The Austrian school does not dominate academia, not even close. Even the Wikipedia article you linked to says it's a heterodox school, meaning it's not mainstream.
I used Lit components in a large FE project, enjoyed doing so and am happy with my choice. I don't use the shadow DOM at all.
The project is Converse.js, an XMPP chat client. It's an old project that was originally created back in 2013 with Backbone.js.
I first replaced all templates with `lit-html` when I first heard about that, and then when lit-element (and now "lit") came out, I started rewriting the project to use that.
This app has since been integrated into many different websites that rely on other frameworks like React and the fact that Converse.js is a web component (<converse-root />) makes this easier.
I really want to believe this, but I have a hard time seeing this applying to the ultra-wealthy nowadays. There are far too many strategies to hold on to your wealth or to get it back.
Aside from lottery winners whose assets start liquid, are there examples of people in the last 5 years with over $100 million in assets that permanently lost most of their wealth without doing something really stupid?
By what mechanism / who exactly? Or referring explicitly to the ultra wealthy? When I think of the normal wealthy, the 1-20 million camp, can't they just stuff all of their money into index funds for the last 20 years and everyone grows 10%+ a year (most years)? That's what the few multi millionaires I personally know have done -> step 1 put money in e.g. Vanguard, step 2 maintain job and spend based on income, not accumulated wealth, step 3 do nothing as wealth builds itself. Once they get past 2 million, I think they are making 80-200k per year at capital gains rates and maybe don't even need to put more in, just ignore it. I don't personally have that situation though so maybe I'm glossing over details or have it wrong.
Earning $1mil and stuffing 100% of it into the stock market is a risky move.
You lay out basically the situation I found myself in. But I set aside some for a future house down payment (less risk for that chunk), future wedding (less risk for that chunk), and even ignoring that, most advice wouldn't say to stuff the remaining 100% into markets.
So maybe 60% went into markets. With hindsight it oftentimes sounds like a good idea to just drop it all in the market. But life is uncertain and crystal balls are in short supply... you would feel stupid if you made $1mil, put it all in stocks, and life came out of nowhere and took a dump all over you when the markets tanked.
Not saying I'm in a bad position, but its nowhere near "1mil at 10% per year (which is in itself kinda a wild base assumption)".
TLDR: people have a rosy unrealistic view of how this works out.
Most people earn money over time. Putting these savings 100% into the stock market as you earn them is pretty reasonable. It’s only a sudden cash windfall that presents problems.
The fix for that is to put money in 1, 2, and 3 year treasuries, and invest that money into equities as the treasuries mature.
Your website is very clever, I like it, but unfortunately Google has classified it as a dangerous site with a phishing risk, which I think is understandable because you're effectively pretending to be Google.
If you apply with years of experience you'll be swiftly denied. Yet the post is up month after month.
> MixRank sent you the following message:
We had a number of highly qualified applicants, and after careful consideration, we regret to inform you that we have decided not to move forward with your application at this time. This decision was not an easy one given the impressive skills and experiences many of the candidates presented.
The website is a bit old, but lots of exciting changes are happening under the hood and I finally have the time to make big architectural and performance improvements.
South Africa does have wealth distribution policies in the form of requiring all companies that do business with the state or which need licences (like mines or telecoms) to have a minimum number of black ownership and black employees.
South Africa also has affirmative action.
In fact, there are more race based laws in South Africa currently than during Apartheid.
The current President also benefitted heavily from BEE as he was a close personal friend of Mandela. Made hundreds of millions.
If you say that you are going to take large amounts of other people's assets, there is no way to run that process and not have huge amounts of corruption.
The problem has been: very high crime, heavily mismanaged infrastructure (Eskom is collapsing due to corruption, ANC politicians were taking tons of money from contracts), no investment in education, and so a population with no skills. I am not sure what wealth redistribution fixes...it has been tried repeatedly. It is like people thinking that a $1m loan from your father turns you into a different person...no, most people will end up wasting that money too.
Somewhat oddly, "grey" has ended up pretty normalized in the US so either works. There are a few other examples; theatre comes to mind. In a way that lots of other British spellings really have not.
Academia is dominated by Keynesianism.