Then it seems to me that no endpoint authentication is required. Simply mandate that the originating network, which of course knows the caller ID of its own subscriber, to pass along the correct caller ID. Otherwise there shall be statutory fines. Such statutory fines are already commonplace in other industries for violators.
We're currently heading for the other extreme, where nobody has anything except a small sliver of individuals who have more than they could possibly use. Care to explain the sensibility in this? This is killing any economy.
The United States and other capitalistic economies are doing great compared to the socilalists. Poor people in the U.S. enjoy a higher standard of living than most middle class folks in other countries, as evidenced by most such households having access to cell phones, TVs, refridgerators, a car, and more. Killing the incentive to produce the items is precicely how you arrive at a low standard of living sociamism.
i reject your concept of dictating a maximum "sensible" level of wealth, above which you plan to confiscate. Your plans to redistribute wealth in the name of "stimulating demand" has failed to achieve positive outcomes elsewhere in the world.
We are always under-producing compared to our wants. Most everyone would love to own a 3000 sq ft house, BMW, eat steak and lobster, and drink $1000 per bottle alcohol if given the chance. But we obviously cannot supply that to everyone. Very few individuals earn the income to live such a lifestyle. So yes, we are underproducing, and economics is the study of deciding who gets the limited resources.
To sell, you have to have someone to buy your stuff. If that someone buys your stuff to sell something himself, he's essentially only making the matter worse (unless of course he buys your stuff and goes bankrupt), because that means that whoever he wants to sell to needs to recover the cost of your goods or services, too, essentially increasing his price and putting more burden on the demand side.
People do not produce static amounts, nor do they produce identical amounts. If I produce something for $10 and sell it for $11, the next person can worker harder/smarter/longer to earn $11 to pay for it. (Inflation need not be a concern as long as the money supply matches the amount of goods and services produced, as demonstrated for 100+ years of price stability in the United States prior to the existence of the Federal Reserve.) Your concern about "making it worse" is unwarranted, if you accept that some people are better at producing more desirable goods or services than others, and will be paid more, while others others might need work harder/longer to acquire the more desirable stuff. Capitalists generally don't have a problem with this, since it rewards and encourages more desirable production. But a socialist might complain that this is unfair.
The key is not printing money, the key is consumption. We need more people to buy to consume. Preferably services. Services are unfortunately also what people cut back first when money gets tight. We need money on that demand side so we can sell what we produce.
Ability to consume is always infinite. If you don't believe me, ask Johnny Depp. Desiring to consume without producing enough is what dooms Socialistic economies. Money being tight and cutting back is the symptom of over-consumption and under-production. Keynesians and socialists haven't figured out how to magically increase consumption without either printing money or taxing, and harming the economy in either case.
At least without investing some of that money, which is the exact opposite of spending.
When you invest that money, it usually doesn't just sit there and do absolutely nothing. Very few people keep tens of thousands of dollars in cash under their mattress, much less $100k+. Almost all saved money invested then goes back into spending, such as put in a bank, and then turned into a car loan; or to someone who needs starting capital for a business. If you think printing money and driving demand is the key to the economy, then 1920 Weimar Germany, 2009 Zimbabwe, and modern day Venezuela ought to be utopia nations for you.
This is also why corporatists hate the idea of cryptocurrencies. The elitists can't believe that an algorithm-based payment system might be more credible than their own. But then they pull this garbage and try to ban anyone that they don't like for the flimsiest of reasons.
Of course, if they labelled it truthfully, how many people would have bought "Driver Assist" instead of "Autopilot" ? It seems like a classic bait and switch to me to gain market share early, and then walk back the name later.
IANAL -- First, you can sue anyone over just about anything. Never, ever ignore a lawsuit, always respond to court complaints otherwise you will probably lose automatically if you don't show up. It's no guarantee that you will win with silly claims, and the judge might charge you a lot of money for wasting the court's time, but you can at least try to file it.
But that's probably not your question, it's probably "can someone successfully sue you for something that you haven't yet done?". So next, you're supposed to have a tort to be able to file a lawsuit, that is to say you must have at least suffered some kind of injury. If you haven't actually done anything wrong, but you might in the future, they likely can't sue you successfully. In this case, someone might be able to get an injunction against some kind of severely harmful behavior, but the person filing the lawsuit typically has a high burden of proof to show that you will actually do the thing in the future.
there's a reason that companies don't want unions and want their employees to be replaceable cogs. so they can pay them as little as possible and give them the least benefits possible.
