Debt Limitapalooza 2023!

Page 57 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,581
50,768
136
Joe Manchin got his gas pipeline and the energy industry got time limits on environmental reviews. The latter will end up delaying projects when hastily completed reviews get eviscerated in court.
What we really need to do is get rid of most of this review entirely. I’m not saying NO review but the current standards are insane.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brainonska511

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
70,165
28,814
136
The current review standards are fine. The problems arise when the agencies try to bullshit their way through the review process in attempt to mask illegal decisions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iRONic

DaaQ

Golden Member
Dec 8, 2018
1,442
1,040
136
This suggestion is an outrage! The stock market is the life blood of capitalism. And thanks to the greatest president to have ever lived (Ronald Reagan), we enjoy some very low capital gains tax rates.
ROFLMAO, your "greatest" President of all time would not even be able to secure a nomination these days.

Excessive ha ha ha's.
 
Dec 10, 2005
25,022
8,298
136
The current review standards are fine. The problems arise when the agencies try to bullshit their way through the review process in attempt to mask illegal decisions.
The environmental reviews have become insane. For example, congestion pricing for Manhattan required several thousand pages and a few years to complete.

How can we expect to do anything when the requirements to do even obviously good environmental things take ages and last longer than a political cycle?
 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
15,258
13,555
146
The environmental reviews have become insane. For example, congestion pricing for Manhattan required several thousand pages and a few years to complete.

How can we expect to do anything when the requirements to do even obviously good environmental things take ages and last longer than a political cycle?
Maybe stop building in the most congested, overbuilt city in the nation?
 
Dec 10, 2005
25,022
8,298
136
Maybe stop building in the most congested, overbuilt city in the nation?
Congestion pricing wasn't about building. It was simply about tolling private vehicles trying to drive into the densest area of the country instead of using public transit.

Also, building where people want to live and be is a good thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: K1052

PlanetJosh

Golden Member
May 6, 2013
1,814
143
106
your primary source of income is leeching off others.
In general, not for any specific person, does that include interest from bank CDs and interest like that, possibly even from treasury bills? Or is it mainly pensions from public service and income like that? Or something other like family. Or you may have meant leeching by any means.

Edit: But I mainly wanted to know if it includes bank CD interest, treasury bills interest and the like in your opinion. Just curious, I'm not forming an argument one way or the other.

I get a lot of CD interest these days and I've wondered if I'm kind of partially living off someone else by sitting around retired and collecting all of that 4% each month at large banks. But it may not be paid for by taxpayers like retirees get at the end of their government careers. Or maybe bank CDs strongly benefit from taxpayers in ways that don't get a lot of notice by the news media? Depending on the CD, not sure.
 
Last edited:

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
15,258
13,555
146
In general, not for any specific person, does that include interest from bank CDs and interest like that, possibly even from treasury bills? Or is it mainly pensions from public service and income like that? Or something other like family. Or you may have meant leeching by any means.

Edit: But I mainly wanted to know if it includes bank CD interest, treasury bills interest and the like in your opinion. Just curious, I'm not forming an argument one way or the other.

I get a lot of CD interest these days and I've wondered if I'm kind of partially living off someone else by sitting around retired and collecting all of that 4% each month at large banks. But it may not be paid for by taxpayers like retirees get at the end of their government careers. Or maybe bank CDs strongly benefit from taxpayers in ways that don't get a lot of notice by the news media? Depending on the CD, not sure.
It was more an absurdist dig at him specifically given his penchant for right-wing talking points and yammering about bootstrapping and all that shit. I take no issue with someone living of proceeds, whether they be the benefits of our social system or something passed down by family/earned through gambling on stocks. I take issue with one doing that, then acting like they're the only real workers and everyone else is a drain on society.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,581
50,768
136
Maybe stop building in the most congested, overbuilt city in the nation?
So instead of congestion pricing you want mass human misery? Going to take a pass on that one. How about instead we just let people build whatever they want and then let the market decide. If people think it’s overbuilt they will stop living there.

It is genuinely distressing that people see one of the most expensive housing markets in the world due to overwhelming demand and figure the best idea is to stop even attempting to meet that demand.
 

A///

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2017
4,351
3,158
136
I was reading some right wing blogs out of boredom last night and most are calling for mccarthy and mtg which i assume is green's heads. leave republicans to themselves and they'll eat their own fecal matter. shit's beautiful to watch unfold.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,581
50,768
136
The environmental reviews have become insane. For example, congestion pricing for Manhattan required several thousand pages and a few years to complete.

How can we expect to do anything when the requirements to do even obviously good environmental things take ages and last longer than a political cycle?
I wonder if people who laud the new deal and the great public works that came from that era realize that it would be impossible to build those same works today in large part due to impossible environmental review requirements.

It was a tremendous, litigation fueled lift to make 14th street for buses and paint it a different color, for example.
 

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
23,003
21,127
136
How about instead we just let people build whatever they want and then let the market decide. If people think it’s overbuilt they will stop living there.

It's such a cavalier and elitist thing to just say if people don't like living somewhere they just don't have to or by implication they can also leave.

Most middle class in lower class can't just pick up and leave. Moving takes money and if you move out of desperation you usually can get exploited pretty easily by the labor market. And the lower class has to live where there are jobs they don't have a choice they can't just not live places.

Supporting building housing to solve the housing crisis is a great thing but not when you have such a gross attitude about it.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
47,990
37,161
136
It's such a cavalier and elitist thing to just say if people don't like living somewhere they just don't have to or by implication they can also leave.

