rando895

Truth. The fundamental principle of the first study being wealth=money already presupposes a market and scarcity. And that the "human" thing to do is barter. Given there is little evidence of barter economies existing at any scale, basically they discovered that competition in a barter system will always leave someone behind.

People work together, we are social creatures. Any economic model that ignores this is a failure.

The current energy consumption of the planet is 113,000Twh (according to Wikipedia). Since every single Joule of renewable energy is some derivative of solar energy (solar, wind, tide, hydro, but not geo I suppose) the maximum energy we can derive from renewables is 765,000Twh.

The problem with that, is if we start to consume 10's of percent of the total solar radiation through "renewables" that would otherwise go into generating weather and other natural events, well I'm sure you can see the potential problems.

So, we have to get away from carbon intensive electricity generation, but we can't physically rely solely on renewables. Therefore we need fission/fusion.

There's obviously the case of our current economic system causing us to overuse energy in the name of profit (oil is so important because it makes energy cheap and thus easier to make profits), and a change in production/consumption/distribution priorities would likely cause huge decreases in energy needs globally. But we can only really consider energy needs based on what we know.

Whoops, I forgot the "achtually".

I just recently successfully led a unionization drive at my office. We are unionized!

I know it's just a meme lol

Which parts exactly?

Bro, liberal IS a race. By Dunkin' on Liberals, you might as well be genociding Palestinians .

Look, how can we be tolerant if we don't tolerate intolerance

-Genocide Joe probably

I mean, a good chunk of things are things I don't like because they are fascist. For example: ethno states intent on committing genocide. Or attempts to conflate disdain for a state and its settler colonialism, as disdain for an entire people, which I suppose is fascist in and of itself.

Or are you saying that you have such a refined pallet for preferences that you like everything except things that are fascist?

You could get a bunch of people to run smear campaigns against the red and blue candidates (stickers/posters everywhere) and then vote for whatever third party candidate might exist.

I think you mean Communist Dictatorship ™

This message was brought to you by the United States government, and Sugar Daddy Sugar Plantations "We've never forgiven the Cubans for refusing to be our slaves!"

I "know" this is a metaphor, and I'm being a wet blanket about it, but I'm saying it anyway. There is no super hero to save anyone from anything, much less a society circulating the drain. The only way to make things better is by getting organized with your friends, family, and neighbours.

Be prepared (collectively) when things go to shit, and actively try to make them better. You can do very little alone, but together the choice is no longer between Hitler and Hitler, it's change or stagnation. And neither genocide Joe or Cheetos man will lead to any positive progress.

Okay, no more wet blanket.....

This is disingenuous: the fundamental principle of socialism and Communism is democracy. And, credit where credit is due, capitalism forced us to socialize the production of goods and services (it now takes many people to "produce" anything). Currently, there is no discussion about who gets the profit of socialized labour, it goes to the people who own the workplace, which are rarely the workers.

So, to make your example realistic, you and this other person are part of a community that grows apples (pick any rural community). Together, you all own the fields.

How do you decide what each person gets? You come to a consensus. There are so many variables; is the other person injured?young?sick?old? Or really bad at picking apples? Maybe you are on some apple picking super serum. How do you decide who gets what? The same way people usually do; you decide together.

In your example, having a blanket rule as you suggest would never work, and would be unfair, but it is what happens now in our advanced capitalistic economies. If you pick 1000 apples for a company, how many do you keep? Or more realistically; once the apples are sold, how much of the.profits go to you? You have no choice. You work, get paid, and go home. You work harder and you end up with just about the same amount at the end. The only saving grace is if you work hard enough, one day you might be promoted by the generous owner to a position where you are no longer the poor schmuck who does all the work. But that poor schmuck will always still exist, it's just no longer you.

........I need to write less lol

How much supply is needed to bring the price down then?

While I agree that in general there is a problem with zoning laws making it all but illegal to build anything other than single family homes, markets work in such a way that the price is based on what people are "willing" to pay. Where a home is a fundamental necessity, this is already problematic. Nevermind the huge increase in access to money (the advent of mortgages and all of the policy surrounding them) driving up the demand side of the equation.

So when the options are: Homelessness (kind of illegal) Renting (very expensive) Buying (even more expensive)

Foregoing any participation in the housing market isn't really an option.

As a side note: the simple supply/demand model is from econ 101, and I really think it's unwise to make decisions based on first year university textbooks.