getfiscal posted:Usually they waive it / include it in the funding package, or I'd try to get a scholarship they give to Canadians who study in the USA.... I mean more that Americans always have stories they tell me where they are like yeah I broke my hand slipping on the ice and now I owe $5,000.
i don't know a ton about canada and i'm curious if this is just the most basic differences in the underlying structure or whether there's a severe difference in various forms of review & arbitration as well.
people from france have told me that even when dealing with private insurers there, there's still a tendency for arbitrators to act as advocates for anyone who can muster even minimal self-advocacy, as a vague vestige of a former principle of the system, but it's getting steadily worse there. while basically in the few cases where you can "win" in those sorts of circumstances in the united states, in the sense of reversing some gotcha game where they piled fees on you for months before doing due diligence to inform you of what you did "wrong", it more or less involves being, becoming or finding an advocate for yourself who can dog the system with various tricks and tactics until you eventually bump the case to someone in some agency or company who hates their job denying people enough to sort of lay down the hints about what you need to do to navigate the obstacle course as it was constructed that year and explained to them in emails from their bosses.
cars posted:getfiscal posted:Usually they waive it / include it in the funding package, or I'd try to get a scholarship they give to Canadians who study in the USA.... I mean more that Americans always have stories they tell me where they are like yeah I broke my hand slipping on the ice and now I owe $5,000.
i don't know a ton about canada and i'm curious if this is just the most basic differences in the underlying structure or whether there's a severe difference in various forms of review & arbitration as well.
people from france have told me that even when dealing with private insurers there, there's still a tendency for arbitrators to act as advocates for anyone who can muster even minimal self-advocacy, as a vague vestige of a former principle of the system, but it's getting steadily worse there. while basically in the few cases where you can "win" in those sorts of circumstances in the united states, in the sense of reversing some gotcha game where they piled fees on you for months before doing due diligence to inform you of what you did "wrong", it more or less involves being, becoming or finding an advocate for yourself who can dog the system with various tricks and tactics until you eventually bump the case to someone in some agency or company who hates their job denying people enough to sort of lay down the hints about what you need to do to navigate the obstacle course as it was constructed that year and explained to them in emails from their bosses.
yeah that's a very good point. that's basically the history of my life for the past while. after looking into it i found out i qualified for a special program that will have paid off my $24,000 ontario student loan by next year. i also went through a long process to win a disability case and they had to give me a large payout which i used to pay off my line of credit and my tuition. so i guess there's always a way.
But I mean taking on as much debt as you can because you're preety sure jubilee is coming in 5 years is probably prudent too.
fape posted:How do people make money off of markets crashing again? Asking for... uhh... Funding a communist org
own a business where large institutional investors give you their money to play with & listen to what you tell them to do with it because they don't have a clue what to do otherwise. make sure you have some people working with or for you who know everything about the latest complex devices that hide what you're actually doing. then you invest in even more complex devices that do the exact opposite of what you told your clients to do and buy a boat.
getfiscal posted:yeah that's a very good point. that's basically the history of my life for the past while. after looking into it i found out i qualified for a special program that will have paid off my $24,000 ontario student loan by next year. i also went through a long process to win a disability case and they had to give me a large payout which i used to pay off my line of credit and my tuition. so i guess there's always a way.
good that it's working out better for you now but bad that it's like that up there too i guess.
getfiscal posted:roseweird posted:yeah there is an expensive insurance fee for international students, looks like $2k-ish at some schools i looked at. dunno if you can shop for a cheaper plan or what, $2k is a lot
Usually they waive it / include it in the funding package, or I'd try to get a scholarship they give to Canadians who study in the USA.... I mean more that Americans always have stories they tell me where they are like yeah I broke my hand slipping on the ice and now I owe $5,000.
