Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Democrats The Almighty Buck United States Politics

Andrew Yang Launches Nonprofit Aimed At Promoting Universal Basic Income (cnn.com) 197

Posted by BeauHD from the next-step dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNN: Nearly a month after ending his long shot Democratic presidential campaign, Andrew Yang launched on Thursday a nonprofit group focused on making the central ideas of his campaign a reality. The group, called Humanity Forward, will "endorse and provide resources to political candidates who embrace Universal Basic Income, human-centered capitalism and other aligned policies at every level," according to its website. The new group also plans to increase voter turnout in the 2020 election, with a particular focus on young Americans, Asian-Americans, independents and "individuals who have not been engaged in the political process," according to a release. Additionally, Yang, who is now a CNN political commentator, will launch a podcast in which he will "discuss new ideas to solve the greatest challenges of our time with" notable guests and "regular Americans" alike. Yang has also "committed to personally give $1,000 a month for an entire year to one donor to the new organization."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Andrew Yang Launches Nonprofit Aimed At Promoting Universal Basic Income More

Andrew Yang Launches Nonprofit Aimed At Promoting Universal Basic Income

Comments Filter:

  • if he gets more people voting ... (Score:3)

    by adfraggs ( 4718383 ) on Thursday March 05, 2020 @11:38PM (#59801876)
    ... then it's definitely a good thing. it doesn't matter who they vote for so long as they actually engage with the process.

    • Re:if he gets more people voting ... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by msauve ( 701917 ) on Thursday March 05, 2020 @11:51PM (#59801918)
      "it doesn't matter who they vote for so long as they actually engage with the process."

      Absolutely NOT. I don't want an uninformed electorate voting. You know, those people who don't understand the issues, don't bother to learn the candidates positions, can't make a choice on their own, and believe the ads. That's why we're where we're at today.

      • Re:if he gets more people voting ... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by adfraggs ( 4718383 ) on Friday March 06, 2020 @12:00AM (#59801954)
        You already have an uninformed electorate voting and you certainly don't get to put some kind of judgement on their contribution based on the notion that they "don't understand the issues", whatever that means. Yang is actively engaging people in politics, encouraging them to get involved in the process. If they decide they care enough to vote when they previously wouldn't it's probably because they've actually learned something about politics and are making an informed choice because they want to effect some kind of change. Or is that still not good enough for you?

      • We've always had an uninformed electorate. That's the whole point of the electoral system.

        • We've always had an uninformed electorate.

          It is very likely the people not voting are even more ignorant about the issues than those that do vote. So focusing on "increasing turnout" without increasing education about the issues is unlikely to lead to better outcomes.

          • I doubt that the average regular voter has such a keen advantage in decision making to outweigh the wisdom of the masses. Generally speaking, more voters equals better decision making. The rare well-informed voter isn't a large enough demographic to swing most elections.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by msauve ( 701917 )
              " more voters equals better decision making. "

              Said like a true "design by committee" guy.

            • Based on what?

              Higher voter turnout just means higher voter turnout. Nobody's ever tried establishing that voter turnout produces better or worse candidates.

          • "It is very likely the people not voting are even more ignorant about the issues than those that do vote."

            Nah. The better one understands the issues, the more one understands that the "two parties" are in agreement on almost everything that matters, and that their position is inimical to the interests of the American people.

            It takes a lot of blind optimism to vote for evil, just because you think it _might_ be a lesser evil. It's still evil. You just voted for evil. Good job.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by edibobb ( 113989 )
        If 1.2 buttloads of new people vote, then we will have 0.1 additional informed voters, and they'll influence 0.6 butloads of the rest. It's a good thing, overall.

      • Re:if he gets more people voting ... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by lgw ( 121541 ) on Friday March 06, 2020 @02:40AM (#59802268) Journal

        Absolutely NOT. I don't want an uninformed electorate voting.

        You simply don't understand democracy. Democracy has never been about making the best decision - that's why we have a representative republic, not a direct democracy. The demos is incapable of wise decision making, and that's fine, that was never the point.

        The point of democracy is non-violent overthrow of the government when almost everyone wants the current leaders gone. Anything else is just gravy.

        You know, those people who don't understand the issues, don't bother to learn the candidates positions, can't make a choice on their own, and believe the ads. That's why we're where we're at today.

