Rivalarrival @ Rivalarrival @lemmy.today

Posts

3

Comments

3,570

Joined

2 yr. ago

Citation, please. Everything I'm reading from the Roosevelt Institute seems to directly contradict your claims.

We examine three versions of unconditional cash transfers: $1,000 a month to all adults, $500 a month to all adults, and a $250 a month child allowance. For each of the three versions, we model the macroeconomic effects of these transfers using two different financing plans - increasing the federal debt, or fully funding the increased spending with increased taxes on households - and compare the effects to the Levy model’s baseline growth rate forecast. Our findings include the following:

For all three designs, enacting a UBI and paying for it by increasing the federal debt would grow the economy. Under the smallest spending scenario, $250 per month for each child, GDP is 0.79% larger than under the baseline forecast after eight years. According to the Levy Model, the largest cash program - $1,000 for all adults annually - expands the economy by 12.56% over the baseline after eight years. After eight years of enactment, the stimulative effects of the program dissipate and GDP growth returns to the baseline forecast, but the level of output remains permanently higher.

When paying for the policy by increasing taxes on households, the Levy model forecasts no effect on the economy. In effect, it gives to households with one hand what it is takes away with the other.

However, when the model is adapted to include distributional effects, the economy grows, even in the tax-financed scenarios. This occurs because the distributional model incorporates the idea that an extra dollar in the hands of lower income households leads to higher spending. In other words, the households that pay more in taxes than they receive in cash assistance have a low propensity to consume, and those that receive more in assistance than they pay in taxes have a high propensity to consume. Thus, even when the policy is tax- rather than debt-financed, there is an increase in output, employment, prices, and wages.

Best I can tell, this lawsuit was filed in a US federal court in California. French law doesn't seem to be applicable.

French pirates should probably use a VPN endpoint in a more enlightened society.

There is no legal prohibition against asking someone for a copy of a work, nor is there a prohibition against receiving a copy, even if that copy was illegally produced and/or illegally distributed.

They didn't download them illegally, nor did they "use" them illegally. If you want to say they did something illegal, you have to argue that they were somehow in collusion with the uploader, which would make them uploaders themselves.

Edit: Downvotes? In a piracy community?

When I get stuck in a depression-spiral, or experience "imposter syndrome", a reality check isn't a negative experience: "Hey, dumbass, this is all in your head. You're actually doing pretty damn good right now."

I left a trade job after we got a new division manager with a background in sales. Despite the entire staff being on 20hr/week mandatory overtime, dipshit was holding 3x daily 30 minute shift meetings, and monthly 90-minute all-hands meetings to complain about productivity.

Two months after I left, corporate shitcanned the asshole.

Shipping is global.

I don't think you agree with Jon Stewart.

Then the last "original" discovery was "fire", and I'm not even 100% sure about that. Everything else is a variation of something that previously existed.

Harsher sentences will also apply to bosses of online stores who let under-18s buy deadly weapons silverware in Home Office crackdown

FTFY.

Amazon will remove your ability to download the books you bought Amazon is relying on P2P technology to provide you with the books you bought, as well as the books you haven't bought

FTFY.

ls /dev/disk/by-uuid

4d6b3a08-e1b5-407c-bb6c-cbac830ff4bb

Damn. Off by one.

Haven't focused on reenactors specifically. Most of our stuff is home furnishings. Hooks, plant hangers, curtain rods, pot rack bars, drawer pulls, joint braces for woodworking, fireplace hardware, decorative chains (like for chandeliers), etc.

There's been a run on Guy Fawkes masks, with delivery dates pushed out all the way to December 4th.

As a small business owner (blacksmithing), I fully support this. However, about 85% of our business is through an Etsy storefront, about 10% through Amazon, with the remainder through our own site.

I'd appreciate advice on additional storefronts.

If the US reestablishes the 91% top-tier tax bracket we had for most of the 20th century, the rest of the world will quickly follow.

Nobody will be in that bracket; they will take great efforts raise their tax deductible "expenses" (or reduce their revenue) in order to avoid it.

I'm almost through that case of Christmas Ale I bought in November.

Insanity is expecting the system to work in a way other than the way it actually works.

By the way, I did discover that EU labeling does include a "% RI" for sugar, which is functionality identical to the "recommendation" you were complaining about as being illegal.

It's never a war crime the first time.

In my experience, products labeled "linseed oil" commonly have oil drying agents that you really don't want to be consuming. Tried & True specifically claims to be food safe, but not all linseed oils are. "Boiled linseed oil" is never food safe. "raw linseed oil" may or may not be.

"Flax seed oil" and "linseed oil" are the same thing, but flax seed oil is edible, and will not contain drying agents. If you're making your own finish, you might want to look for "flax seed" instead, or at least ensure the "linseed" oil is food safe.

One final note: If you're working with linseed oil, take special precautions with your rags. They can spontaneously combust. We had a mysterious fire overnight in a trash can in my shop that we couldn't immediately explain. A few days later, a discarded rag sitting on a workbench started putting out copious amounts of smoke while we were working on the other side of the shop, and we finally understood the trash can fire.

It is mandatory for the manufacturer to make an affirmative claim as to the cholesterol and trans fat content (along with several other items) of every food product sold in the US. The manufacturer is only liable for what they actually claim; this labeling standard forces them to make certain claims.

With the labeling you describe of the EU, I could look at every item in my pantry and refrigerator, and not realize that my diet is entirely missing any source of vitamin D, for example. If nothing in any of my labels even mentions vitamin D, I might not even realize it is something I should be looking for in my diet.

When every single item in my diet affirmatively claims "Not a significant source of vitamin D", it's a big clue that I'm not eating right.

There is a distinct difference in liability between "accidentally" forgetting to include the sodium content of a product, and affirmatively claiming it has no significant amount of sodium.

When I'm on a low sodium diet and a soy sauce manufacturer fails to list its sodium content on the label, I bear a large part of the responsibility. It is common knowledge that soy sauce is usually extremely high in salt, so I can't reasonably claim their mislabeling was the cause of any harm I experience. But, if they were to affirmatively claim "not a significant source of sodium", I'll own their asses.

Mandating claims of these specific, important nutrients certainly does add meaningful information.