>That means less transparency, less control, less tax revenue, reduced government influence.
That doesn't sound good to you??
1,486 karma · joined July 29, 2013
That doesn't sound good to you??
I'm no housing bull, but this is simply not true.
Even after NYC was established, everything north of Wall Street (where there was a wall) was farmland.
Who else will run the BTC ATM on each end of the transaction?
Why wouldn't international BTC transfers be regulated the same as international currency transfers?
2. Think he meant necessary.
Participation not at parity = problem
Harassment suits not at parity = everything is fine?
Anything which is permissible for a piloted bomber to destroy is surely okay for a drone to destroy as well, yes? Why the focus on drones per se?
Yes, civilian deaths are bad. Yes, war is bad. Yes, perhaps the wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan should be ended tomorrow. So why don't we discuss those?
Drones seem utterly irrelevant:
1. Do drones cause more civilian casualties than traditional air strikes? If anything it seems that they inflict fewer. Thus focussing on this aspect actually hurts their case.
2. Do drones terrorize civilians more than a traditional infantry occupation, such as that prosecuted by the US in Iraq? I honestly have no idea, but the answer doesn't seem obvious.
3. Do drones make the US less safe than a traditional infantry based occupation? Again, I've got no idea.
4. This point is silly. In war you needn't get clearance before killing one's enemies - attempting to do so constitutes an increase in respect for human life.
1. If you own 10% equity in a home which declines in value 20%, you now have negative wealth. A 200% decline.
2. If you own 50% equity in a home which declines in value 20%, you have suffered a mere 40% decline.
The bastardized term of "wealth" used here, however, refers simply to material possessions even when not in sufficient quantities to provide any passive lifestyle advantages; suddenly a paid off car worth $5,000 is "wealth." The estimated $30,000 in equity I possess on my $200,000 home is "wealth". It's all a bit frivolous.
By definition, the poor and middle classes don't possess true wealth. Their value is their human capital and time, which they exchange for money. Even the "working rich" - doctors and lawyers - don't routinely possess "wealth" in the traditional sense of the term.
Then we compare the $30,000 equity I possess to actual wealth... such as the land under a shopping mall. What is the use in such an exercise?
NEWS FLASH: People who own really valuable stuff possess really valuable stuff. The rest of us don't. Let's write books about this and study the shocking phenomenon?
You simply can't compare actual wealth - such as the land under a shopping mall, which generates sufficient revenue for many people to live comfortably - to "wealth".
Now, demographically... Why would anyone be surprised that a significant portion of the population has zero wealth? Honestly I'm surprised it's only 25% who have zero. How much "wealth" should a university student have? How about someone who's been working for a few years? How about someone who's been retired for twenty years and expects to die within the next ten?
Middle class people gradually build up a small stock of "wealth" (we used to call this "savings") throughout their working careers. Then after retirement they gradually draw it down until they die.
So yes, it is not surprising that many people have zero or negative wealth.
None of these would lead to a decrease in wealth so quickly, except for situations in which the wealth had to be consumed to make up for loss of job / disability / sickness / overconsumption.
Re: Military families: Most people getting killed/dismembered were too young to have any wealth to lose. Even still, their wealth would actually increase upon death as the military's life insurance policies are quite generous.
Though I imagine that surpassing "2009 levels" is not very exciting. Wake me up when they surpass 2005 levels!
Not relevant to the point OP made.
Whether or not it's "better," it still impacts the numbers.
[1]http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=%5EGSPC+Interactive#symbo...
Consider, for example, that many people have negative wealth.
Remember HELOCs?
The wealth of non rich Americans is almost entirely contained in their highly leveraged houses. If housing prices collapse, their wealth collapses.
In 2008, housing prices collapsed.
1. The act being prohibited is nonviolent; injecting heroin, for example, involves zero violence.
2. The prohibition itself creates the violent black market organizations; if heroin were legal, the black market organizations wouldn't exist.
3. Thus yes, nonviolent laws.
We're all talking about parents taking care of their kids: If moms have the option not to have to take care of their kids - as they currently do - then fathers should have that option as well.
Once fathers have that option, and women are thusly treated as responsible adults, then we will come across situations in which mothers claim not to be able to care for their children. They will require assistance, or so they shall claim.
Simple solution: If the caretaker is sufficiently irresponsible as to have children without the means to care for them - which is precisely what they are claiming - then the children should be removed from their irresponsible care. Offer the father custody, and if he isn't interested then off to foster care.
Why is this so important? Why am I being so callous? Why is this relevant?
Simple. You incentivize behavior, you get more of it. Current law in Anglo-Saxon nations incentivizes irresponsibility by women. Get rid of these silly laws and you'll have less of this silly behavior.
Of course, I assume that women are volitional human beings and thus should be held responsible for their actions. A concept quite foreign to the Ango-Saxon legal tradition.
This is the law of the land throughout the Anglo-Saxon world (though thankfully not outside of it).
All is rather remarkable when one thinks about it. Women have the ability to jettison any child they do not want (either by killing it [!] or by post birth adoption), yet men of course are not afforded this right.