"It's the most important question of human existence, because mankind needs to know if there is a higher authority we are accountable to. Everything else we do in life flows from the answer to that question."
This is one of those statements that's so typical in debates with theists. Things like "it's self evident that such and such is the most important thing."
Prove that it's the most important thing. It's just as easy to say "where am I going to get my next meal?" or "where will I safely sleep tonight?" are every bit as important (and probably quite a bit more so).
Of course, conversations like these never progress because the person making the categorical statement is just so appalled at the "lack of intellectual horsepower" displayed by the person challenging the assertion that they decide they aren't "worth debate."
Even in the days of negatives it was relatively easy to doctor photos. If a photo were to make it into the public one could say "That photo isn't real. It has been doctored." The party releasing the photo could say "No it hasn't. Here are the negatives." As any tampering with the negatives would be plainly evident. If the party couldn't produce the negatives the photo would be suspect - especially in a court of law. Where the law ins concerned, courts have always treated photographic evidence with much more skepticism than the general public. Being unable to produce negatives to back up evidence was a good way to have such evidence called into question.
Don't just about all top end headphones have exchangeable cords? I mean, it would be generally poor design to have something running into the thousands of dollars ruined by something as flimsy as a cord. Seems to me that making a compatible cord would be good for business.
Second, I imagine many of these manufacturers would be glad to make an "iPhone compatible" version. Some of the existing cans are tanks. You buy them once and never need to replace them. I think most places would be happy to have the opportunity to generate a repeat sale.
Third, when it comes to really high end cans, people generally aren't plugging those into their phones. That's what headphone amps are for.
I don't really see any value to the consumer, but I bet there are a number of companies looking to sell new products.
As for their fans, they appreciate quality design and a generally positive software experience. I doubt they could care much less about just how "cutting edge" the components are.
I tend to go back and forth between Apple and Android because I like a new experience when I get a new phone. Until a few years ago, Android was often a pain. Getting files onto the device was an ugly process, the software was 'laggy', and the phone crashed regularly (which I fixed by moving to a different distort). I didn't mind because I liked playing with my phone. It turned a lot of people off - people who are now die-hard Apple folk. Sure, Android had more features, but it was fraught with bugs. The Apple stuff worked reasonably well.
Android is worlds better today, but it still hasn't shaken it's budget, low quality image in some minds.
The other thing that Apple has all over the other handset makers is a physical retail presence (in many areas). I broke the screen on an Apple phone (my fault - not that of the phone) and needed it repaired ASAP. I went online, submitted a ticket, picked a location, made an appointment, and headed in at my chosen time. It took the employee around 1 hour to replace the entire screen (glass and LCD) at a cost of $150. Had they not been able to fix it they would have replaced my phone. What do you do if you drop your Samsung or LG? I'd imagine you ship it off and wait a week or two or visit a shady mall kiosk. I'm due a switch back to Android with my next phone. I'm hoping to avoid a break so that the above can remain a mystery;-)
There are lots of great products out there. Don't discount the perceived value of design and accessibility. They really are worth it to a large number of people.
As someone who works on cars and motorcycles as a hobby, I'd say yes and no. 1. Plugging into your car to find out where the faults are is fantastic. Emission laws have resulted in cars being much more complex. With all of the sensors all over the vehicle (MAF, MAP, O2, CPS, ABS, etc.) it's great having a computer tell you which one is sending voltage outside parameters. If there was no computer telling you where the problem was you'd spend quite a bit of time with a multimeter.
2. When someone says that something is harder on a new car than an old car, sometimes that's true. Smaller bodies, different collision requirements, etc. all result in less room. On the other hand, a ton of stuff is modular and easily swapped out. In fact, it's easier to swap out than in the past. The problem is, the swapping out is much more specific to the vehicle and manufacturer. If you aren't familiar with the car, it can be quite a pain. But...
3. Just about everything is on the internet these days. There's a video step-by-step for just about any procedure on any car. That's something you didn't have back in the day (although I suppose it was less necessary).
I agree. If you're in the PC gaming crowd you generally know you're in for the regular upgrade cycle. My gaming rig had 16GB years ago.
