Everything is relative, economics doubly so. Comparing currencies against each other is still not the same as comparing currency value over time (inflation). The dollar has lost buying power over time therefore inflation is a fact.
However, with the extreme wealth concentration in the hands of a very very few individuals, markets rise and fall on the whims of fickle billionaires and hedge fund artists, not in reflection of any economic "science." We haven't had free markets in more than a century, but never have they been so artificial and controlled. Fine, if the wealthy elite have decided to control money supply and market activities directly, who am I to stand in their way? I'll ride the prevailing winds as best I can, and let them carry me where I need to go.
I believe that has been your attitude this entire time, iwog.
It's just SO hard to find good help these days!
The atmosphere of Mars is something close to 80% carbon dioxide, and the average temperature is -100C.
Given that the atmospheric pressure isn't very comparable at only 50mbar, but still. CO2is a very weak greenhouse gas. Nitrogen makes up 79% of our atmosphere and IS a greenhouse gas. Without it the Earth couldn't retain much heat at all.
I can't trust anyone who calls themselves a "climate scientist." They're working for a paycheck like everyone else, but their pay is determined by the evidence they produce to support the prevailing theory. As Upton Sinclair pointed out, it's impossible to persuade a man to understand a truth he is paid to not understand.
So any true science related to this endeavor is hopelessly tainted by a community that places more value on computer models than understanding of the situation or solutions.
And in sorry but imposing a hefty tax on ourselves in the USA will do absolutely dick all to solve this problem if problem it be. China is on track to double our carbon emissions in the next five years, and nations are developing industrial capacity all over the globe. Asking them all to kindly stop that is absolutely useless.
It's high time people woke up to reality. The USA isn't everyone and everywhere. Developing nations will be the largest polluters of the future and there is nothing you can offer them to make them stop. The Kyoto treaty made this clear, since it placed no limits for developing nations (like China) and furthermore offered them the fruits of first world carbon taxation. Why would they say no to that? But it was a short sighted attempt to solve a misunderstood problem, and was doomed to failure from the start. First world USA inhabitants couldn't see the value in that sort of thing, and they never will.
If you want to "save the planet," invent or push tech that weans us off of polluting tech. When it's a viable alternative, and especially when it makes economic sense, people will make the switch.
I'm really really REALLY sick of every thread degenerating into a stupid flame(r) war between CiC and someone else like Dan or Iwog. I'm going to put CiC on ignore. Dan if you would also ignore him (literally or imaginatively) then I can pretend he doesn't exist.
Criminals come in every color. With the continued destruction of the middle class, they're apt to emerge from any culture. The stupid biker TV shows glorifying their culture are only making things worse. Although in Orange County where I live, that biker gang is more likely to consist of dentists and chiropractors than criminals.
Good to know anyway. Forewarned is forearmed.
As a symbol of wealth, diamonds still work somehow, mostly because of careful advertising by the diamond cartel. However, as a hedge against poverty, you'd be much better off with gold chains than shiny lumps of carbon. It's very hard to resell diamonds for any significant fraction of their retail value.
My dad owns a pawn and gun shop, and he usually writes pretty small loans against them. They're just too hard to move unless you have a fancy name brand storefront with lots of advertising. $200-$300 for a 1-2 carat ring is normal. Pawns are loans after all, so if the lendee isn't planning to return to claim it, it will have to be sold to reclaim the value of the loan.
Dan, even if the software was perfectly perfect, someone somewhere would have to have access to it to program what it was to do. As you have mentioned, people are the weak point, so if a terrorist were to attack he would choose these people to attack. With the right coercion, anyone will give up the particulars of their jobs to the enemy. And then, armed with the access codes, a single team of terrorists could cause absolute mayhem nationwide.
The system as it is isn't perfect, and humans are fallible. But they aren't all generally fallible at once! Unlike an integrated piece of software, it takes exponentially more effort to coerce or corrupt a thousand operators to self-suicide by train than it would to convince one IT guy to give up the codes or lose his precious thumbs.
Dan's idea is fine and well until:
1) the program acquires a bug, most likely just shutting the system down.
2) someone hacks it, and all bets are off. Imagine coordinated train derailments in an orgy of destruction across the nation that cripples our transportation sector in one blow. Computer controlled and driven trains would make that possible.
The engineer of Amtrak Northeast Regional Train 188 that was traveling at 106 mph in a 50-mph zone in Philadelphia applied the full emergency braking system moments before the derailment that claimed seven lives and caused dozens of injuries, the National Transportation Safety Board said. The data are preliminary, but "we're pretty confident" of the numbers, NTSB board member Robert Sumwalt said at a news conference Tuesday evening. The derailment of the train with 238 passengers and five crew resulted in seven deaths and dozens of injuries, Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter said. A multidisciplinary team is examining the track, signals,...
Noamercy for wealthy elitists!
So my wife is an adjunct faculty at two colleges in the UC system. The other day she got an email from a student thanking her for being a good teacher. The student complained that the last five professors she's had (all adjuncts) have been less than great at their jobs and it's been difficult to learn or get papers graded in a reasonable amount of time. So she was sorry to see that my wife was leaving that college (got a better offer for next semester elsewhere).
