Along with movie & music industries. The heavy software giants like Microsoft, Adobe, Activision, Oracle, etc. Then there is the big patent holders like GE, IBM, Intel, Dell, HP, Boeing, Lockheed, Ford, Montesano, etc. Oh, I forgot the tradesecret people like Coke, Pepsi, DuPont, McDonalds, WD-40, trading algorithms, etc.
Those were just off the top of my head. And I probably just named the set of companies that impact the employment of a good 1/3 of the US.
-There are more stocks paying dividends than not. -Dividends not paid roll into the stock price and similarly a paid dividend cuts against it. -There are tax benefits to both, but in general they lean toward long term holdings of stock gains. Meaning you get to keep more of that gain. -The majority of the market and the majority of the stocks are not a "greater fool" game.
If you want to know why companies appear to be thinking short term, look at the incentive structure for their executives. Additionally a company that thinks long term against shortterm thinking competition... usually falls pretty far behind in the shortest term. The competition might not be there in the long term but the company will be long gone before then.
Most of the really good programmers can learn a new language on the plane to their new gig.
Not that extreme, but my assumptions are the same. I assume that a good programmer can pick up a language over the weekend and after two months of daily use, can become an expert at it.
But I find many candidates in the very old & very young buckets that appear to want to remain experts in their language of choice. The older group, I understand, they are basically retiring in 5+ years and just want the easy slide into it. Money isn't that important anymore and, with that out, there is plenty of opportunities in their niche.
Even HR departments writing job applicant forms will demand years of experience for specific language. You can't tell them "who has programmed in a mainstream language over the last 5 years." That's too vague. But I can review the resumes to find good contenders... even if they will take time to catch up to a team. I want a "programmer" not a hammer swinger!
I don't know if this was different before my time or it's just my localized perception, but it feels like the Programming field has become more like the doctors' field. "I am a neuro surgeon, anesthesiologist, or general physician; so I don't do Y."
But programming is (at least to me) nothing like that!
OMG, Target/ToyRUs/Sears, it just FEELS like you are shopping in the 1980s. Their system are so slow!!! And sometimes the reader has crashed so it asks you to fall back to swiping.
Walmart and CostCo used to be the same but are much faster these days. Even Kroger has upgraded their systems so you don't need to wait till the end of your checkout to authorize payment.
In the first two years it was horrible. You complete your checkout, wait, OK total, insert, swipe if they don't support it, wait, wait, pull, sign, wait, receipt... I don't know how any idiot thought that would be acceptable from a consumer view point.
Sure but you will have multiple machines for one human cashier. If someone like this slows down that terminal, there are others to choose from, so the overall line isn't impacted.
The 4-8 machines + 1 human pump out far more shoppers than the 2 human express line at my local grocery stores. It's gotten to the point that people would rather join the 10 person self queue than the 2 person express queue.
The numbers are extremely in favor of cashless and self checkouts. Also, the stores can hire "clueless millennials" for cheap & high turnover rather than expert mathwizes.
lastly isn't it the right of a human being to be rewarded for their work with something of intrinsic value and keep it under their bed if they chose so?
Others have addressed your other points so I will focus on this one. The answer is No. Not to the intent of your question but due to the answers it would give to secondary questions which would be wrong
Every human should have the right to ask something in return for their time & effort. They also have the right to secure it how they see fit. However they do not have the right to have that "something" keep its value over time nor have others recognize that same value.
One has the right to ask for 50 jellybeans for 1 hour of labor. If accepted, they should get their 50 jellybeans, and be able to keep them secure. However they have no right to assume that others will labor for 1 hr for those same 50 jellybeans.
Even currency, people have no right to its original value. However, the social recognition of it and it's semi-stability is a collective bargain. A bargain that is more stable and better served with a widget whose production value & availability are negiligable completed to its transactional utility.
BS. The Greek government had & has all the control and ability to run their own economy and they drove it into the ground. Lavishly spending huge amounts of federal monies on Public worker salaries, pensions, and benefits. When your people aspire for a cush government job rather than a private sector one, you aren't in a sustainable situation. All the German banks did was enable them with additional capital and loans that no one else in their right mind would give. Similar to a drug dealer dealing with an addict. The addict has plenty of options to get out of their poor choices but chooses not to employ any of them.
