11 ms·

If a country changes course every four years, how can the success of a long-term project be ensured? And what of its negotiating credibility? How can the other

If a country changes course every four years, how can the success of a long-term project be ensured? And what of its negotiating credibility? How can the other side trust that an agreement will hold in the future? This is not a critique, but a genuine curiosity, because there's an obvious drawback with a system with opposing world views. Unless, of course, something still unites them in the first place, with acceptable disparity on each side turning it into an advantage of flexibility and adaptability while keeping the focus on long-term ideas and plans.

pwarner 8mo ago
I'm not advocating their system, but here's one pro for China obviously.
- SecretDreams 8mo ago
  Dictatorships work as long as they're benevolent, much like democracies work as long as they aren't bought.
  - dominicrose 8mo ago
    It depends what you mean by work. Technology - among a myriad of other things - enables the worst dictators to stay in power, even if the country as a whole doesn't work.
    - SecretDreams 8mo ago
      Work in my post was "work for the people".
- chongli 8mo ago
  China doesn't have flip-flopping like this with its attendant massive waste. Instead it has endemic corruption which siphons off funds all over the place, perhaps with the exception of the big projects that command the full attention of central leadership.
  - tehjoker 8mo ago
    Yet somehow they've managed to eliminate extreme poverty and challenge the U.S. in GDP. Sounds like cope to me. They couldn't do that with extreme corruption like we tolerate in U.S. allies.
    - monting 8mo ago
      They "eliminated" extreme poverty caused by communist control in the first place, by going to a capitalist system. There were tons of economic low-hanging fruits by building out large infrastructure projects, which corruption happily siphoned off of. The ROI of these infra projects have been gone for a while, yet they continued. Also it's been stealing intellectual property, trade dumping, exporting deflation. Soaking up the manufacturing oxygen of everyone else through subsidies, elite capture, then using the leverage gained and veiled threats against others to force them to yield resources, market access and political control.
      - viccis 8mo ago
        More cope. "They eliminated poverty... but at WHAT COST? They did good things but they trampled on the intellectual property of our beloved billionares? *sob*"
        monting 8mo ago
        The "good thing" they did, is stopping their actions which causes millions to starve. Which lead to people getting themselves out of poverty.
        hgomersall 8mo ago
        Yeah, and whilst getting themselves out of poverty they built 50,000km of high speed rail.
        monting 8mo ago
- ncr100 8mo ago
  Also, China can lobby indirectly through media manipulation, and relatively cheaply disrupt our already clunky-feeling Democratic governmental processes.
- olerich 8mo ago
  Quite the opposite, a working, independent justice system guarantees rule of law and long term stability.
- cm2187 8mo ago
  It's a double edge sword. If the Boss has decided that the country should do X, it's much harder to make him reverse course if it's a bad direction. Zero covid and return to good old communism are two recent examples. For all their flaws and ineffectiveness, democracies are self correcting.
- johanvts 8mo ago
  You can have a functional democracy and still do long term planning, the problem is the current US government. Its not a fundamental flaw in democracy.
  - joe_mamba 8mo ago
    >You can have a functional democracy and still do long term planning Sure, but that's contingent on 1) the voters being well educated and not easily brainwashed by various types of propaganda pushing them to vote against their own interests (see the Germans being anti-nuclear and pro-Russian gas since the 80s) and > 2) the voters being trusted and having an actual ownership in the country so that their votes affect them directly and also having a say in how their country is run, because if whoever gets voted into power just does the opposite of what the voters want "for their own good", then you're not a democracy anymore, you're just a well functioning state (if that). Other than Switzerland, and maybe Denmark, I don't know any democracies that constantly function well and aren't plagued with issues.
    - johanvts 8mo ago
      Populism is always a danger, but the current US administration is all about spite, no matter the cost. It is uniquely, outstandingly bad. Lots of places have working democracies that have managed to do long term planning.
- clarionbell 8mo ago
  The disadvantage in their system, is if the the leadership makes a wrong decision, it will stick for much longer than 4 years, and it won't be challenged. Now, recently, they had a very good run. This must be admitted and even celebrated. But the aforementioned flaw is still very much present.
SpicyLemonZest 8mo ago
I'm not sure I follow the questions. The success of a long-term project can be ensured through the procedures described in the source article: you set up a durable judicial system, and invest them with the power to require that the country uphold its end of the bargain, no matter how much its current political leaders might want to change course.
- CamperBob2 8mo ago
  you set up a durable judicial system, and give them their own army. That's the only way to work around Trump. According to the Constitution, no one can actually make the executive branch do anything it doesn't want to do.
  - SpicyLemonZest 8mo ago
    No, that's not accurate. The courts frequently make Trump and his cronies do things they don't want to do, and prevent them from doing things they do want to do. Multiple such cases are described in the source article.
    - CamperBob2 8mo ago
