Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!


Show ALL Forums
Posted In Forum:

Home   login   MyForums  
 Author Thread: What political things makes Canada and the US much different countries?
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 28 (view)
What political things makes Canada and the US much different countries?
Posted: 5/31/2014 9:40:43 AM
Canada's George Washington (John A MacDonald) said it best...

we have adopted a different system. We have expressly declared that all subjects of general interest not distinctly and exclusively conferred upon the local governments and legislatures shall be conferred upon the general government and legislature. We have thus avoided that great source of weakness that has been the disruption of the United States. We hereby strengthen the central Parliament, and make the Confederation one people and one government, instead of five peoples and five governments, with merely a point of authority connecting us to a limited and insufficient extent.”

The US and the south in particular was more of an antithesis than a model for Canadian confederation. Currently both Canadian and American court systems interpret constitutional issues with Canadian courts typically broadening provincial powers and narrowing federal. Whereas in the States the courts typcially broaden federal and narrow state powers. So in a lot of ways and likely more so in the future I see the real political differences getting smaller and smaller.
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 2 (view)
When will people learn?
Posted: 5/29/2014 5:25:45 PM

The above is a perfect argument for legalized prostitution. Had he been able to take care of his un-taken-care-of-needs in a legal way, perhaps he wouldn't have tried to buy lov

Do think "love" is something you get from a prostitute?
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 175 (view)
Decision On Keystone XL Pipeline Delayed
Posted: 5/27/2014 5:17:57 AM

So, your article has Utah geologists in conflict with GAO and industry estimates. The GAO and industry says 3 trillion barrels of recoverable oil and Utah says 77 billion barrels.

Therefore, on the low estimate of 77 billion barrels the US would only be able to have it's entire oil needs met for 11 years.

The EIA also said the Monterey shale oil field had 13 billion more barrels than it actually did. That's a 96% hit but who's counting?

Many have.

Like so many, in fact, like all environmntalist wannabe's you're just making stuff up to suite your needs. No Irish, the big oil companies are not strip mining, bashing rocks to dust, boiling the dust for months, then chemically treating the vapour and hoping for a profitable outcome. As of Jan 2014...

Unfortunately, neither method has proven economically viable to this point. In recent years, both Shell and Chevron have abandoned their respective oil shale efforts in Colorado, after investing tens of millions of dollars into finding profitable extraction methods. And so, for now, the alluring deposits of oil in this fine-grained sedimentary rock in the Green River – that could put an end to America’s dependence on foreign oil – remains out of reach.

Hold on. Didn't you say Keystone was free? "That's free for you. TCPL pays that bill." There is no cost. Now you seem to agree that there is a cost for any type of oil exploration, development, production, and shipping.

Ya, the pipeline doesn't cost you anything. What's so hard to understand about that. Pipelines aren't oil exploration, development and production. TCPL doesn't produce oil. They pay you to build this pipeline.

digress. I do agree strip mining shale oil in Utah won't float any environmentalist boat, but technology improves every so often and as with horizontal drilling in the Permian oil fields recovery efforts become both economically feasible and environmentally feasible.

Oh really? So you guys can develop, inovate, and create cutting edge technology that magically satisfies all interests but no one else can. That's a bloody joke. If you and everyone else would look at the innovation that has already takn place in the oil sands you'd see a list a mile long of real innovation that has reduced emmissions per barrel while increasing production, cut down the amount of water used for fracking to almost zero, created a resource of zero recoverable barrels to 175 billion recoverable, created a way to store co2 in the ground, and the list goes on and on...

There are pages and pages of innovation that's already taken place but by all means go reinvent the magic wheel.
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 172 (view)
Decision On Keystone XL Pipeline Delayed
Posted: 5/26/2014 9:08:17 PM

We don't have enough wood to last forever.

Sure you do. You just have to "renew" it properly. But you don't have enough oil either, so there you go.

With the cost of producing a pipeline

That's free for you. TCPL pays that bill.

with all the environmental studies and issues, tar sands piped to Texas through the heartland of America far exceeds the cost of producing shale oil from the Permian.

That's a nice opinion. Any fact to go with it?

OK...try to kill this messenger:

That's too funny. So, let me get this straight. You're now willing to develop shale oil in Utah/Colorado in order to save the environment from Alberta oil sands? That's wicked funny. First of all, the Green River Formation really has about 77 billion achievable barrels. Not quite 3 trillion but your info is a couple years old now. What you really have to ask yourself is, if there really were 3 trillion barrels ready to go in 2012, why hasn't every major producer in the USA stuck their nose in that trough yet?

Unlike conventional oil, shale must be mined, crushed and processed, then upgraded further before it can be shipped and refined. That consumes too much energy and water, critics say.

"With commercial-scale development we are talking strip mining some of Utah's best backcountry and hunting grounds. It's committing to a final land use. It doesn't bode well for future generations," says Taylor McKinnon, energy director for the Grand Canyon Trust. "We foresee a need to transfer water rights from agriculture to this industry.

So, you have to strip mine the rock, pulverize it into dust, boil it at 900 degrees for several months, refine it chemically, then ship it to be refined into sellable product. And that's better than having someone else do the dirty work and just selling the end product? Does that make any sense to you?
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 170 (view)
Decision On Keystone XL Pipeline Delayed
Posted: 5/26/2014 4:01:39 PM

Shale oil from the Permian oil fields is predicted to be enough to supply the US with enough oil, from the Permian alone, to last ten (10) years. Why would we pipe sand oils thru the US to export to China, when the Permian oil fields would produce enough oil to export. And the Permian is in Texas, just a short hop to Galveston for export. We really don't need Canadian tar sands.

That makes no sense. Why do you buy soft wood from Canada when you have enough of your own to last forever? There are just over a zillion different items that enter the USA from other countries that could be manufactured, developed, packaged, processed, consumed, grown, shipped, from inside the USA. It's business. Protectionist trade is a proven loser. There is no common sense in your statement "the Permian oil field would produce enough oil to export". Enough for what? 10 years worth of oil is a drop in the bucket.

Money is never going to be cheaper than it is now. 10 years from now with the way the economy looks from here, there may not be any such thing as venture capital. Borrow now to expand the business and reap rewards when things get really tough.

Also, the Montley Fool article you cited, even though very recent, is old news. Pioneer Resources has been pounding the pavement trying to get every publication on the planet to boast about the reserves it claims in the Permian. It's the major reason their stock price has gone up so dramtically to over $200 a share and their valuation is now stretched well beyond seven times revenue.

You may want to read the following article from two days ago for a more realistic appraisal of reserves...

The "state of the art in environmental protection technology" is not to allow development that would result in the destruction of the natural resources needed for survival.

Your own state department doesn't see a major risk here. Beyond that, narly 100% of all r & d money for alternative energy and green practices in Canada comes from oil companies. Here's the website to prove it...

We aren't on the road to become a third world country yet,

That is just so adorable. I just want to put a bow on it and set it on my table.

They may as well start tracing the plans for a pipeline north of the US and build it so that the tar sands oil can safely reach the Pacific Ocean on its way to China.

We're already three years into those projects. There is one proposed through BC, one through the Yukon and a reverse pipeline to the east. Keystone is just the easiest and friendliest but by no means the only.
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 167 (view)
Decision On Keystone XL Pipeline Delayed
Posted: 5/26/2014 9:01:45 AM

The number one concern about the future generations would be to leave for them land and water resources that are safe enough to help them live

Aww. That's so cute. Which comes first, money or environmental protection? I mean, in the real world. Like when you look down a list of the worst, most polluted, most environmentally bankrupt countries, what stands out? Are they developed countries? Or developing? What is it going to take to create the state of the art in environmental protection technology? The inevtiable default on American debt is going to be a blow to your environmntal vision like no other you can imagine.
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 166 (view)
Decision On Keystone XL Pipeline Delayed
Posted: 5/26/2014 7:36:10 AM

Why pipe tar sands from Canada to be shipped to China when there's perhaps the largest recent oil find right here in America.

Ummm maybe to make some money and help chip away at the collosal debt you people have incurred. You know, the number one threat against your precious future generations?
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 2 (view)
What political things makes Canada and the US much different countries?
Posted: 5/24/2014 4:29:45 PM

Canadians see complete capitalism as something that leads to inequality, to the rich getting richer and the rest getting the short end of the stick. That is why Canadians are okay with their level of regulations, the amount of taxes they pay (redistribution of wealth), forced Universal Health Care (they want that as much as Americans want guns) and have this feeling that they are all in it together.

I have no idea where you're getting this from but I don't think it's true. Canadians and Americans actually pay really similar amounts of tax in apples to apples comparisons.

Canada, meanwhile, is ranked 26th among the 31 OECD nations, with a 31.1 per cent tax wedge. The U.S. ranked 25th, with a slightly higher tax wedge of 31.3 per cent.

Read more:

Technically Americans pay a much greater corporate tax rate than Canadian corps...

The U.S. business tax rate, which maxes out at nearly 40 per cent including state and local taxes, is now the highest in the developed world. It’s roughly 15 percentage points higher than Canada’s top combined federal and provincial rate.

I don't think capitalism is responsible for a wealth gap nor do I think the American wealth gap is caused by capitalism. Where and how taxes are collected, loop holes typically favoring the rich, tax evaders and what is done with the tax money collected all have a definite effect in who winds up with the most money.

