snrplfth

15 ms·

91.
by snrplfth 10y ago
Not sure that "too many people in prisons for victimless crimes" and "tax law that makes employer-tied healthcare almost inevitable" are aspects of society's permissiveness .
92.
by snrplfth 10y ago
There are definitely many variable-tolled roads. The trouble is that frequently they are embedded in a system of non-tolled (or, really, not-allowed-to-be-tolled) roads, and that the tolling is not well-focused on congestion. Basically, the
93.
by snrplfth 10y ago
Normally you would do this through prices, but most roads don't work that way.
94.
by snrplfth 10y ago
Getting the material is not that difficult for a determined group. Truly dangerous isotopes like caesium-137 or strontium-90 are both used for medical and other applications, and have both been accidentally released from non-military source
95.
by snrplfth 10y ago
The point of a dirty bomb is less so the actual effects of the radiation, and moreso the impression it gives and the fear it generates. The public is not easily reassured that an area that's been deliberately contaminated with radioact
96.
by snrplfth 10y ago
Yes, aggregate demand is increased but aggregate savings, which are the source of investment, are decreased. Those assets of the minority, we're assuming, are also productive. So the prices of the assets purchased by those with 's
97.
by snrplfth 10y ago
Yes, I suppose I can see how they might want that - I don't think it means that Uber is really obligated to give them anything though.
98.
by snrplfth 10y ago
Oh okay, that makes sense.
99.
by snrplfth 10y ago
I think what tomcam was wondering was where Uber specifically claimed to be public transportation.
100.
by snrplfth 10y ago
Agreed. It seems that this is just because there's some precedence with the taxis, but that doesn't mean it should be expanded. If Uber wanted to sell or give away data, properly anonymized and in accordance with their terms of se
101.
by snrplfth 10y ago
Yes, an increase in real value of redistribution should raise the reservation wage and suggests increased wages for those people in the (somewhat smaller) labour force, but it will require higher taxes on those income-earners, reducing thei
102.
by snrplfth 10y ago
Those 200 years supply refers to currently known reserves , which is to say, lithium whose location is known, has been proven to be present at a certain level, and is economically feasible to extract with current technology. There's l
103.
by snrplfth 10y ago
Well, I think advocates of UBI arguing that it would encourage growth by stimulating spending are ignoring the fact that a tax-funded UBI would take money from elsewhere. It doesn't necessarily matter what advocates of UBI say about it
104.
by snrplfth 10y ago
Because claiming that UBI will cause inflation is not justified by an understanding of Economics 101. Most basic economic theory will state that inflation is basically a monetary phenomenon. (Now, if you use monetary expansion to pay for
105.
by snrplfth 10y ago
Why would the New York Times complain when Team Blue was winning?
106.
by snrplfth 10y ago
Good thing we just invented replicators.
107.
by snrplfth 10y ago
I have flown first class, not international business. Yes, there is of course a range of first class experiences. Many include expensive additional services. But a sigificant component of the cost is simply that first class carries fewer pe
108.
by snrplfth 10y ago
But first class largely costs more because of its larger legroom. Certainly there's no problem with having a long-legroom-but-no-frills class of seats. Indeed, unbundling services would probably facilitate this.
109.
by snrplfth 10y ago
Well, maybe you could have a price-compare thing, and that seems vaguely reasonable, but what everybody seems to be talking about and demanding is that there be a required bundling of certain services. A mere labelling is quite different.
110.
by snrplfth 10y ago
>"did you ever had guests in your home? did you ever have them full day inside, and didn't give them a single thing to eat the whole time? (ie those magical 14 hours). well of course no, you're not an a__hole, right?"
111.
by snrplfth 10y ago
I just don't think that "seeing what is included in a airline ticket" is all that complicated, or that it is simpler somehow than deciding on, administrating, and enforcing a "standard bundle" on all these different
112.
by snrplfth 10y ago
I am not labelling all paid services as luxuries. But some are, and different people will consider different things luxuries. I mean, what is discomfort? (Should seats be leather, say? Should they recline? How far?) How much is choosing a s
113.
by snrplfth 10y ago
I think it's anti-humanistic to say that, because a small number of people are born a particular way, that others must be charged more money so that they can be accommodated by more services than they would want consume. See? It's
114.
by snrplfth 10y ago
Yes, it might do so. Depends on how expensive the services are and how easy the process is. But what annoys me is the attitude of "I prefer that Service X and Service Y be bundled together, therefore it should be mandatory that they ar
115.
by snrplfth 10y ago
A hundred billion here, a hundred billion there; pretty soon you're talking real money.
116.
by snrplfth 10y ago
>"Food service is efficient. It comes in bulk, everyone gets served, everyone eats, everyone throws things away, done." Great. If an airline finds that it is more efficient that they bundle food with the ticket price, then more
117.
by snrplfth 10y ago
I was responding to both. I simply do not agree with the idea that, if they were required to bundle these services together at some set level of service, that this would somehow make airlines unable to increase the prices. What I suggest
118.
by snrplfth 10y ago
So people should have to buy more expensive services, bundled in a way they don't like, want or need, just so others can have the price for those services hidden in the overall price? Why? If somebody wants to carry a lot of luggage on
119.
by snrplfth 10y ago
Okay, but if you are, on net, not paying in more to the system than you're getting, then someone is going to have to pay that difference. You cannot maintain all those social programs, and a UBI, without those very large tax increase
120.
by snrplfth 10y ago
To pay all adults in the US (240 million) a UBI of $13,000 would require $3.1 trillion. The entire US federal budget (which is still in deficit by $500 billion) is $3.8 trillion. That can't be made up just with a little bit of increase

More ›