The Whole Foods in my area actually pays MORE in hourly wages than competing union food stores, with the same benefits. I find it understandable that companies don't like unions, because it will hurt the company's ability to operate, but in this case Whole Foods is willing to pay to avoid the huge inefficiencies that unions bring.
Potentially they could, but then as a contractor they could have job freedoms, such as making their own schedule, to which most employers would balk at any price.
And after thinking about it for a little while, if you are truly some kind of Youtube star making $50k per month, that's $600k per year, and people earning far lower salaries have assistants. So 4.) Hire workers to take the burden off of you. Hire that video editor for $15k per month = $360k per year = nothing to sneeze at even in California. You'll probably be a lot less burnt-out if you have the other stuff handled by someone else. Would it be nice to keep all the money for yourself? Sure. But it you don't get burnt-out and you can keep your dream job for longer, while still making a ton of money, it could be a nice balance for you.
It sounds like these Youtube stars are being put into a situation similar to a movie celebrity or a sports athlete. Their most profitable time will likely be measured in months. It probably won't last past 5 years. My advice to them would be, 1.) Quit your day job and make as much money as possible now, because you will probably never do it again in your lifetime, 2.) As mentioned above, get a financial planner who can spread that money out over a lifetime of stability, and 3.) If you feel stressed out because you're making a ton of money, but you can't quit because you'll lose all your viewers, too bad. This is the market trying to tell you something. Apparently there's plenty of "starving artists" willing to step up and take your spot if your content drops off.
I'm skeptical that there is a labor shortage. Simple supply and demand rules of economics tells us that if there is a labor shortage, then the price of labor should increase. Small increases are normal due to inflation, and I'm glad if there are a few companies forced to shell out a few more bucks to its workers, but so far I haven't seen any huge amounts that would indicate a "labor shortage".
But the trade group heard about Element, and it bought a couple of sets. When they opened their boxes — draped with pictures of the American flag — they were startled to see “made in China” stamped on the back.
So in 2014, they filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission, accusing Element of misleading marketing. They described the company’s practices as “red, white and blue-washing,” since a product can’t be called “made in America” if its parts are all foreign.
Basically, they had the entire TV manufactured and assembled, then shipped to their South Carolina plant already in the box in which it would be sold. American workers opened the box, tested the TV to ensure that it worked, and packaged it back up. For this, they tried to imply on the packaging that it was made in the USA. And they also took government subsidies.
Part of the problem is that is costs more to recycle plastic than it does to simply manufacture new plastic. Otherwise there would already be a market for non-subsidized plastic, the way there is a market for aluminum and scrap steel. Also, since most of the cost for recycling is energy, and most off that energy comes from fossil fuels, you aren't really saving anything by recycling plastic (challenge: for anyone who says use renewable energy, calculate the carbon footprint of a solar panel, nuclear power plant, or windmill, plus add the added carbon necessary in economic activity to pay for its higher cost).
This comes from the "There Ought To Be A Law" Department....
There ought to be a law that says a business, if open to the public, can decide to outlaw firearms on their property, BUT they must also keep sufficient security on-hand to deal with any threats. As an example, most sports venues do this. If an incident occurs on the premises without security to deal with it, then the owner is jointly responsible for any damage, up-to and including wrongful death.
I'm skeptical that there are truly more job openings than there are job applicants. As an example, I can magically create an infinite amount of job openings by declaring: I want to open a medical clinic next week. I need 5 doctors and 15 nurses, nursing salaries will be $7.50 per hour, doctors shall make $8.00 per hour. Wait.... I'm not getting any applicants!! Next, I can create 10 more jobs by saying that I shall need a total of 7 doctors and 23 nurses.
The real test of a worker shortage is to ask, "What jobs are paying significantly more?" Simple laws of supply and demand tell us that if there really is a shortage, then we should be seeing salaries jump. Something tells me that these recruiters are desperately attempting to recruit at the same (relatively) low pay as they always have.
It's a simple matter to create more jobs than job applicants. As an example, I could want to start up a new health clinic. I need to employ ten doctors, and I'm willing to pay $7.50 an hour. Hmmm, I'm not finding any takers. But now I want to increase the size of my clinic, and now I need 15 doctors at $7.50 per hour. Of course, I could repeat this and pretend to create an infinite amount of job openings. But it's the problem that you identified as B: pay must match the value of the work.
