You have to factor in the increased tax revenue from the growing economy, so it's not just the money raised directly from tariffs. I just read a ridiculous article the other day that complained that the tax cuts are "more expensive" than forecast because the economy has grown and thus the tax cuts are larger in absolute terms. Of course that larger economy wouldn't have happened without the tax cuts, but let's not let reality get in the way of a feel good complaint.
But I agree it's not going to match the tax cut, at least in the short term.
Who pays the tariff if the company stays in business? The persons/customers who buy the umbrellas.
Interesting point, let's remember that consequence of tariffs.
China has imposed a tariff on them and BMW is considering moving manufacturing to China with the result of job losses at their US plant.
So BMW is still in business, China has imposed tariffs, but the customers aren't paying the tariff. Instead, the country imposing the tariffs is gaining direct foreign investment and creating new jobs in their economy.
Not the first time a company's decision makers have been out of touch with the customers, especially old companies whose founders have long since passed.
That's interesting, I guess it's fairly cheap insurance since the payout value declines as the mortgage balance declines. Great idea. What percentage does it typically add to the mortgage payment? Is it personalized based on the applicant's age/health or is it standardized?
Out of curiosity, if the assets are divided in some way is the debt also divided? What if one person inherits cash and another inherits a house, do they split the inherited debt even though the house is not liquid?
The goal was to have a monopoly on ticket purchases and then negotiate with theaters to get lower prices. The idea is, MoviePass would talk to a few chains and say, okay whoever offers the lowest price gets access to our millions of customers who are used to paying a flat rate. Let's say AMC offers them half price tickets. Well now millions of people are seeing movies at AMC and not Cinemark. Cinemark goes out of business. AMC talks to Disney and says hey for your next movie, instead of getting 50% of box office revenue, you only get 30% like you do in China, because now we're the main game in America. Everybody wins except Disney.
Or alternatively, once all the chains are out of business except the MoviePass partner, prices go up. Everybody wins except consumers.
I feel the same way and I've come to the conclusion that I'm just getting old. Movies, TV, video games, it's all less appealing to me these days. One of the things that has stuck with me over the years was something I read online from a troll many years ago. People were talking about strategies for some RPG and this guy was like, why are you losers spending hours getting XP to level up your character? I go to the gym and level up my abs. And at the time I thought haha what an idiot, he doesn't get it, this is a social thing, etc. Now I'm more in tune with that guy. I get more satisfaction from doing things physically than in a game or just absorbing things in a movie/TV show (with some exceptions).
And of course I have kids now and they'll probably go down the same path. So when they are teenagers I'll be like, hey kids let's go fishing, or replace that warped plank in the deck! it's a beautiful day! and they'll be having too much fun playing a game that I see as boring and pointless.
Because of the "critical mass" that GP mentioned. If MoviePass accounted for 75% of ticket revenue, what is that worth to a theater chain? If Cinemark says, hey you cut out AMC and we'll give you 50% off, that might work out extremely well for both of them with AMC going out of business.
The big one is subsidies for insurance, and that's an artificial subsidy. It's not true that removing liability is equal to a subsidy, otherwise I could say that you are personally being subsidized to the tune of billions, because you "might" one day have billions of dollars in debt and then declare bankruptcy and the laws allow you to cancel that debt... hey that's a subsidy!!!
Yes, to make it safer. Yet that cost has not managed to prevent nuclear incidents. Clearly, it has not been made expensive enough.
No, because increasing costs does not necessarily make things safer. In fact, the high regulatory and civil (meaning, accrued costs from protests and long series of lawsuits meant to delay construction and increase the costs of holding loans) costs of nuclear have decreased safety by making it economically infeasible to upgrade nuclear power plants to newer designs.
When you're a teenager, maybe, because of the social experience aspect. As an adult I'm pretty happy with my TV. Picture quality is far better than a movie theater. The part a lot of people miss or neglect is a good sound system. Surround sound does nothing for me, but a 3.1 setup with strong front speakers and a big subwoofer is close enough to a theater for me. So, better picture and slightly worse sound, better experience from an adult perspective (less noise, seats that are clean and comfy, better food options). For me that's a win for the home experience. If you don't have an appropriately sized TV for your viewing distance, or you're in an apartment and can't turn up the volume to the degree you want, then I could see needing a theater still.
Right now the only major downside, for some movies, is time. I went to the last few Star Wars movies on release day, for instance. But I'm done with that, too much disappointment.
