Posts
Friday, May 29, 2009
Silicon Valley VCs don't want Obama's money, think Google is passe | Webware - CNET
Silicon Valley VCs don't want Obama's money, think Google is passe | Webware - CNET: "Moderator Jason Pontin, a self-described liberal who 'finds our president as dreamy as the next man,' broke party rank and echoed a popular sentiment in the room of wealthy (and traditionally mostly Republican) venture capitalists, to say that the Obama administration's plan to invest in new technologies is doomed to fail. While acknowledging that the administration's heart is in the right place, he pointed out that traditionally, direct investment in technology by governments doesn't work out well. He said the United State's subsidies on ethanol, France's decision to skip the Internet in favor of the state-sponsored Minitel, and Japan's direct investment in supercomputers as it tried to spend its way out of a recession were examples of poor investments. 'Government is a particularly poor judge of new technology,' he said."
Bush: The Information We Gained Saved Lives - Political News - FOXNews.com
Bush: The Information We Gained Saved Lives - Political News - FOXNews.com: "Former President George W. Bush on Thursday defended his decision to allow harsh interrogations on the terror mastermind behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, saying he did what was necessary to prevent what his advisers believed was another imminent attack.
Describing the decision to use waterboarding on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed after his capture in March 2003, Bush said the idea was first cleared with his lawyers in order to 'take whatever steps that were necessary to protect' the American public.
'The first thing you do is ask, what's legal? What do the lawyers say is possible?' he said. 'I made the decision, within the law, to get information so I can say to myself, 'I've done what it takes to do my duty to protect the American people.' I can tell you that the information we got saved lives.'"
Saving lives isn't the only metric. It would have saved lives to not fight the Revolutionary War but people thought that liberty was worth dying.
Describing the decision to use waterboarding on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed after his capture in March 2003, Bush said the idea was first cleared with his lawyers in order to 'take whatever steps that were necessary to protect' the American public.
'The first thing you do is ask, what's legal? What do the lawyers say is possible?' he said. 'I made the decision, within the law, to get information so I can say to myself, 'I've done what it takes to do my duty to protect the American people.' I can tell you that the information we got saved lives.'"
Saving lives isn't the only metric. It would have saved lives to not fight the Revolutionary War but people thought that liberty was worth dying.
The Social Security Scam - Mark Brandly - Mises Institute
The Social Security Scam - Mark Brandly - Mises Institute: "The federal government is in debt to itself. Compare this to debt in the private sector. No business declares that it's deep in debt because it loaned itself money. It's the same with families. Parents don't lay awake at night trying to figure out how to repay the money they loaned themselves. The government, however, thinks that it makes perfect sense to collect $100 of tax revenue, spend the $100, and then declare that it now owes itself $100. This scheme is not limited to Social Security. Currently, federal intragovernmental debt for all programs totals $4.3 trillion.
How should we think about this intragovernmental debt? The Treasury department collects $100 in Social Security taxes, the SSA spends $70 on Social Security benefits, and the other $30 goes to, let's say, military spending. Since $30 was collected for Social Security, but spent on the military, the Trust Fund now has $30 of bonds. The bonds are simply promises of future taxes. The feds collected the money for Social Security and now they are going to collect taxes again for Social Security spending. The $2.4 trillion of bonds in the Trust fund represent Social Security revenues that need to be collected a second time, since the tax revenues did not go towards Social Security spending when they were initially collected. In fact, all of the intragovernmental debt represents future higher taxes."
How should we think about this intragovernmental debt? The Treasury department collects $100 in Social Security taxes, the SSA spends $70 on Social Security benefits, and the other $30 goes to, let's say, military spending. Since $30 was collected for Social Security, but spent on the military, the Trust Fund now has $30 of bonds. The bonds are simply promises of future taxes. The feds collected the money for Social Security and now they are going to collect taxes again for Social Security spending. The $2.4 trillion of bonds in the Trust fund represent Social Security revenues that need to be collected a second time, since the tax revenues did not go towards Social Security spending when they were initially collected. In fact, all of the intragovernmental debt represents future higher taxes."
The Social Security Scam - Mark Brandly - Mises Institute
The Social Security Scam - Mark Brandly - Mises Institute: "It may seem that employers are paying half of the Social Security taxes, but that's not the case. Even though the employers are legally liable for one-half of the tax, they shift the tax onto workers in the form of lower gross wages. Therefore, the Social Security tax burden, 12.4 percent of each worker's gross pay, falls on workers. Half of this burden is hidden from the workers."
Study: DRM makes pirates of us all | Inside CNET Labs Podcast - CNET Blogs
Study: DRM makes pirates of us all | Inside CNET Labs Podcast - CNET Blogs: "In the report she notes that when people who are legally attempting to access DRM content (like film lecturers putting together clips from movies for educational purposes) and they hit a DRM restriction, they are driven to instead download DRM-free, illegal copies of the content to get the job done.
