12 hours ago, swansont said:

Part of the reason Americans drive more is that things are spread out and transit infrastructure is lacking, relative to Europe. Pretty sure there are more lane-miles of road in the US, with half of Europe’s population, so those roads cost more per driver. And driving more means more wear and tear on those roads, which drives up the cost.

Fair point. As Canadian comic Red Green observes, the hardest three words for men to say are "I don't know." To further complicate, I've heard that trucks account for 99% of road wear, so then you would have densely populated areas of Europe (more people per square km than US) where road wear is especially intense. Also, another confounding factor is that land is more expensive in Europe which increases highway construction cost. So: IDK. (hey...it's easier as an acronym) Whatever the relative cost per km, it makes sense to charge higher tax for gas if people have good alternatives to personal vehicles. It keeps transit attractive and reduces SCC (social cost of carbon) and makes cities more pedestrian friendly.

22 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Fair point. As Canadian comic Red Green observes, the hardest three words for men to say are "I don't know." To further complicate, I've heard that trucks account for 99% of road wear, so then you would have densely populated areas of Europe (more people per square km than US) where road wear is especially intense. Also, another confounding factor is that land is more expensive in Europe which increases highway construction cost. So: IDK. (hey...it's easier as an acronym) Whatever the relative cost per km, it makes sense to charge higher tax for gas if people have good alternatives to personal vehicles. It keeps transit attractive and reduces SCC (social cost of carbon) and makes cities more pedestrian friendly.

Bottom line is that it’s complex and no one variable is going to capture the situation. The complexity of the analysis also points to the inter-connectedness of the policies. The US embarked on multiple policies that encourage sprawl, basically requiring cars for a fair fraction of the population, which constrains other policy decisions.

4 hours ago, swansont said:

Bottom line is that it’s complex and no one variable is going to capture the situation. The complexity of the analysis also points to the inter-connectedness of the policies. The US embarked on multiple policies that encourage sprawl, basically requiring cars for a fair fraction of the population, which constrains other policy decisions.

Absolutely true, urban planning (or lack of it) makes it very difficult to use public transport in USA.

Anyone that doesn't have a personal vehicle or unable to drive one is severely disadvantaged. Hope we can work on that over the years.

Just now, swansont said:

Bottom line is that it’s complex and no one variable is going to capture the situation. The complexity of the analysis also points to the inter-connectedness of the policies. The US embarked on multiple policies that encourage sprawl, basically requiring cars for a fair fraction of the population, which constrains other policy decisions.

Not only is it multifactorial, but many of the factors are not economic ones at all.

Back to the minimalist; Trump said kid will have 2 dolls instead of 30. It is my hypothesis that conservation is not his goal but the goal is to weaken other countries economies.

Could China support itself by trading every where but the U.S.?

America is not made stronger by making more products than other countries. The only reason I can think of for major changes in the economy would be if it were going to fail. I mean if mass consumption of products was going to fail.

On 5/3/2025 at 9:26 PM, Trurl said:

The only reason I can think of for major changes in the economy would be if it were going to fail. I mean if mass consumption of products was going to fail.

The 1% have rigged the laws so they're allowed to sit on huge piles of cash and form ever-larger conglomerates. Now TFG crashes the economy so average people have to sell or go broke, and the 1% buys up their resources at bargain prices. The 1% now gets to buy up things they couldn't own before, and the 99% becomes ever poorer and more subject to the monopolies and their influence on the market.

5 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

The 1% have rigged the laws so they're allowed to sit on huge piles of cash and form ever-larger conglomerates. Now TFG crashes the economy so average people have to sell or go broke, and the 1% buys up their resources at bargain prices. The 1% now gets to buy up things they couldn't own before, and the 99% becomes ever poorer and more subject to the monopolies and their influence on the market.

Indeed, and our best defence is to not give a shit...

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, and our best defence is to not give a shit...

Seriously?

Edited May 5May 5 by zapatos

On 5/3/2025 at 9:26 PM, Trurl said:

Back to the minimalist; Trump said kid will have 2 dolls instead of 30. It is my hypothesis that conservation is not his goal but the goal is to weaken other countries economies.

I think you are overestimating his planning abilities. It is more likely that he has a laundry list of things that would make him look good and due to lack of knowledge and the presence of yes-men he just did something very stupid, as one does. What he has been doing is just his way of spin, which makes exactly as much sense as his shower stories.

American economy has been highly reliant on high levels of consumption and being an advanced service industry (internationally). He is trying to leverage the US' economic strength by first undercutting it. It is basically like cutting your arm off to use as a club to intimated others. It works as intimidation goes, but probably for different reasons than he thought it would be.

