But from what I understand the 'mining' price depends on how much effort is being put into mining - less effort and future mining will be cheaper (easier).

So the price floor is only here for as long as people don't start giving up, at which time this inverse supply/demand situation will reduce the price floor.

But they do sell it, many times.
Each time one of their wallets sell it, they have to pay the tax on any profit that wallet made from the NFT. So while they can deduct the price for which the wallet bought the NFT, any price inflation they produce will still be taxed.

Now if they are inflating only a single NFT, and they manage to sell it to a different sucker in the end, they will still have a real profit, and will be able to pay the taxes from that.
But what happens if they just inflate the price of a lot of NFTs, and end up holding them when tax time comes? All their wallets except the last will show profits for selling the NFTs, and the last one will not have a loss (since they still posess the NFT).
Will they finally sell the NFT to another of their wallets for 0$, just so they can claim that their overall profit was 0?

Could the customers that were not arrested launch a class action lawsuit? This seems to me to be an obvious case of false advertisement.

Can't they just charge everyone with felony murder(s)?

That way everyone goes away for a long time even if treason etc can't be proved.

The residents were allowed to buy those homes - they were not told that they can get these homes for free, or get other homes for full price.

Healthcare is not what I'm worried about.

With housing, government would be able to build a lot of it. But how would the free market landlords/builders compete with it? If the cost difference between a government provided 20m^2 apartment and a private 20.5m^2 apartment is a few hundred dollars a month, few people will choose to move. The same would be true with food.

The only solution I see is if the government is willing to provide an apartment/food OR provide the money for them - in this case a person that has a bit of extra income can use it to supplement their regular choices, rather than having to 'give up' everything that the government provides and be left entirely on their own.

But who will evaluate the housing/care/food provided?

If everyone has a guaranteed room, you can be sure that the government will be quite happy to pay 10$ a month to Hovel Towers to provide them, although a much better room could be rended for 11$.
The same will be true for medical care and food - the cheapest provider will be picked. And the people relying on these services won't have the ability to work a few hours a month to afford something better - if they want an upgrade they have to the entire expense on their own.

On the other hand, giving them money and letting them make their own choices means that the providers still need to compete on both price and performance and upgrades are not an enormous cliff, just a slope.

There will be some people that spend all the money on alcohol and drugs, but that is their choice - just stop preventing them from commiting their slow suicide with charity.

How much land would a single 'self-sufficient' farmer require? How much could the farmer grow on that land compared to an automated farm?

Why give the person a job when more food could be grown much more easily by using automation?

Wouldn't it be better to fire the boss? After all, if they are arguing to fire a 'good' employee, their judgement is faulty and they need to leave.

But in this case, the 'cost' will be a one time thing - not a marginal cost increase of the service. So if they increase the price, they will lose money since their market share will decrease - they will still need to pay the settlement amount regardless of the number of new services they sell.

As long as the re-unification creates a democratic state, I for one would be be quite happy.

My worry is that with Trump involved he might mix up the 'good' and 'bad' Korea and give control to the North.

Do you at least get to ride on the ninja plane before they melt you?

Agreed.

All poverty is caused and could be eliminated by eliminating irresponsible behavior.
Unfortunately, most of this behavior isn't by the poor people. Decisions spanning from local financing of schools to law enforcement behavior (ensuring poorer education and lack of respect for the system in poor neighborhoods) make it very difficult (and in some cases impossible) for a person from a poor background to succeed.
In fact, just an average level of irresponsibility from a poor person will make sure they stay poor, while an extremely irresponsible lifestyle from someone born rich will barely have an effect on their prospects.

It almost sounds like all those lawsuits against various torrent sites when you think of it.

But do the amber alerts do anything if there are too many of them?

If you receive a few per day, virtually any kid you see is probably going to match at least a couple of the reports you got in the last week. Should you report every case of a kid crying to the police as a possible sighting? After all, there was an amber alert.