Right now, too many too powerful have too much to lose
Do you expect that to change? You can debate whether the system can/should be changed, but you can shrink from the fight just because the opponents are strong. They will always be strong. The system makes them strong. The fight is either worth fighting or it's not.
It's all a big poker game. Most bosses probably don't want to hire and train a new person over a petty issue, but they don't have to worry about that because you're too afraid to stand up for yourself. You'll spend the rest of your life f@#$ed if you fold every time your boss tosses a few chips into the pot.
he doesn't get recognition for the extra time, and has to stay to normal end-of-work
He should take a long lunch. Work-out, errands, reading, etc. It won't help out his afternoon commute, but it will free up his evening responsibilities and avoid the problem of donating time to the company.
I'm sure they intend to fight via the internet, but that appears to be just the beginning. Page six clearly says "We Must Fight the Net. DoD is building an information-centric force. Networks are increasingly the operational center of gravity, and the Department must be prepared to 'Fight the Net.'"
If a true market were to be created, you could maintain your value by not selling all of your shares.
Let's assume you've discovered The Next Big Idea. So you create a "company" with a ticker symbol of TNBI and issue 100 shares. Keep 50 for yourself and IPO the rest. If your idea has any merit, the shares will climb in value and the 50 shares that you've retained will be your compensation.
...You promise to walk through all of the offices and total their waste each year and I'll promise to vote based on your results. Heck, you can even take the odd years off.
people are apathetic about government waste so the government gets away with it.
That's true, but government's performance is also harder to judge than a publically listed company. Large parts of the budget are vague (or completely misleading) and i doubt there is much (if any) independent auditing.
Nevermind the fact that the vast majority of the budget goes to items which are inherently non-profit, so how can you compare efficieny when you can't compare an expense to "what the market will bear"?
Gee that sounds great. Now you just need to make sure that you split your week up by working directly for some farmers, homebuilders, petroleum companies, etc etc
"You scratch my back; I'll scratch yours" is exactly what a normal job is. The only difference between your "vision" and what already exists is that the "scratching" that you receive from a job is in the form of currency which can be readily exchanged for goods and services. Without currency, you have to scratch alot of backs individually. It's just not efficient or practical. That's why it's rarely done anymore.
As I said, the number itself would be completely arbitrary. It is simply a pointer to your customer record that's already inside the retailer's database. If Joe Hacker has access to that database, your personal information is already compromised.
Ok, so instead of hashing the CC#, Hash a unique code that represents the music retailer and a unique customer number from that retailer. It can be extremely arbitrary as long as a standard is agreed upon.
To make money in the stock market, it is
necessary to find buyers at a higher price than was paid.
Price appreciation is indeed one way to profit from stock investments. The fact that you believe it to be the only way show that, despite your caution, you still haven't learned from the mistakes of the 90s.
Profit can also be found in "value stocks". These are mature companies that pay out a large percentage of their profits as dividends. Their stock value doesn't change much, so they aren't very flashy, but they can definitely provide solid returns
You can even make money by predicting that a stock will go down (See "Shorting").
And of course, stocks aren't even the only way to invest. Personal accounts could be invested in stocks, bonds (corporate or municipal) or commodities.
Anyone of these "prepay" options are better than promising entitlements that can only be fulfilled if the demographics work out just right.
Most people don't realize that those who back Bush have exactly zero interest in Social Security.
We take little interest in it because it is a largely outdated entitlement that is in serious (albeit not immediate) trouble due to the changing demographics of the US.
The "Social Security" plans are designed to get amateur stock investors into the stock market, where the professionals, who back the plan, can take the amateur's money.
That's just pure cynicism which shows a complete lack of understanding of stock markets. Sure, money managers stand to gain by having more money in the system, but that expense is typically around 1% of the overall return. This is a necessary and tolerable expense.
The idea here is to modify SS (if we must keep it) from a post-pay to a pre-pay system. That way, everyone will get a return proportional to their investment regardless of how the demographics may shift in the future.
The notion that the RIAA members would get to decide how the artists got paid out of this is far more frightening than P2P
C'mon, you're smarter than that. The RIAA has serious faults, but this is not one of them. They sign contracts with their artists. The artists obviously thought it was a good deal or they wouldn't have signed. If you're going to bitch, bitch about the right things.