        Yes, yes, everyone else is just sheeple. You're the only smart one. Just like everyone else.

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • Unlike *you*, right? You should be allowed to vote.

      • The idea of a an informed electorate is really a pipe dream.
        The key point of having a representative democracy where we elect people to make the decision and setup rules on our behalf is because society cannot function with everyone being informed on all the issues we just don't have enough time to be on top of all the issues and work our daily jobs more focused on whatever we like to do.

        Even if you read a newspaper every day and keep Cable News stations on while you work every day, doesn't necessarily mak

    • He didn't, unfortunately.

    • I disagee. Most people can barely run their own lives. Do not really need them involved in trying to run the country.

  • What happens to that $1K/Month (Score:5, Informative)

    by saccade.com ( 771661 ) on Thursday March 05, 2020 @11:39PM (#59801878) Homepage Journal
    As soon as people start getting a $1K/month basic income, every landlord will raise their rent by that amount. Rich still get richer.
    • In places like NYC or CA perhaps, but there's plenty of places where that's not true.

      Rent is somewhat of a market in plenty of places and there will be landlords happy to keep making what they are and have more stable renters.

    • Re:What happens to that $1K/Month (Score:5, Informative)

      by Richard_at_work ( 517087 ) on Friday March 06, 2020 @12:13AM (#59801992)

      It’s a whole shitfest of knock on effects - everyone gets an influx of money, which means that some people will try and grab it, which means that other people will get outraged at that, which means that the government will be petitioned to “protect” this money, which means more government enforcement (rent controls, controls on prices of goods etc), which means more cost for enforcement officers....

      How does government housing benefit work in the US? Until the late-1990s, in the UK it was paid to the landlord directly and it was easy to find a landlord which took benefit claimants. Then they changed it to “empower” the claimant, and paid the money to the claimant instead, with the intention that they would pay the landlord and thus feel more in control of their money.

      What happened instead? Many went out and spent it rather than paid the bills, which meant landlords were on the hook for unpaid rent and the cost of eviction, which could take 6 months or more.

      So today, many private landlords won’t rent to benefits claimants because of that.

      The governments solution? Make it illegal for private landlords to discriminate based on receiving housing benefit - the government would rather foist the problem on to the private landlord and spend the money enforcing that than fix the issue properly. Going back to paying the landlord directly would solve everything and cost nothing, but the government won’t do it.

      I can easily see the same thing happening with a UBI that’s intended to replace every other benefit - take away the restriction of food stamps and it will get spent on booze and smokes, or flat screen TVs etc, and the people who are providing services such as private rentals will suffer.

      • As fucked as the situation you describe is, it's impossible to hold a shred of morality and sympathize with rent seekers.

        • Re: What happens to that $1K/Month (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Richard_at_work ( 517087 ) on Friday March 06, 2020 @01:39AM (#59802194)

          When they physically own the property, I have utterly no problem with them seeking rent. It’s their property. Literally. The UK local governments sold off most of their public housing in the 1980s, so it’s the private market which has to pick that slack up - if they don’t, then you have people living homeless, like in many US cities.

          I own a property in the UK and I rent it out to pay the mortgage on it - if my tenant fails to pay the rent for a few months, they are being evicted and the properties going to be sold, because fuck that shit (I only rent it currently because I temporarily live in another country and want somewhere to come back to when I come back to the UK). So that’s another property that’s unavailable for rent.

          The government isn’t dealing with the lack of a available housing for people who can’t afford to buy - they are pushing it all on the private market and forcing private landlords to deal with it regardless, and many of us are simply getting out because we can’t afford to deal with the costs of 6 months of no income and the mortgage not being paid, eviction costs and associated damage.

          So yeah, you can take your morality stance on Slashdot and shove it.

          • The other solution is to increase tax rates. You decide on whom, but someone's gotta pay to build that house or at least buy some land, right? Do you know who owns most of the land in Britain?

