331–340 of 524 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Speculation & gambaling is just second order supply & demand.
No it's not. Finance bros like to tell themselves that, so that they can justify their place in morality.
Neither are great, but one is definitely preferred.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> can you cite a source on how speculation helps long term planning Unless you lock in all commodity costs, how is long term planning even possible without speculation? If you plan to open a distribution center somewhere, the optimal location depends on e.g. fuel costs. You can’t do anything but speculate about the costs of those commodities. So I don’t even see the need to track down sources. Do you not see that you…
I see you didnt reciprocate the courtesy of not making an argument from personal incredulity. These things are complex af. When the people who optimize supply chains all day every day tell me that speculation market is more of an hindrance than help, I'm not going to take your random argument to be worth anything.
The existence of the futures market does not prevent a copper provider from entering into an exclusive sales contract to sell 12 months from now to a specific consumer. However, unless they match the current 12 month contract price, one of them is taking a bad deal with what they can get on a much more liquid market. Additionally, their counter party risk is now much more significant because they are tied to one other party.
Maybe you could actually offer something specific about how “the speculation market is more of a hindrance than a help”?
So far whenever I see this, it’s people who don’t like that the price changes on them but their solution is to remove participants from the market to a point where it is so illiquid the lack of trading looks like the price isn’t moving.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see. Your claim that it it is entirely negative is fine to make without any support whereas my claim that there are some situations that could be positive (only one suffices) is not okay even when support has been given (any mine that is opened or distribution center that is opened employs speculation). You are just making a bunch of claims with no support but “people I trust say so so the claims are true”. Now I r…
I am taking the null position here. That the speculation market doesn't help. If something isn't helping and is extracting value from the market its by definition detrimental. The onus is on you to provide the proof for positive positions, that the speculation market does help.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
what aspect of performance are they missing?
Two big use cases: 1) Wok cooking, can’t use a round bottomed wok easily or create “wok hei”. Though you can also do it with a blowtorch: https://www.seriouseats.com/hei-now-youre-a-wok-star-a-fiery... 2) Causing childhood asthma. Gotta employ all those healthcare workers somehow…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There will be no “real dent”. You have to make small changes along with big changes. And banning natural gas piped infrastructure is an easy win. 1. No one is banning natural gas stoves. You can still use a natural gas stove. You just need to bring your own cylinder like most of the world and half the food YouTubers already do. 2. Natural gas stoves have significant indoor pollution impact. It’s a huge benefit even o…
I don't think anyone that cooks for themselves genuinely thinks this. E-stovetops are literally a joke, designed by and for adult-infants that eat microwaved soup from Trader Joe's, not for real people that make real, delicious food.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There will be no “real dent”. You have to make small changes along with big changes. And banning natural gas piped infrastructure is an easy win. 1. No one is banning natural gas stoves. You can still use a natural gas stove. You just need to bring your own cylinder like most of the world and half the food YouTubers already do. 2. Natural gas stoves have significant indoor pollution impact. It’s a huge benefit even o…
> Natural gas infrastructure is expensive, dangerous and unnecessary. It’s been used and operated safely for hundreds of years in cities on the East Coast. The idea that it’s dangerous is simply FUD to scare people into spending $1000 on a future piece of e-waste to cook their food.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you saying everyone who thinks we need to sacrifice for climate change owns a 50 room house and flies around in a private jet?
Not at all, but I am saying that a large fraction of the most visible people who are very publicly evangelizing for it do. If the movement can't convince its evangelists to make the significant lifestyle changes they are demanding of everyone, why would you expect others to adopt them first? I am half convinced that Greta Thunberg was given a lot of media attention because they finally found someone evangelizing for…
The idealist in me believes that everyone do their part and lead by example. I’m not a vegetarian, so I’ve already failed that test (spouse is though, so I’m reducitarian by default). But I do walk a lot, and have only driven 65k miles in the last 19 years (same car—best environmental thing you can do is not even buy new cars). Pragmatically, my impact is minimal.
Celebrity X hopping around on a private jet speaking for and convincing people to make environmental decisions on a national or planetary scale probably has more impact than me, even if they themselves are worse. And I begrudgingly admit that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't have any statistics on this, but I feel like I see far fewer plastic bags littering the streets these days. That alone is a win for me personally.
Give it time and you'll be seeing plenty of the reusable bags littering instead In theory they are supposed to be reusable but in practice I think they are going to wind up being single-use for most people. Maybe we'll start using them as garbage bags as they accumulate around the house.
(When paper bags aren't available. I've always preferred paper.)
Product packaging probably generates 1-2 orders of magnitude more waste than the bags holding the product.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gas stoves need to go away because getting rid of gas infrastructure in the long term will be a huge win, but the gas industry spends heavily on propaganda to convince people otherwise: https://youtube.com/watch?v=hX2aZUav-54
> in the long term will be a huge win Huge win for whom? > but the gas industry spends heavily on propaganda to convince people otherwise: Propaganda goes both ways.
Us. We can make electricity from lots of things and turns out in about 10 years a lot of it will be made from renewables in most countries, and the trend is only going one way.
There's a reason there is a push to electrify everything.