And yet they often do default. Look up sovereign defaults. Possible reasons why include things like “inflation is out of control because we’re printing money to cover the debt, and we’ll get voted out if we don’t do something”.
As a US worker that regularly interfaces with colleagues in various EU/UK sites, I am not at all surprised by the discrepancy.
Edit: Elaborating… in my experience entire countries will be on holiday for up to a month at a time, while the US offices are chugging along. (And this by and large isn’t true the opposite direction, except for Thanksgiving week.)
I’m not saying it is good or bad either way, but the US prioritizes work far more than other OECD / developed countries.
I mean, the actual material living conditions in the West Bank might be better, but don’t the Gazans at least have some form of sovereignty over their land? My understanding is that there is no real independent West Bank Palestinian government that exercises security over the land and the people on it. At least not in favor of the Palestinians.
If Heinz is the only supplier of baked beans, that is literally just a monopoly. In that case you have a monopoly problem, not an inflation problem.
Do you all not have private label brands? I’ve never been in a UK grocery store but it is hard for me to fathom that you would only have one brand of baked beans, given it is a food regularly consumed in the UK (or so I’m led to understand by the abomination that is beans and toast).
It's likely that not every union member is striking, it is probably a sectoral union, e.g. the Swedish Dockworkers Union. There is still a lot of other dock-work to do besides unload Teslas, one would assume. So the union has 500 years of funds but that's for some small fraction of the workers.
Also, not only is it possible, but many countries have in fact chosen to default on debt denominated in their own currency, rather than subject their citizens to wild inflation and/or break norms around reserve bank independence. So, it could happen even if US is not forced to, I agree.
Fundamentally you’re correct, but the much bigger incentive on BOTH sides is to close the deal quickly. If they spend twice the amount of time on the transaction, their earnings per hour get cut in half. That’s a much bigger impact then a few percentage points in price swings.
No, and this was evidence used in the trial I believe. Commissions in peer countries have gone way down since the introduction of the internet to the process. Not so in the US.
Why would they have offered him ANY deal? (Do we know they did?) All the co-conspirators agreed to testify, and it was a slam dunk case. He could have plead guilty of his own conscience, of course, but no reason for the prosecution to offer any incentives in this case.
The appearance of figure 1 is due to the majority of counties being at / near sea level. Suppose we take as true that there is a direct link between altitude and some other phenomenon, for example rates of altitude sickness. If 90% of the counties are near sea level, with some variation, you would only see increased altitude sickness in the 10% highest counties. The graph would look similar to what you see here.
I certainly agree that Boston and Massachusetts should reduce, or ideally eliminate, their restrictions on what housing can be built and where.
The benefit of doing that instead is it would help approximately 1000 times the number of people than raising Harvard grad student pay would.
It's worth noting that Harvard grad students are the ones getting attention here, and not the average person getting squeezed by rent. Are you going to whack-a-mole every single employer in the Boston MSA to pay at least $60k? Even if you did this, the increased pay would just go to inflated housing costs.
The underlying problem is a scarcity of housing, you can't fix that by giving people (in aggregate) more money. It will just bid up the cost of the scarce good.
And none of this really affects whether or not grad students should be encouraged to apply for whatever government benefits they are eligible for. Harvard doesn't control where the federal government sets the income cutoffs for benefits.
Nevertheless I'm sure highlighting this is a good way to grab attention.
I think WoA used to be exclusive to Qualcomm, but that hasn’t been true for at least a couple years, maybe longer.