41–43 of 43 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That has little to do with creativity, and more to do with frugality.
I never said it did, but why would they "realise it isn't going to work"... when it has up until now?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, they're drowning in debt issues too. Google "China debt" and you'll get an earful, one example: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/23/why-china-s... If you don't like that one pick your own. Nobody got out of the last decade unscathed, China just covered it up better. Nobody's getting out of this one unscathed, either.
I'm not saying they don't have debt, but they have consistently posted positive growth throughout the financial crisis, whilst maintaining a GDP debt percentage of 60%... Sensationalist news articles that quote unknown economic groups are hardly a 'source of truth'. I'll stick with the officially reported numbers (from the IMF[1]) until someone successfully proves they are false. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List…
Ah, how we fail to learn from history. It isn't as if we don't have decades of experience pointing out how "Communist government" and "gamed economic numbers" go together like chocolate and peanut butter. Remember how the USSR was a raging economic lion that was going to "bury us" through their amazingly productive economic practices and we were doomed, doomed, doomed before their mighty centralized economic might, until it was revealed that they were basically a third-world country with nukes and a credulous Western cheerleading squad? Maybe not, maybe you're too young, but I'd suggest spending some time with that chunk of history. It has a lot to say about China today. Way more than the credulous cheerleading squad would like to admit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You waive these documents around as evidence of something -- have you ever read them or did you only get to the first paragraph where member organizations were listed? They make some very good points about the public interest in regulating money transfer; do you have any rebuttals to them? Did you see the section of the bill analysis which reads thus: 4. Opposition None received. Why isn't your company's name there?…
I do have rebuttals to many of them, and you can read them at http://www.thinkcomputer.com/corporate/whitepapers/heldhosta... . This law is not a good example of regulation in the public interest. Think Computer Corporation isn't listed in the opposition column because I had no idea that there was a hearing scheduled for April 19, 2010 in Sacramento on the issue. Did you? It's pretty sad that you can buy a law for $2…
They spent $0 on lobbying in 2007-2010: http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientlbs.php?id=F21559&...
Characterizing the political process as "buying a law" doesn't do anything for your argument. It's a silly reduction. I actually think your white paper is a very thorough and serious proposal -- your message comes through very clearly and it's a good example of a professional communication.
Also, "waive" and "wave" mean different things.
Apparently you have no argument left, but thanks for spellchecking mine. You seem to be unable to distinguish legitimate criticism of the tenor and delivery of your comment from opposition. Obviously I am not opposed to loosening money transmission laws. I just think you could communicate legitimate complaints in a positive, engaging tone instead of ranting, and then becoming defensive and petty when questioned about it.
It was a while ago when I was looking into money transmission and I ultimately decided against it for other reasons.