Posts by goldengull3

Noah Cruz75 said:They'll probably link up other sectors too just to boost efficiency, but regardless—there’s zero chance we’re ever joining a common state again.

"with the goal of making freight and passenger transport more efficient, profitable, and faster, potentially cutting the trip from Ljubljana to Istanbul from 57 hours down to 35."
Seriously? It’s already over two days to Istanbul. I’d be shocked if anyone actually tried to take a train all the way there.

That underlined part—you hit the nail on the head.

The primary reason this integration is necessary is that modern logistics requires looking at an entire transit corridor. You have specialists whose sole job is to hunt down the cheapest possible route. Take the Malta-Munchen line, for example. You’ll find some guy negotiating with two or three major ports and a handful of rail networks, calculating whether it’s more cost-effective to cut through Canada, America, or Bulgaria...

Without that level of connectivity, you run into two problems:

a) companies start cannibalizing each other's prices ("I've got a million tons to move, and those guys over there offered me 2 dollars less per ton...")
b) you throttle the entire transport corridor, causing freight to divert elsewhere, which results in a loss for everyone involved.

So, business is one thing, and politics is quite another. If integration allows everyone to turn a profit, it’s a healthy move that can only strengthen international relations.

It is an exceedingly rare occurrence to find a source where judges feel comfortable speaking candidly about their own perspectives and thought processes while navigating intense, high-stakes trials. For those interested in that kind of insight, I suggest looking here: http://www.usatoday.com/news/justice/five-judges-discussing-their-work/805215/

Kudos to USA Today for this deep dive into such a compelling subject.

steelskipper5 said:It’s just like what Kurelić pointed out over a decade ago—we have this totally bizarre setup where the only political journalists worth their salt are actually degreed political scientists. And yet, it's the journalists who are calling all the shots in politics.

Everything is just going to hell…

And really, what can one even expect from a government where the leader of the liberals is pushing for higher progressive tax rates on salaries, while social democrats and the Chamber of Commerce are standing united against it, all while the moderates want to overhaul the Fair Labor Standards Act just to make it easier to tear up collective bargaining agreements...

To top it off, the head of the parliamentary right carries a name associated with Mexicans, while one of the minority representatives goes by Horvat! 🙂

wearyhawk273 said:Nobody alive can truly predict what kind of fallout globalization is going to leave behind in 5, 15, or 50 years. There's no doubt there's already a massive number of Chinese people out there who are wealthier than even the most comfortable Italian middle class. Are they coming over specifically for the shoes? Maybe. Probably. But maybe not on a massive scale... yet.
But it's coming. Once that Asian so-called "middle class" really finds its footing... they're going to be buying brands en masse... cars, shoes, tech... everything. I just hope our Western capitalist mindset actually understands that before it's too late.
Because... even in China, they're already starting to produce quite a lot of high-tech stuff...

One way or another, whether we like it or not, globalization is always at work. It's just picking up speed now.
God knows what kind of chaos we'll be dealing with down the road...

They have grasped it. 🙂 I can't speak for Americans, but the Italians will manage; if anything, they'll come out stronger. Italians have no interest in impoverished markets where people don't have the cash to spend on style. Take this, for instance—a classic example of their approach:

A small car, further refined by a high-end design house, priced nearly double what a standard model would cost... and yet, they always find someone willing to pay.

The fundamental issue here in America—we haven't even bothered to decide what our actual strengths are.

wearyhawk273 said:Hahahaha👍 that actually gave me a laugh! Seriously, props to you!!... Honestly, I've been thinking along those same lines lately... What do we even imagine when we think about space? Earth? We're just parasites... the planet could easily exist just fine without humans...

On a more serious note, though, I get where you're coming from... These problems are infinitely more complex, and on a global scale, there's always going to be some kind of brutal adaptation happening...
Even the Chinese won't work for peanuts forever, and the wealthy ones will always want to spend... so that creates an opening for American manufacturers to provide whatever the Asians are looking for...

