256
From "Why Texas Republicans are Souring on Crypto" from The Economist https://archive.ph/eIXGc
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2024
256 points (99.2% liked)
technology
23313 readers
152 users here now
On the road to fully automated luxury gay space communism.
Spreading Linux propaganda since 2020
- Ways to run Microsoft/Adobe and more on Linux
- The Ultimate FOSS Guide For Android
- Great libre software on Windows
- Hey you, the lib still using Chrome. Read this post!
Rules:
- 1. Obviously abide by the sitewide code of conduct. Bigotry will be met with an immediate ban
- 2. This community is about technology. Offtopic is permitted as long as it is kept in the comment sections
- 3. Although this is not /c/libre, FOSS related posting is tolerated, and even welcome in the case of effort posts
- 4. We believe technology should be liberating. As such, avoid promoting proprietary and/or bourgeois technology
- 5. Explanatory posts to correct the potential mistakes a comrade made in a post of their own are allowed, as long as they remain respectful
- 6. No crypto (Bitcoin, NFT, etc.) speculation, unless it is purely informative and not too cringe
- 7. Absolutely no tech bro shit. If you have a good opinion of Silicon Valley billionaires please manifest yourself so we can ban you.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Jesus, sounds like Texas is corrupt af.
I think it was the regular political corruption that exists everywhere in the US, lobbying, campaign donations and the revolving door. Texas is definitely winning the race to sell off all the public goods, but this kind of thing happens all over. Chicago sold off the rights to the parking spaces on public streets in a similar kind of deal.
Was it Chicago or Detroit that sold the rights to their parking meters for 75 years to a group of investors from Abu Dhabi, and after like 4 years they had already made back their money and just started jacking up the price of parking because they could. Also supposedly there is a clause in the agreement that makes it so the city has to pay excessively anytime they want to take away a parking space that the investors own. It's literally insane that a city that size doesn't just tell the investors to fuck off and sic the national guard on them.
That was Chicago.
I think we'll see more of this stuff. It's just too tempting for politicians. They can fill a budget hole, lower property taxes, etc, and make it some future administrations problem. Especially if they structure it with a gradual increase in prices.
It's like taxing people 50 years in the future but getting to spend the money now.