notch656a

Is this satire? I have a child and the monotonous boredom of dealing with a toddler forces me to suppress the distant memories of freedom to go to raves, fight in foreign militia, get lost in stormy mountains, hitchhike across the plains...

"Investing" in BlockFi was dumb, but it's funny in the year 2022 seeking negative real interest rates (roughly -2%) is supposed to be the obvious tip it must be a scam.

The fiscal policies at the fed and federal government really sent people chasing wild risk just to almost (but not even) break even.

It seems convenient that the customers in US jurisdiction magically are precisely the customers who weren't (supposedly) defrauded.

He admitted in an interview that Bahaman entities were allowed to withdraw after the other customer's withdrawals were frozen because of something to effect of him being afraid of being in a country where very angry powerful people are out to get you.

That's a unique thought I hadn't considered yet. Another may be amphetamine(esque) psychosis or narcissism/sociopathy.

Voting ID rules isn't just a state thing. On June 17, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that states cannot require proof of citizenship in cases of voter registration for federal elections unless the state receives federal or court approval to do so. That is the feds have said the states can't just solve that for themselves.

The state I live in (Arizona) requires proof your presence is authorized to get state ID. If you are a citizen, that means proof of citizenship. But then loop back to supreme court decision above.

Yes.

My story is very similar to this Ashley Cervantes who was also taken to Holy Cross Hospital and billed for a search [0, 1], except in my case they got a warrant which was signed by the judge AFTER (MOST OF) THE SEARCH.

Like Ashley, nothing was found and I was billed afterwards. Ashley's case was even more shocking as she was forcibly and intimately penetrated by the doctor "in search of contraband" at the direction of DHS.

In my case DHS promised me they would bill it in their name, but they either lied or used the billing as a retaliatory tactic when I convinced (some) of the doctors to discharge me as the doctors had no medical basis on which to search me without consent. The bill itself was written by the private medical entities performing the search at direction of DHS.

[0] https://tucson.com/news/local/border/woman-sues-customs-over...

[1] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.azd.985...

DHS, who houses TSA, got a federal search warrant in the middle of the night to forcibly have me "internally examined" at a hospital, during which I was confined/detained for 16 hours cuffed and shackled and strip searched, made to perform bodily functions in front of officers etc. After a dog supposedly "alerted" (but actually did not, and the agent even lamented to me that the dog did not).

They may not get a conviction but a warrant or arrest will turn your life upside down for at least a few days. And they can get that based on basically nothing (I read the affadavit of my warrant and the claim was 3rd degree anonymous hearsay that didn't list the officer or the dogs name).

I am still in debt to this day as debt collectors are chasing me after DHS billed me for their search made on the kind of shoddy "evidence" they obtain from any electronic and other device they have. Every tool they obtain just makes it worse.

Doubtful if "cars" means motor vehicles, as most of the US has poor public transit thus cycling would be the closest best substitute readily available. The number of cyclists would explode.

There would likely also be lots of deaths due to weakness in the supply chain.

Indefinite archival of your face every time you cross? It's ripe for abuse for data mining to claim (via AI, expect witness, whatever) at the exact time of crossing your face exhibited behavior which was consistent with criminals, such as nervousness/anxiety. Border patrol officer can't provide an exact recollection of your face from 10 years ago, so (without camera) if you look nervous at the border this one time it's going to be difficult to look backwards and retroactively determine you looked "nervous" or intoxicated or whatever the other times too.

A photograph of your face at the pharmacy or post office taken for your passport is pretty much useless as that sort of evidence as it doesn't show your demeanor at the border.

... and now they have a picture of you everytime you fly.

Everything you say (and present) can and will be used against you.

Your exact appearance will be scrutinized possibly even years later in a way that no TSA agent could possibly remember, if someone decides to accuse you of a crime that involves transport like trafficking. "On such a such a date, our expert witness looked at the TSA photograph and nervousness detection program and the AI detected they were anxious and possibly intoxicated when passing through TSA. Your honor, this nervous and intoxicated behavior was detected by TSA computers on X Y Z and A B C dates as well. Our analysis shows traffickers disproportionately exhibited this behavior, which was listed as supporting evidence on the search warrant affadivit 6 months ago after which a roach was discovered in the defendants ash tray..."

The raid IMO is in part to send the signal such businesses are unacceptable and that your assets are not safe there. I would wager this was done for deterrent effect as much as anything.

Anonymous safe deposits threaten the paradigm that assets should by KYC'd and easily visible to creditors/the wife/child support/.gov/privacy-hating-tyrants without resorting to depending on the testimony of the defendant.

It's been awhile since I read it. I was thinking the judge authorized the FBI to itemize the contents of the boxes "for their return" or something of the sort. No idea what happens if police legally obtain access to evidence of a crime as a byproduct of a warrant, although I imagine for a non-publicized case it would not be good for the defendent. [note: not a lawyer]

Keeping things in an anonymous safe-deposit box is in general a terrible idea.

They are magnets for thieves, police, usually in urban area where a PI can easily follow you and even when acting fully within the law it could unintentionally look very bad if you are in the middle of some proceedings.

A hole in the ground is probably preferable 99 times out of 100.

>>should we not be preferring the side that has the better ethical claim?

>They aren't advocating fining for ethical violations,

Your statement is a contradiction of GP's statement. Preferring the side with better 'ethical claim' is in effect a redistribution in the form of discount to the more 'ethical' with a fine to the less 'ethical'.

