The risk is the whole point, and certainly does not excuse their gouging.
The risk is the point though. High risk activities will cost more to insure because they'll need to be paid out more often. Couple that with the high destruction possible, and you have frequent accidents that can all cause very expensive damage, necessitating a high base price for insurance.
The price gouging is just capitalism, and I doubt anyone here is going to argue that capitalism isn't bad.
His billion dollar settlement won't be discharged through this bankruptcy, so his wages will probably be garnished for the rest of his life as it is. I really don't have any sympathy for him, and taking the social media account he's been using for his business as part of that business's liquidation really doesn't feel like a big deal.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLOBp3v-_cPa2f05inQWNrm0KMd6VHSgyc
Youtube says there are only 441 videos in the complete series, I'm sure you'll find your cousin eventually.
Although it is weird, wikipedia and archive.org are telling me there should only be 65.
Capital gains are profits from the sale of assets such as stocks, bonds, real estate, and antiques. Nine states (Arizona, Arkansas, Hawaiʻi, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Carolina, Vermont, and Wisconsin) provide income tax deductions or preferential rates for all long-term capital gains income. Other states—such as Connecticut, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Oklahoma—offer tax reductions for realized gains from certain assets located solely within state boundaries.[11] These tax subsidies disproportionately benefit high-income and high-wealth families and tend to worsen economic inequality across both economic and racial dimensions.
Oh man, if only the authors of the study had thought about capital gains taxes, then maybe the map above that's only using income to divide the population would have been better somehow.
And yet we trust almost all of them to operate a 2-ton machine on a daily basis here in the US.
If that plan worked perfectly, you'd solve the land use and, giving you an extremely generous benefit of the doubt, the emissions from manure problems.
All you have to now is figure out how to build and maintain these high-rises cost effectively, and how to generate enough power for a matrix-like experience and all the VR headsets and treadmills for the cows. And even then you'd still be wasting a lot of food by feeding it to animals rather than just eating it directly.
None of those benefits came close to the cost of the program
How do you measure the cost-to-benefit of longer maternity leave? Or higher high school graduation rates? Not everything the government does needs to directly make a profit. Just look at roads for an obvious example of that.
once initiated productively decreased. Likely would have even decreased further but people knew the free money would eventually end.
There was only about a 13% decrease in hours worked for the entire family on average, and most of that was women going back to work after a pregnancy later and teenagers not working (probably so they could keep going to school).
How do you pay for a program when the local area taxes don’t cover it particularly when the tax income actually decreases once instituted?
It's not about Canada, but you can always find a way to pay for things if you really want to, even if they're objectively bad for tax income.
From the source of link 3:
Figure 17 Primary Reasons for Leaving Last Housing, All Participants
- Lost or reduced income: 12%
- Conflict among residents: 9%
- Didn't want to impose/wanted own space: 7%
- Conflict with property owner: 7%
- Someone else became sick, disabled, or died: 6%
- Building was sold or foreclosed: 6%
- Violence or abuse in the household: 5%
- Breakup between residents: 4%
- Participant's substance use: 4%
- Other needed more space: 4%
and also:
To understand what participants believed may have prevented their homelessness, we asked them to engage in a thought experiment about the likelihood that their homelessness could have been prevented had they received financial intervention. We provided all participants with three different scenarios and asked them whether each intervention would have prevented their becoming homeless for at least two years.29 The interventions were: (1) a monthly rental subsidy worth $300-$500; (2) a one-time payment of $5,000 to $10,000; or, (3) a voucher that limits rent contribution to 30% of their income (such as a Housing Choice Voucher).
FIGURE 21 Participant Report of Effect of Hypothetical Homelessness Prevention Interventions by Family Structure
All
- $300-$500/month shallow subsidy: 70%
- $5,000-$10,000 one-time payment: 82%
- Housing voucher: 90%
So while "not enough money" might not have been the most common cause for people being homeless, the vast majority of people think having more money or cheaper housing would have prevented them from becoming homeless.
It wasn't me that said that, and that's not what they said.
Edit: I should really refresh the page if I'm going to spend so long reading the sources.
Addiction Disorders: The relationship between addiction and homelessness is complex and controversial. While rates of alcohol and drug abuse are disproportionately high among the homeless population, the increase in homelessness over the past two decades cannot be explained by addiction alone. Many people who are addicted to alcohol and drugs never become homeless, but people who are poor and addicted are clearly at increased risk of homelessness. Addiction does increase the risk of displacement for the precariously housed; in the absence of appropriate treatment, it may doom one's chances of getting housing once on the streets. Homeless people often face insurmountable barriers to obtaining health care, including addictive disorder treatment services and recovery supports. Source
The prevalence of mental illness and substance use among those experiencing homelessness is clear, but Kushel cautions that the vast majority of mental illness among the study participants is anxiety and depression. It’s likely the lack of resources exacerbates those conditions, rather than the illness causing the homelessness, she says.
“I think that the driving issue is clearly the deep poverty, that the median [monthly] household income for everyone in the household in the six months before homelessness was $960, in a state with the highest housing costs in the country,” she says. Other studies have noted that the end of pandemic stimulus payments and rising inflation has led to rents outpacing wages. The study notes that in 2023, California had only 24 units of affordable housing available for every 100 extremely low-income households.Source
Just because you know one or two people that were homeless and also had problems with addiction, doesn't mean the addiction caused their homelessness.
The wealthiest 10% owns 90% of all stocks. And realistically, how many people can actually track the supply chain of every product they buy to try to only buy from ethical companies? How many truly plastic free options even are there for basic things like bread, toothbrushes/toothpaste, or soap?
Are you implying Harris was also fascist, or are you just complaining that not enough people voted for her? If it's the first, then fine. But if it's the second, what do you think Harris could have done to earn more votes?
Or are you saying that racism and misogyny in the US is just that much stronger than our anti-fascist beliefs? That there's no amount of good policy and campaign promises that a woman could give that would ever be enough to beat fascism?