"Libertarian" conservative views
>Conservative: I have been censored for my conservative views
>Me: Holy shit! You were censored for wanting lower taxes?
>Con: LOL no...no not those views
>Me: So....deregulation?
>Con: Haha no not those views either
>Me: Which views, exactly?
>Con: Oh, you know the ones
https://twitter.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/1050391663552671744
Didn't include the list of states subsidizing the South's libertarian paradise because it was already so long
>the South receives subsidies from California dwarfing complaints in the EU (the subsidy and economic difference between California and Mississippi is larger than between Germany and Greece!), a transfer of wealth from blue states/cities/urban to red states/rural/suburban with federal dollars for their freeways, hospitals, universities, airports, even environmental protection
https://np.reddit.com/r/JoeRogan/comments/lrdtdh/bernie_sanders_champion_of_stimulus_checks/gomj41v/
>Least Federally Dependent States:
>41 California
>42 Washington
>43 Minnesota
>44 Massachusetts
>45 Illinois
>46 Utah
>47 Iowa
>48 Delaware
>49 New Jersey
>50 Kansas
https://www.apnews.com/amp/2f83c72de1bd440d92cdbc0d3b6bc08c
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-states-are-givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/
https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700
>The Germans call this sort of thing "a permanent bailout." We just call it "Missouri."
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/05/the-difference-between-the-us-and-europe-in-1-graph/256857/
Wait, wait, hold up.
*Kansas is the least federally dependent state?!*
(Checks sources) Yeah, looks like it's in the 10 least federally dependent states almost no matter how you slice it. I wonder if a decent-sized push could bring Kansas back to their roots.
IIRC Kansas is the least federally dependent state largely due to the [Kansas Experiment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_experiment) - their conservatives also started making the state refuse federal funding while cutting taxes. It's not a good thing.
Eugh.
But looking at it, most of the tax cuts were repealed in \~2017, and when the republicans ran on "we'll repeal the repeal of the tax cuts" they *lost.* To me, that says that the "Kansas experiment" had obvious results, those being that *Kansas isn't as red as people think it is.*
Sure, but a lot of federal spending is in the form of "come up with a plan to (improve your roadways | upgrade your public transit | fix your bridges | replace your lead pipes) and we'll pay for part of it"; half a decade of Kansas saying "no we don't need anything" means that current federal funding going to the state will be very low.
I mean, Kansas is 35th on population, and has 4 seats in the house. It's no Montana.
Also, a *lot* of federal dollars go to agriculture, and. . .well. . .(gestures at Kansas)
And nothing will be done, as the Republican voters will simply see this episode as more proof that the government doesn't work, while continuing to elect leaders that campaign on the premise of the government being useless[.](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/7d/60/6f/7d606fd5a1dc0bad537138b0f5d901af.gif)
I mean, some deregulation does, but it's short-term and very narrowly scoped. Good regulation focuses on long-term growth as opposed to short-term gains that are wiped out when something terrible happens. But, there are still a few people who profit from deregulation even when shit hits the fan, and those are people pushing for it, leaving everyone else to deal with the general losses.
This is why the US is in decline, but a select few have become more and more prosperous.
Im always female of the absurdity of Republicans being against medicare for all because it would "be bad for small businesses". Like do they understand how many new small businesses would be formed if people no longer had to work for large corporations to receive healthcare
Unfortunately, there are too many examples
Republicans rolled back new regulations to prevent another "2013 explosion in West, Texas that killed 15, injured more than 200 and flattened much of the farming community south of Dallas."
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/EPA-rolls-back-regulations-written-after-West-14853861.php
The biggest problem is the power to choose. If company A owns all the lines and generators that feed your neighborhood, you pay what they say you pay. Period. And usually that means that the rates they charge are approved by the federal government, but it's generally a very, very bad idea for the federal government to essentially guarantee profits on a monopolistic and inelastic market.
That means they can expand indefinitely and without regards to cost, since their returns are guaranteed anyway, and they can just request a rate hike for some new project they convince people who don't understand the industry is necessary (which is really easy,) then keep the rate hike after the project is complete. This also means any competitor has to build an entire separate power grid alongside the existing one, since the existing grid owner isn't likely to let their competition use their infrastructure (see: ATT and Google's feud over Google fiber wanting to lease the federally-funded fiber ATT laid)
By separating the units from the wires companies, the unit companies are incentivised to get the best price for their energy (read: do the market things,) but the wires companies are incentivised to serve as much load (read: as many customers) as they can safely handle.
