fuzz4lyfe

I don't. Most free market thinkers aren't the GOP talking heads you see in the news. Those guys made their fortunes via regulatory capture, war and protectionism for the most part. Frankly it seems they have ridden that train into the ground the values of conservatives can only bend so far before voters start asking questions the politicians can't answer. Only socialism can provide the level of market control that the corporatists crave. Notice how firms got 'woke' all the sudden? Do you really think Pepsi is all about social justice?

These people will complain about "the 1%" while being in the .1% globally. It's very strange to watch if you have perspective on global poverty.

>So... you will never use publicly funded (often emergency) healthcare?

When the overweight start getting hauled off to prison I'll find this argument compelling.

>what do you think happens to that business?

Generally nothing, the hospitals don't actually expect you to pay the bill they just want the tax write off they get when they send it to collections. Jeff Bezos might have to pay but if you are just some guy with a business that doesn't even generate enough money to pay for your own health insurance you will most likely be fine.

With things like this it is helpful to work from first principals. Ask yourself, are all people with poor credit homeless? Are most?

>One medical emergency will end it all.

One medical emergency and your credit will be ruined. Wait a seven years without contracting the debt collector and the debt becomes uncollectible. After three years roughly three quarters of the effect on your credit will evaporate. That's what actually happens beyond the hyperbolic political grandstanding.

Remember kids, if you get a bill that you can't possibly pay. Don't pay it. Let it go to collections and pay it for pennies on the dollar (another trick, tell them the most you can pay is $10 a month or something else low. Pay off that debt in 2075) or just wait for it to become uncollectible.

I'm talking about with no insurance. You know the debtors prisons were closed a century ago right? It will screw up your credit score for a couple of years and that's about it.

The constitution protects against warrantless search and seizure specifically against "their persons, houses, papers, and effects". Courts in overwhelming number interpreted that to mean cops can take paper money from you without a warrant.

You trust them to do the right thing for HIPAA in regards to a multi billion dollar enterprise?

My experience is that "crunch time" never actually ends. It just becomes the new normal and expected over time. Its better to deliver under the maximum you are capable unfortunately. Think of it this way, is the company providing the maximum value they can to you?

Preventing engineers who are working on it from working at the competition?

For me, I haven't worked in an organization where I would be rewarded in any concrete way if the business achieved it's goals. (0 equity, pay based on market forces more than effort) So I don't particularly care about business goals in any real sense as they don't appear to align very well with my personal goals. Honestly I just do whatever looks best on a resume at this point.

I had no idea my daughter costs my entire post tax salary. I wonder how we pay the mortgage?

If you get a bill but don't actually pay it does it still have a five-figure price tag?

Those sound anti-competitive as well

Similar statements can be made about insider trading or constitutional violations.

>What's your evidence that working for information helps with convincing?

I can't say I had any hard evidence while I wrote that. I admit it's more of an observation from my experience. That said there this study[0] seems to suggest a mechanism whereby this effect could occur. Other ideas like the suck cost fallacy and effort heuristic seem to confirm that this effect has been noticed by others on some level.

[0]https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2012-08696-001

Real expertise isn't a problem. A expert plumber is shown to be so by his actions. Nobody would install a leaky faucet and be able to call himself an expert.

An expert psychologist for example? Her patients can remain depressed, mutilate themselves, kill themselves and even kill others and yet she will remain an "expert" mostly on the basis that she was educated at a place that similarly ineffective experts have claimed is a good place for a psychologist to come from.

I suppose the trouble is experts by education got lumped in by experts by results at some point down the line.

>Why did they offer to pay $400K to recover ~100 PCs if they had backups?

"Backup is lets says weekly and someone high up the chain really wants the power point he put together on Tuesday." is probably what happened in my experience.

Know how you get a human to believe something? Make them work for the information. The more someone works for information the more likely they are to believe it is valid. I think this is why you see modern educated people with such deference to the "experts". They know the hard work and the costs involved in becoming a academic and as such they value that experience with an almost religious fervor.

If you want something a little nicer than a trash bag. I've got these[0] in every bedroom in my house. Keeps the heating and cooling bill down as well as blocks out light really well.

[0]https://www.amazon.com/Best-Home-Fashion-Insulated-Blackout/...

Such a store would have so few customers that it would cost $14k for such a keyboard. That same keyboard will go for $100 - $200 online.

Yes, and my point is it's an entirely useless definition. If 40% of the population were billionaires and the remaining 60% were millionaires. The millionaires aren't in poverty.

"delusion: an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder."

It is quite delusional to create new metrics on poverty because ones based on income or consumption don't get you to the result you like.

That measure won't work on the vast majority of the planet. The global per-capita median income is less that three thousand dollars a year. People making 4 grand a year aren't out of poverty.

>The usual threshold for poverty (for good reasons) is 50 or 60% of the median income in a country.

If you think half to 40% of people in the Congo are not in poverty you are delusional

My bet is simply that you go where the money is[0].

[0]https://www.justfacts.com/news_poorest_americans_richer_than...

The democrats can never seem to manage to tax the wealthy (themselves effectively) when push comes to shove. I'm not trying to be partisan, Republicans similarly are unable to cut spending. Perhaps this time will be different but I'm betting against that personally.

Also it is my belief that moving money from investment vehicles to consumers will have a inflationary effect on consumer goods. The slow trickle of subsidized Uber rides for example probably has less of an effect than a direct cash transfer that happens more rapidly. More so much of that money is invested internationally, by increasing taxes on the wealthy we may be in effect increasing the total money supply in the United States.

While that is true it is printing money for distributive purposes that I'm more worried about. Spending a few billion on bombs to blow up houses on other continents, or to prop up the stock of oil companies for example won't really move the inflation needle in regards to consumer goods as much as printing it to throw it out of a helicopter would in my estimation.

You could open up lanes a quarter mile at a time even depending on traffic demands.

Eg. Between exit 1 and exit 2, 8 northbound lanes are open. Between 2 and 3 we have 6 northbound lanes.

It's would be pretty disconcerting to travel in your self driving car and head full speed into oncoming traffic only to shift lanes a few moments before collision though.

A number of factors:

1. Money is essentially free at current interest rates and I don't see a sign of that reversing course.

2. Large firms are hording cash and have more than they know what to do with. They are at the point where they are buying their own stock because that is the most productive thing they can do with that money.

3. The democratic party is running on minimum wage increases. While it is debatable if that will have a huge impact it certainly isn't a deflationary measure.

4. Democrats are also running on the green new deal, universal income and medicare for all that I predict will not actually result in higher taxes for the wealthy in any meaningful way but instead the printing of money in order to fund those programs as that is what seems to happen every time. Even if taxes were implemented as discussed, moving money from investment vehicles (where the wealthy have it) to consumers will still probably cause inflation in terms of housing and consumer goods.

5. China is sitting on about 3 trillion dollars that is currently effectively out of the money supply and they will likely deploy that as a weapon in the trade war.

I was about 13 years old I didn't have much capitol to invest. I just put together the two pieces of the puzzle that housing prices were rising much faster than wages and that a products price can't continuously rise faster then the consumers ability to pay for that product. I guess the "smart money" missed that.

Now we have a bunch of presidential candidates that tell me they are going to print money all day long and a bunch of people who "know better" telling me that won't cause inflation to spike. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