The worker's cooperative who loaned the money to my worker's cooperative would be liable for the losses. I assume they would have to eat the loss then?
669 karma · joined August 20, 2014
Will I be liable for a company's losses under your system?
To put it in terms more familiar, intersectionality is intended to unify a diverse body against a larger uniform society. In a sense, the most conservative Americans and the most radical are one in the same. Radicals seek unity against enemies within and conservatives seeks unity against enemies without. The only thing separating some radical ideas from some conservative ideas is the scoping.
---
As a sidebar, I'm really digging this train of thought. Its kind of interesting to think that the only difference between Martin Luther and Pope Urban II was their scope of the world's problems. Which makes sense. After all we're only human. We don't think that differently from one another.
You need to give us your definition of competitive. The grand parent already answered the examples you provided. The competing products being "essentially the same" does not detract from their competitiveness.
No car company produces cars for people living on the minimum wage and yet a great many people living on the minimum wage can and do afford cars. Building new housing reduces the value of existing housing.
We obviously need better representation. But how? What system could we adopt that would allow the most comprehensive range of political opinion to be represented?
An anecdotal example. I purchased a home last year which did not have AC. The previous owners lived in the house for over 20 years with out ever "needing" an air conditioner. My wife and I did not make it to the summer before installing an AC. I have no doubt I could have survived without an AC but why bother? Its cheap (relatively speaking) and improves my quality of life.
Either way we should have some evidentiary support for the arguments made in this thread. "Can free speech go to far?" "Should free speech be limited only to those mentally capable of the responsibility?" "Are safe spaces key in the radicalization process?" "Should speech be limited to only those ideas which society wishes to debate?" "Are calls to violence speech?"
I'm pretty keen on tracking some of these arguments. Please suggest more arguments (and potential indicators for that argument's truth) if you feel I've neglected some aspect of the conversation.
There were several thousand counter-protestors.
This is a Neo-Nazi rally in Germany: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0ZPs48rKhw
Please describe, in your own words, how the restriction of free speech and association has curtailed the organization of Neo-Nazi movements.
> According to the annual report of Germany's interior intelligence service (Verfassungsschutz) for 2012, at the time there were 26,000 right-wing extremists living in Germany, including 6,000 neo-Nazis.
> The National Socialist Movement (NSM), with about 400 members in 32 states,[195] is currently the largest neo-Nazi organization in the United States.
It seems the right to free speech and the right to association has led to FEWER Neo Nazis in America than Germany despite America's population being 4 times larger than Germany's.
Your payments would total $375k over that period. $350k at 4% would total the same amount but with $200k in principal paid down.
I'd much rather be in a situation with $200k in equity versus $20k in equity. And remember, both people have the same monthly payment amount!
Which home would you prefer to buy:
$150,000 at 15% over 30 years. $350,000 at 4% over 30 years.
Hint: they both have approximately the same total loan cost and payment.
You can do this calculation with your parents. My home cost $350k at 3.8%. My parents bought my childhood home for $88k at 8%. Adjust my parents' home price for inflation and run the result through a mortgage payment calculator. You find that I paid slightly more for my home but my home is much nicer (central heat and air, closer to town, larger, better schools, etc).
My parents' home happens to be for sale currently (not by them). If I paid full asking I would pay MORE in raw dollars but LESS in inflation-adjusted-total-loan-cost (which is what actually matters).
How about the CEO who made a rational policy of reporting vehicles stolen that aren't returned within a given time frame?
How about the engineers who created and approved a system with a software bug? A piece of software that functioned correctly 99.99969% of the time. That's slightly better than six sigma. How many of you can claim your uptime is that good. 30 cases in 10 million!
How about the product manager who crafted a spec with a hole in its business logic?
How about the front desk clerks who did not fill out the appropriate paperwork after rental upgrades?
How about the stores' managers who actually called the police and filed the reports in accordance with company policy?
How about the HR reps who didn't train employees to use the system correctly?
> Some of these were reported last year, and Hertz found itself paying tens of thousands of dollars in damages to victims in civil cases.
It seems the company is being held civilly liable. Which they should be! If the police shoot innocent people based on accusations then you have a POLICE problem not a Hertz problem (which, of course, never happened in this case).
Household income is a stupid metric. In America, the top 20% of households contains TWICE as many PEOPLE as the bottom 20% of households. The top 20% of households contains FOUR times as many income earners as the bottom 20% of households. The top 20% of households contains THREE times as many children and HALF as many retirees as the bottom 20% of households.
So when someone says America has too many "poor" households. Consider that those poor households EXIST because they are WEALTHY enough to afford it!
Consider Italy. More households in the middle income share than America. Is that because Italy is an economic paradise? Or because of a strong, centralized bureaucracy capable of administering income distribution schemes? Maybe. But it could be the case that the old and young can not afford to establish their own households. So they continue to live with the working members of their family and enjoy the "benefit" of being a middle class household.
I don't mean to imply that America is perfect and that Italy is not. I only want to say that this chart is an awful way to represent data and is, in my opinion, intentionally misleading.
Why? What's the difference between publicly funded versus publicly funded and operated?