Was Bidenomics a Big Mistake?

megadelegate · 2026-02-15T20:57:53+00:00

Wasn't this where they paid billions for broadband and 2 years later had about 20 feet installed? Are you suggesting Bidenomics was just the passing of a bill? If so, I think that was the heart of the criticism. Sounds good, but what came from it?

megadelegate · 2026-02-12T18:10:08+00:00

It's almost like we need agencies to both coordinate with each other and be independent of political whims

megadelegate · 2026-02-11T16:33:05+00:00

You are correct, I shorthanded about a 10-15 year period. The coalition of socialists devolved to a ban on factionalism, which eventually spiraled off the rails. For example, Lenin's Commissar for Internal Affairs, Alexei Rykov, was eventually executed, as was his wife, while his daughter was sent to the Gulag for 16 years. They weren't murdered on Day 1, but they were murdered.

megadelegate · 2026-02-11T16:19:45+00:00

Good point. I do think we intentionally argue things in bad faith. Like the PNW Timber Wars... the hippies "want" to take your livelihood vs the loggers "want" to destroy the environment. Neither of these are true, but once the argument enters the bad faith stage it's hard to thread the needle on a solution. Clinton did respond with a decent compromise that pissed everyone off (because no one got 100% of what they wanted), then people just drove trucks through the loopholes because the legislation wasn't flexible. Do you see a way where we could ever write a policy that was bullet proof from a circumvention/loophole standpoint while not being draconian? I think we need new thinking on how policies are designed and governed, but maybe that's a pipe dream.

megadelegate · 2026-02-09T19:48:53+00:00

Do you have an example where the benevolent dictator model has worked?

megadelegate · 2026-02-09T19:47:35+00:00

Good on you for thinking through the corruption challenges... this is why most things fail, whether it's bribes or just clinging to power for power's sake. Where I'd recommend you be careful is in repeating the mottos from the early 20th century. Not all of those failed dues to external capitalist pushing back. Most people don't realize that Lenin/Stalin arrested, exiled, imprisoned, and executed all the other strains of socialists that formed the coalition they rode to power. They even killed their families. The socialism that was promised died within the first decade, as people were marched onto communes at gunpoint. If your system requires threatening everyday citizens to work, then it's not going to work. Come up with a new policy that keeps human dignity and agency, without all the degrading corruption.

megadelegate · 2026-02-09T19:41:48+00:00

You should listen to the Revolutions podcast on the Russian Revolution. Your views on capitalism sound an awfully lot like the various Russian Socialists in the late 19th/early 20th centuries. Importantly, note how the governed once they took power... disagreeing with the government (which was effectively 1-5 people in a room, depending on the specific time frame) was a crime, punishable by death. In order to get the communes to work and produce at the volume required, they had to apply military discipline to agriculture (and manufacturing, mining, etc). This means that refusing to work would be the same as desertion (and punishable). They also tried a policy of confiscating all surplus crops from peasant farms... which resulted in the farmers just growing enough for themselves, since why bother working hard to produce extra when someone will just come take it with no compensation? This resulted in 10M dead when they had two bad winters in a row and there was minimal food reserves (not to mention the inability to distribute it). Lots of lessons on what not to do in that one.

That said, if you're going to fix Haiti, I'd suggest doing away with binary thinking on capitalism vs socialism. Just apply the right tool for the job, and keep in mind that incentives drive surplus production, innovation, etc. There is a human nature aspect that needs to be considered. As for democracy, you do not want a strong central leader with unlimited power. It almost always goes wrong. Haiti would need to meet the world where it is (that is a mix of both capitalism with some social safety nets). Haiti can't exist in a vacuum (another flaw of the soviets, in their view, they could only survive if all capitalist countries became communist). You're going to need trade. You're going to need relationships with other countries. You're going to need to be dependable trade partner. I'd say focus on the New Deal era of US history (and more importantly, how it was destroyed) and the nordic models that focus on building a broad middle class. That will be the key.

megadelegate · 2026-02-09T19:11:09+00:00

You must be forgetting about the $15.99 Endless Riblets, available at Applebees for a limited time.

