Did US have economic shocks? Compared to, say, Eastern Europe or Sub-Saharan Africa, all people who lived through real economic shocks and hyper-inflation tend to save less, not more. Because they know the savings can evaporate one day.
They absolutely save. Just not in their own currency - they'll instead rush to cash out for gold, USD, prime real estate (if they're rich), or some other less volatile store of value, before their currency gets devalued even further.
Gold and USD is easily stolen, especially if stored in a bank. Prime real estate will find a new owner (e.g. the case I saw myself -- surprise, turns out the seller, even if's the government/municipality itself, did not have rights to sell you the land 15 years ago, good bye).
This is a confusion about what a "dinosaur" is. It is a particular branch of reptiles, not just an ancient one. The first dinosaurs were in the Triassic (roughly 240 mya). It was likely the Permian-Triassic extinction that opened the evolutionary niches for dinosaurs to evolve into (much like the Cretaceous extension event opened up the way for the mammals).
While there were creatures that looked like dinosaurs in the Permian period (298 mya) - creatures like the dimetrodon (the one with the sail on its back that you'd find next to dinosaurs in the museum - though the dimetrodon is of the branch that lead to mammals rather than reptiles) and early lizards and turtles - these aren't dinosaurs.
Yep, and similar thing went in Philippines. The craziest part is that public in general sided with doctors, and against their president on that issue. Even though public would certainly benefit from having more doctors.
Well, I can accept that Musk didn't know about criminal stuff and just thought it's like a Burning Man and had a big FOMO. Even though I cannot stand buffone Musk, it looks like it to me.
Thiel and especially Trump though are very different story. Trump happily dived in all the crime he could get.
> Well, I can accept that Musk didn't know about criminal stuff and just thought it's like a Burning Man and had a big FOMO.
... Wait, okay, I realise Musk isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, but just how stupid do you think he is? Anyone corresponding with Epstein after his first conviction knew very well the sort of person they were dealing with; they just didn't care.
Well… judging by his behaviour on all the times he's been told "no" by domain experts, and that random reward schedules are highly addictive (which in this context means "on some occasions he's even correct when he tells experts he knows better"), I think it's very plausible that someone told him what Epstein was and he ignored and/or fired them for doing so because he didn't want it to be the case.
But that's the positive spin, where Musk actually didn't know and was simply an idiot, and at this point I'm tired of giving him the benefit of the doubt.
Example of the kind of stuff easily findable in 2006 if you ask an underling who knows how to Google to check out the guy throwing sex parties you want to attend:
Oh, yeah, if you were to do any due diligence (which you probably _should_, as a billionaire intending to go to sex parties) the red flags were there long before. But the first conviction really removed any vestiges of plausible deniability.
The main job of a judicial system is to appear just to people. As long as people think it's just -- everyone is happy. But if it's strictly by the law, but people consider it's unjust -- revolutions happen.
In both cases, lawmakers must adapt the law to reflect what people think is "just". That's why there are jury duty in some countries -- to involve people to the ruling, so they see it's just.
Being just (as in the right thing happened) and being legal (as in the judicial system does not object) are 2 totally different things. They overlap, but less than people would like to believe.
I've never met a lawyer who believes that. To a lawyer, justice requires agreement on the laws, rather than individual notions of justice. If the law is unjust, it's up to the lawmaking body to fix that. I hear this from lawyers of all ideologies.
I believe that this is absurd, but I'm not a lawyer.
In Federal courts mandatory minimum sentences were judged to be unconstitutional, as the ability to individualize sentencing was considered a prerogative intrinsic to the role of [Federal] judges. Though, a judge cannot impose a sentence greater than the maximum allowed under law. Federal courts still have sentencing guidelines that are almost always applied, but strictly speaking they're advisory.
More fundamentally, individualized justice is a core principle of common law courts, at least historically speaking. It's also an obscure principle, but you can't fully understand the system without it, including the wide latitude judges often wield in various (albeit usually highly technical) aspects of their job.
But I'm not sure what your argument is. It is our duty as citizens to encourage the system to be just. Since there is no concrete mathematical objective definition of justice, well, then... all we can work with is the appearance. So I don't think your insight is so much based on some diabolical deep state thinking but more on the limitations of practicality. Your thesis holds true if everyone is trying their best to be just.
It also involves being able to look the person doing the sentencing in the eye and them telling you their reasons for the ruling to the face; being able to argue and present evidence in front of a neutral arbiter.
Facebook's moderation might well be just but it lacks the accountability and openness and humanity to appear just. (It also isn't just but I'm saying that even if it was, it would not appear so.)
> The main job of a judicial system is to appear just to people.
Agree 100%. This is also the only form of argument in favor of capital punishment that has ever made me stop and think about my stance. I.e. we have capital punishment because without it we may get vigilante justice that is much worse.
Now, whether that's how it would actually play out is a different discussion, but it did make me stop and think for a moment about the purpose of a justice system.
