But it only has "value" to the extent the government has created law that protects it. If the government refuses to enforce your "right to exclude", it's worthless. If the government will enforce your copyright for 50 years versus 25 years, it will change the value. And so on.

Further, the government defines what the "property" actually is. With something like land, we can all basically agree on what that is. But with something less tangible, it gets more difficult. Take a story, for example. What is the creator's "property"? The literal words? The plot? The basic story? Protect too much and you will stifle further innovation. What if Shakespeare continued to have a copyright on all love stories?

As molson pointed out, it's perfectly legitimate to want regulation in one area and not another. But it's a lot more difficult to actually figure out which areas we should have it, and how much we should have.

I've always considered them wrong on the limitation frankly, I don't believe ownership rights to created works should ever expire for so long as there is a successor to assign them to (a cavet I mention simply because there could be instances where inheritance of them was never assigned).


Not sure that I see it being as difficult as all that. Basically if I created it, catch you using it, and I find myself inclined to have you taken out back & shot like the thieving dog you are then I'm pretty sure there's a good case for a property claim.


Largely because we seem to have abandoned the use of common sense over the years & the skill has atrophied ... but that's a whole other philosophical topic that it's really too late in the evening to get into.

I dont think I can just move it from stock to stock though. I can stop buying stocks & put new contributions elsewhere but I dont believe I can just move it without penalty. Is that not correct?

But the gist of where I'm going is that me & 20M other people can easily be gamed by daring to invest by being the short guy on the totem pole. When the big guy moves out we fall down. Such is life I suppose.

But you really have avoided a difficult task: actually articulating how you'd define what exactly you've "created". Even if we lived in hypothetical JIMGA jurisdiction where your standard applied, people need some rules ex-ante to guide their conduct. And one thing I'm fairly certain we can agree on is that mind reading is something no one has created yet.

Worked for Potter Stewart ;)

You can move from stock to stock, fund to fund, bond to bond, etc. As long as you don't take it out of the actual IRA/401K, you don't pay a penalty or taxes on it.

This does depend a bit on who you have it setup through, but most offer a lot of options. And if you want nothing to do with the market, you can throw all your money into CDs or something uber-safe.

It's worth noting though that retirement accounts have been relatively safe and have a long history of bringing in good returns.

Yep...I know its relatively safe and I've done quite well since I basically stepped up my invest amounts in late 2008 (figuring if the world was going to truly meltdown, money wouldnt matter anyway :) ).

I'll have to check with my plan provider because I did not see a mechanism to transfer from stock to stock without fees...only a way to divert new money to different stocks.

I think much of the backlash could have been mitigated had they bailed out the companies but thrown the individuals responsible for trashing the economy in jail. Instead not only did they save the companies, but they allowed the responsible parties to PROFIT from what they had done.

Is your 401k really invested in individual stocks or by "stocks" do you mean mutual funds? Seems like it would be awfully dangerous to have retirement funds in a couple of individual stocks - at least the people who did it with Enron would think so.

Sorry, haven't kept up so ignore if asked already --

Make the prediction -- Shutdown or no Shutdown?

My prediction is shutdown and a quick compromise by end of next week.

Shutdown for a few days. That was the Democrats can say "See, they hate women" and the Republicans can say "See, they don't want to cut costs"

Can't remember if I mentioned this up the thread or not, and frankly I'm too lazy at the moment to look to see but ... my son's class trip to D.C. starts Sunday (well, travel day followed by Williamsburg on Monday). Needless to say the faculty are overjoyed at the prospect of several days in Washington spent walking around the city trying to describe what they would have seen inside if the doors weren't locked.

On a separate note, I read an interesting analysis last night (wish I remembered where) that talked about how the looming fight over raising the debt ceiling could make the past week or two look like an amusing appetizer to that main course.

Deal reached

None of them have the balls to fight the debt ceiling. Pretending to be small government is nice when you're doing it to people who won't call you on it, but risking the consequences of not raising the debt ceiling is something that impacts the real world.

Ah, Jon, never change. (actually, we both know that line is moot, you WILL never change :))

The Founding Fathers actually got it right in the Constitution:

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"

The key word being Limited. Of course, these days, limited means "Until Mickey Mouse is threatened, and then extended"

No, they are blended funds. Some of them being more narrow than others but those dont tend to be the bulk of investments. That is really what I was referring to...not individual stocks. But certainly if you invest in a banking fund, a run on the banks that are being invested in would certainly be more damaging.

Fuck off hypocrite.

lol

Campaign For Liberty — Obama "Regrets" Debt Ceiling Vote

.