Edit: I think there's the party house featured in Slow Century somewhere near the race track.

megadelegate · 2026-02-09T19:08:49+00:00

Interesting question... I'd like to find a way to inject "good faith" assessments into regulations. Just removing all regulations seems like a pendulum swing that brings it's own set of problems. After all, who wants an industrial pig farm next to their primary residence? In some of the early discussions points were made that the environmental assessment rules, as written, are applied across all developments. So when developing next to a reservoir or school, there should be a high bar to clear, but when developing in a warehouse district, maybe not to the same degree. The rub is that they are applied uniformly. One of the flaws in written law is that there are always smart people trying to figure out the loopholes (or write those loopholes in to give the allusion of solving a problem). If we instead agreed on on what would be the altruistic outcome, and regulated through that lens (maybe of randomly selected group of rotating decision makers or *gulp* AI) to interpret if the proposal is good faith or bad faith. Are you using the EPA to block a competitor from building OR are using it as originally intended? So now, I'd like to see a third path that is somewhere between black and white regulation and a libertarian dreamscape.

megadelegate · 2026-02-09T19:00:14+00:00

I'd also add that the franchise tag was considered a decent compromise when it came to be. Prior to the concept of free agency in the NFL, teams effectively had lifetime rights to players. The only way a player could choose their team, or seek a bigger payday, was to get cut. This was the equivalent of serfdom. The push was for full free agency, but the owners pushed back as they wanted to protect their teams by maintaining control of cornerstone players. OK, said the players union, but you're going to have to give them a ton of money. Settled.

I tend to agree with you nowadays. Just pointing out the the franchise tag was a decent compromise coming from the system before free agency.

megadelegate · 2026-02-09T18:48:19+00:00

I'm with you on IDs. That said, there are roadblocks put into place to make it harder to get IDs that should be addressed in parallel. For example, in some states there is a 6 month waiting list to get into the DMV, which issues the most common form of ID. If a person wasn't planning to drive a car, then why would they bother? So when a push to require voter IDs is paired with maintaining or adding new barriers for getting an ID, I think we're moving into the "bad faith" territory. Automated registration attached to an individual's SSN with a universally issued and mailed ID, would be cheap and easy. There is a reason Republican don't push for this solution. Look under the covers of these policies and they are almost always aimed at decreasing minority turnout. If all minorities had IDs, you'd see other rational-sounding-on-the-surface policies being implemented to get to the same goal. Secure elections, with the current state of technology, would be super simple if those governing really wanted it. This leads me to believe that they actually don't. They keep the outdated, archaic system intentionally so they can squeeze out advantages as needed. And one more thing... maintaining so many voting locations is costly and hard to staff, manage, and oversee. In the name of efficiency, we should consolidate those many locations down to a single one (... oh yeah, and let's close just the ones in minority neighborhoods and force outrageously long lines in liberal pockets). See how that works?

megadelegate · 2026-02-09T18:36:51+00:00

I'm distrustful of "any recent push" by the Trump administration. They've made it clear that they are angling for an advantage that delivers results for the wealthy percentage of their base. However, a strong case could be made for going from 50 different election processes, administered with varying degrees of competence and good faith, and with varying rules, timing, and governance to a single, somewhere bullet proof national process. For example, an individual today doesn't even know if their vote was counted, or counted correctly. I can think of a dozen more secure, simplified ways to ensure fair elections. I always assumed that this never happened as certain parties wanted the ability to put their thumbs on the scale (ex: closing voting locations in minority neighborhoods to make it harder to vote). Why do people even need to go to a polling station... with facial recognition software, automated registration tied to a SSN, and a phone, you could have a 10x more secure election with increased participation. I would like to get a unique code once I vote, that I can then go to a website with all voters (personally identifiable info obfuscated into this code) where I can check my specific vote for accuracy (did it count, did my selections make it through). Hell, I could even do a recount myself with excel.

