I don't know why people think NPR has a liberal bias. This is clearly totally non-biased.
Probably not enough to solve the problem.
https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
Try it for yourself! It's fun!
https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
Try it for yourself! It's fun!
Really puts into perspective how small an area a 100MT nuclear bomb would totally destroy.
You can become a millionaire through hard work and moral virtue. But you can't become a billionaire.
That third grader has awesome handwriting. His or her food eating woman and food giving man should be proud of the nonsense they've done.
By the numbers, corporations don't prove that central planning works. Most corporations fail, and as time goes on the failures mount. 18.4% of private sector businesses in the U.S. fail within the first year. After five years, 49.7% have faltered, while after 10 years, 65.5% of businesses have failed.
The decentralized nature of having an unlimited supply of corporations is the only thing that saves capitalism as a whole. When one corporation makes a mistake and fails, there's a bunch of other companies that were run differently that can swoop in, buy the assets cheaply, and maybe succeed (at least for a while).
That's one reason why monopolies are so dangerous -- you've got one centralized authority making decisions, and if it makes the wrong decision then everyone suffers. Without other companies acting in different ways. Without competition, when the company fails, everyone's in trouble.
The nation-state has a geographical monopoly. You can't choose between two or three different nation-states without leaving the place you live in. And when the nation-state fails (or the nation-state causes the entire economy to fail by treating it like a single corporation through central planning), everyone's in trouble.
Incidentally, you chose China as a success, but it sort of proves my point. Mao's great leap backwards killed tens of millions of people. That's not a success. And the ultimate success of China's economy didn't come from central planning, it came from decentralized markets which ended up being some of the most free markets in the world for a relatively short period of time. Now Xi Jinping is talking about a return to central economic planning, I expect we'll see a return to the bad old days in China.
Of course, China also has one of the problems that don't always look like problems.
Central planning is a force multiplier. By having everyone forced to do the same thing, good policies end up doing way better, but bad policies end up doing way worse. So is debt.
During the good times, debt feels great -- it's like cocaine. Problem is, during the bad times debt feels terrible -- it's like cocaine withdrawal. The Japanese economic miracle came about in large part because of massive amounts of debt that have now crippled their economy for decades, and China's economic miracle was similarly fueled. And while it looked great for everyone while the debt was being spent, now that debt isn't as available it's starting to destroy the Chinese economy.
When a company makes bad decisions and finances them with debt, it goes bankrupt. Some people lose their jobs, but ultimately that's the end of it. By contrast, when a nation makes bad decisions and finances them with debt, there's no going bankrupt. The choice are to default, to inflate the currency, or to buckle down with austerity. Each of these options causes mass hardship on the common man who ultimately pays for the largesse of the central planner.
Now, debt can be used for good reasons and can cause overwhelming returns on capital, but let's go back to the numbers -- on a long enough timeline, the mortality rate for everyone reaches 100%, and the same is virtually inevitable for companies, and the same is virtually inevitable for centrally planned economies. Eventually you make an incorrect decision, and you go all-in on it, and everything blows up and you're stuck taking one of the bad options.
And since we've got an oligopoly of states colluding together, all making the same decisions, we're all in trouble.
The decentralized nature of having an unlimited supply of corporations is the only thing that saves capitalism as a whole. When one corporation makes a mistake and fails, there's a bunch of other companies that were run differently that can swoop in, buy the assets cheaply, and maybe succeed (at least for a while).
That's one reason why monopolies are so dangerous -- you've got one centralized authority making decisions, and if it makes the wrong decision then everyone suffers. Without other companies acting in different ways. Without competition, when the company fails, everyone's in trouble.
The nation-state has a geographical monopoly. You can't choose between two or three different nation-states without leaving the place you live in. And when the nation-state fails (or the nation-state causes the entire economy to fail by treating it like a single corporation through central planning), everyone's in trouble.
Incidentally, you chose China as a success, but it sort of proves my point. Mao's great leap backwards killed tens of millions of people. That's not a success. And the ultimate success of China's economy didn't come from central planning, it came from decentralized markets which ended up being some of the most free markets in the world for a relatively short period of time. Now Xi Jinping is talking about a return to central economic planning, I expect we'll see a return to the bad old days in China.
