But Monterrey Jack and Muenster (Aldi, $2/half pound) cheeses have pretty good flavor. To bad you can get them in a sandwich shop.
This is how foodies became a thing. Plenty of Americans have grown up eating flavorless or sugary cereal, mac & cheese from a box, processed peanut butter and American cheese, hot dogs, bologna, pizza with bad cheese, and too much bread and don't like anything with good flavor. We have struggled to get 3 of our children to like delicious food, and it's not like we aren't trying.
Perhaps we should do like my Mom's family who was pretty poor, and had to eat as inexpensively as possible. My Mom will eat anything reasonably edible because she had no choice when it was eat the inexpensive stuff with flavor you hate or go hungry. Hunger is the best appetizer.
Except it isn't gerrymandering, because gerrymandering is when the current politicians decide to sway the composition of Congress by drawing the lines on the map to influence who gets elected. But the 2 Senators per state was determined 230 years ago, and without out it, the small states would have refused to join the Union, and there would be no USA because the small states were afraid that the large states would have had the power to bully the small states due to their greater representation in the house, and the more popular party in those states would have been able to claim power by gerrymandering their house seats to claim enough to ensure one party rule.
The greater power in the US government for states with smaller population is a feature, not a bug. Don't worry, the system is working as intended.
Then increase the funding to the state schools. They are public universities, with a portion of the funds paid out of the state budget. If it's so good, put the funding up for a vote and let the people decide that paying higher taxes to reduce tuition for everybody is a good deal. If they say no, then somebody needs to do a better job of justifying the need.
You realize the salaries of the athletic department typically come from ticket sales and TV contracts, things which wouldn't exist without the coaches, support staff, etc.? The salaries are market determined values, and when a coach is failing, and has to have his contract paid off to get rid of him, the money usually comes from donations of rich supporters who want somebody better. The facilities are also paid for by donations from people who give specifically to build athletic facilities. If you eradicate the athletic programs (or severely limit salaries), the money won't magically get shifted to academics, the people who donate to the athletic programs will find other athletic programs to support, because that's where their interest lies.
Plus, if the state of your choice puts a limit of, say, a 1 million dollars on the coach of the football and basketball teams, and others are paying 3-7 million, what's going to be the quality of the team on the field. Even if you find a successful coach, in 3 or 4 years, somebody from another state without the limit will come and offer to double or triple the salary and take him away putting the school in question in jeopardy of missing on their next hire. It would be political suicide to limit the salaries of some of the most popular state employees when axing their salaries will send them out of state so rival school can come beat up the schools in your state.
Are university buildings built with student funds? Or donations from school supporters who want to fund academics? You might want to look into this issue before you attribute buildings for the high cost of education.
The costs are typically driven by the cost of teacher salaries and administrators. I often see complaints about how my state university has the lowest salaries for teachers. Increase them, and the costs of going to school for the students has to go up as well.
It seems we have compounding economic problems. Too much demand vs. supply, or too much money in the system being thrown at students to take loans that end up pushing the price up because poeple who can't afford it go, and end up increasing demand. If many couldn't pay and get loans, then they wouldn't go, and prices would go down because of lower demand.
It's only inflationary if prices of the goods and services you buy in the currency are going up. This depends on more than just how much money there is. You also have to factor in how many people have the currency to spend, and how many goods there are to spend them on. Let's say you have economic production of 1million eu (economic utility, ie goods and services), and you have 1million bc (bitcoins), then theoretically, assuming nobody's saving their bc, then the 1 million bc can buy the 1million eu at a price of 1eu=1bc. If we double the amount of bc to 2 million, but don't change the economy from the 1 million eu, then your 1bc only buys.5 eu, or put another way, your 1 eu now costs 2bc. There's your inflation.
In the real world with real currency, your money is becoming worthless, you better spend it before it becomes worth even less, so all of the money gets spent, and there inevitably results in the government not being able to meet it's obligations, and they start to print money which makes the problem worth and leads to hyperinflation.
