Problem is, you build 10 and 50 more people will come to the state. This is a larger issue than just one state or city.
Probably chicken poop fertilizer.
Bottom line is it wasn't designed for the amount of traffic it currently sees. It should be turned into a more traditional highway without lights or intersections.
100% if they kept going they would've been cut in half by a metal loading ramp right around that corner. Also lucky no one was on the sidewalk, just glad everyone was ok.
If he didn't hit the fence and that wall he would have died. Just around that corner is a metal loading ramp that is 4-5 ft off the ground and it would've decapitated him.
The camera on my building. Legit put in 2 days before this happened.
Idk but they definitely got their bell rung lol
Guy did get out right after this and seemed ok luckily. Just thankful no one was more seriously injured.
Doesn't even make sense because the firm was covering it š
It takes decades to stand up this kind of manufacturing. Not only do you have to build the plants, source inputs, and create the corporate structure you also need an army of a work force that is also highly trained. None of that happens quickly.
Dumbest part about this whole thing is that we have spent nearly $1T EVERY YEAR FOR 75 YEARS. We have spent it for this EXACT scenario minus the US being directly involved with troops on the ground.
Why even entertain the idea of stopping the allocation of resources to them? The money is already being spent or was spent over the last 75 years. We have literal mountains of hardware that we will either give to them or pay more to dispose of.
Ukraine is a very cheap alternative to fighting elsewhere.
Kid was a dick and had major anger issues. Completely not surprised.
They're probably at about 1/3 of the KIA for the US in WWII. Which is still a staggering number when you consider that we had millions of people deployed and huge operations on multiple continents VS just in one narrow 700 mile stretch.
Eh idk that it would be enough to keep them afloat. Not in the scope we need for them to be viable competitors
I get that for sure. I think for cars especially it's much more dangerous to have an adversary making them even if they are "cheaper"
I understand that's just one example but still.
It's a lot more complex than this with currency manipulation and other non monetary motivation but just imagine this...
Why is it so much cheaper? For one, they may have stolen (?) tech so didn't have the research costs. Meaning it's not really $15k because those costs were covered by other companies paying to do the research.
Or, maybe the state doesn't care if they make money at all because profit isn't their motive - which is an issue for us because our companies are only profit motivated. Maybe the state wants to just employ people, or kill our industries so they flood the market?
What if they just brick all the cars remotely in event of a conflict or even worse make them all go haywire and crash into everything? Still probably possible with other EVs which is nightmare fuel for sure.
So it's not really "$15k" for society. You're just not incorporating the other unseen costs.
If they were a friendly nation with ostensibly benign intentions it would be a different story. But then it prob wouldn't be "$15k"
Obviously this is just EV specific but similar principles can be applied to a lot of industries. Especially higher tech.
In the past the calculation was really... ok you want to make cheap plastic stuff and clothing? We don't need to do that anyway. Now it's you want to compete with our cutting edge industry (and unfairly do so)? That's a problem.
That being said, I would love a $15k EV and think that we have way too limited competition across almost every industry. I think there's a happy balance that needs to be struck. What that balance is? I'm happy I don't need to try and figure that out lol
Because then American (or other nations) manufacturers can compete. The Chinese production cost is artificially low because the state may actually be losing money on every car sold, maybe not, but when it's the gov and not a private company that doesn't really matter. They can lose money forever and it's not really an issue. Private corps go out of business if they don't turn a profit. Add in currency manipulation and it's even easier for them to game that math.
Right now, yes, we're paying 5-10% more but if we didn't do this then in 20 years there may not be American manufacturers.
What if we get into a conflict and have zero car production capacity? Or they just jack up the prices in 20 years when there is no domestic production left?
Obviously ALOT more to it, but that's at least part of the rationale.
You could buy anything off Silk Road at one point, still doesn't mean it's legal.
Because what if they don't want to redevelop it? Why should new comers have more say than the people who have made the place what it is?
Obviously that's a pretty specific and extreme example but the point remains. There are a lot of older people right now who can't afford to move. So fuck them then right? They should be forced to sell their houses because their land is "valuable"? And then move to a house that's just as expensive but in less desirable area?
So now you're forcing all retirees (who are statistically a much lower tax burden) to move for new folks who will pay the higher amount? Please explain how that makes sense to any rational person.
The government shouldn't be forcing people to do anything via taxation. If you want to redevelop and make more money of your land, you can pay and do that. If not, let it lie and that's fine too.
You mean the entity making sure your food is safe? Not saying they're perfect but that's a pretty odd take.
Yeah I mean that's the part that makes zero sense to me. If it was a hemp product it should be BOH but they're not hemp once they're above that THC threshold or put into drinks, food, etc they're Marijuana. According to the state and Feds hemp food/drinks can't legally exist so it should default to being marijuana then.
Actually they are explicitly prohibited by the state of MA and at the federal level by the FDA. You can not put any hemp derivatives into an item meant for consumption as a food or beverage and cross state lines or within this state.
NY may have a state framework under which these products are allowed. MA has explicitly banned hemp derivatives in food and beverages so therefore it's considered cannabis and needs to be in a dispensary, tested, and made by a state licensed producer.
The bill already exists it's 935 CMR 500 and it relates to adult use Marijuana which is what those products are.
Iām on mobile so trying to keep it brief.
Ok so under an LVT itās just a flat tax rate for everyone in an area?
So if Iām on 2 acres with a SFH thatās been in the family 200 years and and apartment building with 300 residents is built on the neighboring 2 acre lot, I may now owe 300x the average of the apartment residents? So Iām now forced to sell the family home to pay for the services of new residents? Or are we now saying the improved land is more valuable and the new residents owe more? That sure sounds like our current system.
Or the generational family can just take a hike cuz now the city is moving up in the world?
If all taxes are the same, almost by definition, in a high price area I can only have what provides the most $ per foot. Everything else HAS to go away because itās not as profitable for it to be there. So there wonāt be long term tenants or businesses just the next thing making the most money?
Why not charge them based on what they actually bring in so itās ostensibly more fair? Thatās what we do currently.
The reason that economic activity is taxed higher than land is because it COSTS the city or town more. The more I bring in, presumably, the more resources Iām using and the more I can afford to pay. Not everyone is in a situation to keep increasing revenue, value, or improving their land to keep it bringing in money for tax hikes. If Iām not costing the city more money providing me services then I shouldnāt be charged way more than those who are. You donāt need to do a fire department inspection of vacant land, you do of a commercial building.
Re urban blightā¦ I think that many people think building owners maliciously hold real estate. They donāt. If they could make money selling their building they would. In many instances itās in litigation or not economically viable to rehab and so it sits. Owning large buildings is not the same as a house, and itās a mistake to look at it that way.
Again, the current system, while not perfect at least has some flexibility to account for a lot of scenarios and factors.
Your insta is unreal
what is like like in this part of alaska?
geography