camelCaseGuy

You know, most countries that have strike laws forbid this. In Spain, for instance, if the workers are on a strike, the company is forbidden to replace those positions in a strike. Neither with temporary, nor people from other places. And the company cannot fire them. Basically it's a shackle, either you solve your strike or you are out of business.

I know my sources are kinda lame, but I trust them. First, is this video from Kurzgesast that comments on if, how and why nuclear energy is a good strategy for long term improvement on greenhouse emissions and energy sourcing. Second, there's this other video from nuclear physicist Elina Charatsidou.

Again, not papers, but words from reputable people that I imagine have read enough. I know, as hominen fallacy and all that. But there's a point where I don't have the time to read papers about EVERY interesting topic.

And even then, although there's a finite amount of Uranium on Earth, the amount there is could last us thousands of years. Enough for us to get a replacement, like fusion, working.

Yes, by Argentinian standards. That is not much, taking into account the left bias that Argentinian politics have at the moment. By most standards, Juntos por el Cambio are a social-democrat solution. That is pretty much left in most countries.

- Yes dad! I'm a sissy removed, and I like to watch man like me getting steamrolled by big black hunks!

- I came to ask you if you wanted a slice of pizza... but okay.

See? That's where I get confused and I end up with the "that can't happen" attitude in my head.

If you abolish private property, then who has that property? Someone will always have some of that, at least. Let's imagine that it's seized, by whom? How? And why wouldn't that be thievery in the eyes of those who don't want it? Because if I want it to happen, then it would be relinquishing, but if I don't it would be coercive, because I cannot pay anything to that person, otherwise it would become a "haver" against all of those "havenotters" that gave their property for nothing but good will.

And then there's the redistribution fact, of how to do that? Equitable? By some principle? Depending on who you are and are not, you get X o Y amount of "property"? And then it's the issue of how do you measure that "property"? Because two cups of sugar can be of similar value, but not two houses. It's not the same to live in downtown Manhattan than in the middle of Saskatchewan.

Finally, who does that? We? And who is "we"? Who organises "we"? How is "we" not anarchist? And if it's anarchist, how do we ensure it's just?

"Planned by the libs", as if the "libs" were a single entity that have a homogeneous plan. Let's stop giving entity to stuff that never existed and realise that there is a structural problem that occurred because of bad management of our economy and policies. Because we had mediocre actors and in some cases actors with bad faith.

I don't hate the human race. But I cannot stop pointing to our flaws. Not understanding our flaws, will lead to keep having them and the problems they carry.

On the other hand, what you are saying will be valid in any system. How do you propose to have a completely egalitarian society? It's nearly impossible, there will always be people wanting more than they have and won't care about the consequences of it.

Don't blame capitalism for something that's at the core of any political system: Greed destroys it. Greed and humans are intertwined. It's not capitalism's fault. The same happened across history even when and where capitalism didn't exist: the Egyptian empire, the Roman Empire, the Soviet block and even in China now. Greedy people that can be bought will exist everywhere. The wish for power is not inherent of capitalism, is inherent of human nature. Failing to see that will lead to the same issue over and over again, in democratic or autocratic regimes.

Yes, of course we do. We just need politicians willing to do that. I thinks that's the most difficult part.

Yes and no. Capitalism without regulations may bring this kind of issues. But capitalism with regulations shouldn't. The issue is that the required regulations are not being applied or do not exist.

We should not blame or put the weight of the issue in capitalism, when we clearly know we don't live in a perfect capitalistic world, and very few markets are like that. The issue is with politicians.

No, that's an effect of collusion and cartelization of the economy. It's because you have very few actors supplying the product and the barriers of creating a similar product are too high, so new competitors cannot access the market. Then the current suppliers can sit on the product and wait for it to be at the right price, as long as it doesn't go to waste.

As you can see, all of this screens about real estate:

• Cartelization/collusion: The aren't that many companies that have properties on sale
• High cost to enter: Building is pricey, and it depends on the location of the property more than anything. So a building in one neighborhood is not a direct replacement of a building in another neighborhood.
• Real estate does not go to waste. Unless bad luck or poor choices, your building should work fine for a couple of generations. And worst case scenario, the land already has a price.

This is the time when governments should intervene and come up with a proposal to solve the cartelization.