|
Post by agito on Mar 2, 2011 18:24:08 GMT -6
this is a good decision and it makes sense. Lets say your supervisor fires your for any arbitrary detail that you want to fight. Only it wasn't your supervisor that fired you- it was your supervisors supervisor. So now you try to take the fight to court and they use the legal dodge "well yeah- the supervisor hated this employee, but it wasn't him that fired them- it was someone else." when in reality we know that's not what happens.
I don't know what you guys are getting so cranked up on, and if it does mean a "landslide of lawsuits" (which i don't think it will because of the costs of such lawsuits), then that just reveals how fucked up our employment landscape is right now.
Bottom line- I'm always in favor of an employee challenging their termination if they are willing to take on the risk to even engage in the effort.
|
|
|
Post by agito on Jan 27, 2011 1:52:32 GMT -6
great post fredorbob bring us more of that!
|
|
|
Post by agito on Jan 21, 2011 20:58:29 GMT -6
there's a lot to be said about digital delivery of cable entertainment being the main reason this deal should have been blocked. But now i'm genuinely worried about what will transpire at MSNBC now that olbermann has left (been forced out?).
|
|
|
Post by agito on Jan 18, 2011 16:47:28 GMT -6
agreed. Wiki is usually my first stop whenever i look into a subject- and then branch out from there. They even have links that are very helpful for determining your own opinion of the subject matter and source material.
|
|
|
Post by agito on Jan 18, 2011 16:45:34 GMT -6
where are you economist34 and why do you want to be here?
|
|
|
Post by agito on Jan 18, 2011 16:31:52 GMT -6
in 10 years- we are all going to be buying cars that drive themselves anyway...
|
|
|
Post by agito on Jan 15, 2011 11:40:45 GMT -6
/facepalm
"speculators" - yes "free trade" - no
|
|
|
Post by agito on Jan 15, 2011 10:09:05 GMT -6
I'll agree that "you don't need 30 rounds for hunting" is a bit ludicrous. But the point of the matter is you don't need 30 rounds for ANYTHING.
... well- maybe if you are lazy and want to have a few extra rounds at the shooting range before you have to change clips.
Or- if you need to shoot more targets before someone stops you.
"self defense"? going by a 1990 study (yes- outdated) people using a gun in self defense actually shot at the culprit only 28% of the time. How many bullets do you need to fire into the air as a warning shot?
As I pointed out in another thread, you are better served putting your money into an armed security service because it gives you the added bonus of protecting your house while you aren't there.
|
|
|
Post by agito on Jan 14, 2011 16:25:17 GMT -6
I've been driving less for the past 4 years,- and more importantly- I've been driving SLOWER.
Unfortunately, I'm relocating from the bay area to the los angeles area, so i think it's inevitable that i'll be driving probably twice as much as before- (thinking that will be around 15k miles a year).
|
|
|
Post by agito on Jan 14, 2011 5:36:21 GMT -6
$2-$3/ hour is HUGE. granted it doesn't mean every job in china will be transferred to the united states, but we only need 22million of... Wait for it.. 813.5 million workersif the median wage of chinese is 3,421and the median income of american workers is 28,403 the difference is 24,982. If you had a $2 an hour deduction or rebate to wages paid, that would be a yearly amount of $1600 and that would lower the difference of median wages between the 2 countries by 6.4% now if that meant 6.4% of those 814 million jobs were now up for grabs- that would be 52 million jobs for america. unfortunately- that last "if" is fallacious because income is distributed logarithmically and not linearly, but it does give some perspective and makes you think about it some more. For more perspective, back in 2008 when the repubs where moaning about lowering the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%- i tried to factor out what that would be if it was applied as a rebate per worker- it came out to $1 an hour. Which means knocking off $2 per hour would be equivalent to a reduction in the corporate tax rate from 35% to 15%. (notwithstanding the usual observations that noone actually pays %35 because of other deductions. but this would be one more deduction on the list- and the best part is that it would be conditional on whether the company hired american workers) it has to be noted that applying tariffs to foreign made goods would also raise prices and reduce demand. This makes american made goods more competitive because all the prices are now raised, and that diminished demand never really goes away. That's not a nail in the coffin argument ender, but i do bring it up because you can't say "sales tax is bad because it reduces demand" and not say "tariffs are bad because it reduces demand" A better solution? offsetting the $2 by a tax on investment capital and not retail sales.
|
|
|
Post by agito on Jan 13, 2011 22:48:07 GMT -6
I have to admit, I think know sarah palin was too stupid to know what "blood libel" actually means. I know i didn't know about the historical connotations. Nevertheless, she still doesn't have "it" for being an effective national leader. cheerleader yes, leader no.
|
|
|
Post by agito on Jan 11, 2011 15:06:33 GMT -6
crap- now i've conflated the argument into a euthanasia argument. well...
I support self-determined euthanasia. That wasn't the issue.
