I work in a department of 10 women, my boss has always favored a girl named Becca. Becca decided she needed to move 5 hours away to help with her family, so we hired another girl to take Becca's place.
The new employee was given Becca's old position, cubicle, phone number, etc.
4 months later Becca decided she wanted to come back, so my boss created a new position just for her, gave her a pay increase to help with her family problems, and gave her back her old cubicle.
The new girl was asked to move from the cubicle and was given a small desk to use in the hallway until "we could move to a new building." She stayed at the small desk for 9 months before we moved buildings.
The women (including me) in the department felt this was wrong, but they didn't say anything to our boss.
What do you think?
Need your opinion: did my boss mistreat our new employee?
Becca must have a little something something going on with the boss...i mean who does that just for no reason..He has something to do with Becca and sadly there's really nothing you can do do to the fact that he's the boss..unless you get a new one
Reply:Your boss was EXTREMELY unprofessional. He was doing Becca a favor by taking her back, so therefore, she should have been the one in the hallway. Is your boss and Becca having an affair or something? Is she pulling a Monica and he's Bill? The new girl was there beyond the standard 90 day probation period that most companies abide by. She has every right to say something. The only thing that they would be allowed to get rid of her for is if she wasn't doing her job. Becca should never have accepted getting back her cubicle, etc... Very, very poor professionalism on both the boss and Becca. You are completely justified in feeling the way you do.
Reply:That doesn't sound fair, if your boss felt the new girl wasn't needed anymore since Becca was back she should have just let her go so she could go on to find a job where she would have been more appreciated.
Reply:Your boss was bogus. That is unprofessional.
Reply:THAT'S MESSED UP IF THE NEW LADY GOT THE JOB THAT MEANS SHE WAS QUALIFIED FOR THE JOB SO WAS BECCA BUT BECCA QUIT AND THE NEW GIRL TOOK HER PLACE. THAT SHOWS FAVORITISM.I WOULD GET A NEW JOB OR SEW.
Reply:Yes it was disrespectful to the new girl. Clearly Becca means something to him, a raise? But the new girl must need the job because she took it. The other employees could say something, but it really is none of your business.....
Reply:Yes, he was unfair. Whether bad enough to be worth suing him, I wouldn't attempt to say. If I had been the new girl, I would have been looking for a better place to work. But she stayed for 9 months, so maybe now she's satisfied with what she has.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Want your opinion. What do you think about owners taking money from renters. After they defaulted.?
Help me understand why some of you say it is not the renters business what the landlord does with the rent money. Rent is given to the homeowner in expectation that the roof over their head is secure. If you knew that you were in default and you had no intention of paying the mortgage. And didn't inform your tenant. That is stealing and fraud.
Want your opinion. What do you think about owners taking money from renters. After they defaulted.?
I agree that it's morally wrong.
Reply:Rent payments are your protection, having nothing to do with the present landlords choices. If you make timely payments to the landlord of record and keep the receipts, any foreclosing entity must honor the services for which you have already paid. If you make the choice not to pay, the forecloser will then have the right to begin immediate eviction proceedings against you because you have breeched the contract and have no rights to the rented property.
Reply:Rent is for a given period. If the home is intact for that period, the landlord has met his obligations. That the lender might forclose means nothing because anyone who takes title, including the lender, takes it subject to your rights. So, if the bank ends up owning the home, the bank will have to honor the lease. The landlord is not stealing from you. He agreed to provide a home in exchange for money and has done so.
Want your opinion. What do you think about owners taking money from renters. After they defaulted.?
I agree that it's morally wrong.
Reply:Rent payments are your protection, having nothing to do with the present landlords choices. If you make timely payments to the landlord of record and keep the receipts, any foreclosing entity must honor the services for which you have already paid. If you make the choice not to pay, the forecloser will then have the right to begin immediate eviction proceedings against you because you have breeched the contract and have no rights to the rented property.
Reply:Rent is for a given period. If the home is intact for that period, the landlord has met his obligations. That the lender might forclose means nothing because anyone who takes title, including the lender, takes it subject to your rights. So, if the bank ends up owning the home, the bank will have to honor the lease. The landlord is not stealing from you. He agreed to provide a home in exchange for money and has done so.
Have you ever used a prepaid Visa card when traveling to Europe?
And if so, what was it? Could you suggest (in your opinion) the best way of paying for things as a teen and overseas?
Have you ever used a prepaid Visa card when traveling to Europe?
Yes, I've used it and have never had a problem. I'm 16 %26amp; don't have my own credit cards yet, so my parents have given me the pre-paid cards (Mastercard and Visa) the last few times I've traveled.
I think it's better than a regular credit card because it forces you to really keep tabs on how much you're spending. When I went on a study abroad trip to Greece when I was 12 my mom gave me her Amex card and I ran up a HUGE bill because I just didn't think through what I was spending. If I saw something I liked, I just bought it and it didn't occur to me to convert the cost or keep track of my spending.
Ever since then, I've had the prepaid cards and have carried a plastic bag with me to hold my receipts in my purse. Every night I'd add up how much I spent and get my new balance.
I also travel with two ATM cards. One is from the credit union (it doesn't charge ATM fees) and the other is from the bank and is a back up.
You should make copies of your cards front and back so that if they are stolen you have the number (which is one the back) to call and the account number (which is on the front). Also, always, always, always, travel with at least two sources of money. One girl lost her debit card the 1st day of the trip and was screwed because she didn't have a backup. Keep one debit / ATM card and one prepaid card in your wallet and one ATM card and prepaid card in your locked bag. This way, if your wallet is lost or stolen, you have backup. Otherwise, you have to get money wired to you and that's a total hassle.
Have a great trip!!!!!!!
permanent teeth eruption
Have you ever used a prepaid Visa card when traveling to Europe?
Yes, I've used it and have never had a problem. I'm 16 %26amp; don't have my own credit cards yet, so my parents have given me the pre-paid cards (Mastercard and Visa) the last few times I've traveled.
I think it's better than a regular credit card because it forces you to really keep tabs on how much you're spending. When I went on a study abroad trip to Greece when I was 12 my mom gave me her Amex card and I ran up a HUGE bill because I just didn't think through what I was spending. If I saw something I liked, I just bought it and it didn't occur to me to convert the cost or keep track of my spending.
Ever since then, I've had the prepaid cards and have carried a plastic bag with me to hold my receipts in my purse. Every night I'd add up how much I spent and get my new balance.
I also travel with two ATM cards. One is from the credit union (it doesn't charge ATM fees) and the other is from the bank and is a back up.
You should make copies of your cards front and back so that if they are stolen you have the number (which is one the back) to call and the account number (which is on the front). Also, always, always, always, travel with at least two sources of money. One girl lost her debit card the 1st day of the trip and was screwed because she didn't have a backup. Keep one debit / ATM card and one prepaid card in your wallet and one ATM card and prepaid card in your locked bag. This way, if your wallet is lost or stolen, you have backup. Otherwise, you have to get money wired to you and that's a total hassle.
Have a great trip!!!!!!!
permanent teeth eruption
Your opinion on my poem, do you like it??
I think everyone would hear me better if I didn't talk at all,
instead of moans and groans of pain just hear the tear drops fall.
Perhaps if I said nothinig, they'd hear my voice more clearly,
if there were no word to be heard, they'd listen more then merely.
Ear shattering silence, echoing voice so meager,
no matter how quiet, they'll never hear me-so why am I so eager?
My words don't mean a thing, not matter what I don't say,
I don't care how large the cost, for silence I will pay.
I want to yell, I want to scream, I want to let them know,
but I can't find my voice, I wish it'd tell me where to go.
Silence is so loud, when there's nothing there to hear,
serenity and peace, pounding in my ear.
Silence isn't simple, a very complex case,
just keep running to catch up, a marathon sprinter's pace.
Seal your mouth, bite your tongue, keep it very still,
don't want the volcano to explode, a vocabulary spill.
Your opinion on my poem, do you like it??
Nice poem. It creates some great imagery. I don't know if you intended to space it out the way it's showing, but you might want to look at where you begin each line for more effect, but again, it may be how yahoo posted it and not how you wrote it.
Reply:It's good.. different, some may say depressing and alot of folks don't care for that sort of stuff, but yes it's better than ok, keep adding on to it..
Reply:I love your poem.
There are poetry contests.
Maybe you should enter in one??
Reply:wow i love it! go to
www.rythemzone.com to share!
Reply:I really like it! You are a good poet- keep it up!
Reply:Moving and sad. Just the way I like them. I like the way your writing keeps improving. In reading your work it's hard to believe you are as young as you are. You have a very bright future.
Reply:I like it, its really good, but its sad :(
ILU%26lt;3
Reply:wateve life goes on suck it up
Reply:that is amazing.
seriously.
you should enter in a contest
or even get it published. maybe not yet in a whole book for you but i'm sure theres got to be a book that allows you to send in poetry.
wow.
!!!!!!
instead of moans and groans of pain just hear the tear drops fall.
Perhaps if I said nothinig, they'd hear my voice more clearly,
if there were no word to be heard, they'd listen more then merely.
Ear shattering silence, echoing voice so meager,
no matter how quiet, they'll never hear me-so why am I so eager?
My words don't mean a thing, not matter what I don't say,
I don't care how large the cost, for silence I will pay.
I want to yell, I want to scream, I want to let them know,
but I can't find my voice, I wish it'd tell me where to go.
Silence is so loud, when there's nothing there to hear,
serenity and peace, pounding in my ear.
Silence isn't simple, a very complex case,
just keep running to catch up, a marathon sprinter's pace.
Seal your mouth, bite your tongue, keep it very still,
don't want the volcano to explode, a vocabulary spill.
Your opinion on my poem, do you like it??
Nice poem. It creates some great imagery. I don't know if you intended to space it out the way it's showing, but you might want to look at where you begin each line for more effect, but again, it may be how yahoo posted it and not how you wrote it.
Reply:It's good.. different, some may say depressing and alot of folks don't care for that sort of stuff, but yes it's better than ok, keep adding on to it..
Reply:I love your poem.
There are poetry contests.
Maybe you should enter in one??
Reply:wow i love it! go to
www.rythemzone.com to share!
Reply:I really like it! You are a good poet- keep it up!
Reply:Moving and sad. Just the way I like them. I like the way your writing keeps improving. In reading your work it's hard to believe you are as young as you are. You have a very bright future.
Reply:I like it, its really good, but its sad :(
ILU%26lt;3
Reply:wateve life goes on suck it up
Reply:that is amazing.
seriously.
you should enter in a contest
or even get it published. maybe not yet in a whole book for you but i'm sure theres got to be a book that allows you to send in poetry.
wow.
!!!!!!
In your opinion is it important for teenagers to pay attention to world news?
can you give me two reasons... thx its for a survey...
In your opinion is it important for teenagers to pay attention to world news?
yes..........well rounded, stay informed
Reply:it's important for everyone (not just teens) to be aware of the world around them and beyond
it's definately helpful to read, watch and learn current events as a means of sharpening your wit and knowledge.
Reply:yes
1) so they know what to expect for future instances that occur during the world and
2) so that what they learn from the news is a plus so they don't learn to repeat the same mistakes as the leaders of the earlier times had.
G'Luck with your survery!
Reply:The future is theirs. They will be there longer than most of us.
being literate on the things in the world. It is culture to be able to talk about something that has been discovered in France or the lastes thing that has happened in London
Reply:We can if we want to..
Reply:Yes
1-Because it makes them more educated about events that are happening around the world, and not just their own town or city
and
2-It teaches you to be appreciative of what you have...because in many other places around the world life isn't so easy...
Reply:Yes.
1- It helps them develop an opinion of what is happening around them..therefore they mature sooner and healthier.
2- They can this knowledge to contribute in the happenings around the world without being clueless.
Reply:Yes, but I must admit when I was an adolescent world news and contemporary events meant nothing to me. I know now that it was very important for my life in the future. If I knew then what I know now I would have paid more attention to world events. It's important for you to keep up on world events, but you won't realize or understand why until you're much older. What's happening in the Middle East now is affecting your life in the future whether you believe it or not. You should understand now what's going on over there so when it's all over you'll know why it all happened.
Reply:Sort of, useful to know whats going on and gives them a sense of reality.
Reply:yes, everyone should know whats going on in the world, im 17 and i watch the news every night that i dont have too much home work. ignorce doesnt need to spread any further than it already has. its important for teens to get a view of the real world and have his/her own opinion and not just take their friends views.
Reply:depends on who you're talking about. maybe not for some, but who really cares until you reach 18 and move into an apartment away from your parents. cuz i sure dont.
Reply:I think it's important.
1) People can learn from past mistakes and think about ways to solve these problems in the news so when they get older, they can help solve the problems.
2) People will know exactly who to vote for and we will have well informed and educated voters who know what's going on and why they will vote for someone.
Reply:Definitely.... but how are you going to persuade MTV to show it?!
The news has never been more live and immediate than it is now, so there should be no excuses about 'old news'.
Plus, when you get sent off to invade another country, you might be in with a chance of at least knowing where it is!
Reply:I think they should be informed so they know whats going on in this world. Second it would be nice if they could discuss current events with there teacher or someone else. i do think its important, they need to be informed. They have opinions also and the only way we can respect them is if they are knowledgeable.
Reply:No it is not. Life sucks enough as an adult. Let them enjoy their time before reality starts.
Reply:yes they should pay attention because they should know what is happening around the world
In your opinion is it important for teenagers to pay attention to world news?
yes..........well rounded, stay informed
Reply:it's important for everyone (not just teens) to be aware of the world around them and beyond
it's definately helpful to read, watch and learn current events as a means of sharpening your wit and knowledge.
Reply:yes
1) so they know what to expect for future instances that occur during the world and
2) so that what they learn from the news is a plus so they don't learn to repeat the same mistakes as the leaders of the earlier times had.
G'Luck with your survery!
Reply:The future is theirs. They will be there longer than most of us.
being literate on the things in the world. It is culture to be able to talk about something that has been discovered in France or the lastes thing that has happened in London
Reply:We can if we want to..
Reply:Yes
1-Because it makes them more educated about events that are happening around the world, and not just their own town or city
and
2-It teaches you to be appreciative of what you have...because in many other places around the world life isn't so easy...
Reply:Yes.
1- It helps them develop an opinion of what is happening around them..therefore they mature sooner and healthier.
2- They can this knowledge to contribute in the happenings around the world without being clueless.
Reply:Yes, but I must admit when I was an adolescent world news and contemporary events meant nothing to me. I know now that it was very important for my life in the future. If I knew then what I know now I would have paid more attention to world events. It's important for you to keep up on world events, but you won't realize or understand why until you're much older. What's happening in the Middle East now is affecting your life in the future whether you believe it or not. You should understand now what's going on over there so when it's all over you'll know why it all happened.
Reply:Sort of, useful to know whats going on and gives them a sense of reality.
Reply:yes, everyone should know whats going on in the world, im 17 and i watch the news every night that i dont have too much home work. ignorce doesnt need to spread any further than it already has. its important for teens to get a view of the real world and have his/her own opinion and not just take their friends views.
Reply:depends on who you're talking about. maybe not for some, but who really cares until you reach 18 and move into an apartment away from your parents. cuz i sure dont.
Reply:I think it's important.
1) People can learn from past mistakes and think about ways to solve these problems in the news so when they get older, they can help solve the problems.
2) People will know exactly who to vote for and we will have well informed and educated voters who know what's going on and why they will vote for someone.
Reply:Definitely.... but how are you going to persuade MTV to show it?!
The news has never been more live and immediate than it is now, so there should be no excuses about 'old news'.
Plus, when you get sent off to invade another country, you might be in with a chance of at least knowing where it is!
Reply:I think they should be informed so they know whats going on in this world. Second it would be nice if they could discuss current events with there teacher or someone else. i do think its important, they need to be informed. They have opinions also and the only way we can respect them is if they are knowledgeable.
Reply:No it is not. Life sucks enough as an adult. Let them enjoy their time before reality starts.
