Here is your study:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t...

FYI, I was using "scheduling" in a very broad sense. You allude to that in your post. 10 or 20 years ago when researching a big ticket purchase, one might hit 2 to 4 big box retailors. Now I can do that comparison online and see if the local store has it in stock. The number of big block stores are falling.

But there are also the subtle things. Less driving to grandma's house to get the latest gossip, that can be done by Facebook. People used to drive to the mall to hang out. Facebook. Now the malls are going empty. People used to wait in lines for the latest blockbuster movie only to be turned away because it sold out. Now they can buy their ticket in advance or, if they wait a few months, watch it at home. etc.

I am leerier about that – and I say that as somebody who supports a carbon tax.

Taxes are distortive, so try to keep them as few and as simple as you can. Governments do need a revenue stream and you want to counter the negative externalities of carbon fuel, but one should still stick to good taxation principles.

So I ask, why subsidize renewable energy sources? The ethanol fuel subsidy has been a disaster both from a finical and green viewpoint. What is the fair split between wind and solar? That being asked, I would argue neither is going help until we upgrade our power grid. And why not subsidize home insulation or mass transit? Trying to figure out what to subsidize and how much is a very hard and tricky question. Taking with one hand and giving with another is a very tricky balancing act. Government should not pick winners or losers. Which is why I suggested in a different thread that one should drop income taxes by the amount a carbon tax would raise. On a side note, I would support more money going into government sponsored basic R&D into renewable energy.

However, economically speaking, a tax on a product is the same as a subsidy to a competitor. So if you don't like the results, don't try to come up with an elaborate subsidy scheme for green energy – just raise the carbon tax.

You seem to be striking quite wide of my mark.

First, the point that I was trying to make is that the type of car – in and by itself - does not necessarily change the amount of gas being consumed. People could buy a big car but make fewer trips, resulting in lower gas consumption. With more efficient cars, longer commutes are possible for the same amount of gas, so less efficient ex burbs flourish.

How do you figure? How does higher gas make my solar panels more efficient? Maybe relativity cheaper, but going green will cost money. Personally, I think it is worth the cost but let's not pretend that it is going to be free.

No, nothing strange and it has nothing to do with being green. A large corporation is muscling its way into a business dominated by local family business. The family business don't like competition so they are fighting back. It is like asking what Apple has against Microsoft and why doesn't Apple well Window computers in their stores? (Personally, I am rooting for Tesla)

Not inaccessibly. I lean towards libertarianism and believe in global warming.

The answer is to cut the tax rate and impose a carbon tax. If structured correctly, the average individual wouldn't pay higher taxes. Unless, that is, they decided that they should start conserving energy.

2 minor nits.
1. Hummers are no long being made.
2. Most F-150s are sold as work trucks. Also, F-150 is one of the more efficient work trucks out there.

Agreed.

Maybe if there were talking about full size SUV sales in general they would have a point. With cheap gas, buying a gas guzzler makes more sense.

Of course, the number of miles Americans have been driving have been falling for the past 5 years. Partly this is due to the internet which allows people to schedule themselves more efficiently, making few trips.

I am a little confused.

I am an investor, be it equity (stock) or debt (bank loans). I invest in housing. Maybe new construction, maybe something already built. It should not matter. The deal goes south and the project goes bankrupt. Under current law, the house is resold and the cash gets divided up by the investors. Normally equity gets whipped out the debt holders get paid some fraction of the loan's worth – say between 80% to 20%

Are you saying that we should rewrite the laws so that bankrupt properties get handed over to the public, with the equity and debt holders getting nothing?

Or are you trying to say that IP is a special, inferior good. As an inferior good, we in society should actively discourage people from investing in R&D by giving IP a lower standard of protection?

I don't think that either of the choice you offer is rational. I have issues with IP. However, the correct answers is to raise the standard that parents are granted and/or shorten the lifespan of the IP.

Let us break this question into 3 parts.

Frist, I still think you are confusing Zelman (child company, maybe viable) with Moneual (parent company, fraud, massive bank loans, not viable.)

