Sounds like the same philosophy Reganomics follows, basically the more money the rich have, the less everything cost.
Of course there is no proof of this, infact with poverty rising the way it is since the 80's, id imagine it has the reverse effect.
In the end, its 60.00 for a game because people would pay 60.00. If a game is going to sell for 60.00, there is no reason to lower it. This is capitalism and giving the rich more money doesnt change the fundamental rules.
While i am sure it would be more complicated then that, your premise is sound.
The problem is, not enough rich people will get richer, this falls under 'socialism' and it will benefit everyone equally, that's not going to fly for our representatives, who are often more worried about getting richer then the good of citizens.
It would probably be easier to send supply's first. Timing a trip to mars can make it a relatively short trip, 9 months or so, the rest of the food and the way back can be sent first followed by people.
Alot of what curiosity did to land paved the way for this.
I will call this out...you have no proof of any of this, I have met brain surgeons who needed help with malware, just because somone doesnt take the time to learn there computer doesnt mean they are ignorant...they just may not have time and are willing to pay others to do it for them, i look at it as job security.
I am sorry but your are the kettle calling everyone black.
War against piracy is getting about as stupid as the war on drugs, you shouldn't of done 14 months, and he shouldn't be doing 5 years. Prison should be for people who are violent and a true threat to society.
Revolution is not a good idea, while its all fucked up, a revolution would be very very bad, destroying our union would cause a good more people starving and some of these right winger states would turn out worse then the soviet union. What we need is mass peaceful protest to change things..peacefully shut down roads, ports, and economic damage. Fact is, peacefully protesting has always worked out better.
I want to point out that our culture is greed, therefore, its only adding to it.(This policy is quite greedy)
History will view baby boomers culture, who is largely responsible for much of the greed, in a unfavorable light, and it will be looked upon as a culture of greed. This pattern has bleed into generations beyond that, but i think the millennials will put a stop to it once they are in the majority of power.
at least that's my hope, id like to see my son get old in a far better world then the baby boomers want it to be.
I live in Utah and i just found out that teachers are allowed to carry concealed weapon into the class room, that means that my son could be around a armed firearm at any point going to school and i would have no idea. As a parent who wants to keep him away from guns, i find this insulting and against my rights as a parent, and against my sons right to be safe in school.
These kind of laws is all because the NRA buys corrupted right wingers and sells ignorance to the masses. I am sick of lobbyist. Instead of trying to diminish the 1st to try and strengthen the 2nd, we should end money from politics and see how fast the NRA dies. Then maybe we can have some reasonable conversations in this country about a variety of issues.
I think the pattern is that our society likes to give a pill to solve a problem instead of you know...solving the problem. I have been diagnosed with severe chronic depression yet i take no pill for it, i also have no interest in owning a gun or anything deadly. I manage ok.
Things about pills, as i have tried them before, they introduce a unknown element and managing that unknown is far harder then managing depression that i know what to except.
you are grasping straws now, of course its a good thing that employers cant ask for your personal passwords, you cant look at it any other way, as far as the line that you refer to...its not really there, and if it is there, its the employers fault as personal and professional is often a easy line to see.
lets face the facts, had the ruling gone the other way you would be arguing against it with a different argument.