There were hundreds of prosecutions. Then SCOTUS declared the president immune. Then the bad guy got reelected and pardoned everyone. Then started launched truly malicious prosecutions of political enemies. Cases which thankfully are dying due to lack of merit.
One side is doing all the bad things and the other is simply struggling to stop them. Being cynical helps nothing.
I can give you the exact opposite anecdote for myself. Spent weeks with Dr Google and one or another LLMs (few years ago so not current SOTA) describing myself and getting like 10 wrong possibilities. Took my best guess with me to a doctor who listened to me babble for 5 minutes and immediately gave me a correct diagnosis of a condition I had not remotely considered. Problem was most likely that I was not accurately describing my symptoms because it was difficult to put it into words. But also I was probably priming queries with my own expected (and mistaken) outcomes. Not sure if current models would have done a better job, but in my case at least, a human doctor was far superior.
It's certainly valuable but you can ask Digg and MySpace how secure being the first mover is. I can already hear my dad telling me he is using Google's ChatGPT...
I babbled some symptoms I did not understand to a doctor who correctly diagnosed me with a very rare condition in 30 seconds. And that's after spending weeks prodding LLMs (~2 years ago) and getting nowhere.
I think the main point is to not “of course” either side of this. Use every tool and recourse available to you, but don’t bag on people for doing or not doing one or the other. “Ask your doctor” is presumptive for people who have and need more.
It can go both ways. The difference is that Dr. Chat's opinion takes 5 seconds and is free. It can be just as useless as a doctor who prescribes some med to mask your symptoms instead of understanding why you have them.
There is no key word here. It's an aspirational assertion on social media. Everyone asking about how it will be implemented is asking questions Trump has spent zero seconds considering. He will maybe sign some EO that will have very limited scope but mostly he is asking Congress to figure it out. Given the makeup of the Senate it will require bipartisan support which means at least months of haggling if they even consider his request. So we really have no idea what the policy will be or when we'll see it.
Republicans were actively angry at past attempts to fight obesity or limit sugar.
There is another side to the nutrition recommendations beyond pure nutrition and that's economics. Pro business Republicans were loathe to anger big food producers.
On the flip side, this new food guide is now advocating a diet that is far more expensive for average consumers at a time when food inflation is already hurting so many households.
Headline is very misleading. Reuters prefaces this with "Trump says" which is weaselly enough.
Quote from the article: "In a post on Truth Social, Trump said he was immediately taking steps to implement the ban which he would also call on Congress to codify in law."
The president can't do this. His EO will likely be some kind of statement of intent or request to the FTC to see what can be done. Really, this is an exhortation for Congress to do something. A bill has yet to be written.
Well, there's no explanation for how this will affect any currently owned properties. So maybe it won't do much of anything. And something important to understand about private equity owning homes, is that they tend to descend on specific geos where the supply allows buying in scale. If they are forced to divest, it very well could crash a few cities or towns. And given that the aforementioned supply was heavily bent towards distressed areas, the crash could be brutal.
It will likely have close to zero impact on high-demand areas.
Yeah, this move is maybe a net positive, but will have a tiny impact on actual home prices. It is absolute red meat for the internet conspiracy machine though. Especially on the left.
I also have no idea what statutory authority he has to enforce this. Surely it requires Congress or at least the FTC chair. And if there's enough vested opposition it's going to be challenged in court pretty quickly.
Right. There are good financial reasons to own a home even if you don't think it's going to be a great investment, just as there are very good reasons not to own a home even if you have the means. It's the absolute, which is the premise of this policy proposal, that's the problem.
And home ownership rates are well within the normal range for the US post war regime! So this is a policy proposal that will likely decrease affordability to fix a problem that doesn’t exist.
Homeownership rates are only ~flat in aggregate because the population is aging and older people are more likely to own their homes. The homeownership rates of Americans aged <35, 35-44, and 45-54 are down ~10% since 1982 and continuing to decrease. https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/data/charts/fig07.pdf
You just told a story about how we need to build more housing. Kasey and I agree with you about that.
The point is that there isn't a distortionary corporate investment force preventing young people from doing that; what there are is zoning and permitting rules locking every desirable location into stasis.
I agree philosophically though there is a lot that can be done short of upending the entire American wealth structure like removing barriers to housing construction (to dramatically increase supply) as well as subsidizing first time buyers eg with preferential mortgage rates and tax write offs.
Not true re #1, yes creating a glut of housing beyond demand in the market would reduce home prices, but other markets like Tokyo that do build a lot of housing still see increasing home values despite stable prices. Land value goes up, but units per unit land goes up too, so each individual unit does not necessarily go down. Maybe the value of your physical single family home goes down, but the value of the land it stands on goes way up when the density and infrastructure around it intensifies, so it does not follow that the homeowner loses out (most likely they make money)
Subsidizing first time buyers does increase prices overall but you have to consider the effect of such a policy relative to its cost. It has potentially positive externalities so that’s worth considering while balancing it out eg with the previous policy.
One side is doing all the bad things and the other is simply struggling to stop them. Being cynical helps nothing.
reply