Youtube comments of looseycanon (@looseycanon).

  1. 756
  2. 413
  3. 339
  4. 248
  5. 190
  6. 158
  7. 138
  8. 120
  9. 113
  10. 95
  11. 87
  12. 86
  13. 86
  14. 79
  15. 78
  16. 76
  17. 73
  18. 73
  19. 69
  20. 69
  21. 65
  22. 61
  23. 54
  24. In defense of "entiteled Zoomers", who's gonna birth the next generation? To have kids, you have to have sufficient income, to feed the family and you need to be able to do it, at least for a while, on single income and save up for retirement. If 60 000 USD is poverty wages these days (just try that in NYC, SF, or literally anywhere, where there are high paying jobs), then demanding 600 000 USD might still look ludicrous, but also reasonable, given you will have expenses just holding down the job! What are the expenses associated with holding down a job, that pays 600 000 USD? What's the net total take home pay, after you deduct taxes and job related expenses like gas, tools (ranging from literal wrenches and suits to software), car/household reparis, recommended 20% of income to be put into savings for retirement, etc.? I ran the numbers back in a day for the country of Czechia, where I live in, and I came to about 60 000 CZK a month (most incomes and expenses are on a monthly basis around here), while median wage at the time was around 30 000 CZK. That was before the pandemic, when we had some 18% inflation for a while! Today, that wouldn't even cover rent and utilities in a ghetto (I know, I live in one). Knowing all this, tell me, is this really entitelment? Who in their right mind would wife up (not taking divorce laws into consideration) and have kids, which are kind of necessary for the society exist going forward? It is true, that money is not the only reason for low birth rates, but it is a contributing factor. Hell, how is a man supposed to impress a woman, when he can't even afford a coffee in a nice coffee house? How is he supposed to find a job, when he can't afford even to buy and maintain scooter? Why would a woman have a kid in her best years from fertility standpoint (18-24 years old), when that is the time, when people have no, or below minimum economic wage income?! This has to change, if we're to survive as a species, hence, why there should be not just a minimum wage strictly linked to local cost of living, but also mandate to hire young people to ensure, that we at least procreate!
    52
  25. 50
  26. 50
  27. 49
  28. 48
  29. 47
  30. 42
  31. 41
  32. 40
  33. 40
  34. 39
  35. 38
  36. 38
  37. 36
  38. 34
  39. 33
  40. 32
  41. 32
  42. I have a few problems with this video here... 1) I have Bachelor's in accounting. Companies, even accounting firms, cry and whine around where I live, how they can't find qualified workers including accountants, yet, I can't find a job in my field. Even on rare occasion get refused and then see that same ad refreshed on the same job board the next day. It is as if companies refused to hire people that they needed. Furthermore, some companies, usually the bigger ones, run ads, that are never supposed to end up hiring people right away, rather they are meant to create a database, so question is, what is the actual demand for any particular job? This has persisted for years. The "lack of skilled workers" is discussed on TV all the time, yet youth unemployment is still double that of general unemployment! If there truly were no qualified workers, you'd expect companies to hire people and grow and train them them selves irrespective of education, meaning the requirement we'd see the companies drop would not be education alone. We'd also see the working experience requirement dropped, however, what I have seen across my nation is the opposite (I'm talking thousands of sent CVs and hundreds of interviews here. At this point, I am statistically significant). I'm talking junior level jobs demanding two, three, four, I've even seen once five years of working experience in the field for a junior and the working experience requirement is not being dropped, rather it's on the rise! Given it's the employers, who supposedly dictate the job requirements (I mean, you had a video on this yourselves), if they can't hire anyone, shouldn't they raise their own workforce? 2) No, the problem of housing is not workforce shortage. Look at, where lack of housing is the most acute! You'll get California, especially San Francisco, New York and other similar places. What do these have in common? Overbearing and overblown bureaucracy, that makes construction process start in an office and the in office stage takes 60% to 70% of the time spent on the whole construction from initial planning to sale of the finished house. The problem here is, the larger the city, the more economic opportunities but also more bureaucracy, meaning fewer new homes and therefore higher prices. 3) The video appears to me to ignore the influence of technology. Sticking to the world of construction, there are already prototypes of brick laying robots and construction materials techniques, that will not need to use mortar. First houses using these technologies have already been built too! Meaning we will not need so many laborers to actually build the house. We're being told AI will replace jobs being done (most visibly drivers, but also basically any entry level job in finance, coders...). If we look back in time, we'll see, that technologies have usually displaced the more vulnerable people, who tended to be blue collar. Wouldn't it be appropriate to assume, that the same is going to happen in the future and is happening now? 4) And on the count of trade, how many of these blue collar workers have university degrees? We usually think about electricians being only a trade, however, where I live, in order to become a freelancer in the field, you either need loads of working experience, or you need a university degree in the field and a few less years of experience. Forestry also has a degree in the field. The point is, there are university degrees, that produce blue collar jobs. How are these graduates counted? 5) Sticking with the degrees, what is it, that actually gets you a job? Because I'd argue it ain't the degree. It's the skills you were learning getting that degree (hence why it's so important to evade ATS and get straight to the recruiter). Which brings to mind the quality degrees them selves. What the hell is a Woman's studies degree for? I recall having a subject called "Leadership of diverse teams" in my failed attempt at Master's. I thought, that I'd learn, how to accommodate for different employee needs based on their cultural background. Result? Seventy percent of the course was about how women are "discriminated against". Meanwhile, women are absolutely killing it in the economy. My chosen field of accountancy is outright dominated by women! And any back office team you can bet has majority of women doing the job. The session was literal propaganda. Point being, assuming I'm right (which I'd argue I am, given employers are whining, that universities don't prepare workers to do their jobs, though there is a caveat, that unis have to be a bit delayed, given they don't work with the live process), shouldn't we scrutinize university programs more? That propaganda session I had been through could have been replaced with something different, for instance how customs are done, calling it "Regulatory aspects of international commerce". Why don't we ask ourselves the question, whether the quality of degrees had not fallen because of identity politics or bloatation of unnecessary knowledge in academia?
    31
  43. 30
  44. 27
  45. 26
  46. 25
  47. 25
  48. 24
  49. 24
  50. 24
  51. 24
  52. The bond option is nonsense. We need more farmers in the EU, because, already, larger farming conglomerates have way too much power over price of their products (on top of getting subsidies). If a farmer is permitted to leave his farm, who's gonna take over? Yes, the big firms. This is nonsense, really. No, what we need, are different kinds of subsidies, that target different aspects of farming and forestry (frankly, I believe, that it is inevitable, that these two will merge, given they both deal with land and current ecological bias in politics). We need subsidies for reforestation, land adaptation, machinery purchases and development of up the value chain projects (a farm growing cows for milk to be able to make milk products, or to tan the leather they get from their cows upon slaughter and process it all the way into shoes or car seats, etc.). All else needs to go. And then, we need to change the environment, that we operate in. Louis Rossmann has beaten the horse of right to repair to the death multiple times already, but we need to make machinery self repairable and simpler to operate (I'm looking at you John Deer, I'm looking at you!). We also need to end current system of patents on crops. Because of them, if you seed crops, you can't make your own new seed out of your own harvest, because some company holds the patent to that DNA! Crazy! And finally, if somebody decides to become a farmer, he/she needs assurances, that if things go sideways, they won't end up on the streets, as well, that when they need a loan for something, they won't get refused in the beginnings, because they have nothing to show for them selves for now. And finally, animal cruelty laws need to be revisited, for they have overreached into normal practices, sometimes, even because they were not particularly cruel, but they seemed as such.
    23
  53. 23
  54. 22
  55. 22
  56. There is a problem with VAT and other consumption taxes, when you have large population centers near a border. Take map of Czech Republic. Cities like Cheb, Ústí nad Labem, Liberec, Opava or the entire Ostrava metropolitan area sit so close to border, that a trip accross can all expenses included be less costly than buying in the city itself, especially if there were common currency in both countries, as that would remove volatility of exchange rate from the calculation. As there are no international payment fees on cards in Europe, you can imagime, just how many people make occasional trips to Poland or even Germany for durables. Then there are property taxes, which have the problem of trickling down onto the tenants, which tend to be the poorer members of society, so it hit's them disproportionately more, because the landlord can move ideally to a border town of a country with high consumption tax and low property tax. This works even domestically in case of Czech Republic, because certain cities have tax multipliers associated with them (spa cities, the capitol and based on population), meaning a man can make this multiplier differential rather big, if he choses to live in a village near a city and doesn't need to make trips to the city too often, or if he makes them for other reasons (sunk costs). And then you have the overall tax burden, which is also a problem. on cards in Europe, you can imagime, just how many people make occasional trips to Poland or even Germany for durables and why there was a train service from.
    21
  57. 21
  58. 21
  59. 21
  60. 20
  61. 20
  62. That would bring it's own set of trouble with it, though. Say you wanted to make a lumbering big conglomerate more efficient, breaking it down into smaller chunks based on activity done by each individual chunk can help with that, because, for instance, what were mere support processes for manufacturing before can become revenue generating processes in them selves. Objection, that owned company owes debt would then arbitrarily prevent a company to reform into a more efficient version of itself. To ilustrate, take big manufacturing company from Texas, making some kind of industrial machine and selling it both on domestic market and for export. Breaking that company down into individual chunks department by department would allow that same company to market under different names more tailored for it's own market, while at the same time handling the same agenda for the now only manufacturer. From that one inflexible conglomerate, you can have accounting company, export-import business, IT business, logistics company, real estate developer... all runing more efficiently, because they are not tied to the primary business, and if the original manufacturing business folds, the other companies to can survive and preserve more jobs, than if the company didn't break up... And that's not even starting with the international aspect of the thing, because pooling multiple manufacturing companies and then creating foreign company to represent all these would also bring advantage to the whole group, for instance, accepting local currencies and engaging in biderictional trade with said foreign market. The problem is not, companies breaking up as they see fit. The problem is, companies holding bank debt paying out dividends and sometimes even being forced to do it by the court. Famously Henry Ford lost a case about this, when, instead of paying out dividend, he decided to pay out bonuses to his employees, and shareholders sued him over that decision. So, what I'd like to see, would be about 75% tax on dividends, if company owed any debt for longer than 30 days, except of debts steming from an invoice with longer pay period, in which case such invoice going overdue would be the criteria to trigger the tax. I would also want to see that ruling overturned with language in the court opinion speaking about long term financial sustainability of the business.
    19
  63. 19
  64. 18
  65. Yeah, brain drain is not about the EU. Sure, moving may be simpler, but if you have wage differences in area of between 200 and 300% of what you'll earn in your country, people will move even over mined borders. I live in Czechia, our median wage 39685 CZK (according to our statistical bureau), while minimum economic wage (also known as living wage) is around 47000 a month. Minimum wage is 18900 CZK. And we're still wondering why are people leaving, when in Germany is 1584€. which is approximately 40000 CZK. We already have similar prices as Germans and our companies are some of the most profitable ones in the world. Our workers provide very similar value to the German ones. Why don't we raise the minimum wage to match Germans? And I am quite certain, that you'd find similar problems all over the EU. Hell, Romania and Austria had a timber based scandal fairly recently, with Austria exporting free lumber from Romania. Also, given what's happening now in Hungary and Slovakia, I'm pretty sure, you'd find people domestic politics as reason for them to leave. As to the single market, well... it's not unified. we Czechs pay far more for mobile data than Germans or French, and cellular providers are whining over us still monkey branching between WiFis... That one is likely a problem of the EU, because it doesn't force a rule, that would make same good/service sold in all countries to actually be the same for the same price... Hopefully, we'll get there one day. As to regional inequality, that would have happened regardless. Business is better done from a hub, for which capitals are predisposed. It is true, however, that the EU (and nimbyism) is throwing some stones under the wheels. Because of nonsensical environmental policies, manufacturing (particularly heavy manufacturing) has left Europe for China and other low wage nations, and major factories is the one thing, that will never be in a country's capitol. Just look at Mladá Boleslav, how some 60% of the city is just factories belonging to a single brand! That you won't find elsewhere. And then there is the issue of employers being able to force people into offices, which also forces internal migration from countryside to the capitol. But that's two out of three reasons not being even associated with the EU! Italy is not a good example to give for Euro being a problem. Italy has Japan levels of development and wealth creation in the North and damn near Sudan levels in the South, dragging it back. Their lack of growth is not because of Euro, rather, they don't have the Rhein and Elbe, they are in a choked sea, one one end with Suez, on the other with Gibraltar, they have to cross the Alps to get to the rest of the EU for trade. Furthermore, tourism, something they banked heavily on, doesn't generate enough wealth to sustain itself. Famously, Venice is literally falling apart due to overtourism and people don't spend there enough to fix the city. As to saying, that countries prefer their own currencies... well highlighting Bulgaria for it is disingenuous the least, given they are on track to have Euro by 2026 at the latest and Croatia literally adopted the Euro two or three years ago! Let us also not forget, that Russia still has contacts in post-communist countries and has incentive not to allow their former satellites to further integrate with the EU. Public discourse should therefore be taken with a pinch of salt.
    18
  66. 18
  67. 17
  68. 17
  69. 17
  70. 16
  71. 16
  72. 16
  73. 16
  74. 15
  75. 15
  76. 14
  77. 14
  78. 14
  79. 13
  80. 13
  81. 13
  82. 12
  83. 12
  84. 12
  85. 12
  86. 12
  87. 12
  88. 11
  89. 11
  90. 11
  91. 11
  92. While I would agree with you on points (1) and (2) to be a problem, point (3) is not. Just look at the Internet, which has changed to the point, it is unrecognizable. Polish Railways had problems recently with some of their DMUs, because of a software update and the ability of their supplier to change contract post sale (Louis Rossmann had a video on this) and lock their property over the Internet. You have companies these days turning everything into subscriptions instead of innovating and creating products and new uses for their existing products to sell to customers. All they are trying to innovate, is the means of monetization, which doesn't provide new value. In current climate thinking first "how will this screw me over" is the right approach. Sure you don't adopt industry breaking technologies, but you also dodge bullets like Theranos and soon to be Tesla, which is clinically dead without subsidies. As for (4), highways are good. They're in better state than most places I've been to, and I've been to a lot of places. Those are not a problem. The railway though... Railway had caught a virus of bullshit ideas such as high speed rail and now, they're paying the price. Instead of focusing on volume of cargo moved by rail, building up marshaling yards and loading yards, all of Europe has decided, that rail can compete with air, which outside of overnight trains is truly idiotic idea, and focused on high speed interconnects of large cities. Instead of laying third of fourth rail, they've decided to increase speed, which is only usable by passenger trains and therefore the increase of maintenance costs have to be born by passengers alone, because freight doesn't need that speed. Instead of making the passenger trains longer by utilizing through coaches, they focused on speed. Therefore, I'd contend, that Germany, nay all of Europe, doesn't have a problem with the volume of investment, but rather, incorrect focusing of said investment.
    11
  93. 11
  94. 11
  95. 10
  96. 10
  97. 10
  98. 10
  99. 10
  100. Student loans is a trap, even with conditions presented. The way I see it, let the uni be free, paid for with taxes. Rather, boost it a bit more. Provide additional assistance to people, who are of low disposable income (eg. income after base necessities like housing or food and medicine are met) and provide them with laptops (Yes, for first half of first semester, I did not have a PC and then I bought a computer, that was literally falling apart) and alter tax system, so that it is more progressive. You see, this could be seen as problem of taxation. What taxes are collected, which demographics pay the most? If tax system is progressive and education system, through it's characteristics is regressive, these effects can be evened out. Education has become a necessity for a lot of fields, because there are not many alternatives to university degree or there are regulations, which bar entry in to particular fields. For instance, you could be forced to pass a school leaving exam in electronics or get a bachelor's degree, just to run a wire as a network engineer. The rest, you can learn by watching channels like Crosstalk Solutions or Willie Howe. And this is telling, because, while you'll learn the meat of the field on youtube, you can't do your job, without the ability to run a wire and that needs a degree and working experience either directly in the field or as electrician (at least that is the situation in Czechia), meaning you're locked in to education. The way, how job market is developing, degrees are becoming more and more of a necessity, because simple work is being replaced by machines and more complex work requires education. The trend seems to be only heading towards more and more education intense fields, at least for human work. And now add on top of that, that attending a uni would either get more expensive, or in order to get "free" education, you'd have to jump through bureaucratic hoops, at the end of which, nothing is guaranteed. No, making education paid for, in spite of presented evidence, is not a good idea. Further research is necessary, because, while some root causes were clearly identified, I don't think it's all of them.
    10
  101. 10
  102. 10
  103. 10
  104. 10
  105. 10
  106. 9
  107. 9
  108. 9
  109. 9
  110. 9
  111. 9
  112. 9
  113. 9
  114. 9
  115. 9
  116. 9
  117. 9
  118. There are three key ingredients for high speed train, to be successful. 1) High wages in economy, because to get the speeds necessary, maintenance of infrastucture and trains them selves is enormous. 2) High population density. You want the train to lose as little time on accelerating and decelerating, while picking up maximum amount of people along the route. 3) Restrictive geography, denying the populace the ability to disperse them selves. Here comes, what I believe kills high speed rail anywhere outside of Japan and possibly Italy. If you look at Japan, you see islands of elongated shape. Most people live along the cost in huge cities that are not that far away from each other. Italy has similar shape but not the same density. This is why there is chance for profitability in these places, but not elsewhere, that is more "round" like, like Germany or Poland, where people have more space to disperse. Planes don't need so much infrastructure and don't need to share it with others, hence, why they are the better choice for long distance travel... unless you're traveling overnight at regular speeds that is, but let's not get ahead of ourselves... If you want to see long haul trains in general, you need to look to Russia, which is underdeveloped, needs to bring in raw resources from distant places in Siberia to their demographic center in their European part of the country, where majority of them live and passanger trains are an afterthought (as far as civilian use is concerned), or India, which has very low incomes, is somewhat underdeveloped areas interlaced with highly developed centers (for reference, watch Chirs Tarrant's Extreme railways episode about Konkan Railway, somewhat dated, but shows the concept)
    9
  119. 9
  120. 8
  121. 8
  122. 8
  123. 8
  124. 8
  125. 8
  126. 8
  127. 8
  128. 8
  129. 8
  130. 8
  131. 8
  132. 8
  133. 8
  134. 7
  135. 7
  136. 7
  137. 7
  138. 7
  139. 7
  140. 7
  141. 7
  142. Yeah, all looks sunshine and rainbows untill you begin to utter the four letters, that kind of break this. G R I D. The energy grid need's certain ammount of charge, but since we don't have controll over weather, we can't rely on renewables alone. We don't have a way of storing this ammount of energy. That is scientifically impossible with materials known to us today, not to mention, that batteries degrade and only some are recyclable. Ideally, we would need highly energy dense and highly stable power storage, however, there is inverse relationship betwene these two characteristics in all energy storage mediums we know of. The only reason, why gas is safe to use in cars, is that, while increadably energy dense, it require's a catalyst to release that energy, eg. heat. the only way to safely store energy in large quantities are pumping powerplants, however, these can't be built everywhere and, since these are sisters to hydroelectric dams, change microclimate in the area... by going green, you might actually compell a species to extinction... protector of Earht. Further more, we don't have strategy on waste disosal of old solar panels, as materials they are made from can't be recycled. At this point, we just might be changing what waste we produce. That is why I would rather bet on a different strategy and different power source. A strategy which would ban utilisation of some applications of dirty energy sources, limiting them essentially only to applications, which require mobility (eg transport, some hobby activities), or to serve as backup (gas). Ultimately, I believe in coexistence of gas, solar, wind, hydro and nuclear, with the last mentioned serving the largest share. The idea is, that nuclear provide's what the grid need's 24/7, supplemented durring the day and when it's windy by by renewables, and hydroelectric dams and pumping powerplants dealing with spikes, and when those can't keep up, gas pick's up the pieces. The problem with renewables isn't ideology, it's not apareantly the money. It's engeneering. What is the problem with renewables, is they are unreliable and you can't store energy effectively over long periods of time in large enough quantities.
    7
  143. 7
  144. 7
  145. Nice video, but I have an alternative, how to approach this: 1) This video only works so long, you are expecting to sell the car. There's a lot of buzz about energy transition these days, so this strategy might not be entirely applicable (some green nutjob outlawing sale of fuel), but driving the car into it's grave and owning it longer can change the math drastically, especially if you expect heavy use of the car, which further increases depreciation. 2) When calculating a loan, it may be more prudent to spread the loan for longer, especially if you're close to threashold for purchasing the car, because you can put that difference in repayment towards immediate cash reserve, in case something happens, while you're repaying the debt with you or with the car (say you lose your job or car requires unexpected maintenance. That money put aside is the gas, that get's you to the next job interview). Therefore, I'd recommend calculating future value of the car (eg. what you'll pay with interest) and base your decision on that "future price" and decide, whether you're willing to pay that, rather than the on spot price. 3) Consider total cost of ownership of the car. Not just how much the car it self costs and fuel to run it. Consider whatever permits you'd need to get along with the car, be it parking at your destinations, paid lanes, congestion charging, highway fees and more. 4) Calculate maintenance reserve creation. I like to use tax depreciation of a car for this. According to Czech tax code, a car is fully written off in 5 years and depreciation should reflect ware and tear of depreciated property. So inflate the amount you pay for the car on loan or leasing by 1/60 of asking price of the car, so you have a reserve for maintenance and if the car end's up as a total writeoff in an accident, after a few years of ownership, you'd have a fund to dig into for a replacement, in case insurance company refuses to pay out. 5) When buying a car, consider the total delta it does to your finance. You can end up with a higher income if you own a car! The reasons for this are numerous, from moving to cheaper part of the country while maintaining current job, leveraging reimbursements from employer by driving with lower consumption, buying cheaper fuel, than the company will reimburse with, dodging already mentioned fees or finding a better paying job beyond the reach of your current car (will become relevant with EVs) or public transportation. All in all, when you're buying a car, first, open Excel
    7
  146. 7
  147. 7
  148. 7
  149. 6
  150. Not necessarily. Look at China. They've overbuilt their housing by the factor fo two (I know, I know, Chinese housing quality), yet, housing prices are pretty high, especially in large cities. There are two factors, that you've overlooked. One slightly changes your hypothesis, the other makes it redundant. 1) Housing and jobs need to be colocated together or telecomuting needs to be the norm, not benefit. If they're not, you can run into that Chinese problem, where they have built entire ghost cities, that will never see significant inhabitance, while at the same time, new construction didn't make a dent in local housing prices. New housing has to be built, where major employers are. 2) Housing must be built for particular purpose, otherwise, you'll just build a number of villas, that nobody will live in long term. Meaning you'll spend money on buildings, that will only be used to generate more tourism profit. You need to create incentives, to force owners, to use their properties in certain ways and only in certain ways. If someone buys a house and intends to use it for family recreation and maybe retire in it down the line, then that person should pay property tax on that house as for family recreation building, which would be higher rate than primary residence rate, but significantly lower than commercial short term rent housing rate, which should in it self be significantly lower than if the house was not used in the last year (effectively empty homes tax) and hybrid use of a property must not be permitted outside of permanent residence (landlord living in a flat in the same house, in which case that unit would be taxed separately). Takes Spain for instance, if they implemented this kind of legislation, they could ease their housing bubble, which is not gone as of now, as far as i know.
    6
  151. 6
  152. 6
  153. 6
  154. 6
  155. 6
  156. 6
  157. 6
  158. 6
  159. 6
  160. 6
  161. 6
  162. 6
  163. 6
  164. 6
  165. 6
  166. 6
  167. 6
  168. 6
  169. 6
  170. 6
  171. 6
  172. 5
  173. 5
  174. 5
  175. 5
  176. 5
  177. 5
  178. 5
  179. 5
  180. 5
  181. 5
  182. 5
  183. Not exactly, it's good for any field, because of how people "work", specifically bosses. That's why everybody's buzz word in recent years have been soft skills. Bosses expect, that highly technical person, who can come up with the invention or improvement, will be able to sell it too, even to them... which result's in people, who have to learn the technical side of things, entering technical positions and people, who can actually come up with something, ending up on benefits and later without them. The problem is not the degrees, it's the employers. Even degrees listed here are solid ones with applications outside of their specific field. Problem is, everybody want's working experience these days, eg. employers have grown lazy. I've earned degree in accounting and financial management. I can't get a job. I get praised for my skill as an accountant by the interviewing manager, but can't get hired on the count of "people skills". And where are these people skills taught? Straight up marketing and to some degree in philosophy. Doing things on the side is worthless, I've gained sufficient knowledge base in computer networking, to build a very well designed network. But I don't have a degree in IT, so I'm shit out of luck. Doesn't matter, that my home resembles a data center. Ultimately, I feel that these days, double major is the only way out regardless of a degree. Obtain one major in either of these majors (or what ever floats your boat), and have complimentary or higher demand backup major.
    5
  184. 5
  185. 5
  186. 5
  187.  @ALifeAfterLayoff  Allow me to share my experience, because I firmly believe, fault is on "your" HR side of things. I've been looking for a job for two years in Czechia, we had at the time around 3% unemployment rate. When I finally found a job, I had over 1600 CVs sent out. My average number of interviews over those two years was about 0,8 to 1 per week. I stopped altering my CV and... there was no change in the frequency of interviews. Then covid hit. We had the toughest lockdown in Europe and... again, no change. So, I kept going on, hoping, I would get lucky somewhere. Our government announced, that in a week the lockdown would be terminated and in the next ten days after the announcement, I averaged 1,7 interviews per day, with 3 in one day being the most (with a healthy amount of travel time to boot that day). It was only in these ten days that I scored a job. So answer me this. How did I have so few interviews in two years of unprecedented economic growth, hunger for labor and literal employer whining, that they can't fill the positions throughout the economy, and then scored nearly twenty in span of ten days (including the one that earned me a job) in the middle of a freaking (and still ongoing) pandemic, which we'd expect to be the firing season, all the while making 0 changes to my CV? The way I see it, HR either doesn't understand basic principles of the market, eg. you can only buy, what is in there, or is failing to explain this to management. I say this, because throughout those two years, I didn't see any changes in employer's demands. I didn't see any change then and I don't see it now. All the time, entry positions, requiring two or more years of relevant working experience on top of at least a bachelor's degree and at least two (sometimes more) languages throughout the economy.
    5
  188. 5
  189. 5
  190. 5
  191. 5
  192. 5
  193. 5
  194. 5
  195. 5
  196. 5
  197. 5
  198. 5
  199. 5
  200. 5
  201. 5
  202. 5
  203. 5
  204. 5
  205. This is nonsense. Outsourcing is only another way of paying more for less. As long as a company is for profit, you can't expect them to provide maximum service for minimum pay, which is the model you need here. How can this be achieved? Well, the answer is simple, through subsidies. Although not those, you might think of. So, what should actually be done? 1) Massive debts to fuel development of whole new construction at northern outskirts of the city. Subway system need's to be expanded there and, most importantly, this new area should be developed as a mixed area. No, sir, not just residences, but commercial buildings, offices, amenities and most importantly at outskirts of this new area, industrial buildings. The idea is, that industrial buildings and offices would be rent out and all surplus from renting them out, would be applied to lower residential rents. 2) Standing buildings need to be rebuilt and repaired in to top shape, but this time with less emphasis on housing. These buildings should be re made as mini version of step one, minus industry. 3) Actually abandoned buildings in the city owned by private persons or companies are one of major contributing factors to this whole mess. So any and all positive change in evaluation of a building need's to be taxed as income at 100% or higher rate, for as long as the building is unoccupied. The idea is, to force companies and individuals, who have unoccupied property in the city to occupy them with tenants, or their own operation. And finally, if they try to mislead or lie to the city, that building is then seized with no compensation to the owner.
    5
  206. 5
  207. 5
  208. I do spot some problems. 1) Thinking, that housing can be fixed by high density is simply nonsense. We're dealing with population aging and that we can only solve it by having children (at least in the long term), which however needs housing to be of particular type, eg. single family homes with a large enough back yard, at least according to Peter Zeihan. I can say, that people around me indeed didn't start having kids until they've managed to live with their spouses in houses of their own. High density housing would not solve the island's issue, as it discourages childbearing rather, it would transform one problem inter intensity of another and that is no solution. You don't solve an issue by creating another one. The approach needs to be holistic 2) I recall Neil Degrase Tyson being interviewed (I believe by Joe Rogan) on desalinization deployment and according to him, prices of water and shipping are too low to make desalinization viable. It also explains, where we find the most of these plants. In petro-monarchies of the Gulf, which have both the need for water and income from natural resources to justify the investment. To them is desalinization question of water autonomy then. It's different, when you can't afford something and when you can, but don't need to. Also, desalinated water cannot be used for some applications without further treatment, such as in agriculture, which would either require this extra treatment or parallel infrastructure for this lower quality water, both of which ramp the costs up. 3) changing the islands into industrial economies wouldn't be easy, even if the nimby problem wasn't present here. Canarys are off the coast of Africa fair bit of distance from the Spanish mainland and more importantly, the rest of the EU. Shipping is very cheap these days, but that is thanks to scale of shipping done. Would each island be able to produce enough of industrial output and consume enough goods to justify at least a weekly visit by a Panamax to take advantage of the low shipping prices and thus be competitive on the market with the least barriers of entry? You could argue, that the islands could produce strictly for exports to African nations, but that has it's disadvantages too, not to mention that the goods in the other direction would also not be supplied that easily, hence lower incentive for shipping to the islands, hence higher prices, hence lower competitiveness... I am not convinced of viability of such measure. Taking everything into consideration, making the area into IT hub is likely the only sustainable way to go, because it doesn't need that much more inputs, but there we have that Nimby problem again...
    5
  209. 5
  210. 5
  211. 5
  212. 5
  213. 5
  214. 5
  215. 5
  216. 5
  217. 4
  218.  @gooddogtrainingservices5351  Not exactly. The government, that would turn off the Internet, would cease to be government in days, at least in the West. Solar flares are ridiculously rare to hit Earth. There was like one in recorded history. Pandemics are more common these days, so insurance is to be considered, but that doesn't mean you should not make preparations for such event! Everyone need's to create their own plan for emergencies, even such as these and work on them, based on probability of them hitting. In terms of businesses, that means they need to have at least a part of company, that would be essential service and have flexible staff, so that they can reorient them selves to that production/service. I work part time in such place currently. When covid hit first, car manufacturing made a dead stop. Entire factory for cable production reoriented itself and started to sew cotton face masks. In terms of other stuff, one need's to be able to function even through such problems as covid, eg. have a job, that actually allows for savings to be made and to have some stored, have a job, that will power through no matter what, such as medical field, and if this is not available, at very least earn prerequisites for such jobs, such as learning to code, learn tax code or maybe getting a commercial driving license. And finally, where necessary, deploy technical insurance devices. I myself have to make arrangements for shifts at this factory very flexibly. That means, being without the Internet is completely unacceptable for me, as such, I have my network backed up on power and have secondary Internet connection. Paying money to insurance company is not the only way to be insured.
    4
  219. 4
  220. 4
  221. 4
  222. 4
  223. 4
  224. 4
  225. 4
  226. 4
  227. 4
  228. 4
  229. 4
  230. 4
  231. Advantages of cities are nice, but not infinite. Covid taught us, that we can, even with modest internet speed, learn equally well in the sticks as in cities. Same can be the case for work, if legislation get's put in place, that would empower the employee to chose, where he'll be working from, as long as it doesn't change his/her tax residency. The problem here is, that employers want employees back in the office, because employee with autonomy is dangerous one to them. With more and more digitalization coming, fewer and fewer jobs will need be done in person on site, which could erode this advantage of the city, which is even further compounded by increasing city hostility to cars, which are the bridges between relatively cheaper housing of the countryside and better wages of cities for in person jobs. I call into question two things. Willingness of employers to pay and actually compeet for employees and housing wage to cost of living ratio. I live in Czech Republic and here is something, that I have observed. Companies have been crying crocodile tears for years now, how low unemployment we have and that we need more immigration. While we certainly do need more incoming people given our birth rate, even before the pandemic, we've had prices for a lot of goods and services comparable with Germany and Austria, yet our minimal wage is among the lowest in the EU and very few companies offer actually livable wages (I have two cats, don't own a car, game on rather old PC and can't pay rent alone. Have to live with my parents, while earning nearly median salary and having close to no expenses) and I haven't seen much in terms of wage growth even before covid, when economists were warning of overheated markets (both labor and real estate). however, if that were the case, I'd expect double digit growths in salaries year on year without corresponding rise in consumer prices and more importantly, fewer and fewer jobs starting at minimum wage. That has failed to materialize. There is an interview (sadly only in Czech) here on youtube on Český Rozhlas plus youtube channel, which points to a fact, that even through five years of sustained meteoric growth of our GDP, emplooyers remained complaicant with wages and benefits (Analytik: Firmy nabízejí minimální mzdu a diví se nezájmu), particularly pointing out, how many companies offered minimum wage as starting jobs even for qualified positions like accountants. Really the only outliers there were IT jobs and those, professions, which were both in short supply and can be spun up into a business of their own relatively easily (especially electricians). Meanwhile, property and housing prices have been soaring, out growing wages in significatn measure. Really, the video has wibes of looking only at nominal data. I'd want to see comparison, where measurement unit wouldn't be a Dollar value, but rather number of time unites spent to secure equivalent goods and services in the city and in the countryside. I think, that assumption, that city is better, would get overturned.
    4
  232. 4
  233. 4
  234. 4
  235. 4
  236. 4
  237. 4
  238. 4
  239. 4
  240. 4
  241. 4
  242. 4
  243. 4
  244. 4
  245. 4
  246. 4
  247. 4
  248. 4
  249. 4
  250. 4
  251. 4
  252. 4
  253. 4
  254. 4
  255. 4
  256. 4
  257. 4
  258. 4
  259. 4
  260. 4
  261. 4
  262. Yeah, hate to take wind out of your sails, but immigration is not a solution for demographics crisis. It helps in short term, but this is a generational problem. Without raising natality, this crisis will not change, it will only be postponed. So what needs to change? There are a few measures, which need to be implemented, some of which will be severly shuned. 1) Economy first. All ecological legislation needs tob e scraped, while labor protections need to be increased, as well as companies need to be incentivised to pay higher wages. 2) Change in laws regarding marriage, cohabitation and general interaction between sexes. Men are begining to evade women due to risks surrounding interacting with them. While this is more of a problem in the US, it is spreading and needs to be stopped, or men will stop dating women to the point, that population collapse becomes irreversible. Particularly sexual assault allegations need to be viewed with greater degree of scepticism. 3) Abortion must no longer be on demand. The standard needs to be, that pregnancy seriously threatens woman's health or life. Foster parenting needs to be strenghtened as counterbalance, but only in full, preferably multi generational families for financial reasons. 4) There is also the problem of too few kids being concieved. Since women are the ones, who determine, who they'll procreate with, we need to promote motherhood as greater societal value than carreer to women. This means reducing women's access to the job market. I'm listing these in order of implementation. Hopefully, the situation will get reversed, before we'll get to number four, although I highly doubt that.