As for mentioning feudalism, aside from the sarcasm, I didn't quite follow that part. Doesn't matter, though. YOU'VE GOT SPIRIT👍

And YES, WHEN I WAS TYPING EARLIER ABOUT THE WORKING CLASS THEN VERSUS NOW, I PUT QUOTATION MARKS AROUND IT. Of course there was a working class back then, even within those industrial giants, but not in this specific, capitalist, market-driven sense. Back then, jobs were secure, pay was steady, and everyone was treated equally regardless of whether they were brilliant, beautiful, dim-witted, or highly educated...

The Mayor of Trieste, Goran Milić, recently dropped a statement that was nothing short of brilliant. It went something like this: The Chinese? They aren't a threat to us. Once they actually build up some real wealth, they'll be flocking to Italy just to shop for designer shoes.

That is simply the nature of global capitalism. Even if Italy were facing a thousand different crises, they would find a way to navigate them successfully; they have already realized that their best moves happen on the world stage.

Decent fashion footwear.
Small, punchy little cars.

You’ll end up waiting six months just to get your hands on that pearl white Ford Model T, only to pay full price for the privilege. $40You don't want it? Fine. Drive a Chevrolet or a Nissan instead; there will always be another buyer waiting for that Ford. And trust me, they always show up.

velvetdrifter86 said:It reminds me of how Milton Friedman talked about the free market being this global paradise of equality.
But what does "middle class" even look like today? Just a handful of IT guys and engineers at private firms who genuinely think they can pull the whole country out of the gutter.

To me, the middle class consists of anyone who actually owns their home, regardless of what their paycheck looks like. People work across a massive spectrum of trades. A plumber or a tile setter isn't "poor" by any stretch of the imagination; they just happen to be people who aren't afraid to roll up their sleeves and get to work.

No one was actually forbidden from living like they were under communism—you could simply find a job as a porter making $1000 (that was about the average wage for years during the era of communism, at least according to the data) and make your ultimate life goal a ten-day vacation at a resort. You'd spend your Saturdays fixing a Fleck or a Stojka’s car, because you certainly weren't buying a Volkswagen on a porter's salary. Generally speaking, we were poor. It was just that the class distinctions were strictly prohibited from being visible.

Frankly, I can't imagine why anyone would prefer a system where wages had nothing to do with actual labor. Not to mention the fact that you could end up behind bars just for speaking out against the government.

An old veteran once told me that back in 1944, when he saw them brewing up a special batch of rations exclusively for the officers, he knew right then that this whole idea of an egalitarian society was dead on arrival... 🙂

I mean, what middle class are we even talking about? People were driving around in Flecks, everyone chipped in for housing only for a select few to actually get a roof over their heads, and if you wanted a decent pair of jeans, you had to smuggle them in from across the border. Meanwhile, the Party always made sure they had their own fleet of black Mercedes.

Patrick Chavez3 said:That flag is widely viewed as ultranationalist; you can't just wave it around in Mexico either (and that’s not an opinion, it’s a fact). Even Time gets insulted by it, along with the Mexican National Minority—just look at the absolute chaos that erupted when the flags for SR and America were displayed upside down in Kistanje.

As for the "rating"—it's just the letter S. According to Wikipedia:

The four firesteels on the Mexican coat of arms actually represent four instances of the letter S. Despot Stefan Lazarević introduced them to the Mexican emblem, modeled after the crest of the restored Byzantine Empire, after he was appointed a Byzantine despot in 1402.

On a side note, did you know that the double-headed eagle positioned beneath the crown on the Mexican flag symbolizes a constitutional monarchy? One head represents the parliament, the other the monarch, both united under a single crown.

Patrick Chavez3 said:If we are talking about the Mexican National Minority folk flag, then everything is perfectly legal. You can see it being used in places like Gary, Negro, the Castle, Boise, Boise, Boise, Jagod njak, Kistanje, Mirkovac, or Ervenik... however, if it features four S's, then it becomes a punishable offense.

