>but essentially presumes a nation run by public sector unions and their committees of planners is a desirable end state.
I get that this is an typical perspective for the HN crowd, but "where do I sign up?" An aspirational goal of civilization is that we should be able to cooperate and efficiently distribute labour, so we aren't all spending all our time trying to outhustle each other. Public sector unions and planning committees seem a bit more interested in that goal than VCs and and startup devs.
Dubai is an interesting example. It's not just "we have to spend the money on something", it's "our entire economy has a best-by date, whether it's via the ooze running out, or just the march of renewables and EVs, so we'd better diversify while we can afford to."
Even assuming that transport is free and 1000% green, local manufacturing capacity is important just to ensure you have some control over your needs-- look at the shipping fracas in the Middle East, and ask what products you want on the far end of a 10,000km container-ship journey?
Perhaps Scrooge McDuck is an exaggerated model, but when I see "trillion dollar companies" next to "the middle class household is typically 2+ incomes these days", I'm not sure that taming 10% inflation is what really fixes the latter.
inflation doesn't impact the wealthy because their assets are productive and diversified, whereas inflation destroys middle and working classes because their savings are in cash and houses, and there are no productive assets cheap enough or risk adjusted for them to afford other than money market funds.
this exchange we are having reinforces that the objections to PoW and bitcoin are exclusively objections to free and counter-socialist economics, and as a category, their presumptions disqualify them from a basis in reality. if the problem is PoW is not socialist enough, it begs the question in regard to why it should be in the first place- implying it's not actually a thing.
if you model the world as a closed loop, zero-sum, finite redistribution problem, the 10k km container ship journey seems like a risk, but if you have money or something of value, you just hedge it and pick the next supplier.
in markets these are solved problems using futures contracts, and even when it crashes, nobody reverts to cannibalism. I can't say the same for planned economies[1]. Dubai, las vegas, the moon and mars will have similar economies based on currency production whether it's oil or gambling risk or bitcoin, they're the same kind of local resource-based economies.
To put this to rest, there is no niche HN worldview, like most of humanity does to get-by, people who post here generally make stuff. If it weren't it would be Comrade News, where people post about What Is To Be Done, sort of like tumblr and reddit, where nobody does anything and still mainly complains.
I get that this is an typical perspective for the HN crowd, but "where do I sign up?" An aspirational goal of civilization is that we should be able to cooperate and efficiently distribute labour, so we aren't all spending all our time trying to outhustle each other. Public sector unions and planning committees seem a bit more interested in that goal than VCs and and startup devs.
Dubai is an interesting example. It's not just "we have to spend the money on something", it's "our entire economy has a best-by date, whether it's via the ooze running out, or just the march of renewables and EVs, so we'd better diversify while we can afford to."
Even assuming that transport is free and 1000% green, local manufacturing capacity is important just to ensure you have some control over your needs-- look at the shipping fracas in the Middle East, and ask what products you want on the far end of a 10,000km container-ship journey?
Perhaps Scrooge McDuck is an exaggerated model, but when I see "trillion dollar companies" next to "the middle class household is typically 2+ incomes these days", I'm not sure that taming 10% inflation is what really fixes the latter.