On the other hand, if the money supply goes from 1M bc to.5M bc, then 1bc will be able to by 2eu, or 1 eu will only cost.5 bc. If you have liquidity, you'll be able to buy things on sale, because people will cut prices because they want to sell in order to get the limited bc. But the people who have it may decide to hold onto it hoping that the supply will go down more, making their money more valuable, and maybe they'll be able to buy even more with their bitcoin. Of course, you may see people produce more to try to make up their revenue deficiencies, but that just serves to increase supply when demand is low and pushes prices even lower.
The economic crash of a decade ago was partly caused by the fact that credit growth stalled, shrinking the amount of money that was expected to be moving through the system, and prices in the financial markets couldn't take the loss in liquidity. There is now 4 times as much debt liquidity in the market as their was 10 years ago (5 v 20 Trillion), and the next crisis should make the last look like a day in the park.
I've recently viewed a science video with my kids talking about breeding chickens to be more dinosaur like. If you've seen them run, you'd be impressed at how raptor like they probably are. Obviously the claws have been replaced by wings, but the frame and movement looks like it hasn't changed much in the last 70 million years.
PUBG is from Tencent which is a Chinese company, so they are banning a game that makes money from around the world to bring into the Chinese economy. Interesting that they would make this move that hurts a Chinese company as well as it's non-Chinese competitor. It almost seems they did this more based on other factors.
I used to pay $25 per month for basic cable. Now I pay $12 for Hulu with no commercials. And after we watch the 12-15 series of programs that are interesting to us, (It would probably take about 3-5 years at our pace), then we may consider only having the service in Oct-Dec (watch new episodes from Sept-December), then again in February and April-May),and we could probably catch all of our shows for about $36-$48/yr. Not a bad deal considering the alternatives.
The Hulu customers who would see these ads are paying $8 to see the content with ads instead of paying $12 to never see an ad. I just signed up for the $12 plan, and my only complaint is CBS isn't putting their current content on there, but I'm not willing to pay CBS's fee which is almost the same as the cost of HBO or Showtime.
Considering studies show that porn probably reduces grey matter meaning it makes you dumb, perhaps there is a public interest in reducing consumption of porn, unless you want us to create Idiocracy.
The pill basically works on women primarily by chemically simulating pregnancy, in order to suppress ovulation. So, you can either get pregnant or have many of the effects of pregnancy except having the baby and most of the weight gain, plus an increased chance of cancer (at least some of the various forms of the pill are classified as carcinogens).
If fact, almost all forms of contraceptives are disliked because of the various side effects. They are just disliked less than having a pregnancy and decades of child care. For instance, vasectomy has several side effects, including many that don't show up for years or decades: https://www.mayoclinic.org/tes...
It's not about direct competition, it's about who is spending the money. With Microsoft, a huge portion of their revenue comes from companies who have to spend the money to make money. It's just another cost of business, when the next market downturn happens, they'll lose companies that go bankrupt, but the rest of their customers will still have to spend to use their computers. Now, I was just reading an article on with an analyst who is thinking along the same lines as myself: https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/28...
Apple on the other hand depends largely upon people's disposable incomes. If I'm somebody who makes 200k, the extra cost of buying Apple products isn't much of a consideration on what I'm buying, I'll choose based on device control, ease of use, image, features, etc. But somebody who makes 30k a year, maybe they decide to by a $50 instead of a $1000 iPhone. Unfortunately for Apple, when recessions hit, the people who are hit hardest are often people who make more money. Teachers, nurses, firefighters, etc are not laid off at near the rate of high earners in corporations that cut upper management, and commissioned sales people have a more difficult time closing deals as money becomes scarce.
So, when the next crisis happens in the markets, possibly when the next recession starts, probably due to the Fed raising rates and pulling money out of the markets through a reverse quantitative easing, Apple is likely to be harder hit with lost sales. I'm not against Apple, I'm just saying that business wise, their eggs are in a basket that's going to be harder hit by recession. I have no idea who will be ahead 5, 10 or 20 years from now. If I knew that, I'd put my money where my mouth is and invest accordingly. But I'm not certain, and that's not a risk I want to take on either company right now.