It'd be way more than that
Michael Roberts:
Part of the Trump plan (again I hasten to add if it happens) is to cut the tax rate for companies that hold huge cash reserves overseas if they return these funds to invest at home. Unlike other developed nations, the US taxes corporate income globally, but it allows companies to defer paying tax on offshore earnings until they decide to repatriate that income. As a result, US companies have avoided U.S. taxes by stashing roughly $2.6trn offshore, a figure cited by Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation. The top five in order of overseas cash holdings as of Sept. 30, are Apple ($216 billion), Microsoft ($111 Billion), Cisco ($60 billion), Oracle Corp. ($51 billion) and Alphabet Inc. ($48 billion).
Such an idea was tried back in 2004 under George Bush. But the result was not a rise in productive investment but a new bout of financial speculation. Companies got a tax ‘amnesty’ but used the cash they brought home on buying back their own shares or pay out dividends to shareholders, driving up the stock price and then borrowing on the enhanced ‘market value’ of the company at very low rates. In 2004, when US firms brought back $300bn in cash, S&P 500 buybacks rose by 84%.
Goldman Sachs economists reckon that this will happen again with the Trump plan. Indeed GS reckon that next year could see buybacks take the largest share of company profits for 20 years. They estimate that $150bn (or 20 percent of total buybacks) will be driven by repatriated overseas cash. They predict buybacks 30 percent higher than last year, compared to just 5 percent higher without the repatriation impact, while productive investment’s share will be little changed.
Asked what he would do with repatriated cash should the Trump administration slash taxes on foreign profits, Cisco Systems Inc. Chief Executive Officer Chuck Robbins said “We do have various scenarios in terms of what we’d do but you can assume we’ll focus on the obvious ones — buy-backs, dividends and M&A activities.”
I think everything is going to be alright.
fape, to raise money for communism you need to do something called short selling, if you have a direct investment account with a bank and a good credit score, you can get this going to win the revolution.
I hate my euro overlords but I like money and damaging the economy by circulating large fraudulent bank notes seems win win
xipe posted:What about super dollars?
I hate my euro overlords but I like money and damaging the economy by circulating large fraudulent bank notes seems win win
high doubts on that doing anything. furthermore, its not even necessary with the ungodly fuckton of fictitious capital floating around. the bond market thats currently crashing, a subset of the wider money market, is worth a hundred trillion, with actual currency backing it less than 5% and actual gold less than 1%. you just need to sit back on your sofa-cum-bed grab layered butter popcorn and watch.
shriekingviolet posted:getfiscal posted:the prime minister then went to the governor general and asked her to suspend parliament to explicitly avoid losing power, which she surprisingly agreed to.
I remember being so mad. That was when the fraudulence of bourgeois democracy really clicked for me, until then it had just been a distant and abstract truism.
harper tried to create the rationale after that a parliamentary majority that relied on the tacit support of quebec nationalists was illegitimate because they were presumably trying to destroy canada with whatever they did. this is repulsive because the basic principle of parliamentary politics is that you assume everyone is trying to destroy the country.
RTC posted:your sofa-cum-bed
You know, that is unfair to bring up, and many of us have matured by now & can responsibly dispose of our leavings
getfiscal posted:roseweird posted:
sure why not?
my main concern seems to be that everything in america seems relatively functional and then all of a sudden you find out there is some extra fee or gap or something and they are like oh you forgot that you have to pay your foreign student health levy which is $7,000 this year or something like that and then i end up taking on a lot of debt for learning about economics. on the other hand i could live in chicago or whatever and hang out with baby finland all day.
It's a reasonable concern. One of my colleagues in grad school had a brief hospitalization due to an unexpected medical emergency (ovarian torsion) and ended up with a 50k medical bill when it wasn't covered by insurance for reasons I'm not clear on. She resolved the problem by immediately quitting grad school and fleeing back to Turkey, where debt collectors could not pursue her. I dunno how porous the US-CA border is wrt collections, but that might be an option for you should you ever commit the crime of falling ill in our great nation.