Most middle class in lower class can't just pick up and leave. Moving takes money and if you move out of desperation you usually can get exploited pretty easily by the labor market. And the lower class has to live where there are jobs they don't have a choice they can't just not live places.

Supporting building housing to solve the housing crisis is a great thing but not when you have such a gross attitude about it.

Lower income residents would benefit from reduced rents brought on by a dramatically increased housing supply which incumbent property owners have largely capped.

I think more what he's saying is that if you expect (and demand) a city to be fossilized in amber at the exact moment you arrived there it probably isn't the place for you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brainonska511

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,581
50,768
136
Lower income residents would benefit from reduced rents brought on by a dramatically increased housing supply which incumbent property owners have largely capped.

I think more what he's saying is that if you expect (and demand) a city to be fossilized in amber at the exact moment you arrived there it probably isn't the place for you.
It is true that I think people who expect the place they live to change are being ridiculous, but I also think that there should be no limits to housing development outside of safety.

If your neighborhood changes to be a place you don’t like that’s sad, but it’s also life. The choice to not permit that change also has costs, which usually manifest in things like mass homelessness or a one bedroom apartment costing $3,000 a month. I bet people don’t like that either!
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,527
15,406
136
It is true that I think people who expect the place they live to change are being ridiculous, but I also think that there should be no limits to housing development outside of safety.

If your neighborhood changes to be a place you don’t like that’s sad, but it’s also life. The choice to not permit that change also has costs, which usually manifest in things like mass homelessness or a one bedroom apartment costing $3,000 a month. I bet people don’t like that either!

Does this mean you support removing zoning laws and are for the mixing of industrial with residential and everything in between?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,581
50,768
136
Does this mean you support removing zoning laws and are for the mixing of industrial with residential and everything in between?
I’ve said very clearly and repeatedly that I’m referring strictly to residential zoning. Industrial production is often hazardous so for the same safety and health reasons I support housing safety regulation industrial production should be separate.

All other non-safety related residential restrictions should be abolished though. All of them.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,581
50,768
136
Then of course you will be able to tie that claim to building setbacks, air rights, and so forth.
It would be ridiculous to insist that I tie all land use regulation to racism. You mentioned zoning, and that’s where zoning came from. Keeping out the blacks and the poors.

The reason to get rid of these regulations is that they are bad and are contributing to a humanitarian crisis. That doesn’t change the fact that the original motivations for some of them were racism.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
70,165
28,814
136
It would be ridiculous to insist that I tie all land use regulation to racism. You mentioned zoning, and that’s where zoning came from. Keeping out the blacks and the poors.

The reason to get rid of these regulations is that they are bad and are contributing to a humanitarian crisis. That doesn’t change the fact that the original motivations for some of them were racism.
I see, then maybe reaching for every straw you can think of to make your case demonstrates the weakness of your case.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,581
50,768
136
I see, then maybe reaching for every straw you can think of to make your case demonstrates the weakness of your case.
What straw are you talking about? You said the lack of regulation is how we got zoning. That was untrue - we got zoning due to racism. All I was doing was correcting you.

As for the rest of the regulations I’m happy to make a case against them on the merits as I’ve done many times before. These regulations have led to skyrocketing home prices and with that, a humanitarian crisis of mass homelessness in coastal metros. I think unaffordable housing and homelessness is bad, so things that cause those are bad.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,581
50,768
136
Society as a whole also becomes poorer as more and more of its productive capacity is captured by rent seeking incumbent property owners.

In NYC for example if we abolished all this nonsense there would be a construction spree citywide - this would lead to not only much lower rents than in the current scenario, it would also provide tons of new tax revenue to cover projected deficits in the coming years. Everyone wins, except the people counting on retiring based on their artificially inflated home value.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
I'd have to take a look at what specific regs we're talking about getting rid of, but I do generally agree that housing is way over-regulated, especially in certain places. It certainly is in the SF bay area.

When we pruchased our home 10 years ago, there was a prefab storage unit in our fenced off backyard. You could barely see the roof of it peaking out over the fence. It had been there for 20 years, said the previous owner. So of course we used it.

Until a neighbor decided he wanted a storage unit just like ours. Except he went to the bulding department and asked what was OK and what was not. When they said a storage unit of that exact size was "10% over the size limit for a backyard storage unit," this asshole said "but but, our neighbors at _______ have one just like that and it's been up for decades!"

Within days, an inspector shows up at our house and tells us we have to tear it down.

For what, what public need was even served by this?

I think some people want to establish a utopia accessible to only those who can afford it, and the rest of us be damned.
 

manly

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
11,812
2,761
136
I'd have to take a look at what specific regs we're talking about getting rid of, but I do generally agree that housing is way over-regulated, especially in certain places. It certainly is in the SF bay area.

When we pruchased our home 10 years ago, there was a prefab storage unit in our fenced off backyard. You could barely see the roof of it peaking out over the fence. It had been there for 20 years, said the previous owner. So of course we used it.

Until a neighbor decided he wanted a storage unit just like ours. Except he went to the bulding department and asked what was OK and what was not. When they said a storage unit of that exact size was "10% over the size limit for a backyard storage unit," this asshole said "but but, our neighbors at _______ have one just like that and it's been up for decades!"

Within days, an inspector shows up at our house and tells us we have to tear it down.

For what, what public need was even served by this?

I think some people want to establish a utopia accessible to only those who can afford it, and the rest of us be damned.
If NIMBY, then not in your back yard either! :rolleyes: