usaman345

I did not realize until recently how big of an issue it was during the early days of the cold war as to whether or not Germany should rearm or be allowed to rearm.

It is always easy in hindsight but why at the time during the early Cold War period did the US seem to strongly favor rearming Germany while the Soviets were just as strongly against rearming Germany especially when each side had its own sector in Berlin anyway?

I know the U.S. sent ground troops to defend South Vietnam and bombed North Vietnam (e.g., Rolling Thunder), but did we send any ground troops to North Vietnam?

I'm not a lawyer but I am trying to locate and retrieve a decision issued by Judge Weinstein (EDNY) a few years ago regarding the eviction of a tenant who urinated in the common area of his/her building.

Does anyone know this case and can provide a copy of the decison?

I read the above-titled article in today's (9/2/12) NY Times. However, as I am far from a financially savvy person, I'm wondering if someone can explain to me in detail exactly how this tax strategy works.

Based on my reading of the article, here is my take:

A financial investment firm, such as Bain Capital (which was widely mentioned in the article), invests in, I guess, stocks and mutual funds. There are individual managers of each fund that are responsible for administering the fund, which includes buying and selling of investments.

A client invests, let's say $1M in an individual fund. In addition to the principal investment of $1M, there is also a management fee which I guess is a certain percentage of the investment, let's say 5%, which is $50K. So, the client gives Bain $1M for investment and $50K for a management fee, for a total of $1,050,000. I'm not sure what the management fee is for, but I'm guessing it is, in part, to cover administrative and personnel costs. So, this entire $1,050,000 is included in the fund, which is now valued at, let's say, $100M.

So, now let's say the manager does a good job at administering the fund and, at the end of the year, the fund appreciates in value by $100,000. Now, the total value of the fund is $100,100,000. The $100,000 is considered profit to the fund.

The fund manager's compensation is based on a small percentage of the management fees and a percentage of the profits. Let's say total mgmt fees for the year were $300K and the mgr receives 1% of that for $3,000 and receives 10% of the profits, which, in this case, is $10K ($100K x 10%). The manager's total compensation is $13K, plus a salary from Bain which is irrelevant to this example.

In this case, the $10K (10% of the profits) is considered the "carried interest" referred to in the article and is taxed at the lower capital gains rate (that is, lower than income tax) typically reserved for investments.

The article indicated that the management fees are being "converted" to capital gains. Therefore, based on my interpretation and for purposes of this example, the $300K in management fees are being used, at least in part, to boost the profits. So, some of the $100K in profits is actually made up in part of a portion of the management fees. The portion of the mgmt fees diverted to profits would be taxes at a higher rate if they were maintained as a management fee, but that diverted portion is actually taxed at the lower capital gains rate since it is considered profit.

For example, let's say 30% of the mgmt fees were diverted to profit. Therefore, $90K ($300K x 30%) of the mgmt fees are now included in the profit pool. I have no idea what the tax rates are, but let's say the cap gains rate is 15% and the income tax rate is 30%. In this case, the $90K is taxed at the cap gains rate of 15% which is $13,500 to the government, instead of being taxed as ordinary income at a rate of 30% which would be $27K and transferred to the government.

Well, that is my take on this and I have no idea if it is correct. I would appreciate if someone with some knowledge on this topic would educate me!

I read the above-titled article in today's (9/2/12) NY Times. However, as I am far from a financially savvy person, I'm wondering if someone can explain to me in detail exactly how this tax strategy works.

Based on my reading of the article, here is my take:

A financial investment firm, such as Bain Capital (which was widely mentioned in the article), invests in, I guess, stocks and mutual funds. There are individual managers of each fund that are responsible for administering the fund, which includes buying and selling of investments.

A client invests, let's say $1M in an individual fund. In addition to the principal investment of $1M, there is also a management fee which I guess is a certain percentage of the investment, let's say 5%, which is $50K. So, the client gives Bain $1M for investment and $50K for a management fee, for a total of $1,050,000. I'm not sure what the management fee is for, but I'm guessing it is, in part, to cover administrative and personnel costs. So, this entire $1,050,000 is included in the fund, which is now valued at, let's say, $100M.

