#economics experts

[economicshomeworkhelper]

The environmental economics tutors at Economics Homework Help are certified professionals with years of experience in research, teaching, and addressing homework problems. They are acquainted about the various environmental economics ideas and how they are used. Before tackling an assignment, we analyse all the criteria and requirements to reduce any potential faults.

Our Environmental Economics assignment writing help can give you a perfect solution without compromising on the quality. We are known for years for providing a well-written solution to the students.

[wonder-worker]

"Among their complaints [in 1460, the Yorkists] specifically blamed the earls of Wiltshire and Shrewsbury and Viscount Beaumont for ‘stirring’ the king [Henry VI] to hold a parliament at Coventry that would attaint them and for keeping them from the king’s presence and likely mercy, asserting that this was done against [the king's] will. To this they added the charge that these evil counselors were also tyrannizing other true men* without the king’s knowledge. Such claims of malfeasance obliquely raised the question of Henry’s fitness as a king, for how could he be deemed competent if such things happened without his knowledge and against his wishes? They also tied in rumors circulating somewhat earlier in the southern counties and likely to have originated in Calais that Henry was really ‘good and gracious Lord to the [Yorkists] since, it was alleged, he had not known of or assented to their attainders. On 11 June the king was compelled to issue a proclamation stating that they were indeed traitors and that assertions to the contrary were to be ignored." - Helen Maurer, "Margaret of Anjou: "Queenship and Power in Late Medieval England"

Three things that we can surmise from this:

We know where the "Henry was an innocent helpless king being controlled and manipulated by his Evil™ advisors" rhetoric came from**.

The Yorkists were deliberately trying to downplay Henry VI's actual role and involvement in politics and the Wars of the Roses. They cast him as a "statue of a king", blamed all royal policies and decisions on others*** (claiming that Henry wasn't even aware of them), and framed themselves as righteous and misunderstood counselors who remained loyal to the crown. We should keep this in mind when we look at chronicles' comments of Henry's alleged passivity and the so-called "role reversal" between him and Queen Margaret.

Henry VI's actual agency and involvement is nevertheless proven by his own actions. We know what he thought of the Yorkists, and we know he took the effort to publicly counter their claims through a proclamation of his own. That speaks louder than the politically motivated narrative of his enemies, don't you think?

*There was some truth to these criticisms. For example, Wiltshire (ie: one of the men named in the pamphlet) was reportedly involved in a horrible situation in June which included hangings and imprisonments for tax resistance in Newbury. The best propagandists always contain a degree of truth, etc. **I've seen some theories on why Margaret of Anjou wasn't mentioned in these pamphlets alongside the others even though she was clearly being vilified during that time as well, and honestly, I think those speculations are mostly unnecessary. Margaret was absent because it was regarded as very unseemly to target queens in such an officially public manner. We see a similar situation a decade later: Elizabeth Woodville was vilified and her whole family - popularly and administratively known as "the queen's kin" - was disparaged in Warwick and Clarence's pamphlets. This would have inevitably associated her with their official complaints far more than Margaret had been, but she was also not directly mentioned. It was simply not considered appropriate. ***This narrative was begun by the Duke of York & Warwick and was - demonstrably - already widespread by the end of 1460. When Edward IV came to power, there seems to have been a slight shift in how he spoke of Henry (he referred to Henry as their "great enemy and adversary"; his envoys were clearly willing to acknowledge Henry's role in Lancastrian resistance to Yorkist rule; etc), but he nevertheless continued the former narrative for the most part. I think this was because 1) it was already well-established and widespread by his father, and 2) downplaying Henry's authority would have served to emphasize Edward's own kingship, which was probably advantageous for a usurper whose deposed rival was still alive and out of reach. In some sense, the Lancastrians did the same thing with their own propaganda across the 1460s, which was clearly not as effective in terms of garnering support and is too long to get into right now, but was still very relevant when it came to emphasizing their own right to the throne while disparaging the Yorkists' claim.