I'd be interested to see what percentage of Microsoft's money comes from installs v consumer products. Microsoft probably makes most of their money from companies having it on the server, and collecting desktops to domain servers, collecting seat licenses of $100s of dollars per year for Office, Outlook, seat licenses for various packages, etc. Obviously, every machine shipped by all of the computer makers gives some money to Microsoft, but when you can go a decade between replacements, that drops your annual cost to about $5/yr/machine. The important thing about the home machines is it keeps people on Windows so it's easier to keep people on it, and employees can trust most people to know it when hiring employees.
As for the current stock price, I think Microsoft is more stable due to their strength in the corporate world, and so during the next down turn, they'll probably weather the storm the best. When luxury returns during the next recovery, I'd expect the other companies to outperform and some will pass Microsoft, since more people will be able to afford Apple's luxury items during times when things are improving.
If it continues to drop, it will collapse. Currently, the search "what is the cost of mining bitcoin" on google says that the cost of mining a bitcoin in the US is around $4750, depending on your cost of electricity. Venezuela and many Middle East and nearby countries have costs of half as much, but there are only a couple of dozen where the current cost makes it feasible long term unless something changes. After all, if the cost drops below the cost of electricity, then the miners that help transactions be completed should eventually quit, destroying the processing network. Of course, if they do, mining costs per coin could go down as fewer miners remain active, and those that stay get may get more coins for the same total costs, spreading the costs across more coins.
Some technical analysts may think they can predict the market for various coins. Maybe they can, but the price has been in a slide for nearly a year, and it's always important to respect the trend, which means the price is more likely to go down than up, meaning I wouldn't buy at any price ever until their was good reason to see a turn around, and I'd just as soon have my money in a company that actually has revenues and profits that provide a floor for prices.
Is British Socialized medicine what you would recommend? Where soon, patients who've been diagnosed and have long term illnesses will need to visit with their doctors in groups with 14 other patients in order to ration the amount of time patients get? (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/10/05/gps-see-patients-groups-15/) If that's what people want, I don't suppose I'll be allowed to object?
You do realize that the cost of insurance will be included in the cost of your ride. If the owner can get rid of the insurance, we'll probably still end up paying some of that because that cost is included in the cost of the alternatives. Of course, when almost all the alternatives have no cost of insurance, this hidden cost will be reduced as the various companies cut prices to compete for market share.
I wonder if they'll have to test whether the car can drive by itself, because computers will be able to drive better than humans (eventually). Of course, then there will have to be a hidden switch or mode, much like the German pollution test scandal, so the driver can allow the vehicle to operate in non-autonomous mode for testing, and the driver will have to act like he's driving because he'll be on camera (at least in NASCAR). Interesting thought.
That is in fact what conservatism means. Keeping what has been found to work from previous generations. Of course, now days the 'progressives' will label you as racists for wanting to keep around what has made prosperity, when the problem with the poor is they haven't participated in the prosperity part, and think it's some mystery that is being kept from them.
The only Protestants that consistently follow anti contraceptive lifestyles are the Amish and Mennonites. Pretty much all of the leadership of all of the major Protestant groups have accepted birth control as OK, although some pockets exist that reject. And although the Catholic Church still rejects birth control, the membership use it at the same rates as the rest of the population. Anyways, most Christian groups are being hollowed out, although it may eventually stabilize at some much lower level when most of the inactives (who are really non-practicing people who are still on the membership rolls) die off, and what remains are the current actives and their children.
The solution would be for everybody to become their own boss, with the risks and difficulties associated with that. Such a system would be called distributism (regarding the distribution of ownership resulting in the distribution of profits), but many prefer the status quo, and will never go for a system where they must develop their own marketing, accounts receivable/collection, and having to base their income on their own competence.
