prof literally just called out my company and said that we don't provide value.
If anyone would know about shit not providing value, it's the teacher of this class...
"Black" Agnes Randolph, Countess of Dunbar and March, at the siege of Dunbar in 1338
This attack took place during the conflict which arose when Edward Balliol, with English backing, attempted to seize the Scottish crown from David II. Patrick Dunbar was fighting in the far-off Scottish army when English forces besieged his home, the great castle of Dunbar in East Lothian. Patrick’s wife, the Lady Agnes, was left alone with only a retinue of servants and a few guards to meet the English siege, but she refused to surrender the fortress, by one account declaring that
"Of Scotland's King I haud my house, I pay him meat and fee, And I will keep my gude auld house, while my house will keep me."
Women occasionally commanded besieged mediaeval garrisons, for if the lord of a castle were away his wife might be left in charge; but Agnes’s is one of the few sieges which has been widely remembered. Though considered one of the ablest commanders of his day, Salisbury was obliged to lift his fruitless siege of Dunbar castle after nearly five months without success.
Salisbury began the siege with a bombardment by catapults, sending huge rocks and lead shot against the ramparts of Dunbar. Lady Agnes responded by having her maids dress in their Sunday best; she then led them to the outer walls, where with their handkerchiefs they nonchalantly and slightingly dusted away the damage from the bombardment. She would also taunt the English from her walls and berate her garrison to make them fight harder.
Montague next assaulted the castle with his battering ram. Agnes had a huge boulder, captured from an earlier attack, dropped over the walls which smashed the English assault machinery.
not according to my understanding. I believe the CA legislature requires a "NOPE" majority to raise taxes, property taxes are somehow impossible to raise, and the ballot initiative allows the people to say SPEND MONEY ON THIS SHIT!!!!
It requires a 2/3 supermajority in both houses of the state legislature to pass any tax increase.
It only requires a simple majority to pass a tax increase via the referendum system.
On top of that, it only requires a simple majority to pass an amendment to the California constitution via the referendum system. This is the only way to amend the California constitution.
So if a tax break gets embedded in the state constitution via the referendum system (which has happened multiple times), then the only way to revoke that tax break is to pass another referendum.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
+1
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
Who is worse - George Zimmerman at a gun show or the people lavishing attention on George Zimmerman at a gun show?
Apparently only 20 people went to see him, and he was originally planned to be on the show floor of the convention, but they moved him to a back office at the last minute.
Googling around, I'm not sure where Zimmerman was. Some sites say he was at a gun show (when I think gun shows, I think convention halls filled with hundreds of people) and some sites say he was at a gun shop called The Arms Room.
0
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
Speaking of finance, I'm reading a book and one of the author's claims is (paraphrased), that the way the Federal Reserve creates currency and introduces it into the economy is to issue it to banks as loans, and that this means that the amount of money in existence is necessarily smaller than the amount of debt.
Can anyone with an understanding of monetary policy comment on this?
and that this means that the amount of money in existence is necessarily smaller than the amount of debt.
Can anyone with an understanding of monetary policy comment on this?
Well, as an empirical statement, it is true to say that "the amount of money in existence is smaller than the amount of debt."
But this isn't really necessarily true, nor is it a direct effect of central banking. It can also be emergent simply from the nature of debt.
Example: I start a business and I take out a $100k loan to cover startup costs. After a year, I'm operating in the black. I have $80k left in debt to the bank, $20k in my company bank account, $5k per week coming in as accounts receivables, and $4k per week going out as expenses. In this scenario, I carry $80-$84k in debt at any given time, $20-25k in cash at any given time, and my customers owe me up to $5k at any given time. Even if you take into account the amount of money paid from my initial capital loan to other entities (like suppliers), the total debt load in this system is higher than the total cash value of this system.
Or more simply, if I loan you $1, and then you loan that $1 to Alice, and then Alice loans $1 to Bob, and then Bob loans $1 to Chris, then that single dollar bill has been instrumental in $4 worth of debt.
The aggregate amount of debt held by all parties is higher than the aggregate amount of money held by all parties.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
not according to my understanding. I believe the CA legislature requires a "NOPE" majority to raise taxes, property taxes are somehow impossible to raise, and the ballot initiative allows the people to say SPEND MONEY ON THIS SHIT!!!!
It requires a 2/3 supermajority in both houses of the state legislature to pass any tax increase.
It only requires a simple majority to pass a tax increase via the referendum system.
On top of that, it only requires a simple majority to pass an amendment to the California constitution via the referendum system. This is the only way to amend the California constitution.
So if a tax break gets embedded in the state constitution via the referendum system (which has happened multiple times), then the only way to revoke that tax break is to pass another referendum.
by the way, just to add to this earlier post
to pass a tax break in the legislature only requires a simple majority
to pass a spending bill in the legislature only requires a simple majority
it should be obvious to anybody with half a brain how this has fucked this state in the long term
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
not according to my understanding. I believe the CA legislature requires a "NOPE" majority to raise taxes, property taxes are somehow impossible to raise, and the ballot initiative allows the people to say SPEND MONEY ON THIS SHIT!!!!
