Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)KE
Posts
28
Comments
2,035
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • Retaliatory tariffs are not really allowed by the WTO. They are really destructive for trade and just create scenarios where a third country is used to bypass the tariffs.

    China has been proven to steal technology for years, it's just that the benefits of manufacturing there outweigh the costs on an individual company level. No one company can "sue China" as you suggest. They're too big and can just ban that country from manufacturing anything there. So most companies put up with it.

    Your comment actually illuminates the need for US government action. Since no particular company is actually hurting China, they can't be individually retaliated against by the Chinese government.

  • That's the problem, you're only talking about houses (and probably in an expensive part of the country). Apartments are a simple solution to that in expensive places. Also there are lots of houses under $300K , just not where you're looking.

    I had a better idea that would allow people to buy their own homes that they are currently renting:

    1. Every home gets appraised to determine what it would sell for. This is done by the county and is used for property taxes too.
    2. Every renter is allowed to buy a percentage of their primary residence from the owner. The owner has no choice in this. It's a requirement for being able to rent a property.
    3. Renters can pay as little as $100 extra per month and the county puts their percentage ownership on the deed. If the home is sold, the renter can't be kicked out involuntarily. If they do leave, they get the percentage of home value they own.

    Pros:

    • This would avoid the issue of high interest rates hurting primary homeownership.
    • This would blunt the impact of corporate landlords having a monopoly where they refuse to sell. They are forced to sell at a fair price.
    • This would create a simple decision between owning their home and spending money on luxuries or eating out.

    Cons:

    • This would hurt small landlords who would have their property bought out from under them. This is actually a good thing because the benefits of rising property values are now shared.
    • The implementation is hard. This is actually a good thing because bad landlords would sell property they didn't want to manage, lowering prices for renters who want to buy.
    • It would cost the county money to hire appraisers. But this could be paid for by increased property taxes due to better appraisals.
    • Property taxes would go up for landlords. But this would be good, as it encourages them to sell the property. This appraisal process and increased property taxes wouldn't affect people who just lived in their home without charging rent.
  • And that's why only Chinese stuff is banned, not all ex-US drones / electric cars.

    China only has themselves to blame. They intentionally break WTO rules regarding unfair subsidies for their domestic companies. Plus they steal technology and ideas from every company manufacturing there. It doesn't matter for toasters or t-shirts, but high tech stuff is more important.

    No other country does this, especially not with government support.

  • It's not my responsibility to fix everyone in the world. It's good that these people sequester themselves. They can yell at each other.

    Lemmy has good tools for blocking bad users and communities / instances. That's sufficient for now. Better moderation will help too.

  • Obviously that's a terrible idea, but what is stopping a dictator from doing that in the US? The Supreme Court is the arbiter of whether things are legal. Literally what is stopping a dictatorial president from killing or threatening the Justices and replacing them with cronies?

    Yet another argument for term limits on Justices.

  • But it doesn't work as well because you can block entire instances. These people self identify by choosing the instance so it's easy to just block all posts and comments, even those from people you've never seen before.

  • Lawsuits don't "shut people up". You can stop someone from defaming you, but you can't sue to end a radio show. Usually sane people stop talking to stop digging their hole deeper, but Alex Jones isn't sane.

    Lawsuits only assign monetary damages. That's how they work.

  • Yes, this is exactly it. You are calling when other people are calling. You are the congestion.

    If you call before 11 AM you will have a much better time, as will the customer service operators.

  • That's not going to solve the problem. Guns are not like cars, a necessary evil in some places. The purpose of a gun is to kill or maim something. Target practice is practicing putting a hole in something living. Handguns should be banned and all sales of long guns should be regulated for hunting purposes.

    If guns were all about "target practice" and "self defense", there would be a ton of pellet guns and rubber bullets sold. No attacker is going to double check whether you're holding a pellet gun or a real one. They're going to run tf away.

  • There's already a "check" on the court. The President nominates them and Congress approves them. Also, just because the Supreme Court says something is unconstitutional doesn't mean it won't happen.

    They have no enforcement mechanism. The President can execute laws how they interpret them. Congress can just pass slightly different versions of the same law. The Supreme Court is the weakest of the branches. People just need to fucking vote in their elections and the problem will solve itself.

    If you go visit a small Republican town you will notice that people don't usually protest, they just donate to politicians and vote. That's how you win.

    Fucking vote.