            • That can be done by semi-private institutions. Housing corporations here often acquire land at at discount and enjoy a few other benefits, on the condition that the houses they build are let for what the government deems reasonable ("social") rents. Given that financial help and economies of scale (this kind of housing often consists of flats, apartment blocks, or a large amount of terraced housing), that reasonable rent leaves the corporation with a viable profit. And the financial help comes at no cost

            • *All* property developments within England and Wales which involve multiple properties are required to have a certain percentage of social housing these days, where the property developer has to hand over the properties to a housing agency at no cost - so local councils already get to increase their available public housing stocks with new property purchasers footing the bill.

              How’s that for a tax rise? Most people don’t even know it’s happening....

              Of course, you are right that it’s

          • "When they physically own the property, I have utterly no problem with them seeking rent. Itâ(TM)s their property. [...] So yeah, you can take your morality stance on Slashdot and shove it."

            Then put the morality aside (as you have signaled your willingness to do already) and realize that when it comes to housing, society can only tolerate so much rent-seeking before it breaks down. It distorts the housing market such that people can't afford to buy homes. Then they can't live near jobs so they have to

            • society can only tolerate so much rent-seeking before it breaks down

              Ain't there yet. Now what?

              You want to preemptively decide the limit? I do too and mine is different from yours. Again, now what?

        • I rent a house out. The person lives there, pays me rent, and we're both happy. What, exactly, is your issue with me renting my house out? Do you want me to NOT rent it out and leave it empty? Or sell it, in which case I would have to kick the person out to sell it to someone else?
          • You're making a profit. How dare you...

          • If you are not living in it, they want you to give away to someone who will.

            Because they are morons.

            • Wrong. If someone isn't living in it they should sell it, rather than practice a rent seeking behavior which drives up the cost of housing across the board, locking everyone who didn't have a blend of luck equal to their own out of home ownership. There are ways to make money which actively grow the economy and society as a whole, rent seeking does the exact opposite and frankly it's fucking lazy.
          • The fact people practice rent seeking is why house prices are so high to begin with. You're taking a profit from something that is purely a capital+maintenance expense, and at the expense of a person who must pay month-to-month (or some other arrangement) without accruing that capital for their own personal wealth. At best it's financial hypocrisy, at worst it's obfuscated indentured servitude as well (and it's rarely not the latter, even if you don't outwardly believe that yourself.) It used to be that

            • even if you don't outwardly believe that yourself

              Is that like that "unconscious bigotry" we're always hearing about? You know, where *you* get to decide someone's motivations instead of asking and taking their word? In other words, you're always right, regardless.

              It used to be that owning a house was relatively trivial, everyone had one. With the massive expansion of rent seeking practices that is no longer the case.

              That is a baldfaced lie. Hence your use of "even if".

            • The fact people practice rent seeking is why house prices are so high to begin with. You're taking a profit from something that is purely a capital+maintenance expense, and at the expense of a person who must pay month-to-month (or some other arrangement) without accruing that capital for their own personal wealth.

              Renting allows people that might not now or ever be able to save up enough money to put a downpayment on a house, to have a nice place to live.

              It provides a service....

              Without rentals, what is

      • Do you have actual evidence for any of that? The study on the canceled Ontario experiment showed people spending less on tobacco and alcohol, because they were less stressed about everything, not more because they had more money:

        https://labourstudies.mcmaster... [mcmaster.ca] (p40)

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by MobyDisk ( 75490 )

        In the US is it basically the same way with the same problems. It is slightly more complex because there are multiple government programs, and some programs pay the landlord, but others pay the renter. Same situation exists with other benefits like day care. In some cases, the government program pays under-market values too. My mother was a day care provider, and the people who paid via subsidy were the biggest problem because either they would not pay or they paid late, and the amount was lower than wh

        • You mention day care and assistance, which is a problem we also have in the UK and it’s quite perverse...

          For about 15 years, the government has offered free weekly 25 hours of day care for most parents, but paid a very low rate for it and day care centres are required to take the vouchers - day care centres have kept themselves afloat by charging higher fees on the next 15 hours a week for those parents working full time, who were basically subsidising the cost for everyone else.

          Then the government an

    • Payday lenders will give people an "advance" on their $1000. Then after a while it's all interest.

      The right way to do this is to give people fungible services not cash. That is, if there is something everyone is going to buy anyhow then you give them that for "free". For example, currently the typical silver/gold level medical insurance policy is somewhere around $10-12K per person or 24K/family. Now here I'm summing together the Employees contribution and the employer's contibution. (Obama care policie

      • Payday lenders will give people an "advance" on their $1000. Then after a while it's all interest.

