In fact their pricing and services are so similar I find it exceedingly difficult to believe that there isn't some form of collusion going on.
I'm not a fanboi of the telcos, but this just isn't fair. Of course their prices are comparable and move together; it would be utter incompetence if that weren't the case, and no, that is not an indication of collusion. A basic part of being a viable business is tracking your direct competitors' prices to make sure your product is competitive. Do you accuse your local gas stations of collusion if their gas prices are always with 5 cents of each other? How long would any business remain in business if it ignored that fact that its competitors were significantly undercutting them on a directly comparable product in the same market?
otherwise they are just paperweights without buttons,
Do most of your paperweights come with buttons?
This reminds me of a story I heard once (maybe it was from a movie, or an XKCD, can't track it down right now), in which a pair of guys meet a random girl:
Guy 1: think of a card . . .
Guy 1: your card is eight of hearts
Girl: no it's 3 of diamonds
Guy 2: Why did you think you knew her card?
Guy 1: I didn't, but I figure I have about a 2% chance of guessing it, and if I do this to everyone I meet then when I do get it right the reaction will be worth all the times I got it wrong.
Look the word up in practically any modern dictionary
OED lists 4 definition of the verb.
All four explicitly have to do with removing 1 in 10. Two of these four are marked "obs."
The last of the four has as second meaning (b) attached marked as "rhetorically or loosely"; only that is not explictly in reference to 1 in ten.
I cannot help feeling, Phaedrus, that writing is unfortunately like painting; for the creations of the painter have the attitude of life, and yet if you ask them a question they preserve a solemn silence. And the same may be said of speeches. You would imagine that they had intelligence, but if you want to know anything and put a question to one of them, the speaker always gives one unvarying answer. And when they have been once written down they are tumbled about anywhere among those who may or may not understand them, and know not to whom they should reply, to whom not: and, if they are maltreated or abused, they have no parent to protect them; and they cannot protect or defend themselves. . . . . Then [the one with understanding] will not seriously incline to "write" his thoughts "in water" with pen and ink, sowing words which can neither speak for themselves nor teach the truth adequately to others?
But the debt is really just a savings account provided by the federal government for people who don't want to spend their money right now. It is rather unfortunate that terms like "debt" are used at all in that context, since they just confuse what is really going on.
MMTers are crackpots.
They can only claim that private savings is equal to the government deficit by redefining 'savings' as 'net savings' which means 'savings less investments', i.e., 'savings that is held in government debt' which of course it a trivial tautology: Obviously the private sector can't acquire a net position in government debt unless the government runs a net deficit.
Did US households have lose their savings when Clinton was running a surplus? Yes, but only if 'savings' means 'government debt'.
It has to be, before any other spending can take place, and that's constitutionally guaranteed. It was the trump card that Obama didn't have to use -- he -could- have unilaterally raised the debt ceiling, but it would have torpedoed any sort of chance he'd have for being re-elected.
No. I think you are misreading the 14th amendment. It does not talk about prioritization of payments. And It sure as hell doesn't authorize the president to unilaterally issue debt.
There are several aspects of the device and/or software that are absolutely stellar. Incomparably better than anything else I've seen. I hope that journalists and bloggers recognise those when they finally get their hands upon one. . . . Of course, there's one reason why I have the views and insights that I do
Could you just tell us what the subtly stellar aspects are?
What I'm getting at is that there is no real declared value of the dollar.
What has been declared is that the dollar can be used as currency.
Even things like the minimum wage don't really set the value of the dollar since the minimum wage is supposed to be based on actual (market set) cost of living.
This is why the whole gold standard people are nuts. Yes, gold is worth a lot of money today because people value gold. If all the world paper economy really did crash tomorrow, gold would crash with it. It would crash because nobody would give a shit about shiny metal, everyone would be worried about food, water, guns, and ammunition.
I'm not out to make exact predictions on the value of gold, but I'm pretty sure we have several millenia of data from many cultures to support the claim that people consistently attach value to the shiny metal, even in time of major upheaval.
You basically have to be at the point of imminent death before gold becomes just another rock.