My take-away from the various comments on my parent post is there are clearly multiple auto markets: US/North America, Europe, China, Third World (and I'm sure that's an over-simplification, particularly that last category.) Those markets are defined by government policies, availability of various fuel sources, commitment to ecological goals, economics/consumer wealth, etc.

On a related note, I had a discussion with a classmate who owns a relatively large electrical contractor (residential/business/some industrial) firm. I asked what it would take to add a subpanel to support an EV Charger, an Induction range (current one is gas), and at least one mini-split. He pointed out that they used to do 200 amp panels, but now for a house my size, the default is 400 amps, because of all that stuff that I'd like to add that raises electrical consumption (and therefore electrical generation and supply demand.)

I wonder how much a EU move away from EVs is motivated by EU auto companies having the same problems competing with Chinese EV manufacturers that US automakers are having. My guess is that EU countries, particularly Germany, are even more dependent on their automakers (as a percentage of GDP) than the US is.

Even if they get substantial subsidies and trade protection in the US, their products can't compete in the rest of the world.

Now there's significant defense value in the domestic auto industry. But we can't maintain the defense value without an economically viable industry that includes both R&D and production.

This goes to the heart of why the Trump Tariffs are a failed economic strategy. They're all stick, with no carrot to establish and maintain the domestic industries that Trump claims he wants.

Thanks for that link. Interesting that he never mentions home security cameras, doorbell cameras, etc, except possibly covered by some of the exceptions. Also interesting that "journalists" have an explicit exception; I wonder how they define "journalist" today, where everyone can be a journalist of some sort.

At this point, he's merely a useful idiot for the Project 2025 people. Their idea of economic growth is their investments grow. And they take particular care to feed la Presidenta a fair proportion of social stupidity orders to keep the Maggots worrying about who is using the "wrong" bathrooms than who is stealing them blind. They mask these stupid orders in "morality" when actually caring about people is not on their agenda.

And just as important, when did this Supreme Court care about the Constitution.

He had permission from the building manager. Think about it: if it was illegal, how could any businesses or homes have any security camera?

USAID was horrifically corrupt

The cuts to USAID are projected to cause 14 million extra deaths - a large minority of those children - by 2030. And USAID engendered massive goodwill among its recipients

But no, by all means kill a couple million people per year and worsen living conditions (creating more migration) in order to save $23 per person, that's clearly Very Smart(TM).

And I don't know how to inform you of this, but the year is now 2025 and the Cold War and the politics therein ended nearly four decades ago. And USAID was not created "to smuggle CIA officers" (though CIA offers used every means available to them to do their work, certainly), it was created as a counterbalance to the USSR's use of similar soft power to turn the Third World to *its* side.

They can go back at any point if they don't think the conditions and salaries offered are worth the job. What matters is that they remain free to leave, with no "catches" keeping them there (inability to get return transport, inability to communicate with the outside world, misinformation, etc etc). Again, there's a debate to have over what conditions should be mandated by regulation, but the key point is that the salary offered - like happens illegally today en masse - is lower than US standards but higher than what they can get at home.

What on Earth are you talking about? Nobody is trying to make other countries poor and dangerous. People come to the US from these countries because even jobs that are tough and underpaid by US standards are vastly better than what is available at home. Creating a formal system just eliminates the worst aspects of it: the lawlessness, the sneaking across the border in often dangerous conditions (swimming across rivers, traveling through deserts), "coyotes" smuggling people in terrible conditions, and so forth. The current US system is the dumbest way you could possibly handle it: people wanting to work, US employers wanting them, the US economy benefitting from it... but still making it illegal, chaotic, dangerous, and unregulated for those involved.

Or, more concisely: Countries should aim to be poor.

To be fair to the nutballs, their proposal will actually slow it down as compared to not limiting immigration. That is, from their nutball perspective the proposal is an improvement, just not a total solution. For a total solution, they need to go full right-wing nutball and also ban women from working so they'll stay home and have proper Swiss babies.

No country can afford to take in unlimited refugees. At some point, the answer becomes another question. "How to we raise the standard of living for people in that country because we can not afford to take any more of them here?"

LK

It's a question of dying before producing offspring. The article shows that the majority will reach the average age of parenthood in society. That's all it takes.

I'm talking specifically about the meat substitutes that try to taste like meat. There are ways to have a healthy vegan diet, but a lot of the plant-based burgers and fake meat tend to be loaded up with large amounts of sodium salt. So switching to those because you think they are healthier may actually be way worse than not doing so.