anubistheta
anubistheta on Hacker News
Nah, the wealthy would have been fine either way. Bailouts are done to placate the common voter and keep their lights on. The great depression didn't see the rich and powerful starving in most cases.
The bailouts were loans, which returned slightly more than was borrowed.
Besides, business were net tax payers. It's perfectly reasonable we lend them back some of their own money so they can continue to pay taxes next year.
You end on petty vitriol, tsk tsk.
Every healthcare system optimize costs and rations care based on the price. It has nothing to do with profit or non-profit status.
It's important to ground the increase in raw numbers.
The total revenue for electricity generation was $514b in 2024. So this was a 4-5% increase in costs. And if it is being invested in better generation and our aging infrastructure, that seems fine.
eh, other countries can improve their offering. It's a good thing. We punish companies when they collude to keep salaries low. So too should countries compete with attractive tax packages.
Exactly. Giving people free stuff is extremely popular. If people actually want those things, we can collective open our wallets and pay for it. But that changes people's opinions quite radically.
That's not your determination to make. Other people, obviously, disagree. I think capital has been the primary driver of the increase in productivity. So it's sensible that a larger share of the gains go to that.
That's not even close to accurate. Bitterness is blinding. Value is a social construct. Nothing stop people from valuing things differently. What liberalism is based on is the individual being free to make choices. So the value that someone contributes can't be determined by a third party. If someone voluntarily pays for X for your work, then that's what it is worth.
People have agency. The system didn't fail a person. That framing completely ignores their actions. Especially for paying so little on their loans and complaining about it. 18 year olds can vote. If we trust them with that, surely they can be responsible for their own choices.
Moreover, they said the accreditation of both institutions should be investigated.
This is regulation from a public institution. Regardless of how such a resolution is passed, it will impact the consumers.
We should just charge a fair price for water. Something that covers capital, operating, and decommissioning costs. No need to pass specific regulations or add legal complexity. It would solve itself. Imagine any other service saying "Oh no, we have too much demand, we need to make it illegal." Just put out bonds, and build up capacity.
Some of it, but then some AI is used to cure cancer.
But it doesn't have to happen in California.
Because it is an easy concrete way to stir up reactionary sentiment. The real issues are debatable but complex. But the common folk can all visualize a gallon of water.
It's better to have everyone pay the fair market price. Price isn't arbitrary, it reflects the real cost to produce the good. It encourages efficient use. If you feel one usage is more worthwhile, you can subsidize it.
I disagree. A large part of the cost of a utility is fixed per customer. Or any product really. That's how bulk purchasing makes sense. I can get 4x the product at a bulk store for 2x the price. Instead of being prejudicial about the use case, let's just charge what the utility actually costs. Include capital, operation, and decommissioning costs. That way, if you get a sudden spike in demand, you have the cash flow to issue a bond a scale up.
Agreed. It's not conducive to discourse.
That's why I liked catastrophic health care plans. Insurance works best when it covers rare, expensive events. Otherwise, it interferes with the process. My car insurance doesn't cover oil changes or new tires, but if I get I crash and injure someone, it kicks in. Homeowners insurance doesn't cover a routine roof replacement, but it will if there's storm damage. That's how health insurance should work.
A catastrophic health care plan has low premiums and high deductibles. You also get access to a tax advantaged savings account to save up for future events. So you can take the money you saved on premiums and pay for medical expenses tax free. Or let the money accumulate to cover future medical expenses or even retirement!
I agree. I think this is what happens when a persons transitions from a progressive mindset to a conservative one, but has made being "progressive" a central tenant of their identity.
Progressiveness is forward looking and a proponent of rapid change. So it is natural that LLM's are popular amongst that crowd. Also, progressivism should be accepting of and encouraging the evolution of concepts and social constructs.
In reality, many people define "progressiveness" as "when things I like happen, not when things I don't like happen." When they lose control of the direction of society, they end up just as reactionary and dismissive as the people they claim to oppose.
>AI systems exist to reinforce and strengthen existing structures of power and violence. They are the wet dream of capitalists and fascists.
>Craft, expression and skilled labor is what produces value, and that gives us control over ourselves
To me, that sums up the author's biases. You may value skilled labor, but generally people don't. Nor should they. Demand is what produces value. The later half of the piece falls into a diatribe of "Capitalism Bad".
It didn't work out well when the NYC MTA tried fare free rides.
https://www.mta.info/document/147096
Dwell time and customer journey time decreased.
The bus speeds were lower on the fare free routes.
If public transport provides value to people, they should pay for some of it. 30 day unlimited ride pass in only $132.
Exactly. The essay meandered, and didn't say much of note. It has vague illusions to personal choice and markets being detrimental. But that's it. Too many people feel entitled the control the choices of others. And yet they rarely accept equal control of their choices.
> "But an emphasis on choice as a form of liberation has occasioned serious resentments in different sectors and geographies, where it can seem a direct threat to other, more communal values and needs."
I think this quote sums it up nicely. Personal liberation is not a threat to mutually beneficial communal values. If you need to force people to behave as part of your community, then it should be voluntary. One should be able to choose to pursue any form of freedom or community they'd like. If you want freedom to be "an act of pure imagination" and live a communal lifestyle, you should have the choice.
Exactly. The more suppliers are in a market, the more competition there is. Thus lower prices and a better selection. People don't like a monopoly is other areas of life. Healthcare is no different.