It was fun seeing the bartender/robbery story on Instagram, and then reddit, and now it's here!
Legal question from someone who knows nothing of employment law, is this legal? If the bartender refused to sign and was terminated, would they have recourse?
I don't know about the employment issue, but shouldn't the CGL policy cover this loss? The amount stated in the article is probably within the deductible though. Regardless, if this isn't illegal then it should be. Do we not have a public policy against having workers shot and killed because they are afraid to turn over the money for fear of being held personally liable?
Typically in these types of cases there is a certain protocol bartenders are supposed to follow regarding depositing money. I'm assuming the bartender didn't follow the protocol and so the robbers got away with more than they should have had the bartender followed protocol. Morally I think this is reprehensible, but I'm guessing the owner felt he was within his rights because the bartender messed up.
12:08–That's exactly right and that is obviously what is missing from the story, as such omission makes it all sound more inflammatory and like a gross miscarriage of justice if the bartender is forced to either put up resistance against an armed robber, or comply but then be required to reimburse the money.
You see these situations occur around the country from time-to-time, and either buried in the article toward the end, or included in comments to the article from people close to the situation, is always that the employee was repeatedly warned about the need to immediately secure currency via the required protocol.
Whenever there is reporting on an unjust result, they tend leave out critical, explanatory details.
And this occurs even more with reporting on legal matters involving large settlements or large jury verdicts. We all have heard about the large McDonald's verdict for the woman spilling some coffee on herself, but no one ever mentions the severity of the injuries(multiple skin-grafts, permanent disfiguring), or that McDonald's brewed the coffee beyond scalding levels to maximize the most volume form the beans, etc.
Instead, it was reported to sound like a very frivolous matter, with no real injury, and became a poster case for tort reform.
Now, that all said, as 12:08 points out it may still very well be a dick-head move to require the bartender to reimburse all the money.
But I say give the reader all the salient facts so they can reach their own conclusion, rather than spoon feed the reader select details, while omitting others, to guarantee an indignant, angry response from the reader.
I saw comments on social media saying that the Lodge has a history of doing this and for whatever reason, this is the first time it has actually blown up and gotten coverage. Apparently the owners have a history of doing this to employees who get robbed. I don't know if that's true, but I wouldn't disregard the possibility.
Guest
Anonymous
September 24, 2021 5:15 pm
The student loan debt issue is interesting to me. I did not take out my full budget, had no undergrad debt, and live(d) modestly and I still cannot afford even a fraction of my student loan debt. It'll be interesting to me to see what happens in the next decade or so. There's a trillion dollars in student loan debt out there and the majority of it either isn't being paid or is on minimum payments or deferments. Is it something we're going to keep ignoring or is the government going to start bailing our sorry asses out like they bail out the banks?
The solution is simple. After 10 years, student loans become dischargeable in bankruptcy. Going forward, institutions which received federally backed borrowed funds should be forced to indemnify a portion of every loan. This will incentivize universities to operate more efficiently and serve the economic interests of students more effectively. Right now, the status quo incentivizes universities to engage in bloated spending. There is no need for universities to pay someone $300,000.00 a year to be the Vice President of Amish Quilting Intersectionality.
@10:46 Haha! You aren't lying. It seemed like half my professors in law school were the assistant dean of some bullshit. Why they needed 20 assistant deans was beyond me.
What does you "can't afford even a fraction of (your) student loan debt" mean? You can't afford the payments? You can't afford to pay ahead? That doesn't make sense to me, as there are income based replacement plans and the government has suspended interest and payments.
10:15 here. I have applied for income based repayment. I know that it is supposed to be a certain percentage of your income, but when I got the payment schedule, it was close to 50% of my take home going to student loan payments each month. It is not realistic to expect a 3rd year attorney to pay half their net to student loans. Paying the regular payments is not remotely possible.
