Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2007:November:19 Monday <Sunday, Tuesday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ
http://csua.com/feed/
2007/11/19-26 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Tax] UID:48657 Activity:very high
11/19   Warrent Buffet says that the inheritance tax / death tax is a good
mm
        thing.  No surprise since his company makes a fortune buying up
        properties sold to pay for the tax.
        http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/vernon/050824
        \_ The problem with death taxes: when I earned the money, I was taxed
           on it.  Now it's mine.  I should be able to do what I want with it.
           Taking it from my estate upon death means giving it to other people
           who had absolutely nothing to do with earning it.  Giving it to my
           family & friends means giving it to people who physically,
           emotionally, and/or financially helped me earn it.  For example,
           a man who spends all his time working has less time to spend with
           his family.  It cost the family something.  When dad/husband is
           dead, the least they should get is the money he earned for them
           while away from them.  Neither the government nor any strangers
           getting 'entitlements' are entitled in any way to his earnings.
           They already got their cut when he earned it.  I have no interest
           in hearing from the ultra wealthy about their solutions for the
           country which always seem to involve things that don't hurt the
           billionaires or their families in any way.  Buffet is obviously
           a great investor but he is in no position to dictate social or
           tax policy for the Little People.  He should stick with what he
           knows: investing in successful companies other people built.
           \_ You say you should be able to do what you want with your
              money and not be taxed on the transfer. When you buy goods from
              a merchant, you pay sales tax, even though you've already paid
                \_ not all states have a sales tax.  i also have a choice to
                   buy elsewhere or not at all.  death is mandatory.
              taxes on the money you used to pay the merchant (presumably).
              Wealth is taxed more or less whenever it changes hands; why
              should it matter if the transfer is due to death instead of a
              voluntary transfer? And if you think the government didn't
              help you earn that money, you need to brush up on both your
              civics and your economics.
                \_ the government helped.  they got paid the first time.
                   i see no reason to pay them a second time when my family
                   hasn't been paid the first time and it cost them a lot
                   more than it did some random government chosen recipient
                   through random vote-buying 'entitlement' program.
                   if you want to tax the rich, just go for it and create a
                   straight wealth tax.  go tax buffet a few billion a year
                   (i think 10% is fair) just for having money.
                   \_ Good luck getting your ideas implemented into law.
        \_ Would you prefer to return to hereditary aristocricy? This guy
           is another rich guy doesn't want to pay his fair share of taxes
           and would rather that someone else pay it for him. What else is new?
           \_ The important thing isn't income disparity (which is increasing)
              but lifestyle disparity (which is decreasing). -- ilyas
              \_ What does this even mean?
                 \_ What it means is that income differences matter less and
                    less.  There was a thread on this in the past.  Personal
                    computers, cell phones, reliable cars, electronics, etc.
                    are getting cheaper and better all the time, which means
                    the poor in America can afford many of the same 'bits
                    of lifestyle' as the rich.  This is why a straight
                    income comparison is misleading, the rich spend more and
                    more of their surplus on 'brand differentiation' not
                    quality. -- ilyas
                    \_ Not so sure of this. Look at the crappy food the poor
                       eat. The lead-based toys and other cheap Chinese imports
                       from Wal-Mart. I know some wealthy people and their
                       lifestyle is not really extravagant, but the
                       eat, their lead-filled toys, and other cheap Chinese
                       imports from Wal-Mart. I know some wealthy people and
                       \_ It's a free country, people are free to eat and
                          play whatever/whenever. Ultimately, people are
                          responsible for their own actions. If they want
                          to smoke to death or play with lead laden toys,
                          that is their choice.
                          \_ Sure, but there are a lot of people who
                             cannot afford a healthy lifestyle even if
                             they want to live one. This isn't about
                             choice, but about opportunity. The poor eat
                             far more often at McDonald's because of the
                             price and they pay for it with their lives.
                             Many would probably prefer organic grassfed
                             beef burgers, but it's not an option for them.