Second, why operations vs. financials matter. Here is an example. You buy an apartment building with a 10m loan. The building is fully leased with long term leases. It is not sitting on a toxic waste dump, is not filled with asbestos, etc. It generates enough cash to cover maintenance, management fees, taxes, etc. There is a problem. It does not generate enough cash to pay the 10m loan. Maybe it can only support a 8m loan. Look at Enron. They had many well run viable electric power plants that are still running today. They just needed to be separated from the massive fraudulent debt of the parent.

The project is a failure. Question – should you tear down the building? Probably not. The building is economically viable. The problem is that the price paid for the building was too high.

The rational course of action is to restructure to loan to 8m. (which kind of implies that the banks should size the building and push the current owners out.). Note, we are not making a judgment on how we got into debt. Bad judgment, over optimism, fraud, etc. We don't care. Assigning blame won't change how we get out.

Third, why exaggerate sales to get loans. Or to simplify your question, why commit fraud? Exaggerating sales is just a means to an end. Most accounting fraud starts off small with good intentions. One has a temporary short fall, there is a really good opportunity, normally I am so good a picking the ponies, etc. It's just going to be a few thousand. There is always a promise to make it up next week. Or the week after that. And after a few years and a few million dollars, people wonder where they went wrong.

The book is better, but here is a favorite of mine to explain why people commit fraud: Rogue Trader with Ewan McGregor as Nick Lesson
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt01...

Zelman is a public company and I assume has a vigorous outside auditor.

Moneual, which committed the fraud, is not a public company. I would assume that their audit standards are lower.

Of course, even public companies can commit financial shenanigans.
http://www.amazon.com/Financia...

This has nothing to do with Zelman selling $10 CPU coolers. No acquisitions of fraud against Zelman yet.

This is about Moneual and the fraud they committed. Moneual just happens to own 90% of Zelman.

I am familiar with US / western bankruptcy law. This is Korea so your mileage will vary.

First, the issue is one of finance, not operations. If that is true, that means the company is still viable – that is worth more as a operating entity than being sold off for parts. So it will probably keep on going.

Second, from a brief scan of the article, there are no allegations of fraud against Zalman. It is against Moneual, which owns 90% of Zalman's shares. It sounds like it is not the court seizing Zalman's assets, but freezing Moneual's assets.

Technically as a independent entity, Zalman should keep on ticking like it has. This assumes that Zalman did not assist Moneual's fraud. Since Moneual had a controlling interest in Zalman that is a big assumption that needs to be checked out. Probably another reason why the shares are frozen.

Technically speaking, "Watchmen" was the first comic to score big in the trade paperback market. Nobody had any expectation that Watchmen could keep on selling. The success and longevity was unprecedented, so I am not sure if it would matter how closely Moore had read the contract.

I think that part of the problem was that Moore was more familiar with British copyright laws which tend to be more generous to the creators.

I like the thrust of your question but you might want to reword it, removing references to the Comic Code.

At that point the Code was fadding. As you mentioned, most independent publishers no longer followed it. However it was also losing mainstream acceptance. Vitergo titles, which includes Hellblazer, had abounded the Code about 10 years earlier so that was not a factor.

And, of course, today it is dead.

I will second that Alan Moore is almost always "upset".

this. From what I have read of Allen Moore, he is an arrogant demanding S.O.B who does not play nice with corporations. He and his works have not always been treated kindly by them. He is an anti-corporate anarchist so I think that is kind of par for the course.

I think you other comments are a bit off the mark. I can't think of any of his works that have been well adapted – large sums of money or know. For myself, V for Vendetta and Watchmen were adequate. I thought that From Hell was a good movie but a very poor adaptation. Everything else was pretty hideous. Just because somebody drops a large sack of cash at my door does not mean I have to think highly of them.

And just because he is a arrogant demanding S.O.B. does not diminish the brilliance of his works.

I personally thought it was funny that Allen Moore was pissed that V for Vendetta was re-tasked from being anti-Thatcher to anti-Bush when he had re-tasked so many different characters from Watchmen.

I am curious about anthropologist – I have 2 questions.

First, where are you getting your data from? Do they account for the lag between graduation and finding a "real" job and a temporary job to pay the bills until then? (off of the top of my head, I would think a lag of 6 to 12 months would be right)

Second, what do you mean by "working retail"? I ask, because I know many retailers who hire anthropologist to study their shoppers. So while "retail", it is not the low paying "Do you want fries with that" type of job.