tharmas

>if you have nothing to hide

But it's not you that decides that what you are doing is harmless. It's what the authorities decide; and that can be quite different from what you or other people deem "nothing to hide".

Its Orwellian.

Thanks for the recommend. I have considered watching it. Just haven't gotten around to it.

I guess the proper term is "Social Darwinism". Trump will do whatever he can get away with. That's his only code.

Supposedly architect Andrew Tesoro did some work on one of Trump's golf courses. He invoiced Trump for $140,000. Trumps lawyers offered $50,000. They threatened to drag it out in the courts otherwise. He agreed to charge $50k. Trump didn't pay. Tesoro contacted Trump. Trump offered half that, $25,000. Tesoro got $25k. Trump's transactions are all about leverage.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestreptalks/2016/07/13/this...

Invest heavily in the Electricity grid. Both AI Data Centers and The Transportation Grid (Electric Vehicles, Batteries). These two sectors are only going to grow and they require massive amounts of electricity.

Peak Oil is going to happen soon 2020-25. China's oil demand in 2025 dropped from previous years. Even in the "drill baby drill" USA refineries are closing do to falling demand in the USA.

The private sector does not see new pipelines as economically viable. Trudeau had to step in to finish the Trans Mountain twinning. Existing pipelines that go to the USA are only at 75% capacity. If Canada wants to ship oil to Europe or Asia they should ship it by rail. It would be foolish to spend money on new pipelines when overall demand for oil is declining. And by the time these pipelines would be completed Peak Oil would be a done deal.

Develop more trade with Asia and Europe (which the current govt appears to be trying to do). A big problem is this emerging multipolar world means the USA is going to increasingly pressure Canada to become even more of a vassal state.

This youtube channel has excellent information about Canada's Engergy Future: Energi Media https://www.youtube.com/@EnergiMedia/videos

On trade imbalances: Trump expects Canada, a country of 40 Million people, to buy as much goods from the USA, a country of 300+ Million people. And if you subtract the oil that the USA buys from Canada, Canada has a trade SURPLUS with the USA. That is, apart from selling oil to the USA, Canada buys MORE from the USA than the USA buys from Canada, a country roughly one tenth the size.

This trade war isn't about righting trade imbalances. It's about the USA exerting leverage over countries that it can get away with. Just like a Mafia Don.

Or to quote a crude summary from Peaky Blinders: "Big $ucks small".

That's the philosophy of the Trump Administration in a nutshell.

Here's a comprehensive explanation of the coming employment apocalypse as a result of AI:

Post-Labor Economics Lecture 01 - "Better, Faster, Cheaper, Safer" (2025 update) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzJ_HZ9qw14

Excellent post.

You could say that was when things reverted back to "normal". The FDR social reconstruction and post WW2 economic boom were the exception, anomaly. But the Scandinavian countries seem to be doing alright. Sure, they have some big size problems (Sweden in particular) but daily life for the majority in those countries appears to be better than a lot of people in the Anglosphere.

>more money in the economy drives inflation

Not necessarily. Sure, it that money is chasing fixed assets like housing but if that money was invested into production of things to consume its not necessarily inflation inducing is it? For example, if that money went into expanding the electricity grid and production of electric cars, the pool of goods to be consumed is expanding so there is less likelihood of inflation.

> it's important to bear in mind that lower interest rates can also stimulate investment which help to create jobs for average people as well.

Precisely! Yet the big problem in the Anglosphere is that most of that money has been invested in asset accumulation, namely housing, causing a massive housing crisis in these countries.

Isn't the US economy far more varied than it was in the 19th century? More dense? And therefore wouldn't be more difficult for one industry to dominate the US economy today than it was in the 19th century?

Nuclear is very expensive to build. It takes a long time to build. Also, it takes quite a bit of time to power up and power down a nuclear power plant. Nuclear plants use a lot of water. Water that could be used to cool the AI hardware. As a result nuclear power isn't cheap.

Then there is still the safety issues and environmental concerns regarding the waste. Some people say they are safe now and you can just bury the waste deep underground. Putting it deep underground seems a bit like just pumping the carbon into the air: someone else's problem further down the line in time.

