World Politics

[ChrisE]

Your stage collapse example is unfortunate on your part. A wind gust with nearly twice the force that was forecast ultimately resulting in loss of life and somehow if there were only some governmental agency in charge the wind would have just changed directions. Perhaps oversight would have eliminated any and all possibility of something going wrong.
.

To clarify, the wind was twice more than forecasted by the weather services or twice more than what the structure was designed for?

 

[Anonymous]

To clarify, the wind was twice more than forecasted by the weather services or twice more than what the structure was designed for?

According to the news reports I watched the event organizers were in communication with local weather service. They knew a T Storm was on the way but the wind hit earlier than what was predicted and with gusts about twice as strong. I can only assume this report was at least somewhat accurate but who knows....

 

[Anonymous]

You guys have more free time than I do. I can't keep up!

Will try to catch on at a later time...

You really have not missed anything.

 

[gregod]

FWIW, Life Insurers pay death claims as a result of suicide provided the death happens at least two years (or thereafter) from the time of issuance.

also FWIW, only about one percent of term life insurance policies payout. however this is not quite as conspiritorial as it sounds. a lot of these policies are the like kind you buy in airports and are low risk to the insurance company.

 

[rhubroma]

I can only assume you think this is what our government does. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm pretty sure Livestrong is not on Buffett's radar, but I could be wrong about that.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/buffett-signs-up-40-richest-families-to-giving-pledge-2043539.html

The problem with this formula however, is that such people were able to amass the fortunes they did while billions on the planet starve. And even giving all their money away won't begin to put a dent into the collective deficiency in education, health care, nutrition and pensions society really needs - to say nothing of diminishing the deficit that idological wars and financial capitalism have placed upon the shoulders of the masses for generations to come.

Gates is an unrepentant monopolist, who spent his fortune waging a legal war against the state to preserve his unconstitutional and illiberal business empire. His so called philanthropic endeavors have been convenient tax write-offs, while his actual corporate empire permanently employs no more than several thousand mostly coming out of India where labor is cheap.

The idea that his actions would therefore represent some civilizing mission is merely an illusion to justify a business imperialism and have thus been fueled by much baser motives. Such an illusion, furthermore, while perhaps liberating to himself, has been built upon the dissolution of the same civilized values of so called progress, enlightenment and universal humanity that the very nature of his business praxis has always worked to undermine.

 

[gregod]

...

Gates is an unrepentant monopolist, who spent his fortune waging a legal war against to state to preserve his unconstitutional and illiberal business empire. His so called philanthropic endeavors have been convenient tax right-offs, while his actual corporate empire permanently employs no more than several thousand mostly coming out of India where labor is cheap.

The idea that his actions would therefore represent some civilizing mission is merely an illusion to justify a business imperialism and have thus been fueled by much baser motives. Such an illusion, furthermore, while perhaps liberating to himself, has been built upon the dissolution of the same civilized values of so called progress, enlightenment and universal humanity that the very nature of his business praxis has always worked to undermine.

this is a bit hyperbolic and unfair, don't you think? yes, gates is an unrepentent monopolist and microsoft is crap, but it is unfair to assume his philanthropy is for tax purposes only. there are plenty of other more effective and less public ways to avoid taxes.

"praxis". good word. i had to look it up.

 

[rhubroma]

this is a bit hyperbolic and unfair, don't you think? yes, gates is an unrepentent monopolist and microsoft is crap, but it is unfair to assume his philanthropy is for tax purposes only. there are plenty of other more effective and less public ways to avoid taxes.

"praxis". good word. i had to look it up.

I realize mine appears unfair, even heretical, to the pundits of the mass tech revolution that the iconic Gates seems to incarnate for the post-industrial world, and also as a hero of late American innovation propogated by the commercially driven global corporate universe - however the highlighted bit illustrates why I stand by my original conviction.

It isn't that his charitable activities are morally dubious or reprehensible in themselves of course, but when they merely are the pretty ornaments of an insidious and colossal facade which conceals the bone structure of something much more monstrous and destructive behind, they simply loose a considerable part of their ethical appeal and thus ultimately become less commendable as I see it.

