I agree with you, but I don't think it means we stop the pursuit. It won't be viable or cheap enough in time to help in the transition off fossil fuels. If it does pay off the way some people think it may be a viable energy source for carbon sequestration to undo some of our stupidity though. I think it's worth that moonshot.
Yondoza
joined 2 years ago
I like this concept. I do think it would generally slow resource extraction because companies would be more wary to invest in the large infrastructure if they don't have perpetual ownership of the land. I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing, just an outcome I think is likely.
I think these are reasonable suggestions to make society more equitable. Do you disagree with any of them? Or just don't like them because they modify the existing system instead of tearing it all down?
This is a great write up. I think the problem with economic theory discussions is it is an extremely complex and nuanced topic. Saying 'capitalism bad' is popular, but not very constructive.
I think one big point that gets bungled in these economic debates is markets. That's supposed to be the shining light of capitalism because of how efficient markets are at allocating scarce resources. The point that I think is missed, is that markets can be used very effectively outside of a capitalist system. They need to be designed for other economic systems, but they can easily handle the biggest argument with socialism; centralized control.
I feel that is a major point missing in these debates and I just wanted to give it some attention.
Do individual socks count? If so, buying a 10 pack of socks and a 6 pack of undies gets you through half a year by this metric.
Jeez, right in the *********? Brutal.
Yay! We get to rename the drink "Irish Car Bomb" to "MAGA Tantrum". At least something good came out of all this.
The hadrean period (lava earth) was approximately as long as there have been vertebrates. So pretty long!
The sentence: 4mo prison, 4mo home confinement.
That feels really light for attempting to compromise our system of government.
Personally I think the biggest hurdle will be moderation and defederation as it pertains to the first amendment. I believe there was already a supreme Court case where blocking a user on Twitter (from an official govt account) was deemed unconstitutional. This precedent might mean a govt instance is not allowed to defederate with any other server unless they defederate with all(?) This is pure speculation on my part, but I can guarantee it would go to the courts.
It's a bold move, but the payout is a happy professor!
Great point! He said "solar energy" which would be watthours. If he said "solar power" he could have used watts.
Probably the least nonsense part of his statement (imo) and not the part worth an argument.