17 ms·

> these products and investments are accruing disproportionately to red cities and states Is this true at the city level? > Sinking together isn't a great pit

by runako 2mo ago

> these products and investments are accruing disproportionately to red cities and states Is this true at the city level? > Sinking together isn't a great pitch. Surely it's a worse pitch to suggest that companies can ignore laws they don't like, and operate above the law?

JumpCrisscross 2mo ago
> it's a worse pitch to suggest that companies can ignore laws they don't like, and operate above the law? It’s also worse to murder kittens. That isn’t the choice at hand. The difference is between states adapting with a regulatory framework and those sticking with economic incumbents. (Also, when the taxi medallion industry was at its peak, lenders did run roughshod over the law.)
- runako 2mo ago
  In context, your comment reads as a defense of companies ignoring laws: >> that big companies are (sometimes) bound by the same laws that bind the rest of us > Not if they’re stupid laws! States won't adapt to new technologies at the same time, this is embedded in the design of federalism.
  - JumpCrisscross 2mo ago
    > States won't adapt to new technologies at the same time, this is embedded in the design of federalism …how are you missing this. I’m saying the states failing to adapt need to do so or have their governments replaced. That all of these states are also facing multi-party insurgencies doesn’t strike me as a coïncidence. Pretending the corruption in e.g. New York around this is fine is just such a weird take.
    - lokar 2mo ago
      The desire to slow down and consider the fate of cab drivers (very hard working, low income people) is not automatically corruption.
    - runako 2mo ago
      >…how are you missing this. Yeah, you added that in a later comment because your original comment did read as "ignore stupid laws." Yes, I agree state governments should be responsive to the citizens. Corruption is bad. Ignoring "stupid" laws also goes hand in hand with corruption, and is antithetical to responsive government. > multi-party insurgencies This is interesting in that we kind of expect a healthy representative government to have vigorous competition among multiple groups. I'm not sure this is bad... But a key point of federalism is that each state will adapt in different ways due to having different priorities. Mississippi adapts to the realities of 2026 in very different ways than California. I suspect the same will be true in 2056 and 2096.

by runako 2mo ago

JumpCrisscross 2mo ago

> it's a worse pitch to suggest that companies can ignore laws they don't like, and operate above the law? It’s also worse to murder kittens. That isn’t the choice at hand. The difference is between states adapting with a regulatory framework and those sticking with economic incumbents. (Also, when the taxi medallion industry was at its peak, lenders did run roughshod over the law.)

runako 2mo ago
In context, your comment reads as a defense of companies ignoring laws: >> that big companies are (sometimes) bound by the same laws that bind the rest of us > Not if they’re stupid laws! States won't adapt to new technologies at the same time, this is embedded in the design of federalism.
- JumpCrisscross 2mo ago
  > States won't adapt to new technologies at the same time, this is embedded in the design of federalism …how are you missing this. I’m saying the states failing to adapt need to do so or have their governments replaced. That all of these states are also facing multi-party insurgencies doesn’t strike me as a coïncidence. Pretending the corruption in e.g. New York around this is fine is just such a weird take.
  - lokar 2mo ago
    The desire to slow down and consider the fate of cab drivers (very hard working, low income people) is not automatically corruption.
  - runako 2mo ago
    >…how are you missing this. Yeah, you added that in a later comment because your original comment did read as "ignore stupid laws." Yes, I agree state governments should be responsive to the citizens. Corruption is bad. Ignoring "stupid" laws also goes hand in hand with corruption, and is antithetical to responsive government. > multi-party insurgencies This is interesting in that we kind of expect a healthy representative government to have vigorous competition among multiple groups. I'm not sure this is bad... But a key point of federalism is that each state will adapt in different ways due to having different priorities. Mississippi adapts to the realities of 2026 in very different ways than California. I suspect the same will be true in 2056 and 2096.