This is an excellent example of how to communicate investigation findings. The summary is clear and succinct, there are illustrative examples readily understood by a layman, the recommendations are actionable and unambiguous, and the potential impact is quantified without promising some stupidly precise estimate. I've got some customers whose quality auditors could learn a lot from this.
To play devil's advocate, the counter argument is that it's always easy to advocate for more process, and cherry pick examples to support that conclusion.
The actual report basically says that the DOE already requires that they "should identify a need without having a particular solution already in mind", so it is really just an argument that people should follow the written guidelines, and add more process to make sure it happens. The examples in the report are pretty nuanced.
That's about what I would expect from an organization named Government Accountability Office: hold the government accountable to its written guidelines (or at least report on how well it's doing at meeting them).
Yeah. I don't think the conclusion is necessarily wrong or that they shouldn't have investigated, but I also think the cost to the taxpayers might increase due to the underlying nuance. The report implies that the guidelines are correct, but doesn't really quantify the counterfactual.
Unless I'm missing something, footnote #20 at the end of the 43 page report significantly undercuts their argument. It is easy to make a clear and succinct report that comes to the conclusion you want.
This isn't about radioactivity at all. It's about the millions of pounds of mercury used at the Y-12 plant at Oak Ridge,[1] resulting in a lot of low-level mercury contamination.
It's funny how this kind of pricing works. A bag of weed captured is estimated at a thousand dollars. Ten movies pirated at twice that. We fire a JASSM in combat and it costs a lot of money. We fire it in training and it costs nothing. There is no financial impact estimated to require all elevators be big enough to turn a full length gurney around. A wealth tax will yield revenue for the next thirty years at 30 times what it will yield this year. $6.6 billion will end world hunger but $100 billion is better spent on a train between Bakersfield and Fresno.
I bought my car for $32k. To replace it would be $50k. I crash it, am I out $32k or $50k? Or some other number? Numerically, it could be anything.
This isn't directed at your excellent comment, but about wealth tax in general (and the proposed California version specifically);
Should we tax the very people who are literally creating the future before they've even done so?
The progressive views on a wealth tax are an incredibly shocking blind spot, esp on this site, begun by those who are immersed in startups and believers that risking to pursue tech ventures can bring about a more excellent future for everyone, not just the founders.
If anything, we want to lubricate that path, not add friction. Hitting the VC's or founders who've made it hits everyone, all the way down the line.
> A wealth tax will yield revenue for the next thirty years at 30 times what it will yield this year.
Isn't this the opposite of how a wealth tax works? The annual turnover for e.g. Apple stock is ~0.4%, so a 0.8%/year wealth tax would triple the number of sellers without adding any new buyers. The negative effect on the price is outsized because most people hold long-term rather than buying or selling in any given year, but now people have to liquidate some every year in order to pay the government because you're taxing unrealized gains. And then because "wealth" is calculated as share price times number of shares, when the share price goes down, everyone's "wealth" goes down and with it next year's revenue from a wealth tax.
There would be some limits on that in terms of the compounding negative effect on the share price because (among other things) if the price went down then foreign investors would find it more attractive to buy in and then they're not subject to the tax and don't have to sell every year to pay it, but causing more of the market to be owned by foreign rather than domestic taxpayers over time is also not a thing which leads to stable domestic tax revenue.
> $6.6 billion will end world hunger but $100 billion is better spent on a train between Bakersfield and Fresno.
The current UN estimate is more like $100 billion a year to end world hunger, whereas the initial build of a rail line is a one-time cost.
> The annual turnover for e.g. Apple stock is ~0.4%, so a 0.8%/year wealth tax would triple the number of sellers without adding any new buyers.
Is that assuming the tax money is going into the void? I agree it might force roughly 0.8% of shares to be sold in a given year. But as to not adding any new buyers: no one's being forced to buy stock in the same way, but shouldn't someone be getting the money and potentially using it to buy Apple stock?
Let's imagine for a second the wealth tax money is simply given to people who are below the threshold. Most of them may waste it on silly things like food and rent, but some might end up with a surplus and become investors. Same effect if say the income tax is lowered to make the wealth tax revenue-neutral. Or if say it's used to expand Medicare. It's hard to for me to imagine a way to spend taxes that doesn't help someone. Even if the money is used on war—a net destruction of value and lives—there are some people selling missiles better off a result.
Although the argument does look fundamentally reasonable, I think its biggest weakness is it doesn't make an attempt to prioritise - yes taxes always make someone better off. So does wealth. A decision has to be made. Which is more valuable? We've got a highly reliable and effective system for working that out (aka the free market economy) and no alternative in 2nd place that doesn't typically lead to mass starvation because someone underestimated how much food was needed. They people benefiting from the taxes are going to be making very different allocations to the places that the capital is being drained from.