That's why I got out of PC gaming and moved to the console (sacrilege I know). I just found that I didn't enjoy constantly upgrading and tinkering with my machine. Don't get me wrong, I loved it for many years and learned a ton in the process. I just have other ways I'd rather spend my time and money these days. Now, if my kid ever gets into gaming...
I came to say this same thing. Seattle growth is somewhat constrained by geography. Lake Washington, Lake Union, and Elliot Bay make it difficult to just "build out." Those same features, combined with a bunch of hills, make also make it difficult to get in and out. I commute to Downtown Seattle via bus on a regular basis. Since the carpool lanes are full the bus frequently doesn't move any faster than the rest of the traffic. It's not unheard of for the bus to take 90 minutes to cover the 20 miles of my commute.
As such, many want to live in the city to avoid that commute. There are quite a few well-to-do folk in Seattle and that means demand far outweighs supply - pushing prices through the roof. It doesn't help that the city makes it so difficult for developers that anything other than premium housing just isn't cost effective to build.
Light rail or some other form of mass transit would offer a form of transportation not subject to the awful traffic. This would be a huge improvement (when traffic is light my bus makes my trip in around 30 minutes). It would make a large number of people feel like they wouldn't be giving up three hours a day to a commute if they were to move farther away - farther away to areas better suited (geographically and politically) to deal with expansion.
Correlation is not causation. You seem to think that the rise in atheism results in the problems. It could just as easily be argued that the rise in atheism in said situations was a natural response to seeing how the theists in power had brought society to a place where uprisings, armed revolts, etc. were the only logical outcomes.
Your statement is somewhat akin to saying : "Every time the leaves change color and fall off the trees it gets cold. Therefore, the leaves falling off the trees cause the change in temperature."
The fact that a primary education provides a basic understanding of a thing doesn't mean that your're suddenly proficient to the point that you use it, in depth, in your daily life. Even if you could, it doesn't mean you'd want to.
Maybe I'm wrong. People get a basic understanding of Biology so they don't need doctors. People get a basic understanding of Chemistry so they just purchase elements and make their own chemical compounds (who buys soap when you can make it?). People (might) get a basic understanding of music so they simply put on their own performances. Right?
Fossil is a maker of cheap fashion watches. Stuff people tend to throw out or forget about when the battery dies. I'd imagine these would be easily replaceable by other watches worn to be trendy and with a relatively short expected lifespan (see smart watch). I'm not knocking Fossil by the way. They are a nice watch in their target market.
These watches are in an entirely different category from the heirloom Swiss watches. Watches with mechanical movements and top quality cases assembled by craftspeople with years of training. I don't think many people are forgoing their purchase of an Omega, Rolex, Patek, etc. because they are picking up a smart watch instead. These watches fill a special niche. They'll never thrive like they did before the quartz movement (when even non-luxury watches were spendy), but they won't be supplanted by wearables in the next few years.
Lots of things "hinder" justice. The fact that we don't all wear trackers that inform the government of where we are at all times hinders justice. The fact that all financial transactions aren't conducted electronically hinders justice. The fact I can go wherever I want without first obtaining permission from the government hinders justice.
The fact that I don't have to submit to those intrusions is part of my freedom. I appreciate my freedom and am willing to forgo or more efficient justice system in order to maintain my freedom - especially given the fact that once freedom is sufficiently curtailed those doing the curtailing tend to lose their concern for justice.
Look up your state department of insurance (if you're in the US). Personal auto insurance is heavily regulated. When they establish premiums, insurance companies have to provide loss triangles, expense info and more, in detail, to the state DOI. There are teams of actuaries that put these filings together. The DOI has their own actuaries that carefully examine this data and check for a number of things including, but not limited to: 1. Is the insurance company charging enough to remain solvent in both likely and catastrophe scenarios? 2. Is the insurance company treating people fairly? 3. Is the insurance company making conservative underwriting profits?
Trust me, many many rate filings are rejected by the insurance departments. So much so that many insurance companies target a 4% underwriting profit. Yes, 4%. Compare that to software operating margins that can run around 40-50%.
Were the industry not heavily regulated you might have a point. The states seem to do a pretty decent job making sure that auto insurers don't take advantage of the fact that auto insurance is (typically) mandatory.
