211–216 of 216 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The value of the USD wasn’t monotonically inflating away for most of its history, people were mostly fine? Were those periods disastrous in some way?
You really, really need to investigate the history of inflation. Really.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1032048/value-us-dollar-...
If you care to check my claim on it not monotonically decreasing in value. Look at 1776-WW1.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s been a few years since I looked deeply into it, but I think we produce enough to have everyone survive but not necessarily thrive. At the time, it came out to something like 1700 kcal per person. Even if we did have enough, the next problem is logistics of allocating that food to everyone who needs it.
A lot of food production worldwide is used by meat production, which is quite inefficient. It does generate some useful side product (manure), but also a lot of bad side product. In some places, almost every field is dedicated to meat production. Consuming less meat and shifting food production away from meat would be very good for the environment and instantly solve the issue of the amount of calorie produce. But as…
The problem with this statement is that it implies all calories are equal in terms of nutrition. Meat is very protein dense compared to most plant foods and that can be important. That’s not to say it’s impossible to live healthily on only plants, but it’s not as simple as swapping calorie sources.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A large portion (I think it's the majority, but would be happy to be wrong) of our fellow man is a net loss to society, with some smaller percentage being a significant drain. Giving more and more resources to those people does not make them magically more educated, productive, or congenial. So it's not a "crabs in a bucket" mentality in that the greedy (which I assume means the wealthy here, as they're the ones fund…
Correct, and I'm sure when you become the arbiter of who is or isn't worthy that you won't put those like you at the top.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of food production worldwide is used by meat production, which is quite inefficient. It does generate some useful side product (manure), but also a lot of bad side product. In some places, almost every field is dedicated to meat production. Consuming less meat and shifting food production away from meat would be very good for the environment and instantly solve the issue of the amount of calorie produce. But as…
> Consuming less meat and shifting food production away from meat would be very good for the environment and instantly solve the issue of the amount of calorie produce. The problem with this statement is that it implies all calories are equal in terms of nutrition. Meat is very protein dense compared to most plant foods and that can be important. That’s not to say it’s impossible to live healthily on only plants, but…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Consuming less meat and shifting food production away from meat would be very good for the environment and instantly solve the issue of the amount of calorie produce. The problem with this statement is that it implies all calories are equal in terms of nutrition. Meat is very protein dense compared to most plant foods and that can be important. That’s not to say it’s impossible to live healthily on only plants, but…
Fun fact, some plant like Bulgur or Lentil are almost as calorie dense as some meat. But to my understanding, they lack “complex” protein or something ? Regardless, your don't have to cut meat entirely. The issue is that we consuming way too much of it. In many developed country, eating meat every day is very common. Eating meat once or twice a week is enough to get all the right nutrient and not having deficiency in…
I don’t disagree that western societies probably eat too much meat. But that is the trend of any burgeoning middle class, and it’s doubtful it will change.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sure people (society) wants cheap food, free universal healthcare, free public transport, so why don't we have these things? Under capitalism each of these individual systems needs to turn a profit to be deemed worthwhile instead of treating the system as a whole and taking into account the economic externalities and benefits to the entire system.
>free universal healthcare, free public transport There's no such thing as free things, there's just some people paying for other people's things, and surprise surprise some people don't want to use their hard earned money to pay for other people's transport and healthcare.
You benefit from this system whether you like it or not - the taxes used to build roads, transport infrastructure, schools and colleges - they benefit YOU, so yes - you can damn well pay back into the system. Feel free to move to Dubai or another low-tax "utopia" of your choice at any point.