You can now have a (edit: hypothetical) situation like a collection of residential buildings owned by a Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT), which will then sell the Rent Income of these buildings to an investment bank in exchange for a guaranteed steady income from that bank (less risk for the REIT). The bank will then create a financial instrument, let's call it RENTSUX, cut it up in 100 shares, and put it on the market for investors interested in getting a piece of that rent income. Not only that, the bank (or another bank) will create a short position instrument through some fucked up swap or whatever which will payout in case the vacancy rate increases and the rent payouts are below the contracted income rate that goes to the REIT. The bank sellls all of these on the secondary market, getting the liabilities off its books, and collecting fat fucking fees in the process, leaving it with profits while it no longer assume any risk. 3 months later RENTSUX and its swaps are a great success, the price of the instrument rises on the market, causing a lot of banks to create a lot of equivalent products. They go to the REIT and its competitors, offer them even bigger guaranteed income stream; the REITs are elated and start buying up even more residential housing, pricing out individuals and other Real Estate investors who operate a bit more traditionally. This increases the cost of housing for everyone in the local market, but the people making money out of this are the banks and the final investors of RENTSUX.
Three years later, the market for RENTSUX collapses due to an imbalance between primary and derived instruments (the shorts were paying for the longs and hiding the fact that the actual rent income was much lower than expected), causing companies over-invested in it to go bankrupt. This in turn causes the income stream to the REITs to dry up, and they start collecting rent for themselves again, but some of them were overexposed as it turns out their occupancy rates do not generate enough rent income to cover their costs. REITs start to put A LOT of properties on the market to correct their finances, and some of them even default, which means the real estate market pretty much collapses as the individual homeowners also become unable or unwilling to keep paying their mortgage for a home which just lost half of its value. The banks, which are left with the defaulting mortgage and assets of brankrupt REITs and investors, and may also be holding some of RENTSUX in their books, see their balance sheet redshift into deep Radio wavelength. The various governments send 2 trillion eurodollars of public money to bail out the banks and some investors, and swear that this time, it's the last time for realsies you guys.
6 months later some guy at a bank has a great idea about a financial instrument backed by commoditized energy packets for electric car charging.
No that's just people having easy access to a marketplace to sell their stuff, but in concept it's no different from doing a garage sale.
Financialization means that a financial interest (being ownership, or something more exotic) is directly tied to a commoditized financial asset which can be traded on an exchange (like a stock exchange) and is considered fungible: one "share" of that asset is exactly equal to all the other shares of the same asset. Right now, if you buy one stock of Apple Inc. it give you the same rights and ownership as all other Apple Inc. stock: it is fungible. Well, some people have decided that doing the exact same thing with pretty much anyhting that has value is a great idea to make money, and have financialized these things.
Inflation can directly lead to higher wages. In fact, in some scenarios inflation is primarily led by higher wages (very low unemployment -> Tight labor competition -> High wage incentives -> high disposable income -> high consumption -> high prices -> inflation). Having a rise in supply to go along is a good remedy, but in our day and age it's going to take a while, and the real estate world has many, many supply-constrained locales where it's impossible to build housing or convert office to housing because of zoning laws.
Most central banks recommend keeping wage increase right below inflation during stress periods to avoid that spiral, and have a looser policy during chiller times.
Les mecs découvrent qu'un pays construit par (et pour) une bande de nobles, curés, puis bourgeois, se foutait éperduement de la langue et culture des petzouilles qui vivent dans leurs campagnes? Bwahaha!
Forcément quand on essaie d'appliquer une optique moderne aux temps d'avant, ca fait tout bizarre...
Les mecs qui comptaient au niveau politique, ils pratiquaient très bien la langue, eux. Et gare à celui qui venait parler de régionalisme ou de culture locale en ville, on lui aurait coupé la tête (d'abord littéralement, puis politiquement, faut pas exagérer).
That's a lot of fire trucks inbound...
The emergency dispatcher after getting the call for "smoke coming out of the power plant": https://youtu.be/74BzSTQCl_c?si=NdHbulkEBXbD2oij&t=2
Obviously staged, stick people would never give away their blueberries to birds unless you somehow coerced them.
Climate is not inhospitable, people have lived in similar places for millenia (in the various mountain ranges of the world). It's the fact that it was REALLY hard to get there, and there were better places to go.
Ideally, the migration attraction value should take into consideration the various economic and geographical factors, as well as a form of distance vector computation to determine how hard it is to get somewhere. New York, Boston, and San Francisco became big cities not because they were the best places to be, but because that's where migrants arrived, and either they found it good enough, or simply didn't have the means to go any further.
