I've seen it discussed half a million times.

> spoil their giant investments in those pharma companies.

Whose investments?

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/trump-administration...

And they've been working steadily against solar and wind the whole time.

This is just one example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solyndra#Aftermath

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_for_Prosperity#Fundi...

The fact that solar and wind are rolling out at unprecedented speed despite these headwinds is proof that its economics are better than nuclear, which could not overcome the same headwinds.

It's just weird to me that environmentalists get blamed for killing nuclear more than the group that actually made it happen and had something to gain - the fossil fuel industry. They funded the environmentalists to protest against it, and they funded the politicians to write laws against it.

And yet you blame the messenger more than the money. If environmentalists didn't exist do you think fossil fuel wouldn't have found a different way to get the message out there? When money talks, people listen.

They aren't doing a good job of keeping them "down" if they're on planes.

The elites, powers that be, whatever you want to call them, had their own reasons for killing nuclear power. And nuclear's economics, compared to fossil fuels, didn't make it a slam dunk to adopt despite powerful opposition. So it had no one to defend it.

Environmentalists weren't just useful idiots then (and I hesitate to call people acting in good faith, without any self-interest, "idiots"). They're convenient fall guys today. The fossil fuel industry killed nuclear power and pinned it on the environmental movement. That had the double benefit of keeping their hands clean while discrediting future environmentalists.

How did they succeed with nuclear energy but fail so miserably with everything else - fossil fuels, meat, even whaling?

To earn a return through renting or appreciation. If there are more houses than buyers returns drop.

> You'd probably have to 4X to 5X the current housing supply to make a dent in prices.

So do that.

I take your overall point about rich people making laws. But on this specific point you're wrong. Take the L.

Where did they say that?

It's the same problem as picking active fund managers.

It's literally in the first paragraph of the article.

"At trial, a federal jury found that they violated antitrust law by conspiring to force home sellers to pay inflated commissions to real estate agents."

Are they legally required to do that? How would you even prove it was due to them?