The people behind wealth taxes generally handwave explaining how their system will be better at allocating than the people who make a living of allocating wealth effectively because it is all just obvious that it doesn't need to be justified. Poor people will get more money if rich people have less, duh, QED. So far no compelling cases where they've turned out to be right. If they could do a better job, why even allow private wealth at all?
> Even if the money is used on war—a net destruction of value and lives—there are some people selling missiles better off a result.
Case in point, there is a topical example of Trump going in to Iran like a maniac. Yes there are some people who are better off as a result who wouldn't have been. And yet we can be pretty confident that not forcing US citizens to fund the debacle would have been a better allocation of capital.
> We've got a highly reliable and effective system for working that out (aka the free market economy) and no alternative in 2nd place that doesn't typically lead to mass starvation because someone underestimated how much food was needed.
This is an absolutely wild comparison. The choice is not "everything is purely market forces" vs "everything is centrally planned". We have all kinds of implementations across the world that have different systems.
> The people behind wealth taxes generally handwave explaining how their system will be better at allocating than the people who make a living of allocating wealth effectively
They have different targets though surely? The effective part here is that for one group it's getting more into the hands of the less well off, or funding (say) schools, healthcare, etc. The effective part for someone else is making a single person or family richer.
> So far no compelling cases where they've turned out to be right. If they could do a better job, why even allow private wealth at all?
Because utility is not linear. It is entirely reasonable to assume that the very extreme ends of a scale are not likely the most beneficial under almost any measure. If wealth getting concentrated is so good, why not only allow one person to have everything? See how odd that seems?
It is not surprising to me that it's a good idea overall to let people benefit from figuring out how to do things that people want.
It is also not surprising to me that it can be a good idea to take some of that benefit, and use it to do some of the following
* Alleviate suffering
* Long term planning/research to benefit all and speed up progress
* Core infrastructure that everybody benefits from but is hard to structure with pure market forces
For example, companies benefit from an educated workforce - are they individually going to fund schooling for young kids?
The goal is to try and hit some of those other things while not discouraging people too much from doing the things we want.
> taxes always make someone better off. So does wealth. A decision has to be made.
Sure. So we could ask, say, can we compare educating 500 children for 12 years vs Taylor Swifts net worth going from $2.1B to $2B? How much would she be hurt and how much would other benefit? What would be the impact if she was slightly less wealthy?
> The people behind wealth taxes generally handwave explaining how their system will be better at allocating than the people who make a living of allocating wealth effectively because it is all just obvious that it doesn't need to be justified. Poor people will get more money if rich people have less, duh, QED.
Even your straw man version of this argument is pretty convincing to me alongside graphs showing the extent to which our inequality is growing. https://inequality.org/facts/wealth-inequality/ see the "The Top .01% Don't Pay Their Fair Share as They Hoard More Wealth" graph in particular.
This is more a disagreement of values than facts, I think. Some people see the richest man's net worth go from $100B to >$1T and think he deserves that for starting these companies, and taking any of it from him is class warfare. Others think that rich people's pissing contests and lifestyles would be essentially the same if their wealth capped out at say $100B instead, we're morally obligated to use that money to try to meet Americans' basic needs, and using other's taxpayer dollars to allow him to reach those heights (see <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_didn%27t_build_that>) is class warfare.
High marginal income taxes (it was 91% in 1963, 70% until 1981, there's your compelling case where they turned out to be right, inequality was not growing then like it is now) or a wealth tax are not the same as Soviet style socialism. They still give an incentive for entrepreneurs, innovators, and hard workers.
the utility of wealth is not linear. a billionaire getting $100 probably has no use for it and they wont notice either way. but a homeless person getting $100 makes a big difference for them no matter if they use it to buy new clothes and apply for a job or spend it all on liquor. redistribution is actually good by itself because it maximizes the total wellbeing of society.
all the negative effects on economic output come from the fact that there is always some minimum amount of capital you need to start a successful business in each industry, and if nobody has enough wealth to match that requirement the business has no way to take off. but that argument only works if crowd funding or state investment are not practical, which is mostly true in our economic system but its not a law of nature.
we dont have to go all in on soviet style five year plans. in fact we know its one of the worst possible systems because the real world is unpredictable and large scale inflexible plans usually fail. its not always a disaster but its always unstable. but neoliberal capitalism is not the only form of a non-command economy.
"there is no alternative" only makes sense if you ignore all the things in between and outside to create a false binary. there is also tito style market socialism, decentralized commune systems, continuous planning, hybrid systems like china and vietnam, capitalism with worker ownership, and a lot of others i dont even know. not all of them are practical (like anarchy) but the ideas already exist and i think its worth it to try and make them real. a better world is possible as long as ours is not perfect.
