Isn't the idea that it's a land value tax, and not just a land tax. The land in your example is not particularly valuable. Unless I have misunderstood the idea.
I'll give you a hint: many of our most prominent politicians openly proclaim that it is a religious Commandment from God Himself to do whatever that country's leaders want.
Well, there's a pretty obvious answer that doesn't require a conspiracy theory, because the influence is well documented and, in many cases, isn't even denied or concealed by those being influenced.
I'd rather tackle this problem from a different angle. If a bank gives a fraudulent loan to someone in your name, its YOUR problem and not the bank's problem. Why don't we make it the bank's problem? They gave the fraudulent loan. How is it not their problem to fix?
If we fix that, then having your ID stolen is a much, much smaller problem.
It's probably related to "the optimal level of fraud in a financial system is not zero" and reducing false positives would make way harder for everyone to get loans, which is bad for both banks and consumers.
Yeah this is no good. If one says Honda and one says Chevy, then it's not apples to apples. It doesn't matter if it's the same car, the vast majority of people don't know that. Comparing sales numbers is meaningless.
You can't give a concrete and nonsensical way Uber has grown 100x (minimum number of "orders") while revenue tripled.
Cannot be miles. Can't be riders. Can't be drivers. Revenue is top line, by definition.
This statement is as bad as the original. There is no need for hyperbolic statements that one doesn't even understand. "Uber has grown significantly" works. Why the need to sound so sophisticated and use terms like "orders of magnitude" ? It erodes trust by signaling "we are full of sh*t".
Two orders of magnitude is 31.6 to 316 (10^1.5 to 10^2.5), so 32x would be sufficient.
Most Uber 5-year growth numbers seem less than 3x. Steelmanning, some programs seem new in 2021 (Uber One, autonomous driving), and thus might have grown more dramatically as they spun up.
But yes, eep. Maybe misuse will, by getting more exposure for the term, eventually get us more people who know and use it properly? Maybe?
He’s basically saying Uber is much bigger than it was 5+ years ago. Revenue almost tripled, and the company added a lot more products, people, and complexity. “Orders of magnitude” here just means “a lot,” not literally 10x or 100x.
yes, it is. It's incorrect, misleading and douchey.
If they didn't say "revenue tripled" and you asked people to speculate how much Uber had grown in 5 years given the statement, you'd get a lot of guesses around 100x.
reply