Comment by tossandthrow

3 days ago

Even for people living of wealth, it is not clear what the outcomes are.

If renters of your apartments can not afford to rent them, housing crashes because your city was a looser (Detroit style withdrawals).

Even for stocks we don't know who the winners are. The market as a whole usually does not respond that well on serious turmoil.

So yeah. We are likely seeing some very rough years.

Yep, most wealth is ultimately dependent on some kind of ability to scrape off tiny bits of practical accomplishments of value achieved by large numbers of people. In some cases, such as your housing example, this is a very direct dependency. In other cases the dependency is indirect and less visible.

The smarter ones among the rich have realized this and are open for something like a universal basic income precisely for that reason: to protect their wealth and the position in the food chain this wealth affords them.

  • UBI will never happen. I don’t understand why it’s even brought up anymore. Social security isn’t even solvent, health care is a disaster, and people still trumpet UBI like all of the enormous glaring funding holes don’t exist.

    It’s embarrassing at this point. Give it up.

    • UBI money needs to come from somewhere. Hence it will and can never happen. Fake money helps nobody. There is no difference between getting 0, 1000 or 10000 fake dollars a month if they value of the dollar will go to zero

      17 replies →

Sadly, we have gone above and beyond the level of innovation where stock market disruption is a primary concern.

Luckily, we're all in this together. As long as enough people realize the weight of what's happening soon enough, I'm confident the indominable human spirit and the relative momentum of post-enlightenment social & institutional progress will carry us the rest of the way on a wave of clearly-justified solidarity.

To think otherwise --to truly face the spectre before us without hope-- is pathology, I think. Not necessarily incorrect of course, but definitely an unhealthy source of cognitive distress.

  • When the very first prokaryotic life forms saw the very first cells with mitochondria were they cognitively distressed? We face a similar phase change. In our lifetimes, probably.

Loser. Loose means opposite of tight.

  • Even as a native English speaker, this is one of my more common mistakes, along with weather/whether[/wether].

    How did we end up with the word with the long-o having one o, and the word with the short-o having two?

    • > How did we end up with the word with the long-o having one o, and the word with the short-o having two?

      Neither is pronounced with a long "O" sound or a short "O" sound, and they both have the same vowel sound. (A long "O" would be the vowel sound in "lone", for example. Short "O" is like "log".) The difference is that you use your vocal chords to pronounce the "S" in "lose", making it an English "Z" sound.

    • I think English might be second only to Chinese in terms of how phonetically opaque it is. Unlike say Korean, where if you can speak it you can spell it and vice-versa, English is requires you to just know.

      English is kinda neat in that it's a fusion of all the different lingua franca's of the time throughout history.

    • I pronounce lose and loose exactly the same, and have no problem differentiating them in writing.

It's even the 'smaller' stuff that will be horrible.

Even if you're lucky to be wealthy you'd be living in a city with fewer restaurants, bakeries, shops, anything. Because once a lot of people don't have income they won't be able to go out and buy things and shops will go out of business.

It will also lead to a lot lot LOT LOT LOT more crime. I don't see the semi-wealthy to have an enjoyable life.