South Korea, Japan, Philippines, Taiwan are all right in China's way.
Those cute little people who are so rudely "in China's way" have been there for thousands of years, and they are critical trading partners.
If rather than recognizing these many people co-inhabit the same area and need to get along, if China prefers to think of them as "in the way", China has a world of hurt coming its way. And when the disaster happens, it will be 99.999999% China's fault.
The problem will never by solved by any plan which requires increased taxes because the federal government has never shown any inclination to apply revenue generated by increase taxes to debt reduction. New taxes always go to new spending.
Not only are you moving the goal posts, but you are using provably untrue assertions to make your case.
Whether a country is bankrupt or not depends on its ability to control its deficits. If the deficits are "small" and well managed, then economic growth and modest inflation can take of the long term debt.
The HBush and Clinton tax increases were a big help in bringing the US into the black for a few moments, it just took some years to do their work. You should look at the world as it is, not as you remember it in 1978.
There has been only ONE societal factor that has been found to satisfactorily correlate with the reduction in crime (see the movie Freakonomics, and that has been widely disputed.
Incorrect. The better explanation is reduction of childhood lead exposure. The correlations are extremely powerful, and map nicely down to the timing of lead reductions in individual states/provinces even in different countries.
So your claim that there is no major of model to explain reductions is simply wrong,. The lead theory works even in other countries where the dynamics around guns are very different from America. This apparent effect completely swamps the wiggle the pro- and anti-gun camps like to argue over.
And in this case, that there is a C taking effect is indisputable, even if the exact details of C are less than perfectly clear. The simplistic pro- and anti-gun camps arguments both fail to describe reality.
What is going to happen next is that Oklahoma will spend money on roads that the oil industry uses and services that will make the state a palatable place for oil workers with families to live, thereby creating a reliable supply of skilled employees. New drilling projects become more reliably on time and on budget, thereby reducing the effective risk.
The competent oil men whether the 5 year projects overrun budget and take 7 years to complete, because deliveries are always late and their best employees have fled to Canada. The tax being discussed is a rounding error, in context.
Also, those with higher intelligence tend to reproduce less.
Only in the rich world of today where we confound intelligence with university educations, thereby delaying children during a span of high fertility. That is surely a recent trend. Intelligence correlates with general health, especially in a more rough and tumble world of uncertain nutrition. Above average intelligence is a wonderful positive indicator for mate selection.
Please mod parent up! (Had mod points to burn just a couple days ago.)
How confusing the inputs of a system is to the computer is something that the program should be easily able to figure out, except in cases where the human drivers are hosed as well.
Umm, no. Read some actual historians who have done the research. The reason there is this popular myth of early marriage has to do with selection bias -- most marriages in medieval times that we have records for were aristocratic marriages, and their goal was less about love or even children than about cementing alliances, so they could happen at ridiculously young ages. Common people often didn't bother to get married at an actual ceremony (and certainly not recorded) until after the Reformation. Anyhow, a number of historians HAVE found records and accounts to look at marriage age in NON-aristocratic marriage (which was the majority of marriage), and they have found the GP's account to be roughly true -- median age for women marrying was early 20s... until just the past couple centuries. I believe the youngest median marriage age for women was somewhere in the late 19th or early 20th century. Look it up.
We should take your data here and apply it to the topic on hand, then. The cultural norms of the time required Muhammad to have many such aristocratic marriages, for the purpose of cementing alliances. In the context of the time, across nearly the entire globe, Muhammad's behavior was not unusual for a man in his position.
Force needed to accelerate 2.2lbs of cookies = 1 Fig-newton to 1 meter per second