    4
  263. 4
  264. 4
  265. 4
  266. 4
  267. 4
  268. 4
  269. 4
  270. 4
  271. 4
  272. 4
  273. 4
  274.  @psychodadandjfit3974  Not exactly... this is more complicated than you think. Thanks to new policies due to environmental impact (which policies are actually neceseary is a different debate), even the lowest cleaners essentially need master's degree in chemistry, to work safely with their cleaning supplies. Also, there is machinery on the horizon. For instance I read about a farm that uses very smartly designed cow sheds. Cows are tended to by a number of specialised robots, that even provide some individualised care! They clean stalls, distribute feed, milk the cows, check milk, if it's OK, and transport it for further processing, even masage the cows. Work around those animals could have been taught in weeks to months. Given the ammount of work and number of specialisations, you would need at very least nine to tweleve people to run this cow shed traditionally. With these machines (total of five), you need three. A mechanic, a vet and a clerk. The rest is gone, because of automation. Or garbage disposal. In my home town of Brno, garbage truck is usually crew of three. Two handlers and a driver. Now imagine that IoT expands in to this sector. Imagine battery and engine equiped trash bins, that only need to run them selves to the truck and back. Now you're down to the driver. And this mess is comming, young people see that and go to uni, hoping that education open's them gate to less automatable fields. Now, ask yourself a question. If you were in your late teens, early twenties. Would you rather flip burgers for minimum wage, or empty people's trash cans, or go and study anything, knowing that in your lifetime, your current job, or one you could get right now, will be discontinued? As for incompetent management... they are not. Did I meet someone who was utterly incompetent? Yes, he was my boss. Why was he incompetent? Nobody above him, he wasn't just a manager, he was the owner and simply didn't give a bird about anything. As a result, we had very simplistic, very easy to learn guidlines and nobody, who didn't work directly with him thought he was incompetent. Meanwhile, in my part time job, there was this manager (head of quality controll), who barrated us for assembling computers without ESD coats, gloves and horseshoes (metalic grounding for boots) on. I asked him, why was he such a prick about it, and he explained to me, that we have to do it this way, so that the company can renew a certificate, that their business partners demand for their suppliers to have, otherwise no business. Nobody else asked him why, he never had to explain and everyone thought, that he was over at quality controll, because he was too slow to assemble a PC. I worked with him on night shift one day, the guy kept pace with our production line alone. But because my esteemed collegues didn't know, what his job actually entailed and what were underlying reasons for his policies, they considered him incompetent, even though he was superior to all of them, both in position and in prowes. Don't mistake "book smart, but reality clueless" for more knowlegable than you. The fact, that some things can be done some way doesn't mean, it should be done that way. It may be just so, that the book is right and what is done is wrong. For instance, you definitely could carry a hundred kilograms heavy server alone, it would eventually result with you dropping the server on the ground or worse, on your or somebody else's leg, but it can be done. Resulting damages would have to be paid by someone eventually, because there is a "book", that say's so. If it end's with only a destroyed server, that book is the contract. If it end's up with injuries, it end's up with book of law regarding negligence. Or let's take real life case. Albert Einstein is considered to have been autistic. He was completely clueless about real life and society, however, without his book smarts and unique view point, there would never have been theory fo relativity and consequently no GPS, as theory of relativity is used to better sync satelites with ground devices, because, as crazy as it sound's, time run's slower up there in orbit. Think wider and deeper.
    4
  275. 4
  276. 4
  277. 4
  278. 4
  279. 4
  280. 3
  281. 3
  282. 3
  283. 3
  284. 3
  285. 3
  286. 3
  287. 3
  288. 3
  289. 3
  290. The problem here is, that it increases your costs. Unless you have bidirectional trade opportunities and this trade is about equal in both directions, you have to either buy or sell some of your currency, meaning you loose out on the value you held in multiple currencies. Another problem is that you might need specially trained people to handle payments in some currencies due to nation/block specific monetary/banking regulations (Russia was one such case). A common currency will always be necessary, resources or climate be damned, figuratively. The reason, why currencies were created, was NOT primarily to hold value long term, which would be effected by crises you mentioned. They were created as a common exchange medium. Imagine a world without currencies. You find your self in need of something, say an axe to chop down some wood. You find a guy who has an extra axe and is willing to part with one, but he only wants a handcart and won't sell for anything else (paying in multiple axes), meaning you have to find somebody, who would be willing to buy from you what ever you sell in a quantity large enough to justify selling you a handcart, which you would then trade in for about fifty axes, when you needed only one. Complicated, time consuming, expensive. And the same can happen with currencies. Say you need to buy something from Egypt and can't use exchange for what ever reason. You'd have to find something to easily and regularly sell on Egyptian market to be able to import from Egypt, or you'd have to find somebody, who'd be willing to accept your currency, shifting the problem on them, giving you less value, because your clients are effectively buying at a higher rate (price+handling foreign currency). Compare this with Europe or even countries using CFA Franks as common currencies. There's no need to exchange currencies. As Austrian company, you can buy resources you need in Italy and sell your products to Germany, never needing to exchange currencies, while at the same time, you use that currency domestically. Make no mistake. Foreign trade will never go down. Economies of the world are way too specialized for that. Not to mention, that certain resources can't be produced in reasonable quantities elsewhere and for some there are not reasonable, if at all, alternatives. These will trade no matter what. There is no going back from what we have today.
    3
  291. 3
  292. 3
  293. 3
  294. 3
  295. I think, that Vision 2030 was a mistake. Sure, the Saudi may be overdependent on oil, but I think, they should have doubled down on it. There is the argument of oil going down in price, hell, even being banned, but what is overlooked, is, that even completely banned substances are still in use, though not quite as extensively. When it comes to ban on oil, usually, that is not meant as complete ban on the entire substance, but rather on certain products from it or certain uses. The one most discussed recently is fuel and even further in the past had been and still are plastics. Here is the reason, why I think, they should have doubled down. Oil is source material for some 40 000 items ranging from fuel and plastics through fertilizers to medicaments. As the West keeps walking away from oil, the price will begin to fall and countries, that produce oil, but have higher production costs will begin to fold their operations. Saudi Arabia has the lowest extraction costs for crude oil on Earth. If they maintained their oil extraction plants and expanded properly into refining the oil into more advanced products (which they do to some extent), particularly eyeing the medical field, they could create virtual monopoly on production of some drugs and materials used in hospitals, greatly prolonging their revenues from oil and capturing greater share of money spent on these applications. You could argue, that nations on Earth would want to see lower emisions or impose carbon tax on these products, but let's face it. No politician would ever risk creating shortage of infusions and literal blood bags in their country by introducing carbon tax on the only practical container for life saving substances or the life saving substances them selves.
    3
  296. So I turn on my PC, go to youtube, see the recommendations a and am like "What'd I Miss"? I know it's been a while since we had "Hillary Defeated", and Obama gave us his "One Last Time". We saw some serious mismanagement on behalf of "The Trump Administration", especially durring the "Hurricane", leaving thousands of people "Helpless". Since Trump took office, we learned that he "Can't Say No To This", has rather poor judgement, when it comes to choosing his "Right Hand Man" and the guy sure like's campaigning "Non-Stop". I didn't expect anyone to take "His Shot" like this. Why do I think Bolton really write the book? Well, I'd say he realised, that "History Has It's Eyes on Him". I therefore must ask myself, "What Comes Next"? Now that we are steaming towards "The Election of 2020" to choose "Our Obedient Servant", we should set aside some time to think, perheaps ask ourselves the question: What would "Alexander Hamilton" do right now? Going with his younger self, he would likely remind us of the "Ten Duel Commandments", his older self would rather recommend us to tell the White House "That Would Be Enough". Ultimately we have to "Wait for it" and hope that comming days won't "Blow Us All Away". The year has already shown us it has teeth to the point that, we already have "Guns and Ships" on the agenda, it is getting increasingly frustrating to "Stay Alive" to the point, that some of us, the ones with poorer health inmsurrance, can only be sure, that "Tomorrow There'll Be More of Us" and I'm quite sure, that the main question on their minds these days is "Who Lives, Who Dies, Who Tells Their Story". And what the future holds? I beleive it to be grim. Trump definitely isn't "Satisfied" with his performance so far and will seek reelection. Fortunately, now that "We Know" what he's like, some of the other side might "Take a Break" from voting or outright vote the other way. I sincerely believe that for some republicans, "The World Turned Upside Down". It will be for naught however, until both democrats and republicans realise that "The Wrold Is Wide Enough" for both of them and begin to actually work together, even if only on dealing with fallout of "Cabinet Battle #1". Let us hope, that all of this mess becomes just "The Story of Tonight" one day.
    3
  297. 3
  298. This is actually simple: 1) because of influence of Feminism, women now have a choice between career and being a mother. This needs to be reversed, or at very least, career may only be made open to a woman after she had given birth to her third child with the same father. 2) cost of living must be lowered, particularly cost of housing, because you need sufficiently large home to raise a family, something, that has been forgotten by policy makers, who instead chose to go environmentalism route, wiping out jobs, that could actually provide sufficient income to raise these new families, that were never established as a result. 3) companies must be forced to colocate workplace with where employee is, whenever physically possible, not the other way around. If the job uses computers to get done, it needs to be done from home, not from the office. 4) staying with employers for a moment. Only jobs they actually currently intend to fill may be advertised. Failiure to fill a position needs to result in punishment for the company, except of hiring EU citizens (to maintain membership) or for positions intended for knowledge transfer, for which this would be defferred, if company can show, they've trained the specialist they needed in the end. Companies must be forced into being loyal again to their employees (you see, it used to be a two way street back in a day). Two new taxes need to be introduced. One on staff turnover rate and one on average employee age in company, the higher the average age the higher the tax.
    3
  299. 3
  300. 3
  301. 3
  302. 3
  303. 3
  304. 3
  305. 3
  306. 3
  307. 3
  308. 3
  309. 3
  310. 3
  311. 3
  312. I left a toxic boss some time ago and became jobless. The economy was booming, so I thought, that I should find a job quickly. Result? Two years of joblessness. I've sent over thirty CVs a month and went to about one to two interviews a month. Then covid hit. What I find alarming, is that my rate of interviews never changed. I want from economy where employers were whining about not being able to fill roles in to one, where even decent sized employers were worried about their existence. And even though I didn't lower the number of sent CVs, my success ratio didn't change either. Then, in the middle of the epidemic, I had two weeks, where I averaged 1,6 interviews per day. I scored my current job then. All this in a country with unemployment under 4%. I feel, that HR is to blame for a lot of potential being left on the floor. Especially in the "nothing to put in" department. Young students with little to no working experience. Companies these days are using computers to screen out candidates, which don't fit, but as a result, they loose out. For instance, I'm an accountant. I also play around with networking gear. It's gone to the point, where I am the first line of tech support at our department, all the while processing invoices, and I have an enterprise grade network at home. Someone like me is likely to learn, how to deploy and maintain accounting systems both from tax and from technical perspectives. Whenever I called a company for feedback, I found out, that HR never saw my resume. Why? Because references to IT in interests section of my CV filtered me out at software level. You guys need to make your respective managements realize, that lowering expenses is not cheap, because you're loosing out on the flexible people, who can stick with you for decades, all be it in different roles, than you hired them for to begin with. And we know that is the actually cheaper option, because such employees don't achieve higher wages and you don't have to spend on recruiting and onboarding so much. There are synergies to be gained from such people. I myself don't have so much potential for this, because my skill sets don't combine so easily, but imagine someone with IT interest or background looking for a job in logistics or someone with background in the field of law looking for a job in accounting. Such candidates will be thrown out by software 8 out of 10 cases, while they are the ones, who can contribute the most to your companies. So stop wasting money on software and hire more manpower to process the huge amount of CVs that come your way. Sure, you'll have more expensive HR, but the other departments will get cheaper and more productive.
    3
  313. 3
  314. 3
  315. 3
  316. 3
  317. 3
  318. 3
  319.  @asambatyon  I see and raise counterpoints. 1) you still need cash. If not for other reasons, then because of your destination. Just try and visit Iran with just a credit card. I visited Netherlands a few years back. I wouldn't say, that the Netherlands are exactly lagging behind in terms of innovation. Hell, in certain fields, they're at the bleeding edge. You'd think, "I can pay with a card anywhere, right?". Well, guess what. I wanted to buy some icecream from a small shop and they refused my card, because it was a MasterCard, fortunately, I'm crazy enough to have bank with banks and one of them carried Visa, so I was able to pay, but that was my sole Visa card in a eight card setup! This is important, because most banks where I live only carry one card provider! Further more, about a decade earlier, my dad lived in Netherlands for a while. Back then, he told me the same thing about card acceptance. Either Maestro or Visa. A while later, he started trucking to Germany and at about the same time, his bank changed from MasterCard to Visa. Well, for a few years, he couldn't pay anywhere and only postal office ATMs took his card in Germany. This lasted about five years. And banking on banks, pun intended, is not as good of an idea either. Just recall the Trucker protests in Canada, where their prime minister had those protester's assets with banks frozen, to put pressure on them. It was an extreme, hopefully never to repeat again situation, but it showed the necessity of keeping some cash on hand at all times, even if everyone accept's cards. 2) while I'll admit, that pushing an update to someone over the Internet is convenient for both parties, there are problems here. What happens, when a company, that ran the servers for some kind of phone home feature, goes bankrupt and it's assets are sold off? Suddenly, your, in case of Tesla, is at best flying without updates, getting more and more vulnerlable to outside attackers, or worse, get's bricked and you'll have a very expensive paperweight. And that's just a decision by a company, what about errors? Say another Crowdstrike? Either way, you or me as customers get screwed over. We have seen this about a year ago with ANNO 2070, fortunately, the original team pushed an update and took over the server infrastrucutre, but where are guarantees, that others will follow suit? Nowhere. Another problem with pushing "update" to a device is EULA, fortunately, around here it's basically illegal to do, however, in the US, you can end up with update to EULA, forcing you into forced arbitration instead of seeking relief through the court system, and you can't decline it and continue to use a five years old TV for instance, or worse, as showed up with Disney recently, ending losing a family member in one of their parks, and Disney claiming, that because you've accepted a EULA for their subscription service, you can't sue, but have to arbitrate (this is like a year old case). The question really is not, whether software is relevant for a product, but whether it should be.The very concept of ownership is getting erroded away with these "smart" and IoT approaches. Is that worth the "convenience"? I'd argue not. Maybe those mechanical engineers see it from this angle? Maybe have a look at Louis Rossmann's channel. He's been doing videos about these "just push an update" shennaningans. Ultimately, until approach of providers changes, taking the skeptical, nay parranoid route towards new technology adoption is the safer (ei more reliable) bet in my opinion. We don't need to adopt top of the line technologies, if outdated ones still manage to handle the tasks, they were supposed to handle. If not for other reasons, then because doing so will leave you without a backup in case of that new technology failing in some aspect. This, after all, is why, when you're shopping for a backup connection for your home/business, you don't go with Fiber/copper, because that's usually your primary. You go with a WISP, cellular, or, in case of really deep pockets, satelite/Starlink. Or why an EV is never the first car in the family... that is the old reliable petrol car. Because if the nice new one fails, you're not left in a river without a paddle.
    3
  320. 3
  321. 3
  322. 3
  323. 3
  324. 3
  325. 3
  326. Mate, same field, similar company mindset. My first proper accounting job after school, meaning very unsure about accounts, no connection between what I had learned at school and actual invoices... Yeah, fun. I told the head of accounting, that I'll need guidance, in the interview, very much before I got hired. I never received any support, apart from the software we use. No training on the internal system, didn't receive account list to this day or anything regarding fixed assets... meanwhile, I'm on my third accounting role in the company. As a result, I am the one who's being approached by folks. Was an invoice paid on time? Yeah, I look that up and tell, even though I don't do payments anymore. A colleague forgot to attach payment details? No problem, here they are. Generated from the system. Oh AR didn't send over invoices? No problem. Anything about overhead invoices? Yeah, that used to be my position, so I can explain a thing or two, I might not be an expert, but, for some reason, I always managed to either point to the answer or to someone with it... Cause, you know, I've had to work out, what was what in my early days. Now, I got sick these few months back... meltdown from my bosses idiotic behavior, tooth ache (the teeth had to be extracted), covid, left one evening with a fever... Yeah those were interesting three months... and guess what. Our CFO berated me over how little I were at work, even though I've had doctor's notes, and in the same breath praised me over how helpful I was to everyone around me. Then, he tried to force a pay cut on me (very illegal, where I live), because I was not at a position, which demanded the salary I started with... The CFO even tried to throw my studies in my face... Yeah studies, I gave up on, because I was needed at the company for closing and didn't go for my exams. Meanwhile, I offered, that if I ever got sick, I'd work from home, right after I were hired. All I needed was a computer, but guess what. "No home office for you, drone.", was the CFO's answer. So I got my self a new job, so I'll be giving my notice shortly. Too bad it ain't accounting per se, but I can't stay at this company. I don't feel appreciated one bit. When I started my job, I was fine waking up early to get to the job. I was looking forward to learning from actual practice. Nowdays? I hate going to work. And the craziest thing about all this? So my company basically forced me out, yet when I started working there, HR was practically balling their eyes out, over how they can't retain talent. I wonder why is that.
    3
  327. 3
  328. 3
  329. 3
  330. 3
  331. 3
  332. 3
  333. 3
  334. 3
  335. 3
  336. 3
  337. 3
  338. 3
  339. 3
  340. 3
  341. I really see a different problem. In the EU, it has become fashionable to do two things. One, to force people into directions, that don't bring actual benefit to economy, which is what is feeding us as citizenry. The EU as a whole as well as it's institution (I'm looking at you commission, I'm looking at you) need to start taking more realistic goals, that even the poorest in the EU can achieve or actually contribute to. Make no mistake, there were initiatives which were spot on and ambitious. Problem comes, when the initiative pursues tackling way too big problems like climate change (which the EU is not a significant contributor to. Just look at India and more importantly China. Funny that these two nations are never really criticized over this). The second problem is that, there is no reprimand for lying, if you are a public person. Because of this, the Greens and AFD and their alternatives elsewhere could push through policies, which were built on shakey if not outright untrue arguments or empty rhethoric. Case and pont the whole Brexit debacle, where actual economic arguments and words of actual experts in their fields as well as celebrities ranging from Clarkson (who him self is critic of the EU) to Hawking. We need a more sober look at the problems. Take mass immigration, for instnance. What is it that AFD want's to do? Return checks on borders and ultimately dismantle Shengen, meanwhile, companies in Germany can't find enough workers to the point, that in Czech Republic, in the borderlands, banks started issuing mortgages in Euros, because so many people commute to Germany and Austria for work. meaning they'll actually make another problem worse along the way. There is also way too low birth rate in Germany. Where is AFDs recipe that? Where is AFD going to find new workers, to replace those, which will stop coming from accros the border? Technology so far has not created fewer jobs, than there were before in the long run. Really until cloning get's to the level of Kaminoans from Star Wars and get's it's moral implications sorted, immigration is the only quick way to get workforce, as, as we know, it takes some 20 years, until a newborn start's working. So is immigration really a problem, or a quick fix for another one? Does immigration really need to be sorted out? And that's not even taking germany's brain drain into account! Or what about climate change. There are things, which can't be done without sufficient enrgy. A steel mill can easily eat production of a big nuclear powerplant, if it were to go from coal to blue hydrogen! Not to mention, you'd need to deploy hundreds of wind mills to replace a single nuclear powerplant! And that is what the commission thinks, is going to make us more internationally compettitive... higher production costs at greater distance from main population center on Earh, wich is Southeast Asia! Support for solutions like this comes mostly from old member states, most importantly Germany!
    3
  342. 3
  343. 3
  344. 3
  345. 3
  346. 3
  347. 3
  348. There is another way to look at this. And yes, wages, while not alone, are the key. Specifically, disposible income is the key. That is income after taxes and mandatory expenses, like expenses you have to run your business or expend to mantaining your job (think car expenses, public transport tickets, whatever courses are necessary for one to pass to maintain eligibility to work etc.), housing, including home tax, utilities (electricity, water, sewage, heating etc) and then you're supposed to save up to retirement, older folks would recommend about a third of your income. Well. These days, housing alone can cost over 60% of ones disposable income! To top it off, we all live in flats, not houses, meaning, we don't have enough space to live in and can't therefore indicate, that we are successful enough to safely raise a family. Current green idiocy is making it worse, because proponents of "green" see cars as inefficient and polluting, completely ignoring the fact, that they are necessary, because in order to have dwelling that's actually fit to raise children, we'd need to earn much more, because green policies are increasing costs of travel, which is causing us to pack ourselves even more in the cities, which in turn puts upward pressure on rents. There wil never be economic incentive to provide public services to areas sparsely populated, which are exactly areas, which have better birth rates. There's a reason, why, middle class meant own home, all be it with a mortgage, two cars, both on loans and two kids by age thirty all on one income back in the fifties. Today, young need to live with their parents well into forties to secure sufficient income just to cover rent, food and transportation, rent being chief expense, because we live in too desnely packed cities, because that is where all the jobs went to for reason of greater synergies between each other. That's not even taking into account certain specifics, like in the US and UK student loans. Add to this devastating effect of Feminism on women values and you have perfect storm for childless nations. Even same sex couples won't save this, because you still need man and woman to concieve, be it direct mother or a surrogate, because artificial insemination is too expensive to run at scale, not to mention, that women will prefer their career, if they won't get anything out of it.
    3
  349. 3
  350. 3
  351. 3
  352. 3
  353. 3
  354. 3
  355. I think, this is a mistake... Yes, world is reening itself of oil, we have incentives, yada, yada... The world will never get off oil! Even if we stop using it for fuels, there are still plastics, pharmaceuticals, fertilizers... The list is well over 10000 entries long! over 10000 kinds of products have oil in them in one form or another and Saudi Arabia has the lowest costs to extract oil on Earth. What I'd do, would be to: 1) establish a university, that would train and research stuff related to oil extraction and processing. 2) I would double down on oil processing and industrial automation. Really these days, oil is seen primarily as an energy resource. I'd flip that. I'd see it first and foremost as a manufacturing material and only and what can't be processed further would be burned. That way, SA would have abundant and basically forever cheap and secure source of resources for their products. Even if the world abandoned vast majority of products made from oil, there would still be pharmaceuticals and fertilizer, wihtout which the system will not ever work and on which Saudis would have massive advantage, given low raw material costs and cheap electricity, because they wouldn't need to import anything and burn what's now used for fuel and cannot be processed further to have their own power source. I'm not worried about climate discourse derailing this, because particularly in democracies, parents will not tolerate their children dying of smallpox, measels or anything treatable, or famine, because the nation, which produces majority of fertilizer isn't green enough. Noone is going to put tolls or sanctions on a nation producing this basic stuff over something as meager as climate change. 3) bad image cannot be overcome with PR. That is the lesson SA needs to learn and actually implement reforms. That is one thing they can't speed up. Just look at major brands and what is their reputation in spite of in some cases downright excessive PR budgets! I'm talking EA (once mark of quality, now of garbage in gaming), Blizzard (same story and to think that SC2 nearly saved them!), Ubisoft (who once ran three different DRMs on one of their games and now are actively trying to deny us owning purchased games), HP (and their printers from hell). Only genuine change can do that.
    3
  356. 3
  357. 3
  358. 3
  359. 3
  360. 3
  361. 3
  362. 3
  363. 3
  364. 3
  365. 3
  366. 3
  367. 3
  368. 3
  369. 3
  370. 3
  371. 3
  372. 2
  373. 2
  374. 2
  375. 2
  376. 2
  377. 2
  378. 2
  379. 2
  380. 2
  381. 2
  382. 2
  383. 2
  384. 2
  385. Russia: Bans Steam TV report 24 hours later: Breaking news at this hour. It appears that Russo-Ukrainian war is over, however, it also appears that a number of different threats have risen within Russian borders. We have reports of Russian and Ukrainian forces jointly invading Russian territories, carrying out sweeping operations against, according to one soldier, "animals bearing striking resemblance to Chrisalids from acclaimed strategy game series X-Com", killing anything that moves. The soldier also noted "I may have to disobey my orders, though. We've received orders to also kill those, whom these creatures attack!", bringing uncomfortable implications to the situation. Further, per Russian request, Swedish and Finnish forces have entered Carellia region to assess reports of local population in a state of religious frenzy. Soldiers confirmed these reports, stating that most citizens have armed themselves with chainsaws and have been attacking each other, claiming that "the Devil is real" and "their neighbors have been possessed". Surprisingly, no aggression was shown towards the foreign troops and beyond insistence of local population on addressing the foreign soldiers as "slayers" and refusing to disarm, are following instructions delivered with fervor. The city of Sankt Peterburg has gone dark and citizens living in the outskirts of the city have fled. They have reported appearance of strange green and blue crystals, that made them feel sick upon contact with skin, shortly after the ban on Steam game distribution and social media platform had been announced. A previously unknown cult of fanatics had also been mentioned in testimonies of the now internal refugee population. This cult appears to be completely unaffiliated with dominant christian orthodox church in the region or christian faith in general. It's practitioners have been allegedly seen carrying out rites glorifying "the technology of peace" near sites of crystal growth and showed outright irrational fear of mammoths and any tank over 62 tones total weight. Moscow is also reporting erratic behavior among it's inhabitants. Local policemen have over just last six hours seized over 300 rocket launchers, 200 miniguns, 4000 small arms and an undisclosed number of seemingly energy weapons and enough ammunition for said weapons to fully stock the Russian Army for the next decade. The chief of police urged the government to issue a stay-in-home order, as in his own words "the weapons are showing up out of thin air exactly in the places, where we seized them mere minutes after we have done so. The population is agitated and trying to get to these weapons, claiming they need to entertain the masses in some sort of tournament. Even my own men are beginning to lose their sanity and are requesting permissions to patrol the streets with these seized weapons.", later he added, "I'm having to actually approve of these requests for special weaponry, because denying them already threatened mutiny and I don't have enough men to keep both citizens of Moscow safe and keep my own men in check.". A local citizen commented upon seeing an officer with a minigun in one hand and a rocket launcher in the other, "This is unreal!". Trouble is also brewing along the span of the Transsiberian railroad. the Russian army is investigating reports of strange behavior among populace. For instance in Vladimir region population has been reported to done strange creatures on their heads, to self mutilate, mutilate others and allegedly have engaged in cannibalism. Those, who have managed to evade this gruesome disturbance of their psyche, have on the other hand succumbed to fascination with Greek Alphabet and forgot how to count beyond two. In unrelated case, the city of Vladimir, administrative capitol of the region, petitioned government to be renamed to "Ravenholm" hours after first incidents of self mutilations were first reported. Further down the track, city of Kirov has succumbed to fascination with lighter-than-air aviation and started producing airships. Currently, Kirov is reporting four airships built, but are anticipating delays on others due to shortage of maneuver props. Entire Chelyabinsk region has reported shortages of red, blue, pink and purple colors, as well as most metals. In a press conference to the shortage, the mayor of the city of Chelyabinsk declared that "the Emperor's Children require these materials, so that they may better serve the Four". Question "who are the Four?" never got it's answer, as the roles of participants seemingly shifted and the reporter had been repeatedly asked, whether "he served the Corpse Emperor?". After declaring himself member of the "Alpha Legion", the reporter along with the rest have been dismissed and ordered to leave the premises of "The Garden", as they need to prepare for the long march on the "Imperial Palace". Russian general staff is currently attempting to find clues, whether this means another march on Moscow or this time on Sankt Peterburg. Russian far eastern command has reported loss of their entire navy, as well as raising claims, that a number of Chinese ships being sunk by a single girl, who appeared to have been levitating over the surface of water. Seeing the situation, Russian far eastern command had ordered armored trains be pulled out of long term storage and deployed throughout Vladivostok region and are currently in talks with central government about their deployment throughout the Transsiberian railroad. The decision caused panic among commuters from nearby towns and villages. One villager stated "I don't know, when will I be able to return home! I need the job, but my parents are old and sick and need care, so I have to return home. The sooner the better! With those idiotic politicians in charge, who knows? This one might as well be my last train home.".
    2
  386. 2
  387. 2
  388. 2
  389. 2
  390. 2
  391. 2
  392. 2
  393. I'm sorry, US universities understood, that teaching job related stuff is necessary? That more engineers are needed, while fewer philosophers and artists are necessary? Dude two words: Women studies. The problem is NOT the universities, the problem is the students and the pressure these students are under! When deciding our majors, very few people actually care, what they're going to study. They chose based on course's perceived difficulty and, thanks to basolutely attrocious approach to teaching math in middleschools, very few people voluntarily chose math heavy fields, which are all STEM fields. Science? Think of a field, that doesn't need advacned math. Technology? Again, math squared. Engineering? Can you design and build an aircraft carrier without math? Mathematics? Have you ever tried mathematics without math (in which case, I want the stuff you're on)? Thanks to antiquated and, frankly, forceful approach in middleschool, mathematics heavy fields are viewed as hard ones and not chosen by the students, hence there are fewer and fewer actually net contributing workers in Europe, which in turn is the first factor, why there are so few high end businesses around here. Basically everyone with good brains in their heads goes to the US to get STEM education and stays there, or move to other countries, that have lower costs of living thanks to idiocy of enrgiewende and the rest of green BS (make no mistake, this was not the war. If the war didn't come, it would have been other reason, like a Central Europe wide blackout caused by too much or too little Wind in North Germany. The war merely accelerated the problem), that is sweeping through Europe. Because of this our energy costs have skyrocketed to the point, you can't have energy intense activities in Europe, be it steel mills, IT parks or FABs, or even start a family, because you can't afford basic necessities of housing, utilities and Internet opn one income! This is the second factor, that's killing legacy industries like steel, which have their equipment written off already and are therefore financially competitive with new stuff (which is why historically we've never replaced old energy sources in their entirety, rather, we added more modern ones into the mix), and preventing new high yeild fields from taking off, like server farms. instead, we're focusing on how to lower our footprint on the planet, ignoring the fact, that the necessary reduction of said footprint requires Europe to be driven into absolute poverty. Third factor is the fact, that if your business venture dies around here, you're on the hook for the debts taht you've picked up to get the business going, making European population far less entrepreneureal (well, that and the fact, you effectively can't have a side husstle because of how contracts are done around here), which reduces the number of businesses, that could have a part of them on cutting edge of their respective fields, hence have no real motivation to cooperate with universities on high yeild projects. As to the graph that you've shown, that is not sufficient granularity. Law falls under humanities and you could argue, that lawyers are the actual engine of US ecnonomy, given how it is them who craft license agreements and find ways, how to brick what you bought without breaking said agreement, thus creating recurring revenue streams for companies. Copyright is the same tale. Make no mistake, Europe has it's problems with beraucracy, but it is not in the academic field. We have picked up policies, that don't encourage studying more challanging fields like engineering and science, because one, these fields have certain impacts and needs, that are either shunned or can't be provided for anymore in Europe, making student far less likely to chose them, even in the rare cases when the student actually choses based on field perspective. It makes no sense for a student to chose a field, when its major employers will not maintain their operations in Europe. High costs of living and too high risks and devastating effects of running a business in Europe force people, who could create businesses, that would benefit from and to business-university cooperation, out to the US and Asia, which in turn limits universities ability to partake in cutting edge research, which in turn drops them in the rankings. We need to start from the students, change how mathemathics are taught in middle school and abandon implementation of the green transition in favour of returning of energy demanding, but actually productive industries and lowering of costs of living, maximizing real take home pay in the economy without touching taxes (to ensure predictability of tax law). The one thing I kind of agree with in the video, is rigidity of our majors. There is certainly something to be said about not being able to chose subjects that interest you and have them applied to your credit requirements to graduate, on the other hand, giving the students too much choice could also result in a problem. We can't permit an economist to evade all math in his field, tendency to which is precisely what I observed in my colleagues in my study days. What I'd like to see, would be a change in the structure of credits needed to attain. Currently, most places have class A credits, which are mandatory, class B, which are mandatorily chosen (basically subjects from a shortlist), class C credits, which tend to be chosen general studies subjects and class D, which don't earn you credit to current field, but should you chose to study at that uni another field for which the subject is relevant, can be applied there. The further into the alphabet you go in credit classes, the further you can substitute them (A can substitute both B and C, B can substitute class C). What I'd like to see, would be intoduction for four class applicable credit system, where substitutions would only be possible for the last class of credit and specifically have one of the higher credit classes be interdisciplinary thing or specific effect of studied field on other fields and I'd reduce the mandatory credits to absolutely essential knowledge necessary for the more specialised courses. (as economics major, I only learned the mathematical application of micro and macro economics on business in master's degree course, while the subject matter was taught in bachelor's course. The connection or where that subject knowledge was actively applied was never mentioned in that course, which I belive, to be a massive mistake). To illustrate, what I'd like to see, would be a business major student having to study specific field of business, like agri business or horti business. A agronomist would have to study some specific aspect of forestry (for instance, presence of forest has effect on soil, certain methods of raising cattle require knowledge from both fields). Multidisciplinarity is the dealbreaker for the future in my opinion.
    2
  394. 2
  395. 2
  396. 2
  397. 2
  398. 2
  399. 2
  400. 2
  401. 2
  402. 2
  403. 2
  404. 2
  405. 2
  406. 2
  407. 2
  408. 2
  409. 2
  410. 2
  411. 2
  412. 2
  413. 2
  414. 2
  415. 2
  416. 2
  417.  @tototrapsilo  Doesn't work for everyone and there are more logic "flavors" out there. For instance, you could say, that an RTS game is just a game, but I as an economist see logic system of rules, where perfectly balanced optimization of available resources, which results in destruction of enemy base. Sure, I could approach it mathematically and find certain optimum, but I could also describe rules of the game and find the same optimum without having to touch mathematics, plus, this way I can actually find exploits in the game logic it self. Another example would be crypto currencies, which have only one thing going for them, they are rare much like commodity money (think gold coins), however, since they don't have any alternative use (such as material for jeweler's art or in electronics production), they are closer to fiat money and thus by them selves worthless. There is no "set minimum" by alternative use for them and thus, I as an investor can lose more, than if I invested in any precious metal for instance, because there is a pre-set minimum, under which that metal won't go. And this is something someone, who only studied mathematics can't find, because calculations check out. Even we economists say, that there are two kinds of economists, mathematicians and philosophers. Mathematicians can calculate anything and everything, but can get lost in the concept, because they only work in the confines of numbers. philosophers may not tell you, how high GDP will be tomorrow, but they will find major structural problems with calculated numbers, eg. why, even though the numbers check out, something is a bad idea to invest in, or the other way around.
