Its because cash doesn't generate interest. Also, you are also confusing 2 different things: tax differences between income and capital gains, and the tax dodging schemes the rich use for consumption. The first thing is about keeping capital in the US where it is taxed. The second thing completely doesn't matter as 99.9% of the wealthy's assets will never be used for consumption. You can close that loophole but it changes nothing. Even if the rich don't find a new loophole, the amount of tax generated would be a rounding error.

Your own self-loathing aside but do you seriously think that just throwing random insults and showing complete and total ignorance of accounting, taxes, economic systems and general life is a good look? You don't even bother to give an argument, you just throw insults. Here is the truth, you are a selfish loser who will never accomplish anything and so you want to take from those that do. Now fuck off...

You seem to think that the rich have giant piles of cash somewhere. Generally this isn't true, instead it is stored in large quantities of stock or other assets. Also, regular people save money too in much the same way. So your idea about consumption being the only way money can "do work" just isn't true. Also, if the rich spent their money like you seem to want, all it would do is drive up prices of luxury assets which creates yet another bubble. Basically, your entire idea just isn't how the world actually works and I don't see how it translates to actual public policy in any way that doesn't cause a huge financial crisis. In truth, you just don't like something about your life and so you choose to blame nebulous "others" instead of looking at yourself and why you aren't happy. Also, grifting on grievance politics is quite profitable lately. Maybe you should go on X and make some cash with your trolling instead of bothering us here.

Leftism doesn't mean anything at all really. The terms left and right have no real political definitions. That's how you are lumping Liberals and Socialists into the same bucket even though they don't actually agree on anything really. Also, your use of the term 'anti-imperialist' only makes me think you have extremist politics. Plus you clearly don't understand the definition of what an empire does or how it behaves (hint, empires crave land and don't leave after it is occupied). You only use such terms to anger others to further your own aims. Its shallow and transparent and you don't fool anyone when you do that.

If that's true, why does the US military make the Pu-239 that the US uses for its bombs in special reactors that don't make power? Why does Russia have special reactors for making H-3 for the Tritium boosting of their Hydrogen bombs? Oh wait, its not true and you have no idea what you are talking about. What is true is if you make a really cheap type of NPP that uses natural uranium (yellow cake) then it naturally makes a lot of Pu-239 and you can process that out rather easily. However, this plant will need more safety precautions and have more downtime than the type of reactor the US uses, makes and sells. If you use enriched fuel, you make less Pu-239 and it becomes not a very efficient way to make enriched Pu-239. If you use Th-232, then it makes almost no Pu-239 and you don't have any proliferation risk.

Current reactors (designed mostly in the 1960s) don't load-follow (that's the term for a power source that can quickly change levels). Coal doesn't load-follow either for reference. Hydro does, renewable actually make the balancing problem worse and natural gas is usually used to balance that out. You can have reactors that load follow but its just cheaper and easier to use hydro and gas for that. What makes that problem worse are renewables and any grid with more than 20% renewables is going to have problems (see Spain).

Learn what capacity factor is. Then you will realize why your calculations are hilariously off. Just for reference, solar and wind have about 3.5x the utilization cost which is what you actual pay for power. You are looking at capacity cost, and the only person who cares about capacity cost is the CFO of the utility company. That's why advocates always intentionally tell you capacity cost which doesn't matter. This is why your power bill is so much higher (about 2x) than it was 8 years ago in CA. Renewable aren't actually cheap. They just use an accounting trick to make you think they are. NPPs are still the best use of nuclear power. They were when you were born. They will be when you die. The laws of physics don't change. The only change is the name of the politician who will be lying about that because most people are scientifically illiterate and scaring people gets easy votes.

Pure ignorance. There were over a dozen workable solutions. Politicians...mostly from one party consistently tanked those ideas. There was Yucca Mountain. That would work. There was reprocessing it, that would work. There was putting making it into a glass, that worked.

What they did do at this site was put it into big blocks of concrete, this also works fine. Also, not to point out the obvious, but this storage area is on top of a 60 ft cliff. So the idea that this will suddenly fall into the sea, probably not without a pretty huge earthquake (as in 10x the size as any seen on the west coast). Of course you can just put the concrete containers on a truck and move them inland. That works too. This isn't even a hard problem.

No, no they didn't. There was a switch in the 1920-1930s. The civil rights era's political history is nothing like what you describe nor is it anything like how it is presented in the media. The parties didn't ideologically realign during that period in any real way but there were demographic shifts in party support You can make the case that there was a realignment in the 1980s, but I don't buy that as the election data doesn't really show that either.

Lately, many of the sites I use for things are down a lot more than usual. And the outrages are far longer than in the past. I suspect too much vibe coding is the cause. Is anyone else seeing what I am seeing? What do others think?

Activist is just what we call immature people now...OK.

Its so cute that you believe the numbers the CCP puts out. It also means that none of us have to listen to you. What are you, 6 years old?

We would be lucky to be able to make something that extracts 1% of the energy from this reactor That's because its heat is 1000000C. At 300C we can extract over 50% (up to 60% for a very efficient plant). But that's because we have materials that can handle 300C but there is nothing we know of that can handle 1000000C. I have no idea where you got the 25% number from, that's about half what it is in practice. For a fusion reactor however, we have no idea but achieving 1% would be a miracle. Most fission reactors make 2x the heat as electricity. 2GW of heat and 1GW of power is a pretty standard size for a powerplant.

In all fairness, owning land or a business in California is the surest way to make someone more right wing. Move to a very rural area for the opposite effect.

Considering the heat in this fire is twice most blowtorches, I fail to see how that means anything. Please understand these fires are hot enough to melt structural steel. They are also hotter than the kiln where those clay tiles would have been made.