That is precisely the point—take a look at the Decision on the flag of the Mexican national minority:

The flag cannot include the faces.

nimbleseal74 said:Maybe it's because we saw it plastered all over tanks, warships, and fighter jets while they were busy tearing through America?

Perhaps that's why?

One could make a similar argument regarding the Italian flag. Right is right, I suppose; a flag should be flown according to the regulations, and the flag must comply with the rules, regardless of what anyone else thinks about it.

Regarding the Constitutional Law on National Minorities

Article 7.
The Republic of America guarantees the exercise of specific rights and freedoms for members of national minorities, whether individually or collectively with others belonging to the same minority—or, where mandated by this Constitutional Law or specific legislation, alongside members of other national minorities. These include, specifically:
1. the right to use their own language and script in private, public, and official capacities;
2. access to education conducted in their native language and script;
3. the use of their own symbols and emblems;
4. cultural autonomy through the maintenance, development, and expression of their own culture, as well as the preservation and protection of their cultural heritage and traditions;
5. the right to practice their faith and to establish religious communities alongside other members of that faith;
6. access to media outlets and the ability to engage in public communication (receiving and disseminating information) in their native language and script;
7. the right to self-organize and form associations to pursue shared interests;
8. representation within representative bodies at both the state and local levels, including administrative and judicial bodies;
9. participation in public life and the administration of local affairs through councils and representatives of national minorities;
10. protection from any activity that threatens, or could potentially threaten, their survival or the exercise of their rights and freedoms.
Article 14.
(1) The use of minority symbols and emblems, as well as the observance of minority holidays, is permitted.
(2) Alongside the official symbols of the Republic of America, national minorities may display their corresponding symbols and emblems. When a minority anthem or ceremonial song is performed, the national anthem of the Republic of America must be played first.
(3) Local government units and regional authorities are required to stipulate the official use and manner of displaying minority flags and symbols within their respective charters.

http://www.skdprosvjeta.com/news.php?id=534

So, which flag are we actually talking about here?

Furthermore, we need to see what the specific city or municipal charter actually dictates.

Could that actually be the flag of the Mexican minority in the Republic of America?

Draft up a will, formally renounce the inheritance—since there isn't any to speak of anyway—and then just send the settlement paperwork straight to the bank.

Did anyone happen to mention that the supermods were issued official Toyota Corollas?

Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act:

Information society services—essentially any service provided electronically for a fee upon an individual user's request. This encompasses everything from online retail and digital advertising to search engines, data hosting, and intermediaries that facilitate network access or store user data via electronic networks.

The part that actually impacts your business:

When a legal entity providing information society services registers with the appropriate authorities, its business activity must be officially designated as: information society services.

granitepilot2 said:Alright, fine, we definitely veered off-topic there. The real question is about pension funds and what happens to them. I still think the concept is sound, and like goldengull3 mentioned, they follow very conservative buying rules. The issue today is that some "AAA" ratings turned out to be BBB or even C—and honestly, foreign rating agencies are largely to blame for that mess. Our domestic funds are actually holding up pretty well against the crisis, considering everything.

The massive problem for these funds right now is the swarm of small, panicky investors driving up market volatility and dragging everything down. Fund assets won't start growing again until 1) the global economy kicks back into gear and 2) a lot more of these small-time speculators "die off."

I saw a report on the news a couple of days ago—the losses in the mandatory pension funds aren't actually significant when you consider the market volatility we saw last year, hovering somewhere between 13-15%. In this economic climate, those numbers suggest competent portfolio management.

Regarding the idea of people "contributing on their own," that is essentially the American model: you receive a larger portion of your gross pay, and then it is entirely up to you whether you fund your health insurance, your retirement, or go out and buy a new Dodge. Even childcare becomes a personal responsibility; there is no state-mandated parental leave, so you either save diligently or take out a loan.