    2
  418. 2
  419.  @CuriousCrow-mp4cx  Except, you're forgetting, that all production needs to be consumed by someone, otherwise it's worthles and its value is 0, but has born expenses. Vast majority of consumers are workers, hence why true capitalism would NEVER see them as mere input. Tomorrow's profit also count's (why would banks give businesses loans at the same times as businesses saught them, if it didn't) and the workers are the ones in whom the tomorrow's profit grows. The fact, that particularly in the US everybody's obsessed with weekly and monthly figures and doesn't care about a year and above, is not a flaw of capitalism, because capitalism thinks holistically. Hell, even things like the environment, which the Left claims is destroyed by capitalism for the sake of profit, has been better preserved in capitalist countries than in actually communist ones, which had protection of environment within their laws. Why? Because some functions of that environment gain such a value, that expending it to produce profit reduces profit even without external factors being involved (it would be nonsensical to destroy hotsprings to mine couple fo tons of coal. It makes sense to build hotels and other infrastructure for guests, provided there is not enough coal to mine). As to the three options you presented. I have some bad news... i) the situation I described is everywhere and thanks to legislation where I live and general employer attitude, I cannot transition easily into another field, hence why I need to ride this out. To illustrate, in order to beocme an electrician, I'd need to attend a highcshool for three years obtain the diploma (not even a proper degree), in order to become eligable for another set of education and experience to obtain a license, which is required by all the employers in the field. Even ignoring the impossibility of obtaining the experience without the possibility of getting hired, that's another five years of no income, all the while having normal living expenses. That's a non starter. Similar situation is in most fields, that are likely not going to get affected by AI. So retraining and transitioning is not viable option. ii) UBI is BS, because that money has to come from somewhere. The problem is even if you perfectly matched inflation with creation of new money and deposited it into bank acounts of actual people, base necessities like utilities (if they're not properly regulated), fuel (because you still need to hold down a job and it doesn't matter, how you commute, gas get's burned somehow somewhere), food & drinks, healthcare and most importantly rent and house prices would run faster than general inflation, because these things are very price inflexible, because these actually need to be expended for a person to live. Meaning if you introduced UBI, those who already don't earn enough to maintain a living wouldn't get help (they're in the red as it is) and those, who are right above them would get sucked in with them, because these base expenses would grow just slightly above what was actually distributed by UBI, because that can only be tied to either median or mean inflation, as to be socially acceptable. Mandatory employee ownership of employers could provide a better outcome (employee shares as a mandatory hiring bonus) iii) likely not Soilent green, but I do see use in Fertilizer (It's Spacer's Choice!)
    2
  420. And to make things worse for Disney, but also for streaming companies, people don't have strong enough Internet outside of large cities or countries, which heavily invested in to their internet infrastrucuture, whic in turn drive's the need to create family acrhives of multimedia, which has been given a big help, because NAS devices have become very clever and very avaliable in terms of price to end customers, hell, there are already specialised NAS boxes for multimedia storage and streaming. Names like Qnap, Synology or Asustor will become a major headache for these multimedia companies as long as archiving by it self remains legal (although that is in it self another can of worms to open). The only thing these companies can do is to make sure that content can't be easily transfered from their storage mediums to those of end users. And there lies the greatest threat. Younger generations have become far more tech savy than their predecesors and don't want constrains of copyright, some even don't want altered content for local markets. Content, that without these alterations, could be even illegal in some coutnries. For the younger generations, sharing is the norm, and there lies the greatest threat to all. That copyright will eventually follow the will of the young and that large ammounts of quality content will fall in to public domain through changes or abolishing of copyright altogether. The content monopoly will end and that will be the deathkneel of Diesney, unless they move in to completly different fields.
    2
  421. 2
  422. 2
  423. 2
  424. 2
  425. 2
  426. 2
  427. 2
  428. 2
  429. Interesting. Here's how probation work's in Czechia. During up to first three months, six for senior leadership, either side can just walk, as if in at will employment. If not in this period, minimum notice is two months, but both sides can agree on a longer notice period in the contract, as long as it's equal. Eg. employer can't force employee to give them greater notice, than they have to give the employee. There are exceptions, though. If employee truly horribly breaks his duties (usually comes high/drunk, beats coworker...), these have to be agreed upon in advance as more serious derelictions of duty, or if the employee was sentenced for at least six months for a crime against the employer, or if his conduct was not connected to his work was sentenced for at least a year. If the employee proves legally incapable of carrying out his duties and the employer stated in writing in the last twelve months, that the employee must take action to fix this incapability and the employee doesn't act (licensing requirements stemming from law, for instance, to advise people on debt, you need a license from our central bank), or if while on sick leave the employee gets caught outside of permitted hours outside the dwelling the employee stated he would stay at during illness. An employee can immediately end his contract, if he can no longer carry out his duties due to health reasons and the employer didn't move the employee to a new position within 15 days of being made aware of the fact. This has to be done by a doctor's assessment. Or if the employer didn't dully pay in full all compensation due to the employee within 15 days of due date.
    2
  430. 2
  431. 2
  432. 2
  433. 2
  434. 2
  435.  @sergeydyumin4380  Dude, there is no brainwashing. What's stopping Russia as a nation and Putin in particular to do the same to Czechia via Germany, as he did to Ukraine couple of years back? Well, the answer, is nothing. Czechia is heavily dependent on Germany for most of it's output, so threatening Germany with a close down of the pipeline, if they don't make Czechia behave is a very easy way, to leverage far more power, than Russia actually has, and has shown, that it want's to utilize (as far as leadership is concerned). The indirect threat is actually larger than direct one (eg. the gas itself). And make no mistake, Merkel would absolutely do that, without batting an eye. Let me also remind you, that there are currently two nations listed on "hostile nations list", that being USA and Czech Republic. This list was created by Russian government. Not ours. As long as there is only a single source of gas, it matter's not, through which countries it passes. It wouldn't matter even if we shared a border (as we used to). Also, your argument, that more gas is not pumped in to Europe is moot, because in Germany, they are putting out of service not just coal power plants, but nuclear ones too. They want to bank on renewables with gas providing for production shortfalls. These are becoming more common as controllable energy sources are being replaced with uncontrollable ones, therefore there will be in short order sky high demand for gas in Germany, because renewables will show their full uselessness for powering a large grid. Why do you think, they're building a SECOND Nordstream pipeline? Of course more gas is to come to Europe! The only answer to that is gas source diversification (eg. mining and building other pipelines to other sources, like the ones in middle east). Not building a secondary pipeline to the same source. That redundancy lowers different risks, not the political or economic ones, which are the ones currently present. High levels of dependency can make even a weakling actor defeat a superpower. All it take's is to deny key resource and present conditions of service renewal. That can't be done, when there is another nation supplying the same resource at similar price, which due to transport costs can only be done by another pipeline from another nation.
    2
  436. 2
  437. There are problems in societies, that we have created. Take falling birth rates. Where do we live? In small flats, sometimes even in single rooms, that simply don't provide sufficient space to raise a family. Add to this laws, that favor women, who are the controlling parties to "bedroom fun" and the pill and you have perfect cocktail for low fertility, because men will evade risk stemming from knocking up a woman, because what they could earn is limited and further threatened by divorce/alimony and whatever pregnancies get would have gotten started are prevented. Add to this fairly good access to abortions and we are, where we are. The way I see it, at least two of these have to go, if this trend is to be reversed. Another case can be made for patents slowing down innovation, because you these days have to work around patents of others, meaning, that even if you'll find a revolutionary combination of preexisting technologies, you can't implement it, because everything you'd get out of it, would get sucked up by patent holders, who are behaving literally like the mythical trolls. Same holds true to copyright. Economically speaking, we have a problem with rent seeking behavior, which materialized in "You'll own nothing and love it!" mantra, which is preventing especially the younger people from increasing their wealth through ownership and ability to fix their broken things. (I'm looking at you Apple, Samsing and other technological companies, I'm looking). Then you have scammers, who manage to get outright cult like following and bring "revolutionary new idea", who suck in tremendous amounts of cash, sometimes even for idea, that outright doesn't even promise to solve a problem, which siphons money from solving actual problems like "stopping the climate change while maintaining our economic prosperity and industrial output", which would have actually provided some kind of outputs. Another problem lies in environmentalism it self, which has taken on mantra of "Saving the environment at all costs", and which has gone the path of economic output and raising the bar to entry for all kinds of activities, commercial or otherwise. Resources exploitation, one of two actual engines of economy (the other being population growth), because everything else is dependent on original resources, is being demonized as unenvironmental, polluting and unethical, and abandoned, which has caused us massive shortages connected to primarily oil and, thanks to war in Ukraine, also steel, aluminum, fertilizer and some components necessary for high tech innovation (mostly neon). All of this would need to be reversed, if economic growth were to return to the West.
    2
  438. 2
  439. 2
  440. 2
  441. 2
  442. 2
  443. 2
  444. 2
  445. 2
  446. 2
  447. 2
  448. 2
  449. What we in Europe must do is very different. There's a flip side to Silicon valley style of place. Scams, which promise something patently impossible, burn the money and provide no results. Just think about every so called "innovators" from last decade. No, the things we must do are these: 1) abandon wind and solar. These sources of power have replaced, most notably in Germany, nuclear and coal power plants. The problem is, you can't really regulate wind and solar and no, there will never be a battery for you to store that power. Hydro power promised to be such battery, however, given other intervening uses for water, most importantly in irrigation, have limited the ability to use hydro power in this regulatory regard. The only power plant, which can be spun up and down fast enough, to be able to respond to needs in the grid, introduced by both intermittency of wind and solar on supply side and day cycle of human life on the other. This must be removed and replaced with what we can procure from safe sources, or mine ourselves. There is place for wind and solar, but that is in island installations for individual homes. Not nation wide grid. When it comes to electricity, energy needs to be first and foremost dependable, only somewhere very far behind renewable. 2) Relax and remove environmental concerns from policy. Europe has not been continent of innovators since WW2. There are multiple reasons why, what happened to Jewish population being a major one among them. But simple truth is, we have always been engineers, not inventors. Most of engineering, however, is not "sustainable" from environmental standpoint, because it needs resources to be mined and put into the economy, all of which has it's environmental costs. We've collectively fallen for a lie, that there can be economic growth without ecological harm. This falsehood has been ingrained in to our policies and collective psyche, meaning those, who would want to return our legacy of industrial power, can't get in to position of power. 3) Employers need to be weakened, not strengthened. It is normal to find in contracts in Europe, that you won't have other jobs. You can't joggle two jobs, even if your workflow allowed it. Disclosure is mandatory, etc... In the mean time, companies are crying, that they can't hire people, and yet, there are folks, who can't get hired anywhere, even if they want to. Many job postings are either outdated or put up, only to mine data, on how desirable a company is. As a result, unemployment metrics overstate the number of available jobs! What need's to be done, is that employee must be given more freedom, companies must be severely punished for pressuring employees to quit and most importantly, companies need to be forced to maintain their postings up to date and to reflect actual need of the companies. Without reliable information about the market there can't be correct policies put in places.
    2
  450. 2
  451. 2
  452. 2
  453. 2
  454. 2
  455. 2
  456. 2
  457. 2
  458. 2
  459. 2
  460. 2
  461. 2
  462. 2
  463. 2
  464. 2
  465. 2
  466. 2
  467. 2
  468. 2
  469. 2
  470. 2
  471. 2
  472. 2
  473. 2
  474. 2
  475. 2
  476. 2
  477. 2
  478. 2
  479. 2
  480. 2
  481. 2
  482. 2
  483. 2
  484. 2
  485. 2
  486. 2
  487. 2
  488. 2
  489. 2
  490. 2
  491. 2
  492. 2
  493. 2
  494. 2
  495. 2
  496. 2
  497. 2
  498. 2
  499. 2
  500. 2
  501. 2
  502. 2
  503. 2
  504. 2
  505. 2
  506. 2
  507. 2
  508. 2
  509. 2
  510. 2
  511. Amen to that! I have a huge problem these days. I have to explain, whenever I'm applying somewhere, why is there two two year gaps in my resumé. Well, that woud be, because after finishing Bachelors, I was sending out CVs left and right, nobody would hire me, especially since I went for my master's for weekend school, so I could work. No employer was willing to accept me, except for a sweatshop mascarading as charitable employer. Well, boss was an ***** and I ended up at my therapist for months after that. The ***** even filled my position, while I was on sick leave (crazy illegal around here), over him causing a massive panic attack, and when I returned to my job, he fired me. And the worst thing? That entire episode came at the beginnig of my exam period, meaning I had to abandon four semesters of master's degree just before the state exam. And then it was another two years of doors slamming in my face. Of employers marveling, how cheap I'm willing to work, how eager I am to learn! Nobody accepted me in and then, when I finally managed to get to a real job, that did not pay less than minimum wage, I had another panic attack due to my fourth and final boss at that company (I survived three chief accountants)... Now I finally managed to find a job with a company, where I have home office, have a very good boss and truly helpful colleagues. It still took me six years to launch myself into carreer... had to sacrifice my master's to get here too. :( And the worst of all while job hunting? When I had to explain, that I'm autistic. That I have asperger's and I want a full time job to sustain myself... and had to see all those doors close every time. Some people even told me outright, that they won't hire someone on the spectrum (again, crazy illegal around here). unwillingness to give a chance to a graduate and nice piece of discrimination as a side in some cases... They always said, that I didn't have experience, didn't speak X or Y language, didn't know their heavily customized SAP... All the whining of HR and sudden embarrasment, when I blurted out salary requirement 10k CZK (about 400 Euro) a month lower than my peers... And all of this in the economic boom, that preceeded covid in times of record low unemployment and constant whining of companies, that they can't find anyone to fill in the listed jobs, all the while advertizing minimum wage for someone with 5 years of experience, a field specific master's degree and multiple certifications. Sometimes, they'd even drop the degree requirement, but demand the working experience, not realizing, that if you have 5 years, you're not looking for a minimum wage job... you're not looking for a job at all. You are starting a business of your own at that point.
    2
  512. 2
  513. 2
  514. 2
  515. 2
  516. 2
  517. 2
  518. 2
  519. 2
  520. 2
  521. 2
  522. 2
  523. 2
  524. 2
  525. Really, the only currency I know of, which could overtake USD is Euro, why? Primary reason, to own money, is to facilitate trade. We economists like to talk about it, as about a way to safely store wealth.... but then have to explain, why some inflation is good, which is starkly in contrast with this second motivation to own it, which is why I prefer to see money strictly as medium of exchange. In this regard, Euro is an underestimated player. 20 nations already use it outright as part of the Union, we could say 21, because Czechia has effectively become bicurrencial nation, where companies can use Euros to pay everything including taxes and even decide, that their domestic currency is Euro.Then there are Kosovo and Montenegro, who aren't even part of Eurozone, yet use Euro as their currency and let's not forget the micro states, which run on Euros as well. Bulgaria is about to adopt Euro as their currency in two years and then comes the greatest potential for Euro as a reserve currency, because a lot of former colonies, Denmark and Bosna and Herzegovina have their currencies pegged to Euro. The most important of these pegged currencies is CFA Frank, because it is used in countries, which have and produce raw resources. Let's compare this to USD. Currently, 11 sovereign nations use USD as their currency for one reason or another and 5 special areas of the Netherlands and UK and some of the Gulf states have their currencies pegged to USD... That's a lot fewer players and most of them don't have that much in terms of raw materials to offer, nor do they process them (with notable exception of oil). Imagine if Euro were to rebrand and fully integrate currencies pegged to it into itself. If Europe were to stop tripping balls on environmentalism and embraced material refining again, the entire value chain from mining to final consumption would not need to use foreign exchange. Production chain would also be shorter, as Europe is much closer to most of Africa than USA are as well, meaning there is much more space for bidirectional trade than with US in actual physical goods, making stuff further cheaper on both continents.
    2
  526. Oh Boohoo. I can't find good enough people, to hit ground running. Surprise, you can't find those trained up people, because those work elsewhere. It's fairly rare to find skills, that aren't applicable elsewhere (I'll admit, that your field, might be an exception), but I see this attitude all over the economy! Take me for an instance. I hold bachelor's degree in accounting, from school, that is known to produce good accountants. I hold FCE certificate (I'm Czech). And for the past four years, I haven't found a job, that would pay for rent, food and second hand clothes! Everybody scoff's "you don't have working experience.", or "you don't know the tools we use." and passes me over. But how am I going to get working experience as an accountant or finance manager, when those are the working experience requirements? And no, lower tiered work, like assistant or invoice clerk, or part time jobs don't count! (that actually told me one of the recruiters I applied with). How am I supposed to know the tools they use, if I can't get to them, because they are paid software and don't have a mentor to catch my mistakes with the software? (Think SAP). Only the employer knows what skills he need's his staff to have and thus must train them, because people, especially in an economy, like the one before Covid. Schools can't provide the training needed, because they don't work with internal company processes and thus can't respond quickly enough! (putting aside that schools aren't worker mints). And still I hear, how few people enter field and how hard it is to find good people... Meanwhile, there are mobs of people lined up to take the job, they only need a year or so of training, and that's for a fairly complex field, that changes more than once per day and goes through a complete overhaul every four years! Or what about networking? I have seen ads, that required specifically WiFi6 experience no shorter than five years! First routers with this standard are younger than that requirement! Or what about International shipping clerk? A guy, that fill's in paperwork to send off with goods. Why the hell does he need a driver's license, when everything he does can be done and usually is done from a remote office, not to mention the fact, that pubic transportation and mobile broadband do exist? But no, employers just poach employees from each other, which raises their costs far beyond just increased wage, to poach someone else, and b*tch about taxes, which pay for benefits for the people, who those same employers just refused! Whenever I hear an employer talk like you are talking now (because they want to make people learn at home, instead of at work), I feel like reading r/choosingbeggars. PS: Do you want people, to come to you, and ask to be trained? Well fine, allocate one day worth their work hours to study and actually teach them!
    2
  527. 2
  528. 2
  529. 2
  530. 2
  531. 2
  532. 2
  533. 2
  534. 2
  535. 2
  536. 2
  537. 2
  538. 2
  539. 2
  540. Yeah, this doesn't hold water. Few observations: 1. Which of the countries, was the poorest, when we saw the map? Bulgaria, which is not your typical tourist destination. Sure, it has two major ones plus its capitol, but other than that? Bulgaria is not best known for it's beaches, but for it's rose oil, economically speaking. If there is strong correlation between how poor a country is and prevalence of tourism, why is not Bulgaria as well known for tourism as Italy or Spain? Why, also fairly poor country, is not Romania listed? They too have a touristy area between ports of Constanta and Mangalia, as well as Danube delta. A prime candidate for tourist heavy economy, if this correlation were so strong, yet they are probably best known for Dacia car company and gypsies. 2. Why would tourism take away people from jobs? People always go for those jobs, that earn them more money and financial security. How was tourism described in this video? Basically as a low paying seasonal job! The very antithesis of in demand job, like the ones in stem fields. You don't need a computer science degree to become a network admin or even a coder. It takes grit, willingness and experiment, but it doesn't need formal education. I spot a different problem. Among the regions mentioned were mostly islands. Meaning, there are very few mine-able resources in these areas (at least economically viable in comparison to other places) as well as lower population in comparison to a larger mainland, which in turn permits only for lower level of specialization an consumption. Why would you build a factory on Mallorca, if vast majority of your potential customers were on the mainland (even assuming strictly domestic trade)? Why would you build a material processing facility or even final goods assembly on Mallorca, unless source of said material was also on Mallorca and there were few other sources of said material? Everything would have to go by plane or ship. To transport something by plane, it needs to be of high enough value (say microchips), to justify the price for transporting a tun of cargo by air. You might be thinking, that building a processing plant could be a good idea, because you have a port, but wrong again. In order to get to the really efficient and therefore per tun cheap ships, you need aggregate production and consumption on the island to be on particular scale, which comparatively small island will never reach due to lack of population. You would also need storage facilities, because ships don't come as often as trucks, which also increase your expenses, further making you less competitive, than someone, who has their operation strictly on mainland and only export finished product to the island in necessary quantities. It seems to me, that geographic factors preclude creation of more innovative industries in places like these, because everything is more expensive to source from or procure for the island, than for equivalent operation on mainland. Even service jobs, which could be done over the Internet, would be more expensive due to relatively higher cost of living caused by these higher expenses. Meaning tourism is the only industry, which can be developed in areas like these, given the capital requirements to bridge this gap for other industries (I'm talking logistics hubs, better Internet connection, self sustaining agriculture using high tech solutions, harbor enlargement...) It is too big of an investment for a return, that will always be lower than equivalent operation on the mainland, due to better economies of scale, thanks to better access to customers as well as production factors (material, labor...) To sum up, higher cost of operating a business, which in part are caused by higher costs of living due to higher costs of logistics support for these places, are precluding other industries from operating in these areas, even though they may scale better than tourism (say accounting or IT services). Leaving tourism for these places as the only industry, which will develop part of its value chain, because there is some kind of attraction in the area, which draws people in, such as beaches or mountains (I'm looking at you ski resorts, I'm looking at you). The only way to turn this around, would be to find a mine-able resource, which would be refined on the island to the point, where value of the product would permit competitive edge over other producers.
    2
  541. 2
  542. 2
  543. 2
  544. 2
  545. 2
  546. 2
  547. 2
  548. 2
  549. I've been saying it for a while, that working from home doesn't work for everyone. There are problems with it. Big problems, to which there are solutions. However, companies must be willing to carry the expenses associated with them, not as legally as possible shift them on to their employees, which is the default mindset of managers these days. Be it actual monetary expense, or one more subtle, less likely to be noticed. What are some of these? 1) Internet costs. As much as people buy their Internet connection for other reasons, a single connection might not be enough to provide truly reliable access to the Internet, therefore, secondary backup connection need's to be established. Question now is, who is going to pay for that connection? One could argue, that it's only needed for work, so the company should pay for it, or at very least, reimburse the employee for establishing it. And that's just Internet access, what about employee's home network? It too, need's to be reliable, necessitating upgrade to prosumer or even enterprise gear, which can get expensive fast. 2) Control freak. There are bosses who demand absolute control over their employees, going as far as completely invading their privacy. A seemingly legitimate demand of the employer for maintaining security of his data accessed from either his or employee's computer could result in massive invasion of privacy. Home networks are typically not segmented in to VLANs, meaning a nosy employer could access private and incriminating data, which even the police would need a warrant for. 3) Housing costs. There is actual research out there, which suggests, that it is beneficial to have clearly divided work space from other spaces, most importantly those used for recreation. However, very few flats and houses are within reach of employees, who could benefit from working from home. Either housing costs must dramatically fall to allow people to save enough to buy a house, or wages need to go significantly up, or companies must provide assurances to banks for their employees, so that they will be able to get appropriate housing. Plus, new housing standards need to be put in place and landowner's position need's to be significantly weakened, because that is what's driving up costs partially. To sum up, there are three, potentially four things that need to happen, if telecommuting is to become a reality. 1) micromanagement and employee monitoring need's to be curtailed or outright banned. 2) Real wages need to rise 3) Housing need's to be made far more affordable And in case of hybrid options 4) Public transport need's to become truly available and reliable. Three buses in the morning, three in the afternoon and three in the evening and nothing else won't suffice for working from home partially. We're talking at least every thirty minutes a bus or train even to the smallest hamlet and it must connect it to public transport hub. From anywhere to any place of work, no more than three changes must be made possible and all on single fare and single ticket. Otherwise, there will not be any drive to go that route.
    2
  550. 2
  551. 2
  552. 2
  553. 2
  554. 2
  555. 2
  556. 2
  557. 2
  558. 1
  559. 1
  560. 1
  561. 1
  562. maaan, didn't laugh so hard in a while... BRICS creating a common currency to replace USD? Good luck :D India and China are at each others throat, Russia has demographcis, that are completely unsustainable, meaning they won't be able to contribute much to whole deal for long... Meanwhile Euro is outright used as local currency in 22 nations, about to be 23 (Bulgaria), further more, Denmark, Bosna and Herzegovina, Saotome e Principe, Cabo Verde and the Commoros have their national currencies fixed against Euro. CFA and CFP Franks are also fixed against Euro. Barring the Maastricht criteria. That's 40 nations and 43 regions, that can use or can use Euro as thier currency, without having to have lengthy discussions about transition rate. Actually make it one more. The Czech Republic is effectively becoming biruccencial. If there is to be a new global reserve currency, the Euro has the upper hand, especially if the EU decides to offer the posibility of becoming Eurozone members to those, currently using CFA Frank, because that way, entire supply chains could use a single currency. From raw resources extraction and processing in Africa through final consumption in Europe to research of water retention and reclemation systems for Africa. Compare that to Brics, who are either resource extractors (Brazil, Russia), resource processors (China, India) and a failed state (South Africa). Answer me this, why would a company chose to use currency any currency of any BRICS nation, when it's income will likely be in Euros or US Dollars, given the amount of consupmtion in countries using these two currencies? The only way for any BRICS currency to surpass Euro or Dollar, would be to grow it's consupmtion base and complete the chain, which will not happen. Why? Russia would have to massively change, how it works internally and, somehow, reverse it's demographics situation, which is basically irreversable, thanks in part to war in Ukraine. China is in similar boat, thanks to their threats over Thaiwan and wolf warrior diplomacy, which had damaged their international relations beyond repair in the next twenty years. Add to that corruption and internal dysfunction of the CCP and you have completely unpredictable market and regulatory environment, both which are something companies loathe. Already, massive companies are shifting away from China for manufacturing for the world market... closing down factories, which were the base of economic growth in China. South Africa can't even keep it's lights on, so they're not growing into prosperity and consumption anytime soon. Brazil is the only wild card here, but they have only half the population of the EU, meaning they'll never have the same capacity to grow as Euro using or pegged against countries.
    1
  563. I'd argue not. Bear with me, there's a reason here. Canadians value greatly their sovereignty, to the the point of rejecting a union with the only nation, they have a land border with. As a European, I believe, that era of nation states in Europe is over, we'll either unite into a proper federation, much like the US, or we'll get either annexed outright or carved up into puppet states by nations like Turkey, Russia, China, or even the US. That means for us to unite a lot of things, like currency, meaning any exceptions from the past would have to cease to exist, which is a non-starter (I'm actually in the minority in my country, that wants Euro), there would have consensus on industrial and energy policy (I already see, how Germans, French and Austrians, who have largely given up on large scale industry, cave to the more reasonable Eastern nations, like Czechia, Slovakia or Poland, who still have proper industrial legacy alive), I already see French, Italians and Germans agreeing on debt sharing... Either way, Canada would have to be part of that transformation process as well, meaning it too would have to cede it's sovereignty in favor of a larger federation, which is a hard sell at best. My point is, this would be hard to pull off even without Canada in the mix. Then, there is the logistical issue, that Canada has no ports, that could take ships bigger than Panamax, which would be essential for cheap transportation of goods, and then there is the issue of Trump issuing letters of marque, meaning the US navy, or any privateer (which is a word I never thought would be used in current era outside of entertainment) could be tasked with preventing trade between current EU members and Canada... So no, I don't think, it's feasible, as much as I'd love to hold this over Trump's head. And then there's the issue of Europe needing space and resources. Yes, we do need resources, but a lot of us would want to go to Canada to work... Canada has the space, but, because they trade mostly with the US, they live mostly within a hundred miles from the border! As a result, Canada has the paradox of abundant land and a housing crisis and lacks infrastructure to the point, that Canadian territories trade more with the US than with them each other. There had to be trade treaties between the territories on a similar scale, that are usually reserved for full blown nations, how bad regulatory misalignment within Canada is. Make no mistake, the idea is grand, but no. I don't see it coming to fruition.
    1
  564. nope. You're forgetting stuff here. A wealthy person can always limit or lower their tax rate. Say that I create an ltd. put all my assets into it, move into a tax haven and simply bill my company as a private contractor the entire profit the company makes. That is what literally until minimum corporate taxation had been agreed a few years ago was being done on corporate level and which country was the tax haven they've used? Flipping Ireland! No, taxing the righ doesn't work for other reason. It is self defeating. It's because the rich can simply consider fines and taxes as costs of doing business, turn around and bill their clients for the same amount. Options only grow, as you own more cash flow producing assets. Make no mistake, you can't dodge taxes simply by moving to other tax jurisdictions. You still have to file and pay tax in country of origin of income and then you can apply, whatever you've paid on tax in the source country against whatever tax obligation from this foreign income you'd have up to what you'd have to pay for this foreign income in accordance with local tax law, eg if you now lived in a country, that had lower tax rate than the one you've earned the money in, you'd pay 0 tax locally on this part of your income, assuming you've paid your tax abroad, which is by law your duty, otherwise fines. Let's have a look at one scenario, that illustrates two problems with taxing what is owned or proceeds from using what is owned to generate income. Say there was a landlord in Czechia and outright owned a smaller commieblock or had it mortgaged. In small itterations of these buildings, you have up to four flats per floor and they come with two to four floors on the smaller size. Say it would be the four story one. That's 16 flats total. Rents vary greatly, they easily range 8000 to 20000 CZK a month. Let's say, that this building would rent at 224 000 CZK a month (four sizes of flats, each bigger flat by 4000 CZK more expensive than the next smaller one across four floors). I found a bigger house, that sold for 7,1 million CZK but needed some work done (the one I found had over 50 flats). Let us assume, that an investor would have to pay double that to get the house on the rental market. ČSOB (a Czech bank) currently offers 11,2 mil mortgage (maximum they'd lend for such a house, the rest would have to come from investor's pockets) at some 54 000 CZK per month. At this point, it would make sense for the investor to hire a guy at 30000 CZK for management and technical maintenance and give some lady a part time job of 20 000 CZK for cleaning common grounds, each per month and 34% of salary as mandatory insurance that's some 67 000 CZK in labor, 121 000 CZK in the big recurring expenses. Property tax for dwellings (including rentals) is 3,5 CZK per meter squared and year times coefficient based on city size. Let us assume the building is 60 meters squared and is situated in Prague, which has the highest base coefficient of 4,5. That is 3780 CZK per year, or about 315 CZK a month. Let us also assume, that 10% of gross income would have to be kept for any incidentals and communal services like electricity, that's 22 400 CZK. Finally, you can apply up to 30% of your income as cost up to 600 000 CZK (if you chose to be lazy about it and not go for actual expenses), which leaves you with some 30 960 CZK a year in income tax, or 2580 CZK per month. If we now subtract these expenses, this leaves 77 705 CZK net cash flow per month to landlord. If the landlord were not taxed locally to the point, that they'd feel it necessary to optimize their tax burden, they would reinvest the money locally and create new products or businesses and thus contribute to local economy in a greater amount than just by packing the money, selling it on FOREX market for currency of their desire or buying something locally, they can flip in the market of their chosing. Meaning the income generating economy, that decided to tax the rich more, loses out on secondary generation of wealth, because the rich, in our case landlord, dcided to reinvest obtained proceeds from Czechia, UK or other high tax economy into one, that will not tax them as much and thus lowered their overall tax burden. This is even worse for Britain than for Czechia, because GBP, unlike CZK, is a globally accepted currency and the transmission method is the same for both, meaning it's easier to do there! This loss of new productivity thanks to unrealized reinvestment is the first problem and it causes next periods tax revenue to be lower than it would have been, if the tax were lower. The second problem lies in possible reaction of wealthy people to new taxation in terms of asset allocation within the economy itself. They could simply treat any and all taxes and fines as costs of doing business and these costs are always forwarded to the customer. Meaning the asset structure of these people would change. That's mass buying of agricultural land, housing, utilities... anything that is highly inflexible in terms of demand. In this kind of environment, the überrich set their demanded ROI, add to it all expenses and taxes, list that as asking price (become price leaders) and those, who have lower tax burden thanks to owning less, simply match price (become price followers), basically irrespective of the asking price, all/nearly all supply get's realized, because people have to live somewhere/commute to job/have electricity to hold down a job and maintain their own income. They simply won't compeet, because they have the same interest and loss/gain of individual client doesn't tip the balance for them (eg, they'll behave like a cartel without ever establishing one, meaning you can't fine them for it and even if you'll do, they'll just forward it to the customer in the long term). The demand inflexibility is the key here. This is why the proper way to solve problem of shrinking middle class and overall loss of purchasing power is not taxation, but rather denying the ability to corner key markets. I'm talking abolishing zoning, denying objections to new development, canceling environmental regulation, generally making entry into markets easier for new players (as to prop up supply), improving access to credit, encouraging and helping young entrepreneurs to set up businesses of their own, shifting taxation from earning money (whatever the way, be it ownership of something or labor) towards consumption based taxation (because that taxes all production factors and rewards living frugally). Because you if you'll look at dynamics of price changes, it's precisely the prices of ESSENTIALS, that are driving the cost of living crisis and thus shrinking the middle class, not necessarily stagnant wages. I'm talking rent and housing (self explanatory), energ and fuel (the green transition), transportation (parking fees and schemes), keeping up with your field (copyright and licensing, frequent changes to legislation).
    1
  565. 1
  566. 1
  567. I'm not that worried about North Africa. I'm much more worried about countries just south of these. Why? One, trade breaks barriers. If Algerians won't be able to have a deal with the US, they will make deal with someone, who'd be willing to trade. Sure, you'd have to import all the way from New Zealand and Australia, but you can ship durable foods. It would likely take few years of really bad diet, but it would be survivable. And then there is the chance for Algerians to swallow the bitter pill, sell oil in Euros to Germany and buy foodstuffs from the French. Hell, down the line, if Ukraine enters the EU and eventually accepts the Euro, they'd be stable in the long term. Libya's the one I'd agree here the most with. I recall an opinion, as end to the crisis, being a East West split of the nation, but if that doesn't happen, somebody will have to go in and bring order. They won't like it, maybe they won't even survive it, but I don't really see that ending another way. Egypt's fine and will be fine. Sure, they have surging population and are dependent on trade, but that's not a problem. Sure, Turks and any nations down the Suez canal system can cause trouble, but even that can be overcome, particularly if Egypt invested in it's own merchant navy that strictly brought in goods for them selves or for them to process and export semi-products or finished goods. This would also help with local food problem, as these ships would not be at port all that often. I'm far more worried about water situation in Egypt. Specifically drinking water, given what's happening in Ethiopia and Sudan.
