anubistheta

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.