        From the Ontario experiment:

        "Most respondents [90%] who were using payday loan services before indicated less reliance on them during the pilot.

        https://labourstudies.mcmaster... [mcmaster.ca] (p51).

        Obviously $1000/month UBI won't be able to replace healthcare of course, that has to be solved either way.

    • That's not how economics works, bro, at least not directly. If more people can afford housing it increases demand, but I'd say demand is pretty saturated in most places already, $1k/mo isn't going to make a difference in San Francisco or NYC.

      It's not like your landlord just twirls his mustache and says "Ahh, I see you have $1k more a month, your rent just went up $1K/month and I forbid you from moving out!!!"

      • Yeah, Economics doesn't work like you learned in Econ 101. Just like your employer leverages asymmetric information against you, landlords will leverage the additional information (you have $1k more per month and everyone knows it) against you. Your employer will too. My whole problem with AU's UBI is that it was too small to give impoverished people power to tell people to fuck off, so it ends up making them vulnerable to more exploitation.

        • Re: What happens to that $1K/Month (Score:4, Insightful)

          by RightSaidFred99 ( 874576 ) on Friday March 06, 2020 @02:11AM (#59802238)

          Again, no. Your landlord doesn't charge what you'll pay, and your employer doesn't pay you what he thinks you need. The landlord charges you as much as he can up until he can't find someone willing to pay, and your employer pays you as little as they can until they can't find someone to do the work that needs done.

          Me knowing that a tenant won the lottery doesn't mean I can suddenly charge them $10k a month for the shithole studio they currently pay $800 a month for.

          Nobody is going to give impoverished people "fuck you" money, that's not how reality works.

          • The landlord charges you as much as he can up until he can't find someone willing to pay

            Yes, and that amount will go up if everybody gets an extra $1000 to spend. If there's a shortage of good housing, then prospective tenants will probably be happy to fork over an extra $200 a month in order to secure that rental contract. Maybe not every tenant, but there will be enough of them to affect the rental market. That's how economics work.

            Hell, if it's only your tenant winning the lottery and no one else, he might still be persuaded to pay a higher rent, if he's happy with the place and unwil

        • Landlord: "I see UBI has been implemented. I raise your rent $1,000!!!"

          Tenent: "Hm, I see an empty place for rent across the street for $1,000 less. Later!"

    • As soon as people start getting a $1K/month basic income, every landlord will raise their rent by that amount. Rich still get richer.

      That doesn't need to happen.

      • Say there are x housing units (for the sake of simplifying this explanation, ignore that there is a range of different desirability housing and prices).
      • Say there are n people who want those housing units.

      The price of the housing will settle on whatever price causes n = x. That is, the price will be high enough that no more than x people seek

      • Look, we know you took Econ 101 and you think markets are efficient and linear and all that BS. Those models are a useful starting point, but they are insufficient to model real market behavior as they make too many assumptions about why people make the choices they make, to buy or sell and for what price. For example, you might want to live in the house next to your best friend. If you let a potential landlord know that, they might be less willing to negotiate a lower price, knowing that you will get more

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by quenda ( 644621 )

      As soon as people start getting a $1K/month basic income, every landlord will raise their rent by that amount. Rich still get richer.

      That's not how it works.
      For a start, UBI replaces most existing welfare payments, so the poorest are not necessarily a lot better off. Except now they have more incentive to get casual part-time work.

    • You are talking in hypotheticals while there are a ton of studies done on UBI that say the opposite: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

      The first thing that pops into your head isn't necessarily the truth.

    • "It's impossible to increase real purchasing power in a country".

      Also keep in mind that for everyone getting an extra $1k, someone is getting -$1k (or more, probably). It's going to affect the markets somewhat, but this isn't printing money.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Tom ( 822 )

      Why do you think that would happen? That is such an obvious and abusive move, it would generate a tremendous amount of backlash and go really, really badly for the landlords.

      Case in point: Berlin, the capital of Germany, has passed laws that cap rents, prohibit landlords from raising their rents, and is discussing possibilities to disown (i.e. forcefully buy-out) some especially abusive landlords. All of that a reaction to the ridiculous rent increases in the city.

