And it is.

Or were trying to set up a multinational business, and came across all the regulation requirements 

Currently, pretty much all land where those corporations mine for coal or drill for oil, is owned by the government, and is leased to these corporations on a temporary basis so they can extract their stuff (my guess the leasing has partly to do with people thinking governments will protect the pretty public land better if they owned it, and that some powerful corporations can use the lease thing to get land cheaper with help from buddy Senators)

There's a theory that, if those corporations were instead required to actually BUY the land (and on top of it, be taxed property taxes for owning it), they would have a huge incentive to make sure they either don't ruin it, or fix it up to be as good as it was when they bought it, so they can still resell it after they're done digging everything up. Otherwise they'll just go on owning a trashed chunk of land that costs them taxes.

Um, being allowed to carry guns/weapons, for one. The main reason piracy is such a problem around Somalia is because cargo ships aren't allowed to carry ANY weapons on board if they wish to be able to dock at international ports (government law/regulation). It's why all they can resort to to fight armed pirates is water cannons, noise makers, and just locking themselves inside strongholds on the ship. It's also why Somali pirate ships stay WAY the f*ck away from any military ships.

I gotta ask, though. If we make antibiotics SPECIFICALLY for the bacteria we are aware of, including newly found strains resistant to old antibiotics, and those antibiotics are powerful enough to eradicate all of those bacteria, where exactly is this different, antibiotic-resistant, bacteria coming from? Explorers from expeditions to the Antarctic, or the uncharted areas of the Amazon?

Wouldn't that technically be national... um... ist?

Why doesn't Bitcoin qualify as currency from another country, where it would only be taxable when you "repatriate" the currency into USD?

Saw that guy smack dab in the middle of a women's rights/feminist march in WashingtonDC about 5 years ago. Was peddling his stuff right in the middle of where the march was going through. I suspect he was just there doing his thing, and didn't expect the crowd of a few 100k to build up and surround him

Regarding ex-Soviets, there's A LOT of them who really don't like that socialism/communism thing. They had to live under it, so they're often more anti-communist/socialist than Americans.
Plus yea, there's lost of mafias there :/

Do you become a force in the system by sheer spontaneous will power, or by learning about the system you wish to be a part of? Did you learn all the stuff you're posting about economics on here by being programmed by the sources you were reading? That whole "higher education is just indoctrination" is, frankly, bullshit. I'll grant you that some schools just program, and some students are to lazy to think on their own, but in both undergrad and grad schools I've been, you're given materials to learn. That material is usually case studies about real businesses, and their real screwups or strokes of genius, operating in a real business world. None of the material is plain regurgitation of old stuff, and it's up to the person to decide what to do with said material.



I'm saying a "successful business owner" wouldn't have to pay taxes. Investing money back in the business makes that money tax deductible. Your premise is that with lower taxes, he would have an extra $100,000, which he can reinvest in his business. My point is that he can reinvest that $100,000 in his business FIRST, and deduct it from his revenues, thus lowering his own tax rate in the process. Done well enough, the tax rate should have little effect on his actual business. Now, sure, the increase in the tax rate will affect the company profits (shareholder wealth, and all employee's, including his own, personal paychecks), and sure, there are some types of taxes that will hurt more than others, but for the most part, business activities, aka costs, are tax deductions, so they could actually be encouraged by higher tax rates. (The higher the tax rate, the more you should spend in your business, or borrow to expand, to reduce your taxable income/profit). I understand that's not an easy concept. Maybe it will help if you build a spreadsheet with first line having revenues, next few lines listing costs, including hiring new employees, and apply the difference in tax rates to the Net Profit (revenues - costs) to see how tax rates affect a hypothetical business. Otherwise, I'm not sure how to better explain this.


In this case, it's actually closer to 4-2=2, 2*50%=1, versus 4-3=1, 1*50%=0.5

Note the heavy use of the words "mutant," "mutated," and "developed" in that article. Thanks for proving our point.

Again, you claim evolution is bunk, while showing that it's not true. Evolution doesn't take "billions of years," it takes "thousands of reproductive cycles." If something reproduces once every few decades, like mammals, evolution takes centuries, if not thousands or millions of years. If something reproduces every few days, like bugs/insects, it takes months or years. If something reproduces every few minutes or seconds, like bacteria, evolution can happen in days or hours.
For someone so uninformed, I would expect you to take a "I don't understand it, so I don't know if it's true or not" position, not "It's wrong!"
But, I guess religion does make the mind lazy.