Student debt
Quote"is the government going to start bailing our sorry asses out"
This bogles the imagination. Why does everyone expect "the government" to bail them out? The government is you, me and everyone else. So you want me to pay for your debt. In the case of student loans, you knew you were borrowing with expectation that would have to pay it back. The law school disclosed the prospects of employment, presumably you did you own research. And if you used your student loan to go to Cabo or buy the newest Apple product, pox on you.
Put your adult pants on, sell the BMW and buy a Camry. Good grief!
Well, government is you, me, and the central bank. When the bank's currency printer goes brrrrr, all sorts of things can be paid for. Military appropriations, stimulus payments, PPP loans, etc.
If the printers are going to go brrrrr, at least let them go brrrrr for me.
7:42 you seem like a jerk. The republican party just handed a huge corporate tax break to the 1%. Instead of funneling that money back to workers, a few companies handed out some tiny bonuses to workers and then they all did massive stock buy backs. Oh and let's not forget the trillion the GOP added to the national debt with their tax scam.
If the government can hand out welfare to corporations and cut the 1%'s tax bill to practically nothing, it can sure as hell help out with student loan debt.
People like you don't seem to get that all of us, yes you and me, matter. When you have a generation that is choosing to forego children and not able to buy homes because of student loan debt, that is going to have a significant impact on our economy. Your suggestion that OP went to Cabo and bought an iphone with student loan money and now drives a BMW is just as delusional as the welfare queen myth of the 80s.
If they want to get rid of student loan debt, that's fine, but those students will need to return their degrees to the institutions they got them from and not be able to say they have those degrees. No one put a gun to their heads and told them to go get those degrees, so they shouldn't be able to get a free degree.
4:34 that's idiotic. For funsies, let's go down that rabbit hole. Forgive my student loans and take my law degree. Fine. Then you'll need to refund all the money I paid to the State Bar for licensing and CLEs. You'll also need to take back my mortgage since that's based on my attorney income which I no longer have. Give me back all my monthly payments to the bank. Take back the fees that were paid to the real estate agent. Take back my car since that was financed based on my attorney income. Give me back my monthly payments. And since I haven't had an insurance claim on the car I no longer have, let's take back all those insurance payments and give them back to me.
An attorney making a reasonable living contributes multiple times over to the economy. I have an assistant, I have a paralegal, I hire process servers, I use a payroll processing service, I hire printers, I use court reporter services, etc etc.
If the options are an attorney who makes money and contributes to the economy or an attorney who gives up their license for loan forgiveness, the community and the IRS are better served by the attorney who continues working. If the government just paid my law school tuition outright and then I just worked as an attorney, that would actually be a pretty fucking good deal for tax payers. But that's not how our system is set up. Our system is set up to benefit the banks, not individuals.
Oh… I'm the idiot (clutches pearls)??? First off, the loans won't be forgiven. SOMEONE has to pay for it. The money doesn't just "disappear". That someone is the taxpayers. Why should the taxpayers pick up the tab for idiots that went to college and got their dream Gender Studies degree and got loans of $100,000 to pay for them to get that idiotic degree at their "dream school"? F*** that. So, if they want the loans forgiven, they have to give up something too. No one should get a free ride on that taxpayer dime. If you can't afford to pay back a loan, don't get the loan. That's life.
Guessing 2:51 has never been near the Foley Federal Building.
But hey, it's not all bad. If you have obscene amounts of government-backed student loans, then when you default on your private student loans and they eventually issue a 1099-C Cancellation of Debt Income, you can avoid that tax hit thanks to the sweet sweet smell of student-loan based insolvency.
3:27–yes,7:42 may seem a little jerky as to being insensitive, and exaggerating the point(trips to Cabo, BMW, etc.)
But 7:42 is right that many don't use student loans to attend college, but instead to pay living expenses and to purchase items.
Having handled Family Law cases for many years, I think I can speak for my colleagues that well over 90% of the time(in the divorce cases we encounter) that when people take out student loans for the initial supposed purpose of attending college, or some professional or training school, they either never pursue the education or training in the first place, or they just pursue it for a brief period.
And when the divorce rolls around, they usually have made few if any payments on such student loan.
