AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2010-06-21, 09:58   Link #7901
Xellos-_^
Married
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: R'lyeh
Age: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintessHeart View Post
If businesses are allowed to fail, it would collapse the world economy because of globalisation.
business should be allow to fail. what they should not have been allow to do is get to be to big to fail.
__________________
Xellos-_^ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-21, 10:50   Link #7902
SaintessHeart
Ehh? EEEEHHHHHH?
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xellos-_^ View Post
business should be allow to fail. what they should not have been allow to do is get to be to big to fail.
I think that would be a better representation of my point. Big businesses are too risky to the world economy to fail.
__________________

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.
SaintessHeart is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-21, 14:23   Link #7903
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChainLegacy View Post
I've already explained their unfair advantage. If you do not want to accept/believe my reasoning that is fine but I'm not going to keep repeating myself. Big business/the ultra-rich should not have the government on their team, and that IS the way things are in the US. Joojoobees has already provided some information regarding that fact, if you want more look it up yourself.
No, you haven't explained it, except to say that Big Business can lobby the politicians more effectively than small ones. Which in itself doesn't explain how reducing the size of the government is going to help, or even how having the government in their pocket truly helps them to start with. You could just as easily claim they're using their influence to make the government stay out of their way when it should intervene.

As for what Joojoobees said, it doesn't argue for your case either. He said:
  • that the rich got more money out of the "trickle down" principle than the middle class. But he didn't say how, which makes it impossible to argue one way or the other regarding government size based on that. My guess is that they got more money because they pay more taxes (in absolute if not relative terms), can afford professional accountants and financial planners, and last but not least, because they're the ones to decide where corporate money goes. If you give a buck to a company, it's the boss who decides whose pocket it ends up in, not the minimum wage workers. And none of that has to do with government size, unless you want the government to directly interfere with private companies' financial decisions (by raising minimum wages, or taxing stock options more heavily, for example).
  • that labor was taxed more heavily than capital. It's a bare assertion of fact, but I suppose it could be construed as arguing for a different tax structure (not that I'd disagree with him if he did). It, again, says nothing of the size of the government.

Quote:
Not every industry would change. Malls, electronics distribution centers, etc are industries that inherently gravitate towards large businesses. All I'm saying is, SOME industries (food, clothing, general stores) are not accurately represented because of collusion between the gov. and big business.
Oh? Then what are the mechanisms of that collusion, and how do you propose to level the playing field? Because "economies of scale" happen without government interference. And I can't see a way to negate or reduce that advantage except by government fiat. (For example, by mandating prices on certain commodities.)

Quote:
The economies of scale are directly exacerbated by the government providing advantages to these industries. So yes, cutting down on the gov. regulations that provide these inherent advantages to corporations would change this state.
OK, what are those advantages?

Quote:
I'm not saying they would get rid of economies of scale, or that a small government is some kind of magical cure like the last bit of your post states. But currently, as the US is right now, the government helps out/is controlled by large businesses, and how else do you stop that issue other than to cut down on the government's influence?
I don't know. That is, indeed, a problem. But what I wouldn't do would be to give the big businesses what they want, free of charge. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe America really is different, but in Europe, what big businesses clamor for is exactly what you want to give them. Deregulation. It's the workers, the poor, that want more government oversight. Granted, small businesses also want fewer regulations. Or at least simpler ones. But my point is, it isn't an issue of big business vs small. It's an issue of business owner vs worker and consumer.

Wait, I tell a lie. It actually depends on the sector of activity - in some, small businesses do want more government. More on that later.

So, you see, if we want to fight big businesses, we're pretty much stuck with the government. (That's not to say I wouldn't favor shrinking my own government, which I think is bloated. But I wouldn't do it as an anti-Big Business measure. And I'd be careful of where and how I trim the fat.)

Quote:
As I said earlier, large government does not necessarily mean that big business will wield the kind of power it does here in the US, but here, currently in 2010, IT DOES. They have hijacked the system. Either we limit their ability to manipulate the system, or create an entirely new one. I think the former is at least worth a try before we are forced into a revolution to accomplish the latter.
Granted, but you haven't explained how shrinking the government is going to help. If you want to limit the influence of big money, I'd look more closely at campaign finance laws.