RTC posted:Michael Roberts:
Part of the Trump plan (again I hasten to add if it happens) is to cut the tax rate for companies that hold huge cash reserves overseas if they return these funds to invest at home. Unlike other developed nations, the US taxes corporate income globally, but it allows companies to defer paying tax on offshore earnings until they decide to repatriate that income. As a result, US companies have avoided U.S. taxes by stashing roughly $2.6trn offshore, a figure cited by Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation. The top five in order of overseas cash holdings as of Sept. 30, are Apple ($216 billion), Microsoft ($111 Billion), Cisco ($60 billion), Oracle Corp. ($51 billion) and Alphabet Inc. ($48 billion).
Such an idea was tried back in 2004 under George Bush. But the result was not a rise in productive investment but a new bout of financial speculation. Companies got a tax ‘amnesty’ but used the cash they brought home on buying back their own shares or pay out dividends to shareholders, driving up the stock price and then borrowing on the enhanced ‘market value’ of the company at very low rates. In 2004, when US firms brought back $300bn in cash, S&P 500 buybacks rose by 84%.
Goldman Sachs economists reckon that this will happen again with the Trump plan. Indeed GS reckon that next year could see buybacks take the largest share of company profits for 20 years. They estimate that $150bn (or 20 percent of total buybacks) will be driven by repatriated overseas cash. They predict buybacks 30 percent higher than last year, compared to just 5 percent higher without the repatriation impact, while productive investment’s share will be little changed.
Asked what he would do with repatriated cash should the Trump administration slash taxes on foreign profits, Cisco Systems Inc. Chief Executive Officer Chuck Robbins said “We do have various scenarios in terms of what we’d do but you can assume we’ll focus on the obvious ones — buy-backs, dividends and M&A activities.”I think everything is going to be alright.
fape, to raise money for communism you need to do something called short selling, if you have a direct investment account with a bank and a good credit score, you can get this going to win the revolution.
keep in mind that buybacks further inflate the stock price & boosts the earnings benchmarks used by most non-professional investors. when the stock in question's already valued highly relative to w/ever benchmark, buybacks can be a cynical way of keeping external speculative momentum going (as opposed to anything for the enterprise itself), which is all-important for the credulously story-driven gossipy side of the financial press and sucking up money from the myriad gamblers out there, but not actually great for keeping an economy running per se. trailing p/e ratios of indices aren't at 08/00 levels or anything, but it's true that there's a little room for the inevitable drop.
palafox posted:RTC posted:Michael Roberts:
Such an idea was tried back in 2004 under George Bush. But the result was not a rise in productive investment but a new bout of financial speculation. Companies got a tax ‘amnesty’ but used the cash they brought home on buying back their own shares or pay out dividends to shareholders, driving up the stock price and then borrowing on the enhanced ‘market value’ of the company at very low rates.
I think everything is going to be alright.
fape, to raise money for communism you need to do something called short selling, if you have a direct investment account with a bank and a good credit score, you can get this going to win the revolution.keep in mind that buybacks further inflate the stock price & boosts the earnings benchmarks used by most non-professional investors. when the stock in question's already valued highly relative to w/ever benchmark, buybacks can be a cynical way of keeping external speculative momentum going (as opposed to anything for the enterprise itself), which is all-important for the credulously story-driven gossipy side of the financial press and sucking up money from the myriad gamblers out there, but not actually great for keeping an economy running per se. trailing p/e ratios of indices aren't at 08/00 levels or anything, but it's true that there's a little room for the inevitable drop.
I completely agree, I should have probably added an /s to clarify, but in a self proclaimed irony forum i did not see the need. in fact, this is what I'm hoping to see happen. if a recession occurs in the next year or two, as is expected, US TNCs hard assets (which they cant move back) and value chains could take a severe hit, and with all their crashing stocks and cash back home they cant do much of anything. im hoping this results in countries dumping worthless US assets and cash equivalents so they can "lose their chains" so to speak with the added benefit of a potential run on the almighty US dollar.