[rosacarolina]

I've read your pinned post and wanted to say something, as a white girl but also a South European: the "homestead" term is historically bounded to white supremacy, yes, but only in those countries of the Western world that actively participated in colonialism and built their economic fortune on slavery. I'm a contemporary history graduate and I can assure you NOT ALL OF WESTERN WHITE COUNTRIES WERE INVOLVED IN COLONIALISM. Go ask a Hungarian, a Moldovian, an Albanian if their grandparents were white suprematists because they owned a homestead and they will laugh. Also, some European peoples were themselves victims of colonialism. So please please please when you all talk about specific historic issues consider learning how to divide nowadays political discourse from actual historic work. "Fancy" political discourse has most of the time nothing to do with serious historic researches (at least, in European universities; I cannot speak for the level of academia in the US...).

I am also a history graduate student at a european university, but thank you for this ask anyway. I don't disagree with your general point-- that colonialism is not a strictly racial divide with white people being the colonizing party and all non white people the colonized. Like that's definitely true. When speaking about the term homestead, i am discussing it as a white supremacist dogwhistle, not saying that anyone who grows their own food is a racist. i would expect that the words agrarian subsistence farmers in hungary, moldova and albania used to describe their homes and their lifestyles would not be "homestead" because it is, an english word.

Consider also that this is a tumblr aesthetic blog and not a historical research conference, where the focus of discussion is, in fact the "fancy" (whatever that means in this context) political discourse which pervades the space and has pervaded it historically.

I'm sure as a student of contemporary history you would understand the historical connections between colonialism, white supremacy, and "blood and soil" rhetoric which used the visuals and languages of pastoralism. this is what i am referring to when i say that homestead is used as a dogwhistle.

also, the idea that a country or a people being subjects of colonialism means they cannot also, at the same or another time, be the perpetrators (or beneficiaries) of it is laughable. i would say that yes, EVERY western white country was involved in colonialism, to varying degrees, at the same time that some are/were subjects of it.

my apologies if this response was disorganized; but i found your assertion that political discourse (which i take from context here to be discussions of the current effects and manifestations of colonialism) not only is but should be largely divorced from serious historical study to be misguided at best. In fact I find it difficult to think of an example wherein the discussions are unrelated.

[unpluggedfinancial]

Why Tax is Theft and the Absurdity of the Proposed Unrealized Capital Gains Tax

Taxation has long been a contentious issue, with governments arguing it's necessary for public services and societal well-being. However, for many, taxation is nothing more than a legalized form of theft—a coercive act that strips individuals of their hard-earned wealth. The recent proposal by Kamala Harris to impose a 25% unrealized capital gains tax only amplifies this view. This proposal is not just absurd; it’s fundamentally immoral. In this blog post, we'll explore why tax is theft and why this proposed tax on unrealized gains should be fiercely opposed.

The Philosophy Behind "Tax is Theft"

The phrase "tax is theft" might sound extreme, but it's grounded in a legitimate philosophical argument. At its core, taxation is the government forcibly taking a portion of an individual's income or wealth under the threat of penalties, including imprisonment. Unlike voluntary transactions where both parties agree to the terms, taxation is coercive; you have no choice but to comply or face legal consequences.

This coercion strips individuals of their autonomy over their own resources. When you work for an income, you're exchanging your time, effort, and skills for money. This money is your property, the direct result of your labor. To have it taken from you without your explicit consent is, by definition, theft.

The Absurdity of the Unrealized Capital Gains Tax

The proposal of a 25% unrealized capital gains tax takes the concept of taxation to an entirely new level of absurdity. To understand why, let's break down what this means.

Unrealized Gains: This term refers to the increase in the value of an asset that you hold but have not sold. For example, if you bought Bitcoin at $10,000 and it's now worth $50,000, you've made a $40,000 gain—but only on paper. You haven't sold the Bitcoin, so you haven't actually "realized" this gain.

Under Harris's proposal, you would be taxed 25% on that $40,000, despite not having sold the asset or seen any actual money from the gain. This means you're being taxed on hypothetical wealth—wealth that could disappear tomorrow if the market crashes. This is not just impractical; it's an outright attack on financial freedom and a mockery of the basic principles of taxation.

