The only one? :) ha! Read my journal and some comments...

Nothing should be done about anything. Failures need to be allowed and nobody should be given any bailout. Not banks, not countries, not businesses and not individuals. All forms of welfare must stop. Economic activity is bring destroyed by inflation (money printing) and by fake centrally planned and controlled interest rates. Free markets are destroyed and this means economies are destroyed. People need to learn within their own means, to spend only what they have and not ge t into debt for consumption and all government debt is consumption debt. Debt for production I'd investment made from real savings of real money, that is not what governments and nations are doing, they are spending other people's money for consumption and there can be no return on any of that, none of it is investment.

Socialism only 'works' as long as the promises of the politicians can be delivered based on stolen (taxed) and borrowed (printed) money. Once that dries up there is no sustainable model for collectivism to survive. It can prolong the suffering with tighter central control and basically slavery and possibly a war for resources but it cannot be sustainable in the long run. Nothing that relies on violence as opposed to voluntary cooperation (free market) has a long term future. So nothing 'should be done', failure must be allowed.

It may be worth clicking the Jobs link at the bottom of the page.

I was unable to find a study that supported that side though I knew that I had read the opposite (like the one you linked) view in the past. I also think that I followed the link from a comment here. The one you link is not the same though but reaches similar conclusions. My guess is the data can be interpreted either way depending on how you choose to view it.

I thought that too and recall a study (from a comment on this site - I am near certain of this being the source of the link and I am certain about the study's conclusion in the abstract) but I decided to verify this and do some searching. I can not find the original study that I read but I did find this and a number of other studies that support that economics and education are insignificant. Link/citation: www.uvm.edu/~wgibson/PDF/kruger_mal.pdf

Needless to say, I am surprised with this (and others) study's conclusion but I can not argue with their definitions, methodology, or conclusions. I concede the point as I am unable to find the original study that I read the abstract from. The study itself was behind a paywall so I would likely still concede, even if I could find it, as I am unable to see the full study and at least check the methods and data source(s).

And see post http://news.slashdot.org/comme... where I decided to actually research this and learned something new. My sincere apologies. In my defense I know, for a fact, that I read a study that stated otherwise but I am unable to find it thus will concede the point and consider the benefit as having learned something new.

I opted to school myself on quickly via the mighty Google. I learned something today and it is surprising.

Citation: http://www.uvm.edu/~wgibson/PD... (Note: PDF)

WTF? State law or you only worked a limited time? Republican in office? That is entirely unacceptable, seriously. I would almost suggest posting a PayPal address but I got bitched at the last time I suggested that though I still made use of it much to the chagrin of the naysayers.

And Osama came from a wealthy family and was wealthy himself. So? You realize that your post includes a link to Wikipedia? The reason there is an article about him specifically is because, well, they are an outlier and their exception to the rules makes them noteworthy enough to have an article to start with. Occam's Razor ring a bell? Yay! You found an exception and that somehow disproves, "...applicants' would probably never consider the path..."

At risk of going a bit too far I would highly recommend a Critical Thinking course (or two) at the collegiate level. "My driveway is wet, it must be raining." Or, you know, it could be a sprinkler, melted snow, a water balloon fight, or a myriad of other causes. You may find the following link beneficial:

https://www.google.com/search?...

I may seem like an ass but, oddly and truly, I have your best interests at heart. The more people who utilize logic the better my planet will be and the better your understanding will be.

I suppose that depends on how you define "average." In the US, over 52 million people participate in 401k plans. That's in addition to those who have other retirement vehicles (like IRAs, etc). Almost all of those funds are tied up at least in part in mutual funds. Probably most people who aren't working aren't contributing to such a plan, though many who are out of work still have money sitting in them. Alas, we have over 90 million people who aren't participating in the labor force - the highest number since the 1970's. In more recent times, when more people had jobs, there was a much more common interest in how one's mutual funds were performing, because more people were actively slicing off a piece of each paycheck to invest therein. That tended to make more people aware of, and interested in how it all works.

Beer and circuses my friend. It appears you know this, which is good. Today it is televised sports and beer. Circuses are not so common any more but the result is the same. A lethargic and mostly satisfied or entertained populace does not seem to inspect or criticize their government (or those who have power over them) nearly as much as a disenfranchised group with neither satisfaction or entertainment.

The difference is that while you are indeed taking a small risk every time you get on the road, you have the luke-warm comfort of knowing that just like, you the vast majority of other people on the road don't want to die themselves, or see you die. Doesn't mean they're all as careful as they should be, and some are indeed belligerent and dangerous on the road, though they are the minuscule exceptions. Most accidents are the result of inattentiveness in one form or another, or poor judgment.

People, on the other hand, who do things like blow up train loads of passengers in London or Madrid, or who try to blow up an aircraft on final approach over Detroit, or who park a car bomb in Time Square ... they're trying to kill you. It feels different because it is different. We all internalize certain risks, but bristle - very reasonably - when we learn of someone who, out of malice, wants to kill you and everyone else nearby. A dead kid is awful. But there's something substantially different between a kid on a sidewalk getting killed by an out of control car, and a kid like the one in Boston, who had his guts blown out by someone who stood there, looked right at him, and decided to set his IED down on the sidewalk right next to him.

This is completely off-topic. I can handle to the down-mod if needed. I feel it is worth sharing due to your comment.

I once had an altercation with a man who was behaving in a violent and unacceptable way in a modern society. In this altercation I broke their jaw and ended up in the county jail but only after I was grabbed by someone and hit them - not breaking anything but it was a police officer who did NOT identify themselves, thus that was dismissed and I was charged with a simple assault but, due to the nature, I only had to serve 72 hours, pay a fine, and pay restitution. I took the plea bargain that was offered in case you are curious which, well, you probably are not.

I tie this back in with this: During my stay in the county jail (not a rough or bad stay or anything) I learned that the term "skinner" is the derogatory name for sex offenders in the New England area.

Your post reminded me of that time... And, well, the person I attacked was assaulting someone who was absolutely and undeniably incapable of defending themselves and, why yes, it was outside a bar. Punching someone of the "fairer sex" over and over again is not acceptable behavior in a modern society and the unnoticed police officer parked at the end of the lot did not respond until I got involved -- which I do not comprehend. We have a third party defense as a law here so I *may* have been okay with a bench trial but I did not bother as failure may well have netted me a six month sentence. Oddly the greatest mystery is that the original victim eagerly offered to testify against me and had an emotional "impact statement" to share with the judge before I was sentenced to my few days -- I know the reasons but I still am unable to comprehend that either.

Anyhow, that is enough off-topic drivel for one day and I think this is sanitized enough to post under my own moniker. I did it, I will own it. I would do it again but I am getting a bit old for that.

Your words are you think cooperation is better than competition, my answer to it is: OK, but do not even think of forcing cooperation upon me, that will not end well.

This is the stupidest thing ever attributed to Ghandi. And eye for an eye is a limitation on the scope of punishment for a crime. It states that judicial retribution should be commensurate with the crime committed. You hear about how some person got 20 years in jail for possession of a single joint; "an eye for and eye" is the argument against that. Similarly, when you have some rich kid get probation for murder, "an eye for an eye" supports those that feel justice was not done.

So if Ghandi actually said that he is either a total moron, or he didn't understand the concept.