turar

> In America however it is simply sad how dependent children are on their parents. Parents take them to every sort of activity and thing they got to do. In so many American cities you can't have a life without a car. There is nothing to do without a car.

That's hardly the parents' fault though. In many American cities it's literally a life-threatening journey for a 6-year-old to try to navigate along a road that has no sidewalk, with cars zooming by at 45mph. And then a kid comes to a 6-lane intersection that he needs to cross. With drivers turning right on red and generally not used to any pedestrians at all.

There's indeed a source for Delhi metro. It's in the Wikipedia article you cited.

McDonalds is already being used as such a place across the country. In Canada, Tim Hortons is used similarly as well.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jun/08/mcdonalds-c...

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/29/arts/design/lessons-from-m...

If you have evidence that it's not the case, especially for the majority, in other words, you have enough evidence to accuse thousands of people of crime, why are you not in touch with the police yet?

If you could before, and can't now, isn't that pretty much a definition of "losing it"?

Sadly, this comment would be in good company over at https://www.reddit.com/r/LateStageCapitalism/top/

Neither 1 or 2 are required for communism or socialism. Regarding #1, socialism distinguishes between personal private property and productive assets. Nobody is advocating for violating personal private property. And #2 is not something most mainstream socialists advocate for either, so it's mostly a strawman.

The only substantial difference between socialism and capitalism is the democratic control of the workplace. Capitalism's idea of a workplace is inherently totalitarian, socialism's is democratic. That's it.

> I'd also contend that it's unethical for a society to reward all people the same regardless of effort and talent.

That's not the premise of socialism, so it's strawman argument.

Central planning is not a requirement for socialism.

In fact, the only significant difference between capitalism and socialism is a democratically controlled workplace, which is inherently less authoritarian than capitalistic totalitarian workplace governance.

It's also ironic how people constantly conflate "democracy" and "capitalism" on one hand, and "totalitarianism" and "communism" on the other, while completely accepting totalitarianism during a significant portion of their life -- their workplace.

No countries actually had communism, but if we're talking about socialism, then you're mostly right. My opinion is that there are many reasons for it, including:

- Those countries were poor and without sufficiently established democratic institutions.

- Those countries had to immediately mobilize to defend from richer capitalist countries (lead by the US) trying to undermine them in any possible way. Constant defense mode leads to totalitarianism.

That doesn't mean that socialism requires totalitarianism by nature.

You're confusing communism with totalitarianism.

Pinochet's Chile for example.

Communism isn't inherently authoritarian.

> Funding comes from local property taxes so rich neighborhood get more money, poor ones get less.

I used to think so too, but I don't think that is exactly the case. School districts usually span many neighborhoods, rich and poor. Within school districts, there are school zones (school boundaries), or mappings of residential addresses to assigned schools. While it's true that richer neighborhoods tend to have better schools, the property tax money is collected centrally at school district level, and then distributed across schools, both rich and poor. I haven't seen evidence that districts distribute more money to schools in richer neighborhoods.

If anyone is more knowledgeable on this, I would love to learn more.

> He was the only native Russian in the room.

An ugly bit of trivia. This sentence would actually sound different to a Russian speaker than to an English speaker, particularly an American one. In English, "Russian" can mean both "of ethnic Russian origin" and "a citizen/national of Russia". In Russian, those two concepts have different words.

With antisemitism still being strong in Russia, and in the context of the article, many Russians (as in both ethnic origin and citizenship) would be quick to point out that Alperovitch is not a "native Russian" in both of these senses like them.

All of this already exists if you're able and willing to pay for it. Private jet rentals, charters, time shares, etc. E.g. https://www.netjets.com/Programs/Program-compare/

Agreed, it doesn't explain many other outliers too. A classic exploration of this, and a direct refutation of Malkiel is Buffett's own: https://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/articles/columbia-business/sup...

I was more alluding to the fact that these courtyard playgrounds are easily accessible for kids directly from their apartments, and don't have to be driven to by adults.

As far as cars, it was almost impossible to get up to higher than 10mph in there, and if you did, you'd probably be hunted down next time by neighbors and old ladies.

It's actually very similar to layout of any major newspaper website, e.g. NYT.

Good starting point: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/usability-101-introduction-...

5 and 8 story apartment buildings is not a typical American environment by far. I grew up in exactly the same environment as you did -- pedestrian friendly, highly available public transit, protected courtyard playgrounds, wide sidewalks on both sides of the streets, where kids riding bikes are not forced onto the road, etc.

This is a very different environment from most of America.

Brooklyn is one of very few places in America where kids can roam around all over. It's a highly walkable, pedestrian friendly place with excellent public transit options. Most of America is not like that at all.

It takes time for these shifts to play out, but I'd say the reverse is already happening. For a couple of examples that the article provided (Apple, Google), one can find a lot more examples of opposite -- stalwart companies moving back to the city core:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-company-moves-subu...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/02/business/economy/why-corpo...

http://www.downtowndenver.com/homepage/moving-day-why-more-c...

http://www.governing.com/topics/urban/gov-urban-downtown-eco...

Joe is part of the society, to which you're "giving back". Hypothetically, it's impossible to separate hypothetical Joe from hypothetical Jane who was recently born with severe disabilities and also didn't contribute jack shit, or a WW2 veteran, who is now unable to work. So you "give back" to all three.

Not hypothetically, and noting that you explicitly stated you didn't want to discuss factual reality, nonetheless: such hypothetical Joes are rare to nonexistent in the US post Clinton welfare reform.

I'm curious how one can end up paying the full personal tax rate as an owner of a business. After expenses, depreciation, write-offs such as home office, vehicle, etc., you still don't have to pay yourself the entire corporate net income as a salary. Unless your lifestyle simply demands a top bracket salary.

Is that personal or corporate? It sounded like OP was talking about a business.

Where in the US is the tax rate 50%?

Russia just told the US that if Americans attack Syrian troops, Russia will intervene on Syria's behalf. That should be the major story actually.

Why wouldn't they lie?

Yet you claimed precisely that a few comments above.