Bruddah IZ
DA
Apparently the good ole U.S.A. is a nice little tax haven.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html
Ponderable
- Thread starter Bruddah IZ
- Start date
Apparently the good ole U.S.A. is a nice little tax haven.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html
Bruddah IZ
DA
The rich are actually still investing in the Taxpayer Bailout Capital of the World, the U.S.A. The Finance guy, Wezdumb, should know that.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Wez
DA
Yet another problem with open or concealed carry, when approaching a scene, how do Police know what the status is? Crime with a gun, not allowed to own a gun, legal gun but not open or concealed, open but not concealed, legal both open and concealed? Being a cop must be tough in rough neighborhoods with lax gun laws...
Bruddah IZ
DA
Are you suggesting the $4 billion was a cash payment to Tesla?
Bruddah IZ
DA
Bruddah IZ
DA
Are you suggesting the $4 billion was cash that Tesla would have spent in the absence of a $4 billion subsidy?
Did you actually read the article you linked?
Bruddah IZ
DA
Yes. Did you? If so, answer the question.
Bruddah IZ
DA
… is from page 50 of Arnold Kling’s excellent new book, Specialization and Trade: A Re-introduction to Economics (original emphasis):
What we should be comparing is not the existing market configuration with an ideal based on a simple model but the market process of error correction (without subsidies to Tesla) with the political process of error correction (subsidies to Tesla).
If the above sounds trivially true, it is – in a sense. But in another sense it’s not trivially true, because many economists – including Nobel laureates such as Joseph Stiglitz, George Akerlof, Paul Krugman, and Robert Shiller – routinely compare static, real-world market (no subsidies to Tesla) situations with idealized, imagined political outcomes and then conclude that the market has failed and that, as a result, more power and resources must be turned over to state officials....(to give subsidies to Tesla)
..............................
Anybody surprised?
Anybody gonna be surprised when it's Iran instead of North Korea, Persian Gulf instead of South Korea & Middle East instead of Korean Peninsula?
UNITED NATIONS — North Korea's foreign minister condemned the United States on Friday for flying supersonic bombers over South Korea earlier this week and vowed his country will strengthen its nuclear capabilities in defiance of multiple U.N. Security Council resolutions.
In a defiant speech before the U.N. General Assembly, Ri Yong Ho said the Korean Peninsula "has now been turned into the world's most dangerous hot spot which can even ignite the outbreak of a nuclear war." He blamed the United States and "its hostile policy" against North Korea.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...uclear-forces/ar-BBwyj5U?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=iehp
Anybody surprised?
Anybody gonna be surprised when it's Iran instead of North Korea, Persian Gulf instead of South Korea & Middle East instead of Korean Peninsula?
UNITED NATIONS — North Korea's foreign minister condemned the United States on Friday for flying supersonic bombers over South Korea earlier this week and vowed his country will strengthen its nuclear capabilities in defiance of multiple U.N. Security Council resolutions.
In a defiant speech before the U.N. General Assembly, Ri Yong Ho said the Korean Peninsula "has now been turned into the world's most dangerous hot spot which can even ignite the outbreak of a nuclear war." He blamed the United States and "its hostile policy" against North Korea.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...uclear-forces/ar-BBwyj5U?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=iehp
Bruddah IZ
DA
http://www.techpolicydaily.com/communications/washingtons-weird-war-free/
The latest victim in the war on free
Unlike India, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has not yet prohibited free data in the US. But the agency has been investigating the practice for 10 months, so far without resolution. Still, according to FCC Commissioner O’Rielly, the FCC inquiry itself has led companies to keep free data offerings on the drawing board, not in the marketplace.
Not to be outdone, the Department of Justice (DOJ) is threatening to shut down the University of California-Berkeley’s free online educational offerings. In an investigation unrelated to free data, DOJ says Berkeley’s numerous and heterogeneous online courses don’t comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and must be fixed or taken down. DOJ claims the multitude of free course videos don’t all contain proper captioning or sound or video quality.
