Motors displaced the equivalent of 100-200 billion jobs.
The end result is the same as now. People will spend all excess consumer surplus on status or weather or health no matter how marginal the improvement.
aka, there is a finite number of nice California coastal real estate ant will actually get worse instead of better as people get wealthier from automation.
The end result is the same as now. People will spend all excess consumer surplus on status or weather or health no matter how marginal the improvement.
aka, there is a finite number of nice California coastal real estate ant will actually get worse instead of better as people get wealthier from automation.
1
0
2
@mdudas @Crypt0Panda @bulktrade There isn’t a technology gap. The differences are dominated by pmf/demand/cost of capital. So all the effort they are putting into the “L1 tech” is misplaced. It’s not going to unlock anything. They would be better off chasing pmf.
3
0
15
With all due respect, you are being naive.
The really ugly reality is that USA is dealing with an adversary that is willing to use nukes to achieve their ends, and Biden/obama/eu folded, and the outcome was a lot of dead.
You are focusing on words. Obama said some really mean things imea refused to send any lethal weapons to Ukraine, and backed away in Syria. So the words themselves are meaningless.
The sequence of events:
0) Bush ignored Georgia and yuschenko poisoning
1) Obama red line in Syria
2) Putin tests it
3) Obama backs off in Syria
4) Putin takes crimea
5) Obama backs off in crimea (doesn’t send weapons to Ukraine)
6) Putin sends tanks into Donbas
7) minutes Obama doesn’t send weapons to Ukraine
8) trumps takes over
9)) Putin tests trump with Wagner troops in Syria
10) trumps blows them up
11) trump sends javelins to Ukraine (first USA lethal weapons)
12) Biden takes over
13) Putin invades
14) Biden slow rolls aid
Biden/Schulz slow rolled Ukraine support at a level that is indistinguishable from a deliberate strategy to maximize causalities. Every time Putin would saber rattle, Biden/Schultz would wet themselves. They are politically constrained by their dovish coalitions. It’s a wet blanked committee deciding how to deal with a bully.
If by some miracle trump can make
Putin think that the deal is favorable to Putin and Putin actually takes it, it’s a massive win.
The really ugly reality is that USA is dealing with an adversary that is willing to use nukes to achieve their ends, and Biden/obama/eu folded, and the outcome was a lot of dead.
You are focusing on words. Obama said some really mean things imea refused to send any lethal weapons to Ukraine, and backed away in Syria. So the words themselves are meaningless.
The sequence of events:
0) Bush ignored Georgia and yuschenko poisoning
1) Obama red line in Syria
2) Putin tests it
3) Obama backs off in Syria
4) Putin takes crimea
5) Obama backs off in crimea (doesn’t send weapons to Ukraine)
6) Putin sends tanks into Donbas
7) minutes Obama doesn’t send weapons to Ukraine
8) trumps takes over
9)) Putin tests trump with Wagner troops in Syria
10) trumps blows them up
11) trump sends javelins to Ukraine (first USA lethal weapons)
12) Biden takes over
13) Putin invades
14) Biden slow rolls aid
Biden/Schulz slow rolled Ukraine support at a level that is indistinguishable from a deliberate strategy to maximize causalities. Every time Putin would saber rattle, Biden/Schultz would wet themselves. They are politically constrained by their dovish coalitions. It’s a wet blanked committee deciding how to deal with a bully.
If by some miracle trump can make
Putin think that the deal is favorable to Putin and Putin actually takes it, it’s a massive win.
3
0
8
The political backlash to the Iran war is solely about the cost of gas, aka the “selfish” local interest, and nothing to do with casus belli.
USA should be selfish when confronting despots. When should US intervene? The most moral stance one could take is we should be minimizing the total number of despots across all possible futures. It would be pretty immoral to argue for more despots than the minimum. If there are none, great, we don’t have to do anything.
If that’s the case, then US should only intervene when the risk adjusted roi is greater than the cost of intervening. So be selfish, do it for the oil, when it is cheap and easy. Because when it is expensive and the cost is high the cost of resources is so high that US might not be able to intervene again in the future. Doing it for the oil, ironically, is one of the least worst reasons.
31
5
100
INSANE FOOTAGE: Russian soldier shoots down Ukrainian Liutyi drone with MANPADS
Newly surfaced footage shows a Russian air-defense team engaging a Ukrainian Liutyi long-range kamikaze drone with an Igla MANPADS as it targets oil infrastructure in the Moscow region.
The ractically the last possible moment.
2
2
109
The politburo and corporate press releases can pass the same consciousness tests as an llm. Are committees conscious? They can express the same profound sadness as an llm without any individual member feeling anything remotely to sadness.
Personally I think the politburo felt suffering.
Personally I think the politburo felt suffering.
3
1
11
Causal links are extremely difficult because there are too many variables.
There are no persistent high growth + high gov spending countries. Why? Wtf knows, each one may fail for a a different and unique reason.
If you have a high growth country, should you raise spending? Doesn’t mh growth, that’s the hard part. It might even work out because high growth implies competence.
If you have a low growth country with moderate or high spending, which is USA + “west”, should you raise gov spending? F’ no, it’s in the best case just inflationary.
There are no persistent high growth + high gov spending countries. Why? Wtf knows, each one may fail for a a different and unique reason.
If you have a high growth country, should you raise spending? Doesn’t mh growth, that’s the hard part. It might even work out because high growth implies competence.
If you have a low growth country with moderate or high spending, which is USA + “west”, should you raise gov spending? F’ no, it’s in the best case just inflationary.
4
0
2
@coinmamba If you think mid terms are the most important consideration the marginal voter swings on gas prices where it has the least impact on control of congress.
1
0
10
You can cut ca healthcare costs by half by sending everyone to Texas for all the non time sensitive treatment. Because Texas builds
housing and hospitals healthcare costs don’t go up. What you are actually asking is for the people who build electric cars and rockets and data centers to pay for the shortages your policies caused.
housing and hospitals healthcare costs don’t go up. What you are actually asking is for the people who build electric cars and rockets and data centers to pay for the shortages your policies caused.
2
4
28
@_averagebill_ @GregoryConti19 It’s basically the only thing we have any confidence in with economics
1
0
4
@GregoryConti19 You sound like a selfish miserly nimby that lives in the richest part of the world and wants to pull the gdp ladder up from 100m people.
7
0
56
People want a clean magical victory that’s short and low cost, but that’s not possible. The reason I am comparing to desert storm is that everyone remembers it as that.
When it was actually more expensive and more deadly for us, and we had to hit Iraqi power plants and a bunch of mix use inwasn’t even the end of it. He dragged it out all the way through the 90s
When it was actually more expensive and more deadly for us, and we had to hit Iraqi power plants and a bunch of mix use inwasn’t even the end of it. He dragged it out all the way through the 90s
2
0
3
@Branche_SC Oh man, geopolitical snipe headshot. I wish Ukraine was winning as bad as USA was losing in Iran.
To quote McNamara: Every quantitative measurement we have shows we’re winning this war.
To quote McNamara: Every quantitative measurement we have shows we’re winning this war.
6
0
11
