose to use their service) to both license and, more close to hand, have created for them, some content you can't get elsewhere unless you paid to go to a theater, don't mind watching it with commercials, or are OK with simply waiting a little while because your life is more important than whether or not you can keep up with some vampire series based on the cost of a couple of cups of overpriced Parisian coffee. Don't like the fact that you were too lazy or too busy to watch some given show at the time it was aired for you for free to watch and/or record on your DVR to watch whenever you felt like it? Yup, one business out of many struck a deal with the creators of that show to give you another shot at it for a few pennies. I know you feel entitled to tell the people who made the show when and how you want to watch it, since they mean nothing and you are The Most Ultimate Precious Snowflake King and should be able to tell other people how to make arrangements with each other to suit your particular tastes, and because all of your pocket change is tied up every month buying some other kind of entertainment. Boo hoo. I bet you're also horrified that nobody is giving you lunch for free today, since you missed out on that free lunch at work yesterday.
So all of the OTHER companies that also stream media that people are willing to pay for, they're... stealing it? Or are they also offering the people who make that entertainment competitive deals, and the people who make it are having their choice of outlets? Right. The problem is that nobody in France feels like raising the capital to operate a company that can negotiate licenses the way that many other companies have managed to do just fine. And why should they? The French are used to just using government compulsion and taxation on such things, and and they just can't believe that other people don't want to play their game. Shocking! Sacre bleu!
... or they could do a little work and find thousands and thousands of European classics?
Why should that be the responsibility of Netflix, or a cost burden carried by its customers? What's stopping an entrepreneur (it's even a French word!) in France from providing such a service for all of those French people just dying to pay to see those works? I get it, though. France makes it so miserable to try to start and run a business in that country that they'll never see anyone bother. So, let's just make Netflix an organ of the State and force them to do it! Socialists.
No, we did not send arms to the Taliban to use in killing western aid workers or to shoot school teachers in the head.
No, we did not send arms to ISIS.
Are you unable to grasp the concept of "getting into the wrong hands?" The analogy isn't meant to be exact, it's meant for normal, intelligent human beings to grapple with the concept of culpability for someone else's actions. None of those arms pick themselves up and kill the wrong people. People do that. Let me guess, you're in the sue-Remington-because-a-criminal-used-a-gun-to-murder-someone camp, right?
So if I break into your house and steal a kitchen knife which I then use to kill somebody, should you feel guilty because someone else says you provided me with the weapon? No? I see.
April: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity." (2002 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 142)
2002
May: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in the President's 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)
2003
February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market.
September: Then-Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.
September: Then-House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Barney Frank (D-MA) strongly disagrees with the Administration's assessment, saying "these two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." (Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," The New York Times, 9/11/03)
October: Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE) refuses to acknowledge any necessity for GSE reforms, saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." (Sen. Carper, Hearing of Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 10/16/03)
November: Then-Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk." To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)
2004
February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital and calls for creation of a new, world-class regulator: "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator." (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)
February: Then-CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order," Financial Times, 2/24/04)
April: Rep. Frank ignores the warnings, accusing the Administration of creating an "artificial issue." At a speech to the Mortgage Bankers Association conference, Rep. Frank said "people tend to pay their mortgages. I don't think we are in any remote danger here. This focus on receivership, I think, is intended to create fears that aren't there." ("Frank: GSE Failure A Phony Issue," American Banker, 4/21/04)
June: Then-Treasury Deputy Secretary Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and calls for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs
Slashdot Mirror
Everybody wins.
Except for those people who don't want the government running the pipe through which they talk to family, entertain, telecommute, handle their finances, etc.
No. The federal government gets to own and run something that vital when they show they can maintain things like interstate highway bridges or other less complicated and less sensitive things well and on budget. The federal government can't even fix completely broken, highly scrutinized VA hospital administrative staff, let alone become a giant new ISP.
Siri is being advertised using Sesame Street's cookie monster (check out TFA). That's absolutely targeted at children.
Nah. The ad (which is aired during adult-oriented, disposable-income prime time) is aimed at busy parents, and is intentionally ironic, playing off of that familiar character's notable impatience.
Really? You'd rather that the person who wants choice is killed or put in jail, because you can't wrap your head around the concept of simply turning off a thing you don't want your kids using?
