So that if you ever step out of line with regards to what the government deems "worthy" behavior (whatever the hell that means at any given moment) you can be de-banked and effectively excluded from participating in society
Don't they usually take out the primary residence when doing the calculation? It still doesn't mean someone is completely liquid as I'm guessing many people have their money in tax deferred accounts they can't access until old age.
Don't they usually take out the primary residence when doing the calculation?
Typically, it would seem that is indeed the case from most calculations I've seen. I mean, are you really worth a million dollars if you have to be homeless to access those dollars?
You don't have to prioritize them. You can choose to encourage the rich to hoard their money elsewhere. But there are consequences to every policy decision.
The rich don't have money, they have assets, and those assets can't go anywhere. It doesn't matter if the rich buy or sell a farm in Canada, the farm is still in Canada.
> It doesn't matter if the rich buy or sell a farm in Canada, the farm is still in Canada.
Have we learned nothing from what happened to the US's industrial economy.
If you turn the farm into an obviously poor investment it'll go tits up because neither wall street nor main street is dumb enough to invest money into a losing proposition.
'Global slavery index' is not a credible source, even according to Wikipedia.
I'm sorry I spent 2 minutes of my life looking it up - I should've known better.
This conversation is over. I can't trust you to not throw random crap a google search produces that supports your fantasy that I then have to spend brain cells to debunk.
Then pick a different one. Which measure did you use to come to your conclusion?
I suspect you didn't use one at all, because I am not aware of any measure of "slavery" that correlates positively with any measure of investment activity.
Labor practices and protections are much better in countries with high economic investment.
Hackernews is at its base a forum for startups. It's hardly surprising that people paid to make a thing might find it cognitively difficult to accepts its flaws.
That's exactly my point: boycott the artists who contract with Live Nation. Your life won't be any less rich if you go see a local band instead of Taylor Swift. People have so many options now and yet they're afflicted with this weird FOMO.
That's not fair. Taylor Swift is so big because so many people resonate with her. They want to go see an artist they connect with. I get it, going to see the up-and-coming garage band with the DIY attitude at CBGBs has a comfy I'm-there-in-a-you-had-to-be-there-time, but not everyone finds that superior. Some just want to see the artist they like. And that's ok too.
Nope, I'm being completely fair. If you want to see Taylor Swift then expect to pay a lot for the privilege. Playing games with various ticket sales schemes isn't going to magically make a scarce luxury good affordable. I just get annoyed by entitled fans who think they have a moral right to cheap concert tickets due to loyalty or emotional connection or whatever.
And I have nothing against Taylor Swift. I actually like some of her music and I'm sure she puts on great live shows.
I think you either missed the point or are intentionally sidestepping the point. If I have a favorite band and they're reasonably large and I want to go see them live, it'd be a bonafide miracle if their show wasn't at a LiveNation venue. The local spots are simply too small to be a reasonable stop on tour for any moderately popular artist.
I agree that you should definitely go see local artists at local venues, but you can do that and still really want to take your dad to see Steve Hackett play a live show. It's not up to you to decide what enriches my life.
Ah yes, the bands that can gather more than 1000 fans at a concert are all Taylor Swifts.
One of my favorite bands I've listened to since their first album is First Aid Kit. On their 10th anniversary they had several sold-out concerts at Globen [1] in Stockholm. Should've I just stopped immediately once they crossed the threshold of 100 fans worldwide? But they are a local band, they are Swedish.
In August I'm going to a concert of a Finnish band called Steve'n'Seagulls. They will play in Karlstad, a small Swedish town. They sell their tickets through Ticketmaster. Boycott I say! They are on the same level as Taylor Swift! (137k monthly listeners on Spotify, compared to Swift's 102 million).
Okay. What about bands that have been around since before Live Nation? Should I skip Radiohead, Guns'n'Roses and Sting because there's literally no way for them to tour except to book LiveNation-affiliated venues?
How convenient that the government doesn't make the numbers public and then have to issue statements like this when journalists do some digging on the matter
I don't get what you're trying to say here? Yes, there are real issues with the government arresting people for speech, and the number is going up, but that's not proof for the specific claim of "you can be imprisoned for liking a post [...]". You can't just tack on spurious claims onto a more well supported claim on the basis that the former is directionally the same as the latter.
reply