591–600 of 606 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would massively slow the economy and the people at the top will never do that.
True , but inflating an endless assets and debt bubble in the hopes A.I will come to save us is also probably not sustainable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This countries lack of affordable housing is due to NIMBYs pulling the ladder up after themselves. We could build enough housing for all the short term rentals and second homes people want if it was legal. Rich people owning houses isnt a problem unless theyre leaving them vacant en masse which by and large is not happening.
It's the other way around. If you think about it it's a little ridiculous to think that the entire world had a NIMBY crisis all at the same time. Vacant en masse is happening a fair bit there are even some near where i live. Mostly it's more people renting though. The war on affordable housing is all around.
Where do you live? Even manhattan has vacancy rates barely above the 3% structural minimum and thats the poster child for "rich people leaving property vacant" complaints.
The problem really is that too many homeowners refuse to allow anything other than SFHs to be built near them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Laborer coordination and workforce strikes.
How very Marxist. How have those Marxist governments fared in the past?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The memecoin stuff is just chefs kiss. Now he wants to impose tarrifs while not having the local production capacity. The citizens will pay for that. The rich will get the tax cuts and funding while everyone else will get austerity and be required to pull up your bootstraps.
Then, you can always blame the libtards and the Bidens harder .
As long as you have anything less than full reserve banking (and even there, the interest could be an issue if left unchecked -- perhaps why Islam and Christianity both ban its practice), this corruption of sound money will skew the playing field.
I think about this from time to time and I suppose everything is cyclical in the end. Most of us would have been some peasant in the feudal age and when it gets really bad it always ends in a revolution of some sort. It's just on a global scale and timeframe now. As more of the population feels the effects of inequality they won't appeased by just fancy toys and shiny things, they will want change by force. My only s…
The population might not be happy, but they don't have the means to change it. Revolutions don't happen when people are mad, they happen when the ones who can afford armies and equipment sense the possibility of coming out on top. 250 years ago George Washington could have financed the entire Revolutionary War out of his own pocket and he still would have retained two thirds of his wealth. Instead he put the losses o…
At least Bukele seems to get this. As does the IMF, as evidenced by their panicked attempt to shut him down.
No rush in any case though; the people who understand Bitcoin the best are those that need to, and rapid adoption is just a stressor on those building out the rails.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
George Washington didn't have Lockheed Martin's hand in his pocket. Wars were much cheaper when all you needed were men, horses and small arms.
Not relatively. They were incredibly expensive compared to the resources at the time, not least because of the difficulty of moving supplies around and the huge amount of opportunity cost in the lost work of the men recruited into the military.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Britain and America are not exactly close...
And that's the primary reason that Britain lost the war. The war was much more expensive for the British than for the Colonists, and became even more expensive once France joined. The British didn't lose because they couldn't keep fighting, but because the cost of the war grew to be higher than the expected value of winning. It was also expensive for the French, and that cost helped bankrupt the state, which led to t…
It was a nice sovereign republic while it lasted, or so I've read.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
only in a corrupt system.
In every system. The whole point of money is you can use it to get what you want. The whole point of having power is that you can use it to get what you want. They are the same thing if not completely interchangeable. You can use money to buy power and you can use power to accumulate money.
You can use power to get people to do they would not otherwise do.
Generally, if money is able to get people to do things they wouldn't otherwise do, there needs to be some sort of duress, or corruption. People who are content with what they have don't resort to prostitution or otherwise compromising their principles for money. Those who are held under crippling debt, or who come to have no principles, are much more inclined to do so.
Power is more subtle, and it is related to money, but no, they're not the same thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How very Marxist. How have those Marxist governments fared in the past?
How's China's Marxist-Leninist society working out right now? Last I checked their economy was on pace to grow larger than the US.