Except the premise given by bumbly above was that the employee's labor is inelastic as they are locked into the industry, and thus the labor would shoulder all of the tax without change in supply. Your comment is directly calling bumbly a liar.

>1) you asked for a forecast of where I thought wages would go. The $130k mark is not what I predicted it would remain at.

Yes. And you forecast it will be lower in the scenario you proposed of "monopolistic employment." But it is not lower, which logically concludes there is not the condition of monopolistic employment you claim.

>2)2) already addressed this once, but that is $130k in total compensation. I don’t have enough information to fully gauge their fringe benefits, but it’s not uncommon for them to total as much as 50% of total compensation. Additionally, rail engineers are often on call 24/7. So is, say, $75k in salary luxurious given no sick days, 24/7 on call, physically demanding job, and lots of travel, for what the country is saying is a critical role? It doesn’t seem so to me. That’s in todays dollars that will be eroded in the future if the companies have their druthers. It doesn’t seem like the great deal you’re painting it as when ignoring the total picture.

Then it makes even less sense the employees should socialize the risks onto the general public, who receive (by median) less than 130k in total compensation. The tax on employee is to compensate for these socialized losses for privatized gains, imposed against use of land given freely by the public.

3> again, the land easements are to the company, not the employee. So it doesn’t follow that you want to tax the employee for a right given to the employer. It’s such odd logic that it comes across as a trolling effort

Employees OF THE COMPANY -- the employees in collusion (monopolistic collusion if you are to be believed) to stop operating the railroad on these lands. Who are disproportional beneficiaries of the land, and by your prior statement equally to shoulder of the damages. The damages imposed by the employees are damages against use of the land.

Your absurd trolling accusation, and apparent willing disregard that employees are disproportionate beneficiaries of the land, show you are no longer acting in good faith, so at this point I wish you good day and will give you the joyous benefit of whatever name calling you wish to continue in unopposed.

How does 130k in comp compare to a "tolerable" compensation? Do you anticipate someone earning above 130k USD is representative of the general public of Americans who would be punished for the railroad strikes?

As a matter of imperfect pragmatism I would support a bill that equally collects from the employees and employer as it would still be some way of extracting rent from land provided freely by public for a service they were cut off from.

>Your solution is that the government tax you for the privilege to continue to mine

No my solution isn't to tax for the privelege to mine, it's to tax for damages for loss of use of public lands that were only given up conditionally so they could be used productively by employees and employers of the railroad.

Unless the PR tour is some weird plan to buy time while he gets his ducks in a row to arrange his escape and amass his assets. Could also be playing himself off as dumb/broke naive guy until local police get lazy and then trivially board some random yacht.

Lets imagine what you say is true. The workers are under "monopolistic employment" asymmetrically and any tax is absorbed by the worker (thus their employment is inelastic with respect to wage). Theorize to me what their wages will go down to if the railroads are the unethical and greedy barons which they no doubt may be.

>way of socializing the risk of shareholders at the expense of labor.

The strike would socialize the risk of employees/rail companies at the expense of the public who on average are far closer to the poverty line than the median rail worker.

I'm not talking about collecting damages for ethics violations. I'm talking about real damages as a result of shutdowns. If you want to impose additional damages beyond that for ethics, then sure maybe you can argue about who was more/less ethical.

If the workers are so specialized in rail that substitutions from rail to not rail are so poor as to not have an external market as you say, then in turn the workers also have a monopoly as external workers are unable to replace them. If what you say is true I am totally unsympathetic of argumetns against damages being sought from monopolizers who are involved in the shutting down of the rail network for which society gave up its lands.

IANAL and this isn't legal advice, but the example warrants I found issue by a state government only command the officer of the state it happens in to perform the arrest. I'm not certain an officer out of state from the offense would be commanded to serve the warrant, rather than just have the option. And the rich often perform their shenanigans somewhere else so they don't shit where they eat.

See an example arrest warrant http://www.georgetowncriminaldefenselawyer.com/wp-content/up...

Just a guess for possible other steps:

-1. They acquired fake/stolen KYC credential

0 . Their collateral was anonymized

7. The investigation fails to uncover who it was.

Labor is neither perfectly elastic nor perfectly in-elastic. Therefore it is fallacious to presume it would absolve the shareholders. Taxes on employment, taxed against the employee, actually get split between the employer and employee as the employer competes on the labor market and is forced to repay some of the tax in the form of elevated pre-tax wages. That is the tax is only nominally only on the employee.

Sweet the risk will command an even higher premium for the labor. Not the first time I've been shot at.

Total comp by class 1 rail employees is $130k a year [0].

I support their right to strike. It should not be impeded in any form. I also support the right for society to take back all the land they freely gave for use of the railroads, and then to rent it back by imposing a tax against the paycheck of railroad workers equal to whatever gains they made by shutting down freight to the US.

[0] https://raillaborfacts.org/total-compensation/

I would support eliminating both the anti-general strike and anti-collusion laws. It seems unfair to ban collusion by capital but not by labor.

Looking forward to the general strike. It will open up some great position for scabs. I'll be moonlighting in your job; sure I'll probably be shit at it but they'll be desperate to fill the seat.

What? I had to work for a decade until I had anything close to the benefits offered by default in EU or UK, and even then I had to take a lower paying position to work for a company that offered decent work/life balance.

Even still, I think I had 2 days off when my child was born before I ran out of paid "sick" days and had to go to work.