sbsudbdjd

Notably, the bank in question wasn't bothered by restrictions on the property when granting the business loan. Nor did the bank ever have to find out.

(Native level two romance languages. Very poor French, but I can obviously read it with two Latin languages and 8 years of schooling)

Oh I agree that the translator understood the nuance and I agree why "we" was proposed. The translation is correct, as is the original one.

I was proposing another alternative that incorporates the cold impersonality of "on" whilst not sounding pompous. The server was being viscous, not pompous.

I don't think my translation is "correct"; it hinges on my reading that the server was rude and nasty. A reading based on living in latin countries but also one based on my English Canadian prejudice that French Canadians all speak English but resent having to (don't fault them for it either)

I find translations fascinating as a subject. While there can be a bad translation, there is never a perfect one.

I do believe it was the Mar a Lago, yes. Trump's valuation was eye watering, I still can't believe it, but the market players agreed to it.

The banks agreed to the valuation and under no coercion agreed to lend money with it as collateral. Trump pays off that loan and the banks are made whole.

By contrast my school board telling me my house is worth 600 k instead of 400 k scares the shit out of me. I can't agree to it and my only recourse are the courts. The school board has lawyers on staff so it costs them nothing if I sue.

For starters break up their companies. We did it for standard oil, we did it for AT&T.

massive costs. Turns out people resent having their school board guess what their taxes ought to be.

Glad you asked. There's the obvious three ways to finance government:

- Taxes - debt financing - seignorage

The latter two aren't taxes, but people end up paying for the expenses anyway.

Governments can also plunder other country's money. While this sounds very Roman empire, it's still a thing. Case in point freezing another country's foreign exchange reserves, refusing to return their gold, confiscating the interest on the reserves, etc

but because the natives (metis) spoke French by the time the Brits got there.

"English is not spoken here" would work well.

The "on" is impersonal and quite different from "nous". I think a translation should reflect the universality of the statement.

As a separatist-sympathizer, I get it.... but instead of obsessing over teaching French to English kids, you'd think they could set up programs to teach their own kids to speak French!

French Canadian is the cruelest sounding language I have ever heard.

(Raised (fake) Canadian, living in the US)

I was in Canada last week and I saw a bunch of (real) English and (real) French Canadians. It dawned on me that the French Canadians resemble "redneck" Americans quite a lot more than the English whilst speaking a language that resembles French

The English Canadians (I wasn't in a major urban area, so these are what I call "real" Canadians) were quite different. Very reserved, low key and "proper". Unbearably stuffy.

"but if it involves NATO, I would expect that’s being employed"

Why would that be your expectation?

"Also paying taxes is a public good, even if you’re exceptionally wealthy."

Can be a public good if it's spent well. The US has spent how many trillions killing innocents the last 25 years? How many trillion were spent building ridiculous layers of redundancy on our nuclear deterrent (that we then smashed)?

Public good!

Because that detail, like the $100milliom limit are irrelevant details subject to change. (Most) People have the ability to synthesize issue and are worried of the proposal's fundamental core:

"Do we want the government to tax unrealized gains?"

No. I find it very scary frankly, even though I believe that the top 0.01% of the US population are parasitical and their financial and political clout should be reined in.

Admitting they withheld pertinent and embarrassing information from the public to protect the government is far-right?

No, I think they believe the alternatives are far worse.

Ppl's obsessions (on both sides) on taxes is so weird.

Governments can fund themselves in numerous ways, not just taxes. Either way you'll pay.

The key issue is do we want a federal government expenditure of 20-25% of the economy? I'd say no.

The $100M is an arbitrary number. It can go up, it can go down. It will be eroded by inflation and almost certainly not be indexed or indexed to a number controlled by bureaucrats.

1. Properties are bought/sold constantly around most people's homes. Evaluating a home price is not that hard, compared evaluating how much the remains of the car that Ted Kennedy crashed is worth (I purposely chose this example. The car is "worthless" yet I guarantee you can find a nut willing to spend a fortune to have this piece of political history)

2. Properties are purposely, often by statute, assessed far less then they are bought for

3. There are tons of lawsuits around this, imagine the cost of every asset being scrutinized and potentially appealed!

Great example.

The art is very valuable, financially, because people are willing to pay for it.

However, absent the market clearing the asset, its value is impossible to objectively evaluate. Even if we had an objective function to evaluate art the basis of evaluation is incorrect - the artwork is valuable as an instrument of government corruption

So m, if we can't even agree on the reason why Hunter's artwork is worthwhile, how can we even possibly evaluate it?

That's an estimate to enable business to go on based what the bank is willing to risk.

For the proposal to work you would need an estimate good to within less a percent. Or lawsuits galore.

Few things are easy. Some problems with your proposal:

1. Assumes the asset in question is publicly traded.

2. Assumes the publicly traded asset has a non trivial amount of trade volume 3. Assumes asset price is relatively stable, moving in a narrow band along a clear trend-line

4. Assumes you have defined the price from the stock information (last trade before close. Daily average, etc)

5. Assumes holder's position is small enough not to affect stock price were they to sell.

And stocks are the easiest to do this with!

Look at the Trump vs NY court case for the value of his house in FL. Unlike the valuation imposed by government fiat, the valuation was agreed to freely by the parties. The courts found it excessive (and it might be) and proposed a valuation so ridiculously low it alone gives Trump grounds to appeal that the judge is either incompetent on the matter or has a personal bias and should anyway have recused himself.

The US government burns money unproductively like California wild fire through a citrus field.

And there are better ways to deal with our oligarchs than braids dead proposals. Start breaking up their monopolies for one.

(Aside on why I appear blasé: I grew up riding across a heavily trafficked bridge to get to school that was aggressively but unsuccessfully bombed by the allies. They once found a big one and closed the bridge for a few days while they removed it, but there's no reason to believe that there aren't more to be found buried in the mud.)

Well they didnt go off when they were supposed to and haven't gone off in 80 years -> there's a good chance there's something about them preventing them from going off.

The main danger is that disturbing them could remove the inhibitor. Also, age can make them unstable.

This is why we blissfully ignore the known unknown bombs that are everywhere in Europe but are extremely careful when we discover and try to remove one.

They do have a fifth amendment right. Which they can exercise by quitting the force.