It indicates that Microsoft's dodge very likely was illegal. State law at the time indicated that royalty taxes should be paid where your operations reside - not where you book the income. This was never pursued by the state department of revenue. Why? The author notes that the WA dept of revenue was run by a former Microsoft exec. Whether that's really the reason we don't really know, but it certainly is enough to arouse suspicions (and make me want to request some emails from the State gov).
The law was then changed so that the dodge would be explicitly legal (by another former Microsoft exec in the state legislature). Also written into the law was an amnesty provisions for any corporations who likely owed back taxes under the old version of the law. I wonder why the amnesty portion was so important? What corporations could have been flaunting the old version of the law?
The Fed "printed" more money via QE (weak assets from banks), but it also took a huge volume of money out of the economy. Check out the new reserve requirements on all the big banks. They got a bunch of cash in lieu of weak assets, but that cash didn't go anywhere. It's still sitting, under bank control, invested in highly secure, long-term assets (as required by...The Fed). Money that used to be loaned out and used several more times throughout the economy is now sitting in long-term assets. It's not moving through the economy.
In the end, I think it's safe to say that the net effect of all that "extra" money is a lot less than you thought - as borne out by the current international value of the dollar.
I think stories like this are gaining traction because: 1) People see a robot as a relatively new, advanced, and expensive technology and 2) People feel that relatively new, advanced, and expensive technologies should be built in such a way so that these types of things don't happen
How much extra $ would it have taken to install a set of sensors that would make sure the robot wouldn't perform if a human was in the way? Relative to the cost of the robot, probably not all that much. At least, that's probably what people are thinking. Whether they're right, I can't say. Still, it isn't an unreasonable thought.
They don't think this about old or inexpensive tech because they are familiar with the dangers and/or realize it isn't necessary cost-effective to change it. For example, a kitchen knife that wouldn't cut a person, but was still very effective at kitchen tasks probably would be cost prohibitive.
First of all - where do I pick up one of these guns: "To test these materials in the lab, researchers developed a pneumatic launcher to fire living bugs at a sample coating. They first used crickets as ammunition, but a physicist colleague urged them to switch to fruit flies, which would be more representative of what planes hit during takeoff and landing."
Second - I hope they develop a clear coating as I would like it on my motorcycle visor.
I definitely agree with this. Whenever there is talk of it, however, it's quickly killed as it's quite unpopular. Mortgage interest is the thing that takes many people from the world of the standard deduction to the (lower tax) world of the scheduled deduction. I think that they might be able to do away with the deduction if they were to implement a corresponding lower overall tax rate. That would lower taxes for renters while slightly increasing taxes on those with mortgages.
I'll note that, for years, I worked on developing new financial products sold to mortgage lenders (post crisis). I've spent a fair amount of time studying trends in US housing prices. I'm not well versed on other countries so my comments are US-centric. I've left this VERY high level, but wanted to note a few concepts and why they answers aren't super easy.
There are a few fundamental flaws in the mortgage system today. The first is that banks generally don't lend their own money (almost all mortgage money in the market comes through government sponsored entities like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or Ginnie Mae). Well technically, it is their money, but realistically, the loans are purchased so quickly by the GSEs that it might as well not be their money. On top of this, the banks receive money from the GSEs for every loan they sell on to the GSEs. In short, the banks are incentivized to make loans.
Second, both the government and the the Federal Reserve seem to want a higher rate of home ownership by Americans. The Fed helps encourage this by keeping rates low (and buying huge amounts of mortgage backed securities from the GSEs). The GSEs encourage it by making loans more accessible (lower down payments, lower credit scores, higher debt-to-income ratios, etc.). The banks like this strategy because it allows them to make lots of new home loans (so they make lots of money with almost no risk) and every time rates drop they get to process lots of refinances (so they make lots of money with almost no risk). It's all good right? I mean, the banks are making lots of money.
Here's the problem: When money is easily available it creates more potential home buyers. When money is cheaper, it increases what people can afford (your $2000 per month payment now covers a 400k loan instead of a 350k loan). This is still good though right? More home for the same money?
Well, more people with more money means that demand for homes increases and, with it, home prices. Khan academy had an amazing set of videos that illustrated the home price bubble, but I can't find them. In summary, the number of homes available for purchase compared to the number of people has remained relatively constant since the 40's - even when adjusted for growth areas (things balance out in the growth areas over time). Home prices, however, have increased dramatically - especially as a percentage of total income. When did this star happening? When money became more accessible. Still good though right!?! I mean, now existing homeowners can sell their homes at a huge profit and people can get into those homes.