Why This Proposal is Immoral

The immorality of this proposed tax lies in its very nature. Taxing unrealized gains punishes individuals for holding assets that might appreciate in value, regardless of whether they’ve actually profited from them. It places the burden of taxation on potential future wealth, which may never materialize. This kind of taxation is speculative and unjust, as it assumes that all assets will maintain or increase in value, which is not guaranteed.

Moreover, this proposal disproportionately affects those who choose to invest in volatile assets like Bitcoin, which can see significant price fluctuations. By taxing unrealized gains, the government effectively forces individuals to sell assets to cover the tax, even if they don’t want to, potentially leading to market instability and economic harm.

But beyond the practical implications, this tax is an affront to personal freedom. It assumes that the government has the right to a portion of your wealth simply because you own it, regardless of whether you've actually benefited from it. This is a direct attack on the principles of ownership and financial sovereignty.

Why Bitcoin is the Answer

In the face of such draconian measures, it's clear that the traditional financial system is broken. Governments continue to find new ways to extract wealth from their citizens, often under the guise of fairness or social responsibility. But there is an alternative: Bitcoin.

Bitcoin offers a way to opt out of this coercive system. It's decentralized, borderless, and immune to government interference. By choosing Bitcoin, you're not just investing in a new form of money; you're taking a stand for financial freedom and autonomy. You’re saying no to unjust taxation and yes to a system where your wealth is truly your own.

Conclusion

The proposal for a 25% unrealized capital gains tax is not just absurd; it's immoral. It’s a blatant attempt by the government to expand its control over your wealth, punishing you for holding assets that might appreciate in value. This kind of taxation is theft, plain and simple, and it’s a stark reminder of why we need alternatives like Bitcoin.

As governments continue to push the boundaries of what they can tax, it’s up to individuals to protect their wealth and assert their financial sovereignty. By opting for Bitcoin, you’re not just safeguarding your assets; you’re making a powerful statement against the coercive nature of taxation. It's time to stand up, opt-out, and choose a path that respects individual freedom and financial autonomy.

Take Action Towards Financial Independence

If this article has sparked your interest in the transformative potential of Bitcoin, there's so much more to explore! Dive deeper into the world of financial independence and revolutionize your understanding of money by following my blog and subscribing to my YouTube channel.

🌐 Blog: Unplugged Financial Blog Stay updated with insightful articles, detailed analyses, and practical advice on navigating the evolving financial landscape. Learn about the history of money, the flaws in our current financial systems, and how Bitcoin can offer a path to a more secure and independent financial future.

📺 YouTube Channel: Unplugged Financial Subscribe to our YouTube channel for engaging video content that breaks down complex financial topics into easy-to-understand segments. From in-depth discussions on monetary policies to the latest trends in cryptocurrency, our videos will equip you with the knowledge you need to make informed financial decisions.

👍 Like, subscribe, and hit the notification bell to stay updated with our latest content. Whether you're a seasoned investor, a curious newcomer, or someone concerned about the future of your financial health, our community is here to support you on your journey to financial independence.

[nerdyenby]

The way I go for a ten minute walk without headphones and wind up deciding that the solution to climate change is a combination steampunk and reforestation

[sarroora]

To the people saying ‘my boycotting pro-Zionism products doesn’t matter’ ..watch this amazing ad.

THIS is the ad that should’ve played in the Super Bowl, not the genocide-denial filth that we got. You ARE making a difference by boycotting. This video showcases the journey of just 2 dinars and how they join others in funding Israel’s genocide against children and civilians in Palestine.