    1
  568. 1
  569. 1
  570. 1
  571. 1
  572. 1
  573. 1
  574. There is another problem specific to auto industry. Everything is on chips. Even things, like acoustic warning, that someone sitting in a seat is not strapped in, when this could could have been done with a single circuit. All you'd need, is a trigger, when car reaches certain speed, a weigh sensor in the seat (which could literally be spring based), contacts in the female side of the seat belt joint, a buzzer, some wiring and a pair of relays per seat (weight sensor triggers one relay, closed circuit through seat belt joint disengages the other)! Outdated? Sure. Does it get the job done and lower exposure to one particular component, which requires special resources? Yes. I for one believe, that Just In Time is BS, precisely, because shit happens. We are already at point, where transportation companies report hourly positions of their trucks and trains, because a manufacturing process doesn't have a day of materials on hand! Imagine, you have to change production, because the driver hit a deer. It's ridiculous! And it doesn't need to be of natural causes or coincidence, it could be man made by a speculation! Stockpiling doesn't solve that! The only thing, which does, is getting more involved in the supply chain. There's no way VolksWagen group didn't know, how reliant they are on particular commodities, yet they didn't build a FAB to cover some percentage of their demand, nor did they buy a copper mine and processing companies, which could provide them internally with necessary wiring (given the forced electrification)! Are you freaking kidding me?! There's no way, they didn't see situation like this coming. Maybe not due to natural reasons, but definitely because of political ones and they still did nothing! What I'd like to see, is approach, which eliminates strategic threats to manufacturing system. The most prevalent one these days, is that everything is done in China. Nothing against China (well, except basically everything they've done past decade), but the fact, that basically all manufacturing is done there at scale has become a bottleneck in the system, that is prone to clogging, due to political reasons. What I'd do, is I would find three locations on Earth with decent, all be it not perfect environment for manufacturing, preferably on different continents, and I'd build manufacturing hubs there. There wouldn't have been that big variety (at least within a model Octavia for European and Indian markets are on completely different base models), but there would be bigger interoperability. Say there were plants in the EU, mostly focused on European market and R&D, plants in Egypt, mostly exporting to Africa and plants in India handling local market and parts of Asia, China, if at the time there were a presence there, would be it's own system. All plants would buy from the nearest suppliers of required materials and run between 80 to 90% capacity. Why? Precisely because of shit like Covid or political meltdowns! This way, even if a entire continent went down, you'd have two thirds to a half of capacity secure and you could ramp up, if need presented itself, at cost of time spent on system optimization and short term reduction of maintenance at particular plants.
    1
  575. 1
  576. 1
  577. Let me play a devil's advocate right now. While I passionately hate Apple, I really don't think this is their mess to clean up. I happen to know, that Wistron doesn't just do Apple, as my former collegue now works at Wistron in a different country. He does more "normal" gear and he never mentioned this kind of abuse. In the mean time, this is not first and I'm quite certain not last case of unspeakable stuff happening in India. Also, is this isolated incident within the company, or is this widespread? Because, if there are multiple Wistron plants and this can be found in just one, then we're at a different case. Joshua Fluke had a spat with quite a few companies and actual full on confrontation with one company from India specifically over wages (and let's take difference in prices out of the question for a minute), but things quickly escalated in to slave labour conditions with a couple. Traditionally, it's not job of a company to police other companies beyond quality checks and probably checking certifications, because you really begin to blur boundaries of companies. If Apple has the responsebility for Wistron and has to make sure, that Wistron's employees get payed enough to comfortably live, where are the boundaries betwene the two companies? Aren't they then really one and the same? If so, what tax implications does that have? (and that's just one field!) And that's just situation of one brand/company being serviced by another. What if the service provider has multiple clients with same degree of responsebility for his employees' wage, do all these companies become essentially one through shared responsebility? I really don't think this has acceptable answers without state authority to enforce minimal standards, because companies won't do that beyond marketing potential at top end of effort. Therefore, I'd argue there is something wrong with laws and/or their enforcement in India.
    1
  578. 1
  579. 1
  580. 1
  581. 1
  582. We hear it all the time, that we need to abandon meat, because water and global warming... And here in this video one is of the best arguments against them... well apart of the fact that we are omnivores. However, this can be taken even further. I for one believe, that if water is to be preserved, it's consumption should not be reduced, rather, what need's to be reduced is it's loss from soil. One of the main problems in this area is, that use of heavy machinery compounds soil, making it effectively barrier for rain water, which then can't reach deep enough to be stored in underground waterbeds, therefore, what we need is less use of heavy machinery in the fields and, preferably, turn some of these fields in to small woods, primarily to provide shade in the area. Problem is, that vegetables can not be grown efficiently enough to feed a family, much less to maintain a farm, without the use of heavy machinery. Cattle can graze on land without the need for a tractor to go out. Only when there is no grass, one need's to use hay, which need's to be harvested with use of heavy machinery, but that is still less use of heavy machinery than before, not to mention, that hay can be obtained as a byproduct of other agricultural activities. What I would do, is I would move vegetable production in to hydroponics and vertical farms, saving up to 80% of used water and more importantly nearly 90% of land, which then can be transformed in to pastures and forests. The reason, why I would double down on cattle, is that we need manure. When manure is put in to the ground, as it decomposes, it releases gasses, breaking the compounded ground and allowing it to take in more water. With every cycle this effect gets stronger and soil can store more water, making it act like a sponge. The more water you can store in the ground the better.
    1
  583. 1
  584. 1
  585. 1
  586. 1
  587. 1
  588. 1
  589. 1
  590. 1
  591.  @EngenheirUber  Nope, industries stick together, particularly, when they deal with physical materials, in order to increase efficiency. What you recommend would end up concentrating businesses in existing hubs, because everything is more reliably available there, including customers, and you've not removed that advantage from the equation. Take a city, that has mining towns around it. Let's say, they mine iron ore and coal. The city in that case developped steel mills and as it grew, but new sources of iron ore and coal lagged behind the demand, eventually, it made no sense to continue building new steel mills, so the city went up the chain and started to also refine the steel into other products and that is how you end up with companies bending steel sheets into different shapes and companies that make stuff from those shapes... So the city suddenly has a hand tool company and a car chassis company, if this is a coastal city, that's where you end up with drydocks and a shipbuilding company, etc. and it became a steel hub. Another example, say a village were very lucky and trans continental Internet cable had been proposed, to be laid in the ground in its immediate surroundings. Say it managed to get itself hooked in to it. Suddenly, local ISPs can offer massively fast Internet connection to datacenters and businesses, which get attracted by this critical resource, low parcel prices and lack of bureaucratic processes, which would slow new construction. that is how youtubers, IT people and businesses, which can easily provide a service over the Internet spring up, turning that village into a city, which becomes Internet services hub. Or another case. Say a place has a lot of oil. Somewhere in that place is a city, that has good access to the world market and builds a refinery. Well that refinery will eventually attract chimical plant and plastics molding plant and medicine producing company. All because a key input for that industrial process is readily available in a single location at minimal to none transportation costs. Lowering taxes, particularly ones, that are not hub or location specific, like VAT or income tax, doesn't have business distribution effect on sub-national level. In order to revitilize the countryside, you'd have to do one or more of three things. Either a) make home office the standard and invest in country's ISPs, which would allow for employees to move into cheaper housing in the countryside, dragging economic development with them. b) create a system of sector specific incentives, which would ommit all industries, which can be done from existing hubs. Problem is, that leaves you basically with agriculture and horticulture as the only feasible industries, which could operate effectively like this and even then, only parts of them. Even a massive diary company can have just farms producing milk in the countryside, but have it's processing facility in a strategically localised hub, for instance, because a university, which focuses on agriculture, is present there and thus, there's supply of people trained in the underlying processes of making chese and yoghurt (that's food chemistry). Alternatively, a logging company could have a sawmill or two the small villages in the countryside, producing different kinds of lumber, but further processing facilities would end up being placed in hubs, where certain lumber product types are in demand. For instance, there could be a furniture factory in a steel hub, because metal fittings are cheapily available there and there is greater supply of labour, so specialised production lines could be set up for processing of lumber supplied by the sawmills into semi-products needed by hub specific industries. An administrative or trade hub will require desks and office furniture. Automotive hub would need wooden decorative components for dashboards, Cultural hub would need wood for sculpting, etc. c) increase taxation of industries, which already form existing industrial hubs, which could make some of them relocate, problem is, they'd reloceate into another hub of the same type because of the efficiencies brought by the hub. Only one of these doesn't have excessive negative effects on economy as a whole.
    1
  592. 1
  593. 1
  594. 1
  595. 1
  596. Individualism vs collectivism. BS. Everybody's talking about high speed rail. Well, my dear awe stricken tax payer, let me show you, what happened in Spain, where they wanted to get high speed rail to the last town in the country, because commuting. Now they have among the highest rates for travel on rail in Europe! High speed rail can only exist in two places in the US. The current Acela could be expanded a little and you could probably have something similar in California, but otherwise? Nope. For high speed rail you need high density of high revenue passengers. That is present in only one nation on Earth, and that is Japan. What should be done with the railway? It need's to integrate itself more. Extra tracks for slower going freight trains need to be put next to current high speed lines and current normal lines need to be properly maintained. High speed is a dream, but it will share the fate of Concorde. Keep the speed at 100 MPH and you're already going for overkill for freight. Repair the rest and the railroad will draw a breath of fresh air. As for roads, upgrade, upgrade and upgrade, but most importantly, make it so, that people don't have to sit in to their cars in the first place. Let them use them less often and keep their cars for longer. You will solve a two problems at once. Telecommuting is what will solve this matter. By removing the need for travel, not the ability, you will be able to lower the necessary repair bill for the roads in the future, while maintaining everybody's ability to travel long distances. That Internet investment should be even larger, but more importantly, a change in corporate culture need's to be spearheaded, to properly force companies from work from home as a benefit to standard MO, where ever physically possible, and deny them the option to improve their salary expenses. If a worker, who can telecommute from anywhere, want's to leave California and move to Montana on the count of taxes, he should not take a pay cut, because suddenly the company thinks, it can justify it. This also contributes to overuse of infrastructure and I really don't think extra tax will make them reconsider.
    1
  597. 1
  598. 1
  599. 1
  600. 1
  601. 1
  602. You wanna know why? It's simple. People want to live their lives in luxury and feel good about them selves. It is way too easy, to say, that environment need's to be protected, but when it come's to what it would actually entail, those sensible enough, to comprehend it, back away, because they suddenly realize, what a spartan way of life that would have to be. I have observed this mess and I've noticed something, which trouble's me. Who is it mostly, that support's the environment? Usually, it's the people, who didn't have to truly earn their keep, are attempting to sell solutions to problems (and let's be fair, some of these people have actual problems to solve due to global warming), or have/earn so little, relatively speaking within their country of origin, they aren't the ones being touched by what would have to be done directly. The rich and the poor teaming up unknowingly against the middle class. Mostly because the rich already have enough resources to buy technologies, which to some extent could provide for their current lifestyle, while having lesser visible impact on the environment (think electric yachts or Teslas), and those, who have never earned enough, to afford to make a dent in the environment anyway, because they can't afford the greatest symbol of negative effect on climate, a car, or have never lived outside of a huge city like NY or LA. There are outliers, of course, but not so common. It seems to me, that this is not environmental question, rather, it's a class question. A real serious problem has been brought to the forefront, so that another battle, the more important one in my opinion, could happen in the background.
    1
  603. 1
  604. Actually the great state of Texas will always have oil in their pocket. Why? Moving oil in significant quantities is extraordinarily expensive, especially over sea. The problem with oil today is, that it's mostly used for fuel production, however, plastics are also a huge necesity in our lives. Anyone, who think'S, we can live without oil, is delusional. Without oil, there would be no laptops, no mobile phones, no plastic bottles... but more importantly, no carriers for medical stuff. Ever gave blood? Yep, straight in to a PVC. Recieved an infusion? Yep, from another one. Sure, you could use glass, but it's heavier and more fragile and if you think oil is valuable, look up what hospitals get for blood! And there is another problem. Ever had surgery? Gloves are made out of oil. Why? Because of latex alergies. The last thing you want as a surgeon, is for your patient to swell mid operation. It is for this reason that natural products were pretty much abandoned in medicine. Texas could leverage it's ability to produce oil and build up on top of it. This could shorten supply chains for a lot of stuff and could thus allow for utilization of even more expensive to drill oil. What's the catch? Oil companies would have to internally subsidize drilling from manufacturing of final products. They could no longer sell crude or refined oil products to manufacturers. They would have to become manufacturers them selves, catching maximum of added value in a product. Now, as an accountant with some interest in IT, this is feat I'd love to see done. The ERP alone would be extraordinary challange to create and implement. Not to mention complexity of supply chains. I know, I say, they would be shorter. That is true, howver, what would also happen, is that suddenly individual companies would have to handle lgistics operations on scale not seen before, on one that is larger alone than some industries. Yet another challange.
    1
  605. 1
  606. 1
  607. 1
  608. 1
  609. 1
  610. 1
  611. 1
  612. 1
  613. 1
  614. 1
  615. 1
  616. 1
  617. 1
  618. 1
  619. 1
  620. So, my phone doesn't have NFC. Czech banks came up with a service, that allows you to look up an account using a phone number, if the other party has it set up. If not, they can simply give me their bank details and I can set up a wire from my phone, if needed, or if it's a bigger amount, from my PC. You can already pay fines by card. All regular governmental money interactions I have are doable by wire (It's actually the prefferred method around here). Furthermore, there's the problem of getting debanked, as happened to Farage a while back. What will you do, if no bank touches you? There is clause about banks being able to do that for whatever reason they deem fit in every contract I have ever seen! The fact, that you can't change your bank account number, when you're with a bank, is redheairing. You can always have 50 bank accounts (I already am on 10) and simply wire money between them as needed. In most of Europe, SEPA payments are free for normal people and they can be accross borders, no problems whatsoever. Hell, when I was working as accountant, I was regularly returning money from Czechia to the Nordics, Baltics, France, Germany, Greece... there are publically available tools like ibanvalidator, which allows you to validate any IBAN or calculate IBAN from a domestic account number of that account. And it works for the whole world! Meaning so long, you actually know the account number, you can send the money over! Meaning, we'd rather need legislation otlawing the practice of IBAN discrimination and make it mandatory to accept cards! You can open up extra accounts to pool money for common purchases. I run such an account for our entire family! Conditional cash scares me to hell! Imagine this. You build yourself a PC and install Windows, because everything is still made for Windows... and Microsoft, heading for their service based business model, decided to charge you per minute in use?! There are payment providers with domestic technologies. It is also not entirely true, that payment providers are not based in the EU. SWIFT is in Belgium... In the Netherlands, they used to have (not sure whether still have) cards, that were not international standard, but carried the number of the account itself on it instead! There's nothing easier than mandating IBAN to also be printed on a card, perhaps even with a QR code for a machine to read it and request a payment over the Internet, simply, by asking the bank running the account, to transfer the money, which could be approved by the account holder from his phone or even (better) dedicated token. We already use multibanking (managing accounts from different banks through other banks), so communication between the banks is not an issue. The very fact, that somebody holds a record is a problem, particularly if part of that record was, what was bought. As for offline payments... we already have prepaid cards around here. They are very rare, true, but they exist. So offline Euro would be useless thing, that could cause more trouble than worth. All in all, as staunchly pro European guy am I, I see no use for this and costs associated with the system. :(
    1
  621. 1
  622. 1
  623. 1
  624. 1
  625. There you're wrong, there's a lot of industrial and processing development along the Suez route. Egypt could completely abandon agriculture, if need be, and focus on processing of materials and manufacturing. I see very symbiotic relationship for Europe in this way. They could supply Germany and Czechia (assuming we'll ever accept Euro) with processed materials sourced in the rest of the African continent and particularly East Africa. Egypt has oil and LNG, so those are additional sources of Euros, that are not directly dependent on local food supply. For now, they'll be able to buy from the French and Romanians, who are in much better agricultural situation, and once things settle down in Ukraine, with them as well, especially if Ukrainian membership will be considered seriously and they pick up Euro. So I don't really see food security in Egypt a problem... No, I see water as a much bigger issue, which is, why I'd double down on trade with the EU and possibly even South America, assuming the EU-Mercosur deal doesn't fall through. The problem is water! There is a new dam in Ethiopia, which will, due to evaporation, lower the amount of water going through the Nile, rendering it far less useful, if not unusable, for agriculture. There may very well be multiple new dams down there down the line. So, what I'd do, would be to double down on this trade strategy, I would try to trade as much with Europe as a whole as possible to get Euros, using particularly European industrial nations and energy needs to my advantage. I would purchase foodstuffs for return cargo and preserve Nile strictly as fresh water source for drinking water and maybe some small scale sweet water fishing. I would then build a number of nuclear power plants around the Red sea to provide vast amounts of relatively clean and safe energy, which I'd then use for primarily industry and desalination plants providing water used in industry, which would be separate infrastructure from drinking water, ejecting brine as side product into suitable places deeper in the desert, letting it evaporate and mine resulting waste to be processed into either technical or, if possible, table salt.
    1
  626. How do you determine, how relegious someone is? Simple. You observe their activities. Take a truck driver. If he intends to visit a church as part of his relegious practices, then it is not in my right to prevent him from going there. But if he only prays at home, while chilling in his backyard, mowing lawn, then he can pray as he drives in his big rig, earning me and himself money. Given how bad certain other drivers are on the road, it might actually be recommendable practice to every driver. The person must actually practice his religion in sucha way, that it actually needs his participation outside of workplace. That being said, employees should have to chose, between work and their religious belives. Religion is not a disability, which limit's your ability to work NOT based on your choice, physical constitution or psychological firmness! Being religeous is not like being autistic. Being religeous is not like having Turrets syndrome. Being religeous is not like being wheelchair bound. These are ablebodied, ableminded people, who think, they deserve special treatment, based on particular flavour of idiocy they chose to observe and that deserves no special treatment. Hell, it's not even like having a child, which needs upbringing! It's sickening, that accomodating idiocy is given more space and more protection, than accomodating actually disadvantaged people. People, who actually need to be at home on certain days. If someone has to chose a different, less prosperous path in life to "accomodate" for something, that is beyond their controll or at least immediate controll, then the religious person needs give up their religious practices as well. Hell if a parrant has to chose, to leave their sick child at home and go to work, then that religious nutjob has no right to demand a Sunday off, cau'se he needs to religiously chill!
    1
  627. 1
  628. 1
  629. 1
  630. 1
  631. 1
  632. You know, what I think happened? The market had changed. Back in the eighties, you could not get the amount of eyeballs on projects so easily and therefore, company actually had to show proper signs of success, if it wanted funding. That has changed. Just look at the train wrecks from the recent past, that got funded, but crashed and burned or are about to. Hyperloop, Tesla, Space X... actually, everything Elon touches... Waterseer, the Titan sub, Energy vault, self filling water bottle, food scanner, Theranos... All projects with basically perfect marketing, in some cases very charismatic CEO, but outright none or at very least questionable substance... And that's only what Thunderf00t busted! There are bad fundamentals. And here we have a guy, who doesn't even have a way to look at fundamentals of a business, because those fundamentals might not even exist yet, just showering these same companies with money. As a result, some of these companies survive, but never deliver on their promises, other times, they outright burn to nothing, because, as in some of the cases mentioned above, they didn't have the physics of what they were selling straight! Back then, if you wanted the attention of those, who had the money, you had to prove your case and give promise, because without it, that promise would not have been believable. The very fact, that you show small profit from what you were doing served as guarantee, that what you're doing is worth while and only needs capital to scale. After that, it's only a case of finding new uses for the things you produce at ever more efficient rates. Ultimately, I think, our guy had even been given the wrong advice and got seriously lucky. I'd say, you should actually look into who has the money, what are the problems, he's willing to pay and what are the implications for the greater society (because that changes the landscape) and you want as rich a guy as possible, with as big need to solve something, that will have minimum impact on society. To illustrate, you'd not want to solve global warming, because it increases water evaporation. No, you'd want to come up with water extraction or generation technologies and sell them to the petromonarchies of the Gulf. That way, you have something to sell, that wouldn't destroy the environment it needs to survive.
    1
  633. 1
  634. 1
  635. 1
  636. 1
  637. 1
  638. 1
  639. 1
  640. 1
  641. 1
  642. 1
  643. 1
  644. 1
  645. 1
  646. 1
  647. My words. Why Windows won't ever leave, even in multiple versions? Simple. Legacy sotware. Want to play original TTDL? Need XP. Wanna play Atomic Bomberman? Either emulator, or, you've guessed it, XP. And that's just legacy games! Sure, I'm running my SW Rebellion on a Win7 machine, but I doubt it would run on my "work" driver, which is a Wn10 laptop. So I'm stuck like this. A lot of companies are technologically stuck too. My uncle works in Romania in a factory, they still have and use machines from 1930, because nothing more precise came to the market in their particular field of manufacturing (given what they make, I'll not provide further details). But the same works for us. Sure, upgrade, but that's useless waste of money, unless you actually need to upgrade, because you can pay for it. Say you have an old CNC being run by a Win95 machine, which is integrated in to a network and which is recieving it's tasks from a Linux server, which in turn recieves the work files from a work station running Win10... All you need to achieve, is for that legacy machine to be able to read properly output of more modern software. You can run that granny and keep your company afloat for tens of bucks, while a replacement could easily cost hundreds of thousands and that is exactly the mindset, which smal businesses as well as huge megacorps will gravitate to. You think this is not the case? Not feasable? Not normal? Well, In June of 2019 (those were the days...) Chip magazine came up with an article stating that banks and institutions were still running on COBOL based software in 2014...You know... programming language that saw the assasination of JFK. There is a looot of interoperability of young and old out there on the Internet.
    1
  648. 1
  649. 1
  650. 1
  651. 1
  652. 1
  653. You know, what I think is also part of Russian war plan? The green deal. Think about what had been happening in Europe for past couple of decades. Emission limits, proven technologies being forced out. We have lost much of heavy industry, part of which is defense industry, but more importantly, the industries that feed the defense industry materials have almost all left for Asia and America and now, we're having major problems finding and manufacturing arms and ammunition to support a country, that got invaded by one of their guarantors, while another doesn't even mention their obligation to defend them (USA) and the last one would be unable to defend their shores from a platoon of determined swimmers (UK) (pointing to Budapest memorandum). We've made regulatory environment in Europe outright toxic to these now sorely missed industries. They even tried to push this environmental BS into NATO and generally security circles, which at one point seriously debated electric powered tanks and BFVs, pointing out their lower emissions and ecological impacts when compared to ones equiped with normal propulsion systems, completely neglecting their shortcomings, which are now coming to haunt those, who voted for these measures in normal civilian cars, as we have seen in a fairly recent blackout situation in Utrecht. Spare a moment, how would Ukrainian army have fought, if they had switched from normal to electric trucks, that take minutes and hours to recharge, when a normal combustion engine truck takes seconds to minutes. And that is assuming comparable ranges and capabilities to navigate terrain! (which they are not, given electric cars are about 1/3 heavier). We don't need to rethink our role in the world just because there is a war, that will draw us in eventually, on our doorsteps. That is the preverbial straw that broke the camel's back, yet politians in the EU comission as well as in European parlaiment, or even in some national parlaiments are refusing to abandon this mad green scheme, which had already cost Europe dearly.
    1
  654. 1
  655. 1
  656. 1
  657. 1
  658. 1
  659. 1
  660. 1
  661. 1
  662. 1
  663. 1
  664. 1
  665. 1
  666. 1
  667. 1
  668. 1
  669. 1
  670. 1
  671. 1
  672. 1
  673.  @abaddon1371  That is simple. All environemntal policies carry costs, be it actual raise in costs due to new requirements on imputs or reduced availability of final goods thanks to environmental taxes and tarrifs. Costs, that somebody has to pay. People are noticing their lifestiles are getting more and more economically unsustainable as result of new taxes (such as cabron tax on dwellings, that is about to hit us in a yaear or two). This is a problem, because stuff most impacted by these polcies are non-negotiable. Things like having and using cars (because employers don't care, when a bus can and can't get you to work and you have to work to live), having reliable electricity (because wind and solar are completely unmanagable and hydro has other equally important objectives to take into consideration and the greens nearly pushed nuclear out of reenwables and that's not even talking about the Utrecht blackout because of too many EVs charging simultaneously). All these policies are pushed by center left or outright left wing parties, against which the right wing can and does push, the more to the right they are, the harder they push and worse, more easily they get new voters, because they target these polcies far more easily, which is pushing more and more electorate towards them. In short, the more the EU is pushing it's citizens towards "more sustainable" poorer lifestile, the more it fuels scepticism towards the EU itself and thus rise of the right wing parties, because they become the only alternative to economic suicide that is environmentalism, which is currently the ruling dogma.
    1
  674. 1
  675. 1
  676. 1
  677. 1
  678. 1
  679.  @ArawnOfAnnwn  I don't think so. We have already shed our dependency on Russia and Russians them selves have stopped a lot of imports from the EU. And yet, we're still kicking as much as we are. Russia has been overcome. China has been becomming hostile state for Europe for about a decade now. They have been threatening tariffs all the time, or stealing our tech (Americans are not alone in this)... Not to mention, that China is some 10% to 11% of EU total exports. That's just half of what the US would have been, if there were a tariff war. Furthermore, they are not the only manufacturing hub. India could easily replace them as destination for any semiproducts still made in the EU. As for products and more importantly luxury stuff, China it self is schrinking for these markets, because the young proffessionals, who buy this stuff, are rarer and rarer find in China. they either flee to neighbouring countries and Singapore, or age out of the cohort. On top of that, China needs food so much, they are destroying ecosystems the world over, while Europe has multiple agricultural powerhouses. They can't tariff that, without causing serious domestic issues and given how stuff is going on in China right now... 1) nah, I don't really see them putting tariffs in before half of Trump's term is up and 2) even if they did, would Europe actually feel the effect in like six months? On top of that, there is a huge continent to the South of Europe, that needs capital goods, has the resources for the energy transition and young population, that want's luxury. And Europe is a lot closer to it than Russia, the US or China all are. That is, where growth is gonna be, and with whom Europe can rise with.
    1
  680. 1
  681. 1
  682. 1
  683. 1
  684. 1
  685. 1
  686. 1
  687. We need to change laws a bit... something along the lines of: 1) advertisments are binding in the language used in said advert (basically, adverts imply contract conditions). Eg. to illustrate on an actual case that had been to trial, Pepsi co. would have to find a way to deliver a harrier to a campaign participant, just as depicted in their ad and they'd be forced to expend all company resources to do it to the point of ceasing operation and releasing all their trade secrets to the public. 2) EULA is inammendable after signing up for services, unless law makes that mandatory and ammendment in such case must be strictly to explain provisions of the law, that are mandatory to introduce. If you sign a contract to date X, those are the terms and conditions by which that business relationship is governed. Ony new business, to the extent to which it is new, may be governed by new terms and conditions. 3) This kind of stuff was ripe for a class action and reminding ourselves, that class actions usually deliver 4 to 5 bucks to each participants, even though the pot was much, much bigger. The new rules for them need to be, that the amount paid out are based on the most damaged party and these damages are then multiplied by number of even remotely eligable participants in the class action, and only then this amount calculated amount is then considered for punitive damages, whcich can not be capped. Parent companies and individuals are then responsible with all of their equity for these judgements and they are not dischargable through bankruptcy. Once class action is filed, it can not be ended with agreement. 5) Contracts are, going forward, forced to use not legal clauses, but plain old English as defined by dictionary universally accepted by the court. EG, companies don't get to define the meaning of a word. That is for the courts. 6) Companies are mandated to provide non-lease like options to the market at such price, that the end consumer actually buys. Penalties for even single accidential incomplience will result in fines in tens of percent of highest company value in the past decade.
    1
  688. 1
  689. 1
  690. 1
  691. 1
  692. 1
  693. 1
  694. 1
  695. 1
  696. 1
  697. 1
  698. 1
  699. 1
  700. 1
  701. 1
  702. 1
  703. 1
  704. 1
  705. 1
  706. 1
  707. 1
  708. 1
  709. 1
  710. 1
  711. 1
  712. 1
  713. 1
  714. I actually think, you are wrong here. German dmography is a problem, no argument there, but that is in my opinion the sole problem, that cannot be overcome. The only continent that these days has proper demography is Africa and it is close, hungry, and Germans don't have as strong colonial footprint there, meaning they could replace the French in former French colonies. Furthermore, Africa needs machinery to grow itself, so Germans could replace China with Africa and shift back to industrial machinery construction. It would be more expensive, but it could be done long term, eventually, as demography get's worse and worse, transitioning to R&D role. Finally, Europe needs to start putting more emphasis on agriculture, particularly on integrating the supply chain into single entities, eg. a farm will grow the wheat, that same farm will mill it into flour. A ranch is making milk and beef, that same ranch also needs to butcher it itself, and refine the products as much as possible. The farm should tan the leather, sew something out of it and then, sell it them selves. As for energy, the whole of EU needs to have a very critical look at itself. It emmits laughably little CO2 and yet, is introducing more and more green, economy stifelling policies, that either complicate energy generation or make particularly electricity artificially more expensive. This needs to stop. We need to start our own mines and make them as efficient as possible, as well as scrap any and all emission penalties and taxes.
    1
  715. 1
  716. 1
  717. 1
  718. 1
  719. 1
  720. 1
  721. 1
  722. 1
  723. 1
  724. 1
  725. 1
  726. 1
  727. 1
  728. 1
  729. 1
  730. 1
  731. 1
  732. 1
  733. 1
  734. 1
  735. 1
  736. 1
  737. 1
  738. 1
  739. 1
  740. 1
  741. 1
  742. 1
  743. 1
  744. 1
  745. 1
  746. 1
  747. 1
  748. 1
  749. 1
  750. 1
  751. 1
  752. 1
  753. 1
  754. You want the naswer? Well it is feminism. The proper question is, why? Well, because of what feminism is pushing for. One of the core tenants of particularly early feminism was same access, be it bank accounts, voting rights or more importantly, access to higher education and the job market. As a result whole host of women centric programes were created, that pushed women into places they didn't chose to persue, at least in large numbers. Even now, there is concentrated effort to push women into STEM, because without incentives, women tend to chose CARE proffesions, which pay less and spend less time at work (as in per shift) than their male counterparts (hence gender absolute pay gap, but not per hour pay gap within statisticly reliability). Add to this errosion of family unit thanks to protections and benefits awarded to women in dovorce court and the law in general (for instance the Istanbul treaty). Meanwhile women are not faced with consequences of their behavior and can even strategically utilize litigation to cause maximum damage to a man. To illustrate, woman can bring allegation of rape any time from the time of alleged act. Feminism shuns maximum time spans from time of alleged crime taking place and promotes no proper evidence being presented in the court or even being gathered. How do you prove allegation of anything without credible witnesses (which are unreliable as it is, just ask Neil Degrasse Tyson), paper trail, dated audi-video evidence, rape kit record, etc. yet women leave men behind bars all the time. There was a case from UK a few years back, where a woman tried this six times and succeded five! Another way to look at this is through lense of domestic violence shelters. There are orders of magnitude more of these for women than for men, yet, women tend to be initial aggressors in confrontations! Thanks to feminism, women now have voting rights and are the more dependable and, thanks to greater longevity among women, more common voters, hence, they are key demographic for politicians, hence women rights are getting more and more entrenched, while men are being overlooked or straight up made to pay the price of women making mistakes. And here is the one thing Feminists are right about. It is reactionary. It took time, but men have picked up on, what had been going on for a while now and, thanks to the Internet, have begun to organize and inform oneanother. We talk on and on about women rights and descrimination of women. Well, what about men rigths? What about discrimination of men? We need a genuine discussion about work-life balance and position of men and women in society (because the two questions are intertwined), because as things are now heading, feminism has had a hand in creating a new problem. One of the things feminism advocates for is birth control, be it through pill or access to on-demand abortion. Both of these contribute to below replacement rate natality in developed world, which could, with enough political colouring lead to some massive problems. Let me quote Czech criminal code: §400 Genocide 1) Who intending to destroy completely or partially particular, racial, ethinc, national, religeous, class or other people group b) takes action to prevent childbirth in such people group will be punished with jail time of no less than 12 years and no more than 20 years. Preparation is punishable. Encouragement is punishable §403 Establishing, support and propagation of movement intended to quashing of human rigths and freedom of a human being 1) who estabilshes, proclaims support (etc)... that is intended to quash rights of a human, or spreads class, ethnic, racial, national, religeous or other similar people group based animosity will be punished with jail time of no less than 1 year and no more than 5 years. §404 Declaration of sympathy with movement intended to quashing of human rigths and freedom of a human beings. Who publically declares sympathy with movement intended to quashing of human rigths and freedom of a human beings will be punished with jail time of no less than six months and no more than three years. a reasonable jurror could find, that advocating for birth control through the means mentioned above for as long as feminism had been, even pushing for abortion to be a right (which to some degree could be seen as extension of right to healthcare, which is the other side of this coin), establishes intent to do as mentioned above, because they did so knowing that birth rates are below replacement rate and falling in the developed world and result of each successfull deployment of the pill, as well as each abortion carried out, prevents from child being born. Meaning feminism could be, given sufficiently conservative judge (because even the judge is a human. No judge will always perform their duties perfectly, which is why first instance judgements are not final), found in breach of three, maybe even four (§405 denial, questioning, approval of or justification for genocide, but that's mostly meant for events of nazi occupation and subsequent communist regime in Czechoslovakia) of crimes against humanity known to Czech criminal code. Just look at women, self declared feminists, who ON TV advocate for criminalizing even normal behavior, as long as man was on one end of an interaction and woman on the other (I'm talking even such a normal and, frankly necessary thing as spotting for a woman while on bench press. Somebody has to catch that barbell, if the person below it loses strength, because that could end in accidentally crushed trachea!), because that is sexist/predatory behavior. But, because of the influence of feminism, people, who advocate for this, which in my opinion clearly fits what is described in §403, and despite similarities between laws in different nations, these people roam free.
