Are you saying EU with its 450M people is lacking "money" and needs 350M US to do it for us? Because somehow "money" is what makes stuff to happen. Not labor.
Europes slice of global GDP has gone from ~30% (1980's) to ~17% (2020's), America's has remained at ~25%, and China has been on the rise, tbd if they can pass the US
Population wise, 7%, 5%, and 16%
Another statistic, the EU accounts for almost 50% of global social spending.
instead of 'money', the more precise term would be 'risk capital'. And yes, Europe has a stark shortage of that, which is why Euro startups raise in the US and when they go public, they go public on the US exchange.
SpaceX and Tesla are together worth more than all companies on the entire German stock market put together.
I mean I hear people clamoring for a paycheck without work. I've never heard someone ask to work without a paycheck. So yes money seems like an important ingredient.
If I understand this correctly the Europeans hope that by banning the spectrum where Starlink operates, they will spur the development of home grown operators that provide the same service ... is that realistic?
Even if we don't spur the development of home grown operators (and IMO launch on the scale of Starlink is somewhat unrealistic any time soon), it will at least prevent us getting get another incidental dependency on US systems which we can be threatened with loss of access to at any point.
The internal cost per tonne to low Earth orbit differs
vastly between SpaceX’s Falcon 9 and Ariane’s best offer:
Vehicle Cost / tonne
Falcon 9 (booster recovery) ~$2 million
Ariane 64 ~$5 million
Starship (projected) <$500,000
To meaningfully compete, European launch providers must try to match these costs, then spend a decade putting these vehicles into orbit. That’s no easy task.
Source? Quick search did not reveal any internal cost per tonne to orbit numbers.
Either way, if they did outsource these launches, they would not be paying the cost, but the price (meaning cost + margin). And that is much more expensive then just buying it from SpX.
It is, there are lots of European launch companies that will have their first launches in 2027 and all target cheap launch services which is the key to Starlink. Isar Aerospace has already put a payload in orbit, but they are only one of many.
Europe doesn't need the same service. A far higher percentage of homes in Europe have access true high speed internet over fiber or wires than the US does. Europe can get itself the same capability with far fewer satellites.
2) Even if the does, why attack Moscow? Russian civilians have nothing to do with the war and we're not barbarians.
3) Even if we wanted to, Moscow as a target is so big that dead reckoning starting from Portugal is probably enough to hit it. There are also a lot of other means of guidance, including sun/stars, Gee and public FM radio stations.
You don't have to be "productive" all the time. As you put it, driving the car is not just a chore - things happen along the way. It can be a chore - I just contest the most unproductive label here.
By this token, sleeping is the most unproductive thing in the world. Except you recharge.
I enjoy driving for pleasure and often go for days long drives. Driving back and forth to work however is definitely a chore. It sounded fun at first, I get to do something I enjoy doing before work, how bad could it be?
Turns out, spend a couple hours on the road everyday and you'll quickly get sick of podcasts or ebooks. You can't stop to look up details or check out the code/math/design because you're driving. You can't really do anything else too because you really should be focusing your attention on the road.
totally agree but aside from the joy of driving, which I genuinely appreciate, most of my driving is of the kind (commuting, sat in traffic) where id like the driving bit to be taken away and any number of alternatives presented. Also sleeping is essential. Productivity is surely about what you do when you are awake, the problem with driving is that it demands constant attention so surely that has to make it (equally to anything else that requires constant attention) the most unproductive activity there is (initial caveat aside)
The truth is we don't know. Anyone who can answer that question will be rich.
But actually, what I've commonly heard from immigrants from developing countries is not having their certifications recognised. What was once a surgeon/lawyer/accountant is now forced to do menial labour. So maybe that's one problem to consider solving.
The same happens when bakers move from one rich EU country to another. (The Financial Times has written a few articles about it.) I'm not here to dump on the EU, but cross-border recognition of credentials is an insanely complex topic.
