The new law exempts certain semiconductor chips from strict federal environmental reviews.
https://archive.is/Olkdk
While many Americans believe anti-Asian hate has passed, experts say many communities are still living in fear.
Twenty years of publishing data across many countries and disciplines show women are more likely than men to leave research.
A ClojureScript live programming environment for small distributed systems, with live inspection features and self-rewriting code, etc.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/price-gouging-after-a-disaster-is-good-for-the-public-1507071457
Grouped notifications, notification filtering, better onboarding and a refreshed look await in this new release of our decentralized open-source social media software.
We are on the brink of an irreversible climate disaster. This is a global emergency beyond any doubt. Much of the very fabric of life on Earth is imperiled
> Risk of societal collapse
> The climate emergency is not an isolated issue. Global heating, although it is catastrophic, is merely one aspect of a profound polycrisis that includes environmental degradation, rising economic inequality, and biodiversity loss (Hoyer et al. 2023). Climate change is a glaring symptom of a deeper systemic issue: ecological overshoot, where human consumption outpaces the Earth's ability to regenerate (Rees 2023, Ripple et al. 2024). Overshoot is an inherently unstable state that cannot persist indefinitely. As pressures increase and the risk of Earth's climate system switching to a catastrophic state rises (Steffen et al. 2018), more and more scientists have begun to research the possibility of societal collapse (Brozović 2023). Even in the absence of global collapse, climate change could cause many millions of additional deaths by 2050 (WHO 2023).
We are on the brink of an irreversible climate disaster. This is a global emergency beyond any doubt. Much of the very fabric of life on Earth is imperiled
> Risk of societal collapse
> The climate emergency is not an isolated issue. Global heating, although it is catastrophic, is merely one aspect of a profound polycrisis that includes environmental degradation, rising economic inequality, and biodiversity loss (Hoyer et al. 2023). Climate change is a glaring symptom of a deeper systemic issue: ecological overshoot, where human consumption outpaces the Earth's ability to regenerate (Rees 2023, Ripple et al. 2024). Overshoot is an inherently unstable state that cannot persist indefinitely. As pressures increase and the risk of Earth's climate system switching to a catastrophic state rises (Steffen et al. 2018), more and more scientists have begun to research the possibility of societal collapse (Brozović 2023). Even in the absence of global collapse, climate change could cause many millions of additional deaths by 2050 (WHO 2023).
perhaps you should be asking yourself that question
weird straw man that has nothing to do with what you originally said
Drone footage shows devastation left by Hurricane John in Acapulco
GIMP, but mostly because I'm already used to it. I keep meaning to give Krita a go, but just haven't had the time and energy to figure out how to do all the things I already know how to do with GIMP using it.
Anybody who's not an utter ignoramus knows that burgerland already tried invading Cuba. Not only that but Guantanamo Bay is still under occupation where burgerlanders run a torture camp.
That's the most frustrating thing about all this. It's pretty clear that the climate has become extremely unstable in the past decade, and people keep talking about it as if it's something that will happen in the future.
Regain the illusion that can be sold to gullible western public so that western governments can keep the conflict going.
Thousands died in wartime massacres and Warsaw wants Kyiv to admit responsibility and allow for exhumations and reburial of the victims.
The EU's plan to raise a €35 billion loan for Ukraine involves a key change in the sanctions regime that Hungary is so far blocking. #EuropeNews
Carlos Pereira noted that BRICS "is consolidating global politics and the hope of the Global South as a key player"
Oh I haven't seen that one. The roughly 50/50 split does seem about right to me though because it's what we saw in the past two elections as well. Basically, the the mainstream in the country is split into two camps at this point. Most people either buy into the republican or the democrat narrative. And it's a whole ideology at this point, so people aren't voting on particular issues or promises that parties makes. It's about which vision of US people subscribe to, and that's becoming more polarized over time.
What the dems care about is that their donors keep funding them. If they lose the election, then it doesn't actually matter because they'll still get the same money they're getting now. However, if they win the election and piss off the donors then they lose money.
having a surplus of apples means you value an individual apple less, yes
Nope, that's not how any of this works. If you have constant demand for the good, you value all the factories producing the good equally. The fact that you can't get this through your head is frankly incredible.
Anyways, it's pretty clear that having a rational discussion with you is not possible since all you do is just regurgitate the same nonsense over and over. I'll let you have the last word that you evidently crave. Have a good one bud.
did it get through to you?
Oh yes, you've further confirmed that you have no clue.
if you have two apples, you can afford to lose one of those apples less than if you had three apples. try again.