Reply:yes they should pay attention because they should know what is happening around the world
Politicians and their Illusion of Power? Take a look a give your opinion:?
Critics accuse libertarians of reveling in government failures. Yes and No. No one is pleased to see the destruction caused by government policies, whether small scale, as when a tighter regulation causes business failures, or large scale, as when wars destroy life for millions.
The kernel of truth to the claim is this: the failure of government illustrates something extremely important about the structure of reality that most people are likely to forget. It comes down to this: statesmen and public officials, no matter how powerful they may be, cannot finally control social outcomes.
If I might offer a summary of a point emphasized in all of Mises's works: the structure of society and world affairs generally is shaped by human actions, stemming from imaginative human minds working out individual subjective valuations, and their interactions with the material world, which is governed by laws that are beyond human control.
What that means is that you and I cannot on our own, even if we have maximum political power, control all of human society, and especially not its economic side. Let's first consider an example from current popular wisdom about the manufacturing base. Many products that were once made in the US – thinking here of televisions, pianos, firecrackers, plastics, and bicycles--are now made in China. This has caused a great deal of alarm--all unwarranted, so far as sound economics is concerned.
But let's say we have the ambition to change this social outcome. Anyone is free to build a bicycle and attempt to market it to willing buyers. Let's say you rent some property, hire the workers, acquire all the necessary capital, and then put your bike on sale. In order to cover your costs and make a profit, you find that you must price your bikes above the going market price. Maybe you can persuade people that you have a special product that is better than the others. Or maybe yours will sit on the floor. Or maybe you will have to lower your price and you will find that your revenue does not cover your costs, and you have to go out of business.
No matter what you decide, this much is clear: you are not dictating the outcome. You wanted to build bikes, but it is the consuming public that decides whether it is in our interest to do so. There is nothing you have to say about it. You cannot make people fork over the money. I would venture to suggest that you will ultimately come to the conclusion that you should be doing other things besides attempting to keep up with other businesses that have lower labor and capital costs and hence can make a profit through selling goods at much lower prices.
But let's say you decide that you don't want to bow to the realities of the market. Instead you lobby Congress to tax everyone who buys a bike from overseas. The tax is high enough that you can continue to charge exorbitant prices for your bikes. You make a profit. But at what expense? The consumers who buy your bikes have less income left over for other pursuits, whether consumption, saving, or investment. The workers you are employing are being kept from other pursuits as well, and the capital you are consuming is not available for other projects.
Ultimately, you have skewed the entire economic system in a way that benefits you at everyone else's expense. Others have found a way to do what you are doing much more efficiently, but because you lobbied and got your way, society is prevented from benefiting from others' innovations. And how long must this distorted system last? That you managed to tax everyone to benefit you does nothing to change the reality that others can do what you are doing more cheaply and better. Do workers really want to be employed in an industry that is something of an artifice? Do consumers really want to pay high prices just so that you can continue to indulge in your bike-making passion?
Clearly not. At some point, people will catch on to the racket, and find other ways to go about acquiring bikes. Maybe they will exploit loopholes in the law that allow them to import bike parts. An industry of do-it-yourself bike building becomes a threat to your profits. Or perhaps black markets will take over. Or maybe people will turn away from bikes altogether and starting trying out new forms of informal transportation. Skateboards are fitted with handlebars. Gas-powered scooters develop a peddle-only option. The very definition of a bike comes into question. Increasingly, enforcement will have to become ever more onerous.
At some point in this game, we face a choice. We can continue to impose an ever more absurd and preposterous system of regulations and protections just so that you can benefit, or we can bow to reality and let in foreign bikes for consumer purchase. Let's say your tariff lasts a year or even ten years. What will it accomplish? In that time, vast resources are wasted. Consumers of all sorts are exploited. Capital is consumed in economically wasteful ways. People are pushed around and the police powers of the state grow. It does society no good at all.
My point is that whatever the fate of the so-called manufacturing base, there is nothing in the long run that can be done to turn it in one direction or another. The fate of manufacturing is in the hands of consumers at large, and subject to the laws of economics which no man can repeal. It is the outcome of human choice.
Now, the Bush administration has thought otherwise and imposed a huge range of protections to benefit its supporters and people who the administration hoped would become its supporters. The result has been to skew the world economy, hobble markets, delay inevitable transitions, and impose massive social costs.
What this example shows is that governments are not omnipotent. Many try to be, and no government is liberal by nature. But there are limits. Governments bump up against human valuations time and again. Even in the highly rarified event of a despotic government that rules a population unanimously in support of despotism, government still bumps up against the structure of the world, which resists control.
Let us consider another example. Let us say that government desires a strong dollar. But it still wants to print dollars and ship them around the world. In this case, there is nothing that government can do to insure the dollar’s strength against depreciation. Nothing. This is due to the laws of economics. All else equal, the value of a currency in terms of goods falls as its quantity increases. Governments that desire otherwise can only shake their fist in anger.
The same is true domestically. The government wants economic recovery before a recession has fully run its course. It thereby drops interest rates, spends vast amounts of money to gin up demand, and otherwise encourages as much consumption as possible. These tactics can result in some short-term gains but it doesn't work in the long run. These tactics deplete savings and capital and weaken the foundation for solid future growth.
The issue of the price of prescription drugs will be a big one in this coming campaign. The problem is high prices. Popular wisdom has it that this is because of the greed of the medical industry. The truth is that these high prices are partly a result of subsidized demand due to Medicare and Medicaid, as well as the restricted supply due to patent laws. In other words, the political class is responsible for the high prices. It's true that the pharmaceutical industry is not complaining. In fact, high prices are precisely what its friends in government want to bring about.
They may regret that the poor have to pay the higher prices, but not enough to do anything substantive about it. Prices would plummet today if patents were repealed, free trade (including re-importation) allowed, and subsidized demand ended by the abolition of Medicare and Medicaid. But no one wants to consider that solution, so Congress creates ever more intrusive programs designed to control prices, keeping the prices high enough to satisfy the industry but low enough to reduce the political clamor.
The problem is that the government can't have it both ways. It cannot reward its friends with high prices and keep consumers happy at the same time. The current system with its large subsidies is only creating massive new liabilities in programs that cannot be funded in perpetuity without massive tax increases that no one is willing to advocate. Absent tax increases, the only answer is inflation, which taxes us in other ways.
One way to think about government is as a rat wandering through a maze with no escape. There is no magic solution to getting around basic economic laws. All lunches must be paid for by someone, prices cannot be both high and low at the same time, and all attempts to coerce generate counter-reactions. In short, there is no alternative universe in which the fantasies of politicians come true.
But try telling that to the political class. The last thing they want to hear is that their power is limited, that their will is not a way. They are prone to believe that membership in the political class comes with the privilege of shaping the world to their liking. If you read the social science literature, you find the same error at work on a nearly universal basis. Very rarely does anyone come along and say: great theory but it has nothing to do with reality. You are just playing intellectual games.
Socialism was really nothing other than an intellectual game. People from the ancient world to the present conjured up some vision of how they would like the world to work and then advocated a series of measures of how to achieve it. Mises and his generation explained that their vision was fundamentally at odds with reality. In the real world, capital must have price rooted in exchange of private property in order for it to be employed in its highest-valued capacity. It solves nothing to say that everyone should own capital collectively. This was the equivalent of pointing out that the Emperor was wearing no clothes.
In some ways, what we do as commentators on economic affairs is to follow this model again and again. The other day, a candidate for president suggested that the answer to our economic woes was more regulation. He had it all figured out in his mind. Immediately, free-market economists from all over the world joined forces to point out that his goal of higher economic productivity could not be achieved this way. It was an unwelcome message but one necessary to deliver regardless.
The experience of Iraq has provided myriad examples of the same. The US wants to pump oil. It wants to start factories, stores, and commerce generally. But it refuses to put private owners in charge. As a result, all its military muscle has amounted to very little at great expense. It is a classic example of how governments fail when they try to fight against forces they cannot control. Factories in Iraq that have gone into operation have done so without support of the occupying government.
And think of the war generally. At the outset, the visionaries in the Bush administration imagined that Iraq was really a very simple problem to solve. It only needed to be decapitated and the magic dust of the US presence would otherwise create an orderly and prosperous society that would be a model for the region. The reality hit. Crime was unleashed. Feuding political factions clamored for control. Production stopped. Society flew into chaos. This was not because of the absence of the political leadership. It was because of the presence of foreign martial law in a country that was seething in resentment against the US.
Time and again, we have seen evidence that the Iraq war only accomplished the opposite of its aims. Its purpose was to find weapons, punish terrorism, and bring order to the region. Instead it has fueled terrorism and brought new levels of disorder to the region. Not having done that, the war is then re-defined in terms that reflect whatever government has done: namely to toss out and capture Saddam,
In this sense, the war was like any other government program: bringing about the opposite of its stated intentions and doing so at greater expense. Thus do we see the intersection between foreign and domestic policy. Government is famously ham-handed at home and similarly incompetent abroad. No matter how much government claims that it is master of the universe, it constantly confronts forces beyond its control.
In all the talk of the calamity of this war, never forget the broader picture: what an incredible opportunity was squandered after the end of the Cold War. The US had emerged as the universally acknowledged ideological victor in that forty-year struggle. That the Cold War was not actually an ideological struggle so much as a classic standoff between two empires is irrelevant for understanding the implications of this fact: totalitarian communism collapsed while the free economic system of the market remained standing in total triumph. The world was ready for a new period of genuine liberalism, and looking to the US. On the verge of an amazing period of technological advance, we were perfectly situated to lead the way.
There had never been a time in US history when George Washington's foreign policy made more sense. A beacon of liberty. Trade with all, belligerence toward none. Commercial engagement with everyone, political engagement with as few as possible. The hand of friendship. Good will. This was the prescription for peace and freedom. It was within our grasp. Our children might have grown up in a world without major political violence. A world of peace and plenty. It could have been.
But it was not to be, mainly because George W.'s father decided that he wanted to go down in the history books for doing something big and important. What else but war? The US was now the world's only superpower and itching for some fight somewhere. It's a bit like a playground filled with wimps and one boy with a black belt in karate who never absorbed the lesson in how and where to use his fighting skills. And then there was this oil-drilling dispute between Iraq and Kuwait, and Bush decided to intervene. Twelve years later, the US is still there, causing unrelenting havoc for those poor people.
Here at home we are given constant examples of the huge gulf that separates government's perceptions of itself versus the reality. The Bush administration wanted to give the steel industry a boost. The administration established tariffs, which amounts to a tax on all consumers of steel. American manufacturers faced a choice of paying the tax to buy imported steel or paying the higher prices for domestic steel. Those who could do neither had to cut back production and hiring in other areas. Other consumers had to pay higher prices, which diverted income from other pursuits.
As for the steel industry itself, the tariffs did nothing to help it achieve greater efficiency, which is the only way to deal with more efficient competitors. They only ended up subsidizing inefficiency. Even then, it wasn't enough. During the period of tariffs, the industry dramatically consolidated in order to become more efficient in other ways.
Once faced with the prospect of trade wars, the ultimate cost of protectionism, the Bush administration pulled back and repealed the new tariffs, thereby landing the industry in exactly the same predicament it was in before the tariffs were past. As for commercial society as a whole, it paid dramatically higher steel costs, and faced sporadic shortages, for absolutely no reason.
Faced with failure on every front, the Bush administration did the right thing and repealed the tariffs. Not that it was honest about the failure. Instead it claimed its policy worked so well that it could now repeal it. This is like a physician prescribing poison and then changing his mind. He can't but try to put the best spin on it, I suppose.
But what a beautiful example of the powerlessness of government this is! The Bush administration wanted to save American industry and only ended up vastly raising the costs of doing all forms of business. More cutbacks are inevitable as steel production shifts to other countries and the US finds its comparative advantage elsewhere.
Much legislative energy is poured into helping some groups gain favorable treatment in the workplace. I'm thinking here of the usual litany of victim groups as identified according to race, ability, sex, national origin, religion, and the like. Have these laws actually helped the group in question? The results are mixed at best. If you send people out into the workforce with a high price attached to their heads – and the prospect of a lawsuit is a very high price indeed – you only make employers less likely to hire them.
I don’t doubt that some people have been helped by these laws, but they are not the people most in need of help. Today, the disabled, blacks, women, and religious minorities go in search of jobs with a major problem: employers fear them on the margin, and, on the margin, are less likely to hire them relative to others, provided they can get away with it. It is the least qualified among them who pay the highest price. A good test case is disability: it is a documented fact that unemployment among the truly disabled is higher today than it was when the Americans with Disabilities Act was passed.
Because libertarians know in advance that government policies are destructive, we tend to focus our editorial energy on pointing to its destructive effects. But in our zeal to draw attention to issues others ignore, let us not forget the bigger picture. There are always limits to what the government can do, and the government's destruction is always accompanied by examples of great creativity on the part of the market.
Even as government dominates the headlines, private entrepreneurs are busy every day working to improve products and services that improve our lives. They do it without taxing us or regulating us, or making us suffer through tedious elections or political debates. They make their products and offer them to us in a way that pleases the consuming public the most. We can choose whether we want them or not.
Consider the success of Wal-Mart. If government had set out to create a volume discounter that made a world of material goods and groceries available to the multitude in all countries, it might have tried for a thousand years and not created anything resembling this company. Even the military has relented and now routinely points its employees not to its on-base stores but to Wal-Mart, Office Depot, and others for the best prices.
Foreign development aid is another example. It took decades to get the message across, but today finance ministers in the developing world understand that they have far more to gain through integration into the world economy than from development aid and all the restrictive policies that come with it. Today, as Sudha Shenoy points out, the largest resistance to new trade deals comes from the developing world, not because they don't want trade but because they desire trade without the labor and environmental controls the US demands.
The same is true in the area of communications. In the last century, governments aspired to control them all: the phones, the mails, the media. Today, we see that government, in practice, controls very little of the communications industry, despite every attempt to hobble private enterprise.
In that same vein, a major issue for everyone these days are computer viruses and spam, which threaten to make our chief mode of communication less reliable. Congress passes ineffectual legislation against spam and viruses, while private enterprise has given us dozens of means of winning the battle.
Private enterprise creates; government destroys. That is the great economic lesson of our times and all times.
Of course there is one way in which government never fails. It can loot. It can gain footholds into society's command centers. It can punish enemies. It can even indoctrinate people in its preferred vision of the world through propaganda.
This is the best way to understand the public school system. It doesn't work to educate but it does work to transfer vast sums from the private to the public sector. And here too, we see the power of private enterprise: booster clubs in public schools represent a de facto source of privatization, and the clubs and groups connected to them are the only really successful things going on in public school.
We’ll hear much in the coming months about all the wonderful reforms politicians are going to bring us. This is the time when politicians vie for our allegiance by telling all about their ideas and vision for the future. As usual, they will parse their words in ways to maximize the numbers of people who are persuaded and minimize the amount of trouble they get into for inadvertently telling people something they don't want to hear.
As an aside, whoever came up with this idea of a mass democracy just wasn't thinking things through very clearly. Nothing runs well by majority vote, to say nothing of the fact that a truly free society shouldn't be "run" at all; it works on its own without would-be masters-and-commanders grasping at the helm.
Let me then offer to you my own top ten list of political lies you are told, all designed to make you believe that government should have more power than it already has, so that it can create more of the disasters we are accustomed to:
10. My new program will generate jobs. Truth: only the market generates jobs on net.
9. My education program will reform schools so that they leave no child behind. Truth: the public schools do not work for the same reason no government program can work. They exist outside the market economy.
8. My program will save industry x. Truth: industry must be part of the market or else it is not really industry at all.
7. I won't raise your taxes but I will pass lots of new programs: Truth: all programs must be paid for.
6. As president, I will pursue a humble foreign policy. Truth: nothing in the office of the president encourages humility.
5. This war is humanitarian and winnable. Truth: war is nothing but a government program on a massively destructive scale, and just as error prone.
4. My reform will bring market-based competition. Be on the lookout for this lie, which market partisans are likely to believe. There is only one kind of genuine market, and it is rooted in private property and nothing else.
