Actually, this was a proposition in John Kerry's election platform.
The main problem with your suggestion, barring that it flies in the face laissze-faire economic theory and that it relies on an incomplete (and often incorrect) assumption, is that corporations are mobile. It is not hard to simply shift the 'headquarters' to independant, neutral country.
The short-sightedness (is that a word?)of the concept baffles me.
How free-trade, a concept that nations benefit from in the long-term, has become 'short-sighted' greed in the banal vernacular is equally baffling.
This is only making news because it's an offshore company for a Western financial institution.
Which is not surprising, considering that offshoring/outsourcing is such a contentious topic right now. The average person, with zero knowledge about Economics, already believes the Indians and the Chinese are going to rob them of their jobs. Now those dirt poor foriegners are going to take their credit card numbers as well. The hypocrisy is, as you point out, this happens every day in Western parent companies. Which is fine, because everyone would rather be embezzled by their neighbor than someone they don't know.
These stories are in poor taste, as they simply reinforce a nationalist xenophobia to sell papers. After all, "You're all going to lose your jobs to theives from India" sells better than "Everything will be fine in the long run."
Enron and Parmalat have shown us that no matter where you are on the corporate ladder, there are rotten branches on the tree.
The important thing to note is that the exectutives of Enron, Adelphia, WorldCom and Arthur Anderson were all edicted. As it stands, the United States is the most transparent economy in the world. Although a corruption scandal has become commonplace in the headlines, Americans do not tolerate visible corruption. The challenge to the emerging economies of Eastern Europe, China, and India is to emulate this.
In High School I was involved in the model parliament program.
The 'Senate' is merely a delay to let the real politicians time to prepare for the next reading. They aren't a consolatory body like the British House of Lords, but rather a dirty, antiquated waste of flesh and taxpayer's money. The consolatory committee is made up of MPs, not members of the Senate, with proportional votes to change the clauses to a bill.
You're mistaken when comes to legal representation.
It is far easier in the States to sue for damages as you can pay your lawyer a percentage of winnings, which effectively can pass all the risk to the firm handling your case. This is illegal in Canada.
Finally, an intelligent voice relating to Economics on Slashdot. Too often these topics turn into xenophobic paranoia.
It is not so much a violent rebellion, but a stagnation that is most likely outcome of short-sighted protectionist policies.
To give historical reference: China, for example, was the most powerful nation in the world until around the thirteenth century, when it closed its borders to goods and its minds to ideas.
Protectionism is by far the most short-sighted trade-related endeavor a nation can embark upon. It is far more beneficial in the long term to subscribe to free and unrestricted trade.
Identifable is key here. Al Qaeda is not a soveriegn entity that can be directly attacked.
As for Israel, there are several things that need to be pointed out. In 1981, Israel attacked what it believed to a nuclear weapons facility. In 1990, Iraq stated repeatitly that if attacked, it would fire missles into Israel.
Iraq fired 39 scud missles into Tel Aviv and Haifa, which blew up a bunch of apartment buildings. 75 people died, 4 from suffocation, and the rest from heart attacks. Ultimately, the 'attack' was a poorly executed retribution.
The Falkland War was contentious, just as ownership of the Islands has been contended. The French settled the islands first, then the Spanish expelled them, who were subsequently expelled by the British, who then abandoned it. In 1820 the Argentians set up a colony, that was subsequently blown up by the Americans for harboring Pirates (as in Arrr!). The British didn't colonise it until 1833, when they set up a Naval base.
In 1982, there were many papers in the UK that did not support the idea of war at all, and didn't believe that Britain had a right to those islands anyway. It was largely believed, in Argentina at least, that UK valued the Falklands very little. Had the Argentinian forces attacked Plymouth instead, that would have largely different. It is important to differentiate between what a country views as an overseas asset and home soil.
A few extremists representing no country hijacked four airplanes. Afghanistan did not decide to invade New York. Iraq sent 39 Scud missles into Tel Aviv and Haifa as retaliation. They did not send troops into Israel. Argentina claimed islands it probably had a right to, as it has owned those islands in the past. Britain, as the international community saw it, was not 'attacked' in any threatening way.
I didn't catch it before I submitted, but the penultimate sentence should read: However, the real reason that these bombs proliferate is for defense, as misguided as that sounds.
Something that I've always believed as well. It was clear that from the beginning, Washington viewed Moscow as little more than an enemy of an enemy. As early as 1941 Rooselvelt was talking about "winning the peace."
