Of course landlords create supply.

A renter is someone looking to rent. If someone buys a home then rents it out they just +1 the supply of rental units.

Only if that home wasn't already rented out by the previous owner.

A high proportion of real estate sales are owner churn, not the purchase of brand new never used before properties.

> The second secret to getting promoted is working at a company that's growing

I would say this is the #1 most important factor.

If a company isn’t growing, you’re relying on attrition to move up.

90% of the people I know who moved up to senior positions rapidly all worked at fast growing companies.

The problem is you’re getting all your information from the internet (I’ll bet social media?).

The impact of that is on display in this very thread. Random unproven accusations, conspiracy theories and repetition of “facts” that have been disproven long ago.

If your goal is to educate yourself about the US leadership, or really any subject, you’re not going to do it by what you see on social media.

Your post isn't really doing anything apart from casting general doubt. Can you be more specific please?

Are there more reliable sources of information that you can point to?

> > Random unproven accusations, conspiracy theories and repetition of “facts” that have been disproven long ago.

Every person who has been out in the world had to deal with a Trump like person in the workplace or wherever .

And people don't like it, as a matter of fact they despise it, he's only kept afloat by those who fail to connect the abusive bullying behavior of DJT with their own personal experience with a similar character and those who enjoy bullying or are paitiently waiting in line to do some bullying.

You reply seems to be a nonsequitur to my comment.

it's not, you are arguing for media to conceal or hide Trump's personality and the common intuition ahout him

I’m sure the evidence for this is as strong as the Russiagate evidence.

You don’t see the irony in claiming Trump wasn’t elected in a democratic fashion, by using undemocratic methods to force him out?

I see the irony.

Vietnam, Tibet, Laos, Cambodia, India, Russia and Taiwan would argue otherwise.

If by “money” you mean “spending limited health dollars on treatments where the benefit justifies the amount spent” then you’d be correct.

That’s not how drug approvals work. You don’t make assumptions about safety, you make decisions based on data.

The original trials were for a specific population - no prior HPV infection, young women. Hence the approval was for that population.

Additional trials have been run expanding the population, but the decision was based on data not “yeah, I’ll bet this is safe/works for this other group”

For the same reason countries don’t like it. It guts their domestic industry and puts you at the mercy of an authoritarian country?

I thought the last few decades of the US losing key industries to China was a lesson everyone learned?

I’ve never seen a comment so misinformed.

You claim Tesla is created by government subsidies yet ignore the $230B in subsidies for the Chinese market?

There is no free lunch. Debt in China is still owed to someone. Printing money creates inflation. Oversupply leads to deflation.

It’s why China’s real estate company debt is dragging down the economy as a whole. It’s all connected.

China very much is held to the same rules as the US, especially as it engages with the global financial system.

Which is why they are in so much trouble. The economy is anemic. The last stimulus package barely made a difference. Debt overhang remains.

There actually literally is a free lunch. Debt owed to the government by itself isn’t real. Assets and infrastructure are real.

It doesn’t matter how much you think China is in trouble financially, at the end of the day they still manufacture a third of everything in the world.

> There actually literally is a free lunch. Debt owed to the government by itself isn’t real.

False.

It may not be the same as debt owed to other parties, but not paying it still has consequences for things like money supply.

Otherwise, why would the government not just lend endless amounts of money? Even the Chinese government knows they can't do that.

> It doesn’t matter how much you think China is in trouble financially, at the end of the day they still manufacture a third of everything in the world.

Their output doesn't really matter when it comes to their financial situation. You can produce a lot and still be in trouble. And it's not me that is calling out China's problems, China is talking about it as well.

I never said anything about lending infinite money, don’t straw man me.

The constraint is on real resources, which China has plenty of, regardless of how much debt they have.

The financial situation is an accounting detail. China could decide to write off all debt it owes to itself tomorrow, and literally nothing would change.

> I never said anything about lending infinite money, don’t straw man me.

You did say...

> There actually literally is a free lunch. Debt owed to the government by itself isn’t real

Which I think is reasonable to interpret as lending infinite money.

> The constraint is on real resources, which China has plenty of, regardless of how much debt they have.

I'm not even sure what you're saying here. Constraint on what? Money? Economic growth?

Assuming you mean money, it doesn't make much sense. Ok, China has lots of real resources. In order to pay down debt, they need to turn those resources into money. They can certainly create the supply, but they also need demand.

It's like Canada saying they have infinite resources in their timber. "We'll just cut down the wood and sell it". Well there isn't infinite demand for timber, so in fact, having a lot of resources doesn't mean you have endless money.

> China could decide to write off all debt it owes to itself tomorrow, and literally nothing would change

Absolutely not true. Look at the real estate developers. China is working hard to get them out from under the crushing debt they have. If, as you claim, they could "write off all debt, and literally nothing would change", why didn't they.

The answer is that China is mostly a market economy. Writing off debt has massive consequences bothing domestically and internationally.

This is the trade off China made when relying on the free market for growth. If they want to leverage the free market, then they are held to the free market's rules (which they are currently dealing with).

I don’t think that’s reasonable at all.

Can you imagine a world where a government could spend infinite money without any problems? If you can’t, then why would someone else think that? If you thought my understanding of macroeconomics was different from yours and you were genuinely curious, it would have been a good idea to start by asking questions. Or if you thought I was an idiot you could have just ignored me. But you chose to assume an obviously ridiculous premise to my comment and reply based on that. That’s the definition of a straw man argument.

If you still care to know, the constraint on government spending is real resources (and whether they can be usefully utilized of course).

I don’t know about the real estate situation in China, and I don’t know if it was financed by private debt or public debt, so I can’t comment on it.

Ok, so if you agree that infinite spending is impossible, and resource extraction is limited by the market, then what do you mean by:

> There actually literally is a free lunch

That debt issued by a central bank to its government to productively utilize real resources is not inflationary and not really “owed” to anyone. It’s an accounting detail.

In response to you saying that there is no free lunch since debt is always owed to someone.

> That debt issued by a central bank to its government to productively utilize real resources is not inflationary and not really “owed” to anyone. It’s an accounting detail.

This sentence doesn't make sense. "Debt issued to it's government"?

I presume you mean government debt issued to the central bank, whereby the central bank prints new money as a part of the loan?

It absolutely can be inflationary (see US inflation during Covid) if the money eventually makes it into the economy (e.g. by paying workers).

And yes, debt is always owed to someone. Whether that someone is the central bank doesn't mean it's a free lunch - not paying back the loan has consequences to the economy.