Quote:
And of course customers aren't buying the alternative goods I've suggested - the alternatives are suffocated by advantages corporations shouldn't have. Yes, economies of scale exist in a free-market, but not to the extent we see today. These are abnormally powerful economies of scale and they exist even in industries where they shouldn't.
Exactly what economies are you talking about, that exist when they shouldn't? The only one I can think of, off the top of my head, would be accounting. A complicated tax structure requiring one or more full-time accountant would be less of a disadvantage for big businesses than small ones. But that's pretty much it.

Quote:
You're French, right? I've been to France before once, and though I didn't stay long enough to get to know the country very well, I do remember there being some pretty awesome options in terms of locally grown foods. Lots of the US has NO such option, and have nothing other than a Wal-Mart running their local economy. So where is their choice? You claim the consumer will just choose what they want most, but how is this true when the consumer is deprived of alternatives, and when the alternatives exist, they are at a higher price than they should be according to the free market?
Funny you should mention that. In France, agriculture is precisely the sector where small businesses want more government to combat big companies. I'm glad you like our food selection, but you should think about why we have it:
  • culture and tradition. We love our food and are proud of it. Which means that the slightly more expensive, fresh, locally produced food market isn't restricted to tree-hugging hippies.
  • our agriculture is heavily subsidized. If it wasn't, our local producers would have gone under long ago and we'd all be eating crap imported from the third world and its cheap workers. I read that yours is, too. But - and this is just a guess - I think the difference lies in how we structure our subsidies. We are careful to support small producers (even if not at the level that'd satisfy them) whereas you, AFAIK, support in proportion to the size of the exploitation, which favors big companies with giant fields.

Quote:
Business should be allowed to fail, and they shouldn't have the government on their side. This isn't about taxes. Our taxes will fall in a free market, but it is a secondary issue because the main problem is what we have today is NOT a free market and our country does not follow its constitution. Is suggesting we return to these philosophies really so radical an idea?
I don't know. I am not convinced that a free market won't, ultimately, favor big businesses more than small ones. That they won't leverage their economies of scale and marketing budget to drive the smaller competition under, or absorb it, until they're an oligopoly. At that point, they'll just agree on the prices (either in some secret illegal deals... or simply by consulting each other's catalogs.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xellos-_^ View Post
business should be allow to fail. what they should not have been allow to do is get to be to big to fail.
I consider it a lesser evil compared to having some other, less scrupulous country's company becoming big enough to drive or buy yours out.

Not that I wouldn't like some kind of "pound of flesh" rule for bail-outs. Maybe metaphorically, by confiscating the estate of whoever's responsible for the company when it needs a bailout (and of whoever they gave money to for safekeeping). Or maybe with literal pounds of flesh. How much flesh do you think it would come out to, adjusted for inflation since the Trojan war?
Anh_Minh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-21, 16:11   Link #7904
SaintessHeart
Ehh? EEEEHHHHHH?
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
Not that I wouldn't like some kind of "pound of flesh" rule for bail-outs. Maybe metaphorically, by confiscating the estate of whoever's responsible for the company when it needs a bailout (and of whoever they gave money to for safekeeping). Or maybe with literal pounds of flesh. How much flesh do you think it would come out to, adjusted for inflation since the Trojan war?
That would require even some more regulation, since the companies can argue "a pound of flesh but not a drop of blood" in their defence.

Maybe "majority shareholder is the government after bailout" is what you are looking for : I am not sure if such a law against insolvency is instituted in the US.

P.S Are you some kind of economist or financial consultant? You seem to have a really throughout understanding of macroeconomics.
__________________

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.
SaintessHeart is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-21, 18:16   Link #7905
Joojoobees
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: USA
US military supply contracts fund corruption, the Taliban, according to report
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boston Globe
The 79-page report, entitled "Warlord Inc," faults the US military for making trucking companies who deliver goods to US military bases in Afghanistan responsible for their own security. It details how eight trucking companies that share a $2.1 billion contract are forced to pay warlords and Afghan officials to pass unhindered with their convoys. In some cases, the companies pay as much as $150,000 a month for protection
Globe post about the report.

