• 0 Posts
  • 68 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 11th, 2023

help-circle
  • I can think of two billionaires that I’m tentatively okay with. One sold a software service for a dollar a year to a couple billion people, and the other is a musician with an extremely valuable musical portfolio and popular live shows.
    The key part being that they almost entirely made their money by actually producing something themselves, not just leveraging money to make money or leeching off the work of others, and what they made actually provides value. $1 a year for communication services is a fair value, and the musician has easily provided more than a billion hours of enjoyment.

    I can’t think of anyone else that it seems reasonable to have that much money that actually has that much money.

    and tasted normally

    I agree we should eat the rich, but I’ll also admit that it’s a rare treat, so worth going all out on the seasoning and dining experience. At the least some fresh herbs and butter basted. :P

    I’d cap it high enough so that you can obviously retire with a life of luxury, leave your children unquestionably provided for, and start a few odd businesses without realistically risking the previous points.
    “Solving” you and your families material needs is sort of the endgame for wealth. The extra for random business ventures is because society actually benefits from people with safety nets taking risks to see if something makes money. It works better if we had a society wide safety net so failure doesn’t kill you, but even a limited form still has a benefit.

    Anything leftover shouldn’t go to charity, it should go back to the society that helped them get the money in the first place. Charity is good, but it’s ultimately a bandaid on social problems, and too often isn’t distributed evenly or without condition to those who need it. Taxes and entitlement programs won’t require a religious sermon to get food,



  • Just imagine if we brought the efficiency of the insurance that tries to keep you from getting healthcare to the systems that want to give you healthcare but are grossly underfunded, like medicare or the VA! Why, we could ensure that almost no one gets a covered doctor’s visit while doubling prices.
    The only part they won’t gut is the part that mandates that everyone must have insurance.
    Nothing better than being legally required to pay for a service that exists to fight to provide no value to you whatsoever in return for the money.







  • Eeeeh, at least then there would theoretically be public accountability. The FCC has limited censorship power that they’re generally unobjectionable with.

    I’m honestly more concerned with the censorship from private enterprises than with government consorship currently. Less accountability and less recourse.

    It also really only becomes censorship if the rating system is used to prohibit speech. If we instead made it more like the nutritional guidelines on food it could instead give more of a content breakdown than setting an arbitrary age.






  • He was indeed not running for a state or local office in Missouri.

    “A lot of people don’t don’t think about the fact that Donald Trump, if he met all the other requirements, if he was a Missouri resident, could not run for state representative or state Senate,” Davis told the Missouri Independent.

    “He would be precluded from running for these offices but was able to be re-elected president of the United States. So I think that at least causes people to start thinking about the issue a little more than they might otherwise,” Davis added.

    The law in question did not apply to him, and the bill was just named referencing him.

    The entire thing is moot. All I was saying is that Missouri doesn’t permanently disenfranchise felons, and the law being discussed didn’t apply to trump for a variety of reasons.




  • The estate has a duty to maximize the value of the liquidation, and pay back creditors as best it can. Specifically to settle the debts.

    While a creditor can’t dictate the value of the estate, they can offer to forgive debt, which is the same for the purposes of the estate.

    If the cancelled debt would have been worth more than the cash, then the creditors would be rightfully furious if the state instead sold the asset for less cash and paid them that way.

    If you owe me $50k, and I tell you your watch is worth $5k to me, and instead you sell it for $250 and give me that while declaring bankruptcy so I don’t get anything else, that’s a terrible outcome for me, and great for you if you sold the watch to your friend who then gave it back to you in exchange for $250 later.


  • No, that’s actually still the market deciding. It’s a perfectly standard type of auction that discourages low-ball bids. Bidding is secret, you only get one bid, and you don’t know who or if anyone else is bidding.
    If you want it, you make your best offer for what you’re willing to pay for it, and if someone else bid more they get it. If you would have been willing to pay more with more rounds of bidding, you should have bid that from the start.

    Open-bid auctions get better prices for sellers when there are a lot of bidders, and better prices for buyers when there are few. Given there were two bidders, it’s fair to seek the most either party will bid, rather than seeking $1 more than the maximum the loosing party will pay.