Of course, China also has one of the problems that don't always look like problems.
Central planning is a force multiplier. By having everyone forced to do the same thing, good policies end up doing way better, but bad policies end up doing way worse. So is debt.
During the good times, debt feels great -- it's like cocaine. Problem is, during the bad times debt feels terrible -- it's like cocaine withdrawal. The Japanese economic miracle came about in large part because of massive amounts of debt that have now crippled their economy for decades, and China's economic miracle was similarly fueled. And while it looked great for everyone while the debt was being spent, now that debt isn't as available it's starting to destroy the Chinese economy.
When a company makes bad decisions and finances them with debt, it goes bankrupt. Some people lose their jobs, but ultimately that's the end of it. By contrast, when a nation makes bad decisions and finances them with debt, there's no going bankrupt. The choice are to default, to inflate the currency, or to buckle down with austerity. Each of these options causes mass hardship on the common man who ultimately pays for the largesse of the central planner.
Now, debt can be used for good reasons and can cause overwhelming returns on capital, but let's go back to the numbers -- on a long enough timeline, the mortality rate for everyone reaches 100%, and the same is virtually inevitable for companies, and the same is virtually inevitable for centrally planned economies. Eventually you make an incorrect decision, and you go all-in on it, and everything blows up and you're stuck taking one of the bad options.
And since we've got an oligopoly of states colluding together, all making the same decisions, we're all in trouble.
If nz is anything like every other country on earth right now, don't get too used to having government services. Lots of cuts everywhere soon because you can't keep printing forever.
Once the system is tightly integrated enough, it stops mattering. Der fuhrer Trudeau and his corporate sponsors own all print and broadcast media thanks to massive conflicts of interest in funding, and those media conglomerates pass on whatever messages they demand.
This level of power accumulation isn't likely to end well, and it's likely to blow up soon, in part because the shit they're pulling is starting to have real global consequences. Central planning doesn't work, and it isn't different this time.
This level of power accumulation isn't likely to end well, and it's likely to blow up soon, in part because the shit they're pulling is starting to have real global consequences. Central planning doesn't work, and it isn't different this time.
That's a good point tbh. That H2O isn't like taking a shower or watering the lawn, it's likely leaving the water table fairly permanently as nh3 and whatever they use the oxygen for.
The one thing that they glance over here is it still takes overwhelming amounts of energy to get the hydrogen. In 2009 I did a quick calculation and determined it would take 1/3 of the entire planets nuclear and renewable power generation to replace this one industry. The natural gas isn't just for energy, but it provides the hydrogen in the nh3.
naaaaw. I mean, it would get most professionals sanctioned, and it would violate the rules in place in every company in America, but these aren't high minded places like businesses, this is the wild west of the people who run your country!
They should go practice coal mining in Centralia, Pennsylvania. I hear there's lots of coal up for grabs out there.
Social media meltdowns have people asking important questions about online platform design— including the classic debate over real names and anonymity. What difference do they make?
Part of the idea seems to come from companies that want all your information. They want to know your full name, your location, your face, so they can build their profile to either sell you things or sell you to someone else.
Besides that, it's just insanely stupid the idea that people should be forced to provide their actual identity to others just to participate in discussion.
People think of the Internet as this safe thing because people we like are on it and we access it from our living rooms, but it's more like a city block. Sure, there are spots that are safer, but there's going to be a lot of people walking down the street you wouldn't give your personal information to for a variety of reasons.
Yeah, you can probably track down a person's personal info even of someone just walking down the street if you really want it, but even a standard padlock can be picked in 15 seconds but will keep most people from bothering.
Besides that, it's just insanely stupid the idea that people should be forced to provide their actual identity to others just to participate in discussion.
People think of the Internet as this safe thing because people we like are on it and we access it from our living rooms, but it's more like a city block. Sure, there are spots that are safer, but there's going to be a lot of people walking down the street you wouldn't give your personal information to for a variety of reasons.
Yeah, you can probably track down a person's personal info even of someone just walking down the street if you really want it, but even a standard padlock can be picked in 15 seconds but will keep most people from bothering.
I was thinking in terms of being a mental midget who only seems to parrot whatever the teevee tells her, rather than any of the positive connotations.