3 hours ago, Phi for All said:

The 1% have rigged the laws so they're allowed to sit on huge piles of cash and form ever-larger conglomerates. Now TFG crashes the economy so average people have to sell or go broke, and the 1% buys up their resources at bargain prices. The 1% now gets to buy up things they couldn't own before, and the 99% becomes ever poorer and more subject to the monopolies and their influence on the market.

It is possible but I think even among the 1% there are folks who are getting nervous. Not the crypto tech-bro every crash is great crowd, but the more "traditional" billionaires as they are entering an area of marked uncertainty. And I am decently sure that those folks don't like it if they are not certain about winning the game they rigged in the first place.

2 minutes ago, CharonY said:

It is possible but I think even among the 1% there are folks who are getting nervous. Not the crypto tech-bro every crash is great crowd, but the more "traditional" billionaires as they are entering an area of marked uncertainty. And I am decently sure that those folks don't like it if they are not certain about winning the game they rigged in the first place.

I think there has to be folks like this, worried that reducing the spending power of the masses will affect their own businesses. They need people to have at least some power to purchase, and probably don't get government subsidization when we buy less. They can't control their own revenue if nobody can afford to buy anything from them.

The oligarch types, however, seem ready to chuck the whole free market scheme for industry monopolization and company stores. How anyone who isn't super wealthy can think of this approach as a solution to high prices and inadequate income just staggers the imagination.

3 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

The oligarch types, however, seem ready to chuck the whole free market scheme for industry monopolization and company stores. How anyone who isn't super wealthy can think of this approach as a solution to high prices and inadequate income just staggers the imagination.

I faintly recall at least one study looking a little bit into that, but I cannot recall what it was. My sense is that attitudes shift regarding the free market among the wealthy has been outpacing academic inquiry, which is still very rooted in neoliberal ideas.

20 hours ago, zapatos said:

Seriously?

Yes, it may sound counterintuitive, but most of what the wealthy/powerful elite's do is try to make us fear the consequences of them taking away their money/power.

We're supposed to sit in the gutter and await all the riches, that 'will' trickle down. 🙄

If we all stop giving a shit and learn how to survive in the gutter, we take away their superpower, basically the emperors new clothes.

55 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Yes, it may sound counterintuitive, but most of what the wealthy/powerful elite's do is try to make us fear the consequences of them taking away their money/power.

Well, maybe you know better than me. I thought their goal wasn't to play mind games, but was instead to actually get the money.

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Yes, it may sound counterintuitive, but most of what the wealthy/powerful elite's do is try to make us fear the consequences of them taking away their money/power.

We're supposed to sit in the gutter and await all the riches, that 'will' trickle down. 🙄

If we all stop giving a shit and learn how to survive in the gutter, we take away their superpower, basically the emperors new clothes.

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Yes, it may sound counterintuitive, but most of what the wealthy/powerful elite's do is try to make us fear the consequences of them taking away their money/power.

We're supposed to sit in the gutter and await all the riches, that 'will' trickle down. 🙄

If we all stop giving a shit and learn how to survive in the gutter, we take away their superpower, basically the emperors new clothes.

It is counterintuitive, simply because this is the losing strategy we've been using for quite some time, learning to live with less, tightening the belt, etc. It's the most acceptable strategy to the 1%, since living in the gutter still requires them to build us gutters. Being poor doesn't take away their superpowers, it enhances them. They always have the police if you get too independent in your gutter.

What's needed is for 99% of us to give way more of a shit. So many problems in the US disappear if we simply tax earnings over a set amount by 100%. If we could get that past Congress, it would change the way businesses exploit the market.

Yup.

The 0.1% have convinced the lowest ~50% that the reason they’re not doing well is that others in that group are stealing from them in some way, or are somehow at fault

Having oligarchs tell people to make do with less while they grab as much as they can? They can eff off into the sun.

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

Well, maybe you know better than me. I thought their goal wasn't to play mind games, but was instead to actually get the money.

I mean, that's part of it, but especially in the US there is a long-established worship of capitalism, likely as a response to the red scare. It is a bit hard to explain, but there is a bit of difference in mindset compared to a number of European countries, which have moved a little bit into that direction, but are not quite as much there.

But the consequence is that folks conflate capitalism with freedom so that restricting the upward motion of wealth will somehow bring the downfall of society.

5 hours ago, CharonY said:

But the consequence is that folks conflate capitalism with freedom so that restricting the upward motion of wealth will somehow bring the downfall of society.

I don't think the average American could actually tell you what capitalism is because it is not at all uncommon for there to be large public outcry when it gets put into practice; think robber barons or "price gouging" after a disaster snd during other shortages.