The issue .... the issueS ... are that people on the left think that some sort of gun control will lower the number of gun deaths in this country. but if the majority of gun deaths are suicides, there isn't much to be achieved by minimal gun intrusion, and it doesn't change the fact that these are deaths that would come by other means anyway.
MEANWHILE The right thinks that: "Given that most people killed in the U.S. by guns are done by inner city criminals(ethnic minorities against other ethnic minorities) it's something you can't do anything about. And most of it is drug related."
which means the people on the right don't argue with accurate facts either, and it's a little confusing as to whether that argument is in support of gun rights or in support of gun control in the cities. (or maybe "black people shouldn't have guns" ?). what was the point of that argument? especially when it wasn't even true in the first place? IT WAS A FABRICATION OF YOUR WORLDVIEW.
in similar manner are the view of people on the right who think that people on the left want more gun control in the first place. This has resulted in panic buying of artillery and ordinance, (jacking up prices in the process and provoking a supply glut to come down the road which will result in cheaper guns), but there hasn't been a lot of (hell if any) bills put forth in congress to limit gun rights.
which brings me to another side issue: Why do you own your gun? because it strikes me as ironic that a lot of people who own guns haven't really put much thought into it and don't realize how it might end up affecting them down the road.
Own it for hunting? ok- fine. It's what you do. what's the pistol for?
Own it because it's family tradition? I'm ok with that too. be sure to be in compliance with the CAPS regulation so that you can continue the family tradition.
Own it for home protection? now that's just stupid. for the price of a gun you can have a years worth of ADP protection with the added bonus that your house is protected even while you aren't there. (and there might be discounts on your homeowners insurance or it might be a tax write off for those who work at home)
Own it because you think it makes you come across as a bad-ass (don't laugh- this seems to be my girlfriend's brother's motivation)? i'm not impressed.
I am willing to bet that if you looked at donations to the brady group, you would find even those donations are down.
I do have to say though- from a purely statistical point of view, banning ammo clips over 15 rounds seems minimally intrusive and looks like it can do more to save lives.
but i'd rather the political time and effort went into preventing excessive financial inequalities and ALL crimes
|
|
|
Post by agito on Jan 11, 2011 13:23:53 GMT -6
Was listening to internet radio and H & R block was advertising their (siderant to be saved for later: government induced) racket, and they were offering free tax processing until feb 15th.
Then they got to fine print: 1) 1040 ez forms only (duh- that's not a surprise)
2) additional fees for EARNED INCOME CREDIT processing.
way to pick the pockets of the poor H & R
|
|
|
Post by agito on Jan 10, 2011 14:57:30 GMT -6
they don't mention the most important factor .. price :-P but second most important to that is the energy usage. A lot of those hi-contrast efforts mean more energy. the difference could be as large as $40 a year, and assuming it lasts 10 years, that's a $400 difference in price. frustratingly- there's no rhyme or reason to brandname or models: reviews.cnet.com/green-tech/tv-consumption-chart/
|
|
|
Post by agito on Jan 10, 2011 14:31:04 GMT -6
*sigh* to paraphrase the dude from the big lebowski: "You're not wrong....." The majority of gun deaths in america are SUICIDES" The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimated 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000.[4] The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides,[5] with firearms used in 16,907 suicides in the United States during 2004.[6] " I've never been a gun control freak, but now i'm even more non-chalant about it as a non-issue. when i see a gun advocate, i'll jsut think to myself "suicide a-walkin", and this is something that will correct itself over time. regardless- the page also has interesting stats about guns used in self defense ".02%" of all violent crimes. it doesn't say how often it was successful. and yes- i acknowledge source parsing is necessary on a page like that.
|
|
|
Post by agito on Jan 10, 2011 2:19:30 GMT -6
you guys swearing off honey seems funny to me. It's better for your body to use honey as a sweetener versus sugar, and 10 times better to see it used in your products than corn syrup. (read your bread labels)
That being said- its only better if you have ACTUAL honey. and not the fake asian stuff.
I'm swearing off fake honey.
|
|
|
Post by agito on Jan 8, 2011 13:26:09 GMT -6
its news today about gifford's death, and I hope the nation doesn't half-ass and overreact in the ensuing legislation.
|
|
|
Post by agito on Dec 7, 2010 1:11:57 GMT -6
apparently a famous footballer (soccer) player in france has endorsed staging a bank run in france and alledgedly 40000 people vowed to do it www.bankrun2010.com well... lets see what happens
|
|
|
Post by agito on Dec 6, 2010 13:47:55 GMT -6
I don't suppose there's a way to find out the historical activity of FDIC takeovers in december. Do they normally peak or trail off in this month?
|
|
|
Post by agito on Dec 6, 2010 13:45:48 GMT -6
that's a smart trade. almost as smart as gold, maybe smarter, I'd have to think on that. If you put your money on the yuan, all you are doing is pegging yourself to the dollar, until such time that the chinese government finds the manipulation is too high maintenance, in which case they will dump their dollar holdings and the yaun will increase in value.
