Take for example the "qualified investor" in the U.S. To be qualified you must have a million dollars and expect to make 500k this year. How insulting is that!?! It implies that the poor are to stupid to invest their own money and that just having money shows how smart you are. The system is rigged to keep normal people from investing and living off of capitol gains, exactly how the rich make their money.
The point of identifying who a "qualified investor" is isn't to exclude poor people from investments, it's about identifying a situation where there are no investors the SEC needs to protect. There are certain securities or transactions that don't need to be registered if they deal with only qualified investors. The point is to identify a transaction that doesn't need SEC oversight or registration since a "qualified" investor is deemed to have the experience or resources at his disposal to figure out for himself if the deal is legitimate or or not. It's true the SEC equates financial sophistication with wealth or level of income, but that doesn't seem to be an unreasonable correlation to me. The question comes down to financial sophistication, and the SEC has decided that the rich are more financially sophisticated than the poor, and are able to better understand the risks of investing in an unregistered security, which is riskier than a registered security. To a lesser extent, this identifies situations where the government doesn't need to get involved so it can lessen its regulatory burden, but it's mostly about situations where the government doesn't have to oversee or register the securities because everyone involved can take care of themselves. I see what your saying but the implication that having wealth equals financial knowledge is false. If one were born mentally challenged but a millionaire he/she would qualify while another person with an advanced degree in economics will not qualify if they are not rich. The only reason why this law exists is to protect the wealthy from normal people entering into investments. Why for example can't a normal person invest $500 in a startup? Even if their poor stupid self invests unwisely, they wont go broke. And there is nothing to keep a wealthy person from investing in a ridiculously bad option. It is not about protecting anyone. It is about the fact that the wealthy do not work for a living, they invest. If everyone could do that then the rich would face competition from the people who are supposed to be busy making them money. I understand your first point, and I agree that wealth is not the same as financial knowledge. It's just the easiest way to draw the line. I disagree with the intent of the rule though. It's not to protect the rich, it's to protect the not rich. The reason the SEC is necessary is because people take advantage of other people. The SEC regulates investments to hold accountable people who would defraud investors. The reason they don't let the non-rich invest in the riskiest types of securities is they can least afford it if the venture fails, and far, FAR more of them fail than not. It would be one thing if people accepted responsibility for themselves when they invest in a company that goes bust, but they don't. The public has demanded "protection" from people who would structure deals in a way so as to take advantage of the financially less sophisticated, so the SEC has arbitrarily decided that level of wealth equals sophistication. From the SEC's perspective, alhough I disagree with the method of implementation, I agree with the intent of the rule, which is to keep less sophisticated people from biting off more than they can chew or being taken advantage of. From the perspective of personal responsibility and freedom, I disagree with the rule on principal. I think people should be free to invest in whatever they want. With that type of system though, the instances of fraud will be much higher. It's just a question of whether the trade off is worth it. |
|
|
|
I do NOT trust my ISP or that the capitalist system we have in America will do anything except sell me out. What your saying about the free market sounds good, but communism also sounds good on paper. I have never in my life seen so called "competition" among media providers lead to anything but higher prices and shitty service. That magic of the market stuff is BS unless you have a true free market. In which case you would need to have net-neutrality.
There isn't free competition in the media market, as you pointed out. But don't worry, as soon as Net Neutrality is defeated, the market will suddenly be FREE because it's the only thing stopping the market from being perfect! /s Being such a rage-saddled twit and ignoring the fact that there are technical limitations to competition in this case makes it easy to shout like a petulant child about how stupid everyone else is (like some, well, one poster in this thread). Unfortunately, although I block idiots, when people quote them, their dumb fuck ideas squeak through the block. Don't engage intellectually inferior posters who scream their ideas in rage when people disagree. Just let their rage-fueled posts die the undignified deaths they deserve. |
|
|
|
Arrest the gang leaders,put only Caucasian(I'm being politically correct,yay me) people in the administration,enforce martial law for the first year with the help of the National Guard,make the city more accomodating to investors.
Politically correct Klansman? |
|
|
|
We all know Detroit is the butt of all city jokes in the U.S. The place is in utter disrepair, the city is huge compared to the taxes it receives--so naturally bad things started to happen. Business and economic growth don't exactly thrive in a place declared by the FBI as the murder capital of the U.S. So in your opinion, what can fix Detroit? Other than Robocop of course.
Stop voting for the democrats. Cuz everyone knows we're a few republicans away from Utopia?  |
|
|
|
Take for example the "qualified investor" in the U.S. To be qualified you must have a million dollars and expect to make 500k this year. How insulting is that!?! It implies that the poor are to stupid to invest their own money and that just having money shows how smart you are. The system is rigged to keep normal people from investing and living off of capitol gains, exactly how the rich make their money.