Having more apples doesn't make your existing apples less valuable. In terms of production, this translates into demand. As long as your demand is growing ALL your factories are just as valuable.
did it get through to you?
literally linked you a source referencing china explaining their own economy
If you can't even understand what the article says then there's no point having further discussion.
and again, the interpretation you linked to isn’t mutually exclusive with “market economy”
It's not an economy where the market makes decisions where labor and resources are allocated. The government decides that and the market acts as an allocator within that context. If you can't understand how that's different from a market economy then you have no business having this discussion because you don't understand what you're talking about.
being less dependent on a thing automatically makes you less invested in a thing, but this is besides the point
If I have two apples and I buy a third apple then I'm not less invested in the two apples I already had. Let me know if I need to explain this in simpler term for you.
well china say their economy is a market economy, and you say otherwise, so i guess this puts you firmly in the ignorant internet troll camp
Well China doesn't say that, and linked you an article explaining what China actually says. Feel free to keep ignoring that and regurgitating nonsense though.
you’re so absolutely rabid to just disagree with anything i say, you’re willing to render the chain of your argument completely incoherent to do it
The only one incoherent here is you bud because you're discussing a topic you don't understand. This is a perfect example of you being incoherent:
yes, china spending decades building out supply chains for external manufacturing inherently means they’re less invested in domestic industry, or they wouldn’t spend decades to do it
China is not developing external manufacturing at the cost of domestic manufacturing, nor is there anything inherent here. China is increasing capacity to supplement the domestic capacity. The fact that you can't even understand such basic things is frankly phenomenal.
you’re arguing with china’s interpretation of their own economy by providing a non-mutually exclusive definition
Yeah, I'm arguing that Chinese understand how their economy works better than an ignorant internet troll.
incoherent
That word you keep using doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.
if you’re so sure you’ve addressed it, quote it, and i’ll do the reading comprehension for you and explain to you why the thing you quoted isn’t actually addressing anything
This is not a long thread, go back and read it instead of making vapid replies here.
Exactly, a good way to approach the problem is by asking what exactly is an economy. Fundamentally, it’s a system for ensuring that labor and resources are allocated to meet the needs of the people living in a particular society. Money is simply the mechanism that’s used to direct the allocation.
From this perspective, what a government does when it issues currency is stimulate activity in a particular sector of the economy where that currency is allocated. For example, Chinese government starting to do investments into chip development is resulting in that sector of the economy growing. Similarly, when private spending and markets allocate funds towards some area of the economy then supply grows to meet that demand.
That’s literally all this is, and obviously the government can issue as much currency as it wants, there’s no fundamental problem here because all it’s doing is directing the growth of the economy. Hence, as you point out, the issue isn’t with the money supply but how that money is used. The problem we have under capitalism is with labor and resource allocation being driven primarily by the interests of the capital owning class. Their goal is to direct labor to grow their capital, with any social benefits being strictly incidental. This breaks the connection between the government issuing currency and that currency being used to direct labor in a productive way.
china invents capability to snap fingers and materialize manufacturing capability out of thin air
If by that you mean China spends decades building out manufacturing capacity and setting up supply chains then sure.
i’m not willing to have this debate with you over whether china is a market economy when i’ve literally provided you a source that quotes china calling itself a market economy
I've literally provided you with the source explaining the context of markets within the Chinese economy and explained why your understanding is superficial. Clearly you don't care about actually understanding the subject you're opining on.
you mean like when you said china wasn’t a market economy, despite china saying they were a market economy?
Literally explained to you why it's not, you didn't bother addressing any of that and just continued bleating about China being a market economy. Really showing the quality of your intellect here.
you’re trying to make that point by pointing to a shift away from private capital, which is a completely meaningless statistic because the shift away from private capital wasn’t intentional so doesn’t imply anything about an economic plan going forward
LMFAO
i literally spelled that out for you last time and you still chose to deliberately miss it
if you work on your reading comprehension a bit, then you'll see that I've addressed your nonsense already
It's even more dramatic when you consider how much lower labor costs are in Vietnam.
Ramping up production didn’t reduce demand. Demand reduced due to a softening Chinese economy, mainly due to debt and housing.
There's not much indication that the Chinese economy is actually softening. Also, not sure what debt from housing you're talking about. 90% of families in China own their home. What’s more is that 80% of these homes are owned outright, without mortgages or any other leans. https://www.forbes.com/sites/wadeshepard/2016/03/30/how-people-in-china-afford-their-outrageously-expensive-homes
Pretty much the only people losing money on housing are investors, many of whom are foreign.
I agree, it’s not excess supply when you can sell it overseas. However, its also not central planning when you wanted to Ramp up supply for domestic consumption but end up using capitalism to keep efficiencies.
It absolutely is central planning when the state decides on the overall direction of the economy. The state doesn't need to micromanage the details of the economy any more than your brain needs to consciously micromanage every muscle movement when you try to walk. The state wanted to create a lot of housing for people to live in, and that was accomplished. Now, the state is directing the economy to wind down real estate and transition to high tech which is happening.
Companies ramp down production all the time. What do you think redundancies and factory closures are for? They react to market conditions or seek new markets (as happened in this case).
Companies don't do that voluntarily, they do it when they're in a financial trouble. Meanwhile, thanks to brilliance of capitalism there are very few redundancies left. Everything is just in time economy, that's why a single ship getting stuck in Suez Canal can bring the world economy down.
The problem is central planning is less efficient at deciding how much is needed. It will often over or undershoot. Thats what happened here.
Except it's not what happened here because as you yourself admit there is global demand for the goods that China produces. Overshooting would be producing goods that nobody wants.
Central planning didn’t work to produce the needed amount so trade through capitalism is being used to improve efficiency of the capital used.
It's just regular trade between countries, it has nothing to do with capitalism and predates it by a wide margin.