      That state of affairs is seen as a bug, and is being fixed. [1] 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Society That aside: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/07/21/trump-court-orders-defy-noncompliance-marshals-judges/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/07/21/trump-cou... Edit due to rate-limiting: that makes two of us.
      - SpicyLemonZest 8mo ago
        If Trump defies 1 in 3 of the court orders against him, that still means judges successfully stopped him 2 times out of 3. I'm not interested in a discussion where we equivocate between what's true today and worst case scenarios that could become true in the future, sorry.
alextheparrot 8mo ago
I mean, you could also frame this as an issue the electorate could actually prioritize instead of just hoping the courts work it out
Octoth0rpe 8mo ago
> how can the success of a long-term project be ensured? Well, for one by ensuring that 'long-term' means it starts at the start of a term and ends before the end of that term. At most that only rules out nuclear, at least wrt long term energy projects. And it's not like recent dem administrations were unfriendly towards nuclear. Vogtle 3/4 were approved early in Obama's term, and finished under Biden's.
- Sharlin 8mo ago
  "Long term" means decades when it comes to energy strategy, major infrastructure initiatives, and decarbonization. Four years is woefully inadequate for strategic planning, you’re operating on a tactical level at best.
  - aboardRat4 8mo ago
    There is no reason to do long term projects with public funds. Private companies are not subject to the vagaries of democracy and can plan as long-term as they want.
    - Sharlin 8mo ago
      Uh, okay.
    - fch42 8mo ago
      Except funding is not everything that's needed for long term projects. There are other resources - workforce, supply chain integrity, legal entitlements and approvals, etc, that are all contributing to "plannable delivery" of long-term projects. And quite a few of these are very much subject to the vagaries of democracy. Unless, of course, you assume (the ideal to be) an entirely anarchist business environment where whoever-with-resources can do whatever. Democracy, though, is not that.
- bradchris 8mo ago
  4 years gets you, historically, an 8-plex built in San Francisco. If you’re lucky. The ship is slowly turning, but that’s what institutional investors would call a short-term win in the most economically productive state in the USA. I’m a supporter of it regardless of the cost, but for a “long term” project look at the California HSR, which was directly approved by voters 19 years ago and we’re still debating how to fund the majority of it, let alone actually build what we voted to construct and open in its entirety within 10 years.
jaco6 8mo ago
[dead]
sirspacey 8mo ago
you’ve landed on the core of politics the shape of how things actually work is what’s left when constant churn (and now budget blocking) is a fact of life
- shimman 8mo ago
  No, this is the core of a particular brand of politics: neoliberal politics. Where the financialization of everything is what's most important. There was a time, still in lived memory, where the US government was able to complete many types of projects and it also coincided with the period of lowest economic inequality (the great compression), the expansion of civil rights, and had the highest taxes against the elites this country has ever seen. Obviously if you hate democracy you'll want to destroy this system, which is what they've been working at for the last 50ish years.
  - s1artibartfast 8mo ago
    Tax rates are not the same as effective taxes paid, and US taxes as a percent of GDP are at an all time high. This is besides the fact that gdp is many times higher, growing geometrically. It is an interesting question of what changed in terms of ability to execute, but lack of funding isn't the answer. I suspect it is a combination of scope creep, application to intractable problems, and baumols cost disease at work.
    - miki123211 8mo ago
      Don't forget vetocracy. Every regulation, whether it's environmental, DEIA or anti-fraud, adds a few steps to each project. With enough regulations and enough steps, things just slow down to a crawl. As governments and legal systems get older, they get into more and more situations where a bad thing happens, and the politicians must show that they've done something to stop a similar thing from happening again. Nobody can publicly admit that it's fine to letting a 5-year-old kid die once in a while, even if that would be the right call. This results in more and more layers of regulation being added, which nobody has an incentive to remove.
vvpan 8mo ago
Which is largely why presidencies do not mess with the order they inherit too much (subjective statement I know). Most institutions and projects are not stressed and the government branches just keep doing what they always did. The current administration is an outlier, but we all know that.
- Krasnol 8mo ago
  The problem is that the outlier might mark a beginning. Seeing what's possible in this position, I doubt future US presidents will hold back.
  - gimmeThaBeet 8mo ago
    the aphorism that comes to mind with that prospect these days is: "populism is like cigarettes, it's not the first one that kills you, it's the last"
  - bruce511 8mo ago
    It doesn't matter I'd they hold back or not. The perception of political instability is enough. If, as an investor, I'm asked to throw billions at a multi-year project, political risk is going to be on the PowerPoint. You may think this current administration is an aberration, but it serves to prove that aberrations can happen. That the levers supposed to prevent this (congress, courts) are creaking. Sure a judge ruled for now, but this is a long way from finished.) And that's enough to create doubt. Lots of doubt. The impact of this on long-term future infrastructure projects cannot be over-stated. (Let's leave aside that this project was 6 years in the planning, during his first term, before construction start in 2022... which just makes the current behavior worse, not better.)