Of course, socialism and capitalism both fundamentally suffer from the same problems, large entities (corps owned by successful capitalists v large corps effectively owned by politicians) that separate people from a portion of their profit to be redistributed up the chain and to other individuals in the system. If all of the management folks had to be productive in producing actual output instead of overseeing the productivity of others, we'd have an even better economy, with a much flatter distribution of wealth since their would be far less concentration through the economies of scale driving profits to a few at the top. I think it would ultimately improve things, but will never happen, and I don't want socialism because the relationship between me and those who run the companies goes from voluntary to mandatory which definitely reduces my freedom long term.
You have it backwards. The successes of socialism are built on prosperity that comes from successful capitalism, then the capitalists, by virtue of their influence with politicians pool their resources (by paying the most taxes) to build the infrastructure they need in order to do more of what they do. The fact that this is done doesn't steal any credibility from capitalism in favor of socialism. The roads are a shared resource that must be taken by everybody because nobody would do it by themselves. The same doesn't hold for basic income.
Each person should be allowed the freedom to prosper or suffer on their own. The suffering shows where opportunity is to be found, and by fixing that suffering, prosperity occurs. And when somebody legitimately needs help paying for their needs, that can appeal for charity from those who voluntarily give it instead of demanding that everybody give and nobody is ever allowed to say no or enough is enough.
Because once you have UBI, it will be seen as too weak or ineffective, and their will be demands to raise the UBI.
It's interesting that several UBI programs run in several locations sympathetic to the UBI have already been shutdown. What does that say about it making people's lives better?
Wouldn't it be better to compare fatalities/accidents broken down by the type of driving (highway or city) since they are a whole different beast, and the highway driving is easier, but likely to result in harder collisions where the city driving is more complicated but much lower speed but hopefully less likely to result in death.
You realize that nobody out of a room full of people has confirmed that he flashed the one at the party (not a rape) when there are probably plenty of Democrat leaning people that would have been in the room.
Think of this: Two Democratic Congresswomen including a Democratic Senator from California had this letter for 6 weeks, and didn't turn it over to the Senate until after the 3 days of hearings were over and the committee was within a day of voting to send it to Senate floor for the final vote. If she, a member of the committee, would have turned it in, it could have been investigated for a month before the hearings. The only reason to not turn it in was because they knew it was weak, or to hold it in reserve, then insist on a investigation that would take through the election in hopes that the Democrats would gain a majority in the Senate.
Consider, if there was a police report, or some other paperwork police had on file somewhere, then this would have been turned up before September, but this was an allegation that only existed in the mind of the accuser, who had never told anybody about this until 2012, 30 years after the fact. There is no amount of FBI effort that would ever have ever have turned this up until the letter was brought forward. Even if they tried investigating him by interviewing every person from his school wouldn't have turned this up. So no, this was absolutely an 11th hour revelation only brought out because the Democrats knew that they had no way of stopping his nomination except through libel and slander.
The woman who questioned Ford for the Republicans said this accusation is weaker than any 'she said, he said' allegation that would ever be tried in court.
The Democrats may be investigated for multiple ethics violations with regard to this matter, specifically withholding the letter, releasing it to the media when the letter asks for privacy, referring the accuser to lawyers who work for Soros (the Democrats version of the Kochs). The lawyers themselves are going to be investigated by the Bar for not protecting their clients privacy by failing to inform her that the committee was willing to interview her in private concerning the allegations because they (her lawyers and the Democrats) wanted her to testify in public, not to get to the truth but to make a media firestorm, when the accuser claims she wanted it handled privately. Ford herself has represented herself as a psychiatrist, but doesn't actually have a license to practice, making this the equivalent of a doctor or lawyer practicing without passing the necessary tests. She also may be investigated for denying any conversations during her testimony concerning passing lie detector tests when her boyfriend from the 90s claims she coached her best friend to pass a lie detector test (and also that she stole money from him by using his credit card after their breakup).
The fact is, there was never anything to discover, Ford is lying, and the whole reason it played out the way it did was to delay the confirmation hoping they could win a Senate majority, or sway some Republicans with false accusations.
