Or they are just approaching net worth 0 after years of working off student loan debt. There are plenty of people who would be in position to have a near infinite or even a negative effective wealth tax rate because so many college graduates (and college dropouts) in America are starting well below zero net worth
Wow, this article reads very biased in favor of the NIMBYs, especially right out of the gate (it does bring in some counter-narratives by the middle/end). “real concerns” is an unnecessary adjective that downplays the fact that one of these concerns appears to be TOD causing traffic and parking issues as if the alternative wouldn’t and another appears to be endangerment of seniors without a clear causal link. “established low-density neighborhoods” as if no infill/up zoning should ever take place and we should only ever build towers on farmland at the outskirts of the city where they would definitely drive high car usage and traffic for inner neighborhoods. The writer is speaking from the perspective of the project opponents, but does not make it clear that these are biased perspectives being reported on and not facts, especially with the “real” preface
Your solution focusing on increasing the supply of single family homes is questionable. Single family homes are incapable of supporting affordable housing markets in high demand areas like Toronto, Quebec, Ontario, and Vancouver, which are where most Canadians live. North America needs more flexibility and capital to support upzoning the housing supply we already have from the overused SFH to missing middle multiplexes, or from those to low rise apartments, or from those to 5 over 1 style buildings, or from those to towers. The rigid Euclidean zoning policies of North America mean that even if all housing stock was privately owned by residents, there would still be a shortage in the high demand places where most people live, leading to continued high prices. Especially because we have so much trouble building quality public transit that would open up more land as desirable for development. High speed rail between Windsor and Quebec City could spread out the demand to existing supply in smaller low-cost cities while providing a boon to those cities’ economies, but Via Rail has pretty definitively shut that down in favor of HFR at this point for cost reasons
Last one in Europe other than those two. Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, China, Mongolia, and North Korea all remain in Asia. None are likely to join NATO anytime soon. Georgia may be the most likely, but they have the same problem with outstanding Russian occupation that Ukraine has/had going into 2022. Azerbaijan is aligned with Turkey, who is a NATO member, but does not have contiguous borders with NATO. Kazakhstan has distanced itself from the Ukraine invasion, but is otherwise more similar to Belarus than Finland in terms of alignment. China and North Korea have nukes. Mongolia is up shit creek without a paddle hoping that China and Russia continue to rival each other enough to not want the other to expand into Mongolia really
But the deniers mentioned in the article are in the UK, hence the relevance
There would be no economic power to back up a UN currency, meaning it would be dependent on voluntary participation from the bulk of the member states’ economies, which likely means that it would quickly devolve to either a protest currency used by anti-west regimes, a slightly federated version of the dollar that is responsive to the needs and desires of mainly the US and partially the EU, or it will be dropped/ignored by both the West and the Anti-west and become a currency of minimal value that is used only on the fringes of the world economy. The UN simply does not have the centralized capacity to operate a currency and enforce that currency’s use amongst it’s member states, especially those that already have a hegemony that would be threatened by such a currency
There would be no economic power to back up a UN currency, meaning it would be dependent on voluntary participation from the bulk of the member states’ economies, which likely means that it would quickly devolve to either a protest currency used by anti-west regimes, a slightly federated version of the dollar that is responsive to the needs and desires of mainly the US and partially the EU, or it will be dropped/ignored by both the West and the Anti-west and become a currency of minimal value that is used only on the fringes of the world economy. The UN simply does not have the centralized capacity to operate a currency and enforce that currency’s use amongst it’s member states, especially those that already have a hegemony that would be threatened by such a currency
Dutch=Netherlands Danish=Denmark