I'm pretty sure what Obama meant was that he wouldn't utilize signing statements unless he disagreed with some or part of the proposed legislation. You just need to learn to read that guy. ("I will close GITMO" = "I may or may not be able to close GITMO, but I'd like to in a perfect world, so if it doesn't happen, blame everybody else!")

Obama's previous vote on the debt ceiling was retarded and political posturing. Same goes for anyone threatening to vote against raising it today.

It would destroy our financial system overnight. Worse than what we saw years ago. The credit rating for the U.S. would go in the toilet and Social Security and Medicare payments would be cut dramatically. Like I said earlier, despite all the tough talk, not even the most extreme guys in Congress have the balls to vote against raising it if there is a legitimate chance of their vote impacting it.

Hey, kids, watch the dollar no longer be the reserve currency overnight. What would happen would make the fall of 2008 look like a picnic.

I know the GOP hates Obama but enough to fry every incumbent in office as they ushered in the second great depression?

SI

Also, after reading through the past 2 pages, I want to see lcjjdnh and SportsDino in a "Finance Off". I'm not sure what that would entail and it probably should be broadcast on, say, NPR so everyone can suitably fall asleep but it would be a sight to behold.

SI

For JIMGA (and others) David Byrne enforces his copyright against Charlie Crist in a unique way:

Charlie Crist, Still Getting Kicked Around | Talking Points Memo

+1

And I'm sure there'll be some folks who I generally agree with or even praise who won't be able to resist the temptation to do it. I understand why it'll happen, but I'll generally be rolling my eyes at them while they do it.

We didn't get in this mess overnight, we ain't getting out overnight either.

I must have missed where I've stated where I agree with everything Obama says. He's been a great disappointment to me in a number of ways. If he proposes to gut SS or Medicare tomorrow he'll have lost my enthusiasm. I'll probably still vote for him, but only because the GOP looks likely to nominate a complete nut job.

As for the debt limit vote, I don't mind when the minority makes a symbolic vote. They probably should be more responsible, but it's not a big deal. The problem comes when it's more than a symbolic vote. If the GOP were in the minority they could vote as a block against the debt limit.

Prepare to rage:

The Real Housewives of Wall Street | Rolling Stone Politics

My brother told me about that article. Angry.

But, we're TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY!


So have all the rich that fled the confiscatory 26% rate moved back now that there's a 17% rate? Or is 17% still too high?

Seems low - I guess we should vote for a Democratic president and a Democratic majority in both houses to change that then, huh? (And if they fail to accomplish change, let's just keep voting for them and sending them money.)

FYI: I can disagree with both the GOP and Dems.

I'd love a Clinton to step forward and say all tax brackets need to be raised, but unfortunately that isn't going to happen.

As I've stated before, if the gov't is really all that serious about taxing the top 1%, dump all these silly deductions and credits and go to a flat tax. The more you make, the more you pay.

I've noted that I'm one of the 'top 1%'. I just filed my taxes for our family. We ended up paying around 12% on our income tax if you just take our tax amount as a percentage of our total income. I pay an accountant to get all of the tax breaks I can, and it appears to be well-worth it. Oh, and I also get a deduction for his services as well.

That's the thing, they're not serious about it, not even elected Democrats, because they're guaranteed votes for life anyway because of the "party war" they've tricked everyone into picking a side for. It's amazing, they get credit for wanting to "tax the top 1%" but can not actually have to do it and just blame republicans - and their followers will continue to send them money and votes.

If there was ever a time for a real, proactive liberal faction to emerge, this was it - with fractions in the other party too, with an ineffective president (from the perspective of the liberal promises and rhetoric he had before taking office) but that opportunity has been blown. It's just about D and R now and that keeps everyone in elite fat and happy. And everyone is afraid to step outside those roles in the fear that the other side will "take over". That fear guarantees the status quo.

If you read these message boards its like Bush is still in power, it's still the same complaints. What was the point? I thought that the best part about Obama winning would be finally, these American liberal ideas would be something more then hypothetical theories in this country, we can actually get a track record going to evaluate it (after 8 years of "we know how to do this better if we just had the chance"). But we STILL get the "we know how to do this better if we just had the chance". How many "top 1%" speeches to we have to endure before we actually hold our leaders accountable?

molson: How exactly am I supposed to change things? In a Presidential election we're given two choices, so it's almost always a case of voting for the least bad option. I'll admit I'm disappointed with Obama, but how would voting Green and letting McCain win benefit me?