Slashdot Mirror
But Monterrey Jack and Muenster (Aldi, $2/half pound) cheeses have pretty good flavor. To bad you can get them in a sandwich shop.
This is how foodies became a thing. Plenty of Americans have grown up eating flavorless or sugary cereal, mac & cheese from a box, processed peanut butter and American cheese, hot dogs, bologna, pizza with bad cheese, and too much bread and don't like anything with good flavor. We have struggled to get 3 of our children to like delicious food, and it's not like we aren't trying.
Perhaps we should do like my Mom's family who was pretty poor, and had to eat as inexpensively as possible. My Mom will eat anything reasonably edible because she had no choice when it was eat the inexpensive stuff with flavor you hate or go hungry. Hunger is the best appetizer.
Except it isn't gerrymandering, because gerrymandering is when the current politicians decide to sway the composition of Congress by drawing the lines on the map to influence who gets elected. But the 2 Senators per state was determined 230 years ago, and without out it, the small states would have refused to join the Union, and there would be no USA because the small states were afraid that the large states would have had the power to bully the small states due to their greater representation in the house, and the more popular party in those states would have been able to claim power by gerrymandering their house seats to claim enough to ensure one party rule.
The greater power in the US government for states with smaller population is a feature, not a bug. Don't worry, the system is working as intended.
Then increase the funding to the state schools. They are public universities, with a portion of the funds paid out of the state budget. If it's so good, put the funding up for a vote and let the people decide that paying higher taxes to reduce tuition for everybody is a good deal. If they say no, then somebody needs to do a better job of justifying the need.
You realize the salaries of the athletic department typically come from ticket sales and TV contracts, things which wouldn't exist without the coaches, support staff, etc.? The salaries are market determined values, and when a coach is failing, and has to have his contract paid off to get rid of him, the money usually comes from donations of rich supporters who want somebody better. The facilities are also paid for by donations from people who give specifically to build athletic facilities. If you eradicate the athletic programs (or severely limit salaries), the money won't magically get shifted to academics, the people who donate to the athletic programs will find other athletic programs to support, because that's where their interest lies.
Plus, if the state of your choice puts a limit of, say, a 1 million dollars on the coach of the football and basketball teams, and others are paying 3-7 million, what's going to be the quality of the team on the field. Even if you find a successful coach, in 3 or 4 years, somebody from another state without the limit will come and offer to double or triple the salary and take him away putting the school in question in jeopardy of missing on their next hire. It would be political suicide to limit the salaries of some of the most popular state employees when axing their salaries will send them out of state so rival school can come beat up the schools in your state.
Are university buildings built with student funds? Or donations from school supporters who want to fund academics? You might want to look into this issue before you attribute buildings for the high cost of education.
The costs are typically driven by the cost of teacher salaries and administrators. I often see complaints about how my state university has the lowest salaries for teachers. Increase them, and the costs of going to school for the students has to go up as well.
It seems we have compounding economic problems. Too much demand vs. supply, or too much money in the system being thrown at students to take loans that end up pushing the price up because poeple who can't afford it go, and end up increasing demand. If many couldn't pay and get loans, then they wouldn't go, and prices would go down because of lower demand.
It's only inflationary if prices of the goods and services you buy in the currency are going up. This depends on more than just how much money there is. You also have to factor in how many people have the currency to spend, and how many goods there are to spend them on. Let's say you have economic production of 1million eu (economic utility, ie goods and services), and you have 1million bc (bitcoins), then theoretically, assuming nobody's saving their bc, then the 1 million bc can buy the 1million eu at a price of 1eu=1bc. If we double the amount of bc to 2 million, but don't change the economy from the 1 million eu, then your 1bc only buys .5 eu, or put another way, your 1 eu now costs 2bc. There's your inflation.
In the real world with real currency, your money is becoming worthless, you better spend it before it becomes worth even less, so all of the money gets spent, and there inevitably results in the government not being able to meet it's obligations, and they start to print money which makes the problem worth and leads to hyperinflation.