                             \_ Like I said, this is a free country, if the
                                rich can afford more options, then they will
                                pick the better options. So what? It's been
                                like that way since the dawn of mankind.
                                How are you going to "solve the problem"
                                for the poor? Communism? Socialism?
                                More regulations?
                                \_ You're arguing against your own strawman.
                                   I didn't say we need to do anything about
                                   it. I am just disputing the assertion that
                                   lifestyle disparity is decreasing even as
                                   income disparity increases.
                             \_ I dispute that notion about McDonald's.
                                McDonald's is not cheap when compared to
                                home cooking using modest ingredients.
                                For example, just cooking rice/potatoes/
                                any commodity staple, cheap veggies,
                                and some cheap meat from Safeway is going
                                going to be healthier and cheaper than
                                McD's in all likelihood. However McD's is
                                fast. Maybe some of the poor have no time
                                to cook, because time is a luxury. But
                                I think it's mostly their own laziness:
                                most people can do better than McD's.
                                (You don't even need meat, of course.)
                                \_ You're very wrong. I cannot make a
                                   double cheeseburger for myself for 99
                                   cents even if I use the worst
                                   ingredients I can find. Yes, I can eat
                                   plain white rice for cheaper, but that
                                   misses the point. My girlfriend and I
                                   cook a lot - more than most people -
                                   and it's always the same or more
                                   expensive than eating fast food. Sure,
                                   the quality is better, but it costs more.
                                   It's cheaper than a good restaurant
                                   meal, but not by much. Restaurants have
                                   economies of scale that I can't match.
                                   Maybe if you have 9 kids you start to
                                   get close.
                                   \_ In terms of actual food value the
                                      rice is better, so it's not missing
                                      the point.
                                      Anyway, the 99 cent cheeseburger
                                      uses frozen, crappy meat and not a lot
                                      of it, and ultra cheap buns that are
                                      mostly air anyway. The cheese is process
                                      cheese. If you make your own you would
                                      spend more because you'd use better
                                      things, but you don't have to. There's
                                      nothing else on that except condiments.
                                      I think you can pretty easily make meals
                                      that have more "food value" than those
                                      burgers per dollar. If you really
                                      wanted you could also cooperate with
                                      other poor families to create that
                                      "economy of scale" thing.
                                      \_ We're not talking about "food
                                         value". I am using McDonald's as
                                         an example of the type of fast
                                         food that the poor eat and
                                         comparing it to the type of fast
                                         food that the wealthy eat. If
                                         you want to talk about cooking at
                                         home, then the wealthy can live even
                                         better. Your argument is "Don't
                                         eat fast food at all" which misses
                                         the point of the comparison. BTW, I
                                         would be very unhappy if I ate plain
                                         rice every day and I would harm myself
                                         or others.
                                        \_ We're not? I am. You said: "poor
                                           people eat McD's because of the
                                           low price... pay for it with
                                           their lives... would prefer
                                           organic grassfed". I'm just
                                           saying that if they wanted to
                                           they could eat tasty alternatives
                                           that are healthier, or for not
                                           much more, cook their own
                                           hamburgers. I'm not saying
                                           not to eat fast food. I'm saying
                                           that it's a choice.
                                           Many millions of people eat
                                           "plain rice" every day.
                                           \_ If you tried to subsist on a
                                              diet of only rice, you would die.
                                            \_ That's not what I suggested in
                                               my original reply.
                       their lifestyle is not really extravagant, but the
                       quality is much better. Are you one of those people
                       who thinks a handmade leather Italian shoe and a
                       machine-made shoe made in Mayalsia out of rubber
                       are equivalent because they provide equal utility
                       and the main difference is 'brand differentiation'?
                       The wealthy live better and tend to live "smaller"
                       in that they care more about things like
                       environmental toxins and political issues in
                       faraway lands. The poor just want the cheapest shoe
                       possible, regardless if it will turn their toes green.
                       Important products that everyone used to have, like
                       organic food, are now only affordable to the wealthy.
                       Those products are more important to a good quality
                       of life than the fact that LCD televisions are now in
                       reach of the common man.