Hence their faith in NATO as a collaborative military collective.

Hence our faith in living next door to the country that spends more on defence than the next 17 countries combined. NATO is really not the significant factor here. We've definitely coat tailed on the American military for decades now.

Canada seems like they have much more faith in Federal government than Americans.

That totally depends on where you're from. They don't call Toronto the center of the universe for nothing.
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 160 (view)
Decision On Keystone XL Pipeline Delayed
Posted: 5/18/2014 9:40:07 AM

Since 1990, more than 5,600 incidents were reported involving land-based hazardous liquid pipelines, releasing a total of more than 110 million gallons of mostly crude and petroleum products, according to analysis of federal data

I can top that with my eyes closed...

One tanker can drop that amount easily.

It's all relative. Be sure to analyse how much product reaches its destination safely through pipelines as compared to other methods.

Actually nevermind. Keystone is nothing more than a symbol for environmentalists. If they actually cared about the best and safest way to do things this would have be done ages ago.
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 151 (view)
Decision On Keystone XL Pipeline Delayed
Posted: 5/11/2014 7:54:55 PM

I think it's much more important for us to look for alternative energy ... believe we should have been doing this for years and years ... believe we need to learn to think past the end of our noses.

If that's your goal, it would be best served by approving the Keystone pipeline. That's going to be way far beyond any anti pipeline mentality though.
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 14 (view)
Income inequality
Posted: 5/4/2014 8:26:33 AM

You have tried to paint Canada's one percent as honest laborers, like all the rest of us, deriving their income from wages. And yet, the data says otherwise, since the top 1% earn only 5% more from wages than their US cousins.

The data says 65% of our 1% earn pay checks just like "honest labourers". The ones who earn dividend income pay the same rate of tax on their income as you do. Nothing dishonest about that. The government gives up nothing to them they don't offer you. What you have is a case of sour grapes. Like so many of the Canadian OWS dullards you're mad because rich people make money without hauling their dumb asses to a job every day. I get it. I'd be mad too.

Having different tax treatment for things like dividends is all well and good, but the fact of the matter is that Canada's top 1% still derive a large chunk of their income from other sources aside from their wages

Like what? What other special source of INCOME do these horrible one percenters have? PS-capital gains is not income. PPS-dividend/interest income is income.

but the actual report was about global income inequality

Go read it again. It's about Canada compared to the world and it's wrongly biased because it's a CBC report. If you've followed Canadian journalism for the last 30 years you'd have already filtered this.
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 12 (view)
Income inequality
Posted: 5/4/2014 6:46:13 AM
You're out of your league here demigod. You honestly don't know what you're talking about.

The top 1% is devouring 37% of income, enjoying a disproportionate amount of the wealth that we collectively create, and you find nothing wrong with that?

Here's what your article actually said....

The OECD report shows the top one per cent of Canadian pre-tax income earners captured 37 per cent of the overall income growth between 1981 and 2012, and now swallow up 12.2 per cent of the country’s income pie

That's a good place to show you one of the many ways you're wrong about this...

Again, you seem to have rather deliberately tried to create the illusion that Canada's 1% is fundamentally different than the US's 1%. This is simply not the case.

The American 1% has a much bigger portion of "wealth we all collectively create". They earn 19-21% of all income, compared to 12.2% here in Canada.

The American 1% earns about 75% more than the Canadian 1%...200k compared to 350k.

Canada's income gains have been highest at the low end whereas Americans have been highst at the top ends.

The .1% in the USA is far wealthier than the top .1% in Canada. Like 300 times wealthier.

There's much more at

As I've explained before, dividend income is currently not taxed at the same rate as wage or interest income (e.g., in the US it is taxed at a flat 15% or 20%).

Lovely but the article you cite in your original post is about Canada. I assume you live in Canada. In Canada the average dividend tax rate is 35.95%. For people who try to pay themselves dividends through their own corporations in 2014, their tax rate will be the same as if they had simply earned income. In fact, in 6-10 provinces it will be more effecient to earn income rather than dividends for business owners. As for all other dividend income in Canada, it's taxed the same as normal income unless it is derived from an eligible Canadian business that has already paid tax on that money. You seem to have a difficult time understanding this but none the less, that's reality. It's also probably the biggest difference between Canadian and US top income earners. Whereas Americans pay a flat, low tax rate on their investment income, Canadians do not.

This makes dividends attractive for those with a lot of money, since they can derive a significant portion of their income from dividends while paying relatively little tax

Maybe in the states but certainly not in Canada. See, this is what makes all the OWS losers in Canada so stupid. They just assume they are in the same sad boat as 'mericans.

Treating dividend income the same as wage or interest income would help level the playing field between the super rich and the rest of us,

You should listen to this one more time very carefully....dividend income in Canada in 2014 is taxed exactly the same as income from source. You get a tax break only on dividend income derived from eligible Canadian corps but as you already know, the Canadian government gets its fair share from the corporate tax portion of that money and there are great benefits of encouraging capital to stay here in our businesses. What you're mad about has already been addressed in Canada. In 2006 you had a point. Now, you don't. All other investment income is taxed as income. This leaves you either a fan of Francois Hollande or a sorely mistaken Canadian who needs to brush up on what he's really mad about.

Then I'm not sure what you are trying to say. The economy is still terrible for 99% of the people, because almost all of the money being made, is pouring into the already overflowing coffers of the ultra rich

I totally hear you and agree completely. That essentially is what the OP is talking about but he's trying to coat tail Canada on your stupid American tax laws. It's different here and I just want to point that out.

Now, it's just an insane insult to small investors everywhere.

I agree. Although I assume like most Americans, when you say everywhere you mean, the USA. I certainly am not insulted by your stupid tax laws.
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 9 (view)
Income inequality
Posted: 5/3/2014 10:49:24 PM

So in Canada the top 1% earn a whopping 5% more of their income from salaries than in the US. Now, I'm sure that 5 is a big number for some people, but this somehow doesn't translate as a massive difference in my eyes. You seem to have (deliberately?) painted Canada's 1% as being radically different from the US when the data says otherwise.

Yes actually it is a large difference but what I was trying to show is that you have no idea what you're talking about when you say the obvious fix is raising capital gains taxes and dividend taxes. That's not what most of the one percent in Canada pay. What you really mean is our highest income tax bracket which runs almost 50%, isn't enough.

How so? When people save for retirement they put their savings into a registered account, which is either tax-free or tax-deferred. Thus, raising taxes on dividend income would not affect those saving for retirement

It's taxed when you take it out of your rrsp so that makes no sense. But you've really got no idea about how any of this works.

What I'm thinking is that dividend income should be treated the same as wage income or interest income - that is, taxed at your regular tax rate

If you're Canadian only Canadian stocks that pay dividends are granted a lower tax rate. If you earn dividends from any other source than an exempt Canadian corp then you do pay the same tax rate as you would normal income. It's taxed exactly like income tax on purpose. The reason is obviously because Canadian corps pay out dividends from profit which they have already paid corporate taxes on. Thus taxing this money again at a full rate would result in an undue burden and would discourage people from investing in or creating new Canadian businesses.

I'm sure you already knew all of this so what I guess you're saying is that people who have earned enough money to invest should pay more taxes than the highest wage earners, sort of like the Sarkozy/Hollande rationale in France. How's that working out by the way?

What you might be upset about are people who earn their normal income through dividend payments from their own contractors who pay themselves in dividends rather than wages. That's an obvious loophole but it has been closed and is no longer a viable option in Canada. No more income trusts, no more cheating contractors. All dividend earners are taxed the same as income earners. So, again, what exactly are you and the OWS crowd after again?

Nonsense. Or perhaps following the "boats" analogy, a rising tide only raises all BOATS, since most of us don't OWN financial "boats," a rising stock market just means that the rich guys are back to playing with it again.

My bad. I didn't explain that properly. What I meant by people with cash was that two and a half years of QE has added massive liquidity to the bond market which places cash squarely with institutional investors which naturally seeks return. The resulting low interest rates means money flows into stocks looking for dividends and gains. Thus all boats rise, "customer base" or not. That's not due to rich guys playing around, but rather how etf's effect the market. And technically most of you do own stocks. Even at an all time lows, 52% of Americans own stocks.

All the more reason to realize that the level that the stock market is at, has nothing at all to do with the overall health of the economy.

That's kind of what I was talking about. All last year, the stock market went up on bad macro economic news because it meant that QE would continue.
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 6 (view)
Income inequality
Posted: 5/3/2014 9:46:53 AM

So because the middle class in Canada is doing relatively well compared to other countries that makes this growing income inequality okay?

Absolutely. Here's the reason why and the point you've totally missed....

But, more than anywhere else, Canada’s richest 1% earn their living from their jobs rather than from investment or other income.

The majority of Canada's one percent are doctors, lawyers, professionsals etc and they all pay a massive amount of tax because they all have t-4 income. What you're talking about is what you see on American news about ceo's, bailouts, off shore investors, tax loopholes etc. You just don't have a grip on what you're mad at and you're talking about two different countries. All the OWS dummies in Canada were so far out to lunch they couldn't even give an answer to the question, "What would you people like to change?". You're no different. If your plan is to increase tax on dividend yield, the only thing you're going to accomplish is making retirement harder for people who have worked for and paid taxes on their capital. The one percent here are gainfully employed.

