Thanks for sharing that info. Definitely sounds like it might have been a good idea in the past but now overdo for a change. Sad that the current PM wants to continue destruction to get votes.

Seems like a good example of how policies need to be implemented with a forward-thinking mentality. Can’t rely on future changes.

The cost of solar and wind is becoming so attractive, it’s hard to see why anyone would do otherwise.

The elephant in the room (at least for the US; I’m not as familiar with UK policies) are the subsidies. It sparks new investments because many of the incentives are specifically related to new projects. Other ones mess with the valuation of the equipment, making long term tax burden much lower. It’s not the only energy industry to receive subsidies. But it’s pretty asinine to continue to support the one that’s destroying our world.

“In one case, it’s going to profit, amplifying the incumbent status of the oil and gas industry. In another, under more aggressive decarbonization policy and low oil and gas prices, it’s actively working against the climate goal by spurring additional production.”

https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/fossil-fuels/subsidies-really-do-matter-to-the-us-oil-gas-industry-one-in-particular

For sure. The US was once a leader with its public infrastructure and programs, from education to the highway system. Paying BIG money to provide these incredible public services.

Now it seems like a lot of people in the US want to live in a place with zero public projects, crumbling roads, and unregulated utilities. Even wealthy people who waste money on the dumbest stuff don’t want to pay for top-notch public services. I truly don’t understand how you’d want to be so wealthy but live in a place that’s not well cared for. Drive your insanely expensive car on a road filled with potholes. But selfishness and greed are definitely part of the picture.

Creating new public infrastructure in the US can be extremely expensive, but it’s definitely still worth pursuing.

Nearly every in-depth study shows that for every $1 invested, the economic return is somewhere around $4-$5. And on top of that, failing to have adequate public infrastructure can cause serious economic consequences, which are compounded in areas with a lack of affordable housing.

Even though this article is a little old and sponsored by a party with a vested interest on the topic, I think it’s worth a read:

https://www.politico.com/sponsor-content/2018/06/when-public-transit

In my opinion, the problem for the US is convincing people/businesses that it’s worth it. Shifting away from cars and increasing investments in public infrastructure are two fairly unpopular measures right now, despite the actual economic evidence being overwhelming positive.

To me, it’s a solid example of where great leaders are needed to do something temporarily unpopular for the long term benefit of the constituents.

Yes, one quarter of decreased profits. Sales for the same quarter are only down 20%.

Another article says “The company still expects full-year net sales in a range between 23.2 billion euros and 24.6 billion euros, sticking to its forecast.”

I understand that it’s sometimes necessary for companies to trim the fat. But with annual net sales still on track and the company making healthy profits for many quarters running, it sure sucks for those 14,000 people that one bad quarter is being used as the reason that they’ll no longer be able to pay their bills.

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2023/10/19/nokia-to-cut-up-to-14000-jobs-after-profit-plunges-.html

Yeah, and I have no idea where you are, but this goes far beyond the suspect cities like San Francisco. Not only are many of these workers spread out in tons of cities across the US (and world), it will also hurt wherever their funds were flowing to and the supply chains associated with them. Travel, electronics, food/dining, home furnishings, hobbies of all sorts, etc.

Another big difference is that a lot of these are “new money” people. And I’m not using that in a derogatory sense. It just means that their spending is likely to be much higher than “old money” individuals hitting the same payday.

If you’ve always had $10 million, you don’t go out and start buying shit like crazy even if you make another $2 m. But if it’s your first $2 m, you’re likely to go spend A LOT of it.

And that’s real economic growth. It’s the opposite of trickle-down economics (which just causes more hoarding of wealth and slowing of money exchanging hands).

As much as I feel for the people hit hard right now, I think this is an economic indicator that‘s going to cause many downstream consequences if it continues.

On top of the downward trends by the tech titans, venture capital funding is plummeting. That’s because the VC investors can see that the likelihood of a big successful buyout is decreasing, mostly because the big fish are tightening their belts and facing higher borrowing costs (interest rates).

Many big companies have effectively outsourced R&D, waiting until a startup creates something worth buying instead. Then the VC employees either got a nice payout or employment with the big company (or both).

These often massive transactions were the source of serious economic growth. Those people had stability to spend in a way that many others wish. In the face of crappy outlooks and flat wages in tons of other fields, tech has long been the outlier making plenty of middle income people shoot up in wealth. And it did bring along others for the ride.

That growth drying up is not good for anyone. Well, unless you’re waiting on a market crash.

Very true. Even just writing (or rewriting) the regulations is full of ways to get whatever the executive branch wants.

“It’s a big club, and you ain’t in it.” George Carlin

I get what you’re saying, but there’s a lot more to separation of powers than this. You might be well aware of all this, but for those that aren’t, here’s a giant wall of text.

The executive branch’s powers are clearly defined and including acting as the head of the military, the head of foreign affairs, and the executor of the laws congress passes. It is quite restricted by congress in many ways. Of course, the executive branch has emergency powers and limited ways around the laws congress enacts, but that’s not the default and it is very much intended to be restricted by congress.

