In 2007 you could get 100 megabits from Cablevision. If you don't have that, probably your local borough council let in Time Warner and not Cablevision.

Because buying medication for poor people does not in any way address the root cause. It creates a dependency on whatever system it is that bought them their medication.

Spaceships, on the other hand, at least presumably, might create an entire industry of space travel, which in turn will require spaceship builders, painters, repair-people, flight attendants, travel agents, parking garages, et cetera, all of whom can presumably afford medication more than whomever it is you suggest that wealthy people should buy medication for.

Of all the things wealthy people could do with their money, I'm much more excited about space yachts than I am about some guy buying an island condo or a plain old water yacht. Those things both support industries too, but they're not going to launch entire new sectors of the economy.

Sure, but that was also before tort and the idea of 'full liability' were in place. Prior to the LLC, big businesses could shield their investors and owners but small businesses had a hard time doing so - the LLC was a way to equalize that protection.

Enough people with enough resources will always find a way to protect themselves. If you got rid of LLCs, that wouldn't change - but your average wannabe entrepreneur would have a lot harder time of things because he hasn't got access to all the lawyers and accountants you'd need to achieve limited liability without an easy legal avenue.

You don't have to know a lot about corporate law to realize why it makes sense. The most you risk when you change jobs is your new salary (in the event that your new job sucks, you get laid off, or your employer goes under). Entrepreneurs gamble a lot more to get off the ground (like savings or loans from family and friends) so their risk is already quite a lot higher -- enable their customers or investors to repossess their houses and cars and you'll just have fewer people starting businesses and cede more of the market to bigger corporations.

Nah, Domestic Giraffe sounds cool, too.

+1 for an LLC in DE. I am originally from DE so set up our company there but now live in elsewhere and still keep my DE LLC.

DE is just very easy to do business with. They're responsive and they're inexpensive. If your needs are simple then you don't need to go the extra step of being an S-Corporation (this may not be advisable for other reasons; that's a decision that you should have an accountant and/or a tax lawyer for). But your taxes won't change - you'll still do personal income taxes and a schedule C as an LLC. No separate corporate taxes or corporate tax rate, but the 'down side' is that every dollar you make is taxed as your personal income. For a small business this is usually a fair trade off as you want to be able to put money in and take money out very easily.

Corporations were not "granted" to anybody and certainly not in exchange for anything.

Corporate organization is done at the state level. Each state has different laws (though they typically have to accept 'foreign' entities, e.g. companies/corps from other states, if they want to do business in their state).

The federal government did not have some secret corporation power that it decided to bestow on people in exchange for something. States enabled people to form companies and corporations to further commerce. If everybody were personally liable for everything their company did (as opposed to, perhaps, limited/i> liability), nobody would run companies.

Naming a product to sell it in a commercial market has got nothing to do with internal release milestones, and you don't have to be a marketing expert to realize that 'Windows 11' doesn't sound especially cool, whereas 'X' or 'Wild Giraffe' both sound awesome.

The question is more ridiculous than the discrepancy.

And some people believe that having children or getting old (or both) entitles them to tell other people what to do because there might be an outside chance that their baby might get run over by a Camero.

That's true on your typical suburban road or city street. It is drastically less true on a highway where you don't have intersections, stop signs, or left turns. The biggest danger on a highway is not speed but speed differential, e.g. somebody going 40 when everyone else is going 65 or (more often) somebody going 65 when everyone else is going 75-80, aka 'usual interstate behavior.'

I live in Austin. This road is in the middle of nowhere and it's the sort of road where people are going to drive 80mph anyway.

It's not the lawsuits. It's the insurance doctors (and now some nurses and PAs) are required to get to insure you against those lawsuits. This can be north of $100k/yr and in some cases (depending on the state) close to a quarter million a year for a surgeon.

Other than the fact that both organizations host "news content," they aren't comparable. Whether or not you approve of it, the WSJ is a traditional newspaper with "journalism" sections and "opinion" sections with different editors and standards.

HuffPo may contain journalism but it isn't the point. It's a combination rabble-rouser + echo chamber. You would never see a headline like theirs on a WSJ news article because it's repackaging it as commentary rather than news -- and even if that's a difficult line to keep track of for every news organization, HuffPo doesn't pretend to try. And why should they? Their audience doesn't seem to want them to.

