The Koch brothers. After all, their company isn't on Wall Street. So the enemy of my enemy is my "friend".

I would rather here about this from Fox News than most anyone else. Just like I would rather hear about Obama issues from MSNBC and the NFL being the best American sports league from the MLB & NBA.

Refusing because you are a computer scientist or because it is a pay cut are horrible reasons and your benefits should be terminated. Now a bad back? That is a valid reason.

If only you could have worked for less money than the others...

I agree that jobs simply are not available. In your case, you could have found one, but you would have to move. Sometimes that is not possible without declaring bankruptcy.

However, if there wasn't a minimum wage, you could find a job anywhere.

With no minimum wage, you could only choose not to work. There are a billion jobs available for 1 US cent per hour. Government creates unemployment. They do it by trying to get people enough money to live, since you can't live on 1 US cent per hour. So unless minimum wage is set too low, you will have unemployment. Even with the UK system of trying to get everyone jobs...it will fall short. The question is what to do with the rest of the people. I think the government shouldn't have automatic welfare. You should sweep, repair, or build the streets for the welfare check. Maybe only 4 hrs a day so you have time to look for another job.

luck? or he was smart enough to know the bubble was going to burst?

The GGP didn't say the rate was at a historic low. Just "deaths". So unless car exhaust is bringing people back to life, the historic low was before the invention.

And what if I am traveling exactly 50 miles?

The gas stations pay to put the certification logo on the pump. Basically this happens today, except the stamp is from the State or Commonwealth. However, the cost of such certification is paid for by the general fund. So those that choose not to use gas, or use it less, pay for it. Those that pay more tax could use less gas. It just distorts the market un-needlessly.

The certification agency is kept in check by things like Consumer Reports or by individuals that randomly figure it out by filling their 5 gallon container and finding out the calibration is wrong.

Likewise, in banking, information should be divulged. I see that as a good function of government. If you are going to have "public" companies, then there should be full disclosure to stockholders. Basically, most companies would not be "public" under this model. So then we don't have the crazy passive investing that we see in the stock market. You will invest in your own or a neighbor's business. You will buy private stock in a national company that belong on a trusted privately run stock exchange. There are a lot of options. We just need to be open to them and allow them to happen. Again, they need to stop skewing markets in favor of things like "public" companies. It only encourages passive investment...which is gambling.

I agree that the government can do things more efficiently. They basically operate a monopoly, which can be VERY efficient. The problem arises in the fact that you can't price things properly in a monopoly. You could have the right price, but chances are it is wrong...especially in the long term. So the quality either starts sucking or the product has too much of a cost on society.

For instance: how much should education be? how about police? firefighters? Right now, those costs are just paid as a seemingly random amount. The only thing that gives them a price is inter-city/state competition.

Banks don't care because the SEC and Fed cover them.

There are issue either way. I would just argue that a private mediator would be better in many cases. And more importantly, there is a way to do everything in either a private or public way. I don't see how a public rating agency would have handled any of that differently. The public agency won't be full of perfect little employees with the interests of the general investor at heart.

Rating agencies in a market controlled by an entity like the SEC is just a horrible idea. Between the SEC, 401Ks, and low interest rates, we are subsidizing the hell out of the stock market. It is seen as the only legitimate way to maintain wealth. So when something goes bad, they say "what else am I going to do" and gain trust in those rating agencies again.

I for one don't trust rating agencies. I think you'd be a fool to. It is like people calling out the next big stock. Everything has someone's personal special interest.

Not fraud. Extortion.

It is a valid point. Probably one of things that is toward the bottom of the list. It is basically fraud prevention.

However, a private entity could do the same thing. The reputation of the private entity would be at stake.

Use the basic case of Verisign. How do you know you are visiting a trustworthy site?

A private entity would better because the cost of that "trust" is on those that want to be trusted. It would not be on the general government revenue.

It is actually 100 years into the future. Stupid Y2.1K bug...

As is myself [slashdot.org]

Unless you are going to print it. Word gives you those paper size barriers by default.