So, now let's say the manager does a good job at administering the fund and, at the end of the year, the fund appreciates in value by $100,000. Now, the total value of the fund is $100,100,000. The $100,000 is considered profit to the fund.

The fund manager's compensation is based on a small percentage of the management fees and a percentage of the profits. Let's say total mgmt fees for the year were $300K and the mgr receives 1% of that for $3,000 and receives 10% of the profits, which, in this case, is $10K ($100K x 10%). The manager's total compensation is $13K, plus a salary from Bain which is irrelevant to this example.

In this case, the $10K (10% of the profits) is considered the "carried interest" referred to in the article and is taxed at the lower capital gains rate (that is, lower than income tax) typically reserved for investments.

The article indicated that the management fees are being "converted" to capital gains. Therefore, based on my interpretation and for purposes of this example, the $300K in management fees are being used, at least in part, to boost the profits. So, some of the $100K in profits is actually made up in part of a portion of the management fees. The portion of the mgmt fees diverted to profits would be taxes at a higher rate if they were maintained as a management fee, but that diverted portion is actually taxed at the lower capital gains rate since it is considered profit.

For example, let's say 30% of the mgmt fees were diverted to profit. Therefore, $90K ($300K x 30%) of the mgmt fees are now included in the profit pool. I have no idea what the tax rates are, but let's say the cap gains rate is 15% and the income tax rate is 30%. In this case, the $90K is taxed at the cap gains rate of 15% which is $13,500 to the government, instead of being taxed as ordinary income at a rate of 30% which would be $27K and transferred to the government.

Well, that is my take on this and I have no idea if it is correct. I would appreciate if someone with some knowledge on this topic would educate me!

I understand what a lockout is, in that an employer prevents employees from working. How exactly does this work? Using 2011 NBA lockout as an example, how did the owners prevent the players from reporting to work? Did they refuse to sign a collective bargaining agmt? Did owners lock the arena doors? Not sure how this works.

There is a gap in my thinking on the Final Solution that I'm hoping can be filled here.

My understanding is that Hitler desired more "living space" for Germany and also aimed to foster an Aryan race. He also blamed Jews for Versailles and Bolshevism. Hitler's hatred of Jews was real, it was not just a propaganda tool used to gain power.

So, Hitler sought to invade other countries to acquire more living space for Germans and also to grow the Aryan race. As Germany invaded other countries, those with blond hair/blue eyes were actually brought to Germany to build the Aryan race, breed, etc. Germany invaded the Soviet Union to, in part, rid the world of Judeo-Bolshevism and, again, expand that living space.

So, the question arose among Hitler's cronies as to what to do about the "Jewish problem." Poland was heavily populated with Jews as well was the Soviet Union and Czechoslavakia (not sure on the spelling). Hitler is blaming the Jews for the economic problems in Germany combined with his desire for more living space and building an Aryan race resulted in the eventual "Final Solution" which was to eradicate the Jewish race.

My question is why did Hitler go so far, take such an evil, extreme step as genocide? In other words, what I don't understand is why didn't he just, let's say, relocate the Jews to another country, which is bad enough in itself, but instead built a huge secretive apparatus to take Jews by rail to concentration camps to gas them? Let's say Poland contained the most Jews in the world; why couldn't Hitler just relocate all of the German Jews, and Jews from other countries (Czech, France, etc.) that were taken over and relocate them all to Poland. Not that this is a "good" thing, but at least they would've been alive and not be separated from families, etc. Why a "Final" solution? What was Hitler trying to "solve?" (I know, the Jewish "problem" but what was the exact problem- their mere existence or that they stood in the way of German living space or that they were not racially pure?). And yes I know that Hitler did not officially sign off on this, but he did definately make verbal orders, so please don't tell me the Holocaust didn't happen.

I can't even imagine the horror those people experienced and it is just so sickening yet also seemed so unneccessary. And, it really wasn't even that long ago.

I hope I'm making sense.