      If you think landlords could do a move like

    • I use to be a landlord. I had a tenant on social services. The State sent me a check every month to cover her rent.
      Now because I had to negotiate with the State, if I wanted to raise rent it would be a more difficult process, so UBI would allow me to negotiate with the renter. However for the most part I wouldn't want to raise rent by that much, because it would be too expensive for the person, they may not be able to pay rent or leave, leaving a vacant room costing me money.

      However this isn't inflation, b

  • UBI gives, then takes back. And all through government inefficiency. For basically the same effect/benefit, a negative income tax (NIT) works much better, since it utilizes the existing infrastructure. Studies have also shown that it provides more incentive for people to improve themselves.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by ljw1004 ( 764174 )

      For basically the same effect/benefit, a negative income tax (NIT) works much better, since it utilizes the existing infrastructure. Studies have also shown that it provides more incentive for people to improve themselves.

      Which studies, please? What precisely have they shown?

      (What do you mean "for the same effect/benefit, NIT works better"? Do you mean that it NIT costs less money to deliver the same benefit? Do you have any sources for this claim? What is the definition of "benefit" you're using here?)

      • Which studies, please? What precisely have they shown?

        Earned Income Tax Credit: Impact [wikipedia.org]

        What do you mean "for the same effect/benefit, NIT works better"?

        EITC is a negative income tax based on earned income. You only qualify if you work and in proportion to how much you work. So unlike UBI, it does not disincentivize work. Unlike a minimum wage hike, it targets low-income households (most minimum wage workers are 2nd or 3rd earners in relatively well-off households).

        • And if you're ill, or taking care of a family member long-term who is terminally ill, EITC gives you a giant middle finger and says, "Die on the streets, you bum."

          • If no one in your household is employed, EITC won't help you, but it won't hurt you either, so I wouldn't call that a "middle finger".

            But if you become ill or stop working to take care of a family member, your household could then qualify for EITC as long as someone else is still working.

            EITC is designed to be a helping hand, not a handout.

  • capitalism is already human centered (Score:3, Insightful)

    by roman_mir ( 125474 ) on Thursday March 05, 2020 @11:47PM (#59801904) Homepage Journal

    what an ass this guy, promotes 'human centered capitalism'. Capitalism is plenty human centered already, it is the most human centered system that exists up to date, the system that took more humans out of poverty, increased quality of live, provided things that no other system has ever provided to the most people.

    Capitalism is human centered, capitalism is private ownership and operation of property and it means doing things for profit, which means for humans.

    Profit = humans. That's because profit is what humans provide a capitalist with when he gives them what they are looking for, wanting, craving, desiring or simply are in need of. No other system can give them that but capitalism does.

    Socialism, communism, fascism, totalitarianism, Marxism and other systems that deny human his individual rights (the right to not be enslaved by the collective), these systems can only take away from someone who created so that fruits of his labour are squandered away on political promises. Capitalism and private property protection allows humans to create and to profit from creation by providing other humans with what they need, they have to be creative in return to provide what others need. Capitalism drives innovation, capitalism *is* motivation to innovate, to succeed, not to be a burden, not to be useless but to be a useful member of society.

    Andrew Yang will not create useful members of society, he will breed uselessness, poverty, lack of motivation, addiction to handouts and destruction of creativity and of innovation, destruction of economics and of society itself, because without sound economics there will be no society.

    • "doing things for profit, which means for humans" You mean for the humans who make the profit, not necessarily anyone else. Not everything that is good for humans is profitable. Not everything that is profitable is good for humans.
      • That is just flat out wrong. The point of an economy is to consume. Thatâ(TM)s what living standards are. To consume you must produce what is wanted to be consumed. You seem to think capital is profit. It isnâ(TM)t. Capitalism is about production being in private hands instead of being dictated to by government. Doing something yourself for your own family has no âoeprofitâ but is absolutely still capitalism. Making something yourself that you donâ(TM)t need, selling it, and buy
    • Wow, the idea that capitalism lifts people out of poverty is beyond naive. Capitalism is the cause of poverty, not the solution.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jm007 ( 746228 )
        read some history that goes back a few thousand years, you will find poverty and oppression existed long before and will always exist;

        only through enlightened self-interest has the common man any hope of having any sort of life with choices

        no system is perfect, but it's the only one that has given a net posititve result for the masses

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jm007 ( 746228 )
      spot on.... can be tough at time hearing folks complaining about 'capitalism' all the while they're steeped from birth in its benefits

  • Good luck (Score:3)

    by Arthur, KBE ( 6444066 ) on Thursday March 05, 2020 @11:55PM (#59801938)
    promoting this scheme under the next four years of a Trump administration.
  • This guy needs a reality check.