I’ve never heard of vigilante justice against someone already sentenced to prison for life, just because they were sentenced in a place without capital punishment?
(I mean - people get killed in prison sometimes, I suppose, but it’s not really like vigilante justice on the streets is causing a breakdown in society in Australia, say…)
It's probably rather difficult and risky to enact vigilante justice against someone who's in prison.
I think the problem is with places where they don't have life sentences at all, but rather let murderers back out into society after some time. I don't know if vigilante justice is a problem there in reality, but at least I can see it as a possibility: someone might still be angry that you murdered their relative after 20 years and come kill you when you're released.
The reference to vigilante justice may be about killing a suspect before they're imprisoned or even tried, such as when a mob storms the local jail. The theory is, if people believe only death can bring justice, and the state doesn't have the death penalty, then the vigilantes will take matters into their own hands. Ergo, the state should have the death penalty.
Having recently done an in-depth review of arguments for and against the death penalty,[1] I can say that this argument is not prominent in the discourse.
I see; this makes more sense. It's a little hard to imagine these days though, but ages ago, mobs storming the local jail and hanging a suspect wasn't that uncommon.
Uncommon or not, vigilantism is incompatible with justice on a societal level, regardless of any alleged guilt of offenders.
Without a showing of evidence, a trial of the accused, and a verdict that withstands judgment, we're left with theories and conjecture, and hatchets long left unburied.
Only because we made the "overstaying" an illegal offense. But there's no reason to -- if the guy was paying taxes the whole time, and never committed a serious crime, then we should be happy to welcome such guys, ramping up our GDP.
Don't forget that the paperwork costs a lot, if one has children, can get close to $10k.
Look at Spain -- instead of deporting "illegals", they just made them "legals" (those without a criminal record). Easy, problem solved.
You make it sound like deportations happen because of some mistaken legal wording. That's distortion of reality. A significant amount of US citizens voted for them to happen. I'm sure they heard about GDP many times and still found other reasons more important. It wouldn't be a wild guess to assume that they won't buy Spain as a good example.
I just point out that to me "overstaying visa" is such a completely artificial concept, with arbitrary timelines, and is not explainable by any rational considerations of the state. Otherwise they'd neglect it.
Or, as I saw myself in another country, a border guy is like "Wow, you overstayed your visa by N years! Don't worry, let me correct that. I recommend getting a permanent residency, would be easier for you to pay taxes and use our government systems. Welcome!"
Not of course. If you know you're not willing to understand why people think the way they do then what's the point in drawing conclusions from your biases?
> I just point out that to me "overstaying visa" is such a completely artificial concept
So is the concept of a "country" or a "state". Everything is an artificial concept. The first duty of the state is to have border integrity, so the country means something, and that includes deciding who can come in and for how long. This is very, very basic stuff that's normal in every country in the world.
The US lets the most people in legally in the entire world, and by quite some measure[0]. If you think it's some xenophobic nightmare of a place then that seems an extremely narrow understanding of the world and the US's place in it.
Far from it. Concept of "country" or a "state" are way less artificial. Up until 1924 USA welcomed almost anyone with any background. Many countries don't care about it today. Australia was populated with literal criminals.
The concept of a "state" and its borders is to determine where its laws apply to. Historically, there was rarely even resources to mark the boundary in any meaningful way. But the problem of two kinds claiming sovereignty over a territory got resolved pretty easily -- whoever has the ability to collect taxes (aka tribute). Immigration was not a major concern at all. If anything, a feudal was more concerned of their tax base moving OUT of their jurisdiction, not preventing movement IN.
As I said above, Spain just gave permanent residency to everyone "overstaying" the visa. Does the concept of Spain as a country stopped "meaning something"?
> The US lets the most people in legally in the entire world, and by quite some measure[0]. If you think it's some xenophobic nightmare of a place then that seems an extremely narrow understanding of the world and the US's place in it.
USA immigration process is very hostile, compared to almost any other country in the world (IMO only UK and Switzerland are comparable). I went through it, as well as in other countries, can compare. Why are you so sure I have the "extremely narrow understanding"? Even paying $700+ for just one form, without any guarantees or money back is already sus.
I like this theory of paying taxes is a felony, tell me more!!
Levity aside, working on a tourist visa is a violation but generally isn't prosecuted as a felony.
Also the grandparent post said "They seized a white Irishman last October who had a valid work permit and was just about to head to his green card interview."
If he had a valid work permit I suppose this means that he was allowed to work and pay taxes on that work, in other words - no, he was not committing a felony.
All you need to pay taxes is an SSN.
One can get an SSN in many ways, e.g. long ago on another visa. Same as income to pay on -- can be earned in many ways.
They just spent so much money and political capital to steal it from those evil Chinese communists. Who would they sue? The evil Chinese communists who are too far away to enforce a judgement, or the new freedom–loving American owners who only just got it?
reply