![](/static/e3814064/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/h1ChnLuBHr.png)
I thought she made some very good points, but the quote in the title makes no sense to me.
I thought she made some very good points, but the quote in the title makes no sense to me.
An individual can use the roads if the can afford a car. Amazon must be operating 1000s or 10.000s of vehicles in the US alone. Clearly, some benefit more than others. Some win at Monopoly.
Are we at least agreed that it is a conservative policy? If you carve up the roads and gift them to the people who own the land next to the roads, it’s still conservative. It will lead to greater inequality and poverty. It’s not left-wing redistribution.
we’re now going to charge anyone who wants to use them and keep 100%. Oh, and you have no ownership rights, so we can restrict access to these roads as we see fit."
I don’t know what this means. What is currently happening that is like that? Besides, you want data to be owned, and an owner can restrict access. Shouldn’t you be all for that?
I thought of something that maybe gets this across. Think about roads. We all pay for them with taxes. Companies use these roads for free to make a profit. EG Amazon runs delivery vehicles on public roads.
The (center-)left take on that is: “You didn’t build that.” It can be an argument for progressive taxation and even a wealth tax.
Then there’s people who say that we should privatize all the roads. Let Amazon pay a toll for using those roads. Is it clear that this is a conservative policy?
You want to force people (not just companies) to pay for use of a new kind of intellectual property. That is capital income. You want money to go to property owners.
If you think about this for a second, you should realize that this means lower wages. If a bigger share goes to property owners, then employees must have a smaller share. The money can’t come from anywhere else.
Like a corporation that pays wages. Yeah, trying the same thing and expecting a different outcome.
But it doesn’t redistribute wealth. To do that, you have to take wealth from somewhere and spread it elsewhere.
Private ownership ≠ capitalism.
Right. It’s private ownership of capital; aka the means of production. You’re saying that data should be owned because it can be used productively. That’s exactly capitalism for capitalism’s sake.
This is a typical economically right-wing approach. There is a problem, so you just create a new kind of property and call it done. The magic of the market takes care of it, or something. I don’t understand why one would expect a different result from trying the same thing.
The solution for capitalism is more capitalism? Have you never played monopoly?
@[email protected] How are you feeling about yourself?
It’s weird. They used to take such great pride in not being like the French.
Then again, they also used to think the Iraq War was a great idea (unlike those filthy French).
Do they even eat chocolate that taste like barf anymore? Man, if old Hershey was still around, he’d set them straight. Or the other thing. Either way, he’d do it decisively.
Ahh. TV shows before everything became political. Just two guys hating each other for very silly reasons completely unconnected to anything on earth.
Yes. I think you could say that that being found inside a python pretty much implies being found dead. (There is this one guy, though, but he failed to get himself eaten.)
However, I think it’s just not sufficiently obvious to most people.
The President has no power over the interest rate. The interest rate is set by the Federal Reserve.
Huh. I thought that one was the one that might work, as everyone knows that Americans go bowling all the time. I guess Americans go to the zoo more often than I realized. Or is it something indirect? Like the kid’s bedroom window, which they always use to sneak past the parents, is 1 standard giraffe high? Would be nice for them to be able to feed the giraffes when the circus comes to town.
2 things:
“more than half the length of a bowling lane and makes this snake longer than a giraffe is tall.”
Do Americans really consider this helpful information?
marking at least the fifth person to be devoured by a python in the country since 2017.
The Wikipedia page on reticulated pythons needs to be updated.
I have spent a disturbing amount of time trying to decide if it was necessary to clarify that she was found dead inside the python. I believe that, yes, it was. Make of that what you will.
That’s a weird comparison, given that Russia is and has always been a genocidal empire. A pertinent example is the renewed persecution of the Crimean Tatars under the present russian occupation.
What happened to the number of new apartments being created?
High taxes would potentially push more costs on renters.
Potentially, but I think here not so much. Competition drives prices down. In a perfectly competitive market, prices are pretty much equal to the cost of production. In that case, any tax would be completely passed on to the customer. But you can’t produce land at a certain location. My guess is that rents are largely determined by willingness to pay.
Yes, she said that. But what she said there just doesn’t make any sense.