    • Actually the math checks out. You could replace every welfare social program with this and outcomes would be better for everyone. It spreads your existing income from middle age into your educational and retirement years allowing you to actually not worry about feeding and housing yourself when you're trying to get an education.

      Let me put it this way. If you could take 10k from your age 35 self and give it to your 20 year old self would you?

      I know I sure as hell would.

      • 20 year old me thinks that rocks, 46 year old me thinks that sucks ass. 46 year old me is smarter.

        • In another timeline 20 year old you put $1000 into MSFT in 1994 and ended up with a 100k investment at 46.

          In this timeline though you think it sucks.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by jm007 ( 746228 )
            not sure, but isn't that the general idea of social security? the problem is who/what is happening to that money in the meantime? it seems to juicy of a target for those in power to just leave it be
      • If I took $10000 from me back when I was 35, I would have ended up homeless. Fuck that shit.
        ..and no, the math doesn't check out. It's all Magical, Wishful Thinking. It's never going to happen. You're all better off just forgetting about it. You're going to have to work the rest of your life, just get over it and accept it and move on.

  • Good (Score:3)

    by burtosis ( 1124179 ) on Friday March 06, 2020 @12:05AM (#59801974)
    Yang wasn’t my first choice but I’m glad he ran. It was about time someone brought a UBI into the political discourse and despite having roots in the right wing seems to be at least interesting to both major parties.

  • Star Trek Economy (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MikeDataLink ( 536925 ) on Friday March 06, 2020 @12:16AM (#59802000) Homepage Journal

    Most every person I ask thinks that the economy promoted on Star Trek is what the future will really be like. That some day the types of jobs we have today will not exist, because computers and automation will do all of the work for us (hint: its already begun).

    Yet those same people seem to be terribly averse to actually trying to create that future.

    • I've only seen computers and automation create jobs my whole life; it's a tool that needs a huge infrastructure.

    • Most every person I ask thinks that the economy promoted on Star Trek is what the future will really be like. That some day the types of jobs we have today will not exist, because computers and automation will do all of the work for us (hint: its already begun).

      Yet those same people seem to be terribly averse to actually trying to create that future.

      I think far more work was outsourced than automated. It's a bit of an illusion that so little stuff is still manufactured here. If only there was as much concern for those displaced by outsourcing as there was for those displaced by a utopian future where everything just magically happens.

    • Even in Star Trek, the so-called Star Trek economy is a sham. Everywhere the Enterprise goes, crew members are required to use money to trade with people of various worlds. Even on earth, Picard's family owns a farm, and others own homes. If people can own things, they will sometimes want to trade the things they own. Perhaps they could barter, like people did before the invention of money. Or they could use a medium of exchange that allows trade to effortlessly occur between multiple parties, without the n

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by MobyDisk ( 75490 )

      I'm working on a replicator now, but I'm short on dilithium crystals and antimatter. I'm willing to trade some gold-pressed latinum for it though.

  • Sweet, as long as he doesn't get to tax me (Score:3)

    by melted ( 227442 ) on Friday March 06, 2020 @12:51AM (#59802064) Homepage

    Sweet, as long as he doesn't get to tax me to pay for his shit.

  • Andrew Yang has finally found the infamous money tree.

  • Give it a rest already.

  • Use your cash first, Yang. (Score:3)

    by Oligonicella ( 659917 ) on Friday March 06, 2020 @10:58AM (#59803064)
    Prove to us it works on a sustained long-term scale with your reserves before you grab mine.

    I hear BeauHD would love to help out if your cash won't stretch.

Slashdot Top Deals

And it should be the law: If you use the word `paradigm' without knowing what the dictionary says it means, you go to jail. No exceptions. -- David Jones

Close