    1
  755. 1
  756. 1
  757. 1
  758. That is simple. The fault, actually lies with the left and their grip on mainstream media. A lot of people these days live in fear perpetuated by the media, that makes the other party villain and in some cases, and this is the dangerous part, proving certain stereotypes right. Take Alex Jones, for instance. We all know, about his lies, regarding certain events. The problem is, that the left had been pushing for tighter gun control for decades even then. Right leaning people saw this as a threat to their rights, so, when Jones showed up and started lying about, who's responsible for that mess, he gained quite a following and caused immeasurable anguish to survivors, their families and families of the victims, because he gave those, who suddenly felt, their rights are threatened, a banner to rally around. If the left didn't push to take away a right. If their media, didn't always portray the weapon user, as the "guilty party", there would not be quite so fertile land for a seed of radicalization through echo chambers to land on. Or take Gina Carano. She said straight up lie in support of Trump and got nearly immediately fired from everything Disney. Confirming a long standing rumor, that in Cali, if you speak your mind as a republican or straight up conservative, you'll find your self very suddenly unemployed and not for eligible for rehire and on your way, to be ran out of the state. Is what she did wrong? Yes. Was it a lie? Yes, that's why it were wrong. But the fact, that both sides can't even trust the court system, members of which, unlike actors, have to evade even the appearance of impropriety by field spanning code of conduct, is a huge red flag and a need for the politicians to seriously reconsider reconsider, what are they pushing for. Her job was not the right venue to deal with this. If she did indeed "cry fire in a crowded theater, and it were not true", than she should have stood trial, upon which her job may have gotten retracted, if she were found guilty. Not the other way around. What happened to the principle of innocent until proven guilty? Or what about Johny Depp, who had to go to the court twice to prove, if not straight innocence, that he were not as guilty as the media portrayed him to be, and again, lost his job, because his actual story of female abuser did not sit well with company image and message, that Disney had been trumpeting out for years. And what happens with the opposing side of the arguments, seeing this? They radicalize them selves, because they create echo chambers of their own, because they feel threatened and feel the need to organize them selves. The more and the heavier the massage from one party, the stronger the response from the other and the spiral's beginning to spin. You throw one Trump out the door, another, even more unhinged, flies in through the other, only this time from the other political side. Rince and repeat, until you're floundering between a police state and utter lawlessness.
    1
  759. 1
  760. 1
  761. 1
  762. 1
  763. 1
  764. 1
  765. 1
  766. 1
  767. 1
  768. 1
  769. 1
  770. 1
  771. 1
  772. 1
  773. 1
  774. 1
  775. 1
  776. 1
  777. 1
  778. 1
  779. 1
  780. 1
  781. OK, couple of things. 1) No, they are not different people. If you looked at long term trends (and covid is mere accelerator, not structural change), you'd see, that usually same people move to same places. Eg. California republicans move to republican states, democrats to democratic states. Exceptions to this were major cities, like Dallas or Houston, which have gone somewhat purple to blue, in otherwise red states. That being said, I don't think jobs alone (although they are a factor) and by it caused immigration to these cities are core reasons for this change. That is a different debate though. Facts don't change. Statistics don't lie. Among the factors, which determine, where a person will relocate to, in top ten there are question of politics (red/blue states), guns (rights/control), taxes as well as costs of living... Exodus from New York and other big cities is not the source of gentrification in small towns, because there is actually none. Now, when you filter that thing out, what you are left with, is poor city planing and, frankly, unforeseeable natural catastrophe. If what you've said is true and everything were simple supply and demand with some market manipulation sprinkled in, my studies of macro economics would have been a lot simpler and less of a headache. 2) If you want to point a finger at entities responsible, you need to not point at FED. Why? Simple. FED, or any other central bank, can't take in to consideration only sectors of economy. Sure, we have a bit of hidden inflation problem world wide, because naturally and artificially limited resource of land has been drastically reduced in terms of usability, which has driven prices sky high. I'm in this pot too, thanks to meat prices going up in my country 25% (not kidding). But the fact, that inflation in certain segments of the economy hits low earners much, much more harshly than others is not a question for FED. That is question for the House of representatives, the Senate and the IRS! Make no mistake, those responsible here are the FTC, FCC, AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, Hughes Net and other ISPs, who have oligopoly and don't compete for new contracts, don't make serious attempts at reaching these small towns and don't cooperate with WISP providers, which could get fast enough Internet to the smallest hamlet, to the loneliest ranch. US midwest is not Australian outback. The distances are much, much shorter and yet, Internet availability is similar in both places. Your prices are evidence of this. I pay for 100/30+ public IPv4 address about twenty five bucks! My contract with my ISP is a cookie cutter contract + that IP (eg.I don't get double NATed)! Yet similar plans over in the US cost double to triple! In Germany, country far closer in terms of income to the US, they pay the same as I do here, where I live. Nowhere in Europe, there are as high prices for Internet access as in the US. You still have Internet over COAX cable, my ISP does new installs in fiber-to-premises only, yet, for the likes of you, out market is over regulated and taxes are waaay too high... If you had a bit more regulated market, higher taxes for more IRS agents, and, you know... enforced anti-trust laws, you'd have 100/100 to every household in the US by now and this mess of accelerated migration would not have ever happened, because there wouldn't be few and far in between places with cheap houses and serviceable Internet. Sure prices would have risen, but not as sharply, creating opportunity for real wage increase. 3) You might want to bash your employers for underpaying certain professions... cough Amazon cough tipped employees *cough*. It is as if you need 15 USD federal minimum wage and jail time for employers, who don't pay at least it... So to sum up. This is result of laisse faire economics of the US. And what is the worst on this? The only person, who's doing something about it, is a snake oil salesman with rockets and microstellites...
    1
  782. 1
  783. 1
  784. 1
  785. 1
  786. 1
  787. 1
  788. 1
  789. This doesn't work. Problem lies elsewhere. What are the only costs everybody has in common? Housing, food, water, sewage, medical, gas (heating), electricity and access to the Internet. What do we see now? We're having to pay more and more for housing, because areas, where building a house for people is allowed, are artificially decreased. Food (eg. basic ingredients to make a meal) is also rising at an alarming rate, though that is after a period of little to no inflation in the field. Electricity is set up to rise thanks to green initiatives, which stemms from need for power "storage" facilities to cover differences in natural power generation (solar, wind, water) all the while wages don't keep up and I fear they can't keep up, and the Internet is under siege from content distributing companies as well as shareholders of ISPs. All essential costs are growing at a rate, with which wages or pensions don't keep up and I'm afraid that they can't keep up. What would I recommend? Promotion of actually sustainable lifestyle, where selfsupplying cover's part of cost. Hunting, growing crops and animals and telecommuting need to be promoted to the point, that extra taxing or creating payment differences or regulations based on the fact, that someone is working, hunting or doing any of mentioned activities at home is illegal on a global scale. Our infrastructure would also need to be updated. The most problematic field would be medical. Greater reliance on telemedicine and M*A*S*H style treatment might become necessary (eg. most common stuff as close as possible, with more trips further to specialized clinics for more rare treatments with over the Internet support from these clinics with diagnostics will become necessary). Care homes for the elderly will have to be made more readily available, as this is the demographic, that need's the most amount of highly specialized care. On carrier level, net neutrality will be paramount in such environment, as there are simply too many motivations for ISPs to charge extreme prices to some segments of the Internet. And finally, out of the most important things, environmental protections would have to be relaxed of stricken down completely. The young need to be able to make enough money to support it all and that doesn't just mean higher wages, it also mean's less choosing by employers. Already there is money not being made and spent, because unemployment among gruaduates and the young in general is twice the normal rate! It doesn't show in the statistics, because these graduates try their luck again at another field and go to study another field or further their education, if able to. There are other tweaks necessary, but these are the basics.
    1
  790. 1
  791. 1
  792. 1
  793. 1
  794. 1
  795. ​ @tonysu8860  Technology is not there. Sure, you can have LEDs, that emit same light as our sun, but that is now decade or more old technology normally used in greenhouses. Spoiler alert, never used for production of produce like corn or wheat, which are used for feed and more importantly flour, which in turn is used make the basics like pasta and bread. What is grown in greenhouses, and indoor farming is nothing else than advanced version of greenhouse farming, are vegetables like pepper, tomatoes, cucumbers and leafy vegetables. What is never grown there, given how little each unit of yields, are grains. Density of seeding helps in this regard, but it is not sufficient to cover any significant population. And then, there are the problems with energy, where in the desert, both solar and wind suffer from greater wear and tear and are intermittent, meaning you have to create an energy storage system, which further increases cost of the investment and by extension of produce grown. The yields from grains are simply too low to effectively utilize indoor farming, especially if final price is of concern, given their use. And then there is the problem with specially designed, more expensive solar panels and more expensive maintenance on wind turbines, and shortened lifespan of both, costs of which, again, need to be covered by the cost of produce grown! Yeah, that is something that the Saudis can do, cause this is expensive like hell and Saudis are loaded like ships wit cash! But the problem of available food is not limited to the Gulf nations! Nations like Morocco, Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia, Algeria can't afford this kind of food production, especially not at scale necessary. No, it would be better, to find a resource, which can be mined and refined within their own borders and import food from abroad, which is precisely, what Zimbabwe did with Lithium, when they introduced ban on raw lithium exports (which has it's own problems reminiscent of pre WW1 economic model, but that's a different discussion).
    1
  796. 1
  797. 1
  798. 1
  799. 1
  800. You want to return fertility rates high? Fine 1) since women are the gatekeepers to sex as prerequisit to childbirth, incentivise them to have children, while remove the risk of having children for males. That means the following. Quotas on women in management? gone. Discrinimation based on gender? Allowed. Divorce? Moving party loses everything, unless the parties agree otherwise. R allegations? Accuser is considered guilty of defamation until proven turthful in their allegation and if not, automatically criminally liable and sentenced. Abortion? Strictly for medical reasons only (eg. pregnancy seriosuly threatens healt or life of the mother). 2) relative costs of living must be curbed. That means a number of things. Rent controls need to be reintroduced. Massive empty house taxes need to be introduced, aiming to force property owners to either sell or rent the properties out. Minim wage newly calculated based off highest minimum living expenses (eg, highest rent for a 3+1 flat, longest commutes using the most expensive commonly used way to commute, most expensive energies... etc.). All green policies, that increase costs of building new homes (like passive house mandates, or pro-environmental zoning) must be terminated to increase supply of housing. Building a house for ones own living must be permissible on any type of land, as long as the builder or the one ordered the family home be built is the owner. Labor market needs to be reinvestigated. Comapnies these days use tactics, such us advertising without intent to hire (to create a database of resumés) or advertising catch all position to hire staff for other roles. These practices must be made illegal. All job advertising must show actual minimum salary intended to be paid for each position and must be truthful. Underreporting must be punished with liquidational fines. The idea being, to increase positive difference between wages and costs of living, as to allow women to return to maternity and housekeeping duties, which in current situation is financially impossible. Staying with the theme of economy, environmental concerns may only be taken into consideration, not being made final goal. Artificial cost increases (like emmission allowances) must be discontinuted. Global warming must be accepted as price for progress. The idea is, to make it ecnomically feasible, to return to the 1 parent working, 1 parent housekeeping model from the past.
    1
  801. 1
  802. 1
  803. 1
  804. 1
  805. 1
  806.  @kate8160  Yes, but not quickly enough. It takes hours for a nuclear or coal power plants to change their output. That is why they are used for base load and are the LAST power plants asked to alter their output, when something big happens. To illustrate, a while back Dukovany nuclear powerplant in Czechia had to intervene in the grid, because Austria didn't have wind, Hungary had their powerplants under maintenance and there was an accident in Slovenia, which destroyed their interconnect to Austria. It took inability of two NATIONS to have a nuclear powerplant ramp up production and stave off nation wide blackout! A gas powerplant can ramp up it's production or wind it down in as little as fifteen minutes, which is much better for grid regulation, given you need to maintain certain amount of power in the grid in every second! It is much easier to anticipate within acceptable margain of error, what consumption will be in an ever changing consumption model fifteen minutes ahead of time than eight hours ahead of time! That is why we need to get rid wind, where winds are not consistent, and solar completely and replace it with gas and nuclear. Because when placing in wind and solar, you're displacing coal and nuclear and increasing the need for natural or oil gas, because wind and solar are intermittent and worse, in case of solar selectively intermittent, because it only produces during the day, but most consumption comes in the evening as families come home and consumption spikes! (businesses that are high energy consumers usually work around the clock, so they don't produce a corresponding dip). And you need to cover that spike irrespective of other factors. When there is not enough wind, you need to provide power from gas. Hell, during the day, when there is not enough sun, you need to provide power from gas, because you can't have blackouts!
    1
  807. 1
  808. 1
  809. 1
  810. 1
  811. 1
  812. 1
  813. This whole mess shows, what happens, when you have too anti-growth policy. This is not Italy, this is the whole of Europe. In the name of green policies and "the environment", we've forced out such companies, which could satisfy peoples actual needs. It really is simple. Peoples need for nice, "sustainable" environment simply comes looong after shelter, food, drink and entertainment. And what do we have here, thanks to what's sitting in the European parliament and more importantly European commission? Pro green, anti industry and manufacturing policies, which forced out companies, which could hire the people. Apart from allowing these green policies, there are some locally sourced problems too (too much care for elderly in Spain, political instability in Italy...), but the chief problem is common. That is why we see this not isolated to Italy alone, but rather, why this is in Poland, Hungary, hell, even in France. Hell, if you analyze war in Ukraine seriously, you need to come to conclusion, that the EU allowed it to happen! Why? Well, because of wind and solar! These power sources aren't reliable enough to produce power, under supplying the grid at one moment, over supplying it another time. This needs to be managed, so that there is always enough juice in those wires, which brings in gas power plants, which are the ONLY method of properly managing the grid. Why? Hydro power has problems with water. One, it's used for other purposes and two, even it is becoming less and less reliable due to global warming. Batteries are and forever will be a fairy-tale, given the scope of power needed on the grid at all times! And guess who installed the most wind and solar in Europe... That's right, Germany, which bought hook, line and sinker in to green idiocy, closed down their coal AND nuclear power plants and built two new pipes, so that Poland couldn't hold them back in this, pushing enormous amount of money in to Russia, which allowed them to go forward with occupation of Crimea and current offensive. Don't go green, you starve Russia of money, because the only alternative is nation wide blackouts. And the most frightening part of this? Those same bureaucrats, who caused all this green idiocy, don't see, that it is their doing. That it is them, who are feeding this political shift in the wrong direction. Make no mistake, there are problems on the left, there are problems on the right. That needs to change.
    1
  814. 1
  815. 1
  816. 1
  817. 1
  818. 1
  819. 1
  820. 1
  821. 1
  822. 1
  823. 1
  824. 1
  825. 1
  826. 1
  827. 1
  828. Yeah, let me give you a different perspective. Landlords have the ability (in some countries outright right) to work out your salary, meaning they can calculate rent so high, the effectively lock tenant in. Housing providers actually don't compeet, because it is against their individual and collective interest and utilize extra income to limit the ability of tenants to obtain housing of their own through lobbying, creating zoning laws and more importantly, technical requirements for new houses to be built and old houses to be renovated. This increases upfront investment needed to purchase a home. Down the line, these decrese running costs of the buildings, but if you can't get approved for a loan, you can't get on the ladder and the landlord just squeezes more. As for house shrinking, that has been happening actually, especially in Europe, but there is another problem. We actually don't need smaller housing, because of work from home. The kids room in a typical household has now become the office. This idea was apt in the 90s, when the Internet was not quite as widespread, but now it is so ubquitous, that cars are expected to report to a central server their trouble wherever on the road they are. This translates as far as housing is concerned, that as long as employers are willing to accept remote work, dedicated space for work related activities needs to be present in a dwelling. Meaning building or renovating into smaller dwelling units doesn't solve the problem. because there is not as much space to save, hence a new unit doesn't necessarily get created from the space made available. Furthermore, if I were to shoehorn Zeihan in to this mix, this would further amplify our natality crisis, because people have been shown to not want to establish families in cage sized flats, rather they need a suitably large house counting no less than 2+number of kids+bathroom sized house. With advent of work from home, make that 4+number of kids+bathroom, because both parents need to work to maintain a family these days and employers might not be willing to tollerate husband and wife working for different companies or even different departments to share an office. No the only thing, which can solve housing crysis, is encourage telecommuting, individual transportation and to remove new construction blockers like climate impact limitations and zoning beyond strictly safety concerns (flood plains, sea line etc.), while at the same time implementing and under penalty of seizure of property enforce rent controls and demand construction companies to build housing, whenever they build anything. For instance, you have eighteen story building, then you can mandate that at least six floors of the building will be flats, ohterwise, the building will not get a permit for the office space and shops it was initially envisioned as.
    1
  829. 1
  830. 1
  831. Just as @miller guy says. It's just not landlords. UBi would only drive up prices of highly desireable necesities of life, such as food, lodging, basic services (food, gas, electricity, transportation, Internet). The reason why we didn't see any negative effects on people employment, is that in comparison to economy at large, ammount of money payed out this way was miniscule, as big of payments these were, they weren't at critical value yet. Problem of current capitalist economy is not capitalism or insufficient earnings (outside of minimum wage or equivalent). The problem is scarcity of too many formely free consumables. As long as price will be at discresion of goods producer or service provider, there will always be scarcity, be it actual (like ammount of land avaliable, the ammount of drinking water on Earth, or the ammount of time in a day), or artifitial (imposed by licensing, aggreements etc.). The only thing, which can solve this is ensuring more supply is on the market from more suppliers. This however, will inevedably run foul of the environment. For instance, in Califronia, this would mean abolishment of many nature protecting ordnances to allow for tennaments and family homes to be built, to drive down housing prices. Even if UBI were implemented, house owners could simply rise their prices and bam. All that was created, would have been inflation. Finally, Let me say this. As someone, who lives in a country, that used to be socialist. We were 7th most advanced economy on Earth in 1940s. Now, we were declaered emerging economy a couple of years back. Such is price of socialism.
    1
  832. 1
  833. 1
  834. 1
  835. 1
  836. 1
  837. 1
  838. 1
  839. 1
  840. 1
  841. 1
  842. 1
  843. This might rub the anti-gun people the wrong way, but I always disliked use of props... The reason is, that it leads you down the "this ain't a gun" path of thinking, most importantly when planning, how to do the stuff, in this case a scene. Gun owners say "Always treat it, as if it were loaded!" for a reason. How would the scene be made, with this mindset? Well, there would have been nobody in the direction of the "gun" to be aimed, there would have been a drone or crane used to capture the scene, and the worst, which could have happened, would have been destroyed piece of equipment. All in all, this reminds me of an episode, of Mayday, also know as Air Crash Investigations, of all things... S1E5. Alaska Airlines were struggling for a while, so, they created a plan, to keep their planes in the air, generating money. The problem was, that this created environment, where non-technical person could override a tech, when that tech called for maintenance and send the plane off to the sky. This practice had two effects, thanks to increased air time, Alaska went from bust to bang. Unfortunately, the other effect was one of their planes jackscrew broke mid-air and the plane dive-bombed an ocean, only because the captain recognized the mess he got in to and took the plane away from urban areas... The guy who called this out months earlier was fired weeks before the crash (or months, my memory is hazy on this). Simply to increase profit... I am convinced, if what was discussed here was as it were, something similar must have been happening on that set. And it should be those, who were pressuring or overriding those responsible, who need to go to jail. Not an actor, who thought his gun/prop was safe to use.
    1
  844. 1
  845. 1
  846. 1
  847. 1
  848. 1
  849. 1
  850. 1
  851. 1
  852. 1
  853. 1
  854. 1
  855. 1
  856. 1
  857. 1
  858. There are no free lunches in economy. That is, what the "green" idiocy needs to learn. Say you go zero waste and undo the amount of wrappings. Now you need to expend time and money, to get the same things in same quantity, you got before. It's too expensive to do. You abandon it, because you can't afford it. You want everyone to jump over into EVs, which have lower range and always will have lower range, which will further decrease as the vehicle ages and which will enver be as quickly recharged, as a tank be refilled, all the while, your carbon footprint is actually the same over the lifespan of the vehicle, because you need to process more volume and more types of resources, which is done in China, because of their lax environmental regulation, because doing it environmentally friendly would result in completely unaffordable cars even to C suite executives. And that's only the EVs by them selves, not taking into consideration the amount of power, that would need to be transmitted and generated on demand, meaning it can't be done by intermittent power sources without massive overbuilding of capacity, because there is no and never will be any battery based power storage system, which could provide the capacity necessary at scale of the grid, when it will be cloudy/snowy and/or not windy enough. Hydro doesn't help here much, because there are other uses for dams, such as drinking and fire water reservoirs, tourism, agriculture... Which power generation needs to be weighted against. Vegetarianism and veganism? Yeah, now you need to strictly adhere to a diet and take supplements for those nutrients, which you can only get from meat... If you actually look into all these politically devisive things hollistically, you'll discover, that most of them are actually sold on very unrealistic expectations. So tell me, is abandoning and criticizing green ideology really nihilism? Or just accepting reality for what it is?
    1
  859. 1
  860. 1
  861. 1
  862. No, that is not considered heartless, that is considered out of touch with reality. Not everyone can be an entrepreneur! And frankly, no one can be truly successful entrepreneur alone. There is set amount of time in a day. There is only so much, which can be done in those hours. What you're saying, by "Get an extra/better job", or "find something better", or "It's all your fault, you're not trying hard enough!", or "you just have too high expectations, compared to what you can provide."... All of these betray a disconnect between your thinking and reality of time being limited resource. You simply have to sleep for nine hours a day, just to make sure, you won't start dropping your act due to exhaustion a few months down the line. To advance, these days you actually need years, not weeks and months, especially in markets, which aren't as flexible as that of the US. Look at job postings in some fields. Especially in IT, you'll find absolutely unreasonable demands off people. Ads, seemingly targeting graduates and requiring proficiency and years of experience in multiple coding languages, aren't uncommon. Or take me for example, I, as I stated before elsewhere, am an accountant in search of a job. I happen to also be autistic, which mean's in Czechia, where I live, I can't hold a driver's license (it's outright illegal). Yet, over fifty percent of job listings for my field demand it, regardless of me being able to do literally everything from a PC at home. Where and when are we supposed to gain the documents/knowledge/experience, to fulfill such job requirements only to receive an interview invite. And then we have to impress someone, who doesn't know anything about our field, yet he/she is the gatekeeper. This is the way people get hired and this is a systemic problem, which conservatives tend to overlook, why? Simple, it plays in to their hand and thus they don't want things to change. How are we supposed to find something better, if the system is set to preserve those, who already have everything actually necessary and thus can justify ridiculous demands, sometimes completely disconnected with the work they demand be done. Simple, this has to fall apart eventually, it only gloriously s**ks to live in the interim, which can take decades to pass. In the eighties and nineties, a guy out of school could come to a factory, ask for a field relevant job and he would get it. Now? A year long selection process, resulting in nobody hired and lost contracts, and employers whining about the quality of workers in the market. They usually start with "it's your fault, you don't get paid enough as a full time janitor, to be able to go to even a free university. Get a degree in this ridiculously specific field and I might hire you. I won't give you a raise during your studies and I won't give you the time off for lectures.". Yes, people, who sound amazingly similarly to you. That's not heartless, that's just completely out of touch with reality.
    1
  863. 1
  864.  @marcbuisson2463  Not exactly. You've said it. Made in Europe. We don't need to do this on everything, we can trade with the world, but strategic stuff should be made here and regimes like Russia need to be excluded (not, because they are dictatorial, but because they do pose a credible threat to us). Microchips, water, in terms of electricity, yes, even the fuel for the power plants. There should be a degree of self sufficiency, which should not be barred by ideology. Problem is, the only things we can make, are not ecological. Well, except for wind turbines, but even those have unseen and not discussed ecological cost, specifically the declining big bird populations (they are a contributing factor). We only have coal in Europe, which we can mine in large enough quantities, to satisfy demand for energy. Everything else has to be imported, meaning we can either A: find other sources of gas and mine them our selves, thus accept higher costs for electricity (which, to be fair, is ridiculously low at the moment and higher energy costs would stimulate small scale solar, aiding decentralization of power sources and, ironically, development of "ecological" sources of power). B: Find a dictator, which could stand no chance under any circumstances in a confrontation with the EU and is outside of Russia's reach, close enough to Europe, to build a pipe line or liquefaction plant there. This country doesn't exist, as far as I know. C: Return to colonialism, conquer Northern Africa, install puppet governments, "annex" these countries in to the EU and use them, to generate power for from the sun and meanwhile, build massive pumping power plants, which effectively work as batteries (the only non-fairy tale way of storing energy in large enough quantities). This would in the long run, have huge human cost, though. or D: Give up on ecology, specifically CO2 emissions, accept, that there is no free lunch in economy, and do what we can, to mitigate damage from these power plants, such as carbon capture, not prevent it, because the only way to do that, is to lower our economic output and consumption, which in turn would increase unemployment, particularly among the young, because they are the more vulnerable in terms of labor questions, which in turn would eventually radicalize them, which in turn would lead to either a massive political shift in the country (as older generations die out and the oppressed young want a slice of pie for them selves), separatist movements, rise of domestic terrorism or outright civil war. There are really no good answers in questions like these, once you take up holistic approach. All ecological solutions to these questions have one thing in common. Poorly done or completely unexplored engineering side of the solution based on current, not theoretical future technologies. edit: a word
    1
  865. 1
  866. I actually understand a bit the position of finance... I am an accountant. I handle huge amounts of money on a daily basis. Money, that is not mine and that I am responsible for, if something bad happens. Now I have a bit of interest in computer networking and can tell you. Home networks are not safe. There's a whole lot of poorly configured devices on these networks as well as IoT devices with poor security and the networks are not partitioned, meaning any one of these could be used to attack the work issued laptop. If I were in CFO position, that would be a major argument for me, to want to not have my people work at home. Not that I don't trust them, I don't trust their network at home. To illustrate, I interviewed some time ago with a company, that was hacked a few years earlier. In spite of IT working around the clock, their accounting system was still not fully recovered from the attack and they had to do workarounds. The problem here from IT standpoint is, that if you're in remote-first environment, there's a much wider angle of attack on your infrastructure, meaning you're under greater threat. This is what the CEO or CFO will hear from the CIO, hence the resistance to work from home in these high-stakes positions. Work at home can work for some fields, but not in all. IT and anything having to do with PCs is a good example. Why? Because the people working there are aware of this and act accordingly at least most of the time, hence lower threat and they can work from home safely. A call center operator? There are ways to add layers of security to what he/she is doing (and I'm not talking just about VPN) and there is no direct way, these people could handle the company money, hence same risk, but less danger and thus they can work at home, making ti possible for these people to work from home. But finance? These people handle the money directly in at least some positions. in smaller firms maybe even in most if not all positions. These people are not computer savvy to the point of securing their network (because it's a completely different field from what they use computers for), hence massive danger of losing money due to a hack. Now what is the answer here? Well, there are four. 1. There's the hybrid model, where employees have two works stations, one being a laptop at home, one being a computer in the office, where the laptop is hard locked from the more sensitive agenda. Meaning that the accountant, for instance, can input invoices in to the system from home, but pay them in the office. 2. There's department structuring, where tasks, which can be safely done remotely are given to some employees to work from home and then there are few people, who have to come to the office, handling the more sensitive stuff. Again an accounting example. There are AP, AR specialists, who work from home, inputting/issuing invoices, and then there are treasurers, who are in the office and pay them. 3. buying the employees the equipment and training them, to use it properly. I have bought myself a router and switches, which can do VLANs and I have a specific network, firewalled completely from my core/home and IoT networks, so that I can work from home safely. Anyone, who's willing to put about four hours in to some learning can do that. 4. Combination of the above.
    1
  867. 1
  868. 1
  869. 1
  870. 1
  871. 1
  872. Do you want to know why? Wages are not enough and even if you start working, your expenses shift. If you go full Gamer-Hermit mode, you can actually survive. That is why people are basically lying flat in the West as well as in China these days. I'm in that camp myself... well partially. I actually aggressively job hunt. But even then, In the last five years, I worked 28 months, because I either didn't receive proper training or my job was literally transferred overseas. So what am I to do? Cleaning? Who likes doing chores? Nobody, so do that at absolute minimum. going to interviews? Yeah, when I get invited, but conversion rates from sent CVs to invites is low and from invites to jobs even lower. So what rational option do I have other than gaming, particularly if I have a PC, that is no slouch, but didn't cost me arm and a leg? I can't job hunt more, because new positions for me to review and apply to don't pop up as often! I do a check once a week, reply to a couple dozen positions and spend some time in a week on actual interviews, but even then, I spend what twelve hours a week job hunting, because even a minute more would have been wasteful? (eg. I'd not send another CV due to the visible market being completely ran through). What am I to do otherwise in my spare time, than game? Really, the only reason, that I am still trying, is, that I have something to prove. I failed in getting laid or getting my significant other to reciprocate my feelings. I've managed to get a Bachelor's after five years of studies, but couldn't get to obtain a master's due to a combination of factors (primarily due to conflict with on site time, when working.) , so that was a failure too, because nobody cares about Bachelor's. The only field for me left, where I can prove myself, is work. But without that, I'd be just wasting away, nearly homeless doing just enough to survive too. Why try, when everything you do, is worthless to the society at large? The answer is simply, don't try. Waste away.
    1
  873. 1
  874. 1
  875. 1
  876. 1
  877. 1
  878. 1
  879. 1
  880. 1
  881. 1
  882. 1
  883. 1
  884. 1
  885. 1
  886. 1
  887. 1
  888. 1
  889. 1
  890. 1
  891. 1
  892. 1
  893. 1
  894. 1
  895. Yeah, that wouldn't help much... There are two main reasons why: 1) Most of the fields, that you need to enter these days, are in their very early phase, meaning even companies them selves, don't really know, what skills they'll need in the future and thus can't communicate that need to universities, to create a study program, which would help with this. 2) A lot of societies needs are only perceived and can be outright disconnected with real needs in our economy, or be set up on poorly evaluated facts. Case and point, electromotive. You need a huge battery for an electric car, which has even greater impact on the planet, than petrol. And you have people, who claim it's not true, point to scientific studies, which don't take in to account consumer behavior and end up undercutting the need for battery size, because that supports their position and policies are built on that, which results in the picture, of what is needed in the economy for skills, being distorted, because under normal circumstances, in scenario like this one, more people would study fields surrounding internal combustion engines and would be looking for ways to make them even more efficient, and fewer people would go in to metallurgy and related fields, because there would not be such a demand for mining and refining more kinds of metals. Meaning, there would be a straight up mismatch between skills taught and skills demanded... Or in a different way, imagine industry standard being Ethernet and universities still teaching coax token ring.
    1
  896. 1
  897. 1
  898. 1
  899. 1
  900. Leaving fosils for heating is nonsence. Why? Simple. Outages. Sure, you still release CO2 and other stuff, but, it's actually very efficient, just as you mentioned, but also allow's for microcogeneration of electricity, which can supplement other sources of power, such as wind and espcially solar in winter (you know, cause shorter days). Furthermore, you can add a tank for fuel, which you will have to maintain, but doesn't lose capacity unlike batteries, meaning you have more reliable stored supply of energy in case of an outage, which could take days. This vast battery supply even for a small, highly efficient house is comically big. Like extra barn full of batteries big. And even those can emmit pretty nasty stuff. Where do I think fossils need to be phased out? It's large scale electricity production and even there not entirely. I firmly believe in nulcear power for the long run, as it is the only known source of power, which could provide enough electricity to power entire cities with very low emmittions, if you consider all emmittions from obtaining of materials till decomitioning of a plant, which makes decades worth of efficient energy production, you'll find out that it has lower CO2 footprint per Watt of power produced than either wind and solar! The other sources should supplement nuclear powerplants and green power sources, when needed and heating should be done still through burning, centrally if at all possible and of stuff that was already used (unrecycleable waste) or wood (again, what can't be used otherwise and in individual homes), but also gas for individual homesteads and small towns. And why do I think only the grid should go green and not all green? Well, our current battery technology is not exactly any good. Make no mistake, even Tesla batteries, some of the best on Earth, aren't any good. Why? Batteries are not dense enough energy wise and we can see this in electric cars. Looking at them long term, they can't compete with petrol, because of the difference in energy density of their batteries and the fact, that these batteries degrade over time, which won't happen to a tank, and make no mistake, batteries won't get much better any time soon. The problem with power storage is stressed in cars, because of great need of mobility and mass of a vehicle need's to be fairly low, but even when there is not a need for mobility, storing large ammounts of electric energy in batteries can be prohibitive due to avaliable space.
    1
  901. 1
  902. 1
  903. 1
  904. 1
  905. 1
  906. 1
  907. 1
  908. 1
  909. 1
  910. 1
  911. 1
  912. 1
  913. 1
  914. 1
  915. 1
  916. "Too many eggs in one basket..."... Man no. You are thinking about it with strategies for one planet. What happens, when you encounter someone like the Orks, who can effectively field this huge units? One of the reasons, why we have abandoned really heavy stuff, wasn't because of all the things about them you have very correctly mentioned. No, it was because we have found a way how to pierce basically any kind of armor with much, much smaller weapons, because we have found an edge, how far can we take metallurgy. However, imagine for a moment fully functional energy shield. Such shield doesn't care, how long you fire all the small things you have, assuming power distribution system is up to the challenge, in theory, the only limit to your invulnerability is how much power you can feed that shield. This is the moment, when titans begin to emerge. Sure, they may be somewhat slow and lumbering, but they have range, they have awareness of the battlefield, so they can essentially behave as if self propelled artillery when dealing with smaller units and a tank at the same time. The only threat to it is something similar to it self or even bigger, because weaponry producible for something this big would deliver in one punch much more energy than all the smaller arms combined, possibly collapsing the shield for a short period of time, making the smaller weapons and swarm tactics effective again. It doesn't matter, that you have all the eggs in one basket, when that basket doesn't crack or let those eggs break. The second problem is the resources. Sure, on Earth, something like the Maus is likely the largest practically buildable. There is only so much in terms of resources, but in space... Once economy becomes large enough, you will find even these titanic units fairly commonly. It's even better visible among the fleets. Assuming same efficiency, bigger ship with less stuff to power passively and more weapons will always have an advantage over smaller ships. I don't care there is more of you, if I can snipe you one by one long before you enter range of your energy weapons. Assuming high level of automation, larger ship doesn't need to resupply that often, because it's crew requirements don't scale as quickly as with additional ships in the fleet. I would always favor Dragunov over RPD. Doesn't matter, you carry more bullets per second and more bullets in the magazine, if you can't get in to range... But my Dragunov does me no good, if I can't pierce tanks armor. And finally resources again. When there is a huge plenty to be had, like when the faction counts hundreds and thousands of planets, it doesn't matter, that these units are being built, because it's not that big of a drag on overall economy. Just look at how outdated are tanks as a concept these days, precisely, because they can be easily destroyed by much smaller weapons, and yet, they are still strategic assets in most modern armies, but how big economic impact they have on that military? This is even more important in case of Tyrranids. Those bio-titans are actually even more efficient than anything made of metal, because unless the Tyrranids get defeated, even felled bio-titans get reabsorbed in to the collective, meaning there is actually no economical loss other than time it took to grow the thing!
