dpatru

The parent post was arguing that it would be hard to prosecute marijuana possession under federal law because federal law allows possession in DC. The link argues that state laws against marijuana are not affected by federal law. So in Virginia, you won't be able to escape prosecution for marijuana possession under Virginia's law just because it is not illegal under federal law or another state's law.

Are you saying that individual Swiss banks are currently free to make up their own reserve requirements? In the American system, as I understand it, the Federal Reserve (the US central bank) sets reserve requirements which the banks must follow. I thought this was how the Swiss system worked also.

If the Swiss central bank already sets reserve requirements, what would this proposal do?

I'm not a finance expert, but my intuition is that the market is already good at smoothing out this kind of instability. This is what market makers [1] do and there is no requirement that a market maker needs the ability to make money.

Borrowing costs may be higher because this proposal removes some "free" money that banks can currently lend out. But maybe interest rates will stay the same and instead checking account fees will rise. This could induce some checking account holders to move some of their money to term loans to the bank which the bank could then lend out. It is not clear that interest rates have to rise.

> the money supply is delinked from borrower demand

The money supply available to meet borrower demand need not be created. It already is partially provided by people lending their money for a term to the bank. This proposal merely says that the bank may not use checking account money to meet borrower demand, i.e., it may not represent to a checking account holder that his money is available when in fact it has been lent out to someone else.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_maker

Inflation of the money supply allows governments to finance war[1]. Reducing inflation would have the opposite effect. It would lead to greater savings, which would lead to lower interest rates, which would lead to more investment, which would lead to more productivity, prosperity, and wealth.

[1]: https://twitter.com/ydemombynes/status/985560599248756736

Tom Woods and Bob Murphy address this on their Contra Krugman podcast.[1] Basically the scheme would ban fractional reserve banking.[2] So banks could still loan money, but they would have to use money sources other than checking accounts.

[1]: https://contrakrugman.com/ep-141-do-you-want-the-crankish-mo...

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking

> what about the employees?!

Presumably the employees were paid salaries.

I recall that Cal Newport suggests three ways of scheduling deep work. 1) dedicate a portion of the day: Writer John Grisham regularly writes from 7 to 10 every morning. 2) dedicate a portion of the year: Cal gives the example of a professor who moves out to a remote cabin for several months each year to be away from distraction and do deep work. 3) ad hoc with tracking: Cal himself fits in deep work whenever he can and tracts it, making sure that he is spending the desired amount of hours every week. Any of these methods can work.

> There have been a few studies that show accessible public transit is a huge factor in benefiting the poor.

No doubt being able to travel is a huge benefit. But this does not require public transport. The poor could be given Uber-vouchers.

Uber's network of drivers is way of providing transportation services. This network doesn't just spring into existence. It must be created and it costs money. A traditional bus service also costs money; the buses must be purchased, the drivers hired and paid, the routes established and signs posted, etc. Why isn't a bus company unfairly competing with taxis by offering lower fares based on massive upfront investments in bigger vehicles that are paid back over many years? Uber's "bus" is its network.

> monopoly in the region

There is no monopoly in transportation. People can drive their own cars, take buses, take taxies, ride Lyft, walk, bike, etc. Uber is creating a network.

> This not only discourages the competition, it discourages the existence of competition.

Discouraging competition is the same as discouraging the existence of competition.

To compete effectively against any good business requires investment. Uber is competing against the taxi network, bus services, zipcar, etc. Uber's strategy requires investment in building a network of drivers that can quickly reach anyone in the service area. To build this network, they have to invest in drivers and passengers. They do this by paying drivers more than they produce and offering passengers service for less than it costs. As more drivers and passengers join the network, costs come down, service gets better, prices may be able to be raised, and Uber may be able to recoup its investment and earn a profit. Maybe. if they earn too much of a profit by charging passengers too much or paying drivers too little, they risk being replaced by other app makers who offer Uber's network of drivers and passengers a better deal.

It's uncertain if Uber will be profitable. But in trying to be profitable, Uber is definitely offering drivers and passengers better options than what they already have (otherwise, the drivers and passengers would not be using Uber).

Productivity in any market requires investment. Here Uber needs to build a network of drivers and passengers, so they spend money subsidizing rides until the network grows to a sustainable size. How is this different than what any other competitor does? For example, bus transport companies need to buy buses and arrange routes before they can take passengers. Manufacturing companies need to design products and build factories before they can produce. Skilled workers need to go to school and practice before they can be hired as skilled workers. Etc. The exact nature of investment varies, but the general idea that competing effectively requires upfront investment is the same. Investment is not unfair; it is how productivity rises and civilization progresses.

> There's a fixed supply of willing drivers ...

The supply of willing drivers varies by wages. Also the supply of willing passengers varies by prices. Uber's success depends on being able to entice drivers with higher wages and passengers with lower prices. To the extent that they are successful, they make both groups better off.

> Unlike with cloud services (the other example) it's much harder for competition to Uber to reappear once it's disappeared. There's a fixed supply of willing drivers and big network effects at play.

This is exactly backwards. Once a large network of drivers and passengers connected by smartphones has been established, a competitor has only to offer its own smartphone app to compete. The hard part is building the network and changing people's behaviors.

> What annoys me the most is that, as a small company, I can't evade from my country tax system. I pay the taxes. All of them, at full rate.

You're like the farmer whose cow has died and is upset that his neighbor's cow has not died. Direct your annoyance at the government that is oppressing you rather than at other people who are not being oppressed as much.

If farmer renting land can decide year-to-year whether it is worth it to him to farm the land. If the renter determines that a particular lease is not profitable, he is free to do something else. The landowner has no such option; he's stuck with the land.

The renter generally pays a higher price per year than an owner but has greater options and less risk.