                       \_ It's true that some things that were more available
                          in the past like organic food or hand-made furniture
                          are less available/more expensive today, but you are
                          being disingenious by ignoring the VASTLY LARGER
                          number of things that were invented and
                          made affordable to the general population.  Again,
                          it's true that premium brands tend to be better made
                          (although not always, for instance luxury car brands
                          tend to be less reliable than hondas/toyotas).
                          I am merely saying that the gap in lifestyle has
                          been shrinking for the last 100 years.  If you are
                          truly concerned about 'the gilded age' trends,
                          you need to look at lifestyle, not income.  Of
                          course, 'lifestyle differences' are much harder to
                          quantify and talk about, we are not talking about
                          numbers in a bank account. -- ilyas
                          \_ In general, a bigger bank account means a
                          \_ In general, a bigger the bank account means a
                             better lifestyle. A much bigger bank account
                             means a much better lifestyle. I don't think
                             this has changed very much. I know where
                             you're coming from (a king in 1400 lived less
                             well in many ways than we commoners today)
                             but I don't see a trend where this disparity
                             has really changed much over the last, say,
                             40 years at least. In fact, the gap seems to
                             be widening if you look at statistics like
                             home ownership.
                             \_ Yes, of course income is strongly and
                                positively correlated with lifestyle quality.
                                My claim of decreasing lifestyle gap comes from
                                the observation that mass production,
                                specialization, and other capitalist
                                institutions result both in innovation
                                (invention of additional ways to improve
                                lifestyle), and efficiency (current lifestyle
                                improvements strongly tend down in price).
                                The only way for the lifestyle gap to be
                                increasing is if the number of qualitative
                                lifestyle changes was increasing faster due
                                to inventions than existing lifestyle
                                to inventions faster than existing lifestyle
                                was trending down in price.  But there is
                                little evidence for this.  Innovations
                                to differentiate products for wealthy
                                consumption seem to favor premium brands as
                                value-in-itself, various 'intangibles'
                                (like hand-crafted assembly), and health
                                and environmental consciousness.  These things
                                are valuable, but that the rich increasingly
                                turn to these things is hardly evidence of
                                a widening lifestyle gap. -- ilyas
                                a widening lifestyle gap.  (I would
                                be surprised if long term home ownership
                                trends weren't strongly positive, btw). -- ilyas
                                \_ How about looking at home ownership or
                                   at the number of dual income families
                                   compared to, say, the 1950s? Even in my
                                   own family in the 1970s, neither my mom
                                   or dad had a college degree and they
                                   worked entry level jobs. They still had
                                   a house in the suburbs, two brand
                                   news cars, and sent the kids to private
                                   school even though my mom took 5 years
                                   off work to help with the kids. That
                                   still happens in parts of the country,
                                   but the fact that it's much less common
                                   now is evidence that the gap is
                                   increasing, since the rich live as
                                   well as ever and yet the middle class
                                   lifestyle is eroding.
                                   \_ http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/ownerchar.html
                                        -- ilyas
                                   \_ Home ownership has been trending up
                                      since the 50s (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/ownerchar.html
                                      \_ But if you look at the numbers
                                         you'll notice that it's the
                                         over65 segment which rose even
                                         while more and more families
                                         became dual income households. I
                                         think that is significant. I also
                                         don't think dual incomes have as
                                         much to do with social norms as
                                         with the need to make ends meet.
                                         I think you acknowledge that
                                         there is greater income disparity.
                                         I think it is patently obvious that
                                         what follows is a lifestyle disparity.
                                         You can't point to a shrinking
                                         disparity because of this
                                         nebulous 'brand differentiation'
                                         without more data that I haven't seen
                                         you produce.
                                         \_ So that's it?  That's your
                                            evidence?  All this is evidence of
                                            is that housing costs rose faster
                                            than effective income.  You need a
                                            lot more comprehensive argument to
                                            counteract the vast evidence for
                                            my conclusion (for instance look
                                            at the availability of consumer
                                            electronics since the 70s, or
                                            car quality, or power/price of
                                            personal computers, or a thousand
                                            other things).  There is more to
                                            lifestyle than a house, that's why
                                            I say you need to average over
                                            everything.  -- ilyas
                                            \_ Most households spend over
                                               50% of their net income on
                                               housing, so it's a lot more
                                               important than anything else.
