[margalabargala]

> Put another way: if the average US citizen doesn't subsidize the costs of these trillion dollar companies, China is gonna come get you.

The future is blatantly going to be electric. Between cars, heat pumps, ranges, etc, the quantity of kilowatt hours consumed will rise dramatically per capita because they are replacing burned fossil fuels.

We don't need to subsidize the trillion dollar companies, we can settle for just not cancelling wind and solar projects, and generally updating the grid infrastructure.

A rising tide lifts all boats. If the subsidies go to common infrastructure, that's good for everyone. There's no need to complain about a road being paved because it will benefit FedEx in addition to everyone else.

[skeledrew]

> not cancelling wind and solar projects

Tell it to the guy doing just that, as much as possible.

[swasheck]

windmills cause cancer and kill bald eagles so we can’t do wind. /s

[jm_l]

All public infrastructure benefits the public but the role of our governance is to correctly prioritize. $100 billion spent on nuclear power plants is $100 billion being withheld from other critical social services.

[manyatoms]

The US could very causally spend a couple $100B less on their military and not have a real reduction in capability.

[coliveira]

No, the money is not coming from a fixed box. When the US wants to do something (typically starting a new war), they never ask where the money is coming from. This tells you everything about how the decisions are made, if it is a priority for them, they will spend the money first and ask questions later. If green infrastructure was a real priority they would invest the money and later find ways to pay for it.

[lobocinza]

But those wars are typically fought to maintain the US status, to preserve its ability to debase the national currency effectively siphoning wealth from the world economy. Self-preservations comes first. I'm just describing the system.

[airstrike]

Which of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Iran were fought to maintain US status?

[margalabargala]

All of them. Afghanistan as a response to 9/11, Iraq as a regional power flex and entrenchment. The first certainly preserved US status more than letting 9/11 go unanswered, the second to remove a hostile regional power and replace it with a friendlier government.

Now in Iran, the intention was to repeat Venezuela and effect regime change in a hostile country, bolstering America's military status.

Whether these wars have the effect they intend is beside the point; you're asking why they were fought, not whether they resulted in "Mission Accomplished".

[margalabargala]

> $100 billion spent on nuclear power plants is $100 billion being withheld from other critical social services.

What? No it isn't.

There are many places the government could use to appropriate funds, not just social services. The military, for example. Other subsidies. Tax credits. Simply increasing the debt.