notsoshaihulud

Thanks edited my OP to advertise this. i like passive resistance, it takes much fewer resources, non-violent etc.

but a lot of the demand can be met by buying used stuff

haha, awesome metric of bullshit:)

Firstly, the covid pandemic was a multi year event.

The initial shocks happened in the first 3 months.

Secondly, publicly traded companies were enriched greatly from that time. Also it wasn’t conscious degrowth or a lack of ability, it was supply chain issues that caused products not to be available for purchase.

Yup, that's why the control here is in the consumers' hand and again, it's sort of like reducing your consumption so it starts hitting the metrics enough for corporations to realize the risks.

I already barely buy shit. I’ve always said “if the economy hinged on my purchasing habit, the country would go bankrupt”.

well, you're already part of the movement:)

should all buy less and be more mindful of where our money goes. I think we should buy locally and promote businesses that you agree with on levels beyond the value of the good or services they offer as often as possible. However, I don’t think we can effectively protest this way unless it was a true lifestyle change for a large portion of the country.

I'd disagree, we saw it with COVID how vulnerable corporations are. They'll always focus on stock buybacks and stuff like that over recession-proofing. Also, this is quite an equitable movement. Those who can't afford new shit are already contributing to it.

We could even make an app that shows stephen miller, steve bannon, or one of the dogeshits talk whenever people got tempted to buy shit.

Ask yourself what that means to business contracts which depend on those laws to be guaranteed,

Agree. If they feel the rules of engagement can be changed unilaterally, we can show that this can go both ways.

n the strike is over. If the company can anticipate well enough, they’d raise prices when the demand comes back and come out ahead in the long run.

You have to use/consume less, and for an extended time period, not just change when that purchase happens.

But yes, with that caveat, use less, and choose the lesser evil when you do need to buy something. The individual effect is small, but small things add up.

The mitigation is to focus on used goods so it is much less painful. Unlike gas, people don't need that new TV, or that next phone, gaming console, their Nth streaming sub and use alternative (wink) ways to consume entertainment media.

Yup, delayed consumption would be the most likely outcome, but that's not necessarily a problem if people can apply this pressure in a meme-like fashion. It's sorta like the gamestop squeeze.

Also the immediate personal pain could be mitigated by buying used stuff.

I know people just google stuff without looking into references, but let me do it for you:

Reference: Kelly Blue Book, Study: Electric Vehicles Involved in Fewest Car Fires by Sean Tucker, January 28, 2022 Points to AutoInsuranceEZ.com which appears like the worst kind of EV slop: https://www.autoinsuranceez.com/gas-vs-electric-car-fires/?_cl=aC559XZjJUWkUEucak9lPfNY

To find the rate of car fires by vehicle type, we collected the latest data on car fires from the NTSB and calculated the rate of fires from sales data from the BTS. Take a look at what we found below.

1. Nothing on the time frame and the specific date range of the data.
2. NTSB DOES not collect car accident data, NTHS does...

I.e. this reference is useless and surprisingly low quality for a .gov site.

Your best data is from Sweden and that also doesn't provide rate of fatalities so this whole thing isn't settled when it comes to fires with injuries (the rate for that is about 0.6%)in ICEV dominated data: https://www.nfpa.org/education-and-research/research/nfpa-research/fire-statistical-reports/vehicle-fires)

I do think that EVs are safer, this is why I drive one (not a tesla...), but if an EV burns, that a huge issue. And again, drawing conclusions from 2 accidents over a year vs. 10 years of pinto data is well...not a good comparison.

That's still an overestimate because the miles driven needs to be taken into consideration, time to fire, etc and on the CT's side we should never include the suicide case in the stats...

But an honest analysis would compare the CT to EVs as their fire rates are inherently higher, which doesn't mean at all that EVs are less safe in general than ICE vehicles.