Citation needed. In absolute dollars perhaps. As a share of GDP? I doubt it. Unless you are counting all healthcare spending as "US spending more of its budget", in which case you are crossing the streams of government and private sector spending, which kind of undercuts the point about it being FDR's new deal.

Yes, it is all about too much oil and not enough storage, but literally if you can store it you will be paid to take it off their hands. Unless I misunderstand the futures, you get paid not just to store it, but take possession of the oil as well.

6,160,000,000 * .01 = 61,600,000

61 million, not 616 million. Still a really big number. Excess deaths somewhat lower than that, since some number of that 61 million would have died from other causes during the time period of the pandemic, especially among the very old, where mortality is much higher.

Emergency rooms will treat emergencies regardless of ability to pay. True.

But if they discover cancer and you need radiation or chemo, that is not an emergency, and treatment is not guaranteed.

Diabetic and need medication? Better be able to pay.

Need mental health counseling? Better be able to pay.

In short, the ER will stop you from dying right then and there, but won't help you with underlying conditions.

And how are you going to slowly dismantle and sell off the companies in a way that doesn't hinder normal operation of the air travel system?

Just think how bad things get if there is winter storm, and flights are cancelled out of a few airports. A 1 or 2 day storm can take 4 or 5 days to shake out and get things back to normal. With planes flying so close to capacity most of the time, there really isn't a lot of slack. And it is not like new airlines can form in a matter of a few weeks, even if they can buy planes at fire sale prices from the bankrupt carriers. 1 or 2 of the major carriers going down would be insanely disruptive.

I can agree with the sentiment of let the investors take the risk and take the losses as well as the gains, but if Delta goes down there goes 85% of the flights out of my airport, with nobody ready to pick up the unmet demand.

As I recall, there was a change in cases definition back in January or February which caused a huge spike in cases because they changed the rules of what counted as a case. So that is at least a spurious objection.

Given that Apple uses USB-C on Macbooks and iPad Pros, I expect they will move it into the iPhone as well. Otherwise they get to a point where a significant part of their own user base (i.e. people who own a Macbook, an iPad and an iPhone) need to deal with differing cables. They have an investment in lightning infrastructure, but they have been willing to make changes before.

But if the safety feature reduces the number of accidents, leading to fewer repairs, the total cost goes down, so the insurance rates would eventually go down. That is what happened with anti-lock breaks - insurance companies offered a discount for having them, since they prevented accidents.

The monorail in Vegas has been a flop. I think there were political fights involved in it, but the monorail is on the very back side of all the hotels it connects, meaning it is often literally a 10 minute walk from the front door of a casino to the monorail station. And I recall ticket prices being high enough that it was cheaper for 2 people to take a cab or an Uber down the strip.

It seemed like a good idea when it was being built, but the cost and placement of the stations made it unattractive.

I'm not sure what their impetus is for thinking this is a good idea. In urban areas where space is at a premium I can see this being a lower cost model - street level square footage is at a premium, so move the items that are purchased by price or by brand alone to a cheaper square footage.

And I can see how with a little planning this could speed up my trip overall, but mostly by shifting the burden onto time spent at home picking out the bulk items.

And it will definitely cut down on the impulse shopping, and on the things that I forgot I needed until I walked by them on the shelf, so it feels like revenue per square foot will decrease.

Somebody to to say it.

The most common complaint I hear (in the US) is not the price of flying, but the annoyances - security theatre, arcane rules around what you can bring on the plane, long lines, cramped seating and crying babies, etc.

Go back to a security regime like we had before 9/11 to do away with the whole arrive 2 hours before your flight, change the rules to require paying for overhead bin space but make checked baggage free to speed up boarding and deplaning, and increase the seat pitch (which means removing seats, which means somewhat higher fares) to make it more comfortable, and people's preferences would shift back towards flying.

I do have a smart speaker, and I use it to control the lights, play music, set timers, check the weather, and sporadically answer the odd question. That probably makes me a heavy user of the device I suppose. But I think the reason why there are no runaway hits is that it is not a format that promotes extended interaction. If I want to play a game or look up non-trivial data I pull out my tablet, since I can read much faster than Alexa can read it to me. And a game that involves my eyes and fingers is going to be more engrossing than something I listen to and the talk to.

I use Alexa when I have my hands full or am busy doing something else. I think to be a runaway hit it would need to be something more engrossing, that you interact with.

A quick google search didn't come up with anything obvious. Got a link?

By definition unanticipated side effects can't be enumerated, but that is true with almost any sort of research. What are the unanticipated side effects of the internet and social media? Are they net positive or negative? But do we seriously consider the risks of any new technology or development on a routine basis?

I do admit that invasive species are a real problem, and once they escape into the wild there is often no containing them. And the risks absolutely need to be considered. But if plants can grow 40% more food for the same inputs, you need to consider the benefits as well as the risks. Consider the efforts to create a gene drive to attack mosquito species that carry malaria. Yes, it is a risky thing, but 400K people a year die from malaria. So consider the potential benefits as well as the risks.