In Virginia your fingerprint isn't protected by the 5th amendment.
The study is being facilitated as a challenge through Yegii, an 'Insight Network' founded by Trond Undheim. Undheim is also a Senior Lecturer at MIT Sloan School of Management, as well as Managing Director at Tautec Consulting.
The challenge was initiated by Julio Faura — Head of Corporate development for Banco Santander. According to Dr. Undheim, Faura was "looking for additional outside perspective onto the topic of Bitcoin. While acquiring consulting services from top tier consulting firms can be exciting, he thought that an outsider, multidisciplinary perspective, would be particularly helpful."
Link to Original Source
After missing him in St. Louis, Amsterdam, and Chicago, I was able to track Matthew down in Los Angeles on Friday before he heads on another trip overseas – a planned ‘post-graduation’ trip with his siblings that has been reworked to take advantage of some new networking opportunities. He was gracious enough to chat with me about his background, The Bitcoin Society, and what winning the Blockchain Awards has meant to him and his organization...
Sometimes people do vote for third parties, but I haven't seen major changes caused by that, either. Did Ross Perot have any lasting effects?
Well, Perot's candidacy did prove that people will vote for a third-party candidate they feel is viable. Also it proved that a third-party candidate with enough financial backing can get attention. At one point Perot was polling higher than either Clinton or Bush. If he hadn't fucked up his own campaign, Perot might have done much better than the 18/19% he got.
You ask for lasting effects however, for that I point to the increases in signature requirements for ballot access by states across the US, and the current exclusion of third-party candidates from Presidential debates. Seems that Rs and Ds don't like competition.
Thank you for proving my point - we exert control over our biological impulses all the time, either ignoring them or choosing different ways/times to express them. We can't control all of them all of the time, and some can control themselves better than others, but just because biology is talking, doesn't mean you have to listen.
If that's your strategy, you probably are destined for disappointment. IMHO, it's best to learn how to identify and avoid situations that force you to confront your biology.
That's nonsense, you confront your biology every day. Ever had to urinate but held it? Ever fallen in love with someone who didn't reciprocate? Ever wanted to hit your boss, but didn't? Ever cried, but didn't want to?
Avoiding situations that forced you to confront your biology would boring as hell, and you couldn't do it anyway.
If you want to make an argument against corporations, make it about size and streamlining. Just like nature, a free-market can't exist when an part of that system(species) gets so large that it interferes negatively with the whole system. There is nothing inherently wrong with capping the size of a corporation - in fact it's better that we do it early. On the corporation level, sure, a narrative exists that says they'll "lose" money. However in the larger system, that money is still at play within the market. In fact, by forcing corporations to spin off and splinter, that money will change hands more often and stay in the market longer. Smaller organizations will be better able to compete on the merits of the product or service, rather than trying to sneak gold from dragons protecting their hoard.
Streamlining is also problematic to a free-market "naturalistic" system. In nature, an organization (say, an ant colony) need individuals for task completion. While I understand why the poor overworked queen may appreciate having a robot to bring her food and do the housecleaning, unfortunately that throws the whole system off and displaces a bunch of hungry, and now angry, ants. While a few of them might find work building robots, the rest are despondent and prone to misadventure and/or tragedy. (And at least a couple are plotting against the queen)
Sure the queen need not produce so many workers, and so she may not be in danger from her once-loyal minions, but corporations do not have the ability control the population, only reduce the amount of the population needed. Guess what? There's a lot of hungry and angry ants roaming about.
Corporations today are getting bigger while using less people (who cost less now, oversupply), and because of their size and natural tendencies they make it harder for new businesses to flourish - even with a labor market that is artificially depressed by automation.
I don't know if it'll fix the problem for sure, but capping size and taxing automation at a rate equal to what an individual doing that job would pay to the State seems like a good start to limiting corporate power, increasing jobs, and getting us closer to a true free-market system.
They wern't reasonable in my opinion. One justice compared violent videogames with child porn, and the other missed the point of the arguments entirely.
Also, birth rates are being rolled back - both white and black birth rates have declined significantly with only recent immigrant populations having high birthrates - and those will likely go down over time as well. US doesn't have a problem with rising population.
It may not ever pass through committee, however if you take just 5 minutes to send a message to your Senators and Representatives telling them to support this bill, it will at least make them think about it just a bit.
"Much of the rest pays for equal-chance education (teachers), unemployment insurance (which cost goes up during crises and goes down during booms), poor families/children, roads and other infrastructure - none of those have fixed maintenance costs but go up linearly with the number of people."
All spending is proportional, but some groups are more proportional than others?
The rest of your argument is nonsense too. If spending were linear, add 33% to to 1980s spending (1/3 more people) and track it to inflation. You'll get a lot smaller number than today's spending levels. Hint: $3.4 Tril - 2.6 Trillion less than last year's spending. All you've done is just prove that the government is overspending by nearly double.
We wouldn't need more taxes if we hadn't increased defense spending to huge amounts. You'll get no argument from me about cuts there. Medicare and Social Security are, while noble ideas, also unsustainable. Both are ponzi schemes with most people putting in less than they get out - in which case the first out get the benefits while those that stay in require a larger and larger burden. We are fast approaching the point when the number of recipients are larger than the number of payors, the only way to counter that is to make payors pay more (tax them, tax the rich ones more (even though they don't need medicare/SS and arn't the problem)) or to increase birth rates and/or immigration to have a larger economic base in which to pay for the next generation - basically creating economic slaves out of our children to pay for our own retirement. Bush actually had a good plan to help fix the problem - 4 cents on the dollar invested into individual accounts- but we know how that went.
We (as in the government) have also added numerous agriculture subsidies, dumped money into various new departments and bureacracies, given raises and benefit increases to federal workers - and then the federal unions have forced contractors to pay their workers federal wage rate, (you should see what the construction workers on federal projects get paid!) and paid for hundreds/thousands of pork-barrel projects (war on drugs, bridges to nowhere). If, instead of allowing special interests to mine out the money of the people in every way imaginable, we had simply focused on infrastructure, education, and modest social support, and modest defense spending, we'd be just fine.
False. We're actually paying higher when all tax sources are figured in.
Doubled GDP, Doubled Economy, Quadrupled tax income. Sextupled spending.
You mean we're paying less per person. While our economy doubled in the same time frame, actual US tax income has actually quadrupled $500Mil -> $2.5 Trillion from 1980 - 2007 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/U.S.-income-taxes-out-of-total-taxes.JPG
FYI that's well past inflation.
It's a tired and out of context argument that somehow we needed to keep these top tax rates (as much as 70%!) and that we've shortchanged ourselves, corporations are not paying enough, etc. Instead the truth is we've got about 100 million more people (and many more businesses) in the US than we did in 1980, and with more people you can lower the burden on all. In fact, if we had maintained government spending at 1980's levels (>$1 Trillion) and tracked to inflation we'd be just fine today - in fact we'd have a slight surplus. Instead, despite a doubling of the economy and the quadrupling of tax income, the government sextupled spending (>$1 Tril/year -> $6Tril/year)
The problem has not been taxes, instead it has been both parties spending far beyond revenues, and taking loans out to pay for it (or just pushing the bills into the future, which is why some reports have us at 70 Trillion in unfunded mandates)
Should these satellites go away? Probably not. But I'd like to see something else (or everything) cut first rather than to just add more tax burden.