Are you prepared to supply the government with documents for every purchase and sale you make? Since that's what they'd need if they wanted to track the profit you make on these auctions.
How does it make it easier to buy and sell? The HFT won't buy shares unless there is already a buy order from someone else. So they create volume, but the supply/demand stay the same.
The question is : Do you want to. Extreme global warming improved the world in the long run, while crippling the AI in the short, since the AI wasn't very good at removing swampy quickly enough to avoid starvation.
Did you overheat the world before settling it fully? I remember that global warming eventually turned every land square into a swamp, and you could turn those into grasslands with your settlers. Since grasslands gave the most food, global warming was good if you wanted a large population.
And you can easily reject that alternative, as the jobs that foreign workers are needed for are paid less then the executive positions. The company obviously feels that a skilled worker (CEO for example) is worth quite a lot of money, but are not willing to hire more of them if they can get cheap 'imports'.
Ok, but let's equalize all prices across the world then. Sure, American workers cost more, but they also need more money just to survive. Food and housing is pretty expensive in the US. And if labor costs are to be equalized across the world, then why not equalize everything else too? Like the price of medicine, software,... Why are corporations allowed to determine where their products can be traded after they sell them, but Americans aren't allowed to say who can immigrate into their country?
So why not create two crimes. Abuse of a child from a position of authority and a rape/kidnapping? That way you can have different punishments, which might persuade the kidnapper to let the child go.
Sure, letting a child you know and have intimidated is probably less risky then killing him/her, but I doubt a randomly abducted child will keep quiet about the bad man who hurt him/her. So why let the child go and give the police your description, when the punishment will be life in jail either way.
Having all crimes carry extreme penalties removes the inhibition from performing them, once you've done one of them. What are they going to do? Execute you multiple times?
Just imagine if robbing a store meant life in prison. Who in their right mind would give the clerk a chance to get away? They'd walk in, shoot the clerk, then start robbing the place. Less risk of him fighting back AND less chance of getting caught then if you let him live to serve as a witness.
Then why not ban all violent art? Why not ban the Bible while we're at it. It describes a guy being nailed to a cross after all. Let's not give people ideas.
So once a person rapes the child, there is no reason to even consider letting the child go. After all, the punishment for murder is the same, so why increase the risk of getting caught by letting the kid go?
Moons, asteroid belt, orbital stations. No other place to go at all. And if we get good at making those, there is no reason not to build a generation ship and start exploring the galaxy. Yes, humanity is going to end, but there is no reason not to try and make that end distant as possible.
If things are heading for a collapse, then why waste so much money bailing out banks that are going to fold anyway? It's not like they are spending the money propping up the economy. And wouldn't that money be of more use after the collapse, when we'll know which companies are still good candidates for being rescued?
Right now countries are in debt 'death spirals', but it's not just because they are overspending. It's also because the banks demand higher interest on the 'old' loans, since the countries are now looking weak. But at the same time, those banks are the ones that will be hurt if a country defaults. So why are the tax payers expected to bail them out? Let them go broke, pass laws to reclaim any bonuses paid in the years the banks were giving bad loans, then use those funds to create new banks.
Sure they'll run out, but it will give humanity time to figure out how to expand to the next pile of resources, AND give us experience in extracting them in non-terrestrial conditions. Or we can wait on Earth for a few hundred years, until resource depletion and resulting wars make it impossible to ever develop the technology we'd need.
What if the 'event' takes generations to pass? Or never passes at all? Sure we don't have the technology to easily survive on Mars/Moon right now, but we'll need to develop it eventually, or go back to living in log cabins once resources on Earth run out.
What would happen is that the parent corporation would create a subsidiary in that state. Then if it decided to move out of state, it would declare bankruptcy with that subsidiary. So the government can get in line with all the other stiffed creditors.
All money is taxed multiple times. Any time a person makes money, they are taxed for it. If you earn money, then hire a person to do something for you, you will both be taxed. So why should corporations be exempt, if they have nearly all of the advantages of a physical person (and a few extra)? If the owners don't want the extra taxes, they can close down the corporation and run the business as individuals. The only reason for corporate taxes to be abolished would be taxing the stockholders. You own 1% of Microsoft? Ok here is the bill for 1% of their income tax. Have a nice day.
But a company only needs a few employees in the tax haven, then it will move most of it's income there. Suddenly you have a corporation making a ton of money that is paying little taxes and employing a few part-time workers. Sure it's better then nothing, but it won't let you run a country.
But they lost their primary purpose. They are no longer though as a way to stop enemy shipping, but mostly as a way to launch nukes and sink enemy nuke carriers.
Have the US join the ICJ, try the warlords in absentia, then drop a hellfire on their heads. Those guys aren't in it for the afterlife, so the supply of warlords should dry up quickly.
But nearly all health problems are the result of your own choices. The only way to lead a 'healthy' life is to spend it in a bubble, just in case the person you might meet outside your house has the flu.
So where do we draw the line? The difference between sugary drinks and cigarettes is that cigarettes will also impact the health of people near you, while the sugary drinks will only harm you (unless you happen to roll onto someone's foot after drinking a few thousand of them).
Slashdot Mirror
Are you prepared to supply the government with documents for every purchase and sale you make? Since that's what they'd need if they wanted to track the profit you make on these auctions.
How does it make it easier to buy and sell? The HFT won't buy shares unless there is already a buy order from someone else. So they create volume, but the supply/demand stay the same.