A NYC landlord needs to bring a holdover proceeding in housing court against a tenant for material lease violations other than nonpayment of rent.

The landlord needs to serve either a Notice of Termination or a Notice to Cure.

What is the (legal?) difference between the two types of documents? Under what situations is a Notice of Termination required and under what situatuons is a Notice to Cure required?

I'm a complete layman at this, so I'm hoping the younger people on here can assist me.

I have a desktop computer (with cable modem) in one room and my son's PS3 is in his bedroom. I want to be able to provide him with wireless internet access so he can play games against other people online. What do I need and how do I go about accomplishing this?

Remember, please explain in simple terms.

Thank you!

I am trying to create a formula that will limit the user's response to certain allowable codes.

In my spreadsheet, the user must enter one of three codes into each row in column D. The codes are R, M, or IP. I would like to prevent the user from entering any other data in the cells within column D. If the user enters any other data besides one of those three codes, then I would like a popup box to appear indicating that the user must enter R, M or IP.

I hope this make sense.

Any help that can be provided would be appreciated.

Thanks.

There is a tenant always late in paying her electric bills. Her electricity has been turned off several times, and then put back on.

I would like to remind tenant about the potential dangers of having her electricity turned off and that she must keep up with payments or seek help.

What are some potential dangers of having your electricity shut off? Does having your electricity shut off result in some unsafe or unsanitary living conditions? I was thinking of spoiled food in the refrigerator. Can you think of any others? I need as many as possible.

There is a tenant always late in paying her electric bills. Her electricity has been turned off several times, and then put back on.

I would like to remind tenant about the potential dangers of having her electricity turned off and that she must keep up with payments or seek help.

What are some potential dangers of having your electricity shut off? Does having your electricity shut off result in some unsafe or unsanitary living conditions? I was thinking of spoiled food in the refrigerator. Can you think of any others? I need as many as possible.

What exactly is Phil Spector' Wall of Sound? I know it is a way to record music, but why was it so popular? Is it still in use today? Also, examples would be greatly appreciated! Can you provide me with a couple of songs that were released prior to the Wall of Sound and a couple of songs released that actually use the Wall of Sound technique? Thanks!

I've had in college full professors, associate professors and assistant professors. I understand how they are ranked and full professors earn the most and assistants the least, but what can full professors do that associates do not and what can associates do that assistants can not, etc? Also, what education levels must be attained for each type of professorship? I am guessing all 3 can teach but perhaps only a full professor can issue a true scholarly work? I'm not sure.

I was reviewing the Baseball Hall of Fame's website and was shocked by some of my findings.

It is hard to believe that some of the greatest ballplayers in history were not elected to the Hall on their first ballot.

As examples:

-Cy Young wasn't elected to the HOF until his 2nd year of eligibility.

-Duke Snider didn't get in until his 11th try.

-Joe Dimaggio: 3rd ballot

-Eddie Mathews: fifth ballot

-Rogers Hornsby: 4th ballot

-Jimmy Foxx: 6th ballot

-Early Wynn: 4th ballot

-Roy Campanelle: 5th ballot

-Yogi Berra: 2nd ballot

I could understand why players like Harmon Killibrew, Phil Niekro, Jim Rice did not get in on the 1st ballot. Altough they were great, they were not absolutely dominant. Killibrew, for example, hit a lot of homers but had a low batting average.

Also, some players elected on the 1st ballot cannot compare to some of those non-first ballot inductees noted above. I love Ozzie Smith, and he was great, but how can he be a 1st ballot HOF but not Jimmy Foxx or Duke Snider. Same thing with Dennis Eckersley, but he and not Cy Young, was a 1st ballot HOFer?

Can anyone shed any light on why some of those players on my list were not elected to the Hall on the 1st try? Many of us think of a number of these players (such as Snider, Dimaggio, Young, Berra, etc.) as the greatest ever and I was surprised to learn that they were not 1st ballot HOFers.

