I can't get my head around President Biden polling poorly and Trump polling well.

I don't think I need to provide details for people on this site, but Trump was so horrible as a president and President Biden has done such a good job. Even if Biden was a passive placeholder four years of him would have been better than 4 more years of Trump.

I don't understand where the low polls are coming from. Particularly for groups that would not do particularly well under a Trump regime like African Americans and youth.

I see some people complaining about President Biden's age, but his administration has been doing a good job and Trump is only about 4 years younger ( and in much worse shape ).

I don't get where the hate is coming from.

I remember the "red wave" that never happened and articles explaining why polls aren't as accurate as they used to be. However, that answer feels too easy to me, a cop out.

Maybe people are angry about greedflation. However, Trump's presidency when it wasn't about vindictiveness was all about neglect. I can't believe people think Trump would be better for the economy -- that he would even try beyond the stock market so he polls well.

*Disclaimer:

My apologies if this is the wrong place for this conversation. I thought here or "talk" would be the best choices, though people in "talk" might not want political conversations.

New advisory report pushes disastrous privatization schemes

Link to the article

This week, President Biden’s National Infrastructure Advisory Council issued a report recommending the privatization of the nation’s water systems.

The chair of the advisory council is the CEO of Global Infrastructure Partners, an infrastructure investment bank with an estimated $100 billion in assets under management that targets energy, transportation, digital and water infrastructure.

The report recommends, among other things, that the federal government “[r]emove barriers to privatization, concessions, and other nontraditional models of funding community water systems,” and open up all federal grant programs to support privatized utilities.

Food & Water Watch Public Water for All Campaign Director Mary Grant issued the following response:

Water privatization is a terrible idea. President Biden should have never appointed an investment banker to chair an advisory council for the nation’s infrastructure. Wall Street wants to take control of the nation’s public water systems to wring profits from communities that are already struggling with unaffordable water bills and toxic water.

Privatization would deepen the nation’s water crises, leading to higher water bills and less accountable and transparent services. Privately owned water systems charge 59 percent more than local government systems, and private ownership is the single largest factor associated with higher water bills — more than aging infrastructure or drought.

Instead of relying on Wall Street advisers, President Biden should support policies that will truly help communities by asking Congress to pass the Water Affordability, Transparency, Equity and Reliability (WATER) Act (HR 1729, S 938). After decades of federal austerity for water, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law was a step forward, but it provided only about seven percent of the identified needs of our water systems. The WATER Act would fully restore the federal commitment to safe water by providing a permanent source of federal funding at the level that our water and wastewater systems need to ensure safe, clean and affordable public water for all.

Link to Food & Water Watch

Certain resources/commodities/services like water, food, electricity and health should remain in public domain. I don't understand the askance that is associated with this view.

Once these fall to the profiteering domain, we will be sucked dry and forced to accept abnormal standards as normal to gain access to these which in first place should be in public domain protected in public interest by public representatives.

These resources will be and are used by IMF and sister organisations that are usually called "banks" as leverage to get their debts serviced or sold as AAA+ securities.

They tried that with real estate but that burst since a physical house doesn't just disappear which leads to emergence of derelict patches within the estates. This would certainly destroy the demand and the dead estate would translate into toxic securities by just being there and not disappearing. Similarly things that are too volatile will also not be accepted as essential by the public as was the case with electronics/net. So that's not worth it.

But what if the resource or commodity is essential, which means it has sustained demand, as well as it is volatile enough which means it vanishes after its monetary utility. Now that's "gold". Theoretically its value will not only be retained but it may even increase with no downside. Perpetual profitability.