well, cigarette manufacturers had strong supporters that they were funding in the congress, and even probably judiciary system too, but they got busted numerous times ?
maybe for the first time in my life, i will be pulling off from a debate, because i didnt like opponent's style.
your style is arrogant/demeaning, and does not intend to exchange/test ideas but suppress the opponent.
i am, maybe unfortunately, maybe fortunately, very well versed in the ways of doing such debates to the extent that i can prove my points at the expense of the opponent even when im totally wrong.
being a turk im not so much affiliated with midwestern geography. what i know is there are a bunch of almost desert states in the middle of united states that lots of conservative crap originates from.
Really? Maybe you have never heard of Micro-Credit [wikipedia.org]? Seems that there's more innovation and entrepeneurship than you thought?
i heard of it, and it is a new thing that is brought up to cope with the shortcomings of the capitalism system. if true capitalism was applied, no money would be given to small businesses who have less survival chance, and credits would be invested in tried, surefire businesses and concepts of sufficient size and prowess that would provide better returns on investment. giving micro credits to people is more like a socialist approach.
Said by whom? Because very idea betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what supply/demand is all about. Money is a commodity, just like a banana. The value of any commodity is simply defined as what people would be willing to trade it for. If there is "more money" then its value drops.
if there is more money than its value in the market, is market value drops. this is why the cash in swiss banks do not go into circulation to buy things, because it would inflate prices of top end items phenomenonally.
Yes. And one of the roles of governments is to preserve the openness of their marketplaces and prevent this from happening.
being forced to invest a percentage of its assets continually is not something that damages the shareholders or wealth. investment is the major factor in which innovation, expansion and growth is done. moreover, companies/people/philosophies which do NOT invest are totally at odds with the basics of capitalist system. capital dormant is capital wasted. capital invested is capital profiting and growing. this is it. there should be some measure against parties/groups who garner enough wealth, then pull this wealth of the economy, thereby wasting potential value.
It's not the job of a business to feed poor folks.
ultimately, it is the job of a business to feed the poor folks.
the sole reason businesses exist is to improve life-standards of people. its operators, if you ask its owners. but, if the business is detrimental to people/groups other than its owners, ultimately a situation will result in that there will be contempt against that business/businesses/system, and people will start taking action, and in extreme cases revolt against the system. hence, a business which thinks that "its not in its interests to feed people" is a business committing suicide.
in 1st world, this materializes as people not buying/boycotting products of insensitive, aggressive, dicky companies. environmental reasons, other reasons, contempt and such. result, immediate loss of profits, and in extreme cases bankruptcy, which is totally stupid in terms of capitalist approach.
similar is the situation in poor countries of the world. current capitalist company understanding (especially mega corp understanding) does not still see the fact that leaving people hungry and poor majorly fucks business up.
all world markets are tied together. a major crisis resulting from a local unrest in india will affect asian markets, this will affect hong kong, then if the event is serious enough chain will go on.
unrest comes up in poor and starving countries, which leaves people prone to approaches from extreme groups, which results in terrorist activity, which then leads to skyscrapers being demolished by terrorists who grew stronger, and it creates wars and struggles neverending that damages business in general, whilst profiting only a few (like haliburton) and damaging all others in terms of markets, stock market value drops, government needing cash and trying to get it from taxes and shit.
So, you're saying that companies like Exxon or Wal-Mart don't create wealth?
it is not a matter of something creating wealth or not. it is a matter of HOW MUCH of the wealth goes to HOW MANY people i
Isnt this some mid-midwestern state which are supposed to be a little/extreme conservative and hence should have not made a stand against privacy-damaging concerns ?