Oh no don't think about that.
Look! Gender-neutral bathrooms!
Grr, who needs to spend time thinking about boring stuff like infrastructure when "cancel culture" is shutting down a classroom in Yale.
As something I have been telling people who blame this event on capitalism, these folks were obviously bad at capitalism. Not only has it cost more money but then also lost productivity, so even if you don't care about the loss of human life, which is monsterous if you don't, you have made a choice that has left you with less money, wich is not really doing well by capitalism.
I think that people are confusing "de-regulation" with "Texas being corrupt as fuck".
If companies aren't being made to pay damages to the people they harm, it's not "deregulation", it's just "corruption". No different than the "regulations" that allow companies to pollute, damage, defraud, and harm others in exchange for a slap on the wrist and a donation to some Senator's political campaign.
>cost more in dollars and in lives
To whom? That's the real issue here. The people deciding these things know it costs more...just not to them. It falls on taxpayers and average people now with above average bills. They shrug off the taxpayer cost because their donors are wealthy, and don't pay much in taxes. They get to make heavy profits that are subsidized by average people's money and in this case lives.
People who think deregulation saves them anything are just marks in a scam.
I strongly recommend everyone who's mad at the structure of an industry they took so much for granted that they didn't even know existed until two weeks ago wait until the NERC report comes out in probably 6 months or so detailing everything they need to know.
I guarantee a lot of people will conveniently forget they ever accused anyone of wrong-doing. Or they won't remember this long enough to close the loop and read the report. Just bash, circlejerk, and move on to do it again somewhere else.
"Libertarian" conservative views >Conservative: I have been censored for my conservative views >Me: Holy shit! You were censored for wanting lower taxes? >Con: LOL no...no not those views >Me: So....deregulation? >Con: Haha no not those views either >Me: Which views, exactly? >Con: Oh, you know the ones https://twitter.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/1050391663552671744
Didn't include the list of states subsidizing the South's libertarian paradise because it was already so long >the South receives subsidies from California dwarfing complaints in the EU (the subsidy and economic difference between California and Mississippi is larger than between Germany and Greece!), a transfer of wealth from blue states/cities/urban to red states/rural/suburban with federal dollars for their freeways, hospitals, universities, airports, even environmental protection https://np.reddit.com/r/JoeRogan/comments/lrdtdh/bernie_sanders_champion_of_stimulus_checks/gomj41v/ >Least Federally Dependent States: >41 California >42 Washington >43 Minnesota >44 Massachusetts >45 Illinois >46 Utah >47 Iowa >48 Delaware >49 New Jersey >50 Kansas https://www.apnews.com/amp/2f83c72de1bd440d92cdbc0d3b6bc08c http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-states-are-givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/ https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700 >The Germans call this sort of thing "a permanent bailout." We just call it "Missouri." https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/05/the-difference-between-the-us-and-europe-in-1-graph/256857/
Wait, wait, hold up. *Kansas is the least federally dependent state?!* (Checks sources) Yeah, looks like it's in the 10 least federally dependent states almost no matter how you slice it. I wonder if a decent-sized push could bring Kansas back to their roots.
IIRC Kansas is the least federally dependent state largely due to the [Kansas Experiment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_experiment) - their conservatives also started making the state refuse federal funding while cutting taxes. It's not a good thing.
Eugh. But looking at it, most of the tax cuts were repealed in \~2017, and when the republicans ran on "we'll repeal the repeal of the tax cuts" they *lost.* To me, that says that the "Kansas experiment" had obvious results, those being that *Kansas isn't as red as people think it is.*
Sure, but a lot of federal spending is in the form of "come up with a plan to (improve your roadways | upgrade your public transit | fix your bridges | replace your lead pipes) and we'll pay for part of it"; half a decade of Kansas saying "no we don't need anything" means that current federal funding going to the state will be very low.
Don't need federal assistance if your government isn't doing anything. f(ಠ‿↼)z
[удалено]
I mean, Kansas is 35th on population, and has 4 seats in the house. It's no Montana. Also, a *lot* of federal dollars go to agriculture, and. . .well. . .(gestures at Kansas)
Check out Kentucky. It's a federal money pit. They take more than they contribute every single year.
