catawbasam

Hmm. Maybe google "Hoover Institution".

Most travel modes have a downside. For example, car and suv drivers routinely speed through pedestrian crossings and kill large numbers of pedestrians.

Scooters may be annoying, but at least they aren't deadly.

It can discuss the nature of intelligence, for example.

Some hedge funds may have lost billions, but frackers are printing money at current price levels.

Health insurance. Which manufacturing companies in other countries don't have to deal with.

Solar PV, battery technologies, and smart phone transaction systems are areas where China is playing a leading role. They are competitive in EVs and Automated Vehicles. I'm sure there are others. The US isn't even in the game any more for many consumer products.

My experience is that the rich kids mostly bring food, because the cafeteria food is terrible.

That's a big problem in most of the US, especially the Coasts. Not so much in Texas.

Nope. My kid got taught about the evil Crusaders attacking the innocent Muslims.

It would meet a need in the US if restricted to low-speed roads, eg for older drivers. Maybe young drivers and low-income people too. At low speed you just don't need a lot of the fancy stuff.

Also add: - debt service related to infrastructure - higher transportation related costs, eg for school buses, fire fighting, parking related building costs But I agree Strongtown arguments tend to ignore other big cost categories.

If you define collectivism is group activity enforced by violence vs voluntarism being group activity not enforced by violence then this entire discussion is a word game and a waste of time.

This was a pretty small slice of the stimulus.

Not "Fifth largest in this part of the country"

Rather "Fifth largest .. this year in the lower 48 U.S. states", which is pretty large area.

And the reps are often smoking hot, so docs don't mind making a bit of time for conversation.