You first. Meaning economy of Russia. Europeans can cope with hardships for a good reason, and can continue trading without Russia very well, while it is opposite, that is going to be pretty hard. Watch ruble to get better idea meanwhile.
You liar. Russia invaded Ukraine, and annexed Crimea. That's what any serious paper will tell you. As to Crimea (Qirim yarimadasi) "is Russian, because nearly everyone there is Russian", learn when and how it became populated by Russians extensively, how many natives still remain there, and how rightful is "mandate", being part of annexing campaign. Then think again how much rights to annex territory of independent state of Ukraine Russia has had.
You don't get it right. They don't need these parts of Ukraine to be part of Russia, doesn't make most of the sense. Crimea was it, nice souvenir to get army of fools as supporters for a national hero, bringing lands back. And that's it. Chunks of Ukraine with influence of Russia need to obtain special confederation status, while remaining part of Ukraine, so retaining control over Ukraine. Just like Moldova is kept in halt trough Transnistria.
Putin is not afraid of the West at all, but he does not like them, and his country won't ever see themselves as a part. They protect their zone of influence, and Ukraine was pretty much still in it. Now it wants to walk own ways - and is made to struggle.
You are comparing enemies of Ukrainians vs enemies of Russians over the globe, seriously?!! You are seriously nuts.
Even then, extent of corruption and theft of resources in Russia itself remains unsurpassed, while not anybody else has been role model for Ukraine's oligarchy in modern times. Finally, people of Ukraine started looking at other neighbors, and understood that they can do in very similar ways. This is precisely when Russia started poorly hidden war on Ukraine, openly annexing Crimea. It is going to be extremely expensive adventure for Russia.
Situation is pretty bad for Russia, because it took wild turn with enormous lie, cheating and aggression campaign. No happy ending in exchange for these. I am very sorry for all those frank folks, there are, that are doomed by bravado of one KGB tsar and his fool believers. Pity.
With those concerned destined to crawl at the bottom. Got to be funny at the very least.
Even my IT inventory supplier wants to stuff me with kitchenware these days.
Proper idea is to tax not the wealth itself, but its increase (often mapped to income).
It is easy to grasp difference, taking example case, that you accumulated some wealth by your efforts in some good times of the past, but do not have significant income at present. It's allright with you being wealthy at some constant level by itself.
You are hardest hit, if you are most ripped off per your resources.
Excellent comment, and method used to evaluate real effect of taxes proposed.
Hopefully (probably?) what he means is that the only taxes are on consumption.
FYI: majority of contemporary economies have VAT or similar, which is essentially that,
and makes major part of all taxes collected.
At the present level, this alone still does not solve much deeper structural problems with capitalism.
Very good roadmap of its problems and proposed solutions is explained in this excellent book:
Spiritual Capital: Wealth We Can Live by, written by Danah Zohar and Ian Marshall
...lower growth leads to wealth inequity
While higher would lead even more so.
He just intended to say "economy has become less market".
...In the end economic systems are just ways of distributing resources...
Nope. They are systems to reap benefits by participating in. And once some have figured how they can benefit most,
no matter if at the expense of diminishing returns of the others, they do it to the extent possible.
Distribution? It's tax spendings. While speaking of tax collection, those top-beneficiaries are once again in
position to avoid these duties top-best, because of resources available to them.
... About the availability of source code and the permission to examine, modify and redistribute it. It doesn't mean better security or indeed better by any quality metric, and that's not the point...
Of course, that is the point: permission to examine and modify is directly setting preconditions to instantly enhance code examined. And if examination with sufficient eyeballs really takes place, process goes just as doctor prescribed. It does not, however, mean, that code escapes possibilities to hack completely - it is too complicated structure to expect that, unless looking at it with idealism of topic.