But the comment you reply to explicitly points out the process is in fact relevant as it is itself a cultural artifact. You're not replying to their main point.

I'd argue the fact a significant minority of US citizens are cheering on the assassination of healthcare executives (something that does not happen in countries with socialized healthcare systems) mean they are quite motivated for changes but can't find a political outlet for this motivation.

My need for websites is much less predominant and really I could live without. So of course I bounce when mildly interesting websites ask to host cookies on my browser or want me to create an account and enter my card details.

If one considers maximizing utility the goal of economic science, then this is in fact good, as it redirects me to more useful venues like doing chores I'd been putting off instead of mindlessly scrolling online. Some metrics such as GDP however might suffer.

We should however make it easier to pay for content online; let's implement HTTP 402 and integrate it into the users' browser and internet bill to reduce friction. Who wants to create an account and enter their credit card details to read a single article or watch a single video?

You're assuming people would still have the same amount of money, but for most money is not a given, and people strive to earn money precisely because they want to buy the things they were advertised.

Without the social pressure to acquire things one doesn't need, it's very possible people might simply work less and use that time for other things.

No one wants to be advertised to, but powerful lobbies argue that ending ads will lower consumption and thus harm the economy; and no politician wants to lower GDP.

No one wants to be spied on, but powerful lobbies argue tracking people allow better security; and no politician wants to be soft on crime and terrorism.

What is your source for this claim? Wouldn't companies destabilize the host country to facilitate their own business?

Western companies have been destabilizing local regimes for centuries at this point. Companies in general are a convenient way to mask state power that pays for itself. Many of these companies were established in former colonies as a direct replacement for explicitly colonial resource extraction.

Searching online for examples I find Glencore, TotalEnergies, ExxonMobil, Chevron (among others) have all recently engaged in bribery or even supported violent political groups abroad to protect their own interests.

Or possibly the incentives that led to this are still in place, and the current judicial climate is way more lenient towards big companies. Who's to say?

Individual employees are far more numerous (therefore harder to coordinate) and have way shallower pockets than companies, so the negotiation power is always going to be lopsided.

Must be nice to base your world view on things you imagine.

If it's a matter of months then latecomers will be up to speed in months as well, which isn't really that long a time.

I'm surprised to see DOGE referenced as a source in jul 2025, are the savings from that particularly significant?

Only a fraction is actually accounted for: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn4j33klz33o

DOGE staffer says "I personally was pretty surprised, actually, at how efficient the government was.": https://www.npr.org/2025/06/02/nx-s1-5417994/former-doge-eng...

The specific issue here is that revenue from capital is taxed less than revenue from labor, thus disproportionally impacting the poor & middle class.

Can you explain how taxing the rich even less will solve this issue?