It is interesting that you chose "laying tile" as similar to the other jobs. I reject that idea. Some of the earliest specialization of labour is anything in the trades, and can probably be traced back to central European guilds from more 500 years ago.
But if you are going against 200 years (some say even 10,000 years) civilization trends, you better have extremely strong data points to prove this time is different
Simple: humans are needed for their physical labor (traditionally) or more recently their cognition. We are now automating the cognition part, and it is widely believed physical labor will be automated not that far after that.
So what's left ? Most A.I labs mention some form of UBI why do you think they're saying that?
I don't get the Amazon bashing. My experience is nothing like that:
Kitchen scale, $20 bucks, looks and operates exactly as described; three years later, it still works fine.
Bed sheets, $16, two days later delivered, better than I thought - at least for the price that is. Best price/quality ratio I could get.
If I don't like something, returning is super convenient; I drop it off at Kohl's over the weekend. Time and again I am stupefied of how is it possible that in small town USA, I can get something shipped by next day while paying a one time yearly fee.
I think Amazon is the best online shopping experience on the
planet.
At the employee side, the minimum pay at Amazon is $20 per hour. Walmart is $14, AliExpress ... we can be only guessing at that
> I think Amazon is the best online shopping experience on the planet.
Be careful there. I use Allegro in Poland, where next-day is the rule, their website doesn't scream it was made in the late '00s (in the worst meaning of this comparison), and, as a bonus, they don't compete with their own merchants and even happen to pay their taxes here fairly. I'm sure there's plenty more of such websites across the 'planet'.
I expected the site to look good after all that shit talking, but it just looks like china-slop sites like shein and Alibaba. And it has all the exact same mechanics as amazon. I had to scroll the entire page to stop seeing sponsored products.
Amazon pays $20/hour because most people don't have the mental constitution to put up with it. It's pretty dull.
When I was hired as a part-timer (no interview!) at a warehouse there were about a dozen of us. In a month maybe four were left. It wasn't terribly physically difficult, though I was fairly sore. But there was nothing good about the work.
It was just repetitive, isolated tasks where you have to consciously decide not to meet the unrealistic standard, or just blindly follow the orders on the device, or guess how fast to work to avoid a strain injury while not being obviously slow.
To give some examples, we'd take bags (totes) from specific locations as indicated on our device, pack them on a large push-cart, and shuttle them halfway across the warehouse. Or we'd pick packages for a specific location off a conveyer belt (which usually moved too fast). Or we'd spend 5+ hours, alone, unfolding bags and putting them back onto the shelves.
There's probably some analogy to be made with software development here, based on what I've heard, but I'm only a CS student.
The covid lockdowns started my senior year in high school, so I ended up working at an Amazon distribution center and Walmart my restaurant job also laid me off.
Sure both sucked, but an Amazon warehouse is much more dull. It is truly mind numbing work, the only enjoyable aspect was seeing how many sex toys people bought when they were stuck at home. It's noisy, hot, and you do the same task for your entire shift. You could not wear headphones or listen to music. You are micromanaged to a degree I have never seen before like timing your bathroom breaks. They even had thermal cameras at the entrance to see if you were hiding any stolen product under your clothes, and insisted they were for detecting employees coming to work with a fever.
You’ll have a distinctly different experience buying clothes on there. 95% of the items don’t fit as described, the fabrics are not as pictured. My wife has a whole box of clothing returns she has to do for some shopping she did before a trip. Almost none of it was as-advertised. And Amazon will “lose” at least two or three items and claw back the refund a few times like they have every year, necessitating she call once a month for 3 or 4 months until she gets someone empowered to fix the problem permanently.
Sadly it’s still a better experience for her than shopping in-person because at least 5% of the items do fit versus nothing in-store. You used to be able to alter that stuff but the cheapness of the fabric and the intricacy of the “on-trend” design makes that impossible these days.