Tickle: you are making a mistake that has become all too common these days: you talk as though there is ONLY a choice between punitive, all-crushing taxation, and no taxation at all.

Right. An additional alternative here would be tax evasion and loopholes. If everyone paid the appropriate taxes we'd be well ahead. The disparity ration would likely suffer since small business is the number one tax evader.

You are also ignoring the most fundamental of all facts about how capitalism ACTUALLY works: investors don't put money into expanding businesses, simply because they HAVE CASH. They invest in businesses, because those business have an EXPANDING CUSTOMER BASE.

I think in reality that has changed now. I think the last two year rise in the stock market has been simply because people have cash. That cash raises all boats. Computers trade the vast majority of volume on all the exchanges, both high frequency and algorithmic. Institutional investors make up the majority of the balance and the retail investor who actually might rely on something fundamental like an expanding customer base, makes up the tiny fraction at the very top. Underlying all of that is the fact that money seeks return anywhere it can find it. Sidelines haven't paid enough lately so, it goes to businesses, expanding customer base or not.
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 3 (view)
Income inequality
Posted: 5/3/2014 4:01:38 AM

I'm ashamed to say that my country, Canada, ranks second on this list of income inequality.

Before you get too giddy on euro envy and CBC news you should maybe get a better understanding of what you're talking about. Second on the list of income disparity means something totally different when you're near the top and gaining on median and average the middle class is doing better here than most countries, including the ones your article mentions...

We could quite easily bomb the 1 per cent back to the stone ages like France has (and since back paddled on) if all you want is income equality. But that's obviously a mistake. Or you can lie cheat and steal your way to a perverted version of equality a la Spain, Portugal and especially Greece. Last I checked, they weren't doing to well though.

Also, what do we need to do to make these changes happen?

Did you read your own article?

There’s a concern that if you tax capital, capital will move out. That’s why this has to be done in a spirit of global co-operation

Just create a world wide tax rate and you're all set.
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 84 (view)
breaking laws
Posted: 4/25/2014 8:08:09 AM

No, it is not. If you or anyone else wants to try to make the case that states throughout the U.S. routinely discriminate against black defendants solely because of their race, have at it. I'm not about to try to disprove someone else's far-fetched claim. You claim it, you prove it.

Seriously. As the Wizard of Laws you can't just whip up a quick Google search and figure this out on your own. Here is the conclusion from a recent Yale Law study that you can feel free to dispute...

After controlling for the arrest offense, criminal history, and other prior characteristics, sentences for black male arrestees diverge substantially from those of white male arrestees (by around 10% on average). While this disparity does not seem to be growing, it is persistent

We good now? Blacks get harsher sentences than whites. C'est la vie. It might be racist cops, racist prosecutors or it might be racist judges. But it definitely exists. Like another poster said, it's subtle, it's undetectable in small doses, but it's for sure there.

The "devil is in the details," and no statistical survey can possibly capture all those details. The very idea of trying to establish that any two cases involved "the exact same crimes" committed "in the exact same circumstances" is laughable.

Apparently not to the good folks at Yale. Also not true according to the US sentencing commission. But if you say so.

So a lot of talk about this or that group's statistical studies--which are supposed to prove there's no justice for black defendants charged with marijuana offenses--doesn't cut much ice with me. And yet you seem to imagine the numbers you cite are so wondrously conclusive that no one who's not a bigot himself could possibly fail to accept them, unquestioningly, as proof of intentional (and therefore unconstitutional) government race prejudice.

This reminds me of another awesome thread when you were trying to suggest that no one has ever been wrongfully executed because it has never been proven in court. And since then CNN started an on going series about people wrongfully imprisoned on death row and people who have actually beeen wrongfully executed. But whatever. Stick to your guns. If it doesn't cut your ice it doesn't cut your ice.

You don't want to come right out and call me a racist, so you falsely imply it by claiming I said things about blacks that I never even suggested.

You say it point blank. Here's what I mean...

One other obvious explanation for the difference, as another poster noted, would be that black defendants in these cases are more likely than white ones to have committed other crimes.

You come right out and say that blacks commit more crimes and so get sentenced more often and more severely than whites. Even though study after study accounts for circumstances pre arrest, post arrest and during trial, you still suggest blacks get imprisoned more often and for longer periods because they simply are worse criminals.

No one "with a clue" could claim Rubin Carter was wrongly convicted, as does the site you linked to.

You really don't like it when obvious flaws in the legal system are proven so obviously.
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 17 (view)
evolution and psychopathy
Posted: 4/25/2014 7:12:56 AM

Are the stabbings in calgary another example of toxins turning average people into killers?

No, its a function of a newer generation growing up with less discipline & guidance; less moral values;
and greater unrealistic expectations coupled with reduced ability to cope with stress, disappointments & rejections.

The kid's dad was a cop, he was accepted into law school this fall, he worked at a grocery store and ran marathons. I'm not sure your theories apply here.
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 82 (view)
breaking laws
Posted: 4/23/2014 6:52:49 PM

It's not up to me to try to justify someone else's claim, especially when I think it makes no sense.

Well yes it is up to you...when you say it is not so. The US Sentencing Commission as well as every other group, commission or society that has studied this, says courts in every county in the USA sentences black people more severely than white people for the exact same crimes in the exact same circumstances. If you're the only guy, the loan voice that says something else, maybe you should speak up with something substantial.

I pointed out why the systematic claim of race bias in marijuana sentencing relies on a view of appeals courts that is so contrary to their usual practice that it seems absurd

No. You pointed out that black people get arrested for marijuana more because they are always doing other stuff that puts them in contact with the police. Kind of like taking down Scarface for tax evasion, black people are always up to no good so you have to get them on whatever charges you can. We all see what you're saying. Even if that were anything but dense (you can't explain away such massive disparity unless you consider racial bias) that still doesn't explain the sentencing disparity that absolutely exists in your country.

I'll let the people who are claiming this bias try to explain why, with so many states engaging so regularly, for so long, in so much obvious race discrimination in punishing marijuana violations, all sorts of constitutional claims against it haven't been won in our appeals courts. If racial bias by states in this matter really violates equal protection, lawyers for these countless black defendants should have scored so many victories on appeal as to have put an end to it years ago.

Maybe you can explain how anyone, black or white, who is arrested, convicted, and sentenced even knows they have been sentenced unfairly or with bias, (I wouldn't even expect a lawyer to know what an unfair sentence is in their jurisdiction compared to any other throughout the entire country). And for another thing, I wouldn't expect anyone in this situation to be able to afford a lawyer to extend their criminal defense to a state civil rights case without access to capital and lawyers well beyond that which the public provides. And just for your information, this issue has been noted by many lawyers for many years, for example etc etc etc. No shortage of people with a clue.
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 77 (view)
breaking laws
Posted: 4/23/2014 11:51:53 AM

I'll ask a third time. If so many states have been so obviously violating 14th Amendment equal protection by punishing black defendants more severely just because of their race, in tens of thousands of marijuana cases, how is it that our federal appeals courts have let this injustice go on all this time? Why have the same courts which, for the past sixty years or more been so vigilant about unequal treatment of racial minorities in all sorts of other contexts, been so oblivious to it when it comes to marijuana violations?

I don't know. What's your best guess oh mighty Wizard of Laws? From the WSJ...

In the two years after the Booker ruling, sentences of blacks were on average 15.2% longer than the sentences of similarly situated whites, according to the Sentencing Commission report. Between December 2007 and September 2011, the most recent period covered in the report, sentences of black males were 19.5% longer than those for whites. The analysis also found that black males were 25% less likely than whites in the same period to receive a sentence below the guidelines' range.
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 11 (view)
evolution and psychopathy
Posted: 4/22/2014 5:49:42 AM

I think the answer is clear, get yourself better educated.

I can't help but to wonder what the Goths, Mongols, Moors, Celts, Vikings, Huns, Romans, Aztecs etc would have been like on refined sugar and vacinations.
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 5 (view)
Baby Squirrel
Posted: 4/11/2014 5:34:27 PM
Ok, you get an award of some kind. If you can believe it, here's a web site that will tell you what to do....

Apparently you shouldn't phone animal control or anything like that because they will just kill it. If you can afford it, call a vet and he/she will fix it up. I'll send money.

I saw a hawk beat up a pigeon today and I'm utterly traumatized. Go squirrel.
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 190 (view)
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 4/10/2014 2:32:12 PM
You missed a couple...

The climate is changing but it changed 50 million years ago too therefore it's not our fault.

The climate is controlled by asteroids that have hit the planet and will hit the planet again in the near future so it's not really our fault.

The climate is changing and it's all because of cows.

The climate is changing and....oh forget it.
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 46 (view)
Being a hippie
Posted: 4/5/2014 4:53:59 AM
You're so close to the epicenter of everything hippie. If you ever decide to get a BA just head up I-17 to Prescott and enroll at Prescott College for the Liberal Arts and Environment. It is drifter central...well, trust fund drifter. You do have to pay tuition at some point. But you won't find too many people to argue about your lifestyle there and if you happen to trip over a new boyfriend, fantastic. You can live in the woods and likely get credit for it. It's really a wonderful place and if you're at all serious about an education someday, look into it.
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 119 (view)
Nicer homes should equal higher taxes?
Posted: 4/1/2014 8:57:02 PM

And, once again, I am waiting for those exact mill rates in each of those time frames.

