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.

Internalizing the costs you create are good though. In a perfect world I would think weight x miles would be what you'd want to tax on. I say this as someone who owns an EV; I should have to account for the higher road deterioration my heavier vehicle causes. If someone's income is too low you fix that other ways than trying to subsidize their externalizing behaviors.

Trump campaigned on BROAD BASED tariffs, not the targeted actions you're describing. Maybe he's bluffing but the effects are very different.

> But I can assure you, after speaking extensively in person with members of the Trump trade team, that their strategy is deep and sophisticated.

What is it?

History has shown us that Trump does not have "deep and sophisticated" plans. He has campaign rhetoric that sounds good to ignorant people, and then blindly moves into that plan. The trade wars with China required a bail out of farmers and is one of the things that helped fuel inflation, for example.

> he unironically explains in the Art of the Deal

He didn't write that book. Based on his numerous failed businesses and his history of poor negotiations (Afghanistan as a very obvious example), we should be operating on the assumption that he isn't actually good at this, and pray his advisors are.

> With all that said, the tariffs have me concerned, but allowing our industrial base to continue to evaporate has me more concerned.

Then you should have been happy with Biden, who worked towards things like the CHIPS act, which moved manufacturing of critical supply chain back to America.

The economist, the financial times, and large numbers of economists have said that his plans are going to fuel inflation and will reduce GDP. Elon Musk said we should be prepared to make sacrifices. People are telling you what's coming, and that's what you should be concerned about.

You convinced me.

Blaming Trump for Biden giving the Taliban 80 billion dollars in military equipment is about what I expected.

Trump negotiated the terms of the handover before Biden took office. It was just damage control from then on, with most of the troops already removed before day one of his term, his only option was to bring many back to secure that equipment, and the MAGA types would have blown an even larger gasket over that.