Slashdot Mirror
Who really needs a free market anyway?
Banks may be specifically excluded by law (I don't know; I'm taking your word for it), but there's no reason other organizations can't attempt to issue psuedo-currency.
It may or may not be a good idea. It may or may not catch on. Doesn't mean it can't be attempted.
And for those that can't connect the dots, that would be the optimum situation, economically.
Anyone who's more like Peter than Tom.
It's all a big poker game. Most bosses probably don't want to hire and train a new person over a petty issue, but they don't have to worry about that because you're too afraid to stand up for yourself. You'll spend the rest of your life f@#$ed if you fold every time your boss tosses a few chips into the pot.
Libertarian
I'm sure they intend to fight via the internet, but that appears to be just the beginning. Page six clearly says "We Must Fight the Net. DoD is building an information-centric force. Networks are increasingly the operational center of gravity, and the Department must be prepared to 'Fight the Net.'"
Wouldn't it be valuable to let customers participate?
It probably wouldn't work for new product development, but it would be a very cheap way to find out which features your customers want in Version 2.
If a true market were to be created, you could maintain your value by not selling all of your shares.
Let's assume you've discovered The Next Big Idea. So you create a "company" with a ticker symbol of TNBI and issue 100 shares. Keep 50 for yourself and IPO the rest. If your idea has any merit, the shares will climb in value and the 50 shares that you've retained will be your compensation.
I would imagine that he was referring more to things like sandstorms rather than pressure.
Interesting line. Is it yours or do you care to cite a source?
...your money could have been returned to you.
...but that doesn't mean they should live up to it.
...You promise to walk through all of the offices and total their waste each year and I'll promise to vote based on your results. Heck, you can even take the odd years off.
That's true, but government's performance is also harder to judge than a publically listed company. Large parts of the budget are vague (or completely misleading) and i doubt there is much (if any) independent auditing.
Nevermind the fact that the vast majority of the budget goes to items which are inherently non-profit, so how can you compare efficieny when you can't compare an expense to "what the market will bear"?
Gee that sounds great. Now you just need to make sure that you split your week up by working directly for some farmers, homebuilders, petroleum companies, etc etc
"You scratch my back; I'll scratch yours" is exactly what a normal job is. The only difference between your "vision" and what already exists is that the "scratching" that you receive from a job is in the form of currency which can be readily exchanged for goods and services. Without currency, you have to scratch alot of backs individually. It's just not efficient or practical. That's why it's rarely done anymore.
I don't know, that equals a $100k valuation which isn't bad considering most of these "companies" are really nothing more than a few guys and an idea.
You're right that $6k isn't exactly hard to raise, but 6% isn't exactly a lot to sell either.
Is it worth it? Who knows? I'm sure it varies per company, but it's not like it's a rip-off.
As I said, the number itself would be completely arbitrary. It is simply a pointer to your customer record that's already inside the retailer's database. If Joe Hacker has access to that database, your personal information is already compromised.
Ok, so instead of hashing the CC#, Hash a unique code that represents the music retailer and a unique customer number from that retailer. It can be extremely arbitrary as long as a standard is agreed upon.
Profit can also be found in "value stocks". These are mature companies that pay out a large percentage of their profits as dividends. Their stock value doesn't change much, so they aren't very flashy, but they can definitely provide solid returns
You can even make money by predicting that a stock will go down (See "Shorting").
And of course, stocks aren't even the only way to invest. Personal accounts could be invested in stocks, bonds (corporate or municipal) or commodities.
Anyone of these "prepay" options are better than promising entitlements that can only be fulfilled if the demographics work out just right.
We take little interest in it because it is a largely outdated entitlement that is in serious (albeit not immediate) trouble due to the changing demographics of the US.
That's just pure cynicism which shows a complete lack of understanding of stock markets. Sure, money managers stand to gain by having more money in the system, but that expense is typically around 1% of the overall return. This is a necessary and tolerable expense.
The idea here is to modify SS (if we must keep it) from a post-pay to a pre-pay system. That way, everyone will get a return proportional to their investment regardless of how the demographics may shift in the future.
Would your rather have all of a grape or a slice of watermelon?