We need more children, not less.

But like... how? Most billionaires are billionaires in the form of equity, not actual cash.

You can tax their dividends more or increase capital gains tax, for example, but that's just a small piece of the pie.

You can't really tax their equity appreciation because that fundamentally doesn't make much sense. It would be like the government taxing you if the housing prices go up in your region (assuming your home appreciated too). You don't have that money, the market simply decided the homes are worth more now. You'd potentially have to sell your home just to pay the taxes to the government, which would create a bunch of issues.

I suppose you can force them to sell equity, but that could cause severe artificial disruptions in the market due to all billionaires selling their holdings (plunging prices and causing a recession) and also being a breach of private property.

Why do people keep saying stuff like this? Do you live on Mars or something?

Are cars, phones, electricity, computers, x-rays, etc. only for the rich in your planet?

If almost everybody produces their own energy and due to that there’s no private business incentive there anymore, I don’t see why the industry wouldn’t just be nationalised?

Just like water services are.

Artificial intelligence is rapidly transforming all sectors of our society. Whether we realize it or not, every time we do a Google search or ask Siri a question, we’re using AI. For better or worse, the same is true about the very character of warfare. This is the reason why the Department of Defense – like its counterparts in China and Russia– is investing billions of dollars to develop and integrate AI into defense systems. It’s also the reason why DoD is now embracing initiatives that envision future technologies, including the next phase of AI – artificial general intelligence.

Fair enough. The rate of technological advancement keeps increasing.

So far, what you’re describing never occurred. It even has a name in economics: The Lump of Labour fallacy.

However, as changes become more and more rapid, it might be the case that labour will not be able to adjust as quickly.

In any case, I’m not particularly worried because I believe that even if it all goes to shit, it will be short term pain for long term gain. Humanity has dealt with so much worse over the ages and we’ve always managed to prevail. If a revolution of some kind becomes necessary to guarantee UBI or something like that, then be it.

In any case, long term we will be in a better society. And that’s what I ultimately care about (and not having to work too).

Dude, did you even read the title of the article you posted? “Why It's So Expensive to Build Urban Rail in the U.S.”

You’re comparing the inflated US figures to those of the industry. The US is simply the most car centric place in the entire free world. It’s not a good representative of the cost of roads vs public transport. The article itself says it.

Also, I’m not American. So, if I’d accept to play that unfair game, I have no reason to. It doesn’t affect me at all.

Also, of course cities and countries will consider the negative externalities and the effect on tax revenues… what do you think their job is? Urban planners, economists, politicians, etc. just sit around approving random projects all day? It’s literally what a bunch of people are hired to do. Industrial economists in particular: that’s their entire job (analysing externalities).

Believe it or not, but companies and governments take years to approve projects for a reason (sometimes inefficiencies, yes, but also because there’s a bunch of stuff to consider).

Those numbers are completely incorrect lol. And especially so when taking into account the negative externalities that road construction, maintenance and individual transport creates and also the opportunity cost of not having denser living spaces (which increases tax revenues).

With investment in public infrastructure. They wouldn’t be the first countries to do it, nor the last.

Look at singapore, for example. From no infrastructure and poor to a public transport hub.

Of course people feel unsafe in dirty crowded old falling apart buses. The whole point is that they don’t have to be dirty crowded old and falling apart with the right investment in the sector.

Road construction and maintenance is much more expensive than public transport infrastructure, so don’t tell me they don’t have the money to pour into these projects.

It is, though. I’d recommend you check things like r/fuckcars or literally any urban planning youtube channel, journal, news article, etc. nowadays.

There’s a war on cars in europe (and even in the US) and I’m here for it. We need to take back our streets, and amazing and convenient public transport is achievable.

The world bulldozed the cities to find space for cars a few decades ago. Finally, we’re going back. Look at Paris or Barcelona, for instance. Huge changes are happening every day. Lanes disappearing, gugantic investments in public transport, creation of parks, reduction of parking spots, car free zones in the centre of cities, etc.

