pickovven

As someone who is aligned with these general politics, I would strongly encourage folks working towards a "post-capitalist" world to start by clearly and explicitly stating what that means. What would qualify as "post capitalist?" It's hard to work towards something vague and undefined.

I think this is worth raising because the article sweeps across a broad range of topics that -- in my humble opinion -- are not necessarily "post capitalism." And it may be the case that some political concerns mentioned are in opposition to a post capitalist world. For example, what if the fastest way to a post capitalist world is a changing American politics and then using American hegemony to export those politics?

The article isn't great but your analysis is probably worse.

No per Capita analysis? No income analysis? Only two cities?

This is actually a challenging question to answer. Thankfully other people have done research and we can reference that if we actually want to know the answer, rather than just prove our priors to ourselves.

Urbanists disagree that more VMT is inherently good. VMT is good because of why people make trips - see their family, go to work, shop etc.

The alternative isn't eliminating those trips. It's taking the trillions of dollars we waste and spending it on an alternative, more efficient modes that deliver better outcomes (travel time, cost, speed, comfort, etc)

SVB is actually an inverse example of that hypotheses.

The biggest depositors added pressure on the bank to be more risky.

I honestly can't tell if this reply is satire.

There's not really a lesson here about running a start-up for founders. However there's definitely a lesson here about how societies work that Silicon Valley could better internalize.

The is the most "smoking gun" explanation that I've seen of how everyday corruption caused this. However, I'd love to see a follow that confirms the law resulted in a change in bond purchases by SVB.

You think banks putting money in bonds is gambling?

If so, how do you suggest banks make money?

I personally want to live in a country where 40,000+ people don't die from traffic violence every year.

I also think the subjective enforcement of laws by uniformed officers has a terrible record in this country. It strains credulity that anyone would trust a police officer more than a speed camera. I personally think it says something about their actual concerns with oppressive government.

Despite your apparent belief the government is already doing mass surveillance that impacts you, you specifically have a problem with traffic enforcement. Presumably you own a registered vehicle with a serial number and have a drivers license. Forgive me for being skeptical of "concerns about privacy" that specifically entail traffic enforcement but aren't strong enough to forgo vehicle ownership.

I don't think anyone's personal paranoia about traffic enforcement or their personal consumer preference to use a private automobile should take priority over reducing the thousands of deaths and injuries on our roads.

TBC I'm not talking about voting. I'm talking about strengthening social ties. In a disaster scenario, being engaged in a strong community that looks out for each other is much more likely to be useful than owning guns.

I'd love to see the venn diagram of preppers and something like EMT volunteers.

It's always been remarkable to me that preppers are more focused on guns and safe houses than working to strengthen civil society.

Is your "privacy stolen" when you register your vehicle? If you were so worried about privacy you wouldn't have a vehicle.

Just admit you don't have a problem with privacy. You have a problem with automated enforcement.

And yes automated enforcement reduces deaths and injuries. That's a well documented and proven fact. Indulging your paranoia and personal consumer preferences is not worth a single injury or death.

"People don't want their movement tracked" <-- something that isn't happening in free societies, with the exception of maybe murderers.

"Any officer can clock their speed" <-- but you're completely cool with a society where uniformed officers are ubiquitous, randomly enforce the law and could track your movement if they wanted.

At least have the integrity and honesty to admit you just don't want to pay tickets for speeding or parking illegally.

People who obscure their license plates should have their cars impounded and licenses revoked. If you don't think traffic enforcement applies to you, you're welcome to use transit, walk or bike.

Worse than useless. It likely impacts election outcomes.

Owners discover they can make more money by changing what they own.

Idiots with a column discover they can make more money by stoking culture war outrage.

It's like a perpetual profit machine. Thanks for participating.

Tell me more about the scientific evidence that Democrats ignore when it comes to race?

Came here to say this. It's so obvious and the downstream political implications are hugely positive.

The research in this link isn't about whether or not people's behavior becomes emotional when encountering disagreement. But it's certainly interesting that takeaway is the top comment here.

Seems pretty clear the goal is to create a cult of subservience at Twitter.

So he's getting credit for predicting high inflation in 2020?

Let's not forget they also colluded to prevent poaching and still have employees sign illegal non-competes.

Please don't "equate fun with money" says the executive with the multi-million dollar compensation package.

I don't even disagree, it's just hilarious coming from a CEO of one of the most profitable companies in the history of the world.

You might be pleased to learn that the Malthusians have a nearly 200 year record of being wrong.

Increasing interest rates isn't going to reduce rents. And suggesting it reduces ownership prices misses the point. Sure, maybe list prices will go down but it won't reduce the cost to the buyer.

I would like to add housing to your list of inelastic items.

No one is swimming across this river so clearly we don't need a bridge.

Your assertion certainly explains why the most walkable places in the country also have the highest housing costs, no one wants to live there!

Cool. No one is forcing you to live in those places.

> Property is a limited commodity, it can't be expanded to fit demand.

Explain to me why we can't build more housing?

You're responding to a thread asking who is and who isn't an investor. Are you agreeing that you're an investor but that's ok because you also live in your house? Or are you saying your not an investor because you live in your house?