In an effort to keep the suffering to a minimum, I'm just curious as to how a resource/consumption based property tax will be able to predict the budget requirements of a city ten years down the road. How does the tax increase or decrease yearly as required by the needs of the budget? Is your stability simply a flat tax that never changes and the city is thus required to get income from other sources?
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 117 (view)
Nicer homes should equal higher taxes?
Posted: 4/1/2014 4:44:21 PM

On the most basic level it is a simple bit of mathematical logic. It is a formula, a very basic formula, where the first operation is typically the multiplication of the mill rate with the assessed market value. At least one of those values embodies inherent unpredictabilities and if even one of those variables has inherent unpredictabilities then the outcome will have inherent unpredictabilities. Basic, simple, undeniable.

Ha ha. You're so lost. One more time so you can move on with life...the mill rate can and does change every year and is determined by the budgetary needs of the municipality. It's not an arbitrary number. It is controlled and adjusted so that the tax income matches the budget. THEREFORE the assessed property value doesn't matter at all. It can be any number you want and a bunch of actuaries will hammer the mill rate into whatever number they want it to be so the tax income matches the budget. It's 100% stable and 100% predictable. If property values go up three million percent next year, your property tax will still go up or down based on the budgetary needs of your city, probably about 3% either way. What don't you get about this? If you really think one unpredictable value in a formula with two values creates an unpredictable outcome, then you need to go chat with a grade seven math teacher and figure some things out.

It is highly improbable that in, say 2000, you could have told me with any reasonable accuracy that the municipality would announce in, say 2005, that mill rate change would be sought

The mill rate changes every single year. I can predict with 100% certainty that it will change next year too. This isn't new. Do you think otherwise? Is this your confusion?

I've said it before and I will reiterate it here. Using this common resource based analysis I've talked about here removes all consideration of market value from the matter.

No it doesn't. Land is a common resource that is included your resource scenario and it definitely has market value. In fact, about 90% of the value of real property is land. That value has to be assessed in some way in order for your scheme to work. You can't just say all land is the same unless you want to create an inherently unfair system...typically rich people with small but valuable inner city lots would benefit while other less valuable but larger suburban lot owners would pay more. You're discouraging sprawl but creating a world of other problems you can't even see.

I give up. Nothing you have said makes any sense at all. If you want to try to explain it again so us simpletons here can understand it, go ahead. But from what you've written so far, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 113 (view)
Nicer homes should equal higher taxes?
Posted: 3/31/2014 5:05:11 PM

but once you start getting 5, 10 or more years out that predictability, or at least the accuracy of that predictability, becomes increasingly, and eventually becoming extremely, unpredictable. That is, in a big part, due to the unpredictability of market forces and changes in the market - market values that those streams are predicated on over an equally long period.

You really don't know what you're talking about. Mill rates make property taxes 100% predictable for everyone involved on all time frames. If your house appreciates 20% in one year, your property tax is not going to increase by 20% the next year. It's going to increase by whatever the city has decided it needs to operate next year, most likely 3-5%. The mill rate accounts for any and all unpredictability. Variable rates of property appreciation is common in most cities....some neighborhoods go up faster than others. But this is no surprise to anyone. Any realtor in town can tell you where the greaest increaes have hostorically taken place and likely will take place in the future.

Perhaps the issue is a case that you aren't fully grasping what I am proposing.

I get it. You're just wrong.

message 27:

I would like to see property taxes based on land area of the property, as land, prior to occupation is a common resource

Property tax is based primarily on land values as is most of the value of all real property. The house that sits on top of the land is disposable and so the underlying value is and always has been land and that is what any and all important valuations are based on.

House two will, in most markets, typically have a lower market value than house one and, as a result, lower taxes even though it consumes a larger percentage of resources than house one. Tieing property taxes to resource consumption would reverse that tax ratio and encourage the upgrading of older buildings to lower resource consumption, and therefore a lower drain on services.

This is totally wrong. Every major city in Canada has an old neighborhood where really old inefficient houses sit on really valuable inner city land. This is a major snag in your system that will make accurate and fair distribution of tax burden impossible. Most brand new expnsive and efficient r-2000 homes are built on the best lots in town worth millions and you're going to lower their tax rates? While the cheap lots that get average buildings pay more in tax? That's dumb.

If your goal is to simply encourage more efficient buildings and better urban planning, most municipalities already do that by offering, for example, low flow toilet rebates, energy audit rebates, various mechanical upgrade refunds, zoning bylaw changes that encourage the kind of growth you're talking about. It is completely unncessary to try to artificially stimulate a market that may or may not exist by mangling the tax system.

But the biggest point in all of this is, the city still needs a specific and unchangeable amount of money. If certain houses pay less because they are efficient then other houses will have to pay more...exponentially more. That's going to punish old people, young people, poor people, simply because they can't afford to rip down their perfectly livable older houses to build a new one. The efficiency you're talking about is not a simple renovation. It's ripping down and throwing out everything except the exterior framing.

As well, If every house were an efficient model that qualifies for your discount, then there would be no discounts for anyone because, the city still needs its money. So we're back at square one. Consuming less utilities doesn't result in any long term savings for the municipality and in fact would cause losses for those municipalities that own their utility companies and rely on the dividends from them.

Anyway, using consumption as a model for better long term predictability is utter nonsesnse because how are you going to predict the amount of houses that choose to upgrade or rebuild to more efficient standards. Your tax income is all over the map. As well, how are you going to account for new and improved building methods that make last year's effecient build out dated and inefficint this year? How are you going to account for depleated efficiency over seals break, shingles warp, furnaces lose efficiency when the filters aren't changed...etc etc. Is there an ammortization model for your efficiency rating like there is for condos? That should be easy enough in a city with 300k residential properties.
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 110 (view)
Nicer homes should equal higher taxes?
Posted: 3/31/2014 5:41:15 AM

This could be said, in a limited sense, but it is not the volatile and variable issue you see it as. It is certainly not as volatile as market-value based assessment where municipalities reap a windfall in taxes during housing bubbles and have a hard time maintaining their roads during crashes.

Your whole idea/weird argument is out the triple pane, low e window because you don't understand how property tax is most typically collected. Assessing based on how much wood is in your house and how well it is insulated will result in different people paying different amounts, but that's it. The amount collected is still going to go up and down (not at all arbitrarily) based on how much money is required to opperate your city.
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 106 (view)
Nicer homes should equal higher taxes?
Posted: 3/30/2014 10:17:15 PM

The reason I find this confusing is that the system of property tax I have been talking about would take a system based on market value, with all of its volatility and inherent unpredictability, that creates problems they complain about and replace it with a stable, rational, objective and predictable system.

Market value is actually a very stable and predictable way of determining what people will pay. I don't get why anyone thinks it isn't. Increasing property value does not in any way mean you will be paying more tax. Cities/counties/provinces etc determine their budgets and then tax accordingly. It's not like they leave their budgetary requirements up to the gods of property value. That's what a mill rate is for.

Older people living in "suddenly" expensive homes have often lived there for many years and have become victims of their own prosperity slowly but surely. Kind of a good problem to have really.
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 6 (view)
I need advise on how to fix my friendship with my best friend.
Posted: 3/28/2014 7:49:40 AM

I knew what needed to be done, but I was too afraid to lose my only friend. Now I got to build enough courage to tell her goodbye and get some closier.

Why would you do that? Do you really want to be that guy who just hangs out with other guys and unattractive (to you) women? That would suck. Life is better when you have people you love around you. All you're really doing is skipping the fun six months of dating that isn't realistic and doesn't last and going to the inevitable friendship that keeps people together in the end.
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 75 (view)
Nicer homes should equal higher taxes?
Posted: 3/27/2014 10:40:29 PM

That is what is truly funny, trying to make a comparison between real property, for which property taxes are levied, and personal property, for which property taxes generally are not levied, with all the attendant differences between the two.

It's the exact same thing. You're trading capital for stuff so it's dumb to suggest the money has been sequestered. All I was trying to do was show you that what you said in post 63....

until the home is sold, the vast majority of the capital which goes into it remains sequestered from the markets, often for 30, 40 or more years. They don't generate investment returns or contribute directly to the free flow of capital wrong. And I was only trying to do that because you seem like a know it all. As for the connection to property taxes, someone said houses should be taxed higher because they appreciate without adding any value to the economy. Given that we deal with inflation every day, that seems a little harsh.
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 73 (view)
Nicer homes should equal higher taxes?
Posted: 3/27/2014 9:34:01 PM

What happens in 10 year snippets does not speak to the long term aspects.

So what you're saying is that the over all average throughout the entire country doesn't mean as much as your one off examples? Like your dad buys you a condo and you think that's a more accurate depiction of reality? Your examples are more accurate than real numbers? That's funny.

