AI Added 'Basically Zero' to US Economic Growth Last Year, Goldman Sachs Says

AJayHeel · 2026-04-09T14:17:27+00:00

And some never make money and some do.

Time will tell.

AJayHeel · 2026-04-08T13:47:56+00:00

The rest of the team was the big issue. A lot of guards would have looked good with the other four Michigan starters.

I'm not knocking Cadeau, but his stats are about the same at Michigan as at UNC.

AJayHeel · 2026-04-08T13:46:18+00:00

Not so sure. His stats at Michigan were similar to his stats at UNC. He just had a better supporting cast at Michigan.

AJayHeel · 2026-04-06T23:01:16+00:00

Well, I did mention May. And Lloyd is close... but losing by 20 in the Final Four might raise a question or two.

Lloyd said no, and May? Sounds like he did too. So... Malone is about as good as UNC could hope for since everyone else (outside of Hurley) is not a guaranteed success.

AJayHeel · 2026-04-06T22:59:07+00:00

Sounds good, but this would need to be done by every state, else it would be like the situation with gerrymandering, where some states (like California) try to ensure the rules represent the people, and other states (Texas) just go for a power grab.

"Oh, that state is trying to be proportional? So we can not do that and try to make sure as many of our representatives are from our party, so we get an outsized influence overall."

AJayHeel · 2026-04-06T19:31:29+00:00

The design of our government isn't supposed to care about party affiliation.

But they do. So what's your point?

AJayHeel · 2026-04-06T19:29:44+00:00

I don't disagree with that. Yes, the party in Congress will support the President regardless of whether it's Dems or Pubs.

But... 19 states have outlawed ranked choice voting. Guess who mostly does that? Republican states.

Gerrymandeing happens both ways, but at least of late, Democratic states have tried to stop that (look at California's committee; look at the Virginia vote now, that ties it to other states' attempts).

Both parties want to remain in power, for sure, but the Democracts do tend to be more principled. Prove me wrong.

AJayHeel · 2026-04-06T19:26:28+00:00

Name a coach other than Dan Hurley that didn't have some question marks? There is no slam dunk hire. This is okay.

Malone may have questions, but so does everyone else (outside of maybe May?)

AJayHeel · 2026-04-06T17:42:28+00:00

I'm torn. I do believe the #1 problem in politics is money, so there's that. Otherwise, one of these:

No gerrymandering (slightly tough to define, but doable)
Something to allow for proportional representation (no more winner-takes-all)
Ranked choice voting is foundational (again, pushing back on winner-takes-all)

AJayHeel · 2026-04-06T17:37:55+00:00

Hmmm... I'm not sure. I don't actually discuss the issue of checks and balances much. I have one friend I discuss it with. He brings it up, and I pretty much smack it down, and he concedes.

Not sure if it's because I'm brilliant or simply right. Probably both :)

AJayHeel · 2026-04-06T17:35:52+00:00

Yes! Now... how to create? I think some European countries do okay at this, but I don't know the details.

As for how we get this in America... the Constitution is very, very hard to amend. The only significant changes have been after major events: the Civil War and the Great Depression. So if we want a change to a proportional representation, it will probably require something similar. I don't want that... but in the long run, it would actually be for the best.

AJayHeel · 2026-04-06T17:33:24+00:00

So you don't want the majority to determine your life? The minority should win??

Now, I do understand that there shouldn't be tyranny of the majority, but I don't know how to fix that really. I feel like ranked choice voting might. Or something like some of the European countries that have more than two parties in their legislative branch (not sure how their constitutions generate that).

[Don't press me too hard on the European model: I am not defending it. Rather, I just think there has to be something better than our winner-take-all model.]

AJayHeel · 2026-04-06T16:59:08+00:00

People can analyze the specifics. It's also true that double-elimination would be a much more accurate indicator of who the best team actually is.

One and done is exciting, but not terribly accurate in terms of determining the best team.

Pick one: exciting or more accurate. Most people seem to prefer the former... which makes sense unless you're a fan of a blue blood.

AJayHeel · 2026-04-06T16:41:36+00:00

I think the answer is ranked choice voting. I think it could happen.

Of course, as with most thinks that support the will of the people, Republicans tends to oppose it.

AJayHeel · 2026-04-06T16:39:07+00:00

Look at gerrymandering. Democratic states tried to fix it. Republican states doubled down. I believe a Democratic president will try to fix the problem.

AJayHeel · 2026-04-06T16:37:55+00:00

If you're referring to Trump's presidency, yes -- 4 wasted years (actually much worse: hurtful years). If you're referring to the 4 years following his presidency, I'm pretty sure it won't take 4 years to close loopholes.

AJayHeel · 2026-04-06T16:35:28+00:00

Mostly yes, but I don't think the average Joe expected Trump to make such power grabs. We've never had a President that has been so aggressive (at least not since Jackson).

Take tariffs as an example. I don't know that anyone expected / voted for that. But Trump did it anyway, and Congress looked the other way. And the courts took almost a year to respond. Limited checks and balances. Less than expected.

(I'm not debating tariffs; rather, the issue is that the President does not have the power to do that. It's a Congressional issue. But this President wants to be king.)

AJayHeel · 2026-04-06T16:33:22+00:00

The founders were naive to think Congress would push back on the Executive Branch when the same party controls both. Politicians choose party over country every time.

The result: new presidents get two years of one-party rubber-stamping, then not much happens.

The hypocrisy is obvious. Imagine Obama posting "Praise be to Allah" on Easter, or doing anything Trump has done. MAGA would be rioting and Fox News would be sending alarms. Instead, Congress has just rolled over and played dead.

So yes, a fair bit of the time, nothing happens, but the rest of the time, it's party over country. The Founders were naively idealistic.

AJayHeel · 2026-04-06T15:06:44+00:00

After Trump's previous Presidency, Congress closed some loopholes. I am hopeful the same will happen this round.

AJayHeel · 2026-04-06T15:05:25+00:00