• HailSeitan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 minutes ago

      Kamala would have defended DMCA and Big Tech to the death. The only difference might have been a little less crypto grifting, but it’s nonsense to suggest there would have been a major difference on the issues this article is actually discussing.

    • teft@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      America has been on the decline for 20 years at least. The turnip in charge has accelerated the decline via tariffs but we’d just be moving slower towards the drain with Kamala in charge. She wasn’t exactly campaigning on large changes to the economy.

      • Nalivai@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        For example, neither batshit tarrifs, nor insane dissolution of trust, if we’re talking purely about international economics.

        • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 hours ago

          neither batshit tarrifs,

          That’s true. Harris, though, like Trump, wouldn’t be doing anything to regulate LLM’s or their financial fuckery, and that is going to be catastrophic when the game of financial musical chairs stops.

          insane dissolution of trust

          Also a good point. The American brand would be more or less intact, at least in the short-term, but I tend to think that all Harris would do is just maintain better PR, because her policies economically wouldn’t be different enough from Donald’s to keep the AI bubble from eventually popping. Democrats are just as in bed with billionaires as the Republicans, they just don’t seat them front-and-center at public events.