It's shocking to discover that the government can actually accomplish anything, as opposed to wasting $800 million in taxpayer money with nothing to show for it.
Assuming they are telling the truth about 50+ plots being foiled, then another way to look at it is that it costs them around $16 million per foiled plot. That sounds like a big number but in light of September 11 that is comparitively cheap to the $100 billion plus finaincal impact.
The logic here isn't clear at all.
I could have been a bit clearer on the logic, but basically, governments historically have a longer continuity of existence than private corporations which allows for the powers of compound interest to apply to build up the buffer. $1,000,000 deposited at 2.5% interest in 1776 with no additional deposits would be $347,981,453.54 today, actual buying power not withstanding.
Very few companies have really proven that they can stand the test of time yet and the list of ones that people thought would and failed is quite extensive. Not that the same thing doesn't apply to national governments but regional governments (mostly cities) can have records that date back hundereds of years as a matter of course.
As for Detroit, politicians past promised future generations' money to support retirees, a very easy thing to do.
Which is how pension funds are not supposed to be run in the first place. If you run a pension correctly it should work more like a 401(k) in that the money goes into an account that you then don't touch until a certain date. For large organizations you can calculate out how much you need to fund an employee's retirement long before they even retire. The government would actually be the best suited to pensions since they can build up enough of a buffer over time that they should effectively be immune to fluctuations in the market and could eventually hit a point where they wouldn't even need to pay in to the pension accounts again. In short, bad fiscal management is the problem, no pensions themselves.
It's really the only explanation I can think of for the popularity of a book about a teenage wizard in the over-20's demographics.
Assuming you mean people that are 21 to 29 years old, then the popularity has a lot to do with the fact that "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" stone came out in 1997 and it took ten years for the series to be published. Someone that was 10 when the first book came out would have been 20 when the last one did so effectively the entire generation grew up with the Harry Potter series.
So chartered companies are bad but individuals running businesses is good?
Again, I never said that chartered companies were bad. You keep trying to read a percived bias into very short comments.
Although since you bring up the question of ethics, I would argue that there is an ethical difference since an individual can be held responsible for their actions but a large organization cannot. Although that is a very long discussion in and of itself and it's one that people have been arguing back and forth for a long time now.
The goat herd [sic] tending his flock 2000 years ago was a businessmen. He was out there every day busting his ass protecting that herd from predators, thieves, the elements, and the stupidity of the live stock itself.
No, he was a tradesman and there might not have been any profit motive involved depending upon the size of the herd and how remote the individual was from a center of trade.
Now you want to say you're only against modern business and not some idealized and naive conception of older business models?
I never said that and you should go back and re-read my comments if you don't believe me. I said that business in and of itself is not necessary for human survival which is a true statement. Trade and businesses might help to ensure human survival is easier, but they aren't necessary from that standpoint.
All trade is business and all business is trade, idiot.
All businesses may engage in some form of trade, but not all trade is business. The difference is that business is conducted between organized groups of individuals (i.e. chartered companies) where as trade can be conducted as the group or individual level.
Maybe you should study some Roman history - corporations, interest rates - these things have been around far longer than a couple of hundred years.
Alright, you get a half point since Roman collegia do share some properties with the modern chartered companies that I was thinking of. The chartered companies date to 17th century though, so my point still stands. One of the key features of modern corporations is that they can fail but the individual assets of the participates in that corporation are protected.
That should read, "a large paycheck". There are certainly plenty of labs that have money available for coding, but you'll be earning about 25-35K in most cases. As someone who was on the opposite side of this conundrum (I was trying to hire a programmer), I was frustrated to find that noone with significant coding skills was willing to work for that amount of money.
I'm not sure where you are in the world, but assuming the United States, $25,000 to $35,000 is roughly half of the average entry level programmer salary of about $55,000. So you are looking for a skilled worker for less than someone fresh out of college could make? I suspect you have some unrealistic expectations, or you might need to get a bit more creative about things. I know quite a few programmers that would be willing to pick up a side job for those rates but don't expect them to work the same hours as a full time employee.
If you want to do something interesting with your coding skills and earn a wage, you can, but be prepared to take a huge pay cut, like the rest of us have.
There is a huge difference between a paycut (the rule of thumb is that non-profits pay 15% less then industry on avearge) and a significant paycut that will impact your standard of living.
To program is to be.