If dollars were being repatriated, but as investment into financial instruments and real estate instead of purchases of goods and services, then that would not affect the trade deficit, right?
Fracking. Before fracking people were worried about "peak oil", and being dependent on unfriendly governments for our basic energy needs. Then with fracking we realized we are actually sitting on huge available oil reserves, and peak oil quickly became a quaint outdated concept.
Not that it changes your point, but the other day I met a republican who said he doesn’t think climate change is a thing but peak oil, now that’s something to worry about.
The longevity of this plus the “no anthropogenic climate change” nonsense is astounding. Armchair climate sceptics are happy to seriously stick to talking points that are so out of date that even the oil industry doesn’t use them anymore.
So you met a person, they told you their Party Affiliation, then went to tell you how it isn't "real".
Sorry I don't believe your paraphrasing of this person's real thoughts and ideas. I'm sure these people exist, but it doesn't mean anything. I could equally go find someone crazy saying the world is going to end this year.
That may be part of it, but as your parent comment mentioned, the Republicans weren't only worried about peak oil and being dependent on unfriendly governments, but also about climate change. Of course, none of these three problems went away, the point where fossil fuels will be exhausted just got pushed further into the future, and the fact that it will take more and more effort and environmental damage to get to the remaining resources is also undeniable.
But yeah, I guess your answer still applies indirectly: Fracking -> stronger interests by US oil companies -> money to the Republican party -> fossil fuel friendly regulations.
Fracking has nothing to do with energy. When you look at EROI oil from a gusher is around ~100:1. For solar 10-25:1, wind 20-50:1, Fracking is 10:1 and most of that doesn't end up as diesel
It's useful for the plastics and petrochemical industry, but it's not going to make the country energy independent, even including battery costs wind still trounces.
Did you need licensing / training to take on electrical work? Do you market yourself as an electrician or more just a handyman that does minor electric jobs?
I got my license in my gap year before uni a long time ago; it's not valid here, but in my country I got trained with a lot higher standards than where I live now so I can do anything besides actually hooking stuff up to mains. I helped some people out and they told others. Like said; there is a massive shortage of handy people and as this is not my day job, I have to say no a lot.
It would have been pretty silly for Harris to campaign on a Hope and Change™ platform, since that would imply she is doing a very poor job as incumbent.
> From 2014 to 2020, migrants from outside Mexico and Central America — known as “extra-continentals” — accounted for 19 percent of immigration court cases.
> In the last four years, those “extra-continentals” have risen to 53 percent of all court cases. They have arrived from countries such as India, China, Colombia and Mauritania.
Okay. Sure. Mexico only has 120m people. You think that a third of their population walked into Texas and bought a house in Dallas? A quarter? Hell, ten percent?
Fine. I'll bring some of my own statistics. There might be ten million undocumented immigrants living in the United States total. There are fewer than half a million illegal border crossings a year; if the expected lifespan following an illegal border crossing is, I don't know, forty years, then it's obvious that the overwhelming majority of illegal border crossings don't convert to undocumented immigrants. These numbers are easily available on the relevant Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_Uni..., which itself has extensive citations from a wide variety of sources. Saying that there are "tens of millions crossing the border" is clearly and blatantly incorrect.
And, of course, that's not even getting into the real meat of the issue, that's just sarcastically calling out the surface-level lies. No, what I really want to say about illegal immigration is that undocumented immigrants commit fewer crimes than either documented immigrants or outright citizens, that they pay more taxes than they cost in government spending, that they do not affect job access or pay of legal residents, that they prevent offshoring, and that they contribute to GDP via spending and labor. Undocumented immigrants are, as far as I can tell, purely positive contributors to America at every level I look at, for the people working alongside them and going to school with them all the way up to the grandest statistics. If we truly wanted a healthy economy - if we wanted more citizens to have better jobs, if we wanted more money for education and healthcare, if we wanted less crime and less exploitation of labor - we would legalize all of them and invite more in after them.
250k (recorded border patrol contacts) came across in December 2023 (peak), about 55k this last August. It is usually fewer then a million per year but still a significant number of people. Bad policies in 2023 led to an absolute flood. That is competition for American workers.
Still not "tens of millions", don't motte-and-bailey me.
Also, I thought competition was good and that we needed more of it. That's the usual fiscal-conservative line, right?
I'll further note that there are more job postings open right now than there have been at any time since 2000, that unemployment right now is incredibly low considering the pandemic and 2008, that the unemployment that still exists can be fairly easily traced to the previous trump presidency rather than any other cause, and that multiple detailed studies (refer to previous Wikipedia link) fail to find that illegal immigrants have any effect at all on the jobs or pay of American workers. Having more workers in total increases spending which opens up more jobs, for example, standard jevons paradox stuff. Your conclusions are not supported by any kind of evidence, your models do not describe or provide accurate predictions of reality, and your proposals will not work the way you think or claim they will.
Is it really competition? Do American workers get paid in cash from employers who don't ask for their Social Security number? Skilled jobs require documentation. Unskilled jobs require documentation. Working undocumented means being paid in cash by an employer who doesn't tell the IRS about you. Are citizens really lining up to work these jobs that undocumented immigrants perform? Food prices will increase again when all of the migrant farm workers are deported.
The key difference here is whether your investment remains at risk. As long as the value of your investment is at risk, then the investment is considered unrealized.
Once you cash in your chips (sell) then the investment becomes realized.
Someone getting a loan against their stock portfolio is still at risk of loss of value of their holdings, therefore the investment gains remain unrealized.
I've seen the process to purchase a place in both France and California. The former can take the significant part of a year, the later a matter of days.
They always take two months at the very minimum as well because buyers as to go to many banks or a loan broker. You have notaries involved and right to step away from a sale, no question asked for 10 days iirc.
2 months would be an ultra fast completion in the UK. I think when I bought my house it took 3 months, when I bought some land, cash purchase, it took more like 6 months.
It depends on what you think YouTube's product is. Are they a service that streams videos and recommendations to consumers, or a service that streams eyeballs and tracking data to advertisers? The first one might get by with HTML5, but the second one definitely requires some JS.
How is it different? Squandering typically means spending, which means the money is re-entering the economy, typically to people at lower rungs of the wealth ladder, and is not much different than other forms of redistribution.
Unless you mean the squandered billions was through literal setting piles of money ablaze or losing it all in a poker game to bigger billionaires, it seems if redistribution was the goal then squandering should be encouraged.
in terms of usage, if I say "people should buy what they need and on top of that they should not spend (lest they find themselves spent)" you know exactly what i mean. Especially expensive items are spendy. Spend carries a connotation of waste and exhaustion. Save and invest your surplus, don't spend it, don't spend your savings.
reply