Then when the debt became so big and the Greeks' tourism industry didn't performance enough to pay the interest, the banks backed off. When they saw the Greeks had no way to pay and they would lose billions, they ran to the German government and begged for assistance. Privatize profits, socialize debt. The German government, being financially conservative, balked at the finance irresponsibility of the Greek government. They basically said if you want a recovery program where you slowly ween off the drugs, you will meet the following financial mile stones. The Greeks just wanted more drugs to solve the problem on their own; but they had no ability to solve else they would never end up in the situation. People get pissed that the Germans would dare make demands, but it was their money, and it was the Greek government that gave that control over.
The alternative option was cold turkey and leave the Euro. Well within the right of the Greek government. I wish the Greeks would have done this! It would have taught the German, French, and other EU banks to be more responsible in who they give money to. If a few failed, all the better, a good wake up call to everyone in the EU, and a good example to the US markets: that there is no such thing as "Too big to fail." It would have taught the Greek political parties a wonderful lesson in being budgetary responsible. It would have taught the Greek people to elect responsible politicians with actual plans for their country; rather than those that throw public money & promises at them for votes.
The Zika virus wasn't a problem until genetically-altered mosquitoes were released in Brazil.
Huh what? Citation please! The Zika problem is being SOLVED by genetically altered mosquitoes that are eradicating the specific species that carries the virus. This method has been far more effective at the destruction of specific targeted mosquito species than any method in the history of mankind (maybe not as much as a nuke).
The primary reason it became an epidemic in South America is because it is very new there. It's been around for centuries in Asia but cropped up in Brazil less than 5 years ago! It was brand new to the locals' immune system and thus spread like wild fire.
I don't know if you posted in jest or accidentally but if serious, it is a major disservice to BOTH sides of the debate. This example is literally the perfect, responsible type of solutions that we HOPE to achieve with genetic modification.
Making the dandelion mature in two weeks rather than it's current 1-2 months will be enough to cause massive damage to American lawns. The economic cost would be noticed. Make it immune to common herbicides and it would be worse than California's droughts across the US.
The Euro was a massive boon to the Greeks! Without it, they would have never had a real chance to get out of their economic downward spiral. The idea that they would switch to their own currency scared so many of their people that they wanted to draw their bank accounts and protect them under the Euro. This was such a big concern that Greece had to initiate banking controls!
Had the Greeks left the Euro, they would still be in total economic dumps. They would have effectively defaulted on their debts (mostly hitting German banks) and lost the EU market. They would have destroyed their citizens' savings and pensions. To this day they would have little to no foreign investment. They would have been the slums of the EU. But a very cheap vacation spot for sure!
Because of the Euro, businesses had the confidence of the EU block rather than the financial discipline of a teenager. Granted they got so much debt in the first place because they were part of the EU and that confidence. But this doesn't excuse Greece's financial irresponsibility in regards to their spending.
In summary, without the Euro, Greece would have had a hard, painful, and long lasting bankruptcy. Because of it, they got a painful but hopefully effective detox and rehab program.
On #1: The POTUS administration yes. But civility says that POTUS shouldn't personally target and attack individual entities. Its one thing if Amazon was in the regulatory cross hairs or had been found guilt of something. But its plain stupid to attack prior to actual legal charges; because it weakens your regulatory bodies' arguments in courts. Additionally, if you don't push legal fronts or they fail, you open up the administration for counter suits. Almost every politician and aid at the hill know this basic stuff... except for one...
On #2: What city doesn't complain that a major business doesn't pay enough taxes?
On #3: I don't think the GP was talking about stock price specifically. Just that Trump's continued assault as POTUS on Amazon will be damaging and this will have an impact on hiring and retention.
Funny to link to the Washington Post. Summary: Trump is highest at 37% change over compared to the last 5 presidents. Reagan was next at 17%. And he lost 6 out of 12 of his top level positions; compared to Obama 1 and Bush 0.
He doesn't have a "little" turn over just like everyone else, he DOUBLED the 2nd up! I doubt we will see this level of incompetence in our lifetime again.
Other than the precedence reinforcement (good thing), I don't see much news here. The US and UK would have done the same as the other if the situation was reversed. The guy didn't kill any one. And even if he had, the conclusion would have been the same both ways if he faced execution.
The US has extracted more resources from China in the last 20 years for IOUs than it has in the last 200. After WWII we got little to nothing but IOUs from the EU block. Granted helping them rebuild has given us and the world one of our strongest and longest trading blocks.
Mexico gives us more illegal drugs than another country. A few decades before NAFTA, we didn't treat them much different than other poor countries. We would fund, equip, and prop up political figures that leaned American to fight drug cartels. Once funding dried up, the government would fall, drugs come back to that area, and we would repeat. That's working out like shit in other countries.