On the other hand, if the money supply goes from 1M bc to .5M bc, then 1bc will be able to by 2eu, or 1 eu will only cost .5 bc. If you have liquidity, you'll be able to buy things on sale, because people will cut prices because they want to sell in order to get the limited bc. But the people who have it may decide to hold onto it hoping that the supply will go down more, making their money more valuable, and maybe they'll be able to buy even more with their bitcoin. Of course, you may see people produce more to try to make up their revenue deficiencies, but that just serves to increase supply when demand is low and pushes prices even lower.
The economic crash of a decade ago was partly caused by the fact that credit growth stalled, shrinking the amount of money that was expected to be moving through the system, and prices in the financial markets couldn't take the loss in liquidity. There is now 4 times as much debt liquidity in the market as their was 10 years ago (5 v 20 Trillion), and the next crisis should make the last look like a day in the park.
I've recently viewed a science video with my kids talking about breeding chickens to be more dinosaur like. If you've seen them run, you'd be impressed at how raptor like they probably are. Obviously the claws have been replaced by wings, but the frame and movement looks like it hasn't changed much in the last 70 million years.
PUBG is from Tencent which is a Chinese company, so they are banning a game that makes money from around the world to bring into the Chinese economy. Interesting that they would make this move that hurts a Chinese company as well as it's non-Chinese competitor. It almost seems they did this more based on other factors.
I used to pay $25 per month for basic cable. Now I pay $12 for Hulu with no commercials. And after we watch the 12-15 series of programs that are interesting to us, (It would probably take about 3-5 years at our pace), then we may consider only having the service in Oct-Dec (watch new episodes from Sept-December), then again in February and April-May),and we could probably catch all of our shows for about $36-$48/yr. Not a bad deal considering the alternatives.
The Hulu customers who would see these ads are paying $8 to see the content with ads instead of paying $12 to never see an ad. I just signed up for the $12 plan, and my only complaint is CBS isn't putting their current content on there, but I'm not willing to pay CBS's fee which is almost the same as the cost of HBO or Showtime.
Considering studies show that porn probably reduces grey matter meaning it makes you dumb, perhaps there is a public interest in reducing consumption of porn, unless you want us to create Idiocracy.
The pill basically works on women primarily by chemically simulating pregnancy, in order to suppress ovulation. So, you can either get pregnant or have many of the effects of pregnancy except having the baby and most of the weight gain, plus an increased chance of cancer (at least some of the various forms of the pill are classified as carcinogens).
If fact, almost all forms of contraceptives are disliked because of the various side effects. They are just disliked less than having a pregnancy and decades of child care. For instance, vasectomy has several side effects, including many that don't show up for years or decades: https://www.mayoclinic.org/tes...
It's not about direct competition, it's about who is spending the money. With Microsoft, a huge portion of their revenue comes from companies who have to spend the money to make money. It's just another cost of business, when the next market downturn happens, they'll lose companies that go bankrupt, but the rest of their customers will still have to spend to use their computers. Now, I was just reading an article on with an analyst who is thinking along the same lines as myself:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/28...
Apple on the other hand depends largely upon people's disposable incomes. If I'm somebody who makes 200k, the extra cost of buying Apple products isn't much of a consideration on what I'm buying, I'll choose based on device control, ease of use, image, features, etc. But somebody who makes 30k a year, maybe they decide to by a $50 instead of a $1000 iPhone. Unfortunately for Apple, when recessions hit, the people who are hit hardest are often people who make more money. Teachers, nurses, firefighters, etc are not laid off at near the rate of high earners in corporations that cut upper management, and commissioned sales people have a more difficult time closing deals as money becomes scarce.
So, when the next crisis happens in the markets, possibly when the next recession starts, probably due to the Fed raising rates and pulling money out of the markets through a reverse quantitative easing, Apple is likely to be harder hit with lost sales. I'm not against Apple, I'm just saying that business wise, their eggs are in a basket that's going to be harder hit by recession. I have no idea who will be ahead 5, 10 or 20 years from now. If I knew that, I'd put my money where my mouth is and invest accordingly. But I'm not certain, and that's not a risk I want to take on either company right now.
