Because of course the big money is in being a scientist. All those CEOs, CFOs, CIOs, CTOs and institutional shareholders, why they're basically peasants! Poor dears, won't someone think of the Billionaire Oil Barons?
Well yes there were, mercantilism is somewhat distinct from capitalism. If you're talking about a mercantile economy, then so be it, but in reality even in Roman times, even before the empire, there were societies where ownership stakes could be purchased, and certainly by the Renaissance and Early Modern Period the first modern banks evolved, and with entities like the Dutch East India Company, you would the first truly modern stocks. Privately-held companies are essentially what you are talking about, and while it is true that such companies can and do flourish, it's hard to see how a large-scale industrialized economy could ever really work without some means of facilitating trade of ownership. It is immensely more difficult to gain an ownership stake in a privately-held company, starting with actually identifying them, and then all the legal requirements involved in buying and selling privately-held stakes, whereas a stock market makes transfer of ownership extremely easy.
And how exactly would you have a capitalist economy without markets that would allow you to buy an ownership stake in a company? Without a stock market, finding shares you can buy for investment, or finding buyers for your shares, would be insanely inefficient. I would say some sort of trading market is absolutely inevitable in any capitalist economy.
The problem being that "public interest" is so nebulous a term that it can be defined in almost any way you like. Some might argue that allowing people to assemble and form an organization that limits owners' liability does further the public good, by allowing money to flow more freely and giving those people a certain base level of protection from prosecution for actions that they may have taken no part in. And let's remember here that "limited liability" means just that, it is not unlimited, and really it fits within the larger legal scope that you can't go around prosecuting people for things which they have played no real and tangible part in. For instance, if I were a shareholder in a corporation that dumped raw sewage into a city's water supply, but I wasn't a member of the board or management, or hell, not even an employee, there would be no cause to charge me with any crime. My punishment is that my investment in that company is likely to be clobbered, and if the company's actions are egregious enough, it could face fines large enough to see it go insolvent, at which point I lose my entire investment.
I love it when trolls just invent claims that they can provide no evidence for. I'm assuming it's done because they know they have no real response, but attacking any jurisdiction moving towards renewables is necessary to keep investment in oil and gas up.
China certainly gives a fuck about itself, and it's moving as fast as it economy can manage towards more sustainable energy production and reducing pollution. I realize it is popular nowadays to blame China for all the woes of the world, particularly in Trumpmerica, but the reality is that the US's navel gazing is going to mean China begins to take the bull by the horns. In the greatest of ironies, it is China who is claiming it will promote free trade.
I think the notion of reductio ad absurdum is that you can't actually find any citations, or any means of falsifying an opposing argument, so you just make exaggerated claims as to where that argument would lead if it were true. It's used by people too lazy to actually counter an opposing argument.
Oh good grief. Does it really matter what forces cause language evolution? The media has been altering word usage and meaning since Gutenberg's press. If the word "robot" becomes a bit more expansive, what of it? In this case, I would argue the usage is metaphorical, so honestly I doubt the word's meaning is shifting as much as is being claimed, but even if it was, I think I've demonstrated my case. If language evolution didn't happen (whatever the cause), you would be able to understand Schleicher's Fable, but absolutely nothing I wrote.
Or, to put it more simply, quit being such a damned pedant.
Past couple of decades? The process started with at least Jefferson, and probably the President most critical to the Presidency grand scope was Lincoln, whose actions in office, and whose ultimate defeat of the Confederacy made it very clear that the Federal Government was pre-eminent. Then we can talk about FDR, Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan who all flexed federal muscle.
Give a little thought to all the coke dealers and pimps. Unless they build robots that love hookers and blow, it's going to seriously damage those industries in NYC.
Language evolves. If it didn't, we'd still be speaking Proto-Indo-European. Words change in meaning, or in scope, and have been doing so since the first members of genus Homo began talking.
And you think the employees alone are going to be able to raise enough capital to, say, fund the construction of a factory?
If you're not enjoying the benefits of the markets, it is because you're not an investor. The solution is to buy some shares, not bitch and moan and covet the investments of those that do.
If that is the goal, then it is sheer stupidity. Having the US government spiral into chaos domestically as it leaves a trail of ruin through foreign allies may disrupt the status quo, but it won't produce some sort of fantastic result.
As it is, it's pretty clear that this is going to be a stress test of the Constitution, because the courts, and likely a somewhat unwilling Congress, are now going to have to spend a lot of time minimizing the damage of the Trump administration. I wonder if the end result will in fact be a diminished Presidency.
