Google drank so much capitalist koolaid they thought the company needed internal competition when the main reason they remain so big is because they have big chunks of monopoly power in several key tech fields

Putting someone in a home is more important than getting them socialized medical care

I get your point and I agree, but allow me to reframe this dichotomy a little: housing is health care - it literally saves lives. These issues are intertwined, and socialized housing should be part of a socialized health care strategy.

What possible use is that?

I’ve noticed “has this sub gotten more right wing recently?” posts reaching the top post of the day in the last 6 months or so. r/norge and r/unitedkingdom being examples. You can automate bots that change a subreddit’s consensus on certain topics by bot-spamming threads pertaining to those topics, especially in the first hour of a thread going up. I don’t know if that’s happening, or if it has more to do with the Reddit protest that saw mods abdicate their positions last June and new mods being responsible for the change… but it could also be a bit of both.

In the EU they’re getting a digital euro which allows them to avoid bowing down to Paypal, Payoneer, and all the services interlinked with them (e.g. Patreon) - the ancillary services can even offer digital euro payouts instead, too. So as long as what you’re doing is legal, you can break the Paypal/Payoneer terms of service as much as you want and avoid their privately enforced authoritarianism that goes beyond the scope of the law for whatever reason. So those problems are being solved as we speak, depending on where you live.

Kind of, the central government did this in response to Mayor of London Sadiq Khan:

In December 2023, Gove used his powers to “call in” Khan’s rejection of the project, overturning the Mayor’s rejection and turning the final decision to DLUHC ministers.

But the project did withdraw anyway:

However, in January 2024, MSG wrote to the Planning Inspectorate officially withdrawing its plans for the project.

I suspect it has more to do with London being left by advertisers right now. A few years back the tube had all the advert slots filled, always. Today, the advert slots are usually half filled and it’s been like that for years. I expected it to change after COVID lockdowns ended, but it has persisted all the way until now.

It makes me wonder if these anti-porn laws are happening because queer people seem to be more likely to watch porn[1], and because of that, conservatives are looking at it as a causal thing rather than a correlative thing. If porn does help with getting to terms with your sexuality, then these laws should be worrying to the queer community. What conservatives may be doing here is trying to statistically decrease the amount of queer people in society, as getting rid of porn may reduce the amount of people who are aware of their own bisexuality, and those people may never engage with and/or have as much empathy for the queer community as a result.

[1] https://www.thepinknews.com/2019/02/28/more-porn-watch-more-likely-bisexual/

There are also valid reasons for disabled people to be against SUVs, and the abundance of cars in general: pollution creates disabilities, and so much pollution comes from car tyres. I know, because I have a disability that’s associated with said pollution, and I wouldn’t wish this on anyone else so I really hope we can replace car use with less polluting methods as soon as possible. And then there’s the more physical way: cars crashing into people also creates disabilities. If you’re disabled, you’re probably more likely to have sympathy for all the other disabilities that cars contribute to creating, and would prefer if SUVs and cars were replaced by other methods.

Why you acting like we can only do one of these things?

I’m not, please don’t assume that. It sounds like we’re in agreement here, so I’m not debating you, but rather adding to your post, I suppose. It sounded like you wanted to extend the conversation towards solutions to the housing crisis in general.

By ‘both’ I mean we don’t have to either not solve this (climate hell) or just subsidize private hydropower, we can overcome both of those.

But… the point you brought up does lead me to talking about the Norwegian oil strategy that you might be interested in! Norway is doing exactly that: subsidizing private discovery of oil, tax the sale of oil heavily - and it has been very successful (to the detriment of the environment…). The US can learn from that by subsidizing private hydropower development (to incentivize building more of them) and then using targeted taxes when they’re actually operating. It’s the strategy that is often touted as “how Norway avoided Dutch disease / the resource curse”.

I didn’t actually mean subsidizing private hydropower above, though, I meant the government doing it themselves so that the profits are socialized rather than privatized. That’s mostly what Norway has done with its hydropower strategy. The case for taxes for hydropower, and natural resources in general, is basically the Georgist case: nobody invented or created the nature/land that allowed for that hydropower station, it was already here long before we were, so taxes make sense in that they socialize profits extracted by private companies.

How do you define ‘corporate’ ownership? If you can own 100 properties as an individual, does that count as ‘corporate’? If it doesn’t, that seems like an easy loophole. If the intent is to ban large quantities of homes owned by single entities, then doing it by quantity sounds more sensible.

That might redistribute old homes, but it doesn’t necessarily solve the drip feeding of new homes that we have going on right now. For example, the UK used to build 250k+ houses every year during the 1950-1980s period. 50% of that was government built council houses for those in need. It’s estimated that we need to build 250k more homes than we currently do in the UK, and the private housing industry has not done its part.

We can just do both? Look at Norway’s hydropower strategy: the government owns and operates most of it, and they tax private hydropower. That’s significantly better than handouts. There are valid critiques of what the Dems are doing, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t take the small victories we can (like this) nor does it mean republicans aren’t worse (they’ll just do even worse handouts to the rich).