The only downsides 1) stability- if their happens to be a chinese revolution, the money is gone. But that's not likely. 2)Nationalization- also not very likely- but china is a dictactor country, especially in respect to finances.
|
|
|
Post by agito on Dec 6, 2010 13:41:51 GMT -6
you fail at math fredorbob
They democrats didn't get the supermajority in the senate until the election of al franken was certified some 6 months into 2009 (june 30 2009). The democrats then lost the supermajority with the death of Kennedy, and the subsequent election of Brown in Jan 2010.
So- that "4 years" you mentioned...
was only 6months. Not sure how they treat numbers on some of the other forums you vist- but here on an economics forum they are going to matter.
That being said- the democrats were downright stupid to prioritize healthcare reform over economic stimilus/policy and will go down in history as one of the greatest errors of all time.
|
|
|
Post by agito on Dec 6, 2010 1:49:35 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by agito on Dec 4, 2010 23:49:24 GMT -6
lol. I can just picture the security guard looking at them hiding in the bushes going "come on in guys. no really, come on in- don't have to hide in those damn bushes"
either way- looks like trutv has found an audience.
|
|
|
Post by agito on Dec 4, 2010 16:44:12 GMT -6
I'm looking at the argument for number 5 and i'm realizing it's technically incorrect... and an alternative possibility is just going to make you even more sick.
It is possible for the richest 2.1% to spend 25 percent of consumer spending (although I don't believe these figures for a second- but hear me out)- it's possible the richest 2.1% of taxpayers are spending 25 percent of consumer spending despite having only 21% of income... BECAUSE THEY HAVE BETTER CREDIT.
So a tax cut for the rich enables them to borrow even more money to spend on themselves.
|
|
|
Post by agito on Dec 4, 2010 3:50:32 GMT -6
THis is the point where we disagree. I'm telling you that the chinese will "allow" the leakage to occur because it amounts to one politician sneaking goods out of the country behind the other politician's back (who in turn is doing the same thing himself). on the plus side- it opens up another pathway to domestic insurrection, only it won't be the poor rising up, it will be different industries fighting each other over alledgedly cheating their fellow chinese citizens. From there it will simply be a spin-game as to who is "legitimately on the side of the people"- and eventually one side will triumph.
|
|
|
Post by agito on Dec 3, 2010 22:23:30 GMT -6
I think you guys are reading the logistics of a korean war the wrong way. With ground forces tied up in afriqanisFUCkistan, military action would be more along the lines of a clinton-esque, bosnia-like air and sea campaign. There would probably be some losses initially to the navy, but it would quickly devolve into air-campaign with little resistance left. The problem is whether or not America would be stupid enough to try to put ground troops inside the border, or if they would be smart enough to hand that duty of to A) A korean/japanese/taiwanese collaboration OR (and much more likely even if diplomatically ambitious) B) let the chinese have em, they can directly control another province under the auspices of "rescuing" the nation, and putting kim jong ill out of power.
|
|
|
Post by agito on Dec 3, 2010 22:17:18 GMT -6
it's better than nothing, But I still put my money on kaspersky. What did you move to it from?
|
|
|
Post by agito on Dec 3, 2010 22:16:21 GMT -6
UnLC, You're missapplying the theory because you haven't factored in (ugh .. dare I say it) the supply side aspect of the equation. If the Chinese implement price controls, then there will be suppliers that change the amount they supply, or even what they supply. And from there you would think the price of the commodities will go up- but unfortunately it really just means that you have to take a closer look at their situation.
Knowing how china operates, chinese producers won't be able to start limiting their production, but they might start pursuing black market opportunities... (thinking on it more, the way the politburo is put in charge of different industries, they WILL start black markets) in the neighboring countries- thereby lowering the prices of commodities in the surrounding areas.
As far as how this would impact America's markets, even if we are the largest consumer of chinese made goods, is very hard to tell. America subsidizes the production of a lot of our commodities (from corn right on down the mineral extraction).
Frankly, we need more information on what china is able to export or import, and whether there is a sufficient market in the immediate vicinity vs having to make the (6 week?) journey to the states.
|
|
|
Post by agito on Dec 3, 2010 22:01:43 GMT -6
... /salivate
I really don't want to see Fox exploiting the pity angle. and frankly, just one dead fox intern would mean about 1000 righties going nuclear.
Tempting, but I'll pass on asking for this one for christmas
|
|
|
Post by agito on Nov 25, 2010 18:26:13 GMT -6
Reading the articles about north korea premeditating their most recent attack, and can't help but feel the corporatocracy feels military action with Korea is in order. thinking japanese, taiwanese or even south korean news sources would be more reliable than here.
|
|