Through the benefits of trade, their economy and government have gotten much stronger. They are strong enough and self incentivized to fight the cartels on their own and cooperate better with us. Through trade, we have common goals of stability, peace, and growth.
For the type of "political" power you are talking about, there is no better example than the USSR and the Cold War. We all know how that ended up.
I am not going to address your first paragraph because it's pointless.
A strong China is good for the world over, let alone the "Western world". They are now our 3rd largest customer. And thanks to NAFTA, Canada and Mexico are both our 1st and 2nd largest customers. 50 years ago, people would have laughed if told that China would beat the UK in purchasing US goods, let alone by a massive margin. China is now strong enough to help Africa more than the US & EU could and are shouldering that burden with us.
A stable and strong Canada, EU, and Mexico have been a boon for the US! Mx was worse than China for a long time. The trade agreements brought them up out of poverty and eventually made them fine partners.
We produce and export more because of China purchasing our stuff. They been the single largest driver of our economic growth over the last decade. You may think it is too low but it would have been worse without China! Raising tariffs on China, steel, and aluminum just benefits those small sectors of the market by taxing the broader and larger sectors that have built on top of them.
This is why trade agreements even lower barriers at all over time. The economies become dependent on the trade and build upon them with the freed up capital and resources. The larger parts of the economy can then focus on the next level of inefficiencies and remove barriers there to build & integrate further. Take chicken feet for example. You couldn't sell to China 20 years ago when most of their population was still farming and needed that industry protected else they would have nothing to live by. Now that they are working in cities and factories, the chicken feet industry can have lower tariffs because that sector isn't as important in the overall livelihood. Such was the case with Wine & Beer tariffs in the EU. As was the case with corn to Mexico. Eventually the US will do it with sugar imports.
This is how we got to where we are with UK, Germany, EU, Mexico, Canada, and even China. Even within the EU, they haven't had this many decades of stability and safety ever. Given time, China and other countries will lower their tariffs over time. But you can't force it. They will naturally do it when it's mutually beneficial like all others have done in the past.
Now look at the other side. Countries that others don't play with and are isolationists. Russia, Venezuela, North Korea, Somalia, etc. All have to race across the globe to find kindred spirits and whine to get any attention.
It makes no sense. We lost jobs and shutdown factories over the decades but our overall manufacturing is still way up year over year. Why should we pay more to make the same stuff? You raise prices, demand goes down... which means you need less production capacity. Which results in less jobs and factories AND decline in manufacturing.
I prefer to buy what works for me. That maybe "local" or a "cheap" gizmo. I prefer not to mix emotions, patriotic or otherwise, with how I spend my finances. I prefer Japanese cars, European chocolate, Brazilian nuts, Central & South American bananas, Chinese iPhones & HP laptops, Indian leather, Mexican watermelons, and Canadian maple syrup to name a few.
On the flip side, I do focus on local when it comes to charity. Since that is an emotional expenditure.
China is our 3rd biggest customer after Canada and Mexico. We are working on pissing off all three. No body wins in trade wars; proven multiple times throughout history. Even partial open markets are better than closed markets.
So, what exactly are you saying (assuming that Trump's campaign didn't use the data)? That we shouldn't be outraged at Facebook or we shouldn't regulate this or this type of research and profiling be allowed without societal checks & bounds or without user consent?
All totally true, except most don't want to retire here. A neat thing about US investment compared to other countries is that it can be done with very little local presence. You don't need to physically come here every month or three to protect your investment from others. Also, pretty much every country graciously accepts the US dollar and many times won't even charge you much in taxes or exchange fees.
So you can live where ever you want and pull just enough low tax/fee income for your monthly expenses from your safe US investments.
I think the GP is referring to the MS & IBM membership in the BSA. Which they still are. The BSA, where you are guilty until you expend the resources to prove without a doubt, your innocence. Kind of the opposite of this where someone already finds you guilty and now you want to negotiate how to come into compliance and waive the punishment.
Slashdot Mirror
Along with movie & music industries. The heavy software giants like Microsoft, Adobe, Activision, Oracle, etc. Then there is the big patent holders like GE, IBM, Intel, Dell, HP, Boeing, Lockheed, Ford, Montesano, etc. Oh, I forgot the tradesecret people like Coke, Pepsi, DuPont, McDonalds, WD-40, trading algorithms, etc.
Those were just off the top of my head. And I probably just named the set of companies that impact the employment of a good 1/3 of the US.