Ah, but there's a catch. While average income (inflation adjusted) has remained level and even trended down, home prices have sky rocketed. Eventually, even with low interest loans available, house prices reach a level where purchasing them puts people out of an acceptable debt-to-income ratio. Home prices can't go up to the point where people are spending more than 70% of their income on housing (as an example - this isn't a benchmark number or anything). Things hit a point where new buyers aren't buying anymore. That starts a chain reaction that leads to the bursting of the housing price bubble.
One way to fix this would be to make money harder to get and more expensive to get. It would have an initial downward push on prices, that would eventually level out. It would also stop the major price inflation. Why? Let's say we require a 10% down payment. Suddenly, a bunch of potential buyers are shut out of the market. Home prices stagnate. The responsible buyers (and those who advance in their career) eventually save up the 10% and can get into the market. They're actually able to save the 10% now because the house prices are stagnant and 10% is no longer a moving number. In the mid 2000', house prices were going up faster than people could save. Prices inflate, but the barrier to entry keeps them from going on a roller coaster. Banks, however, hate this because they lose out on all that sweet
We are now a service economy - not a manufacturing economy. Most people can do their work from home almost as well (and sometimes better) than they can do it at the office. Heck, our largest office is in Boston and it's closed today. Just about everyone is online and productive. Take into account the expense and danger associated with keeping cities open during significant natural events and it seems like a simple decision.
Ha - I was just making a bad Fast and Furious joke.
As someone who has heavily modified a few Japanese cars, I'm well aware of what "ricers" are capable. There is a great Top Gear episode where the crew take 3 super cars to the drag strip in Vegas. They get schooled in the quarter by a bunch of modified cars. It's fun to watch.
Slashdot Mirror
Fair enough. Not easy for "average person," but certainly not hard for someone motivated.
"It's the most important question of human existence, because mankind needs to know if there is a higher authority we are accountable to. Everything else we do in life flows from the answer to that question."
This is one of those statements that's so typical in debates with theists. Things like "it's self evident that such and such is the most important thing."
Prove that it's the most important thing. It's just as easy to say "where am I going to get my next meal?" or "where will I safely sleep tonight?" are every bit as important (and probably quite a bit more so).
Of course, conversations like these never progress because the person making the categorical statement is just so appalled at the "lack of intellectual horsepower" displayed by the person challenging the assertion that they decide they aren't "worth debate."
Even in the days of negatives it was relatively easy to doctor photos. If a photo were to make it into the public one could say "That photo isn't real. It has been doctored." The party releasing the photo could say "No it hasn't. Here are the negatives." As any tampering with the negatives would be plainly evident. If the party couldn't produce the negatives the photo would be suspect - especially in a court of law. Where the law ins concerned, courts have always treated photographic evidence with much more skepticism than the general public. Being unable to produce negatives to back up evidence was a good way to have such evidence called into question.
Someone else is familiar with the exploits of Motley Crue.
I agree it's a bad idea, but...
Don't just about all top end headphones have exchangeable cords? I mean, it would be generally poor design to have something running into the thousands of dollars ruined by something as flimsy as a cord. Seems to me that making a compatible cord would be good for business.
Second, I imagine many of these manufacturers would be glad to make an "iPhone compatible" version. Some of the existing cans are tanks. You buy them once and never need to replace them. I think most places would be happy to have the opportunity to generate a repeat sale.
Third, when it comes to really high end cans, people generally aren't plugging those into their phones. That's what headphone amps are for.
I don't really see any value to the consumer, but I bet there are a number of companies looking to sell new products.
Clearly it's a great business plan.
As for their fans, they appreciate quality design and a generally positive software experience. I doubt they could care much less about just how "cutting edge" the components are.
I tend to go back and forth between Apple and Android because I like a new experience when I get a new phone. Until a few years ago, Android was often a pain. Getting files onto the device was an ugly process, the software was 'laggy', and the phone crashed regularly (which I fixed by moving to a different distort). I didn't mind because I liked playing with my phone. It turned a lot of people off - people who are now die-hard Apple folk. Sure, Android had more features, but it was fraught with bugs. The Apple stuff worked reasonably well.
