The issue here is small print and the placing of the holes on the ballot that made it obvious how to vote Republican (the top hole), but not so obvious for Democratic (the third). The Democrats were listed second in the left-side column, but were assigned the third hole on the ballot because Buchanan was listed on the right side (shock-a-roony) above Gore. Check out the ABCnews story for a pic of the ballot - it could be very confusing indeed to seniors with less than great eyesight.
Why they'd list the candidates for a single office in a two-column format is beyond me. Considering that we're talking about Palm Beach, Florida, with a super-heavy concentration of seniors, you'd think they would take these things into account. Ballots are supposed to be extremely simple to avoid just this sort of controversy.
In the last round of German elections, the Social Democrats (roughly similar to our democrats), made history by forming a coalition with the Green Party (which is a viable fringe party there), combining to overthrow their conservative opponents. The Greens landed some ministerial positions, for example I believe their foreign minister is a Green. Gore apparently blew off the threat of Nader as so tiny that it might only effect Oregon or Wisconsin, but it looks like it could cost him Florida as well, and hence the nation.
Is this, then, a hallmark event signalling a challenge to the two-party system? Will the Democrats respond to this by working together with the Greens henceforth, or simply drowning them out by moving their agenda back to the left? Gee, let me guess...
While Bush did a better job addressing these questions than many during the debates (like answering Gore's charge about child health care in Texas with a blank stare), #4 is a good example of what the previous poster is talking about.
Q: What do you think of the Electoral College vs. 1 man, 1 vote?
A: Well, the Electoral College comes from the Constitution, and I support the Constitution. By the way, I wish everybody would get out and vote - but they don't, because the current Administration blah, blah, blah...
That said, these answers form a fairly cohesive statement about his positions - which leads me all the more to believe that the whole thing was handled by an aide, and W didn't have anything to do with it. I'm not saying that to be mean towards him, but the guy's pretty busy these days!
If you're only 2 years out of college and pulling down $120K, you're hardly oppressed! It amazes me that a 38% tax bracket is equated with "class warfare" by some people. It just goes to show how good things are in this country, that there's nothing more important to complain about, like a border war with a nuke-enabled neighbor (India), or a rampaging epidemic that threatens to wipe out a generation (parts of Africa), or a stagnant economy that can't seem to get rolling after years of recession (Japan). If you don't think that Law & Order in the US is worth the extra taxes you're paying, I'd suggest a sabbatical in Russia!
As for the taxation without representation whine, I think you'd be hard-pressed to make the assertion that the wealthy are under-represented in Washington. Soft money donations to the major political parties can get you a sit-down with your favorite politico, or even a night in the Lincoln Bedroom if you've got the cash.
Investment vs. speculation is usually put in terms of long-term vs. short-term thinking, but I do agree with respect to dividends (see below). That said, it is useful to encourage long-term stock holdings, as it helps provide some stability to the markets.
The absurd number of firms that make huge profits but fail to pay dividends now or in the foreseeable future (most prominently Microsoft) is a hallmark of the market bubble that has been inflated over the years and is now only relaxing slightly. Sooner or later, there won't be a bigger fool to come along to pay top dollar for a share that has no financial benefit attached to it.
Where's the value that Napster will provide to subscription-paying users, beyond what they will be able to get through other, illicit channels like Gnutella, IRC, and other free media? Why should I pay for their "service" instead of finding music for free elsewhere?
I tend to think that deals like this that require a paying subscriber base will be more of a threat to Napster's survival than the lawsuits...
"It seems like you're saying that if we don't treat the rich like dirt, then we must treat the masses like dirt. Um, why does anyone have to be treated like dirt?"
That is the impossible part of setting tax policy - despite any scheme that's implemented, somebody will always feel like they're getting screwed (my contribution to the economy is much more important than so-and-so's). The point I addressed above wasn't so much to justify progressive taxation, but simply to show that the wealthy do get real value out of the higher taxes that they pay.
I am hardly mathematically illiterate, but I do think that progressive taxation makes sense for a wide variety of reasons.
First, and most bluntly, the wealthy have the most to lose, and therefore, gain the most from the societal structure of law and order that keeps them in their privileged position. Treat the masses like dirt while giving the wealthy a free ride, and you can expect another Soviet-style revolution.
Secondly, as many others have pointed out, basic neccesities of life need to be exempted from the tax scheme, and since the wealthy spend so much less (as a percentage) on those items, they will end up paying more in tax.
Lastly, I think you'd rather be angry over money and 52% taxes, than over the daily battles of living paycheck-to-paycheck without any hope of building a future through home ownership or higher education. If things are so bad, then why don't more high-earners flee to tax havens abroad?