I know nothing about the Expanded Universe, but I found The Last Jedi much worse than any of the prequels. I'm hoping we get a reboot in 20 years when (if) the sjw movement dies down. It wasn't just the sjw cringe that made it a bad movie though, it was violating basic movie theory... like the slow and implausible "chase" sequence and waiting for rebel ships to run out of gas... that's something that belongs in a "mockbuster" movie, not the real thing.
That explains why I haven't seen it, though I disagree with your ranking. I actually liked The Force Awakens, except for Rey being overpowered and Kylo being too emo. I thought it was a good start though.
Rogue One sucked, but I thought well there's hope for the main line of movies.
The Last Jedi was utter garbage. I'm done with the main line.
I'm pretty much out, I might check out Solo when it hits Netflix. Or is Disney still going to make their own streaming service and have their content exclusive? If so then whatever, not interested.
This sounds like a step back for DeepMind. The whole point of their high profile project AlphaZero was to learn to play games (go, chess, shogi) without any mimicry of human players, and it proved that such an approach could be successful. It soundly defeated the previous go world champ, AlphaGo Master, which was trained with top-level human games and self-play. AlphaZero wasn't taught or shown any patterns, rather it discovered them through self-play and random moves.
The funny thing is, after AlphaZero, DeepMind was like, "We're not doing this just to beat people at games, we want to apply this to solving serious problems in energy, healthcare, etc." (paraphrase, not a direct quote)
And now they're revealing how they're playing old Atari games...
No you would not. As you would not know that the high qualified super day cares were replaced by low wage criminals.
Are you completely ignorant about childcare? Do you really think that parents choose a daycare and then never meet the staff? I get pictures and videos of my kids each day. I meet the teachers daily. In what world would I not realize that the great teachers I met on day one were replaced by shitty teachers on day 200? Please get some experience with the real world before commenting on obvious things like this.
With your example of "paying $3000" that was a no brainer. You should have thought about that at the first place instead of making silly arguments.
Yes, it's a no-brainer, that's why I said it could never realistically happen. It's not just a no-brainer for you and me, but for everybody. All the mid to high end daycares would go out of business.
how retarded. Can one not have an opinion about one matter and another opinion about another matter with out being insulted
* They have any control over your clothing, besides requiring safety equipment
No clothing related "safety equipment" is required to babysit for an evening, but obviously someone wearing a black lives matter shirt or a kkk shirt might reasonably be declined without that magically turning into an employer/employee relationship.
* They control your hours, rather than give deadlines.
If I want someone to come paint a room in my house, and I say "No, of course you can't come at 3am" then suddenly I'm an employer?
* They can require you to do things using their method, rather than accepting any method.
What is a method? If it's as generic as it sounds, then if I get a maid service to clean my house and I give them a priority list like "Start with the bathrooms, then the kitchen, then the bedrooms, and if there's time left then do whatever laundry is ready" now I'm an employer?
* They make any attempt to find out if you are working for other people, let alone prevent you from doing this.
This is one of the keys, to me. If you have the ability to work for multiple people within a reasonable timeframe then you're a contractor.
Just because people who work for corporations benefit from something doesn't make it "corporate welfare." It has to be specific to that particular corporation, otherwise it's just "welfare."
Is public transportation corporate welfare? "They want employees to be able to get to work, but don't want to pay for a private bus service, so they rely on government to make up the shortfall."
Minimum wage? "They want people to be able to buy their stuff, but they don't want to pay the entire country, so they get the government to force other companies to pay people more, ergo corporate welfare."
One could say, you are forcing everyone into this kind of job market where no one pays a living wage, not even for full time employment.
There are plenty of job markets where there aren't widespread unions and yet people are paid well, so no.
Why pay anyone a living wage if no incentive for me to do so?
Sometimes you need to hire qualified people and you have to pay them enough to work for you, because you are competing with other employers for that person. Shocking, I know.
You may think this only applies to high end jobs, but to go back to the example of child care... if I'm paying $3000/month for daycare for my 2 kids, and the daycare center saves labor costs by replacing all of its workers with illiterates, criminals, and/or "ad hoc" workers who fill in for an hour or two whenever they want... would I continue sending my kids to that daycare, even if they dropped the price? No, I would find a new daycare. If I wanted to save money, I could already send them to a cheaper daycare. I want nice, qualified teachers and low staff turnover, and I pay for it.
And in your weird dystopian view of capitalism, if ALL of the daycares near me adopted this low labor cost model out of fear that they couldn't compete otherwise, guess what? I'd hire a nanny and be the employer myself. Or maybe organize a new daycare since I know there's a market of people similar to me who want to pay for quality.