How is this not simply the parents' choice? Kids aren't buying Echo units and installing/using them. It's parents. If they make the conscious decision to introduce such a device into their homes, and decide to use them, that's all there is to it. They have chosen to be a household that uses this device and its associated services. If they don't like the implications of that, they can simply choose not to put the device in a space where kids will interact with it, or choose not to use it at all.
People who are trying to make it more complicated than that are just looking for ways to get government more involved in what goes on inside the home.
Who's anti-government? I'm talking about your desire to see things banned. It's that instinct - "I don't like this. Ban it! Ban it! Ban it!" - that we're talking about. Too often, people who think like that like to extend that same controlling urge to government activity at every level. They see the exercise of authority over other people's actions to be the first and best choice, rather than simply speaking with their wallet and encouraging others to do the same. This isn't about government, it's about your default solution for things you don't like.
Perhaps crowdfunding sites should ban corps that exceed a certain market cap, say $100 million, from participating. Crowdfunding should be limited to small companies trying to bootstrap.
Yes, this. Whenever you are annoyed with something or you think it is unseemly somehow, it should definitely be banned. Definitely use the power of law to smack down people using marketing techniques that you think should only be used by companies that are one person smaller, or one dollar poorer in revenue, than the company you don't like. Ban! Ban ban ban. Where is our powerful Bannocrat leader when we need her? Save us from things we don't like the sound of, dear leader!
Or, you know, you could just ignore this sort of thing, and if you have to waste your breath on it, do so by pointing out to others why a given crowd funding play doesn't suit your philosophy and try to talk people out of giving them money. I know, that's work. Definitely better to make them criminals if they try it, right? Yeah.
Oh, right, because Sanders wouldn't DREAM of using the executive branch to enforce his own policy vision - he'll just let congress do as they will. Yup. Other than, of course, all of the crap he's promising that congress will never do, which means he's either lying, or planning on acting just like Obama in that regard.
But I'd think listing on an exchange in a country is a way for a corporation to declare their national citizenship.
Why would you think that? Do you think that a Japanese company is really a US company just because you, in the US, can buy some shares in it that Japanese company?
But my main issue is with the deplorable situation that US citizens are put in, and their banks too! No other country does this, except North Korea.
Which situation is that, the US citizens share with North Korean citizens? That just like in NK, US citizens can be sent to starve to death in labor gulags if they express political dissent? WTF are you talking about?
And yet US corporations can pretty much ignore this?
Why would you call a company incorporated in Ireland a "US corporation?" That's like saying a German citizen is a US citizen. Brands that do business all around the world and are comprised of companies chartered and operated out of multiple countries aren't anything like US citizens. Regardless, if you think that being a publicly traded company means you're not dealing with incomprehensibly onerous reporting requirements and scrutiny, then you need to spend a little time working with such a company and watching what they go through. The real tax they pay is the gigantic (non-productive) cost of compliance in that regard. Untold billions every year, chasing itself around in circles, with only lawyers and CPAs benefiting (well, and the car dealers and realtors that have those people as customers).
Let me guess: you're also moving to Canada if the wrong person gets elected in November. Really, you swear you'll do it. That's how totally serial you are.
OK then. Excellent. We'll just stick with things like all of the baby deaths. And the lack of antibiotics, refrigeration, clean water to drink, that sort of thing. All provided as-is now by nature, just not before! Nature sure is funny.
Who says they're poor and put-upon? I'm addressing someone else's complaint that these very large, global companies are not-at-all-mysteriously parking their cash where it's less confiscated than it is elsewhere. Places with very high taxes chase money away. This surprises you? Why?
Human beings rely entirely on the natural order of the Earth to survive.
Not true. If that were true, the population would be living in forests, losing almost all of its babies at birth, and dying at 30 like they used to... and there'd be about 6 billion fewer of us.
That's not how it works. The economy ground to a halt because money was too easy to get and people borrowed way more than they could afford (mostly on houses), which drove up a bubble, cramped credit, and combined with other factors (like huge international competition for things that the US never used to have to compete for) to impact the entire economy. The companies you're complaining about are doing exactly what most households are now doing: saving money so they don't get burned again by relying on debt. Want those companies to park money in US banks instead of overseas? Reduce the egregious tax rate.
how about an example of his "sophisticated political views"?
