He addressed exactly that and said he expected the inspector would not care about the receipt and would shut his doors. This expectation is reasonable because it's totally consistent with all of his experiences so far.
125 karma · joined February 2, 2011
He didn’t mention how the Washington Post just changed a 15-month-old headline (of the story he links to) to make themselves look better.
This reporter and his ilk are now busily ignoring or downplaying connections of the US government and Fauci to funding of gain of of function research in which the Wuhan lab was involved. (Cuz Rand Paul already made up his mind or something.)
They won’t really learn anything from this sorry episode.
I would rather say it shows how The New York Times and its star reporter Walter Duranty produced tons of lies to cover the Holodomor.
The Pulitzer Prize Board still won't revoke his prize he was awarded for this propaganda, claiming he was just an unwitting dupe. The movie counters that excuse pretty well.
- college professor office hours
- open enrollment consultations
- comedy open mics
- auditions & interviews
- startup accelerator mentor meetings
- any kind of one-on-one meetings
- potluck parties
- volunteer signups
- pizza orders
I started monetizing in 2015 and now earn 5-figures averaging < 5 hours or effort per month. Now and then I do a batch of work to add a new feature.
Consider this case, hot off the presses. Yesterday Aaron Sorken wrote an open letter to Mark Zuckerberg in the New York Times in which he stated the following:
"And right now, on your website, is an ad claiming that Joe Biden gave the Ukrainian attorney general a billion dollars not to investigate his son. Every square inch of that is a lie and it’s under your logo. That’s not defending free speech, Mark, that’s assaulting truth."
Really? Sorken knows for sure that Biden was not self-dealing? Joe was totally not thinking about his son's half million dollar no-show job with a corrupt Ukranian firm when he ordered the Ukranian government to fire the guy who was investigating it? Wow, that's a really amazing level of access to the truth!
No doubt Sorken has heard and completely believes the mainstream narrative: the prosecutor was himself corrupt and all right-thinking people wanted him removed. (Never mind it's entirely possible that this narrative is true, AND Biden was self-dealing.)
My point is not to convince anyone that Biden was self-dealing. My point is that Sorken is calling objectively false something that is clearly plausible.
This is how it goes. Most people are invested in narratives, and they are keen to suppress ideas that counter their preferred narrative. The idea that they will somehow draw clean lines between facts an interpretations has always been a foolish hope.
They place a high degree of trust in their workers, and (and this part is crucial) they have a good system to obtain workers who merit a high degree of trust and reject those who don’t.
Do you propose an objective criteria by which a state can legitimately dictate behavior on one set of Xs and not another set of Xs? If not, then you are by omission saying that every totalitarian state is legitimate. I suspect you might want to say, if the 51% wants something, that makes it legitimate. In that case you are're saying a murderous state is legitimate. (I won't go full Godwyn here, but suffice to say that many democratically elected regimes have committed legal murder on a massive scale and continued to enjoy majority support.)
Hey, here's an idea for an objective criteria: Does X invade any other particular person's life, liberty or property? Banning crypto fails that test.
https://mises.org/library/man-economy-and-state-power-and-ma...
Another is Rothbard’s little book, “What Has Government Done to Our Money?” which provides a wonderfully accessible introduction to the theory and history of money.
https://mises.org/library/what-has-government-done-our-money
Bastiat’s work is timeless, whereas Hazlitt’s, written to be consciously modern at the time, is showing it’s age.
The utility of privacy legislation for a company like Apple is to protect itself from completion by firms too small to afford the armies of lawyers and compliance experts that Apple can. The tech industry it seems has finally caught on to the age old racket of regulatory capture. Every big tech chief can be heard begging governments to “stop us before we sin.”
With their business models well proven and scale achieved, they will lobby for more regulations and of course volunteer to bring their distinctive expertise to the drafting table.
Therefore, once you accept the principle that certain speech can be made criminal, you are agreeing to accept as permanent whatever future shifts may occur. It is inconceivable that this will not be abused in the future by nefarious political actors.
Economics is a value free science, at least how Austrians practice it, but happens to show that government intervention is usually harmful. For example, Keynesians believe that the business cycle is an inherent failure of markets with no known cause and that government must intervene heavily to correct such errors. By contrast, the Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle takes nearly the opposite position -- that intervention, mainly in form of credit expansion causes booms. A bust is a correction of errors made during the boom and should not itself be corrected with more easy money, starting the cycle all over again.
Now, the vast majority of working professional economists derive all or much of their income from the government in one way or another. Many work for the federal government or the Federal Reserve Bank or consult with them. Or they work in government funded universities doing research with money from government grants.
Early last century, Hoover then FDR discovered and embraced John Maynard Keynes who offered a general theory that supported heavy government intervention. The Keynesian prescription just happened to provide an intellectual basis for policies that would require government to grow much larger and more powerful. Before long government began to fund more and more professional economist jobs. And no surprise, those jobs went to Keynesians.
A few decades later Milton Friedman (not an Austrian) said, "We are all Keynesians now" -- not as an admission that the theories were correct but a concession that in practical terms it's nearly impossible to work in the field and not be a Keynesian.
What for example, do you think of Subjective Theory of Value or the Theory of Marginal Utility, which were developed by the father of the Austrian School, Carl Menger, in the latter part of the 19th century? Or the Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle, for which Friedrich Hayek won the Nobel Prize in 1974?
Bastiat was a great French Economist and liberal political philosopher. He been considered as more of a popularizer than an original thinker, but that's unwarranted. The Law is the greatest work of classical liberal political though that I have encountered. In school we all read Locke's Second Treatise of Government, but we should have first read The Law. It's very short--more of a long essay than a full length book--but it packs an earth shattering wallop.
Bastiat is also an intellectual ancestor of the Austrian School of economics. The famous Hazlitt book, Economics in One Lesson, is an extended meditation on Bastiat's classic essay, That Which is Seen and That Which is Unseen [2], which is the origin of the Broken Window Fallacy.
Contra Krugman [2] - A weekly show where Tom Woods and economist Bob Murphy teach economics by analyzing an generally refuting Paul Krugman's New York Times column.
Part of the Problem [3] - A long-form semi-weekly(ish) talk show featuring comedian Dave Smith. Dave discusses current events and issues from a his libertarian perspective.
Dangerous History Podcast [4] - An irregular show that dives deep into various topics and episodes in history. Approaching 200 episodes.
[1] https://tomwoods.com/podcasts
[2] https://contrakrugman.com/
[3] https://gasdigitalnetwork.com/gdn-show-channels/part-of-the-...
Weighing in at 75 pages, you can read this 176 year old classic in a weekend. For some reason Locke's Second Treatise on Government made it into the canon as the be-and-end-all of the classical liberal political philosophy, and this masterwork was overlooked. Just read it.
That's one way to describe it. Another way is, Facebook's stock fell to where it was two months ago, which is 70% over what it was at the start of 2017.
I'm not saying that a large one-day drop is insignificant or isn't news. But to paint this as the bottom falling out is unwarranted.
Either Kara is more than one person, or this is a grammatical error. It may be an intentional grammatical error but an error nonetheless.
They are not company destroying for large companies though. By raising fixed cost (and risk) of doing business, regulations of this kind are an absolute godsend for large companies.