The assumption that merchants are being fleeced by the card processors is incorrect. If merchants didn't benefit from accepting cards, they just wouldn't accept them. A few places don't accept credit cards, but most due. Why? Because it's beneficial to them.
1. Customers spend more on cards. Higher check totals means more profit for the merchant. This is especially true at restaurants, where it's very easy to add on drinks, desserts, etc. Customers using cards don't need to make sure they have enough cash.
2. Handling cash isn't free. Having cash around risks theft. Therefore, hiring an armored car service to handle cash transportation is commonplace. That service isn't free. And even then, the risk of employee theft still remains.
3. Online retailers wouldn't exist without credit cards.
As a replacement, how about an autonomous-only limited-access highway? 100 mph, autonomous cars only, on ramps and exits only at major cities. Much lower construction cost than rail.
You want more joblessness, you give out rewards (in the form of cash payment) for being jobless.
That would be the alternative, which is welfare.
This experiment was to give cash payments to unemployed people regardless if they started working or not. The problem they're looking to solve is that welfare encourages people not to seek income, since that would make them ineligible for welfare. It's a fight against the status quo bias.
They generally become super wealthy by inheriting it.
That's not quite what your inequality.org links says.
22% had inheritances up to $1M 11% had inheritances over $1M 7% had inheritances over $50M 21% made the list solely through inheritance ($1.1B+)
What's "super wealthy"? Getting an inheritance "up to $1M".... that's like, everybody. And 12% of US households are worth over a $1M, so I think it takes more than that to be "super" wealthy.
Secondly, getting an inheritance doesn't mean you didn't make your billions yourself. Bill Gates came from a rich family, but he was a billionaire before his parents died. The Forbes 400 is mostly people who started as thousandaires and millionaires who then did something to become super wealthy.
b. They use the losses to offset taxes paid on the wins.
Offsetting taxes is not the same as profiting. You still need gains in excess of the losses to make profit.
That's where the risk is.... VCs need hits in excess of strikeouts. And they need to occur in the correct order. And the time horizon isn't infinite... there is risk to holding investments before they can be monetized.
The last time (or second to last time? hard to keep track) the federal government was facing a shutdown 10 months ago, Trump threatened to veto the spending bill because it didn't contain funding for his wall, and that he would "never again" sign a bill like that (source). Since it seems he is (so far) sticking to that promise, I wouldn't call his actions impulsive.
There are limits on trademarks, just not an explicit end-of-term.
Firstly, keeping trademarks current requires paying for renewal every 10 years. There are tons of dead trademarks. You want Compumax? How about Doomsday Turtle? There's millions of 'em.
Secondly, the onus is on the trademark holder to prevent their trademark from becoming genericized. This gives a lot of power to the public. "Aspirin" is no longer an enforcable trademark in the US now, even though Bayer didn't abandon their claim to it.
patient: Hey doc, I don't feel right. Maybe something has changed. covfefe: Let me look at you.... organs in body, teeth in head, shoes on feet. Just like last year. Let me know when that changes.
Resources are limited in the universe. But our potential to increase value here on earth is great. It's not a zero-sum game. In a free market transaction, both sides win: the value the seller receives (in cash) exceeds her value he places on the good/service she offers, and the value the buyer receives in the form of the the good/service exceeds the value of his cash outlay. If that wasn't true, then the transaction wouldn't occur. When the transaction does occur, value is created. The pie gets bigger.
Look around: billions of people have moved out of poverty in a generation. And it didn't require the people in middle and high income countries to earn less. Globally, obesity is now a bigger problem than hunger, and it didn't require sacrifice from the developed world. Lifespan has increased globally, without the need of drinking the blood of virgins.
The average selling price of a new car in the US is $35k. A new Nissan Leaf is going for $31k (local dealer, before incentives or tax credits). So you can already get an EV at a lower price than the average new car. ICE cars have been increasing in price; EVs have been decreasing.
Once there are enough EVs on the road, battery replacements will become commonplace, and prices of used EVs will become very affordable.