The point of identifying who a "qualified investor" is isn't to exclude poor people from investments, it's about identifying a situation where there are no investors the SEC needs to protect. There are certain securities or transactions that don't need to be registered if they deal with only qualified investors. The point is to identify a transaction that doesn't need SEC oversight or registration since a "qualified" investor is deemed to have the experience or resources at his disposal to figure out for himself if the deal is legitimate or or not. It's true the SEC equates financial sophistication with wealth or level of income, but that doesn't seem to be an unreasonable correlation to me. The question comes down to financial sophistication, and the SEC has decided that the rich are more financially sophisticated than the poor, and are able to better understand the risks of investing in an unregistered security, which is riskier than a registered security. To a lesser extent, this identifies situations where the government doesn't need to get involved so it can lessen its regulatory burden, but it's mostly about situations where the government doesn't have to oversee or register the securities because everyone involved can take care of themselves. |
|
|
|
If the USA Freedom Act fails to pass through the Senate before the end of the year the process will have to restart in January, and will be scrutinised by a new Congress controlled a Republican party more favourable to government surveillance. B-b-b-but I thought the republican party was about smaller government, not an omniscient, unwieldy large police-state that knows everything about everyone... Also, if you're hoping for a change in the NSA's powers, don't hold your breath. Privacy advocates and technology groups championed the bill originally but many revoked their support after compromises expanded the definition of what data the government can collect. "Compromises" means taking the teeth out of the bill, which defeats the point in having the bill. It might curtail some aspects of the NSA's abuses, but not the ones that need it the most. In that respect, it will serve to legitimize those NSA powers. |
|
|
|
It shows how far we have sunk. Now people just react based on politics without a clue as to what they are talking about. "oh, he's for it? Them I'm against it!". Oh god, you just perfectly summed up the two-party system. Why do you see so many negative attack ads? Because in a two-party system, it's easier to convince you not to vote for someone than it is to vote for someone. So you convince them to vote against your opponent, and you're the only other choice. That's how all the democrats and republicans operate. All democrats are evil, or all republicans are evil, and all their ideas are bad, so instead of having constructive dialogue about problems, they just focus on telling you what is wrong with the other side. That exact set of circumstances is what leads a Ted Cruz to say 'Net Neutrality is Obamacare for the internet' without regard to what Net Neutrality is, how it works, or what is best for the internet and the country. Obama is for it? I better do my best to convince everyone how bad it is. |
|
|
|
|
It sounds like you're asking for things that aren't possible: for a currency that has widely acknowledged value but also one in which the accumulation of it isn't possible by the wealthy. If your premise is that currencies typically allow for oppression of the poor, and you want bitcoin to become a currency, it too will allow for oppression of the poor. Bitcoin doesn't solve the fundamental problem of the human race: scarcity of resources. Scarcity of resources is what drives greed, not currency. Currencies are just a representation of it and a way to facilitate trade, and it doesn't matter if it's denominated in USD, Euros, Pounds, or Bitcoins. Bitcoin will not end scarcity, so there will always be rich and poor, even with bitcoin. But solving that problem wasn't the intent of bitcoin either. I don't know where the concept came from, but the problem bitcoin was supposed to solve was not inequitable distributions of wealth; it was the necessity of a central authority (which may abuse its power) in the currency creation process. Any ideals you're assigning to bitcoin outside of that single one aren't innate to bitcoin, and they aren't necessarily warranted.
|
|
|
|
|
Detroit is failing because the industries there are failing. Historically, that has meant auto. How do you fix it? You need to bring jobs to the city. How do you bring jobs? You need to have a city safe for business and citizens. It's kind of a paradox that it takes resources to make a city safe, but the less safe a city is, the less resources it has as business and residents flee.
What will it take? Massive investment in the city. Whether you want that to be government or private is one question. I favor the private side. Property prices are so cheap because things are so bad, you're starting to see people willing to risk the investment to build a business or buy a house, because the upside outweighs the little loss, so the private side is starting to do its part a little. But beyond the market correcting itself, you need the city to get it together on its end too.
