The line is if the symbols/works are used in a context so they clearly intentionally, or by unnecessary/unreasonable lack of care, create confusion. Someone who looks and sounds like McConaughey just being themselves isn't a violation.
Look at existing trademarks. They are riddled with high similarity filings, but they co-exist as long as they are not used to create confusion.
The bar for any enforcement would be very high for humans, simply looking and behaving like themselves.
But if someone very much like McConaughey was used in a commercial portraying a fictional "famous actor", that wouldn't go over. Unless ... it was clearly a parody. Or in fact, they are also an actor, and small signals indicate which actor, avoiding reasonable confusion problems. Or any other reasonable mitigations are taken.
McConaughey couldn't even sue a movie about him, with reenactments of real incidents in his life, using an actor naturally/made-up to look nearly indistinguishable, as long as it was clear the actor was not McConaughey. (Using computers to create an exact likeness might be challengeable, depending on the specifics - as they would essentially be lifting his face directly from him. Which gets into the realm of unreasonable, because it wouldn't be a reasonable requirement of any bio to go that far.)
It’s true in theory, but a couple of big things happen 1) for the vast majority outlays increase as fast if not faster than wealth, and 2) things like divorce/remarriage/second families happen creating massive dilution, 3) the experience of most HNW clients is more like 3-5% real after tax.
Yes I suspect the rich's strategy of owning nothing and controlling everything contributes as much to their wealth retention through the inevitable catastrophic events in life, as much as snowball interest accumulation does.
Middle class / poor people generally know how to build wealth through interest but make the fatal mistake of keeping their wealth largely tied up in on-paper assets in their name, this means they're ripe for the taking from every judge / wife / healthcare creditors / random guy with a lawsuit as soon as something in their life goes south. Of course once you get to a certain segment of underclass people who are basically unbanked you get back to horse-shoe theory and you'll never be getting their $50k gold chain they keep around their neck.
I think the realistic number is is more like 2-4% if it’s not supplemented by working (and sometimes even working) I also think when you add in things like paying for private school/ college, divorces, taxes, carrying cost of real estate, etc. luxury travel/clothes/meals/vacations it’s a big number.
I’m not saying it’s not possible, but I suspect the vast majority of grandchildren of a wealthy couple have meaningfully less than the original couple did, as well as less than their parents did.
2-4% of the wealth you mean? That surely depends on the wealth... If you need 200k a year that's 2% of 10 million, but 1% of 20 million.
If you manage 1% then the real value doubles after 15 years. If you need 2% annually, the real value doubles after 18 years. The moral of the story is the same, with enough wealth you can live comfortably while your wealth grows.
The tough part is someone with 20 million "in the bank" will have a hard time constraining themselves to 200k/yr expenses. It seems like a lot but next to 20 million the temptation to spend a little, like 1m on a house, 100k on a car seems like nothing and a potentially reasonable purchase. But it drastically changes the trajectory of that balance.
And you wouldn't feel as good spending 1m on a house or 100k on a car with a 200k salary and zero in the bank.
and the further you get from the actual work that created the nest egg the greater the temptation - because no one treats found money like earned money.
yeah for some reason there seems to be a pricing disconnect on many homes, the discount on home that needs a lot of work seems to be less than the current cost to fix it (especially when taking into account labor shortages and tariffs on materials)
I'm not advocating for gutting renter's rights, but anecdotally having lived in 6 states, and adjusting for general costs of living it was easier to rent, and rents were cheaper in states that were less renter friendly than states that were very renter friendly. As a renter in the central time zone, first months rent, a month's rent security deposit and a credit check and i was handed the keys vs. renting in NYC you'd think i was buying the home with level of financial scrutiny.
I suppose this is just a long winded way of saying that there appears to be a ton of friction and cost by renter friendly polices that are ultimately passed on to renters rather than owners.
As an aside I'd also say that renter friendly policies were also highly correlated with higher regulations around zoning/building so this may account for a meaningful portion of the above.
I said this elsewhere, but I would anecdotally agree as a landlord.
Everyone is paying for the costs to evict a non-paying tenant in jurisdictions where it can take 12+ months to regain control of a unit.
More friction = more costs, and more regulation = more friction.
I'm not advocating for gutting renter's rights either, but it's not a coincidence that the places with the highest rents also have the most protections for renters.
There’s an obsession in the navy with number of ships. It’s not an insignificant number, but it’s line comparing the number of severs you have vs. the competition without taking into consideration their specs.
This is a story about governments being bad at contracting. If this had been a commercial contract California would be recouping its monies or the vendor would be on the hook to fix it.
reply