TheDemonBuer

“[They] do not recognise there is a risk of ruin. They are precisely wrong, rather than being roughly right,” the report said.

If these risks were taken into account the world faced an increasing risk of “planetary insolvency”, where the Earth’s systems were so degraded that humans could no longer receive enough of the critical services they relied on to support societies and economies.

“You can’t have an economy without a society, and a society needs somewhere to live,” said Trust.

“Nature is our foundation, providing food, water and air, as well as the raw materials and energy that power our economy. Threats to the stability of this foundation are risks to future human prosperity which we must take action to avoid.”

Society? Nature? It's all just capital, to economists.

The creation of "value" requires destruction. You can't have wood for tables and chairs and houses without cutting down the forest. You can't have electric devices without copper or gold or quartz, that have to be mined from the Earth. And you can't have any of it without energy. No value, NO VALUE, can be created without energy. And the majority of the energy we need to create value comes from fossil fuels that must be extracted from the Earth, and that emit gases that change the composition of our atmosphere.

Destruction is necessary for the production of the things that we value. That being said, it is possible for that destruction to be made sustainable. For instance: don't cut down trees faster than new trees can grow. It is possible for value to be created sustainably, but NOT under an infinite growth paradigm. There is no such thing as sustainable infinite growth. Infinite growth, by its nature, is not sustainable. Infinite growth requires infinite energy and materials, and we DO NOT have access to an infinite supply of either.

We're going to learn this lesson, one way or another.

Jesus, Trump thinks he's Walter White. I mean, Trump is a malignant narcissist, egomaniac, who is simultaneously a pathetic loser and a dangerous, power hungry, psychopath, but at least Heisenberg knew chemistry. Mr. White was at least educated, and he could run a successful business. Does Trump even know what chemistry is?

Occidental says the captured carbon will be stored in rock deep underground, but its website also refers to the company’s use of captured carbon in a process called “enhanced oil recovery.” This involves pushing carbon into wells to force out the hard-to-reach remnants of oil — allowing fossil fuel companies to extract even more from aging oil fields.

Well, they have to sell the carbon they capture to make money. If you suck up carbon and put it underground, where's your revenue stream? The ground ain't paying you to stuff it full of carbon. These big vacuums ain't free, they have to pay for them somehow.

"Today, an oligarchy is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power and influence that literally threatens our entire democracy

Taking shape? Like it's new? Like it's only now just emerging? Jesus Christ, Biden...

Fucking neoliberal trash.

I hope by now everyone understands that you don't need to be especially intelligent to be a multi billionaire.

The biggest factor pushing up egg prices is a wave of avian flu, which began in early 2022 and led to the culling of millions of egg-laying hens. With demand remaining steady, the reduced supply has caused prices to rise.

Supply and demand, folks. Supply and demand. Demand high, supply low? Price goes up. Supply high, demand low, prices goes down.

While prices are expected to ease from late 2024 highs, they will likely stay above pre-outbreak levels through 2025.

Or indefinitely. Once people get used to paying a higher price for eggs, what's to stop the stores from keeping the prices relatively high, even if the wholesale price goes down? If a store can increase their profit margins on eggs, why wouldn't they? Especially if the store is a large corporation, always looking to maximize profit and return for shareholders.

Some people might say, "competition will bring the price down. Once one store lowers their price to gain a competitive edge, other stores will have to follow or risk losing customers." To this I say: who the hell comparison shops for eggs? Look, I'm sure some people do, but, if most people are like me, they're not going to multiple stores to see who has the lowest price for a dozen eggs. I go to one store, my favorite store, and I just get the same eggs I'm used to getting. Even if I did want to comparison shop, not all stores are going to sell my preferred eggs (I know a lot of people will say, eggs are eggs, but I like cage free eggs even though it's probably bullshit I like to think my eggs aren't coming from chickens who are stuffed into those little wire cages all day), so it would be hard to do an apples to apples comparison.

Plus, as more and more stores become consolidated into fewer and fewer major retailer chains, even the theoretical idea of price regulation through competition goes out the window.

Because there's plenty more where he came from.

Then after all the research and actual peer-reviews (not just for-profit journals having a say), policies would be made to support what makes for a better society.

Policies would be made by whom, though? The people, or democratically elected representatives of the people, can choose to make policies informed by peer-reviewed research, but they can also choose to ignore peer-reviewed research entirely. Here in the US it's done all the time. Many of our politicians, and the people who vote them into office, often reject evidence and research based information that they find inconvenient or which runs counter to their world view.

I think this is very true, but how do we organize a society around science? Science can tell us many important things, but it can't necessarily tell us what we should value or what is moral. There are very intelligent, educated people trying to develop moral and ethical frameworks, using critical thinking and reasoning, but how do we ensure those frameworks become the basis for society? Even in a democracy, the people can choose to adopt those moral and ethical frameworks (assuming the people are even aware they exist), but they can also choose not to. Of course that's true of any ruler, so I'm not saying that's unique to democracy, but I'm just saying that democracy doesn't necessarily solve the problem of rulers ruling unethically.

There's technocracy, but for a technocracy to function, wouldn't the technocrats need to have a fairly significant amount of power? I don't necessarily think that technocracy is completely antithetical to democracy, but the technocrats would need the authority to override the people, whenever the people would try to implement some policy that was unscientific, making the technocrats, not the people, the ultimate authority.

Probably jobs that didn't need to exist in the first place. Unfortunately, people need the money, even if the jobs themselves aren't necessary. It's like in the Soviet Union where they would create superfluous jobs so that everyone could have a job, and an income.

His only comment on grocery prices was during his interview with Time magazine for his man of the year article in which he admitted that there isn’t much he can do to bring grocery prices back down to the levels of 2019. Economically, the only thing that will do that is a strong recession that no one wants.

This is what folks don't seem to understand: prices only go back to where they were five or six years ago if there's a recession, and a severe one at that. The Fed is trying to get inflation under control, but even if they're successful, that doesn't mean prices will come down, that only means prices won't go up as quickly. Getting inflation under control means prices go up 2% per year instead of 2.5% or 3%. Trump can't change any of this, and many of the policies he says he plans to implement would likely make it more difficult to get inflation down to the Fed's 2% target.

TLDR, shit ain't getting any less expensive unless there's a pretty bad recession, and Trump can't change that.

I suppose I'm happy for the economy. I mean, I'm glad it's doing better than ever, I guess, but I've got my own issues. Sorry if that sounds selfish, but it's just hard for me to get too excited for the economy when I'm stressed about my own situation.