We are experiencing a lot of late stage capitalism issues.

With the increasingly valid excuse of uncertainty, mega corps ‘must’ make more money now because they don’t know what kind of economic hardships they will have to be prepared to endure in the future.

That risk is built into the cost of goods, and can’t easily be quantified, so a bill capping profit margins isn’t really feasible. And let’s not forget who really crafts legislation these days.

In my state, there is a limit to the number of liquor stores one person/corporation can own. They recently increased it from one to three. This law makes a lot more sense for housing than it does for liquor stores, but unfortunately there are too many billionaires with skin in the game.

A crash in housing prices comes with its own set of problems as well, so whatever changes are necessary, they should be taken slowly so as not to cause another collapse in the housing market. Home ownership is still the primary way for the average American family to develop any meaningful wealth, good or bad as that may be.

Whatever changes need to happen, they must be gradual and sustained over a long period of time. Massive and abrupt changes create instability which will have unanticipated consequences.

We want these mega corps to be like the proverbial frog in the boiling pot. Eventually, monopolistic and racketeering like practices could be diminished while millions are lifted out of poverty. If it is to happen, it will take time.

If I were a betting man, I would say that meaningful change is unlikely. Mega corps will continue to squeeze every penny out of the people, leaving us only enough to continue buying their shit. Bernie may have been able to do it, but sadly that ship has sailed.

Tech firms and lawmakers still want more specifics on how this is all supposed to work. But if things go as planned, the success of the program would be a major win for the White House, which has been eager to display American technological and industrial might.

So, if it goes according to plan and is a success, it would be a major political victory for the White House/Biden in terms of their eagerness to “display American technological and industrial might”.

It’s something they want to do, and which if this goes as planned, they will manage to do it. Hence, in politics, a “win”. This is different from passing normative judgment as to whether or not it’s a good thing: It’s a win in the same sense destroying the Supreme Court was a “win” for the previous White House.

We’ll never be at peace anyway. If we lay down our weapons, our enemies will not do the same. They’ll just conquer us.

I’ll be happy to be at peace with a country who also wants peace. Russia and China do not want peace. Their actions have overwhelmingly proven this. Rolling over to let them do whatever they want in the name of the paradox of tolerance is how we got here in the first place.

The strategy that California is pursuing is providing subsidies to more and more groups of people, giving government a greater say in prices over time. Eventually the goal is to have government pay for everyone’s health care so they can negotiate prices to a fair level. Sounds feasible to me.

Sure, but the point is we’re getting there. Vote blue and we’ll get there faster.

Yes, EVs are technically better for the climate

Not just “technically”. They’re massively better for the climate.

Technically, a fully electrified transportation sector that focuses on EVs is even better for the climate than a transportation sector without cars and focused just on public transit.

But the main reason is that convincing people to switch to EVs is waaaaaaaaaaaay faster, cheaper, and more doable than convincing people to rebuild our entire transportation infrastructure.

As far as I’m concerned, yes public transit is more desirable, but the climate emergency is more pressing. Once we’re fully electrified, then we can begin transitioning to mass transit options. But it’s a matter of priorities: the ongoing destruction of the climate is more important than efficient transit.

I’m a bit concerned by just how well that worked. It increasingly confirms to me that the alt right and tankies are birds of a feather. Ignore information you dislike as propaganda, condone human rights abuse if it’s by a country you like and call the reporting bullshit.

You’re right. One of those options results in your money directly funding the genocide. The other doesn’t.

So not for everyone then? I thought everyone there means everyone

It’s not. It’s establishing a base line of credibility of GodlessCommie.

You sound just like the people who say Israel is doing nothing wrong and all the criticism is just from antisemitism.

You like them, therefore any criticism of them is propaganda and bullshit. Horseshoe theory in action.

I’m not making that assumption at all. I’m saying your “red line” point is infantile because it rules out both major candidates, thus you will throw your vote away, which helps the candidate you hate most to win. If your metric is genocide, tasteless as it is, you have to vote for whoever you think will help minimize the deaths by genocide in the future. “Red Lines” don’t work if they don’t differentiate between the candidates.

Biden can’t unilaterally fix healthcare. He would need congress to cooperate with him and he has never been able to get that. He couldn’t even pass the bills he wanted that did pass without major changes.

It amazes me what people think presidents have the power to do. They’re not absolute monarchs.

Making medicine easier to get via telemedicine and insulin caps certainly help though.

Putting mushrooms on a hamburger won’t fix housing affordability, but that doesn’t mean it’s a bad idea

How about border security? Oh, Republicans torched that because Big Cheeto told them to? Must be Bifen’s fault!