Leftists tend to view "labor" as a bunch of interchangeable cogs, and that's evidenced by your post. No, people don't all have the same value. No, you can't just substitute in "Worker B at $1/hour" for "Worker A at $12/hour" and get the same result.
Not sure I agree with that, especially with education. Getting "all right" [sic] kids to "good" means focusing on their academics. Getting "crappy" kids to "not-so-crappy" means you're probably dealing with a lot of things outside of academics, because kids are crappy because of home life, poverty, generational lack of education, and so on.
It's amazing how delusional people are. Yes, communists are in such trouble in academia these days, it's just absolutely dominated by the right wing isn't it? Jesus christ dude.
So your solution is to give up on 80-90% of the students
Seriously? Spending more on high achieving kids means "giving up" on the rest? Even if we spent 10x as much per student on the top 10%, that doesn't mean there's 0% left for everybody else.
Instead we're in a situation where a disproportionate amount of resources is spent on the bottom 10%. Even beyond money, just look at time.. ever wonder why kindergarteners these days have hours of homework? It's an attempt to equalize performance between good and bad students. The good students deal with busy work, the bad students will theoretically catch up. It's not really working, and it ruins education for the good students.
Yes, the old; they want to censor me because they are Social Justice Warriors gambit. The "mean things is free speech". The things that get censored are; off topic, race baiting, personal insults, threats to violence, and things of that nature.
There are a lot of SJW's on reddit. Mean things are free speech. Race baiting and personal insults and threats to violence are free speech. (note: it's "credible" threats of violence that aren't protected)
The thing that annoys me about people like you is that you say "oh race baiting and personal insults are obviously bad, why should we allow that." And that's reasonable on the face of it. But it turns into an environment, mainly due to the SJW's alluded to, where stuff like "I'm against affirmative action in college admissions" becomes race baiting, and becomes a personal insult to many users, and maybe is even a credible threat of violence because "hey man you're talking about taking away **education** for **real people** man and violating their rights, just stop that."
"We'll choose who to do business with based on the content they produce, thank you very much. Oh wait, now you want me to be responsible for those admittedly conscious choices? No way that's unfair!"
Slashdot Mirror
You have to factor in the increased tax revenue from the growing economy, so it's not just the money raised directly from tariffs. I just read a ridiculous article the other day that complained that the tax cuts are "more expensive" than forecast because the economy has grown and thus the tax cuts are larger in absolute terms. Of course that larger economy wouldn't have happened without the tax cuts, but let's not let reality get in the way of a feel good complaint.
But I agree it's not going to match the tax cut, at least in the short term.
Who pays the tariff if the company stays in business? The persons/customers who buy the umbrellas.
Interesting point, let's remember that consequence of tariffs.
China has imposed a tariff on them and BMW is considering moving manufacturing to China with the result of job losses at their US plant.
So BMW is still in business, China has imposed tariffs, but the customers aren't paying the tariff. Instead, the country imposing the tariffs is gaining direct foreign investment and creating new jobs in their economy.
Not the first time a company's decision makers have been out of touch with the customers, especially old companies whose founders have long since passed.
Sadly, phrases like "killing it" and "throwing shade" have found widespread usage in news headlines in an attempt to sound edgy and cool.
That's interesting, I guess it's fairly cheap insurance since the payout value declines as the mortgage balance declines. Great idea. What percentage does it typically add to the mortgage payment? Is it personalized based on the applicant's age/health or is it standardized?
Out of curiosity, if the assets are divided in some way is the debt also divided? What if one person inherits cash and another inherits a house, do they split the inherited debt even though the house is not liquid?
The goal was to have a monopoly on ticket purchases and then negotiate with theaters to get lower prices. The idea is, MoviePass would talk to a few chains and say, okay whoever offers the lowest price gets access to our millions of customers who are used to paying a flat rate. Let's say AMC offers them half price tickets. Well now millions of people are seeing movies at AMC and not Cinemark. Cinemark goes out of business. AMC talks to Disney and says hey for your next movie, instead of getting 50% of box office revenue, you only get 30% like you do in China, because now we're the main game in America. Everybody wins except Disney.
Or alternatively, once all the chains are out of business except the MoviePass partner, prices go up. Everybody wins except consumers.
I feel the same way and I've come to the conclusion that I'm just getting old. Movies, TV, video games, it's all less appealing to me these days. One of the things that has stuck with me over the years was something I read online from a troll many years ago. People were talking about strategies for some RPG and this guy was like, why are you losers spending hours getting XP to level up your character? I go to the gym and level up my abs. And at the time I thought haha what an idiot, he doesn't get it, this is a social thing, etc. Now I'm more in tune with that guy. I get more satisfaction from doing things physically than in a game or just absorbing things in a movie/TV show (with some exceptions).
