Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source
And the poor are more likely to put pretty much all their income back into the economy in their day-to-day living, whereas the rich don't.
I'm aware of the velocity of money and the perception that poor people pour money back into the economy rapidly while rich people don't (and it matches my personal biases, so I like the idea a lot) but -- I'm trying to figure out what the rich can do with money that actually takes it out of the economy. Unless they actually stick dollars in suitcases and store them in the wine cellar, almost anything else I can think of puts the money in someone else's pocket one way or another. Stuck in banks: used to back bank loans. Buying ferraris and Monets: money has gone to the previous owner. Investments, likewise. Taking money out of the country probably counts from a single country's economy standpoint, but not from a global standpoint. I'd be interested in hearing other people's thoughts on this.
I'm reading Learning Java, which i recently purchased, and was typing in the examples from the book. As the book is a monster to hold, i ended up upgrading the ebook for $4.95. Dual screens with one for the PDF and the other for the IDE make it oh so much easier to type in. I also have been reading it on the macbo
Are you mad? Do you know how many businesses struggle with payroll? Where owners take loans (or are late paying other bills) in order to cover payroll. This is SOOOOO fu*king common. Start a business and see how often it happens to you.
Large companies routinely get short-term loans to meet payroll. As far as I can tell, that was a major reason for the idea that banks were judged too big to fail: if a bunch of banks had all gone under, immediately thereafter a large number of fortune 500 companies would also have gone under because they needed those banks for day-to-day financial obligations.
They were working on a more streamlined design until someone pointed out that aerodynamics means exactly jack squat once you leave atmo.
Form follows function, the designers had to take a back seat to efficiency.
No-fault is about taking money away from lawyers, who used to litigate each and every auto accident as a lawsuit in court before the insurers would pay. Eventually the insurers decided that they spent more on lawyers than accident payments, and they had no reason to do so.
If you want to go back to the way things were, you are welcome to spend lots of time and money in court for trivial things, and see how you like it. I will provide you with expert witness testimony for $7.50/minute plus expenses. The lawyers charge more.
In general your insurer can figure out for themselves if you were at fault or not, and AAA insurance usually tells me when they think I was, or wasn't, when they set rates.
If we don't have more than two children per couple, the human race would've died out a long time ago.
I think the proper way to state that is "If we didn't in the past", not "If we don't". If we were to have 2 children per couple (approximately, the real value is enough children to replace each individual but not more) from this day on, it would not be necessary to adjust the number upward to avoid a population bottleneck for tens of thousands of years.
The Northern California Amtrak is actually pretty good for commuting from Sacramento to the Bay Area and back because the right of way is 4 tracks wide in critical places and it has priority over other trains for much of the time.
Acela in the Boston/NY/DC corridor is also good, because the right of way is 4 tracks or more for most of the way, and it has a track to itself along a lot of the route. Other railroads run on parallel tracks.
For the most part, though, Amtrak suffers from not having exclusive track. It runs on freight lines that host cars so heavy that the rail bends an inch when the wheels are on top of it (I've seen this first hand).
And Germany is a nation the size of New Mexico with an economy the 5th largest in the world. Starting pretty much from zero 70 years ago.
Maybe having good trains is part of that.
No. If anything, I assert that good trains are a hallmark of the set of good economic policies that lead to the general well-being of the citizenship.
Poor people are poor because they can't get jobs. One of the reasons is that they can't get to jobs. Can't afford a reliable car and insurance and gas in the US? Can't work! Too often, that's the equation.
The other reasons they are poor are that we were equally bad in investing in other things we should have spent more upon publicly, like good primary education. This is caused by more wealthy folks not wanting to pay the necessary taxes.
I have a lawn and there are turkeys and quail in the front yard today and we can hear the coyotes howling some nights (that's on the edge of Berkeley where it meets Contra Costa county). If I want to be in San Francisco, I have to get to the train station, which is a mile away (convenient, by the way, to lower income homes). And then it's all train from there, under the Bay, out again in the middle of the city.
In two more years, I will be able to get to San Jose that way. Right now, that is an hour and twenty minute drive if I start at 6 AM, and two hours if I start later. It will be a shorter time on the train, more relaxing, a hell of a lot safer, and will allow me to work on the way.
This is what railroad transportation can mean for people with lawns.
Well, I am not convinced by the auto ownership report that failed to include the purchase price (really!)
I think there's a lot about European behavior you're not taking into account - like the kind of car they actually buy (really small compared to ours) and what they use it for (often, just getting to the railroad station), and the clear indication that car ownership was because of their larger middle class which is itself an indication of better economic policies - like having good mass transit.
I think you have the tax picture wrong, and it's still the better-off people who are contributing the most to mass transit through their taxes.
Regarding the bus, I'm not convinced. The biggest problems are that it can't be connected to electricity efficiently (San Francisco's catenary busses can't exceed 40 MPH while on the wire, and rarely approach that speed because they share the route with cars), it is labor intensive compared to rail, and it has the traffic and safety issues of an automobile. And too often light rail is little better than a bus. It's only when there's an exclusive right-of-way that you get efficiency.
And ultimately there may still be people who vote against mass transit, but they are shooting themselves in the foot.
That's the average for the entire country.
Read the figures in the brochure. I think a lot of people don't realize all of the separate expenses that should be counted as part of automobile ownership.