People won't act rationally simply because they are people. There are numerous psychological hangups and attachments that get in the way of us making purely rational decisions. And these hangups have been studied exhaustively, so that many of the rich are able to exploit them.
And I dare you to prove it is so using the actual meat of the rules, rather than just the number of them. If 2,000 rules were added that don't really affect anything, and 3 rules were removed that were huge parts of regulation, what was the net effect?
That's an awful fucking answer. For one, you don't know if this guy is rich enough to do so. Odds are he isn't. Second, if he's not, even if he can see it coming a mile away, that doesn't mean he isn't going to be fucked over by it just the same.
Wow, what a pile of shit. Not one thing in your post is remotely accurate. The only people who don't do due diligence on an investment are idiots who wouldn't do it anyway, even if there wasn't government regulation.
And there's very good reason for having these regulations, as history paints a very bleak picture of fraud and scams without them.
And I would say that someone who merely counts the number of pages has no idea what they're talking about.
I cannot comment of the dot-com or enron debacles, but it is very clear to me the mortgage bubble was created by the Government, its Fannie/Freddie organizations, and the private bank monopoly known as the Fed. They colluded with one another to provide tons of cheap low-interest loans, and that fueled the rapid rise in demand for limited housing, and eventual burst of the bubble in 2007-8. If anything it was TOO MUCH regulation (Congress insisting everyone should get a mortgage, even if they were too poor to pay it back).
False. The biggest factor was the repeal of Glass-Stegall(sp?), which made it far more possible for banks to be risky with money, including loans. And that IS deregulation.
. If it was really about fairness and collecting revenue for government efficiently we could have a consumption based tax system
"Consumption based tax systems" are hardly fair at all. They are inherently regressive, and shift the burden of taxation from the rich to the middle class and poor, who spend far more as a percentage of income than the wealthy do.
At least without a really bloody and painful intermission.
Somewhat off topic, but isn't that what happened to them? Earth was either recovering from, or in the middle of some World War 3/Mad Max type of period, when Cochran launched his warp drive and the Vulcans came.
how trying to motivate creating through money is counter-productive.
Yes and no. There's still a minimum level of money you have to pay someone so that they are willing to be creative for you. Although after a certain point, most people are not motivated by money anymore, so throwing more of it at them leads to diminishing returns.
Hell, Chinese are constantly taking up major projects, the scale they work on is absolutely stunning! Hell, they start new cities to *this day*. They want something? They get it done, they get it cheap, they get it fast, and it all mostly just works. That being said, a lot of crap comes out of china too, and any chinese person will say the same, but without failure there cannot be success.
It's amazing the things you can get done when you have a near endless supply of slave labor.
Conscious necrophilia (the corpse could give consent it his last will) Non-violent zoophilia (fucking your animal friend which you love is much better than slaughtering tons of animals for meat isn't it?)
No. Just no. In both cases, neither one of them can actually give consent at the time of the act.
Your problems with donating to WikiLeaks are completely and utterly with the banks and credit card agencies, as they're the ones who decided to block those transactions.
That just means that the Dollar is the only think you can pay the government with. Nothing stops you from using alternative currencies with other people, other than their desire to actually get something they can use, rather than worthless digital junk.
And yet funnily enough despite not being illegal, shortly after the cable leaks it became a lot harder to send money to WikiLeaks.
You have no one to thank but the credit card companies and banks for this. Remember, WikiLeaks was also threatening to share a bunch of BofA documents, too.
Kind of, but not really. If you have to put this in a policy, that means that your own employees think that a competitor's product is better for them. So you can either find out from them why they think the competitor's product is better, or you can take the easy way out and force your product down their throat.
Slashdot Mirror
People won't act rationally simply because they are people. There are numerous psychological hangups and attachments that get in the way of us making purely rational decisions. And these hangups have been studied exhaustively, so that many of the rich are able to exploit them.
Yup. And I'm sure it has absolutely nothing to do with scams of this very nature that were an epidemic on the country around the 1920s and 1930s.
And I dare you to prove it is so using the actual meat of the rules, rather than just the number of them. If 2,000 rules were added that don't really affect anything, and 3 rules were removed that were huge parts of regulation, what was the net effect?
