Now maybe if someone recruited 500 candy sellers across the nation and had a deal with a national chain to supply their workers candy but instead of $2 a piece they do 0.50 IF each seller picks up $5,000 worth a month. So then your sellers may undercut the market by selling for under $2 by selling in velocity- very large volume at low prices so the total profits are worth it.

So now you can’t sell candy for $2 and make a profit and the kids undercutting for $1 or $1.50 would LOSE MONEY selling at those prices? So to keep the same profits as $2 you’d need to start selling candy for $3.50 since $2 goes to your supplier.
So there wasn’t an increase in circulated wealth that caused the inflation- it was an increase in demand for profits that led to a chain of increasing profits. If stores start making exclusive deals and we start getting some of the complexity of “real” business- you start hiring candy sellers to sell more candy and “control” wider markets you can’t reach alone- now a $3.50 candy doesn’t profit you $1.50 because you need to kick your seller back some money. If they get $0.50 a candy you need to charge $4 to keep the same profits.

But now say that the kids at the prep class figure out they can but from other dealers at your regular school for $1. Odds are good that if the sellers at your regular school discover they can sell for $2 they will. But say some kids don’t charge more so they can undercut and get more business? So those kids are charging $1 or $1.50. But what if the conveniences stores selling you the candy for $0.50 find out you are getting $2 and they are getting $0.50? So maybe they start charging $1.50 or even $2 since it seems people are willing to pay $2?

Is when businesses and sellers raise money not in response to a trend but in awareness that there is money available. In other words, you sell candy at school for $1 a candy bar. You go to a school where people don’t have much money. On weekends you attend a prep program at a rich private school. You charge those kids $2 figuring they have more money. This is artificial inflation- you’re charging more not because of supply or demand or any factor other than you think these people can afford to pay more. If you’re right and they buy your $2 candy you can make more profit for the same product.

Their ability to profit and control supply side economics would largely remain unchanged.
So that is one example.
Another example…

So, here are two examples. Oil prices often fluctuate and huge fluctuations often lead to financial crises. The “oil embargo” of the 1970’s is an example where America experiences economic troubles and high inflation. There was plenty of oil. Demand for oil has grown globally in magnitudes and it’s been over 50 years since 1970 but we still have plenty of oil to feed our vehicles and manufacturing. They didn’t make more crude petroleum… so there was always enough to supply an exponentially higher demand. The limits to supply were artificial. Like many things which are intentionally made scarce to drive price premiums. This artificial scarcity has nothing to do with the printing of money. If there were $500 US dollars total in the entire world and oil companies wanted to raise prices to profit more- they could produce 10 barrels a year and if there was 5 Googleplex dollars to the tenth power they could still cut supply and charge basically as they liked. The amount would be relative but

But this requires sufficient supply AND circulation. If people hold money, having more money in circulation doesn’t directly impact the market because that money isn’t being used. There is no increase in demand and therefore no “natural” cause for inflation. Inflation in such circumstances is often not “natural consequence” but artificial. A matter of policy or law.

Moderate inflation Can and often IS a good thing. The idea is that when people have more money, and spend more money on goods, demand rises. Growth causes instability. When things are stagnant it is easy to predict costs and earnings. When there is sudden unexpected growth in an economy or economic area- predictions fail. If supply isn’t great enough there will likely be inflation- but much of economics isn’t so linear. So some inflation can be a sign of a healthy growing economy with new markets and opportunities that can translate to a better quality of life or other advantages.

Lol. Thank you.

can also have advantages in features when it comes to formatting a resume that is visually appealing but automated filter friendly. The knowledge of this and ability to afford to purchase specific software for the singular purpose are things that can allow some an unfair advantage even when a machine is reviewing the resumes.

Security council status asides, India, it’s people, and many others deserve credit and recognition for their deeds and fortitude through a difficult and brutal period of history.