The order itself may not have been incompetent. I think the order itself is fairly politically savvy. The problem here, and maybe it points out how while it's great to have Goebbels-like figures running your public relations, they probably make pretty shitty managers. The problem stems from execution, as in the EO was thrown out there with little interest in how it was to be carried out, leading to chaos. Even if you believe Obama was the most evil man in the history of humanity, at least he and his advisers and the Cabinet seemed to know how to run a government.
Read the "blame Obama" defense carefully. What Trump's supporters are really doing is admitting the EO was a disaster in execution, and now want to try to find a way to blame Obama for Trump's and Bannon's utter incompetence.
Indeed. One thing that is pretty clear is that Trump's supporters have an extraordinarily poor grasp of statistics, how they are generated and what they mean.
Manufacturing jobs aren't coming back, at least not for long. Even all those Mexican, Chinese and Indian manufacturing jobs you seem to fear so much will fade in the next few decades. The failure here is simple; US political leaders haven't sat down and told blue collar workers "Your jobs are being automated at a rapidly increasing pace, and it won't make much difference to you whether the factory is in Mexico or across the street."
And those people are going to get one of the most incompetent US administrations in history, which will likely materially damage the United States. In four years, unless Trump actually understands that being head of the executive branch is about more than people clapping when you sign Steve Bannon's orders, the whole thing is going to be a disaster. Well, at least Congress and the courts will get a good workout restraining this idiot.
The fact the intent of the list was different than Trump's has no bearing on this? I'm trying to sort out this logic. It's almost as if you're trying to assert that Obama is somehow responsible for President Trump's EO. As others have pointed out, these countries are not responsible for attacks on US soil. Saudi Arabia and Egypt, however, did prove 9-11 hijackers, so one wonders why actual countries that have produced actual terrorists that have actually attacked US citizens on US soil were not added. It's almost as if the EO was poorly thought-out, was meant more as a bit of security theater, but it was so badly written and coordination with the departments needed to enforce it so mismanaged that it turned into a complete shit show.
The real problem with the travel ban, to my mind, isn't that it happened (that was stupid enough), but if you are going to implement such policies, then implement them. What we're seeing here isn't just nasty government, what we're seeing is just plain incompetent government.
Slashdot Mirror
Because of course the big money is in being a scientist. All those CEOs, CFOs, CIOs, CTOs and institutional shareholders, why they're basically peasants! Poor dears, won't someone think of the Billionaire Oil Barons?
Well yes there were, mercantilism is somewhat distinct from capitalism. If you're talking about a mercantile economy, then so be it, but in reality even in Roman times, even before the empire, there were societies where ownership stakes could be purchased, and certainly by the Renaissance and Early Modern Period the first modern banks evolved, and with entities like the Dutch East India Company, you would the first truly modern stocks. Privately-held companies are essentially what you are talking about, and while it is true that such companies can and do flourish, it's hard to see how a large-scale industrialized economy could ever really work without some means of facilitating trade of ownership. It is immensely more difficult to gain an ownership stake in a privately-held company, starting with actually identifying them, and then all the legal requirements involved in buying and selling privately-held stakes, whereas a stock market makes transfer of ownership extremely easy.
And how exactly would you have a capitalist economy without markets that would allow you to buy an ownership stake in a company? Without a stock market, finding shares you can buy for investment, or finding buyers for your shares, would be insanely inefficient. I would say some sort of trading market is absolutely inevitable in any capitalist economy.
The problem being that "public interest" is so nebulous a term that it can be defined in almost any way you like. Some might argue that allowing people to assemble and form an organization that limits owners' liability does further the public good, by allowing money to flow more freely and giving those people a certain base level of protection from prosecution for actions that they may have taken no part in. And let's remember here that "limited liability" means just that, it is not unlimited, and really it fits within the larger legal scope that you can't go around prosecuting people for things which they have played no real and tangible part in. For instance, if I were a shareholder in a corporation that dumped raw sewage into a city's water supply, but I wasn't a member of the board or management, or hell, not even an employee, there would be no cause to charge me with any crime. My punishment is that my investment in that company is likely to be clobbered, and if the company's actions are egregious enough, it could face fines large enough to see it go insolvent, at which point I lose my entire investment.
Well, gawly, Andy, I guess you just have to use some sort of a storage system, like a solar-power pump water dam.
I love it when trolls just invent claims that they can provide no evidence for. I'm assuming it's done because they know they have no real response, but attacking any jurisdiction moving towards renewables is necessary to keep investment in oil and gas up.
China certainly gives a fuck about itself, and it's moving as fast as it economy can manage towards more sustainable energy production and reducing pollution. I realize it is popular nowadays to blame China for all the woes of the world, particularly in Trumpmerica, but the reality is that the US's navel gazing is going to mean China begins to take the bull by the horns. In the greatest of ironies, it is China who is claiming it will promote free trade.