I am reading George Orwell's 1984 on my own. There is this reference to Oliver Cromwell, in context:

Winston was in Victory Square before the appointed time. He wandered round the base of the enormous fluted column, at the top of which Big Brother's statue gazed southward towards the skies where he had vanquished the Eurasian aeroplanes (the Eastasian aeroplanes, it had been, a few years ago) in the Battle of Airstrip One. In the street in front of it there was a statue of a man on horseback which was supposed to represent Oliver Cromwell.

I don't know much about Cromwell and I'm curious what Orwell's intention was in this passage. Why Cromwell? Why would the gov't of Oceania hold Cromwell in such high regard, as evidenced by displaying the statue, especially placed near a statue of Big Brother. Obviously, there must be some kind of symbolism here which I can't figure out because I know little about Cromwell. Also, of all the dictators, why did Orwell choose Cromwell in this context? Thanks.

If our economy does become socialist, what does it really mean and how would it work? How would it effect our daily lives?

Let's say the stock of all the companies in the banking industry is purchased by the federal gov't. If this occurred, the gov't would effectively own the banks.

Based on the little I know, if this happened, I believe the profit motive would be removed, all banking employees would be employed by the gov't and the federal government officials, both within the three branches and the bureaucracy, would make the decisions of resource allocation.

So, how would it work if a household wanted to get a 30-year mortgage to purchase a home? The household would need to go to the gov't and ask for the loan? Would all households qualify for a loan, regardless of income, credit history, etc.? I suppose borrowers would pay the gov't back directly and the gov't would theoretically provide those funds to other borrowers.

Also, what would happen to home values? Just thinking about this, they can go up because money would now be more widely available due to the gov't granting more loans. On the other hand, they can go down (I think) because if the general population is not making enough money to purchase homes, then homeowners that are selling would have to lower their prices. Unless, I guess, the gov't is going to give the borrowers a loan large enough to purchase any home without any maximum cap?

As you can see, I'm confused as to how such a system would really work on the ground. I don't just want to know the consequences of transforming to a different economic system, but how a socialist economy would actually operate and how it would interact with regular people.

If our economy does become socialist, what does it really mean and how would it work? How would it effect our daily lives?

Let's say the stock of all the companies in the banking industry is purchased by the federal gov't. If this occurred, the gov't would effectively own the banks.

Based on the little I know, if this happened, I believe the profit motive would be removed, all banking employees would be employed by the gov't and the federal government officials, both within the three branches and the bureaucracy, would make the decisions of resource allocation.

So, how would it work if a household wanted to get a 30-year mortgage to purchase a home? The household would need to go to the gov't and ask for the loan? Would all households qualify for a loan, regardless of income, credit history, etc.? I suppose borrowers would pay the gov't back directly and the gov't would theoretically provide those funds to other borrowers.

Also, what would happen to home values? Just thinking about this, they can go up because money would now be more widely available due to the gov't granting more loans. On the other hand, they can go down (I think) because if the general population is not making enough money to purchase homes, then homeowners that are selling would have to lower their prices. Unless, I guess, the gov't is going to give the borrowers a loan large enough to purchase any home without any maximum cap?

As you can see, I'm confused as to how such a system would really work on the ground. I don't just want to know the consequences of transforming to a different economic system, but how a socialist economy would actually operate and how it would interact with regular people.

I was fortunate enough to read the following texts in my college history class:

Marx: The Communist Manifesto

Darwin: The Origin of Species

DuBois: The Souls of Black Folk

Nietzsche: (various essays)

Woolf: Three Guineas

Freud: Civilization and its Discontents

My professor used to encourge us to try to envision these authors sitting around the same table conversing with each other. What would they say to each other? What would they agree/disagree on?

After reading these texts, I can see a number of similarities as well as differences in the thinking of each author. As a reader, I can sort of string together a commonality if not an evolution of thought between the authors.

What I would love to know is if we have any evidence that Darwin, DuBois, Nietzsche, Woolf or Freud ever read Marx, particularly The Communist Manifesto (only because I read it in class) or even his other works (Das Kapital, etc)? I'm wondering how much these authors were directly influenced by Marx, if at all, since he was the earliest of these writers. I guess the type of thought exhibited by Woolf, DuBois, etc. started with Marx.