|
|
|
|
I like Senator Franken calling out Senator Cruz on his fundamental misunderstanding of how net neutrality works. I'd like to see them have a debate on it. It would probably last about 5 minutes, and Ted Cruz would leave in tears. Looking at the two of them and their statements on this issue, you'd probably misidentify Cruz as the former comedian. What really irks me about Cruz is that he may not even believe the garbage he says. He just wanted a soundbite and an excuse to slam Obama and use the word "Obamacare" again. Cruz will be running for president in 2016, so he needs to establish how anti-Obama he is to get through what will be a crowded field of anti-Obama candidates. It doesn't matter if he has to sell lies to do it, and I mean, what harm can enacting policy based on a little lie cause anyway?  |
|
|
|
I do on occasion go to a drive thru fast food place that is in a complex with a gas station, a large retailer, etc. Homeless people are always hanging out near one specific entrance/exit location in the complex. So, if I feel like it....I order my meal x2 and when I'm leaving give 1 away to of whichever homeless person happens to be there that day. It's not a daily, scheduled or regular thing. I can spend my money how I wish and as far as I know, it's not illegal in Florida to hand a person a bag of food whether you know them or not.
Not all over Florida apparently. This was an ordinance, which means it was passed by a city. I think it was Fort Lauderdale? |
|
|
|
Hisssss! You evil socialist pigs who insist on having a free and open internet will bring about the destruction of America! You sure will be sorry when Uncle Sam has his big ole thug jackboots on the neck of your precious little internet and the only internet speed you can afford is a 28k dial up modem! Net neutrality is a conspiracy by Obama to seize control of the world! (Someone was going to say it, so it might as well have been me, as a joke.  )
|
|
|
|
Regardless of your opinion on if the law is just or not, the police officers were only doing their job.
Just doing their jobs.Nice Godwin! Because discouraging bums from shitting free food all over a neighborhood park is EXACTLY like the Third Reich. Thanks for derailing this duplicate thread before it took up any more space.  It's not an example of Godwin's law. Whether or not you agree with his overall point, it actually is EXACTLY an example of Godwin's Law. It is a perfect example that proves the rule. |
|
|
|
Regardless of your opinion on if the law is just or not, the police officers were only doing their job. If they see someone breaking the law repeatedly then they must take action and arrest the criminal.
That's not accurate though. The police can use discretion, as in making the determination "it's not the best use of my time to arrest someone who is performing a charitable act." Using the term "criminal" is unwarranted. Technically correct, since it's "against the law," but just because something is against the law doesn't mean the law is appropriate. This is a good example of it not being. But back to discretion and cops using it to opt not to enforce bad laws, the way you know police have discretion is that they don't pull over every motorist going 1 or 2 mph over the speed limit. Those guys are breaking the law as well, ("criminals" is the word you used) but it's clearly not a good use of a cop's time to pull over a motorist who is only going 1 or 2 mph over the speed limit. They DO use discretion not to enforce the law in those cases. The cop could have similarly used his discretion not to enforce a dumb law here. |
|
|
|
everyone should find Jesus. i found him behind a cell. if u haven't found him yet, maybe u should go to jail too. it helps. after all if u had him, u wouldn't have got arrested?
Not everyone who goes to jail is a criminal. That's the damn unfortunate truth. |
|
|
|
TX : c2ec9af030bfa6e2cc4272f29795cc6060e7d69111fbccc887f6ba4f8ded2197★☆★ Enrolled On 1st Pay Period ★☆★
twister 1CSGNuBarvvoGF7h66thMzv6uY6nt69ah3 | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
Muhammed Zakir 1MzakiRDem5MCocbcP7DgfcVGZNZe2KqaC | Paid BTC: 0
CryptoCarmen 1Ebb8pi6Lm2w82JswSGmvQVLdurUfD8ukj | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
Superhitech 1G5Ca1n5Wvcu1HwRVaFB6MzkyZTX1ibiby | Paid BTC: 0.0039
Mirdude 15iuAhRvTriSXTRLDyS2VNm4DrBEFdBDFs | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
★☆★ Enrolled On 2nd Pay Period ★☆★
Coopster8888 18co9Ja7EgtGu9c1Siy9V62uRAJKGmukJo | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
ikydesu 1KAgiPTd1kgP1SJbUe7gz85rw4Z8ok6j9f | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
the_K_man 1wc6wE675MH1hHDDnzKpdNHPvz3Yz2GTL | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
mlferro 1Dw3uCHSwgfwLCxnhPXuDNVkmVR69NE2ua | Paid BTC: 0.0024