Marginal utility tends to diminish as you consume more of a good, but you can't compare utility between individuals. Utility is ordinal, has no common scale and is subjective. It doesn't make sense to try and claim that redistribution will always maximize the total wellbeing of society.
> Apple stock is ~0.4%, a 0.8%/year wealth tax would triple the number of sellers without adding any new buyers
Only if the tax had to be paid in US dollars. But it could just as easily be paid in Apple stock. The government doesn't have to sell the stock. It could keep it (disallow voting shares by law) and spend the dividends.
For the general case: Redeem all stock collected as tax for ETF shares that track broad-market indices. ETFs almost always yield dividends. Toss whatever remains into a black box that no one is allowed to look at. When the government needs some revenue, pick something at random and sell it. It can also sell some ETF shares.
The best part is this works for private companies too. If you work at a startup and get options, now you don't have to pay taxes (as cash) for options you exercise which later turn out to be worthless. You can just hand the government some of your shares. Later down the line, the government either shares in your windfall or misses out along with you. Very fair.
Odd that you refer to your efforts in a startup as delivering a windfall, as if you didn't earn/expect it, as if it's a lottery ticket.
Should we tax lottery earnings? Sure, why not, since we tax everything else.
But a startup is not a lottery ticket, and we are harming it, at least indirectly and likely directly, by taxing it before it even exists. Even just the paperwork to handle all of this is needless friction.
Some people have to adjust their mortgage in order to pay property taxes. Most people pay property taxes out of their income.
What percentage of Americans, especially home-owning Americans, have more wealth in the stock market than in their home?
Property tax has the positive effect of encouraging efficient land usage and discouraging speculation and rent seeking. Is there a parallel case to be made for stock holdings, or is such an argument dead in the water because land is more tangible than company shares?
>What percentage of Americans, especially home-owning Americans, have more wealth in the stock market than in their home?
I'd guess about half of those over 50 and under 70. It is all locked in IRA, 401k, and pensions where they can't get at it, but that is where most middle class and upper middle class keep their wealth.
Half of those under 50 are on track to have the majority of their wealth be in a retirement fund by the time they are 50 as well.
> Some people have to adjust their mortgage in order to pay property taxes. Most people pay property taxes out of their income.
Most people get their income from wages and then pay the taxes with that. The people who are the target of a wealth tax get most of their income from investments and then to get money to pay a new tax would have to sell that proportion of the investments.
It also doesn't really change anything if they invest in the sort of things that give returns through dividends instead of share price increases, because they reinvest the dividends, and having fewer people buy the stock so they can use the money to pay the tax has the same negative effect on the share price as having more people sell the stock to use the money to pay the tax.
> Property tax has the positive effect of encouraging efficient land usage and discouraging speculation and rent seeking.
Property tax to the extent that it's a tax on buildings/construction does precisely the opposite. Where land is more scarce the most efficient use is to build a high rise to maximize the amount of indoor living space per unit land, which is exactly the thing property tax taxes and thereby disincentivizes.
Asset taxes in general create major perverse incentives because it causes underinvestment in the thing being taxed and overinvestment in any alternative that can act as a tax shelter, whether because the law exempts the alternative for some reason (e.g. lobbying), or it's hard to accurately value and therefore allows for chicanery, or it's in another jurisdiction.
> Property tax to the extent that it's a tax on buildings/construction does precisely the opposite. Where land is more scarce the most efficient use is to build a high rise to maximize the amount of indoor living space per unit land, which is exactly the thing property tax taxes and thereby disincentivizes.
Property tax breaks in my locale lead to empty lots and empty buildings, which is the least efficient use of land imaginable. Property value seems to play a significant enough role in convincing land owners to sell their underutilized land if property taxes provide the activation energy to force them to sell. Otherwise they sit and speculate. So, your argument is convincing in theory, but appears to fall apart in practice. Aside, I’m a fan of Georgism in theory.
> Asset taxes in general create major perverse incentives because it causes underinvestment in the thing being taxed and overinvestment in any alternative that can act as a tax shelter, whether because the law exempts the alternative for some reason (e.g. lobbying), or it's hard to accurately value and therefore allows for chicanery, or it's in another jurisdiction.
I’m sure wealth managers are already devising strategies for reducing taxable wealth based on speculative laws and regulations. This shouldn’t be a reason not to proceed, but instead to put more resources to effective design.
> Property tax breaks in my locale lead to empty lots and empty buildings, which is the least efficient use of land imaginable.