MySQL owes its success to the fact that it was always so simple to choke it off when you were giving it to people on $5/month hosting plans, so it became popular among the very cheap.
age old concept - cheap, easy, simple thing that works. almost all tech stuff took off like that.
damn. not econ 101. 102. or the thing (simulation thing) they gave in 12th semester. or they might have told it in 102, and then tested it in simulation.
i wonder if that 125 value includes over-inflated extravagant luxury items, houses, cars and such.
well, first thing we were taught in econ 101 was that for an enterprise to be considered "healthy" it should have debts at least amounting to half of its assets that were easy to liquidate or something like that.
being able to go in debt is seen as a resource, and it is advised to use it.
with the above figures we could say that quite an amount is left in the banks. since whole world cant go in debt, it would pass for "investment" equivalent.
in the extreme poor level, it fails. no enterpreurship there.
in the extreme rich level, it goes way out of balance. it was said to me before in college that all the stuff in the world that can be bought/valued by money couldnt meet the total value funds in swiss banks. hence, that money there was money without the possibility of buying something physical.
the problem is, investment is not forced. major capital sets up monopolies, new companies, buys out competition, passes laws and gets more and more rich, the amount of funds in swiss banks go up, yet there is hunger in third world and small businesses in modern countries struggle.
capitalism works because it is applicable in small and medium business level. these two groups handle all the load of the system.
if the funds that piled up were forced to be invested with a percentage, than we would see real economic expansion and mega capitals' presence would be justifiable.
unfortunately i cant outright gather numbers about this idea. this is something i been thinking about for a short time now.
Bulk of the profits from any mega corporation goes to major stockholders' pockets, and they either stash that cash up in swiss banks, or spend them on lavish houses or cars, restaurants and whatnot at inflated prices - the fraction of population who benefits from those are pathetically small percentage of the society.
It has been that way since first colonial companies have been founded, and it is still that way today.
Slashdot Mirror
are there still hippies there ?
heard about gonzales and his maneuvers to escape attorney firing scandal's way.
but baby boomers were also the hippies then. that means much.
yea i see now.
Of course, if we ignore the fact that $3 is a full time employed person's monthly salary in many of the developing countries, especially in africa.
Because this is exactly what is going on.
are these baby boomers or forsaken generation of 80es yuppies ?
well, cigarette manufacturers had strong supporters that they were funding in the congress, and even probably judiciary system too, but they got busted numerous times ?
they are using lawsuits and legal procedures for INTIMIDATING and SUPPRESSING people they sue.
there are laws against exploitation of legal system in order to suppress, intimidate, extort people.
arent there any in united states ?
maybe for the first time in my life, i will be pulling off from a debate, because i didnt like opponent's style.
your style is arrogant/demeaning, and does not intend to exchange/test ideas but suppress the opponent.
i am, maybe unfortunately, maybe fortunately, very well versed in the ways of doing such debates to the extent that i can prove my points at the expense of the opponent even when im totally wrong.
but, im not doing this kind of debating anymore.
hence, im outta this.
being a turk im not so much affiliated with midwestern geography. what i know is there are a bunch of almost desert states in the middle of united states that lots of conservative crap originates from.
This is why.
competent developers always makes sure what they do works with at least 3-4 major browsers, at least 2 (ff, ie).
lazy, non-caring ones, amateur developers or devs who work on tight budget situations choose to skip that.
i totally had no idea. isnt montana a desert then ? and do they always elect democrats ?
Really? Maybe you have never heard of Micro-Credit [wikipedia.org]? Seems that there's more innovation and entrepeneurship than you thought?
i heard of it, and it is a new thing that is brought up to cope with the shortcomings of the capitalism system. if true capitalism was applied, no money would be given to small businesses who have less survival chance, and credits would be invested in tried, surefire businesses and concepts of sufficient size and prowess that would provide better returns on investment. giving micro credits to people is more like a socialist approach.
Said by whom? Because very idea betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what supply/demand is all about. Money is a commodity, just like a banana. The value of any commodity is simply defined as what people would be willing to trade it for. If there is "more money" then its value drops.
if there is more money than its value in the market, is market value drops. this is why the cash in swiss banks do not go into circulation to buy things, because it would inflate prices of top end items phenomenonally.