★☆★ Enrolled On 3rd Pay Period ★☆★
howbtc 12GNo1TNmm8g75XtfD9M7LfeXLv39r8jHQ | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
suman66 15iHm9Stryr9o2U8d1SvBoZ4YHTUDq48vc | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
Grand_Voyageur 18QzVgAmkXzfV9nBSNwxe3HCohmtMeRrcQ | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
nextblast 19Y9fUCHdbAnVWaESqiQZWoJANHwcdEau9 | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
Q7 13P79evhLXBDDRXDsB6KHggiRK4MxhYNg1 | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
ChiliPowder 11DpJzhrpWAHj5yjBAjeXYzp1MVcK1hLv | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
Kassenzettel 1NfUXTaz1K2i82JNgSiQ9HbsPMrRLgXxRC | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
Iamyourdad 1BtBqWDJ28o1pWYiqtX1oUcBKpU1d86XSC | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
My Name Was Taken 1D6nSTM4YUhWUFPAfFm2pmQ5hKdtVxrgkZ | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
btckold24 1NYcHBgvKo9qdi3tgosj82rfe6HDLrLm2w | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
Possum577 1Exx48BUTb57hPND67Mt5WwPXiTA9CjoEs | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
★☆★ Enrolled On 4th Pay Period ★☆★
huoiuu 1DtWcGQgnwQMTJhnuAmUGuGFrcLctxLLrk | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
zazarb 1AxyPdVoRVkita9fnqCYaYZgssKvbzEpbL | Paid BTC: 0.0023
marioantonini 1LafEhP5eQwTsnnMk1J35bDXJSCPyeJCfC | Paid BTC: 0.0055
ligeros 1BMQ4XeP8Q8Hgua1betYRwcxeBF8vh8dtm | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
grouper fish 1PFx6zjURC59RxG6fDJJGgSEqJqPkKcyeb | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
h4xx0r 1CQRFstq5khcJ83aQPmEfKWaS7w8vFKyMy | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
beginner_x 1MEZhLHNFTc67kojhG7MKx5sc7vgM15rmh | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
wangjin098 12NJR8tdepg9hMLyTKQ3KBVMaizupLwKyu | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
Mist 18445Hp7mF5yRiLcQ5sjaX22eiZnvLfPWC | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
★☆★ Enrolled On 5th Pay Period ★☆★
Deal 1DxNCjcTtmdMBBjB8Cyx8SiWLUDzs3smfw | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
elizabethleon 1BRrC3WwZYRrvRXauESLbZ8YzZDHbpq23R | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
ARadzi 1K44P4G6XB9BbsUqUGj93unN48NS2N9Z59 | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
cma3 1HsdiW5R3YD89v14Kgtnxjx4dYmhKsSYSr | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
btcduke 1HmaNwwrwcdAiMytcJP5pA4zJH9FaQApmh | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
nikkoy 18kzkvisCXtPbA8wRwFLoD3snSMPq8U6Mt | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
Arktur 1DJoYieKZ1CL8bcZm5FrkNgajuNkjvGiBJ | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
lowland 1Fxk2Ds5c9i7NnQkbh8XhnXJRq1kVcfsnF | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
yenzae0215 19oAdgmibZvTKUThZ9E33Ya1yPThfLz5ME | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
onlyyou 12m7nJbEfXdfMDhC1kCzNyNV5eNVoSHY3k | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
blofoma 1CoinJ1cWDytusMjAcnmiYfR8Zp9NYacoP | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
ilvbtc 16SKE7oJeYjA9gQ3x9qaRScmtLtRkJ87xt | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
SuperDay 13dhSc4biPca5r74g4X2K5Uwe3FVs4FhKt | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
ladybitcoin 1L1GKdumPkq1jcB76HKWpR5j4DSgCVU1xq | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
bitnanigans 1Pv5BdiFBvLYUhizRF132mStTHE4Uxs4bT | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
AnonBitCoiner 1Ch173DuRzf1aDxnbabo1rQhUJa2YkfDZG | Paid BTC: 0.0023
dsly 1AkFHXASrxF6h7cxfcAbkBnAsYBXS3S9Ya | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
★☆★ Enrolled On 6th Pay Period ★☆★
coiners99 14djnSitr6wdXVq9BpPHgALcYABJZCpJuD | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
4ever 19VxBQLizYMU6FJJA5PYxdb5v4999icMLy | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
jaysabi 16pvAqwo9fTrkqCMuPmqKPQA7jzsJswWRy | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
haoyun456 1BUsGqgn3r1UfxtvbKc3wvByxb6a8RSSA5 | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
★☆★ Enrolled On 7th Pay Period ★☆★
erre 1SoGC63df4ueo1Zum21c9DwUuft5mkyyi | Paid BTC: 0.0023
goco 1GoCoCg5HfwdteeUKhWcFZ2FanQNPUiUCa | Paid BTC: 0.00224
noobtrader 12345J3S1UNPWgAxkEJnDepGEKwzVVxc5d | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
neo_blaster 1PUuAKJ6dPcDmCd6TS85ek4RtDQcbtZtTt | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
eden1 123456bNnCXaTBmYwA3Nx7xMWbNwVr3Gb3 | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
sangwan1212 1MPvimNBL1rMcMYv8EAfnr9eeU2Bz4Z7uT | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
semidead 16jLuS7UNrLXChzDfWbcrA1B8MWPvh7vAC | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
★☆★ Enrolled On 8th Pay Period ★☆★