You need to take a look at the net total of tickets in both scenarios.
Attack: You gain 60, lose 20, that's a net of +40 for you. But how many did the ennemy lose? If they had a defense FOB, they probably lost that (-20). Everyone who defended is a lost ticket, maybe multiple times, while the winner (you) has the opportunity to revive fallen team-mates. Finally, you have an opportunity to continue the attack, with often more tickets than you had before, against a point which might not be very well defended already. By the late game you might even already know or be able to deduce where it was. The only real drawback of advancing is being further away from main base, so harder to resupply and repair. Finally, an important advantage is having the initiative. You set the tempo on the attack, decided when the action takes place (unless the defenders are very mobile and counter-attack, but then they lose the defense advantage and it's a more even fight), and you are the one who decides when to call it quit and fall back.
Defense: There's no telling what's going to happen. You might completely crush the ennemy and they lose a lot of ticket, or they might surprise you with a sneak attack and take your Hab out of commission before the fight even starts. You are vulnerable to artillery/mortar fire, and everything you use to defend will be lost unless you have a good dynamic and can take down your own radio/retire your vehicles before they fall. The only initiative you have is to fall back, and that will cost you 60 effective net ticket.
Having the initiative is a massive benefit.
He was born a french subject, not citizen.
He was made citizen by the Revolution, like all french subjects and the king.
Gid gud at combined arms bruh.
Well it's not about whether you are rich or not, but what your crime was and whether you got state or federal time. White-collar high profile crimes tend to be federal and get you labeled as a non-violent prisonner (unless you get violent, or resisted arrest in a violent way), so the rich assholes getting convicted for stuff like stock fraud will usually get sent to a medium/Low security Federal Correctional Institution (FCI), which could be seen as a college campus compared to the high-security state penitentiaries. You don't get shanked in an FCI unless someone REALLY powerful wants you dead.
Yeah cause everything has to be accounted for, and there's no fixing anything once it's up there (if you consider that Hubble was a bit of a fluke).
Once there's an infrastructure to maintain and support them, they will no longer be that incredible one-of-a-kind must-be-perfect piece of technology, but just another satellite with some fancy optics or sensors that can be changed and upgraded when need be.
And to get that whole system in place up there, you need lower launch costs.
Mostly because space launches are very expensive and we don't really have a maintenance and support infrastructure in space. Once we get a larger and more sophisticated human/robot presence in orbit, and if we continue the downward trend in launch cost, we could have dozens of telescopes in medium or high orbit looking out for angry rocks.
except you know, the shitty ones at the top
I can tell you there's a lot of very shitty ones at the top who are also very happy, plenty of new top executive positions are about to open!
Looks like a pituophis (Bullsnakes, pine snakes, etc.), but which one I dunno.
Harmless and useful.
"Yes it was I! My machinations lay undetected for years, for I am a master of dece-"
medical emergency
It's used in the treatment of mouth rot, buddy will be just fine.
But yeah, unless you feed candy to your lizard, it's completely unecessary,
No it's still just as slow, but the larger border post has a lot more railway platforms which in my opinion really makes up for the difference, especially if you tend to go for rail early, as I do. It's a little slower for the first couple of years, about the same for a couple more, and then REALLY faster after that.
Cuz its a bargaining chip. The US and Israel have not been aligned in objectives and policy on the topic of Palestine for a while now, and the US is definitely not going to use the stick here, so that leaves the carrot.
It's kind of an interesting 3-way game theory move to get Hamas to give some rope:
Scenario 1: Israel invade Rafah, not acceptable to the US and Hamas.
Scenario 2: Israel refrains from invading Rafah, gets nothing in return. Not acceptable to Israel, and since they have the initiative, they can unilaterally decide to reject for it.
Scenario 3: Hamas frees hostages, Israel refrains from invading Rafah. Barely acceptable (face-saving) for Israel and Hamas, big win for everyone else. hamas has the initiative on this one.
New Scenario 4: No Rafah invasion, every Hamas leader who was previously "safe" gets whacked. Somewhat acceptable for the US and Israel, absolutely not acceptable for Hamas leadership.
In this set of option, scenario 4 is the only one where Hamas is the only loser, and which might be selected by the Israeli leadership (which, once again, has the initiative). So it's a way for the US to signal to Hamas that they really really should go for scenario 3 instead. Of course, this only work if the threat is credible, and the Israelis are actually interested in a hostage-saving and face-saving move.
It's a hypothetical scenario to explain financialization, not something that I've directly observed. There are many, many of these schemes being run, turning pretty much anything of value into tradable instruments.
What's destroying the Middle Class? Why?
FluentInFinance