Well in response to capitalism do you guys agree it is the best system? It doesn’t mean it’s fair. Some people will always have advantages. But at least the average guy has a chance.

I know this comes from fiction but some writer but it in the Star Trek books to reflect the same problems of capitalism. That is that Captain Kirk could not understand how poverty was eliminated in captain Picard’s time. Kirk couldn’t understand how the resources to build the enterprise with no payments existed.

How would you motivate and control a country without capitalism? And still have freedom?

But I don’t think Elon and Trump are now motivated by money. I don’t know what Trumps goal is. Why is he changing a working economy? It’s not to conserve resources.

I think Elon like Trump actually think they are saving America. Have a drop in population go father 14 kids.

I know CharonY didn’t think that Trump wasn’t smart enough to ruin other countries economies by weaponizing trade. I believe Warren Buffet commented on this a few days ago.

But both Elon and Trump are extremely smart. I know Trump looks like an idiot on the news. He is a genius. He has been manipulating people and money to get what he wants his entire life.

The problem is he can now manipulate the world’s economy.

6 hours ago, Trurl said:

Well in response to capitalism do you guys agree it is the best system? It doesn’t mean it’s fair. Some people will always have advantages. But at least the average guy has a chance.

There are multiple possibilities under the broad label of capitalism. Pure, unadulterated capitalism is horrible, which is why laws and regulations exist, and why most countries have socialist policies in place. Even the wealthy like socialism when it’s to their advantage, even as they use the label as a scapegoat.

19 hours ago, Phi for All said:

It is counterintuitive, simply because this is the losing strategy we've been using for quite some time, learning to live with less, tightening the belt, etc. It's the most acceptable strategy to the 1%, since living in the gutter still requires them to build us gutters. Being poor doesn't take away their superpowers, it enhances them. They always have the police if you get too independent in your gutter.

What's needed is for 99% of us to give way more of a shit. So many problems in the US disappear if we simply tax earnings over a set amount by 100%. If we could get that past Congress, it would change the way businesses exploit the market.

It's nuanced from start to finish, it's a brave new world.

First we get money and the idea of a fair exchange, then we get the climbers who use both, fear of the future and hope in the future, in order to tip the scales ever so slightly in their favour (your classic casino gambit) and so on and so on... Eventually we get Trumpism, a narcissism so advanced that it doesn't care if the 99% even exists.

Now and then we need a savage to say "let's calm down and read a bit of Shakespeare to get some perspective.

It's kind of what Nietzche was trying to say in his, parable of a madman.

12 hours ago, Trurl said:

Well in response to capitalism do you guys agree it is the best system? It doesn’t mean it’s fair. Some people will always have advantages. But at least the average guy has a chance.

As @swansont, pointed out, there are no real purely capitalist systems, every economic system is somewhere on the spectrum. The trick is to treat wherever your favourite position is on the spectrum as the best possible option.

12 hours ago, Trurl said:

I know CharonY didn’t think that Trump wasn’t smart enough to ruin other countries economies by weaponizing trade. I believe Warren Buffet commented on this a few days ago.

You got me wrong, it is because he is stupid he is ruining other economies, but also the US economy.

12 hours ago, Trurl said:

know Trump looks like an idiot on the news. He is a genius. He has been manipulating people and money to get what he wants his entire life.

He is good at manipulating people, though I don't get why folks fall for it. However, as many other folks pointed out, what he did is to take the money from a huge successful real estate company from his father and made a much smaller company from that. His real success is that he got away with a lot of dubious things, but if had just invested his father's earnings he would have earned money. His by far biggest success was not in business but as a reality TV star in the apprentice. And as the producers have stated, they needed heavy editing to not make him look like a moron

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/14/business/donald-trump-apprentice.html?unlocked_article_code=1.FU8.116F.OD02-jt3FsNo&smid=url-share

13 hours ago, Trurl said:

But both Elon and Trump are extremely smart.

All actual evidence to the contrary.

13 hours ago, Trurl said:

He is a genius

Nothing says genius like four bankrupt casinos.

15 hours ago, Trurl said:

But both Elon and Trump are extremely smart.

I think you're equating wealth with brains. Both Elon and Trump are extremely corrupt.

15 hours ago, Trurl said:

I know Trump looks like an idiot on the news.

He looks like an idiot on the news shows YOU watch?! Wow!

The mainstream press went after Biden on senility, but they pretty much leaves TFG alone every time he talks like an idiot. They must think it makes them look bad to criticize someone who obviously isn't very smart.

15 hours ago, Trurl said:

He has been manipulating people and money to get what he wants his entire life.

The problem is he can now manipulate the world’s economy.

The problem is you seem to be OK with this.