3. We will secure the nation. Truth: government cannot provide security better than markets, any more than it can provide food or houses better than the market.
2. Government is compassionate. Truth: men who seek power over the lives of others are the coldest, cruelest humans of all.
1. You can't love your country and hate your government. Truth: A person who loves his country loves liberty first.
One hundred years from now, the great story of the latter part of the 20th century and the first part of the 21st century will be the vast improvements in life wrought by technology. Consider the web, the cell phone, the PDA, the affordable laptop computer, advances in medicine, and the spread of prosperity to all corners of the globe. What has government had to do with this? The answer is: nothing contributory. It has worked only to impede progress, and we can only be thankful that it hasn't succeeded.
Through all of human history, governments have caused frightening levels of bloodshed and horror, but in the end, what has prevailed is not power but the market economy. Even today governments can only play catch-up. This is because of the reasons that Mises outlined. Government cannot control the human mind, so it cannot, in the long run, control the choices people make. It cannot control economic forces, which are a far more powerful and permanent feature of the world than any government anyway.
Governments have a propensity to overreach in so many areas of life that their exercise of power itself leads to their own undoing. The overreach can take many forms: financial, economic, social, and military. In this way, and with enough passion for liberty burning in the hearts of the citizenry, governments can be responsible for their own undoing. It comes about as a result of overestimating the capacity of power and underestimating its limits.
I believe this is happening in our time. It may not be obvious when taking the broad view, but when you look at the status of a huge range of government programs and institutions, what you see is a government that is at once enormously powerful and rich, but also fragile and teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. Events of the last year indicate just how far the government has slipped in its ability to manage the economy, society, culture, and world order. Despite the exalted status of the state today, the vast and sprawling empire called the US government may in fact be less healthy than it ever has been.
A few months back, we had a special speaker come to Auburn, probably the most famous man who has visited us since the Country and Western star Alan Jackson was in town. He was Mikhail Gorbachev, a very interesting figure in the history of nations. He came to power with the reputation of a reformer and instituted many reforms that were designed not to give more liberty to the people, but to stop the unraveling of an empire before it was too late. But it was too late. All his talk of perestroika and glasnost couldn't fool the people, who had become convinced that the Soviet machine was something of a hoax.
The empire unraveled not because of him, but despite his efforts to save it. When it came time to make the critical decision of whether to try to hold the empire together by more and more force, or not, history had already made the choice for him. The empire dissolved in the blink of an eye. Not too many months later, he was out of a job, not because he was recalled in some formal process, but because the forces of history had run him over.
Democratic governments are not immune from the forces of history that overthrew Soviet tyranny. All governments overreach and no government is permanent. So let us fear government but not exaggerate its powers. It can cause enormous damage and it must always be fought. But in this struggle, we are on the right side of history. The power of human choice, aided by the logic of economics and the laws that operate without any bureaucrat's permission, are our source of hope for the future.
_______________________________
Llewellyn H. Rockwell
Politicians and their Illusion of Power? Take a look a give your opinion:?
Very good article you directed me to. I do have to agree with the author of it, Rockwell. If you really want to find an answer you your lead off question, read the book "The Sociopath Next Door" by Martha Stout. You will understand the mind of those in power. I direct you to this book because Mr. Rockwell has his list of 10 lies. Lie #2 is well suited for the book I have suggested. The book is going to cost about $20.00 or less. Last but not least, if you have a desire to understand how the economy works read "The Creature From Jekyll Island" by G.Edward Griffin.
I leave you with 2 quotes, not of my own.
If the American people really knew how the economy works, there would be a revolution before breakfast. = Henry Ford
Democracy is 2 wolfs and a sheep voting on whats for lunch. Benjamin Franklin
Reply:May God bless all politicans and their illusion of power. IF any do seek for nobility and power then to God belongs all nobility and power.
The kernel of truth to the claim is this: the failure of government illustrates something extremely important about the structure of reality that most people are likely to forget. It comes down to this: statesmen and public officials, no matter how powerful they may be, cannot finally control social outcomes.
If I might offer a summary of a point emphasized in all of Mises's works: the structure of society and world affairs generally is shaped by human actions, stemming from imaginative human minds working out individual subjective valuations, and their interactions with the material world, which is governed by laws that are beyond human control.
What that means is that you and I cannot on our own, even if we have maximum political power, control all of human society, and especially not its economic side. Let's first consider an example from current popular wisdom about the manufacturing base. Many products that were once made in the US – thinking here of televisions, pianos, firecrackers, plastics, and bicycles--are now made in China. This has caused a great deal of alarm--all unwarranted, so far as sound economics is concerned.
But let's say we have the ambition to change this social outcome. Anyone is free to build a bicycle and attempt to market it to willing buyers. Let's say you rent some property, hire the workers, acquire all the necessary capital, and then put your bike on sale. In order to cover your costs and make a profit, you find that you must price your bikes above the going market price. Maybe you can persuade people that you have a special product that is better than the others. Or maybe yours will sit on the floor. Or maybe you will have to lower your price and you will find that your revenue does not cover your costs, and you have to go out of business.
No matter what you decide, this much is clear: you are not dictating the outcome. You wanted to build bikes, but it is the consuming public that decides whether it is in our interest to do so. There is nothing you have to say about it. You cannot make people fork over the money. I would venture to suggest that you will ultimately come to the conclusion that you should be doing other things besides attempting to keep up with other businesses that have lower labor and capital costs and hence can make a profit through selling goods at much lower prices.
But let's say you decide that you don't want to bow to the realities of the market. Instead you lobby Congress to tax everyone who buys a bike from overseas. The tax is high enough that you can continue to charge exorbitant prices for your bikes. You make a profit. But at what expense? The consumers who buy your bikes have less income left over for other pursuits, whether consumption, saving, or investment. The workers you are employing are being kept from other pursuits as well, and the capital you are consuming is not available for other projects.
Ultimately, you have skewed the entire economic system in a way that benefits you at everyone else's expense. Others have found a way to do what you are doing much more efficiently, but because you lobbied and got your way, society is prevented from benefiting from others' innovations. And how long must this distorted system last? That you managed to tax everyone to benefit you does nothing to change the reality that others can do what you are doing more cheaply and better. Do workers really want to be employed in an industry that is something of an artifice? Do consumers really want to pay high prices just so that you can continue to indulge in your bike-making passion?
Clearly not. At some point, people will catch on to the racket, and find other ways to go about acquiring bikes. Maybe they will exploit loopholes in the law that allow them to import bike parts. An industry of do-it-yourself bike building becomes a threat to your profits. Or perhaps black markets will take over. Or maybe people will turn away from bikes altogether and starting trying out new forms of informal transportation. Skateboards are fitted with handlebars. Gas-powered scooters develop a peddle-only option. The very definition of a bike comes into question. Increasingly, enforcement will have to become ever more onerous.
At some point in this game, we face a choice. We can continue to impose an ever more absurd and preposterous system of regulations and protections just so that you can benefit, or we can bow to reality and let in foreign bikes for consumer purchase. Let's say your tariff lasts a year or even ten years. What will it accomplish? In that time, vast resources are wasted. Consumers of all sorts are exploited. Capital is consumed in economically wasteful ways. People are pushed around and the police powers of the state grow. It does society no good at all.
My point is that whatever the fate of the so-called manufacturing base, there is nothing in the long run that can be done to turn it in one direction or another. The fate of manufacturing is in the hands of consumers at large, and subject to the laws of economics which no man can repeal. It is the outcome of human choice.
Now, the Bush administration has thought otherwise and imposed a huge range of protections to benefit its supporters and people who the administration hoped would become its supporters. The result has been to skew the world economy, hobble markets, delay inevitable transitions, and impose massive social costs.
What this example shows is that governments are not omnipotent. Many try to be, and no government is liberal by nature. But there are limits. Governments bump up against human valuations time and again. Even in the highly rarified event of a despotic government that rules a population unanimously in support of despotism, government still bumps up against the structure of the world, which resists control.
Let us consider another example. Let us say that government desires a strong dollar. But it still wants to print dollars and ship them around the world. In this case, there is nothing that government can do to insure the dollar’s strength against depreciation. Nothing. This is due to the laws of economics. All else equal, the value of a currency in terms of goods falls as its quantity increases. Governments that desire otherwise can only shake their fist in anger.
The same is true domestically. The government wants economic recovery before a recession has fully run its course. It thereby drops interest rates, spends vast amounts of money to gin up demand, and otherwise encourages as much consumption as possible. These tactics can result in some short-term gains but it doesn't work in the long run. These tactics deplete savings and capital and weaken the foundation for solid future growth.
The issue of the price of prescription drugs will be a big one in this coming campaign. The problem is high prices. Popular wisdom has it that this is because of the greed of the medical industry. The truth is that these high prices are partly a result of subsidized demand due to Medicare and Medicaid, as well as the restricted supply due to patent laws. In other words, the political class is responsible for the high prices. It's true that the pharmaceutical industry is not complaining. In fact, high prices are precisely what its friends in government want to bring about.
They may regret that the poor have to pay the higher prices, but not enough to do anything substantive about it. Prices would plummet today if patents were repealed, free trade (including re-importation) allowed, and subsidized demand ended by the abolition of Medicare and Medicaid. But no one wants to consider that solution, so Congress creates ever more intrusive programs designed to control prices, keeping the prices high enough to satisfy the industry but low enough to reduce the political clamor.
The problem is that the government can't have it both ways. It cannot reward its friends with high prices and keep consumers happy at the same time. The current system with its large subsidies is only creating massive new liabilities in programs that cannot be funded in perpetuity without massive tax increases that no one is willing to advocate. Absent tax increases, the only answer is inflation, which taxes us in other ways.
One way to think about government is as a rat wandering through a maze with no escape. There is no magic solution to getting around basic economic laws. All lunches must be paid for by someone, prices cannot be both high and low at the same time, and all attempts to coerce generate counter-reactions. In short, there is no alternative universe in which the fantasies of politicians come true.
But try telling that to the political class. The last thing they want to hear is that their power is limited, that their will is not a way. They are prone to believe that membership in the political class comes with the privilege of shaping the world to their liking. If you read the social science literature, you find the same error at work on a nearly universal basis. Very rarely does anyone come along and say: great theory but it has nothing to do with reality. You are just playing intellectual games.
Socialism was really nothing other than an intellectual game. People from the ancient world to the present conjured up some vision of how they would like the world to work and then advocated a series of measures of how to achieve it. Mises and his generation explained that their vision was fundamentally at odds with reality. In the real world, capital must have price rooted in exchange of private property in order for it to be employed in its highest-valued capacity. It solves nothing to say that everyone should own capital collectively. This was the equivalent of pointing out that the Emperor was wearing no clothes.
In some ways, what we do as commentators on economic affairs is to follow this model again and again. The other day, a candidate for president suggested that the answer to our economic woes was more regulation. He had it all figured out in his mind. Immediately, free-market economists from all over the world joined forces to point out that his goal of higher economic productivity could not be achieved this way. It was an unwelcome message but one necessary to deliver regardless.
The experience of Iraq has provided myriad examples of the same. The US wants to pump oil. It wants to start factories, stores, and commerce generally. But it refuses to put private owners in charge. As a result, all its military muscle has amounted to very little at great expense. It is a classic example of how governments fail when they try to fight against forces they cannot control. Factories in Iraq that have gone into operation have done so without support of the occupying government.
And think of the war generally. At the outset, the visionaries in the Bush administration imagined that Iraq was really a very simple problem to solve. It only needed to be decapitated and the magic dust of the US presence would otherwise create an orderly and prosperous society that would be a model for the region. The reality hit. Crime was unleashed. Feuding political factions clamored for control. Production stopped. Society flew into chaos. This was not because of the absence of the political leadership. It was because of the presence of foreign martial law in a country that was seething in resentment against the US.
Time and again, we have seen evidence that the Iraq war only accomplished the opposite of its aims. Its purpose was to find weapons, punish terrorism, and bring order to the region. Instead it has fueled terrorism and brought new levels of disorder to the region. Not having done that, the war is then re-defined in terms that reflect whatever government has done: namely to toss out and capture Saddam,
In this sense, the war was like any other government program: bringing about the opposite of its stated intentions and doing so at greater expense. Thus do we see the intersection between foreign and domestic policy. Government is famously ham-handed at home and similarly incompetent abroad. No matter how much government claims that it is master of the universe, it constantly confronts forces beyond its control.
In all the talk of the calamity of this war, never forget the broader picture: what an incredible opportunity was squandered after the end of the Cold War. The US had emerged as the universally acknowledged ideological victor in that forty-year struggle. That the Cold War was not actually an ideological struggle so much as a classic standoff between two empires is irrelevant for understanding the implications of this fact: totalitarian communism collapsed while the free economic system of the market remained standing in total triumph. The world was ready for a new period of genuine liberalism, and looking to the US. On the verge of an amazing period of technological advance, we were perfectly situated to lead the way.
There had never been a time in US history when George Washington's foreign policy made more sense. A beacon of liberty. Trade with all, belligerence toward none. Commercial engagement with everyone, political engagement with as few as possible. The hand of friendship. Good will. This was the prescription for peace and freedom. It was within our grasp. Our children might have grown up in a world without major political violence. A world of peace and plenty. It could have been.
But it was not to be, mainly because George W.'s father decided that he wanted to go down in the history books for doing something big and important. What else but war? The US was now the world's only superpower and itching for some fight somewhere. It's a bit like a playground filled with wimps and one boy with a black belt in karate who never absorbed the lesson in how and where to use his fighting skills. And then there was this oil-drilling dispute between Iraq and Kuwait, and Bush decided to intervene. Twelve years later, the US is still there, causing unrelenting havoc for those poor people.
Here at home we are given constant examples of the huge gulf that separates government's perceptions of itself versus the reality. The Bush administration wanted to give the steel industry a boost. The administration established tariffs, which amounts to a tax on all consumers of steel. American manufacturers faced a choice of paying the tax to buy imported steel or paying the higher prices for domestic steel. Those who could do neither had to cut back production and hiring in other areas. Other consumers had to pay higher prices, which diverted income from other pursuits.
As for the steel industry itself, the tariffs did nothing to help it achieve greater efficiency, which is the only way to deal with more efficient competitors. They only ended up subsidizing inefficiency. Even then, it wasn't enough. During the period of tariffs, the industry dramatically consolidated in order to become more efficient in other ways.
Once faced with the prospect of trade wars, the ultimate cost of protectionism, the Bush administration pulled back and repealed the new tariffs, thereby landing the industry in exactly the same predicament it was in before the tariffs were past. As for commercial society as a whole, it paid dramatically higher steel costs, and faced sporadic shortages, for absolutely no reason.
Faced with failure on every front, the Bush administration did the right thing and repealed the tariffs. Not that it was honest about the failure. Instead it claimed its policy worked so well that it could now repeal it. This is like a physician prescribing poison and then changing his mind. He can't but try to put the best spin on it, I suppose.
But what a beautiful example of the powerlessness of government this is! The Bush administration wanted to save American industry and only ended up vastly raising the costs of doing all forms of business. More cutbacks are inevitable as steel production shifts to other countries and the US finds its comparative advantage elsewhere.
Much legislative energy is poured into helping some groups gain favorable treatment in the workplace. I'm thinking here of the usual litany of victim groups as identified according to race, ability, sex, national origin, religion, and the like. Have these laws actually helped the group in question? The results are mixed at best. If you send people out into the workforce with a high price attached to their heads – and the prospect of a lawsuit is a very high price indeed – you only make employers less likely to hire them.
I don’t doubt that some people have been helped by these laws, but they are not the people most in need of help. Today, the disabled, blacks, women, and religious minorities go in search of jobs with a major problem: employers fear them on the margin, and, on the margin, are less likely to hire them relative to others, provided they can get away with it. It is the least qualified among them who pay the highest price. A good test case is disability: it is a documented fact that unemployment among the truly disabled is higher today than it was when the Americans with Disabilities Act was passed.
