Eh, given that everyone pays income tax (largest portion by a mile) I think most people are aware of what drag that adds onto the economy.
Most people have no clue how much a storefront pays in rent.
17,990 karma · joined March 9, 2013
Most people have no clue how much a storefront pays in rent.
This number would be $0 for most cups of coffee (made in paid-for buildings) and <$0.02 for pretty much all the remaining ones, I think?
Rent on the other hand is 15%+ for every cup of coffee in perpetuity (not counting second-order question of what % of wages go directly into residential rent).
Arresting someone for a crime is obviously not a problem, and generally protestors commit all sorts of minor nuisance civil violations for which they get arrested, booked, and released — all of which must be done without regard to the content of the speech being exercised during the violation. Deploying federal officers to go hunt down specific individuals and then disappearing them across state lines and modifying their immigration status without due process is absolutely unequivocally in a totally different league.
Trump has specifically said he’s going after people for the content of their speech. This is illegal and is totally different from what happened under Biden.
IMO if we actually wanted to overhaul our economy, we could do it by just having POS’s print the portion of each bill that goes into rent.
Then the culprit of COL increases would be quite clear.
Especially given that wages are themselves also driven up primarily by rent.
How much airtime do we want to give that topic on this here thread about current distortion of our democracy through totally distinct mechanisms?
Not sure who you're arguing against on the propriety or danger of NSA's capability, but it ain't me.
Then we’re in agreement.
I’m saying it has approximately nothing to do with the actual issues we face today.
I.e. it’s just as relevant for me to say “this is why you don’t give governments firearms! An authoritarian one will turn around and shoot its own people!”
Like yeah, sure it seems likely. Relevant to today? Would today’s conditions have been averted if we had never armed the government? No.
Is it dangerous for the government to collect everything on the internet? Yes! Is there any evidence that capability and “habit” is actually contributing to the chilling effects described in the article? Nope!
As seen in GP’s comment, tech world’s fixation on high-tech super surveillance distracts from the how authoritarian regimes actually tend to exert control over their population. Like, in reality versus in science fiction (again, not that surveillance is good or neutral on this topic, but that it is not at all necessary).
The government also is not allowed to imprison you or threaten you for speech about another private party, for example.
WHAT?
This is literally the EXACT OPPOSITE of free speech, at least as it is defined in America. The 1st Amendment SPECIFICALLY AND SOLELY prevents the government from putting its thumb on the scales.
Private parties are necessarily allowed to respond to speech with whatever other speech they wish to use, including utilizing their rights to free association (or non-association) in response to what you say.
This is absolutely 100% backwards. I highly suggest reading some basic American civics material or something.
Inversely you can also have a government that collects everything and doesn’t wield it this way.
The two issues are not actually that intertwined.
Yes you’re right.
Semaglutide is like a 2nd generation GLP-1 and there are 3rd generation ones in development right now
Two things about this type of fraud though:
1. Detection would require making USG a better place to work for technically savvy people, with things like "budgets" and "not getting publicly humiliated by the world's richest man"
2. It's committed by men in suits, so enforcement would require going after the types of people that in reality, Trump & co prefer to pardon... for committing exactly this type of fraud [2]...
So, cutting life-saving aid, cancer research, and healthcare benefits it is!
[1]: https://www.wsj.com/health/healthcare/how-health-insurers-ra...
[2]: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/health-care-f...
> We don't do this because of principles, because of the risk of enabling other crimes, and because it would be a bad tradeoff
Really the only reason we don't do this is because of the Constitution. The Constitution could prevent us from capturing beneficial ownership data from corporations, but indeed it does not. Of course one can make this argument in front of SCOTUS (and perhaps will some day) but there's a reason you're not making that argument now, which is that it's a bit silly on its face.
Corporations are fundamentally legal objects of the state, which is why they're registered at all. You can operate whatever business you want without incorporating (and without the legal affordances thereof) and then you don't need to disclose any information to anyone.
I don’t think I understand your comment.
Agreed the "both sides bad" messaging was a huge factor here. But that's exactly why we should talk about these fuckups as questions of competence. They are unambiguous evidence of a difference in both sides' ability to actually operate a government!