None of that is true.
-There are more stocks paying dividends than not.
-Dividends not paid roll into the stock price and similarly a paid dividend cuts against it.
-There are tax benefits to both, but in general they lean toward long term holdings of stock gains. Meaning you get to keep more of that gain.
-The majority of the market and the majority of the stocks are not a "greater fool" game.
If you want to know why companies appear to be thinking short term, look at the incentive structure for their executives. Additionally a company that thinks long term against shortterm thinking competition... usually falls pretty far behind in the shortest term. The competition might not be there in the long term but the company will be long gone before then.
Most of the really good programmers can learn a new language on the plane to their new gig.
Not that extreme, but my assumptions are the same. I assume that a good programmer can pick up a language over the weekend and after two months of daily use, can become an expert at it.
But I find many candidates in the very old & very young buckets that appear to want to remain experts in their language of choice. The older group, I understand, they are basically retiring in 5+ years and just want the easy slide into it. Money isn't that important anymore and, with that out, there is plenty of opportunities in their niche.
Even HR departments writing job applicant forms will demand years of experience for specific language. You can't tell them "who has programmed in a mainstream language over the last 5 years." That's too vague. But I can review the resumes to find good contenders... even if they will take time to catch up to a team. I want a "programmer" not a hammer swinger!
I don't know if this was different before my time or it's just my localized perception, but it feels like the Programming field has become more like the doctors' field. "I am a neuro surgeon, anesthesiologist, or general physician; so I don't do Y."
But programming is (at least to me) nothing like that!
OMG, Target/ToyRUs/Sears, it just FEELS like you are shopping in the 1980s. Their system are so slow!!! And sometimes the reader has crashed so it asks you to fall back to swiping.
Walmart and CostCo used to be the same but are much faster these days. Even Kroger has upgraded their systems so you don't need to wait till the end of your checkout to authorize payment.
In the first two years it was horrible. You complete your checkout, wait, OK total, insert, swipe if they don't support it, wait, wait, pull, sign, wait, receipt... I don't know how any idiot thought that would be acceptable from a consumer view point.
Sure but you will have multiple machines for one human cashier. If someone like this slows down that terminal, there are others to choose from, so the overall line isn't impacted.
The 4-8 machines + 1 human pump out far more shoppers than the 2 human express line at my local grocery stores. It's gotten to the point that people would rather join the 10 person self queue than the 2 person express queue.
The numbers are extremely in favor of cashless and self checkouts. Also, the stores can hire "clueless millennials" for cheap & high turnover rather than expert mathwizes.
lastly isn't it the right of a human being to be rewarded for their work with something of intrinsic value and keep it under their bed if they chose so?
Others have addressed your other points so I will focus on this one. The answer is No. Not to the intent of your question but due to the answers it would give to secondary questions which would be wrong
Every human should have the right to ask something in return for their time & effort. They also have the right to secure it how they see fit. However they do not have the right to have that "something" keep its value over time nor have others recognize that same value.
One has the right to ask for 50 jellybeans for 1 hour of labor. If accepted, they should get their 50 jellybeans, and be able to keep them secure. However they have no right to assume that others will labor for 1 hr for those same 50 jellybeans.
Even currency, people have no right to its original value. However, the social recognition of it and it's semi-stability is a collective bargain. A bargain that is more stable and better served with a widget whose production value & availability are negiligable completed to its transactional utility.
I would say Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, and Japan were leaders in mobile payments. They had it before the iPhone came out!
BS. The Greek government had & has all the control and ability to run their own economy and they drove it into the ground. Lavishly spending huge amounts of federal monies on Public worker salaries, pensions, and benefits. When your people aspire for a cush government job rather than a private sector one, you aren't in a sustainable situation. All the German banks did was enable them with additional capital and loans that no one else in their right mind would give. Similar to a drug dealer dealing with an addict. The addict has plenty of options to get out of their poor choices but chooses not to employ any of them.
Then when the debt became so big and the Greeks' tourism industry didn't performance enough to pay the interest, the banks backed off. When they saw the Greeks had no way to pay and they would lose billions, they ran to the German government and begged for assistance. Privatize profits, socialize debt. The German government, being financially conservative, balked at the finance irresponsibility of the Greek government. They basically said if you want a recovery program where you slowly ween off the drugs, you will meet the following financial mile stones. The Greeks just wanted more drugs to solve the problem on their own; but they had no ability to solve else they would never end up in the situation. People get pissed that the Germans would dare make demands, but it was their money, and it was the Greek government that gave that control over.