In short a system that produces one guy worth billions and billions (even if he gives much of it away), in lieu of one in which billions have access to a bit more wealth so as not to be living severely below the poverty line: signifies a fashioned grotesquery of modernity and the market; a gargantuan social imbalance between the haves and the have-nots disbanding any illusion of the wholesome and salvific nature of such contemporary philanthropy. As well as the state of mental health of the collective's consciousness.

 

[patricknd]

"praxis". good word. i had to look it up.

so did rube

 

[rhubroma]

so did rube

Depressing isn't it.

 

[ChrisE]

I realize mine appears unfair, even heretical, to the pundits of the mass tech revolution that the iconic Gates seems to incarnate for the post-industrial world, and also as a hero of late American innovation propogated by the commercially driven global corporate universe - however the highlighted bit illustrates why I stand by my original conviction.

It isn't that his charitable activities are morally dubious or reprehensible in themselves of course, but when they merely are the pretty ornaments of an insidious and colossal facade which conceals the bone structure of something much more monstrous and destructive behind, they simply loose a considerable part of their ethical appeal and thus ultimately become less commendable as I see it.

In short a system that produces one guy worth billions and billions (even if he gives much of it away), in lieu of one in which billions have access to a bit more wealth so as not to be living severely below the poverty line: signifies a fashioned grotesquery of modernity and the market; a gargantuan social imbalance between the haves and the have-nots disbanding any illusion of the wholesome and salvific nature of such contemporary philanthropy. As well as the state of mental health of the collective's consciousness.

Good old rubarb, forum left wing nutjob.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

That's pretty harsh on Gates. There are plenty more misers to pick on. Gates is planning on giving away nearly his entire fortune. Plus he's one of the core people involved in The Gifting Pledge, pressuring other billionaires to give away at least half of their wealth. Gates also isn't that involved with MS much anymore, he spends most of his time running the Gates Foundation and meeting with world people to help give his money away.

You want to pick on someone for being miserly, try someone like Donald Trump who hardly gives anything away. Or why not stick with basterds that rip people off illegaly. The Stanfords, Madoffs, etc. of the world. Or greedy prjcks who make large "donations" but many are to political campaigns, like the Koch brothers. There's plenty of those to point out.

Or better yet, why not actually praise or celebrate the many companies that actually do right for their employees. Companies like SAS, Adobe, Google, even smaller companies like Clif, Wegmans, etc. Or praise CEOs like Haruka Nishimatsu of Japan Air Lines, and ask other successful companies why they can't do the same.

 

[patricknd]

Depressing isn't it.

Where you been? I was actually disappointed with your absence during the debt ceiling debate/debacle.

 

[rhubroma]

Where you been? I was actually disappointed with your absence during the debt ceiling debate/debacle.

Zanzibar! ...and Tanzania.

I now know everything about the history of neo-colonialism of the sub-Sahara continent. And the Serengeti was unforgettable.

I read an interesting article in the Tanzanian Guardian about the returning popularity of Maoism among the peasants of the Third World, which I mailed to my conservative father out of sheer spite.

PS: It was also interesting to see in the same daily the thoughts on the US debt ceiling debate/debacle you mentioned, which I read with only detached interest giving the living conditions of the locals that made everything seem rather surreal and farcical.

 

[rhubroma]

That's pretty harsh on Gates. There are plenty more misers to pick on. Gates is planning on giving away nearly his entire fortune. Plus he's one of the core people involved in The Gifting Pledge, pressuring other billionaires to give away at least half of their wealth. Gates also isn't that involved with MS much anymore, he spends most of his time running the Gates Foundation and meeting with world people to help give his money away.

You want to pick on someone for being miserly, try someone like Donald Trump who hardly gives anything away. Or why not stick with basterds that rip people off illegaly. The Stanfords, Madoffs, etc. of the world. Or greedy prjcks who make large "donations" but many are to political campaigns, like the Koch brothers. There's plenty of those to point out.

Or better yet, why not actually praise or celebrate the many companies that actually do right for their employees. Companies like SAS, Adobe, Google, even smaller companies like Clif, Wegmans, etc. Or praise CEOs like Haruka Nishimatsu of Japan Air Lines, and ask other successful companies why they can't do the same.

I realize a desire to view Gates cause as something more than simply a large-scale exercise in philanthropy of the sort that is now commonly practiced by some among the the seriously rich, causes my take to seem rather iconoclastic, which it undoubtedly is.