    - johanvts 8mo ago
      Which is exactly why Orsted will now focus on European wind projects instead. American projects will have to be that more profitable/expensive in the future to compensate for the political risk. But I guess this is exactly the desired outcome for big oil, no outside competition.
themafia 8mo ago
> If a country changes course every four years Dozens of new GW+ wind farms came online in the last four years. This concerns a few projects in a few particular locations that are exposed to federal interference. It has impacts on the market but the market is larger than these minor disturbances by an order of magnitude. > while keeping the focus on long-term ideas and plans. We have private business in this country. They're doing just fine.
- hvb2 8mo ago
  > Dozens of new GW+ wind farms came online in the last four years. Thats not that much is it given the size and energy demand of the country? And that's over the past 4 years, you'll only see the true impact of this in the next 6 years. > This concerns a few projects in a few particular locations that are exposed to federal interference Markets are driven by a lot of feelings too. If you're trying to build a wind farm now, why on earth would you do that in the US? There are just many better options. Your private businesses will happily skip over the US if they understand markets. Don't row upstream, find a place where your investment is wanted
  - themafia 8mo ago
    > Thats not that much is it given the size and energy demand of the country? What is it relative to these 5 projects? > you'll only see the true impact of this in the next 6 years. Are these the _only_ new projects that could _possibly_ be built in that time frame? > a lot of feelings too The feelings of those with money not of the general population. > If you're trying to build a wind farm now, why on earth would you do that in the US? You just said. "The size and energy demand of the country." Or are you proposing that no one would build unless we remove absolutely all risk for them? I'm not sure you and I mean the same thing when saying "private business." > happily skip over the US I believe this is a worn out trope. Please show some evidence this has actually occurred. > find a place where your investment is wanted Ah.. the "amazonification" of America. "Businesses shouldn't compete or take risks!" You seem to say. We must bend over and make them happy before they can deign to take our dollars. Perfectly modern and utterly ridiculous.
Aziz_aze 8mo ago
_How can the other side trust that an agreement will hold in the future?_ You can't, and US history is full of that. It's deeply rooted in US culture ! See for example the numerous wars against native Americans in the 19th century; even in some Washington US museum they admin the natives were not wrong when they had to assume any peace treaty was not worth the ink it was written with (and meant "we're only regrouping and will attack again in less than 5 years").
deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
neilwilson 8mo ago
By only doing projects for which there is sufficient political support across the board, not the ones that are supported by a tiny vocal minority of the electorate. Either we live in a democracy or we do not. Democracy determines the correct path by wobbling between two incompatible options - implementation and repeal. That which is implemented by one side, but not repealed by the other survives as the appropriate path. There is no alternative to this - without abandoning democracy and universal suffrage. Remember that democracy is the worst way to run a country, except for all the other.
- spacebacon 8mo ago
  The pitchfork bifurcation: https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5987495 https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5987495
epolanski 8mo ago
> If a country changes course every four years, how can the success of a long-term project be ensured? Sadly this is an inherent weakness of the US constitution. It's old and it was written at a time where we didn't have enough experience with democracies. In a modern parliamentary democracy you vote parties which form coalitions and settle on one of the party leaders (in general the one with most votes) as prime minister. This means that: - other parties are still involved in the legislative process. In a presidential republic with the president holding executive power, other parties are not represented at all. Trump doesn't need approval on his actions neither by opposition nor his own party. In a parliament, many members will support continuity on many topics rather than change if it doesn't make sense. They still vote based on their conscience, not just on their affiliation. - the executive depends on its effectiveness and for staying in power on the support of its parliament members. If some members of Giorgia Meloni's coalition don't like the direction she's taking they are not gonna vote her proposals and ultimately she may need to resign if she gets a vote of no confidence. Removing a president in countries like US is extremely difficult in comparison, and the executive has no checks, neither from opposition nor its own party to go in whatever direction a single individual decides to go. Seriously, what Belarus, Turkey, Hungary, Russia, etc, all have in common? They are presidential republics. Single individuals hold too much power and have little checks from their own party members, let alone a parliament. It's no coincidence that the last parliamentary democracy to turn into authoritarian state has been Sri Lanka over 50 years ago: it's difficult for individuals to grab power, as there is a long checklist of things that need to happen. In a presidential one? It's very simple: a single individual can claim popular mandate, building a personality cult is simple (you don't vote parties, you vote individuals), a single individual holds executive power and is very hard to remove. Presidential republics are more effective than slow parliamentary ones, but we should ask ourselves if our focus in 2020s, in advanced economies where things are objectively fine, isn't slow refinement instead of sharp turns.