Imports reduce the amount of American labor spent on obtaining a thing (i.e. you work 3 hours for American-made pants, 1.86 hours for the same exact quality of Chinese pants, and more than 3 hours for American-made pants at a higher quality, assuming the American manufacturing industry has equivalent or better experience and expertise in manufacturing compared to China). That reduces American poverty and frees up American labor to do things like build great new technology industries. If the cost differential is more than trivial, it net-creates American jobs because moving and selling all those goods also requires labor.
But then your $25/hr factory job gets shipped overseas and you can only get a $8/hr job as a bartender, and so your standard of living got worse. And then the retail stores don't actually bother to reduce prices at all; only electronics products have gone down in price (imo due to technological advancement). The price on most other items, from durable goods, cars, healthcare, education, childcare, and housing have skyrocketed in recent years while U.S. median wages actually decreased. Most of the Americans to benefit from trade have been those close to the financier side of the trade equation, and not from manufacturing.
You are attempting to argue on principals of comparative and absolute advantage. These theories only explain that more goods and services might be produced. But they DO NOT EXPLAIN TO WHERE THEY ARE DISTRIBUTED. Which is the essential definition of economics: the DISTRIBUTION of scarce goods and services. The fact that you have created more stuff, and given it away to a bunch of overseas workers and wealthy bankers is of no comfort to the American workers and unions that saw their standard of living gutted in recent decades.
NO, we have interest in this trade war. While Trump has been tearing up treaties the rest of the world has been signing them.
Spoken like a true elitist. While you have been signing them, your populace has been growing increasingly discontent at having their standard of living thrown away for the benefit of the international financiers. Prepare for more Brexits, Trumps, and M5S's.
Slashdot Mirror
Then it seems to me that no endpoint authentication is required. Simply mandate that the originating network, which of course knows the caller ID of its own subscriber, to pass along the correct caller ID. Otherwise there shall be statutory fines. Such statutory fines are already commonplace in other industries for violators.
How is it that a phone network would know who to bill for a call, but would not know who placed the call?
Fair enough, im happy to be where i am, and if you are too, then that's fine as well.
We're currently heading for the other extreme, where nobody has anything except a small sliver of individuals who have more than they could possibly use. Care to explain the sensibility in this? This is killing any economy.
The United States and other capitalistic economies are doing great compared to the socilalists. Poor people in the U.S. enjoy a higher standard of living than most middle class folks in other countries, as evidenced by most such households having access to cell phones, TVs, refridgerators, a car, and more. Killing the incentive to produce the items is precicely how you arrive at a low standard of living sociamism.
i reject your concept of dictating a maximum "sensible" level of wealth, above which you plan to confiscate. Your plans to redistribute wealth in the name of "stimulating demand" has failed to achieve positive outcomes elsewhere in the world.
We are always under-producing compared to our wants. Most everyone would love to own a 3000 sq ft house, BMW, eat steak and lobster, and drink $1000 per bottle alcohol if given the chance. But we obviously cannot supply that to everyone. Very few individuals earn the income to live such a lifestyle. So yes, we are underproducing, and economics is the study of deciding who gets the limited resources.
To sell, you have to have someone to buy your stuff. If that someone buys your stuff to sell something himself, he's essentially only making the matter worse (unless of course he buys your stuff and goes bankrupt), because that means that whoever he wants to sell to needs to recover the cost of your goods or services, too, essentially increasing his price and putting more burden on the demand side.
People do not produce static amounts, nor do they produce identical amounts. If I produce something for $10 and sell it for $11, the next person can worker harder/smarter/longer to earn $11 to pay for it. (Inflation need not be a concern as long as the money supply matches the amount of goods and services produced, as demonstrated for 100+ years of price stability in the United States prior to the existence of the Federal Reserve.) Your concern about "making it worse" is unwarranted, if you accept that some people are better at producing more desirable goods or services than others, and will be paid more, while others others might need work harder/longer to acquire the more desirable stuff. Capitalists generally don't have a problem with this, since it rewards and encourages more desirable production. But a socialist might complain that this is unfair.
The key is not printing money, the key is consumption. We need more people to buy to consume. Preferably services. Services are unfortunately also what people cut back first when money gets tight. We need money on that demand side so we can sell what we produce.