Berkeley replied that it will cooperate with the investigation but also wondered whether it could continue offering the courses to the public:
“In many cases the requirements proposed by the department would require the university to implement extremely expensive measures to continue to make these resources available to the public for free. We believe that in a time of substantial budget deficits and shrinking state financial support, our first obligation is to use our limited resources to support our enrolled students. Therefore, we must strongly consider the unenviable option of whether to remove content from public access.”
The irony is thick. We are constantly trying to find ways to improve access (often by reducing cost) to both mobile connectivity and higher education. What could be more important in our world than knowledge and connectivity? Yet Washington is threatening to outlaw two innovations that do just that — improve access to education and to the internet.
In each case, the free offerings are expanding access to vast audiences who otherwise would not enjoy the opportunity. Zero rating reduces the cost of mobile so that (1) existing subscribers can access more content and (2) non-subscribers become subscribers. In the case of Berkeley (and many other universities), people across the nation and the world gain access to courses that normally come with a $40,000 tuition bill.
The latest victim in the war on free
Unlike India, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has not yet prohibited free data in the US. But the agency has been investigating the practice for 10 months, so far without resolution. Still, according to FCC Commissioner O’Rielly, the FCC inquiry itself has led companies to keep free data offerings on the drawing board, not in the marketplace.
Not to be outdone, the Department of Justice (DOJ) is threatening to shut down the University of California-Berkeley’s free online educational offerings. In an investigation unrelated to free data, DOJ says Berkeley’s numerous and heterogeneous online courses don’t comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and must be fixed or taken down. DOJ claims the multitude of free course videos don’t all contain proper captioning or sound or video quality.
Berkeley replied that it will cooperate with the investigation but also wondered whether it could continue offering the courses to the public:
“In many cases the requirements proposed by the department would require the university to implement extremely expensive measures to continue to make these resources available to the public for free. We believe that in a time of substantial budget deficits and shrinking state financial support, our first obligation is to use our limited resources to support our enrolled students. Therefore, we must strongly consider the unenviable option of whether to remove content from public access.”
The irony is thick. We are constantly trying to find ways to improve access (often by reducing cost) to both mobile connectivity and higher education. What could be more important in our world than knowledge and connectivity? Yet Washington is threatening to outlaw two innovations that do just that — improve access to education and to the internet.
In each case, the free offerings are expanding access to vast audiences who otherwise would not enjoy the opportunity. Zero rating reduces the cost of mobile so that (1) existing subscribers can access more content and (2) non-subscribers become subscribers. In the case of Berkeley (and many other universities), people across the nation and the world gain access to courses that normally come with a $40,000 tuition bill.
Wez
DA
You still don't get it, if Iran wants nukes, we can't stop them and weren't stopping them. Now we've at least delayed them and added some transparency.
You continually imply that the Iran deal is giving them nukes... it's plain wrong.
Wishful thinking Wez. The Iran deal isn't giving them nukes, I never implied that, it gave them money and lifted the sanctions.
They wanted their frozen assets returned. We returned them plus interest, in cash!
The Iranians will do as the North Koreans have done, ignore the agreement and pursue their atomic bomb program.
..........................
WASHINGTON — Democrats and Republicans are vowing to decisively override President Barack Obama's veto of a bill to allow families of Sept. 11 victims to sue the government of Saudi Arabia for the kingdom's alleged backing of the terrorists who killed nearly 3,000 people.
Obama rejected the bill Friday, warning of a host of unintended and severe consequences if it were enacted. The legislation, according to Obama, could leave American troops and diplomats overseas vulnerable to lawsuits in foreign courts from people seeking redress for actions taken by armed groups that are backed or trained by the United States.
The bill's proponents disputed Obama's rationale, arguing the measure is narrowly tailored and applies only to acts of terrorism that occur on U.S. soil.
"This is a disappointing decision that will be swiftly and soundly overturned in Congress," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who sponsored the bill. "If the Saudis did nothing wrong, they should not fear this legislation. If they were culpable in 9/11, they should be held accountable."