- theshrike79 8mo ago
  > Sadly this is an inherent weakness of the US constitution. It's old and it was written at a time where we didn't have enough experience with democracies. (I'm not even American and I know this) The constitution was meant to be a living document, adjusted over the years as the world changes. But the very opposite happened, it became Holy Scripture, unchanging and never evolving. The whole American system was based on the idea that the ruling class cared for "reputation", "honor" or "legacy". It was wholy unprepared for people who just don't give a fuck about all that and actively wipe their asses on existing rules and conventions. Like going in front of Congress and just ... lying. Provably, verifiably lying. Zero recourse, the shame of lying used to be enough. And because of ancient decorum rules, the congress can't even say "you're lying" and google the facts right there and then, they have to do this idiotic perfromatic dance of asking the same question repeatedly and getting a word salad non-answer back for hours. Or just not going for the inquiry because, why would you? There's no penalty past "losing face" for not going. Why bother. The system was flawed from the start, but the people were still in there for the best of everyone so it held together and mostly worked. Politicians respected one another as people and humans, even though they differed in opinion. I personally can't see a way back for USA without a massive purge in the government followed by actual ironclad laws and processes set in stone to prevent anything like this from happening again. Let congress google basic facts, let them call people liars to their face, give them their own execuitve branch that can drag people for hearings by force if needed. And copy the German Federal Constitutional Court[0] system, they have term limits and people are nominated through multiple channels.
fuzzfactor 8mo ago
Ideally they don't change course every 4 years, they change only people who become more adept at maintaining course as they go along. Quite simply the US had founding fathers who were ahead of their time, and some uncharted waters ahead of it. This set the example for the decent navigators who took the executive positions, but momentum can only last so long. You need decent people to come along on a regular basis to refresh the progress. The very system that allowed for a gifted individual to have an outsized positive outcome, has always posed a real vulnerability if the decency is compromised. Whether that is a "natural" lack of decency or if compromises escalate over time, that's a weakness which is magnified when it does show up. Different presidents have had this problem from time to time. When you start with a country where the big advantage is being ahead of its time with an emphasis on more decency than average, it doesn't take somebody completely behind the times or absolutely disgusting to do serious damage. Even dropping the ball one time can be a major setback. Just ask every respectable President in history.
expedition32 8mo ago
I am from a country with 20 political parties and near constant political drama. It makes America look sane. The answer is contract law. Pulling the plug out of a project costs money. Obviously this still requires a level of sanity which may no longer exist in the US.
JKCalhoun 8mo ago
You attenuate the power of the presidency.
- titzer 8mo ago
  Wild that you're being downvoted. America was explicitly founded in rejection of the power of a monarch.
randomtoast 8mo ago
> If a country changes course every four years, how can the success of a long-term project be ensured? Simple. You begin constructing an offshore wind park when someone competent is president, pause the project for four years during Trump's term, and then resume work to complete it.
ghtbircshotbe 8mo ago
This problem has already been solved. The legislature creates the laws, the executive executes the laws, and the judiciary interprets the laws. But now we're in a situation where the executive does whatever it wants including illegally shutting down congressionally created programs, the legislature lets it happen despite not having the votes to legally change the law, and the judiciary is also letting it happen when they aren't inventing new constitutional amendments. If you're asking how to prevent society from descending into authoritarianism, they've been trying to figure that out since Caesar at least.
- Throaway1982 8mo ago
  Ironically Caesar was merely the culmination of the ever-increasing centralization of wealth & power into fewer hands. He wasn't assassinated in order to restore freedom to Rome, he was assassinated by former elites who resented that they weren't in charge like they used to be. Civil rights actually improved, somewhat dramatically, during Rome's Imperial age.
- pjc50 8mo ago
  > The legislature Congress 53/45 R; House 219/215 R > creates the laws, the executive Donald Trump (R) > executes the laws, and the judiciary SCOTUS (5-4 R) > interprets the laws. So Republicans create, execute, interpret, and enforce the laws. Congratulations on discovering how the party system works. Guess you're Big Poland (PiS) now. You can watch this on the news: Fox (R-Murdoch), CBS (R-Weiss), or read about it in the Washington Post (R-Bezos) (snark aside, the situation where there's popular demand for authoritarianism is very dangerous, difficult to unravel, but like in Poland, it can be done once the public realize their mistake)
  - Braxton1980 8mo ago
    Republicans don't have a sufficient majority in the Senate.
    - ViewTrick1002 8mo ago
      They do. The 60 votes requirement is just a handshake agreement 50 votes + the vice president can remove at any moment.