Direct link to report (PDF).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Warlords, Inc. report
Specifically, the Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs Majority staff makes the following findings:
  1. Security for the U.S. Supply Chain Is Principally Provided by Warlords.
  2. The Highway Warlords Run a Protection Racket.
  3. Protection Payments for Safe Passage Are a Significant Potential Source of
    Funding for the Taliban.
  4. Unaccountable Supply Chain Security Contractors Fuel Corruption.
  5. Unaccountable Supply Chain Security Contractors Undermine U.S.
    Counterinsurgency Strategy.
  6. The Department of Defense Lacks Effective Oversight of Its Supply Chain and
    Private Security Contractors in Afghanistan.
  7. HNT Contractors Warned the Department of Defense About Protection Payments
    for Safe Passage to No Avail.
Joojoobees is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-21, 21:17   Link #7906
ChainLegacy
廉頗
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Massachusetts, US
Age: 25
Anh_Minh, you're justified in asking for specific details from me but I don't have the energy to harvest them at this time. Since my posts have kind of been monopolizing the past few pages, a massive essay-style post about the issue probably wouldn't look too good either, lol. I don't agree with everything you say, but I can't really elaborate any more without making a 15 page post. Thanks for debating a bit with me though, you bring up good/valid points that I need to consider to strengthen my position (which I still believe, while not the best thing in the world, is better than what we have now). Also, for some points, there might not even be any 'facts' to back them up. I am proposing a radical overhaul here, which usually has some philosophical aspects to it. Oh yeah, one last point and then I'm done - deregulation is not the same as small government. Deregulation means letting businesses do what they want. Small government is more about reducing wasteful spending and government agencies so we can better focus our resources on regulating the free market so it operates how it is supposed to.

EDIT: I remember talking to someone about China wanting to move away from the dollar peg a few pages back. Check this out.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB2000...181814956.html

Last edited by ChainLegacy; 2010-06-21 at 22:16.
ChainLegacy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-22, 00:55   Link #7907
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintessHeart View Post
That would require even some more regulation, since the companies can argue "a pound of flesh but not a drop of blood" in their defence.
If they want to pay in freshly flayed strip of skin installments, I'm open to negotiation.

Quote:
Maybe "majority shareholder is the government after bailout" is what you are looking for : I am not sure if such a law against insolvency is instituted in the US.
I'm pretty sure it's not. Heck, it's not implemented in France, and we don't have such a widespread knee-jerk reaction against nationalizing.

And no, it wouldn't be enough: it, at best, only punishes stockholders. It's the board members I'm after - they're the ones really making the decisions. Of course, it doesn't have to be an either/or proposition.
Quote:
P.S Are you some kind of economist or financial consultant? You seem to have a really throughout understanding of macroeconomics.
Not at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChainLegacy View Post
Small government is more about reducing wasteful spending and government agencies so we can better focus our resources on regulating the free market so it operates how it is supposed to.
Defined that way, everyone's for "small government", except for a few radical anarchists and rabid economic liberals here and there. If asked "do you want to stop wasting money?" or "do you want the free market to work like it's supposed to?", who wouldn't answer "yes"? The differences only appear when you attempt to define "waste" and "how the free market's supposed to work". And how to achieve it all.

Last edited by Anh_Minh; 2010-06-22 at 02:05.
Anh_Minh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-22, 02:31   Link #7908
TinyRedLeaf
. . .
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 39
I've but browsed the past several posts about macroeconomic policy. Some interesting points were raised and a good number of questions asked.

Being more an observer than an analyst of economic trends, I can't claim to have any insight to offer in terms of hard data. I'm interested more in the historical aspects of the issue than the actual economics itself.

That's why it's with a certain amusement that I read the accusations against "robber barons" and the claims about the "disappearance of the middle class". History, you see, has turned a full circle — a certain German had written about similar trends some 160 years ago:
Quote:
Modern industry has established the world market, for which the discovery of America paved the way. This market has given an immense development to commerce, to navigation, to communication by land. This development has, in its turn, reacted on the extension of industry; and in proportion as industry, commerce, navigation, railways extended, in the same proportion the bourgeoisie developed, increased its capital, and pushed into the background every class handed down from the Middle Ages.