**Extra vid: Creator of viral boycott video talks about helping Palestinian cause**

[rotzaprachim]

i think the beach sequence is fascinating too in light of how many buzzy beach location sights anglo tourists flocked to in the 60′s-90′s (hypothetically when this show i guess would kind of be set??) in latin america, the caribbean, spain, and portugal that had that buzzy hyper capitalist tourists lying on blankets vibez whilst having right wing authoritarian dictatorships. palm trees and espadrilles can happen in the same place as people being violently disapeared and sent to labour camps. a man walks out of his hotel room to buy snacks for a one night stand to be immediately profiled and accused of another man’s crimes. (the crime is anti-imperial speech.) it isn’t just genius writing but quite a pointed reference

[burningarchitecture]

Legit got told that in an economic crisis you just have to "leave the economy alone" and it will magically get restored AND that I can't reply that it's actually more complex because it's 'literally the law of the economy' with the example of, I kid you not, THE GREAT DEPRESSION. You know?? The thing that caused Keynes to come up with a theory that to fight an economic crisis you actually have to *invest* because aggregate demand gets reduced. The crisis where the government did "leave everything alone" which is why the country DIDN'T recover until production had to be increased because of WW2???

[tanadrin]

thankfully only seen it a couple places, but the idea that one crypto guy who was big into EA turning out exactly like all the other crypto guys is somehow an indictment of EA is a very bad argument. Lots of movements have individual hangers-on who are jerks, con-men, or morons, and the problems with EA (which I have talked about before) are not at all the same as the problems with crypto. it’d be different if EAs had started shilling crypto at some point as a result of crypto guy’s influence, but AFAICT that never happened.

[themathomhouse]

as a lawyer I almost feel bad for people who are just learning that international law is basically fake, but I also know they'll be obnoxious and Loudly Wrong until they come back around to thinking it's still important that we do it

like, yeah no there are kind of no consequences for ignoring it if you're powerful enough. no there's no enforcement mechanism, not really. yeah it's basically entirely run on international shaming and wanting to be able to criticise other people if they later do exactly what you're doing right now. weirdly that does kind of sort of work - not every time, but broadly speaking yeah

[vellichordragon]

The idea that there's a single cohesive "economy" in the US (or anywhere, really) doesn't sit right with me. It seems that the richest of the rich essentially get their own.

Jeff Bezos is not buying his eggs at a small-town farmer's market.

Elon Musk is not buying a pack of Newports and a 3 day old stale bagel from a family-owned gas station.

Donald Trump is not buying his wife (and mistresses) jewelry from a flea market.

If billionaires do any of these things it makes national news in the form of a "feel good" article/segment, and that's usually because they purposefully made a spectacle about doing it to sway opinions in their favor anyway.

They're buying from each other. Bezos is putzing around on a $500 million dollar pirate ship. The Trump family is buying $50,000 Dolce & Gabbana jackets. Musk is irresponsibly launching shit into space with his nepotistic apartheid money.

And then you have starving queer creatives passing the same $20 back and forth forever.

It doesn't matter how much stock your Redditor friend has in TSLA. He will never live in the same universe as these people, let alone participate in the same economy. And neither will you.

Look up once in a while and you'll notice that those rich assholes pulled the ladder up and fucked off a long time ago.

[economicshomeworkhelper]

Microeconomics is a customized field of economics homework help. The goal of microeconomics homework solution is to support students studying this subject. Our assistance providers have proper qualifications in the field of microeconomics. They have continued to work for years in this field. Microeconomics homework solution service can help students understand economics concepts like scarcity and resource management.

🌐Website : - https://www.economicshomeworkhelper.com/ 📧Email : - info@economicshomeworkhelper.com 📲WhatsApp Me  +1 (315) 557-6473

[bestindiaassignmenthelp]

Looking for a Top-Rated Economics Assignment expert?

Are you looking for a competent economics assignment expert to assist you with your academic needs? There is no need to look any further! Our professionals are well-versed in economics and can assist you with your tasks to a high standard. You'll get expert advice on economic principles, analysis, and more with their help. With our trained pros, you may get your economics projects in top form. Read for more info at :- www.indiaassignmenthelp.com

[newnamesamecharlotte]

money is such a stupid concept

[lesbiangummybearmafia]

Current mood... due to pms or state of my life or both I'm not sure.

[terriblyrenderedenigma]

If they personify the IRS into a smoking hot dude with big thighs and pillow pecs/a smoking hot gal with a big chest and hella curves/anything in between but with the head of the IRS logo, Would yall do your fuckin taxes?

Like if you do your taxes you get rewarded with the personified IRS hottie of your choice.