Unions are democratic

If I don't have a choice about whether to join or not, the fact that you hold an election to decide who gets to be in charge doesn't make it democratic.

I don't have a beef with unions. I have a beef with any organization that is permitted to count me as a supporter and garnish my paycheck without even asking whether or not I would like to be a member. I don't care if you're saving baby unicorns. If you are, you should have no problem convincing me to join.

That's not even a relevant example.

According to you, poor people 'have to live' in benighted places where airplanes fly over them. Having an airport next door reduces property values. Whether or not you think it's stupid, and whether or not poor people fly has nothing to do with it.

Arguably, plopping down an airport will create more affordable housing, which is just the positive way of spinning "lower property values." If you don't want the noise, you can buy your way out, just like if you don't want to live in an apartment building, you can buy your way out. All of these things are luxuries. As you said, it's not like having airplanes flying over you is particularly terrible, if you grew up living with it.

But questions like yours are certainly open to dispute for any number of reasons. I'm merely pointing out that "justice" has got nothing to do with any of those reasons, because there is no "just" way to build an airport. You're just talking about serving one group of people's interests over another, and your basis for doing so is that they are poorer. If you put your airport in the middle of a bucolic planned community, you're going to destroy a lot more value than if you put it somewhere that values aren't all that high to begin with, so you're technically doing more economic damage. Is that "just"? It neither is nor isn't. Justice doesn't enter into it. It's purely a question of serving one group of people's legitimate self-interest over another's.

You keep using that word "justice." I do not think it means what you think it means.

If by "economic social justice" you mean "ways I believe that I should spend your money" and if by "unjust" you mean "bad because it is not how I would allocate your resources," then maybe.

But "justice" is the application of law to achieve a fair, reasonable, and consistent outcome. If your neighbor gets fined $100 for leaving trash on the street and you do the same thing but don't get fined, that's unjust.

Enabling or subsidizing somebody else to have access to something that they do not currently have may be altruistic or philanthropic and it may even be a good idea, but it's got nothing to do with justice. "Social Justice" might have meant something once, but it's been hijacked in pursuit of so many agendas (because everybody likes Justice, right?!?) that it's about as meaningful as the names of laws, where you regularly see things like "The American Equal Opportunity And High Paying Jobs For Everyone Act" that does nothing like what the title says.

Can you cite a source for this? Typically the 'subsidies' I see reported for the fossil fuel industry are tax breaks on capital investment and heavy machinery that are available to all businesses. Not saying there aren't outright subsidies, but I am curious what exactly you are talking about and where the 72 billion number comes from.

It may "seem like" but it isn't.

You can always, ALWAYS look for another job. So what if it takes months? You don't have to quit your current job to look for another one. Nobody is "mostly" or even "a little" forced to work anywhere. You don't have a right to your job any more than the person who doesn't have a job yet has a right to your job. If you can't find a new one, that's an unfortunate combination of your skill set and experience, your location, and your willingness to work for somebody else's terms. Alternatively, you can go into business for yourself. OH IT'S SO HARD YOU NEED SO MUCH MONEY AND INVESTORS you say. BS. I did, and I didn't have any of those things.

The employment market stats do not concur with "what you see."

When labor unions manage to get themselves hundreds of millions of dollars over many years that's OK, but god forbid an employer post a job with terms you don't like.

Your grasp of history is nearly as bad as your grasp of current events. Unions certainly corrected for an imbalance of power that favored management. Particularly in the mid-19th century, things were pretty bad because there was such an oversupply of labor in the US. But a lot of that was corrected not by labor unions but by government regulations on the length of the work week and overtime.

It is drearily common for anti-business agitprop spewers such as yourself to compare the present day labor market with a totally unregulated, pre-union market, and say "LOOK HOW BAD THINGS WERE" as if the fact that industry, without any restrictions on it, behaved badly, is enough to condemn them for all time. You know what I took away from reading about robber barons and lack of any labor laws on overtime? That any group of people, sufficiently empowered and without some combination of market or legal force to oppose them, will abuse the system to their own advantage. The likelihood for this goes up as the group gets larger and less directly connected to the people they employ. Unions are absolutely no different than big corporations in this respect.

I'm ambivalent about your smug sensationalism. You sound like the kind of person who blames his own poor choices on the world, like you deserved a better go at things, and you've bought into a total BS version of everything from industrial history to the Great Depression to the Great Recession to justify your own pathetic anger.