I’m not a fan of Amazon either, but you keep spamming that link. The law suit is clearly about mistakes in the return process over 9 years claiming to account for 600 million dollars in returns. Amazon does 600 billion a year in revenue. So 600 million over 9 years is a fraction of a fraction of a percent. Hope that helps.
> I’m not a fan of Amazon either, but you keep spamming that link.
I posted it twice, but duly noted that reaches your personal threshold for defining spam.
> The law suit is clearly about mistakes in the return process over 9 years claiming to account for 600 million dollars in returns.
Maybe you should have actually read the article first, where it quoted the total settlement topped $1bn. The proposed figures were $1.1bn using Amazon’s own estimates, whereas an objector in the case proposed closer to $1.5bn.
> Amazon does 600 billion a year in revenue. So 600 million over 9 years is a fraction of a fraction of a percent. Hope that helps.
Right. And how would their AWS, subscription, advertising, licensing, or third-party seller revenue be relevant here exactly? Why should their worldwide revenue be considered when this is a US only settlement? In fact, why would revenue be relevant at all here? Unless your point is that the figure is so insignificant for Amazon that consumer rights and stealing over $1bn from customers shouldn't be a worthwhile consideration? In which case I agree.
I returned two products, got two different return codes, was supposed to send each back separately.
During the return (it was a Kohl's return), I forgot about the two different codes and gave both items to the clerk, who then packaged both items with only one code.
I got credited for the first item a few hours later.
At that point, I realized my mistake of packaging both in the same return, but thought it was a lost case and chalked it up as a loss.
Imagine my surprise when, a few weeks (!) later , I got credited for the second return as well. How did they figure that one out? I don't know.
The most amazing customer service, where I did not even have to mention it and the error was still rectified.
Good for you, nice anecdote. Whilst we are sharing, I've calculated Amazon have stolen close to $20k of my money which I am hoping to recoup through this lawsuit alone. Happy for you though.
The problem is thats it is a 2 dollar product that could be sold and fulfilled by some other seller for 10 but you cant do that because Amazon's pricing scheme.
Shop around and you are likely see the same product with a different "name" on it for 1/2 the price.
Really Lowes and Home Depot have been doing better imo for anything they have. Their website actually has filters and decent search and most stuff is free next day delivery. On top of that, the Chinese knockoffs are fairly minimal or at least more established knock-off brands.
On top of that, that's without a $150/yr subscription.
AI has not yet reached the point where it can convincingly generate long presentations with the precision required for complex, technical academic topics. It will eventually get there, at which point an additional layer of proof of work will need to be introduced. This is an adversarial race.
I think this is an interesting and effective solution, at least for now. Similarly, graduate and master's theses should focus more on the presentation and on eliciting knowledge from the students through critical, thorough questioning than on the tangible outcome of the project, which can easily and bindly be obtained with AI these days.
Taxing capital assets by taking large portions of their value destroys value by forcing liquidity events. Think forcing sales of farms, factories and domain names.
I much prefer land value taxes (and similar taxes on non capital wealth like jewellery) and leisure taxes (ideally taxing people for every hour they don't work). Of course these are difficult to administer in practice, but British business rates and US overtime tax discounts effectively approximate this.
I had the same reaction. It also seems easy to pull apart. What about disabled people who are unable to work?
I think something more like "investment income should be taxed at a higher rate than income earned through labor," accomplishes similar goals but is more intuitive and less problematic.
This is a false dichotomy. Laborers could just as easily invest in job-creating endeavors as passive income earners. All taxes cause economic drag, not _just_ business and investment income taxes. The economy includes every participant, and laborers are not an externality.
I'm sorry, I don't follow. Yes, people who are labourers could also somehow creating funding pools that are big enough to start companies, but so what? That doesn't negate the fact that they will be disincentivised to do so by a tax on investment income.
Not as dystopian as the ability to get wealthier without working and pay no taxes (and even IF you sell to realize gains, your tax liability is still lower than someone who made money through labour)
Your definition of "wealthier" is stupid, though, because it relies on a measure that doesn't actually apply to the person in question. A share's price is just "the last sale price of the same type of share", and that is multiplied by the person's shareholding to get their "wealth". However they don't have any more money by this happening - it's just a huge assumption that the share price would stay the same across all their shares if they sold right now.