pwarner 8mo ago

I'm not advocating their system, but here's one pro for China obviously.

SecretDreams 8mo ago
Dictatorships work as long as they're benevolent, much like democracies work as long as they aren't bought.
- dominicrose 8mo ago
  It depends what you mean by work. Technology - among a myriad of other things - enables the worst dictators to stay in power, even if the country as a whole doesn't work.
  - SecretDreams 8mo ago
    Work in my post was "work for the people".
chongli 8mo ago
China doesn't have flip-flopping like this with its attendant massive waste. Instead it has endemic corruption which siphons off funds all over the place, perhaps with the exception of the big projects that command the full attention of central leadership.
- tehjoker 8mo ago
  Yet somehow they've managed to eliminate extreme poverty and challenge the U.S. in GDP. Sounds like cope to me. They couldn't do that with extreme corruption like we tolerate in U.S. allies.
  - monting 8mo ago
    They "eliminated" extreme poverty caused by communist control in the first place, by going to a capitalist system. There were tons of economic low-hanging fruits by building out large infrastructure projects, which corruption happily siphoned off of. The ROI of these infra projects have been gone for a while, yet they continued. Also it's been stealing intellectual property, trade dumping, exporting deflation. Soaking up the manufacturing oxygen of everyone else through subsidies, elite capture, then using the leverage gained and veiled threats against others to force them to yield resources, market access and political control.
    - viccis 8mo ago
      More cope. "They eliminated poverty... but at WHAT COST? They did good things but they trampled on the intellectual property of our beloved billionares? *sob*"
      - monting 8mo ago
        The "good thing" they did, is stopping their actions which causes millions to starve. Which lead to people getting themselves out of poverty.
        hgomersall 8mo ago
        Yeah, and whilst getting themselves out of poverty they built 50,000km of high speed rail.
        monting 8mo ago
ncr100 8mo ago
Also, China can lobby indirectly through media manipulation, and relatively cheaply disrupt our already clunky-feeling Democratic governmental processes.
olerich 8mo ago
Quite the opposite, a working, independent justice system guarantees rule of law and long term stability.
cm2187 8mo ago
It's a double edge sword. If the Boss has decided that the country should do X, it's much harder to make him reverse course if it's a bad direction. Zero covid and return to good old communism are two recent examples. For all their flaws and ineffectiveness, democracies are self correcting.
johanvts 8mo ago
You can have a functional democracy and still do long term planning, the problem is the current US government. Its not a fundamental flaw in democracy.
- joe_mamba 8mo ago
  >You can have a functional democracy and still do long term planning Sure, but that's contingent on 1) the voters being well educated and not easily brainwashed by various types of propaganda pushing them to vote against their own interests (see the Germans being anti-nuclear and pro-Russian gas since the 80s) and > 2) the voters being trusted and having an actual ownership in the country so that their votes affect them directly and also having a say in how their country is run, because if whoever gets voted into power just does the opposite of what the voters want "for their own good", then you're not a democracy anymore, you're just a well functioning state (if that). Other than Switzerland, and maybe Denmark, I don't know any democracies that constantly function well and aren't plagued with issues.
  - johanvts 8mo ago
    Populism is always a danger, but the current US administration is all about spite, no matter the cost. It is uniquely, outstandingly bad. Lots of places have working democracies that have managed to do long term planning.
clarionbell 8mo ago
The disadvantage in their system, is if the the leadership makes a wrong decision, it will stick for much longer than 4 years, and it won't be challenged. Now, recently, they had a very good run. This must be admitted and even celebrated. But the aforementioned flaw is still very much present.

SpicyLemonZest 8mo ago

I'm not sure I follow the questions. The success of a long-term project can be ensured through the procedures described in the source article: you set up a durable judicial system, and invest them with the power to require that the country uphold its end of the bargain, no matter how much its current political leaders might want to change course.