For the record, government debt isn’t bad. What is bad, is how that debt is used. If you use it to fund productivity boosting infrastructure projects, then it pays for itself. If you use it to invest in successful companies in return for shares then it pays for itself… unlike when Tesla got a $400 million gov. loan and gave nothing in return - which meant tax payers had to take the hit when Solyndra (which got money from the same scheme) bankrupted itself into the toilet, tax payers took all the risk and got shafted both when a company failed and when one succeeded.

The Norwegian government, for example, owns 30% of the domestic stock market. One of many strategies the US government should probably be looking to if they want a healthier way to invest in companies.

Using debt to back tax cuts on the other hand, like Trump did according to this article, is an awful strategy.

John-Burn Murdoch wrote an article about this (you may have to access it via Google or an Archive, I believe FT has a soft paywall), but this graph from the article is basically the tl;dr. The same applies to a couple of other wealthy nations, but I only remember Norway (I think he posted an addendum to the article on Twitter), but it’s certainly not the trend in every country in the “west”.

What is it with corporations just buying stuff up for excessive amounts of money and then firing a bunch of people?

Probably because they’re unelected descendants of upper middle class to straight up wealthy people, assigned by a wealthy board of more wealthy individuals (if it’s a public company), rather than a competent leader the workers with actual knowledge of how work is being done on the floor have decided is the best.

When you don’t leave managing the business to an incompetent nepo baby, this happens:

[…] the UK Office for National Statistics showed that in the UK the rate of survival of cooperatives (read: democratically owned organisations) after five years was 80 percent compared with only 41 percent for all other enterprises.[6] A further study found that after ten years 44 percent of cooperatives were still in operation, compared with only 20 percent for all enterprises.

Fakhfakh et al. (2012) show that in several industries conventional firms would produce more with their current levels of employment and capital if they adopted the employee-owned firms’ way of organising

The kicker is this:

We use World Bank data27 to calculate the time needed to reduce (to below 1%) poverty at $6.85 a day. This is the higher of the three global poverty lines used by the World Bank; it is used because we believe it gives the most accurate picture of the numbers of people globally living in poverty.

I sure as hell could not survive on $6 a day - and we can talk about purchasing power, but resources have international trade prices and you’re priced out of those resources if you’re poor because of pecuniary externalities. At the current rate of wealth inequality growth, it will probably take so many years it might as well be “forever” to eradicate actual poverty and not the “at least you’re not a slave” poverty definition they’re using.

(note: I skimmed through it, so I could have missed something crucial)

Meanwhile Meta takes great pains to remove any glimpse of an erogenous zone like the most deranged Christian fundamentalist

I felt this a year ago when I got measles and all the medical staff I talked to were pretty surprised. Parents didn’t give me the vaccine as a child, but I got vaccinated as soon as I could afterwards. The weirdest part is I work from home and don’t leave my home too often, which means I was either really unlucky, or it was already pretty widespread in the UK then.

It’s probably more accurate to state that they believe capitalism and markets to be two separate things, for example a market economy where every business is a multi-stakeholder worker-consumer coop and workers and “consumers” alike can consent to what happens at work, would be at odds with private ownership given that everyone is an owner with decision making power (collective/socialized ownership). This is pretty much what Corbyn and the Labour party a few years back were aiming for - they were going to experiment with cooperatives by having the government encourage and fund them.

I realize a lot of Republicans don’t give a shit about consent, but most of the rest of us do

I’m pretty sure the core goal of right wingers in their respective domains is preventing us from gaining the ability to consent to more stuff - or in their more extreme, for taking away our ability to consent to things - so yeah you’re right about that. Democracy is a system of consent, and our progress towards that was being challenged during the Enlightenment. Today, for example, many right wing economists are against democratically elected managers/bosses, unions, democratic government owned enterprises, government welfare safety nets for the vulnerable, housing cooperatives as a solution to the housing crisis, the list goes on. The pattern being that all of those increase the average person’s ability to consent to more stuff by leveling power asymmetries.

I’m starting to think the term “piracy” is morally neutral. The act can be either positive or negative depending on the context. Unfortunately, the law does not seem to flow from morality, or even the consent of the supposed victims of this piracy.

The morals of piracy also depend on the economic system you’re under. If you have UBI, the “support artists” argument is far less strong, because we’re all paying taxes to support the UBI system that enables people to become skilled artists without worrying about starving or homelessness - as has already happened to a lesser degree before our welfare systems were kneecapped over the last 4 decades.

But that’s just the art angle, a tonne of the early-stage (i.e. risky and expensive) scientific advancements had significant sums of government funding poured into them, yet corporations keep the rights to the inventions they derive from our government funded research. We’re paying for a lot of this stuff, so maybe we should stop pretending that someone else ‘owns’ these abstract idea implementations and come up with a better system.