101–110 of 120 posts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Hughes_Medical_Institute
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The argument for rich people paying more tax isn't because we don't like them, it's because government is expensive and we can't afford it without rich people subsidizing everyone else. Keep in mind that rich people also have more of a vested interest in maintaining the system, so it's not entirely unfair to them, either.
Rich people have a vested interest in maintaining public goods (roads, police, military), but such goods comprise a minority of the government. Most government spending is simply taking money from some people and giving it to other people. This is explicitly not in the interests of the rich. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year2009_US.html
[1]Pareto-inspired made-up-statistic
"FEW tasks are more exasperating than trying to assemble flat-pack furniture from IKEA" Am I the only one that enjoy assembling flat-pack furniture and believe it is extremely easy?.
"FEW tasks are more exasperating than trying to assemble flat-pack furniture from IKEA" Am I the only one that enjoy assembling flat-pack furniture and believe it is extremely easy?.
I've bought some flat-pack furniture from some of IKEA's competitors. After having struggled through putting that together I have to say I have new found respect for the amount of thought and design IKEA must put into how their furniture goes together.
"FEW tasks are more exasperating than trying to assemble flat-pack furniture from IKEA" Am I the only one that enjoy assembling flat-pack furniture and believe it is extremely easy?.
They really could use a few words on some of the instructions, but that would violate their "one package for all countries" philosophy. Also, have you ever tried to hang a pair of doors straight? Their hinges have like 9 degrees of freedom, which doesn't really help. Plus I don't think it is actually possible on this TV cabinet I have, since it isn't actually square once you put a TV on it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've bought some flat-pack furniture from some of IKEA's competitors. After having struggled through putting that together I have to say I have new found respect for the amount of thought and design IKEA must put into how their furniture goes together.
Never bought any furniture from Ikea. The furniture I have bought from other low end places generally has very low res and out of proportion drawings. Its not a crazy conspiracy that the manuals are not very well put together. If you think about it economically, they already have your money by the time you've opened the box and tried to piece your furniture together.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They really could use a few words on some of the instructions, but that would violate their "one package for all countries" philosophy. Also, have you ever tried to hang a pair of doors straight? Their hinges have like 9 degrees of freedom, which doesn't really help. Plus I don't think it is actually possible on this TV cabinet I have, since it isn't actually square once you put a TV on it.
Yeah - their backings (or whatever they're called) on drawers and bookcases are really flimsy. We purchased an entertainment unit from them a few years ago, and I ditched the cardboard-like backs and nailed a strip of solid wood diagonally across the back. Not as pretty, but you need access through the back anyway and the wood kept the structure much more rigid than was originally designed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed some companies use multi-level shareholdings to avoid scrutiny (warning: I am not a corporate lawyer and corporations law varies remarkably from country to country. Do not rely on this advice.). Say you have Actual Company, Inc (ACI). ACI can't have more than 500 shareholders or it must go public. So instead ACI issues only 500 shares. 250, say, are kept by the 2 founders. The other 250 are divided up as the s…
In the US this won't avoid the 500 shareholder limit. This came up in the discussion about Goldman's Facebook investment vehicle. The SEC can make a determination about effective shareholders.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please consider public choice theory. Government won't lower taxes on the middle class if they find a way to tax the rich. They'd just increase taxes on the rich and keep on taxing the middle class as before. Tax levels are just a product of a) how much there is to take and b) how tax inelastic the subject is.
Public choice theory assumes that Ikea will act in a way that benefits it as an organization (and its shareholders) and fuck the rest of you. Public choice theory essentially states that everyone is a self interested actor, the difference is that I have some control over those actors if they are elected officials, and none if they are a private company. Can I vote with my wallet? Sure, but be honest with me here, how…
In other words, your argument is that a monopoly in a certain service, given the power to force customers into what it wants at the price it wants, will care more about you than a private entrepreneur just because they have to keep elections once every 4 years...
The reality is that elections are just forward actions of future loot, where politicians buy votes by promising goodies to certain people at the expense of others. Laws that benefit a special interest in a huge way but cost every tax payer a dollar or 2 always pass. Democracy is divide and conquer on steroids.
You also give an example of a negative externality. That's what courts are for. All the law principles that help solve externalities efficiently (habeus corpus, compensating the victim instead of the state) were the result of free competition in common law merchant courts. Again, if the government cares so much about you, why is the murderer of your family member now doing cheap labor in prison for the state rather than for you to compensate the loss?
You know, I wish life were as easy as just coming alltogether, wishing for a better life and giving a TED talk about it. It just isn't. You need to stop looking at intentions and start looking at incentives.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please consider public choice theory. Government won't lower taxes on the middle class if they find a way to tax the rich. They'd just increase taxes on the rich and keep on taxing the middle class as before. Tax levels are just a product of a) how much there is to take and b) how tax inelastic the subject is.
Public choice theory assumes that Ikea will act in a way that benefits it as an organization (and its shareholders) and fuck the rest of you. Public choice theory essentially states that everyone is a self interested actor, the difference is that I have some control over those actors if they are elected officials, and none if they are a private company. Can I vote with my wallet? Sure, but be honest with me here, how…
How is that working out for you? Or rather, when has it worked?