Jabanga

49 ms·

421.
by Jabanga 10y ago
Historically that's not what has happened. Before the era of government education, education was improving rapidly, with literacy rates rising. As government involvement in education has increased, education outcomes have stopped impro
422.
by Jabanga 10y ago
I don't think that's very constructive. The parent comment said [X] should be the rallying cry. I said in my opinion it shouldn't, and I gave my rationale. By all means bring out your chestnuts. I welcome a rigorous discussio
423.
by Jabanga 10y ago
I don't see any basis for that. Substantial taxes could very well reduce how much one can invest into their own children. I also don't see how other countries doing it is a justification.
424.
by Jabanga 10y ago
How redistributive were public schools 100 years ago, when they were almost exclusively paid for by local taxes within communities where people had very similar levels of income, and when education spending as a share of GDP was miniscule c
425.
by Jabanga 10y ago
But that's not a justification. That's just telling me we do this a lot.
426.
by Jabanga 10y ago
How are they being shafted? As for whether they deserve to be born rich, poor, smart, dumb, it's not for the government to say who deserves to be born with what.
427.
by Jabanga 10y ago
I mean some people are born smarter than others. Maybe low IQ people deserve a monthly stipend, that high-IQ people are forced to pay, to compensate them for how unfair the universe was to them. I'm sorry for the facetiousness, but I j
428.
by Jabanga 10y ago
But we're not punishing them. We're simply not taking, by force, money from one person, to spend it raising the children of another. If we force people to subsidize other people's poor children, we create perverse incentives
429.
by Jabanga 10y ago
I personally disagree that this should be the rallying cry. Why should someone who invests nothing in their own children get to see their children have equal opportunities to the children of another person who invests everything into their
430.
by Jabanga 10y ago
Does Status use SPV?
431.
by Jabanga 10y ago
>There are reasons that zoning laws exist The reasons aren't compelling to me. It's essentially biased toward money changing hands. Invite different people over every night and do drugs, get drunk and have sex? It's your g
432.
by Jabanga 10y ago
The shocking level of economic ignorance of the author shows how utterly irresponsible and demagogic the Guardian is. This is rank sensationalism at the expense of public's correct perception of the world. To call earning passive incom
433.
by Jabanga 10y ago
I don't have time at the moment to compile all of the sources I've seen indicating that income redistribution harms growth, so I can't provide much substance to support my claim. I'll just say that the decline in wage gr
434.
by Jabanga 10y ago
Income statistics adjust for inflation, so if housing costs go up, that will be reflected as lower real income. Your point, that "low income" doesn't do an effective job at describing the specific problem of rising rents, has
435.
by Jabanga 10y ago
There were seven great houses in the Sassanid empire and in the last years of the empire, they had been in conflict with the Sassanid court in South West Iran due to, according to some historians, years of overtaxing to support the war agai
436.
by Jabanga 10y ago
The way I see it, lack of affordable housing is part of that 'low income problem' I alluded to. It's one component of, for lack of a better term, material poverty. I agree, Western economies have done a poor job on housing af
437.
by Jabanga 10y ago
Yes I can definitely see a lot problems that can emerge from it, but making it illegal I think will cause more problems than it solves, and fundamentally goes against the principles of a free society. I do think desperate people are capable
438.
by Jabanga 10y ago
My point is that it's the low income of those who can't afford housing that is the problem, not the fact that others have higher income than them (not the fact that there's income inequality). If a causal relationship could b
439.
by Jabanga 10y ago
You're right, my initial comment was too vague.
440.
by Jabanga 10y ago
That shows no faith in me as a human being.
441.
by Jabanga 10y ago
No I meant legal, as a politician in the article is quoted as saying they will introduce legislation to make it illegal.
442.
by Jabanga 10y ago
If the landlords were just as poor as those desperate for a home, then everyone would be worse off, even though society would be more equal. The solution is to make society richer, so fewer people are desperate. The solution is not to remov
443.
by Jabanga 10y ago
This should be legal.
444.
by Jabanga 10y ago
Not disagreeing with the general thrust of your argument, but she would have been significantly larger than the monkeys, so not sure if being ill-equipped to fight would have been her biggest problem.
445.
by Jabanga 10y ago
IIRC, that's one mining pool, not one miner. The power of mining pools is relatively limited. If the workers see that the pool is attacking Namecoin and devaluing their NMC (not to mention ruining a cool project), they're liable t
446.
by Jabanga 10y ago
Here's Namecoin's perspective on it: https://namecoin.org/docs/faq/#how-does-namecoin-compare-to-...
447.
by Jabanga 10y ago
A little known fact: the Namecoin blockchain's cost-adjusted hashrate [1] is the third highest in the world, after Bitcoin and Ethereum, making it unusually secure given its relative obscurity (e.g. its market capitalisation is only $1
448.
by Jabanga 10y ago
Pleasure!
449.
by Jabanga 10y ago
The problems related to blockchains are very well known. Blockchains have been used extensively at this point, for highly critical applications. They're the most censorship resistant platforms known to exist.
450.
by Jabanga 10y ago
That's what they're doing: >During the past years, many research groups have experimented and designed various secure name systems (e.g. GNS, Namecoin, Blockstack). Each of these systems has its own strengths and weaknesses, as

More ›