Could you clarify what your locales property taxes are exactly? I'm trying to figure out whether you and Mouse are using the term the same way, in particular, tax on land or tax on buildings or both. (FWIW Wikipedia defines it as both.) It would also be very important to clarify how the tax break is defined, whether it applies to land and buildings equally, for example.
It’s both in my locale, land and improvements. There’s a tax break for vacant commercial space, which leads to commercial RE holding companies to simply speculate on commercial RE and sit on vacant properties. They have such little incentive to find a tenant or even sell that commercial properties sit empty for years, despite plenty of prospective tenants taking tours. I’m on an HOA board in a building with commercial units and it’s shocking how little pushback it takes for us to deny a prospective tenants - the commercial RE company basically doesn’t put up a fight at all when we say “no”.
> What percentage of Americans, especially home-owning Americans, have more wealth in the stock market than in their home?
I don’t own a home (and can’t afford to own a home) but I have close to $1M in various retirement accounts. If you’re a first time homebuyer in my area, you need an income of like $150k to afford it and not cut retirement savings to zero.
I’ll be able to retire some day but may never be able to afford a home. It’s an odd situation to be in, nearly a millionaire and only able to afford a meager apartment.
What does that have to do with the revenue claim being questionable?
Also, if that was the goal, wouldn't it be better to tax (or break up) the corporations rather than the shareholders? It comes out of their pocket either way, but forcing asset sales has a lot of negative consequences and bad incentives. On top of that, it handles the problem that the CEO of a huge company has too much power regardless of what percentage of the company's stock they own, by reducing the size of the company rather than their ownership stake in it.
My understanding is that the only places that are starving is places like Gaza and South Sudan which are poor and actively under attack. Do you have a source for how we can spend <$10b and solve world hunger?
Where did you get that understanding?? People are starving all over the world, even in places that generally have access to food markets. Food insecurity exists outside of famine, sanctions, etc.
They're referencing a pretty publicized spat between some folks at the UN and Elon Musk promising he would donate that amount of money towards solving world hunger. It was meant as an example of pricing at this scale. https://factually.co/fact-checks/business/elon-musk-6-billio...
if you were to send me an article containing a new one of these each day, with citations, i would pay you $1 per day.
but if you were to send me an article containing a new one of these each day, with citations, plus a bunch of econ theory rationalizing it, i would pay you $0.
And then you ask how, and you just get hand waving. Elon Musk offered the money if somebody would provide a coherent plan of how to solve world hunger with it. Nobody could.
Sure, but has anyone ever built a container that lasts 30k years, and remains watertight?
Thus far, most off-site containment storage sites over 10 years old have failed to stop containment leaks, Radon gas diffusion, or hot-material fires. Fission reactors are a 1950's loss-leader technology, and only make sense for already uninhabitable areas like space. =3
We’ve also already depleted many aquifers past the point of recovery.
We have too many people to hydrate, too many crops to water in order to feed them, and not enough water. At some point widespread desalination is probably inevitable, but that requires a lot of energy.
Or the public could accept a reduction in their standard of living, but that’s likely not happening without a civil war.
We're also not even attempting to be smart about our water usage, particularly when it comes to agriculture. Growing crops in a desert that require significant amounts of water to grow is already pretty bad, then exporting the bulk of those crops overseas adds insult to injury.
Of course, all that is made possible by our pants-on-head stupid water rights laws.
> At some point widespread desalination is probably inevitable, but that requires a lot of energy.
This might be true, but desalination is not without it's own externalities (not counting energy usage). The primary one I am thinking of is the increase in salinity and heat in the local area killing sea life. These issues may be possible to avoid with limited use of desalination today, but a significant increase in volume may reach a point where things like dilution and cooling by mixing does not have the desired effect.
Solar energy is abundant in the places desalination is most needed. The market will balance out once that becomes apparent to constituents. They will vote to fund solar, politics are only a temporary impediment.
> At some point widespread desalination is probably inevitable, but that requires a lot of energy.
We'll also need somewhere to put all that salt. It'd be best to stop the largest wastes of the clean water that we have. We have plenty of water for people and food. We just have to stop the wasteful practices of industry and force them to be more efficient and responsible even though it will eat into their profits.
> Or the public could accept a reduction in their standard of living, but that’s likely not happening without a civil war.
I suspect what we'll actually do is what we always do. Innovate our way into a higher standard of living while simultaneously elevating the poorest people out of poverty and finding novel ways to feed, clothe and house our population.
It's funny how persistent malthusians are in the face of evidence to the contrary.
We’ll see what that looks like in the face of demographic decline and increasingly expensive oil.
It’s possible that some kind of technological miracle rescues us, but it seems more likely to me that we follow the pattern of catabolic collapse seen in the Bronze Age, Easter Island, and Europe in the Dark Ages. Civilization may rebound, sure, but humans have a history of overextension followed by decline (as do all animals).