Because libertarians know in advance that government policies are destructive, we tend to focus our editorial energy on pointing to its destructive effects. But in our zeal to draw attention to issues others ignore, let us not forget the bigger picture. There are always limits to what the government can do, and the government's destruction is always accompanied by examples of great creativity on the part of the market.
Even as government dominates the headlines, private entrepreneurs are busy every day working to improve products and services that improve our lives. They do it without taxing us or regulating us, or making us suffer through tedious elections or political debates. They make their products and offer them to us in a way that pleases the consuming public the most. We can choose whether we want them or not.
Consider the success of Wal-Mart. If government had set out to create a volume discounter that made a world of material goods and groceries available to the multitude in all countries, it might have tried for a thousand years and not created anything resembling this company. Even the military has relented and now routinely points its employees not to its on-base stores but to Wal-Mart, Office Depot, and others for the best prices.
Foreign development aid is another example. It took decades to get the message across, but today finance ministers in the developing world understand that they have far more to gain through integration into the world economy than from development aid and all the restrictive policies that come with it. Today, as Sudha Shenoy points out, the largest resistance to new trade deals comes from the developing world, not because they don't want trade but because they desire trade without the labor and environmental controls the US demands.
The same is true in the area of communications. In the last century, governments aspired to control them all: the phones, the mails, the media. Today, we see that government, in practice, controls very little of the communications industry, despite every attempt to hobble private enterprise.
In that same vein, a major issue for everyone these days are computer viruses and spam, which threaten to make our chief mode of communication less reliable. Congress passes ineffectual legislation against spam and viruses, while private enterprise has given us dozens of means of winning the battle.
Private enterprise creates; government destroys. That is the great economic lesson of our times and all times.
Of course there is one way in which government never fails. It can loot. It can gain footholds into society's command centers. It can punish enemies. It can even indoctrinate people in its preferred vision of the world through propaganda.
This is the best way to understand the public school system. It doesn't work to educate but it does work to transfer vast sums from the private to the public sector. And here too, we see the power of private enterprise: booster clubs in public schools represent a de facto source of privatization, and the clubs and groups connected to them are the only really successful things going on in public school.
We’ll hear much in the coming months about all the wonderful reforms politicians are going to bring us. This is the time when politicians vie for our allegiance by telling all about their ideas and vision for the future. As usual, they will parse their words in ways to maximize the numbers of people who are persuaded and minimize the amount of trouble they get into for inadvertently telling people something they don't want to hear.
As an aside, whoever came up with this idea of a mass democracy just wasn't thinking things through very clearly. Nothing runs well by majority vote, to say nothing of the fact that a truly free society shouldn't be "run" at all; it works on its own without would-be masters-and-commanders grasping at the helm.
Let me then offer to you my own top ten list of political lies you are told, all designed to make you believe that government should have more power than it already has, so that it can create more of the disasters we are accustomed to:
10. My new program will generate jobs. Truth: only the market generates jobs on net.
9. My education program will reform schools so that they leave no child behind. Truth: the public schools do not work for the same reason no government program can work. They exist outside the market economy.
8. My program will save industry x. Truth: industry must be part of the market or else it is not really industry at all.
7. I won't raise your taxes but I will pass lots of new programs: Truth: all programs must be paid for.
6. As president, I will pursue a humble foreign policy. Truth: nothing in the office of the president encourages humility.
5. This war is humanitarian and winnable. Truth: war is nothing but a government program on a massively destructive scale, and just as error prone.
4. My reform will bring market-based competition. Be on the lookout for this lie, which market partisans are likely to believe. There is only one kind of genuine market, and it is rooted in private property and nothing else.
3. We will secure the nation. Truth: government cannot provide security better than markets, any more than it can provide food or houses better than the market.
2. Government is compassionate. Truth: men who seek power over the lives of others are the coldest, cruelest humans of all.
1. You can't love your country and hate your government. Truth: A person who loves his country loves liberty first.
One hundred years from now, the great story of the latter part of the 20th century and the first part of the 21st century will be the vast improvements in life wrought by technology. Consider the web, the cell phone, the PDA, the affordable laptop computer, advances in medicine, and the spread of prosperity to all corners of the globe. What has government had to do with this? The answer is: nothing contributory. It has worked only to impede progress, and we can only be thankful that it hasn't succeeded.
Through all of human history, governments have caused frightening levels of bloodshed and horror, but in the end, what has prevailed is not power but the market economy. Even today governments can only play catch-up. This is because of the reasons that Mises outlined. Government cannot control the human mind, so it cannot, in the long run, control the choices people make. It cannot control economic forces, which are a far more powerful and permanent feature of the world than any government anyway.
Governments have a propensity to overreach in so many areas of life that their exercise of power itself leads to their own undoing. The overreach can take many forms: financial, economic, social, and military. In this way, and with enough passion for liberty burning in the hearts of the citizenry, governments can be responsible for their own undoing. It comes about as a result of overestimating the capacity of power and underestimating its limits.
I believe this is happening in our time. It may not be obvious when taking the broad view, but when you look at the status of a huge range of government programs and institutions, what you see is a government that is at once enormously powerful and rich, but also fragile and teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. Events of the last year indicate just how far the government has slipped in its ability to manage the economy, society, culture, and world order. Despite the exalted status of the state today, the vast and sprawling empire called the US government may in fact be less healthy than it ever has been.
A few months back, we had a special speaker come to Auburn, probably the most famous man who has visited us since the Country and Western star Alan Jackson was in town. He was Mikhail Gorbachev, a very interesting figure in the history of nations. He came to power with the reputation of a reformer and instituted many reforms that were designed not to give more liberty to the people, but to stop the unraveling of an empire before it was too late. But it was too late. All his talk of perestroika and glasnost couldn't fool the people, who had become convinced that the Soviet machine was something of a hoax.
The empire unraveled not because of him, but despite his efforts to save it. When it came time to make the critical decision of whether to try to hold the empire together by more and more force, or not, history had already made the choice for him. The empire dissolved in the blink of an eye. Not too many months later, he was out of a job, not because he was recalled in some formal process, but because the forces of history had run him over.
Democratic governments are not immune from the forces of history that overthrew Soviet tyranny. All governments overreach and no government is permanent. So let us fear government but not exaggerate its powers. It can cause enormous damage and it must always be fought. But in this struggle, we are on the right side of history. The power of human choice, aided by the logic of economics and the laws that operate without any bureaucrat's permission, are our source of hope for the future.
_______________________________
Llewellyn H. Rockwell
Politicians and their Illusion of Power? Take a look a give your opinion:?
Very good article you directed me to. I do have to agree with the author of it, Rockwell. If you really want to find an answer you your lead off question, read the book "The Sociopath Next Door" by Martha Stout. You will understand the mind of those in power. I direct you to this book because Mr. Rockwell has his list of 10 lies. Lie #2 is well suited for the book I have suggested. The book is going to cost about $20.00 or less. Last but not least, if you have a desire to understand how the economy works read "The Creature From Jekyll Island" by G.Edward Griffin.
I leave you with 2 quotes, not of my own.
If the American people really knew how the economy works, there would be a revolution before breakfast. = Henry Ford
Democracy is 2 wolfs and a sheep voting on whats for lunch. Benjamin Franklin
Reply:May God bless all politicans and their illusion of power. IF any do seek for nobility and power then to God belongs all nobility and power.
I cannot feel happiness, what should i do? Just answer, maybe you have a good opinion, please?
I'm always sad or indifferent but RARELY happy no matter what happens. I'm a good looking guy who can exchange stares with chicks, and I have a job that I hate with quite good pay and I'm married to a wonderful person and we love each others so much and I have some good friends, but still I'm rarely happy. I even sometimes think of suicide but then I remember my wife and my parents and how this will affect them and feel it's so selfish of me, then I thought of making it appear like an accident like try sky-diving but don't open the parachute or overeat or research non-tracebale poisons, but then I change my mind cause it's too selfish. I really can't enjoy life and see it pointless. Could I have a deficit in "happiness genes"? Or the chemicals in my brain aren't functioning well? Or what else could be the reason? I just want to be a normal, happy person.
Please don't give me answers saying seek religion, that's a different things and I've tried anyway.
I cannot feel happiness, what should i do? Just answer, maybe you have a good opinion, please?
You say you have a good job with good pay. But do you like what you do? Maybe that's the problem. Maybe you're not satisfied in your job. I think a therapist would help you find out what's keeping you from being happy. If you have a good job that pays well, you can afford to go see one. I think that's the first thing you should do. Sometimes we are not happy because of something in our lives but can't even admit it to ourselves. A therapist could help you.
Reply:Depression is often driven by chemical imbalance. Lack in serotonin might very well be the cause, and if so, you have good medications for it these days, that someone with a good job should be able to afford.
Psychologically speaking, what do you expect to find when you go away? Do you have any idea, what kind of feeling would you get if you got your freedom at last? Wouldn't you say this feeling is the closest approximation of happiness you have recently had? If that is the case, concentrate on that feeling. Try to imagine what it would be like if you had this feeling of freedom tomorrow. Then picture yourself actually having it.
You see, the trick is to realize that one can give himself true happiness. It is not an emotion, it is a state of mind, and you can change your state of mind with the assistance of a trained psychologist or hypnotherapist.
Many people who are currently unhappy, have had some childhood problems, or abuse of some kind. Only by working with a specialist will you be able to find out if there is some cause in your past for your depression. If there is, you will be guided into fixing it. It is my assumption that your therapist would try to back trace into your childhood, and find the creative center in your life you might have had. Then, when such a center found, and all possible negative emotional habits from your childhood eliminated, you are on your way to happiness. It doesn't help you now, but at least you should know there is hope for you yet, and you can get it soon enough.
Also, keep in mind another factor. Those who really want to kill themselves simply do so. By posting your question you have demonstrated your awareness of the problem, and your willingness to work on it. This is a very reassuring factor, as any healer would tell you, that bodes well for your future. Good Luck.
Reply:The fact is there is a single source of all your problems, stress, unhappiness and self doubt. It's called The Reactive Mind... the hidden part of your mind that stores all painful experiences, then later uses them against you.
It is not necessary to live with insecurity , negative thoughts, depression and irrational behavior. There is a solution.
Dianetics gets rid of the Reactive Mind.
If you read the book" Dianetics The Modern Science of Mental Health"
it explains the real reason for negative emotions and unhappy relationships. Also what is destroying your belief in yourself and how to get rid of it and become more You.
This book has sold over 20 million copies worldwide and been translated into over 50 languages since it first came out in 1950.
check out www.dianetics.org
Reply:You suffering depression. Go see your doc.
1 in 10 of his patients suffer from this, so he has heard it all before.
Modern meds are very good for this.
If you want a confidential self test try...
checkupfromtheneckup.ca
Reply:You need to talk to a doctor. I used to feel like this all the time, and I got counseling and was put on medication. While this didn't solve everything, it made life bearable again, and I've been feeling happy and myself lately. More than likely you have a seritonin imbalance. So you probably either need an MAOI or an SSRI medication.
Also, faking accidents is not cool, and there are no non-traceable poisons. Even if you overdose on a natural compound, they'll figure it out. Gotta love CSI.
buck teeth
Please don't give me answers saying seek religion, that's a different things and I've tried anyway.
I cannot feel happiness, what should i do? Just answer, maybe you have a good opinion, please?
You say you have a good job with good pay. But do you like what you do? Maybe that's the problem. Maybe you're not satisfied in your job. I think a therapist would help you find out what's keeping you from being happy. If you have a good job that pays well, you can afford to go see one. I think that's the first thing you should do. Sometimes we are not happy because of something in our lives but can't even admit it to ourselves. A therapist could help you.
Reply:Depression is often driven by chemical imbalance. Lack in serotonin might very well be the cause, and if so, you have good medications for it these days, that someone with a good job should be able to afford.
Psychologically speaking, what do you expect to find when you go away? Do you have any idea, what kind of feeling would you get if you got your freedom at last? Wouldn't you say this feeling is the closest approximation of happiness you have recently had? If that is the case, concentrate on that feeling. Try to imagine what it would be like if you had this feeling of freedom tomorrow. Then picture yourself actually having it.
You see, the trick is to realize that one can give himself true happiness. It is not an emotion, it is a state of mind, and you can change your state of mind with the assistance of a trained psychologist or hypnotherapist.
Many people who are currently unhappy, have had some childhood problems, or abuse of some kind. Only by working with a specialist will you be able to find out if there is some cause in your past for your depression. If there is, you will be guided into fixing it. It is my assumption that your therapist would try to back trace into your childhood, and find the creative center in your life you might have had. Then, when such a center found, and all possible negative emotional habits from your childhood eliminated, you are on your way to happiness. It doesn't help you now, but at least you should know there is hope for you yet, and you can get it soon enough.
Also, keep in mind another factor. Those who really want to kill themselves simply do so. By posting your question you have demonstrated your awareness of the problem, and your willingness to work on it. This is a very reassuring factor, as any healer would tell you, that bodes well for your future. Good Luck.
Reply:The fact is there is a single source of all your problems, stress, unhappiness and self doubt. It's called The Reactive Mind... the hidden part of your mind that stores all painful experiences, then later uses them against you.
It is not necessary to live with insecurity , negative thoughts, depression and irrational behavior. There is a solution.
Dianetics gets rid of the Reactive Mind.
If you read the book" Dianetics The Modern Science of Mental Health"
it explains the real reason for negative emotions and unhappy relationships. Also what is destroying your belief in yourself and how to get rid of it and become more You.
This book has sold over 20 million copies worldwide and been translated into over 50 languages since it first came out in 1950.
check out www.dianetics.org
Reply:You suffering depression. Go see your doc.
1 in 10 of his patients suffer from this, so he has heard it all before.
Modern meds are very good for this.
If you want a confidential self test try...
checkupfromtheneckup.ca
Reply:You need to talk to a doctor. I used to feel like this all the time, and I got counseling and was put on medication. While this didn't solve everything, it made life bearable again, and I've been feeling happy and myself lately. More than likely you have a seritonin imbalance. So you probably either need an MAOI or an SSRI medication.
Also, faking accidents is not cool, and there are no non-traceable poisons. Even if you overdose on a natural compound, they'll figure it out. Gotta love CSI.
buck teeth
Can someone give me a title for this and your opinion
I’ll sleep when I’m dead
There’s no time to waste
When nothing’s left to be said
And our demons are faced
We cast our fears away to the wind
And beg forgiveness for we know we have sinned
In our time of woe and despair
We look to the skies for a gleam of light
In our hearts we feel a lonely stare
That casts our souls into night
For when love is gone or seems lost
We feel we have paid the ultimate cost
And in my life I’ve felt this hurt
And though it brings you down
I’m more cautious and alert
For although this pain is renown
In time you come to heal
From the pain you now feel
In our darkest hour
In the blackest bight
We somehow find our strength and power
To win our demonic fight
We set ourselves free
From the evils blessed be
So I live my life
From demon to demon
Through all the strife
To be a freeman
And look for good in a world gone bad
And try to hold on to what I once had.
Can someone give me a title for this and your opinion
I don't know what to call it, but I thought it was pretty and sad. You are a really good poet.
Reply:In my opinion the title should be "That's Life"or "The Reality"....
My comments..The poem is very good. Its bring a big message to all the people in the world. Keep on. GBU.
Reply:"Mirror" would be a good title for this.
Reply:Only two negative comments:
I don't believe the line that ends in "renown" fits the rhythym
and "free man" rather than "freeman"
other than that it's great, it makes me think of a witch coven in mourning for one of their own after the witch trial ends....
I think in part this is a spell or curse.
Reply:I'll sleep when I'm done.
Sounds like a good title. I only say this because most poems are titled by the first line. Plus you talk about a lot of things that are to happen mainly after you are doing living far as the afterlife. So I pretty much think that sums it up nicely. Up to you though. P.S. or if you really want to be creative just leave it Untitled. I know a lot of poets who have just plainly left their peoms called Untitled because either they just couldn't match a good title or just liked it untitled.
