cnelsenmilt

This largely mirrors my thought. I was unpersuaded that non-technical management grasps the technical aspects well enough to leverage them as described.

The clear solution should this stand is to include a Terms of Incorporation when a business is created stipulating that they waive their right to a trial and that any labor disputes will be settled by independent arbitration.

Okay, but the workers' pay was not adjusted upwards to match those best years, so if not now, when?

Thank you, I was composing a reply along these lines as well. The essay is pseudo-erudite, using a lot of words to convey an impression of depth but in actuality saying very little, and repeatedly. I will also add that the Biblical exegesis at the end is interesting only as a personal interpretation: ahistorical and effectively creating its own mythical version. The piece might be acceptable as a work of fiction but it's not philosophy.

Regulatory capture is a real problem, but are you suggesting we'd be better off if the same Big Pharma could just market and sell whatever it pleased?

Thorough and enforced training requirements for gun ownership I think would shift a lot of opinions from the somewhat opposed to the accepting column.

Sure, it is hard. But there's a gigantic middle ground between "no photographs ever that contain any part of your house" and "permanent digital video camera whose footage is invisibly passed on to the government". It is far from impossible to write some rules that balances these things. Yes, there will be loopholes: a criminal who wants to photograph your house could come by with their nephew and stage a photoshoot. But we live with those kinds of exceptions already: as giraffe_lady said, the law is not an algorithm.

The irony is well-taken but it goes a little deeper. Even for someone who bought a house 20-30 years ago and could sell far below the current market without losing money...that person then can't afford to buy anything else. (Doubly so in places where property tax increases have been limited over the span of their ownership -- the taxes on a comparable house in the same region may be a large delta.) It's a vicious spiral with, I think, no pain-free offramp.

Sure, in the same way that when I'm trying to lose weight and want a snack I will make a choice between a celery stick and a cookie, or I can forestall the choice by not having a cookie in the house in the first place. The story of Odysseus and the sirens.

I have lived both in suburbs and cities and there are just as many poorly-kept and dangerous dogs in one as in the other.

Well, second problem is that we don't have any rules for access to the raised material standards for anyone who's not providing inputs to the system elsewhere. In plainer words you need to be employed to have money so you can buy things, because buying things with money is the only option. That is one of the chief negative impacts that looms: a large amount of people being left out of the economy because they don't meet the new efficiency bar.

That's fair, and as I said they have a place, but I think we can agree it's not a majority case.

Yes, but AirBnB units are not that. The prices are an order of magnitude higher than prevailing monthly rates, if they're even available on a long-term basis. And yes, short term, furnished rentals probably also have a place in the market. But it's a small place. The vast majority of people need a location that's stable on an annual+ basis and whose price has a reasonable relationship to local wages.