A very small number of people are taking (and often wasting) the majority of the worlds wealth and resources and harming everyone else in the process. We could probably stave off that decline for a lot longer if we did something about the leeches accelerating our collapse.
Wait till you find out how much uranium there is in coal ash and how many tons a year are put in the air or dumped into ground water. Both the ash and uranium tailings are in the 50ppm range, but we make 100Mt per year of one of them and basically no uranium tailings in the US. Globally, the ratio is over 1Gt of coal ash and 10-20Mt of uranium tailings.
I have a lower opinion of coal, more than any other energy source. From an economics perspective it also costs 4% more than solar now. There is no excuse to bring back 1800's steam technology.
If you grill, use charcoal because it is short-term carbon cycle neutral.
We have one of the largest global coal deposits, but it is also one of the most contaminated natural hot heavy metal sources currently known. Indeed, the natural run off has already closed many water wells for small towns in the area. =3
and we've collected enough arsenic from a single mine to kill every human on the planet 300 times over in one spot- what's your point? That because we screwed up one spot we should give up?
Not sure why people buried your post, but many water-soluble metal salts are pretty toxic to animals and people.
In areas with natural Arsenic accumulation (or Acid rain run off), farmers will sometimes place rusting iron equipment in the water ways to reduce metals accumulating in the topsoil.
With low rainfall the evaporated well-water problem can certainly be a serious concern. =3
Every miner knows most holes fill with water sooner or later.
Corollary: Every sailor knows most vessels are sunk sooner or later.
Aircraft carriers and Submarines are not civilian infrastructure, and if they sink offshore where no can live... will usually pose less of a problem like buoyant waste barrels popping up later.
We are in the age of bargain conflicts, where throwing gold bricks at adversaries makes less sense strategically. =3
> Sure, but has anyone ever built a container that lasts 30k years, and remains watertight?
Why are people still proposing this antiquated 20th century storage technology instead of just building the newer reactor types that not only don't have this problem but are the best way to get rid of the long-lived isotopes we already have from 20th century reactor designs?
The answer to what you do with isotopes with long half lives is that you put them in a reactor that turns them into isotopes with shorter half lives.
None of it is lies. The CANDU reactors Canada has been operating for decades can run on spent fuel from legacy reactors and China actually uses them that way. The US hasn't built any of them, or any of the other designs that can do the same thing, in significant part because people keep presenting the circular reasoning that we shouldn't build newer reactors without dealing with nuclear waste when we should be dealing with nuclear waste by building newer reactors.
Indeed, Canada was also indirectly responsible for many Nuclear weapons proliferation issues in North Korea, India, and Pakistan. Selling small research reactors to emerging economies had long-term consequences.
As a side note, the CANDU are famously bad designs known to develop heavy maintenance costs even to remain operational. Yes these can run on garbage fuel, but only because other designs could never tolerate such waste.
It is a teachable moment about legacy designs having unintended benefits as well. =3
> Indeed, Canada was also indirectly responsible for many Nuclear weapons proliferation issues in North Korea, India, and Pakistan. Selling small research reactors to emerging economies had long-term consequences.
What does that have to do with how the US can deal with spent fuel? The reactors that consume spent fuel are ordinary power generating reactors rather than small research reactors and the US already has nuclear weapons.
> As a side note, the CANDU are famously bad designs known to develop heavy maintenance costs even to remain operational
The CANDU design is from the 1960s. It's not what you would actually use for a new project, it's an empirical demonstration that reactors that run on spent fuel are a real thing that actually exist rather than merely a theoretical possibility. There are also modern designs under construction in Europe and the same company is partnering with a US company to permanently destroy some of the US government's cold war era plutonium.
>What does that have to do with how the US can deal with spent fuel?
Unlike France, the US did not use a closed-loop multi-grade fuel cycle for economic reasons.
>an empirical demonstration that reactors that run on spent fuel
It is more complex, as running on low-grade fuel is not the same as running on spent-fuel.
However, China's recent Thorium reactor facility is interesting, and it would be neat to see some real data on its output. The US shuttered their own facility a long time back, but it is unclear why the research was effectively abandoned. There probably was a legitimate reason, but who knows for sure. =3
> Unlike France, the US did not use a closed-loop multi-grade fuel cycle for economic reason
Those are the existing reactors. The premise is building new ones of a different design.
> It is more complex, as running on low-grade fuel is not the same as running on spent-fuel.
It has to be accounted for but it's not some kind of impossible sorcery.
> The US shuttered their own facility a long time back, but it is unclear why the research was effectively abandoned. There probably was a legitimate reason, but who knows for sure.