stellar69 1258d1XSGhF6FLSkVtHfDw2a4CBc4FL5NL | Paid BTC: 0.0041
Herbert2020 1BBAkVCzDN1wqDuAage1WpJWDvsk5xX2vA | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
puzzel.me 1BwEvWwjBTfJBBQBKPiq5i9GdS7ZxsRCqo | Paid BTC: 0.0021
awesome31312 12vARzQRPwUf19sCGUNUYasBK1kYu3F3xw | Paid BTC: 0.0048
olfirs 1LtUPZDGaT3EUAx9JUmbL3kztRGvQ6F7r8 | Paid BTC: 0.008
menager 1Di6TPTcUvZgkqVi52fqqrk11cPwsBbTn4 | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
Cripto DeD 1QKrUQaTFcQ2y6DeJ8hW1rVphBLcMagwRk | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
feryjhie 1FERyQMm4aPnmbzEmd3xb4FZnQyGkkYv4b | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
Triagpu 16EVaMeDkTD51uVpPZ6SKS9TyDjZHjrBG3 | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
~~MZ~~ I guess I just missed the minimum 20 posts. Will my posts from last week carry forward? |
|
|
|
When I read "0bama wants to control the World Wide Web internet", I wonder how people from belgium or South Africa feel about that change in their life when I read "Obama wants to control the World Wide Web", I wonder why people spin the situation into something it's not. The answer of course is because they're being intentionally dishonest or ignorant. The FCC rules will affect people in Belgium or South Africa in no way. But doubtful that matters much in an internet debate, because you've identified your boogeyman and all non-facts must be deployed in order to stop him! |
|
|
|
That's nice, but rather irrelevant. See: 59% of Americans Oppose NSA ProgramOr: 52% of Americans feel taxes are too highBeing in the majority of public opinion doesn't make it good policy. Further, it doesn't even suggest they understand the issue in the slightest. If you asked these same people if they wanted Comcast or Cox to have the power to slow down internet traffic to certain websites, you would not get 61% saying yes. It's all about the framing of the question, this one used the buzz word "government regulation." They sampled 1,000 people who may or may not be knowledgeable about the topic, framed the question as one about government regulation, and got this result. Meanwhile, the FCC site has over 4,000,000 comments asking the FCC to reclassify ISPs from people who are interested enough in the situation to educate themselves on the topic and then leave a comment on the FCC website on the matter. To me, the latter anecdote is far more significant than 1000 people who may not even understand the situation and are responding to the way the question is framed. So the people should trust this government now, more than ever based on its great trusted track record? You can do whatever you please. I'm backing the side that's the most right. I have nothing against people with a belief they cannot prove with science either. "My side is the most right" There's no science to this. If you want to prop your opinion up with a bunch of baseless assumptions though, the root one being that everything the government does is wrong, that's fine. Doesn't make for a compelling case though. |
|
|
|
This is a fight between two evils.... Govt. With regulations and corruption or corporations with profit. Both are trying to take internet in their control. That's why decentralization is best...
They only good way in my opinion is that other big internet corporation go with the net neutrality, and people start to support them. But, half of the world is ignorant of this issue...
The problem is some of them are ignorant and/or too dumb or partisan to want to understand the issue, and some of them are like UnunoctiumTesticles, who just yell as loudly as they can in order to convince you about how wrong you are. I blocked him for being a total git in another thread because his posts are utterly below the minimum intelligence threshold required for me to read them, but if that other thread is any indication, his posts here are full of insults and vulgarities, and light on any actual point or worthwhile information to back his point.  The debate can be enhanced by following this lead, at least until he learns how to communicate without being... well, so god damn typical of internet posters. I'm not holding my breath. (Also, on the very slim chance he posted anything worth reading, let me know. It's possible I was too fast with my ignore button, but based on the quality of the first post of his I read, I kinda doubt it.) |
|
|
|
Non aggression principle and mutually beneficial interactions should be the foundation of a libertarian society; you can have laws but an extremely small number of them such as "don't kill"; you would not have the law unforced in the case we are discussing
Could you please clarify/expand on the underlined? I don't follow what you mean by "unforced." Edit: Unless you mean "enforced?" |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
