Is it straightforward to get Congress to make it revenue neutral? And to keep it revenue neutral? I don't think so. Politicians find "free money for everybody" to be too easy a way of getting votes.
Community ownership does share across sectors if the community owns both sectors. Why would it not?
Also, you haven't really answered the point. You may be able to get this established. But how do you keep it established? How do you keep the elite ownership class from dismantling it? (Based on historically observed behavior, the default assumption is that they will try.) If you don't have a plan that accounts for that, you don't really have a workable plan.
I didn't say that tackling the elite class wasn't important.
But saying that the existence of an elite class implies regulatory capture is a step beyond that.
Regulatory capture is absolutely a problem. While one could advocate for eliminating the elite class (e.g. wealth taxes, confiscation, execution ... as you wish), I'd probably go for tightly controlled political donations & spending, combined with a strong anti-corruption culture (which has been severely damaged by, ahem, recent administrations).
I don't think anybody but those that are really close to the halls of power and have sufficient capital to engage in large scale lobbying is going to be able to achieve regulatory capture. So I suspect there is significant, maybe even perfect over lap between the groups that could achieve regulatory capture and the ones that actually do, and that outside of that group it is pointless to even try. You can get into the club by lucky accident, you stay in the club through regulatory capture.
Regulatory capture requires that laws (or regulations) are drafted that favor your interests. The only ways I am aware of for that to happen are:
(a) sufficient political donations/bribes to get lawmakers to draft suitable language themselves (or via their staff)
(b) a combination of political donations and a worldview on the part of lawmakers in which it is "just normal" for those affected by regulations to draft them, such that you yourself are able to draft the legislation.
There are levels of government where neither of these require incredible levels of wealth, I suspect.
Both could be stopped by limiting political donations and a political culture in which "the chemical industry writes its own rules" is self-evidently corrupt and/or non-sensical.
True, but the USA has institutionalized the power of money in politics to the point that this is now a reality: what would be called outright bribery elsewhere is called campaign donations, there are lobbyists who get to write the laws that favor their paymasters and in fact it has been argued that 'money is speech' (it doesn't get much more bizarre than that to me). What Musk did during the last elections would get you jail in some 3rd world countries, you know, where they take voting serious.
Whether any of these require incredible levels of wealth or not is moot, I think. The reason for that is that it only matters when 'lesser levels of wealth' come up against 'greater levels of wealth' and the latter will always win that confrontation.
If you can manage to believe in a system of 1 person 1 vote for just a bit longer, or maybe even 3 poor people 1 vote, then I think there is still plenty of space for "lesser levels of wealth" to overcome "greater levels of wealth". There are simpler more of us than there are of them.
OK, but the same response still applies. There still are plenty of arguments against UBI, and you still need to actually refute them rather than just dismiss them with "they're false or moot".
"Looks good" might be something not everyone agrees on for Lisp, but once you've seen S-expressions, XML looks terrible. Disgustingly verbose and heavyweight.
Even ethically, this is only true if you think the ethics of the place are so bad that sabotage is warranted. That's not every place that you have ethical problems with.
To do that (and hide it), you have to become a dishonest person yourself. That is ethically destructive to you. So the threshold for doing this should be pretty high.
Depends on your definition. He's sure not what was considered "conservative" a decade or two ago. But he is what is currently labeled "conservative".
The older definition was small government, limited federal power, fiscally conservative, protect the Constitution. The new definition is... something very different.
This hasn't been true for probably over 40 years. Every conservative presidency has resulted in causing more budgetary issues, increasing the power of the feds and chipping away at the constitution. You can look at the actions taken and the budget over the years. Reagan massively blew up the national debt with Reaganomics, George W followed in his wake and so did Trump. The new definition of the GOP is just what happens when the mask fully falls off and they don't feel a need to lie to people.
If I were given an electrical design, I would expect a schematic, a parts list, a board layout, and a theory of operations" - a prose document explaining why the rest of the stuff is the way it is.
My last job, there was the code itself, and there were UML class and sequence diagrams. But there wasn't anything like a theory of operations. That made it very difficult to learn, because it was so object oriented that you couldn't tell what anything actually did. Or, more to the point, when you needed to make a modification, you couldn't find where to make it without heroic feats of exploration.
So I think that's the great need. A human needs to sit down and write out why the code does what it does, and why it's organized the way it is, and where the parts are that are most likely to be needed, and where to make the most likely changes. I'm not sure an AI can write that - certainly AIs at the current level cannot.
If you can show that the death of Franz Ferdinand necessarily caused tech layoffs in 2026, I'll listen. I don't think you can, though.
reply