I think it depends on what kind of consumption you tax. Singapore has a very interesting consumption tax where you get taxed hard on luxuries (expensive cars, expensive real estate, alcohol, and tobacco) but very little on daily necessities. This allows people all to earn money at the reduced income tax rates seen in Singapore but when you want to spend on lavish things you get hit, hard.
I think your understanding of the damage an extinction-level meteor would cause might be a bit off. The whole issue with extinction-level meteors (or any event for that matter) is if you don't avoid it, there is pretty much nowhere on earth that you can be safe.
It seems far easier to try and redirect the orbit of an asteroid than alter the orbit of the earth itself (which would be the only way to not be where the meteor is going to be.)
This is huge for arbitrage markets where you want to have a server close to more than one exchange (i.e. NYMEX/CME in New York and IPE in London.)
Example is the spread between WTI and Brent crude is very actively traded. You can do this trade on legs (individual flat price trades on each side) or outright as a contract. Black boxes are scalping that all day long. A 6ms advantage means you can take advantage of market inefficiencies between the two exchanges before other people can, huge benefit. Heck there is even a WTI contract on IPE and one on the CME, that is a very scalpable market with the right setup.
the 'flash crash' had impact far beyond just the NYSE. Crude oil dropped $3/bbl in a very short period of time and rebounded. With commodities markets as leveraged as they are it would have been quite easy to rake in massive amounts of money if you knew the incident was coming
This has got to be the stupidest idea yet.
If we assume 30 dollars one way as a reasonable fair, and it does not go into cost overruns, and it costs ZERO dollars to operate once it is built, it will take 156,000,000 trips to pay for itself. At 50 dollars one way, it is still 94 million trips. How many people make that commute? How long will it take to pay for itself?
Of course, we know it WILL go into cost over runs, and it will cost a great deal of money to keep going, for maintenance, employees, power, etc.
Can anyone explain to me how this will be economically feasible? Anyone?
Arnold?
Let's not jump to conclusions here. These numbers are unrealistic. First of all, a reasonable fair of $30? It would cost $50+ in gas (not to mention depreciation) alone at 30mpg on the highway. Let's say $60 one way. That matches the cost of a flight and has a lot less hassle.
The eurostar capacity is 15 trains per hour, 800 people per train which translates to 12,000 passengers, per hour, per direction giving 24,000 passengers per hour counting both ways. Say you run at 50% capacity on average, that is still $720k/hr at $60 per ticket, and you can easily have a first class cabin that has a higher cost. Say you spend 75% of that on operating costs, etc and you still need just 26,000 hours of operation to pay that 4.7bil. that is under 3 years of operating at 50% capacity.
Even if this can pay itself off in 10 years it would be a great investment for the state to make.
Now I know my numbers aren't perfect but the breakdown in the parent post is ridiculous
#1. Threat - Airplanes being hijacked and used as missiles.
Solution - Stronger flightdeck doors. They should be strong enough to defeat a hijacker for at least 15 minutes so that the pilot can notify the authorities and land somewhere. There, you will no longer have the threat of airplanes being hijacked and used as missiles. A whole class of threats are removed with one change.
We still do not know how the doors were opened, if it was entirely by force, if the terrorists located a key to the cockpit, or if they threatened to kill a crew member if the door was not opened. Pre- 9/11, authorize members of a crew had keys to get into the cockpit in emergencies. The strength of the doors is just fine.
#2. Threat - Airplanes being hijacked and flown to other countries.
Solution - More undercover security on the planes.
Do you really think that there hasn't been an increase in undercover security on planes? Do you really think that this would be publicly announced? Here is the definition of 'undercover' from dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/undercover/ :
undercover/ndrkvr, ndrkv-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uhn-der-kuhv-er, uhn-der-kuhv-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-adjective
1. working or done out of public sight; secret: an undercover investigation.
#3. Threat - Airplanes being blown up with bombs.
Solution - Improve bomb detection at the entrances (including overwatch of baggage handlers).
Security for checked baggage has been increased. The scanning process is monitored much closer. Of course you would have seen this when you packed yourself in an overnight bag and had a friend check it onto a plane so you could support this claim of yours. If I am not mistaken, nothing gets on an airplane now without getting through a security check.
You are wrong. People die on the roads every day and yet most of us still have no problem driving.
Come on now, people don't have have problems flying, just go to any airport around a holiday and you'll see this is a bunch of propaganda. However, people do want flying to be safer. It is just like their desire for airbags in cars, and seatbelts...
What we don't tolerate, no matter how statistically miniscule, is people intentionally killing other Americans, even still feeling so strongly after having lived in our own society and culture for months or years.
No. The problem is how the media hype the statistically minuscule threats BECAUSE THEY ARE STATISTICALLY MINUSCULE.
They are news because they are NEWS. Someone dying in a car wreck MAY make the local news. But that's it. It's common. It happens. Just about everyone knows of someone who died that way. It is not NEWS.
A terrorist cell targeting the United States of America is not a minuscule threat. The piece you were replying to is talking about intentionally killing people. Someone dying in a car wreck is comparing apples and oranges. 9/11 was not media hype, it was an organize group of people who truly loathe the US and sought out to cause mass chaos in the United States as well as striking fear into its citizens.
Just like those people won't understand change they can't see, others likely will continue to doubt that there are and have been massive initiatives to improve security, communication, and intelligence at all levels, security "theater" aside.
And what the fuck does THAT have to do with this discussion?
