No; the policy is that you must follow the site guidelines, even if others are breaking them.
We all perceive the other side as doing bad things more. That's a cognitive bias. To counteract it, we have to inhibit the impulse to stick it to the other side "equally". Does that make sense?
"There were supposed to be millions of people who were uninsurable because of pre-existing conditions. We heard lengthy testimony about their terrible plight. I don't think it's too strong to say that this fear--that you could get sick and no one would insure you, that's right, you, Mr. & Mrs. Middle-Class Voter--was one of the main reasons offered for the health care overhaul. It was estimated by Medicare's Chief Actuary that around 400,000 would sign up (the CBO estimated 200,000, but only because they assumed that HHS would use its authority to limit enrollment in order to stay within the $5 billion budgeted for the program). So where are all the uninsurable people?"
So if this is accurate, that is the size of risk pool isn't that large. Wouldn't be better to create a special program for people who fall into this category?
> Wouldn't be better to create a special program for people who fall into this category?
Why? The only difference between "people who have already been diagnosed with cancer" and "people who are going to be diagnosed with cancer" is that you know who the first group is. The second group is hidden among the "healthy" people.
You didn't understand what I wrote. I am talking about the group of people that were uninsurable because of preexisting conditions. This group of people was used as a reason for the ACA. However when a pilot program was run before the ACA went into effect, the size of said group appeared to vastly over-estimated.
So the reason for a special program would be to help the people that need it and not mess with the entire country insurance.
Why is uncontrolled growth better? Seems like it most often leads to waste. In the real estate context this manifests as ugly, unlivable spaces which become derelict as soon as the frenzy passes.
I didn't say uncontrolled growth was better, I said a vacant building tax would slow or restrict new development.
Of course there is waste, this is part of the cycle of boom and bust. The people that mistime the market will overbuild and lose their investment.
When the frenzy passes, house may stay empty, but the market will adjust. Fewer new houses will be build and people who stayed out of the market will have a chance to buy at cheaper prices.
No, the alternative is less careful controlled growth. Uncontrolled growth is impossible: you need unlimited labor.
The market controls growth. Of course many factors manipulate the market (interest rates...). Boom/Bust is always going to be a factor because it isn't possible to know perfectly how much space we need before we need it. Boom/bust isn't even all bad, those who need space after the bust can get it cheap and start something interesting that they wouldn't otherwise) - artists for example need cheap space if they are to start a studio.
That sounds beautiful in theory. In practice, whoever has surplus capital controls it. Growth ends up a product of a few people's bets, and they can afford playing against the 'invisible hand' and making big mistakes. The human cost will be paid for by the communities where the game plays out.
Many people have surplus capital. They might not be willing to risk it, but they have it. I could cash in my retirement account for example. There are a lot of people who have this cash, and some make small bets all the time. Sure to do a large development costs a lot of money, but there are a lot of small projects that cost less, and they add up. 100 people putting in $5000 wouldn't be hard to find, and that can do a medium sized project.
Why ask why careful controlled growth is always better if you believe it is the only option? The market doesn’t control anything. The word control implies some sort of telos which is not present in an aggregate of individual purchasing decisions.
> I didn't say uncontrolled growth was better, I said a vacant building tax would slow or restrict new development.
> Of course there is waste, this is part of the cycle of boom and bust. The people that mistime the market will overbuild and lose their investment.
> When the frenzy passes, house may stay empty, but the market will adjust. Fewer new houses will be build and people who stayed out of the market will have a chance to buy at cheaper prices.
Why would there be new development in places with high vacancy? Wouldn't the community want new development to be hindered if most of downtown is empty already?
Probably highly dependent on the location of the actual retail space though, a run-down mall that's been vacant since the 90's will still be considered in those calculations of total retail space even though its highly undesirable.
The article you linked said that 50% was the average difference. What is the median difference? Without that data you can't really tell, if a degree pays for itself.
I like how we instinctively characterize prisoners as slaves. Seems like it trivializes actual slavery, but I have been out of school for awhile, so the conventional wisdom is probably different now.
Traditionally, prison labor is considered distinct from slavery for the same reason that prison is considered distinct from kidnapping and forced confinement: that it reflects just punishment for which someone is duly convicted. Whether that actually applies to most people in prison today is certainly up for debate, but to tell you'd mostly need to look at the judicial system (or society at large), not at the work camp.
