When you tax these big companies, they may try to move to another state, but if it’s coming at a federal level it’s not something a company can get away from without exiting the market as a whole. Which, would be a foolish choice for any company to make if they want to retain the money they made in that economy. They can’t exactly cash out if they are in the stock market for instance. Furthermore, any company that would like to leave would leave behind a hole in the market for a competitor to fill.

If companies flee to Canada for instance but are not already in the Canadian market, then they are having to compete against existing companies in that market. They may falsely assume that the consumers there will have the same buying preferences that they have in the US. This was the case for Starbucks for instance when they were trying to enter the Italian coffee market a while back and failed as a result of them not trying to understand local demands.

There’s a bit of a misunderstanding of how money works in macro economics. A competent government doesn’t run out of money, effectively, since they have power over the money supply. Now, you can’t really just print more money in the long run and expect everything to work out, but if your money is backed by assets then ‘you’, the government, can spend it to fuel the economy.

Money spent = The economy keeps spinning

Money not spent = Great Depression

Money being spent is such a good thing for the economy, that it is the entire reason most country’s economies want a little bit of inflation ~1-2%. When the economy is put in a state where it is propped up by big corporations, those corporations not spending money actually slows down the economy and in some ways actually lowers their potential to earn more money down the line.

Money not getting spent means there is less money to go around to upskill the workforce, there’s less projects getting started, and less jobs means less money getting created by work.

It’s feasible by taxing corporations more, that’s the important part.

You don’t necessarily need to compete with China if your panels are made with more ethical and sustainable business practices. In theory you make a deal with your allies to buy yours because you went the extra mile to do it right. You’d want other goods in such a deal though if you want to take the pressure off of China because they are able to produce theirs via less sustainable practices.

On the grand scale, we’re pretty late in terms of manufacturing to compete with China unless we did something more drastic like convincing a lot of people to live and work in the US. We could be a bit protectionist about our fledgling industries if we want to scale manufacturing more, but that will bring some trading trade-offs with any countries that we don’t have a trade deal with.

Our economy is mostly service oriented because we did all this offshore manufacturing decades ago, but now workers have less access to manufacturing jobs although there is still room in the market for our manufacturing sector to grow.

Nuclear power, solar/wind/hydro/thermal? power, public transit projects, forest management and other ecological projects that can all create jobs.

Which battery project in particular are you saying is a failure? Can you provide a source for what makes it a failure?

I’ve heard recently that solar panels have been having breakthroughs that extend their useable-life.

I’m sure ramping up and subsidizing local production of solar panels could make it more eco-friendly. However, I’m personally interested in nuclear power, specifically getting thorium reactor projects going.

Greenists would open up newer green industries and create new infrastructure projects. With all the help being thrown around the might not even be people going hungry or ending up on the streets.

I feel that communicating your concerns with other parents and their school can help. I feel it can make sense to have some forms of socialization when they are in middle school or high school, but even then you’d want a pretty locked down system, imo.

I feel that not every parent is going to let their kids use technologically to talk to their friends, especially not all the time. That’s not how I grew up and I was fine developmentally speaking. As a parent you can seek out other parents that live by similar philosophy locally for your kids to have as friends as well.

Agreed, unless the system itself is changed, at the state level, within each state, to use a different voting system. Which is worth pursuing btw, and something Alaska and Maine have both pulled off.

I’m so tired of seeing people getting mad about the two party system, but not even bringing up the fact we can totally change the system to use a form of Ranked Choice Voting, just by getting signatures to put it on the ballot! Well at least for over half the states this method works.

People’s energy would be much better spent advocating for groups like the Equal Vote Coalition or Fair Vote. Both of those groups desperately need volunteers and could actually use the social media advocacy given they are getting single digit support on Fediverse sites currently.

Accelerationism won’t get you what you want, it just ensures authoritarians are in power no matter what. Historically, these people don’t care about redistributing squat.

Focused changed at a local level can actually bear fruit and can be scaled up. Social programs can already create an economic floor, even under our current capitalist system. For instance, Universal Basic Income implemented at a state level or federal level would solve the economic woes people encounter.

If you think your framework has any grounds of legitimacy you should be able to think of how to even make it possible on a small scale level.

What’s functionally stopping you from living on a commune on an empty dot on a map or a deserted island and making your dream of no government a reality with your peers?

What a refreshing conclusion to the story, it’s nice to read about these positive outcomes where the couple grows from the experience.

Open communication is one of the core things that makes relationships last imo.

Functionally many of those people have never known life can be different. The benefit of Blue presidents barely gets felt in their states because of their Red state and local governments. But the Red state and local governments just point the finger at the Federal government, whenever Dems are in power, as the source of all their problems.

If the same wording is used with these same people, but pointing their issues to be the mega-corporations and the billionaires, then many of them do listen. The thing is, they want a simple fix, they want a simple solution, because they don’t have an educational background nor the time to sift through the nitty gritty. They’re okay with be lied to even, just so long as they’re being told the work is getting done regardless of what they may hear.

Realistically the voting system in each state needs to be changed, otherwise it’s a bit of a moot point to vote third party in many instances.

The thing is that it’s definitely something achievable to change the system. Alaska and Maine both have Ranked Choice voting. NYC has Ranked Choice voting as well.

If groups supporting ranked choice voting, like the Equal Vote Coalition or FairVote, get more support then it becomes more than just a pipe dream, and third parties will have a legitimate chance to win without having the spoiler effect being a major disincentive.

The quiet part is there wasn’t a plan to tax the rich for another decade or two when they thought shit would actually hit the fan. Shit hit the fan much sooner than they hoped, as this was an issue they were going to leave the next generation to handle. It’s more an issue of the baby boomers having had control of the DNC for decades.

Business was booming during the Obama years; why did it matter to the rich people in Congress if the rest of us had to hustle more? That’s the real reason they didn’t tax the rich when they could have, well that and they were getting tons of funding from the big businesses.

The pro-corporate Dem plans went up in flames quite a lot when Hillary was not elected. Now that shit got worse much sooner than they hoped, they’re in a rock and a hard place because they still don’t want to tax their rich buddies but the voters are actually pushing to vote them out if they keep doing nothing.

I can believe it a bit. I feel like LA gets influenced quite a lot culturally from Hollywood, and it’s morphed into a lot of fakeness, a competitive atmosphere, and lots of people trying to front being wealthy or coming from money.

I don’t think that’s everyone, but some of my friends that moved to LA struggled with the clicky-ness of the place and another I visited had friends that all were money focused and wanting to flex their wealth or their family’s wealth.