az04

Stop playing so much DnD

"No."

I would sleep just as well if Shaq's top marginal rate was 90%.

Not relevant anymore, TempleOS now has more users than BSD.

You're not wrong. There's probably a better way to stabilize Argentina's currency which won't lead to as much suffering. But no one presented that better way.

Peronists have been doing the same things for decades and it led to 40% poverty. Milei ripped off the band-aid and it led to 60% poverty. But it probably paved the way for lower poverty in the future.

If you find a way to lower inflation (which helps everyone) and make the poorest people in society equally prosperous, I'm sure they'll give you a Nobel in Economics for it.

Lowering inflation when it's too high is always a question of short term pain for some people to get long term benefits for most people.

Inflation is going down. That brings hope. A year ago some saw their life savings' purchasing power cut to a third. That brings despair. This year it only went down by half, which brings hope because it's an improvement. Once inflation is at a reasonable level, economic growth will have to bring hope, which it probably won't, since Milei will be focused on lowering debt and trying to fill the hole in the central bank, which still stands at negative 7 billion dollars in foreign reserves.

Milei is a Christian, authoritarian, regressive fascist.

And he would never have gotten into power if the Argentinian left had respected the independence of the central bank, been more pragmatic with their subsidies and let the market decide more of their economy. Protectionism doesn't work and Argentina is a shining beacon letting everyone know that.

The left in Argentina did this to themselves. Even the trade unions in Argentina are struggling with support because they're seen as complicit in the country's wild overspending.

Because in the long term, very high inflation leads to everyone being poorer. And Argentina is the very best example of this.

A country that went from being the 6th richest in the world to having over half the population in poverty in 100 years. All thanks to protectionism, subsidized living costs, low taxes and printing money to make up the difference.

And let's not forget fleecing the international community for money to rebuild the economy several times and then not paying it back.

It existed up until the pandemic, Trenhotel, I took it once. Fell asleep in the center of Madrid, woke up in downtown Lisbon. The trip had beautiful snowy landscapes lit by the full moon. It's such a shame it's gone.

What do you mean?

The LCOE of renewables has been decreasing so fast that they are now cheaper than fossil fuels. You might very well see that graph change drastically over the coming decades. The LCOE of fossil fuels has been decreasing as well, and contrary to what you said production has been increasing since the pandemic, despite the horrors it will do to the climate.

I really don't see why people would starve... Electricity is getting cheaper to produce independently of whichever method you use, more things are being electrified, and the current price of oil is a historical average when adjusted for inflation.

If your point is that soon it won't be profitable to extract oil, then I have a graph for you too: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/oil-proved-reserves?tab=chart , when that graph decreases by at least half we can talk. Until then, I'd say 200B tonnes of economically extractable oil is more than enough, and we should be more worried about the climate change that oil will cause than with it not being enough.

You choose to see horrors present in a convoluted and esoteric set of cherry picked data. I choose to see the wonders like the GERD dam, which is giving people in Ethiopia access to cheaper, cleaner electricity. Higher quality of life without the constant need to extract more and more oil. A dam that will last generations.