cake_robot

That was via law passed by congress not executive fiat, which Trump's executive branch was illegally delaying until it was sold to a political ally.

What might feel like "damage control" is more likely to be the outcome of the even-handedness you get with serious, rigorous reporting. Something the New Yorker is known for.

Yeah, the panopticon is now technically very feasible it's just expensive to implement (for now).

Yes absolutely. They're a perfect example of the unique issues w/ collective bargaining for public services.

The point of prior recent investments in tax police (that the GOP worked to claw back) was specifically to enable the enforcement of complex cases (rich people) that they didn't have the bandwidth to engage.

IDK given where they've gone w/ Xbox naming, pre-LLMs

Just taking your first example, yes I believe you could characterize a lot of the investments in electrification as speculative bubbles even though there was underlying value that was borne out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Utility_Holding_Company...

Would you say the Chinese government is operating more short-term than "people with children"?

When someone pays for labor to build an apartment building they profit off for decades, do they amortize that labor?

Maybe it's not the bulk of the cost but site development fees for a new ADU in Portland are like $40k, to say nothing of the cost of actually getting approval checked off.

Internalizing externalities is good, actually.

Internalizing the costs you create are good though. In a perfect world I would think weight x miles would be what you'd want to tax on. I say this as someone who owns an EV; I should have to account for the higher road deterioration my heavier vehicle causes. If someone's income is too low you fix that other ways than trying to subsidize their externalizing behaviors.

Trump campaigned on BROAD BASED tariffs, not the targeted actions you're describing. Maybe he's bluffing but the effects are very different.