the physical structure to ‘feed’ them doesn’t exist and has to be built. The example she gives is the number of transformers.
I’m aware of this problem becaues I’m aware (more than aware) of the strategic vulnerability of our grid already.
Source date (UTC): 2023-07-15 18:58:04 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1680290652322496514
Reply addressees: @FarajRashi93307
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1680289471655206913
Sabine Hossenfelder Rains On EV The Parade
https://t.co/0Q3asqEX04
– Price tag to upgrade the grid for the demand in electric cars tesimates range from 7 to 20 TRILLION dollars.
– And then, we still have to create the energy?
– Fueling electric vehicles with coal is worse than continuing use of petroleum. An electric vehicle would need to be driven 80k miles in most countries to be break even while working toward ‘net zero’.
– EV’s take 6x minerals as conventional vehicles. With Lithium and Cobalt the main constraint. Almost all cobalt comes from the DRC (conflict).
– Prices of EVs will increase.
– And then there is the problem of recycling the batteries.
(Net: this really needs to be spread out over a century, and will require nuclear reactors, and new power lines.)
(FWIW: I’m not buyin’ it – the timeline is’ just not reasonable.)
Source date (UTC): 2023-07-15 18:21:10 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1680281366561169410
Please keep the Writers and Actors strike running for three or more years. Five would be better. Even better, ending all copyright, and replacing it with the “Non Commercial” Creative Commons License.
Why? As a penalty for using the creative industry for their sedition and treason and social construction of harms, assisting in the ‘march through the western institutions of cultural production” of which ‘woke’ is just the most recent sedition. The copyright was invented in order to produce taxes, but has been abused. It’s outlived it’s purpose. Creative Commons is enough.
Explanation
The Creative Commons licenses that allow for copying and distribution of artistic content but prohibit commercial use are:
1) CC BY-NC: This license allows others to remix, adapt, and build upon the work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge the original creator and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.
2) CC BY-NC-SA: This license allows others to remix, adapt, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as they credit the original creation and license their new creations under the identical terms. This means that any derivative works (works that are based on the original) must also be licensed as non-commercial.
3) CC BY-NC-ND: This license is quite restrictive, allowing others to download the works and share them with others as long as they credit the original creation, but they can’t change them in any way or use them commercially.
In all these licenses, “NC” stands for “Non-Commercial”, meaning that the work can be copied, distributed, displayed, performed, or modified, but not for commercial purposes.
Source date (UTC): 2023-07-14 16:12:13 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1679886525784260608
–“China’s national unemployment rate is 26% and urban unemployment is 55%”– June 27th.
Very hard to guestimate these numbers but Lei’s done a good job.
These numbers reflect a 1.4B population even though we suspect the population is only 1.2B, but Lei predicts it’s only 1B.… https://t.co/mCSbJvYaaf
Source date (UTC): 2023-07-13 21:08:35 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1679598722362011654
-“Migrant workers constitute 38% of China’s labor force.”-
Source date (UTC): 2023-07-13 20:44:24 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1679592636108210176
As aristotle said, the people will have their luxuries
in other words there is no limit to human acquisitiveness especially of novelty, becasue novelty in consumption is a cheaper reward than novelty in production.
(Actually, he said ‘meats’ because they hardly had any, but the point he was making is the same. And I hope it was Aristotle. Might have been someone else. lol)
There is no surplus. Because surplus must include the cost of distribution. Besides we don’t have a food shortage we have an obesity problem. And the government’s dietary suggestions have been wrong all along. And if we ate like we should it require far more meat (I have to eat mostly meat myself) and would not include any grains, and far less fruit and sugar.
Reply addressees: @Dontcar25448459
Source date (UTC): 2023-07-13 19:52:47 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1679579646319374342
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1679566148860362752
Max (all)
Double down on “stress”
(a) wealth is the result of the amount of capital you can bear responsibility for.
(b) you gain responsibility because people give it to you.
(c) people give responsibility to you because they think you can do something with it they can’t do as well themselves.
(d) The more you are responsible for the more risks you have to mitigate from other people who are as equally competitive because they are equally responsible, and equally trusted.
(e) The more risks from the more people you have to mitigate in competition with people who are equlally responsible, competitive, and mitigating,
(f) the trade off is that the quality of opportunities for you to gain responsibility for, mitigate, and profit from, increases, so that you have inverted the supply demand curve facing all people who want to gain wealth. And the quality of people you deal with are more responsible themselves, more capable themselves, and mitigate more effectively themselves.
(g) And eventually you run into the problem of seeking returns that are no longer from holes in the market unserved by people with more wealth than you have, but competing for commodity opportunities that require vast wealth even to participate in, and which are subject to political risk.
(h) meanwhile all wealth is subject to entropy (depreciation).
(i) So every step in that process increases stress.