There is a lot of politics involved in energy in general and nuclear in particular.
In a nuclear energy context "closed cycle" just means that the uranium and plutonium is separated out from the spent fuel for future reuse. The loop is only closed in the sense that some of the spent fuel material that leaves the reactor will enter it again in the future. It doesn't imply that new inputs won't be added to the loop.
Indeed, signal-to-noise ratio on the modern web is fairly challenging search space, but there was DoE documentation out there showing near zero practical success rate at actual long-term disposal sites. Every site has shown some concrete degradation within years, reported incidents, water ingress, and persistent operational costs. Current methodology is to pile up waste near cooling ponds, and lie to people about dealing with it at some point in the future.
My point was, few organizations have ever shown actual success with what they claimed would happen. Thus, arguing sites will hold for 75 years let alone 30k years is a fools errand. Water fills holes in the ground, and will likely continue to do so in the future. =3
Indeed, one persons opinion is not really all that important, but one is alive because of decisions made long before they were born.
>Because plutonium sounds scary?
Which of the 14 isotopes are you referring too? In general, synthetic isotopes unknown in our evolutionary biology are far more toxic in trace exposures.
Some people don't get a chance to learn form their mistakes. Best of luck =3
I think storing nuclear waste was decided to be a bad idea a long time ago.
I'm not a nuclear scientist, but I was under the impression that if something is radioactive enough to be a hazard then it's radioactive enough to generate power.
> if something is radioactive enough to be a hazard then it's radioactive enough to generate power
Only under certain circumstances is it financially worth harnessing this power. I think of space probes and their RTGs. They use alpha emitters like Pu-238, to minimize the shielding requirements.
As for the rest of the stuff, dry casks are good enough. Reprocessing isn’t currently economical while uranium is so cheap, although the vitrification of the fission products can help immobilize the worst radiation emitters, but really the UO2 structure does a decent job of keeping things put.
A brand new Uranium fuel pellet is often safe to hold with gloved hands for a moment.
Spent fuel with complex decay isotopes must be kept under deep cooling pools with criticality control precautions. From a chemistry perspective, complex isotope products like Plutonium are more obscure to evolutionary biology, so it is often much more dangerous even in accidental trace exposures.
I am just a sentient turnip that prefers distributed Solar products. Have a great day =3
People will both-sides this, but you are right. When your express purpose and position is to promote unitary executive theory and destroy US democracy, everything is suspect.
Marketplace (APM) has had several discussions about how difficult it is to mess with BLS numbers, but it's only a matter of time as Vought and Heritage make their way into these organizations.
If you've believed all the government data for the last 10 or 15 years I got a bridge for sale. It's one of those things like, yes, it's WAY more difficult than I think most people realize to arrive at numbers (be it employment, price indexes, etc), but it's also something that demonstrably can be done. It's like "space is hard", yes, but rocket companies still rightfully get flak if they can't perform.
Also, for what it's worth, it's a global phenomenon. China's numbers have always been almost wholly manufactured, but to be fair to them that was intentional. Across the West there's been a slow eroding of quality that they didn't intend necessarily, but has just been the effect of focusing on anything beyond pure merit in hiring and accuracy in measurement. Focus softened at exactly the time COVID made things more difficult, and the focus has only got worse. Ex: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/06/30/treasury-dit... Yeah that's going to work out great.
That said, I think GAO and CBO both do decent jobs at extremely thankless tasks. They both produce research and recommendations that are typically sound but get ignored by Congress 99.99% of the time.
> If you've believed all the government data for the last 10 or 15 years I got a bridge for sale.
It's not about belief. It's about trust. And as they say: trust, but verify.
We could trust the data, but we should, of course, verify it. And that's generally how it worked. And both sides of the aisle happily trusted this data and verified it. It wasn't always correct, but not so much that you should start by not trusting it at all.
But now we are at that point. I've taken the attitude of simply assuming the opposite and starting from that position, and it has served me well most of the time. I take what the current administration is claiming, assume the opposite and start from there.
To be fair, I agree with your sentiment, don't just believe what the government is saying. But there has been a dramatic shift since January 2024.
nuclear clean up is a joke. The emissions from chinas coal burning plants is 10000000000000000000000000000000000000 times worse than chucking nuclear waste in the desert at random
> The emissions from chinas coal burning plants is 10000000000000000000000000000000000000 times worse than chucking nuclear waste in the desert at random
I don't think you're wrong per-se, but I think your claim could be simplified to "the impact of the common alternatives are 1000000000000000 times worse than nuclear waste"
A bunch of these nuclear power startups have started reached criticality over the last week. Aalo and Valar (thiel) and now GAO is trying to loosen regulations around nuclear waste disposal.. Makes sense.
