3 ms·
We don't have to spend it on hardware with such short use-life to spend down those dragon hoards... The amount of money we are talking about could have given t
by doctorwho42 3mo ago
We don't have to spend it on hardware with such short use-life to spend down those dragon hoards...
The amount of money we are talking about could have given the entire US high speed commuter rail.
- edoceo 3mo agoOr every teacher gets classroom supplies for five years. Or treatment programs for addicts. There are a lot of economic benefits to helping folks on the lower side of the income spectrum.
- arjie 3mo agoYeah but taxing 50% of all earnings below $100k could also do that. What money can be spent on is fine but I think we’ve got a good system where people can have reward for economic output and they can use that to allocate money where they want. There are places with central planning and I don’t like them. Personally, I’d rather the money be spent on datacenters. And as it goes, the guys with the money also would prefer that.
- paulhebert 3mo agoYou would rather build data centers than buy school supplies or implement a nationwide high speed commuter rail network?
- arjie 3mo agoYes. To do the latter things as a substitute would require appropriation of other people's money to spend on highly captured industries. I'd rather that not happen.
- sapphicsnail 3mo agoWe have central planning just not by a government
- blackqueeriroh 3mo agoBut it wouldn’t have been so who cares? It’s a counterfactual.
- SpicyLemonZest 3mo agoCould it, though? California estimates the cost of SF to LA at $126 billion (and >20 years of construction time!); at that rate you'd have to spend $1T just to get a single cross-coast track. It is not obvious to me that the US's lack of high speed rail can be solved by money.