Well your three word response certainly was a compelling rebuttal.
I think the notion of reductio ad absurdum is that you can't actually find any citations, or any means of falsifying an opposing argument, so you just make exaggerated claims as to where that argument would lead if it were true. It's used by people too lazy to actually counter an opposing argument.
Oh good grief. Does it really matter what forces cause language evolution? The media has been altering word usage and meaning since Gutenberg's press. If the word "robot" becomes a bit more expansive, what of it? In this case, I would argue the usage is metaphorical, so honestly I doubt the word's meaning is shifting as much as is being claimed, but even if it was, I think I've demonstrated my case. If language evolution didn't happen (whatever the cause), you would be able to understand Schleicher's Fable, but absolutely nothing I wrote.
Or, to put it more simply, quit being such a damned pedant.
Past couple of decades? The process started with at least Jefferson, and probably the President most critical to the Presidency grand scope was Lincoln, whose actions in office, and whose ultimate defeat of the Confederacy made it very clear that the Federal Government was pre-eminent. Then we can talk about FDR, Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan who all flexed federal muscle.
Give a little thought to all the coke dealers and pimps. Unless they build robots that love hookers and blow, it's going to seriously damage those industries in NYC.
Language evolves. If it didn't, we'd still be speaking Proto-Indo-European. Words change in meaning, or in scope, and have been doing so since the first members of genus Homo began talking.
And you think the employees alone are going to be able to raise enough capital to, say, fund the construction of a factory?
If you're not enjoying the benefits of the markets, it is because you're not an investor. The solution is to buy some shares, not bitch and moan and covet the investments of those that do.
But the intent of Obama's list was different, so it isn't really hypocrisy in this case.
And what field is that precisely?
If that is the goal, then it is sheer stupidity. Having the US government spiral into chaos domestically as it leaves a trail of ruin through foreign allies may disrupt the status quo, but it won't produce some sort of fantastic result.
As it is, it's pretty clear that this is going to be a stress test of the Constitution, because the courts, and likely a somewhat unwilling Congress, are now going to have to spend a lot of time minimizing the damage of the Trump administration. I wonder if the end result will in fact be a diminished Presidency.
The order itself may not have been incompetent. I think the order itself is fairly politically savvy. The problem here, and maybe it points out how while it's great to have Goebbels-like figures running your public relations, they probably make pretty shitty managers. The problem stems from execution, as in the EO was thrown out there with little interest in how it was to be carried out, leading to chaos. Even if you believe Obama was the most evil man in the history of humanity, at least he and his advisers and the Cabinet seemed to know how to run a government.
Read the "blame Obama" defense carefully. What Trump's supporters are really doing is admitting the EO was a disaster in execution, and now want to try to find a way to blame Obama for Trump's and Bannon's utter incompetence.
Don't hold back. Let the inner Nazi in you flow freely.
Indeed. One thing that is pretty clear is that Trump's supporters have an extraordinarily poor grasp of statistics, how they are generated and what they mean.
Manufacturing jobs aren't coming back, at least not for long. Even all those Mexican, Chinese and Indian manufacturing jobs you seem to fear so much will fade in the next few decades. The failure here is simple; US political leaders haven't sat down and told blue collar workers "Your jobs are being automated at a rapidly increasing pace, and it won't make much difference to you whether the factory is in Mexico or across the street."
If that's the goal, why haven't Saudi Arabian, United Arab Emirates and Egyptian citizens been banned from the US?
And those people are going to get one of the most incompetent US administrations in history, which will likely materially damage the United States. In four years, unless Trump actually understands that being head of the executive branch is about more than people clapping when you sign Steve Bannon's orders, the whole thing is going to be a disaster. Well, at least Congress and the courts will get a good workout restraining this idiot.
The fact the intent of the list was different than Trump's has no bearing on this? I'm trying to sort out this logic. It's almost as if you're trying to assert that Obama is somehow responsible for President Trump's EO. As others have pointed out, these countries are not responsible for attacks on US soil. Saudi Arabia and Egypt, however, did prove 9-11 hijackers, so one wonders why actual countries that have produced actual terrorists that have actually attacked US citizens on US soil were not added. It's almost as if the EO was poorly thought-out, was meant more as a bit of security theater, but it was so badly written and coordination with the departments needed to enforce it so mismanaged that it turned into a complete shit show.
The real problem with the travel ban, to my mind, isn't that it happened (that was stupid enough), but if you are going to implement such policies, then implement them. What we're seeing here isn't just nasty government, what we're seeing is just plain incompetent government.