That's what they've done. Or rather they've bought the politicians who create the regulatory frameworks. But if people woke up and realized they've been frog-boiled into giving away their privacy, then that would be prohibitively expensive.

I essentially made the argument that if we want capitalism to work the way we were taught in civics class it is supposed to, companies must be forced by regulation not to undermine the basic assumptions that lead to efficient operation of the free market.

I am neither here nor there on a basic income. I think it depends on circumstances, which of course are changing as more and more labor -- including routine mental labor -- is being automated. We are eventually headed to a world of unprecedented productive capacity and yet very little need for labor, but we aren't there yet.

Anybody who is pushing AI services, particularly *free* AI services, is hoping to mine your data, use it to target you for marketing, and use the service to steer you towards opaque business relationships they will profit from and you will find it complicated and inconvenient to extricate yourself from.

The question is -- ideas that are bad for *who*? This may be a very bad idea for you and me, but it is a very good idea for Microsoft, especially as, like their online services, they will make money off of us and it will be very inconvenient for us to opt out.

In civics-lesson style capitalism, which I'm all in favor of, companies compete to provide things for us that we want and we, armed with information about their products, services and prices, either choose to give them our business or to give our business to a competitor.

Not to say that stuff doesn't *ever* happen, but it's really hard to make a buck as a business that way. So what sufficiently large or well-placed businesses do is earn money *other* ways, by entangling consumers in business relationships that are opaque and which they don't have control over, may not even be fully aware they're signing on to, and which are complicated and awkward to extricate themselves from. In other words a well placed company, like Microsoft or Google or Facebook, will constantly be looking at ways to make money outside the rigorous demands of free market economics.

It wouldn't be cost-effective in China either were it not for state support.

There is no doubt that global free trade in commodities, in the absence of any government support, would be the most economically efficient thing to have. But China -- probably correctly -- identifies dependency on foreign supply chains for critical materials as a *security* issue. So they have indirect and direct subsidies, as well as state owned enterprises that operate on thin or even negative profit margins.

Since China does this kind of support on a scale nobody else does, China produces more rare earths than any other country, even though it is not particularly well endowed with deposits. This solves China's security problem with the reliability of the supply, but creates a security problem for other countries.

China thinks like Japan did before WW2, like empire building European countries did in the 1800s. Control over resources is a national security weapon, both for defense and offense.

The behavioral model you have isn't supported by data. When you raise the standard of living and food security of population, the fertility rate goes down. When you have nothing, children are economic assets whose labor can support the family. It's not a great option, but some people live in conditions where there are no good options.

I don't know what what means?

Trump printed and handed out cash during COVID, that is socialism. It's a stupid form of socialism, but that's what it is.

Bush Junior passed and introduced the following:

1. Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Benefit (2003)
Largest expansion of federal welfare since 1965.
Added a new entitlement program without funding.
Taxpayers cover pharmaceutical costs for seniors.
Price negotiation blocked which transferred public money to private drug companies.
Long-term cost estimated over 1 trillion USD.

2. No Child Left Behind Act (2002)
Centralized federal control over education.
Took power from states and local school boards.
Tied federal funding to test results.
Expanded the Department of Education budget by 60 percent.

3. TARP Bank Bailouts (2008)
Socialized Wall Street losses.
Government purchased troubled assets and equity in failing banks.
Public money used to save private firms.
Risk transferred from private investors to taxpayers.

4. Nationalization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (2008)
Federal government seized control of two huge mortgage companies.
Socialized hundreds of billions in mortgage losses.
Largest nationalization in U.S. history.

5. Federal Takeover of AIG (2008)
Government took 80 percent ownership.
Public funds used to pay private insurance contracts.
Direct state ownership of a corporation.

6. Steel Tariffs (2002)
Protectionist economic intervention.
Used federal power to interfere with free markets.
Forced consumers to pay higher steel prices to protect an industry.

7. Expanded Farm Subsidies (2002 Farm Bill)
Increased federal agricultural payouts by 190 billion USD over 10 years.
Direct wealth transfers from taxpayers to farmers.
Expanded central planning in agriculture.

Those are all socialist policies, they are a big state, interventionist, entitlement growing policies.

Senior Bush

1. Americans with Disabilities Act (1990)
Large federal mandate on private businesses and local governments
Forced costly compliance without funding
Expanded federal regulation of the labor market

2. Clean Air Act Amendments (1990)
Massive expansion of federal control over industry
Centralized environmental rules and enforcement
Imposed new costs through regulation and fines

3. Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (1990)
Raised federal taxes by 137 billion USD
Increased top income and corporate tax rates
Expanded federal spending rather than cutting programs

4. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act (1991)
Increased federal power over banks
Allowed government intervention in failing institutions
Moved risk from private investors to taxpayers

5. Savings and Loan Bailout Continuation
Continued Resolution Trust Corporation actions started under Reagan
Used taxpayer money to rescue failed financial institutions
Socialized private banking losses

6. Immigration Act of 1990
Increased legal immigration by 40 percent
Expanded government-administered labor quotas and visa programs
Managed labor supply through federal policy

7. Transportation Equity Act (1991)
Large federal spending on infrastructure
Expanded federal role in transportation planning
Increased dependency of states on federal funding

Whatever you want to call him, this guy increased the size of the government, introduced socialist policies, expanded federal control over business and banking. He did more to give government power over private enterprise since Nixon.

