What might feel like "damage control" is more likely to be the outcome of the even-handedness you get with serious, rigorous reporting. Something the New Yorker is known for.

Yeah, the panopticon is now technically very feasible it's just expensive to implement (for now).

Its very cheap to target an individual though so they dont need to look everywhere

Yes absolutely. They're a perfect example of the unique issues w/ collective bargaining for public services.

The point of prior recent investments in tax police (that the GOP worked to claw back) was specifically to enable the enforcement of complex cases (rich people) that they didn't have the bandwidth to engage.

IDK given where they've gone w/ Xbox naming, pre-LLMs

Just taking your first example, yes I believe you could characterize a lot of the investments in electrification as speculative bubbles even though there was underlying value that was borne out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Utility_Holding_Company...

Would you say the Chinese government is operating more short-term than "people with children"?

When someone pays for labor to build an apartment building they profit off for decades, do they amortize that labor?

I think there is an argument that both could be valid. I wonder why we cant let the company decide to pick one over another and not be so fixated on one tax code to rule them all.

A comment I read in the thread here says the answer is "Yes". To which I have to say, that sucks.

That is production, not R&D. Basic research into, for instance, semiconductors may one day lead to the production of a new product. The R&D costs would be amortized, the eventual production costs would not.

Maybe it's not the bulk of the cost but site development fees for a new ADU in Portland are like $40k, to say nothing of the cost of actually getting approval checked off.

Internalizing externalities is good, actually.