If the US had not developed the Atomic bomb, the USSR would not have stopped at Germany.
However, the real reason that these bombs proliferate is not for defense, as misguided as that sounds. No nation that keeps a stock of bombs has ever been directly attacked by an identifable enemy.
True. Nintendo said the least about their console, basically stopping at "It'll be out next year", and showing an empty box.
Microsoft showed an empty box as well, but they had playable demos running on G5s. They were the most forthcomming and honest of the three.
The reason I singled out Sony was because the PS3 show was contrived and pre-rendered. It showed the press exactly what it wanted to see. It was headline bait, and it worked. This is just further headline bait.
I don't dispute the fact that the PS3 will be the most powerful platform out there. I just don't think it will be near the quality presented at the show.
I'm console neutral, but it was clear to me that the PS3 demo at E3 was complete and utter bullshit. Come back Ken when you can put a controller in my hand.
From the article: "The new legislation will contain rules that will make it illegal to hack or break into the digital locks often used to prevent the copying of movies and software -- although it will remain perfectly legal in Canada to copy a CD for personal use."
That's the most offensive portion.
If they're going to make it illegal to share files, they have to repeal those blank media taxes.
He's religious, but he's not a Theocrat. He's often misquoted.
From the article: "I BELIEVE that God wants me to be president." What? Did George Bush really say that? Does the president imagine he has a divine mission?
Well, he was quoted to that effect by Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention. The full quote, however, does not quite sound as if Mr Bush is labouring to scrap the republic and replace it with a theocracy. "But if that doesn't happen, that's okay," the president continued, "I have seen the presidency up close and personal. I know it's a sacrifice, and I don't need it for personal validation."
He's socially conservative and fiscally incompentant, but still, he's not Tom DeLay or Bill First. Those are the scary ones.
Yeah, I can understand that. One of the complaints about Bush's "No Child Left Behind Act" was that it effectively became "No Child Gets Ahead". Because they need everyone to pass, schools focus far more on special education than gifted education.
Of course, it's still not a great predictor of any of these things - I think it still accounts for less than half the variance - but it's better than any other measure we've got.
I can agree with you there. The thing I'm most concerned about is someone either being discouraged by their score or inspired to laziness. You should never know your score.
Slashdot Mirror
The main problem with your suggestion, barring that it flies in the face laissze-faire economic theory and that it relies on an incomplete (and often incorrect) assumption, is that corporations are mobile. It is not hard to simply shift the 'headquarters' to independant, neutral country.
The short-sightedness (is that a word?)of the concept baffles me.
How free-trade, a concept that nations benefit from in the long-term, has become 'short-sighted' greed in the banal vernacular is equally baffling.
Which is not surprising, considering that offshoring/outsourcing is such a contentious topic right now. The average person, with zero knowledge about Economics, already believes the Indians and the Chinese are going to rob them of their jobs. Now those dirt poor foriegners are going to take their credit card numbers as well. The hypocrisy is, as you point out, this happens every day in Western parent companies. Which is fine, because everyone would rather be embezzled by their neighbor than someone they don't know.
These stories are in poor taste, as they simply reinforce a nationalist xenophobia to sell papers. After all, "You're all going to lose your jobs to theives from India" sells better than "Everything will be fine in the long run."
Enron and Parmalat have shown us that no matter where you are on the corporate ladder, there are rotten branches on the tree.
The important thing to note is that the exectutives of Enron, Adelphia, WorldCom and Arthur Anderson were all edicted. As it stands, the United States is the most transparent economy in the world. Although a corruption scandal has become commonplace in the headlines, Americans do not tolerate visible corruption. The challenge to the emerging economies of Eastern Europe, China, and India is to emulate this.
My apologies. I see so many of these online petitions every day that someone in some forum wants me to read and sign, I just dismiss them out of hand.
Thanks for clearing that up.
In High School I was involved in the model parliament program.
The 'Senate' is merely a delay to let the real politicians time to prepare for the next reading. They aren't a consolatory body like the British House of Lords, but rather a dirty, antiquated waste of flesh and taxpayer's money. The consolatory committee is made up of MPs, not members of the Senate, with proportional votes to change the clauses to a bill.
You're mistaken when comes to legal representation.
It is far easier in the States to sue for damages as you can pay your lawyer a percentage of winnings, which effectively can pass all the risk to the firm handling your case. This is illegal in Canada.