CamperBob2 8mo ago
you set up a durable judicial system, and give them their own army. That's the only way to work around Trump. According to the Constitution, no one can actually make the executive branch do anything it doesn't want to do.
- SpicyLemonZest 8mo ago
  No, that's not accurate. The courts frequently make Trump and his cronies do things they don't want to do, and prevent them from doing things they do want to do. Multiple such cases are described in the source article.
  - CamperBob2 8mo ago
    That state of affairs is seen as a bug, and is being fixed. [1] 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Society That aside: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/07/21/trump-court-orders-defy-noncompliance-marshals-judges/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/07/21/trump-cou... Edit due to rate-limiting: that makes two of us.
    - SpicyLemonZest 8mo ago
      If Trump defies 1 in 3 of the court orders against him, that still means judges successfully stopped him 2 times out of 3. I'm not interested in a discussion where we equivocate between what's true today and worst case scenarios that could become true in the future, sorry.

alextheparrot 8mo ago

I mean, you could also frame this as an issue the electorate could actually prioritize instead of just hoping the courts work it out

Octoth0rpe 8mo ago

> how can the success of a long-term project be ensured? Well, for one by ensuring that 'long-term' means it starts at the start of a term and ends before the end of that term. At most that only rules out nuclear, at least wrt long term energy projects. And it's not like recent dem administrations were unfriendly towards nuclear. Vogtle 3/4 were approved early in Obama's term, and finished under Biden's.

Sharlin 8mo ago
"Long term" means decades when it comes to energy strategy, major infrastructure initiatives, and decarbonization. Four years is woefully inadequate for strategic planning, you’re operating on a tactical level at best.
- aboardRat4 8mo ago
  There is no reason to do long term projects with public funds. Private companies are not subject to the vagaries of democracy and can plan as long-term as they want.
  - Sharlin 8mo ago
    Uh, okay.
  - fch42 8mo ago
    Except funding is not everything that's needed for long term projects. There are other resources - workforce, supply chain integrity, legal entitlements and approvals, etc, that are all contributing to "plannable delivery" of long-term projects. And quite a few of these are very much subject to the vagaries of democracy. Unless, of course, you assume (the ideal to be) an entirely anarchist business environment where whoever-with-resources can do whatever. Democracy, though, is not that.
bradchris 8mo ago
4 years gets you, historically, an 8-plex built in San Francisco. If you’re lucky. The ship is slowly turning, but that’s what institutional investors would call a short-term win in the most economically productive state in the USA. I’m a supporter of it regardless of the cost, but for a “long term” project look at the California HSR, which was directly approved by voters 19 years ago and we’re still debating how to fund the majority of it, let alone actually build what we voted to construct and open in its entirety within 10 years.

jaco6 8mo ago

[dead]

sirspacey 8mo ago

you’ve landed on the core of politics the shape of how things actually work is what’s left when constant churn (and now budget blocking) is a fact of life

shimman 8mo ago
No, this is the core of a particular brand of politics: neoliberal politics. Where the financialization of everything is what's most important. There was a time, still in lived memory, where the US government was able to complete many types of projects and it also coincided with the period of lowest economic inequality (the great compression), the expansion of civil rights, and had the highest taxes against the elites this country has ever seen. Obviously if you hate democracy you'll want to destroy this system, which is what they've been working at for the last 50ish years.
- s1artibartfast 8mo ago
  Tax rates are not the same as effective taxes paid, and US taxes as a percent of GDP are at an all time high. This is besides the fact that gdp is many times higher, growing geometrically. It is an interesting question of what changed in terms of ability to execute, but lack of funding isn't the answer. I suspect it is a combination of scope creep, application to intractable problems, and baumols cost disease at work.
  - miki123211 8mo ago
    Don't forget vetocracy. Every regulation, whether it's environmental, DEIA or anti-fraud, adds a few steps to each project. With enough regulations and enough steps, things just slow down to a crawl. As governments and legal systems get older, they get into more and more situations where a bad thing happens, and the politicians must show that they've done something to stop a similar thing from happening again. Nobody can publicly admit that it's fine to letting a 5-year-old kid die once in a while, even if that would be the right call. This results in more and more layers of regulation being added, which nobody has an incentive to remove.

vvpan 8mo ago

Which is largely why presidencies do not mess with the order they inherit too much (subjective statement I know). Most institutions and projects are not stressed and the government branches just keep doing what they always did. The current administration is an outlier, but we all know that.

Krasnol 8mo ago
The problem is that the outlier might mark a beginning. Seeing what's possible in this position, I doubt future US presidents will hold back.
- gimmeThaBeet 8mo ago
  the aphorism that comes to mind with that prospect these days is: "populism is like cigarettes, it's not the first one that kills you, it's the last"
- bruce511 8mo ago
  It doesn't matter I'd they hold back or not. The perception of political instability is enough. If, as an investor, I'm asked to throw billions at a multi-year project, political risk is going to be on the PowerPoint. You may think this current administration is an aberration, but it serves to prove that aberrations can happen. That the levers supposed to prevent this (congress, courts) are creaking. Sure a judge ruled for now, but this is a long way from finished.) And that's enough to create doubt. Lots of doubt. The impact of this on long-term future infrastructure projects cannot be over-stated. (Let's leave aside that this project was 6 years in the planning, during his first term, before construction start in 2022... which just makes the current behavior worse, not better.)
  - johanvts 8mo ago
    Which is exactly why Orsted will now focus on European wind projects instead. American projects will have to be that more profitable/expensive in the future to compensate for the political risk. But I guess this is exactly the desired outcome for big oil, no outside competition.