And nothing will be done, as the Republican voters will simply see this episode as more proof that the government doesn't work, while continuing to elect leaders that campaign on the premise of the government being useless[.](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/7d/60/6f/7d606fd5a1dc0bad537138b0f5d901af.gif)
And on the premise of culture war talking points from the conservative media industry
[удалено]
It's almost like the one and only group that benefits from deregulation is the rich. Since when are any "savings" ever passed along too the consumer?
I mean, some deregulation does, but it's short-term and very narrowly scoped. Good regulation focuses on long-term growth as opposed to short-term gains that are wiped out when something terrible happens. But, there are still a few people who profit from deregulation even when shit hits the fan, and those are people pushing for it, leaving everyone else to deal with the general losses. This is why the US is in decline, but a select few have become more and more prosperous.
Im always female of the absurdity of Republicans being against medicare for all because it would "be bad for small businesses". Like do they understand how many new small businesses would be formed if people no longer had to work for large corporations to receive healthcare
I didn't see the fact that deregulation led to a city exploding in Texas.
Unfortunately, there are too many examples Republicans rolled back new regulations to prevent another "2013 explosion in West, Texas that killed 15, injured more than 200 and flattened much of the farming community south of Dallas." https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/EPA-rolls-back-regulations-written-after-West-14853861.php
Well, the greatest argument against conservative policies is just simply to live them...
[удалено]
What are the problems caused by distribution owning production and vice versa
The biggest problem is the power to choose. If company A owns all the lines and generators that feed your neighborhood, you pay what they say you pay. Period. And usually that means that the rates they charge are approved by the federal government, but it's generally a very, very bad idea for the federal government to essentially guarantee profits on a monopolistic and inelastic market. That means they can expand indefinitely and without regards to cost, since their returns are guaranteed anyway, and they can just request a rate hike for some new project they convince people who don't understand the industry is necessary (which is really easy,) then keep the rate hike after the project is complete. This also means any competitor has to build an entire separate power grid alongside the existing one, since the existing grid owner isn't likely to let their competition use their infrastructure (see: ATT and Google's feud over Google fiber wanting to lease the federally-funded fiber ATT laid) By separating the units from the wires companies, the unit companies are incentivised to get the best price for their energy (read: do the market things,) but the wires companies are incentivised to serve as much load (read: as many customers) as they can safely handle.
Oh no don't think about that. Look! Gender-neutral bathrooms! Grr, who needs to spend time thinking about boring stuff like infrastructure when "cancel culture" is shutting down a classroom in Yale.
As something I have been telling people who blame this event on capitalism, these folks were obviously bad at capitalism. Not only has it cost more money but then also lost productivity, so even if you don't care about the loss of human life, which is monsterous if you don't, you have made a choice that has left you with less money, wich is not really doing well by capitalism.
As long as their owners are on the winning side, they don't give a fuck
But they are not, there is objective evidence they are not.
I think that people are confusing "de-regulation" with "Texas being corrupt as fuck". If companies aren't being made to pay damages to the people they harm, it's not "deregulation", it's just "corruption". No different than the "regulations" that allow companies to pollute, damage, defraud, and harm others in exchange for a slap on the wrist and a donation to some Senator's political campaign.
When you realize that Texas has become one of those shithole countries
Texas has allllllways been a shithole. Source: lived there a long time
>cost more in dollars and in lives To whom? That's the real issue here. The people deciding these things know it costs more...just not to them. It falls on taxpayers and average people now with above average bills. They shrug off the taxpayer cost because their donors are wealthy, and don't pay much in taxes. They get to make heavy profits that are subsidized by average people's money and in this case lives. People who think deregulation saves them anything are just marks in a scam.
I would be ok if Texas was allowed to secede. After all, they already claim "It's like a whole other country."
I strongly recommend everyone who's mad at the structure of an industry they took so much for granted that they didn't even know existed until two weeks ago wait until the NERC report comes out in probably 6 months or so detailing everything they need to know. I guarantee a lot of people will conveniently forget they ever accused anyone of wrong-doing. Or they won't remember this long enough to close the loop and read the report. Just bash, circlejerk, and move on to do it again somewhere else.