Many people seem to think that having 85% of bus service costs funded by taxes is fine and sensible, but that 100% would be crazy and wasteful. But I have yet to hear someone explain the principle that makes one number bad and the other good, or whether some other number might be better.

Definitely not the point.

the most fascinating aspect of 'China shock 2.0' is how China's industrial policy got American capital to transfer technology in exchange for short-run profits in Chinese markets, w benign approval of American political elites who thought they could bully China like they did w everyone else.

Self actualization sounds like the rich, self absorbed version of an income focused education logic. I think I agree that's a bad logic, but still think of it mostly as a social good, of which job training is one aspect.

Disagree, public college should be free for all and serves social purpose independent of job training. It's a fine aspect of it, but it's not the sole reason it exists. Should be life long and more integrated into social life. Social goods are important, education is one of them.

Investment choices.

Regardless of who built it and the contracts involved, most people cannot afford a newly built home with the current costs of building and financing. That's not a good situation. We can fix that, but not by looking to supply and demand for the end product. It's about the development ecosystem.

It's ok. I responded overly harshly, my apologies for that.

I'm a proponent of non market social housing and the tool missing to accomplish it is a way to modulate financial resources (bank lending) in a non market logic (public banking) to develop non market housing.

He's a terrific resource to try and understand these things, which isn't easy. Glad you enjoyed it.

I'd suggest a temple economy that he describes included exchange but without markets at the center. It's a distinct relationship and money's origins in that are important.

Right, which is why we had financial tools that allowed them to do so, individually or by state and local governments.(fdr)Then we changed things. (Reagan/neolib) Now we have no access to do so.

We should fix that.

Do you not understand how condescending you were in replying to me?

If you insist all exchange is market exchange than the term market doesn't mean much.

michael-hudson.com/2018/04/pala...

Right now, there is a country called China. They are a pretty big deal. You might look into how they run their banking system. You'll have a lot to avidly read when you find out about it. Then you can read about American history and find out about how we used to do things.

We are at a place where most people can't afford to build things they can afford to live in. Is what I meant. Which is true.

There's a whole world out there where you can learn about more than you already know. You should try it sometime.

Read some history about how money and credit started. You're very confused. Non market financing does indeed exist and precedes your mental model by a few thousand years.