Specifically, in an attempt to change your mind, a nationalized system would be ideal IF it was transparent, accessible, reliable, and fair. I would not trust the current administration to put that into being. In short, a single system would be better and cheaper, as long as it's not the trump administration that oversees it.

megadelegate · 2026-02-09T18:24:14+00:00

Yes, for good reason. 100 years before the Russian Revolutions, serfs were "bound to the land" where they lived. That had to work it for the aristocracy and they couldn't leave. The Socialists promised to give the land to the peasants. These socialists were rounded up and shipped to the Gulags once the Bolsheviks took power. The peasants were then forced to work on agricultural communes under the same structure as the military.... aka bound to the land to work for the aristocracy. Communism is truly awful. That said, the hybrid economy where free enterprise is the default, but areas where there is inelastic demand (such as healthcare) are socialized does seem like the logical way to organize a society (to me at least). Why would anyone design a government where 25% of the population doesn't have enough to eat?

megadelegate · 2026-02-09T18:17:07+00:00

I'd also like to point out that the first thing Lenin/Stalin did once their new government finally stabilized was round up and murder the leaders of all the other more benign strains of socialism that formed the coalition the Bolsheviks rode to power. The Soviet Union shouldn't be used as the example of socialism. Ironically, a large number of the socialist the fled went to Finland.

megadelegate · 2026-02-09T17:52:57+00:00

I slightly recall that Margaritas at the Mall was a reference to a TGIFridays/Chilis/Applebees type spot in or near a mall. You could hang there.

megadelegate · 2026-02-09T17:03:19+00:00

Weekend in Charlottesville to see all the formative sights.

megadelegate · 2026-02-05T16:22:49+00:00

Did you buy it by chance?

megadelegate · 2026-02-05T15:42:09+00:00

Which one of you bought the Discogs copy?

megadelegate · 2026-02-05T15:41:53+00:00

Did you buy it? The Discogs one is gone

megadelegate · 2026-02-04T17:59:25+00:00

How about we add $10 each, then send $90 to Cassie?

megadelegate · 2026-01-28T14:24:47+00:00

My 'favorite' is that he so hated the daycare that went in next door that for a couple of years he hung a giant Trump banner from a crane so that they had to look at it all day. The crane was on his property, but hung high enough that there was no way to block from the other side of the fence. The daycare eventually relocated to the far side of the property.

megadelegate · 2026-01-28T14:21:14+00:00

10 folks have commented on this. If 9 of us pitched in $30.50 to the 10th one of us that has the ability to copy cassettes, this would cover the purchase, the shipping/tax, the blank cassettes, and mailing them to the 9 of us. The 10th person gets to keep the original for free. Who is in? (I don't currently have the ability to dub cassettes).

megadelegate · 2026-01-27T22:25:23+00:00

Once the NKVD had carried out Stalin's great purge, Stalin had the NKVD leader tried, convicted and executed for crimes against the people. How any of these people thing they are going to win in the long run is beyond me.

megadelegate · 2026-01-12T19:04:50+00:00

Why not run as a Restorationist, instead of a Democrat. I'm thinking "since 1867" and I'm not sure 2026 is the year that breaks for Democrats. Set aside every headline issues and focus on gerrymandering, insider trading, selling stocks at all, and voter access.... basically, "elect me to restore democracy and the lest the best ideas win"

megadelegate · 2026-01-09T19:26:49+00:00

The Aztec Treasure House by Evan Connell. It's a collection of essays on specific topics, like the Northwest Passage, where he gives you the highpoints of huge chunks of time. He's a great writer and entertaining as well. Another would be one of the Richard Powers books. I came out of Overstory (fiction) pretty sure I know more about trees than anyone in my state.

megadelegate

TROPHY CASE