Reply:i would call the poem demons. i thought it was a wonderful poem with a lot of emotion. you are a great poet. keep it up.
There’s no time to waste
When nothing’s left to be said
And our demons are faced
We cast our fears away to the wind
And beg forgiveness for we know we have sinned
In our time of woe and despair
We look to the skies for a gleam of light
In our hearts we feel a lonely stare
That casts our souls into night
For when love is gone or seems lost
We feel we have paid the ultimate cost
And in my life I’ve felt this hurt
And though it brings you down
I’m more cautious and alert
For although this pain is renown
In time you come to heal
From the pain you now feel
In our darkest hour
In the blackest bight
We somehow find our strength and power
To win our demonic fight
We set ourselves free
From the evils blessed be
So I live my life
From demon to demon
Through all the strife
To be a freeman
And look for good in a world gone bad
And try to hold on to what I once had.
Can someone give me a title for this and your opinion
I don't know what to call it, but I thought it was pretty and sad. You are a really good poet.
Reply:In my opinion the title should be "That's Life"or "The Reality"....
My comments..The poem is very good. Its bring a big message to all the people in the world. Keep on. GBU.
Reply:"Mirror" would be a good title for this.
Reply:Only two negative comments:
I don't believe the line that ends in "renown" fits the rhythym
and "free man" rather than "freeman"
other than that it's great, it makes me think of a witch coven in mourning for one of their own after the witch trial ends....
I think in part this is a spell or curse.
Reply:I'll sleep when I'm done.
Sounds like a good title. I only say this because most poems are titled by the first line. Plus you talk about a lot of things that are to happen mainly after you are doing living far as the afterlife. So I pretty much think that sums it up nicely. Up to you though. P.S. or if you really want to be creative just leave it Untitled. I know a lot of poets who have just plainly left their peoms called Untitled because either they just couldn't match a good title or just liked it untitled.
Reply:i would call the poem demons. i thought it was a wonderful poem with a lot of emotion. you are a great poet. keep it up.
I need your opinion on this sentence. What do you think about this one?
This man found in course “No Contest” and on probation for 30 days for sexually assault. The girl asked him for a ride in the back of her motorcycle. She went so fast he accidentally grabbed her by the boob, and said sorry to her later when she confronted him. He didn’t think anything of it until she took him to the court. I know this man just about all my life, and knew how a good man he is. I know he never do such a thing and his record was cleaned until now. The girl put out such a drama in court, the judge said to his lawyer the best is to pre- bargain. Even if this man has all the evidences that the girl did this before, also having a fair with a married man (not innocent like she appeared in court) and just about the whole town could testify for his behave. This man pre-bargain in court “No Contest” and on probation for 30 days for sexually assault. He didn’t have to pay any court cost, or list as a sex offender or anything. Do you think this is good sentence for him, or
I need your opinion on this sentence. What do you think about this one?
no contest means hes not saying he did do it but hes not saying he didnt do it probation means he cant get in any kind of trouble for those 30 days and its plea bargain not pre hes better to just take the 30 day probation and have a clean record if everyone in town knows what this girl is like then they know he didnt do it let it go good luck
Reply:I think he should accept his sentence and he will have learnt his lesson to be very careful in future to watch out for girls like her ..She has done more damage to herself as other men will not want to talk or touch this girl as she has certainly ruined her reputation ...just tell your friend to put it down to experience of playing with imature girls
Reply:Yes I agree with you, if he is not guilty he should fight the case to the end to clear his name because this conviction would be on his record for the rest of his life.
Reply:Sorry for his trouble. what a dumb girl of course you are close to someone on a motorcycle.Sometimes men do get a bad rep. for nothing.
Reply:He already accepted the plea bargain and was convicted on it. 30 days is not bad at all consider sexual assault can carry much stiffer penalties. Should he want to appeal the conviction he has to do so within 30 days.
Reply:He pled "no contest", which still will show on his record as a sex crime. This will follow him for the rest of his life, and reflect poorly if he applies for a new job seeing that many employers now do background checks. Since this woman's character is in serious question, he should consult another attorney to hopefully have this expunged and dismissed from his record. He should also seek charges against her for providing false information and perjury. EDIT: no contest is just the plea, stating no guilt, but not contesting the case. It will be on his record as a sexual assault, or misconduct.
I need your opinion on this sentence. What do you think about this one?
no contest means hes not saying he did do it but hes not saying he didnt do it probation means he cant get in any kind of trouble for those 30 days and its plea bargain not pre hes better to just take the 30 day probation and have a clean record if everyone in town knows what this girl is like then they know he didnt do it let it go good luck
Reply:I think he should accept his sentence and he will have learnt his lesson to be very careful in future to watch out for girls like her ..She has done more damage to herself as other men will not want to talk or touch this girl as she has certainly ruined her reputation ...just tell your friend to put it down to experience of playing with imature girls
Reply:Yes I agree with you, if he is not guilty he should fight the case to the end to clear his name because this conviction would be on his record for the rest of his life.
Reply:Sorry for his trouble. what a dumb girl of course you are close to someone on a motorcycle.Sometimes men do get a bad rep. for nothing.
Reply:He already accepted the plea bargain and was convicted on it. 30 days is not bad at all consider sexual assault can carry much stiffer penalties. Should he want to appeal the conviction he has to do so within 30 days.
Reply:He pled "no contest", which still will show on his record as a sex crime. This will follow him for the rest of his life, and reflect poorly if he applies for a new job seeing that many employers now do background checks. Since this woman's character is in serious question, he should consult another attorney to hopefully have this expunged and dismissed from his record. He should also seek charges against her for providing false information and perjury. EDIT: no contest is just the plea, stating no guilt, but not contesting the case. It will be on his record as a sexual assault, or misconduct.
What is the best way of taking money to Australia?
Travellers cheques, cash from an exchange (in which case get in the the UK, in Oz or at airport?), those pre-paid card thingies? your advice and opinions on the best method please.
What is the best way of taking money to Australia?
I usually take about £100 in cash and then use my switch card to withdraw funds as I need them. The charges are minimal and it means that you aren't carrying wodges of cash or travellers cheques with you.
Reply:you are only allowed to take a certain amount of money into australia,, you have to declare anymore, cant remember how much though, but take a mixture of cash and traveller cheques, i changed our travellers cheques, with no bother at a local bank, who i found really helpful, and be warned if you take any money out of a cash machine, it cost me a couple of quid to take money out of the HSBC branch in Melbourne even though i had a HSBC bank account in UK
Reply:It's best to split it up a little, keep some on your cards, cash, travelers cheques and then split them up in your luggage / hand luggage etc that way if somebody does steal your wallet / bag etc at least you have another form of payment still and they haven't stolen everything
Reply:Get some cash to take with you before you go so you have some in your pocket to cover initial costs when you arrive, and then I would recommend travellers cheques for safety - as long as they're in AUS$ you should have no problem using of changing them.
Also check with your bank to see how they treat foreign transactions - depending on their exchange rates, commission and one-off transaction fees it can be the most convenient way of getting money, as long as it's not too expensive.
Word of advice on getting the best exchange rate - try Marks %26amp; Spencers. It's been a while since I bought AUS$ but they consistently have the most competitive rate for US$ and euros, much better than the bank and other high street bureaux de change.
Reply:I would take enough cash in local currency to cover you for the first night until you can get to a cash machine the following day - normally I take about £50. After this. I just use debit cards to withdraw cash from ATM and credit cards for purchases. The rates are pretty good. Speak to Nationwide Building Society as they do not charge for using their cards abroad. Cards are also the most secure and you can keep a spare card in your hotel room in case something happens to the one on you.
Reply:Get a Nationwide flex account...No charge abroad for using ATMs
Don't carry cash or travelers cheques. Do buy some Tim Tams
Reply:I half my money between cash and travels cheques..seems to cover most eventualities...
Reply:A mix of all to be safe..I took credit card and travellers cheques, Amex ones, cashed them at the Amex office on the Harbour, no problem, I also took some Aus$, so spread the load with them all...
Reply:All depends on your purpose for taking money to Australia :-
a. On holiday - apply for travelers cheques or convert your home
currency to Aussie dollars.
b. For business - apply for a Demand Draft payable on a bank in Australia. Once in Australia, you can then encash the draft to get Aussie dollars or bank into an account (need to open a new one if there's none existing)
Reply:I agree with what a lot of others have said. Don't put all your eggs in the one basket.
We travelled around Australia for 6 weeks a few years ago.
We brought a few hundred Australian Dollors.
We used a visa card to pay for the larger expenses, like accommodation and it makes it a lot handier to rent out a car with a credit card.
We also brought Aussie $ traveller cheques and changed them every so often in banks (some of the banks will change them for free), so we never had to carry around large amounts of cash. But it is a lot handier (I think) to pay for smaller purchases with cash - meals, travel etc.
We didn't have a debit card, but could use the credit card in an emergency to get money out. But it costs - for each transaction.
I had left some money at home with my family with instruction to lodge it into my credit card account if we needed it (which we didn't).
Just remember, as with every where, don't flash your cash around, keep copies of your important documents on you and at home.
Reply:You can give it to me since you have already taken my identity...your avatar is a copy of mine.
Reply:Three things - cash, ATM card, %26amp; credit cards - will cover all the bases easily. You can exchange for A$ at the airport %26amp; banks %26amp; there are exchange places all over. Have fun!
Reply:American Express Travellers Cheques.
Also take your debit card and Credit card has a backup if your travelling.
Reply:Your best bet is to take a little bit of each, that way you don't put your eggs all in one basket. Its always best when travelling abroad to take the money you will spend and split it three ways, a third in each of you check card (bank account card), cash in your pocket, and traveller's checks. You can purchase the traveller's checks in Australian dollars which is really helpful. Have a good time.
Reply:I would say just withdraw money straight from your bank account at an ATM machine in Australia. You get the best exchange rate and it's quick and easy.
Reply:I took around £300 in cash another £300 in traveller cheques and then used my card to get out large amounts every so often. This meant most of my money was kept safe in the bank but i still had access to it. If you can i would take a Credit Card with you simply cos not everywhere takes Debits cards
Reply:Travellers cheques are a pain. You need to get to a bank to cash them and banks here are only open Mon-Fri (a small few are open Sat too, but not many).
Bring Aus $$ in cash for the first couple of days (change it in England before you come over) and just bring your ATM card. Once your card has either a 'Cirrus' or 'Maestro' (spelling???) logo on it you'll be able to use it any any ATM here.
If you have a credit card (Visa/MasterCard) it would also be useful for emergencies (but don't use it to get cash out - it's too expensive).
Don' t bother bringing foreign currency, you'll just have to search around for a place to change it. ATM card is the way to go.
Reply:Take pounds and get it converted at a bank their. I did this and it cost me $5.00 australian. I could also wait to change it on a good conversion day. Stay clear of all the little places that say they will change your money. I wouldnt even get it done at the airport.
Take cash. thats the best. Their is no problems for storing money once your their if you are careful. Travellers Cheques are a pain in the butt..
When do you go. Make sure you have a Crown Larger for me and a Vegemite Scroll from Bakers Delight (you'll understand when you get their) Man I miss home.
Reply:Use ATM cards.
Tell your bank BEFORE you go that you will be using your card in Australia, and they will tell you about any special instructions or restrictions.
Reply:i agree TRAVELERS CHECKS,best way to travel w/cash.
Reply:I think that a cash exchange would be the best because you would get the most for your money while travellers cheques lose you money
Thanks
Ben D
What is the best way of taking money to Australia?
I usually take about £100 in cash and then use my switch card to withdraw funds as I need them. The charges are minimal and it means that you aren't carrying wodges of cash or travellers cheques with you.
Reply:you are only allowed to take a certain amount of money into australia,, you have to declare anymore, cant remember how much though, but take a mixture of cash and traveller cheques, i changed our travellers cheques, with no bother at a local bank, who i found really helpful, and be warned if you take any money out of a cash machine, it cost me a couple of quid to take money out of the HSBC branch in Melbourne even though i had a HSBC bank account in UK
Reply:It's best to split it up a little, keep some on your cards, cash, travelers cheques and then split them up in your luggage / hand luggage etc that way if somebody does steal your wallet / bag etc at least you have another form of payment still and they haven't stolen everything
Reply:Get some cash to take with you before you go so you have some in your pocket to cover initial costs when you arrive, and then I would recommend travellers cheques for safety - as long as they're in AUS$ you should have no problem using of changing them.
Also check with your bank to see how they treat foreign transactions - depending on their exchange rates, commission and one-off transaction fees it can be the most convenient way of getting money, as long as it's not too expensive.
Word of advice on getting the best exchange rate - try Marks %26amp; Spencers. It's been a while since I bought AUS$ but they consistently have the most competitive rate for US$ and euros, much better than the bank and other high street bureaux de change.
Reply:I would take enough cash in local currency to cover you for the first night until you can get to a cash machine the following day - normally I take about £50. After this. I just use debit cards to withdraw cash from ATM and credit cards for purchases. The rates are pretty good. Speak to Nationwide Building Society as they do not charge for using their cards abroad. Cards are also the most secure and you can keep a spare card in your hotel room in case something happens to the one on you.
Reply:Get a Nationwide flex account...No charge abroad for using ATMs
Don't carry cash or travelers cheques. Do buy some Tim Tams
Reply:I half my money between cash and travels cheques..seems to cover most eventualities...
Reply:A mix of all to be safe..I took credit card and travellers cheques, Amex ones, cashed them at the Amex office on the Harbour, no problem, I also took some Aus$, so spread the load with them all...
Reply:All depends on your purpose for taking money to Australia :-
a. On holiday - apply for travelers cheques or convert your home
currency to Aussie dollars.
b. For business - apply for a Demand Draft payable on a bank in Australia. Once in Australia, you can then encash the draft to get Aussie dollars or bank into an account (need to open a new one if there's none existing)
Reply:I agree with what a lot of others have said. Don't put all your eggs in the one basket.
We travelled around Australia for 6 weeks a few years ago.
We brought a few hundred Australian Dollors.
We used a visa card to pay for the larger expenses, like accommodation and it makes it a lot handier to rent out a car with a credit card.
We also brought Aussie $ traveller cheques and changed them every so often in banks (some of the banks will change them for free), so we never had to carry around large amounts of cash. But it is a lot handier (I think) to pay for smaller purchases with cash - meals, travel etc.
We didn't have a debit card, but could use the credit card in an emergency to get money out. But it costs - for each transaction.
I had left some money at home with my family with instruction to lodge it into my credit card account if we needed it (which we didn't).
Just remember, as with every where, don't flash your cash around, keep copies of your important documents on you and at home.
Reply:You can give it to me since you have already taken my identity...your avatar is a copy of mine.
Reply:Three things - cash, ATM card, %26amp; credit cards - will cover all the bases easily. You can exchange for A$ at the airport %26amp; banks %26amp; there are exchange places all over. Have fun!
Reply:American Express Travellers Cheques.
Also take your debit card and Credit card has a backup if your travelling.
Reply:Your best bet is to take a little bit of each, that way you don't put your eggs all in one basket. Its always best when travelling abroad to take the money you will spend and split it three ways, a third in each of you check card (bank account card), cash in your pocket, and traveller's checks. You can purchase the traveller's checks in Australian dollars which is really helpful. Have a good time.
Reply:I would say just withdraw money straight from your bank account at an ATM machine in Australia. You get the best exchange rate and it's quick and easy.
Reply:I took around £300 in cash another £300 in traveller cheques and then used my card to get out large amounts every so often. This meant most of my money was kept safe in the bank but i still had access to it. If you can i would take a Credit Card with you simply cos not everywhere takes Debits cards
Reply:Travellers cheques are a pain. You need to get to a bank to cash them and banks here are only open Mon-Fri (a small few are open Sat too, but not many).
Bring Aus $$ in cash for the first couple of days (change it in England before you come over) and just bring your ATM card. Once your card has either a 'Cirrus' or 'Maestro' (spelling???) logo on it you'll be able to use it any any ATM here.