A wage is fixed, regular payment. Uber doesn't pay a wage; the job isn't designed as full-time work. There are lots of jobs that aren't. That's why they're gigs.
What should the hourly rate of a paperboy who works 14 hours/week be? Or a wedding photographer? Or a drummer who only plays on weekends?
A free market for energy does not exist. OPEC is a cartel of countries that set production levels to manipulate oil prices and control the supply.
OPEC is a cartel. But the market is less distorted than you think, at least in the US.
The US consumes about 20 million barrels/day of oil (source). Net imports are 5 million. 1/3 of imports come from OPEC countries. So OPEC is not able to exert monopolistic power.
Today's price for OPEC crude is $58.33. West Texas crude is at $53.37. Suffice it to say, any oil user in the US that has access to WTI crude is getting it. Imported crude users are likely refineries that do not have pipeline access to the domestic supply.
Once US oil exports ramp up, things might change, but for now, OPEC's price-setting ability is pretty subdued in the US.
Utilities are one of the most regulated and subsidized industries in the world. Additionally, in some places, generating capacity is government-owned, and public enterprises frequently operate at a loss. So the real question is: how much of all generating capacity is unprofitable?
Coal will die, but saying that plants are currently unprofitable isn't necessarily an indication of anything. It needs to be compared on a relative basis to alternatives.
Slashdot Mirror
In aviation -- almost everywhere -- feet is used for elevation, miles are used for distance, and knots are used for speed.
NY State is offering companies 10 year tax amnesty to relocate to NY. They aren't getting many takers.
That offer doesn't include NYC. Of course a company would rather relocate to Austin than Utica.
The assumption that merchants are being fleeced by the card processors is incorrect. If merchants didn't benefit from accepting cards, they just wouldn't accept them. A few places don't accept credit cards, but most due. Why? Because it's beneficial to them.
1. Customers spend more on cards. Higher check totals means more profit for the merchant. This is especially true at restaurants, where it's very easy to add on drinks, desserts, etc. Customers using cards don't need to make sure they have enough cash.
2. Handling cash isn't free. Having cash around risks theft. Therefore, hiring an armored car service to handle cash transportation is commonplace. That service isn't free. And even then, the risk of employee theft still remains.
3. Online retailers wouldn't exist without credit cards.
As a replacement, how about an autonomous-only limited-access highway? 100 mph, autonomous cars only, on ramps and exits only at major cities. Much lower construction cost than rail.
I saw an advert promoting recycling; not sure which of those three categories that would fall into...
You want more joblessness, you give out rewards (in the form of cash payment) for being jobless.
That would be the alternative, which is welfare.
This experiment was to give cash payments to unemployed people regardless if they started working or not. The problem they're looking to solve is that welfare encourages people not to seek income, since that would make them ineligible for welfare. It's a fight against the status quo bias.
Wait, what's the problem here?
Google tried to get into a new business. They suck at it, so they're pulling out. It's been less than 18 months. What obligation was created?
They generally become super wealthy by inheriting it.
That's not quite what your inequality.org links says.
22% had inheritances up to $1M
11% had inheritances over $1M
7% had inheritances over $50M
21% made the list solely through inheritance ($1.1B+)
What's "super wealthy"? Getting an inheritance "up to $1M".... that's like, everybody. And 12% of US households are worth over a $1M, so I think it takes more than that to be "super" wealthy.
Secondly, getting an inheritance doesn't mean you didn't make your billions yourself. Bill Gates came from a rich family, but he was a billionaire before his parents died. The Forbes 400 is mostly people who started as thousandaires and millionaires who then did something to become super wealthy.
b. They use the losses to offset taxes paid on the wins.
Offsetting taxes is not the same as profiting. You still need gains in excess of the losses to make profit.
That's where the risk is.... VCs need hits in excess of strikeouts. And they need to occur in the correct order. And the time horizon isn't infinite... there is risk to holding investments before they can be monetized.
Does this mean Amazon can't sell Kindle or Alexa devices in India? Or that they can only sell them through a competitor's site?
Only housing is 400% more expensive. Gas is about 20% more. Most other things are about the same.
Actually, Texas is cheaper in many categories.