The romantic view on Gates, however, takes little notice of the ruthlessness of the man, of his business greed, or his opportunistic motives. But these are the things that I see before anything else. Gates is the philanthropic pied piper, the American for all seasons. The Americans take their Gates like medicine, believing in its efficacy, its health-giving properties. The whole American nation ingests its Gates and feels better. But Gates is a charlatan; Gate's business practices and philanthropy are the acme of American charlatanry. Be careful, I tell people, beware of Gates. He gives everyone indigestion, except the Americans. They believe in Gates and revere him as one of the wonders of the world. Yet all the time this wonder of the world is a philanthropic truck farmer.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

He's giving an estimated $60 billion, over 90% of his fortune! Plus convincing other super wealthy people to give what will amount to $100 billion. And this money is going to things like AIDS research, global health initiatives, poverty, not just putting Windows computers in colleges. What would you have him do at this point? Donate it all to the US government?

Crikey! I feel like Scott here!

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

I realize a desire to view Gates cause as something more than simply a large-scale exercise in philanthropy of the sort that is now commonly practiced by some among the the seriously rich, causes my take to seem rather iconoclastic, which it undoubtedly is.

The romantic view on Gates, however, takes little notice of the ruthlessness of the man, of his business greed, or his opportunistic motives. But these are the things that I see before anything else. Gates is the philanthropic pied piper, the American for all seasons. The Americans take their Gates like medicine, believing in its efficacy, its health-giving properties. The whole American nation ingests its Gates and feels better. But Gates is a charlatan; Gate's business practices and philanthropy are the acme of American charlatanry. Be careful, I tell people, beware of Gates. He gives everyone indigestion, except the Americans. They believe in Gates and revere him as one of the wonders of the world. Yet all the time this wonder of the world is a philanthropic truck farmer.

You might be right, but if you are going to run the bus over him please give some examples to back up all those claims.

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

That's pretty harsh on Gates. There are plenty more misers to pick on. Gates is planning on giving away nearly his entire fortune. Plus he's one of the core people involved in The Gifting Pledge, pressuring other billionaires to give away at least half of their wealth. Gates also isn't that involved with MS much anymore, he spends most of his time running the Gates Foundation and meeting with world people to help give his money away.

You want to pick on someone for being miserly, try someone like Donald Trump who hardly gives anything away. Or why not stick with basterds that rip people off illegaly. The Stanfords, Madoffs, etc. of the world. Or greedy prjcks who make large "donations" but many are to political campaigns, like the Koch brothers. There's plenty of those to point out.

Or better yet, why not actually praise or celebrate the many companies that actually do right for their employees. Companies like SAS, Adobe, Google, even smaller companies like Clif, Wegmans, etc. Or praise CEOs like Haruka Nishimatsu of Japan Air Lines, and ask other successful companies why they can't do the same.

Agree.
I'm not too surprised that he's not so involved with MS anymore, because you remember what we got the last time he was really involved with MS... we got Vista.

 

[Anonymous]

Crikey! I feel like Scott here!

Yeah, don't go defending those evil, self interested capitalists. It will screw up the balance around here

Interesting interview with Howard Schultz, CEO of Starbucks (a Democrat).

http://money.msn.com/top-stocks/post.aspx?post=ec9601cc-4764-477a-ad69-bf14584f203c

"I am asking that all of us (forgo) political contributions until the Congress and the President return to Washington and deliver a fiscally disciplined long-term debt and deficit plan to the American people," he wrote in an email Monday night to business leaders."

"Our country is better than this. Over the last few weeks and months, our national elected officials from both parties have failed to lead. They have chosen to put partisan and ideological purity over the well-being of the people."

His full email sent to selected CEO's:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2011/08/15/2015919509.pdf

 

[rhubroma]

You might be right, but if you are going to run the bus over him please give some examples to back up all those claims.

I've been making mischief.

But I will say this about Bill Gates: he's a bit like Joseph Pulitzer. Or, rather, like Nobel. That's it, let's take Nobel as an example. He invented dynamite and then he spent the rest of his life seeking forgiveness.

 

[titan_90]

Satan Announces Run for Republican Presidential Nomination

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

I've been making mischief.

