Good analysis. Cory Doctorow arrives to many of the same conclusions here:
https://locusmag.com/2023/12/c...

Without defending things or ideologies I don't believe in, it's really uncontroversial that Russia, China, and company have always been, and currently still are, workers HELLS, not paradises (eg. China has none of the protections for workers that are typical of western, more capitalistic, countries).

So, sorry but no, your last sentence is false and a flamebait.

"The main issue is that housing was turned into investment vehicle."

yes, but that became a great investment because housing is chronically undersupplied, and this happens because it's a nightmare to build hew houses, which in turn happens because old "environmental" regulations that have been hijacked by NIMBY groups.

At the end of the day, you need to build houses. And you must do it in two ways. First, get rid of stupid regulations so the market can actually do its part and build houses without having to jump through regulatory hoops for 10 years. Second, leverage the local and federal government to actually take control where it can and freaking build houses. Won't hurt.

Perhaps. But sure it looks to me like the US, despite lips services now and then, does not really want to be part of that world either.
Most definitely it does not want to be part of that world when its businesses are outcompeted.

Too easy to talk international rules only when it's convenient to you ...

Or for a more anthropocentric (and entertaining) timeline:

https://m.xkcd.com/1732/
 

Yeah but if you look at the cycles closely we were basically supposed to enter a new ice age by now. The fact that it's going the other direction it means we're entering uncharted territory:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Reason.com clearly follows an agenda (it's no secret) and will jump at any occasion to highlight any type of government spending that seem (and sometimes actually is) wasted. They do this so they can advocate for tax cuts.

And they are right this time.

The reason the SLS was built by NASA is clearly political, this is not even a controversial point. It does cost a lot of money, which is not controversial either.

Were the money wasted? Not sure, there's always some kind of silver lining. But i for sure would have liked them to use SpaceX, which would have costed perhaps 10% of those money, and use the remaining 90% to actually perform research on things like new propulsion systems, or the actual sustainability of human life on Mars.

Well if you don't like your leaders then fire them and elect better ones. Maybe use better criteria to evaluate their fitness next time. That's the point of a democracy.

But anyway the point the OP was trying to make is, i believe, that the leader of a private enterprise, while maybe fit for leading the enterprise (not all of them are) certainly does not have to answer to your needs.

So having a single company having warheads it's going to be like, "nice city you have there, it would be too bad should something happened to it" or "do you want your warheads deployed in a war, well you better pay up, then we'll see".

+1 for the funny comment, and you make a decent point.

OTOH, I do not know how things work in Ireland exactly, but in most states in mainland Europe employers cannot just fire people at will like that. They have the burden of proof to prove that the employee is unproductive, and if they fail to do that courts can (and very much do) reinstate employees in their positions. I have seen it happening in European branches of multinational/american-led companies.

If the company has financial problems and can't pay employees, there are state-funded furlough schemes that it can access to pay employees for a while until the storm is weathered.

>> Sometimes people do things where there might be some question about whether it's right or wrong. This is not one of those times.

Agreed. Because this is flat out right and it was about time.

Education is a collective good and the most powerful source of progress. We as a society should invest in education, before we spend our taxes in other ways.

>> It sends all the wrong messages about how one needs to manage debt.

If you contributed to electing president somebody that filed for bankruptcy SIX (!) times, then I respectfully think you should stop lecturing people on the morality of debt repayment.

If you run the numbers, we're talking about a hundred B$/year in a 25T$/year economy, so even if all the refunds get spent (and it won't) the effect on inflation is less than half of 1%.

Also, to the extent this is paid for in taxes, then the money paid in taxes won't get spent so that has a negative effect (that is decreases) inflation.

So, no, you should not expect loan forgiveness to change inflation in a measurable way.

>> The loan "forgiveness" is a zero sum game.

Not really.

We need to invest in what gets to society the most bang for the bucks. Infrastructure and education (that includes the higher sort) comes top of the list. To the point that we should pay people to get an education not the other way around. Police, firefighters are also there. Military is important (though some of those money could be spent better).

And by the way, though I am currently renting a place, I'm also paying, with my taxes, the tax deductions on the mortgage interest of somebody else's house, maybe even yours. Do i benefit from it? no. Do I bitch about it? neither.

But again, with those money, I'd rather pay for some kid's education instead. It's a better investment than paying for your mortgage. By far.

Could it be used as a weapon too? Archimede's style?

We totally have the tools to required to limit our impact on the climate while INCREASING our standard of life (and consumption level) and SAVING money in the long run.

I don't know why people still promote this 70-style "sacrifice" narrative. Keep in mind that, for example, half of the energy in combustion engines gets wasted because of approx 50% efficiency. Using electric motors (>90% efficiency) will therefore unlock 50% of the previously wasted energy for other purposes. Not to mention improving quality of life through removing pollution from carbon in the air, noise pollution. And not to mention climate.

The only problem is the infrastructure for fossil fuels has being already built long time ago, while new clean energy infrastructure still needs to be built. While this new infrastructure will improve quality of life produce even MORE energy at a fraction of the cost in the long run (thereby saving money), and while building it will provide a lot of jobs, .... it still has a considerable UP FRONT cost that needs to be paid.

Paying now to have benefits later is always a problem, especially when too many are shortsighted and when some influential actors who stand to lose from the transition are dragging their feet like hell.

https://img.ifunny.co/images/f...