If you have a credit card (Visa/MasterCard) it would also be useful for emergencies (but don't use it to get cash out - it's too expensive).
Don' t bother bringing foreign currency, you'll just have to search around for a place to change it. ATM card is the way to go.
Reply:Take pounds and get it converted at a bank their. I did this and it cost me $5.00 australian. I could also wait to change it on a good conversion day. Stay clear of all the little places that say they will change your money. I wouldnt even get it done at the airport.
Take cash. thats the best. Their is no problems for storing money once your their if you are careful. Travellers Cheques are a pain in the butt..
When do you go. Make sure you have a Crown Larger for me and a Vegemite Scroll from Bakers Delight (you'll understand when you get their) Man I miss home.
Reply:Use ATM cards.
Tell your bank BEFORE you go that you will be using your card in Australia, and they will tell you about any special instructions or restrictions.
Reply:i agree TRAVELERS CHECKS,best way to travel w/cash.
Reply:I think that a cash exchange would be the best because you would get the most for your money while travellers cheques lose you money
Thanks
Ben D
What's your opinion on this article Airlines lobby for system to speed airport security?
Airlines lobby for system to speed airport security Biometrics uses scans of iris and fingerprints
By Carly WeeksOTTAWA — A coalition of Canadian airlines and airports is putting pressure on Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon to adopt a biometric travel screening program that would allow passengers to “fast track” through airport security and avoid hassles like taking off their shoes, coats and removing laptops from their cases before boarding planes. The voluntary program, which is currently in place at several major U.S. airports, relies on iris and fingerprint scans to identify passengers and quickly move them through airport security. The biometric screening system is seen as a way to significantly reduce line-ups and other delays that have become a major hassle for passengers, particularly those who travel frequently, according to the coalition, which includes Air Canada, WestJet, as well as the Toronto, Montreal and Edmonton airport authorities. “It’s just another service to passengers,” said Scott Armstrong, spokesman for the Greater Toronto Airports Authority. “Obviously, people are always looking for ways to make the whole airport process quicker.” Although some Canadian airports have expressed interest in the biometric screening, the federal government has to approve such a program before it can be up and running in Canada. That’s because Transport Canada would have to conduct the background checks on interested applicants, and Canadian Air Transport Security Authority employees would likely be responsible for helping passengers with biometric cards at the airport.
When passengers are approved for the program, they receive a card that comes equipped with a microchip containing their biometric data that they must bring to the airport and scan on a machine, similar to a bank machine. Passengers with biometric cards would be able to wait in separate lines that have specialized security equipment, enabling them to pass through security checkpoints quickly and easily.
Adopting such a system, also known as a registered traveller program, “would enhance aviation security while improving the passengers’ experience in the airport,” says a letter sent to Cannon’s office last month by the group of Canadian airlines and airports.
The group argues the federal government wouldn’t have to spend any money on the screening program, because it would be paid for by the private sector. Furthermore, any Canadians that wanted to use a biometric screening card would have to pay for the service.
There is currently one company, called Clear, which operates the biometric screening program for about 45,000 passengers in the U.S. Although the GTAA has already signed an agreement with Clear for a similar program here, nothing can move forward until the federal government decides whether or not to approve it.
A spokeswoman for Cannon’s office as well as CATSA said the federal government is currently reviewing the program to see if it can be implemented here.
— CanW est News Ser vice
What's your opinion on this article Airlines lobby for system to speed airport security?
I think it is an option as the US already has some type of program in place that if frequent travelers are willing to pay some fee and pass a background check, they can clear security at a faster rate than others and do not have to take off their shoes, etc.
My opinion is that the passengers that do go with the program should probably have their background checked every year just to make sure they are clean.
Wallpapers software
By Carly WeeksOTTAWA — A coalition of Canadian airlines and airports is putting pressure on Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon to adopt a biometric travel screening program that would allow passengers to “fast track” through airport security and avoid hassles like taking off their shoes, coats and removing laptops from their cases before boarding planes. The voluntary program, which is currently in place at several major U.S. airports, relies on iris and fingerprint scans to identify passengers and quickly move them through airport security. The biometric screening system is seen as a way to significantly reduce line-ups and other delays that have become a major hassle for passengers, particularly those who travel frequently, according to the coalition, which includes Air Canada, WestJet, as well as the Toronto, Montreal and Edmonton airport authorities. “It’s just another service to passengers,” said Scott Armstrong, spokesman for the Greater Toronto Airports Authority. “Obviously, people are always looking for ways to make the whole airport process quicker.” Although some Canadian airports have expressed interest in the biometric screening, the federal government has to approve such a program before it can be up and running in Canada. That’s because Transport Canada would have to conduct the background checks on interested applicants, and Canadian Air Transport Security Authority employees would likely be responsible for helping passengers with biometric cards at the airport.
When passengers are approved for the program, they receive a card that comes equipped with a microchip containing their biometric data that they must bring to the airport and scan on a machine, similar to a bank machine. Passengers with biometric cards would be able to wait in separate lines that have specialized security equipment, enabling them to pass through security checkpoints quickly and easily.
Adopting such a system, also known as a registered traveller program, “would enhance aviation security while improving the passengers’ experience in the airport,” says a letter sent to Cannon’s office last month by the group of Canadian airlines and airports.
The group argues the federal government wouldn’t have to spend any money on the screening program, because it would be paid for by the private sector. Furthermore, any Canadians that wanted to use a biometric screening card would have to pay for the service.
There is currently one company, called Clear, which operates the biometric screening program for about 45,000 passengers in the U.S. Although the GTAA has already signed an agreement with Clear for a similar program here, nothing can move forward until the federal government decides whether or not to approve it.
A spokeswoman for Cannon’s office as well as CATSA said the federal government is currently reviewing the program to see if it can be implemented here.
— CanW est News Ser vice
What's your opinion on this article Airlines lobby for system to speed airport security?
I think it is an option as the US already has some type of program in place that if frequent travelers are willing to pay some fee and pass a background check, they can clear security at a faster rate than others and do not have to take off their shoes, etc.
My opinion is that the passengers that do go with the program should probably have their background checked every year just to make sure they are clean.
Wallpapers software
How much can I make as a Psychology major? I am having trouble choosing a major that will pay high.?
In your opinion, what major is the most highly paid without the long study commitment? I am considering Law and Psychology
How much can I make as a Psychology major? I am having trouble choosing a major that will pay high.?
I have a bachelors in Sociology and Psychology (double major).
This is USA info:
Psychology majors are dime a dozen as are business majors. Psychology major is the #2 in the country (business #1). However, business majors have more doors open world wide because business is everywhere.
As for a job with a major in psychology, your best bet will be to work in a field outside of psychology. Within psychology you will certainly NOT find any job. If you work outside the field of psychology, you will make something modest about 40k a year straight out of school (same as a business major though less job options), but you will earn much more as you stay in the company. Probably your best bet would be to get a 1 year MBA after your bachelors and earn 50k. If you are interested in working as a psychologist you will need at minimum a masters, but the masters pays really low (45k). If you get a Ph.D, you can make a lot of money, but that typically takes years of getting people to come into your practice. The Ph.D program will also take 6 to 8 years to complete (almost never will someone do it in the minimum, 3 years).
If you want to make 50k a year without doing a 1 year MBA, your best bet is to go with engineering. Engineers usually make 50k a year, but it is also possible to make 55k with a little bit of luck. Problem is that getting through an engineering program will probably take you 5 years. Every single engineer I know did 5 except for 2 guys that did 4 years and an extra semester.
As for studying law, that is your best bet. I am currently a law student at top law school. I will probably make 125k straight out of school if I focus on business law or if I focus on environmental law to work for private institutions; 90k if you come out of a normal school. The fields of criminal law and immigration law can lead you to a decent 80k a year salary (regular schools). Any other field of public interest will probably make somewhere around 40 to 60k a year (any school). However, keep in mind that studying law is expensive and will take 3 extra years of your life, and know that a psychology major will not be that great for admissions.
Reply:The average Psychologist (PhD, doctorate) makes about $65,000 per year - slightly more or less depending on if you are in private practice, university professor, etc. Of course, a PhD program in Psychology is a minimum of 8 years of education. 4 years for the Bachelor's degree, 4 years for the PhD. But for many students, it is more likely about 10-12 years of education and internship (it's hard to do it in only 8 years).
A Master's degree in Psychology will take 6-7 years (4 years Bachelor's and 2-3 years for the Master's). The average pay for a Master's level is about $45,000 per year.
Below a Master's degree is not even worth mentioning.
Reply:psychology doesn't pay until you get your doctorate, but if you are that concerned about money you shouldn't major in a social science at all
Reply:try out for a football team, even the bench warmers make good money.
Reply:With a bachelor's degree, if you want a job in the field of psychology you would probably be lucky to break $30,000 a year (you could make more, but likely in an unrelated field).
Law and psych are two of the worst options if you are looking for short-term study (aside from med school, of course). Both require graduate training to make any money, so if you just want a 4-year degree then out, neither is a good pick. The best money would probably be some form of engineer, as you can probably get a pretty nice job with only a bachelor's (though again, a master's or higher would boost the salary). There is also business, but of course for every multimillionaire CEO there are thousands of modestly-paid, white-collar peons.
However, I would second the notion that if you are only going into a field for the money, then you will likely be setting yourself up for misery, failure, or both. That said, I wouldn't recommend majoring in 17th century Polish literature if that's your passion, but there is probably a happy medium between interest and earning potential that you can figure out.
Reply:Choosing a career based solely (or mostly) on earning potential will ensure you are miserable for as long as you are in that job. Think about what you enjoy and go into that field.
How much can I make as a Psychology major? I am having trouble choosing a major that will pay high.?
I have a bachelors in Sociology and Psychology (double major).
This is USA info:
Psychology majors are dime a dozen as are business majors. Psychology major is the #2 in the country (business #1). However, business majors have more doors open world wide because business is everywhere.
As for a job with a major in psychology, your best bet will be to work in a field outside of psychology. Within psychology you will certainly NOT find any job. If you work outside the field of psychology, you will make something modest about 40k a year straight out of school (same as a business major though less job options), but you will earn much more as you stay in the company. Probably your best bet would be to get a 1 year MBA after your bachelors and earn 50k. If you are interested in working as a psychologist you will need at minimum a masters, but the masters pays really low (45k). If you get a Ph.D, you can make a lot of money, but that typically takes years of getting people to come into your practice. The Ph.D program will also take 6 to 8 years to complete (almost never will someone do it in the minimum, 3 years).
If you want to make 50k a year without doing a 1 year MBA, your best bet is to go with engineering. Engineers usually make 50k a year, but it is also possible to make 55k with a little bit of luck. Problem is that getting through an engineering program will probably take you 5 years. Every single engineer I know did 5 except for 2 guys that did 4 years and an extra semester.
As for studying law, that is your best bet. I am currently a law student at top law school. I will probably make 125k straight out of school if I focus on business law or if I focus on environmental law to work for private institutions; 90k if you come out of a normal school. The fields of criminal law and immigration law can lead you to a decent 80k a year salary (regular schools). Any other field of public interest will probably make somewhere around 40 to 60k a year (any school). However, keep in mind that studying law is expensive and will take 3 extra years of your life, and know that a psychology major will not be that great for admissions.
Reply:The average Psychologist (PhD, doctorate) makes about $65,000 per year - slightly more or less depending on if you are in private practice, university professor, etc. Of course, a PhD program in Psychology is a minimum of 8 years of education. 4 years for the Bachelor's degree, 4 years for the PhD. But for many students, it is more likely about 10-12 years of education and internship (it's hard to do it in only 8 years).
A Master's degree in Psychology will take 6-7 years (4 years Bachelor's and 2-3 years for the Master's). The average pay for a Master's level is about $45,000 per year.
Below a Master's degree is not even worth mentioning.
Reply:psychology doesn't pay until you get your doctorate, but if you are that concerned about money you shouldn't major in a social science at all
Reply:try out for a football team, even the bench warmers make good money.
Reply:With a bachelor's degree, if you want a job in the field of psychology you would probably be lucky to break $30,000 a year (you could make more, but likely in an unrelated field).
Law and psych are two of the worst options if you are looking for short-term study (aside from med school, of course). Both require graduate training to make any money, so if you just want a 4-year degree then out, neither is a good pick. The best money would probably be some form of engineer, as you can probably get a pretty nice job with only a bachelor's (though again, a master's or higher would boost the salary). There is also business, but of course for every multimillionaire CEO there are thousands of modestly-paid, white-collar peons.
However, I would second the notion that if you are only going into a field for the money, then you will likely be setting yourself up for misery, failure, or both. That said, I wouldn't recommend majoring in 17th century Polish literature if that's your passion, but there is probably a happy medium between interest and earning potential that you can figure out.
Reply:Choosing a career based solely (or mostly) on earning potential will ensure you are miserable for as long as you are in that job. Think about what you enjoy and go into that field.
What is your opinion that in 50 Years there will be NO CHRISTIAN in Holy Land.?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070312/lf_n...
How much price we are willing to pay in love of people whose forefathers rejected Jesus once %26amp; they too are not going to accept HIM as MESSIAH/Christ?
What is your opinion that in 50 Years there will be NO CHRISTIAN in Holy Land.?
Nobody seems to understand the point behind your question, Saleem.
But thanks for asking it.
Personally I believe that in spite of all the odds as they appear to our human eyes, the Jews will come to Jesus as a nation before the End comes. And I think the Muslim Arabs will turn to him en masse before the Jews; this is when the Jews will take notice, and be jealous as Paul writes in Romans 11.
Meanwhile it is a tragedy how the Palestinian Christians are being treated by Israel, and an even greater tragedy that Western churches are unconditionally supporting Israel while it persecutes their Arab and Armenian brothers and sisters in Palestine.
Reply:Christian leaders say they face no religious persecution from the Palestinian Muslim majority or from Israel.
Thats what the article also says!!!!!
Reply:Please enjoy your religion but how do you know he was rejected, where you there? I know what you mean Christians are not able to get to their p lace of worship, if it were the other way around there would be one hell of a stink.
Reply:who said that? can you Tell?
Reply:As it won't make the slightest difference to me, I really couldn't care less ! ! !
Reply:lets hope for all our sakes there is no religion at all in 50 years....bunch of murdering lunatics all of them
Reply:Praise the lord.
Reply:when you say the holy land do you mean the UK?
Reply:There will always be Christians in the Middle East. Maybe not Palestinian Christians, but there will be Christians.
Even the Muslim faith says that the Holy Land was done for Christians and Muslims.
Don't worry, 50 years down the road, Christians will still be there.
Reply:I agree with Brian. But I still hold out hope that will be Christians left in the Holy Land in the end times. God bless you and thank you for bringing this to people's attention.
Reply:Eh? Have you been at the bottle again?
Reply:I don't understand your question but I don't think it's possible for there not to be any Christians left in 50 years, how will the prime end time events and all that take place?
Confused.
Reply:Um, never really thought about it. Don't really care either. I don't think it is a real critical issue.
Reply:It could be that there will be NO one, of any religion, living in the Holy Land. Atomic radiation does not differentiate between religions!!! Peaceful co-existence, which is at the centre of all major religions, must be the answer. Let's STOP killing each other.
Reply:we are gaining to much ground for a negetive thought like that, its time for the second coming, haleluia,
Reply:how would it be if we all stopped worrying about religion and settled down to live in peace. now theres a nice thought
Reply:If the messiah turns up he's going to need to be armed to the teeth if he's going to traverse the streets of Jerusalem. There will always be a variety of religious groups in Israel whether or not they learn to live together in harmony is another question.
Reply:Probably 50 years is too short a time given a number of christians in Holy Land. CHRIST will ultimately be reject by mankind towards the end of ages look for the signs and prophecies
How much price we are willing to pay in love of people whose forefathers rejected Jesus once %26amp; they too are not going to accept HIM as MESSIAH/Christ?
What is your opinion that in 50 Years there will be NO CHRISTIAN in Holy Land.?
Nobody seems to understand the point behind your question, Saleem.
But thanks for asking it.