Not the most surprising news, and it's another win for those who believe the way DRM is currently implemented hurts more than helps. Now we have a study that says because of DRM restrictions, people are driven to download illegally. I think that's the definition of backfire."
Not the most surprising news, and it's another win for those who believe the way DRM is currently implemented hurts more than helps. Now we have a study that says because of DRM restrictions, people are driven to download illegally. I think that's the definition of backfire."
Friday, May 22, 2009
Salon.com | We wouldn't want to inflame anti-American sentiment
Salon.com | We wouldn't want to inflame anti-American sentiment: "There are many bizarre aspects to Obama's decision to try to suppress evidence of America's detainee abuse, beginning with the newfound willingness of so many people to say: "We want our leaders to suppress information that reflects poorly on what our government does." One would think that it would be impossible to train a citizenry to be grateful to political officials for concealing evidence of government wrongdoing, or to accept the idea that evidence that reflects poorly on the conduct of political leaders should, for that reason alone, be covered-up: "Obama and his military commanders decide when it's best that we're kept in the dark, and I'm thankful when they keep from me things that reflect poorly on my government because I trust them to decide what I should and should not know." It's the fantasy of every political leader to have a citizenry willing to think that way ("I know it's totally unrealistic, but wouldn't it be great if we could actually convince people that it's for their own good when we cover-up evidence of government crimes?").
But what is ultimately even more amazing is the claim that suppressing these photographs is necessary to prevent an inflammation of anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world generally and Afghanistan specifically."
"We're currently occupying two Muslim countries. We're killing civilians regularly (as usual) -- with airplanes and unmanned sky robots. We're imprisoning tens of thousands of Muslims with no trial, for years. Our government continues to insist that it has the power to abduct people -- virtually all Muslim -- ship them to Bagram, put them in cages, and keep them there indefinitely with no charges of any kind. We're denying our torture victims any ability to obtain justice for what was done to them by insisting that the way we tortured them is a "state secret" and that we need to "look to the future." We provide Israel with the arms and money used to do things like devastate Gaza. Independent of whether any or all of these policies are justifiable, the extent to which those actions "inflame anti-American sentiment" is impossible to overstate.
And now, the very same people who are doing all of that are claiming that they must suppress evidence of our government's abuse of detainees because to allow the evidence to be seen would "inflame anti-American sentiment." It's not hard to believe that releasing the photos would do so to some extent -- people generally consider it a bad thing to torture and brutally abuse helpless detainees -- but compared to everything else we're doing, the notion that releasing or concealing these photos would make an appreciable difference in terms of how we're perceived in the Muslim world is laughable on its face.
Moreover, isn't it rather obvious that Obama's decision to hide this evidence -- certain to be a prominent news story in the Muslim world, and justifiably so -- will itself inflame anti-American sentiment? It's not exactly a compelling advertisement for the virtues of transparency, honesty and open government. What do you think the impact is when we announce to the world: "What we did is so heinous that we're going to suppress the evidence?" Some Americans might be grateful to Obama for hiding evidence of what we did to detainees, but that is unlikely to be the reaction of people around the world.
If we're actually worried about inflaming anti-American sentiment and endangering our troops, we might want to re-consider whether we should keep doing the things that actually spawn "anti-American sentiment" and put American soldiers in danger. We might, for instance, want to stop invading, bombing and occupying Muslim countries and imprisoning their citizens with no charges by the thousands. But exploiting concerns over "anti-American sentiment" to vest our own government leaders with the power to cover-up evidence of wrongdoing is as incoherent as it is dangerous. Who actually thinks that the solution to anti-American sentiment is to hide evidence of our wrongdoing rather than ceasing the conduct that causes that sentiment in the first place?"
But what is ultimately even more amazing is the claim that suppressing these photographs is necessary to prevent an inflammation of anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world generally and Afghanistan specifically."
"We're currently occupying two Muslim countries. We're killing civilians regularly (as usual) -- with airplanes and unmanned sky robots. We're imprisoning tens of thousands of Muslims with no trial, for years. Our government continues to insist that it has the power to abduct people -- virtually all Muslim -- ship them to Bagram, put them in cages, and keep them there indefinitely with no charges of any kind. We're denying our torture victims any ability to obtain justice for what was done to them by insisting that the way we tortured them is a "state secret" and that we need to "look to the future." We provide Israel with the arms and money used to do things like devastate Gaza. Independent of whether any or all of these policies are justifiable, the extent to which those actions "inflame anti-American sentiment" is impossible to overstate.
And now, the very same people who are doing all of that are claiming that they must suppress evidence of our government's abuse of detainees because to allow the evidence to be seen would "inflame anti-American sentiment." It's not hard to believe that releasing the photos would do so to some extent -- people generally consider it a bad thing to torture and brutally abuse helpless detainees -- but compared to everything else we're doing, the notion that releasing or concealing these photos would make an appreciable difference in terms of how we're perceived in the Muslim world is laughable on its face.