Different scheduler.
Were the hybrids fertile?
That's right, but what happened if you kept polution going? In Civ 1, next rounds of global warming eventually turned the deserts into swamps.
The question is : Do you want to. Extreme global warming improved the world in the long run, while crippling the AI in the short, since the AI wasn't very good at removing swampy quickly enough to avoid starvation.
Did you overheat the world before settling it fully? I remember that global warming eventually turned every land square into a swamp, and you could turn those into grasslands with your settlers. Since grasslands gave the most food, global warming was good if you wanted a large population.
And you can easily reject that alternative, as the jobs that foreign workers are needed for are paid less then the executive positions. The company obviously feels that a skilled worker (CEO for example) is worth quite a lot of money, but are not willing to hire more of them if they can get cheap 'imports'.
Ok, but let's equalize all prices across the world then. Sure, American workers cost more, but they also need more money just to survive. Food and housing is pretty expensive in the US. And if labor costs are to be equalized across the world, then why not equalize everything else too? Like the price of medicine, software,... Why are corporations allowed to determine where their products can be traded after they sell them, but Americans aren't allowed to say who can immigrate into their country?
So why not create two crimes. Abuse of a child from a position of authority and a rape/kidnapping? That way you can have different punishments, which might persuade the kidnapper to let the child go.
Sure, letting a child you know and have intimidated is probably less risky then killing him/her, but I doubt a randomly abducted child will keep quiet about the bad man who hurt him/her. So why let the child go and give the police your description, when the punishment will be life in jail either way.
Having all crimes carry extreme penalties removes the inhibition from performing them, once you've done one of them. What are they going to do? Execute you multiple times?
Just imagine if robbing a store meant life in prison. Who in their right mind would give the clerk a chance to get away? They'd walk in, shoot the clerk, then start robbing the place. Less risk of him fighting back AND less chance of getting caught then if you let him live to serve as a witness.
Then why not ban all violent art? Why not ban the Bible while we're at it. It describes a guy being nailed to a cross after all. Let's not give people ideas.
So once a person rapes the child, there is no reason to even consider letting the child go. After all, the punishment for murder is the same, so why increase the risk of getting caught by letting the kid go?
Moons, asteroid belt, orbital stations. No other place to go at all. And if we get good at making those, there is no reason not to build a generation ship and start exploring the galaxy. Yes, humanity is going to end, but there is no reason not to try and make that end distant as possible.
If things are heading for a collapse, then why waste so much money bailing out banks that are going to fold anyway? It's not like they are spending the money propping up the economy. And wouldn't that money be of more use after the collapse, when we'll know which companies are still good candidates for being rescued?
Right now countries are in debt 'death spirals', but it's not just because they are overspending. It's also because the banks demand higher interest on the 'old' loans, since the countries are now looking weak. But at the same time, those banks are the ones that will be hurt if a country defaults. So why are the tax payers expected to bail them out? Let them go broke, pass laws to reclaim any bonuses paid in the years the banks were giving bad loans, then use those funds to create new banks.
Sure they'll run out, but it will give humanity time to figure out how to expand to the next pile of resources, AND give us experience in extracting them in non-terrestrial conditions. Or we can wait on Earth for a few hundred years, until resource depletion and resulting wars make it impossible to ever develop the technology we'd need.
What if the 'event' takes generations to pass? Or never passes at all? Sure we don't have the technology to easily survive on Mars/Moon right now, but we'll need to develop it eventually, or go back to living in log cabins once resources on Earth run out.
What would happen is that the parent corporation would create a subsidiary in that state. Then if it decided to move out of state, it would declare bankruptcy with that subsidiary. So the government can get in line with all the other stiffed creditors.
All money is taxed multiple times. Any time a person makes money, they are taxed for it. If you earn money, then hire a person to do something for you, you will both be taxed. So why should corporations be exempt, if they have nearly all of the advantages of a physical person (and a few extra)? If the owners don't want the extra taxes, they can close down the corporation and run the business as individuals.
The only reason for corporate taxes to be abolished would be taxing the stockholders.
You own 1% of Microsoft? Ok here is the bill for 1% of their income tax. Have a nice day.
But a company only needs a few employees in the tax haven, then it will move most of it's income there. Suddenly you have a corporation making a ton of money that is paying little taxes and employing a few part-time workers. Sure it's better then nothing, but it won't let you run a country.
But they lost their primary purpose. They are no longer though as a way to stop enemy shipping, but mostly as a way to launch nukes and sink enemy nuke carriers.
'Disarmament'. It was more like signing a treaty that a soldier is not allowed to carry more then 10 rifles at once.
Have the US join the ICJ, try the warlords in absentia, then drop a hellfire on their heads. Those guys aren't in it for the afterlife, so the supply of warlords should dry up quickly.
So the US is now part of the EU? EU banks were in no way obligated to invest in US mortgages.
It's not the healthcare that is destroying the EU. It's the handouts to banks and other corporations.
But nearly all health problems are the result of your own choices. The only way to lead a 'healthy' life is to spend it in a bubble, just in case the person you might meet outside your house has the flu.
So where do we draw the line? The difference between sugary drinks and cigarettes is that cigarettes will also impact the health of people near you, while the sugary drinks will only harm you (unless you happen to roll onto someone's foot after drinking a few thousand of them).