The alternative option was cold turkey and leave the Euro. Well within the right of the Greek government. I wish the Greeks would have done this! It would have taught the German, French, and other EU banks to be more responsible in who they give money to. If a few failed, all the better, a good wake up call to everyone in the EU, and a good example to the US markets: that there is no such thing as "Too big to fail." It would have taught the Greek political parties a wonderful lesson in being budgetary responsible. It would have taught the Greek people to elect responsible politicians with actual plans for their country; rather than those that throw public money & promises at them for votes.
The Zika virus wasn't a problem until genetically-altered mosquitoes were released in Brazil.
Huh what? Citation please! The Zika problem is being SOLVED by genetically altered mosquitoes that are eradicating the specific species that carries the virus. This method has been far more effective at the destruction of specific targeted mosquito species than any method in the history of mankind (maybe not as much as a nuke).
The primary reason it became an epidemic in South America is because it is very new there. It's been around for centuries in Asia but cropped up in Brazil less than 5 years ago! It was brand new to the locals' immune system and thus spread like wild fire.
I don't know if you posted in jest or accidentally but if serious, it is a major disservice to BOTH sides of the debate. This example is literally the perfect, responsible type of solutions that we HOPE to achieve with genetic modification.
mad or naive scientists creating a "what could possibly go wrong" situation
I don't think that is the real problem. Atleast it's not one that is going to be solved by banning or making things "illegal".
Making the dandelion mature in two weeks rather than it's current 1-2 months will be enough to cause massive damage to American lawns. The economic cost would be noticed. Make it immune to common herbicides and it would be worse than California's droughts across the US.
That weed has enough natural advantages already.
The Euro was a massive boon to the Greeks! Without it, they would have never had a real chance to get out of their economic downward spiral. The idea that they would switch to their own currency scared so many of their people that they wanted to draw their bank accounts and protect them under the Euro. This was such a big concern that Greece had to initiate banking controls!
Had the Greeks left the Euro, they would still be in total economic dumps. They would have effectively defaulted on their debts (mostly hitting German banks) and lost the EU market. They would have destroyed their citizens' savings and pensions. To this day they would have little to no foreign investment. They would have been the slums of the EU. But a very cheap vacation spot for sure!
Because of the Euro, businesses had the confidence of the EU block rather than the financial discipline of a teenager. Granted they got so much debt in the first place because they were part of the EU and that confidence. But this doesn't excuse Greece's financial irresponsibility in regards to their spending.
In summary, without the Euro, Greece would have had a hard, painful, and long lasting bankruptcy. Because of it, they got a painful but hopefully effective detox and rehab program.
On #1: The POTUS administration yes. But civility says that POTUS shouldn't personally target and attack individual entities. Its one thing if Amazon was in the regulatory cross hairs or had been found guilt of something. But its plain stupid to attack prior to actual legal charges; because it weakens your regulatory bodies' arguments in courts. Additionally, if you don't push legal fronts or they fail, you open up the administration for counter suits. Almost every politician and aid at the hill know this basic stuff... except for one...
On #2: What city doesn't complain that a major business doesn't pay enough taxes?
On #3: I don't think the GP was talking about stock price specifically. Just that Trump's continued assault as POTUS on Amazon will be damaging and this will have an impact on hiring and retention.
On #4: https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Funny to link to the Washington Post. Summary: Trump is highest at 37% change over compared to the last 5 presidents. Reagan was next at 17%. And he lost 6 out of 12 of his top level positions; compared to Obama 1 and Bush 0.
He doesn't have a "little" turn over just like everyone else, he DOUBLED the 2nd up! I doubt we will see this level of incompetence in our lifetime again.
Few things where Trump has actually hurt the economy: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=How+Trump...
Other than the precedence reinforcement (good thing), I don't see much news here. The US and UK would have done the same as the other if the situation was reversed. The guy didn't kill any one. And even if he had, the conclusion would have been the same both ways if he faced execution.
The US has extracted more resources from China in the last 20 years for IOUs than it has in the last 200. After WWII we got little to nothing but IOUs from the EU block. Granted helping them rebuild has given us and the world one of our strongest and longest trading blocks.
Mexico gives us more illegal drugs than another country. A few decades before NAFTA, we didn't treat them much different than other poor countries. We would fund, equip, and prop up political figures that leaned American to fight drug cartels. Once funding dried up, the government would fall, drugs come back to that area, and we would repeat. That's working out like shit in other countries.
