anon_
8d ago
Why then would the wealthy hold such taxable property in their own name? It will be in a trust or foundation or in the name of their foreign cousin.
Second order effects dominate here.
anon_
8d ago
Have you looked at the projected electoral college map after the 2030 census?
Now look at 538 and try to figure out what path a D has to win here? Florida has been well lost (RDS doesn't get enough credit IMO) as has Ohio. So even if the D candidate wins the "blue wall" state and Nevada they still lose!
Of course, a lot can happen in 5 years. GA or NC might start to be in play, but even still, the Dems have to ring up a perfect set of victories with no margin for error. And their bench is not exactly exciting either: Newsom, AOC, Pete. Gretch is a good choice, which is why they probably won't chose her.
anon_
8d ago
But SGV wasn't really changed. It was empty before. In 1950 there were 20K people. In 2025 there are 2M.
One thing that distinguishes the US from Germany (and others, idiomatically) is that we have the space (physical and liminal) for such growth. We love growth. Filling an empty valley with 2M bustling people isn't displacing anyone that was already there.
If there's anything historically novel it's been the consistent belief in the frontier as ever widening.
anon_
8d ago
less willing to waste money on patently obviously useless spending like trans operas in Latin America
There are two separate questions here:
- Are trans operas in Latin America a waste (Yes)
- Does zeroing out trans operas in Latin America do anything meaningful to restore fiscal responsibility (No)
And maybe a third
- Should we shut them down anyway (Sure, do it, just don't claim it's gonna help the deficit)
anon_
8d ago
Yo Claude,
Please look over all these loans and optimize our revenue/risk. Then after you do, come up with an explainable algorithm that, post-hoc, comes to the closest results.
Periodically revisit this and tweak the explainable algorithm.
anon_
8d ago
Ooof, I get experimentation for local issues but 50 States with 50 different AI regimes is just feeding money to the PMC and consultant class.
anon_
8d ago
And all it would cost them is telling the Lina Kahn / Elizabeth Warren faction to shut up and vote blue anyway (what are they gonna do, vote MAGA?)
anon_
8d ago
Diablo Canyon is was renewed for another 20 years.
I know this is thin gruel for what might be good news, but it's California and even Gavin understood that green energy has to actually deliver power to customers at reasonable costs. Before they said with the regulatory/green/nimby alliance against it, it would never get done.
So that's one thing of substance in a blue state.
anon_
8d ago
It's smart retail politics but it's awful power politics. "The rich" in the sense of owners of car dealerships and dialysis chains and the like have a lot of sway. You'd need to bribe them with something, and we're out of something.
anon_
8d ago
I'm not sure the personal (egos) is more explanatory than the lack of a common enemy. The woke left was sufficiently scary to bring together non-allies -- with them gone, it would be a wonder if the tech/MAGA coalition stayed regardless of personalities.
anon_
12d ago
but it's also not going to be a great situation for the guy who ends that something. Dolloff was Denver, but it's not hard to consider how the culture war lines would fall on a remotely unclear shoot.
Not sure I could advise anyone I care about going to a protest armed either. Just having the CCW puts you in an untenable position here -- you get pushed to the ground by an unarmed person, now you're in a no-win place.
Really we need a renewed commitment from law enforcement to do their jobs and stand between the various groups and let them each say whatever.
anon_
12d ago
It’s one thing to claim that it’s not a relevant fact. It’s quite another to be straight up defending ignorance and incuriousness.
In any event, you were the one that put the irrelevant and incorrect fact into your original post. If it didn’t matter who it was with, then you could’ve just not written anything about it.
anon_
12d ago
You didn't care enough about a top level post to get the basic facts straight. That's fine, I guess, but then the question is why should anyone care about your take? Are we really here for "let's get the opinions of people that know very little about the subject matter"?
anon_
13d ago
anon_
13d ago
In many cases it raises costs significantly, not because the individual tradesmen are paid that much more (they are, but that's not the problem), it's that they have union-mandated staffing levels. If bargaining were truly Coasian (hah!) then you could easily make a deal to increase salaries even further in exchange for bringing staffing to international standard.
This killed a plan by Steph Curry to open a HQ in the dogpatch.
anon_
15d ago
I think "the system is very far from the Pareto frontier" is not really justification for a specific course of action.
Yes, there is room to produce a net improvement, that doesn't mean this particular strategy is likely to be so, especially given the quality of execution we've seen so far.
anon_
15d ago
The underlying idea is that foreigners are superior to Americans
I can bravely assert that I believe that at least one foreigner is superior to at least one American at at least one measurable-and-relevant skill.
anon_
15d ago
It's unfortunately likely to be a for-the-case-only sort of thing rather than a serious revival of the non-delegation doctrine, but possibly.
I think there's two questions that are kind of conflated:
-
Does the statute really authorize to the President the authority to do what was done. Because of W. Virginia v EPA (and others down the line of cases), if the actions are a were of great significance, then the authorization has to be explicit.
-
If the answer is yes, can Congress really delegate that authority to the President?
In the current canons, the courts have to answer the first bullet before reaching the second. And it answer it in the negative and so there is no need to reach the questions on delegation because Congress (so the argument goes) didn't authorize it in the first place.
anon_
20d ago
Aside from what others have said, the fact that just 2 years ago they lost at the Supreme Court on their (obviously) racially discriminatory admissions process and are proceeding to not actually take the L and comply is not helping.
anon_
24d ago
Still, the 2/3 requirement for expulsion means the majority cannot use its power to determine rules to expel. That at least implies that it cannot do things that are tantamount to expulsion by a bare majority.
anon_
24d ago
What is to stop the slim majority of one political party of censuring enough members of the opposing party based on similar fig-leaf reasons, depriving them of the ability to vote, and thus gaining the super-majority?
The Maine Constitution requires a 2/3rds vote of both Houses to override a veto, not 2/3rds vote of all those voting.
2/3 of that House shall agree to pass it, it shall be sent together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall be reconsidered, and, if approved by 2/3 of that House
Hence reducing the number of voting legislators doesn't change the supermajority threshold.
Interestingly, the US Senate when it last changed the cloture rule converged on the same logic -- they changed the threshold from 2/3rds of Senators voting to 3/5ths of Senators sworn.
What is the point of my team advancing the football if the next possession by the other guy can advance it right back the other direction?
Well, for one, each administration starts whether the last one left off. So at the very least they have to spend effort and political capital overriding what you've done rather than on advancing their interests (in the counterfactual where you didn't have office last).
More options
Context Copy link