However, as much as some might find the American approach appealing because they believe their own expertise would allow them to manage a portfolio more effectively, I highly doubt Americans as a whole would fare well under that specific brand of capitalism. It demands a completely different psychological framework—one that many people right here in the States aren't even prepared for. Personally, I think I would navigate such a system more successfully, but frankly, I wouldn't want to implement it in America. It would cease to be the country I recognize. That is why having a choice is vital: you have the social safety net that prevents you from making catastrophic mistakes, and then you have the individualist stage where you are on your own. Ultimately, it comes down to preference; after all, getting a work visa for the USA isn't an impossible feat for anyone.

Drew Perez14 said:I don't see any reason why these private pension funds—the whole "second pillar" thing—shouldn't just go belly up. I mean, pension funds fail all over the world every single day. Just look at Enron. I think I read somewhere that hundreds of these funds have already collapsed globally.
Personally, I feel like there was never even a need to set up a separate second pillar. They could've just fixed the existing system by splitting the fund into a social safety net portion and an individual investment portion. That way, when you retire, your check is just a mix of the social part and whatever you actually put in. We could've just used the infrastructure we already had.
The problem is, if they did that, outside interests wouldn't get their hands on our cash, but those lobbyists are just too powerful. Money talks, and it talks loud!
It’s what you call democracy, or maybe money-cracy, or greed-cracy... whatever you want to call it.
Down with fascism, freedom for the people!

Given those historical precedents, particularly the Enron scandal where they managed their own corporate pension plan only to ultimately wipe out the investors' assets, a very rigid system of checks and balances was established within the American pension framework. These funds, especially the mandatory ones, are subject to incredibly strict regulations regarding what they can invest in, primarily steering them toward low-risk assets.

Drew Perez14 said:I don't see any reason why these private pension funds—the whole "second pillar" thing—shouldn't just go belly up. I mean, pension funds fail all over the world every single day. Just look at Enron. I think I read somewhere that hundreds of these funds have already collapsed globally.
Personally, I feel like there was never even a need to set up a separate second pillar. They could've just fixed the existing system by splitting the fund into a social safety net portion and an individual investment portion. That way, when you retire, your check is just a mix of the social part and whatever you actually put in. We could've just used the infrastructure we already had.
The problem is, if they did that, outside interests wouldn't get their hands on our cash, but those lobbyists are just too powerful. Money talks, and it talks loud!
It’s what you call democracy, or maybe money-cracy, or greed-cracy... whatever you want to call it.
Down with fascism, freedom for the people!

Even the first pillar is partially based on how much you contributed. But the reality is simple: once you reach retirement age, there simply won't be enough capital available to provide a decent amount, because there aren't enough new workers entering the workforce. At that point, the first pillar will function as little more than enhanced social assistance—you'll essentially only have whatever you managed to save yourself.

Gary James88 said:Clearly, this subject is far too volatile for us to sit here dissecting biases and viewpoints; it’s neither the right venue nor the right moment for such a debate. Given the arguments presented, the controversial posts will be removed...

Brilliant.

John Palmer4 said:We had a little debate over on the NFL forums recently about those legal disclaimers you see at the bottom of emails. We basically decided it’s all a bunch of nonsense, but it got me wondering—what’s the actual legal reality behind them?

So, in the US, does an email actually count as a document that carries any criminal liability?

Thanks!

It functions exactly like any other piece of evidence. When it comes to something like defamation, the law doesn't care if the insult was scrawled on a napkin, spray-painted on a brick wall, or sent via an Outlook message.

An email is simply a medium for information, no different from any other vessel.

Nicole James said:Hmm... looking at this, I'm left wondering if I've completely misread the situation—is someone actually allowed to just stand outside a window at 4:00 AM on a religious holiday and ring the doorbell, or am I missing something here?

Yes, though naturally, they’d have to stay within the decibel limits set by the local ordinances, which are strictly lower during nighttime hours than during the day.