It requires a 2/3 supermajority in both houses of the state legislature to pass any tax increase.
It only requires a simple majority to pass a tax increase via the referendum system.
On top of that, it only requires a simple majority to pass an amendment to the California constitution via the referendum system. This is the only way to amend the California constitution.
So if a tax break gets embedded in the state constitution via the referendum system (which has happened multiple times), then the only way to revoke that tax break is to pass another referendum.
by the way, just to add to this earlier post
to pass a tax break in the legislature only requires a simple majority
to pass a spending bill in the legislature only requires a simple majority
it should be obvious to anybody with half a brain how this has fucked this state in the long term
I imagine you guys in California have had a ton of civic duty awareness campaigns and TV spots over the years. "We need to spend more and raise taxes or else such and such will collapse and so and so will suffer."
Posts
basically
it's complicated but yeah that's what ends up happening
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
we're a lawful neutral org
Lady had swag
It requires a 2/3 supermajority in both houses of the state legislature to pass any tax increase.
It only requires a simple majority to pass a tax increase via the referendum system.
On top of that, it only requires a simple majority to pass an amendment to the California constitution via the referendum system. This is the only way to amend the California constitution.
So if a tax break gets embedded in the state constitution via the referendum system (which has happened multiple times), then the only way to revoke that tax break is to pass another referendum.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I've poked around a bit and
well
I'm pretty proud of not having thrown my controller out the window so far
Googling around, I'm not sure where Zimmerman was. Some sites say he was at a gun show (when I think gun shows, I think convention halls filled with hundreds of people) and some sites say he was at a gun shop called The Arms Room.
Can anyone with an understanding of monetary policy comment on this?
wat type
Override got Titanfall a day early?
Override using a VPN hack to play as though he lives in Korea
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Where's that Malaysian jet
I mean, I understand no one wants a surveillance state
But how did we misplace a jet
LOOKED AT A CLOCK
"NICE. IT'S ONLY 7PM. PLENTY OF NIGHT LEFT TO RELAX "
@Organichu
@Elendil
@mim
I am down for doing thing!
it's like
my red wing boots (that i messed up but are still comfy but not as comfy as they should be, someday i'll buy new ones but not for years)
and then
my no support, super flexible, wide shoes that are like not wearing shoes
Get up for a flight in four hours. Going to be the third night in a row on that little.
On the upside, if I can get the slightest bit comfortable on that plane it's going to be time travel. Shut my eyes and wake up fourteen hours later.
aggghhh... kill it, kill it, kill it, kill it.
After 5,000 years I'm free, time to conquer [chat]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAgnJDJN4VA&feature=kp
You know you missed me
Just be like me and put 1000 miles on one pair.
That is the major way. There are other ways, too.
Well, as an empirical statement, it is true to say that "the amount of money in existence is smaller than the amount of debt."
But this isn't really necessarily true, nor is it a direct effect of central banking. It can also be emergent simply from the nature of debt.
Example: I start a business and I take out a $100k loan to cover startup costs. After a year, I'm operating in the black. I have $80k left in debt to the bank, $20k in my company bank account, $5k per week coming in as accounts receivables, and $4k per week going out as expenses. In this scenario, I carry $80-$84k in debt at any given time, $20-25k in cash at any given time, and my customers owe me up to $5k at any given time. Even if you take into account the amount of money paid from my initial capital loan to other entities (like suppliers), the total debt load in this system is higher than the total cash value of this system.
Or more simply, if I loan you $1, and then you loan that $1 to Alice, and then Alice loans $1 to Bob, and then Bob loans $1 to Chris, then that single dollar bill has been instrumental in $4 worth of debt.
The aggregate amount of debt held by all parties is higher than the aggregate amount of money held by all parties.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Yes, those glistening fangs, er, those menacing eyes, no no, those sharp claws ... face it, that snail is totes non-threatening.
by the way, just to add to this earlier post
to pass a tax break in the legislature only requires a simple majority
to pass a spending bill in the legislature only requires a simple majority
it should be obvious to anybody with half a brain how this has fucked this state in the long term
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
like chu
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
yeah, but ick.
me today in class
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
I meant to cancel the order in time but I forgot.
I now have a $250 collector's edition of Titanfall on its way to my house.
What in the fuck am I going to do with a foot-and-a-half tall Titan statue?
I imagine you guys in California have had a ton of civic duty awareness campaigns and TV spots over the years. "We need to spend more and raise taxes or else such and such will collapse and so and so will suffer."
Put your pet gerbil inside the cockpit and move it around like he's driving a tiny mech.
OR
OR
find a Capybara and pretend that the titan is defending the world from a giant kaiju guinea pig
yes pls