I'd be interested to see what percentage of Microsoft's money comes from installs v consumer products. Microsoft probably makes most of their money from companies having it on the server, and collecting desktops to domain servers, collecting seat licenses of $100s of dollars per year for Office, Outlook, seat licenses for various packages, etc. Obviously, every machine shipped by all of the computer makers gives some money to Microsoft, but when you can go a decade between replacements, that drops your annual cost to about $5/yr/machine. The important thing about the home machines is it keeps people on Windows so it's easier to keep people on it, and employees can trust most people to know it when hiring employees.
As for the current stock price, I think Microsoft is more stable due to their strength in the corporate world, and so during the next down turn, they'll probably weather the storm the best. When luxury returns during the next recovery, I'd expect the other companies to outperform and some will pass Microsoft, since more people will be able to afford Apple's luxury items during times when things are improving.
If it continues to drop, it will collapse. Currently, the search "what is the cost of mining bitcoin" on google says that the cost of mining a bitcoin in the US is around $4750, depending on your cost of electricity. Venezuela and many Middle East and nearby countries have costs of half as much, but there are only a couple of dozen where the current cost makes it feasible long term unless something changes. After all, if the cost drops below the cost of electricity, then the miners that help transactions be completed should eventually quit, destroying the processing network. Of course, if they do, mining costs per coin could go down as fewer miners remain active, and those that stay get may get more coins for the same total costs, spreading the costs across more coins.
Some technical analysts may think they can predict the market for various coins. Maybe they can, but the price has been in a slide for nearly a year, and it's always important to respect the trend, which means the price is more likely to go down than up, meaning I wouldn't buy at any price ever until their was good reason to see a turn around, and I'd just as soon have my money in a company that actually has revenues and profits that provide a floor for prices.
Is British Socialized medicine what you would recommend? Where soon, patients who've been diagnosed and have long term illnesses will need to visit with their doctors in groups with 14 other patients in order to ration the amount of time patients get? (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/10/05/gps-see-patients-groups-15/) If that's what people want, I don't suppose I'll be allowed to object?
You do realize that the cost of insurance will be included in the cost of your ride. If the owner can get rid of the insurance, we'll probably still end up paying some of that because that cost is included in the cost of the alternatives. Of course, when almost all the alternatives have no cost of insurance, this hidden cost will be reduced as the various companies cut prices to compete for market share.
I wonder if they'll have to test whether the car can drive by itself, because computers will be able to drive better than humans (eventually). Of course, then there will have to be a hidden switch or mode, much like the German pollution test scandal, so the driver can allow the vehicle to operate in non-autonomous mode for testing, and the driver will have to act like he's driving because he'll be on camera (at least in NASCAR). Interesting thought.
You'd think they'd love to have all of the American liberals that are threatening to flee, so shore up their liberal majority.
That is in fact what conservatism means. Keeping what has been found to work from previous generations. Of course, now days the 'progressives' will label you as racists for wanting to keep around what has made prosperity, when the problem with the poor is they haven't participated in the prosperity part, and think it's some mystery that is being kept from them.
The only Protestants that consistently follow anti contraceptive lifestyles are the Amish and Mennonites. Pretty much all of the leadership of all of the major Protestant groups have accepted birth control as OK, although some pockets exist that reject. And although the Catholic Church still rejects birth control, the membership use it at the same rates as the rest of the population. Anyways, most Christian groups are being hollowed out, although it may eventually stabilize at some much lower level when most of the inactives (who are really non-practicing people who are still on the membership rolls) die off, and what remains are the current actives and their children.
The solution would be for everybody to become their own boss, with the risks and difficulties associated with that. Such a system would be called distributism (regarding the distribution of ownership resulting in the distribution of profits), but many prefer the status quo, and will never go for a system where they must develop their own marketing, accounts receivable/collection, and having to base their income on their own competence.