Ability to consume is always infinite. If you don't believe me, ask Johnny Depp. Desiring to consume without producing enough is what dooms Socialistic economies. Money being tight and cutting back is the symptom of over-consumption and under-production. Keynesians and socialists haven't figured out how to magically increase consumption without either printing money or taxing, and harming the economy in either case.
At least without investing some of that money, which is the exact opposite of spending.
When you invest that money, it usually doesn't just sit there and do absolutely nothing. Very few people keep tens of thousands of dollars in cash under their mattress, much less $100k+. Almost all saved money invested then goes back into spending, such as put in a bank, and then turned into a car loan; or to someone who needs starting capital for a business. If you think printing money and driving demand is the key to the economy, then 1920 Weimar Germany, 2009 Zimbabwe, and modern day Venezuela ought to be utopia nations for you.
This is also why corporatists hate the idea of cryptocurrencies. The elitists can't believe that an algorithm-based payment system might be more credible than their own. But then they pull this garbage and try to ban anyone that they don't like for the flimsiest of reasons.
Of course, if they labelled it truthfully, how many people would have bought "Driver Assist" instead of "Autopilot" ? It seems like a classic bait and switch to me to gain market share early, and then walk back the name later.
IANAL -- First, you can sue anyone over just about anything. Never, ever ignore a lawsuit, always respond to court complaints otherwise you will probably lose automatically if you don't show up. It's no guarantee that you will win with silly claims, and the judge might charge you a lot of money for wasting the court's time, but you can at least try to file it.
But that's probably not your question, it's probably "can someone successfully sue you for something that you haven't yet done?". So next, you're supposed to have a tort to be able to file a lawsuit, that is to say you must have at least suffered some kind of injury. If you haven't actually done anything wrong, but you might in the future, they likely can't sue you successfully. In this case, someone might be able to get an injunction against some kind of severely harmful behavior, but the person filing the lawsuit typically has a high burden of proof to show that you will actually do the thing in the future.
there's a reason that companies don't want unions and want their employees to be replaceable cogs. so they can pay them as little as possible and give them the least benefits possible.
The Whole Foods in my area actually pays MORE in hourly wages than competing union food stores, with the same benefits. I find it understandable that companies don't like unions, because it will hurt the company's ability to operate, but in this case Whole Foods is willing to pay to avoid the huge inefficiencies that unions bring.
Potentially they could, but then as a contractor they could have job freedoms, such as making their own schedule, to which most employers would balk at any price.
And after thinking about it for a little while, if you are truly some kind of Youtube star making $50k per month, that's $600k per year, and people earning far lower salaries have assistants. So 4.) Hire workers to take the burden off of you. Hire that video editor for $15k per month = $360k per year = nothing to sneeze at even in California. You'll probably be a lot less burnt-out if you have the other stuff handled by someone else. Would it be nice to keep all the money for yourself? Sure. But it you don't get burnt-out and you can keep your dream job for longer, while still making a ton of money, it could be a nice balance for you.
It sounds like these Youtube stars are being put into a situation similar to a movie celebrity or a sports athlete. Their most profitable time will likely be measured in months. It probably won't last past 5 years. My advice to them would be, 1.) Quit your day job and make as much money as possible now, because you will probably never do it again in your lifetime, 2.) As mentioned above, get a financial planner who can spread that money out over a lifetime of stability, and 3.) If you feel stressed out because you're making a ton of money, but you can't quit because you'll lose all your viewers, too bad. This is the market trying to tell you something. Apparently there's plenty of "starving artists" willing to step up and take your spot if your content drops off.
I'm skeptical that there is a labor shortage. Simple supply and demand rules of economics tells us that if there is a labor shortage, then the price of labor should increase. Small increases are normal due to inflation, and I'm glad if there are a few companies forced to shell out a few more bucks to its workers, but so far I haven't seen any huge amounts that would indicate a "labor shortage".
https://www.postandcourier.com...
But the trade group heard about Element, and it bought a couple of sets. When they opened their boxes — draped with pictures of the American flag — they were startled to see “made in China” stamped on the back.
So in 2014, they filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission, accusing Element of misleading marketing. They described the company’s practices as “red, white and blue-washing,” since a product can’t be called “made in America” if its parts are all foreign.
