If by "boom" you mean a small uptick from the tend was observed in one demographic then sure...

You want productivity to be high. If more jobs are needed to produce less energy that doesn't bode well.

Employing a lot of people isn't really a sign of progress. You'd prefer a new industry to require less human labor, not more. I feel like a lot of people misunderstand this.

They aren't moving the inmates anywhere, they are moving to not house pre-trial detainees at all. The few that they will still house are going to he moved to a new 50 story jail in Manhattan.

Yes, the jail was for the whole city.

Transmission lines are 98% efficient. There's no need to put solar in the middle of the city. The idea is just completely absurd.

Rikers Island is being shut down...

Putting solar panels on Rikers Island is just plain stupid. That land is worth Billions. Sell the land and you can afford to put 20x as much solar somewhere upstate.

Nobody "locks horns" with anybody IRL. It's not like the US President ever debates foreign leaders.

These televised debates are just pointless. It's all about getting in a silly one-liner, not actually having an intellectual discussion.

Fuel rods are enriched less than 5%, bombs are over 90%.

Our country would have been better off today if Bloomberg had won the Presidency.

Those aren't controlled by the government, a jury has to find you guilty.

I've been getting wall to wall political ads for the last month and they have more disinformation in these OFFICIAL political ads than I've ever seen on Facebook. If these politicians want to reduce disinformation they should start by pulling all their own ads.

Most people don't pay much because they don't make much. Your numbers include people in school and retired. Working class people are paying taxes.

PS you still don't seem to understand that top earners and top taxpayers are totally different. The people paying high taxes are W2 earners like athletes and movie stars. People whose money is coming from stocks pay far less or even zero.

When you buy an index you're buying stocks with no research into the underlying companies. This only works if the market is working efficiently and prices represent all knowledge available to the market. If most money is invested passively then the market can't work efficiently anymore because most of the buying and selling pressure is divorced from the underlying fundamentals of a company. This allows active managers to buy or sell stocks that are priced incorrectly in order to beat the market.

Most people are not able to avoid taxes that way. We have W2 income that is taxed far more aggressively.

That's just false. They routinely report no income. Even when they do report income it's peanuts compared to their actual wealth.

https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax

In some cases these Billionaires have even received credits meant for the poor:

https://www.businessinsider.com/jeff-bezos-claimed-tax-credit-for-children-propublica-2021-6

Half the people you see on this list are in the bottom 50%. That's because people pay taxes on income, not wealth. So, if you don't sell any stocks you don't pay any taxes even if you're worth 12 figures.

That certainly has happened before, but most people are a little more subtle.

It shouldn't be up to Billionaires to decide what is or isn't a worthy cause. They should pay their taxes either way. Bringing up Malaria is a strawman because there's far more questionable things some of these foundations are funding than that.

No. If you donate to a charity like the Red Cross then they now control that money. However if you donate to your own "charity" then you still control all that money and can now spend it tax free.

IMO there's definitely different tiers of philanthropy. Anything political shouldn't be praised, it should be condemned. Even donating to your own foundation is pretty questionable since it's a huge tax dodge and often directed towards pet projects.

ETFs have become so popular because there is mountains of evidence that no active manager can actually consistently beat them. HOWEVER as passive investments take over more of the market it actually does create arbitrage opportunities that active management can exploit.

Shutting down perfectly good nuclear plants is silly, but we also need to recognize most nuclear plants are either nearing their original designed lifespan or have already surpassed it. We need to be building new plants, not just keeping ones from the 1970s going forever.