Of course, socialism and capitalism both fundamentally suffer from the same problems, large entities (corps owned by successful capitalists v large corps effectively owned by politicians) that separate people from a portion of their profit to be redistributed up the chain and to other individuals in the system. If all of the management folks had to be productive in producing actual output instead of overseeing the productivity of others, we'd have an even better economy, with a much flatter distribution of wealth since their would be far less concentration through the economies of scale driving profits to a few at the top. I think it would ultimately improve things, but will never happen, and I don't want socialism because the relationship between me and those who run the companies goes from voluntary to mandatory which definitely reduces my freedom long term.
You have it backwards. The successes of socialism are built on prosperity that comes from successful capitalism, then the capitalists, by virtue of their influence with politicians pool their resources (by paying the most taxes) to build the infrastructure they need in order to do more of what they do. The fact that this is done doesn't steal any credibility from capitalism in favor of socialism. The roads are a shared resource that must be taken by everybody because nobody would do it by themselves. The same doesn't hold for basic income.
Each person should be allowed the freedom to prosper or suffer on their own. The suffering shows where opportunity is to be found, and by fixing that suffering, prosperity occurs. And when somebody legitimately needs help paying for their needs, that can appeal for charity from those who voluntarily give it instead of demanding that everybody give and nobody is ever allowed to say no or enough is enough.
Because once you have UBI, it will be seen as too weak or ineffective, and their will be demands to raise the UBI.
It's interesting that several UBI programs run in several locations sympathetic to the UBI have already been shutdown. What does that say about it making people's lives better?
Wouldn't it be better to compare fatalities/accidents broken down by the type of driving (highway or city) since they are a whole different beast, and the highway driving is easier, but likely to result in harder collisions where the city driving is more complicated but much lower speed but hopefully less likely to result in death.
You realize that nobody out of a room full of people has confirmed that he flashed the one at the party (not a rape) when there are probably plenty of Democrat leaning people that would have been in the room.
Nobody believes the gang rape story.
Think of this: Two Democratic Congresswomen including a Democratic Senator from California had this letter for 6 weeks, and didn't turn it over to the Senate until after the 3 days of hearings were over and the committee was within a day of voting to send it to Senate floor for the final vote. If she, a member of the committee, would have turned it in, it could have been investigated for a month before the hearings. The only reason to not turn it in was because they knew it was weak, or to hold it in reserve, then insist on a investigation that would take through the election in hopes that the Democrats would gain a majority in the Senate.
Consider, if there was a police report, or some other paperwork police had on file somewhere, then this would have been turned up before September, but this was an allegation that only existed in the mind of the accuser, who had never told anybody about this until 2012, 30 years after the fact. There is no amount of FBI effort that would ever have ever have turned this up until the letter was brought forward. Even if they tried investigating him by interviewing every person from his school wouldn't have turned this up. So no, this was absolutely an 11th hour revelation only brought out because the Democrats knew that they had no way of stopping his nomination except through libel and slander.
The woman who questioned Ford for the Republicans said this accusation is weaker than any 'she said, he said' allegation that would ever be tried in court.
The Democrats may be investigated for multiple ethics violations with regard to this matter, specifically withholding the letter, releasing it to the media when the letter asks for privacy, referring the accuser to lawyers who work for Soros (the Democrats version of the Kochs). The lawyers themselves are going to be investigated by the Bar for not protecting their clients privacy by failing to inform her that the committee was willing to interview her in private concerning the allegations because they (her lawyers and the Democrats) wanted her to testify in public, not to get to the truth but to make a media firestorm, when the accuser claims she wanted it handled privately. Ford herself has represented herself as a psychiatrist, but doesn't actually have a license to practice, making this the equivalent of a doctor or lawyer practicing without passing the necessary tests. She also may be investigated for denying any conversations during her testimony concerning passing lie detector tests when her boyfriend from the 90s claims she coached her best friend to pass a lie detector test (and also that she stole money from him by using his credit card after their breakup).
The fact is, there was never anything to discover, Ford is lying, and the whole reason it played out the way it did was to delay the confirmation hoping they could win a Senate majority, or sway some Republicans with false accusations.