We see, therefore, how the modern bourgeoisie is itself the product of a long course of development, of a series of revolutions in the modes of production and of exchange. Each step in the development of the bourgeoisie was accompanied by a corresponding political advance of that class.

...The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society... The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere.

The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country... It has agglomerated population, centralised the means of production, and has concentrated property in a few hands.

The necessary consequence of this was political centralisation. Independent, or but loosely connected provinces, with separate interests, laws, governments, and systems of taxation, became lumped together into one nation, with one government, one code of laws, one national class-interest, one frontier, and one customs-tariff.

...A similar movement is going on before our own eyes. Modern bourgeois society, with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells.
So, with reference to the above 19th century manifesto, all I'm seeing is the same old story featuring the same old characters, but with new names.

Kind of makes you wonder if there's really any fundamental solution to all the various problems we're so agitated over. Perhaps some ancients weren't all that wrong after all to think of history as an unending series of revolutions rather than as a linear, progressive narrative.
TinyRedLeaf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-22, 07:55   Link #7909
Bri
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf View Post
I've but browsed the past several posts about macroeconomic policy. Some interesting points were raised and a good number of questions asked.

Being more an observer than an analyst of economic trends, I can't claim to have any insight to offer in terms of hard data. I'm interested more in the historical aspects of the issue than the actual economics itself.
The last few pages have been more on political economy, competition policy and (the lack) of corporate governance. The problems described have fairly little to do with the mechanics of economics but everything to do with the accumulation of power. Big business apparently managed to manipulate policy, the way tax breaks, deregulation, reduction of monitoring, etc. were implemented so it favored large over small businesses and added disincentives to private initiative.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf View Post
That's why it's with a certain amusement that I read the accusations against "robber barons" and the claims about the "disappearance of the middle class". History, you see, has turned a full circle — a certain German had written about similar trends some 160 years ago:

Kind of makes you wonder if there's really any fundamental solution to all the various problems we're so agitated over. Perhaps some ancients weren't all that wrong after all to think of history as an unending series of revolutions rather than as a linear, progressive narrative.
There is a universal aspect in the way that a society should always be mindful of the influence of large corporations on policy. The purpose of a company is make profits for their shareholder(s), policy that is stimulates higher profit is not always beneficial for economic growth or stability for a society as a whole. So we can learn something from the history of robber barons in the 19th century.

However the problems discussed seem to be primarily an issue in the US of the last two decades, which suggests more of a local political problem rather then a fundamental flaw in the theories of market economics.
Bri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-22, 08:18   Link #7910
SaintessHeart
Ehh? EEEEHHHHHH?
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
If they want to pay in freshly flayed strip of skin installments, I'm open to negotiation.
You do realise that I am drawing that from Shakespeare's "Merchant of Venice" right?

What I actually mean was that whatever rules implemented, it must be to the favour of the government and the people, not to the corporations, however they may deter investors from coming in if not properly thought out.

The legislation is underused by the government and overused by the corporations. Things won't change until the corporations gain some business ethics and the government start doing their work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf View Post
Kind of makes you wonder if there's really any fundamental solution to all the various problems we're so agitated over. Perhaps some ancients weren't all that wrong after all to think of history as an unending series of revolutions rather than as a linear, progressive narrative.
Jesse Livermore, a well-known trader who used himself as an example to prove that the market is made up of irrational people, remarked that :

Wall Street never changes, the pockets change, the suckers change, the stocks change, but Wall Street never changes, because human nature never changes.

Bottom line? There is always a sucker in the market who blames others instead of himself when he/she loses money. And it is hard not to be one in a globalised world with so many "psychological ailments" for eccentric people who think out of the box : conformity seems to be the only other way to look "normal" without getting ostracised. Either that or you have lots of dosh or recognition - like Feynman, Einstein, Soros or Buffett (actually, you can see that each of them have some bit of eccentricity to them).

As I discussed with a friend last night who was harping about how the government's new CPF policy (my local version of the Social Security or pension scheme) is using our money to pay for the overall plan's investment losses through limitation of withdrawal after 62, most people complain about everything else in the market instead of getting themselves the very basic financial planning skills, which is, unfortunately, not taught in school.