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, another of the bill's sponsor, criticized Obama for failing to listen to the families of the victims and said he looked forward to the opportunity for Congress to override the veto.
read more:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...-sept-11-bill/ar-BBwzrJK?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=iehp
WASHINGTON — Democrats and Republicans are vowing to decisively override President Barack Obama's veto of a bill to allow families of Sept. 11 victims to sue the government of Saudi Arabia for the kingdom's alleged backing of the terrorists who killed nearly 3,000 people.
Obama rejected the bill Friday, warning of a host of unintended and severe consequences if it were enacted. The legislation, according to Obama, could leave American troops and diplomats overseas vulnerable to lawsuits in foreign courts from people seeking redress for actions taken by armed groups that are backed or trained by the United States.
The bill's proponents disputed Obama's rationale, arguing the measure is narrowly tailored and applies only to acts of terrorism that occur on U.S. soil.
"This is a disappointing decision that will be swiftly and soundly overturned in Congress," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who sponsored the bill. "If the Saudis did nothing wrong, they should not fear this legislation. If they were culpable in 9/11, they should be held accountable."
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, another of the bill's sponsor, criticized Obama for failing to listen to the families of the victims and said he looked forward to the opportunity for Congress to override the veto.
read more:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...-sept-11-bill/ar-BBwzrJK?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=iehp
Wez
DA
No Lion, they won't ignore the deal because they don't want harsh economic sanctions. Stop talking out your ass and read something about the deal. Your statements show great ignorance.
http://www.ploughshares.org/issues-analysis/article/one-year-iran-deal-working
"One year later, the agreement is working: all of Iran's pathways to a nuclear weapon have been verifiably blocked, and international sanctions lifted. The agreement was won not by force, but by diplomacy. Over the course of the past 6 months since the deal was implemented in January, a number of experts, editorial boards and thought leaders have written about the benefits of the agreement -- and why it's so important that we protect it. Here are some valuable and informative quotations by some of them, and the articles from which they are sourced. "
Andy Dukes
PREMIER
Can you show some sort of reference where the US wanted to keep the frozen assets plus the interest?
Bless your little optimistic heart...
The North Korean deal promised harsh sanctions also...
The deal allows Iran to continue enrichment of uranium.
We consider both agreements as "non proliferation" agreements. North Korea & Iran not so much.
Being your Huckleberry, let me suggest you pull your head out of your ass and explain what you believe is meant by Iran when they "suggest a new and constructive way to re-create the international order"?
Here's more talkin out my ass...Iran still preaches death to America and the destruction of Israel & is the number one supporter of international terrorism.
Since the agreement they have increased belligerent & aggressive actions in the Persian Gulf, pulled that one out of my ass too.
With billions in released cash, the Iranians can continue their pursuits...
NEW YORK — A year ago, Iran seemed on the verge of a new relationship with the United States and the world.
In his address to the United Nations last fall, President Hassan Rouhani said the nuclear deal just signed, lifting sanctions and setting limits on Iran’s nuclear program, was a foundation for change.
“We were not solely seeking a nuclear deal,” he said. “We want to suggest a new and constructive way to re-create the international order.”
Flash forward a year, and Rouhani’s optimism has been replaced by disappointment and finger-pointing.
In his U.N. speech and a wide-ranging news conference this week, Rouhani bitterly accused the United States of failing to live up to its obligations under the nuclear deal. In the eight months since the deal was implemented, he said, Washington had delayed licenses for business transactions and blocked Iran’s access to banks.
“The lack of compliance . . . on the part of the United States in the past several months represents a flawed approach that should be rectified forthwith,” he said Thursday.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...7a8611-335d-48c9-ac1f-777f960ebada_story.html
The U.S. regarded the Agreed Framework primarily a non-proliferation agreement, whereas North Korea placed greater value on measures normalizing relations with the U.S.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreed_Framework
We've had the frozen assets since the Jimmy Carter administrations.
Iran has been and continues to be the number one supporter if terrorism world wide.
To be number 1, one needs cash.
Apparently our negotiators believed giving back the cash PLUS interest was a good thing.