    1
  917. 1
  918. 1
  919. 1
  920. 1
  921. 1
  922. 1
  923. 1
  924. 1
  925. 1
  926. 1
  927. 1
  928. 1
  929. 1
  930. 1
  931. 1
  932. 1
  933. 1
  934. 1
  935. 1
  936. 1
  937. 1
  938. 1
  939. There's whole host of reasons for this. 1) If you own a piece of land, you can't build a dwelling on it. It needs to be prezoned for residential purpose... which makes spread between farming land and construction slab some twenty to to forty to one... 2) Landlords don't have any incentive to lower their income by lowering rents, and have all the power to shift ANY increases in costs and taxes on to the tennant. Meaning that landlords essentially created a cartel, without ever meeting. We Czechs deregulated rents a while back with promisses of lower rates and better maintained buildings, because the market would force home owners to compete... But someone with microeconomics 101 course under their belts would tell, that doesn't happen to a service, that's this price inflexible as housing! 3) Environmental regulation for new construction forces all of us to invest more in unnecessary things like solar panels, or having to use thermal pumps instead of gas, coal or wood furnaces. The green ideology is coming home to roost. Only those, who don't support it, now have to pay the price of it in completely unaffordable housing, returning us to the effective status of serfs. Basically all other environmental regulation inteisifies this problem, because it increases other costs of living and holding down a job, while not providing corresponding increases in incomes, meaning, people have to save longer for down payment, which is all but preempted by points 2) and 4). Making life more expensive is not going to help and will not save the planet either. 4) Employers are not willing to hire and pay at rate of minimum economic wage (one that covers housing, food and drinks, clothing, expenses to hold down the job, transportation and some small past time activities). I take wage just below median. My wage would have to double, if it were to satisfy the above mentioned definition. As a result, I and others like me, have to stay with our parents in our childhood rooms, instead of setting up and raising families of our own and having children. Currently, even families earning median wage qualify for housing assistance from the state, how low wages are. So, what needs to change? 1) Land ownership needs to guarantee ability to build any housing for one self and their family, irrespective of parcel type. 2) Rent controls need to be brought back, along with huge empty homes tax. Accounting of landlords needs to be made public. The aim being, to force properties owned by investors to get activated, turning them from investment to rental properties, or get them on the market to be sold to actual families living in them. 3) All environmental regulation needs to be scrapped. 4) Employers need to be forced into hiring people, training them for their jobs and paying them a living wage. No more crying, that they can't find the talent, when those same companies are turning away graduates. Note that I didn't mention interest rates so far. That is, because they mean nothing for housing! Housing is one of basic necessities to maintain income, kind of like fuel for your car or a tram card, meaning, you always pay, what the last housing unit costs, irrespective of price! Interest rates work for consumer loans, not mortgages, because a drill or a fishing rod are not a freaking house! Those you can go without!
    1
  940. 1
  941. 1
  942. 1
  943. There is a fundamental problem with everything being connected to a third party, be it manufacturer or anyone other, than the person, who owns it. Imagine these kinds of shenanigans with pacemakers. You won't pay subscription, we'll turn it off. You're accused of being a racist (something which is actually not a crime, just acting on it for those reasons) and Amazon turning off your pacemaker (we all know, that Amazon will enter that field eventually). Or imagine you not being able to start your car, because it detected higher than permitted emissions of CO2... Yeah that's in Euro 7! The problem is, I really don't see many ways out of this. You'd have to reform copyright and patent laws to the extreme. You need to understand, when a company "dies", it's "corpse" doesn't just whither in the sun. Vultures come and tear it apart. That is why we never got FreeSpace 3 and what contributed to such a long hiatus in Star Trek. One company owned one part of the rights, second the other, but you need consent of both, to do anything. And these new owners will want exorbitant fees, if they were to let others use now their property, which encompasses any services being provided, that they bought from a dead company (like Nvidia did with 3dfx SLI), because this way, they can increase their revenue, while having little to no expenses. You'd essentially have to end trade of appreciable intangibles... which would wipe out a lot of worlds GDP, cause there is no way, you could do this in one state or coutnry, if desired effect were to be obtained. And that's before you'll get the "someone will kill you over WiFi attack ads"
    1
  944. 1
  945. 1
  946. 1
  947. There's a bigger problem here. Not all goods have the same inflation as others and there are goods, which will always be bought. Take housing (which some nations don't bring in to account when measuring inflation), energy, transportation, Internet access, meat, vegetables, cooking oil, cheese... A lot of the things in your traditional CPI are consumer goods and services, like computers, cars, vacations... Really things, which only a small fraction of society buys on a regular basis. So what I'd do, is I'd create a CPI variant, which would measure the highest costs of basic necessities to ascertain basic costs of living. As for not taking technological innovation in to account, I think it should not be taken in to account. Why? Two reasons. One. Because, while there is the argument for including it to make the measure more precise, including it would shift the reported number to higher income bracket in the society, suddenly, you'd not be overestimating for people, who can afford to buy more efficient stuff outright or through help of reasonably interested loans, thus lowering one, sometimes very substantial part of CPI, you'd be underestimating inflation for those, who can't afford these capital expenses. That is the first problem. The second is unpredictability of technological change. Say a well off family would buy a new, more efficient fridge. That is demonstration of what was shown in the video. Consumption of electricity is lowered and inflation on that particular good/service should be lower. However, that assumes no other change had occurred! Say said family was family of gamers and graphics card in one of the gaming rigs owned by the family had died or gone so obsolete, it is no longer relevant for modern titles, so the family replaces this graphics card with a 3090 TI. Graphics cards are the most power hungry parts of a computer, meaning that due to effectively maintenance, whatever savings in terms of energy could be partially offset due to technological innovation, all be it in a different field. Now some might argue, that you need to measure taking only one change in to consideration, as to measure the effect. However, that argument falls on it's face, because of the time horizon that's measured by inflation, which typically is a year. What we really need is whole set of statistical information to evaluate the situation and take the right action. For instance, to take a more targeted action to reduce inflation in particular component of CPI, not just utilize the blunt instrument of monetary policy.
    1
  948. 1
  949. 1
  950. Come to think about it. You are socialist even in red states compared to Czech Republic. One, as unemployed, I have to go to interviews, which labor office set's me up with. One guy took my papers, filled them in as "rejected" and then started an interview, by the way. And yes, we actually have to get potential employers to sign us papers and have three business days to sort them out. Most employers don't really care for this, and refuse to see us in that window, meaning if you get a bad clerk, you could end up with nothing, even though you've been doing everything within your power, to get hired. Two, I have to submit my earnings from gig jobs and part time work, because I can earn up to half of minimum wage, to spur my living a little. I have to submit these, even if I earned a zero, simply because I have a contract somewhere. Three I have to submit my own activity to obtain a job. Four, I have to come once a month, after a while (baring covid) once every two weeks to the office to work out, what to do next. Five, Even with all this, unless I have 12 consecutive months of employment on actual employment contract, I don't qualify for anything, but my social and health insurance. No money for rent, no money for food, nothing. Six, I have to attend seminars every once in a while, where they tell us, how we need to want to work, completely ignoring, that it's usually not us not wanting to work, it's the employers, not wanting to train! Miss any of these, and I'm off the unemployment benefits, what ever they are, and because it's mandatory to pay at least social and health insurance, I'd have negative cash flow, even if I could live and dine for free!
    1
  951. 1
  952. 1
  953. 1
  954. 1
  955. 1
  956. 1
  957. This is simple, really: 1) Europe has been taking in pro environmentalist policies for decades now, sinking money into anti-growth measures aimed at "saving the planet". 2) Europe has doesn't focus itself enough on Africa, which has a huge market and is expected to grow. Instead of securing itself as continetn's major supplier of foodstuffs and actually productive infrastructure (powerlines, non-green power generation, water management, road and rail transport, healthcare), it focuses on completely useless projects to attempt to stop climate change, which is fighting windmills. 3) Europe fails at anti-propaganda efforts. Instead of destroying Russian propaganda base in Africa and within it's own borders (for long time, this had been Russian embassy to Czech Republic and had since moved to Hungary). This has lead to dissolution of nuclear power in Germany, current problematic status of Hungary, creation of anti-EU parties in most of Europe and shakey 4) Europe has adopted (to some degree) woke culture coming in from the US, which leads to inept people being promoted, when competent people are forced out of their positions on grounds, that have nothing to do with actual job being done. What needs to happen, to stop this? 1) Repeal Paris aggreement and vast majority of environmental protections EU wide. 2) Reformulate CSR. This must cease to discriminate againt certain industries. Employee compensation in real values needs to be made much larger part of it, replacing environmental concerns. 3) Incentivise mining and processing industry in Europe by lowering their tax rate 4) Ensure as cheap energy as possible. Severe punshments for lobbying on behalf of large scale wind and solar. 5) Create it's own propaganda machine, to shape public opinion abroad. End apologies for colonial era. 6) Union wide strict requirements for surplus public budgets. Simplify tax law in general, with greater emphasis on consumption taxes and VAT.
    1
  958. 1
  959. 1
  960. 1
  961. 1
  962. 1
  963. 1
  964. 1
  965. 1
  966. 1
  967. 1
  968. 1
  969. 1
  970. That is one way of looking at things, however, let me draw Chuck Norris in to this... a few years (decades) back, Chuck was called as expert witness in a case involving the use of firearm against someone unarmed but trained in martial arts. Whether in such circumstances the use was justified. The prossecutor requested a demonstration of effective use of martial arts against someone with a firearm. After four times, when the prossecutor couldn't aim an unloaded sidearm, courtesy of the bailif, at Chuck, before he had Chuck's foot in his chest, the case was decided in favor of the gun holder. So much legal anals There is a similarity here. Much like with martial arts. Unless the person in question show's signs of his condition (be it kimono with a black belt or unstoppable caugh), one can't tell, whether the other person is dangerous or not. There is a considerable portion of infected people, who are completely asymptomatic and thus may appear harmless, but can actually be harmful to be around. That combined with a standing order (if still enforced) could lead to exonoration. There is a major pandemic about. There are people on the fringes of the society, who refuse to wear masks/vaccinate, who actually do spread the desease. Not all of them, but they are the more common ones. If we take all of this in to consideration, Could a reasonable juror find, that it was someone could believe, he/she is in imminent mortal danger? Given the general coverage of the epidemic by the media, I'd say yes and therefore the use firearm of firearm should be considered legal and thus called for. (obligation to retreat aside, as that isn't really an option here, given the shooter's occupation.)
    1
  971. 1
  972. 1
  973. 1
  974. 1
  975. 1
  976. 1
  977. 1
  978. 1
  979. 1
  980. 1
  981. 1
  982. 1
  983. 1
  984. 1
  985. 1
  986. 1
  987. 1
  988. 1
  989. In Czech Republic, when there is a drought, all open fire use is actually banned by the authorities throughout the country. You can't even smoke in forests! So why the hell was this gender reveal paty carried out is beyond me. When I make a fireplace in such conditions, I make it on the river. Not next to it, on the river itself, precisely because of quick extinguishing! But with all seriousness, there are serious questions regarding damage compensations. There have to be limits on what people are liable in terms of their income lost to these compensations. While it is just to demand those, who have caused something, to fix it, it must not put those responsible in poverty... Looking at campfires going out of control or plane catching fire after a crash kind of things. There need's to be a deeper look in to causes of fires. California is notoriously dry and loosing water fast, therefore, looking in to forest composition is neceseary. There is a liability question on states hands, because the state knows about the status of their forests, why did they not take action and begin to change forest composition? If it did take such action, why did it fail? Also, what about the status of infrastructure in the country? Sure, it might be private, however, the state should be able to evaluate the status of infrastructure and, if neceseary, take corrective action and then recoup the expences from the owner, which in our powerline case, would have been some logging, presumably of dead pine trees just waiting to light up, and a short lawsuit! Not to mention a fine addition to Legal Eagle's collection. From this angle, it would seem that the tax payer has some liability on his hands regardless of who started the fire. There should have been technological, agricultural and forestry based precautions in place to prevent forest fires. Sure, I am going fairly deep in to proximate cause teritory, but I believe, that if proximate cause is cascading towards these kinds of damages, they need to be exhaustingly explored and strictly scrutinized. Note that I don't deal with conduct of those, who started that fire. I don't take them in to consideration, because human stupidity is infinite. There will always be someone stupid, spiteful or greedy enough to disobey any directive or ban.
    1
  990. 1
  991. 1
  992. 1
  993. 1
  994. 1
  995. Ordinary citizens don't have more capacity to save and invest. Unless one already owns a home, they are subject to landlords, which can workout or even demand disclosure, how much money a person makes, and set their rent at such a level, that the tenant can't ever save for down payment on their own house. The idea here is, that if someone gets a house of their own, even on a fixed mortgage, they'll stabilize the largest expenditure they have month-on-month basis for a number of years, whereas their income should increase over same period of time. Rent on the other side, will increase every year without question (baring rent controls). Then there is transition from owning to operational leasing of goods, which producers, eg. companies are pushing down our throats, sometimes completely disallowing perpetual ownership of a product, or making it ineffective investment (as rule of thumb, investment in a tool should completely return in 5 years), forcing a normal Joe to "rent", what he otherwise could acquire for good year on year. Take MS Office as an example. The government also plays a part in this, forcing people into purchasing less effective and in the long run therefore more expensive services and/or goods. Take electric cars, which are more expensive than conventional ones and will always be more expensive (due to higher volume of refining of greater variety of materials, when compared to normal cars), which are currently pushed by governments, in order to battle climate change. In the past, thanks to relative simplicity of a car, one could fix them himself, lowering total cost of ownership of an asset (yes car is an asset, in spite of whatever financial gurus are saying. Car gives you greater range to access either net lower priced housing or higher paying job), when compared to modern cars and especially electric cars, allowing them to retain greater amount of wealth by "working on their own", which incentivized longer period of ownership of said asset. This has gotten less and less possible, due to increased complexity of cars, which culminated in EVs, where owner could prevented from even learning, how to fix their car under pretense of safety. To illustrate, my grandfather owned and drove the same car for twenty years and fixed everything on it himself. That is unthinkable with a modern car and impossible with an EV, because after twenty years, battery of that EV would be completely dead and that is the most expensive component of that car! Even modern cars with internal combustion engines have become so complex, an individual without very specialized and therefore expensive tools, can't touch anything on their own cars, forcing that person to seek out services of a certified mechanic, often times controlled by car manufacturer, who retains a part of mechanics profit through access to knowledge base and tools necessary to fix the car. (I'm looking at you John Deer, I'm looking at you!) These rent seeking practices lower a persons ability to retain wealth, hence contribute to greater economic inequality.
    1
  996. 1
  997. 1
  998. 1
  999. 1
  1000. 1
  1001. 1
  1002. 1
  1003. 1
  1004. 1
  1005. These eco-idiotic arguments about electric cars show, just how much they don't understand cars and how urban-centric they are. 1) a tank of a car wil never change, while battery of an EV degrades over time. And no, cheating with spare capacity doesn't change that fact. Most people can't afford a new car, especially in poorer countries, meaning they'll never buy an EV, however, they still need a car to get places, most importantly work! Your energy efficiency is NOT important factor, when buying and operating a car. That is, what allows you to work, do business, get your loved ones to a hospital, when they feel pain (you don't call an ambulance, cause the tooth needs to go out, but damn, you're not going to sit around a watch your kid in pain), meaning you'll pay whatever is necessary to maintain that car and use it at all times, while maintaining minimal impact on your budget. This translates to not spending large amounts of money upfront, which is precisely, what buying an EV is, when compared to similar petrol car with a reasonable 2 liter engine. That petrol car will be there for such emergencies, because it will not be discharged by the grid (something some ecos proposed to offset the need for energy storage due to abundance of wind and solar outside of consumption hours and nil generation in peak consumption hours, to use batteries of privately owned cars), because it has it's own fuel tank, which doesn't shrink every year or two, meaning a petrol car will largely have the same range throughout its lifespan. Furthermore, going EV doesn't address the underlying problem, the need to regularly commute because 2) Not everyone can work remotely, given the nature of their job, and not all employers are open to the idea of 100% remote. Better solution, than going for a costly energy transition in transportation industry, specifically with private transportation, would have been to reduce demand for commuting, by encouraging work from home, where possible, en bulk shopping and researching machinery to reduce the amount of man hours needed to work in jobs, which have to be done in person and retraining people towards remote friendly fields. This way, you've turned a daily driver into weekly+leisure driver, which would more than half the amount of CO2 and other emissions produced by privately owned automobiles and it wouldn't cause a slew of other environmental and geopolitical problems along the way (most of the necessary minerals are found in Russia, most of material refining is done in China in this field, precisely because it would not be feasible in the West due to environmental protections and emmission limits). That Lithium, that Cobalt, that Copper all have to be mined and refined! (well, not so much for copper, but can't recycle all that much) Which have their own environmental impacts. EVs are more metal intensive than normal petrol cars, that is undisputable fact. Funny how no environementalists are talking about this side of EVs. Energy storage and utilization systems simply need to work in concert with each other. Until a battery can be invented, that will not degrade over time (which is impossible thanks to laws of physics), cheif problem for an EV will remain. That is why I strongly believe in hybrid cars and synthetic and fossil fuels. Hybrid cars offer a solution to a problem, that cities have, which is air pollution. You can outlaw use of internal combustion engines in large cities under normal circumstances (ex exception when towing something, fine being forgiven, if driver presents repair bill from a shop, which shows battery swap or other repair, which removed problem rendering full electric unusable etc.). This would remove at very least half of all emmissions from private transport in big cities and it wouldn't force us down a technological path, that is simply inferior with no way back, all the while contributing to improving air quality in the cities. Solving an actual, solvable problem, while maintaining the key characteristics of the car, not to mention, that a hybrid is less resource intense than an EV.
    1
  1006. 1
  1007. 1
  1008. You do realize, that eco-friendlyness is chief culprit for this mess, right? Where do you think, those regulations, which hit hydrocarbon sector come from? People fall en mass for a scam, that we don't need hydrocarbons, that we can live without them, that we'd be better off without them. You know, basic ecology talking points oversimplified. Polititians either fall for it too, and/or cinically use it to get reelected. Their electorate begins to demand an actual change, so they begin to move in terms of policy certain way, to appease their electorate, and banks either wait or begin to ditch oil ang gas in anticipation of further sector harming legislation... and we're, where we are. The whole problem with ecology, is that it has shrunk to one question alone. Global warming and refuses to see other solutions, then production equivalent of austerity, however, people who peddle this don't realize the reality of the situation. Say we'd stop using plastics at all. What would we displace them with? Could you imagine integrated circuits of computers with other carrier material than plastic? What about bottles? Imagine, how much would a your standard 2l bottle of your prefered bevarage weigh! How do you carry that on you at all times? In my travels, I used to carry on foot five leters of water just for my self. How much heavier would my backpack get, if I were to use glass instead of refilled pop bottles? And remember, glass is the only sensible alternative to plastic here! And what about lost merch as result of breakage? Who'd carry the losses from that? Companies would have to calculate that in to costs of final product too. There is this ted talk, you might want to watch: Why renewables can’t save the planet by Michael Shellenberger. I think, you'll find it illuminating.
    1
  1009. 1
  1010. 1
  1011. Louis, Politicians never have actual solutions. The only people, who have solutions are engineers and specialists in their respective fields. What would I do? Well, step number one. Suspend the market. For the duration of the problem, which need's to be overcome, there must not be any changes to prices. In times of crisis volatility increases, and since revenues of ones are costs of others, and costs are much less downward flexible, what you get is increased inflation. It may look small, but in places like New York, that will be enough to cause such social breakup, as we see. For this reason, prices must be artificially frozen. The same would happen to Utilities and Internet access, with the added caveat, that the government would pay them directly. Right now, access to infrastructure and information is key, so the government would have to handle this. Step two. All loans are suspended. Their repayment is postponed and no interest is accrues on any loaned money for the duration of the crisis. As long as obtaining money is made artificially harder or impossible, any investor has no right to achieving any growth of his portfolio on those investments, that are in the affected sector. If real economy isn't growing, financial markets shouldn't either, because there is no source of that wealth, and we're back to inflation problem from before. Step three. Handouts. I know, how unpopular this would have been, especially in the US. Every person, who could prove he lives in a particular area would be given a set amount of money to suffice him for basic necessities, those being food, beverages (not just water) and clothing. Plus, any one would be able to ask for money for medicine, they require. Same would apply for any reasonable repairs. These two sets of money would be paid out backwards against receipts. Step four. slow start of local economy. Unemployed would be called upon to help out in hospitals and other places, which deal with increased volume of demands for their normally provided goods and services. University students would also be pulled in to service, most importantly medics, their studies extended by one to two years free of charge on all universities. This would never be compensated for. Step five. Distribution of firearms. These steps would eventually fail. They could deal with a smaller crisis, but ultimately, the only thing, that can keep people in check, is fear. Knowing, that every person around them is carrying, not that they just may carry, will provide a disincentive to violence, and will swiftly deal with violence, once it erupts. It's not nice, it's not a good solution, but at this point, you've run out of less painful options. Just as you said Louis, there is not a whole lot to do, once you're in the rapids in a canoe with a hole in the middle and no paddle. Step six. Restart of the economy and slow shift back to normal. When things begin to calm down, different activities would be gradually removed from restrictions, starting with those, which stabilize the most populous sectors, allowing them to build up some money, which then can move up the ladder and help restart the economy from the ground up. Just like when you're building a house, you begin with the foundations, not the roof. While this is phase is going on, tools are being made available to prevent some of the problems from occurring again. First of these, would be a multiplicator of taxes on any unoccupied property and a couple of thousands inspectors hired, to check this, including door busting gear. Any and all business real estate would be subject to inspection. The idea is, that increased costs of ownership of unoccupied space would incentivize leasing it out, because at this point, you're saving money even when leasing for a dollar. Otherwise, the building would show up on the market eventually, because nobody can maintain the those costs long term. The city would buy these abandoned buildings, if no one else did for a while, and repurpose it, in to what is needed in the city, such as more decent quality housing. Welcome, to the desert of real.
    1
  1012. 1
  1013. 1
  1014. 1
  1015. 1
  1016. 1
  1017. There is another problem with the EU. That fails to understand, that only while there is sufficient economic growth, euroskeptic voices don't have valid arguments. Yes, we're at war now with Russia, though not officialy declared, so now is not normal time and before, there was Covid, but even before Covid, the EU, specifically the Commission, had been pushing for anti-growth green agenda, claiming it's necessity for climate change. As a result Europe lost huge amount of manufacturing and material processing to China, and is now losing it to USA, thanks to no proper response to US Inflation Reduction Act. One more correction, Czechs are not against Euro.Companies are already trading with eachother in Euros and they preffer loans in Euros too (given interest rate differential). If you do a lot of export trade, you can run your books and even pay your obligations to the state in Euros and other major currencies (new thing I think from a year or two ago). Banks are already providing multi currency accounts and our parliment approved of exporters paying a part of sallary in foreign currencies, which suggests there is demand for income in Euros (this being first step to test the concept). I have also been to a townhall with one of my former employers, where request for partial sallary payments in Euros were discussed. The way I see it, there is a very vocal minority, that opposes Euro and anything related to the EU, that is mostly centered around SPD. Even ODS has its pro-Euro block, mostly people to do with export, as could be seen recently in the news. Their opposition to the EU stemms from claims of overregulation (argueably) and green idiocy (definitely), that is currently in power in Bruxelless. Then there is much quieter minority, admittably somewhat smaller, centered around the Pirates, that want Euro yesterday. The problem is, vast majority of people are indiferent and follow golden rule of IT, "When it's not broken, don't fix it.". However, even that is changing. We have effectively become bi-currencial economy already, so I see us accepting Euro eventually, maybe even in under a decade.
    1
  1018. hoho, careful there! The rich and yes, even the megarich are a part of society, they have to have a voice in a democracy and if the public puts their trust in them by voting them in, you cannot say, they are a threat to democracy, because at that point, they are legitimate. If you want to see actual rich man, who is much closer to being a threat to democracy, look at former premier and minister of finance of Czech Republic Andrej Babiš, who at the time of his first candidacy and until fairly recently owned initially directly and later through a trust Mladá Fronta Dnes newspaper and their publishing house along with a massive agro-chemical empire, which at the time was and I believe still is one of the most read newspapers in the Czech Republic. There a threat to democracy could be argued, given that he could have made the newspaper publish and more importantly not publish stuff about himself per his choice, hence mislead the electorate! Just owning so much you could buy Jamaica alone does not and can not disqualify someone from holding a public office and it is the duty of the electorate, to watch like a hawk, what their elected officials do and judge them on that merit. But this rhetoric here... That's just going full communism and for what that does to society, look up something by Serpentza, I promise, you'll have nightmares. ps: "Why not tax wealth?". Since these two are cowards enough to leave that question unaswered, let me answer it for you. Maybe because it was taxed once as income already? If you want to tax people more justly, scrap income tax, forget about wealth tax, double VAT and create additional consumption taxes on stuff, that actually has negative effects on society and tie them to countermeasures (junk food tax to help support the NHS, petrol tax along with tolls to be income of National Highway authority, etc.)
    1
  1019. 1
  1020. 1
  1021. 1
  1022. 1
  1023. 1
  1024. 1
  1025. 1
  1026. 1
  1027. 1
  1028. 1
  1029. 1
  1030. 1
  1031. Yeah, nope. Taxing the rich won't help. Let me explain on an example of a landlord. Because all landlords are the same, they all want the same thing, which is certain return on their investments in the homes they bought and now are renting out (if they're renting them out). If you increase taxation of the rich, from calculation standpoint, you'll only increase their necessary financial inputs, which they'll just turn around and pass to the tenant in the form of increased rent based on recalculated ROI on their investment in the housing stock they've procured earlier, to cover the change in available cash flow to them (tax becomes cash flow to the state). Because the owners can demand more, they will demand more, as prices are downward inflexible, so effectively, you've created inflation. No, the only way to achieve the desired outcome, would be to devalue the assets owned by the rich at fundamental level. That means reform copyright and patent laws, to make these assets within a lifetime (ideally no more than five years) worthless, thus removing the incentive to hoarding it. In terms of housing, any and all not safety caused zoning must be repealed to allow construction of new housing. Repeal mining limits and environmental protection laws (funny, how it's mostly the West, that's plagued by this... the rich west) to cut down price of materials produced by said mining. Certain things in the economy must be definancialized (education, housing, etc.) and made into public assets available to anybody at all times for free (or at least paid by taxes and actual donations). Particularly schools must be strictly made non-profit institutions and must be strictly prohibited from purchasing anything tailor made for them (either as individual schools or as a system member). Anything, that universities procure in terms of research must be public, free of charge accessible information (including without ads). etc. etc. This is not communism. This is no communism. It's only putting proper limits on capitalism, so it can't get off the leash like it had over the past twenty or so years.
    1
  1032. 1
  1033. 1
  1034. 1
  1035. no, maximum efficiency of anything electrical is NOT 100% That is literally only achieved, when burning stuff to produce heat. We even have over 100% efficient fuel burning boilers, because hot water for us to use as well as a side product, which can be utilized (read among other stuff on Thermoelectric effect). You need to subtract inefficiencies setemming from changes in voltage, losses due to conductor resistance over lenght used, storage due to storage solution efficiency and degradation from consumption efficiency of the device you want to consume that energy And that's not even mentioning the desired final form that energy needs to be delivered in! This is, why it may be more efficient to transport coal by train certain distance using a steam engine (somewhere in former Yugoslavia is a mine and a power station, that to this day run old Nazi Kreigsloko locomotives), than burning it on site and transporting it as electrical energy by wires (because, you have to build the power station, power lines, maintenance infrastructure and eventually even that fuel transportation infrastructure, because , you will mine out that one location at some point) There are things, which cannot be electrified and don't have equivalent alternative to them selves. Passenger planes come to mind, because the battery would be bigger than the plane itself and dragging a massive solar cell kite behind it is inpractical to the point of impossibility. just one small example. And then we get in to real grit of economics and discuss the reliance on the grid and power generation systems, which don't produce power at user's command, but rather at whim of weather in one case, and some greedy exec's in the other... Would be such a shame, if you got disconnected for not paying exorbetent electricity prices, because you have no alternative now, would it...
    1
  1036. 1
  1037. 1
  1038. 1
  1039. 1
  1040. 1
  1041. 1
  1042. 1
  1043. 1
  1044. 1
  1045. I do have a slightly different angle to it. Just look at what and how we consume! In much simpler economy dominated by agriculture products, hotter areas with large navigable rivers have an advantage. They can trade and reliably grow foodstuffs. The latter part is still very relevant but, because of advances in agricultural technology, the competitive advantage from good soil is lost and then you have to deal with other factors. A farm with worse soil, that knows, how to compensate for the problem by using fertilizers and procedures, that limit pests, will have similar outcomes to a farm in perfect conditions. The new factor that enters the room is iron and steel tools. Capital goods, that those in hotter climate would be harder to use, given until invent of a tractor, you had to use animals like cattle or hroses to power things like plows or carts so large, a human wouldn't even budge with them, and gain fertilizer in the form of manure. The advantage that rises from combination of these factors for colder climate then is, that harvests become equal in volume but more predictable as more and more factors enter the production chain, because each factor other than weather, which is tied to climate, is less and less volatile. In a hotter region, where particularly animals can't be used to power the tools used in agriculture, capital goods have lesser impact on farm productivity and therefore are not so widely adopted, because other options would provide better outcomes, including just not expending the effort. To make things worse, as economies become more complicated, because more kinds of stuff gets traded, the more basic goods become less and less valuable to trade, meaning to maintain income, more and more quantities have to be realized on the market. So here is my argument. Because of how hotter climates interact with capital (eg. how usable that capital is in these regions), these regions get hit by a double whammy. 1) They don't adopt capital based agriculture model until it becomes sustainable under local conditions, which gives them centuries to millennia worth of developmental delay when compared to colder, temperate regions, more suitable for that kind of agriculture. And 2) because they don't adopt the use of capital goods in agriculture, their agriculture sector cannot support a larger population, that could produce more capital and capital goods than otherwise comparatively weaker temperate regions, compounding the problem.
    1
  1046. 1
  1047. 1
  1048. 1
  1049. 1
  1050. 1
  1051. 1
  1052. This is actually the correct thing to do You can always hire people, when you need them. You just put it in the contract, that it's for fixed term. Done. This can have limitations, but if you need to do this sixth time in a year with the same person, then this is on you buddy. Same goes, when someone's taking forever to do a job, that's failure to train and again on you. The answer is not to fire the guy, the answer is to train him and to motivate him. All in all, this all boils down to one question. What kind of business do you want to run? A one man show, which doesn't need to deal with this stuff, or you want to have employees, and then you need to go along with it all the way. And ultimately, you'll need to take a risk with this "maybe", employee, and if it blows up, find a way to make him productive in another way. Also, how long an email is unread is lame as a productivity measurement. One, employee might only marked as read emails, they are actively working on to be able to distinguish, what to chase and what wasn't touched yet. Better method would be to check someone's response rate. because only responded email were actually actioned. Or you can do a proper ticketting system (this is for a larger shops, but still) and hide the unnecessary data from the person, who's processing it. Customer gives ticket number, processor looks at how long it took to close down a ticket and doesn't see, who worked that ticket. Then, the person can decide on that discount and the employee is safe. Then there's your rant about employees doing more or less work than others and you, as the harder working employee see it. Well guess what, that's your sign, you should be looking for a new job, because you're the better employee, likely will get a new job, which is the only way you can advance your salary these days. Also, take some microeconomics courses... going for more is better, because then you have the room to cut back to, when things change. That's not an employer issue. Really, Louis. And I do mean this seriously. look at Joshua Fluke's videos on companies outside of the EU, such us USA or India, how these implemented surveillance of employees, including placing cameras in peoples residences! And this was in the UK! The company eventually backpeddelled but still. Technology is way too flexible, to disallow only certain abuse. It can circumvent precise bans, meaning, unfortunately, so you have to pour the baby with water, if you want set any boundries. It is you and other employers, who caused this. Legislation is usually not forward thinking. It is reactive. You might also want to look at statistics. Czechia is all the time chastised for how stringent our labor laws are... we're nowhere near France or Portugal in that regard and have 3% unemployment... and ketp that through covid. By your standards we're basically communism and we put the US in our pocket as far as our labor market's concerned.
    1
  1053. 1
  1054. 1
  1055. While it is indeed utrageous, to be able to earn 5K an episode, even that can be starvation wage. Why? What expenses do people have with maintaining them selves, so that they are fit for the job. To take a more to the earth numbers, let me take a Czech chief accountant, that actually deals with external parties. This is based of a real job posting I saw some three years ago, for which I was not considered. 1) must maintain knowledge and be at all times appraised about newest legislation in the law. Given the position also encompased payroll, that's about 20K CZK a year for subscription to an accounting database. Also, the accountant was expected to attend yearly seminars, also to be paid from his pocket. That's 3K CZK 2) Had to maintain presentable wardrobe, which in my case means black suits. Due to my obesity, I destroy trousers fairly quickly with them, so that's one jacket at around 7K and four trousers at 3K each, and about 1K per shirt at about two shirts a year due to wear and tear. That's 18K CZK a year on wardrobe maintenance, simply, because the accountant was expected to maintain dress code, when dealing with anyone in the office. 3) This was in office only job, so you have to calculate 12K CZK for car maintenance + gas a year. That's 63 thousand CZK, just to hold the job. It paid 360K CZK a year. one sixth of which, the guy had to spend, just to hold down the job. I ask, these hollywood stars, how much do they have to spend per episode, to hold down the job? Cause that needs to be deducted, if we are indeed to be outraged, by how much these people earn.
    1
  1056. 1
  1057. 1
  1058. 1
  1059. 1
  1060. 1
  1061. 1
  1062. 1
  1063. 1
  1064. 1
  1065. 1
  1066. 1
  1067. 1
  1068. 1
  1069. 1
  1070. 1
  1071. I think, he won't do it. 1) he knows, what Europe is capabale of doing to America and that Europe and China are fairly big business partners, particularly Western Europe. He's already showing the US as unreliable ally in Ukriane, where his allies can't be sure, whether he'll continue to support Ukraine, or feed it to Russia. Particularly if the latter happens, I believe Europe would reconsider it's approach to the US and a decoupeling would follow. If he then tried to block European trade with China via Panama, He'd burn all the bridges between the continents and Europe would do the same. It would ditch USD for international trade with the block and force Euro in it's stead. This would cause USD to plummet due to lower demand for the currency, which in turn would cause American importers to sh*t them selves as exporters still willing to export to US would demand more USD for their stuff, because the Dollar suddenly buys less than before. This lowering of trading volumes would in the short term cause pretty high inflation, if not outright hyperinflation. That is why Trump threatened BRICS to not do their own currency. He know's, what that would mean for his electorate, particularly if it were to get longer. 2) by middle investment outlook (1-3 years), he's looking at still present inflation, because USA doesn't have the machinery it needs for a lot of the stuff they consume, some of which is done in Europe (most importantly lithography mahinery that produces chips) and in China. So he's looking at a shock short term and higher than expected inflation leading up to midterms. There's potential, that he could live through what Obama had, when the Congress was split, be it through another split or just conflict with blue Congress and red President. 3) In the long term, the situation would stabilize (after about five years) and US economy would get stronger, because it would adapt and bring up production capacities to overcome the loss of imports. However, it's position in the world has diminished. It's best allies gone, it's currency relegated to trade between itself and other economies, not other economies between each other, as is now. It's institutions udnermined resulting in higher premiums demanded by international investors due to from said undermining stemming increased risks, so potentially underinvested economy and it's former ally rearming to the point of slowly becoming a credible threat to the USA. Trump needs to realize, what is America buying with it's actions and inactions. If he choses to go down this path, it will become clear, that the only deterrent against a nuclear armed enemy are your own nukes and then it's a matter of time, before somebody says "fuck it, there are too many humans on Earth anyway." and launches their nukes with explicit intent to cause retaliation. If anyone thinks, this is unhinged, let me remind you, what we've been through in the last decade! Nobody had over half of what happened on ther radar!
