There is literally nothing to be gained from nuclear holocaust. I think it is extremely unlikely that the US will launch nuclear first strikes in response to something so relatively trivial as losing global relevance. The USSR completely collapsed, and they didn't set off any nukes either.
A conventional war (this is not necessarily a total war) does not automatically mean nuclear first strikes either. America does not respond to losing wars with nuclear first strikes. This is proven by historical example. They have been taking Ls left and right without setting off any nukes. The only time they have used nuclear weapons in an act of war was in Japan, and that was when they were winning.
While I think that war is possible as a last ditch attempt to stop a geopolitical dominance shift, it's a huge leap to say that "immediate nuclear war" is incoming.
Why would it lead to immediate nuclear war? Are there any pieces from American/Russian think tanks advocating for the death of billions if nuclear fusion is achieved in a commercial setting that I'm not aware of?
That's true, but being able to repair military equipment in a timely manner (by virtue of not having to transport things across several countries) is also quite important.
I dont understand. Why is it a bad plan? How is it better to ship everything thousands of kilometers back to Germany every time something needs to get fixed?
You are still talking about how cars and driving should be affordable when they should not be.
Cars are an expense that are paid for in the blood of humans and animals. Cars literally kill millions every year. Air and noise pollution kill more.
While you are in support of cars, I am against cars. You think that poor people should own cars because of equity. I think that poor people should not own cars because nobody should own cars.
There is an ongoing global ecocide going on right now. The Anthropocene is the sixth mass extinction. I do not care that you care that cars should be affordable. Cars should not be affordable. Externalities should be priced in. Every time you drive, the world pays in blood.
Fuck cars.
P.S. I'm not sure where you got the idea that to be leftist is to be anti-market, especially to be opposed to all market-based incentives. China does a lot of that stuff. Maybe you should look into it. Congestion pricing is a market-based solution that is empirically shown to work, as seen in London and Stockholm. Please read the linked article next time before you comment. No investigation, no right to speak.
Also, I don't really know what to say in response to this. First of all, it's not "basic econ101" that "supply and demand market efforts just make whatever it is unaffordable for the poorest of us." An example of a free market good that has been made affordable to the poorest amongst us are basic smartphones. They cost like $20 now. But also I'm not sure how this is relevant at all to the topic of a congestion tax, which is specifically supposed to suppress demand to increase the amount of fixed supply that can be allocated to each user.
This is a market-based attempt at a solution. And it's basic econ101 that supply and demand market efforts just make whatever it is unaffordable for the poorest among us.
·1 month ago
·1 month ago
·1 month ago
·1 month ago
·1 month ago
President ChatGPT