Early pay off reduces the amount that flows as capital and increases the amount sequestered, unless one makes a really stupid deal on the mortgage. Even in the presence of a mortgage, every payment made increases the amount sequestered and once the mortgage is payed off the full value becomes completely sequestered

This is funny too. When someone gives a mortgage to a bank and buys a house, it is really the bank that has tied up the money. But they are getting a return in the form of interest so the money is working. When people pay back the mortgage they gave, they are freeing up the original money. So when you pay off the mortgage completely the money has been freed, not sequestered. Your money is no longer with you. You have traded it for the house. But it is not sequestered from the real economy. Ask yourself this, when you buy a chocolate bar for .99 cents, is that .99 cents removed from the economy never to be seen again? Or does it go into someone's cash register, bank, pocket and back again?
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 67 (view)
Nicer homes should equal higher taxes?
Posted: 3/27/2014 7:33:25 PM

Perhaps initially, assuming a 10% down payment rather than something more

There's no assuming. According to Fannie May the average down payment in the US is 10.7%.

Regardless, the closer the home is to paid off, assuming the buyer needed the loan in the first place, the more capital that becomes sequestered.

Yeah but the average equity in American households is anywhere from 27%-38%. That doesn't change much so in the big picture, the vast majority of real money is not being "sequestered".

As an example of how the premise you state can be completely wrong, the entire value of my condo is sequestered because my father carries the "mortgage" for me at 0% interest.

An example of why you're completely wrong is the state of Nevada in 2012. The average LTV was 112%.
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 64 (view)
Nicer homes should equal higher taxes?
Posted: 3/27/2014 7:00:36 PM

Anything that makes money based on no economic contribution or productivity should be taxed higher.

Who says real estate always makes money? And who says there is no economic contribution? The majority of business in arguably the single largest sector of our economy comes from home loans.

Goodness knows that if I were a flooring refinisher, carpenter, HVAC professional, painter, cabinetmaker, or anyone who does home improvements...I would be a huge fan of enhancements NOT raise taxes for my customers

None of that stuff is neccesarily responsible for increasing your property taxes. There is a misconception from the OP that stuff like new shingles and new siding increases your taxes. They don't. In the OP it was the addition that he planned to build that would have increased the property taxes. Anything considered a new build increases taxes. Think of it this way, the moment you install new shingles they start deteriorating. Accordingly they would have to ammortize your tax liability down each year for each item they've added to your bill. Shingles last about twenty five years so each year your tax burden would go down and that would make everyone a bit nuts. If your house has a roof with shingles it's just like every other house. If it has a finished basement you'll pay more taxes because it's new construction and is over and above some houses.

I don't have to know what they do with their funds, or paycheck, to know that the vast majority of the capital that has been sunk into the home is sequestered from the markets and the free flow of capital

Not really. How much actual equity is involved in owning a house these days? It's usually around 10%. It was pretty close to zero a few years ago. Anyway, you can rest assured that the remaining "sequestered" 200k it takes to buy a house is earning money for somone somewhere.
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 8 (view)
Nicer homes should equal higher taxes?
Posted: 3/23/2014 9:15:18 AM

Tell him to build a 500 square foot cabin. I'm betting his taxes to don't go up 10 to 20 thousand.

I'm betting they would. Raw land with no services attached has a really low tax utility services, no garbage collection, no county road services or maintenance. As soon as you make any sort of permanent structure on your land the associated tax burden goes up exponentially because of the services required. You could easily go from a few hundred a year to tens of thousands.

1) I wouldn't get any increased service for my extra taxes... the city wouldn't plow my snow or replace my cracked sidewalks any sooner than they would for the guy who lets his house go to seed.

Actually bigger homes do require more services. Plus all the other stuff about paying for other people's kids to go to school is actually a good thing for people without kids.

2) Increased taxes act as a deterrent to people spending money locally.... my Dad bought his $100,000 fifth wheel in Alberta; his $350,000 motorhome was bought in Arizona.

You're talking sales tax not property tax and I agree %100.

3) Increasing taxes will push out people with low incomes. A retired couple who bought lakefront property at a reasonable price 30 years ago may very well be unable to afford taxes on it today.

Lots of places have special programs for seniors who can't afford the property taxes. Your dad with a half mill in rv's isn't going to qualify.

4) Industrial businesses in my town have closed their shop in the city and moved five miles north in order to take advantage of the county's lower taxes

Yep. As soon as you raise royalty rates on oil and gas in Alberta everybody moves to Sask or BC. There's a threshold that you have to get just right.

I'll never understand Albertans line of thinking.

What's not to understand? People don't like paying taxes?
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 98 (view)
Decision On Keystone XL Pipeline Delayed
Posted: 3/16/2014 8:30:40 PM

Who is going to own that pipeline? Ok, you guys of Trans-Canada, tell your people in Alberta to shut down to-morrow because I have to pump my stuff from North Dakota, and don't expect any frickin compensation because you said that I can use the pipeline for free, right? Jua, jua, jua, jua!

There are already 100k barrels a day reserved for the Bakken. It's free in the sense that it's much cheaper than the alternative methods of transportation and the capital infrastructure is invested by someone else. It's also not that hard to send different batches of goods down the same pipeline without interupting flow. You don't have to shut down and clear the entire line so someone else can use it. You just have no idea what you're talking about.

Oh good!! You're in the mood for research. Here is a list of pipeline accidents that resulted in oil spills. Saying that pipelines are a safe way of transporting oil is disingenuous.

Well, pipelines are safer for workers and for bystanders. And it's much less carbon intensive to use pipelines. Spill rates are more frequent for rail cars though less in amount per billion gallons. However as rail use increases expontially these numbers are getting closer every year with 2013 being the largest ever for rail spills. As well, we do not have a pipeline like the Keystone yet. Over all, it's not as disingenuous as you think.
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 96 (view)
Decision On Keystone XL Pipeline Delayed
Posted: 3/16/2014 4:44:17 PM

Funny that looking at real, empirical evidence is "idiotic," but painting pie in the sky wealth for everybody that doesn't materialize, if ever, is not.

You don't have the faintest idea of what you're talking about. If you think a project like Keystone will result in 35 jobs you're absolutely and totally ignorant of reality.

Sure, there will be some money around if the projected pipeline is ever built, but it won't be around the small towns through which the pipeline will run

So? This isn't a make work project for places with nothing going on anyway. You still haven't a clue about this.

If you want to have a realistic view of the economic factors of building a pipeline, take a look at what Forbes ( not a liberal publication) said in comparing Keystone XL project with the Trans-Alaska pipeline:

Ok. Have a look at the conclusion to the article...

Projects like the Keystone XL Pipeline will in fact create jobs (an unknown number), facilitate long term economic development, enhance state revenues, and bring the United States closer to energy security.

Here's another more recent Forbes article that may help you along the path...

Humm, let me apply my "idiotic way" of looking at this. Alaska, right! The oil and the wells are in Alaska, the pipeline is in Alaska, and the shipping terminals are in Alaska. No wonder they are receiving some nice economic benefits from that operation and the spin off employment,

What you're not understanding is that this pipeline will be used by American producers in several different states not just Canadian oil sands companies. It will allow producers in many states to develop their own resources with essentially a free ticket to market. No more gluts of oil sitting around the mid west collecting dust. Several states can begin a road to the kind of prosperity Alaska has. That's a bit more interesting that 35 permanent jobs, no?
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 85 (view)
Decision On Keystone XL Pipeline Delayed
Posted: 3/16/2014 9:48:24 AM

The US doesn't need another frikkin pipeline

That's like saying you don't need another road built. The benefits of new and improved infrastructure as well as increased demand create that need.

The number of temporary jobs doesn't justify subjecting the American people who would be subjected to the permanent nightmares of not knowing for certain if their land and water are being poisoned

First, the pipeline is in every way state of the art and you will know if any amount of oil is leaking within minutes. Isolating and containing that section involves flicking a switch, not four months of watching an under water well puke oil into the ocean. Second, the temporary jobs are nothing to be sneezed at, 2 years of employment for tens of thousands of otherwise under employed people is a good thing. However the real prize is the spin off employment and economic activity. There is no way to accurately estimate the benefit of more money in your country and state revenue streams other than to look at other areas that do participate in refining and transporting petroleum products. What would happen if states could pay off some bills and cut taxes? See Alaska. The other real prize is getting even a fraction of the giant 17 trillion dollar monkey off your back. I seriously can't stress this enough...people who have rung up a collasal bill like Americans have look like raging hypocites when they say we don't need any of this because we're all about saving the environment even though we consume more than anyone on the entire planet. You do need this business because the rest of the world wants their money back. It would also be nice if you could steal a bit of thunder from guys like Putin and save a few hundred thousand lives every year by supplying oil to otherwise ransomed countries. Looking at the 35 permanent pipeline jobs is a totally idiotic way to gauge the economic success of this project. You've missed the point if you take Jeremy Rippe's word on this.
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 66 (view)
Posted: 2/27/2014 9:41:57 AM

you're the confused guy that wanted ... just any other job ... relationship ... so there y0u are .. a street relationship that blows your stupid argument out of the water.

No it actually reinforces my argument. If you had read your own LA Times article you'd have seen that the vendors are in the same boat as prostitutes. Most of the vendors in LA are illegal immigrants (similar to human trafficking) and are afraid to talk to the cops. You'd see that street vending is actually illegal in LA. So in fact you've pointed out that illegal ice cream vending is inherently dangerous just like I had been trying to tell you in regards to street prostitution. Here, read the article...

