Posts by BenWilson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: The sphere of influence, in reply to Chris Waugh,
Government jobs are much more stable and have better welfare.
Heh. It's an interesting take that the inhuman algorithm was the guy with the best job and perks. Social commentary right there. When the Rage Against the Machine came up at the end, did the Chinese credits accidentally list them as Sympathy For The Machine?
-
Hard News: The sphere of influence, in reply to izogi,
about the time that The Matrix series of movies was popular, most of the class chose the English first name of “Mr Smith”.
Nobody wanted to be Neo?
-
Hard News: Illegal Highs, in reply to Russell Brown,
Un-fucking-believable.
Would that it were so. Mind you, risky and low-risk are the same, if harm is the only thing you can take into account. They're both negatives on the ledger. Treating them the same is only making the impossibility of balancing such books even clearer. No matter how many negatives you add up, you'll never get a positive. The best you could hope for is zero (if the number of negatives happens to be zero). I never believed any product would pass such a test. I doubt water would pass it, considering that there have been overdoses. I'm just surprised so many managed to go so long completely untested without being blocked.
-
Cracker: The Colorado Experiment, in reply to Chris Waugh,
I dunno, maybe the faster plane would burn its fuel faster, and therefore need to get to that longer runway sooner?
That's the only thing I could think of. You'd want to have a pretty good idea of how big the fuel tanks on the other plane are.
-
Cracker: The Colorado Experiment, in reply to ,
said he once out slowed the DEA. His plane could stay in the air at a lower air speed than there’s.
It's kind of hard to see that as an advantage, since the faster plane can just circle around. The slower one could land on a shorter runway, though, for whatever that's worth.
-
Cracker: The Colorado Experiment, in reply to Danielle,
Indeed. Considering the main thing people typically mention is damage to your brain, since the comeback around the carcinogenous effects is always that a better delivery method would help a lot. Eating or vaporizing, for instance.
I don't find "brain structure changes" to be very compelling evidence of harm. I'm more interested in cognitive function, although of course brain structure is a fascinating topic. But I'm less concerned about a brain being structured differently if it still continues to work just fine.
-
OIC. I'm not entirely sure what the exceptions are. Exempting people in distress makes a lot of sense, as does allowing premature access to the funds for people in severe financial distress. Hopefully Labour's nutted that stuff out for their scheme. But also note that if it's a small percentage of income, beneficiaries are probably only going to be putting away a very small sum. I'd think the best thing to do upon phasing it in would be to lift all benefits by that percentage, so that there's no net change. Similarly with taxpayers, a drop in income tax at the time would do a lot to grease the passage of the schmax. That's how the National Party would do it.
-
By exceptions do you mean objections? I don't have any objections to the Australian system, especially since it became possible to transfer my funds here, which was my only objection before.
-
Hard News: A Big Idea, in reply to Rob Stowell,
I'm pretty bored of this argument. You're just insisting I see it your way, and that everyone else will too. I don't think they will and this discussion can go nowhere. It's entirely semantic, the worst kind of discussion. Fuck it, whatever. It's not a tax. Who fucking cares? It's a schmax then, lets use a different word. It looks and quacks like a tax, has the same effect on disposable incomes as a tax, manifests as the government telling you how to use that money for most of your life, and then hopefully comes back to you in spades, just like a tax. But fuck it, it's a schmax. I'm using that word from now on.
-
Hard News: A Big Idea, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
I agree, the degree to which this would work to control inflation is unknown. But it seems pretty straightforward that it should help.
Yes, I agreed with this when I said as my opening sentence:
Any extra tools are good, really.
And then:
It’s a much more powerful tool than the OCR because it works directly on the people spending the money, rather than indirectly through the banks printing it through debt.
and
Sort of. I think it’s a good idea, I’m just saying it’s not some natural mirror of the OCR. They’re very different beasts. Its primary effect on money supply would be to reduce it, as it increased.
I support this idea. I've supported the idea of compulsory super savings in NZ for years and years, and have said so hundreds upon hundreds of times on this forum. I have a huge fund of my own in Australia, and that convinced me of the worth of the idea, despite initial skepticism as a young man. I have actually lived through this myself, not just imagined it or researched it.
TLDR:
I SUPPORT THE IDEA OF COMPULSORY SUPER SAVINGS IN NZ.
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 256 257 258 259 260 … 1066 Older→ First