Weird how we only get green energy when it's necessary for the technocratic class to power their data centers (and when they are small enough to be flown on location for the military, so the military can destroy a nations power production capabilities and still be able to power their invasions).
During Valar's announcement this week regarding achieving their goals of nuclear power generation they did a tech-style keynote address where they powered a nvidia blackwell GPU and "hosted a website with it" (lol).
GAO is not DOGE. For those who don't know the difference between the two, confusing them is about like confusing the President with the Senate. GAO is a Congressional agency, it does not fall under the Executive. Its purpose is in its name, and it does a pretty good job of it. It also cannot, on its own (unlike how DOGE was empowered) effect any change. They can only conduct studies and make recommendations, it's up to Congress and the relevant Executive branch agencies to address the recommendations or not.
> (GAO) is trying to loosen regulations around nuclear waste disposal.
This is not about loosening regulations, it's about DOE Office of Environmental Management not following its own guidance when documenting mission needs (which happen before Analysis of Alternatives (AOA). The problem GAO is identifying here is relatively minor (compared to other problems their other studies have found), but potentially costly, in that they have identified numerous instances of proposing a particular solution too early, which can constrain what's considered later on during the AOA effort.
I suspect parent-poster simply intended to write OMB [0] instead. Perhaps because both initialisms [1] refer to government groups that sometimes publish important reports about budgets.
I mixed up some names. The timing doesn't seem coincidental. We are at the end of Executive Order 14301, signed May 2025, which called for at least three test reactors to reach criticality by July 4, 2026.
So immediately after Trumps nuclear power project ends (of which his son's and all his friends are invested in these neo-nuclear power companies), and a bunch of companies reach criticality this week, the government starts issuing orders to make things easier for them to be profitable.
Your naive to think it's anything else other than corruption.
> GAO is a Congressional agency, it does not fall under the Executive
I don't know that it's accurate to say such things any more, due to the unitary executive decree by the supreme council. The GAO is intrinsically motivated by law - both to carry out its purpose, and simply to pay its employees - and the supreme council has decreed that all execution of the law is subject to the whims of the president. If the president woke up from his afternoon nap and told GAO employees they weren't going to get paid unless they did a certain thing, it's certainly possible that the supreme council might walk back their earlier decree (although good luck with the payment infrastructure already being pwnt and all that). But it's also possible they might not, given how they've already approved other autocratic dynamics.
They aren't part of the executive branch, period. The president has no control over their pay or performance. Hell, the president doesn't have nearly as much control over the executive branch as you imply, however much he might want it.
> They aren't part of the executive branch, period. The president has no control over their pay or performance.
They are run by the comptroller general who is appointed by the president meaning that the president has total control over who gets paid anything at all. Right now ours is just an "Acting Comptroller General" filling in until the president appoints someone else.
But Congress is very comfortable so far just letting the executive branch do whatever. Even if the orders aren't emanating from the oval office directly, there's clearly a coordinated agenda in motion. It's entirely reasonable to suspect that the GAO has been politicized in that environment.
You've just blindly asserted a whole bunch of things without laying out any sort of supporting arguments. What exactly makes the GAO not "part of the executive branch" ? My understanding is that "branches" are merely a framework used for describing government, not a prescriptive org chart. And how do the GAO's employees get paid, if not by a system that is now under the control of the autocratic Executive?
What we consider an the branches are defined in the Constitution, but my point is they are not simply defined as the top-level in a hierarchy of organizations, but rather behaviorally based on what function is being performed.
Sure, that is what is written down. But as a necessary part of its operation, there is a whole lot of executive power being exercised as well, which the unitary executive theory says would fall under the authority of the president.
> GAO is a Congressional agency, it does not fall under the Executive
Ah ah ah, you're describing how things were before Trump v. Slaughter, when the Supreme Court justices ruled that Republican Presidents are allowed to fire the heads of non-executive agencies so long as they are not the Federal Reserve.
You must have missed the Chevron doctrine case where the supreme court took much of the ability for Congress to give away their power to the executive in the guise of creating agencies.
No one is claiming that the recent rulings have been consistent, just that they're making it pretty clear that they're happy to pretty much abolish any semblance of Independency for agencies (other than the Fed, which of course is a great example of how inconsistent they're willing to be in pretending that somehow there's a constitutional basis for it being a special snowflake among all of the other agencies)
Isn’t it a fairly natural (and useful) capitalist outcome that as prices rise incentives to increase supply increase? What’s technocratic about responding to a demand change?
because they have infiltrated the government to reduce the cost of safety, and increase the possibility of environmental harm to pad their margins... faster shit code, AI cat videos and so they can add 100ft to the length of their next boat?
