Landlords have at least one asset. The vast majority (all?) of their tenants have zero assets.
This is a measure of wealth, but Bloomberg makes the same mistake that all of these borderline propaganda rags make which is to compare incomes.
77 karma · joined October 12, 2019
This is a measure of wealth, but Bloomberg makes the same mistake that all of these borderline propaganda rags make which is to compare incomes.
It corrects the price of the assets to match current market.
It transfers assets to more efficient owners.
Bankruptcy is not: a vaporization gun.
The assets remain in the physically existent universe, as do the employees and even the entire industry, even if it is diminished.
In consideration, I just discovered this article, which I haven't read completely but seems to at least partially address this:
Whereas under pseudo-science I considered Eugenics, a belief system finding that mankind would go extinct due to inferior breeding.
> I think there's a lot of benefit to science as a methodology or process even in contexts where science might not seem readily applicable. The author takes as an example issues of justice. While it's true that there's something fallacious about trying to reason about oughts from scientific principles there is I think a lot of value in grounding these discussions in scientific process. The reason for that is that scientific principles force people to avoid 'language games' or rationalisations and provide a common formalism to make 'progress'.
> People often use 'scientism' as a prejorative for a sort of cold, broken calculator like mentality, but a scientific account of justice, grounded in biology, evidence about punishment and so forth would almost certainly be more humanistic, forgiving, and productive than say, religious debate or ad hoc moral justification, which has led to some of the more cruel treatments in our history.
> The author also I think makes some basic mistakes about the nature of science, she says for example:
> "But too often those elegant mathematical models turn out to be based on assumptions about “rational economic man” true of no real-world economic actors."
> This is true, but not really a problem. As Milton Friedman put it: "Truly important and significant hypotheses will be found to have "assumptions" that are wildly inaccurate descriptive representations of reality, and, in general, the more significant the theory, the more unrealistic the assumptions (in this sense) Why? Because such hypotheses and descriptions extract only those crucial elements sufficient to yield relatively precise, valid predictions, omitting a welter of predictively irrelevant details. Of course descriptive unrealism by itself does not ensure a "significant theory"
> Believing in the 'rational man' is no mistake of scientism but like believing in a perfect sphere. Somewhat absurd and evidently not found in the real world but nonetheless useful as a tool to form theories.
A lot of what you have stated appears to rest on the assumption that the other disciplines have no methodology, as well as inserting false dilemma.
It makes discussions with people who feel this way nearly impossible because when coming up against questions science can't answer, they reject all answers because no scientific "proof" has been provided.
Human life is just an equation for the central planners to tweak.
Soon, we will be each be followed an assigned quadcopter monitoring our every activity to make sure we are not engaged in any unsafe activities so as to be certain we are providing our maximum societal output.
If that were the case, admins would simply change the title.
I suspect the reason is that it's a tool that is designed to violate a specific site's TOS, which I think this tool does.
The defense industry throws money at anything that seems to suit its needs. Thus, claiming that without the defense industry we would never have the Internet is not clear to me.
I am familiar with disproving negatives, but I don't find it to be a compelling claim that the scientists involved would never have developed the Internet.
For example, was the mother of all demos exclusively the result of actions from the DoD? The innovative scientists and engineers at Xerox PARC? Many of the people involved in these things likely already theorized on how to build this sort of stuff, and sought out the easiest route.
But the DoD comes with substantial amounts of other costs. For example, the Vietnam war is largely understood to have been initiated by people within the DoD complex and not the actions of foreign governments. During the war, the DoD cronies forced soldiers to use a defective assault rifle that would leave entire platoons with nothing but grenades and handguns to get slaughtered. Agent Orange killed and continues to kill an incredible number of civilians in Vietnam.
On balance, the DoD leads to horrific amounts of death and destruction using engineers who may otherwise create things that would make people's lives better. Further, significant innovations such as the Internet would most likely still have been developed, just by some private entity or group of entities where the scientist and engineers would have gone to work.
Most of the state budget is going to be things like welfare (e.g., health care), unemployment payments, and salaries of state employees. Some infrastructure, but then much of that goes to salaries, too.
Purchase of bonds is the same thing. The money is still created and spent. It's kind of a good deal for the city because by the time they have to pay it back it may cost more to cut a check than what is left on the principal, but of course that also means that every bit of wealth has been reduced to zero.
Many municipalities have passed laws (usually through initiatives) that forbid the cities from borrowing without a vote, and even in California voters do not just automatically pass every bond measure. However, the state might be able to pass bonds, but it looks like there are some hurdles even for that. I found what I thought was an amendment is a referendum and was pass in 2004:
If anyone is still bothering to follow the Constitution, the funds have to be distributed across the states, so you can't just give California only some funds.
It is also politically infeasible to give just California funds, most especially because a whole bunch of states don't want to pay for the other states.
Even if it gets passed that, this is the kind of spending that is virtually guaranteed to increase consumer price inflation, which is a far worse problem than state budget shortfalls.
Both of those recession deficits were after years of economic decline. This economic decline is less than 8 weeks old. I was hyperbolic, but I'm not sure by how much.
What we haven't seen yet is that Fauci and others have stated there will be regional lockdowns when there are "outbreaks". I suspect that as soon as the business community sees this, many more will just close up permanently, even if they aren't in the locked down regions because many can't survive another lockdown and are risking almost everything to open up now.
This is serious, because the cuts they are going to be forced to take are incredible:
> Required funding for K-12 schools and community colleges will shrink by $18.3 billion, under Proposition 98’s constitutional calculation. That’s more than twice the $8.3 billion California spent out of its general fund last year on its university systems.
And even that article doesn't mention CalPERS, which is almost assuredly going start hitting its limits where it requires local governments to contribute a whole bunch more along with a bunch of other really bad stuff. The public pensions/unions are the single powerful lobby in the state.
I'm betting California isn't even the worst, and I'm also betting the shortfall will be yet higher.
I really do hope I'm wrong.
[1] Coronavirus blows a $54 billion hole in California’s budget. Here are the “jaw-dropping” numbers Projected deficit nearly three times Rainy Day Fund
https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/05/07/california-budget-to-...
This is the bit nobody gets.
Imagine how expensive gurney casters will cost when there like 100 million fewer casters being produced every year.
> I tend not to enjoy discussions where the other party mandates what I can and cannot talk about; I would assume most people feel the same way. I don’t have to discuss the extremely narrow view you have; you cannot my force my views.
> Tell the NYC transportation workers who died that going to work isn’t a life or death situation. It would seem to me that people are being blocked from spreading a virus that kills people. I’m willing to bet that the “greatest country in the world” can figure out how to feed its population without sending them into grave danger. Again, though, these solutions do need imagination.
I did no name-calling. What I did was categorize the presented reasoning and call you out.
You still continue to insert strawman arguments and bombast.
If he doesn't understand their definitions within their sphere of expertise, how can any analysis of such be valid?
In reading the section describing psychometricians, he clearly is not actually reading what they publish.