    1
  1072. 1
  1073. 1
  1074. 1
  1075. 1
  1076. 1
  1077. 1
  1078. 1
  1079. yeah, saying that DEI and ESG are both useless is straight moronic. Yes, DEI has it's problems, but they are more in implementation than in it itself. Different DEI approach are appropriate for certain departments within a company. There's a reason, why SAP hires autistic people for programming and financial positions. Folks with autism are better with systems and it is them, who help develop that piece of software. SAP is the leading ERP software for major corporations, btw. A diverse sales department can achieve better results, because as good as a salesman can be, if he also has better insight into te community he want's to sell into, he will have better results, because he'll evade cultural issues, that would offend potential customer and know, what cultural aspects of his client to exploit to sign the deal. Therefore, having highly diverse sales staff opens new markets and makes sales within them more efficient. high salary expenses in a company are also a good thing, because high slaries mean, that their employees can actually consume, thus driving demand for other companies goods and services, who them selves are in a certain fraction clients of the initial employer. Paying out high salaries accross the company is these days viewed as bad for the company, because in short term it increases costs, but in actuality, racing to the lowest salary possible and firing people is just hollowing out the market and undermining future sales. Everything produced has to be consumed eventually. That is the one law of markets that can't ever fall. That is the ecnomic fundamental, that has been forgotten by businessmen and politicians alike. Environmental stuff is bit of a double edged sword.The problem currently is, that companies can get outright fined or pay extra tax for what is perceived as envrionemntally unfriendly, again, lowering company profits. You have carbon tax, etcetera... It would appear, that the tide is changing on this particular thing electorally, but it will take time to throw all the environemntalist politicians out and there is the problem of pro environmentalist elites (who fly private jets). In the meantime, it's better for companies to preempt these fines and invest in themselves into production processes, that are ESG compliant.
    1
  1080. 1
  1081. 1
  1082. 1
  1083. 1
  1084. hm... Like it or not, this will require federal intervention. Why? Until recently, work didn't cross state lines and until even more recently, it was in relatively small number of professions, like train drivers, train engeneers, pilots, stewards... But now, with Internet being so ubiquitus and companies realizing, everybody can work from anywhere, especially with Starlink in the ISP game, new rules need to be implemented, because states like Tennesseee, Arkansas or West Virginia are gonna become magnets for young people, wanting to root in, thanks to cheap land for residential development, but the largest companies will remain in NY or Texas. The way I see it, this mess can be solved in two ways. One, the higher tax has precedence, but lower tax has priority. The most, that would have been payed is the higher rate, which then would be split betwene the states. For example, let's take states of Colorado and North Carolina, as it is easier, because they have flat tax rates. If a guy lived in Colorado, but worked for a company that is based in North Carolina, he would pay 5,25% tax, which would then break in to 4,63% for Colorado and the difference of 0,62 for North Carolina. And it would boost demand for accountants, because other states don't have flat tax rates and things can become very confusing very fast, as US wide, there are more than one change in tax law per day and accountants in the US can't keep up, so some federal involvement would be necessary even on state and municipal level for the system to work (I'm not talking full on dictatorship, I'm talking US wide yearly deadline for changes in state and lower tax codes after which all further changes would apply to the next). There is a huge drawback in this, however, because, when the scenario is flipped, all tax goes to North Carolina and Colorado get's nothing, but still has administrative expences with the company based in the state. This could be solved by splitting the tax evenly, but that would create incentives in state's with higher taxes to create special taxes on companies, that employ remote workers, to supplement this loss of income, which would likely translate in to lower wages for remote workers, which in turn would unleash a tsunami of discrimination litigation. Alternatively, a rule could be established, that taxes follow the contract and a rule for this rule, that only those state laws, in which either entity reside's are applicable. Meaning, if a guy worked for a New York company in Texas, he would have a choice, betwene Texas and New York law systems in terms of work and tax, however, this create's problems of their own, as a Texas sherriff might have to administer New York law, which, jurisdictional questions aside (as this likely violate's states rights), he may lack training for, and he would have to be at least knowlegable about all 51 possible jurisdictions (50 + DC and teritories), which is unreasonable requirement at best. At this point, the sherriff might rather be called Waleker, Texan Federal Labour Ranger. Not to mention the fact, that the core problem remain's, one of the states get's nothing, even though it does have expences with either that worker or the company. And not to mention the option of unions! How they are hated in the South aside, one company could end up with two seperate unions with very different scopes of power in one state, because of how they are rooted in NY and Texas law is very different, plus either would likely lack jurisdiction over contracts signed under the other law. Furthermore, such system is less predictable, as our guy from Texas could move to Florida for a while (like, taking care of elderly family member came up), and if the contract was signed under Texas law, a new contract would have to be signed, as Texas jurisdiction is no longer available. I really don't like income tax. Not because it's a tax, but because it doesn't tax capital equally to labour. And it's actually harder to get the money out of people and corporations alike, when compared of sales tax, property tax or VAT. When you tax consumption, you tax all means of production and thus reduce inequality, while filling the state coffers. Plus, the little guy has greater controll over his taxation, as he can simply consume less, as long as he can survive.
    1
  1085. 1
  1086. 1
  1087. 1
  1088. 1
  1089. This is a really bad idea. At best you've created third chamber of the parliment, as every law will go in front of the supreme court based on which party controlls the house, at worst, you've destabilised the court to the point it is not recognised as an institution by the people. Funny how Democrats are becoming undemocratic in this way. When I remember the commentary back at tailend of Obama administration, how much flack they gave about their nominee and now? It's the same, only parties have changed. I do think that number of justices need's to be odd as to ensure a split is less likely to occour, it could be tied to the number court circuits, however, even that has it's problems, because he, who would get in to enough power due to political pendullum going from greater extreme to greater extreme, could simply increase the number of court circuits, thus diluting the supreme court. I really don't like the ability for the supreme court to not always work en-block. Issues that get in front of supreme court are meant to be the most important and controversial decisions, with the greatest reprecautions for the nation from individual level all the way to society as a whole. This create's two requirements off the supreme court. One, that it's decisions should not be easily overturnable and it's decisions should be extraordinarily throughly reasoned. This aim's to provide as much stability in the legal system as possible. Therefore, strict scrutiny should be the only standard appliable in the court and justices need to know, that they can't be replaced, if they begin to rule in favour of controversial rights, because the more controversial the right, the greater wish for it to be remobed by the opposing party. The fact, that there are relatively few justices for life on the supreme court mean's that there is much lower potential for changes in the supreme court and thus greater stability and predictability in terms of court rulings. Case and point, abortions and guns. The common denominator here is, that the side that seek's to deny these rights, is the party that doesn't lose anything, as they in vast majority don't exercise these rights. Guns for democrats, abortions for republicans. However, if democracy is to remain functional and if nation is to not get devided, one can't buy what he want's and pay for it with someone else's resources, eg. only gun owners should have final saying in gun rights and only women should have the final saying in abortin cases, as until the child is actually born, it doesn't have rights and I'd argue it can't have rights, as it biologically can't exercise them, therefore health questions stemming from right to life and pursuit of happines of the mother should be the bench for these qustions. What if in order to persue happines, guns are necessary? What if it's not happines, but life (eg. hunting as means of obtaining food)? The same thing can be said about abortions, only with limiting the number of mouths to feed being the argument there, if we stay on the practical side of the discussion. I firmly believe, that the more controversial a right is, the more protection it need's and, if right is to be repealed, it need's to be universally or nearly universally supoorted and suitable recompense need's to be present as well. However, that doesn't end with only paying a monetary value in terms of money spent to purchase an item increased by inflation. As to return real value of the means to exercise the right. Future exercise of that right also has extraordinary value, that need's to be compensated, otherwise democracy becomes dictatorship of the masses against the minority on any specific issue, be it details like guns, abortions, drinking age or age of consent, or something greater, like the right to vote or hold public office. This then create's motivation to rebel and reduces legitimacy of any regime.
    1
  1090. 1
  1091. 1
  1092. 1
  1093. 1
  1094. 1
  1095. 1
  1096. 1
  1097. 1
  1098. 1
  1099. 1
  1100. 1
  1101. 1
  1102. 1
  1103. 1
  1104. 1
  1105. 1
  1106. 1
  1107. 1
  1108. 1
  1109. 1
  1110. 1
  1111. 1
  1112. 1
  1113. 1
  1114. 1
  1115. 1
  1116. 1
  1117. 1
  1118. 1
  1119. 1
  1120. 1
  1121. 1
  1122. 1
  1123. 1
  1124. Yeah, no kidding, operate at a level not based in reality... I worked for this company a while back. They introduced automation for payment allocations and, I think, they never properly tested the thing. Many, many, many Pounds later, I'm staring down a list many many remnants of incorrect allocations, because somewhere down the chain, somewhen, there were some errors, and nobody thought, that it might be a good idea, to have same reference number and invoice number in intries, so that reference number could survive in the records, so that the other company could doublecheck their records, whether they paid in full... We eventually managed to find out, which invoices had these remnants on them and when done, myself, my dear team mates and client's representative had a sit down with the CFO. And the CFO was like, "How could have this happened?", so I explained, very respectfully (I assumed, it was his idea, to do it like this) and recommended what to do to the system for any future situations... but in my head I was like "Dude, a human NEVER would have made such a mistake!" So to sum up. I assume, because company wanted to "save money on payroll", they axed large part of their accounting team before I was hired, and in the end, they had to form a six member team to investigate, what was going on, which took months! The CFO's general attitude seemed to me, "who needs account auditing and proper reconciliation process anyway?". The best part? Given the turnaround on this account alone, they could have hired a single accountant, let him/her do the reconciliations (even in the this volume, it was work for an hour or so), let him/her twidle thumbs for the rest of the day, and the'd still pay less than our team racked up in those few months it took to sort this mess out... And we had multiple accounts to chew through! But the CFO asked... "How could this have happened?".
    1
  1125. Oh I actually thnink, this is not as bad a strategy as it might seem. This maybe region specific, so take this with a pinch of salt. I know a lot of these prestigeous occupation people because of my former job. I can tell you, large portion of these people work mentally (I'm talking, lawyers, judges, accountants, CFOs, doctors), so they usually have some kind of physical hobby. Here comes the region specific part. Czechia is huge on DYI. We even produce our own version of Mecano as a toy. From a very young age, we become little engineers. Around here, if a woman had woodworking knowledge and skills, she could successfully hunt for her future husband in a DYI store, because she'd have the initial "icebreaker" subject to talk about. Say a guy were wondering, what kind of wood he needed for a project and were discussing this with someone (say a family member), she could chime in with her expertise and, either score a potential client, if the guy happens to be married, or maybe even a husband (say a recent divorcee). The key, is something you talk a lot about here on the chanel, Joker. The woman brings value to the man, in this kind of situation and can leverage it into closer contact with the man. The scenario plays out like this: After discussing the right drillbit for the guy's table project, she asks him, whether he wants some help with it. Option A) he refuses and the girl lost some time. Option B) he accepts and the do the project together, giving her the ability to evaluate him (yep, that's a sneak 100 first date). This too has a number of outcomes. A) she finds out, they are incompatible or he is married, in which case, she may cut the romantic stick and either keep the guy as a genuine client, or leave him with no hard feelings, or B) she find's out, he's either available or that she can steal him, so she starts to get closer to him and, because she has the contact, she can initiate the entire dating process in earnest at this point, leading to some "drilling" late at night, possibley even "mutual project of larger scale". Since this is contingent on prior knowledge or proffessional training, I aggree this would usually fail, but not for the reason of men being distracted by the actual reason they came to the store for. Rather, it is the lack of area specific expertise on the womans part, which would allow for inconspicuous initial contact to take place, causing this to fail.
    1
  1126. 1
  1127. 1
  1128. 1
  1129. 1
  1130. 1
  1131. 1
  1132. 1
  1133. 1
  1134. 1
  1135. 1
  1136. 1
  1137. 1
  1138. 1
  1139. 1
  1140. 1
  1141. 1
  1142. 1
  1143. 1
  1144. 1
  1145. 1
  1146. 1
  1147. 1
  1148. 1
  1149. 1
  1150. 1
  1151. 1
  1152. 1
  1153. 1
  1154. 1
  1155. 1
  1156. 1
  1157. 1
  1158. 1
  1159. 1
  1160. Non competes are not inherently bad. Problem is, the US has horrible legislation in this field. Where I live, you can have a noncompete aggreement as part of the job, so that you can't work in the same field and/or in the same role for a period of time. However, that comes witha B. That you are paid salary by that former employer, as if you were working for that employer and unless you breach it, you're fine, and the only way you breach it, is to breach it meaningfully (say you're an accountant and worked for accounting company, you can't go to another accounting company as an accountant, but can go work as accountant in a logistics company, or go work in a accounting company as an IT guy) and the only thing, that you can lose as a result of a breach, is the income, that you would have gained. That being said, even we don't see much in terms of income raises. Just before covid hit, we were running like a rocket ship, well beyond our long term economic capabilities. For literally decades, companies have been crying, how much we need more immigration and make the state smaller, because there are no people left in the market... And there probably really arent, given we're running around 3% unemployment long term and even covid didn't budge with it. After graduation, I couldn't find a job for two years and, after having a mental breakdown from my boss, another year. All the while employers were crying, how they can't find the people, promissing, how they'll teach everybody everything... while turning away first time job seekers... There is a video on youtube from 2017, it is in Czech by Český Rozhlas. Let me translate the headline, which I can assure you speaks of the content very descriptively and accurately. "Analyst: Companies offer minimum wage, and wonder about being ignored.". It is, as if companies didn't compete for the employees. If there is such a low unemployment, that company can't find an employee, it must take, who is available, pay them well and teach them on the job, everything that person needs. Yet that is universally not what we see.
    1
  1161. 1
  1162. 1
  1163. 1
  1164. 1
  1165. Ah, yess... the problem of radicalization... Why don't we, I don't know... remove the underlying problem? You know, the dread for bare existence stemming from low/not paying jobs and no jobs at all? I do wonder, how would it look like, if everybody had a decently paying job and low mandatory expenses. Forget about islam, if this happened thirty years ago, we'd be talking "How the hell did those basques get a bomb to Paris", or "Why the hell did IRA attack a third party government?". Even if you managed to deal with this particular flavor of radicalization, there will be another around the corner. Ecologysts, nationalists, communists, buddhists... and the list of things to identify with goes on and on. It's the same as guns. You'll ban guns, it's bombs and machettes next. You continue as things evolve, and suddenly, we all have McDonalds and Burgerking as the only things to eat, because we've banned ownership of cuttlery over some prime minister stabbed fifty times with a fork. No you have to solve the underlying problem, which in this case is living conditions so hard, people look for a soothing touch everywhere they can! People flock to any leaders, who claim to have the solution, like there is no tomorow but do they have the answers? No. So do you want to solve the underbelly of this monstrosity? Fine. Begin with ban on companies, that don't disclose final owners (im' talking forced dissolution of such companies). Put an end to tax evasion and start putting serius demands from companies to hire en mass. And ultimately, and here I think Macron actually did the good thing, get everyone in to universal school with strictly secular programme (and gun use training). As for keeping tabs on religious organizations, why not? Sure, let them be tax exempt, but demand an audit from them. The only thing I would have done is, I would want this from all religious organizations. Not just islamic ones, because it is only a matter of time, before tide shift's, and we'll all be thinking, "why the hell are Hindi burning down flags and hanging diplomats?".
    1
  1166. 1
  1167. 1
  1168. 1
  1169. 1
  1170. 1
  1171. 1
  1172. 1
  1173. 1
  1174. 1
  1175. 1
  1176. 1
  1177. 1
  1178. 1
  1179. 1
  1180. 1
  1181. 1
  1182. 1
  1183. 1
  1184. 1
  1185. 1
  1186. 1
  1187. 1
  1188. 1
  1189. 1
  1190. 1
  1191. 1
  1192. 1
  1193. 1
  1194. 1
  1195. 1
  1196. 1
  1197. 1
  1198. 1
  1199. 1
  1200. 1
  1201. 1
  1202. 1
  1203. 1
  1204. 1
  1205. You know, what I hate about current climate idiocy discord? Global warming, climate change, the big hot, the no winter years... call it what you want, is not simply a s physics or environmental problem. It's a socio-economic problem with key being economic part, all the while, all focus is on environmental concerns and even worse, only one segment of it. If Europe were to just meet it's climate goals, we'd have to work only for three hours a day, earning three hours worth of salary, which doesn't even cover food and lodging, forget cars (to get to the place of work, public transport is not the answer). We're being forced into vegetarianism and veganism, even though as species, we are omnivores ad face actual problems dealing with meatless diets, to the point of having to eat supplements, which someone with a wide food pallet containing meats and diary doesn't have to deal with. We are being artificially made poorer, as to prevent consumption. Problem is, the only true economic engine is consumption! Let's take GDP, for instance. It's Government consumption + individual consumption + investment (which is effectively deferred consumption, otherwise, why invest beyond a basic safety net) and net exports. Government can only spend as long, as it gets the money from it's tax residents, which only happens, when they are economically active. Meaning, slowing down individual consumption slows down government consumption with some delay (government debt is not infinite resource), there is no investment, because there is no need to produce more more efficiently at any time in the future, because the productivity boost from new gear is not enough to justify the expense (given the old stuff is already written off), hence no investment will take place and net exports won't save you, because only net exports contribute to your nation's GDP positively, meaning it is politically very hard to sell to become a net importer. Now, people always vote based on two factors. Their conviction and their current condition, with the latter being the more predominant one. Meaning you can't push it too far, the way the West had decided to go, because you either a) vote yourself out of power at some point, only being supported by the church of global warming (environmentalism is religion, given the amount of sacrifice being forced upon us to solve global warming), because people started to vote for those parties, which promised them economically better tomorrow or b) run out of resources as a state, because with every cut in production and on it dependent consumption to save the environment, you undermine your future efforts to save the environment, because even in spite of year on year increasing taxation, there is lower tax revenue. And that's assuming no scams get pulled in either environmental investments, nor in government spending aimed at preserving the environment! This is, why we need to selectively black out the sun, which is what Tf00t suggests.
    1
  1206. 1
  1207. 1
  1208. 1
  1209. 1
  1210. 1
  1211. 1
  1212. 1
  1213. 1
  1214. 1
  1215. 1
  1216. 1
  1217. 1
  1218. Duuude, you do not close bank accounts unless regulatorly have to! Take your business elsewhere, by all means, move your assets as you see fit, but do keep those cards and accounts open! Buy some kind of online accessible service from that country, that you'd actually use (like a newspaper subsciption or two. It's allways good to be kept informed about what's going on in the country, even if it's propaganda, so long that you know what it is), set up fixed transfers from a distribution account in that country with a bank, you actually trust and you're golden! Sure, it can be overwheling to keep tabs on what you buy and from where you pay it (I keep an Excel spreadsheet for this and I have banks in a single country), but there are benefits to this. One, you can access services and benefits of multiple banks, which can complement each other. For instance, my primary bank offer's the best travel insurance with their credit card in the country, but their non-SEPA international transfers are paid... My secondary bank allow's me a single such transfer free as a part of subscription, that costs one fourth of the minimum transfer fee. Another bank provide's me with rebate on my phone bill, which is substantial, given my backup Internet connection is on the same contract, best thing? This account is completely free for domestic use and I just need to run some money through it. So I put utilities on the account and it's automatic now. Don't even need to touch it beyond the couple of card payments I need to put on the debit card. I could even run the money through that account from one of my accounts with a second bank to another account with a third bank. Particularly if you're on the poorer side, things can get interesting, when dealing with multiple banks. And then there are the different investment products the banks offer, which are easier to get to throught that bank or even exclusive. Two, you never know, when your primary bank in a particular country goes bad. Hence, why it is good to have multiple banks set up in a "maintenance" mode. It eases transition. Three, there is deposit insurance to consider, depending on how much money you keep in a particular country. Four, if you have multiple streams of income, it helps keeping track of who paid you and who owes you money, as well as keeping track of expenses related to those earnings. Say you work for a company, but also rent out flats and land (very common where I live) and have a business in your name of some kind (say you spend your leasure time making and selling wine). In such a case, having three, maybe even four banks would be beneficial. You just use the bank, that receives your wage as your primary, pay your everyday expenses from there. Set up wire transfers for whatever expenses are to be paid in regards to your side hustles (utilities for rented out properties, taxes, whatever's needed for wine making), set up a recurring monthly wire for about half of net income on that account in a month to forward the money into the main, set up a maintainence order into a savings account with the other banks and once a year, you'll do reallocation of funds.
    1
  1219. 1
  1220. 1
  1221. 1
  1222. 1
  1223. 1
  1224. 1
  1225. You wish. Sure, India is a huge market, but how do you intend to compete with cards like Visa, MasterCard or Amex outside of India? For instance, in Czech Republic, Visa and Mastercard have almost the same offers, they are established and well received, local banks even combine these cards with other cards, such as Sphere, which bring other benefits. The only card, which almost isn't offered here, which is accepted though, is Amex and even that not everywhere. Why would someone go with RuPay, if they already have well established cards in their home currency or a foreign one, which work basically anywhere a person might travel to? How do you estabish a competitive network of services and bonusses across the world with such a weak market as India? Sure, it's vast, but very low buying power, meaning you need to have huge number of transactions to process to earn what others are earning. Case and point American Express! Their revenue year on year is higher than Visa, even though there are vastly fewer of these cards than MC or Visa. how do you compete with that, having much lower per-card revenue? You can't go with lower costs, because you're already in India and you have to provide services across the world, where there are much higher prices, costs to businesses are already very low with MC and Visa and customers are already set on those cards already present in the market? I have no doubt, that Rupay will attract a good base in India, maybe in exceptionally poor nations and probably in those nations, which have above standard relations with India. Bhutan and Nepal come to mind, but outside of that? I live in a pretty internatinal place. I have never seen a JCB, or UnionPay in my life and, as far as I know, none of the banks around offer these non-American cards. So no, I really don't think, that Rupay will be a true success. International cards will be one of the big three. "Why have a local card, limited in use outside of your borders, when you can have a global card?" will be the largest hurdle for Rupay to overcome and I really don't see a way for it to do so.
    1
  1226. 1
  1227. 1
  1228. Oh it is even worse. In order to have children, people of child bearing age must have intercourse. However, thanks to pro women laws being passed, how the family court works and more awareness of it, men are beginning to check out of intimate relations. I read somewhere, that over 30% of men under thirty have not had sex at all. Why? Women can chose, whom they'll let inside of them and, because they're hypergamous and have been more successful than men on the job market, thanks to the vast majority of university support programes aimed at them, as well as having better predispositions to actually finish a degree, supply of men successful enough to attract a woman is plummeting. Things have gone so far, that telling a woman the clear fact, that her greatest asset is her fertility, is considered an insult. On factual basis, that statement is correct, however. A man can't give birth. That's just basic biology. Now, how to address this? There is a number of solutions. 1) Political system could be retuned, demanding exclusiveness between right to vote and drawing on state pnesion. No right to vote means no incentive for the politicians to push through policies, that would benefit the elderly at the cost of the young. Pension should also be strictly calculated not from costs of living or any bonuses to enjoy one's time. Only what had been gathered in previous year may be dispersed among the elderly. 2) Worker centric employment contracts. It must become strictly employee purview, from where he would work, if the nature of the work permits it on a physical level. Eg. no more office space. No more commuting. If it can be done from home, it must by law be done from home and it can not be the employer declaring, what can and can not be done from home. This must be either patently clear (eg, can't build a house from home. There needs to be extremely special, hard to transport, not connectable to the Internet equipment involved) or it must be short term (as in a business trip to a foreign country). This would have twofold effect. One, it will allow people to disperse, hence return to the villages, and two, it would equalize housing prices, making the market whole again. 3) Construction of new houses must not be interruptable by anything. No right to object, no environmental protections may stand in the way. 4) The relationship between men and women must be reballanced. For the last fifty years, women have been pushed through hard with no requirements being levied on them, to counterbalance newfound rights. Women should become subject to a "Singles" or "Childless" tax in order to motivate them to lock down a man to raise a child with. Divorce and domestic violence laws must change to shield men from women, be it fake accusations (of both fatherhood or violence), in order to allow men to let their guard down and try again in the dating pool. Some 30% of men under 30 have never had intercourse! This statistic must be turned around, if we are to have more kids. 5) Any and all environmental regulations must be toned down to allow for sufficient economic growth. Europe needs to restart it's coal, nuclear, oil and gas power plants and stop further expansion of intermittent power sources. Polluting to generate power or heat must be free. No emission allowances or carbon tax allowed. 6) Discourse about this matter must be put under review. Currently, there are people out there, claiming it would be benefficial for the planet to have fewer people. These people must be stopped. Spreading of pro-environemtalist standpoints must be made illegal or at very least, costs must be front and center. If we knew, how much this is gonna cost and that we'd pay for it, noone would vote any green party into opposition, much less power. It would be a harsh wake up, but it may be necessary for our survival.
    1
  1229. 1
  1230. 1
  1231. 1
  1232. 1
  1233. 1
  1234. 1
  1235. 1
  1236. 1
  1237. Finally a video, which points out the problem with public transport! Yes, every change, every stop that the bus or train makes is a problem for everyday commuters! Take my case. I live in the center of the city of Brno, I used to commute to the outskirts for work. When my dad took me, even in peak traffic, where everyone is whining, about how bad cars are, as they sit in those cars, from my house to the office building I worked at took some 20 minutes, give or take 5 minutes, one way. Some 40 to 50 minutes both ways. Public transport? Had to walk to the tram. Then change to another tram and then to a bus, with final significant stretch of commute on foot again. It took me 45 to 60 minutes one way! That's hour and a half to two, if things got extra bad three hours through a city, that has probably the best public transport system on Earth! Really the solution for this is not public transport, nor banning cars in cities or even car ownership. No. The solution is, mandating those jobs, which can be made remote, remote. No more accountant going to the office every day of the week to handle invoices. Instead, once a week to deposit processed paper invoices, which he/she handled from home. No more comming to call center, to respond to clients. That can be done from home. It's the inflexibility of employers, who motivate vast majority of trips! It is, because you have to travel and be somewhere at fixed time frame, which doesn't confirm to public transport's schedule, which motivate's us to use the fastest possible private mode of transportation. And before anybody start's talking about bikes, I've got news for you. There will never be guarantee, that you'll live within reasonable commute time (say 30 minutes one way) from your working place by bike. That's simply utopia. There are two solutions, which help cities. Two solutions, which can go hand in hand to actually solve cities problems. They won't solve climate change, but they will solve smog. First. By mandating all positions, which don't require physical access (I'm talking manually swapping sheets of steel in a machine levels of physical access) to be strictly remote positions, you'll turn daily drivers into weekly+joy riders. That's cutting driven kilometers by at least half, at no costs to public coffers and potentially cutting cost to employers as well, not having to rent office space. Bigger homes, which will be required for people to work from home will likely increase in price. That is the only drawback Second. All new cars can be mandated to be plug-in hybrids with internal combustion engine and 20 to 30 kilometer battery. This way, cost of the battery is lowered, which is the most expensive part of an EV. Battery degradation doesn't affect the car that much, as on longer drives, or when hauling something, it would still use normal engine, and the base, from which the battery would degrade is lower and there can be a mandate, to use electric drive only, when in normal use, in particular zones or even entire cities, because those are not such long distances, that need to be taken. Price of batteries and their inherent properties (including their carbon footprint), is what's killing the EV market.
    1
  1238. 1
  1239. 1
  1240. 1
  1241. 1
  1242. 1
  1243. 1
  1244. 1
  1245. 1
  1246. 1
  1247. 1
  1248. 1
  1249. 1
  1250. 1
  1251. 1
  1252. 1
  1253. Taxing the rich won't work. The rich can just pack up their shit and leave. They have the money to rent a couple of containers put in their worldly possessions, buy a nice plot of land with cash... and have the house they lived in in the UK rebuilt on that property. No, this won't work, because that tax base will simply run. Hell, there are youtube channels these days, which serve as advertising for entrepreneurs and companies, that outright help the rich dodge taxes! I for one believe, that going green was BS to begin with. That it destroyed our industrial base (all over Europe), so I'd not cry, if we killed that off. That being said, I do see potential in changing taxes. I believe that Trump mentioned, while rambling, destination based cash flow tax. I read a tad about it and I like the idea. Assuming, after the war, an agreement were reached on implementing this globally or at least within the EU and UK, the UK could try to create economy based off services provided to the rich, which would be able to leverage the remains of UK's financial services from before Brexit. The idea is, as the rich buy services from the UK, income of local professionals would increase and they, given they are relatively poorer, would increase their consumption of goods and services within the UK, because these poorer people are not as mobile as the rich and therefore can't escape the tax, which makes them more reliable tax base. I spot one key problem with the scenario I presented. Corruption would absolutely skyrocket, if laws were not created, that would ensure, that people running the state, would not be swayed to follow their own interests instead those of the public, though they are in their service. I'm not entirely sure, how to guard against that.
    1
  1254. 1
  1255. 1
  1256. 1
  1257. We actually do want the prices to crash, but, to also prevent banks from forcing refinancing of the houses. If you live in that house, your living expenses are basically set and so is your income. What is important about that crash, is will cause it. Really the only thing, which can solve this bubble, is new construction. Problem is, these days, everybody's weeping about climate change and how more housing will mean more CO2. Which lead to ridiculous prices of houses. Not because big projects can't happen, no. It's because new construction of small projects can't happen, due to overzealous zoning and the fact, that politicians need older vote, which is more likely to own a home, than the young one... which however the society need's, because of 2,1 birth ratio, to maintain itself. What are the solutions to this? Well, let me list them. First, I'll list the one, that is currently being handled already. 1) Internet access. In order for housing to become more affordable, people need to be able to work from home over very very vast distances, not needing to commute to an office at all. If Elon doesn't turn Starlink in to literal gold mine, this part will provide major relieve to the market, opening up new housing to an office work from basically anywhere. Second thing, that governments need to ensure in this, is that old 3G or LTE equipment is not put in to landfill, rather, providers need to be forced to deploy these legacy devices, where no service were before. Cities should "subsidize" rural communities by this "hand me down" gifts and service providers need to be forced in to building new towers. 2) Employers must get real. Currently, employers frown on anyone, who's not a unicorn employee. They'd rather turn down a contract, than hire extra accountant to handle the barrage of invoices new contracts require to get done, be it AP or AR. Employers need to return to old model, where a guy came, didn't have any education, but could at least exist. Now? An employer will say, "Oh, I fear, that I might not communicate with you well.", and say's that to an IT technician. The whole ecosystem must change in this matter. Employers must be willing to train people and accept people, who aren't perfect. They must pay them not based on the employee's experience, rather, that pay must come from his potential, because that is what he was hired for. Actual contribution based remuneration system should came later, only when potential is exhausted, because only then is the employee "finished". Remote work, where ever available, must become a standard, not benefit. 3) And this one has two options. States must either: a) relax construction code. Restriction on on what land a home can be built, must go away completely (price of field can be as low as one twentieth of same sized residential plot) and no regulation regarding the source of heating beyond basic safety standards (and even those reasonable) b) Current requirements on buildings, but all expenses paid to get the building up to code, compared to what only building the stuff as a "can physically live there". All those bells and whistles paid by the state. Mandatory insulation because passive homes? sure, state, but pay up for that insulation. I don't earn enough to get it, and let me remind you, the mortgage payment is lower than my studio apartment rent! ban on coal for heating? Well, hello there, tax payer, hope you've earned enough to build me 200 mile power line to my piece of forest in the Cascade Mountains, oh and don't worry, I have here calculation for a 72 hour battery pack to keep my high tech, low emission home online too. Cause, you know, trees fall. Oh you don't like it? Fair enough, here's the bill for expansion of my solar farm, so that I can heat my home in winter. State demand's it, state pay's for it. We have been talking for months and years about worsening wealth and income inequality in the west. Cost of housing and by extension cost of living is a major aspect of this crisis. Large enough, that it has grown in to a crisis of it's own. In former Czechoslovakia, second homes were so common, that you could be considered food stamp poor and socially excluded, if you didn't have one. Now? We've come to the point, that owning a home is a fleeting dream. Simply, because it is not as easy to build a house, because climate change. Such is reality of the young vs reality of the old.
    1
  1258. 1
  1259.  @colbyross8365  sorry, doesn't work that way. Already, automation and ecological "adaptation" have taken so many jobs, and most importantly easy to learn entry level jobs, that there are lost generations. In order to obtain a job, which hires these days even without ridiculous amount of field specific working experience and pay's the rent, one has to study. But most employers aren't exactly forth coming in this regard. Most won't release the employee for Friday school, nor would they let him/her go for an exam. And virtually none would actually pay their employee, while he/she is learning new stuff at a boot camp or a uni. In five years of job hunting, willing to relocate to anywhere in my country, I have met one employer out of about one thousand, who actually allocated paid time to learn new stuff. And lastly, employers need to be willing to hire sub-optimal employees and teach them the ways of their trades. A lot of people end up unemployed simply, because employers aren't willing to hire. Forget about negotiations or willingness to work for less than minimum wage or in undesirable fields. In my country, companies were refusing incoming contracts, citing insufficient labor force, while at the same time, turning away potential new hires, who were willing to learn the ropes. I have received so, so many refusals, citing insufficient working experience as reason of refusal for junior positions, I have stopped counting them. So really, it's not, he who doesn't work, shouldn't eat. It's you shouldn't eat, if someone is trying to get a job, and can't get a reasonable one.
