Because you simultainously claim EU will be a federation but then explain how it will not work as a federation. I read your comment, it’s just not understandable.

Can you compare the power California has within the US, to the same power a country like Slovenia would have in federal EU? It’s not mindless nationalism, it’s also the very real threat of giving up your own soveregin right to someone or something, that might totally ignore your interests, or continuously put their interests above yours. You see how Trump ignores the interests of California as they are completely opposite, what makes you think that any nation in EU wants to be in the same situation ever in the future, if they don’t have those problems now and can prevent it quite easily, by doing nothing?

In EU there will never be an European as the leader, they will always be a German, Slowak, Swede… and at that point it’s clear which interests they will push forward.

I wouldn’t agree…

https://www.zeit.de/wirtschaft/energiemonitor-strompreis-gaspreis-erneuerbare-energien-ausbau

“Most of them work” is a far cry from “all of them work perfectly as if they were running on Android itself”.

Lets turn the sentence around, and see how it feels: “Some apps won’t work at all”. Very scary sentence for consumers with different expectations.

Unlike all other examples, people of the EU don’t share common language or culture, so I am not sure if it’s really aplicable and realistic. We don’t have any deep interpersonal connections with people from other countries. Being from the same continent and having the same currency or even values is not enough if you don’t speak the same language, don’t celebrate the same holidays etc.

Besides, can you imagine asking Europeans where they are from and their first answer is “of course from the EU, you silly!”.

I wish, but highly unlikely.

That’s corruption, and it’s totally something else, but nevertheless there might be others who had no idea, but had the stock at the right moment, and sold as it was high. So, even in cases where the powerful play, the small ones, if lucky, could massively win.

On the other hand, you had the worlds wealthiest man, being second hand to the most powerful man on the planet, and he lost billions. So… I wouldn’t call those that much significant. I bet there are tons of smaller examples where CEO’s manipulate the stock of their own company that fly under the radar. But overall, in general, especially if you invest into ETFs (groups of stocks) you will barely notice anything and life goes on as usual. And the usual is 6-8% win per year on average.

Pardon my expression, everyone can have a lot of money.

A man who doesn’t want anything is rich, even if he doesn’t have money. I adjusted my comment accordingly.

Both point 2 and 3 are false. You have examples for both in the current US affairs. Please elaborate if you know something that the rest of us doesn’t.

Why do all solutions need to be destructive? The stocks and companies exist to make one thing - maximize the stakeholder value. So, to get rich, one just needs to - hold stocks, and the company works to make you money. Nothing more, nothing less. But why are so little people actually owning stocks? Because you don’t get tought in school about financial literacy.

Money is actually on the table for everyone to grab, just that majority of the people lack basic knowledge - where is the table and how to get to it.

Just teach people in school how to manage stocks, and everyone can be rich have a lot of money.

Poor people are poor just because they don’t know how to participate in the stock market. Fight me.

I must say this seems a bit shallow…

There is a saying in my country - I am not rich enough to buy cheap stuff.

This means that buying cheap stuff, which usually has poor quality, means you need to pay more to either buy new cheap stuff when it breaks or pay for repairs or maintenance. An expensive item would probably pay itself off and be cheaper in the long term simply due to better quality.

I thought the hidden cost is my power bill by having a PC run 24/7…

I don’t think that is right. You can’t say it’s illegal for parents to provide for the children.

Staying wealthy is hard because you need to be able to manage money you have. As we can see in the world, quite a small percentage of people can do that. And there are plenty people who earn above average but still can afford under average. Yes, staying wealthy is easy when you know how, but seems that very few do. Also, you need to constantly being on the verge of survival not to be able to save/invest some money and let it compound and get to a decent amount at some point in the future.

Inheritance in wrong hands is just pocket money that will be spent in short time.

I am not from the country that is based on hardcore individualism. People want to build up something they can pass onto their children to have it better in life than their parents.

It’s not illegal. Your money is your money. If you go, you take it with you. If you don’t spend money, there is nothing to tax.

Many issues with that also. First - wealthy people just move their wealth overseas, as most wealth is actually not in physical goods but freely movable virtual papers and money.

Second, if the rule applies to all, it would leave a lot of children without the base which their parents worked their whole life for, as they would probably not afford to pay tax on a house they would inherit.

And third, inheritance doesn’t mean anything really, but how someone can manage it. Being wealthy is easy. Becoming wealthy and staying wealthy is hard. Plenty of kids who destroyed empires their parents built. If the kids can manage the wealth and build upon it, why punish them for having good parents?

Because it’s immoral and it would be dual standards unless you take away from all who “didn’t earn it”, like disabled people or people temporary without jobs. Those also get money for basically existing.

There’s also the problem of incentives, if you encourage taking from those who have, you prevent new people from possibly starting businesses because why should they, if it will basically be taken away from them? Better to be jobless or do some minimal non-useful work and get money for nothing from the wealthy. You just move the problem from A to B but you didn’t solve it.

And how would you takle that problem that isn’t plain “take from them and give to me”? Everyone of them had someone in the past do the hard work, and still today, you have people who succeed through hard work. Why not be the first of his line to build up wealth?

Interfering with the housing market in that way will make companies build and sell less houses, because the business becomes more risky, so by keeping the supply low and demand high, they can make sure they will always be able to both sell the home in the required time frame, and with the profits they want. Or in the end, higher prices for consumers. Good luck with that.

As for rich people in general, most of them, AFAIK, actually built their wealth from ground up. Ofc their kids will inherit it without absolutely doing nothing, but that is nobodys fault, the parents want the best for their kids, and the kids would be stupid to go work some shitty job if they can afford a jump-start by for ex. buying and renting properties with parent’s money. In the end, someone did work hard to make it happen, over multiple generations sometimes.

Also, most people are simply financially not literate. They have no idea how the financial system works. If I buy a stock today, and its value increases by $10 in a day, and I sell it, I made $10 out of thin air. Try to explain to people how money gets created “seemingly out of thin air”. Most people will simply ignore it even though stocks are the one and only thing that rich people have that makes them rich. Everything else they own, like houses, yachts, cars etc… they are running costs that actually make you poorer. People who understand money make money. People who can pay people who understand money to manage their money make money.

I would just say “fuck”, because I don’t think there is any AI that can do that.

I think there is a possibility to have a local client using Gmail, with a rule set to delete mails on Gmail as soon as they are synced locally. So in this case Gmail would be nothing more than a relay/proxy, while your mails would actually be offline.