Android is worlds better today, but it still hasn't shaken it's budget, low quality image in some minds.
The other thing that Apple has all over the other handset makers is a physical retail presence (in many areas). I broke the screen on an Apple phone (my fault - not that of the phone) and needed it repaired ASAP. I went online, submitted a ticket, picked a location, made an appointment, and headed in at my chosen time. It took the employee around 1 hour to replace the entire screen (glass and LCD) at a cost of $150. Had they not been able to fix it they would have replaced my phone. What do you do if you drop your Samsung or LG? I'd imagine you ship it off and wait a week or two or visit a shady mall kiosk. I'm due a switch back to Android with my next phone. I'm hoping to avoid a break so that the above can remain a mystery ;-)
There are lots of great products out there. Don't discount the perceived value of design and accessibility. They really are worth it to a large number of people.
As someone who works on cars and motorcycles as a hobby, I'd say yes and no.
1. Plugging into your car to find out where the faults are is fantastic. Emission laws have resulted in cars being much more complex. With all of the sensors all over the vehicle (MAF, MAP, O2, CPS, ABS, etc.) it's great having a computer tell you which one is sending voltage outside parameters. If there was no computer telling you where the problem was you'd spend quite a bit of time with a multimeter.
2. When someone says that something is harder on a new car than an old car, sometimes that's true. Smaller bodies, different collision requirements, etc. all result in less room. On the other hand, a ton of stuff is modular and easily swapped out. In fact, it's easier to swap out than in the past. The problem is, the swapping out is much more specific to the vehicle and manufacturer. If you aren't familiar with the car, it can be quite a pain. But...
3. Just about everything is on the internet these days. There's a video step-by-step for just about any procedure on any car. That's something you didn't have back in the day (although I suppose it was less necessary).
I agree. If you're in the PC gaming crowd you generally know you're in for the regular upgrade cycle. My gaming rig had 16GB years ago.
That's why I got out of PC gaming and moved to the console (sacrilege I know). I just found that I didn't enjoy constantly upgrading and tinkering with my machine. Don't get me wrong, I loved it for many years and learned a ton in the process. I just have other ways I'd rather spend my time and money these days. Now, if my kid ever gets into gaming...
I'd agree with JFK being debatable. I'd say Jimmy Carter wasn't a sellout. Few would call his presidency successful, but few would call him a sellout.
And gum.
I came to say this same thing. Seattle growth is somewhat constrained by geography. Lake Washington, Lake Union, and Elliot Bay make it difficult to just "build out." Those same features, combined with a bunch of hills, make also make it difficult to get in and out. I commute to Downtown Seattle via bus on a regular basis. Since the carpool lanes are full the bus frequently doesn't move any faster than the rest of the traffic. It's not unheard of for the bus to take 90 minutes to cover the 20 miles of my commute.
As such, many want to live in the city to avoid that commute. There are quite a few well-to-do folk in Seattle and that means demand far outweighs supply - pushing prices through the roof. It doesn't help that the city makes it so difficult for developers that anything other than premium housing just isn't cost effective to build.
Light rail or some other form of mass transit would offer a form of transportation not subject to the awful traffic. This would be a huge improvement (when traffic is light my bus makes my trip in around 30 minutes). It would make a large number of people feel like they wouldn't be giving up three hours a day to a commute if they were to move farther away - farther away to areas better suited (geographically and politically) to deal with expansion.
Correlation is not causation. You seem to think that the rise in atheism results in the problems. It could just as easily be argued that the rise in atheism in said situations was a natural response to seeing how the theists in power had brought society to a place where uprisings, armed revolts, etc. were the only logical outcomes.
Your statement is somewhat akin to saying : "Every time the leaves change color and fall off the trees it gets cold. Therefore, the leaves falling off the trees cause the change in temperature."
The fact that a primary education provides a basic understanding of a thing doesn't mean that your're suddenly proficient to the point that you use it, in depth, in your daily life. Even if you could, it doesn't mean you'd want to.
Maybe I'm wrong.
People get a basic understanding of Biology so they don't need doctors.
People get a basic understanding of Chemistry so they just purchase elements and make their own chemical compounds (who buys soap when you can make it?).
