Well, since being imprisoned will make you safer, lets throw you in prison. What? You don't want that? Maybe because there are somethings that are more important than being safe? Like maybe being free?
He declares bankruptcy, and all his debts get wiped away. This could actually help his finances more than hurt them if he is like the typical American and has more debts than assets.
And if I wound-up losing and owing $1.5 million (two songs infringed upon), I'd consider that a life sentence. That's worse than the punishment for murder.
Why would it be a life sentence. There is this thing called bankruptcy. It can wipe even this judgement away.
It still remains that the work conditions would be illegal were they done in the United States, and absolutely all of Europe. They are a step up over lots of shops in that country, but that doesn't change the fact that the hours the employees work, the benefits, and overall conditions are not acceptable. So they are the best of a crumy lot. I have the firm belief that any product that is sold in this country, I mean the US, must have been produced in working conditions that are of the same, or better, as mandated here in the states. And that includes work hours.
You'll never be able to do that, however. Our leaders would gladly destroy all life on earth than let another military set foot on our soil. It is therefore academic. A stronger army matters not when you can blow up the entire planet many times over.
In the company I work for, I am a software developer, and I work in the Product Development department. We also have an IT department which is responsible for maintaining the computer network and servicing the companies computer assets. So I work in Product Development, not IT. IT is a subset of computer, and CS is not programming it is the study of things, both practical and theoretical, that can be processed by computers. Stop being a jack ass.
This is completely academic. The US is bankrupt. It is not possible to pay off our debt unless we do one of two things.
2. Print the money to pay it, without borrowing the created money like we do right now
Why? A few reasons. For one reason there is more debt than there is money when you take into consideration the private debt as well. When you pay that much debt, reserves get drained and banks become insolvent, causing a classic fractional reserve deflationary spiral. That doesn't even take into account the 80 trillion in unfunded liabilities we have with the pension insurance program and others.
We're screwed. So we either default, or print the money. Borrowing it just keeps propagating and enforces the only two possible solutions.
The individual you responded to stated that it should only cover "simply to the environment as presented to the human in place, at human levels of perception." That nullifies your concern as that would be beyond the human level of perception.
That all depends on the state you are in in the US. In Georgia, there is a stand your ground law. This states that if a person is threatening you or your property, you stand there and warn them that you intend to use deadly force if they continue, if you have the opportunity to do so, and if they continue to their threatening action you can engage, and be immune from criminal and civil penalties resulting. So the family won't be able to sue if it was found that you warned the person off, or you were not given the opportunity to if it was a swift attack.
We don't really pay off debt as much as we keep rolling it over to another set of bonds. The best analogy would be using one credit card to pay for another. It doesn't really matter at all though as we can not pay off the debt under our current monetary and banking system. Even if done slowly, it would be a massive deflationary event that would remove more reserves from banks than could possibly be made up for by reserves from the Fed, which would have to be paid back, and the system would collapse. That's the price we pay for fractional reserve accounting.
Groupon's site sucks. Groupon's model can easily be copied by new or existing competitors and undercut. They are essentially a coupon site and will be commoditzed in short order.
Umm, you've got a bit of a problem. The wealthy don't make their money through income. They make it through dividends, and business income, where they do not pay the 15% to social security, and all their expenses are pre-tax. The national sales tax would avoid this issue as all consumption would get taxed and the wealthy actually would pay a share, unlike now where their share is pathetically low.
Those who pay the most are high wage earners, like athletes, doctors, lawyers and the such. I do not consider those people wealthy as most of them still have to work to maintain their standard of living.
Besides the "sex by surprise" verb-age you object to, is there any thing non-factual in the timeline he discuses?
We have a slight problem though. Our GDP numbers since Clinton are cooked. The calculation of GDP was changed so that increase in functionality but decrease in price were counted as net positives in the GDP numbers. So if a TV with a set of features sold for $500 one year, and the next that same TV sold for $300, for each of the TVs sold the second year, it would be considered a $200 boost to GDP. If looking at the prior way of calculating GDP it figures out to be less than 10%. Our GDP has been shrinking for a long time, and when counting in inflation (of which the government numbers are also cooked) you can see the complete erosion of the middle class. The only reason we brought our Debt to GDP ratio down after WW2 is we had a massive inflow of wealth from taking advantage of/rebuilding Europe.
I must say, I strongly favor the check and balance of a high court which can strike down a law. If that is not in the constitution then we need an amendment specifically granting the high court that authority.