It's interesting that they use the term "unlawful content", and then include in that definition "material that infringes any intellectual property right," and "material that is libelous." Those two instances aren't illegal, but they are acts upon which an injured party can bring a civil suit.
This isn't about stopping crime, it's simply about keeping themselves as free of liability as they can. I guess it's a result of the lawsuit-crazy world we live in, that organizations are driven to these sorts of decisions.
Thanks for pointing that out - the article fails to elaborate on that. The scandal isn't that these companies are getting out of paying federal income tax. After all, options are just another form of compensation, and thus a deductible expense. The real crime here is that they don't have to deduct them against their earnings reports, thus duping the uninformed investor as to their financial health.
The professional investors know how to get information about option expenses and deduct accordingly before making a value judgement about a particular stock, but for the everyday investor this amounts to a gross misrepresentation about a firm's profitability. Every once in a while you hear about the SEC threatening to change this provision, but it always seems to end up in the dumpster. Anybody have info on where the issue stands now???
One would address that issue as a strength in their cover letter, wherein they introduce themselves to a prospective employer. Another option would be to denote which skills were developed in each particular position on a resume, not just used.
Granted, this still won't get past those headhunters who use a simple search criteria to screen potential candidates - but it does bolster your chances if and when someone actually reads your resume and/or cover letter.
Another problem lies with the hiring abilities of managers & headhunters who work off of a list of keywords that they're looking for, when the real skill that IT shops need is the ability to learn and adapt to a changing environment.
When I was looking for a job in Indiana, with a few years of HP3000 Cobol & Powerhouse experience, I was very fortunate to find a manager who gave me a chance in an AS/400 shop - my background was with HMO's, but this was a distribution & retail company. This manager realized that I had a history of learning new packages and languages as required, so he knew that after a few shorts weeks I'd be a good fit for his department - and he was right. Too often, however, headhunters & managers base their searches on criteria such as x years of Java, or y years of C++ experience. In doing so, they are blinding themselves to a vast number of programmers out there who want to develop new skills, but aren't getting the opportunity to do so. The other skills they may bring to the job (experience with the development process, etc.) can more than make up for any learning curve they may have to go through on the technical side.
It doesn't take professional training to pick up on the fact that your TA can't communicate with his/her students. I had a Korean calculus TA at Michigan who may have been a nice guy, but was completely incapable when it came to classroom speaking. Them's the facts - I dropped the class rather than waste my hard-earned $$$ on what would basically become a self-study course.
That ain't racist, it's just reality. University's really should offer/require some form of English-language speech training for TA's who don't speak English as their first language.
There may be quite a few "self-made intellectuals" out there, but nothing can replace the interchange that takes place within a community of learning. Communication skills are essential to good product (and personal) development, and college is the best choice for the vast majority of people to develop those skills. If there's one thing I regret about my college years, it's that I didn't indulge myself with more philosophy, history, or lit courses.
The experience he's reffering to is from the other side of the silicon, so to speak. CSc types (especially if they skip college) often lack communication skills, which can introduce just as many (or more) problems in the development cycle as technical flaws.
The public perception is that programmers and CE's can write their own ticket, but if that were the case, you wouldn't see older pro's pushed out of the job market or the absurd hours that employers come to expect, not appreciate.
The visa issue has gotten way out of control, and only serves to undercut our nation's ability to train and improve upon its existing workforce.
The problem? Too many hiring managers and headhunters focus on keywords instead of skills such as the ABILITY to learn new languages and techniques. I was an HP3000 programmer who was lucky enough to find a job in an AS/400 shop because the manager realized that the job functions were similar, the business relationships (working with app users) were similar, and that learning a new OS and developing language skills was something I had already done in the past, so learning their system wouldn't be difficult.
Technical skills can be learned. The ability to work effectively within an organization, and the ability to learn new skills as they are needed, are just as important, if not more so, than x years of VB/C++/Java experience.
1) The funds usually get delivered to industry groups that represent the industry's interests, so while the small-time artist won't directly get compensated, the think-tank and lobbyists that represent them will.
2) Why should the fee go away? Roads and toll bridges require constant, expensive maintenance (to use your example), and people still use VCR's and audio tapes to copy content illegally even after decades - so the "harm" that justifies the fee never really goes away.
Your last paragraph, while rambling, sounds straight out of PoliSci 101 - narrowly focused, well-backed interest groups can make a killing in Washington at the expense of the broader public interest. That's simply an inherent flaw of the political system, and while it ain't perfect, I don't see anything better in use currently.