People (might) get a basic understanding of music so they simply put on their own performances.
Right?
Fossil is a maker of cheap fashion watches. Stuff people tend to throw out or forget about when the battery dies. I'd imagine these would be easily replaceable by other watches worn to be trendy and with a relatively short expected lifespan (see smart watch). I'm not knocking Fossil by the way. They are a nice watch in their target market.
These watches are in an entirely different category from the heirloom Swiss watches. Watches with mechanical movements and top quality cases assembled by craftspeople with years of training. I don't think many people are forgoing their purchase of an Omega, Rolex, Patek, etc. because they are picking up a smart watch instead. These watches fill a special niche. They'll never thrive like they did before the quartz movement (when even non-luxury watches were spendy), but they won't be supplanted by wearables in the next few years.
Lots of things "hinder" justice. The fact that we don't all wear trackers that inform the government of where we are at all times hinders justice. The fact that all financial transactions aren't conducted electronically hinders justice. The fact I can go wherever I want without first obtaining permission from the government hinders justice.
The fact that I don't have to submit to those intrusions is part of my freedom. I appreciate my freedom and am willing to forgo or more efficient justice system in order to maintain my freedom - especially given the fact that once freedom is sufficiently curtailed those doing the curtailing tend to lose their concern for justice.
Look up your state department of insurance (if you're in the US). Personal auto insurance is heavily regulated. When they establish premiums, insurance companies have to provide loss triangles, expense info and more, in detail, to the state DOI. There are teams of actuaries that put these filings together. The DOI has their own actuaries that carefully examine this data and check for a number of things including, but not limited to:
1. Is the insurance company charging enough to remain solvent in both likely and catastrophe scenarios?
2. Is the insurance company treating people fairly?
3. Is the insurance company making conservative underwriting profits?
Trust me, many many rate filings are rejected by the insurance departments. So much so that many insurance companies target a 4% underwriting profit. Yes, 4%. Compare that to software operating margins that can run around 40-50%.
Were the industry not heavily regulated you might have a point. The states seem to do a pretty decent job making sure that auto insurers don't take advantage of the fact that auto insurance is (typically) mandatory.
Read this article linked to from the article in the summary:
http://crosscut.com/2014/08/wh...
It indicates that Microsoft's dodge very likely was illegal. State law at the time indicated that royalty taxes should be paid where your operations reside - not where you book the income. This was never pursued by the state department of revenue. Why? The author notes that the WA dept of revenue was run by a former Microsoft exec. Whether that's really the reason we don't really know, but it certainly is enough to arouse suspicions (and make me want to request some emails from the State gov).
The law was then changed so that the dodge would be explicitly legal (by another former Microsoft exec in the state legislature). Also written into the law was an amnesty provisions for any corporations who likely owed back taxes under the old version of the law. I wonder why the amnesty portion was so important? What corporations could have been flaunting the old version of the law?
The Fed "printed" more money via QE (weak assets from banks), but it also took a huge volume of money out of the economy. Check out the new reserve requirements on all the big banks. They got a bunch of cash in lieu of weak assets, but that cash didn't go anywhere. It's still sitting, under bank control, invested in highly secure, long-term assets (as required by...The Fed). Money that used to be loaned out and used several more times throughout the economy is now sitting in long-term assets. It's not moving through the economy.
In the end, I think it's safe to say that the net effect of all that "extra" money is a lot less than you thought - as borne out by the current international value of the dollar.
I think stories like this are gaining traction because:
1) People see a robot as a relatively new, advanced, and expensive technology and
2) People feel that relatively new, advanced, and expensive technologies should be built in such a way so that these types of things don't happen
How much extra $ would it have taken to install a set of sensors that would make sure the robot wouldn't perform if a human was in the way? Relative to the cost of the robot, probably not all that much. At least, that's probably what people are thinking. Whether they're right, I can't say. Still, it isn't an unreasonable thought.
They don't think this about old or inexpensive tech because they are familiar with the dangers and/or realize it isn't necessary cost-effective to change it. For example, a kitchen knife that wouldn't cut a person, but was still very effective at kitchen tasks probably would be cost prohibitive.
First of all - where do I pick up one of these guns:
"To test these materials in the lab, researchers developed a pneumatic launcher to fire living bugs at a sample coating. They first used crickets as ammunition, but a physicist colleague urged them to switch to fruit flies, which would be more representative of what planes hit during takeoff and landing."