They are going to regulate the industry, create a safe zone for vendors, legalise it, regulate it etc. But there will still be a market for illegals selling random stuff on any random street corner and hense the problem will continue. And so ends the similarities with ice cream vendors and prostitutes...unless you have a number for how many of Ramon Romero's ice cream vendors are raped every year.

you are losing your argument completely at this point. .. [oh ... and buskers and panhandlers are not all homeless hobos , that make you sound like a bigoted *&%#]

I don't know how I can lose an argument when you keep proving my point. Yes, hanging out on the street is inherently dangerous, cops not properly enforcing the right laws is inherently dangerous. Legalising hanging out on the street corner dealing with shady dudes doesn't make it safe enough.

Buskers, panhandlers, hobos...what's the diff? If The Simpsons can say hobo, so can I.

Okay ... here is a Bureau of Justice statistic for you .... in relation to rape ... one of your big concerns in this discussion.
?In 2005-10, 78% of sexual violence involved an offender who was a family member, intimate partner, friend, or acquaintance.

so ... the real danger is not being a prostitute on the street and especially not in a brothel. ... You are more of a threat

I should just let this go because it isn't a fair fight at this point. Anyway, stats are funny things. You know how there is an over all murder rate in the USA? But then you can break it down by age group, race, income, location, etc and you get a very different number. Young, inner city, minorities are more likely to be killed than rich senior citizens and stuff like that? This is the exact same thing. Here's a different stat regarding prostitute rape....

• 73% had been raped, 71% since entering prostitution.
• In 84% of rapes, the rapist was a stranger to the victim.
• In 27% of rape cases, there were multiple assailants. The average number of assailants was four.
• 44% of rapes involved the use of a weapon

You'll also want to note that these are qualitative to a prostitute, ask questions, get a stat. Whereas the DOJ publishes quantitative stats. That is, get numbers reported from cops and justice departments all over the country, add 'em up and voila, a stat. Sexual violence is vastly under reported anyway and even more so in the sex trade. This may also account for your confusion. 84% of prostitites do not know their rapist. And if you stop to think for a second, take your self out of statistical analysis, that really does make some sense, doesn't it?

so ... the real danger is not being a prostitute on the street and especially not in a brothel. ... You are more of a threat.

Knowing what you now know, can you defend this position?

Some studies? Which studies?

If you want to be taken seriously, stop plucking numbers out of thin air. I can do that too...97.5% of what you say is fabricated nonsense.

You've so totally lost the plot. I can't even help you at this point other than to say the stat wasn't the point of what was going on there.
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 65 (view)
Posted: 2/26/2014 1:35:18 PM

If you want street stats to count ... ask how many buskers and panhandlers have been robbed or assaulted in the last year or two. then compare your useless exagerated stats

Why would I do that? And how is the hobo murder rate correlated with the prostitution murder rate? What possible point are you trying to make here? Is it that lots of people get killed on the street so why the hell are we concerned about prostitutes? We've gone from prostitution is no different than any other job to prostitution is no different than being a hobo.

But anyway, here's the answer you never expected to get....

The national murder rate of the homeless using the data provided by NCH translates into 6.7 incidents per 100,000 homeless persons in 2009.

So you see, once again, your assumptions and opinions are failing you. The homeless nurder rate is a teeny tiny fraction of the prostitute murder rate. I get that this is a difficult apples to apples comparison. But when you throw out the extremes and look at a broad scope of research, general trends establish themselves. If you can't see that, you can't really think for yourself very well.

Here is some cherry picking for ya ... even though stats are hard to find but in this post from the LA Times shows street stuff in a larger light

At this point you're just good for a laugh. Keep 'em coming. So now being a prostitute is no different than being an ice cream vendor? Think of it this way, what does an ice cream vendor give up when he/she is robbed as compared to a prostitute?
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 64 (view)
Posted: 2/26/2014 12:21:01 PM

So is being a police officer. Or joining the military (by many orders of magnitude). Or forestry (it has the highest occupational deaths in New Zealand)

Seriously, just add a couple Wikipedia facts to your arsenal before you say these things. Cops-18 deaths (including accidents) per 100k...8 murders per 100k. Military-71.5 death per 100k (US active troops in Iraq). Fishermen-126 per 100k (the most deadly job). Murder rate of prostitutes 204-229 per 100k (US only legal and illegal combined). If you think the 229 number is bogus, you can cut it in half 4 times and still not get a number that is less risky that being a cop. Still think it's just like being a cop?

Why not make it legal and safer, because they are protected by the law, rather than being forced to avoid it

This is the point everybody is missing. I don't think we should make something safer for a few women who sincerely want to make a career out of prostitution. The reality is, legalised prostitution increases unregulated, street prostitution big time. Not all, in fact, very few women, will agree to work in a brothel and be subject to rules, regulations and lower pay. Just look at any Wiki page about countries that have legalised prostitution...

The German government issued a report on the law's impact in January 2007, concluding that few prostitutes had taken advantage of regular work contracts and that work conditions had improved only slightly, if at all

I've already shown qualified studies that show prostitution increases in countries that have no laws against it, street prostitution increases, human trafficking increases, and very few women agree to work legally in regulated and protected environments. So my big question is, do the few women who want the right to work legally trump the majority of women who place themselves at great risk without any help from the justice system? Do the huge numbers of trafficked women justify the few who work legally?

It's like the cod fishermen on the east coast of Canada. They were mad as hell that they had to stop fishing because the fish were disappearing. Lots of people lost their livelihoods and were upset because their right to work was taken away. Yet the greater good trumped the needs of the few who had to give up their living.

Who on earth is Stephanie Church and what type of study was it? What level of evidence? A cohort study? Case-control? Give us the reference.

I dunno. It's not my source. The other poster suggested I read some opinion piece he cited as a great reason to legalise prostitution. One of the arguments it made was that research into the harms caused by prostitution was greatly exagerated. For example, some studies have shown that 90% of women prostitutes have been raped. Whereas their own cherry picked stats suggest ONLY about 37% of prostitutes had been raped, thus concluding that it's not that big of a deal. Then I got in trouble for cherry picking that stat from his own cherry picked source. Just can't win.

One more time ... human trafficking takes place in the drywall industry, textiles ... and many other industries ... and even in speculative , no industry involved ... so get those statistics out of your confused brain and this argument/discussion

Gawd man. One more time, 80% of human trafficking victims are used in the sex trade.

According to the Report, the most common form of human trafficking (79%) is sexual exploitation.

So it doesn't matter that a relatively small amount of people are trafficked into the drywall trade. That's not a reason to shut down the drywall trade. You can still have a healthy, productive and fair drywall trade. 80% in one trade is very much a reason to shut down that particular trade. If you don't get that, you're not fit to hold an opinion on this topic.

There you go again ... cherry picking one side of the post and ignoring the other ... the side he was stressing ... the non street side ... and also those stats are in the illegal prostitution sector .... so invalid

Ok, please explain to me how legalising prostitution is going to stop women from working on the streets in an unregulated environment. If you can do that, then I agree that all women should be allowed to trade in sex legally.

there are women who do choose the profession and do not want you to save them. For their human rights ... they should have the rights

I don't care about the women who choose that particular profession. Their right to choose that work does not trump the right of other women to be protected and helped out of a bad situation. I'm not allowed to sell drugs even though it's really lucrative and I really want to. The result harms other people. Selling sex is always going to be a desperate reality for most people who choose to do it. Legalising it has not and will not change that.

Please post the link to your statistics ... or they are bogus too.

Oh please. You wouln't know a bogus stat if it bit you in the face. If you look back through the earlier pages in this thread you'll find all the citations you need.
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 60 (view)
Posted: 2/25/2014 8:25:33 PM

If they don't, then don't do the job.

Oh. Well that's easy then. But I thought this was the oldest profession. So yes, they still do the job. They just do it on the street. And street prostitution is undeniably too dangerous to accept in any civilized society.

No ones forced to do anything, except if that's all they can do in order to pay the bills

Where have you been for the last four pages? Human trafficking plays a very large part in legalised sex trades around the world. You should have a few facts at least before you wade into an argument.

What of all the illegal immigrants that are 'forced' to work in the food and retail industries?

70-80% of trafficked people (UN Stat) are stuck in the sex trade. So that leaves 30-20% working in other industries. So I guess you don't have a point.

problem 1

says 22 countries have legal prostitution then go to state a bunch of stats from countries where it is not legal ...
making all thoses stats useless

This is not really a problem because legalising prostitution doesn't by any stretch of anyone's imagination get rid of street prostitution. In fact, street prostitution always increases with legalisation. Women have several reasons for not working under regulated conditions....less money, less autonomy, more public awareness of their profession, too many rules. So you can still apply those horrendous statistical realities to countries where prostitution is legal.

Talk of influx from other areas is again a bogus argument since the truth is the legalization needs to be in more than one jurisdiction/country surrounded my so many larger and or poorer countries ...
makes for bogus arguments

One more time, economic differences is basically the only condition required for human trafficking. The main source countries of trafficked women all have laws against prostitution, yet they all have massive prostitution industries. There is little or no enforcement in countries in Africa and Eastern Europe and Asia because there is no money to waste on it. These people could happily and with no fear of prosecution work for $3.20 a shot (average price in Botswana) or follow a dream of 10k a week in a nice country like The Netherlands.

here is someone totally against your position ... with stats .. not that I can validate the stats ... but neither can you.

Actually if you had read the first part of this thread you'd see that I agree with the premise of this website's opinion. I agree that laws against prostitution harms prostitutes. I also mentioned what I think is a better way to enforece the right kind of laws. And this does not include criminalising the women involved.