Reagan

1. Savings and Loan Bailouts
Used taxpayer money to rescue failed financial institutions
Created the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation bailout framework
Socialized private banking losses
Set precedent for future bailouts

2. Military Keynesianism
Massive deficit-funded military buildup
Defense spending increased 40 percent
Government spending guided industrial output
Economic growth driven by public debt instead of private investment

3. Tax Reform Act of 1986
Flattened tax rates but also expanded government direction of the economy
Removed many private deductions
Strengthened IRS enforcement powers
Increased tax burden on working and middle class through payroll taxes

4. War on Drugs Centralization
Large expansion of federal police powers
Federal control over local law enforcement through funding and mandates
Increased federal spending and bureaucracy
Directed social behavior through state coercion

5. Export Controls and Trade Intervention
Limited high-tech exports
Imposed sanctions and trade barriers
Government interference in private trade decisions

6. Protectionist Trade Action
Restricted Japanese car imports
Imposed tariffs on motorcycles to assist Harley-Davidson
Protected domestic industries with federal action
Violated free market principles

7. Social Security Rescue Plan of 1983
Raised payroll taxes
Increased government control over retirement income
Forced workers to pay more for a mandatory public program

8. Farm Lending and Subsidy Support
Expanded federal loan guarantees to farmers
Federal aid to agriculture during the farm debt crisis
Transferred risk from private banks to taxpayers

He was a so called pro free market guy, who really expanded the role of the government, grew public debt, expanded federal police powers, abused tariffs, bailed the banks out, expanded SS.

AFAIC all of these are basically Marxists, never mind socialists. I would not allow any of these people to run a corner store, never mind a country.

The Telegraph - this one talks about China and its complete automation of production lines, speed to manufacture and deliver the final product. The West is done, it cannot compete, I wrote this here decades ago, once the West loses its manufacturing due to inflation, money manipulation, regulations and taxation, it will lose its engineering and then its education and science. In any case, what the West lost a long time ago is its ability to manufacture anything quickly and cheaply, its ability to manufacture anything domestically because of all of the combined costs, rules, laws, taxes, basically the cost of government and all of the socialism.

The West cannot manufacture because socialism cannot produce, it can only consume, that's how the USSR died as well, this is the path for the West if it doesn't reform and it won't.

One example is AlphaFold an AI program which predicts folded protein structures "with near experimental accuracy" from amino acid base sequences. This ability is going to have a huge impact on many practical problems like pharmaceutical development, agricultural science, and engineering custom proteins. For example, since the human genome has been long since sequenced, the program means we now, with a fairly high degree of certainty, know what all the protein coding sequences make.

I'd say that's a pretty significant result.

If you work in technology long enough, you see this over and over. Every time something new comes along, it's actual usefulness gets buried in the breathless media response by a mountain of bullshit. But that doesn't mean the uses aren't real.

The car manufacturers are correct, the so called 'laws' are garbage. Europe and the USA are going to lose all of their manufacturing, China will win in this manufacturing war and that's all there will be.

I had no concern with Joe Biden being Catholic, but I *would* think something was fishy with the *Electoral College* if six of the last nine presidents were Catholic given that fewer than one in five Americans are Catholic.

I'm not saying Catholics (or Jews) shouldn't serve on the Supreme Court, although maybe it would be good idea to have some justices who weren't Catholic or Jewish. Maybe an atheist, or polytheist.

One of the casualties of the Internet has been newspaper science desks. In the post Sputnik era, major city newspapers built teams of reporters with science and technology backgrounds to cover breaking science stories. To make use of that manpower in between big stories, they'd do a weekly science supplement, which was one of my favorite parts to read. These bureaus even had people on staff who could cover breaking news in *mathematics*.

That's all gone now, and you can see the impact of that in the scientifically ignorant summary you are objecting to. Twenty years ago, no major city newspaper would ever print anything that stupid. Today just the New York Times and Washington Post still have a newspaper science desk, and those are much reduced. Smaller newspapers barely cover local government anymore, they tend to just reprint opinion, purchased content, and press releases by politicians and corporations, and dueling reading letters on hot button issues. Actual shoe leather find out the facts journalism is in steep decline. In other words cheap content is more profitable, and science reporting is the least profitable content of all. The most widely consumed remaining sources of science information are non-profit -- the public broadcasting outlets.

I'm not implying anything. I'm saying the Pope's opinion is particularly significant to more than half the Supreme Court. They won't necessarily take those words as marching orders; I doubt that they would even agree that all the other Catholics on the court are good Catholics. But it means those words are automatically more weighty than if, say the Dalai Lama or the Lubavitcher Rebbe said them.

If we're not Catholic ourselves, I mean.

I'll tell you why: 2/3 of the Supreme Court justices are Catholic.