That's an awfully emotionally charged way to phrase "lobbied in the same way that everyone else does". When a matter of geopolitical interest that's consuming a significant fraction of the national economy is being impeded by the current regulations it seems entirely expected that the government would start making changes. If anything refusing to make changes under those circumstances would be truly bizarre.
Sure at present they also have a substantially more sympathetic admin than usual but that's the current climate that everyone is working in.
The presumption of regularity here is a joke. This administration has grifted swindled no-bid awarded and bought out anything they please with reckless abandon, Vought is actively Project 2025 shutting done any and everything not run by the most fanatical political operatives.
It's impossible to pretend like any agencies are functioning in any way as normal, are using objective scientific expert based assessments to govern.
To be fair this was all happening before, just 10x less. And the current minority party was often willing to ignore it when it was their people doing it. So yes it's bad on a generational scale and we might never recover from it, but we also have to admit that we are reaping the fruit of a bipartisan-sown seed.
The previous party left opposition party people in power many times. Which, like, is how the US has worked for a century and a half. It was not a spoils system, in 98% of cases.
This is pure spoils. In a way America has never remotely seen ever before. Utter rankest most foul spoils, nothing but pure politics, with essentially no moderators.
The point is that this method of grift isn't new or partisan. The magnitude is what is new.
Government contracts have been awarded to people with connections since forever. It's absolutely nothing new. There's just no fog leaf now, Trump skips the part where he's pretending it was a fair bidding process.
How many orders of magnitude do you need to recognize a distinction? I think it's just silly ridiculous nonsense to say this is "just" orders of magnitude difference. At what point do we accept or not accept what feels like the most irrelevant smokescreen cover excuse?
Maybe there is a 0.0001% resemblance to the past? But trying to chase whether it's 4, 6, or 11 orders of magnitude (based on the billions thrown around I think it's actually more orders of magnitude by a lot) is obfuscating that this is a colossal step change that looks nothing remotely in any way like the past and that we had rules and some checks and balances through bipartisan non-president controlled institutions in the past, through administrator appointments that were somewhat bipartisan.
The bad hasn't even really hit yet. The Supreme Court just made this so much worse, with a president able to fire administrators, to the degree where they lack required concensus the operate at all, but where it's not possible for a congress without dual majority to get people in to office. You need both the president and all Congress to govern, but anyone can de-govern & tear down institutions freely. A Republican Project 2025 wet dream, to destroy the state & never let it regenerate at all. What scum. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2026/07/supreme-court-do...
I don't necessarily think you're wrong but I do think it's a non sequitur. The broader geopolitical and economic situation surrounding the advent of AI and datacenters has approximately nothing to do with the way the most recent US election went.
In seriousness, probably not, unless US "intellectual property" law gets worse somehow.
Short phrases fall under trademarks rather than copyrights, and even then it needs to be something that would cause commercial confusion, and very few people are going to buy a Tolkien book expecting a nuclear reactor or vice-versa.
I thought that was mostly about coincidentally similar names.
Does it change when one is explicitly a reference to the copyrighted work? It's not like Thiel just thinks that Valar and Palantir and Anduril etc are all just nice sounding words, he's built a brand out of companies named after Tolkien's stuff.
IANAL but I would assume that such an agreement (A) falls under trademark law and (B) is being done to avoid a costly/embarrassing fight, even if it's a fight Thiel might win.
> is trying to loosen regulations around nuclear waste disposal
And here lies the problem that ever one wants to burry their head in the sand about.
Can one, in theory, make safe nuclear reactors. You bet you can.
The thing is that you cant leave a bunch of "we will deal with that later" problems laying around. In the case of the US thats spent fuel rods. Should one worry about these, no, but you also don't want them as the slats on your kids mattress frame. They are fine where they are.
The French, because of fuel constraints, built fuel reprocessing into their nuclear "system" (and it is that, a whole system). We just leave spent fuel sitting around as a "later problem", because for us, its just much cheaper to mine and refine more uranium than it is to clean up the "spent" fuel we have.
The moment that you need to build in reprocessing (and solve that pesky later problem) the economics of nuclear stop making sense.
Whether or not waste is reprocessed there will be high level waste that needs to be disposed of. It's merely a matter of volume produced per unit of energy. Either approach is entirely reasonable.
The inability of the US to formally approve a permanent disposal site is purely political. Still, at this point enough other countries have managed to do so that we might eventually be able to pay to export our waste to one of them instead of solving our own dysfunction.
They had access to uranium sourced cheaply from former North African colonies, but now they no longer have that access.
We have ample deposits and (for now) easy access to Canadian deposits. I imagine that there are deals in place to secure that access at an efficient price given the national security angle at play.
reply