The "I study at home and at church" part is a little... scary. Why is it that so many people who are so pro-freedom of thought and personal choice seem to also be stuck on "that side" of personal subjugation and mental laziness? Frankly, it's rather upsetting/disappointing.

You're claiming that for every conceivable type of antibiotic we have or may be able to think of up, there is already a staph bacteria in existence that is immune to it?

And I agree, you "don't think of that" when it comes to evolution. All you see is "some are thin, some are fat." You don't bother to take that out further and think about what may happen if the planet suddenly becomes more cold (ice age), where the thin ones may die out, or if the population is stuck on an island full of fast predators (fat ones will be chased down and eaten). It's a EXCELLENT argument against evolution to just focus on small individual parts and poke them one by one, while ignoring how they all work together. However, it's about as valid as saying that the computer you are typing replies on doesn't work, because hat single capacitor on your motherboard is't capable of processing binary data. Keep looking at the trees, ignoring the forest, ans staying ignorant. You're not convincing anyone but yourself.

26°C? 14°C? What witchcraft is this?

Does it matter WHAT corrupts the process, as long as it is corrupt/changed? Not all corruptions end up being bad.


Does it matter how many cells mutate? As long as one can, and does during reproduction, mutation is going on.

You obviously accept that genetic mutation happens, that members of the same species look different, that sex and reproduction happens... I'm sure you can accept that things like having a slightly better sense of taste, hearing, or smell happens... that some people are naturally more thin and muscle toned while others are more fat... That's pretty much all that's needed for evolution. As for the rest, your posts just make it seem as if you're REALLY trying hard to convince yourself otherwise.

Actually, your DNA fucks up CONSTANTLY. Little known fact, people get cancer, which is a malevolent mutation, ALL THE TIME. It's just that their white blood cells quickly recognize it and destroy it. It's one of the big reasons people with AIDS or lowered immunities die; they get cancer like everyone else, but their immune system can't keep up with cleaning it. Big type of cancer is either due to same DNA fuckup being too aggressive, or just small enough to not be recognized.

Well, first of all, entropy applies more to physics than evolution, and second, entropy exists in an enclosed space with no outside influences, such as a sources of energy. Earth does not exist in an entropy space, since we have a rather large source of energy nearby.
As for DNA, there's no self-replicating when you only have one half in the sperm and one half in the egg. If they join, and there are quirks, mutations, or some other changes, that's all that DNA has to start with. Nothing to correct from. Besides, if it was completely self correcting, we'd all look exactly the same. Ever notice how some people have bigger eyes than others, and some people have better sense of taste than others? Those little quirks, taken out to the extreme, would help those people survive in darker places, or places with a lot of poisonous plants.



Who says platypus had to start as an aquatic animal? They may have been very adapted for living on the beach, or walking around on 4 high legs in shallow water, using their beaks to dig at the underwater mud to look for edible stuff buried underneath. Evolving limbs designed for swimming may have happened along with evolving those other things you mentioned. Main point is that it doesn't all happen instantly.



A little less magic than Zeus. I mean Ra. I mean Jesus.

That's kinda the problem. One of my favorite quotes is "common sense is just common, not necessarily sensible"
Things may look fairly straightforward, but then when you start digging, turns out there's way more underneath that you realized. I mean hell, it's kind of common sense that if a government raises taxes, it'll make more money, isn't it? Of course, you point out that no it isn't as self-evident as that. I just take it a step further.
Common sense is what makes a lot of the arm chair economists on the internets difficult to deal with for those with economic and/or business degrees. As for "the real world," what I'm talking about is how global business managers think. I'm just regurgitating things I learned from my professors, from reading dozens of Harvard Business School cases (def. not a Keynesian place), and from adjunct professors who teach part time but whose real job is actually running businesses. So, feel free to accuse me of not having an original thought and just regurgitating stuff, but don't accuse what I say as not being examples from "the real world."
By the way, please note that I'm not trying to promote raising taxes. I'm just pointing out that lowering them, or raising them, really doesn't have the results people assume it does.

So, it's decided then. TO SPACE! With SCIENCE! And maybe Virgin Galactic!