This is generally true of renting vs buying. If you go to distant city for a one-week vacation, you are likely to rent accommodations and a car rather than buy them. At the end of the week you can just walk away, whereas the owner must concern himself with generating an income with his property.

> The crux of the problem seems to be that the State allows guardians to profit from their arrangement. It's ludicrous that courts enforce guardian's financial claims against people who are presumed to be incapable of independence.

The noble-sounding term "public service" should be reserved for unpaid volunteers working for the public good. Instead public service now means a government job with a large salary, easy working hours, early retirement, etc.

I would say that the illegitimacy is on the part of the Spanish government and the police who used violence to prevent a peaceful political statement by the people.

But see this article by Cal Newport which highlights how the Pullman Company increased production by limiting communication. http://calnewport.com/blog/2017/06/21/an-early-20th-century-...

It seems that unrestricted communication slows down companies more than it speeds them up. Maybe at Tesla they already have ways to manage interruptions. Elon specifically mentions email and managers. Email can be read at the receiver's schedule. The part of the job of the manager is to protect the workers from distraction. "Try to email the manager who can best solve the problem." != "Feel free to interrupt anyone at any time."

Real world examples of peaceful cooperation are all around you unless you're in prison. Every time someone voluntarily purchases and another sells, that is peaceful cooperation. The alternative would be for one or the other to force the transaction, as happens with taxes, conscription, or robbery.

> Companies are supposed to pay taxes so we can have schools, healthcare, basic income etc.

This is just government-enabled theft. Politicians promise people "free" stuff that is extracted by threat of violence from someone else.

Companies provide services that their customers choose to pay for. Profitable companies provide services efficiently so that everyone involved (customers, owners, employees) are better off. Their existence is a social good because profitable companies make everyone better off without coercion. They embody peaceful cooperation and civilization. They are not "supposed to pay taxes", except in the mind of politicians who seek to increase their own power and wealth by appealing to the envy and covetousness of their voters.

If you want something, make it yourself or get it from others through peaceful cooperation. Do not take it by force from someone else, either personally or through a proxy (government).

Edit: I realize that a world without coercion and violence is an ideal that will not be realized, but I think we should be trying to bring it about anyway. This means promoting peaceful exchange (free markets, private companies) and discouraging coercion and theft (government).

This is probably a very bad idea: https://www.justice.gov/criminal-fraud/foreign-corrupt-pract....

The average home price in Seattle is over $670,000.[1] This requires a salary of $182,000 per year [2] or $87.50 dollars per hour. At $15 per hour, a full-time worker cannot afford a house in Seattle. Therefore, to avoid the injustice of a homeless, full-time worker, the minimum wage should raised to at least $87.50 per hour.

[1] https://www.zillow.com/seattle-wa/home-values/ [2] https://www.redfin.com/how-much-house-can-i-afford?utm_sourc...

This is despicable. Google is a private company who cannot force anyone to use its services. It is successful because consumers and advertisers have chosen to use its services because it makes their lives better. Google's investors risked and are risking their own money to build the company in hopes of earning a return by providing better services than other companies. Now come government bureaucrats, moral pygmies who live off of taxes coerced from the citizenry, who have none of their own money at risk, who have no expertise, presuming to tell Google that they are harming the consumers who are choosing to use its services. These are despicable little parasites who are doing their best to extract money from companies who are driving civilization forward. See also https://mises.org/library/abolish-antitrust-laws for a more detailed explanation of why antitrust is bad.

Here's a one-star review of it: https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R3GEM7V96Z5EIH/re...

Aren't software as a service and cloud computing examples of businesses that are primarily about maintenance?

It seems to me that the best businesses are mostly about maintaining and profiting from some technology. Startups are advised to keep costs very low until they have "product-market fit", that is, until they have innovated enough to have made something that people want. After product-market fit has been achieved, marketing and sales begin to dominate; the technical innovation is over except for maintenance and incremental improvement.

Most businesses don't require innovation at all. McDonald's, for example, didn't invent the hamburger, but it has grown large because of its ability to grow while maintaining high standards.

Even businesses that we would think of as very innovative don't make their profits on continual innovation as much as growing and maintaining a standard process. YCombinator, for example, has a process of selecting great companies and nurturing them. The companies do a lot of innovating, but YC itself is basically maintaining and incrementally improving the innovation of Paul Graham and the other original founders.

Profit comes during the maintenance stage.

Regulators are not protecting the public when they go after Uber; they are protecting the monopoly profits of the taxi services. Uber, a ride-sharing service, is not a dangerous bacteria; it's not a sweatshop using child laborers; it's not false advertising; it's not children smoking cigarettes; and it's not predatory lending. Associating Uber with these is an attempt to substitute misdirection for honest arguments.

Your example would be better put to government officials trying to shut down Uber.

It's sad that Uber has to go to such lengths to avoid busybody government officials from interfering in peaceful commercial transactions. The people of Portland should fire these officials. Not only are they wasting taxpayer money, but they are also imposing costs on Uber and their customers.

What is so hard technically about site search that there doesn't exist open-source solutions for people to run on their own sites or rent for a small fee?

It seems to me that this is something the Linux distributions should already be doing.

The leaks serve several good purposes: - They help remove questionable public officials. - They show government officials what it's like to have no private conversation (strong encryption). - They show both the public and government officials that government cannot be trusted to keep secrets. (Even the President is unable to prevent his own government from revealing detrimental secrets.)

> I just wish the vaccine establishment would just be honest and admit that some children have to suffer or even die for the benefit of the "herd".

I think this is the problem. If doctors told parents that their child could die or become paralyzed from vaccination, and that they can't predict it or stop it, then vaccinations would be much less popular. So the establishment lies for a good cause (to protect the herd).