That all said, I realize that the student loan default rate, as well as the relative lack of financial responsibility, that divorcing people exhibit may be higher than the average person who is not going through a divorce. After all, most divorces involve major financial problems as a main element.
But with that qualifier in place, student loan default is still very high across the board, and a huge percentage of people don't use the loans for school, or drop out of the school early on. And yes, many do complain about the debt as if its unfair for the government to expect repayment.
OP here. This conversation is getting ludicrous. I've practiced family law for years and never seen a case where they took out student loans and didn't go to school. I have seen where they didn't finish, but that's not the same as not going. Also, the allegation that people took out huge loans and lived some kind of extravagant lifestyle is a fairy tale.
As I said in my original post – I have no undergrad loans and took out less than my budget for law school. I lived and continue to live modestly – no trips to Cabo or a BMW. 7:42, 4:34, and 2:51 continue to ignore the point being made by 8:58. A practicing attorney is a business generating other jobs and taxes via employees and services utilized in a typical practice. I'm not an economist, but I'm willing to bet that the typical attorney generates well over the cost of law school tuition during the course of their practice through those taxes. It would seem like a good investment for the taxpayers. European countries recognize this and college is either free or very cheap. In the US we continue to hand out student loans at astronomical interest rates and we're ignoring the fact that this is quickly becoming a very problematic bubble that is going to have to be addressed. It is also already having an economical impact as the article by the ABA made clear.
10:12 – current Boyd student here. I wouldn't be so quick to say the allegation people take out huge loans and live extravagant lives is a "fairy tale". While getting my undergrad degree I had many friends and classmates who were taking out large student loans to pay for the entirety of their tuition, off-campus housing, etc. At the same time, after getting their federal disbursements at the beginning of each semester, these students would rush off to buy a new MacBook, get the newest iPhone, party like crazy, or (in one instance) buy a dog… This type of fiscal irresponsibility has been quelled to some extent, at least publicly, in law school; however, I still hear about and know of some students paying out-of-state tuition who take massive loans yet live at the nicest apartments in town (e.g., Elysian in Summerlin). Why is it my responsibility as a tax-payer to absolve these people from the consequences of their choices? I didn't have the money to afford all of my tuition or all of my room-and-board, so I worked while attending school and what little I couldn't meet, I supplemented with federal funds. When I came into extra money, I paid down the interest on the loans. Where's my reward? I could've just as easily taken out $50k in loans per year, bought myself a new laptop and a dog and waited for "the government" to bring out its magic eraser and take care of my problems.
10:12 you say you have practiced Family Law for many years and that each and every time you encounter a student loan as a debt in the case
that the people always went to school, at least properly, if not for the duration.
My experience is different from yours, because, like 9:36, I have encountered many of those loans in Family law cases and only in a small percentage of those cases did the obligor complete their education or training.
Yes, in some of those case the people went to school for a period before quitting.
So because everyone knows someone who bought a new car or a dog in law school, we should just do nothing about the student debt crisis in this country? jfc Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. The ABA article clearly explains what a negative impact this issue is having on our economy RIGHT NOW. It is not magically going to get better. It is going to get worse and it could get A LOT worse.
Do there need to be safe guards in place? Yes. But this has to be addressed systematically. 10:46 made a good point about inflated spending at universities. There are also issues with income based repayment being out of whack. Ultimately though, the same anonymous taxpayer that shouldn't have to pay for student loans is the same taxpayer that is going to get fucked with this bill comes due. Do you really think the banks are going to eat this? Hell no! The federal government will bail them out. If the feds can print money for the too-big-to-fail banks, the feds can bail us out NOW before that eventuality becomes reality. And, in case it isn't clear, when the feds bail out the banks, it is the taxpayer's money they're spending. Why not bail out the middle class now instead of bailing the banks out when this house of cards comes crashing down?
When I graduated 10 years ago, I made $70,000 and went on IBR. I had a spouse and a child (which affected the calculation) and my IBR was something like $250 or $300 a month, I can't remember. It was less than the accruing interest. Soon, my income rose. I refinanced my loans. I have made enough in the stock market since the pandemic began to pay it off entirely. I can't bring myself to do it though, LOL. It's so much money.