If you want change, I suggest you start a real petition. Don't worry, I'll sign.
It is not so much a violent rebellion, but a stagnation that is most likely outcome of short-sighted protectionist policies.
To give historical reference: China, for example, was the most powerful nation in the world until around the thirteenth century, when it closed its borders to goods and its minds to ideas.
Protectionism is by far the most short-sighted trade-related endeavor a nation can embark upon. It is far more beneficial in the long term to subscribe to free and unrestricted trade.
As for Israel, there are several things that need to be pointed out. In 1981, Israel attacked what it believed to a nuclear weapons facility. In 1990, Iraq stated repeatitly that if attacked, it would fire missles into Israel.
Iraq fired 39 scud missles into Tel Aviv and Haifa, which blew up a bunch of apartment buildings. 75 people died, 4 from suffocation, and the rest from heart attacks. Ultimately, the 'attack' was a poorly executed retribution.
The Falkland War was contentious, just as ownership of the Islands has been contended. The French settled the islands first, then the Spanish expelled them, who were subsequently expelled by the British, who then abandoned it. In 1820 the Argentians set up a colony, that was subsequently blown up by the Americans for harboring Pirates (as in Arrr!). The British didn't colonise it until 1833, when they set up a Naval base.
In 1982, there were many papers in the UK that did not support the idea of war at all, and didn't believe that Britain had a right to those islands anyway. It was largely believed, in Argentina at least, that UK valued the Falklands very little. Had the Argentinian forces attacked Plymouth instead, that would have largely different. It is important to differentiate between what a country views as an overseas asset and home soil.
A few extremists representing no country hijacked four airplanes. Afghanistan did not decide to invade New York. Iraq sent 39 Scud missles into Tel Aviv and Haifa as retaliation. They did not send troops into Israel. Argentina claimed islands it probably had a right to, as it has owned those islands in the past. Britain, as the international community saw it, was not 'attacked' in any threatening way.
I didn't catch it before I submitted, but the penultimate sentence should read:
However, the real reason that these bombs proliferate is for defense, as misguided as that sounds.
If the US had not developed the Atomic bomb, the USSR would not have stopped at Germany.
However, the real reason that these bombs proliferate is not for defense, as misguided as that sounds. No nation that keeps a stock of bombs has ever been directly attacked by an identifable enemy.
No, no. I'm in favor of Flat Taxes.Which are already working in Eastern Europe.
Microsoft showed an empty box as well, but they had playable demos running on G5s. They were the most forthcomming and honest of the three.
The reason I singled out Sony was because the PS3 show was contrived and pre-rendered. It showed the press exactly what it wanted to see. It was headline bait, and it worked. This is just further headline bait.
I don't dispute the fact that the PS3 will be the most powerful platform out there. I just don't think it will be near the quality presented at the show.
I'm console neutral, but it was clear to me that the PS3 demo at E3 was complete and utter bullshit. Come back Ken when you can put a controller in my hand.
That's the most offensive portion.
If they're going to make it illegal to share files, they have to repeal those blank media taxes.
Damn you, spellcheck.
And considering that Google is way, way, way overvalued right now. It's just new and hip. Don't purchase it as a long term investment.
An important thing to note is the EA doesn't have crunch time. That would imply that the work slows down occasionally.
Since Land of the Free is no longer totally correct, why don't we call it the "Land of the Relative Freedom."
From the article:
"I BELIEVE that God wants me to be president." What? Did George Bush really say that? Does the president imagine he has a divine mission?
Well, he was quoted to that effect by Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention. The full quote, however, does not quite sound as if Mr Bush is labouring to scrap the republic and replace it with a theocracy. "But if that doesn't happen, that's okay," the president continued, "I have seen the presidency up close and personal. I know it's a sacrifice, and I don't need it for personal validation."
He's socially conservative and fiscally incompentant, but still, he's not Tom DeLay or Bill First. Those are the scary ones.
Yeah, I can understand that. One of the complaints about Bush's "No Child Left Behind Act" was that it effectively became "No Child Gets Ahead". Because they need everyone to pass, schools focus far more on special education than gifted education.
I can agree with you there. The thing I'm most concerned about is someone either being discouraged by their score or inspired to laziness. You should never know your score.
Pssst. Kid, wanna experience revolutionary HDTV gaming (TM)?
Just a second.
Greedy M$ is making another foolish move. Hopefully they'll be bankrupt soon. All corporations are inherently evil. Linux forever!
Was that better?