Personally I believe that in spite of all the odds as they appear to our human eyes, the Jews will come to Jesus as a nation before the End comes. And I think the Muslim Arabs will turn to him en masse before the Jews; this is when the Jews will take notice, and be jealous as Paul writes in Romans 11.
Meanwhile it is a tragedy how the Palestinian Christians are being treated by Israel, and an even greater tragedy that Western churches are unconditionally supporting Israel while it persecutes their Arab and Armenian brothers and sisters in Palestine.
Reply:Christian leaders say they face no religious persecution from the Palestinian Muslim majority or from Israel.
Thats what the article also says!!!!!
Reply:Please enjoy your religion but how do you know he was rejected, where you there? I know what you mean Christians are not able to get to their p lace of worship, if it were the other way around there would be one hell of a stink.
Reply:who said that? can you Tell?
Reply:As it won't make the slightest difference to me, I really couldn't care less ! ! !
Reply:lets hope for all our sakes there is no religion at all in 50 years....bunch of murdering lunatics all of them
Reply:Praise the lord.
Reply:when you say the holy land do you mean the UK?
Reply:There will always be Christians in the Middle East. Maybe not Palestinian Christians, but there will be Christians.
Even the Muslim faith says that the Holy Land was done for Christians and Muslims.
Don't worry, 50 years down the road, Christians will still be there.
Reply:I agree with Brian. But I still hold out hope that will be Christians left in the Holy Land in the end times. God bless you and thank you for bringing this to people's attention.
Reply:Eh? Have you been at the bottle again?
Reply:I don't understand your question but I don't think it's possible for there not to be any Christians left in 50 years, how will the prime end time events and all that take place?
Confused.
Reply:Um, never really thought about it. Don't really care either. I don't think it is a real critical issue.
Reply:It could be that there will be NO one, of any religion, living in the Holy Land. Atomic radiation does not differentiate between religions!!! Peaceful co-existence, which is at the centre of all major religions, must be the answer. Let's STOP killing each other.
Reply:we are gaining to much ground for a negetive thought like that, its time for the second coming, haleluia,
Reply:how would it be if we all stopped worrying about religion and settled down to live in peace. now theres a nice thought
Reply:If the messiah turns up he's going to need to be armed to the teeth if he's going to traverse the streets of Jerusalem. There will always be a variety of religious groups in Israel whether or not they learn to live together in harmony is another question.
Reply:Probably 50 years is too short a time given a number of christians in Holy Land. CHRIST will ultimately be reject by mankind towards the end of ages look for the signs and prophecies
I need your opinion on this sentence. What do you think about this one?
This man found in course “No Contest” and on probation for 30 days for sexually assault. The girl asked him for a ride in the back of her motorcycle. She went so fast he accidentally grabbed her by the boob, and said sorry to her later when she confronted him. He didn’t think anything of it until she took him to the court. I know this man just about all my life, and knew how a good man he is. I know he never do such a thing and his record was cleaned until now. The girl put out such a drama in court, the judge said to his lawyer the best is to plea bargain. Even if this man has all the evidences that the girl did this before, also having an affair with a married man (not innocent like she appeared in court) and just about the whole town could testify for his behalf. This man plea bargain in court “No Contest” and on probation for 30 days for sexually assault. He didn’t have to pay any court cost, or list as a sex offender or anything. Do you think this is good sentence for him? Or
I need your opinion on this sentence. What do you think about this one?
the judge diden't believe the girl.yes i think he knew about the girl through court records,what happend was a acciden't.the girl wanted to be a star so people would notice her.
The judge saw through her childish charge,
He had to hand down a hand slap sentince,
He got justice and gave him the least he could.I'm
sure the girl will tell it different.
she could end with a civial law suit aginest her family,and her the girl for damages to his name.
I wish you well,and thanks for carring about a
person who needed you in his corner.
Reply:Isn't "No contest" the same as "Guilty"
Reply:It is true that the case will probably remain on his record indefinitely if he doesn't so something about it. Given how ridiculous it is to accuse someone of sexual assault when all they did was hang onto someone to avoid falling off a motorcycle, I think he definitely should have tried to defend himself. However, at this point I have no idea how easy that would be. He'd have to get the advice of a lawyer on whether they could turn this thing around at this point or not.
Reply:He needs to decide whether it's worth fighting or not. I can't go to Mississippi because of a mistake made by a police officer there when he arrested someone with the same name and date of birth as me. I chose not to fight it. That was over 10 years ago. Who needs to go to Mississippi?
Speaking of sentences, it would serve you well to work on yours. Take an English class. You will be glad that you did.
Reply:Your grammar is actionable in a court of law.
Reply:First lesson in life: LIFE ISN'T FAIR!!
Another lesson : Justice is only as good as the lawyer you can afford.
If it was truly an accident, then No, this wasn't fair.
Reply:i dont think so, if anyone shoulda got a sentence it should of been her, for punitive damages against him. And she shouldnt of been going fast enough for him to reposition grip in fear of his own safety
Reply:No Contest means just that. It means the individual charged with a crime or misdemeanor is not putting up a defense and therefore agrees that the charge is appropriate and true.
No contest is a quick and satisfactory way for the court to resolve the issue. Unfortunately it ruins the lives of the innocent. I'm afraid your friend will have this record with him for life.
Reply:it is a sad fact of life that irrespective of who is telling the truth or telling lies, the court almost invariably favours the woman in this sort of case, i am not saying that they shouldn't but i believe that strong character witnesses should be brought in to give at least an opinion. having said that i truly believe that if the laws in the UK were made to really punish sex offenders instead of trying to 'treat' them then it would be a great deterrent and would reduce cases of sexually assault and sexual abuse, likewise if a woman is found guilty of telling lies to the court in such cases then they should also be severely punished, sadly it has reached the stage in the Uk whereby it is difficult to distinguish between sexual assault and 2 people having some fun. just my opinion. take care and good luck.
Reply:Should have dropped the b#tch
I need your opinion on this sentence. What do you think about this one?
the judge diden't believe the girl.yes i think he knew about the girl through court records,what happend was a acciden't.the girl wanted to be a star so people would notice her.
The judge saw through her childish charge,
He had to hand down a hand slap sentince,
He got justice and gave him the least he could.I'm
sure the girl will tell it different.
she could end with a civial law suit aginest her family,and her the girl for damages to his name.
I wish you well,and thanks for carring about a
person who needed you in his corner.
Reply:Isn't "No contest" the same as "Guilty"
Reply:It is true that the case will probably remain on his record indefinitely if he doesn't so something about it. Given how ridiculous it is to accuse someone of sexual assault when all they did was hang onto someone to avoid falling off a motorcycle, I think he definitely should have tried to defend himself. However, at this point I have no idea how easy that would be. He'd have to get the advice of a lawyer on whether they could turn this thing around at this point or not.
Reply:He needs to decide whether it's worth fighting or not. I can't go to Mississippi because of a mistake made by a police officer there when he arrested someone with the same name and date of birth as me. I chose not to fight it. That was over 10 years ago. Who needs to go to Mississippi?
Speaking of sentences, it would serve you well to work on yours. Take an English class. You will be glad that you did.
Reply:Your grammar is actionable in a court of law.
Reply:First lesson in life: LIFE ISN'T FAIR!!
Another lesson : Justice is only as good as the lawyer you can afford.
If it was truly an accident, then No, this wasn't fair.
Reply:i dont think so, if anyone shoulda got a sentence it should of been her, for punitive damages against him. And she shouldnt of been going fast enough for him to reposition grip in fear of his own safety
Reply:No Contest means just that. It means the individual charged with a crime or misdemeanor is not putting up a defense and therefore agrees that the charge is appropriate and true.
No contest is a quick and satisfactory way for the court to resolve the issue. Unfortunately it ruins the lives of the innocent. I'm afraid your friend will have this record with him for life.
Reply:it is a sad fact of life that irrespective of who is telling the truth or telling lies, the court almost invariably favours the woman in this sort of case, i am not saying that they shouldn't but i believe that strong character witnesses should be brought in to give at least an opinion. having said that i truly believe that if the laws in the UK were made to really punish sex offenders instead of trying to 'treat' them then it would be a great deterrent and would reduce cases of sexually assault and sexual abuse, likewise if a woman is found guilty of telling lies to the court in such cases then they should also be severely punished, sadly it has reached the stage in the Uk whereby it is difficult to distinguish between sexual assault and 2 people having some fun. just my opinion. take care and good luck.
Reply:Should have dropped the b#tch
What's your opinion about Las Vegas slots?
I'm thinking about another trip to Vegas, but when I visited a couple years ago, I noticed that their slots didn't pay off very well. Anyone else notice this change? Has it gotten better recently?
What's your opinion about Las Vegas slots?
There are several factors to consider:
The higher the denomination, the more likely it is to pay back a higher percentage of your bet. The casino doesn't need to keep as high a portion of the dollar-machine bets as it does the nickel-machine bets to make a profit. Keep in mind that you have to wager a lot more to get that, though, but DO NOT play above your bankroll. Playing $100 on a $10 slot machine may seem like a good play, but you won't get much play if you hit a short bad run. I'd play a 25-cent limit for about every $50 I plan to play. If I brought $200, I'd likely play a 50-cent or $1 machine.
Also, a number of Las Vegas casinos advertise 98%, 99%, or even 99.5% payback slot machines. This means that somewhere in their casino are good-paying slot machines.
Inside a casino you may see a bank of machines that says "99% Payback!" or something like that. If that sign is on a bank of machines, you should play one of them, if it's within your bankroll limitations. EVERY one of those machines MUST average at least that much payback.
And yes, usually downtown casinos have better, looser slots. Try the Orleans, the Freemont casino, and the Excalibur. I found good slots at all those places.
Reply:They say the strip casinos are the tightest. Downtown a bit looser. Stand alone neighborhood casinos maybe the loosest.
(Texas Station, Fiestas, Palace Station, Dottys).
Http://www.wizardofodds.com
Http://www.lasvegasadvisor.com
Http://www.lasvegastalk.com
check out those websites.
Pennies harder to pay out than nickels. Dollars supposedly looser than quarter machines.
High limit areas $1 and $5 are supposed to be loose.
To keep the mini whales happy.
Reply:Try the locals casinos The Palms, Rio, Main street Station and others
Reply:My opinion is that you are gambling for a short period of time so it doesn't matter. What does matter is keep control of how much you are playing and learn the rules, if any. I have hit a royal flush in a casino that is not "popular" and finally hit one in a casino that is suppose to be looser. I don't believe that you can judge a casino or a whole city by one trip a couple of years ago. If you had it a big jackpot that wouldn't mean the slots in Las Vegas were necessary loose, would it?
pulling teeth
What's your opinion about Las Vegas slots?
There are several factors to consider:
The higher the denomination, the more likely it is to pay back a higher percentage of your bet. The casino doesn't need to keep as high a portion of the dollar-machine bets as it does the nickel-machine bets to make a profit. Keep in mind that you have to wager a lot more to get that, though, but DO NOT play above your bankroll. Playing $100 on a $10 slot machine may seem like a good play, but you won't get much play if you hit a short bad run. I'd play a 25-cent limit for about every $50 I plan to play. If I brought $200, I'd likely play a 50-cent or $1 machine.
Also, a number of Las Vegas casinos advertise 98%, 99%, or even 99.5% payback slot machines. This means that somewhere in their casino are good-paying slot machines.
Inside a casino you may see a bank of machines that says "99% Payback!" or something like that. If that sign is on a bank of machines, you should play one of them, if it's within your bankroll limitations. EVERY one of those machines MUST average at least that much payback.
And yes, usually downtown casinos have better, looser slots. Try the Orleans, the Freemont casino, and the Excalibur. I found good slots at all those places.
Reply:They say the strip casinos are the tightest. Downtown a bit looser. Stand alone neighborhood casinos maybe the loosest.
(Texas Station, Fiestas, Palace Station, Dottys).
Http://www.wizardofodds.com
Http://www.lasvegasadvisor.com
Http://www.lasvegastalk.com
check out those websites.
Pennies harder to pay out than nickels. Dollars supposedly looser than quarter machines.
High limit areas $1 and $5 are supposed to be loose.
To keep the mini whales happy.
Reply:Try the locals casinos The Palms, Rio, Main street Station and others
Reply:My opinion is that you are gambling for a short period of time so it doesn't matter. What does matter is keep control of how much you are playing and learn the rules, if any. I have hit a royal flush in a casino that is not "popular" and finally hit one in a casino that is suppose to be looser. I don't believe that you can judge a casino or a whole city by one trip a couple of years ago. If you had it a big jackpot that wouldn't mean the slots in Las Vegas were necessary loose, would it?
pulling teeth
Is there too much money in professional sports?
Professional baseball, football, and basketball players get paid way, way, waaaaay to much money in my opinion. If we added all of the money every single MBL baseball, NFL football and NBA basketball player makes over the course of 10 years, I believe it would add up to more money than any second or third world country has. I am a HUGE sports fan, but I feel their salaries are too high! Think of all of the under priviledged children in the US and around the world. Think about our homeless population. Think about that highway that you live near that desperately needs repaired. Think about that village in Ethiopia that one player's salary for a 5 year contract would feed for 10 years. We, as Americans, are spoiled and greedy. Someone gets offered a $60 million contract for 5 years, and holds out for a better offer. Think about how hard WE work for a salary of $20,000 to $75,000 (on average) per year. It's not right. Does anyone agree. If not, why?
Is there too much money in professional sports?
i completely agree with you. i mean seriously, since when can ppl earn millions and millions of $s just for playing some silly game. who cares how good they are nobody's worth that kind of money. y cant the average worker make that kind of money?
Reply:Well it all has to do with the amount of people willing to go watch the sports. Take the NY Yankees for example.... they get approx. 50,000 people coming to watch their games every night. For this reason they are able to pay players millions of dollars to come in and pitch for one inning.
Salary has to do with how many customers your profession has.
Reply:I agree with you fullheartedly.
Reply:yes way to much
Is there too much money in professional sports?
i completely agree with you. i mean seriously, since when can ppl earn millions and millions of $s just for playing some silly game. who cares how good they are nobody's worth that kind of money. y cant the average worker make that kind of money?
Reply:Well it all has to do with the amount of people willing to go watch the sports. Take the NY Yankees for example.... they get approx. 50,000 people coming to watch their games every night. For this reason they are able to pay players millions of dollars to come in and pitch for one inning.
Salary has to do with how many customers your profession has.
Reply:I agree with you fullheartedly.
Reply:yes way to much
In your opinion, what is a reasonable price to pay for gas?
I say .25 cents a gallon and lock it so they can't move it up or down when they want.
In your opinion, what is a reasonable price to pay for gas?
.01 so if they raise it hopefully they won't raise it up like sky rocketing or like yours i wouldnt mind that either!!!
Reply:I would say a dollar per gallon sounds about right, maybe even 1.07.
I remember seeing that and thinking OMG how expensive when gas prices were around .97 back in the day!
Reply:$1.17...
I remember when that seemed high, but it sounds about right, now...
Reply:Definitely not the prices now.
I'd say no more than $1.75.
That would be nice.
Reply:$1!
Reply:5.00 so all these dumbasses will get off the road and it will be safe.
Reply:89 CENTS A GALLON LIKE IT WAS IN THE 80'S
Reply:5 $ When I was in Europe 28 years ago gas was about 3$
Reply:$2.50
Reply:I would be happy with $1.00 a gallon, since I just paid $3.33 a gallon this morning.....ugh!!!!!
Reply:Wow...I was gonna say 2.50....tells you how high it has gotten that I think that is low.
Reply:I say nothing. I can dream, can't I?
perfect teeth
In your opinion, what is a reasonable price to pay for gas?
.01 so if they raise it hopefully they won't raise it up like sky rocketing or like yours i wouldnt mind that either!!!
Reply:I would say a dollar per gallon sounds about right, maybe even 1.07.
I remember seeing that and thinking OMG how expensive when gas prices were around .97 back in the day!
Reply:$1.17...
I remember when that seemed high, but it sounds about right, now...