                                               You can say that electronics has
                                               gotten better since 1970, but
                                               how does it follow that the
                                               disparity between the quality of
                                               the lifestyles of the rich and
                                               the poor has gotten smaller?
                                               I don't think the standard
                                               of living now for the lower
                                               classes in the US is higher
                                               than ever, but it certainly
                                               is for the wealthy. QED,
                                               unless you want to make the
                                               argument that the lower
                                               classes (or even middle
                                               class) are living better
                                               than ever. From my observation,
                                               I wouldn't say the middle class
                                               lives a better lifestyle than
                                               the 1950s even we now have
                                               a lot more gadgets and the
                                               average car is nicer than it
                                               was.
                                               \_ Your notion of 'better'
                                                  is strange and confusing.
                                                    -- ilyas
                                                  \_ Here's an idea to
                                                     help you understand: Look
                                                     at household debt now
                                                     versus at some point in
                                                     the past. Having more
                                                     useless crap doesn't mean
                                                     we live a better life.
                                                     \_ So cars, personal
                                                        computers, the internet,
                                                        home electronics,
                                                        medical advances, etc.
                                                        are 'crap?'  Gotcha!
                                      The number of dual income families has
                                      apparently been trending up since the
                                      50s, but that in itself is not
                                      evidence of a 'squeeze' (but changing
                                      social norms for women).  Neither is
                                      your anecdote.  -- ilyas
                                      your anecdote.  Even changing percentages
                                      for specific expenditures like housing
                                      or healthcare is not, in itself,
                                      evidence of a squeeze.  (This is why
                                      lifestyle is difficult to talk about,
                                      you have to average over everything).
                                        -- ilyas
                                      \_ So you admit that people are working
                                         longer hours, getting paid less and
                                         having to commute more, but in the
                                         face of all this, you claim that their
                                         lifestyle has "improved." How about
                                         the fact that crowding has increased
                                         over the last decade? Food insecurity?
                                         \_ Is it true the vast majority of
                                            "food-insecure" adults are
                                            overweight?
                       \- panem et circensus. lcd televisions in the reach
                          of the common man keeps people from boredom
                          and involved in petty politics and/or
                          revolutions. lcds and football games are like
                          the romans bread and circuses. feed 'em so they
                          dont starve, and keep 'em entertained...and you
                          wont have to worry about public unrest. it was
                          true in roman times, and it's at least as valid
                          today. panem et circensus
                          \- ps b i am gay
                          \- ps i am gay
                          \_ This is not psb's voice, btw.
           \_ There is so much wrong with this I'm having a hard time starting.
              1) False dichotomy
              2) Are you saying we don't have a hereditary aristocrisy?  I
                 guess the Kennedys don't exist?
              3) Anyone with enough liquid assets can easily get around this
                 by:
                 - setting up a non-profit and donating money to it
                 - appointing their children as the board of directors and
                   compensate them quite well
              4) I've just started my own business.  The death tax would force
                 my kids to sell off my share.
              \_ Who do you propose to pay the tax burden instead? How long
                 has America had an inheritance tax? This guy (and you) all
                 made money knowing full well what the rules are, why should
                 we change them in the middle of the game to favor you even
                 more? And isn't the first $5M untaxed anyway? Why should a
                 bunch of people who did nothing to deserve a windfall benefit
                 at the expense of everyone else?
                 \_ Here's a key concept:  It's not your money to take away.
                    If I can't give my property to my children, I don't own it.
                    It's one thing to fund the government, it's another to be a
                    communist. -op
                    \_ I notice you have not answered the first question, nor
                       are you able to do so. You claim that anyone who is in
                       favor of any taxes whatsover is a communist? You are
                       a lunatic. I do not have conversations with crazy people.
                       a lunatic. I do not have conversations with crazy
                       people.