Another misconception held by a group of commie-wannabes is that they are "proletarians" being abused by "capitalists", drawing reference from Karl Marx's Das Kapital of an equal economy and society. As quoted by Marx himself, it is "strictly science", and it is apparent that such a thing can be seen as overly idealistic, and already proven when the excesses of GDR's societal echelon are revealed before Germany's unification. Commodity fetishism created by capitalism gives both money and products monetary value and allowed them to be traded for what they are worth at that time with accords to supply and demand, which opportunists like market makers used market psychology to create windfalls for themselves.

So who is exactly to blame? The opportunists or the "proletarians"? I don't exactly know, but I do know that in life, to be successful, you draw two lines and stand in the middle. Where you draw them is entirely up to you, since the world is made up of good, bad and ugly people. Reality is an illusion, albeit a persistent one. Unfortunately, people still apply the principle of locality in a globalised world of ideas and products flowing and changing across borders. Computer technology doesn't change anything but the rate of change : after all, the logic behind computing is based on the "logic of human actions".

Herd psychology has always been dominant in the animal kingdom, no less it applies to human beings as well. History rewrites itself based on the mistakes human beings come together to make again and again.

On the other hand, it seems that not only financial markets are plagued by greed that tramples on the dreams of the idealists :

NSFW Sankaku : Top Mangaka: “Publishers Are The Ones Raping Us!”

Quote:
Blockbuster mangaka Shūhō Satō was so disgusted by the exploitation he endured at the hands of big publishers that he exposed them in a series of damaging online revelations, and then started his own online manga distribution service in competition.

He lays bare the exploitative publishing industry straitjacket forced on mangaka in a candid interview, reproduced below.

Mangaka Shūhō Satō, author of such titles as “Umizaru” (published in Weekly Young Sunday) and “Say Hello to Blackjack” (Weekly Morning), has enjoyed great success, with Blackjack selling over 10 million copies and both having been adapted into TV dramas and movies.

Thus he is no rookie, having successfully been in the trade over a decade, but this only amplified his grievances, culminating in him making a damning series of accusations against publishers, complaining of dishonest and unethical practices, financial exploitation and high handed treatment.

He even relates that he felt he had no choice but to stop coast guard manga Umizaru in response to editorial demands that he portray the (then) Japanese Maritime Safety Agency as heroes of justice rather than a realistic organization sometimes forced to make difficult choices.

So aggrieved was he over these abuses that he decided the time was finally right for mangaka to make a clean break with the publishing industry dinosaur and embrace new technology and consumer behavior – he started Manga on Web, an independently operated online manga distribution site.

The site can be visited here (it requires significant knowledge of Japanese to navigate) – a large number of unknown titles, as well as his own, are available. Prices start at 10 per chapter, and are readable online in generous resolution in a normal browser, with free previews available – in fact covering most of the usual complaints levelled against online manga.

Speaking about how the publishing industry treats its mangaka in a recent interview, he pulls no punches:

Quote:
You even revealed on your site that the manuscript fees you received for “Blackjack ni Yoroshiku” [a manga which sold over 10 million copies] whilst writing it under Kodansha amounted to only 23,000 [$250] per page, out of which you had to pay your assistants and even the cost of your own office, and as a result you were actually losing money, taking into account only those fees?

It’s a business so money is the first thing you have to talk about, and it’s weird to have an atmosphere where that is off the table. I don’t know why it’s such a big deal when you write about it on a site.

After all, even with part-time work you wouldn’t start working without even knowing your hourly wage, would you?

Even when I spoke to my editors about this, they came out with “only the editor-in-chief knows the fees for manuscripts, so it’s nothing to do with us!”

They didn’t make clear how much the guaranteed fee was, and writing manga like this without so much as a contract is pretty messed up, so I had a specialist draw one up for me. A lot of mangaka don’t even do this. They just don’t get that a contract is essential.

You were losing money on the manuscript fee, but weren’t you raking it in with the royalties?

No, it’s absolutely nothing like that. Even with a manga that sells a million copies, you’re getting less than 0.1%. I’m operating as a company, Sato Manga Works Ltd., but as the head of a tiny company I’m not making much at all.

