spupe

9 ms·

61.
by spupe 4y ago
Stock buybacks also increase stock prices, and a lot of companies are doing it lately.
62.
by spupe 4y ago
I see. The issue with this line of argument is that the gold standard is not good for several of the things we want currencies to do, including the ability to control their supply. It might seem like simply debasing gold coins as you say, b
63.
by spupe 4y ago
You talk as if governments are necessarily adversarial, and as if I as an average citizen would prefer that the monetary control lies with anonymous wealthy individuals rather than an electable body of representatives.
64.
by spupe 4y ago
Central banks have very rational reasons to exist. Do you have any examples of an economy operating better without a central bank?
65.
by spupe 4y ago
> Bitcoin is a long term bet on collapse. Honest question: if you truly believe that, how do you account for the infrastructure required to mine it in a post-apocalyptic society? How do you guys envision a post-apocalyptic world where BT
66.
by spupe 4y ago
Stable or cryptocurrency, pick one.
67.
by spupe 4y ago
Musk is milking every single drop of attention he can get out of this deal, and in the end he might not even do it.
68.
by spupe 4y ago
Yeah, this is the dark side of all this "diamond hands", "to the moon" bullshit. A handful of winners, a majority of losers, and some people going complete bankrupt because they are foolish.
69.
by spupe 4y ago
In that scenario, I don't think anybody is using Bitcoins either.
70.
by spupe 4y ago
I think most people know about it, but I just learned about it recently: https://datasetsearch.research.google.com/
71.
by spupe 4y ago
>> most popular cryptocurrency in the world has plummeted more than 50% from its all-time highs > Which it has done numerous times in its short life. Perhaps making a highly unstable, speculative cryptocurrency legal tender is a ba
72.
by spupe 4y ago
I am not arguing about the other governments you mentioned, I am arguing that it is simply incorrect to use "size of government" as a measure of how "left" a country is, particularly when using the US as an example. The
73.
by spupe 4y ago
> One thing to take into account is inflation. Rich people don't contribute to everyday inflation as much. Distribute money from rich to poor and you have the price of jets and basketball teams going down but the price of cheeseburg
74.
by spupe 4y ago
> Because I am unsure where to get data on the 10,000. If you find it, I will absolutely udpdate. I just sourced an income distribution based on percentiles, you can do the same with wealth. > The poorest 10 million Americans likely p
75.
by spupe 4y ago
At which point in time did we normalize saying "I hate/don't want to be near white people"? It's blatantly racist.
76.
by spupe 4y ago
None of these sources support the accusation being made.
77.
by spupe 4y ago
> Unless your baseline is "Nordic countries" or similar, the US is pretty far to the left. How about most of Europe and Latin America? It is hard to define what "left" means nowadays but it is telling that you believe
78.
by spupe 4y ago
Several unchecked assumptions and fallacies here. > I have created a list of the 61 richest Americans. Their combined net worth is $2.3T. Last year the feds spent $6.8T against revenue of $3.8T and a deficit of $3.0T. If the feds had suc
79.
by spupe 4y ago
Salon nowadays is such a joke. This piece could not be more formulaic if it tried.
80.
by spupe 4y ago
Fastest growing as defined by number of engagements on social media, in one single study. The only thing worse than a puff piece is social media commentary on a puff piece disguised as some sort of analysis.
81.
by spupe 4y ago
People have a hard time differentiating times when they were innocent from innocent times.
82.
by spupe 4y ago
It's a good analogy, but that study was retracted: https://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2018/feb/1...
83.
by spupe 4y ago
The problem with this approach is that it is very malleable. Technology also changed immensely from when the Founders mentioned "arms", but I would think Conservatives would have a hard time accepting this particular "evoluti
84.
by spupe 4y ago
> They didn't say they "would not change Roe" they said they recognized "Roe is precedent." As explained above, precedent can be overturned. You are right about this point, upon further reading I see that I based
85.
by spupe 4y ago
Why did they wait 50 years to correct this obvious outlier? And why did several of the judges lie to Congress when they said they would not change Roe? One would think they could publicly announce their views if they were purely technical.
86.
by spupe 4y ago
Many things don't appear in the Constitution. I'm sure they didn't magically find a hidden paragraph in 2015 regulating marriage equality. What happened there, and is happening with abortions, is that different ideological gr
87.
by spupe 4y ago
> It is not the first time that a longstanding doctrine has been completely thrown out, even after a gap of decades. Courts aren't infallible. Are they supposed to persist in error forever? Again, this dichotomy only arises if you s
88.
by spupe 4y ago
Yes, I was referring to how the nomination was stolen from Obama. The nominee they had in mind was in fact moderate, and in the past Congress had never wielded its power to block a nomination because it was done in the last year of a presid
89.
by spupe 4y ago
I would imagine that there is criticism for every decision the Court has ever made. However, this one has been challenged numerous times over these 50 years and stayed in place. Either we believe that law is a purely technical matter and th
90.
by spupe 4y ago
I also find the American Supreme Court decisions to be surprisingly accessible, while in my and other countries there is a lot of obfuscation. That said, I'm not sure I have the same feeling as you reading some of these decisions. Law

More ›