> Companies should be doing their own training for their jobs, and university can be freed up to actually be about intellectual pursuit rather than economic pursuit.
This would be great of course, but the reason that 'what actually happens' is so different than 'what should happen' are the usual economic incentives. How can we change the financial calculations to separate formal education from job training in a way that drives the ship in the better direction.
One way could be to regulate degree requirements to only jobs that really require them like engineering, nursing, etc. Another might be allow student loan bankruptcy if certain criteria are met such such as x number of years below y income.
We (meaning the US) won't ever fix this ourselves, because we systematically refuse to hold businesses to any kind of standards.
Make it illegal to discriminate based on degree status in hiring (it's not like anyone is hiring an SWE without doing technical interviews anyways, so if you prove out their skills why does the paper matter?), and you remove both the backdoor socioeconomic discrimination route (which is itself a backdoor route to discriminate against protected attributes), and solve the degree 'inflation' incentive.
It depends on what the land is developed for of course. 'Something' is not always better than 'nothing. I'm sure you can imagine land being developed in a way that is a net negative to the local community and economy.
> Taxes are calculated individually and are independent of one another.
They are not independent. Total tax revenue is the key metric and it is sum of the individual components. If that value is not large enough taxes go up or services go down or both. So if the data center is not paying property taxes but is using services like road building and maintenance, police protection, fire department, water and sewage infrastructure, etc, then those costs ultimately get passed to the people who are paying property taxes.
Or fraud goes down. Or useless wastes of money is no longer tolerated. Or the government is made more profitable. It is definitely possible to do more with less.
Anyways you are trying to distract from the point as what you are arguing is not what this conversation is about I think. Unless you think all of those services will require raising their prices by billions of dollars despite somehow operating under a budget where that same land was not bringing in billions of dollars of property tax.
The tax payers are not paying billions of dollars as a cost to enable the tax cut to happen.
These kinds of tax breaks are a form of legalized fraud, imho. These tech companies absolutely have profit margins enough to pay taxes in full. Reducing their taxes while all the other business and property owners have to pay the full rate is unjustifiable.
Currency interventions never work. They buy a bit of time maybe, but without any fixes to the underlying causes that made the intervention necessary, its a temporary solution.
Where did you learn that? It doesn't reflect the structural volumes present. Central banks make interventions all the time in line with little stabilisation programs. Those are almost always deemed success.
Maybe you deduced it by yourself? If so, fx is weird despite traditionally being seen as the simplest area in finance. E.g. It's counter-intuitive but we tend to think trade make up most FX volume globally. It's in the area of less than 3%. The majority by far is speculative and hedging.
The other trap is fx volume, people assume the know what volume is but then they learn expressions of fx volume is almost always actually tick volume.
It works very well in rich countries, but it is expensive, especially if the volume of exchanged currency is low. This is one of the reason behind the Euro, countries realised it would be way less expensive to defend the currency if they banded together. This is also a big why ex french colonies keeps colonial money, because that currency is pegged to the Euro and that peg protect it (the only way to get out cheaply is to do a West African Union or something similar, which is why anti-colonialists are big on the subject. They are right).
This is literally what central banks do. Central banks influence the economy with monetary policy, including things like this. That's all they're allowed to do, since they're intentionally not a political institution and have no legislative or executive authority. If you want the root cause to be handled, that's up to the legislative body. That's not the central bank's job.
The police have an enormous amount of power in the system. They can unilaterally decide to let people get away with something illegal, or arrest people for doing something fully legal because they felt like it. And even if prosecutors drop the charges in the latter case, being arrested, processed, and jailed until that happens is very much a punishment and an act of state violence in and of itself. The bad cops you mention, do exist and continue to exist because the police have so much power in the system that bad ones can't be fired for inexcusable behavior or even doing crimes themselves (exceptions exist, but are rare). They are as much as administrator of state power as the judges and prosecutors. I would even argue they are more so because of the directness of their actions.
> I have never seen them randomly arresting someone for no reason.
The 'for no reason' is doing a lot of work here I think. The reason might be that they didn't like the person's attitude, the person was annoying (but not breaking laws) someone more rich and powerful than them, and so on. These are technically 'reasons' I suppose, but I would want the bar to be much higher than that.
> I have never seen them randomly arresting someone for no reason.
The fact you have not personally witnessed something does not mean it never happens. It's like saying "I've never seen someone be murdered" as if it has some meaning for actual murder occurrences. Excusing illegal actions just because you don't witness them is a bizarre take.
Anyway, it sounds like your mind is made up, but someone willing to expand their world view might be interested in Jeff Gray's videos on youtube. He is regularly threatened with arrest, typically for standing in a public place with a sign that reads "God bless homeless vets".
I actually love the narrative he gives people: when accused of "soliciting" (pathetically invoking a term that, in a police context, is used to refer to sex work) he tells people that he is, in fact, soliciting good will and compassion for homeless veterans in America. (And, again, he is often threatened with arrest for it.)
For model train sets, its often the cheapest most common ones that become the most valuable decades later. The expensive sets were cared for and so many survived, but the cheap ones were played with and tossed into the bin and then few survive in good condition. So because something was once common does not mean it can't become rare later on.
This would be great of course, but the reason that 'what actually happens' is so different than 'what should happen' are the usual economic incentives. How can we change the financial calculations to separate formal education from job training in a way that drives the ship in the better direction.
One way could be to regulate degree requirements to only jobs that really require them like engineering, nursing, etc. Another might be allow student loan bankruptcy if certain criteria are met such such as x number of years below y income.
reply