And of course I have kids now and they'll probably go down the same path. So when they are teenagers I'll be like, hey kids let's go fishing, or replace that warped plank in the deck! it's a beautiful day! and they'll be having too much fun playing a game that I see as boring and pointless.
Because of the "critical mass" that GP mentioned. If MoviePass accounted for 75% of ticket revenue, what is that worth to a theater chain? If Cinemark says, hey you cut out AMC and we'll give you 50% off, that might work out extremely well for both of them with AMC going out of business.
The big one is subsidies for insurance, and that's an artificial subsidy. It's not true that removing liability is equal to a subsidy, otherwise I could say that you are personally being subsidized to the tune of billions, because you "might" one day have billions of dollars in debt and then declare bankruptcy and the laws allow you to cancel that debt... hey that's a subsidy!!!
Yes, to make it safer. Yet that cost has not managed to prevent nuclear incidents. Clearly, it has not been made expensive enough.
No, because increasing costs does not necessarily make things safer. In fact, the high regulatory and civil (meaning, accrued costs from protests and long series of lawsuits meant to delay construction and increase the costs of holding loans) costs of nuclear have decreased safety by making it economically infeasible to upgrade nuclear power plants to newer designs.
When you're a teenager, maybe, because of the social experience aspect. As an adult I'm pretty happy with my TV. Picture quality is far better than a movie theater. The part a lot of people miss or neglect is a good sound system. Surround sound does nothing for me, but a 3.1 setup with strong front speakers and a big subwoofer is close enough to a theater for me. So, better picture and slightly worse sound, better experience from an adult perspective (less noise, seats that are clean and comfy, better food options). For me that's a win for the home experience. If you don't have an appropriately sized TV for your viewing distance, or you're in an apartment and can't turn up the volume to the degree you want, then I could see needing a theater still.
Right now the only major downside, for some movies, is time. I went to the last few Star Wars movies on release day, for instance. But I'm done with that, too much disappointment.
I know nothing about the Expanded Universe, but I found The Last Jedi much worse than any of the prequels. I'm hoping we get a reboot in 20 years when (if) the sjw movement dies down. It wasn't just the sjw cringe that made it a bad movie though, it was violating basic movie theory... like the slow and implausible "chase" sequence and waiting for rebel ships to run out of gas... that's something that belongs in a "mockbuster" movie, not the real thing.
That explains why I haven't seen it, though I disagree with your ranking. I actually liked The Force Awakens, except for Rey being overpowered and Kylo being too emo. I thought it was a good start though.
Rogue One sucked, but I thought well there's hope for the main line of movies.
The Last Jedi was utter garbage. I'm done with the main line.
I'm pretty much out, I might check out Solo when it hits Netflix. Or is Disney still going to make their own streaming service and have their content exclusive? If so then whatever, not interested.
This sounds like a step back for DeepMind. The whole point of their high profile project AlphaZero was to learn to play games (go, chess, shogi) without any mimicry of human players, and it proved that such an approach could be successful. It soundly defeated the previous go world champ, AlphaGo Master, which was trained with top-level human games and self-play. AlphaZero wasn't taught or shown any patterns, rather it discovered them through self-play and random moves.
The funny thing is, after AlphaZero, DeepMind was like, "We're not doing this just to beat people at games, we want to apply this to solving serious problems in energy, healthcare, etc." (paraphrase, not a direct quote)
And now they're revealing how they're playing old Atari games...
No you would not. As you would not know that the high qualified super day cares were replaced by low wage criminals.
Are you completely ignorant about childcare? Do you really think that parents choose a daycare and then never meet the staff? I get pictures and videos of my kids each day. I meet the teachers daily. In what world would I not realize that the great teachers I met on day one were replaced by shitty teachers on day 200? Please get some experience with the real world before commenting on obvious things like this.
With your example of "paying $3000" that was a no brainer. You should have thought about that at the first place instead of making silly arguments.
Yes, it's a no-brainer, that's why I said it could never realistically happen. It's not just a no-brainer for you and me, but for everybody. All the mid to high end daycares would go out of business.
how retarded. Can one not have an opinion about one matter and another opinion about another matter with out being insulted
no apparently not lol, moron
I don't think blm is equivalent to the kkk, but a t-shirt about either one is inappropriate to wear to any job.
