alexeisadeski3

15 ms·

31.
by alexeisadeski3 12y ago
>A ban of the technology would pretty... unprecedented It would not.
32.
by alexeisadeski3 12y ago
I thought ISIS is the state now? The Taliban certainly were, and they did similar things. Not to mention 15th C Spain.
33.
by alexeisadeski3 12y ago
>That means less transparency, less control, less tax revenue, reduced government influence. That doesn't sound good to you??
34.
by alexeisadeski3 12y ago
>...bubble can only blow up so much. I'm no housing bull, but this is simply not true. Even after NYC was established, everything north of Wall Street (where there was a wall) was farmland.
35.
by alexeisadeski3 12y ago
>Of course, if a centralized business is in the middle, you can regulate that Who else will run the BTC ATM on each end of the transaction?
36.
by alexeisadeski3 12y ago
>Ignoring fees for a moment, if there are Bitcoin ATMs on both ends of the remittance transaction, it's pretty easy for the participants. Why wouldn't international BTC transfers be regulated the same as international currency
37.
Depersonalize the key questions(marginalrevolution.com)
1 points by alexeisadeski3 12y ago|0 comments
38.
How Inherited Wealth Helps the Economy(nytimes.com)
2 points by alexeisadeski3 12y ago|0 comments
39.
by alexeisadeski3 12y ago
1. IQ 2. Think he meant necessary.
40.
Picking apart Picketty(themoneyillusion.com)
4 points by alexeisadeski3 12y ago|0 comments
41.
by alexeisadeski3 12y ago
Pay not at parity = problem Participation not at parity = problem Harassment suits not at parity = everything is fine?
42.
by alexeisadeski3 12y ago
Every single real or perceived slight is a result of one's gender/color/orientation. We all know that white men are never slighted.
43.
My interview with Ralph Nader(marginalrevolution.com)
2 points by alexeisadeski3 12y ago|0 comments
44.
by alexeisadeski3 12y ago
I wonder if a large cohort of middle class individuals have recently retired.
45.
by alexeisadeski3 12y ago
I just don't get the controversy. Anything which is permissible for a piloted bomber to destroy is surely okay for a drone to destroy as well, yes? Why the focus on drones per se? Yes, civilian deaths are bad. Yes, war is bad. Yes, per
46.
by alexeisadeski3 12y ago
The wealthier folks were simply less leveraged: 1. If you own 10% equity in a home which declines in value 20%, you now have negative wealth. A 200% decline. 2. If you own 50% equity in a home which declines in value 20%, you have suffered
47.
by alexeisadeski3 12y ago
To be wealthy means that one possesses sufficient wealth (stuff) to live comfortably even after they quite their job. The bastardized term of "wealth" used here, however, refers simply to material possessions even when not in suff
48.
by alexeisadeski3 12y ago
Those describe downward pressure on income , not wealth necessarily: None of these would lead to a decrease in wealth so quickly, except for situations in which the wealth had to be consumed to make up for loss of job / disability &
49.
by alexeisadeski3 12y ago
I don't know. Probably pretty low. Which is why it shouldn't be surprising that so many have zero or near zero wealth.
50.
by alexeisadeski3 12y ago
The point is that it doesn't tell you anything about "wealth inequality" insofar as the socialists whom push this discussion want it to.
51.
by alexeisadeski3 12y ago
Haha awesome. Though I imagine that surpassing "2009 levels" is not very exciting. Wake me up when they surpass 2005 levels!
52.
by alexeisadeski3 12y ago
>>However, household GINI is definitely the more relevant figure... Not relevant to the point OP made. Whether or not it's "better," it still impacts the numbers.
53.
by alexeisadeski3 12y ago
Irrelevant.
54.
by alexeisadeski3 12y ago
2003 was when the stock market recovered.[1] The wealth of the rich is highly correlated with the stock market. [1] http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=%5EGSPC+Interactive#symbo...
55.
by alexeisadeski3 12y ago
That would explain only a slowing in the rate of wealth increase, not a decrease in wealth.
56.
by alexeisadeski3 12y ago
If you take a minute to consider the demographics involved and the nature of wealth, it is neither depressing nor surprising nor even "bad". Consider, for example, that many people have negative wealth.
57.
by alexeisadeski3 12y ago
Income and wealth are quite different topics...
58.
by alexeisadeski3 12y ago
Converting home equity to consumption is my guess. Remember HELOCs?
59.
by alexeisadeski3 12y ago
Long story short: The wealth of non rich Americans is almost entirely contained in their highly leveraged houses. If housing prices collapse, their wealth collapses. In 2008, housing prices collapsed.
60.
by alexeisadeski3 12y ago
Hurting people is already illegal.

More ›