1035 and 1111 here.
There is no such thing as money. Federal Reserve Notes ≠ Money. Those numbers following the $ when you open the banking app on your phone are not money. That you recommend remedial economics is actually funny. Thanks.
Expand your mental horizons a little. Forest / Trees and all that.
Wow, 1:43, you're going to double down on your economic ignorance? Okay, then.
Money is just something that is used as a medium of exchange. Cowrie shells have been money. Cattle have been money. Measures of grain have been money. And yes, federal reserve notes are money as long as someone is willing to accept them in exchange for goods or services. So, here you are, on the one hand, blithely proclaiming that money doesn't exist, and on the other, proclaiming blockchain's superiority in its use as… money.
Pardon my assumption that you have the capacity for abstract thought or reading between the lines. Literally.
There is no such thing as money as you know it.
How's that?
All good here. Keep your "money" in the market. Because Fiat currency is going to be fine.
Guest
Anonymous
September 24, 2021 5:37 pm
About 90% through the Moran article, he mentions the features of Vegas, including a baseball team "soon." Is he confirming that we are in fact getting an MLB team?
Guest
Anonymous
September 25, 2021 6:07 am
#freeemhoff
#freebonniebulla
#freehasselhoff
Guest
Anonymous
September 27, 2021 5:15 pm
Colleagues, I have a friend looking for a family law attorney in Carson City. Any names I can pass along?
It was fun seeing the bartender/robbery story on Instagram, and then reddit, and now it's here!
Legal question from someone who knows nothing of employment law, is this legal? If the bartender refused to sign and was terminated, would they have recourse?
I don't know about the employment issue, but shouldn't the CGL policy cover this loss? The amount stated in the article is probably within the deductible though. Regardless, if this isn't illegal then it should be. Do we not have a public policy against having workers shot and killed because they are afraid to turn over the money for fear of being held personally liable?
Typically in these types of cases there is a certain protocol bartenders are supposed to follow regarding depositing money. I'm assuming the bartender didn't follow the protocol and so the robbers got away with more than they should have had the bartender followed protocol. Morally I think this is reprehensible, but I'm guessing the owner felt he was within his rights because the bartender messed up.
12:08–That's exactly right and that is obviously what is missing from the story, as such omission makes it all sound more inflammatory and like a gross miscarriage of justice if the bartender is forced to either put up resistance against an armed robber, or comply but then be required to reimburse the money.
You see these situations occur around the country from time-to-time, and either buried in the article toward the end, or included in comments to the article from people close to the situation, is always that the employee was repeatedly warned about the need to immediately secure currency via the required protocol.
Whenever there is reporting on an unjust result, they tend leave out critical, explanatory details.
And this occurs even more with reporting on legal matters involving large settlements or large jury verdicts. We all have heard about the large McDonald's verdict for the woman spilling some coffee on herself, but no one ever mentions the severity of the injuries(multiple skin-grafts, permanent disfiguring), or that McDonald's brewed the coffee beyond scalding levels to maximize the most volume form the beans, etc.
Instead, it was reported to sound like a very frivolous matter, with no real injury, and became a poster case for tort reform.
Now, that all said, as 12:08 points out it may still very well be a dick-head move to require the bartender to reimburse all the money.
But I say give the reader all the salient facts so they can reach their own conclusion, rather than spoon feed the reader select details, while omitting others, to guarantee an indignant, angry response from the reader.
I saw comments on social media saying that the Lodge has a history of doing this and for whatever reason, this is the first time it has actually blown up and gotten coverage. Apparently the owners have a history of doing this to employees who get robbed. I don't know if that's true, but I wouldn't disregard the possibility.