You answered your own question with that post. Roads are a perfect example of a market failure (underdevelopment of public goods) that can be corrected via government action. Under a purely market-driven system, no single entity would find it worthwhile to build the road system that we have in place today - you need a government, representing the public interest to make that happen.
Quick answers to your questions would be 1) It looks like Napster is pretty much getting snuffed (similar apps that survive will do so for now as an underground activity), and 2) it's the force of the market that compels these companies to put the clamps on something like Napster (if they don't squash it, they won't be able to charge $20 CD's anymore). In a controlled economy, innovation from the outside is by definition not present.
If you read anything regarding this situation, you'd see that Amazon is not a monopoly. While it is true that under a monopoly, consumer prices are higher, that's not the reason behind this case. What they're doing is determining to what extent someone who has a strong preference for a particular product is insensitive to price increases.
Sometimes, free market economics can actually prevent the uptake of a new technology, because it threatens large corporations that have the resources to stifle it before it harms them (see the ongoing battle by the MPAA to restrict internet availability of entertainment content). That is just one example of many "market failures" that government can help work around. Another example would be Medicaid. Under a totally private health care system, the poorest in society would be left without basic medical insurance.
Most fundamental economic changes have been introduced gradually, in order to minimize the social costs of change (which are many - the dinosaurs you speak of will need unemployment insurance). Look at the growth of world trade, for instance - it has taken decades to get where we are now, and there are still many walls that need to come down.
A bulk purchase discount might apply if you order enough of a product at one time that the supplier can get it to you more cheaply (buying a case full of books at once, for example, so they don't have to unpack it). But for a repeat customer of a particular item, it makes perfect sense for Amazon to creep the price up slowly, and see if that person still keeps buying.
It's the opposite of the reason behind all those coupons you get with the weekend paper. Companies offer you a discount to try their product. Once you become a fan of that particular product, they have no incentive to offer further discounts, as long as you keep coming back. It's called discretionary pricing, and it's a great way for a company to improve their bottom line. With the amount of consumer-level information that's becoming available these days, I'm not surprised to see someone try this out.
Slashdot Mirror
Why they'd list the candidates for a single office in a two-column format is beyond me. Considering that we're talking about Palm Beach, Florida, with a super-heavy concentration of seniors, you'd think they would take these things into account. Ballots are supposed to be extremely simple to avoid just this sort of controversy.
Is this, then, a hallmark event signalling a challenge to the two-party system? Will the Democrats respond to this by working together with the Greens henceforth, or simply drowning them out by moving their agenda back to the left? Gee, let me guess...
Q: What do you think of the Electoral College vs. 1 man, 1 vote?
A: Well, the Electoral College comes from the Constitution, and I support the Constitution. By the way, I wish everybody would get out and vote - but they don't, because the current Administration blah, blah, blah...
That said, these answers form a fairly cohesive statement about his positions - which leads me all the more to believe that the whole thing was handled by an aide, and W didn't have anything to do with it. I'm not saying that to be mean towards him, but the guy's pretty busy these days!
As for the taxation without representation whine, I think you'd be hard-pressed to make the assertion that the wealthy are under-represented in Washington. Soft money donations to the major political parties can get you a sit-down with your favorite politico, or even a night in the Lincoln Bedroom if you've got the cash.
The absurd number of firms that make huge profits but fail to pay dividends now or in the foreseeable future (most prominently Microsoft) is a hallmark of the market bubble that has been inflated over the years and is now only relaxing slightly. Sooner or later, there won't be a bigger fool to come along to pay top dollar for a share that has no financial benefit attached to it.
You must have done something to your withholding (401K, etc.) to warrant that - taxes don't eat up 87% of marginal revenue.
Posting as an AC only hides your identity, not your stupidity!
I tend to think that deals like this that require a paying subscriber base will be more of a threat to Napster's survival than the lawsuits...
That is the impossible part of setting tax policy - despite any scheme that's implemented, somebody will always feel like they're getting screwed (my contribution to the economy is much more important than so-and-so's). The point I addressed above wasn't so much to justify progressive taxation, but simply to show that the wealthy do get real value out of the higher taxes that they pay.
That wasn't modified - once your karma passes a certain point, you're comments appear automatically at a 2.
*grin*
First, and most bluntly, the wealthy have the most to lose, and therefore, gain the most from the societal structure of law and order that keeps them in their privileged position. Treat the masses like dirt while giving the wealthy a free ride, and you can expect another Soviet-style revolution.
Secondly, as many others have pointed out, basic neccesities of life need to be exempted from the tax scheme, and since the wealthy spend so much less (as a percentage) on those items, they will end up paying more in tax.