Do you want to live next to a Nuclear Power Plant?

Perhaps a feudal economy where it is just the wealthy who consume. The rest of humanity is pure subsistence.

Not only that, the demand from AI Data Centers is going to push up the price of electricity tremendously. Add in demand from electric vehicles too and there could be shortages as well. Who knows, but one thing is certain: demand for electricity is going to skyrocket.

Having an alternative source for your house is a wise idea.

Wouldn't building longer platforms (more expensive at the time) be cheaper in the long run than building an additional line to handle the excess demand that will be sure to come as a result of building it in the first place. Metro lines are built in the first place because of demand but once built demand increases also, does it not? You can run short trains with longer platforms but its more difficult the other way around.

When I first used it, when it was first opened, I couldn't believe how tiny the platforms were. I don't think I'd seen anything so noticeably small before. It was a huge let down. It seemed that the planners/designers were completely clueless on what is required for transit line. Didn't they use the Skytrain and see how busy it was at the time? And if you are going to spend all that money building it in the first place why would you build it so small from the get go? The only explanation was they knew it was too small but they just built it so they could say that they got it done. A big fail in my books. They should be ashamed of themselves.

>corpo-authoritarian

"corporate fascist"

The main problem with Healthcare when it comes to costs is that it is to a certain extent labour intensive, is it not? This makes it difficult to reduce costs as wages rise over time.

>These regulations are meant to serve big corporations and protect their monopoly.

B*I*N*G*O!

"You don't have to be an asshole to get things done".

Unfortunately, I cannot recall whom I first heard saying this. I really wish more people would adopt this as a philosophy.

Agreed as well. I would say shots on target (not straight at the goalkeeper) are a good metric of an exciting game. I would also include near misses past the post and just over the bar as I don't think these are officially counted as "shots on target".

Dribbles or passing plays into the box which may not result in a shot are exciting too. For match excitement/entertainment value these should be measured also.

Unfortunately, because of the phenomenon of "brand loyalty" fans will continue to support their teams even when they have no chance of winning anything (due to lack of finances); and the elites that run the EPL know this all too well.

Much more fun to go out and support lower league clubs. And cheaper too.

Precisely. Evenly matched teams can make for an exciting game. Sure, if they play extremely conservatively it could be a bore.

But is one team thrashing another 5 - Nil (even in the first half) an "exciting game? Id argue not, for both sets of fans.

But in the money league (aka EPL) this is a big problem for many of the games.

Also, its the same small set of teams vying for the title EVERY year after year after year. Its almost as bad as the Bundesliga. Seriously, is Bayern Munchin going to win the Bundesliga this year? Or is it Rael Madrid or Barcelona that are going to win the Spanish League? Celtic or Rangers? BORING!

Say what you will about the American NFL, but at least they have more variety in who wins the Super Bowl. But they do have to sort out the lopsided score always in the final.

The anger should be directed at the politicians who implemented this policy, not the immigrants.

Thanks. I didnt know this about DuckDB. I will have to check it out.

so do the MAGAts apparently. Make Amerikkka GILDED Again!

Which is why, when the rich buy up assets (ie land), its inflationary. They are not adding to the pool of assets (supply), they are consuming them. Sure, I understand, land can be "developed" so that it can become useful (eg draining a swamp, building a high-rise instead of single storey) so in effect that is adding to the supply. But as your History teacher pointed out land is still effectively a fixed supply.

It would be nice if govt policy could help create the conditions such that a return on investments in production where more attractive (ie profitable) than buying up a fixed supply of assets. But instead govt policy did effectively the opposite.

Henry George and his LVT (Land Value Tax) comes to mind.

"We need more sheep to fleece" cried the Wolf.

The problem is what the rich do with their money: namely asset purchases. Todays rich don't invest in production only asset accumulation. All those years of ZIRP has just resulted in the rich buying up property, hence the high house prices.

Tax the rent-seeking-asset-accumulation rich. Don't tax the rich that invest in production. And tax the banks heavily for loans for asset buying. Encourage the banks to loan for investment in production.

Why does everything have to be about revenge or evening the score? Is that progress? "Two wrongs don't make a right" may be cliché but it has truth.

Only the USA has ever used Nukes.