The student loan debt issue is interesting to me. I did not take out my full budget, had no undergrad debt, and live(d) modestly and I still cannot afford even a fraction of my student loan debt. It'll be interesting to me to see what happens in the next decade or so. There's a trillion dollars in student loan debt out there and the majority of it either isn't being paid or is on minimum payments or deferments. Is it something we're going to keep ignoring or is the government going to start bailing our sorry asses out like they bail out the banks?
The solution is simple. After 10 years, student loans become dischargeable in bankruptcy. Going forward, institutions which received federally backed borrowed funds should be forced to indemnify a portion of every loan. This will incentivize universities to operate more efficiently and serve the economic interests of students more effectively. Right now, the status quo incentivizes universities to engage in bloated spending. There is no need for universities to pay someone $300,000.00 a year to be the Vice President of Amish Quilting Intersectionality.
@10:46 Haha! You aren't lying. It seemed like half my professors in law school were the assistant dean of some bullshit. Why they needed 20 assistant deans was beyond me.
What does you "can't afford even a fraction of (your) student loan debt" mean? You can't afford the payments? You can't afford to pay ahead? That doesn't make sense to me, as there are income based replacement plans and the government has suspended interest and payments.
10:15 here. I have applied for income based repayment. I know that it is supposed to be a certain percentage of your income, but when I got the payment schedule, it was close to 50% of my take home going to student loan payments each month. It is not realistic to expect a 3rd year attorney to pay half their net to student loans. Paying the regular payments is not remotely possible.
Oh, yikes!! I'm sorry to hear that.
Uh, you were getting Rogered but good, my friend.
IBR is capped at 20% of discretionary. Discretionary = gross – 150% of poverty level (PL = 12k for single person, so make it $18k).
Assume a 3rd year makes 70k as a FBU. 70-18=58. 20% of that is just under $1k per month.
If your take home was 2-3k per month, after insurance, etc., you were getting reamed up the ATMS.
Student debt
Quote"is the government going to start bailing our sorry asses out"
This bogles the imagination. Why does everyone expect "the government" to bail them out? The government is you, me and everyone else. So you want me to pay for your debt. In the case of student loans, you knew you were borrowing with expectation that would have to pay it back. The law school disclosed the prospects of employment, presumably you did you own research. And if you used your student loan to go to Cabo or buy the newest Apple product, pox on you.
Put your adult pants on, sell the BMW and buy a Camry. Good grief!
Well, government is you, me, and the central bank. When the bank's currency printer goes brrrrr, all sorts of things can be paid for. Military appropriations, stimulus payments, PPP loans, etc.
If the printers are going to go brrrrr, at least let them go brrrrr for me.
7:42 you seem like a jerk. The republican party just handed a huge corporate tax break to the 1%. Instead of funneling that money back to workers, a few companies handed out some tiny bonuses to workers and then they all did massive stock buy backs. Oh and let's not forget the trillion the GOP added to the national debt with their tax scam.
If the government can hand out welfare to corporations and cut the 1%'s tax bill to practically nothing, it can sure as hell help out with student loan debt.
People like you don't seem to get that all of us, yes you and me, matter. When you have a generation that is choosing to forego children and not able to buy homes because of student loan debt, that is going to have a significant impact on our economy. Your suggestion that OP went to Cabo and bought an iphone with student loan money and now drives a BMW is just as delusional as the welfare queen myth of the 80s.
If they want to get rid of student loan debt, that's fine, but those students will need to return their degrees to the institutions they got them from and not be able to say they have those degrees. No one put a gun to their heads and told them to go get those degrees, so they shouldn't be able to get a free degree.
4:34 that's idiotic. For funsies, let's go down that rabbit hole. Forgive my student loans and take my law degree. Fine. Then you'll need to refund all the money I paid to the State Bar for licensing and CLEs. You'll also need to take back my mortgage since that's based on my attorney income which I no longer have. Give me back all my monthly payments to the bank. Take back the fees that were paid to the real estate agent. Take back my car since that was financed based on my attorney income. Give me back my monthly payments. And since I haven't had an insurance claim on the car I no longer have, let's take back all those insurance payments and give them back to me.
