Go read my article! Shameless self promotion
#1
Posted 2013-December-05, 09:04
http://www.cracked.c...in-reality.html
As a bonus, you can leverage it into a discussion of gun control or government intervention in general, which is what the people in the comments are doing.
#2
Posted 2013-December-05, 09:28
O rly?
bed
#4
Posted 2013-December-05, 11:45
#5
Posted 2013-December-05, 11:54
Fluffy, on 2013-December-05, 10:30, said:
#6
Posted 2013-December-05, 17:26
#7
Posted 2013-December-05, 22:44
#8
Posted 2013-December-05, 23:23
nigel_k, on 2013-December-05, 22:44, said:
That would be true if there were only one kind of fish. But when the fish you can sell at a profit are a small portion of what you haul onto your boat, you throw everything else back over the side, usually after it's died in the open air.
#9
Posted 2013-December-06, 00:29
nigel, there were more sources beyond what made it to the entry - in reality that stuff happens, a lot. I don't remember if the article had that statistic, but bycatch accounts for 20-30% of the total catch in some European countries. The root problem always was the indiscriminate techniques used to haul fish - right now they're just using a big-ass net and throwing overboard everything they weren't legally allowed to catch.
#10
Posted 2013-December-06, 04:17
Antrax, on 2013-December-05, 11:54, said:
Cane toads, another disaster of introducing a species where it didn't belong.
#11
Posted 2013-December-06, 07:05
#12
Posted 2013-December-06, 08:14
Antrax, on 2013-December-06, 00:29, said:
I copied the URL too and the link on my wall points to your article, but the link itself just has the title "Cracked.com - America's Only Humor Site | Cracked.com" without any reference to your article. Hm maybe because I linked to the second part by mistake?
George Carlin
#13
Posted 2013-December-06, 08:34
gwnn, on 2013-December-06, 08:14, said:
Yeah you linked to page 2, I noticed too. In my case tho I simply wanted to plant a Like on the article itself, not share it. The site is structured weirdly - the Like button for Doron's article is at the beginning, on the side, not at the end. What I clicked at the end was one of their featured stories suggested as an after-read.
#14
Posted 2013-December-06, 12:40
#15
Posted 2013-December-06, 12:47
#16
Posted 2013-December-06, 12:55
#17
Posted 2013-December-06, 15:40
GreenMan, on 2013-December-06, 12:55, said:
For longterm tenants, yes. I am not positive, but I assume that the rents are raised to the level that new tenants have to pay (basically the market value). I am not entirely against subsidised housing for those who need it, but it strikes me as a bit unfair that it should be private individuals ie the landlords, who are forced to pay the subsidy.
Unless they are compensated for it. Tax breaks for rental property owners could help to keep rents low, and avoid the scarcity of rental properties that rent control engenders. But helping "the man" goes against liberal sensibilities, so I am sure that this solution is rarely favoured over rent control.
#18
Posted 2013-December-07, 05:22
Vampyr, on 2013-December-06, 15:40, said:
Rent control lowers the market value of for-rent properties so prospective landlords just pay less mortgage and get less rent. The losers are those who own the properties at the time when rent control is introduced. The winners are those who own them when rent control is lifted.
In theory rent control is bad. It creates a distorted market in which building for-rent properties has to be subsidized, while conversion of for-rent to home ownership has to be restricted. It creates shortage of rental accommodation. My cousin once thought of buying to rent but was discouraged by the high price/earning ratios. He asked an estate agent how it is possible to sell rental accommodation at a p/e of 50 when the interest rate was 8-9%. The agent was surprisingly honest: as a landlord you have a decent tax-free income from receiving bribes from prospective tenants.
I think I would prefer, at least in theory, to give tax breaks to low-income households so that they can afford to pay the market price for accommodation. In particular, I would prefer the tax and subsidy systems to make no discrimination between home ownership and renting. But it's a bit of an armchair argument.
#19
Posted 2013-December-07, 08:09
helene_t, on 2013-December-07, 05:22, said:
Many years ago, I took as a tenant in the first rental property I ever bought (a triplex) a single mother with subsidized rent. I found that the system worked well. I had to make sure that the building met code and was well-maintained, with regular inspections. The tenant paid the government a portion of the rent (I don't know how much) and the government sent me a check for the full rent each month. So I got normal rent and the tenant got a nice place to raise her children at a bargain. In fact, she was a great tenant, and took very good care of the place.
The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists — that is why they invented hell. — Bertrand Russell