—— The figures you showed for china and India don’t take into account population growth, the percentage of commuters in different types of transportation, the investments in alternative forma of transportation nor what those countries consider a car (in Asia, small vehicles are a lot of times considered as cars)

r/whataboutism

We don’t have overpopulation. On the contrary.

I doubt Africa and other developing regions will go through that. Rich countries are trying to get rid of cars. It makes no sense for the poorer ones to adopt outdated and inefficient technology.

Just like how India and Africa are making huge investments into renewables from the get go, they’ll probably skip the car inferno rich countries have and jump straight to public transport.

Speak for yourself. I do in my country. I'm also currently living in a developing country in Asia and I still have it.

Yes, you know, like all the farmers and other poor people that started to starve to death when we invented machines and better farming practices.

Innovation always leads to worse outcomes, don't you know? That's why we do it. /s

I whole-heartedly agree. It’s our job as citizens to change our governmental institutions to better suit the new age.

Will it happen? Probably not. We’ll probably go through chaos before a revolution happens and we start to live in some kind of utopia. Kind of sad, but that’s how humans work.

Except the french. The french are always protesting. Maybe they can save us 🤷‍♂️

Are you forgetting that rich people can’t get rich if there’s no one to buy their products?

What would you prefer: Making 1 Trillion in net profit but giving 900 Billion in taxes to the government.

Or

Making 0 in revenue but get to keep it all to yourself?

Innovation deals with one part of the equation (the cost one) and it also tends to increase demand. But in this case, demand would be 0 and they wouldn’t be able to sell. What does it matter if it costs a company 5 cents to build a car if there’s no people that can buy said car?

Yes and no. The entire history of china is about unifying and breaking apart.

They have been unified 1 million times already.

Really cool. Does this mean the death of DMs or are they still going to be useful?

In other words, is this new method pareto superior?

I believe that all 3 are compatible.

Companies look for profit and that produces a lot of externalities. Some good, some bad.

I believe that the bad ones can be solved by regulation and enforcement.

Stricter regulations level the playing field for the entire industry and prevent atrocities from being made.

I find it funny that neoliberals view regulations as poison when, in fact, companies get benefited by them and some of them actually lobby the government to put in more regulations.

I know, it might seem counterproductive and weird for companies to do this, but let’s imagine a scenario:

Company A uses slave labor and wants to do so. Company B doesn’t want to for ethical reasons or whatever other reason it might be.

Because company A uses slave labor, it can produce stuff at lower prices. This means that company B is forced to either use slave labor as well, or to go bankrupt and exit the market.

By government regulation (in this case abolishing slavery), no company has this advantage and company B can, therefore, still make profits and operate in a more ethical way.

Point is: Companies can’t afford to be eco-friendly, defend human rights, and other basic stuff that is crucial for society. It’s not their role, to be honest. They are profit seeking institutions and they must fight against other companies for market relevance and survival.

The government, however, has the power to align companies’ interests with those of society by regulating the market. This is what industrial economists do for a living. Finding the society welfare maximizing regulations that aim at erasing the negative externalities whilst keeping the positive ones.

I agree. My country (Portugal) also uses a system like the one on the UK or France.

Yes, every country does it a slightly different way. Which is great because, winning systems (be them political systems, economic systems, etc.) tend to converge over time to the most successful one.

So, in a few decades, we might know if the German system (health insurance) is superior to the French one (government services), or vice versa.

No idea. But they’re not the only ones.

As far as I know, spacex and a company in luxembourg are also working on it.

Anyway, why would you want to short it?

Due to the lower gravitational pull of the moon compared to earth, launching rockets there consumes a lot less energy.

In other words, it is cheaper and easier to have rockets flying around. It also means that rockets can carry more cargo for the same amount of fuel.

So, this all means that mining for resources in asteroids, planets, etc. can be much more easily done.

This is great because we do need resources. Some of them are scarce on earth. Others require us to destroy ecosystems to get them (like diamonds, lithium, etc.).