The time we actually know what money they would make, making it concrete for tax, is when they sell. And we already do this.
There's multiple advantages to making money from equities that people who make money from ordinary income simply do not have, favourable tax rates, the ability to choose when and how much to realize, the ability to loss harvest, compound interest, everything around how we tax these 2 forms of income is set up to beget inequality.
In an ideal world, the government would sell some of whatever shares it gets at good times to pay off debt, for example when interest is high just before a tranche of government bonds expire
Apparently not. Googling, no one seems to actually do it in spite of some politicians talking about it.
It seems quite a bad idea from a practical point of view.
Not so much because it's socialist but it leads to all sorts of extra paperwork for no good reason. Like say you buy some utility company share for your retirement in 20 years and it fluctuates. Do you want to be valuing it and paying tax and then claiming it back when it goes down every year for 20 years or just declare the gain at the end?
Really? How? Show me a country that taxes wealth and is prosperous. Taxing unrealized gains results in owing tax on money you don’t have and makes starting a funded company impossible.
Why not? We tax property every year on it's assessed value. I think it's pretty clear that the wealthy will need to pay more taxes throughout the world to deal with an aging population.
I'm a little tired of billionaires 'buy, borrow, dying' to get around the paltry taxes they're currently subject to. We need a harder tax to dodge.
Why would taxing the wealthy be relevant to an aging population? Do you think that we tax stuff? We just tax money to buy stuff. If a nation produces less stuff, then spending more will just cause prices to go up, but will not result in the production of more stuff to go around.
Because our current social safety nets all work by assuming the next generation pays for the care of the current elderly. Those elderly do need 'stuff' they need doctors and nurses and nursing homes. Thus taxes will have to go up, and if it has to, it may as well be progressive.
No, actually, we have explicit taxes for SS and Medicare, and we've known they were not bringing in enough revenue to fund those programs since the 80s.
The trust funds are almost dry, so we're either going to have to raise those taxes to fund those programs, or cut a critical safety net to the American public. I know where my vote is going.
Do we have an estimate on the number of people capitalism has killed? Serious question.
Include deaths due to poverty and lack of affordable healthcare under capitalism, overworking and dangerous working conditions, and all wars and counter-insurgency waged on alternative economic systems globally.
You'd need a definition of capitalism first. Since for most people, it's just the default mode of living -- e.g. the very term "capital" comes from "head", as in "head of an ox", as early cattle culture practiced capitalism, so it predates the agricultural revolution and was practiced by nomadic groups.
A lot of the language, for example "interest" comes from cattle culture. If you think about it, a cow produces other cows, so it bears interest. You can eat the cow (consume capital) or let the cow produce a stream of milk. Ownership of cows gave you great power.
So asking "the number of people killed by capitalism" is like asking "how many people were killed by everything that's not communism", which is pretty inane, since the point of communism is that it is an ideology, and mass killing for an ideology (that's not religion) is a part of the modern world, not the traditional world of cows and capital. The first ideological genocide was the slaughter of the Vendee peasants by the French revolutionaries, but it was merely the first of many times that urban ideologues slaughtered rural farmers.
Man I always love the straw men you guys stand up to fight this. More taxes = socialism, and not nordic socialism, no, actually, communism. Therefore mass death / genocide. Ok. Sure jan.
Nordics are not socialist[0]. Socialism is central planning and control, sometimes created out of mass killings[1] [2], and often creating many deaths just from incompetent central mismanagement[2] [3] or grisly bureacratic rules[4].
If you tax unrealised gains, say Elon Musk's SpaceX shares, all that means in practice is the government takes a certain percentage ownership stake in SpaceX every year until he has nothing left to tax, or he sells it to someone else and pays tax on that sum (but who would buy anything if it's going to be taxed away?)
