They are saying that their is no downside, outside of running foul of laws and regulators, for banks to take money without review instead of flagging transactions as suspicious.
Your response is about additional benefits for them taking the money without questions.
We know because many manhours of research has vetted this topic and the consensus is clear: there are very few cases of in person voting fraud in the United States.
Very few meaning about 250 cases over a 15 year period.
Millions upon millions of votes are cast during this timeframe.
Frankly, I expect more fraud to naturally exist, like you.
But it just isn't a problem in the US.
Voting by mail is a state level thing, not every state has the option to vote by mail.
Ideology aside, it is a solution looking for a problem.
Race and voting demographics show Democrats have an edge nationwide that will continue to grow over the next decade and on. Republicans know this and this is why they hit mid-terms so hard. General voting is down and it’s easier to win. Add suppression methods, including psychographic warfare and they know they have a shot to rig the system.
This why Trump won and why our Supreme Court is going to take away the rights of workers, minorities, women, and immigrants.
> How often does it find fraud? For that, we turn to the much-cited 2014 analysis of voter fraud reported by The Post. Loyola Law School professor Justin Levitt looked at 14 years of voting and found 31 possible incidents of in-person voter fraud, comprised of approximately 241 fraudulent ballots.
They have invested in their tech team which is both infrastructure and expense. How much of the ~$10 billion it's worth is up for debate, but zeroing it's value is absurd.
The Slate Star Codex article fails to make the case that lowering the general regulatory thresholds for medical devices or drugs improves societal outcomes. It makes a compelling, if possibly flawed, case for the EpiPen, but assumes generalizability rather than showing it.
We know the costs of not having something like the FDA. All one has to do is look at the supplements industry and imagine if real drugs were like that.
Also ignored is how the FDA is a major incentive to create something new that both helps with the problem and doesn't generate an unreasonable amount of other ones. If the barriers to market entry are removed, you are putting the informational cost on the consumer. If it's cheaper to fool them than to do the due diligence in development, that's what will be done. And it's pretty clear from the supplement industry that it is cheaper.
Scott Alexander likes to make the future costs of a lack of new medications argument a lot. He has to account for the costs of a lack of new effective medications as well.
Edit 2:
Scott Alexander doesn't try to make the case the FDA is corrupt. He talks about how Mylan uses the court system and lobbies congress. And his point about costs is undercut by a later post he made about coming up with the chairs statistic: http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/08/31/terrorists-vs-chairs-an...
First of all, see my comment above. The FDA costs way more lives than it saves.
Ideally I would like the FDA to be replaced by a more efficient regulatory agency. Europe's system seems to work a bit better. I dream of something like prediction markets, where people could bet on what medicines would work and not work. At the very least, some system designed to make regulators accountable for lives cost due to not approving drugs, just as much as they are accountable for approving bad drugs. Both sides of the tradeoff need to be explicitly acknowledged.
But I'm not confident that nothing at all would be worse than what we have now. Snake oil wouldn't be legal as victims could sue the companies that produced bad medicines for millions. Bad drugs would still be banned on a reactionary basis, rather than preemptively banning all drugs and only approving the ones that can meet a ridiculous threshold. Doctors are not idiots and would do their best to make sure their patients aren't getting snake oil.
I'm not saying this is a perfect system, I'm saying the FDA is so bad it manages to be worse than this.
Any good research Uni's psych department will have some TMS studies going on over the course of a year. You'll probably have to do a repetitive task and they probably won't be doing any diagnostics (for that you're way better off with a FMRI or EEG study, where they're often happy to share the data with you), but if you're just curious about the experience you can probably get paid a pittance to try it out.
Why? The tsunami killed more people than the radiation is estimated to even with the most generous estimates of how many people will get sick from radiation. Hell, even the stress/evacuation caused by the worry of radiation is likely to kill more people than the radiation itself would have if they didn't take those steps.
"For instance, there seems to be a consensus that the most lucrative cab market in the world is in Japan, where yearly revenues are estimated to be about $20 billion to $25 billion just in Tokyo, followed by the United Kingdom with revenues of $14 billion, the bulk from London, and the U.S. with $11 billion overall and about $3 billion in New York. Assuming taxi revenues in the rest of the world add another $50 billion to this total, I arrive at a total market of $100 billion."
Uber stands to gain more than the cab market. It steals trips from car ownership and public transit that were never going to be traditional cab rides (cost, inability to hail in less dense neighborhoods, hour plus wait and piss-poor reliability of calling dispatch, etc).
Uber won't capture merely the value of the US cab market, they're going to vastly expand it. People are already using Uber for things that they would never otherwise have tried to hail a cab for due to either cost or inconvenience or annoyance. It has significantly opened up the potential scale of the US taxi market, and will continue to do so. Uber's use is also blatantly going to broaden beyond the classic taxi market, whether that's to autonomous (which will again drastically increase the size of the market by bringing down the cost) and or deliveries.
You might as well pretend AirBnB is only trying to capture the hotel market's value. When in fact they're vastly expanding upon it while simultaneously taking market share away from hotels.
Even if all this is true, that assumes that no competitors appear and undercut/outcompete Uber. There's no stickiness here - a competing car service would be just an app away.
Assuming those numbers are all true, we still need to lump in all of the other delivery services and other verticals that Uber/Lyft are attacking.
Then on top of this you've computed $100 billion per year which can easily justify a $50, $100, $150 billion valuation since you'll in theory be getting that $100 billion every single year
That's an absurd proposition. Even if you have an incredibly cynical view of humanity, it's extremely unlikely to be unable to find someone in a government with power who holds any reasonable common position of the general populace.
Those people seem plenty OK to aide and assist an entity which tortures and commits war crimes, mass murder, genocide, so they have more common with a member of ISIS than they do with any sane human.
Delinka very specifically said any person in any position of governmental authority, including ones who were merely hired to do a job. Saying that, I dunno, the office manager at the local agriculture bureau is an insane terrorist and complicit in war crimes and genocide and is kinda stupid.
http://www.argunet.org/wordpress-argunet-2/wp-content/upload...