* They have any control over your clothing, besides requiring safety equipment
No clothing related "safety equipment" is required to babysit for an evening, but obviously someone wearing a black lives matter shirt or a kkk shirt might reasonably be declined without that magically turning into an employer/employee relationship.
* They control your hours, rather than give deadlines.
If I want someone to come paint a room in my house, and I say "No, of course you can't come at 3am" then suddenly I'm an employer?
* They can require you to do things using their method, rather than accepting any method.
What is a method? If it's as generic as it sounds, then if I get a maid service to clean my house and I give them a priority list like "Start with the bathrooms, then the kitchen, then the bedrooms, and if there's time left then do whatever laundry is ready" now I'm an employer?
* They make any attempt to find out if you are working for other people, let alone prevent you from doing this.
This is one of the keys, to me. If you have the ability to work for multiple people within a reasonable timeframe then you're a contractor.
Just because people who work for corporations benefit from something doesn't make it "corporate welfare." It has to be specific to that particular corporation, otherwise it's just "welfare."
Is public transportation corporate welfare? "They want employees to be able to get to work, but don't want to pay for a private bus service, so they rely on government to make up the shortfall."
Minimum wage? "They want people to be able to buy their stuff, but they don't want to pay the entire country, so they get the government to force other companies to pay people more, ergo corporate welfare."
One could say, you are forcing everyone into this kind of job market where no one pays a living wage, not even for full time employment.
There are plenty of job markets where there aren't widespread unions and yet people are paid well, so no.
Why pay anyone a living wage if no incentive for me to do so?
Sometimes you need to hire qualified people and you have to pay them enough to work for you, because you are competing with other employers for that person. Shocking, I know.
You may think this only applies to high end jobs, but to go back to the example of child care... if I'm paying $3000/month for daycare for my 2 kids, and the daycare center saves labor costs by replacing all of its workers with illiterates, criminals, and/or "ad hoc" workers who fill in for an hour or two whenever they want... would I continue sending my kids to that daycare, even if they dropped the price? No, I would find a new daycare. If I wanted to save money, I could already send them to a cheaper daycare. I want nice, qualified teachers and low staff turnover, and I pay for it.
And in your weird dystopian view of capitalism, if ALL of the daycares near me adopted this low labor cost model out of fear that they couldn't compete otherwise, guess what? I'd hire a nanny and be the employer myself. Or maybe organize a new daycare since I know there's a market of people similar to me who want to pay for quality.
Leftists tend to view "labor" as a bunch of interchangeable cogs, and that's evidenced by your post. No, people don't all have the same value. No, you can't just substitute in "Worker B at $1/hour" for "Worker A at $12/hour" and get the same result.
Not sure I agree with that, especially with education. Getting "all right" [sic] kids to "good" means focusing on their academics. Getting "crappy" kids to "not-so-crappy" means you're probably dealing with a lot of things outside of academics, because kids are crappy because of home life, poverty, generational lack of education, and so on.
It's amazing how delusional people are. Yes, communists are in such trouble in academia these days, it's just absolutely dominated by the right wing isn't it? Jesus christ dude.
So your solution is to give up on 80-90% of the students
Seriously? Spending more on high achieving kids means "giving up" on the rest? Even if we spent 10x as much per student on the top 10%, that doesn't mean there's 0% left for everybody else.
Instead we're in a situation where a disproportionate amount of resources is spent on the bottom 10%. Even beyond money, just look at time.. ever wonder why kindergarteners these days have hours of homework? It's an attempt to equalize performance between good and bad students. The good students deal with busy work, the bad students will theoretically catch up. It's not really working, and it ruins education for the good students.
Yes, the old; they want to censor me because they are Social Justice Warriors gambit. The "mean things is free speech". The things that get censored are; off topic, race baiting, personal insults, threats to violence, and things of that nature.
There are a lot of SJW's on reddit. Mean things are free speech. Race baiting and personal insults and threats to violence are free speech. (note: it's "credible" threats of violence that aren't protected)
The thing that annoys me about people like you is that you say "oh race baiting and personal insults are obviously bad, why should we allow that." And that's reasonable on the face of it. But it turns into an environment, mainly due to the SJW's alluded to, where stuff like "I'm against affirmative action in college admissions" becomes race baiting, and becomes a personal insult to many users, and maybe is even a credible threat of violence because "hey man you're talking about taking away **education** for **real people** man and violating their rights, just stop that."
Why should they get the best of both worlds?
"We'll choose who to do business with based on the content they produce, thank you very much. Oh wait, now you want me to be responsible for those admittedly conscious choices? No way that's unfair!"