Even with a hit title which sells a million copies, selling at 500 each, the sales might come to 50,000,000. You can get 4 volumes out in a year so that might be 200,000,000 [$2.2 million] annually. That’s nothing special.

Because that’s just the turnover – it isn’t my income. Employing 5-6 assistants is nothing to be sniffed at. And with only 0.1% or less being received as royalties, you can easily see it’s a bad business to be in.

And on top of that, the vast majority of mangaka don’t even sell tankobon like this. If even the top mangaka can’t rake it in there’s no real appeal to it as an occupation.

If mangaka can’t aspire to hit it big with a million seller and never have to worry about money again, they have no dream to aspire to.

And on top of all this half of it goes to the taxman.

But you can put out lots of volumes, and you have movie royalties and merchandising sales to look forward to?

That’s just a tiny fraction. As I said, you really don’t make much. Sure, the odd manga gets turned into an anime and game, and then the goods start flying off the shelves, but there are only a few people like that. The authors of One Piece or Dragon Ball might be like that, but for everyone else it isn’t.

And when it gets turned into a live action drama, there are no character goods at all!

For Umizaru, the first movies caused a new printing, but the next movies had no impact on manga sales, and for the TV drama we got a paltry 300,000 an episode. The movie grossed 700,000,000, but I didn’t see a penny in royalties – it was just paid as a flat fee beforehand. That is messed up, so in future I’ll insist on royalties.

When I was a kid reading these, I used to imagine the mangaka in the weekly magazines were all super-rich, but to think they were actually losing money on the manuscript fees…
Publishers have lately been keen to portray any decline in sales as wicked manga downloaders robbing mangaka of their livelihoods, although it seems rather more likely it is the publishers doing the robbing, ensuring that mangaka remain entirely under their financial and editorial thrall.

Little wonder then that they fear the opportunities offered by digital publishing so greatly – were mangaka to finally realise that for years now they have been able to sell directly to fans with no publisher intercession, they might finally break free of their financial control and cause the whole rotten structure to come tumbling down, only to be replaced by arrangements entirely alien to the big publishers.

Fortunately for publishers it seems most mangaka are sufficiently servile as to obey the established tradition without question (and they are evidently all but devoid of sound business sense), although ever shrinking circulations and rising demand for digital sales threaten this status quo ever more.
__________________

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.
SaintessHeart is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-22, 08:44   Link #7911
ChainLegacy
廉頗
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Massachusetts, US
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
Defined that way, everyone's for "small government", except for a few radical anarchists and rabid economic liberals here and there. If asked "do you want to stop wasting money?" or "do you want the free market to work like it's supposed to?", who wouldn't answer "yes"? The differences only appear when you attempt to define "waste" and "how the free market's supposed to work". And how to achieve it all.
That's true, but one factor that would really help is actually following our constitution, which we don't do... That is already pre-defined for us, and we're supposed to be following it.
ChainLegacy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-22, 09:39   Link #7912
dahl_moon
Apathy moe~
*Scanlator
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Atlanta, USA / Seoul, Korea
Fear of Mt. Baekdu (Mt. Changbai) Eruption Grows

Quote:
Yoon Sung-hyo, a geologist at Pusan National University, who has been researching Mt. Baekdu along with Japanese and Chinese experts, said Friday there are "clear signs" of a Mt. Baekdu eruption in the near future, with Chinese experts expecting it to happen between 2014 and 2015.

Yoon called on the government to be prepared. He cited several pieces of evidence, including bubbles in Heaven Lake, or Cheonji, on top of Mt. Baekdu, a 6.9 magnitude earthquake along the North Korea-Russia border in February that may have been caused by magma under Mt. Baekdu, and the fact that the mountain has been steadily rising in height.