An attorney making a reasonable living contributes multiple times over to the economy. I have an assistant, I have a paralegal, I hire process servers, I use a payroll processing service, I hire printers, I use court reporter services, etc etc.
If the options are an attorney who makes money and contributes to the economy or an attorney who gives up their license for loan forgiveness, the community and the IRS are better served by the attorney who continues working. If the government just paid my law school tuition outright and then I just worked as an attorney, that would actually be a pretty fucking good deal for tax payers. But that's not how our system is set up. Our system is set up to benefit the banks, not individuals.
Oh… I'm the idiot (clutches pearls)??? First off, the loans won't be forgiven. SOMEONE has to pay for it. The money doesn't just "disappear". That someone is the taxpayers. Why should the taxpayers pick up the tab for idiots that went to college and got their dream Gender Studies degree and got loans of $100,000 to pay for them to get that idiotic degree at their "dream school"? F*** that. So, if they want the loans forgiven, they have to give up something too. No one should get a free ride on that taxpayer dime. If you can't afford to pay back a loan, don't get the loan. That's life.
Guessing 2:51 has never been near the Foley Federal Building.
But hey, it's not all bad. If you have obscene amounts of government-backed student loans, then when you default on your private student loans and they eventually issue a 1099-C Cancellation of Debt Income, you can avoid that tax hit thanks to the sweet sweet smell of student-loan based insolvency.
3:27–yes,7:42 may seem a little jerky as to being insensitive, and exaggerating the point(trips to Cabo, BMW, etc.)
But 7:42 is right that many don't use student loans to attend college, but instead to pay living expenses and to purchase items.
Having handled Family Law cases for many years, I think I can speak for my colleagues that well over 90% of the time(in the divorce cases we encounter) that when people take out student loans for the initial supposed purpose of attending college, or some professional or training school, they either never pursue the education or training in the first place, or they just pursue it for a brief period.
And when the divorce rolls around, they usually have made few if any payments on such student loan.
That all said, I realize that the student loan default rate, as well as the relative lack of financial responsibility, that divorcing people exhibit may be higher than the average person who is not going through a divorce. After all, most divorces involve major financial problems as a main element.
But with that qualifier in place, student loan default is still very high across the board, and a huge percentage of people don't use the loans for school, or drop out of the school early on. And yes, many do complain about the debt as if its unfair for the government to expect repayment.
Notice I said "many", but not "all" or "most."
OP here. This conversation is getting ludicrous. I've practiced family law for years and never seen a case where they took out student loans and didn't go to school. I have seen where they didn't finish, but that's not the same as not going. Also, the allegation that people took out huge loans and lived some kind of extravagant lifestyle is a fairy tale.
As I said in my original post – I have no undergrad loans and took out less than my budget for law school. I lived and continue to live modestly – no trips to Cabo or a BMW. 7:42, 4:34, and 2:51 continue to ignore the point being made by 8:58. A practicing attorney is a business generating other jobs and taxes via employees and services utilized in a typical practice. I'm not an economist, but I'm willing to bet that the typical attorney generates well over the cost of law school tuition during the course of their practice through those taxes. It would seem like a good investment for the taxpayers. European countries recognize this and college is either free or very cheap. In the US we continue to hand out student loans at astronomical interest rates and we're ignoring the fact that this is quickly becoming a very problematic bubble that is going to have to be addressed. It is also already having an economical impact as the article by the ABA made clear.
10:12 – current Boyd student here. I wouldn't be so quick to say the allegation people take out huge loans and live extravagant lives is a "fairy tale". While getting my undergrad degree I had many friends and classmates who were taking out large student loans to pay for the entirety of their tuition, off-campus housing, etc. At the same time, after getting their federal disbursements at the beginning of each semester, these students would rush off to buy a new MacBook, get the newest iPhone, party like crazy, or (in one instance) buy a dog… This type of fiscal irresponsibility has been quelled to some extent, at least publicly, in law school; however, I still hear about and know of some students paying out-of-state tuition who take massive loans yet live at the nicest apartments in town (e.g., Elysian in Summerlin). Why is it my responsibility as a tax-payer to absolve these people from the consequences of their choices? I didn't have the money to afford all of my tuition or all of my room-and-board, so I worked while attending school and what little I couldn't meet, I supplemented with federal funds. When I came into extra money, I paid down the interest on the loans. Where's my reward? I could've just as easily taken out $50k in loans per year, bought myself a new laptop and a dog and waited for "the government" to bring out its magic eraser and take care of my problems.
