Sorry, no. You could argue for the mass movement of agrarians to the cities, then to little pink houses, fulfilling the promise of middle-class (property-owning) majority. You could argue that small apartments in cities was to prevent intergenerational famlies, and that’s true.
Source date (UTC): 2022-10-10 20:54:14 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1579576058076364800
Reply addressees: @JoshuaLisec
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1579568688034111488
How hard is it to destroy $50B in real assets vs financial assets? $50B Financial assets can vaporize overnight. To destroy $50B in real assets takes wars or hurricanes AND bad judgment.
Source date (UTC): 2022-10-09 21:04:42 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1579216307224203264
All wealth (capital across the spectrum) consists of a store of Time. Some of that time is stored in real assets, and some of it in financial assets. Real assets exist. Financial interests MIGHT exist. Financial assets are promises. Not all promises are possible to keep.
Source date (UTC): 2022-10-09 21:02:42 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1579215805027188736
Most wealth of the 1% that’s expanded of late, is just ‘promises’ that are impossible to keep. All financial assets (vs real assets) are mere promises. We control only whether we want to keep our promises. We don’t control whether our promises are possible to keep.
Economies do.
Source date (UTC): 2022-10-09 21:00:29 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1579215244827979776
(a) I’m not talking past the audience. (b) Robert said:
-“everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it”-
This is one of the primary fallacies of the marxist-pomo seduction.
Source date (UTC): 2022-10-07 13:28:21 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1578376687204831234
Reply addressees: @colincidence
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1578375292212883456
-“The most recent wave of law and economics, began with Ronald Coase’s 1960 article “The Problem of Social Cost”- the most cited article in legal scholarship. It gained its reputation among legal academicians with the publication of Richard Posner’s Economic Analysis of Law.”-
Source date (UTC): 2022-10-06 12:42:42 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1578002812205662209
White People Problems: Lunch with a friend, lamenting that his 150k cash, millions in property, and multiple pensions make him feel insecure. Only because he basically funds easing his children’s success.
You need a house paid for, 3x the median income in savings. That’s all.
Source date (UTC): 2022-10-04 00:19:03 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1577090887792091136
not really. More that the church had law of moral behavior, not law of property, nor law of life. And we have lost that and it turns out that institutions is terribly important.
Source date (UTC): 2022-09-30 23:27:39 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1575990790417158147
Reply addressees: @aldafa_ir
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1575989820098195456
So to answer your question, criminal negligence occurs as a TORT whenever it was preventable with the knowledge at hand. Whether it is a CRIME depends on intention to obtain a benefit by doing a harm. Criminal negligence requires we evade due diligence by intent or self interest.
Source date (UTC): 2022-09-28 22:36:28 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1575253134309572608
Reply addressees: @SmthngSinisteR
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1575251427865333770
That’s a choice not a necessity. And matriarchal is just inheritance. And the reason is so many men die. We dn’t have that problem, and we don’t have that poverty. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2022-09-28 00:18:11 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1574916343316594694
Reply addressees: @DreadBobby1
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1574916128672980992