Moreover, isn't it rather obvious that Obama's decision to hide this evidence -- certain to be a prominent news story in the Muslim world, and justifiably so -- will itself inflame anti-American sentiment? It's not exactly a compelling advertisement for the virtues of transparency, honesty and open government. What do you think the impact is when we announce to the world: "What we did is so heinous that we're going to suppress the evidence?" Some Americans might be grateful to Obama for hiding evidence of what we did to detainees, but that is unlikely to be the reaction of people around the world.
If we're actually worried about inflaming anti-American sentiment and endangering our troops, we might want to re-consider whether we should keep doing the things that actually spawn "anti-American sentiment" and put American soldiers in danger. We might, for instance, want to stop invading, bombing and occupying Muslim countries and imprisoning their citizens with no charges by the thousands. But exploiting concerns over "anti-American sentiment" to vest our own government leaders with the power to cover-up evidence of wrongdoing is as incoherent as it is dangerous. Who actually thinks that the solution to anti-American sentiment is to hide evidence of our wrongdoing rather than ceasing the conduct that causes that sentiment in the first place?"
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Bibles Unbound
Bibles Unbound: "persecuted Christians from around the world are gathering names and addresses from their local communities. These names are then submitted to Bibles Unbound where members have the opportunity to mail New Testaments in the appropriate language directly to the field. This unique program gives you the ability to stand alongside our persecuted brothers and sisters and help create a witness for Jesus Christ in hostile lands right from your own home."
Monday, May 18, 2009
Is Sully Too Old to Fly? - Christopher Westley - Mises Institute
Is Sully Too Old to Fly? - Christopher Westley - Mises Institute: "Many Sully Sullenbergers have been forced to retire before Congress extended the retirement age, based on the belief that US airlines, if allowed to make rules on their own, would allow unhealthy or incompetent pilots to man their expensive aircraft, regardless of age. That such decisions are better made by government officials, separated from the industry and bearing no direct cost if they decide incorrectly, is a scandal. Why no outrage from foes of age discrimination when the perpetrator is the state itself? Government control of hiring in the private sector is a characteristic of fascism, not capitalism."
Friday, May 15, 2009
"Socking Stocks" by Jim Powell (Cato Institute: Commentary)
"Socking Stocks" by Jim Powell (Cato Institute: Commentary): "Ironically, Obama's increased corporate taxes would probably lead more Americans to seek higher returns by investing in offshore-based companies. The Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis says US investors hold some $5.1 trillion worth of stock in offshore-based companies. These assets have appreciated as foreign currencies have risen against the dollar, and many Americans have invested in them as a means to diversify and protect themselves from dollar devaluation."
"Corporations don't really pay taxes anyway. Like other costs of doing business, they pass them on to consumers."
"Corporations don't really pay taxes anyway. Like other costs of doing business, they pass them on to consumers."
"In Defense Of Tax Havens" by Daniel J. Mitchell (Cato Institute: Commentary)
"In Defense Of Tax Havens" by Daniel J. Mitchell (Cato Institute: Commentary): "They argue that if an American firm can earn money in Ireland and only pay 12.5% tax, this gives them an incentive to close down factories in America and ship them overseas.
Since nearly 90% of what American companies produce overseas is sold overseas, according to Commerce Department data, there's not much evidence that this is happening. But there's actually some truth to this argument. If a company can save money by building widgets in Ireland and selling them to the U.S. market, then we shouldn't be surprised that some of them will consider that option.
But this does not mean the president's proposal might save some American jobs. If deferral is eliminated, that may prevent an American company from taking advantage of a profitable opportunity to build a factory in some place like Ireland. But U.S. tax law does not constrain foreign companies operating in foreign countries. So there would be nothing to prevent a Dutch company from taking advantage of that profitable Irish opportunity. And since a foreign-based company can ship goods into the U.S. market under the same rules as a U.S. company's foreign subsidiary, worldwide taxation does not insulate America from overseas competition. It simply means that foreign companies get the business and earn the profits."
Since nearly 90% of what American companies produce overseas is sold overseas, according to Commerce Department data, there's not much evidence that this is happening. But there's actually some truth to this argument. If a company can save money by building widgets in Ireland and selling them to the U.S. market, then we shouldn't be surprised that some of them will consider that option.
But this does not mean the president's proposal might save some American jobs. If deferral is eliminated, that may prevent an American company from taking advantage of a profitable opportunity to build a factory in some place like Ireland. But U.S. tax law does not constrain foreign companies operating in foreign countries. So there would be nothing to prevent a Dutch company from taking advantage of that profitable Irish opportunity. And since a foreign-based company can ship goods into the U.S. market under the same rules as a U.S. company's foreign subsidiary, worldwide taxation does not insulate America from overseas competition. It simply means that foreign companies get the business and earn the profits."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)