Ah, I missed part where home flippers left the market. I’m not totally following the chain of logic after that, but I am OK with that.
I am not convinced using regulation (tax incentive or otherwise) to drive larger landlords out of the market would improve the experience of the average renter. Some small landlords are terrible. With proper regulation, some ginormous ones are good (countries that do public housing well - government-run is bigger than any corporate landlord).
…the mortgage is lower risk for the bank… allowing them to extend those loans to more people
That was the part I meant about this proposal increasing demand by giving the average person more purchasing power.
Multiple strategies makes sense. Quadratic property tax is a new one to me, and it confused Google. Is it like a progressive tax, where larger valuations are taxed at a higher rate?
When the underlying problem is insufficient supply in the locations people want to live, anything that gives average person more purchasing power (such as making banks comfortable with larger loans) just drives up the price even higher.
Densifying metro areas (the places people are moving to) is the only real solution. Otherwise the price has to be unaffordable for the average person, to drive them into finding a way to live in a more rural area or to put up with a multiple-roommate living arrangement.
The cost is a big turn off for most people. At grocery stores near me, the Impossible and Beyond products are more than double the price of the meat products they are imitating. In part because livestock feed is hugely subsidized by the government.
If the plant-based meat alternatives could gain efficiency through scale and experience to lower the cost below animal meat, we would see way more people trying them and finding what dishes they work best in, which would feed back into scaled market demand. But I don’t see that kind of explosive growth potential at current price levels.
Growing meat cells in a lab and selling them as food is illegal in the states you reference.
What Beyond does in processing plant material into something that resembles some meat products is still legal everywhere.
Because the only information that isn’t already public is speculation (a mix of outright wrong and unknown if wrong but unprovable in court), victim and witness names, and maybe some investigative techniques. Releasing them would expose victims and witnesses to doxing, feed conspiracy theory on the speculation (including the known-wrong stuff, but to many people “being in the file” gives it some kind of aura), and let future traffickers know how Epstein was finally taken down so they can run a tighter operation and avoid getting caught.
Or you could soak it in prescription strength urea for a couple of days to get the nail to fall off. Less collateral damage that way.
OP might be talking about a procedure where a podiatrist or dermatologist kills the mis-growing edges of the nail root. The remaining root grows a narrower nail, but hopefully a straighter one. Sometimes the process doesn’t work the first time (hard to judge how much cell-kill stuff will get just the edges and not damage the middle) and has to be repeated.
It’s a war of attrition at this point, with Ukraine providing almost all the people to become casualties but highly dependent on foreign aid for weapons, ammunition, intelligence, and continued sanctions enforcement on Russia. If either the foreign support or the domestic supply of soldiers falls short before the Russian economy collapses, Russia gets to keep the occupied land. If the first break is the ruble tanks to the point desperate poor foreigners stop signing up en masse to be cannon fodder in the Russian army, Ukraine could realistically take back the territory they lost.
Arguably Bernie got as many primary votes as he did (a good showing but a legitimate loss) because inside politics had cleared the field of more compelling challengers to Clinton. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/14/16640082/donna-brazile-warren-bernie-sanders-democratic-primary-rigged
That’s interesting, I hadn’t realized they affected some people that way. I have noticed their “beef” and “pork” products include a lot of fat, maybe the greasy slipperiness contributes to the effect? I’d like to think use in dishes where the other ingredients are low-fat would balance things out, but if not that’s sad for that brand.
I am sure it will enjoy economies of scale. Lab grown meat is currently something like 1000x the cost of animal-grown meat: I am confident they can get that down to 10x, maybe single digits. I am equally confident the inherent inefficiency of growing muscle cells without the integrated functions of the rest of the animal mean the lab cost will never be lower.
The barrier here is that hundreds of millions of years of animal evolution has extremely optimized their form, and the nature of growing only the muscle cells de-optimizes the system. Animals have immune systems; lab cells have to be kept in a sterile environment, a significant cost. Animals have digestive systems and can power cell growth and all other functions from common plant materials; lab cells have to be fed pre-digested and carefully proportioned material, a significant cost. Animals have circulatory systems that efficiently perfuse oxygen and nutrients, and remove waste; lab cell containers have to be centrifuged in small containers because the forces required in large containers damage the cells. And so on.
Lab-grown cuts are sold as a luxury good now, and I expect as the price comes down from 1000x animal-grown meat to more like 10x animal-grown meat they will become more widely eaten by rich conspicuous consumers.
The real opportunity for equal-tasting, cheaper, better for the environment “meat” is development of and efficiencies gained by scaling the lines of plant-based imitations like what Impossible and it’s competitors are doing.
Lab grown animal cells will always be more expensive than animal-grown animal cells. Animals have immune systems; lab cells have to be kept in a sterile environment, a significant cost. Animals have digestive systems and can power cell growth and all other functions from common plant materials; lab cells have to be fed pre-digested and carefully proportioned material, a significant cost. Animals have circulatory systems that efficiently perfuse oxygen and nutrients, and remove waste; lab cell containers have to be centrifuged in small containers because the forces required in large containers damage the cells. And so on.
The real potential for equal-tasting, cheaper, better-for-environment cuts is in plant-based imitations like what Impossible brand and its competitors are doing.
These laws banning lab grown cells are banning designer lab-grown cuts as a luxury good. Once that market matures, I am sure the wealthy people who jump on the conspicuous consumption bandwagon will not have any problem getting the law repealed or exceptions carved out for them.
An economic podcast I listen to has covered how much foreign investment the US net trade imbalance has led to, for exactly that reason: foreigners had dollars from US entities buying more stuff than they sold, those dollars had to come back to the US, and investment ended up being a huge way that happened. If the trade imbalance actually reduces, likely that investment rate will be the first thing to drop. We’ve already seen hints of it with softened demand for Treasury bonds.
The US has had relatively steady population growth for so long, all our normal ranges for economic indicators have an assumption of a growing population baked in, including what a healthy amount of GDP growth is - enough to both cover the prior GDP per person for the new people, and also have some productivity growth.
This year with all the immigration policy changes (and maybe some emigration pattern changes), projections are for a population decline. Which means potentially GDP could maintain or slightly improve on a per-capita basis, and yet decline overall.
The current policies are doing damage that will last at a minimum of decades, but I think it’s important to try to sort out the real damage from the weirdness of massive change. If we manage to get a majority of elected officials who actually want to do repairs, good analysis will be important to figuring out best bang for resources to focus on.
It was weirder than that. Hawley was pitching income-based check distribution (full amount for annual income below $75,000 then phased to lower amounts up to $200,000 or something like that). Then he stated that this policy of income restrictions would ensure everyone who got a check would be Republican (meaning, no Republican makes more than $200,000 a year) and would prevent Democrats from getting checks (meaning, all Democrats make more than $200,000 a year). It breaks my brain.
Not only is moderation expensive, but the current administration has attacked organizations that try to moderate anyone who catches the fancy of the MAGAverse. Slash moderation departments and reduce the risk of expensive lawsuits and harassment with the power of the federal government behind it, win-win.
It replies to all top-level comments
An appeals court blocked the rule, and Trump’s FTC had argued in support of it. They haven’t appealed the ruling, though. https://www.businessinsider.com/ftc-blocks-subscription-trap-click-to-cancel-ftc-rule-2025-7