DISQUS

Goo Kazuuu ;P

still think Twitter is a community and if you don’t give, you shouldn’t take.

I would not agree with many statements here. However I am Russian.

i don't speak english but the tecktonik is a dance made in french. :)

Mike Matas!


http://www.mikematas.com/

Mike Matas!


http://www.mikematas.com/

Haha. Även om R o M faktiskt är rätt bra.. om man får höra en låt lite då och då.


Smygmjukis?



(Usch, ska jag säga. Klassisk musik började just i min chill-spellista i Spotify.. Nu skäms jag ännu mer när jag såg vilken CD låten var ifrån: "The Mozart Effect, Music for Moms or Moms-to-be" :S :S :S.).

Jag diggar det felmeddelandet vi har på Twingly.se faktiskt ;)


Felmeddelande

Nu ska jag inte säga för mycket eftersom jag jobbar åt Primelabs...


Men att Twingly fungerar, det har jag hela tiden trott. DN och Svd har på så sätt fått ett aktivt diskussionsforum på ett otroligt billigt sätt, där dessutom kommentarerna är både välskrivna och under eget upphovsrättsligt ansvar.



Ett mervärde för läsarna - ja.



Du nämner trafikdrivande syfte. Det kanske inte är några jätteökningar det handlar om - men jag tror utan tvekan att tidningarna tjänar en hel del på det. Dels för att de får massor inlänkar till sina artiklar vilket gör att de kommer börja ranka bättre i sökmotorerna, dels för att deras varumärke syns betydligt oftare än konkurrenternas runt om på internet. Debattsidorna håller sig inte bara under "debatt"-fliken längre, den har spritts sig över hela sajterna.



Det finns tusen fördelar men väldigt få nackdelar när det gäller Twingly, tro det eller ej. So just give him a call ;)

Fan vad de skriker i trailern.

THIS IS SPARTAN!!! SPARTAN!!!


HÖRNI, HUR MÅNGA TÄNKER SE DEN PÅ BIO!!!?!?!?

Wouldn't it be wiser to show off the "better ones" early on so perhaps people that would actually want to buy them for the Christmas holiday could receive them prior to the big day?

Daniel Craig är totalt felplacerad. Man skall ge heder till filmskapare som vill fräsha upp och göra nytt, men i detta fallet kunde man lika gärna gjort om James Bond till en kvinna som 007 agent. Daniel är en suverän skådespelare , absolut men han är alldeles för skör och brutal. Det finns ingen charm i Daniel Craig som påminner om Bond. Enligt mig kunde de lika gärna tagit Tom Hanks eftersom han håller samma talang och utstrålning.

Dåligt val helt enkelt.

Martin "Goldeneye, flopp VericalLimit" Campell står för regin. Det också ett otroligt dåligt val.

Stålmannen! Inte Supermannen!

Hi luca ,
It seems that the database of access of fon screwed up . In my page I'm showing accesses From "latrobe" (I don't know where the hell it is ) but the interesting thing is that the date and time is midnight 1 january 1970.

Хто це перекладав? Яка ганьба...

"Після реєстрації користувач одержує свій віртуальний простір на ____сайты____..."

Amusing how little sympathy a person that works for the city can have for their fellow worker fighting a clearly justifiable cause.

The main sticking point in negotiations right now is pensions. Pensions aren't even supposed to be on the negotiating table, but the MTA insists on putting them there. In any case, it would cost them about $20 million to appease the workers. It is costing the city at least $200 million in lost revenue to function without the transit workers.

Granted, this makes the TWU seem like bullies, intent on getting their way. But listen, it's about time the little people got their way in this city. This absurd anti-labor law coupled with an unsympathetic management has scared people from striking before. Your own personal experience exemplifies this. Your rights were being trampled on, and you were powerless to fight back.

If you let the employer push you once, they'll do it again. Someone has to make a stand. I'm glad the transit workers did. It's absolutely absurd that workers are expected to work without contracts while the city takes their sweet time negotiating. Teachers, policeman, and firemen have been severely screwed by this pathetic state of events. But they didn't want to strike, for fear of public backlash. Still, their cause was justified, their demands not unreasonable.

The current proposed pay hike is not even above inflation levels! Workers earning the same while goods going up in price would be ultimately disastrous for the economy!

Anyway, those who are familiar with the MTA workings, namely what they do with contractors, would be disgusted at this turn of events. Most people associated with the MTA realize the corruption and money wasted on contractors that could be better spent elsewhere.

The point is, anyway, that we can't let them start a trend. If the TWU backed down on this, I assure you, there would be a trend. I salute those brave men and women for risking the fines in favor of doing a lot of workers a greater service in the long run.

Seems to me, Anton, that you've vitiated your own argument. Aren't you arguing here that if there are plenty of laws, then they'll inevitably be twisted to benefit the rich and not the poor? That's very similar to what libertarians and economists believe about regulatory capture. In the long run, lots of regulations tend to favor incumbents and squeeze out competition and change.