themafia 8mo ago

> If a country changes course every four years Dozens of new GW+ wind farms came online in the last four years. This concerns a few projects in a few particular locations that are exposed to federal interference. It has impacts on the market but the market is larger than these minor disturbances by an order of magnitude. > while keeping the focus on long-term ideas and plans. We have private business in this country. They're doing just fine.

hvb2 8mo ago
> Dozens of new GW+ wind farms came online in the last four years. Thats not that much is it given the size and energy demand of the country? And that's over the past 4 years, you'll only see the true impact of this in the next 6 years. > This concerns a few projects in a few particular locations that are exposed to federal interference Markets are driven by a lot of feelings too. If you're trying to build a wind farm now, why on earth would you do that in the US? There are just many better options. Your private businesses will happily skip over the US if they understand markets. Don't row upstream, find a place where your investment is wanted
- themafia 8mo ago
  > Thats not that much is it given the size and energy demand of the country? What is it relative to these 5 projects? > you'll only see the true impact of this in the next 6 years. Are these the _only_ new projects that could _possibly_ be built in that time frame? > a lot of feelings too The feelings of those with money not of the general population. > If you're trying to build a wind farm now, why on earth would you do that in the US? You just said. "The size and energy demand of the country." Or are you proposing that no one would build unless we remove absolutely all risk for them? I'm not sure you and I mean the same thing when saying "private business." > happily skip over the US I believe this is a worn out trope. Please show some evidence this has actually occurred. > find a place where your investment is wanted Ah.. the "amazonification" of America. "Businesses shouldn't compete or take risks!" You seem to say. We must bend over and make them happy before they can deign to take our dollars. Perfectly modern and utterly ridiculous.

Aziz_aze 8mo ago

_How can the other side trust that an agreement will hold in the future?_ You can't, and US history is full of that. It's deeply rooted in US culture ! See for example the numerous wars against native Americans in the 19th century; even in some Washington US museum they admin the natives were not wrong when they had to assume any peace treaty was not worth the ink it was written with (and meant "we're only regrouping and will attack again in less than 5 years").

deleted 8mo ago

[deleted]

neilwilson 8mo ago

By only doing projects for which there is sufficient political support across the board, not the ones that are supported by a tiny vocal minority of the electorate. Either we live in a democracy or we do not. Democracy determines the correct path by wobbling between two incompatible options - implementation and repeal. That which is implemented by one side, but not repealed by the other survives as the appropriate path. There is no alternative to this - without abandoning democracy and universal suffrage. Remember that democracy is the worst way to run a country, except for all the other.

spacebacon 8mo ago
The pitchfork bifurcation: https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5987495 https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5987495

epolanski 8mo ago

> If a country changes course every four years, how can the success of a long-term project be ensured? Sadly this is an inherent weakness of the US constitution. It's old and it was written at a time where we didn't have enough experience with democracies. In a modern parliamentary democracy you vote parties which form coalitions and settle on one of the party leaders (in general the one with most votes) as prime minister. This means that: - other parties are still involved in the legislative process. In a presidential republic with the president holding executive power, other parties are not represented at all. Trump doesn't need approval on his actions neither by opposition nor his own party. In a parliament, many members will support continuity on many topics rather than change if it doesn't make sense. They still vote based on their conscience, not just on their affiliation. - the executive depends on its effectiveness and for staying in power on the support of its parliament members. If some members of Giorgia Meloni's coalition don't like the direction she's taking they are not gonna vote her proposals and ultimately she may need to resign if she gets a vote of no confidence. Removing a president in countries like US is extremely difficult in comparison, and the executive has no checks, neither from opposition nor its own party to go in whatever direction a single individual decides to go. Seriously, what Belarus, Turkey, Hungary, Russia, etc, all have in common? They are presidential republics. Single individuals hold too much power and have little checks from their own party members, let alone a parliament. It's no coincidence that the last parliamentary democracy to turn into authoritarian state has been Sri Lanka over 50 years ago: it's difficult for individuals to grab power, as there is a long checklist of things that need to happen. In a presidential one? It's very simple: a single individual can claim popular mandate, building a personality cult is simple (you don't vote parties, you vote individuals), a single individual holds executive power and is very hard to remove. Presidential republics are more effective than slow parliamentary ones, but we should ask ourselves if our focus in 2020s, in advanced economies where things are objectively fine, isn't slow refinement instead of sharp turns.