Basically, they had the entire TV manufactured and assembled, then shipped to their South Carolina plant already in the box in which it would be sold. American workers opened the box, tested the TV to ensure that it worked, and packaged it back up. For this, they tried to imply on the packaging that it was made in the USA. And they also took government subsidies.
Looks like Poland is following suit:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/t...
And Indonesia
https://www.sei.org/featured/d...
Australia is trying, although somewhat unsuccessfully
https://www.spglobal.com/platt...
So it appears to be more than just Trump. Low cost energy sources are a great way to expand the economy.
Part of the problem is that is costs more to recycle plastic than it does to simply manufacture new plastic. Otherwise there would already be a market for non-subsidized plastic, the way there is a market for aluminum and scrap steel. Also, since most of the cost for recycling is energy, and most off that energy comes from fossil fuels, you aren't really saving anything by recycling plastic (challenge: for anyone who says use renewable energy, calculate the carbon footprint of a solar panel, nuclear power plant, or windmill, plus add the added carbon necessary in economic activity to pay for its higher cost).
This comes from the "There Ought To Be A Law" Department....
There ought to be a law that says a business, if open to the public, can decide to outlaw firearms on their property, BUT they must also keep sufficient security on-hand to deal with any threats. As an example, most sports venues do this. If an incident occurs on the premises without security to deal with it, then the owner is jointly responsible for any damage, up-to and including wrongful death.
I'm skeptical that there are truly more job openings than there are job applicants. As an example, I can magically create an infinite amount of job openings by declaring: I want to open a medical clinic next week. I need 5 doctors and 15 nurses, nursing salaries will be $7.50 per hour, doctors shall make $8.00 per hour. Wait.... I'm not getting any applicants!! Next, I can create 10 more jobs by saying that I shall need a total of 7 doctors and 23 nurses.
The real test of a worker shortage is to ask, "What jobs are paying significantly more?" Simple laws of supply and demand tell us that if there really is a shortage, then we should be seeing salaries jump. Something tells me that these recruiters are desperately attempting to recruit at the same (relatively) low pay as they always have.
It's a simple matter to create more jobs than job applicants. As an example, I could want to start up a new health clinic. I need to employ ten doctors, and I'm willing to pay $7.50 an hour. Hmmm, I'm not finding any takers. But now I want to increase the size of my clinic, and now I need 15 doctors at $7.50 per hour. Of course, I could repeat this and pretend to create an infinite amount of job openings. But it's the problem that you identified as B: pay must match the value of the work.
Publicly owned infrastructure used to be called Communism, but I guess they needed some re-branding.
If humans can't even decide what is "hate speech", what makes anyone believe that an AI system can?
Imports reduce the amount of American labor spent on obtaining a thing (i.e. you work 3 hours for American-made pants, 1.86 hours for the same exact quality of Chinese pants, and more than 3 hours for American-made pants at a higher quality, assuming the American manufacturing industry has equivalent or better experience and expertise in manufacturing compared to China). That reduces American poverty and frees up American labor to do things like build great new technology industries. If the cost differential is more than trivial, it net-creates American jobs because moving and selling all those goods also requires labor.
But then your $25/hr factory job gets shipped overseas and you can only get a $8/hr job as a bartender, and so your standard of living got worse. And then the retail stores don't actually bother to reduce prices at all; only electronics products have gone down in price (imo due to technological advancement). The price on most other items, from durable goods, cars, healthcare, education, childcare, and housing have skyrocketed in recent years while U.S. median wages actually decreased. Most of the Americans to benefit from trade have been those close to the financier side of the trade equation, and not from manufacturing.
You are attempting to argue on principals of comparative and absolute advantage. These theories only explain that more goods and services might be produced. But they DO NOT EXPLAIN TO WHERE THEY ARE DISTRIBUTED. Which is the essential definition of economics: the DISTRIBUTION of scarce goods and services. The fact that you have created more stuff, and given it away to a bunch of overseas workers and wealthy bankers is of no comfort to the American workers and unions that saw their standard of living gutted in recent decades.
NO, we have interest in this trade war. While Trump has been tearing up treaties the rest of the world has been signing them.
Spoken like a true elitist. While you have been signing them, your populace has been growing increasingly discontent at having their standard of living thrown away for the benefit of the international financiers. Prepare for more Brexits, Trumps, and M5S's.