What a nonsensical argument. Yes, that's why we're all living in government owned housing, because if you tax something, it inevitably gets taken away, and nobody wants to buy houses, cause the government is just gonna take it away...what?
If your wealth is 100% ownership of Tesla, say, and the government imposes a 5% wealth tax, you have to sell 5% each year of your ownership stake (because the lie of all this is it isn't wealth being taxed, it's ownership) and give it to the government. Until you don't own it any more.
And if you think "well, it doesn't have to go to the government", who else will take it? Who would buy something that they would have to sell 5% of each year? The government, being the only thing that wouldn't be affected by a wealth tax, would become the de facto buyer.
Communism is not socialism. What Stalin, Mao and Kim Il-sung did was wrong because they did basically the exact opposite of a socialist policy, centralizing power out of workers hands and taking all surplus value into the central government instead of distributing it.
They all turned into paranoid dictators who did everything they could to stay in power, except for Mao who got lied to by other party leaders and regretted it in his final years. None of them represent what socialism really is. Tankies who worship them are a small minority.
Someone says they're going to make everything equal and they just need enough power to do it. Trouble is, that requires all the power, and a) the halfwits who end up in power are nowhere near as good as the people doing the work and taking the risks at deciding what to do and how to do it and b) the people who want all the power can just say that and the credulous believe them.
Edit: it seems perfectly acceptable and ideal even for society to say there is a cost to wealth. As others have mentioned Neovim is in the US is likely mostly tax exempt so this hypothetical doesn't even apply to them.
We slid down that slope a long time ago. Taxes are good and pay for my important things, up until the moment they pay for someone else's important things, then it is theft.
Taxes on unrealized gains are good? Are you nuts? No sane country has them, and it is one of the stupidest ideas that NL came up with. Way to squeeze middle class even more.
Europe is caught in a dilemma: tourism, air travel, and city hopping are its economic lifeblood that keeps the continent running, but these also cause the greatest damage to the environment.
Since they can't fix the real problem are trying to go "green" in counterproductive ways that make things worse: blowing up nuclear plants or taxing cow fart.
More like 6%, roughly in line with its population share (5.4%). Not sure if that includes air travel, international air travel often isn't included in national statistics. https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/report_2025
Whenever I see those statistics, I always find them very weird. Many of our products are made in China, but those are counted towards China's global emission, not Europe's. It also applies to the need of power generation for delocalized industry or importing food. A country handling a lot of industry will have a very high per-capita emission, but the people living there may actually have very low individual emissions.
If it's not significant, can I have 5% of your net worth?
If the EU mandated that products imported are made in a carbon neutral fashion, then importers of products will pay attention. Unfortunately it means higher prices, and the governments will get voted out of office by people voting for the populists selling the electoral promise of "Make Prices Low Again!"...
I like low prices, but I'm not looking forward to the chaos (political, social, what else) and deaths which I'm guessing will affect me within in the next 10 years.
The chaos is already here for us, the majority who are suffering the higher prices. Why do you think we're voting for the "extremist" parties? It's not because of "Russian propaganda", it's because life for the majority of us, normal Europeans, has become quite dreadful, economically and not only.
You're commenting on a comments thread about the possible desertification of Europe, a conversation we're having in the context of the record hot summer.
The extremist parties offer scapegoats and solutions for the unthinking ("The brown people! Remigration! The elite, except we're getting funded by the elite and we'll protect them and fuck you!"), and sadly there's too many stupid people who can't be spoonfed any concept of "think deeper" that like buying those...
The EU is responsible for a lot more than that once you factor in emissions in other countries producing goods bought by people and businesses in EU countries.
Unless you count the historical city center of Venice as a big city I doubt you'd get many big cities getting even close to those numbers
I can't easily/quickly find some numbers but if we want to accept, with a grain of salt, Gemini research on this even in Venice (I think it counts Mestre as well) it's ~15% and that's the highest it found.
Money they probably don't have.