Even if Berkshire Hathaway has a market capitalization over one trillion, which I don't believe it does, $160 billion is 16% of one trillion, so it's not exactly "pocketchange for a rainy day"
I'm not sure if it's realistic to offset all our printing with increases in taxation. I think the money trickles up exactly the way you described, and I agree that government programs should be paid for by taxation instead of money printing--but what can be taxed to make up the multi-trillion dollar difference?
Consider that the federal government collected revenues of $3.5 trillion in 2019, or more than $10,000 for every person in the country. State revenues combined were more than $1 trillion in 2019, for a total average tax liability of about $13,600 per-capita. I don't see a realistic way to double or triple that revenue number while taxing income alone (and citizens would naturally demand a commensurate increase in government services if such a tax increase applied at lower-income levels).
Taxing wealth or ownership in companies is another route, but individuals who own any notable percentage of a public company are naturally very mobile, and could easily change their country of residence to somewhere more tax-friendly (like former Google CEO Eric Schmidt may be planning).
It seems like a difficult position to be in for the government.
JUCE is a cross-platform C++ library used by lots of synth software and VSTS plugins. While JUCE itself is open-source, there's not a lot of high-quality sample projects (that I'm aware of). Helm looks awesome, and it's exciting to see a great example using JUCE.
Perhaps people feel overtaxed, not in absolute terms, but relative to the services provided? The US Gov collected approximately 3.3T in revenue in FY2016--more than $10,000 for every person in the country. By comparison, the Netherlands collected 255B Euros from a population of 17M, or about $17k USD per person (2016 figure, according to OECD statistics). Clearly, a much higher number at the federal level, but they have a much lower average provincial tax (~$1,500) compared to the average state tax in the US, which varies widely, but averages out to about $4,800, bringing the totals to ~$14,800/person in the US, vs ~$18,500 in the Netherlands. Yes, the Dutch pay a 25% premium, but in my opinion they get a good ROI for their tax dollars. I think the issue of ROI is a major barrier to increasing tax rates in the US.
It's a shame JPay charges just for sending electronic messages to inmates. I wonder why someone would choose to use JPay instead of sending a letter? I can't imagine inmates would significantly benefit from the reduced delivery time...
The problem with lead is that it tends to bio-accumulate in various types of body tissue, making blood lead levels hard to bring down. Chronic exposure builds up over time. I also disagree that 483 tons is "a very small amount of pollution". Lead cannot be compared with more typical pollutants like CO2. A better comparison might be mercury, which measured 52 tons emitted in 2011. I still won't say 52 tons is small, but it's a lot better than 483!
I want to reiterate that small propeller planes that seat 2-6 people make up virtually the entire market for leaded aviation fuel. Larger propeller planes typically have turboprop engines which burn kerosene like most jet/commercial aircraft. There is a big cost upon society caused by a small number of people, for something that is completely unnecessary (private air travel).
Adults and children in the US today today are still being poisoned by leaded fuel. Aviation fuel, or "Avgas" is still leaded, and is a major problem around municipal airports. Leaded aviation fuel is used by planes which use internal combustion engines instead of cleaner, more powerful, and more expensive jet engines. Most of these small planes are for personal use.
In 2011, 483 tons of lead were emitted so a small group of prosperous people can enjoy private air travel. EPA data from the same year shows airports as the top source of lead emissions in 42 states [0].
I think the costs of lead abatement should be included in the price of AvGas, or its use should be discontinued entirely.
[0] U.S. EPA. Calculating Piston-Engine Aircraft Airport Inventories for Lead for the 2011 National Emissions Inventory. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA-420-B-13-040, 2013. Page 5
I wonder if using wood (2x4's, OSB) as a structural material has a negative impact on long-term durability. In North America, virtually all residential single-family construction is wood-frame, which is unusual compared to most other countries.
Masonry, insulating concrete forms (ICF), and poured concrete have superior fire-resistance, insulating properties (thermal and acoustic), and strength--and no need to worry about termites.
I don't fully understand why wood-frame construction still dominates, even in the "luxury" segment, but I think it's related to strong consumer preference for large homes. Given a fixed budget, you can build a larger house using wood compared to almost any other material (factoring in labor, e.g. 'compressed earth' construction uses cheap material and more labor). But the preference for larger homes doesn't explain why wood-framing is so popular in areas where construction costs are very low relative to land-value.
Interesting question! I'll give my take on it, which ties the answer to a 1942 wartime court case called Wickard v. Filburn.
The Tenth Amendment states the powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the States or to the people. The existence of some federal agencies may contradict the 10th Amendment, but the US Gov. has good reason to set policies on nuclear material regulation (Dept. of Energy), or airspace rules (FAA), and many other policy areas which could not have been foreseen at the time of the Constitution. The Framers of the Constitution could have written a clause allowing the government to regulate alcohol, cannabis, or any of the intoxicating drugs that existed at the time (opium?), but they didn't, so what is the basis for the 1970's Controlled Substances Act?