But I will say this about Bill Gates: he's a bit like Joseph Pulitzer. Or, rather, like Nobel. That's it, let's take Nobel as an example. He invented dynamite and then he spent the rest of his life seeking forgiveness.

Well, I guess I'll add to the Gates pile. Anyone remember one of the early versions of MS Word (I think it must have been a version compatible with Windows 95 or 98)? Especially the language Thesaurus feature? I don't recall the exact word, but when you typed the word into an open Word document and ran the Thesaurus on it, the synonym returned was "Bill Gates". Funny part was the word that Thesaurus would give that result was something like "a-hole" or "jack-a" (fully spelled out ofc). Some renegade disgruntled programmer must have decided to get even, or maybe some programmer was just having fun. Anyone remember what that colorful adjective was?

 

[ChrisE]

This caught me a little off guard today....not because of the content, but this writer always seemed a little to the right to me.

I guess anything other than batshyt loony demagoguery spewer on the right would seem moderate.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/7701906.html

 

[Anonymous]

This caught me a little off guard today....not because of the content, but this writer always seemed a little to the right to me.

I guess anything other than batshyt loony demagoguery spewer on the right would seem moderate.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/7701906.html

The initial problem in trying to correlate changes in the tax rate and economic performance is that we have relatively few cases to examine. Statisticians would say that we do not have a statistically significant population. That is, there are not enough instances to filter out the effects of other factors.

The second problem is that not all changes are equal. For example, a cut in the tax rate from 70 percent to 50 percent as occurred in 1982 probably has a much different effect than a reduction from 39 percent to 35 percent that occurred between 2002 and 2004.

Each set of circumstances for all of these example were different and each tax plan had many other elements involved.... i.e., It was usually more than a simple marginal rate reduction.

GDP growth before 1982 averaged 3.7 percent. Since we have been lowering the highest marginal tax rate, GDP growth has averaged only 2.8 percent.

Before 1982?? Back to when? What data set is he looking at? We had huge growth after WWII. Is that included? Is he including data with the current downturn? I'm having trouble with his conclusions because he does a poor job of filling in the blanks.

The same is true with unemployment. Before 1982 unemployment averaged 5.3 percent. However, since 1982 it has averaged 6.3 percent.

Again, this by itself does not mean much.

Reagan's cut in 1982 from 70 percent to 50 percent was followed by a remarkable recovery from the 1982 recession to a 7.2 percent GDP growth in 1984. However, unemployment lingered above 7 percent until late 1986 and GDP growth quickly slowed to historical averages. Reagan's subsequent cut in the rate in 1986-1988 had little effect on GDP or unemployment and by 1991, with the rate still at 28 percent, the country was headed into recession.

The 1986 Tax reform legislation closed many tax shelters that had a net effect of raising taxes. It was probably the right thing to do at the time and along with an economy transitioning from so much aerospace (cold war wind down) led to the slowdown that G.H.W. Bush inherited. So, again, I don't think the whole story is being told here.

The economy quickly recovered out of the 1991-1992 recession, notwithstanding George H.W. Bush's increase in the rate from 28 percent to 31 percent. Similarly, Clinton's increase in the rate to 39.6 percent in 1992 seems to have had little detrimental effect on economic growth. During his presidency, GDP grew at an average rate of 3.9 percent, the highest level since the 1960s, and unemployment fell steadily throughout his eight years in office. The George W. Bush tax cut in 2002 was followed by a brief and modest increase in GDP in 2004. But, of course, since that time, the economy has suffered mightily and unemployment soared notwithstanding the relatively low tax rates.

GHW Bush's recession was short lived because of the economic engine that had been created under Reagan and the tech boom. Clinton benefited from this as well. I agree with Art Laffer. I think Clinton may have been the best President we have had since Reagan and economically, he actually achieved things that Reagan was unable to do. If only Obama would take a look at how pragmatic Clinton became after the 1994 mid-terms he(we) would be on a different path today.

 

[lancaster]

i just bet on Paul Ryan to win the 2012 presidential election @65.

i don't particularly like him, just think he's been looking awfully presidential recently.

 

[rhubroma]

America will need to give up some of the empire, for more stability at home. Its own bridges, for example, are in many cases deficient, while its military expenses abroad are gargantuan.