His views are so sophisticated that if you have to ask about them, you'll never understand them. Because, sophistication.
Really? You're comparing polluting the air with not providing a particular type of entertainment for paying customers who are choosing to use a service? Are you even listening to yourself?
No, Netflix has indeed invested a lot of its money (which it collects from the customer who pay money as they choose to use their service) to both license and, more close to hand, have created for them, some content you can't get elsewhere unless you paid to go to a theater, don't mind watching it with commercials, or are OK with simply waiting a little while because your life is more important than whether or not you can keep up with some vampire series based on the cost of a couple of cups of overpriced Parisian coffee. Don't like the fact that you were too lazy or too busy to watch some given show at the time it was aired for you for free to watch and/or record on your DVR to watch whenever you felt like it? Yup, one business out of many struck a deal with the creators of that show to give you another shot at it for a few pennies. I know you feel entitled to tell the people who made the show when and how you want to watch it, since they mean nothing and you are The Most Ultimate Precious Snowflake King and should be able to tell other people how to make arrangements with each other to suit your particular tastes, and because all of your pocket change is tied up every month buying some other kind of entertainment. Boo hoo. I bet you're also horrified that nobody is giving you lunch for free today, since you missed out on that free lunch at work yesterday.
Fascinating. I can watch the same movies on my choice of half a dozen different legitimate outlets. You're essentially just making stuff up.
So all of the OTHER companies that also stream media that people are willing to pay for, they're ... stealing it? Or are they also offering the people who make that entertainment competitive deals, and the people who make it are having their choice of outlets? Right. The problem is that nobody in France feels like raising the capital to operate a company that can negotiate licenses the way that many other companies have managed to do just fine. And why should they? The French are used to just using government compulsion and taxation on such things, and and they just can't believe that other people don't want to play their game. Shocking! Sacre bleu!
... or they could do a little work and find thousands and thousands of European classics?
Why should that be the responsibility of Netflix, or a cost burden carried by its customers? What's stopping an entrepreneur (it's even a French word!) in France from providing such a service for all of those French people just dying to pay to see those works? I get it, though. France makes it so miserable to try to start and run a business in that country that they'll never see anyone bother. So, let's just make Netflix an organ of the State and force them to do it! Socialists.
Same for netflix, if doesn't want to respect the markets rules can go elsewhere.
It's not a market when you make the merchant into a slave.
No, we did not send arms to the Taliban to use in killing western aid workers or to shoot school teachers in the head.
No, we did not send arms to ISIS.
Are you unable to grasp the concept of "getting into the wrong hands?" The analogy isn't meant to be exact, it's meant for normal, intelligent human beings to grapple with the concept of culpability for someone else's actions. None of those arms pick themselves up and kill the wrong people. People do that. Let me guess, you're in the sue-Remington-because-a-criminal-used-a-gun-to-murder-someone camp, right?
Yes. The z-wave/vera platform has been working very well for me. I'm enjoying all the third party tinkertoys.
So if I break into your house and steal a kitchen knife which I then use to kill somebody, should you feel guilty because someone else says you provided me with the weapon? No? I see.
2001
April: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity." (2002 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 142)
2002
May: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in the President's 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)
2003
February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market.
September: Then-Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.
September: Then-House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Barney Frank (D-MA) strongly disagrees with the Administration's assessment, saying "these two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." (Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," The New York Times, 9/11/03)
October: Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE) refuses to acknowledge any necessity for GSE reforms, saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." (Sen. Carper, Hearing of Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 10/16/03)
November: Then-Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk." To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)
2004
February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital and calls for creation of a new, world-class regulator: "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator." (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)
February: Then-CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order," Financial Times, 2/24/04)
April: Rep. Frank ignores the warnings, accusing the Administration of creating an "artificial issue." At a speech to the Mortgage Bankers Association conference, Rep. Frank said "people tend to pay their mortgages. I don't think we are in any remote danger here. This focus on receivership, I think, is intended to create fears that aren't there." ("Frank: GSE Failure A Phony Issue," American Banker, 4/21/04)
June: Then-Treasury Deputy Secretary Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and calls for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs