Court orders restart of all US offshore wind power construction

I was thinking something along the lines of this: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1CFpQ

However, my main point was to refute the idea of some mythical past where the government was massively more funded, and therefore more competent and capable.

This also ignores the effect of the growing pie over time, but that is somewhat a tangent.

If someone is referencing back to the 1930s tax rates, those total receipts were closer to 10% of GDP when things like the Hoover Dam and Interstate System were being built.

Today, the rates are closer to 30% and the GDP being taxed is 25-30 times larger, controlling for inflation.

To me, this suggests that the reason we can't perform infrastructure projects is not lack of funding

Stop lying: https://electrek.co/2026/01/14/uk-offshore-wind-record-aucti...

> Are the democrats magically going to be able to have 100% control of the government despite only holding a tiny majority in the lower house?

They're not supposed to have 100% control of the government. Nobody is. They're supposed to prevent the Republicans from doing dumb stuff, just like the Republicans are supposed to prevent them from doing different dumb stuff because they have different constituencies. Only when they can both agree is when the government should be doing something, and even then you often need help from the courts and the states because the thing they both agree on is that someone is paying them to do something bad.

The best government is the one that does exactly what it should. The second best is the one that doesn't do things that it should; in that case someone else can do them, like the states or the market. The worst is the one that does things that it shouldn't.

> FDR was able to reform and change things the way he was because Democrats had something like 80% control of both houses

FDR was pre-Nixon and had 80% control by sweeping the South and losing New England. People forget that the original purpose of the minimum wage was to prevent black people from taking jobs from white people by offering to work for less money. Most of FDR's policies were economically illiterate or political knavery -- social security was created with the solvency of a pyramid scheme which is why the trust fund already has a negative growth rate and is soon going to run out of money now that population growth has leveled off.

That kind of authoritarian steamrolling over the opposition is exactly what nobody should be able to do, not least because it most often happens when people are heated about something and willing to start hastily implementing half-baked ideas with long-term consequences if given the chance.

> It's much easier to obstruct and prevent and destroy

If only! A major defect in the existing system is that the high bar meant to keep bad laws from making onto the books to begin with is also applied as the requirement to repeal them. Combined with the tendency for the powerful to defend the status quo that secured them that power, the result is that bad laws accumulate and how to be effective in destroying them is an unsolved problem.

> I'm not Christian.

Apologies, I assumed such from the way you described architecture. Few western religions have influence on architecture as much as Christianity.

>Scientology's "highest teachings" are kept private. Its primary purpose seems to be raising money by abusing people's naivety. Compare that to the Christ's « love thy neighbor as thyself. » Very distinct essences.

That's your assumption. I can easily assume that Catholicism primary purpose is to hide a ring of people who engage in rape and pedophilia. There are different angles to every religion, you're just indoctrinated with the most populist angle. In the same way much of the west doesn't realize the religions of tibet and falun gong have cult like aspects FAR worse then scientology.

>Which one promotes social stability?

Both. Morality is not required for stability.

>I think you've essentially said « I don't care whether people around me get slaughtered, because I'm not the target audience. » Allow me to find this self-centered. And still to find it okay-ish.

You're just twisting and manipulating the logic so you can maintain the moral high ground when in actuality you're twisting everything.

The first problem is I'm not talking about mass slaughter. When the fuck did that become the topic? Are you saying I promote mass slaughter because China promotes mass slaughter? You're under this western propaganda where you seem to think China is some futuristic cyberpunk city on top but underneath the system is bathed in blood, torture slaughter and evisceration. Nothing is further from the truth.

When China tortures, when china executes someone, it is for crimes that fit punishment. They won't execute you if you're in a cult. They will execute you if you stole millions of dollars. The debate is about degree but the overall severity is reasonable.

I'm sick of talking to people with a misguided view of China. It's like talking to a clown. Somehow people like you are convinced that it's just blood and evil underneath.

>Not what I was hinting at.

Speak in english please, don't speak in hints. I said religions were not true, you countered with architecture. Now you claim it was a hint. Hint: don't speak with hints.

>They actually are, but I haven't articulated the reasoning fully. Nor do I feel encouraged to articulate it. If you're truly in good faith, enough has been already said for you to do your own research

No they aren't. I don't need to do research for a country I'm highly familiar with and even lived there for quite some time. I'm going to be utterly clear: You are ignorant and you are illogical and you need to do research. I'm Chinese. And I was born in the states. I know both cultures intimately, you only know one through the lens of US propaganda.

Good faith my ass. If you were talking to me in good faith you'd concede your lack of knowledge.

Having seen student politics with and without parties - my student union had them, my engineering society banned them - I'm convinced that it's not bad voters that ruin democracies but political parties. Parties need to simplify their messages to get buy in, and promote a 'team first' over 'issues first' mentality in their members. They're anathema to principles of honest debate and compromise.