Here is a valid researcher from George Washington University, USA .... and you should read his research ...

Yes. And you should read it too. The authors suggest that statistical research into the harm the comes to prostitutes is entirely exagerated. So maybe 90% of prostitutes haven't been raped. They cite more realistic numbers such as these...

A study by
Stephanie Church and colleagues found that 27 percent
of a sample of street prostitutes had been assaulted, 37
percent robbed, and 22 percent raped. Criminologists
John Lowman and Laura Fraser reported similar results:
39 percent assaulted, 37 percent robbed, and 37 percent
sexually assaulted

So if you're happy with those stats and can, with a straight face, say that prostitution is just like any other job, then you've got me. I would however like to see another job with such criminal risk involved.

My question to you was, can you name a single industry that has the same associated crime rate as prostitution? The most reliable stats I can find so far are from the government of New Zealand and they show that 15% of prostitutes were assaulted or raped in 2012. And your web site that says 39% of street prostitutes were assaulted in the US where it is criminalized. I get that it is impossible to contain every qualitative factor throughout the world when trying to generate a reliable stat. So you throw out the dummies who say that prostitutes are bound to burn in hell and the other dummies that say prostitution is just like every other job, and you've likely got something in the middle. Yeah, it's a little dangerous. Yeah we can make it safer by decriminalize it. But there's still, in my opinion, an unacceptable number of women who's lives are ruined by it and that's not something I'm ok with.

When alcohol was illegal, crime surrounding it skyrocketed. When it was legal again, that took the high profits away from it, and most of the criminals lost interest in it, and the cost of regulating the legal sale of alcohol was much lower than the cost of trying to keep it illegal

No. Selling booze is just different than selling people. The facts back this up. Where prostitution is legal and where the local economy is strong, illegal trafficking is far greater than where prostitution is illegal. It's likely simply because there are more prostitutes but still, the problem hasn't gone away.
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 57 (view)
Posted: 2/24/2014 3:47:01 PM
Failure to pay appropriate tax is a problem of all cash industries. How many tradies in NZ charge less for 'cash jobs'? The cash economy makes up a significant proportion of our GDP, and likely in most countries with a similar market economy.

Well, that sure went over your head. The point isn't about tax evasion. The point is that women, for the most part, do not want to be known as prostitutes. There is a large problem with getting women to legitimze themselves because there is stigma involved with it.

Psychological harm- ever worked in mental health? Hard to tell patients from mental workers (and they're not mutually exclusive). Gender discrimination? How many of the worlds biggest companies are guilty of this? Associated crime? Remember a guy named Bernie? The amount of money in his ponzi scheme could buy the Australasian sex industry many, many times over.

Ok. So let me ask you this, how many mental health care workers are working in that industry because they are forced or coerced into it? How many have their passports taken and their families threatened and their own lives threatened if they quit? Any? Some? All? What? Because in the Netherlands, people are pretty bored with the local fair and 80% of prostitutes are foreign. 15% of prostitutes working in the Netherlands in 2013 (about 2000) were rescued as victims of human trafficking. And that's not even close to the real total. So, as far as mental health workers, people working for "the world's biggest companies", and people who use money managers (named Bernie or not), how many of those people are trafficked into their industries? Because you really do need to compare apples to apples.

Here...a commercial for the sex industry in Amsterdam. Watch it....

love laymen who think they know better than the Supreme Court

I love when laymen who think they're really smart are completely wrong. When the Supreme Court unanimously strikes a law they feel has no place in society, gay marriage or abortion for example, pretty well the very next day you can go out and marry your bf or get an abortion. This isn't the case with prostitution at all. If you'd kept reading the article with the U of T prof you'd have known this....

She’s concerned that due to the way the Supreme Court of Canada set up its ruling, there will be no provision for control of sex work by municipalities through localized bylaws and labour laws. Instead, the Supreme Court made it Parliament’s responsibility to revamp federal laws, setting the stage for more criminal legislation surrounding prostitution.

“The Supreme Court didn’t say anything about really needing to decriminalize prostitution,” said Cossman, and instead has given the government leeway to recriminalize it with new laws.

The ruling isn't effective until December 2014, which essentially gives the government one year to figure out a better way. I agree that the laws as written in Canada were unconstitutional and had to be redefined.

The criminal element would then be no greater than any other business. [and that is its own problem]

You're serious? Can you find one single example of a country where prostitution is legalized and the associated crime is the same as any other business? Time to put your money where your mouth is.
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 57 (view)
Banks and the financial system
Posted: 2/23/2014 4:31:56 AM

too funny ... did you actually read the wiki post that explained the out of thin air thing.... or not?

It states ... there is some truth to the statement ... but of course to you guys ... that is ignored for your own personal opinion. ... cool. let's go over it again ... because its not fully understood.

You've really blown this one. The example given in the article of debt "created from thin air" is of the author giving an IOU to Pat Brown and Pat Brown taking it to the grocery store and the grocer accepting it as payment. If you can get people to accept an iou with zero asset backing as payment it becomes legitimate debt. However that's not the same as what banks do. Do you see any difference here with government issued and bank negotiated debt? More from the article...

Banks can indeed create deposit account liabilities from thin air, just as you and I can create liabilities from thin air when we issue IOU’s and someone accepts them. But those deposit liabilities are debts of the bank, just as the IOUs that you and I issue are our debts. And these bank debts are not just so-called debts or pro forma debts. They are real debts which banks must and do routinely pay off in the course of doing everyday business; and the assets a bank uses to pay these debts come from sources external to the bank. A bank cannot simply manufacture its own payment assets from thin air.

An iou from Pat Brown is not the same thing as asset based debt. One has a real asset behind it and one doesn't. Pat's iou may be sourced from a lost bet, a favour or a future consideration and it is therefore created out of nothing. Whereas the bank debt actually exists in the world somewhere. In very simple terms, can you go to a bank and say, I own absolutely nothing but I need you to give me 200 bucks because I lost a bet? Will they lend to you based on those terms? That's the point your failed example was making.

The only thing you vaguely understand is that subprime lending throws a wrench into the whole plan becuase the value of the asset backing is questionable. However, regulated lending practices can safely achieve legitimacy and sustainability and confidence in reserve Canada.
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 54 (view)
Posted: 2/23/2014 3:58:18 AM


It's perfectly legal in New Zealand, and human trafficking has never been a problem.

It has never been a problem in New Zealand because they operate under the assumption that everyone working in the sex trade is doing so legally and that human trafficking only includes people of foreign origin and not domestic origin. That's why universally when prostitution is legalised, trafficking increases. And even though NZ ignores human trafficking, they still have human trafficking problems. But of course, don't believe me. Here are some sources you can avoid reading so your world continues to work the way you want it to work...

"Because the prohibition of trafficking is limited to transnational actions such as the abduction, use of force or threat, or force, coercion, or deception to arrange entry into New Zealand - and does not include reference to exploitation, there appears to be no legal prohibition on the domestic recruitment, transfer, or transportation of adults for the purpose of exploitation."

"A small number of girls and boys, often of Maori or Pacific Islander descent, engage in street prostitution, while some are victims of gang-controlled trafficking rings," the report said.

"The problem of street prostitution of children in South Auckland continues, in which some children were recruited by other girls or compelled by family members."

New Zealand has been identified by the United States Department of State as a source country for underage girls trafficked internally for the purpose of commercial sexual exploitation.26 While the New Zealand Government has stated that there is no evidence of trafficking in New Zealand,27 it is nevertheless apparent that New Zealand children are engaged in prostitution28 and one estimate is that up to 200 under 18-year-olds are working in the sex industry.29
New Zealand is also reportedly a destination country for women from Hong Kong, Thailand, Taiwan, the People‟s Republic of China, Eastern Europe, and other Asian countries, who are trafficked into forced prostitution.30 A number of Asian women also come voluntarily to New Zealand to work in the legal sex trade31 but, according to the United States Department of State, reports indicate that traffickers subsequently coerce them to work against their will in exploitive situations or by threatening them with abuses of the law like deportation or jail.32
The United States Department of State report seems to operate on the assumption that the legalisation of the sex industry has masked the trafficking that occurs in the industry. For example, it was stated in the report that an assumption that all women engaging in prostitution do so willingly appears to underpin official policy and programmes in New Zealand and has inhibited public discussion and examination of indications that trafficking exists within both the decriminalised and illegal sex industries.3

New Zealand is probably the best case scenario and it's still bad. In Amsterdam, 80% of women in the sex industry are foreign. It's a huge problem but you're not going to get it.

Two consenting adults, a service in exchange for money. A perfectly legitimate market transaction. What's illegitimate about it?

Lots. You're not the kind of person who will understand though. In the simplest terms, when offered the opportunity to work legitimately, women almost unanimously refuse to do so. 44 out of 400k workers have registered with the government of Germany as sex trade workers. In the Netherlands, less than 1% of industry workers have filed tax returns indicating such. If you can fix the reasons behind this, you will have a legitimate industry. Stigma, associated crime, psychological harm, abuse, gender discrimination, do not disappeare because it's legal.
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 52 (view)
Posted: 2/22/2014 7:25:41 PM

you seem to like world statistics. how safe is working in the tanneries of Morocco

I see your point. We should aim for third world crap bucket slave labour when we're considering how our country should conduct its business. If it's good enough for savages around the globe then it's good enough for our women. Well thought out.

there are lots of unsafe , unhealthy jobs all over the globe

Yes, so let's create more here. Good idea boy.