I don’t think it’s possible for the average person to comprehend how hard people work who have a great deal of money, nor the condition of stress they are under the entire time. Nor how prescious any time away from that stress is. Nor how impossible it is to escape it at all. You must treat every person you interact with as wanting something from you. You can only really trust a few close people. And a yacht for example is a reprieve, and worth every cent – simply because people can’t get to you. 😉
I know myself, running companes across north america and europe, and with customers worldwide, that I can outwork most people. But there are people who can outwork me, and people for whom outworking me is simply much easier, and less stressful. You must process information and make decisions and judge people constantly.
In other words, just as there are sports athletes there are social athletes, work athletes, and intellectual athletes. And most of us understand that atletics of each kind combines some kind of strength with one thing: endurance that is unberable and unimaginable by the majority.
Cheers
Reply addressees: @themaxstoic
Source date (UTC): 2023-07-13 14:37:16 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1679500243765788672
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1679493486070976514
Clarification. Last paragraph:
–“In other words, we make the economy better by ending bads and then indirectly produce goods, rather than try to produce goods that always and everywhere produce bads indirectly.”–
Source date (UTC): 2023-07-13 14:01:03 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1679491131221102598
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1679488171317293056
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
TAXES DON’T SOLVE INEQUALITY. HOW TO FIX IT?
No you cannot reduce inequality with taxes.
You can:
Structure your economy for employment (instead of prices) -reducing need for taxes and redistribution.
Compensate for market failure by producing a labor economy for the production of commons – reducing need for taxes and redistribution: note that this demand is going to increase rapidly as technology continues to increase.
Require work for redistribution – producing returns on redistribution.
Increase employability of citizens within their ability limits – reducing need for taxes and redistribution.
Eradicate rent seeking, socialization of losses, privatization of commons, and corruption – reducing need for taxes.
Limit utility, bureacracy, state, and education ‘income capture’, in particularly prohibiting unions – reducing need for taxes.
Convert consumer interest, insurance, employment, medical, and retirement savings to non-profits under the treasury, invest those ‘institutional investments’ in the economy – reducing need for taxes.
Convert the Academy and Medical industries to professional-run, and end all administrative personnel who consume the majority of costs.
Restore ability to hire by tests of IQ and personality thereby ending the need for 100k education debt as a substitute.
Reduce education over 13 to part time and begin part time employment for the young. Socialization and economic education are more important than indoctrination.
Improve education by replacing instruction with ‘gaming’.
Continue govt funding of research but structure as public private, keeping part of the profits of R&D in the treasury reducing neede for taxes.
Form public-private businesses for the provision of utilities (most of which would include telco, video, data, cell, and run them as non-profits.).
End the immigration problem that seeks to keep wages low, at the expense of social destruction (bowling alone). And restore requirement for full integration before admission.
And I can continue this list for pages and pages.
In other words, we make the economy better by ending bads that indirectly produce goods, rather than try to produce goods that always and everywhere produce bads by externality.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1679488171317293056
Clarification. Last paragraph:
–“In other words, we make the economy better by ending bads and then indirectly produce goods, rather than try to produce goods that always and everywhere produce bads indirectly.”–
Source date (UTC): 2023-07-13 14:01:03 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1679491131124617217
TAXES DON’T SOLVE INEQUALITY. HOW TO FIX IT?
No you cannot reduce inequality with taxes.
You can:
Structure your economy for employment (instead of prices) -reducing need for taxes and redistribution.
Compensate for market failure by producing a labor economy for the production of commons – reducing need for taxes and redistribution: note that this demand is going to increase rapidly as technology continues to increase.
Require work for redistribution – producing returns on redistribution.
Increase employability of citizens within their ability limits – reducing need for taxes and redistribution.
Eradicate rent seeking, socialization of losses, privatization of commons, and corruption – reducing need for taxes.
Limit utility, bureacracy, state, and education ‘income capture’, in particularly prohibiting unions – reducing need for taxes.
Convert consumer interest, insurance, employment, medical, and retirement savings to non-profits under the treasury, invest those ‘institutional investments’ in the economy – reducing need for taxes.
Convert the Academy and Medical industries to professional-run, and end all administrative personnel who consume the majority of costs.
Restore ability to hire by tests of IQ and personality thereby ending the need for 100k education debt as a substitute.
Reduce education over 13 to part time and begin part time employment for the young. Socialization and economic education are more important than indoctrination.
Improve education by replacing instruction with ‘gaming’.
Continue govt funding of research but structure as public private, keeping part of the profits of R&D in the treasury reducing neede for taxes.
Form public-private businesses for the provision of utilities (most of which would include telco, video, data, cell, and run them as non-profits.).
End the immigration problem that seeks to keep wages low, at the expense of social destruction (bowling alone). And restore requirement for full integration before admission.
And I can continue this list for pages and pages.
In other words, we make the economy better by ending bads that indirectly produce goods, rather than try to produce goods that always and everywhere produce bads by externality.
Source date (UTC): 2023-07-13 13:49:18 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1679488171162193920