This appears to be from 2014. Prior to 2014, using GMO seeds "required" farmers to plant an in-field refuge of non-resistant crops. Since farmers could, short term, get better yields if they didn't plant these refuge plants, they often chose not to. In 2014 companies started mixing in non-resistant seeds, known as "refuge in bag". It's seen some mixed results, but for the most part, it looks like it has helped.
REITs are traded on the market, (pretty much) just like a stock. So you don't have to worry about liquidity being too much of a problem. One example of a REIT is [1].
However, if you really just want to park money for 20 years, you probably want a target year fund like [2] which will have higher risk now (stocks, REITs, etc), and rebalance to lower risk (Bonds) as it gets closer to 2040. It's literally the definition of set it and forget it.
edit: I should add, I'm not your financial advisor, and I don't have a fiduciary duty. You should consult with a financial advisor (who has a fiduciary duty) before making any decisions about investments. However, target year funds are frequently (one of) the best decisions for many people.
There's a lot of space between the conflict of interest that arises when you lobby congress for a change that would help the company you are the CEO of while your father is a senator and not working.
Set up a distribution center on I90 30 miles outside Chicago (e.g. Gary Indiana) set up a distribution center on I80 30 miles outside New York (e.g. Paterson NJ). Use human drivers for the last 30 miles, and automation to drive the rest. The route doesn't go through any heavily trafficked areas except Gary and Cleveland, which you could avoid by starting the route at 9pm for a 9am arrival with travel through Cleveland occurring at 2am. I'd say that with current technology we could probably do this in less than a year. Since trucks cost about 150k new and truck drivers can't drive 12 hours straight, the economics of full automation are much easier to justify.
Having driven back and forth from Chicago to New York a couple of times, I would welcome autonomous trucks driving throughout the night, especially if they strictly adhere to the right lane at a moderate, passable speed.
Once night falls, truckers take over the road, and they typically like to go at or slightly above speed limit, making it less of a cozy environment for regular sedan drivers.
More good examples of variance in the artistic style and implied meaning are the various non-people emojis. In general, google has "cuter", "friendlier", and more anthropomorphized versions.
I think the video and website are pretty obviously parody. But, if you are having a hard time discerning it as parody, don't you think that's the NRA's fault?
I don't know. It's obviously a fuzzy line, and like I said, I am probably a little biased. OTOH, while I am an NRA member, they aren't my favorite gun-rights organization anyway. I prefer Gun Owners of America. shrug
> Consider African Americans: 73% of kids born to single mothers
Why the value judgement on single mothers? Also, the 73% is out of wedlock, not necessarily single mothers. Single mother numbers are actually 67%.
>and huge level of incarceration.
Incarceration policies put in place by republicans and democrats.
>How is it not a failure of political science and Democrats that represent African Americans on all levels of government?
It is a failure of American political policy. However, the answer isn't to build a wall or stop immigration. The answer is to improve education, train people for the jobs that actually exist in our economy, and if all else fails, figure out what we do when there just aren't enough jobs, not just pretend like manufacturing is going to come back. American manufacturing has never produced more goods than the present, but it also employees almost no one, because automation is amazing [1].
>Why the value judgement on single mothers? Also, the 73% is out of wedlock, not necessarily single mothers. Single mother numbers are actually 67%.
Because if you look at black communities with low single motherhood you also see less poverty, violence and incarceration rates at the same time. Even for white people single motherhood is often the biggest factor that decides whether you end up in poverty or not.
Poverty in parents is highly predictive of poverty in children. Single motherhood is also correlated with poverty. It's possible that single motherhood increases the chance that a child will also live in poverty as an adult, but the vast majority of the effect is probably explained by generational poverty.
> Any policy that would cause people to be forced from their homes just because should be viewed as a failure.
I have a really really hard time feeling bad for people who bought homes in the bay area in ~1980. They won the lottery. Their home grew 10% y/y for 30 years outpacing inflation by a significant margin. They got a 30 year tax break while their income likely outpaced inflation as well because they live in an extremely good job market. That house they bought for 100k is now worth 1.7 Million. They can sell the home, move basically anywhere else in the country, and retire on the remaining gain. Yeah, I'm having a hard time feeling too bad for them.
On the other hand, the person who moved to SF in 1980 and decided to rent, I feel bad for them. Unless they found a rent controlled apartment, they've seen their rents grow 10% y/y, and if they found a rent controlled apartment they probably got evicted when the owners of the property sold it, and the new owners decided they wanted to redo the property as condos.
Lets just call it what it is, rent control for rich people. Then maybe we'll talk about it sensibly and realize that it's a horribly thought out plan.
>>I have a really really hard time feeling bad for people who bought homes in the bay area in ~1980. They won the lottery.
>>On the other hand, the person who moved to SF in 1980 and decided to rent, I feel bad for them.
Instead of punishing people for being successful. The latter people should ponder on their foolishness, instead of blaming other people for being more intelligent.
Last time I check making good decisions about one's future is not a vice.
If only home ownership weren't correlated with generational wealth. Then we'd have a meritocracy, and you could dismiss people renting as bad decision makers. In the real world, people rent because they can't afford to buy a home.
>>In the real world, people rent because they can't afford to buy a home.
In real world, you can always bootstrap your way to a decent nest egg, whether its a retirement fund or a home. It takes time, and it takes hard work. But is very possible and a lot of people do it.
If you can't, then evaluate your spending patterns seriously. I haven't met any person yet who didn't have wasteful expenditure that couldn't be eliminated.
More often than not its not the means/resources, its lack of resourcefulness. People in general don't have the motivation to take steps towards solving a difficult problem, and the discipline to suffer through a grind and see it through to the end. This of course is a very different problem, the responsibility of which starts and ends at a individual alone.
>I haven't met any person yet who didn't have wasteful expenditure that couldn't be eliminated
People who are poor or improvised deserve to live a life that also allows them to have something enjoyable, including hobbies. It shouldn't beconsidered a lack of discipline that an impoverished person could maybe enjoy their life once in a while. It's depressing how much one can expect a life of misery of they're poor.
However, that location X is not always feasible to move to and work from. So it's worthless to discuss all location X. Instead, you should be focusing on locations Y, which are.
Why the hell should they have to move, though? They bought a home in that area because they wanted to be there. Why should they be forced from their home because you have some kind of hard on for punishing people who got lucky?
