House prices go up when interest rates are low .
When all the wealth gets bundle up In the hands of a few , economic growth gets extremely difficult without low interest rates and government creating debts to spend in the economy .
Economic growth is done by creating goods and services but it’s damn hard to achieve when the median low has 0% in increase in wealth to spend ….
Which is exactly what happens since 2008.

All majority U.S. growth been done by debts, no wonder the debt is so high today ( by both party’s).

Yes but it’s far better then anywhere else in the world .
And every American owning a house is more utopia then an economic feasibility.
And yes some part of the economy is hard but it’s just basic economic cycles like house prices.

The general vision of American judging the economy is very bad just do not make much sense.

Biden and Trump have more in common than almost everyone is willing to admit.

which btw is why Biden is the best possible democrat candidate, as he can contest voters that would otherwise be absolutely Trump voters.

Paradoxically, the only voice that is constantly claiming this is the radical left, which in this case is spot on right

]

Why is he saying that?
Who is better for legalization, Trump or Biden?

There are still people in jail for this. people have been in jail for
30, 40, 50 years for this. Does he let them all out now? Did he?

Who will end the failed war on drugs, Trump or Biden?

Afaik, POTUS can simply stop enforcing federal drug laws and pardon all people in jail for cannabis possession when he wants to.

Otoh POTUS can't do nothing if I am not mistaken about states where cannabis is illegal, and people in jail for state drug crimes.

Did he do it though? He said "no people should be in jail"


Does that mean he left them out? that would be the question.

I don't know, but Republicans are responsible for most of the war on drugs. It was stated under Nixon and boosted by Reagan.

I believe the states where marijuana has been legalized are all mostly run by democrats. Certainly they mostly are.

New York is going nuts with cannabis btw. It is all legal. Even in Virginia now. They are smoking in front of the cops on times square for the first time in a 100 years.


Trumps swing is fine btw for an 80 old. better than expected. But then again he owns several gold clubs I suppose.

Here you get your answers (he ended up doing very little in practice)

https://www.marijuanamoment.net/corr...pardons-op-ed/

Thanks,

Do you think Trump is good for legalizazion, ending the war on drugs?


are these states all biden?
states where cannabis is legal now:

Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington.

Thats what I thought, thanks. So he is just a liar, again.

Oregon and Washington were near the front as well.

I don't think there is currently any war on marijuana. The feds could be going after sellers in all these states where it is being sold openly, as it is still against federal law. But no president of either party has gone after them, and I doubt any will.

Yes.

No its still a mess. the cartels are still bringing it in from mexico etc.
Although not as much as they used to. The sellers are still mostly drug dealers. (blackmarket)

Sounds like you're talking about other drugs. Even if MJ is still coming in from Mexico, it's not causing major issues and few people are going to prison because of it.

No, not other drugs.

The laws are changing. You dont know what happens behind the curtains though. Its still a lot more complicated than you think.

Slightly better polling for Biden in purple states although he still trails Trump in 6 out of 7 (he won 6 of them in 2020).

% of truly undecided still significant

It gives me a good chuckle when CNN suggests that biden shutting down oil drilling or other policies to decrease oil drilling in the US is somehow good for the climate. We are supposed to believe Americans are going to significantly reduce their energy usage or turn to renewables because of this as opposed to the US just buying more oil from other countries.

Not only does worldwide consumption of oil/gas not go down because of this - it may actually increase it because now we have to buy more from other countries who likely don't have as strict environmental safety regulations as the US does and they have to transport it to the US.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/19/clima...ate/index.html

USA is an exporter of oil. It would mean less exporting. And it does increase renewables because decrease of supply of oil raises prices which is good for alternatives.

CA produced more than 100% of its electrical needs through renewables for 30 of 38 days leading up to 4/15.

The argument is moot anyway. Renewables are taking over because of economics. Texas is one of the biggest drivers of renewables in the USA.

"renewables are taking over because of the economics" they say while giving massing preferential fiscal treatment, and massive subsidisies to renewables.

Not even the decency required for a normal conversation

U.S. fossil fuel subsidies stretch across the U.S. tax code, which makes detailing their costs complex. The IMF estimates they stood at $760 billion in 2022, a figure topped only by China.

Source: https://www.reuters.com/business/env...ut-2023-11-23/

Subsidies did help this happen, but it happened nonetheless and here we are. And there are also tariffs on solar panels.



Of course there are huge subsidies for fossil fuels and people are too dishonest to count the huge subsidy that fossil fuels have gotten in terms of war spending.

They list two things which aren't subsidies, what would the subsidies be
You aren't counting royalties being low (which should be 0 absent fiscal intervention, the state doesn't own **** on your land) as a "subsidy" like radical leftists are you? I hope you aren't.

Anyway even the 760 billion amount is mostly made up of "implicit" subsidies (missed pigouvian taxes), again using leftist logic.

While ofc renewable disruption is never accounted for in a pigouvian sense, go figure.

I understand you guys try to tilt the table of basic logic so much, your warped world looks reasonable in your model, but it isn't.

Fossil fuels shouldn't be taxed at any point in the value chain a single dollar more than any other economic activity.

Royalty on private lands shouldn't exist at all.

That would be the no subsidy scenario.

They are heavily taxed, while renewable are actually subsidies with cash

Wrong. Productive work should obviously be taxed less than natural resources that should belong to no one, but are extracted by private companies.

First impression of the Biden's uncle thing? Possibly eaten by cannibals?

We've top men working on it all.