    1
  1260.  @colbyross8365  I did all of that (except the military, have a disability, which denies me service, but doesn't entitle me to disability benefits). Have a degree in accounting and financial management. I see hundreds of ads for accounting jobs. All demand working experience. Even junior ones! And what about entry level? Doesn't exist anymore. Employers didn't care and don't care, that I know our tax code better than them. I get, "oh, you don't have working experience" replies all the time. Hell, one time, I had reference from labor bureau, meaning they had to see me and confirm, that I went there. I came there, expecting they'd at very least talk with me, as all others before them have.They confirmed my paper, refused me and then asked me, what was the reason for not accepting me. First I got refused, and then had an "interview". Or another time, when potential employer praised my accounting skills at the interview, and then, when I called him, told me, "I have no time, to teach you, how it's done.". I know my ways around networking better than most users. I'm really good for self trained guy. Still can't get a job as a network admin, because I don't know AD and don't have the money, to build a rig, to run Windows Server, to learn it. Do you think, I ever got an invitation to interview from those network admin jobs? Nope, all the time replies state, "yeah you don't have x years of working experience.". Meanwhile, I've put together a freaking data center from scrap gear so old, all I can run on it is FreeBSD and some distros of Linux. Do you think, anybody looking for a "server guy" cared? Nope. They didn't care, I know VRRP, LACP or VPNs, nor about the custom NAS that I've built and implemented, even though those are technologies their companies rely on for operations. No, government won't provide training to me or anyone else. Corona has taken care of that and even if they did provide such training, it's not working experience, meaning it's worthless to the employers. I have seen people take degrees in engineering and math, who ended up flipping burgers, because employers weren't interested novice, all be it highly skilled workers, who were freaking artists with CNC machines, but didn't have working experience. No, I will receive no assistance from anyone, to keep a roof over my head and belly not empty. There are no such programs in my country. The only thing the state will do for me, is pay my mandatory health and retirement insurance. Oh, and all the time I was looking for job, replying to any and all relevant postings (eg. everything I felt qualified and overqualified for), getting refused left and right, employers were crying their eyes out, stating how they can't find workers to do a job, and how they have to turn customers away! This is reality of young professional these days. I don't talk from "academics" I talk from experience job hunting. So check your BS.
    1
  1261. 1
  1262. 1
  1263. 1
  1264. 1
  1265. 1
  1266. Louis, you don't understand it. Why are there people, who do nothing, hell even sabotage companies, and remain on payroll even at absolutely unimaginable salaries to most? It's simple. Another company doing the same shit could take customers away, causing loss of revenue greater than their collective salaries. Is that a problem as to limiting market and innovation? Yes, is that a bad thing? Not really... It depends market to market. Not to mention, that innovation is not always actual innovation. Cases like Elisabeth Holmes or Hyperloop are excellent examples, where "innovation", had already eaten huge amounts of money, not just from tax payers, that could have been routed to more effective, already existing solutions to actual or soon to be manifesting problems, such as coming electricity scarcity caused by inevitable phasing out of coal power plants due to perceived danger of climate crisis, which need replacing by nuclear plants, given similarities of output of these power generating methods and irresponsible drive towards electric mobility, which will put extreme strain on the grid. The problem with more people going out "innovating", means there are many more snake oil salesmen among genuine innovators and it's those snake oil salesmen, who manage to capture the most of the crowd. Not to mention, that innovation for innovations sake is also not good universally. Just look at differences in GUI between Windows 10 and 11. Does moving the start menu to the center of the bar improve efficiency when working with the machine, or simply confuse current users, who had been accustomed to start menu being in the lower left corner since Windows 95, some thirty years ago? Cause that's being sold as innovation too! Is it innovation, that user replaceable batteries were removed in favor of internal ones, for which you need precision tools to replace, not to mention replace on the fly? Is it innovation, to tie everything to the cloud, where local instance is possible, be it self hosting key software or completely contained instance? Does it make sense, to buy newer locomotive, that can run 230 KM/h and tow more, when everywhere you send it, track maximum speed is 160 KM/h and an older model with that top speed is significantly cheaper can already tow train, that completely fills longest tracks in marshaling yards in the country/on the continent? Is it really innovation for a farm, buying a tractor with better miles per gallon, that they can't fix them selves and have to rely on expensive authorized service center? Or is it innovation, buying robotic combines, when a man has to monitor, where the combine is going and, though in rare cases, use remote control to correct the combines heading? Is it innovation to go electric cars, when you're still burning coal to make electricity? Isn't that just steam power with extra steps? Well, given approach of companies, such as Microsoft or John Deer, that is innovation, but do we have higher value in the products they sell out of these innovation? I'd argue not, but their revenues sure seem to indicate they do... And now imagine some 20% of US workforce "innovating" to get by. How many rent-seeking and downright fraudulent "innovations" will there be on the market, that is hard to navigate as is? Odds are, companies would end up buying these "get money out of peoples pockets" "innovations", and we'd be left with worse than before we started. Innovation, so that you provide better value to your customers has been gone for some twenty years Louis, now it's all about building recurring income. And look at it from employee's point of view. There is an agreement between employee and employer, that certain type of work will be provided at certain salary paid on date X at purchasing power Y. Why would an employee do work of other roles in the company, when he/she doesn't get extra real value compensation from it? And why should that employee have to be exposed to risk of losing his/her job, when the job he/she agreed to do is being done to objectively satisfactory levels, as outlined in the contract/agreed upon? The answer, is neither should make change, because that's how both parties should be satisfied, per terms of contract.
    1
  1267. 1
  1268. 1
  1269. 1
  1270. 1
  1271. 1
  1272. 1
  1273. 1
  1274. 1
  1275. 1
  1276. 1
  1277. 1
  1278. 1
  1279. 1
  1280. 1
  1281. 1
  1282. 1
  1283. 1
  1284. 1
  1285. 1
  1286. 1
  1287. 1
  1288. 1
  1289. 1
  1290. 1
  1291. 1
  1292. 1
  1293. 1
  1294. 1
  1295. 1
  1296. 1
  1297. 1
  1298. Well, Louis, you're not as bad at business as you imply here... You may be terrible at HR, but here I'm not surprised about your confusion. The problem is, there is a lot of psychology in trading. As a result marketing companies, that don't have actual working products, seek out the money and, since they are essentially only very effective sales and nothing else, they outcompeet you, who has actually built something, that work's, on the bid, securing funding for a company, which will inevitably fail, because it's either failing on or outright lacking the product/service to sell. Sometimes, it goes as far as denying the laws of physics. Look at Hyperloop, for instance, You get Elon's sales capabilities, so there is no problem getting the funding, but if you look at the science and realise, what Hyperloop is from engeneering standpoint, you'll understand, why it can't be done. And then you'll get fanboys of the project, who will defend the idea to the point of denying the laws of physics, because Elon told them, it will work, and people with same approach to stuff will support these ideas, be it with purchase of the product or service, or outright investing in the thing. Or electric planes, Elon him self admitted, that in order to get the range from such plane, to fly, he'd need the plane's wieght on takeoff to be 70% just batteries... which kind of make's landing such plane rather problematic. It is for precisely this weight reason, because planes are extraordinarily heavier on takeoff, that planes have to dump fuel, if they pass safe landing wieght limits. The gear might actually collapse, because of that extra weight. Meaning, an electric plane, that's majestically flying through the sky, would likely never be economically feasable, because it looses capacity on the count of being capable of safely landing. To ilustrate this. Imagine flying a 747 or an A380, with total passenger capacity of 30 due to weight constrictions. Yeah, and such ideas get the green light from investors and governments alike, because global warming has some damn good PR and is an actual major problem to solve. A bunch of marketing heavy guys, like Elon Musk, exploit the psychological component of the situation and simply profiteer from sale of '"solution", that is economically, or outright scientifically, impossible to implement. And yet, people, who have the ability to divert the money, sometimes even elected ones, don't do their math right on the subject, or outright join in on this, building political capital off support for these useless "solutions". If this remind's you of someone banned from youtube and other social media platforms, yep. It's Alex Jones all over again, the only difference is, that Elon doesn't create the threat, to which he's selling a solution. I use Elon, because he is probably the most visible person to point this stuff out, but there are scores of mobs of people like him. All of these people competing with you for money of people, who trade on the market, and governments alike, and who don't do extensive research of the ideas they support with their money. They aren't interested, in actual ROI, but rather on perceeved ROI, which, unfrotuantely, isn't based off real life context. As a result, the stock market doesn't represent real economy, the devide between it and real economy is only growing, and people, who actually have sensible, but not so bombastic or revolutionary ideas for solutions, don't get the money they need to fund their projects. Another idea, that is fortunately getting traction, but one that also make's the selection process even more difficult, is longer term ROI. It realizes one key idea, that while company is growing, it can't be proffitable, because everything earned is/should be reinvested in the company itself. Problem is, this combined with what I stated above, lead's to a motherlode of money being wasted on the market by people, who didn't properly think about the company they are investing in. About Uber. You are WRONG. While it is true, that the car was purchased by the driver and it's serviced and maintained by the driver and the car need's to be insured etc. etc.. Well, same hold's true, if you hire a car. It still need's to be insured (at least where I live, car owner's insurence is mandatory) and everything, because even the guy leasing the car, in this case with himself as a driver, need's to make a profit and therefore wouldn't (psychological influence excluded) be willing to lease for compensation, which wouldn't cover his costs. Therefore, if UBER get's fully autonomous cars, they could ditch the driver's sallary (or at least the portion for actual driving) and set up a maintenance facility to laverage economies of scale, making the maintenance costs low enough or even lower than what a driver would demand for maintaining his car. Therefore they could become profitable, because fewer people could tend to a larger fleet of vehicles in circulation, lowering the largest expense on most income and expenses statement. In theory, unless we're talking catastrophic vomiting escapades, which would render the car impossible to maintain, there is actually a way to make this massively profitable for the company, not so much for everyone else, because all the variables here can be influenced by the compnay. Silf driving car ban/demand for driver to be present, when car is in operation? Well, you could lobby against such legislation. Not enough money? Make an IPO or try to sell more shares. Yes, it is a gamble for both the investor and the company, but one that actually has a businessplan, which could work, if the idea hold's and is not dependent on something, that literally can't be controlled, like the ammount of materials needed to invest in the plane or the impossible task of maintaining near vaccume in a tube serveral hundred miles long, regardless of the number of sections.
    1
  1299. 1
  1300. 1
  1301. 1
  1302. 1
  1303. 1
  1304. 1
  1305. 1
  1306. 1
  1307. 1
  1308. 1
  1309. 1
  1310. 1
  1311. Man, never say that when someone lashes out, he/she's a spoiled child or like a spoiled child. I'm in that boat. I did everything right, got my self a degree in finance, always dressed in suits for interviews, always on my best behavior, most of the times knew more about the company, then HR ladies interviewing me and where am I? Still living with my parents and no meaningful income. To make things worse because I'm autistic, I can't hold a driver's license anymore (can have commercial license for A380 though), which render's me basically unemployable in most fields. I've been feeling like avenging my self on the society at large quite a few times. I didn't only because I have some support from people and pets around me. How did I end up, where I am? Five years of job hunting with no success. Five years of hearing praise for my skills as an accountant, yet can't get hired. "Not enough working experience." is what I hear all the time and I feel I'm out of options. And even though I was always known for my stubbornness, when trying to achieve something, even I am beginning to falter. Now, most things I know about China come from history lessons and your videos. From these, I've come to the conclusion, that support for people who messed up or had dealt a bad hand in life ain't exactly common in China. Correct me, if I'm wrong here. But if I'm right, I understand why someone would do something as heinous as this. The feeling of hopelessness is a strong motivator, which breeds resentment. These are basically perfect storm for violent behavior. Now imagine what would after 5 years of these feelings do to a guy's psyche. Suddenly such actions look desperate, rather than simply "spoiled kid territory".
    1
  1312. 1
  1313. 1
  1314. 1
  1315. 1
  1316. 1
  1317. 1
  1318. 1
  1319. 1
  1320. 1
  1321. 1
  1322. 1
  1323. 1
  1324. 1
  1325.  @382u3uuej  Pretty sure, it's not just bias. You see, what you talk about is true to some extent, but there is a problem in your logic. If we accept this bias as true, why are companies not actively developing employee retention strategies? Why is it, that wages don't keep up with inflation and the best you can expect, even in companies posting record profits, is some 3% to 4% year on year nominal raise and no improvement to benefits? You'd expect, that if an employee can do more qualified job, the company would increase their salary more than just inflation and provide more enticing benefits, because that employee can do the lower job more efficiently (because of faster training) and/or advance within the company to appropriate position, when company growth demands it. Yet, we see yearly culling of headcount and twenty to thirty years of stagnant wages. If it's more expensive in the long run, to always hunt for new employees, why is it, that shifting companies every two or so years brings so much more income to the emplyoee? Shouldn't company remove this incentive by increasing it's wage growth above the inflation level or better yet, incorporate langugage into their contracts, that guarantees inflation raises every year and merit raises only being considered above that? After all, emplyoees don't work for nominal wage, they work for the real one, hence, if company isn't willing to increase wage sufficiently, they'll be forced out by costs of living. If it indeed is so much cheaper, to keep old employees, why don't we see retention effort beyond public relation stunts? Why do we see pipeline postings, that never have actual position to be filled behind them all the time? Why do we see so many sales positions marketed as something else, like consulting or even highly technical work like computer networking? Why do companies use this bait-and-switch? Why is it, that company creates a recreation room, as Bender would say it, with Blackjack and hookers, and then hold it against the employee for utilizing those facilities even once? If you're employed only to do the work, why invest in those facilities? Hence, why I think, you are wrong. And why you should look at employers with more critical eyes.
    1
  1326. 1
  1327.  @mikaelantonkurki  Let's take plastics for instance. We need them. Even tin/steel cans and paper containers have internal lining made from plastic. We need to produce them and no, they can't be recycled. It's not efficient enough due to how energy intense recycling is. The only other way, thto produce plastics is from biomass. Not all biomass can be used for this. One suitable plant is corn. Now, that's how much extra corn planted? How many acres of rainforests turned into fields? Because you need the land to be cheap to keep costs down and you still need fuel to harvest that corn, or you need to some kind of grid based energy to run the harvesters, because batteries are impractical due to vehicle weight as I mentioned already, further decreasing competitiveness of this method. And that's one product group, that's produced from oil! Even if I claimed it be 1000 different products, that's 1/40 of products made from oil! What about heating? Are you seriously going to endorse whaling, because not everywhere can have electricity as source of heating, because of no access to grid, not good location for wind and solar won't heat you enough in winter. Nobody wants to permit coal due to CO2 emissions and even wood is frowned upon. So what's the alternative? This is something "green people" don't like to hear, but it's a historical fact. Expansion of use of oil sourced fuels for heating saved whales from extinction, because before this shift, we used whale oil for lighting and heating! Without oil that would have to be walked back. Roadbuilding. How much more gravel would we have to refine and mine to replace asphalt, which is a petroleum product? The final fraction of oil. That's how much more land destroyed by mines for these resources? Where will you get sulphur and other chemicals, which are byproducts of oil industry (containted as contaminants in crude oil)? That would now have to be produced actively! Where will you get that? Let me remind you, that even wine needs to be sulfured to stop it's fermentation process (yep, even wine has oil industry product in it) 95% of all food is made with use of oil, mostly in fuel, packaging, but also in fertilizers and herbicides. Those would also have to be replaced or farms would have to be enlarged. That's how much more land cleared, so that we have same foodstuffs output? The option, of producing less or not producing doesn't work. You need to eat, no way around it. You need to have clothes and have stuff you need for your work, whatever that is. These also have some oil cost in them. And forget about redistribution. That also needs fuel, because you really can't have 100% renewable or electric power source for ships. Forget about sails too. Assuming one TEU (standard for container shipping), weighs 24 tones (limit for three axle trailer for road transport in Czech Republic) and I will be generous and say that's just cargo, to replace Emma Maersk, just one of the larger container ships, you'd need 66 clippers. The last sailship, that could compete with a steamer was a clipper. There are dozens of ships similar in size of Emma Maersk and hundreds and thousands of smaller ones. That's how large total crew and therefore how big a strain on marine wildlife feeding them, if you were to replace entirety of worlds merchant fleet with the best sail had given us? Electricity doesn't work either, because of the distances these ships travel. You'd have to tow a barge with sole cargo of batteries for the ship itself, and that's assuming you'd even be able to move that barge without external source of power! And forget about Lion batteris on a ship. Lithium fire on one would be guaranteed deaths for the entire crew!
    1
  1328.  @mikaelantonkurki :D And how do you get electricity to that place? Nope, doesn't work that way. You can't store it in necessary amounts. That is why actual grid specialists were warning against wind and solar. You need fossil fuels for base load, unless you've got nuclear, but look at Germany and even that has it's draw backs, given current prices of Uranium. There are very very few places, where you've got consistent enough winds to have green base. Furthermore, electric heating in any shape or form will always be more expensive than other methods, because electricity is a more refined product, meaning, unless you artificially make other heat sources more expensive (which is a problem, because if you do it in a targeted way, it will get overturned by the courts as illegal market manipulation), electricity will never be competitive with localized heat sources, partuclarly with wood, which is all around us outside of deserts! It is, because at some place, somewhere on the grid, you had to burn some kind of fuel, to have energy NOW. Not when it shines or blows somewhere sixty miles away! What you suggest, leaves you without source of heat in the middle of a winter, because someone wanted to save money on a powerline. However, your "response" didn't answer my other points. Where is your clipper fleet? Where are your alternatives to plastics, that have exactly the same characteristics like plastics? Where are your ecnomically comparable fertilizers and pesticides and where are the laws of physics denying tractors and harvesters to harvest crops on electricity?!
    1
  1329. 1
  1330. I disagree here. there are other things, that need to happen. Just look at Europe! We may not have quite as long trains as in the US, but we too did do some crazy shit. Here are the lessons from the most railroaded country on Earth. 1) expropriate the tracks from different railroads and create a group of federally owned companies, one in each state, that would be responsible for track maintenance and that would have the authority to order trains, irrespective of which company they belong to, to do shit, as well as blacklisting railroads from using the system for breaking the rules. 2) Get rid of railroad crossings on main coridor lines. In Czech Republic, we have two major rail lines between our capitol of Prague and Brno, the Coridor and Tišnovka. These days, Coridor is mostly used by long haul passenger trains, while Tišnovka is extensively used for freight. Why? Precisely because there are very few level railroad crossings on Tišnovka. There are bridges and overpasses instead. Really, crossings should only be on branch and tow lines. Eg. upgrade your infrastructure to accomodate these hyperefficient trains, or all that freight is back on the road. 3) Set up yearly maintenance checks for every traincar. This check should be performed by specialised companies, that would be paid not by the railroads, but by the railroad maintenance companies mentioned above, and if car doesn't pass, it doesn't leave the yard, until it's fixed at owner's expense. (similar to airtravel) 4) Curb power of employers. Retaliation by a company against an employee for effectively whistleblowing must lead to extensive fines, seizure of company stocks, if there are any, starting with the largest holders (eg, company owners need to be held responsible for this kind of behaviour) and, finally 5-7 years in prison and ban on working in industry for the emmideate superviser, who carried out said retaliation, 10 years for the executive, who ordered it. Furthermore, refusal to hire the whistleblower by other companies should carry similar punishment, because a reasonable juror could come to a conclusion, that the act of blowing the whistle in the employee's past, had been the actual reason for not hiring this employee.
    1
  1331. 1
  1332. I'm sorry, my legal friend, but I really don't think first ammendment beats the second. The way I see it, second protects the first, but that is their only relation. I appreciate the difficulty of the choice of taking or not taking the guns out yet, however, at the same time I ask myself, "if not now, when, after all we've seen so far?". "Where is the line, which must not be crossed?". I am very much worried, that days of Gandhi a forever past and that no civilised means will suffice in the current crisis, for the opposition has become hardened, nonresponsive, perhaps even ignorant of the facts. Which is worse, even on our side, there are such people in great numbers. So, answer yourself this question, how far would this have to go for you to draw? I am very much worried, that in this case, with this person, a lot of people would to their horror discover they are way past this treshold. Would you act like this, if he ordered the army? would you take up arms when tanks will be rolling through DC, or would you take up arms only when the Air Force started bombing the Supreme court? While one certainly shouldn't act prematurely with this kind of action, acting too late will achieve nothing too. At that point, you went to bed in a free society and woke up in a totalitarian dictatorship. A line has to be drawn after which you step on to the next box and it must not move no matter what. If that box is to be of ammo... then there is no other way around. Words will only get you so far. When the other side can shut you up permanently, be it through non-lethal means, your words are useless. It is grim, but it is the truth none the less.
    1
  1333. 1
  1334. 1
  1335. 1
  1336. Louis, I feel you. Yeah censorship, simply because it's private is a problem, ont hte other hand, as companies, they need to evade litigation. Even if the government didn't act on this, there is a chance, that someone could sue for some kind of damages as a result of something similar. let's say, that someone would use Twitter to call a hit on a synagog and a bunch of people died. Shouldn't such communication be silenced? And since there is good likelyhood, that this person/group will continue on different media, shouldn't all these media be allowed to censor that person? They aren't obligated to provide public service, so that affirmative defence is out and the companies should have a way of dodging litigation, resulting from actions of effectively third parties, because, otherwise through allowing comunication to be carried out over their network, they could be considered complicit in the act and thus face the same charges as those, who carried out the act them selves. If what happened was criminal, They would actually be drawn in as coconspirators. ISPs could claim, that they don't track user traffic and thus couldn't know about the atttack and thus are off the hook, but what about companies, who's literal business model is centered around what people think, talk about and do together and selling that info to ad agencies? That defence is gone like that. Not to mention, there are litigation costs regardless of lawsuit outcome. So shouldn't companies have the right to do this, if they do so avoiding a lawsuit? There need's to be some kind of safe harbour provision even for this, because otherwise, companies could simply point to a threat of litigation and they would have a reasonable excuse, you can't argue much against. And before you say, "But nobody would sue over that!", think again, Pepsi, co. was sued over not delivering a harrier fighter jet they promised in an ad! In the US all kinds of litigation is possible! I realise, this is a devil's advocate argument, but this too is a thing to consider. Then there is infrastructure problem. Sure, you could get a bunch of friends together and create a mesh-esque style system, which would be accessed as a website, but that still need's to have decent speeds, where your individual servers will be placed. I have seen very few ISPs, that would provide symetric or even inverse data plans to consumers. So there may be other hurdles to overcome in real world too. And one more thing. Most people, who subscribe to people like you, Eli, Crosstalk Solutions or even LTT, are above average computer literate. We know how to block ads and do that with religious vigor. Keeping any ads in the video doesn't drop a cent in ad revenue from most of your subscribers.
    1
  1337. 1
  1338. 1
  1339. 1
  1340. 1
  1341. 1
  1342. 1
  1343. 1
  1344. 1
  1345. 1
  1346. 1
  1347. 1
  1348.  @koketsok1513  Sure, but that means, youtube doesn't have to be the only source of income for a person. Look at Crosstalk Solutions, who essentially use youtube instead of advertising, Chriss said some time ago, that youtube bring's him customers for the IT services he's providing. I don't know, whether Tom Lawrence from Lawrence Systems uses monetization, but if he did, he'd only have an extra revenue stream to his company, while (I presume) also increasing his business through improved visibility of his company. Or what about Stormware? This Czech company produces accounting software and uses youtube to get video tutorials on how to use it for those, who bought it, saving money on teaching operators on how to use the system. Sure, their customer could buy that service too, but everyone thinks, that the employees will simply learn by working and doesn't want to invest in them... well at least initially. As I mentioned elsewhere, youtubers aren't employees, they are businessmen and, unfortunately, such is the nature of the beast. In business, there are bigger and smaller, stronger and weaker players, and the stronger player, which youtube is, has the power to get what they want out of the deal. Question then arises, whether it's worth doing business with someone, who only gives you this kind of cooperation or service, or go to someone else, or maybe even completely change the heading of that business. All the concerns you wrote are legit, and perhaps need's some redressing, perhaps through changes in copyright or limiting the freedom to negotiate a contract for the stronger player, if their strength becomes too big, but that is a different discussion, however, for the case at hand, all of it is also irrelevant, because as a business, it is entirely up to you, what business ventures you'll pursue and what tools and other business ventures you'll utilize in that pursuit. And we know, that betting on one card isn't the smartest of decisions.
    1
  1349. 1
  1350. 1
  1351. 1
  1352. 1
  1353. 1
  1354. Here are some counterarguments. Bereaucracy: Czechia. Just look at our construction permit lead times. We're some of the worst on Earth. New Brno railway station has been in the plans for over a 120 years, and it's only now beginning to get build... European Union and other democracies are making doing business harder and harder, when it comes to The Dutch Curse: Sweden. I believe, it was your video, where "it is important, what was in the country before the discovery of oil.". Everybody marvels about local way of life and civil development, but that would have been impossible to achieve without inflow of currency for oil and natural gass exploited there. Trade as source of wealth: Historically, trade was with closest neighbours. Nowdays, we can do everything over much larger distances. Zetor earned itself such a recognition in arab world, that it became synonymous with the very idea of a tractor. Shoes and clothes we wear are seldom made outside of Southeast Asia. It was the momentary unionisation of the world in terms of trade, that allowed for greater specialization and sea access became paramount. Just look at any world wealth map. You'll find the wealthiest regions near coasts or on rivers navigable by big ships. Think Hamburg, Los Angels, New York City or Tokyo, which had basically eaten Yokohama and several other cities. Meanwhile, lnadlocked countries, or countries bordering seas with no access to the ocean, tend to be on the poorer side. No, it's lack of trade interdiction, brought up by USA's dominance on the seas and formation of the European project, which eventually culminated into European Union, which removed arbitrary trade barriers, which would be more common, if, say Germany were devided into it's historical constituent states. Exporting goods would have been near impossible for, for instance from France to Croatia, because, Italy with it's own interests would stand in the way. What you'll see, if larger countries begin to break apart, trade, thanks to individual national customs, inspections and bearaucracies. Trade would get interdicted. Democracy: Democracy is NOT the best kind of governance, when it comes to resource deveilopment, which is, what you need to trade. A single party government simply sais and does, no matter the human lives, it destroys. Meanwhile, a democracy, thanks to "not in my backyard" principle, will, majority of the time, refuse to develop the resource. Case and point, Czech Republic and Lithium. There is in Cínovec mountain, as well as waste material from the old mine there (tin was mined there back in a day). Introducing the Communist party, who completely derailed joint venture with Australians, causing the venture to collapse. Another example, Iceland. Minerals needed for energy transition were found in vast quantities. A referrendum was held, and mining had been rejected over local natural beauty... which has 0 intrensic value (no tourism is not viable counterpoint, just watch the video about different types fo tourism). Now, we're waiting on just how will the Nordics (can't remember now, which scored this one) decide about phosphate mining in their country, there has not been news, that would indicate large scale mining planned. Specialization: You can't overspecialize either. Look at economies, that are severely dependent on single resource, like Russia, for which it's energy resources, all of which had been sanctioned, the Gulf states, also heavily dependent on hydrocarbons, had to create cartel to ensure, that they won't get bankrupt and now are scrambling for all kinds of investments and diversification, because, due to ideological distaste for fossil fuels currently reigning in the West, their primary, in some cases near SOLE, pinacle of specialization, export is going the way of dynasaurs, pun intended. Specialization always needs to be wheighed against domestic price security and ability to produce things to some extent domestically. If not for other reasons, to preserve the technology.
    1
  1355. 1
  1356. 1
  1357. 1
  1358. 1
  1359. 1
  1360.  @markusgorelli5278  Yeah, it depends... you could say, that money preserves value, just like stated in mainstream economics and you'd be mostly right the way you phrase it. Or you could diverge and argue,, that currency itself doesn't hold any value, only displays it, or that risks in all currencies other than your home currency are too great (I'm inclined to the former), in which case, you could argue, that Euro is actually even better currency to trade in, because it simplifies access to more markets, all be it somewhat harmonized and smaller ones, making it more flexible currency around. To illustrate, let's take Egyptian trading company, that wants to have EGP at the end of the trade, because it is it's home currency. This trade company could buy or even mine natural gas in Egypt and export it to Germany, who needs it for industrial applications and heating, while importing French heavily subsidized agriculture products to feed the growing population of a nation, that already had limited access to arable land and now on top of that their water nicked by Ethiopia. Because Euro is native currency for both Germans and French you don't undergo extra risk, stemming from third party currency fluctuating against both currencies involved in trading. The fact, that the Eurozone is not quite as homogeneous economically as the US, is in my opinion an advantage, because you can more easily integrate production steps of production chain. If you were to try this with any other currency (except CFA Frank, which is fix pegged to Euro), you'd fail, because you'd run into national currencies with not as diverse product base to trade export market currency for at home sellable goods. Bonus? Germany and France have very different view of natural gas, meaning, because the currency is shared between them, policy difference doesn't threaten this kind of deal as much, but would complicate if not prevent such trade from happening, because the one who has suitable return goods might not accept a third party currency, if the trade were to take place strictly in local currencies and Germans still had Marks and French Franks.
    1
  1361. 1
  1362. 1
  1363. 1
  1364. 1
  1365. So basically, market capitalization was wrong, because Corsair went public in the middle of a bubble and is now either at or getting to their fundamentals, they have poor software and their customer service sucks, which is not unique to them... Frankly, I feel we have a different problem. Back in a day, building a PC for gaming was a right of passage. You built it yourself or you left another gamer to build it for you, not some third party integrator, that used single brand parts or someone, who'd simply pick, what they could get the best pricing on directly from a vendor or two. I never trusted Corsair with anything but power supplies, Asus with their their motherboards and anyone other than Kingston for RAM. As result, my computer doesn't exactly look presentable, but I know it has parts I can rely on for years both in durability and performance. But I am old school. These days, gaming is not the nerdy stuff to do anymore and people want things done as simply as possible and don't build as much anymore, hence rise of system integrators, hence, when company creates one, push strictly their or as much as possible their stuff, hence companies don't do, what they do best and don't have the resources to acquire sufficient expertise in all the fields necessary to build a good product, not to mention they have outright incorrect incentive to follow, if the integrator is owned by a brand. So my two cents is this: Customers have changed, this changed the predominant computer building culture. We went from outright artisan crafts to mass produced goods, which are not always produced the right way, because of incorrect incentives for some types of system integrators.
    1
  1366. And to answer your question. What are youtubers? Alphabet is getting cash off youtubers, but they are not employees, I would argue they aren't contractor per se either. What I would argue, is that youtubers are entrepreneurs and businesses and, sadly, this kind of behavior is normal in business relationships. For example, from what I've heared, most french companies demand payment six months before they provide you service and won't pay any sooner, than six months after you provided them a service. And this is becoming a standard in companies, that trade with France, and are in weaker position, as either a nation or company. Such is the nature of the beast, that in (underregulated) free market capitalism, the stronger can dictate terms and conditions with no regard for every other stakeholder in business being forged. This happened to my father, who had transportation company. We were handling logistics for a number pumping station chains including the Royal Dutch Shell, who at the time had the strictest conditions to follow. However, our main and biggest contract got snatched by some Polish companies, when Poland started to subsidize fuel, and Shell could do little to nothing for us. One would expect, that well functioning partnership would be maintained, as quality service provided would justify some premium to be had, especially given that service was transportation of dangerous stuff like petrol, diesel and kerosene, but no. Partner demanded lower costs, we literally couldn't do that, lest facing bankruptcy and the rest is history. The company is gone and dad is facing lifetime of having no money, regardless of how much he'll make working in whatever field. The same can happen to every youtuber or company, that uses youtube or any big platform as their main source/intermediary of revenue. The platform owner could demand a bigger cut, that could become so big, a youtuber could be faced with very unpleasant probem. Chose one and only one: 1) return to days of youtube as a hobby... with a couple of millions subscribers. 2) Give up on new production, as he/she can't ever recoup the investments made to create new content, not to mention, that in some cases people might not make equivalent of minimal wage, which at least in theory, should cover basic necessities of living, meaning this person should in theory starve to death, if he doesn't change careers. 3) create meaningless content that draw's traffic (like cat or dog videos, which, to be fair, have recently gone up in terms of quality and meaning)... ps, comment sections under these videos are downright therapeutic. Or 4) find a niche audience and go full Alex Jones on them, catering to their specific points of view or, in less extreme cases interests. which has far reaching consequences, which might be unintended, but are destructive none the less (I mean 2016 elections stand testament. Never before in US history, were other party candidates so universally hated and the crack went and is still going down the middle, because certain media only cater to some world views). And there that youtuber could contribute to the crack spreading ever wider, because he has become his own media in a way. None of the four opitons benefit neither the creator, nor the end customer, in case of that last one, the society as a whole may suffer, and the platform will simply up the ante again, as more as possible, because as niche audiences leave for new places, where to place their old and new content. Where to find their content won't eventually be deemed "unsuitable" for the platform and measures will be made, so that this content is made unavailable. Be it shadow banning, demonetization, or outright censorship of certain topics, or simply misuse of copyright. It's certain pi project today, tomorrow, it just may be alcohol ads and the day after, computer guides, tutorials and arguments supporting the right to repair, and the day after, subliminal messages urging us to bey new eye phone from Momcorp.
    1
  1367. 1
  1368. 1
  1369. 1
  1370. 1
  1371. This is not that bad. Why" This is solvable with proper integrated public transport system. In Czech Republic, we have a number of these. I can get on a bus in the tiniest hamlet in Sourh Moravian county, change to a train on the mainline and get to a city within two hours... From pretty much anywhere in an area twice as alrge as NYC and Long Island combined! Brno main train station is where most of offices are these days and I can change to a tram, bus trolley bus, or another train, to get where my job is. So, I'm at work in about two hours. And can work from train, because there is Internet (and even buses get it these days) as part of fare. Now it ain't perfect. There are dead spots and Internet service on board is slow, but it work's. We are a bit more expencive than most, but it work's and is still cheaper than using a car. Along the mainline, I can even commute to work betwene cities! All of this with a single ticket, single fare. Prague is even crazier in this, as there are buses, trams, trains, subway and even some boats integrated. Now, I think there is a reason to be slightly more optimistic (comming from a person, who's constantly been accused of being a pesimist), is New York's subway system. If New York City and neighbouring counties integrated their carriers in to a single system, extended the subway, so that one could access all of Long Island with it and Connect it to multiple railroad stations for changing transport, one could reduce commute time significantly, thus opening new land with good access to these jobs. Sure, some people would have to move and have longer commute, but integrated public transport system can offset these extra costs. The answer is interoperability and harmonised connections. I realise that New York City is huge and there is motherlode of other communities in greater NYC area, but, I beleive, that betwene rail, and subway, using both express and normal service, all of this system could be navigable in one hour. Even going from Montauk to Croton-Hampton. I realise, that this is a challange, but it can be done. Beyond this post, it's about politics.
    1