theshrike79 8mo ago
> Sadly this is an inherent weakness of the US constitution. It's old and it was written at a time where we didn't have enough experience with democracies. (I'm not even American and I know this) The constitution was meant to be a living document, adjusted over the years as the world changes. But the very opposite happened, it became Holy Scripture, unchanging and never evolving. The whole American system was based on the idea that the ruling class cared for "reputation", "honor" or "legacy". It was wholy unprepared for people who just don't give a fuck about all that and actively wipe their asses on existing rules and conventions. Like going in front of Congress and just ... lying. Provably, verifiably lying. Zero recourse, the shame of lying used to be enough. And because of ancient decorum rules, the congress can't even say "you're lying" and google the facts right there and then, they have to do this idiotic perfromatic dance of asking the same question repeatedly and getting a word salad non-answer back for hours. Or just not going for the inquiry because, why would you? There's no penalty past "losing face" for not going. Why bother. The system was flawed from the start, but the people were still in there for the best of everyone so it held together and mostly worked. Politicians respected one another as people and humans, even though they differed in opinion. I personally can't see a way back for USA without a massive purge in the government followed by actual ironclad laws and processes set in stone to prevent anything like this from happening again. Let congress google basic facts, let them call people liars to their face, give them their own execuitve branch that can drag people for hearings by force if needed. And copy the German Federal Constitutional Court[0] system, they have term limits and people are nominated through multiple channels.

fuzzfactor 8mo ago

Ideally they don't change course every 4 years, they change only people who become more adept at maintaining course as they go along. Quite simply the US had founding fathers who were ahead of their time, and some uncharted waters ahead of it. This set the example for the decent navigators who took the executive positions, but momentum can only last so long. You need decent people to come along on a regular basis to refresh the progress. The very system that allowed for a gifted individual to have an outsized positive outcome, has always posed a real vulnerability if the decency is compromised. Whether that is a "natural" lack of decency or if compromises escalate over time, that's a weakness which is magnified when it does show up. Different presidents have had this problem from time to time. When you start with a country where the big advantage is being ahead of its time with an emphasis on more decency than average, it doesn't take somebody completely behind the times or absolutely disgusting to do serious damage. Even dropping the ball one time can be a major setback. Just ask every respectable President in history.

expedition32 8mo ago

I am from a country with 20 political parties and near constant political drama. It makes America look sane. The answer is contract law. Pulling the plug out of a project costs money. Obviously this still requires a level of sanity which may no longer exist in the US.

JKCalhoun 8mo ago

You attenuate the power of the presidency.

titzer 8mo ago
Wild that you're being downvoted. America was explicitly founded in rejection of the power of a monarch.

randomtoast 8mo ago

> If a country changes course every four years, how can the success of a long-term project be ensured? Simple. You begin constructing an offshore wind park when someone competent is president, pause the project for four years during Trump's term, and then resume work to complete it.

ghtbircshotbe 8mo ago

This problem has already been solved. The legislature creates the laws, the executive executes the laws, and the judiciary interprets the laws. But now we're in a situation where the executive does whatever it wants including illegally shutting down congressionally created programs, the legislature lets it happen despite not having the votes to legally change the law, and the judiciary is also letting it happen when they aren't inventing new constitutional amendments. If you're asking how to prevent society from descending into authoritarianism, they've been trying to figure that out since Caesar at least.

Throaway1982 8mo ago
Ironically Caesar was merely the culmination of the ever-increasing centralization of wealth & power into fewer hands. He wasn't assassinated in order to restore freedom to Rome, he was assassinated by former elites who resented that they weren't in charge like they used to be. Civil rights actually improved, somewhat dramatically, during Rome's Imperial age.
pjc50 8mo ago
> The legislature Congress 53/45 R; House 219/215 R > creates the laws, the executive Donald Trump (R) > executes the laws, and the judiciary SCOTUS (5-4 R) > interprets the laws. So Republicans create, execute, interpret, and enforce the laws. Congratulations on discovering how the party system works. Guess you're Big Poland (PiS) now. You can watch this on the news: Fox (R-Murdoch), CBS (R-Weiss), or read about it in the Washington Post (R-Bezos) (snark aside, the situation where there's popular demand for authoritarianism is very dangerous, difficult to unravel, but like in Poland, it can be done once the public realize their mistake)
- Braxton1980 8mo ago
  Republicans don't have a sufficient majority in the Senate.
  - ViewTrick1002 8mo ago
    They do. The 60 votes requirement is just a handshake agreement 50 votes + the vice president can remove at any moment.