Through the benefits of trade, their economy and government have gotten much stronger. They are strong enough and self incentivized to fight the cartels on their own and cooperate better with us. Through trade, we have common goals of stability, peace, and growth.
For the type of "political" power you are talking about, there is no better example than the USSR and the Cold War. We all know how that ended up.
I am not going to address your first paragraph because it's pointless.
A strong China is good for the world over, let alone the "Western world". They are now our 3rd largest customer. And thanks to NAFTA, Canada and Mexico are both our 1st and 2nd largest customers. 50 years ago, people would have laughed if told that China would beat the UK in purchasing US goods, let alone by a massive margin. China is now strong enough to help Africa more than the US & EU could and are shouldering that burden with us.
A stable and strong Canada, EU, and Mexico have been a boon for the US! Mx was worse than China for a long time. The trade agreements brought them up out of poverty and eventually made them fine partners.
We produce and export more because of China purchasing our stuff. They been the single largest driver of our economic growth over the last decade. You may think it is too low but it would have been worse without China! Raising tariffs on China, steel, and aluminum just benefits those small sectors of the market by taxing the broader and larger sectors that have built on top of them.
This is why trade agreements even lower barriers at all over time. The economies become dependent on the trade and build upon them with the freed up capital and resources. The larger parts of the economy can then focus on the next level of inefficiencies and remove barriers there to build & integrate further. Take chicken feet for example. You couldn't sell to China 20 years ago when most of their population was still farming and needed that industry protected else they would have nothing to live by. Now that they are working in cities and factories, the chicken feet industry can have lower tariffs because that sector isn't as important in the overall livelihood. Such was the case with Wine & Beer tariffs in the EU. As was the case with corn to Mexico. Eventually the US will do it with sugar imports.
This is how we got to where we are with UK, Germany, EU, Mexico, Canada, and even China. Even within the EU, they haven't had this many decades of stability and safety ever. Given time, China and other countries will lower their tariffs over time. But you can't force it. They will naturally do it when it's mutually beneficial like all others have done in the past.
Now look at the other side. Countries that others don't play with and are isolationists. Russia, Venezuela, North Korea, Somalia, etc. All have to race across the globe to find kindred spirits and whine to get any attention.
It makes no sense. We lost jobs and shutdown factories over the decades but our overall manufacturing is still way up year over year. Why should we pay more to make the same stuff? You raise prices, demand goes down... which means you need less production capacity. Which results in less jobs and factories AND decline in manufacturing.
I prefer to buy what works for me. That maybe "local" or a "cheap" gizmo. I prefer not to mix emotions, patriotic or otherwise, with how I spend my finances. I prefer Japanese cars, European chocolate, Brazilian nuts, Central & South American bananas, Chinese iPhones & HP laptops, Indian leather, Mexican watermelons, and Canadian maple syrup to name a few.
On the flip side, I do focus on local when it comes to charity. Since that is an emotional expenditure.
China is our 3rd biggest customer after Canada and Mexico. We are working on pissing off all three. No body wins in trade wars; proven multiple times throughout history. Even partial open markets are better than closed markets.
So, what exactly are you saying (assuming that Trump's campaign didn't use the data)? That we shouldn't be outraged at Facebook or we shouldn't regulate this or this type of research and profiling be allowed without societal checks & bounds or without user consent?
retire to the US
All totally true, except most don't want to retire here. A neat thing about US investment compared to other countries is that it can be done with very little local presence. You don't need to physically come here every month or three to protect your investment from others. Also, pretty much every country graciously accepts the US dollar and many times won't even charge you much in taxes or exchange fees.
So you can live where ever you want and pull just enough low tax/fee income for your monthly expenses from your safe US investments.
Humm, this article says ameobas are smarter. Maybe that gap has gotten smaller in the last 2 years.
https://www.npr.org/sections/1...
You know the Nazi, Brits, French, Spanish, Dutch, & Japanese weren't black right?
Also, remember that one of those needed a giant dangerious island (Australia) on the other size of the world to hold their most dangerious.
In this case, yes. There are already sanctions in place. The executive is responsible for enforcing them.
As Venezuela is trying to bypass them, he is responsible for and authorized to curtail those workarounds.
I think the GP is referring to the MS & IBM membership in the BSA. Which they still are. The BSA, where you are guilty until you expend the resources to prove without a doubt, your innocence. Kind of the opposite of this where someone already finds you guilty and now you want to negotiate how to come into compliance and waive the punishment.