9:19 nailed it.
10:12 you say you have practiced Family Law for many years and that each and every time you encounter a student loan as a debt in the case
that the people always went to school, at least properly, if not for the duration.
My experience is different from yours, because, like 9:36, I have encountered many of those loans in Family law cases and only in a small percentage of those cases did the obligor complete their education or training.
Yes, in some of those case the people went to school for a period before quitting.
So because everyone knows someone who bought a new car or a dog in law school, we should just do nothing about the student debt crisis in this country? jfc Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. The ABA article clearly explains what a negative impact this issue is having on our economy RIGHT NOW. It is not magically going to get better. It is going to get worse and it could get A LOT worse.
Do there need to be safe guards in place? Yes. But this has to be addressed systematically. 10:46 made a good point about inflated spending at universities. There are also issues with income based repayment being out of whack. Ultimately though, the same anonymous taxpayer that shouldn't have to pay for student loans is the same taxpayer that is going to get fucked with this bill comes due. Do you really think the banks are going to eat this? Hell no! The federal government will bail them out. If the feds can print money for the too-big-to-fail banks, the feds can bail us out NOW before that eventuality becomes reality. And, in case it isn't clear, when the feds bail out the banks, it is the taxpayer's money they're spending. Why not bail out the middle class now instead of bailing the banks out when this house of cards comes crashing down?
When are you all going to realize that there is no such thing as money. Fiat currency is crashing and the economic world as we know it is going away.
Blockchain is likely the future.
Blockchain is a scam masked as a solution in search of a problem. It solves nothing.
When I graduated 10 years ago, I made $70,000 and went on IBR. I had a spouse and a child (which affected the calculation) and my IBR was something like $250 or $300 a month, I can't remember. It was less than the accruing interest. Soon, my income rose. I refinanced my loans. I have made enough in the stock market since the pandemic began to pay it off entirely. I can't bring myself to do it though, LOL. It's so much money.
Fiat currency is a scam.
If not blockchain, then a return to gold based currency. Either way, fiat is dead.
There is no such thing as money.
11:11, you are an unbelievable blockhead. You claim there's no such thing as money, then propose to use blockchain or gold-based currency as money.
I suggest taking a remedial economics class.
Paper money isn't real money, let's use shiny rocks instead!
1035 and 1111 here.
There is no such thing as money. Federal Reserve Notes ≠ Money. Those numbers following the $ when you open the banking app on your phone are not money. That you recommend remedial economics is actually funny. Thanks.
Expand your mental horizons a little. Forest / Trees and all that.
Wow, 1:43, you're going to double down on your economic ignorance? Okay, then.
Money is just something that is used as a medium of exchange. Cowrie shells have been money. Cattle have been money. Measures of grain have been money. And yes, federal reserve notes are money as long as someone is willing to accept them in exchange for goods or services. So, here you are, on the one hand, blithely proclaiming that money doesn't exist, and on the other, proclaiming blockchain's superiority in its use as… money.
Go back to r/iamverysmart.
Pardon my assumption that you have the capacity for abstract thought or reading between the lines. Literally.
There is no such thing as money as you know it.
How's that?
All good here. Keep your "money" in the market. Because Fiat currency is going to be fine.
About 90% through the Moran article, he mentions the features of Vegas, including a baseball team "soon." Is he confirming that we are in fact getting an MLB team?
#freeemhoff
#freebonniebulla
#freehasselhoff
Colleagues, I have a friend looking for a family law attorney in Carson City. Any names I can pass along?
Try the Allison, MacKenzie firm.