Xi Meets Obama (politics)

Recently, Chinese President Xi flew to New York City to meet with US President Obama on Thursday September 24 to discuss business and politics. Yesterday (Friday September 25), they had a wonderful meal prepared by chefs including Chinese American cook Anita Lo.

No doubt, the meal at this state dinner for Xi was more elaborate than green tea, Chinese dumpling, chow mein and fortune cookies.

Of note, both Obama and Xi promised not spy on each other for economic gain. This commitment only covers industrial espionage such as the recent indictment of six Chinese men who stole code from US software houses.

Not included in this agreement is the recent data theft from US corporate servers that the US government attributes to China. None of the officials in that case were indicted.

Why upset the president of China, a superpower whose economy seems robust, thanks to cheap labor and high productivity?

Overall, Xi's state visit and meeting with Obama shows that, among important issues discussed, China and the USA are committed to fighting cybercrime and strengthening their economic ties.

Their commitment to fighting cybercrime addresses the illegal flow of US intellectual property into China.

By attempting to strengthen US-China economic ties, both Obama and Xi might have inspired Europe, the Americas and Asia, strengthen their trade ties with each other, had it proven more fruitful.

According to the propaganda offered by US mainstream media, talks between Obama and Xi proved to be inconclusive.

Although we'd expect China-US talks to be clear and definite, diplomacy does not warrant a simple outcome that can be spun into a newsworthy story.

Well, not yet anyway.

---

References:

FACT SHEET: President Xi Jinping’s State Visit to the United States: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/09/25/fact-sheet-president-xi-jinpings-state-visit-united-states

Anita Lo Will Cook at the White House Friday Night: http://www.grubstreet.com/2015/09/anita-lo-white-house.html

US and China agree cybercrime truce: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-34360934

6 Chinese Men Indicted in Theft of Code From U.S. Tech Companies: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/05/20/technology/6-chinese-men-indicted-in-theft-of-code-from-us-tech-companies.html?referrer=&_r=0

US and China back off internet arms race but Obama leaves sanctions on the table: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/25/us-china-cyber-security-obama-xi-jinping-inconclusive-summit

Who Profits the Most? (satire)

You gave two people $100 and told them to profit from it.

One guy puts $100 in savings bonds which will net him $11.59 a year from now. The other guy buys 10 grams of pot at $8/gram. and $20 worth of roling paper. He makes 40 1/4 gram spliffs and sells each spliff for $5, making himself $200. However, an undercover cop busts him for selling pot and is fined $150. With the $50, he buys $10 worth of dime bags and $40 worth of meth (about 5 grams). Each dime bag is worth $10 and contains 1/10 gram of meth. He makes $500 but is busted for selling meth and pays at $250 fine. He also gets a year probation for selling drugs.

Most definitely, the drug dealer profits the most. However, most of us would condemn how he made in total $450 but lost $200 due to fines and is on probation for a year. Instead, we would applaud the other guy who has savings bonds that will mature at $11.59 a year from now over the $100 he started with.

However, making $250 a year from selling drugs only nets you probation.

Think about that the next time you read of a drug dealer getting busted. Economics means he makes over 20 times as much money as the saving bonds guy.

Do you think he is going to sit around waiting for 11.59% profit when he can make 450% or more in profit from $100? Fuck no.

Legalize drugs now. Otherwise, once the sociopaths figure it out, there will be more drug dealers who profit because drugs are illegal.

Though 95% of people would rather invest in savings bonds.

Nobody not Even Hollywood Could Afford to Build a Tardis (Doctor Who)

IMO they can't afford to support the R&D to make a Tardis.

Only Gallifreyans could afford it, because not only do they have two hearts, their Time Lord economics implies time manipulation to afford the technology, which has to be REALLY EXPENSIVE!!

THINK ABOUT IT!

If a Tardis is big on the inside, then you know Tardis spacetime physics requires more than tachyons, especially since a Tardis is big on the inside due to the tesseract effect.

Those kinds of violations of spacetime physics requires a lot of energy i.e. of a black hole. You can't make that kind of star with a Higgs cyclotron. You'd need more power than what's currently available on Earth! Indeed, the math for this has yet to be invented.

Since Hollywood employs people with basically a BA degree rather than a BSc, they don't think R&D to make a Tardis is worth it as it entails an economy bigger than the American one.

Plus, it also means no electricity for you and I. This explains why Rassilon and his crew wore robes. They lived on Gallifrey where control over spacetime also means a nice climate and other advanced technology.

Nobody wants that mainly because Time Agent technology in criminal hands could threaten fixed points in time like time cops' family histories.

Ergo, we'll never build a time machine because nobody's done the math, and the costs involved would bankrupt nations.

Plus, what's to stop the black hole from eating the Earth???

Why the Poor Get Poorer: The Rich Got a Tax Break Stemming Back over 30 years

The reason why the poor get poorer is because the corporations and businesses owned by the the rich pay less taxes than they did 30 years ago.

Most of our current financial problems in Canada are attributed to NAFTA.

Signed in 1994 NAFTA was a response to the US recessions in the 1980s and 1990s, and was designed to eliminate trade barriers between the US's closest trade partners, Canada and Mexico.

The simple economic rule is:

Less taxes == less money to service the poor

Low taxes give the rich less of a tax burden, whilst placing an increasing burden on the rich. In response to tax breaks, corporations tend to hoard cash.

As well, the rich benefit from corporate welfare, which is more costly to taxpayers than public welfare because of the recent bailout of auto corporations and the Canadian government's propping up Canadian banks,

If the rich's Canadian tax burden was increased by 1 percent, then a few of the problems BC is undergoing would be reduced.

It would also revitalize the economy, resulting in more jobs with better wages.

Perhaps it's time for Canada's rich to pay their fare share.

For them to call a 1% tax increase unfair is laughable, as the corporate tax rate now is unfair to Canadian tax payers.