What we are seeing here is that the extremely low pay offered to adjunct faculty is making for low quality professors who are disinclined to to a good job at teaching. So our college system sucks and is getting worse.
But hey, they get big pensions right? Wrong.
New Renter asked how it was possible that people with advanced degrees would sign up for those jobs at that pay, and this is the answer: they are about 90% female. Women who have spouses with good jobs can afford to take positions like this. They can afford to make less because their income is subsidized by their spouses income. If it weren't for women in this situation, we wouldn't have people agreeing to this pay.
There is a union for these adjuncts but it's optional and it doesn't do anything. Certainly there is never a strike for better pay or benefits!
It's really all because the adjunct field is dominated by women who will accept shit pay because they are too afraid to demand better.
I work with guys who have never been to college, and most didn't do that well in high school, but we got technical skills. We make about five times more than an adjunct. There are no women in my field, or at least none I know about.
Moral of the story: if you want to be paid well, don't work in a field with lots of women. Less women ==> higher pay.
"(Sec. 108) This section provides for the prosecution of individuals who patronize or solicit persons for a commercial sex act, thus making traffickers and buyers equally culpable for sex trafficking offenses"
Since they're politicians (like Bill Clinton) they feel threatened by provisions like this one.
SAAB (Shit Assembled Ass Backwards). Not sure what else to say about a car that's so difficult to do simple repairs on, there's a reason the repair shop took so much of your spare change! I'm not a quarter of the car mechanic my friend is and he said he'd rather burn a Saab than work on it.
I suppose what it's truly about is freeing up corporately held land for residential development. When taxes are negligible, the land can be held indefinitely without turning it into desperately needed housing. But if the taxes come into line with the land's true value, the corporations will have to either develop it or sell it. No more squatting on vast areas to drive prices and rents through the roof as the supply/demand equation overbalances into ridiculousness.
"It still does not change the true motive of unions"
What? Like collectively bargaining for better wages and benefits? Protecting workers against pernicious actions by bad management?
Or, as in this case, combating a housing supply problem that was created by the wealthy landowners to increase rents to the highest percentage of workers' wages possible? Is that what you object to? That workers don't pay enough of their wages in rent? What an odd position to take...
2003 Camry with 160,000. Just put new tires on and did a tune up. Works great!
No car payment for eight years.
Strategist said, "If anything, the commercial rents would rise if landowners are taxed more. The ones who pay the highest price will be the ones who make the lowest wages"
That might be true if:
1) the current taxes had any relationship to the current rents.
2)the landlords weren't already charging the maximum rent the market could tolerate (without vacancies becoming excessive).
But these two points are not true, so your statement is entirely invalid. All low taxes on commercial property enable is greater profits for the parasitical landlords.
Yah the majority of the commercial property is owned by land corporations who impose high rents to use their land. In the case of the Irvine Corp, they own some land near the water in Huntington harbor, which was developed without title. So "owners" of all these condos have to pay a land lease ($600 or so) per month to the Irvine Corp in addition to mortgage and their own taxes on the improvement. Meanwhile the Irvine Corp pays very little tax on its holdings there. What a racket!
Here's a thought: already california has a ton of restrictions and limitations and extra taxes on businesses. The break that some of the oldest businesses get with the prop 13 waiver is perhaps keeping many of them from going to other states.
Making it fair would require repealing prop13 for residential as well, or do you think landlords need the extra break as they greedily raise rents on tenants each and every year?
Leave an exception for retired folks or those on disability, say a 75% break on taxes. That will eliminate the argument that we just want to toss granny onto the street.
Free speech covers racist speech up and until the racist is in a position of power, where his/her views will be inflicted on those under their purview. Then we have to say, "whoa! That's not right!" And we must remove that racist person from a position of leadership or authority lest they make discriminatory policies. Or in the case of on-air personalities, lest they incite racial hostilities. That happened once in Rwanda and 2 million people died in neighbor on neighbor violence, mostly hacked to death with machetes. I priced out a machete at the hardware store, $19.95 on sale. Now that's some cheap ass WMD!
I was talking to an environmental procedures expert yesterday about the island of floating plastic and styrofoam (and other stuff) floating in the middle of the Pacific. He said it's the size of Texas, drifts in a rough circle (between the major currents) in a range of a couple hundred miles, and won't ever be cleaned up. He said most of the waste there was produced by the Asian nations, and they're still dropping garbage in the ocean when they can get away with it.
He also said there's good fishing around and under it, lots of dorado and mahi.
Global warming is just one aspect of the horrible pollution mankind is wreaking on the planet. Now that asian countries can do this, they have much less conscience about doing it and there are many more of them doing it than there were in the bad old days of western industrialism. Fact is, unless these asian nations get on board, we really can't do jack about pollution. Not much more than we are already doing.
Yes, Blurtman, Affirmative Action is racism institutionalized, and is bad. I said in ALL forms, and that's one of the more obvious forms even a child can see.
Who decides who qualifies as white?
Does half work? Three quarters? Only if they look a certain way?
Racism in all forms is bad, even when it's done as a sort of jest.
No, all their brain cells are engaged by profit.