On economic, I hear talk about looking for 2 trillion in cuts; that's likely to cause economic stagnation all by itself as previously observed in e.g. UK austerity measures since the financial crisis in the late 00s.
Even on a smaller scale, any given cut is hard to forecast as a good/bad idea for the organisation itself (in the case the government) even for the guy at the top: for example consider that Musk cut what he thought of as pointless waste in each of his businesses, which works great in Tesla and SpaceX, has been a disaster for Twitter.
Also, China is close to a peer, and deploying renewables and battery vehicles as fast as possible — and yes also coal last I heard.
Then there's the talk of Musk being brought in despite the obvious conflict of interest. Wonder how that's going to play out, but given a substantial part of his wealth comes from electric vehicles, it's worth noting.
On the other hand he wants thousands of Starship launches and has yet to demonstrate the Sabatier machines that would be necessary for (1) Mars and (2) making this carbon neutral on Earth.
I think even in this context there is a chance that the scale is tipping more and more towards going the renewables way will be more lucrative than not, and those deniers will not deny money.
Then again, maybe I‘m too clueless on this topic + naive.
My strongest data point is that the Chinese government is heavily pushing renewables, and I‘m pretty sure they don’t to this due to the selfless goodness of their hearts.
Its also a vote for degrowth as things get swept away ever faster then they can rebuild. With the longterm planning that insurance enables, reality will have its say at the end of the day.
People voted for real/current issues, not for abstract/future issues. They voted like shareholders. It is how people are when they are struggling.
Their struggle is built in to the inflationary currency they use. If they were to use a less inflationary currency (1%/yr), e.g. gold backed, they would struggle less, but the oligarchy won't allow it.
karmakurtisaani|1 year ago
croisillon|1 year ago
ben_w|1 year ago
On economic, I hear talk about looking for 2 trillion in cuts; that's likely to cause economic stagnation all by itself as previously observed in e.g. UK austerity measures since the financial crisis in the late 00s.
Even on a smaller scale, any given cut is hard to forecast as a good/bad idea for the organisation itself (in the case the government) even for the guy at the top: for example consider that Musk cut what he thought of as pointless waste in each of his businesses, which works great in Tesla and SpaceX, has been a disaster for Twitter.
Also, China is close to a peer, and deploying renewables and battery vehicles as fast as possible — and yes also coal last I heard.
Then there's the talk of Musk being brought in despite the obvious conflict of interest. Wonder how that's going to play out, but given a substantial part of his wealth comes from electric vehicles, it's worth noting.
On the other hand he wants thousands of Starship launches and has yet to demonstrate the Sabatier machines that would be necessary for (1) Mars and (2) making this carbon neutral on Earth.
ManuelKiessling|1 year ago
Then again, maybe I‘m too clueless on this topic + naive.
My strongest data point is that the Chinese government is heavily pushing renewables, and I‘m pretty sure they don’t to this due to the selfless goodness of their hearts.
ashoeafoot|1 year ago
OutOfHere|1 year ago
Their struggle is built in to the inflationary currency they use. If they were to use a less inflationary currency (1%/yr), e.g. gold backed, they would struggle less, but the oligarchy won't allow it.