Lastly, I think you'd rather be angry over money and 52% taxes, than over the daily battles of living paycheck-to-paycheck without any hope of building a future through home ownership or higher education. If things are so bad, then why don't more high-earners flee to tax havens abroad?
It's a tricky argument when you start proposing taxing things that "we don't like." Who says that "we" all agree?
This isn't about stopping crime, it's simply about keeping themselves as free of liability as they can. I guess it's a result of the lawsuit-crazy world we live in, that organizations are driven to these sorts of decisions.
The professional investors know how to get information about option expenses and deduct accordingly before making a value judgement about a particular stock, but for the everyday investor this amounts to a gross misrepresentation about a firm's profitability. Every once in a while you hear about the SEC threatening to change this provision, but it always seems to end up in the dumpster. Anybody have info on where the issue stands now???
Granted, this still won't get past those headhunters who use a simple search criteria to screen potential candidates - but it does bolster your chances if and when someone actually reads your resume and/or cover letter.
When I was looking for a job in Indiana, with a few years of HP3000 Cobol & Powerhouse experience, I was very fortunate to find a manager who gave me a chance in an AS/400 shop - my background was with HMO's, but this was a distribution & retail company. This manager realized that I had a history of learning new packages and languages as required, so he knew that after a few shorts weeks I'd be a good fit for his department - and he was right. Too often, however, headhunters & managers base their searches on criteria such as x years of Java, or y years of C++ experience. In doing so, they are blinding themselves to a vast number of programmers out there who want to develop new skills, but aren't getting the opportunity to do so. The other skills they may bring to the job (experience with the development process, etc.) can more than make up for any learning curve they may have to go through on the technical side.
That ain't racist, it's just reality. University's really should offer/require some form of English-language speech training for TA's who don't speak English as their first language.
There may be quite a few "self-made intellectuals" out there, but nothing can replace the interchange that takes place within a community of learning. Communication skills are essential to good product (and personal) development, and college is the best choice for the vast majority of people to develop those skills. If there's one thing I regret about my college years, it's that I didn't indulge myself with more philosophy, history, or lit courses.
The experience he's reffering to is from the other side of the silicon, so to speak. CSc types (especially if they skip college) often lack communication skills, which can introduce just as many (or more) problems in the development cycle as technical flaws.
The visa issue has gotten way out of control, and only serves to undercut our nation's ability to train and improve upon its existing workforce.
The problem? Too many hiring managers and headhunters focus on keywords instead of skills such as the ABILITY to learn new languages and techniques. I was an HP3000 programmer who was lucky enough to find a job in an AS/400 shop because the manager realized that the job functions were similar, the business relationships (working with app users) were similar, and that learning a new OS and developing language skills was something I had already done in the past, so learning their system wouldn't be difficult.
Technical skills can be learned. The ability to work effectively within an organization, and the ability to learn new skills as they are needed, are just as important, if not more so, than x years of VB/C++/Java experience.
2) Why should the fee go away? Roads and toll bridges require constant, expensive maintenance (to use your example), and people still use VCR's and audio tapes to copy content illegally even after decades - so the "harm" that justifies the fee never really goes away.
Your last paragraph, while rambling, sounds straight out of PoliSci 101 - narrowly focused, well-backed interest groups can make a killing in Washington at the expense of the broader public interest. That's simply an inherent flaw of the political system, and while it ain't perfect, I don't see anything better in use currently.
Quick answers to your questions would be 1) It looks like Napster is pretty much getting snuffed (similar apps that survive will do so for now as an underground activity), and 2) it's the force of the market that compels these companies to put the clamps on something like Napster (if they don't squash it, they won't be able to charge $20 CD's anymore). In a controlled economy, innovation from the outside is by definition not present.
If you read anything regarding this situation, you'd see that Amazon is not a monopoly. While it is true that under a monopoly, consumer prices are higher, that's not the reason behind this case. What they're doing is determining to what extent someone who has a strong preference for a particular product is insensitive to price increases.
Most fundamental economic changes have been introduced gradually, in order to minimize the social costs of change (which are many - the dinosaurs you speak of will need unemployment insurance). Look at the growth of world trade, for instance - it has taken decades to get where we are now, and there are still many walls that need to come down.
It's the opposite of the reason behind all those coupons you get with the weekend paper. Companies offer you a discount to try their product. Once you become a fan of that particular product, they have no incentive to offer further discounts, as long as you keep coming back. It's called discretionary pricing, and it's a great way for a company to improve their bottom line. With the amount of consumer-level information that's becoming available these days, I'm not surprised to see someone try this out.