The specific precedent utilized by the CSA is based a very, very loose interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause, which states the Federal Government has power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". This clause is important to prevent States from placing taxes and tariffs on goods from other States, but in a 1942 wartime decision the Supreme Court greatly expanded the interpretation of this clause, giving power to the federal government to regulate or prohibit any economic activity (including economic activity involving drugs).
In 1942 the US Government had placed quotas on wheat production to stabilize prices during wartime (side note, the government no longer uses quotas to accomplish price stabilization, but instead the USDA will buy crops directly when surpluses develop). Filburn had grown more wheat than his allotted quota and was fined for producing too much. Filburn argued that because he never sold the extra grain and grew it for use on his farm (animal feed), the quota did not apply because it would not enter the market. The case made it up to the Supreme Court, which ruled against Filburn on the basis that no production is strictly local because any surplus on Filburn's part would affect the amount of grain he bought, which would percolate through the market in aggregate. You can read more about the Wickard v. Filburn case on Wikipedia. That decision ultimately gave the US Government the power to regulate any economic activity.
I'm not familiar with Dr. Marston, but Wikipedia tells me he was "an American psychologist, inventor of an early prototype of the lie detector, self-help author, and comic book writer who created the character Wonder Woman."
He was in a long-term polyamorous relationship with two women, but that only adds support for Erik816's point that polyamorous relationships benefit high-status men... do you disagree that Dr. Marsten was a high-status person during his lifetime?
The water contamination crisis in Flint, MI has brought attention to the dangers of lead exposure and aging infrastructure. The problems in Flint will be expensive to fix, but many people are not aware of other "low hanging fruit" in this area. For example, aviation fuel is still leaded, and the national estimate of lead emissions from the consumption of leaded AvGas was 483 tons in 2011, according to the EPA's National Emissions Inventory [0]. Furthermore, the same NEI data shows airports as the top source of lead emissions in 42 states (according to 2011 NEI data).
Leaded aviation fuel is used by planes which use internal combustion engines instead of cleaner, more powerful, and more expensive jet engines. Most of these small planes are for personal use.
I think the costs of lead abatement should be included in the price of AvGas, or its use should be discontinued entirely.
[0] U.S. EPA. Calculating Piston-Engine Aircraft Airport Inventories for Lead for the 2011 National Emissions Inventory. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA-420-B-13-040, 2013. Page 5
According to the article, "the UN believes that online platforms should be (a) generally responsible for the actions of their users and (b) specifically responsible for making sure those people aren’t harassers."
Many websites already have problems with flippant takedown notices through the DMCA. This article leads me to believe that the UN wants to apply a similar process to eliminate "harassment", which is a fairly nebulous term. The benefits of this proposal seem minuscule, while the costs of making "online platforms generally responsible for the actions of their users" would be enormous. Why would anyone think this is a good idea?
It sounds like brothers Clyde and Dayne are ineffective managers who neglected to supervise Artem (i.e. provide guidance on what he should be working on, then reviewing it to make sure it meets expectations). This blog post, replete with pictures of Artem from his various social media profiles, strikes me as incredibly immature and unbecoming of a professional company.
Over the last 25 years lead has been phased out of paint, automobile gas and plumbing fixtures, but aviation gasoline, or "Avgas" remains leaded and is the number one source of airborne lead in the United States [0].
It frustrates me that the primary source of airborne lead stems from a mostly recreational source. Most planes that use Avgas are privately owned piston-engine/prop planes.
Nice job, I especially like the "Route Facts" in the bottom-left. Last year I made a video tutorial using the same BTS data showing how to extract similar flight insights using Excel: https://pjw.me/data-analysis-and-dashboards-with-excel.htm
To me, the "Stop & Frisk" practice taking place in NY represents a compromise between enforcing Fourth Amendment rights and reduce gang violence. I have no doubts that “Stop & Frisk” violates the Fourth Amendment and unfairly targets minorities for the potential embarrassment, harassment, intimidation, etc. of an unwarranted search, but I also believe that it reduces gang-related homicides, which are heavily skewed towards minority victims.
It's worth noting that in briefly detaining someone without probable cause, the NYPD is relying on a supreme court ruling from 1968 [0], but only recently have they fully utilized these rights.
NYC requires a permit for carrying a handgun, and part of the permit process is to pass a background check. I can’t think of any good reasons why someone would be carrying an unlicensed handgun in NYC, unless they’re a gang-member.
I support the "Stop & Frisk" practice for finding concealed weapons on individuals that shouldn't have them, for all other cases (drugs, etc.) it is not in society's best interest.