"There are records that show volcanic ash falling as far away as Japan when Mt. Baekdu erupted between 946 to 947 A.D. during the Koryo Dynasty," Yoon said. "At that time, between 83 to 117 cubic km of volcanic ash was created, which is about 1,000 times more than during the eruption in Iceland this spring, according to Japanese experts." An eruption on Mt. Baekdu could result in a major catastrophe.
The potential effects on North Korean agriculture (or what's left of it), not to mention East Asian air traffic, makes this a rather disturbing scenario.
__________________
Currently Watching:Is the Order a Rabbit?, No Game No Life, Precure Series
dahl_moon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-22, 11:00   Link #7913
ZephyrLeanne
On a sabbatical
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Wellington, NZ
Age: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by dahl_moon View Post
Fear of Mt. Baekdu (Mt. Changbai) Eruption Grows



The potential effects on North Korean agriculture (or what's left of it), not to mention East Asian air traffic, makes this a rather disturbing scenario.
God is not happy with the DPRK.
__________________
ZephyrLeanne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-22, 11:36   Link #7914
SaintessHeart
Ehh? EEEEHHHHHH?
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZephyrLeanne View Post
God is not happy with the DPRK.
The only thing worrying is a refugee diaspora that might push Kimmy to build another Berlin Wall.

Though it may be a wall of DShK instead.
__________________

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.
SaintessHeart is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-22, 11:41   Link #7915
ZephyrLeanne
On a sabbatical
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Wellington, NZ
Age: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintessHeart View Post
The only thing worrying is a refugee diaspora that might push Kimmy to build another Berlin Wall.

Though it may be a wall of DShK instead.
They'd probably flee to China, not towards Seoul. And they'll just build it with death-row prisoners. Or their dead bodies. It's called scare tactics. Paul McCarthy used it to his advantage, and so can Kim.
__________________
ZephyrLeanne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-22, 11:53   Link #7916
SaintessHeart
Ehh? EEEEHHHHHH?
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZephyrLeanne View Post
They'd probably flee to China, not towards Seoul. And they'll just build it with death-row prisoners. Or their dead bodies. It's called scare tactics. Paul McCarthy used it to his advantage, and so can Kim.
The funny thing about human psychology that I have learnt in the army is that when you hit something really bad, you don't rise up to the occasion : you fall back to the basics - which is what you have been trained to do.

Each and every human being has this survival instinct built inside them, so when the volcano comes crashing down and the wall of bodies is built, their thinking would be to scale that wall or die trying, if they go back, they would die anyway, so there is nowhere else to go but up.
__________________

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.
SaintessHeart is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-22, 15:36   Link #7917
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintessHeart View Post
You do realise that I am drawing that from Shakespeare's "Merchant of Venice" right?
Whereas I was referencing a solution suggested by TVTropes.
Anh_Minh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-22, 17:36   Link #7918
Xellos-_^
Married
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: R'lyeh
Age: 38
Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/23/wo...rystal.html?hp

In the article, in the July 8-22 edition of Rolling Stone, General McChrystal or his aides spoke derisively of Vice President Biden, Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, National Security Adviser General James L. Jones, Richard C. Holbrooke, the special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, an unnamed minister in the French government, and even Mr. Obama himself. But in many ways, his comments expose similar remarks others inside the group have made about each other over the past year.
kinda surprise no one is talking about this.

Who the hell is in charge over there.

I would also say if Hillary was in charge McChrystal would have Vince Foster Moment before he had a chance to say anything.
__________________
Xellos-_^ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-22, 19:14   Link #7919
Joojoobees
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xellos-_^ View Post
kinda surprise no one is talking about this.

Who the hell is in charge over there.

I would also say if Hillary was in charge McChrystal would have Vince Foster Moment before he had a chance to say anything.
In just about every job I've ever been in there was at least one person who would gripe about other people. In most jobs griping about the poor job other people were doing (especially the poor job our bosses were doing) was a common activity, especially during lunch or after work social gatherings.

The only thing that surprises me here is that they didn't watch what they said in front of a reporter.
Joojoobees is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-22, 20:05   Link #7920
SaintessHeart
Ehh? EEEEHHHHHH?
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joojoobees View Post
In just about every job I've ever been in there was at least one person who would gripe about other people. In most jobs griping about the poor job other people were doing (especially the poor job our bosses were doing) was a common activity, especially during lunch or after work social gatherings.

The only thing that surprises me here is that they didn't watch what they said in front of a reporter.
Sometimes it might be the case where the reporter sensationalised it and left out certain parts instead of writing everything ad verbatim.

To me, it is another case of politician vs soldier. Bound to happen because minds don't click.
__________________

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.
SaintessHeart is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
current affairs, discussion, international, news

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:45.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.