                       \_ I don't like to have conversations with stupid
                          people.  I said "funding the gov't is one thing".
                          That means I understand the need for taxes.  However,
                          once you say "why should he get money?" you're a
                          communist.
                          communist. -op
                          \_ So who are you going to raise taxes on instead?
                             I am always amused when far right wingers claim
                             that the position supported by an overwhelming
                             majority of Americans is extremism.
                             \_ It's not amusing when far left wingers do it?
                                \_ If you can give me an example of that
                                   happening, I guess I would let you know
                                   if I thought it was funny or not. If you
                                   mean people like ANSWER, yeah I think they
                                   are pretty funny.
                             \_ It's a bad question.  The question isn't "who
                                should we take from", it's "if we remove this
                                tax, what do we do".  Firstly we should
                                eliminate the programs that are simply wealth
                                transfers.  That'd take care of about 60% of
                                the federal budget. -op
                                \_ So you want to eliminate Social Security
                                   so that the wealthy don't have to pay
                                   estate tax. I see.
                                   \_ They're 2 separate issues.  SS is going
                                      away anyway, but yes, I'm in favor of
                                      eliminating it.  Yes, I'm in favor of
                                      eliminating the death tax.  The first is
                                      not to provide for the 2nd. -op
                                      \_ Which "wealth transfers" are you
                                         talking about then? There is no way
                                         that "wealth transfers" are 60% of
                                         the federal budget, unless you
                                         include SS in that 60%.
                                       http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm
                                         You can quibble about the percentage
                                         of debt payment that should be
                                         considered devoted to "past military"
                                         but those numbers are all up to date
                                         and accurate. Military + VA + debt
                                         is already half the budget. Do you
                                         call things like the Dept of Homeland
                                         Security a "wealth transfer"?
                                         And the death of Social Security has
                                         been predicted many, many times, but
                                         so far, she is still beating strong
                                         and overwhelming popular.
                                        \_ Who says it's so popular? Are
                                           payroll taxes popular?
                                           \_ 70 years of persistance in the
                                              face of Conservative attempts
                                              to eliminate it speak to its
                                              popularity. You could also google
                                              for a poll, if you really wanted
                                              an answer.
                                            \_ Slavery persisted a long time
                                               too. I could google for one,
                                               but I thought you might already
                                               have had a source in mind. But
                                               no, it was just something you
                                               pulled from your ass.
                                               \_ You really believe that
                                                  answers the point?  Social
                                                  Security enjoys upwards of
                                                  70% support in any poll you
                                                  could find.  In addition,
                                                  GWB's plan's disapproval
                                                  never dropped below 60%.
                                                  You seem to be something
                                                  pulled from an ass.
                                                  --scotsman
                                                  \_ that's the 70% of people
                                                     who plan to get a lot more
                                                     out of other people's
                                                     pockets than they'll ever
                                                     pay in who have no plan
                                                     for their own retirement.
                                                     that sort of number not
                                                     only does not impress me
                                                     but worries me that this
                                                     country is turning into a
                                                     nanny state socialist pit.
                                                     \_ If you don't like
                                                        democracy, leave.
                                                        \_ Should I quote the
                                                           line about
                                                           democracy being
                                                           great until people
                                                           figure out they
                                                           can vote themselves
                                                           goodies?  The motd
                                                           is full of uber
                                                           geniuses today.
                                                           \_ Quote all you
                                                              want, you undemo-
                                                              cratic, elitist
                                                              thug.
                                                 \_ I don't know but 60% is not
                                                    "overwhelming". GWB's plan
                                                    is not the only alternative
                                                    to SS. SS as implemented is
                                                    broken and regressive.
                                                    \_ It is when approval
                                                       never got above 35%.
                                                       never got above 33%.
                                                       GWB's plan wasn't about
                                                       "fixing" it.  There are
                                                       broken portions, and
                                                       changes need to be made,
                                                       but the pp spoke of
                                                       eliminating it.  That's
                                                       an idea that you can't
                                                       sell to this country.