And am I supposed to suddenly decide that issues I find important should no longer be important because a guy I voted for didn't push them to the top of his agenda? I think the middle class is getting fucked. I thought that in 2000 and I think that now and, yes, nobody is doing anything about it. How is that only about D and R?

If it were me, I'd sit out the presidential election or vote 3rd party (or even write-in), not send democrats a penny, not register as a democrat, and only support candidates whose views (and more importantly, actions) I actually support. I wouldn't take part in the "party wars", and I would publically be more upset with the party who defrauded me, rather than the party who I'm nominally opposed to by philosphy. You, as one person, can't make a change (just like your one vote for Obama doesn't make a difference), but if millions did this, there would be change.

I think Republicans are a little better at this. If a Republican is seen as "too moderate", a lot of the big money jumps ship. A lot of the voters stay home. Democrats seem to rely more on party loyalty (and keeping "the enemy" at bay), which is a curse to the bigger picture. I know some Democrats kind of whisper that Obama is too moderate and/or ineffective, but if they're not really willing to speak up on that or act out, it's on them.

Have a conscience and actually try and do something about it yourself instead of allowing the problem you admit is occuring to continue. Otherwise carry on with your partisan bickering

Wait, did MBBF just claim to be in the top 1% in the nation in income?!

His wife is a specialist doctor(i think), so I'd easily assume top 1% of the US.

Millions did this in 2000 and we got Bush instead of Gore. Now Gore is pretty far to the right of where I am and would've annoyed me by being too pragmatic just like Clinton and Obama have done, but I think the country would be a helluva lot better if he won.

Furthermore, I have no illusions that what I want done is supported by a majority of voters and thus I'm fine with supporting weak kneed moderates who will at least get something done (healthcare, DADT) instead of tinfoil hat wearing Green Party morons.

I think it's only like $250,000 so I don't find it completely implausable. (I say only somewhat loosely at I am nowhere close to it)

Until everyone is taxed 17%, yeah, it's too high.

I must have missed when any real healthcare reform or gay rights measures occured. I know the Democrats all capaigned on these talking points but just like the Republicans and abortion they don't ever seem to follow through with anything.

If you only need to have 250k income to be in the top 1%, then color me ignorant and say I jumped to conclusions.

That may be accurate, but I would have guessed a number far higher than that.

Huh, according to Wiki..

1.93% of all households had annual incomes exceeding $250,000.

But still, that tells me top 1% is quite a bit higher than that likely?

From an old NYTimes article..


So that tells me top 1 percent is now over $350k fwiw.

Anyway, I'm digressing...

From a 2010 report that references 2008 IRS data


Where Do You Rank as a Taxpayer?

Repeal of DADT was pretty real and significant to alot of people. As I've stated before, I would've preferred single payer or the public option, but Obamacare is better than the status quo and light years better than what McCain would've done.

Also, as I've said, Obama isn't my ideal candidate by a long shot, but another Nader 2000 situation would've been disastrous. With McCain, we wouldn't have got DADT repealed, the health care situation would be worse, and the courts would be even more tilted to the right.

I wish this country was more left leaning than it is, but it is not, so I am stuck with supporting a bunch of pussies because I think they are the best option. Wake me when someone like Howard Dean has a chance to win.

Thansk Jon. That seems to line up a bit more with what I had in my head.

I think he did once but the Dems turned on him because he yelled funny or something. But why can't Dean (or anyone) challenge Obama in the primaries? I know that's just not done anymore, and I guess the thinking is that primary challenges caused Carter and Bush I to lose (I don't think that was it in either case0, but it would be nice to see Democrats challenging Obama and not just settling for this one vision, this one really ineffective way of dealing with aggressive republians. It'd be nice to see Obama have to justify and explain his first term to Democrats - especially to popular, electable Democrats who might have different ideas about how to get things done. Instead he can just coast to the presidency again yapping about philosophies and ideals that won't be turned into actions. (A lot of the 1st campaign was slaying the Bush boogeyman about terror, GITMO, domestic wiretapping, etc. - just talking about all that is enough when you're only opposition is Republicans - they're not going to call you out for acting...just like they have. He won't have to answer to anyone. And he knew it, and he lied to you.)

In today's climate you can't primary an incumbent because there's no money left. The challenger has no chance and the only outcome would be to swing the election to someone even worse than the incumbent.

Voting third party sounds great, but they won't ever win. FDR isn't walking through that door as an independent, so while I might be able to say I stuck to principles I'm also going to have to deal with four years of Santorum or Trump as President. And then when I complain Molson will bitch about me not doing enough to get a third party candidate to win.