Second - I hope they develop a clear coating as I would like it on my motorcycle visor.
I definitely agree with this. Whenever there is talk of it, however, it's quickly killed as it's quite unpopular. Mortgage interest is the thing that takes many people from the world of the standard deduction to the (lower tax) world of the scheduled deduction. I think that they might be able to do away with the deduction if they were to implement a corresponding lower overall tax rate. That would lower taxes for renters while slightly increasing taxes on those with mortgages.
I'll note that, for years, I worked on developing new financial products sold to mortgage lenders (post crisis). I've spent a fair amount of time studying trends in US housing prices. I'm not well versed on other countries so my comments are US-centric. I've left this VERY high level, but wanted to note a few concepts and why they answers aren't super easy.
There are a few fundamental flaws in the mortgage system today. The first is that banks generally don't lend their own money (almost all mortgage money in the market comes through government sponsored entities like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or Ginnie Mae). Well technically, it is their money, but realistically, the loans are purchased so quickly by the GSEs that it might as well not be their money. On top of this, the banks receive money from the GSEs for every loan they sell on to the GSEs. In short, the banks are incentivized to make loans.
Second, both the government and the the Federal Reserve seem to want a higher rate of home ownership by Americans. The Fed helps encourage this by keeping rates low (and buying huge amounts of mortgage backed securities from the GSEs). The GSEs encourage it by making loans more accessible (lower down payments, lower credit scores, higher debt-to-income ratios, etc.). The banks like this strategy because it allows them to make lots of new home loans (so they make lots of money with almost no risk) and every time rates drop they get to process lots of refinances (so they make lots of money with almost no risk). It's all good right? I mean, the banks are making lots of money.
Here's the problem: When money is easily available it creates more potential home buyers. When money is cheaper, it increases what people can afford (your $2000 per month payment now covers a 400k loan instead of a 350k loan). This is still good though right? More home for the same money?
Well, more people with more money means that demand for homes increases and, with it, home prices. Khan academy had an amazing set of videos that illustrated the home price bubble, but I can't find them. In summary, the number of homes available for purchase compared to the number of people has remained relatively constant since the 40's - even when adjusted for growth areas (things balance out in the growth areas over time). Home prices, however, have increased dramatically - especially as a percentage of total income. When did this star happening? When money became more accessible. Still good though right!?! I mean, now existing homeowners can sell their homes at a huge profit and people can get into those homes.
Ah, but there's a catch. While average income (inflation adjusted) has remained level and even trended down, home prices have sky rocketed. Eventually, even with low interest loans available, house prices reach a level where purchasing them puts people out of an acceptable debt-to-income ratio. Home prices can't go up to the point where people are spending more than 70% of their income on housing (as an example - this isn't a benchmark number or anything). Things hit a point where new buyers aren't buying anymore. That starts a chain reaction that leads to the bursting of the housing price bubble.
One way to fix this would be to make money harder to get and more expensive to get. It would have an initial downward push on prices, that would eventually level out. It would also stop the major price inflation. Why? Let's say we require a 10% down payment. Suddenly, a bunch of potential buyers are shut out of the market. Home prices stagnate. The responsible buyers (and those who advance in their career) eventually save up the 10% and can get into the market. They're actually able to save the 10% now because the house prices are stagnant and 10% is no longer a moving number. In the mid 2000', house prices were going up faster than people could save. Prices inflate, but the barrier to entry keeps them from going on a roller coaster. Banks, however, hate this because they lose out on all that sweet
Imagine if someone made bags out of paper!
We are now a service economy - not a manufacturing economy. Most people can do their work from home almost as well (and sometimes better) than they can do it at the office. Heck, our largest office is in Boston and it's closed today. Just about everyone is online and productive. Take into account the expense and danger associated with keeping cities open during significant natural events and it seems like a simple decision.
Ha - I was just making a bad Fast and Furious joke.
As someone who has heavily modified a few Japanese cars, I'm well aware of what "ricers" are capable. There is a great Top Gear episode where the crew take 3 super cars to the drag strip in Vegas. They get schooled in the quarter by a bunch of modified cars. It's fun to watch.