I agree with the libertarians and economists on the point about regulatory capture, but there are degrees. To the extent to which income inequality can be mitigated, the relative influence of the lower classes will be increased. Mitigating income inequality requires fighting the interests of the powerful, and that's hard, but if we can do it in this particular case (thereby re-arranging the structural incentives of politicians) we make it easier next time. If we just stand by and say "inequality - just fine with me" as Will wants to, we make the problem even worse.

I don't have a plan for turning the government into a level playing field where the interests of the poor can be fairly represented, but we can make things less unfair than they are. Will says they should be even more unfair.

You're missing the important question about the shape of the distribution. If "inequality" means the difference between the person at the top and the person at the bottom, then inequality will probably keep rising forever. But there are lots of other measures of something one might reasonably call "inequality": for example, the difference (or ratio) between the median person in the top decile and the median person in the bottom decile. That should remove the homeless and others who have absolutely nothing from the calculations.

In any case, inequality is bad for other than standard-of-living reasons. As long as wealth gives you more access to, and influence on, powerful institutions such as the government, (i.e. forever and in all circumstances) inequality and lack of mobility mean that the levers of power will be controlled by one culture, and the people affected by those institutions will be a different culture. The people in those cultures will have systematically different desires, preferences, and goals, and inequality means that those at the bottom will be *oppressed*, not merely underrepresented.

Don't tell me that this can be solved by making the government weaker in libertopia. If libertopia is characterized by inequality and lack of mobility, poor areas will be systematically deprived of vital and legitimate state services such as police, while the wealthy and powerful will have plenty of police protection. Other laws, while remanining within the scope of what's permissible under libertarianism, will be systematically biased in favor of the interests of the powerful. For example, libertarian doctrine doesn't tell us exactly what the bankruptcy laws should be like. Under inequality and non-mobility, those laws will shield the assets of the rich and expose the assets of the poor.

Come to think of it, the U.S. is a lot like that today. . .

Gareth -

You may be right that the deal that created the "trust fund" has increased the government's ability to pay for Social Security by decreasing total borrowing, but that's not at all the same thing as the "trust fund" increasing the government's ability to pay for Social Security. The same "deal" sans trust fund (i.e. just raising payroll taxes) would have exactly the same impact. All the work is being done by increased government revenues, not by the trust fund.

Because the "trust fund" doesn't increase the government's ability to pay for Social Security (compared to an alternative system in SS and the payroll tax are simply lumped in with the budget) your "deal" that the Republicans are allegedly breaking was a setup from the beginning. If they'd been serious about setting up a trust fund, they would have invested the SS surplus in the market.

In any case the assumption on which your analysis rests (that taxation and spending would have been the same whether or not payroll taxes had been jacked up) is almost certainly false.

the debt owed by the general fund to the Social Security fund reduces the need of the general fund (at a given level of other taxes and other expenditures) to borrow now from the market

Not so. Today (I am making the numbers up, but that's not the point):

Payroll taxes: $700b
Social Security Expenses: ($500b)
Debt Issued to Trust Fund: $200b
Money transferred from trust fund to general fund: $200b

Other Tax Revenues: $1300b
Other Tax Revenues plus money borrowed from trust fund: $1500b
Other Expenditures: ($2000b)
Money borrowed from market: $500b

Consider instead a world in which there's no trust fund and Social Security is lumped together with other programs:

Payroll taxes: $700b
All other taxes: $1300b
Total tax revenues: $2000b
Social Security benefit payouts: ($500b)
All other expenditures: ($2000b)
Total expenditures: ($2500b)
Money borrowed from market: $500b

So we wind up with the same amount of debt issued to the market either way. The "trust fund" is just an accounting gimmick.

Gareth - you write that "the reality of the trust fund . . . is not independent of our belief in its reality". Fine, but semantic issues about "reality" notwithstanding, the trust fund:

(a) doesn't increase the government's ability to fund Social Security beyond what it would be if the trust fund didn't exist. When the trust fund cashes in its bonds, the rest of the money nominally has to come out of the general fund - i.e. the government has to issue more debt, cut spending, raise taxes, inflate the currency, or engage in some combination thereof. All of those options would be equally available if the trust fund didn't exist. Contrast this with another alternative in which excess payroll tax revenues were invested in the stock market: then the trust fund could simply sell the stock; that option isn't available to the trust fund now. (Theoretically, we could amend the Constitution, sieze the stock, and sell it, but political difficulties notwithstanding it wouldn't work: if the government suddenly tried to appropriate hundreds of billions of dollars of assets without compensation, the stock market would crash and the economy would die.)

(b) It doesn't impose any obligation not to cut social security benefits. It would be politically difficult to default on the trust fund, but that's not necessary: all Congress needs to do is change the benefit formula. Then the trust fund can keep increasing in size indefinintely even as benefit payouts decrease.

You can call that "reality" if you want, but it's a pretty limited and ephemeral reality. The payroll tax is a scam on the working people of this country - a way to make our regressive tax system even more so.

NOOOOOO!!! Keep me posted if the guy doesn't go through with buying it. Cheers.

(finally the TP who hit me's insurance paid out today. Hence the search for the car)

Now till the end of 2004 (their billing platform needs an upgrade)

Now till the end of 2004 (their billing platform needs an upgrade)