Thanks for weighing in there, septuagenarian. Or are you even older? Regardless, you should also know that "quite well" means the same thing now as it did then: a fatality per 1000 cases or so. And of course that number doesn't include deaths from measles survivors whose immune amnesia causes their death from some other infection they'd have avoided but for that reset.

Uh, yes it does. Law professors are very protective of their test questions, so of course I paraphrased. Let's see *your* JD, punk.

You seem not to realize that every Supreme Court justice has spent three years studying for about a hundred hours of exams with questions drawn almost exclusively from the following format:

"The facts above implicate at least two countervailing legal maxims. Discuss the origin and development of those ideas in detail, including how they read on those facts. Explain which of those arguments are most compelling in your opinion and why."

Then they go out and zealously represent people for a while. My question to you is: why would it make any difference to "make an effort to behave that way" when we've been selecting against that since day one? Because you need a soothing bedtime story to tell yourself?

We didn't give away squat. If you mean the share of national income going to any particular percentile of the population, we did that to ourselves. Can't have basic social services while you're obsessing over "welfare queens" dontcha know.

Uh, sure? But it's like saying the walls in your house should meet at 90 degrees. What's baffling is that you think an educated, intelligent adult can be impartial and non-political. Are we gonna start raising Supreme Court justices in a vat? "It merely pleases me to behave a certain way in what I perceive to be a courtroom."

Extremely lacking? How? It could be a 3-0 liberal majority by sunset on January 3.

Since April 26, 2021? About 100%. Bitcoin seems to be at about 44%. I suppose, though, I've been cheating by using my government money to buy *productive* assets.

Why would the House vote to impeach? Because they can't count that high? And why assume that an impeachment-hungry House and a trial-obsessed Senate wouldn't torpedo the existing rules in January and proceed on simple resolutions?

"Resolved: the House accuses Donald J. Trump of high crimes and misdemeanors and refers this impeachment to the Senate."

"Resolved: the Senate hereby accepts the articles of impeachment; invites the Chief Justice to preside over its trial on January X, 2027; and organizes said trial, allotting 5 minutes each to prosecuting House managers and the President's defense, before the Senate shall vote guilty or not guilty on the articles "

I tend to enjoy all the fruits of worldwide comparative advantage- I'm surprised you don't. But separately, I suspect it only matters whether we can manufacture the two remaining things that actually count: lithography machines and the chips that come out of them. Which we can't, and shouldn't waste our money trying to change.

So have haircuts. Is that because of credit cards, or might it be due to labor-intensive services being unable to capture the labor productivity gains of the rest of the economy.

Having been able to attend college due to the existence of federal student loans, I know the answer. What's your excuse for not knowing?

It's absolutely spot-on true. None of that information is public, apart from reported beneficial ownership. Even were that data disclosed, what do you really learn when the transfer agent says brokerage X holds Y shares? Or when they say they issued a certificate in name Z but have no idea whether it has been endorsed for sale or inherited or whatever? There are more examples.

I think there could be more to this than just "distributed transaction log" versus "traditional ledger." The current traditional ledger is a leaky black sieve inside a black box unless you're after potentially-outdated data on beneficial owners. Only a *nonpublic* distributed transaction log could possibly hope to offer as little information about ownership as the current system.

Not possible. What brought us "cheaper and more superior necessities" were advances in labor productivity. The failure of most "meaningful labor" to keep up with labor productivity in the broader economy is exactly *why* you have people freaking out about the cost of health care, child care, education, live entertainment, repairs, etc. Your doctor sees exactly as many patients as his or her predecessor did 60 years ago, but it now takes a third fewer labor hours to build a car.

And we don't have those *where* in the West?

Nice recursion on the "affordable housing" by the way. Isn't the whole premise of a market economy that everyone wants to pay less for everything?

Why would anybody ever want to pay it? If your money earns you just the paltry 3.3% that is the average interest rate on that debt, you're either a bit feebleminded, or you're invested only in US Treasuries.