Its really simple, if you don't understand this, you need to question your own logic. Basically the Marijuana issue should be a state decision, not dictated by the Fed Govt. What don't you understand here?
> as polls show a solid majority of Americans believe the drug should be legal
I am for the legalizing of marijuana, but considering the majority of Americans live in only 9 of the states, decisions should not be made based on the "majority". Federal law based on what the majority wanted was one of the things that the framers were afraid of. 9 states should not be able to dictate what occurs in the other 41 states and vice versa. Full state rights. Again I am for the legalization marijuana, but this needs to be a state by state decision, not federal govt.
This is why the majority of medical breakthroughs and innovations occur in the US. Sure capitalism has its negatives, but its positive is that it provides vast financial incentives for people to create new solutions while at the same time filling a need for humanity. $850k is a hefty pricetag, but the ability to see your loved ones is priceless. Win/win for everyone involved
Going to need some rules and regulations. Last thing we need are big banks overleveraging on crypto currencies for the excess return. When, not if, this bubble bursts hopefully it doesn't take the whole economy down with it. The whole financial market wants exposure to crypto at this point.
There are still some people that believe that smoking doesn't cause cancer after decades of research. In the end you are free to believe as you wish. Godspeed
I think the dangers of a high sodium diet are pretty well documented, especially in the west where they have very high obesity rates. I would take Dr. DiNicolantonio's advice with a "grain of salt" haha
>If I let people pay to use my personal workout equipment, then I'm operating gym.
If I let people pay to use my phone, then I am operating a cellular company. If I let people pay to use my lawn mower, then I am operating a grass cutting company. etc... No logically this ruling makes no sense. Just upset taxi companies that want to maintain the status quo.
Calling Uber a tax firm is akin to calling personal workout equipment a gym. Or calling a bed and breakfast a hotel. Don't get me wrong Uber should pay its fair share of taxes/fees, but bunching apples and oranges together for the sake of policy simplicity comes off as non-progressive in my view.
Regulations are the next logical step here. My best guess is that the red tape will at least dampen a lot of the mania around cryptocurricines and bring people back to reality.
We shouldn't have to go through one of the 2 major parties to contend as a third party candidate. One way to solve this could be putting caps on campaign financing which would level the playing field for smaller 3rd parties. But that would never happen because the major 2 parties make the rules and that would hurt their dominance. By voting for either party we are essentially enabling the either-or system to continue
Citron is on the short side. Their entire investment strategy of the company is to short assets, in this scenario the future is used as an arbitrage hedge, but overall yes citron is short biased on bitcoin.
You do know the banks payed back the bailout money with interest and added fines right? Overall it was a net positive for tax payers. Not sure how that's a fraud... Your other examples are suspect as well...
Wants important is the blockchain technology. As Bitcoin continues to grow it further legitimizes the strength of the blockchain technology which can be applied to many other areas in tech. Bitcoin itself is useless, essentially sending "thin air" back and forth as someone else put it.
My best guess is that this is great for everyone involved. Traders and investors can hedge future risk, brokers and exchanges can rack up fees, and institutional banks can hold the futures contract of an unregulated asset on their balance sheet. Eventually something will have to give, but for now I don't see any negatives here.
Its not a matter of trust, its a matter of likely occurrence. In the event that someone uses their UBI on something non-essential like gambling/drugs instead of paying their rent. What do we do as a society? My solution is pay for the essentials like food, housing, medical, etc directly instead of handing out cash. This eliminates that possibility.
> America competitive in the world—lies in giving every citizen a regular allotment of money to cover basics like housing, food, and shelter.
Out of curiosity don't we already do this? We have public/section 8 housing, food stamps, medical/dental, etc... If we are talking about handing out cold hard cash as basic income, as the statement implies, then that is a recipe for disaster. There would be no guarantee that people would use that money for basics like housing and food.
Its really simple, if you don't understand this, you need to question your own logic. Basically the Marijuana issue should be a state decision, not dictated by the Fed Govt. What don't you understand here?