Small business might not be able to bring down the economy, however, many small businesses together might be able to. Remember the dot-com bubble?
Anyone who claims that regulation kills jobs and is a scam is trying to get you to let them scam you.
That's an awful fucking answer. For one, you don't know if this guy is rich enough to do so. Odds are he isn't. Second, if he's not, even if he can see it coming a mile away, that doesn't mean he isn't going to be fucked over by it just the same.
Wow, what a pile of shit. Not one thing in your post is remotely accurate. The only people who don't do due diligence on an investment are idiots who wouldn't do it anyway, even if there wasn't government regulation.
And there's very good reason for having these regulations, as history paints a very bleak picture of fraud and scams without them.
I like how you are not able to actually counter his points, and so you have to resort to trolling.
And I would say that someone who merely counts the number of pages has no idea what they're talking about.
I cannot comment of the dot-com or enron debacles, but it is very clear to me the mortgage bubble was created by the Government, its Fannie/Freddie organizations, and the private bank monopoly known as the Fed. They colluded with one another to provide tons of cheap low-interest loans, and that fueled the rapid rise in demand for limited housing, and eventual burst of the bubble in 2007-8. If anything it was TOO MUCH regulation (Congress insisting everyone should get a mortgage, even if they were too poor to pay it back).
False. The biggest factor was the repeal of Glass-Stegall(sp?), which made it far more possible for banks to be risky with money, including loans. And that IS deregulation.
I was not aware that the poster, nor the NYT in any way said they were.
Yes. History has taught us this.
But some people don't want to give-up the house. (We're seeing that right now with people unable to pay their mortgages but refusing to leave.)
Much of that is probably because they feel the banks have cheated them, or are yanking them around with respect to refinancing and such.
I really can't say I blame them.
I hope you never use credit/debit cards or checks then.
Yes, they are. You're a complete and total idiot if you don't think some form of government is necessary in society.
. If it was really about fairness and collecting revenue for government efficiently we could have a consumption based tax system
"Consumption based tax systems" are hardly fair at all. They are inherently regressive, and shift the burden of taxation from the rich to the middle class and poor, who spend far more as a percentage of income than the wealthy do.
At least without a really bloody and painful intermission.
Somewhat off topic, but isn't that what happened to them? Earth was either recovering from, or in the middle of some World War 3/Mad Max type of period, when Cochran launched his warp drive and the Vulcans came.
how trying to motivate creating through money is counter-productive.
Yes and no. There's still a minimum level of money you have to pay someone so that they are willing to be creative for you. Although after a certain point, most people are not motivated by money anymore, so throwing more of it at them leads to diminishing returns.
Hell, Chinese are constantly taking up major projects, the scale they work on is absolutely stunning! Hell, they start new cities to *this day*. They want something? They get it done, they get it cheap, they get it fast, and it all mostly just works. That being said, a lot of crap comes out of china too, and any chinese person will say the same, but without failure there cannot be success.
It's amazing the things you can get done when you have a near endless supply of slave labor.
Yes, because your desire to get somewhere a quarter of a second faster is more important than the safety of everyone else on the road.
Conscious necrophilia (the corpse could give consent it his last will)
Non-violent zoophilia (fucking your animal friend which you love is much better than slaughtering tons of animals for meat isn't it?)
No. Just no. In both cases, neither one of them can actually give consent at the time of the act.
I purchase clove cigarettes all the time.
Your problems with donating to WikiLeaks are completely and utterly with the banks and credit card agencies, as they're the ones who decided to block those transactions.
You can't sell it across state lines. Other than that, you're just fine to purchase it.
That just means that the Dollar is the only think you can pay the government with. Nothing stops you from using alternative currencies with other people, other than their desire to actually get something they can use, rather than worthless digital junk.
And yet funnily enough despite not being illegal, shortly after the cable leaks it became a lot harder to send money to WikiLeaks.
You have no one to thank but the credit card companies and banks for this. Remember, WikiLeaks was also threatening to share a bunch of BofA documents, too.
Kind of, but not really. If you have to put this in a policy, that means that your own employees think that a competitor's product is better for them. So you can either find out from them why they think the competitor's product is better, or you can take the easy way out and force your product down their throat.