trappist

Why is it that when we see the unintended yet predictable and easily understood consequences of a policy, in this case monetary policy, all the blame goes to those whose decisions were influenced by that ill-advised policy in that predictable and easily understood way? This doesn't strike me as a good way to avoid bad policy in the future.

It's not though. Establishing Brand X as a cause doesn't tell you what ingredient, or what missing nutrient, or what other feature of that brand's food is causing the problem. What value is there in that? You can switch brands, but you have no way to know the new food isn't worse than the old food. And if you're the producer, you have no knowledge of how to improve your food - might as well just close up shop because ... the brand is the cause?

I don't support monarchies. Neither does Hoppe, or this book. He proposes only that monarchies are better than democracies, which he also doesn't endorse. I myself don't have a strong opinion on the question. I was referencing, without endorsing, an interesting theoretical explanation for the observation made in the parent comment.

Flamin' Hot Cheetos are junk food that millions of people love. In America rags to riches stories tend to involve someone who found a way to make the lives of others - many others - just a little better than they would otherwise have been. Teaching dozens or hundreds of students another language is great. Feeding millions of people a food they choose, for whatever reason, over whatever else they could have bought with that money or eaten for that snack, is a big deal.

This is the sort of thing predicted by Hans Hermann Hoppe's "Democracy: The God that Failed", the basic premise of which is that short term leaders as found in democracies will try to get as much as they can in the short time they have, whereas lifetime leaders as in monarchies will treat the country more like a property owner would his own property.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy:_The_God_That_Failed

This is one of those interesting questions where almost all laymen agree it should be altruistic, and almost all economists, from every school of thought including Marxism, agree there should be a market.

Iran is currently the only country with a legal organ market. It also happens to be the only country with no shortages or wait lists. Both facts were true in India and The Philippines until the sale of organs was prohibited in those countries in 1994 and 2008 respectively.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidney_trade_in_Iran

The model assigns opportunities every 6 months for 40 years and decides whether the talents of the potential beneficiary are adequate to exploit the opportunity.

It doesn't work this way. People waiting for opportunities don't encounter them with the same frequency as people actively looking for and/or trying to manufacture them. An opportunity for me to double my assets or income might exist, but will I even be aware of it? If I am, and my talent is adequate to exploit it, what kind of risk does it come with and what is my tolerance for such risk?

The last event in my life roughly conforming to the opportunities generated by this model was something I actively sought, carefully selected among hundreds of similar opportunities, and took enormous (stupid, I'd be saying now if it hadn't worked out) risk to exploit.

Haven't found the ICO contract, but the ERC20 contract says there are 1,912 token holders while OP says there were 32,000 investors.

https://etherscan.io/token/0xC8a8D2A81cc86b95beb04E5a320D7E5...

I had a mobile game I spent nearly this much on before my wife persuaded me, with some help from my experience with addiction, that it was exactly this. A year or so later I still get a little adrenaline rush if I happen to look at the clock and it's exactly 2pm which means I'm running late for an important event in the game. Sucks.

> ... austerity measures, measured as the combination of tax increases and spending cuts...

Wikipedia defines the term as either or both of these things. Investopedia defines it as only the latter, and modern political discourse seems to do the same. At any rate the definition seems contentious, and the headline potentially misleading (increase spending to avoid the rise of a catastrophically evil regime).

See this is the sort of comment that makes me feel like people get upset about economic inequality, rather than poverty, because poverty truly is not what they see as the problem.

> ISP's kill competition by making legal arrangements with local governments...

Seems like this should read "local governments monopolize ISPs." ISPs have no other access to this arrangement.

It might be easier to convince me ISPs were a natural monopoly if they weren't also a legally protected monopoly where they are, and generally have plenty of competition where they aren't.

Copyright 2006, "...the new Linux 2.4.x kernels", dead SSL cert

He said, unafraid.

I've used Redmine extensively both as a freelancer and in small and medium sized shops. It satisfies (1), has the capacity for (2), especially with certain plugins, takes care of (3) better than any other app I've used...

You have (3) twice, but it also handles time tracking, and via other plugins handles it quite well and can even handle billing and invoicing from time tracking data. Project status, milestones (it calls them versions, but everyone I know uses them as milestones), and so on.

And if there's anything you don't like about it, hey, it's a rails app, or if you don't want to change it yourself, there's a very vibrant community around it, and I even know a guy who does custom Redmine development work for a living.