It's called TPMS. All new passenger cars in the US and EU as of 2012 have it. And it's not opt-in.
5. Reopen Yucca Mountain. Fuck Harry Reid.
Surely the latter half of step 5 can be done in parallel with steps 1-4, right?
Still, I'm not exactly sure why that's a requirement anyway...
The customer did read, and clicked... and bought himself an Amazon Dash button.
A lot of what Trump does is done impulsively.
A lot is, but this one wasn't impulsive.
The last time (or second to last time? hard to keep track) the federal government was facing a shutdown 10 months ago, Trump threatened to veto the spending bill because it didn't contain funding for his wall, and that he would "never again" sign a bill like that (source). Since it seems he is (so far) sticking to that promise, I wouldn't call his actions impulsive.
There are limits on trademarks, just not an explicit end-of-term.
Firstly, keeping trademarks current requires paying for renewal every 10 years. There are tons of dead trademarks. You want Compumax? How about Doomsday Turtle? There's millions of 'em.
Secondly, the onus is on the trademark holder to prevent their trademark from becoming genericized. This gives a lot of power to the public. "Aspirin" is no longer an enforcable trademark in the US now, even though Bayer didn't abandon their claim to it.
[visiting Dr. covfefe.....]
patient: Hey doc, I don't feel right. Maybe something has changed.
covfefe: Let me look at you.... organs in body, teeth in head, shoes on feet. Just like last year. Let me know when that changes.
Resources are limited in the universe. But our potential to increase value here on earth is great. It's not a zero-sum game. In a free market transaction, both sides win: the value the seller receives (in cash) exceeds her value he places on the good/service she offers, and the value the buyer receives in the form of the the good/service exceeds the value of his cash outlay. If that wasn't true, then the transaction wouldn't occur. When the transaction does occur, value is created. The pie gets bigger.
Look around: billions of people have moved out of poverty in a generation. And it didn't require the people in middle and high income countries to earn less. Globally, obesity is now a bigger problem than hunger, and it didn't require sacrifice from the developed world. Lifespan has increased globally, without the need of drinking the blood of virgins.
The average selling price of a new car in the US is $35k. A new Nissan Leaf is going for $31k (local dealer, before incentives or tax credits). So you can already get an EV at a lower price than the average new car. ICE cars have been increasing in price; EVs have been decreasing.
Once there are enough EVs on the road, battery replacements will become commonplace, and prices of used EVs will become very affordable.
A wage is fixed, regular payment. Uber doesn't pay a wage; the job isn't designed as full-time work. There are lots of jobs that aren't. That's why they're gigs.
What should the hourly rate of a paperboy who works 14 hours/week be? Or a wedding photographer? Or a drummer who only plays on weekends?
Unless a driver is quite methodical and determines all costs long term, the drivers barely make enough money to be profitable.
"Quote methodical".... you mean like a cab driver?
Gross - costs = net. It ain't that hard.
A free market for energy does not exist. OPEC is a cartel of countries that set production levels to manipulate oil prices and control the supply.
OPEC is a cartel. But the market is less distorted than you think, at least in the US.
The US consumes about 20 million barrels/day of oil (source). Net imports are 5 million. 1/3 of imports come from OPEC countries. So OPEC is not able to exert monopolistic power.
Today's price for OPEC crude is $58.33. West Texas crude is at $53.37. Suffice it to say, any oil user in the US that has access to WTI crude is getting it. Imported crude users are likely refineries that do not have pipeline access to the domestic supply.
Once US oil exports ramp up, things might change, but for now, OPEC's price-setting ability is pretty subdued in the US.
Utilities are one of the most regulated and subsidized industries in the world. Additionally, in some places, generating capacity is government-owned, and public enterprises frequently operate at a loss. So the real question is: how much of all generating capacity is unprofitable?
Coal will die, but saying that plants are currently unprofitable isn't necessarily an indication of anything. It needs to be compared on a relative basis to alternatives.
If menu items are priced out-of-reach of lower economic classes, can the city force them to lower their prices?
Yes.
Google "amazon cash"