Reply:Definitely not the prices now.
I'd say no more than $1.75.
That would be nice.
Reply:$1!
Reply:5.00 so all these dumbasses will get off the road and it will be safe.
Reply:89 CENTS A GALLON LIKE IT WAS IN THE 80'S
Reply:5 $ When I was in Europe 28 years ago gas was about 3$
Reply:$2.50
Reply:I would be happy with $1.00 a gallon, since I just paid $3.33 a gallon this morning.....ugh!!!!!
Reply:Wow...I was gonna say 2.50....tells you how high it has gotten that I think that is low.
Reply:I say nothing. I can dream, can't I?
perfect teeth
Can a restaurant force you to pay for food prepared but not consumed?
I am a new restaurant manager, and keep having to battle with my chefs over this issue. If food is prepared for a guest, but the guest has changed their mind and ordered something else before the food arrives at the table, is the old food automatically a "return" item or should they pay for it?
Legally, I mean! I know my opinion!
Can a restaurant force you to pay for food prepared but not consumed?
If you ordered it you pay for it. Who else will eat it but the dog. Why should the resturant assume the cost of your mistake? How can they stay in business with customers who can't make up their minds? Business is business and they are not in business to make a loss.
Reply:Well that is to your discretion, I mean legally, what is in your policy? Do you have anything in writing saying that you have to serve an a55hole if they are just being nasty, and being a manager you should be able to tell whether or not some one is being mean,a nd it also depends on if you want that persons service or not. But if you want my opinion you should post a rule clear for the patrons to see, that if for any reason they are unsatisfied with the order they may change but if they just want to change for something different there should be a fee for the preparation,unless you pay your cooks to prepare good food that somebody would be glad to eat.....for free, hey its all in the rules, make one....
Reply:I think if the food ordered HAS ALREADY prepared (on the process), then the guest has to pay for it. Even tho it has not reached the table.
Actually guest is not just paying for the food, he/she is paying for the preparation time, the service, the labour cost, the food itself and all other stuff included. There's no possible way to ask guest to only pay half if its already prepared. They have to pay full for it.
I mean, think about it..If 10 people do this in a day, in a month u r looking for wasting 300 meals then (because there's no way u will keep all the food again, it wont be fresh and it degradate the quality of ur restaurants food which will lead to : no one's gonna come 2 ur restaurant anymore). and by this? u r heading to bankruptcy.
hope it helps
Reply:That depends on whether you want to keep the customer. If you graciously agree to replace the meal at no cost, you will delight the customer, and have probably guaranteed future business (not to mention word of mouth business). Companies that go out of their way to make their customers happy will be rewarded. Customer service is so bad now, people are amazed when they are treated well.
Reply:Customer is always right. I think it's really sorry for people to do this, but if you make them pay for something they don't want, be sure they will not be back.
Legally, I mean! I know my opinion!
Can a restaurant force you to pay for food prepared but not consumed?
If you ordered it you pay for it. Who else will eat it but the dog. Why should the resturant assume the cost of your mistake? How can they stay in business with customers who can't make up their minds? Business is business and they are not in business to make a loss.
Reply:Well that is to your discretion, I mean legally, what is in your policy? Do you have anything in writing saying that you have to serve an a55hole if they are just being nasty, and being a manager you should be able to tell whether or not some one is being mean,a nd it also depends on if you want that persons service or not. But if you want my opinion you should post a rule clear for the patrons to see, that if for any reason they are unsatisfied with the order they may change but if they just want to change for something different there should be a fee for the preparation,unless you pay your cooks to prepare good food that somebody would be glad to eat.....for free, hey its all in the rules, make one....
Reply:I think if the food ordered HAS ALREADY prepared (on the process), then the guest has to pay for it. Even tho it has not reached the table.
Actually guest is not just paying for the food, he/she is paying for the preparation time, the service, the labour cost, the food itself and all other stuff included. There's no possible way to ask guest to only pay half if its already prepared. They have to pay full for it.
I mean, think about it..If 10 people do this in a day, in a month u r looking for wasting 300 meals then (because there's no way u will keep all the food again, it wont be fresh and it degradate the quality of ur restaurants food which will lead to : no one's gonna come 2 ur restaurant anymore). and by this? u r heading to bankruptcy.
hope it helps
Reply:That depends on whether you want to keep the customer. If you graciously agree to replace the meal at no cost, you will delight the customer, and have probably guaranteed future business (not to mention word of mouth business). Companies that go out of their way to make their customers happy will be rewarded. Customer service is so bad now, people are amazed when they are treated well.
Reply:Customer is always right. I think it's really sorry for people to do this, but if you make them pay for something they don't want, be sure they will not be back.
Need serious advice about a new concept in business…?
I live in India and I am working for a company which provides online tuitions to students of USA.
Company is planning to start Online Teaching of Indian dishes/recipes. In this new concept, people will book sessions in advance. Best of the Chefs will teach them practically by using Skype and Web Camera (Audio+Video).
I want your opinion. Do you think people will pay to learn Indian Dishes? During my trips in various countries I have noticed that so many people love Indian Food (curries etc.) but will they like to pay to learn it?
Serious replies please…….
Need serious advice about a new concept in business…?
In the USA we have a LOT of cooking shows for free. In addition, there is the Food Network, which is cooking shows 24 hours a day.
Since so much is available for free, I think it would be difficult to find enough people willing to pay that would make it worth your time.
Reply:i dont think so but who knows,you can but try
Reply:Most people will find skype and webcam hard to set up in their kitchen and a barrier to learning how to cook a dish.
Reply:Indian food is very popular in So. California. I think people would like to learn how to cook the dishes. My feeling/opinion - people would rather have hands-on training, rather than video lessons. Perhaps you could market/sell Indian cooking lessons for the computer, i.e. software program? I wish you success.
Reply:I am sorry but probably no.
Reply:honestly.....i LOVE to cook, sometimes gourmet. i cannot picture myself paying to watch a video cooking lesson. anyone that is an avid cook would not pay to go to cooking class as hey already know what they need to know about cooking and the "dishes" could be searched for on the Internet for free. I don't see the video aspect of your concept taking off as a fresh and customer catching idea. that and the fact that Indian food is mildly popular in restaurants and hasn't really caught on in the "cooking world"
Reply:I probably wouldn't pay for a class because there is so much good info available free on the web. Sorry! Interesting theory though.
Company is planning to start Online Teaching of Indian dishes/recipes. In this new concept, people will book sessions in advance. Best of the Chefs will teach them practically by using Skype and Web Camera (Audio+Video).
I want your opinion. Do you think people will pay to learn Indian Dishes? During my trips in various countries I have noticed that so many people love Indian Food (curries etc.) but will they like to pay to learn it?
Serious replies please…….
Need serious advice about a new concept in business…?
In the USA we have a LOT of cooking shows for free. In addition, there is the Food Network, which is cooking shows 24 hours a day.
Since so much is available for free, I think it would be difficult to find enough people willing to pay that would make it worth your time.
Reply:i dont think so but who knows,you can but try
Reply:Most people will find skype and webcam hard to set up in their kitchen and a barrier to learning how to cook a dish.
Reply:Indian food is very popular in So. California. I think people would like to learn how to cook the dishes. My feeling/opinion - people would rather have hands-on training, rather than video lessons. Perhaps you could market/sell Indian cooking lessons for the computer, i.e. software program? I wish you success.
Reply:I am sorry but probably no.
Reply:honestly.....i LOVE to cook, sometimes gourmet. i cannot picture myself paying to watch a video cooking lesson. anyone that is an avid cook would not pay to go to cooking class as hey already know what they need to know about cooking and the "dishes" could be searched for on the Internet for free. I don't see the video aspect of your concept taking off as a fresh and customer catching idea. that and the fact that Indian food is mildly popular in restaurants and hasn't really caught on in the "cooking world"
Reply:I probably wouldn't pay for a class because there is so much good info available free on the web. Sorry! Interesting theory though.
With the influx of illegals from Mexico, would that not be a signal that NAU and NAFTA failed?
It is clear that all the companies that left the US are not paying good wages there, or why would anyone leave their own country for a job paying the same. In you opinion, not you political leanings, should the US pull out of NAU and NAFTA.
With the influx of illegals from Mexico, would that not be a signal that NAU and NAFTA failed?
Definitely. The US pull out, not in Bushes lifetime.
We paid many of these company's relocation expenses to move to Mexico. I had a friend who worked for a candle company in Oklahoma.The good old taxpayer paid for his company to move to Mexico. This company hired allot of handicapped people. It required little or no skills.It was chosen for this reason to relocate. Put several people out of work in the USA. Oh well that's politics.
Good question.
Reply:Yes
With the influx of illegals from Mexico, would that not be a signal that NAU and NAFTA failed?
Definitely. The US pull out, not in Bushes lifetime.
We paid many of these company's relocation expenses to move to Mexico. I had a friend who worked for a candle company in Oklahoma.The good old taxpayer paid for his company to move to Mexico. This company hired allot of handicapped people. It required little or no skills.It was chosen for this reason to relocate. Put several people out of work in the USA. Oh well that's politics.
Good question.
Reply:Yes
Need serious advice about a new concept in business…?
I live in India and I am working for a company which provides online tuitions to students of USA.
Company is planning to start Online Teaching of Indian dishes/recipes. In this new concept, people will book sessions in advance. Best of the Chefs will teach them practically by using Skype and Web Camera (Audio+Video).
I want your opinion. Do you think people will pay to learn Indian Dishes? During my trips in various countries I have noticed that so many people love Indian Food (curries etc.) but will they like to pay to learn it?
Serious replies please…….
Need serious advice about a new concept in business…?
not to burst your bubble but between pbs and the food network and local programing why would someone pay to get what they get basically for free.......
Reply:Seriously, No. The reason for my opinion is that the American people, which I am one, have a diverse taste, we like to have something different all the time, there are so many cultures here that give us the opportunity to try those different tastes. To pay to be taught one cultures dishes, I don't think so, not when if we get the craving, we can go pick-up a cook book. Good Luck
Reply:Yes. Yes they will pay - but not too much. If you market to culinary students and special interest groups (like Indian culture social groups, belly dancing clubs,etc.) it really could work. I wouldn't go above $19.99 a class, though. Or maybe you'd have a curriculum with 15 classes all in a package price or something. You want this to be a fun thing for a group to do - or a lesson supply for culinary teachers and Indian restaurant chefs you could technically charge more for professional people who will make money with the dish. Or maybe charge a membership fee and all lessons are $5 a class after that...
Just some ideas
laser teeth cleaning
Company is planning to start Online Teaching of Indian dishes/recipes. In this new concept, people will book sessions in advance. Best of the Chefs will teach them practically by using Skype and Web Camera (Audio+Video).
I want your opinion. Do you think people will pay to learn Indian Dishes? During my trips in various countries I have noticed that so many people love Indian Food (curries etc.) but will they like to pay to learn it?
Serious replies please…….
Need serious advice about a new concept in business…?
not to burst your bubble but between pbs and the food network and local programing why would someone pay to get what they get basically for free.......
Reply:Seriously, No. The reason for my opinion is that the American people, which I am one, have a diverse taste, we like to have something different all the time, there are so many cultures here that give us the opportunity to try those different tastes. To pay to be taught one cultures dishes, I don't think so, not when if we get the craving, we can go pick-up a cook book. Good Luck
Reply:Yes. Yes they will pay - but not too much. If you market to culinary students and special interest groups (like Indian culture social groups, belly dancing clubs,etc.) it really could work. I wouldn't go above $19.99 a class, though. Or maybe you'd have a curriculum with 15 classes all in a package price or something. You want this to be a fun thing for a group to do - or a lesson supply for culinary teachers and Indian restaurant chefs you could technically charge more for professional people who will make money with the dish. Or maybe charge a membership fee and all lessons are $5 a class after that...
Just some ideas
laser teeth cleaning
How important is it to be personally involved in state and local politics and give input on new legislation?
I have this deep and maybe ingrained sense that I need to keep alert to changes in state and local laws. It is something that is almost impossible for me to do, because I am so busy. However, whenever I hear of legistlation that appears foolish or harmful or frivolous, I am driven to stay up late at nights or steal minutes here and there to write my opinion and send it to the powers that be -- hoping that I can in some way impact the decision. I have received some interesting (albeit canned) replies from representatives to our government, but I don't know if my input has that much weight or importance in the greater scheme of things.
How important is it that we share our opinion with government officials? Does anyone pay attention when we speak?
I'm talking specifically about state and local government, where it is possible we have more impact. Thanks all... There is a particular issue I am involved with locally right now.
How important is it to be personally involved in state and local politics and give input on new legislation?
It is very important to ensure that democrazy exists .... that we continue to vote and participate in voicing our concerns and ways to better our local areas. You know what they say...."Use it or lose it"
Reply:I actually have a friend that is a staffer for a high ranking elected official. He says they read every single piece of mail they get. And at lower levels of government, I'm sure they spend even more time with the mail. Keep it up.
Reply:you dont have enough money or power to change any new or old law!the fact is that the law has already been decided before you even heard about it so next time use you time to answer questions on yahoo!
Reply:honestly politics is a waste of time if you ask me
How important is it that we share our opinion with government officials? Does anyone pay attention when we speak?
I'm talking specifically about state and local government, where it is possible we have more impact. Thanks all... There is a particular issue I am involved with locally right now.
How important is it to be personally involved in state and local politics and give input on new legislation?
It is very important to ensure that democrazy exists .... that we continue to vote and participate in voicing our concerns and ways to better our local areas. You know what they say...."Use it or lose it"
Reply:I actually have a friend that is a staffer for a high ranking elected official. He says they read every single piece of mail they get. And at lower levels of government, I'm sure they spend even more time with the mail. Keep it up.
Reply:you dont have enough money or power to change any new or old law!the fact is that the law has already been decided before you even heard about it so next time use you time to answer questions on yahoo!
Reply:honestly politics is a waste of time if you ask me
Opinion Poll: I got offers a very high-paying job (nearly a dream job) - starting tomorrow, but .....?
I have already booked for my last sky-diving practical exam. Should l drop out tomorrow?
Opinion Poll: I got offers a very high-paying job (nearly a dream job) - starting tomorrow, but .....?
Niaivity! I love it! lol!
Reply:Find out if you can take the exam another time... If this opportunity is literally a "dream job" don't pass it up.
I guess it is up to you as to what your priorities are, but if it were me I would do everything I could to take the exam another time.
This situation has occured with me before with very important classes, and I took the job interview. My instructors understood my opportunity.
Reply:Take the high paying job....postpone the exam
With the high paying job you can always take the exam or redo the course another time. How often do these dream jobs come along...really?
Reply:The job is more important. Get your priorities straightened. Which to you is more important? I would say the job. Re-book the exam for another time. I think they will understand as your are gaining employment.
Reply:drop out the plane into the the dream job! :)
Reply:Take the Job and reschedule the exam...
Good Luck
Reply:id go for the dream job since im afraid of heights..lol.
Reply:Do you need this on a financial level? If so go with whats best for your future. depends whats important to you.
Opinion Poll: I got offers a very high-paying job (nearly a dream job) - starting tomorrow, but .....?
Niaivity! I love it! lol!
Reply:Find out if you can take the exam another time... If this opportunity is literally a "dream job" don't pass it up.
I guess it is up to you as to what your priorities are, but if it were me I would do everything I could to take the exam another time.
This situation has occured with me before with very important classes, and I took the job interview. My instructors understood my opportunity.
Reply:Take the high paying job....postpone the exam
With the high paying job you can always take the exam or redo the course another time. How often do these dream jobs come along...really?
Reply:The job is more important. Get your priorities straightened. Which to you is more important? I would say the job. Re-book the exam for another time. I think they will understand as your are gaining employment.
Reply:drop out the plane into the the dream job! :)
Reply:Take the Job and reschedule the exam...
Good Luck
Reply:id go for the dream job since im afraid of heights..lol.
Reply:Do you need this on a financial level? If so go with whats best for your future. depends whats important to you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)