Life is inherently dangerous

Mmmm. Here's an example I like to illustrate a point. It's highly unlikely you'll ever get eaten by a shark. Your chances are like one in fifty million. But that chance increases dramatically when you swim in the ocean. Even more when you swim in the shark infested waters. And even more again when you dress like a seal and hang chunks of tuna from your azz. There is inherent risk and then there is whatever it is you're talking about.

Lets try to make it a little safer for some of these exploited and abused women that you just want to go away.

How? The idea that legalizing and regulating doesn't equal legitimizing and you can't fix the problem without legitimizing. The way to legitimize is to criminalize for customers and assist in every single aspect of the victims' life.

You're bringing in human trafficking for prostitution (a form of slavery), which is illegal, It has nothing to do with lawful business, any more than human trafficking for other service industries.

How come then, in countries where prostitution is legal, the is more human trafficking in the field of prostitution than in any other field....or if you need a specific example, why are people trafficked into prostitution and not accounting? Both are "legitimate" business transactions. What gives?
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 54 (view)
Banks and the financial system
Posted: 2/22/2014 6:46:06 AM
Banks still do not create money by issuing loans. The mighty Wiki article that is repeated here has it vaguely wrong and sort of half right. At least the interpretation of it is wrong. The original thesis...

Of course it's mathematically impossible for everyone to pay back their loans since there is not enough money in the money supply to do so, no matter what how hard they work (SOMEONE will default, simply because of the arithmetic

That isn't right. It's not at all mathematically impossible. It's just as mathematically possible to receive more than the amount owed as it is to not receive it all. New money can be brought in from a world full of sources that can fullfill the money supply expansion.

Here is one example of how mortgages work , the moment you sign the mortgage , that is when the money is created out of nothing

No that's not how it works.

This is how it works...

You can't walk into a bank and receive a loan for 200k with nothing in return. That loan is secured by existing assets. The bank forwards you the money without first obtaining anything but a legal right to the asset in the event of a default. But the asset already exists. It is the dinosaur in the chicken and egg dilemma.

People who are fond of saying the banks create money “from thin air” often seem to suggest that banks are no different than the government in that regard, and can thus obtain valuable monetary assets simply by manufacturing them ex nihilo, in effect profiting from pure seigniorage in the way a currency-issuing government can. But this picture is wildly inadequate. If banks could simply summon their assets into existence out of the aether, then every bank in the country could be as rich as an Arabian Gulf emir, manufacturing money at will to purchase solid gold chandeliers, 100-story luxury high rises, Olympic swimming pools, indoor ski slopes, and a personal entourage of world-renowned chefs, attendants and masseuses. The sky would be the limit. But clearly this is clearly not the case. There is a lot to complain about with regard to banking; lots of people in the banking system are making completely unwarranted profits from a massively bloated and exploitative financial system. But the wrongness here comes from the banking system’s ability to suck, squeeze and swindle assets from others; not from its simply conjuring these assets out of nothing.

The assets of a bank exist because they first existed elswhere...not the other way around. The bank doesn't lend you money without first knowing that it exists in some form in the world. Not even credit card debt is without a viable path to reality. Your credit worthiness is an actuarial reality. In fact, credit worthiness is as much a barrier to the credit card business as it is necessary. They hate it when you pay on time. Nothing the bank does is responsible for increasing the money supply unless they venture out from behind the desk and force loans on people with a zero net worth. And as we saw in 2008, they sometimes do that and the result is disasterous. From the above source...

What is true in the “from thin air” metaphor is that commercial banks are able to initiate the process of expanding deposit balances via lending without first obtaining any additional assets that might be needed to handle the added payment obligations and withdrawal claims that the additional deposit liabilities might impose on the bank. It can expand the deposits first and acquire the additional assets, if necessary, afterwards.
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 28 (view)
They're laughing at you-- a peek inside Wall Street
Posted: 2/21/2014 5:48:37 AM

That a significant portion of the population has been unemployed for the last 6 years seems to have slipped your notice

For one thing, if you haven't had a job in six years, you're doing something right. Also, if your job hasn't resurfaced in that time, it's gone for good. Business has moved along without you and that would have happened anyway. So yes, you had better find a way to "get yours".

You also don't seem to comprehend how one can feel anger over injustice even when that injustice hasn't personally affected one nearly as much as many others.

Look dude, you can feel however you want for whoever you want. I prefer to sympathize with victims of crime, people with incurable diseases and animals. You can fill your boots with whatever cause you want but compassion for the terminally unemployed is not a central thesis of being human.

Science and engineering do not pay off nearly as well, and those are examples of where true wealth is created.

Really? Engineering paid off pretty well for the 54 employees of Whatsapp yesterday.

Anyway, what is noble is an honest day's work for an honest day's pay

Sucker. Driving a Smartcar is also a noble pursuit until you get creamed by a dump truck. So why exactly is working every day a more noble pursuit than investing and earning passive income? Any ideas?
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 23 (view)
They're laughing at you-- a peek inside Wall Street
Posted: 2/19/2014 3:01:29 PM

Nope, you're still not getting it. You are still treating the crisis solely from a stock market perspective. This is a livelihood thing, not just a stock investor loss scenario.

Yep, I'm getting it just fine. I just thought that the whole sympathy train had left the station by now. I had no idea people were still singing the blues over this. It's been six years since things went south. It's time to quit with the poor me bit and figure out what you did wrong and make sure it doesn't happen again. This sort of thing...

I guess the rest of us poor saps are just suckers. At least we can "eat cake."

...drives me crazy. You can be a sap all you want. In fact the more suckers the better. But don't expect sympathy. Lots of good hard working souls who lost their houses had no business owning houses in the first place. Same with guys living in mansions on pay check to pay check salaries. I don't care about people who spend themselves into oblivion because they're idiots and deserve what they get. Those people are just as much to blame for the mess as anyone.

Lots of people got a majorly bad deal through no fault of their own and they have my truest sympathies. But the best thing they could do for themselves is learn what went wrong, do things differently this time and quit being the victim. None of this is about letting people eat cake. It's about winning at a game instead of losing. It's a choice not a destiny.

So, yeah. One pragmatic and expedient "solution" is to adopt that mindset and find a way to profit in spite of or even FROM human misery, because it ain't going away... then teach it to your kids, then sleep tight at night because personal wealth is all you need to do that.

Again, if there is anything intrinsically evil about buying stocks, houses, paintings or whatever when they are low and selling them when they are high, please let me know. Is it that poverty is noble? Are all rich people bad? What's the story here?

Also, short sell Visa not Viza. sheesh.
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 19 (view)
They're laughing at you-- a peek inside Wall Street
Posted: 2/19/2014 4:32:15 AM

Again, you don't seem very cognizant of the scope of what we are talking about-- a global financial crisis-- with so many guilty parties it boggles the mind.

I get what you're saying but people are guilty all day long for dropping massive sums of money into the stock market, whether through an investment advisor or by their own accord, and not having the faintest idea of what they're really doing. You can blame the guilty parties if you want but what you're left with is hanging out with a bunch of dummies in tents occupying your local civic plaza.

I thought you were talking about joining the sociopaths that are the subject of this thread. Did you already lose sight of the context here?

Many of these sociopaths aquired their wealth exclusively through the stock market. There are investors and financiers on the list as well. The ceo's on the list were often investors before and during the time they were managers. The common thread is stock market involvement. It's a Wall Street fraternity. How is that not the context here? There is nothing stopping the retail investor, except laziness and greed, from joining the ranks of the smart money where these clowns dwell.

Believe me, the credit card companies are damned worried about this and it's only going to get to be a bigger problem in the years to come.

There you go. Go sell Viza short first thing today and sit on it until the ship comes in. You've got a better plan than most.
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 15 (view)
They're laughing at you-- a peek inside Wall Street
Posted: 2/18/2014 9:04:50 PM

It's known as having sympathy for others. If you don't feel at least some anger for what has happened, then you aren't very cognizant of the crisis.

I feel really bad for people who lost money because of criminal activity. I had a huge sum stolen from me and it sucks. I watch "American Greed" and feel really awful for the victims. However, people who lost money in the stock market or, more correctly, people who's fund managers lost their money for them in the stock market, are completely without my sympathy. Theoretically, they knew the risks. More correctly, they should have known the risks. When you give your money away for someone else to manage and have no clue as to its where abouts, you suffer the consequences.

And join them? I have way too much conscience and not near enough envy

There is nothing unconcionable about investing in business. Why wouldn't you take advantage of what the market provides you instead of "taking your ball and going home"? People have lost more money since 2008 from not being in the market than they did in the crash. Why would anyone be angry about that?

Run a hedge fund-make money on insider trading-or steal millions from your'll end up with an SEC fine, house arrest, and an ankle monitor.

Sentences have gotten pretty harsh lately. The Encyte guy, "Smiling Bob" commercials, got about 25 years for automatically renewing people's credit cards.

Here's the thing about insider trading, the SEC knows it exists. I know it exists. Everybody knows it exists. If done properly, it's not even illegal. A good part of my trading depends on it. Am I a scum bag for riding the coat tails of smart money?
Show ALL Forums