I'm talking about security and what does and does not improve security. And how wasting money on practices that cause false positives is a NEGATIVE for security.
does this mean we (the people) can make fake automated mannequins with a fake gun pointing at people on the side of the road, and when the cops decide to open fire on said mannequin (which of course moves around a bit) we can prosecute them on grounds of destruction of personal property, firing a lethal weapon unnecessarily , etc etc etc? those things are illegal too...
that this guy would understand that his bonus would have federal taxes withheld from it:
"When the CEO called me into his office to tell me about the Christmas bonus, I was genuinely surprised with the generosity," writes an employee of a thriving community bank in Florida. "When the deposit came into my account, it was 20 percent less than what he promised."
Slashdot Mirror
I think it depends on what kind of consumption you tax. Singapore has a very interesting consumption tax where you get taxed hard on luxuries (expensive cars, expensive real estate, alcohol, and tobacco) but very little on daily necessities. This allows people all to earn money at the reduced income tax rates seen in Singapore but when you want to spend on lavish things you get hit, hard.
I think your understanding of the damage an extinction-level meteor would cause might be a bit off. The whole issue with extinction-level meteors (or any event for that matter) is if you don't avoid it, there is pretty much nowhere on earth that you can be safe. It seems far easier to try and redirect the orbit of an asteroid than alter the orbit of the earth itself (which would be the only way to not be where the meteor is going to be.)
This is huge for arbitrage markets where you want to have a server close to more than one exchange (i.e. NYMEX/CME in New York and IPE in London.) Example is the spread between WTI and Brent crude is very actively traded. You can do this trade on legs (individual flat price trades on each side) or outright as a contract. Black boxes are scalping that all day long. A 6ms advantage means you can take advantage of market inefficiencies between the two exchanges before other people can, huge benefit. Heck there is even a WTI contract on IPE and one on the CME, that is a very scalpable market with the right setup.
For near real-time info surrounding the Tsunami impact http://www.jma.go.jp/en/tsunami/
the 'flash crash' had impact far beyond just the NYSE. Crude oil dropped $3/bbl in a very short period of time and rebounded. With commodities markets as leveraged as they are it would have been quite easy to rake in massive amounts of money if you knew the incident was coming
This has got to be the stupidest idea yet. If we assume 30 dollars one way as a reasonable fair, and it does not go into cost overruns, and it costs ZERO dollars to operate once it is built, it will take 156,000,000 trips to pay for itself. At 50 dollars one way, it is still 94 million trips. How many people make that commute? How long will it take to pay for itself? Of course, we know it WILL go into cost over runs, and it will cost a great deal of money to keep going, for maintenance, employees, power, etc. Can anyone explain to me how this will be economically feasible? Anyone? Arnold?
Let's not jump to conclusions here. These numbers are unrealistic. First of all, a reasonable fair of $30? It would cost $50+ in gas (not to mention depreciation) alone at 30mpg on the highway. Let's say $60 one way. That matches the cost of a flight and has a lot less hassle. The eurostar capacity is 15 trains per hour, 800 people per train which translates to 12,000 passengers, per hour, per direction giving 24,000 passengers per hour counting both ways. Say you run at 50% capacity on average, that is still $720k/hr at $60 per ticket, and you can easily have a first class cabin that has a higher cost. Say you spend 75% of that on operating costs, etc and you still need just 26,000 hours of operation to pay that 4.7bil. that is under 3 years of operating at 50% capacity. Even if this can pay itself off in 10 years it would be a great investment for the state to make. Now I know my numbers aren't perfect but the breakdown in the parent post is ridiculous
or you could just have it play tic-tac-toe against itself and realize there is no winning strategy
We still do not know how the doors were opened, if it was entirely by force, if the terrorists located a key to the cockpit, or if they threatened to kill a crew member if the door was not opened. Pre- 9/11, authorize members of a crew had keys to get into the cockpit in emergencies. The strength of the doors is just fine.
Do you really think that there hasn't been an increase in undercover security on planes? Do you really think that this would be publicly announced? Here is the definition of 'undercover' from dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/undercover/ :
undercover /ndrkvr, ndrkv-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uhn-der-kuhv-er, uhn-der-kuhv-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-adjective
1. working or done out of public sight; secret: an undercover investigation.
Security for checked baggage has been increased. The scanning process is monitored much closer. Of course you would have seen this when you packed yourself in an overnight bag and had a friend check it onto a plane so you could support this claim of yours. If I am not mistaken, nothing gets on an airplane now without getting through a security check.
Come on now, people don't have have problems flying, just go to any airport around a holiday and you'll see this is a bunch of propaganda. However, people do want flying to be safer. It is just like their desire for airbags in cars, and seatbelts...
A terrorist cell targeting the United States of America is not a minuscule threat. The piece you were replying to is talking about intentionally killing people. Someone dying in a car wreck is comparing apples and oranges. 9/11 was not media hype, it was an organize group of people who truly loathe the US and sought out to cause mass chaos in the United States as well as striking fear into its citizens.
does this mean we (the people) can make fake automated mannequins with a fake gun pointing at people on the side of the road, and when the cops decide to open fire on said mannequin (which of course moves around a bit) we can prosecute them on grounds of destruction of personal property, firing a lethal weapon unnecessarily , etc etc etc? those things are illegal too...
that this guy would understand that his bonus would have federal taxes withheld from it: "When the CEO called me into his office to tell me about the Christmas bonus, I was genuinely surprised with the generosity," writes an employee of a thriving community bank in Florida. "When the deposit came into my account, it was 20 percent less than what he promised."
an auto-castration-gun would be non-lethal. non-lethal doesn't mean it can't have large consequences...