           \_ I love that "his fair share".  Define fair share. -op
              \_ Arbitrarily: 50%.
           \- The only question worth asking about the Renew America columnist
              is "is he stupid or does he think you are stupid" ... i.e. "is
              he stupid or is he disingeuous?". If you arent interested in
              speculating on that Q, not worth reading.
                 \_ So everyone should pay 50%? -op
                    \_ From each according to his means, to each according to
                       his needs.
        \_ I am a democratic and I am opposed to the death and
           inheritance tax. It should be my god given right to give my
           hard earned money to my children without tax. Take 50% of
           that away is just robbery, plain and simple.
                \- Grover Nordquist just got his wings.
           \_ You haven't done much research on this subject, have you?
           \_ Odds are that if you're not the uber-rich, you will be able to
              give your money to your kids with a minimum of tax.
              \_ And if you are the uber-rich, you will certainly be able to
                 give your money to your kids with no tax at all!
                 \_ How? If so, what the fuck is the inheritence tax
                    for? The not so rich father that didn't know better?
                    \_ It has been argued that inheritance taxes on the rich
                       exist as incentives for those worthies to donate
                       heavily to charities.
                       \_ But the real reason is "because we can"
                          \_ That's right, the same people who fought tooth
                             and nail against godless communism are now
                             taking rich people's money because they can.
                             See you in the food lines, comrade.
                             \_ Oh boo hoo, everyone has to pay taxes and
                                it has been thus since Roman times. Forgive
                                me if I don't shed a tear for you.
                                \_ That's a fascinating argument.  All sorts
                                   of shitty things have been true since Roman
                                   times.  Death, for instance.
                                   \_ I think we should bring slavery back.
                                      It's the natural order, has been since
                                      Roman times.
                                      \_ I agree.  MANIFEST DESTINY!!!
                                   \_ Yes, we should outlaw death too. That
                                      will work. Why not move someplace where
                                      is no functioning government and therefore
                                      no taxes? I think Somalia is a libertarian
                                      paradise. You can have all the guns you
                                      want, too.
                                      is no functioning government and
                                      therefore no taxes? I think Somalia is
                                      a libertarian paradise. You can have all
                                      the guns you want, too.
                                      \_ Dailykos talking points!
                                    \_ You are an idiot.
                 \_ Please give some examples of this happening.
                    \_ Cf. Gallo
                       \_ http://www.csua.org/u/k15 (PBS)
                          Are you referring to this? It says here that
                          they paid their taxes, but over a number of years.
                          Do you mean something else?
                          \_ Check out the Straight Dope article. You're right,
                             they didn't avoid the tax entirely, but they've
                             reduced it significantly.
                             \_ By what percentage was their tax reduced? I
                                am not being contentious, I am just curious.
2007/11/19-21 [Computer/Networking] UID:48658 Activity:nil
11/17   What's a good windows firewall?
        just for my local machine, i'm not routing or anything
        silly with it.
        \_ Hardware firewalls cost less than $50.
        \_ "good windows firewall"  -- theres 3 words there, and one does not
            belong with the other two.  Guess which one.
2007/11/19-21 [Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Motd] UID:48659 Activity:kinda low
11/17   mocking you is fun dans
        i hope you're around for a long long time
        \_ Awww.  I've always wanted to bring joy and entertainment to
           anonymous motd personalities.  Now I can die fulfilled. -dans
           \_ the key to win the troll war is to respond with FEWER
              keystrokes. Try again.
              \_ dans has already lost.  Do you think any of the senior
                 soda people in hiring capapcities are going to hire him...
                 either if they read the motd or know anybody who does?
                 It's possible dans comes off the same in real life, so the
                 motd isn't necessary for this outcome.
                 \_ YOU have lost the troll war. You responded too much.