Yes. And one of the roles of governments is to preserve the openness of their marketplaces and prevent this from happening.
being forced to invest a percentage of its assets continually is not something that damages the shareholders or wealth. investment is the major factor in which innovation, expansion and growth is done. moreover, companies/people/philosophies which do NOT invest are totally at odds with the basics of capitalist system. capital dormant is capital wasted. capital invested is capital profiting and growing. this is it. there should be some measure against parties/groups who garner enough wealth, then pull this wealth of the economy, thereby wasting potential value.
It's not the job of a business to feed poor folks.
ultimately, it is the job of a business to feed the poor folks.
the sole reason businesses exist is to improve life-standards of people. its operators, if you ask its owners. but, if the business is detrimental to people/groups other than its owners, ultimately a situation will result in that there will be contempt against that business/businesses/system, and people will start taking action, and in extreme cases revolt against the system. hence, a business which thinks that "its not in its interests to feed people" is a business committing suicide.
in 1st world, this materializes as people not buying/boycotting products of insensitive, aggressive, dicky companies. environmental reasons, other reasons, contempt and such. result, immediate loss of profits, and in extreme cases bankruptcy, which is totally stupid in terms of capitalist approach.
similar is the situation in poor countries of the world. current capitalist company understanding (especially mega corp understanding) does not still see the fact that leaving people hungry and poor majorly fucks business up.
all world markets are tied together. a major crisis resulting from a local unrest in india will affect asian markets, this will affect hong kong, then if the event is serious enough chain will go on.
unrest comes up in poor and starving countries, which leaves people prone to approaches from extreme groups, which results in terrorist activity, which then leads to skyscrapers being demolished by terrorists who grew stronger, and it creates wars and struggles neverending that damages business in general, whilst profiting only a few (like haliburton) and damaging all others in terms of markets, stock market value drops, government needing cash and trying to get it from taxes and shit.
So, you're saying that companies like Exxon or Wal-Mart don't create wealth?
it is not a matter of something creating wealth or not. it is a matter of HOW MUCH of the wealth goes to HOW MANY people i
Isnt this some mid-midwestern state which are supposed to be a little/extreme conservative and hence should have not made a stand against privacy-damaging concerns ?
age old concept - cheap, easy, simple thing that works. almost all tech stuff took off like that.
damn. not econ 101. 102. or the thing (simulation thing) they gave in 12th semester. or they might have told it in 102, and then tested it in simulation.
i wonder if that 125 value includes over-inflated extravagant luxury items, houses, cars and such.
some people like it hard, and thorough&through down their throat, if you know what i mean.
well, first thing we were taught in econ 101 was that for an enterprise to be considered "healthy" it should have debts at least amounting to half of its assets that were easy to liquidate or something like that.
being able to go in debt is seen as a resource, and it is advised to use it.
with the above figures we could say that quite an amount is left in the banks. since whole world cant go in debt, it would pass for "investment" equivalent.
This, was their finest hour !!!
what the fuck is that ?
in the middle of it i stopped laughing and started reading it stupefied.
this one of the best creative shit i saw in my life.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=231323&cid=187 84479
Yes, it works, but not on the extreme ends.
in the extreme poor level, it fails. no enterpreurship there.
in the extreme rich level, it goes way out of balance. it was said to me before in college that all the stuff in the world that can be bought/valued by money couldnt meet the total value funds in swiss banks. hence, that money there was money without the possibility of buying something physical.
the problem is, investment is not forced. major capital sets up monopolies, new companies, buys out competition, passes laws and gets more and more rich, the amount of funds in swiss banks go up, yet there is hunger in third world and small businesses in modern countries struggle.
capitalism works because it is applicable in small and medium business level. these two groups handle all the load of the system.
if the funds that piled up were forced to be invested with a percentage, than we would see real economic expansion and mega capitals' presence would be justifiable.
unfortunately i cant outright gather numbers about this idea. this is something i been thinking about for a short time now.
There is no economy in this.
Bulk of the profits from any mega corporation goes to major stockholders' pockets, and they either stash that cash up in swiss banks, or spend them on lavish houses or cars, restaurants and whatnot at inflated prices - the fraction of population who benefits from those are pathetically small percentage of the society.
It has been that way since first colonial companies have been founded, and it is still that way today.
and the truth shall set us free !