wait-a-minute

Some people have nothing interesting or valuable to say, they just always talk about race. Somehow everything becomes about race, even things which have nothing to do with race.

You can definitely do bad things to earn money. But a doctor, an engineer, etc, would've already contributed to the common good even if they buy a tenth car that sits in their garage. So simply buying a tenth car that sits in your garage (and employs the people building the car) isn't in itself a bad thing or an indication that you're not contributing to the common good.

In a free society, someone can spend their money on an extra toy if they want. Nothing wrong with that. It's a strange expectation to impose on others this notion of "spending only on the common good." It's not black and white what the common good is, and that is why an educated free market is a good proxy or mechanism for figuring that out.

Rather than top-down centralized planning.

With the insane property taxes the left wants to levy on personal dwellings, you never really own anything anyway. It's not a problem with just the elites - it's a problem with the leftists pretending to be on the side of the worker but then implementing 2% to 4% yearly property tax bills. See: Illinois.

Seize the means of production comrade!!!

The problem with reddit is that you get downvoted simply for going against the hivemind, even if you supply evidence that you are right. It's impossible to have a meaningful conversation on the more popular subreddits, especially on politics.

Silly question, but how will your product survive if Google decides to just implement that type of view on the calendar?

Note that as savings pile up in banks and brokerages, they supply the world with more loans for starting new businesses or new ventures. The money in a bank doesn't just sit there. It is a basis for economic activity throughout the country and even the rest of the world.

A more appropriate example is not an island that constrains population, but a population where new people are born and make investments into new businesses and new ideas. You can certainly have people transition more towards savings over time as they enter their prime career earning potential, without it impacting the rest. This is because there will always be other people who are willing to start businesses.

This manifesto's website takes longer than 64 milliseconds to respond though.

The argument you made is that "it's hard to solve poverty due to wealth hoarding" and the response I provided is to show you that clearly that is not the case, given the rate at which poverty is being solved across the entire planet.

So either you've overstated the difficulty of solving poverty or overestimated the amount of hoarding or overestimated the impact of hoarding on the rate of solving poverty. Perhaps the amount of wealth someone has isn't entirely relevant to the amount of poverty, since wealth is not a zero-sum game.

Resource allocation being equal is not a prerequisite for eliminating poverty. Kings used to have all the wealth but the poorest American today still has a much better standard of living than the wealthiest kings from just a 200 years ago.

Then why has poverty been going down drastically, even faster than anyone would've expected?

https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty

"In 1990, there were 1.9 billion people living in extreme poverty. With a reduction to 735 million in 2015, this means that on average, every day in the 25 years between 1990 and 2015, 128,00 fewer people were living in extreme poverty.17

On every day in the last 25 years there could have been a newspaper headline reading, “The number of people in extreme poverty fell by 128,000 since yesterday”. Unfortunately, the slow developments that entirely transform our world never make the news, and this is the very reason why we are working on this online publication.

Recently this decline got even faster and in the 7 years from 2008 to 2015 the headline could have been “Number of people in extreme poverty fell by 192,000 since yesterday”. In the recent past we saw the fastest reduction of the number of people in extreme poverty ever."

To be fair the post also says, correctly, that what's better for the environment is also using the phone that you already have. IE keeping it longer.

You are very confused. A mortgage is definitely a cost. It's only meaningful equity if you ever sell it and get any of the money back, which is not guaranteed at all.

And only public housing would collapse the entire economy. Plenty of countries tried this, most notably the commies in Russia and in eastern Europe.

It's almost as if it hasn't even been 50 years since people were last dying because of the evil extremist ideologies from the 1900s! Tens of millions dead in the last hundred years.

Because communism is inherently a violent and paranoid ideology. It's blatantly obvious even in the foundational literature from Marx. Marx openly advocated violence and threatened violence against anyone who was opposed to the proletariat.

Not only that, but he construed a framework in which anything opposing the proletariat, including "class antagonisms" that could be literally anything, should be opposed with force or the threat of force. Things like religion, private property, or anything that is not for the revolution is necessarily considered against the revolution.

When the foundation of a worldview is steeped in violence and using violence to get your political way, it's no surprise that the implementation of that worldview results in bloodshed and power vacuums.

Deep analysis of the body for any visible signs of tumors or diseases. Stroke detection software. Home and car entry without needing to carry any keys. Much faster entry into airports, where we need passports or security checks anyway. Lots of entertainment possibilities.

But evolution does have a direction. Survival of the fittest! Those animals most fit to reproduce survive and reproduce. Humans have done that and taken over every other species with tools and general intelligence that no other animal can hope to possess. We are what you would call the apex predator on earth.

https://www.geek.com/tech/worlds-first-5g-powered-remote-bra...

https://www.cnet.com/news/5g-could-make-self-driving-cars-sm...

There's also the possibility of much faster speeds even in areas without 5g, since the competition will make 3g speeds a really bad look.

5G will probably bring in another wave of smartphone and IoT innovation. Imagine what can be done when sensors/cameras can transmit 10x the amount of data per second that they can now. I'm especially interested in how this might enable low-cost high-quality telemedicine.

Or we could, you know, just go to school and work and interact with one another the way we already do. Rather than trying to force people to give up years of their short lives via a draft.

Or you can target the largest sources of pollution without punishing regular working people via carbon taxation.

How do you calculate the value of such an externality? Even if for argument's sake I were to just accept that it's double the climate impact on average, doubling a very small value is not really meaningful. The average American carbon footprint is roughly the same regardless.

You also haven't considered that as you move people into cities you need to scale up infrastructure in the city itself. Living spaces, transportation around the city, supply lines for supermarkets. Everything needs to scale. It's not black and white that moving everyone into a tightly packed city is going to make a meaningful difference to global emissions.

What would make a tremendous difference is turning the entire grid into a green smart grid powered by solar, wind, geothermal, etc. That would change things regardless of where people live, because the sources of energy are decentralized and can exist basically anywhere that natural resources like solar and wind exist.

And that is why researchers are proposing we bring back Zeppelins! Zeppelins that are 10x as long as the Empire State Tower is tall, to be exact. Way better for the environment, can be operated autonomously, and cheap to produce.

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/zeppelins-stopped-flyin...

There are much better solutions that target the actual large polluters. People living in suburbs is a small percentage of total global emissions, especially when you consider transportation of goods. Transporting goods across the oceans is a far larger percentage of emissions than people living in suburbs.

If the goal is to continue to survive as a species, there are much more effective strategies to implement.

The amount of carbon emitted from people driving to and from suburbs is actually a small amount compared to the real big polluters. It makes no sense to target such a giant restructuring of society for so little gain.

The problem with this argument is that going from most of south America to any part of central America would be a large economic jump. And we know that people who come into the USA illegally tend to go towards major hubs with more economic activity and opportunity. The amount of economic migration would increase for sure. And in a situation where we already turn around over 100,000 a month for attempting to cross illegally, not to mention the number we never catch, it's definitely not going to advantage American citizens to have open borders along the Mexico-USA border.

If anything it would disadvantage citizens.

The financial benefit to the end consumer is that their electricity bill goes down since the panels generate electricity on their own.