Drones over 250 grams or for any drone operated commercially under part 107 registration is required. But, its easy to just build your own or desolder the id chip if you dont want it.
It includes what most would call quarries and it doesn't include anywhere near all of them (there are basically infinite invisible quarries everywhere to make concrete because it doesn't transport well).
The more you ask around the more you will find the real divide in the US is the same as it always has been. There are those that believe a more powerful government will solve all the problems and those that just want the government to leave them alone to solve their own problems.
Thomas Sowell's Conflict of Visions describes the difference well.
You make a really good point I think, if the government just leaves us alone then we can solve all of our own problems with the friendly assistance of ma bell/standard oil/google/facebook.
The way to fix that is to stop debasing the currency.
I stopped buying stocks a few years ago. The moment there is a contraction of credit or circulating currency we will see a 1929 style crash. Not worth the risk anymore.
I think in the short to medium term, they will continue expanding the availability of credit and expanding the money supply when crashes happen in order to keep asset prices high. At some point there will be a breaking point, but I think 2009-style "Quantitative Easing" and 2020-style fiscal spending can and will happen again. So I'm still in, but this game won't last forever.
What incentive do any of the few actors with the ability to effect that change have to actually pull that lever? I imagine that you have spent a lot of time thinking about this, and I would like to understand your position.
That is the problem. Reigning in debasement is what needs to happen or the dollar is dead. But, reigning in debasement means spending less. Spending less means people can't be reelected for "bringing federal money home". So, there is no incentive for Congress to cut anything. But, the piece that makes me pretty sure that debasement is the goal, is that by debasing the currency it makes it possible to pay off dollar denominated debt. I can't be the only one that sees it. Nations have been divesting of US Bonds for years now.
I'll say it another way. The government can pay off its debt by making your money worthless.
I changed my investment habits as soon as I recognized it. I am already happy I did.
So, if I got it right, your argument is that the US government has issued so much debt that in order to pay for its interest in the future it will find itself forced to devalue the USD, and that will lead to the stock market to underperform.
Did I get the gist of it?
> I can't be the only one that sees it
Correct. It is a pretty common argument.
A common counterargument is that the US government has two advantages when it comes to issuing debt.
First, the USD remains the primary reserve currency around the world, and for good reasons, too. As long as global trade relies so heavily on the USD and, more generally, on exports to the US, foreign exchange rates will continue to prop up the value of the USD and USD-denominated debt.
Can this global economic system change in the future? Sure. But it has a lot of mass and momentum behind it. It can't stop overnight, any more than a tornado can.
Second is that the US government issues debt in USD and it has its own central bank, which allows them to pull levers both on the fiscal policy side and the monetary policy side. This allows them to issue pretty much as much or as little debt as they want, pay for it as much or as little as they want (let's not forget forget QE), and adjust inflation up or down with an enviable degree of freedom.
Can this destabilize? Of course, it is possible to mismanage it badly enough, in theory. But given its position as the world's reserve currency, they can get away with murder compared to other less privileged countries and currencies.
Lastly, understanding something is not enough to make money out of it. You need to have privileged knowledge that other people lack. Is that what is happening here?
Unless something changes the government will be forced to continue devaluing the USD. They have been doing it since 1913. This is late stage debasement, not the start. Unless there is a drastic change in spending or growth there is no stopping this train even for a reserve currency. Being the reserve just allows us to spread out the damage. This points back to countries selling their US debt. They see default as more likely and want to get rid of it before they get caught holding the bag. It doesn't help that we have been abusing reserve currency privilege by using USD as a weapon. Who wants to be friends when our friendship is conditional on compliance?
The stock market will continue to go up as long as inflation happens. The dollar losing value is now the dominant market force. That makes the stock market increasing dependent on cheap credit. It is too risky for me to have money in the stock market. That value can evaporate faster than I can realize it on a decision as common as a FedFunds rate increase.
The last stage of a currency collapse is the country selling assets priced in dollars to pay dollar denominated debt.
That's the core question. I would like to see the parent poster's answer as well, because I don't see it happening as long as the US can price debt in its own currency, and the only way that stops happening is after a catastrophe that isn't worth planning for because there's no way to survive financially.
Every tax ever implemented by government has been initially sold as a tax on the rich. The people voting for it assume they will never be taxed because they aren't currently rich. But, there is never enough of other peoples money to spend. So, taxes expand and/or increase to include more people.
The original income tax was sold as 1% on mid income and 2% on high income. At the time more than half the country was not going to pay any tax.
Or, no amount of money is ever enough for government and taxing income is a dumb value to collect revenue.
Southern states supported an income tax because they believed it would make it possible to collect revenue for indigent people. Exactly opposite of "taxes the rich".
That is a bit of a lie. Getting a refund does not mean you didn't pay. Even getting more back than you actually paid does not mean you didn't pay. Money is taken from every paycheck. When you file your taxes the IRS decides what you get back.
Disagree, I think my wording was fine. But okay, 50% of Americans don't contribute to the country with income tax. They are leeching their services from those of us who do.
I make lots of compost for my own use. Composting is at best delaying carbon release. As soon as you stop recycling materials the carbon will be released to the atmosphere. In permaculture circles the goal is to close open loops of waste/resources. If you want to permanently lock carbon in your soil, and improve fertility, make biochar. Throwing charcoal in your compost is the easiest way to make it into biochar. It really works and is a permanent amendment.
