How do we fix the economy???

Email again? You do know that Colin Powell and Condi Rice both did the same thing don't you?

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Annachie wrote:Email again? You do know that Colin Powell and Condi Rice both did the same thing don't you?

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Neither used a private server. Neither deleted any of their private emails on the government server. Clinton illegally deleted emails that were not hers to delete. Neither, Powel nor Rice, used their a foundation to launder foreign contributions that might or might not have been a quid pro quo for influence. That does not even include defending her husband's serial rape. One of which he actually paid a settlement. The first one we know of had him kicked out of his Rhode's Scholarship.

Pardon me, but if you like that sort of politician, please persuade her to visit your country and govern it. She is a corrupt, power-hungry sociopath of the highest order.

Annachie wrote:Email again? You do know that Colin Powell and Condi Rice both did the same thing don't you?

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

A bit long and overly polite but the inspector general's report is well worth reading to avoid spin the media types are putting on the situation. It states who did what and when; what rules and what technology were in place and when; and what rules were violated and by whom.

http://static.politico.com/f3/9b/19d29a ... report.pdf

You can also look at the much shorter summary on factcheck.org, which although technically non-partisan leans slightly left i.e. the type of group that would be typically expected to be on her side.

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/05/ig-rep ... ns-emails/

The real kicker with the destruction caused and left by mining operations is that... all the wealth that all the mines combined, from the very first copper mine to the attempts to dig more gold out from British Columbia (or oil wells and fracking) combined are not a pimple on an elephant compared to what we could pull from the Lagrange zone in Earth orbit and the asteroid belt... but as long as the government does not have resources and private sector lacks the imagination to leave the old dead technology behind none of that will be done.

The comment about the Lauffer curve and the Pareto principle (which is a valid base but not carved in stone) caused me to wonder what would happen if individuals or corporations could direct how 80% of their taxes were to be divested... this way, Raytheon or Lockheed might decide that the first 80% of their taxes went to defense research and development while Microsoft decides that theirs goes towards education (as examples). If this could be done, there would be a more even sharing of cost and benefits from all sectors. I also wonder if, since they are being so vocal in selection of politicians, maybe the time to exempt churches from any tax liability is an issue that we should revisit... this is especially true where the leaders live like dukes and people are homeless 10 miles away.

biochem wrote:

Daryl wrote:A particular problem we are stuck with here is the luna scape left by large open cut mines, that brought their international owners billions. Nearing the end of these mine's lives the parent company sold them off to $2 shell companies. These promptly went broke, and thus couldn't be made to honour the original commitments for restoration.

Hopefully can't happen any more with legislation to prevent it, but I'd love to be a world dictator for a short time to prise these slimes out of their Geneva or Washington mansions and make them pay double to fix the problems their greed caused.
Believe me, the top 1% own most of the world's resources and have done so by tricks like this.
Google gives this - According to the New York Times, the "richest 1 percent in the United States now own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent".

It's not just in Australia. Try an open pit which fills with water so toxic birds which land on it die.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Pit

DDHv wrote:
Changing who controls it from private to government isn't likely to improve this.

To at least some degree, it´s very likely to improve, anything beyond that depends on how well handled it is of course.

DDHv wrote:Unrestrained business OR government both need bridling. What is really bad is when the crony effect kicks in - it has been known for some time that many of the people on the top dislike disruptive innovation, however much those on the bottom can benefit.

Of course.

DDHv wrote:PS. Do you know and understand the Laffer curve

The Laffer curve has been utterly disproven as anything beyond a visual aid of an unrealistic theory.

4 times out of 5, when it is used as an argument for lowering taxes, the end result is always drastically worse than was predicted. And when statistics and reality contradict the predictions more than 9 times out of 10, that is clearly a blatant showcase of a very faulty claim/theory/whatever it´s currently called.

IIRC, the economist Pareto found:

I´m not sure what you mean is the relevant part there?
USA is far more "top heavy" than Italy.

C. O. Thompson wrote:
The comment about the Lauffer curve and the Pareto principle (which is a valid base but not carved in stone) caused me to wonder what would happen if individuals or corporations could direct how 80% of their taxes were to be divested... this way, Raytheon or Lockheed might decide that the first 80% of their taxes went to defense research and development while Microsoft decides that theirs goes towards education (as examples). If this could be done, there would be a more even sharing of cost and benefits from all sectors.

Bad bad and TERRIBLE idea. Because the very basis of public works is that the government does the boring things lots of people doesn´t even know about and never bothered to care that it might be needed.

Letting tax payers directly decide what their money should pay for is an apocalyptic disaster in the making.

Tenshinai wrote:

C. O. Thompson wrote:
The comment about the Lauffer curve and the Pareto principle (which is a valid base but not carved in stone) caused me to wonder what would happen if individuals or corporations could direct how 80% of their taxes were to be divested... this way, Raytheon or Lockheed might decide that the first 80% of their taxes went to defense research and development while Microsoft decides that theirs goes towards education (as examples). If this could be done, there would be a more even sharing of cost and benefits from all sectors.

Bad bad and TERRIBLE idea. Because the very basis of public works is that the government does the boring things lots of people doesn´t even know about and never bothered to care that it might be needed.

Letting tax payers directly decide what their money should pay for is an apocalyptic disaster in the making.

I suppose I was looking at the FACT that many of the big corporations have battalions of accountants and lawyers to reduce their tax liability... of course they pay these "specialist" as much or more than they might pay in taxes anyway but it is the principle of the thing after all.
Perhaps if, these "public works" were sorted into four or five basic categories and the directed funding were used first to meet the budgets of the programs in that category, any surplus could be placed in a general fund.

100% of 0 will always be 0 but 80% of anything will always be something.

C. O. Thompson wrote:of course they pay these "specialist" as much or more than they might pay in taxes anyway but it is the principle of the thing after all.

If that was the case, then they wouldn't be very good at their job, as any accountant worth his or her money would quickly point out.

The E wrote:

C. O. Thompson wrote:of course they pay these "specialist" as much or more than they might pay in taxes anyway but it is the principle of the thing after all.

If that was the case, then they wouldn't be very good at their job, as any accountant worth his or her money would quickly point out.

Accountants look for ways the corporation can "cut overhead" this generally is in the maintenance departments and line operations... Of course the accountant is also "overhead labor" in that the business could get its product out the door with out one but they never seem to find a way to cut themselves out.

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain"

From: http://thecrux.com/are-you-ready-for-hillary/

Politics is the enemy of prosperity.

The secret to prosperity is that wealth isn’t zero-sum. Wealth is not a pizza where if I have too many slices, you have to eat the Domino’s box. We can make more pizza. Everybody wins.

But political power is zero-sum. There’s only one winner in politics. We can’t wedge the fat butts of two congressmen into one seat in the House of Representatives. And we can’t – and wouldn’t want to – build another Oval Office so that Hillary and Donald can both be president.

A comment was made: the two known ways to get wealth are political, which means dividing the pie; or economic, which involves increasing the pie's size or quality.

By this definition, either can be done privately or publicly. The politicos tend to focus on what they know best, even when it works poorly. When people only think about grabbing a larger piece of the pie, the pie tends to get trashed