We can also- no offense meant to anyone- notice that permanent members of the UNSC happen to also be global super powers on the post war era- and while one can argue their UN status helped- realistically it was plain at the time that these nations had good odds based on history and or their at the time status of being so. India as a country didn’t even exist when the UN was formed. So it might have been a bit troublesome or problematic to write up a charter that left empty permanent seats or reserved permanent seats for if certain countries became independent nations. There’s alot to it. In the end it’s all politics and pettiness. Human nature we can call it.

the PRC- beyond all the other feo political factors in the decision. But why wasn’t India originally written into the UN charter for permanent members? Well- we covered this. Surely biases and prejudices played a part, but there are practical issues of precedent. Consider that given their administrative status and political/cultural relationship it would be very difficult to grant India permanent status and not grant it to Pakistan since during the war the two were considered one. That opens all sorts of doors and the more “permanent members” you have the more diluted the power becomes. Getting so many nations to agree to accept certain nations is itself a challenge due to politics and history and various factors.

So taking “chinas seat” on the council wouldn’t perhaps be a prudent move for India at the time- even if there was some sort of offer. but we have to understand that the PRC came aboard the PUNSC in the early 70’s. The Sino Soviet split was at its proto stages so Russia would have every reason to want another communist at the table and the USA was pitching in to what would be be a period of relative good will between the USA and China including “nixons historic visit to China” which ended a long history of isolationism between China and America and leading to trade as well as shifting politics and deepening the sino Soviet rift.
In other words the US and Russia had simultaneous reasons for accepting the PRC in place of the ROC on the UNSC, and to deny the PRC that seat would be… difficult since the PRC considers themselves the “rightful and sole” Chinese government. So to not give them the seat, and opposing nation or organization would be essentially questioning the legitimacy of

Ok. So now- we can choose to believe yes, qui gons plan ended up being no less morally or ethically questionable merely more complicated or less probable to succeed than Obiwans plan here- OR, well… there may be plenty of seedy types afoot including Watto, but qui gin might have reasoned that playing at amd cheating high states local cars gambling to win enough to buy what they needed was likely
To end in big trouble. No limits card playing types are often bad news mC especially when cheated out of large sums of money. It is also often easy to catch people cheating cards.

Let’s first look at where this is a “yes” this meme is right though: So the critical part of where the plans end up similar is not mentioned. After placing the bet with the bookies on the race outcome to get his parts, Qui-Gon takes a bet with Watto to free a slave- Watto rolls a chance cube aka dice to decide and Qui-Gon uses the force to cheat the roll and ensure Anakin is freed instead of his mother IF Watto loses the bet. Qui-Gon has now manipulated a game of chance to get his desired reward. Two main ways to look at this- one is that since he didn’t actually change the odds of winning his bet, he merely ensured that IF he won that he would get what he wanted or needed- the concept of fairness isn’t violated. The other is that qui gon wasn’t willing to “bend the rules” or “stoop” for the parts and felt they could get them other ways but wanted Anakin so badly that he would break the rules.

So there was no plan to cheat. Sabacc would require either actively manipulating other competitors to ensure winning or actively manipulating the game outside the rules of the game. Cheating. Nothing in the pod race plan involved unfair manipulation of the contest against the rules of the sport or the Jedi order. It is also the case that if we ignore such justifications there are a couple other big reasons to bet the pod race plan versus cards.

The big difference in the plans is that Anakin was going to race anyway. They were not going to use the force to impede his opponents or to aid him on the field. There was no cheating. As a racer, Force sensitivity is no more a cheat than someone being more skilled or a certain species having advantages in their biology etc. if they had bet on a foot race and one competitor was a species known for running 50mph and the rest were normal humans who would the smart bet be? Knowing anakin was force sensitive was information that not everyone had- but that is common in sports betting and most betting allows people to bet based on whatever information they are able to gain without any obligation to share their information.

As to the gamble- gambling is by nature a game of chance, but so is life. Probabilities and such. No “sore thing” you merely make decisions based on probability and other factors and what happens happens. If Jedi were to be forbidden from taking chances they couldn’t do much. Likewise habitual gambling for recreation or profit could constitute attachment or be a manifestation to attachment. In circumstances like they faced, gambling could be acceptable. I will skip speculation on skill vs chance as Sabacc is a game of skill and chance as is possible racing. Sabacc is similar to the card games“black Jack” aka “21” except with different probabilities and variants and a goal of 23 points. Sabacc also has other rules and mechanics like the “interference field” that make use of player skill. So let’s not debate wether one is more or all luck or skill and agree both involve chance and skill.