No, the bank has at risk the capital loaned, which they payed out. A risk is not a "loss" in a hypothetical amount of money that maybe could be had in the future given market conditions which are not predictable.
I have a mortgage that is fixed interest and not backed by the government in anyway... So I think you might be wrong on how the risk is calculated.
I can't see how any new risk is added in a fixed rate. In fact I can't see how a non fixed rate would really be good for anybody, and would keep the risk fluctuating for all parties involved.
Your vision is always 2020 after the fact. The idea that the city was burning enough would be a good enough fear that who knows what the hell would happen next.
Its completely insane that everybody is just okay with millions of tax payer dollars being destroyed. Its insane that folks are okay with completely shutting down probably one of the best invention of man kind and reverting back to pure mob rules barbarism.
I feel like the real problem is people burning police buildings, and the lack of accountability in holding every last person who was involved in setting public property on fire to the maximum extent of the law.
But you obviously did not read the article you posted or might have sympathy to the folks lives that could be in danger if such documents were released to the public. But ACAB, FTP right?
It seems like we should just stop using ML for feeds.
My twitter feed is always hate. I don't actually comment, or engage other tan reading. And I am continuously being suggested post that are clearly bias to somebodies agenda.
I also fallow CNN breaking news. And the comments are complete trash. What is worse, is some small town thing happens, and now you have millions across the US and the world upset and outraged about it. While the issue was tragic, I am not sure it is healthy for society as a whole to be so connected to things that play nearly zero in their life.
I know, I know. Somebody is going to say "but they do play a role in their life". And I am going to reply. The only role they play is in that they saw a tweet or a reedit post or a 12 second clip with a loaded title that tries to convey that this bad thing happening is "status quo" and it is so outrageous that it happens and we all need to stand up to do something about it.
When in reality we are dealing with a world with ~8 billion people in it, where if 0.0000001% (8 people) of the population experience something bad to them in a given day, that we have systems in place to ensure that the vast majority know about it and get outraged, and are made to feel as if this is some huge problem that everybody needs to be involved in.
Listen folks, shitty things are going to happen, and they are going to keep happening, and it is going to seem like the problem is going to get worse and worse as the population grows. But we will never have zero bad things happening, and being outraged over and over about something that simply won't ever be corrected is a huge burden on society as a whole.
I challenge folks, especially the ones who get outraged at twitter post, reddit post, or stupid things said on HN to take a month off from social media. You will find the world is a much better place than you think it is currently.
And this is why Facebook has no business being part of fact checking.
While it may look different, this is no different than two folks on the phone getting interrupted by ATT and being told they are incorrect on their assumptions about topic X.
Social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter are the carrier, and should be treated as such.
Yeah, I think the OP was really talking about this individual case.
Eg, this guy put his kid in a device that could kill him (maybe).
Looking back at the videos from Boston Dynamics, a ton of effort is put in to the failure mode testing. I highly doubt 1) this is dynamic, 2) failure modes were considered much.
If you made the top %1 liquidate all their assets to give to others everything would stop working. You would create more problems than ever.
Somebody would have to buy the assets, and because we are doing away with anybody who would have the sort of money to buy the assets, you would likely deadlock long before you would get 34 trillion out of the system. Like its mind boggling what you said. Where would this money come from? Other 1%ers who would then have to sale their assets?
Folks, Net Worth is not tangible, and even less tangible if you required a mass amount of folks to liquidate. It would simply drive prices down to a point where they were no longer in the 1% and then our economy would simply pop.
Every major system that moves money (this is what we want) would grind to a halt, and the folks you want to steal money for would simply have no job and have no cash flow.
But beyond that, stealing money assets, or even in this case "net worth" is immoral.
Bezos was a nobody driving a Honda Civic, folks just mad he drives a rocket now.
Even if we stole 10B from Bezos and gave it out equally to every US citizen... Its ~$30. Is this life changing for anybody in the US? If so what percent. Most beggars on the street clear more than $30 a day, some make $30 a hour!
So yeah, common core has failed us, and the inability to understand numbers is a problem.
I do this nearly every time somebody is upset somebody else has money. One time it was some Walmart executive. They got some multi million dollar bonus. I did the math, it would have been something like 2.27 a week more for all the employees.
Edit:
But yet we have folks still going around on twitter saying he could give everybody a million (some even a billion) and still have money left over.
> By your standards, swatting is a perfectly acceptable outcome as long as the victim had the opportunity to mute their harrassers.
Folks don't get swatted via tweet, meem, or fb post. They have to pick p the phone and commit a real crime.
> Likewise, poisoning someone's reputation and making them unemployable is fine too. It's just words, right?
We have had laws against this long before the internet. Maybe they need strengthened.
Edit:
We are clearly talking about two different cases. We have things that are already illegal, and should continue to be illegal. Your examples are both something covered by existing laws.
On the other hand, we have folks who want to ban things that are legal, simply because they are offended. I can name a few, but in this clement, it would not be wise.
It scales up just fine, but individuals have to take personal responsible for their feelings.
As long as we allow folks to flip out and go crazy over bits of text, or even images appearing on their screen that they don't like or are offended by, nothing will will work.
You see, in your situation, if you don't like what somebody is saying you uninvited them from the table. But on the internet, folks demand the offender be removed from the internet -- this won't scale.
What nearly all social media needs to do is simply hide users or content from somebody when they "flag" or "report" it. This scales nicely.
But no! we demand they remove it from the internet and ban them from contributing anything further. This is liken to getting into a argument at the dinner table, being offending, and then killing the offender so they can't offend you again, verses just ending future interactions with this person. Yeah, you might see them at the store, and yeah, they might have have to look away passing them in on the street, but the majority of the content you don't like coming from them is removed from your life.
But that is not good enough, you want this person to not be able to share the ideas, topic, or crude joke you did not like with anybody else.
I don't know what it is about the internet, but folks seem to think they should have way more control over what others do than they normally would in the real world.