The executive branch also has room to make interpretations (create regulations) and to prioritize certain laws when they come into conflict.

This is what they’re doing here. They have weighed the laws (from congress) they are tasked with enforcing, which includes (a) specific immigration restrictions and (b) a variety of other ones that could impact their ability to execute the immigration restrictions (the “26” laws waived, including water and environmental protections). The DHS (an executive branch agency) has determined that (b) these 26 place an undue burden that prevents them from executing (a) the immigration restrictions, and is therefore temporarily waiving (b).

You can read the actual order here: https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2023-22176.pdf

Notice that it does not say it’s randomly waiving laws of its own accord without a law that it is executing. It is clearly referencing the statues (enacted by congress) that it is acting on. It is identifying that it is failing to execute some laws, but only so it can prioritize another one it has deemed more important for this specific action. It’s also become popular for the executive branch to use emergency decrees to act unilaterally, but these are supposed to be much more limited and a functioning judiciary/congress should hold the executive accountable when this happens.

What the executive branch is NOT doing here is very important too. It is NOT deciding it doesn’t want to do what congress says. Congress could rewrite the immigration law or any of the other 26 laws to change the way the executive branch executes them, if it feels the executive is implementing them wrong. And the judicial branch could easily weigh in on this if someone affected brings the case to them.

deleted by creator

Especially if you don’t give a flying fuck about using an established process or doing so legally

It applies to anywhere. The problem isn’t one situation. It’s this same story, repeated thousands of times in every city across the globe.

Bobby wants to live in a house. Monthly rent prices are usually around $1,000 per month in his home town.

Joe wants to make money by renting out a house on AirBnb. Hotel prices are usually around $200 per night in the same location. If Joe rents out his house for just 10 nights a month, he can make $2,000. This easily covers Joe’s expenses and puts the extra cash in his bank account. If he rents it out for 25 nights, he’s putting away a lot of cash.

When houses are up for sale, Bobby can only spend a similar cost as his rent. Joe has been watching his bank account climb and is ready to spend a lot on another house to put on AirBnb. Joe can make a profit even if the house is double the price.

Bobby’s landlord sees housing prices rise. Decides to either (1) increase Bobby’s rent to $2,000 - which he can’t afford or (2) sell the house to someone like Joe for a major markup.

Bobby has to move in with roommates and will never be able to afford to buy a home when competing against all the Joes out there.

Huge. The short term rental housing boom is unlike almost anything we’ve seen before. Estimates put short term rentals as about 20% of the global real estate market.

If that demand drops rapidly, it will mark a major shift. Tons of buyers and capital will be wiped off the table.

I agree with the usual perspective that housing prices almost always rise over time. But this is an unprecedented event in scale, and if reversed, it will have unprecedented ramifications.

It is a serious crisis in many places throughout the world. Especially considering the income stagnation. I have lived in many cities and have heard this cry across multiple continents, from coast to coast, and at most income levels (except the ultra wealthy).

What I’m hoping becomes more popular are ways to make the short term rentals not as profitable. I really like the idea what other cities are doing by limiting the number of days they can rent it out.

Sure, rent it out for 45 days a year and get $10k total revenue and try to scrape out a profit. Or rent out the unit as your primary residence for the entire year for a similar cost.

It’s not absolutely perfect, but it will greatly reduce those willing to buy places to use as an investment for short term rentals. And that should put negative pressure on housing prices, while also opening up more units for primary residence housing.

Nope. First production one completed in July, nearly four years after the first press release. Supposedly customer deliveries at some point of Q3 2023, which is basically down to a month left.

https://www.notateslaapp.com/news/1519/tesla-officially-completes-first-cybertruck-but-we-ll-have-to-wait-for-first-deliveries

Setting aside anything related to Musk, Tesla really doesn’t seem to be staying competitive.

Cybertruck (and the “indestructible” window press conference) is probably the easiest example. Years of attempted hype that haven’t paid off in a meaningful manner, while rivals have been releasing in-class competition. Anyone can see that’s a problem.

Tesla cars used to be pretty revolutionary, now they’re in an entirely different era that’s filling with exciting EV alternatives around every corner. Yet Tesla style still looks the same. The shoddy construction is still around and becoming more widespread knowledge. They’re failing to attract their target audience due to a long series of missteps. More problems.

Not to mention that Tesla was downright overpriced at its height. It’s a fraction of the volume yet made other automaker valuations look minuscule. The logic for that was never there.

Very interested to see how the “small government” crowd deals with this.

Money is the key and I agree it will take some massive disruption to overcome the current state… But just because someone holds the cash now, doesn’t mean they always will. History teaches that lesson over and over again, especially with new technology.

Uber vs taxi monopolies. Netflix vs Blockbuster. Apple vs BlackBerry.

The technical challenges are real and there’s definitely some time before it goes mainstream, but it seems almost inevitable for this to be the future of gaming.

Streaming movies was once thought unrealistic. Subscription music used to be a fringe product. Even online gaming through consoles/PCs has gone through tremendous change.

Like all the other streaming products, the creators are the ones positioned to get the short end of the stick. Hopefully that can be avoided.