2007/11/19-26 [Finance/CC, Finance/Banking] UID:48660 Activity:kinda low
11/19   Prosper update. I am getting 13.3% on my loans there, but one of them
        is now 45+ days lates. If that one is a write-off, as seems increasingly
        likely, my ROI will be about 11% over my first year there. Not too
        shabby, but we shall see how it goes as this credit crunch thing
        plays out. Lately I have been getting better rates, but I suspect
        the risk is higher, too.
        \_ that is awesome.  How much was your initial stake?
           and what are your parameters for which ones you invest in?
           \_ I am only taking AA, A and B rated borrowers who have a debt/
              income ratio under 30%. My initial stake is just a couple
              thousand, as I am just sort of checking it out for now.
              \_ Who verifies this debt/income ratio?
                 \_ Prosper does.
                    \_ How?
        \_ How are you getting more than a credit card loan?
           \_ The magic of the market? The invisible hand at work? How
              do you expect me to answer this question? This is what people
              with reasonably good credit are willing to pay to borrow money.
              Not AA credit, but B credit, with a low Debt/Income and home
              owners to boot. I could get more, but then my default risk
              would go up, too.
              \_ Maybe people are willing to pay more on the bet that if they
                 default you are less likely to send them to collections?
                 \_ No, all defaulted debt is automatically sent to collections.
                 \_ No, all defaulted debt is automatically sent to
                    collections.
       \_ How many loans have you made over that period?
          \_ Around 50.
        \_ I looked at prosper when it was first mentioned on the motd.  I
           wouldn't risk a penny on any of those people.  I'm glad you've
           made some bucks but your risk looks way higher than the interest
           rates these people are paying.  There's a very good reason they
           can't get money from more traditional sources.
2007/11/19 [Uncategorized] UID:48661 Activity:nil 80%like:48665
11/19   Nikkei 225 knives through 15,000 floor
2007/11/19-26 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Finance/Investment] UID:48662 Activity:nil
11/19   Are all charities "equivalent"? If I donate $100,000 to the
        Metropolitan Opera House to encourage aspiring young musicians most
        who will never make it in their lifetime, will I be more/less
        impactful than donating $100,000 to help the poor in Africa?
        \_ That depends on who you ask. A libertarian will say both are
           equivalent as there's no moral judgements on people. A
           socialist will think you're a total asshole. A capitalist
           will point out that you're an idiot for not donating to
           an organization that will somehow benefit you [in]directly.
        \_ Is this a troll?  If not, your best bang/buck on charity is
           probably subsidizing childhood immunizations.
           \_ unless you're against over-population
              \_ When you find your humanity again, feel free to join the
                 rest of the human race.
                 \_ When you stop making assumptions about people because you
                    mis-interpreted a comment, feel free to join the rest of
                    literate adults.
        \_ I'm too lazy to think about these issues.  So when I want to donate,
           I just donate to the American Red Cross, and then close my eyes and
           let them do whatever they want with the money.
        \_ What sort of impact do you want your donation to have?  If you find
           helping aspiring musicians more important than helping the poor in
           Africa, then that is more impactful.  As far as Africa goes, the
           best thing the West can do for them is stop flooding the place with
           freebies.  How does anyone expect a local economy to grow in any
           place that gets free throw aways of everything from the West?  Who
           would buy shoes from the local shoe maker when the US/UN/EU is
           giving them away free down the street?
           \- for an unbelievable story, see:
              http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/24/national/24pickens.html
              --psb
2007/11/19-20 [Uncategorized] UID:48663 Activity:high
11/19   I deleted all of my porn again.  Stay strong, brothers!
        - motd boob guy
        \_ dammit, found my BACKUP of my porn.
2007/11/19-21 [Uncategorized] UID:48664 Activity:moderate
11/19   XP8BF F8HPF PY6BX K24PJ TWT6M
        \_ Classy
        \_ Out of curiosity, is this your personal item, or the key for
           some company you really hate?
           \_ obGoogle
2007/11/19-21 [Uncategorized] UID:48665 Activity:nil 80%like:48661
11/19   Nikkei 225 knifes through 15,000 floor
        \_ nevermind -op
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2007:November:19 Monday <Sunday, Tuesday>