If you wanted you could even weigh the raw charcoal to quantify the carbon you have sequestered.
None of the loops are open in the sense that it's all within the earth system as a whole. The issue is extracting carbon from geological deposits. Stuff about farming and methane is temporary and short term.
I don't mean to suggest we shouldn't compost or recycle things. Just that such measures are only indirectly related to carbon emissions.
We either stop extracting hydrocarbons from deep within the crust or else the problem will persist. (I guess technically we could industrially sequester the equivalent but that would almost certainly defeat the cost-benefit of extraction.)
In that sense even hydrocarbons are closed loop. Earth made the oil deposits so we aren't adding anything that wasn't already here. The carbon we pump into the atmosphere will eventually become oil again.
My point is that the timescale of a given loop is what matters. Specifically, extraction of geological deposits has a timescale (and thus an equilibrium) that is highly undesirable for us.
I wonder if part of it is also that mining companies are generally allowed to just leave their tailings in a big pile near the mine rather than have to responsibly dispose of the majority of the ore that has no (or negative) commercial value.
Ethanol production was subsidized to consume excess corn that was only produced because it is susidized. I don't know if ethanol fuel requirements started before or after the ethanol subsidies but it all happened around the same time.
Nobody ever paid 90% taxes. There were tax rates that high but lots of ways to avoid it same as now.
If you want a fair tax that treats everybody equally you want a flat consumption tax. No tax to make money. Just taxed when you spend money. Rich people spend more money so they pay more taxes. It can't be avoided by taking a dollar salary or using assets as equity for loans that dont get taxed.
As an aside, billionaires pay the same taxes you do on income. Demanding a wealth tax on billionaires is foolish. Every tax ever devised was sold as a tax on the rich. Look where we are now, forced to give a third or more of our labor to an entity that half the country likes on a good year.
Any form of a flat tax hits harder the smaller your income. A proportional tax would be more appropriate, as it would have an equal impact.
For example, you buy a gadget that has a $25 consumption tax. If you make $30,000 a year, it has a measurable impact on your financial well-being. If you make $200,000 a year, the same $25 consumption tax would have a negligible impact on your financial well-being. For the consumption tax to have the same impact, it would have to be $166.
This is also why self-funded retirement accounts are a cruel joke for most people. It's relatively easy to save for retirement if you're earning $150,000 to $200,000. If you're making $40,000, it often comes down to choosing between rent, food, and "there's nothing left."
15% impacts everybody equally. You know as in equal under the law. Wealthy people spend more so they would pay more.
Which would you prefer? Uncle Sam takes 15% of everything you earn, or 15% of everything you spend? A consumption tax would allow people to save if they wanted instead of taking home 15% less?
Agreed that effective tax rates were much lower than the headline marginal rates because of deductions and avoidance strategies. My point was more about the policy environment and incentives of those periods, not that people literally paid 90% of their income in tax.
The broader conversation I’m interested in is how we realistically fund large public efforts today and what mix of taxation or spending people think is fair and sustainable.
I don't think an individual's tax burden should ever be more than 15%. I would prefer that people get to keep the fruits of their labor. The people created the government to serve and protect them not steal their wealth.
And I don't think an individual should ever have a billion dollars. I would prefer that people not starve in the streets.
I would also, without any hesitation, point out that mine is a very practical and humanistic concern, while yours is an abstract and philosophical one.
I believe we have a fundamental difference of opinion on the purpose of government. To me the intended purpose of the government as defined in the Constitution is to foster an environment for people to thrive. It is up to the people to do the work to thrive.
Every dollar that government takes is reducing the wealth of all people and concentrating it in the hands of a few. If you are against whatever power you perceive billionaires have with money they earned then I don't understand why you are not against the growth of an entity that is a multi-trillionaire by stealing from everybody else.
If you want to help people and make the world a better place focus on your town or city and make it better. No reason that you need to wait for big daddy government to do it with money they took from your pocket.
> Every dollar that government takes is reducing the wealth of all people and concentrating it in the hands of a few.
I mean...in the very short term, yes.
But governments then spend that money, and one of the big things governments spend money on is social welfare programs.
Which put that money in the hands of the many.
By contrast, when a billionaire gets money, they're likely to keep it. (Yes, technically they usually "invest" it—but that "investment" goes to other wealthy people or corporations, and the money remains locked away from the real economy of people using it to buy food, clothing, and shelter.)
> If you want to help people and make the world a better place focus on your town or city and make it better. No reason that you need to wait for big daddy government to do it with money they took from your pocket.
This is not an endeavor where individual action is effective. We need to work together to make the world better in meaningful ways. The primary way that we can do that is through governments.
Maintenance also informs builders on what can be improved next time. For example, we now know that rebar reinforced concrete will eventually need to be replaced due to spalling. If we reinforced with glass or basalt rebar that problem is solved. It might fail a different way but it won't be from spalling.
Over time we learn to build structures that last a long time and require less maintenance. Unfortunately, building codes are often very specific. Sometimes requiring specific materials. Using a different material requires proving it is a suitable replacement before construction. We have to allow builders to take risks. Sometimes we get a Tacoma Narrows bridge, sometimes we get a Hoover dam. But, the builders have to be able to try new things even if we get a few stinkers once and awhile.
reply