If you purchased crypto via Robinhood but not used a self-custody wallet, it is questionable as to whether you own a digital asset. You actually own some sort of financial instrument issued by Robinhood and no control over any underlying asset.
But a pallet of old academic books is unlikely to be composed of such books. It is probable that most of the books are worth less than the cost of shipping, and some of the books will have some value but not tremendous value. It is astonishing the number of wonderful, high quality books that can be bought on Abebooks for $1.
Did you look at the picture? https://i.imgur.com/0qiTKSQ.jpg Books I commonly buy secondhand that look roughly like those pictured are anywhere from $10–$200 each (depending on how common the particular book/edition is); we’re talking about pretty ordinary old academic books, nothing fancy or extremely rare. A pallet of books is ~500–1000 books (there are maybe 400 in the picture, but the blog author claims that is a "sampling").
That's selection bias because you are only looking at books that you actually wanted. An average book is worth much less than a book that someone actually wants.
An average (~worthless) book is something like a pulp romance novel, political book by a sitting politician, self-help guide, .... These are printed in the millions and used copies can typically be found for $1–$5 + shipping costs. That’s not the same kind of books primarily shown/described here.
Any scholarly person who loves old hardback books and spends a few decades collecting ones they personally want or need is going to end up with some worthless books, a large number that sell for $10–50 each, and a few that are worth hundreds each. It’s just inevitable, unless they go out of their way to only collect junk.
If I had to guess I’d put the price of the old man’s collection in the $10k–$30k range. But it’s plausible it could be more, if he collected anything rare.
Pretty much. Roe V Wade took authority from the state and gave it to the individual. Repealing Roe V Wade potentially takes the choice away from the individual and gives it to the state.
It's interesting how conflated the federal government is with 'the people' while the state is assumed to be adversarial to the people.
This is what I was hinting at. The marketed solution to Americans is that local government is always bad and we need a single government entity to rule universally.
The issue is Roe V Wade gave the federal government a negative power, not a positive one. The Fed government did not have the power to force or prevent people from getting abortions. The Fed government had the power to prevenet States from claiming the power rather than individuals regarding their choice to abortion.
By removing the federal governments negative power, the states have de facto been given a positive one to decide whether people receive abortions, rather than people deciding themselves if they will get abortions.
But the power to ban abortions has not been moved from the Federal government to States, because the Federal government never had that power to begin with.
Rather the power to decide to have an abortion has been moved from the individual to the state.
Because that is the common case in our nations history especially with civil rights, leaving it up to the states lets bad state governments infringe on their citizens rights
This argument would be more convincing if the rest of the law treated the unborn as people, but largely it does not. You can't even deduct an unborn child as a dependent on your taxes.
In this case Amazon would likely apply pressure to the utility company's regulator, if such discretion was allowed to the monopoly provider under their current arrangements.
That pressure would likely be successful.
But even if a datacenter is removed from one jurisdiction, Amazon is perfectly able to handle that loss immediately.
AG Barr has been pushing to get this out before the election, over objections of his own attorneys:
"He [Barr] pushed career Justice Department attorneys to bring the case by the end of September, prompting pushback from lawyers who wanted more time and complained of political influence."[1]
You are correct. But that doesn't mean all of the Democrats and other Republicans who have been pushing for this for years have suddenly vaporized from history.
According to BEA, "State personal income increased 4.4 percent in 2019, after increasing 5.6 percent in 2018". This is not median data, so the median would likely have increased even less.
Oh you’re not talking about the FRED data, which examines real median personal income over time (which has been constantly increasing).
You’re talking about why the BEA data doesn’t line up with the US Census Bureau data for 2019. That’s probably because the BEA data is average growth while the US Census data shows the median income growth. For year 2019, we noticed that wage growth was largely driven by the lower quintiles: https://www.hiringlab.org/2019/03/05/february-jobs-report-pr...
This can largely explain the discrepancy. In other words, the assertion that “median would have increased even less” actually turned out to not be true, empirically.
Sure, we have seen "anomalous" years for median earners from time to time, but it's important to remember that over time real median income has still been increasing as a function of the business cycle — I.e. the first derivative has always been positive during bull economies (see: FRED historic data). Sometimes the second derivative is also positive, which isn't uncommon. In 2019, the second derivative was not only positive, it was very positive.
The generation immediately after WWII gave a glimpse of what was possible, before crafty people figured out how to siphon off the majority of that wealth to those already at the top. And over time, that siphon has grown stronger.
