digital-cygnet

I think your first question is answered by your second. The main reason for a radically egalitarian Star Trek utopia to have money would be to allocate scarce resources. The shack and the 8-bedroom villa have very different supply and demand curves, so would have very different prices.

There are other problems that get glossed over in a Star Trek utopia, and there are other ways of allocating scarce resources than a market economy, but I don't think your objection really holds.

"You can't beat the market -- dollar cost average into index funds" is the sentiment I get from this thread, and also the one I agree with. Actively trying to pick stocks, unless you have extreme interest, ability, and resources to do so is hard. Betting on, basically, "the whole stock market" is a pretty good idea, or at least better than letting inflation take daily bites out of your cash. This is one where I think the received, mainstream wisdom (diversify, invest-don't-trade, investing should be boring, etc) is basically right.

The comment you are responding to is saying the opposite. They are saying that the person can access the wealth of the house (eg via a reverse mortgage) in order to pay the taxes while staying in the house. That's what this meant:

> Houses are wealth. And the wealth in them can be accessed while retaining use of the house. Especially when you are getting older.

Simple example. I bought the house at $100k. It's now worth $500k. That means I owe $20k/yr in taxes, but it also means I have $400k of additional wealth. A bank will lend me money with that wealth as collateral. If you imagine that the interest on the loan is roughly equivalent to the rate of appreciation of the property going forward, that's 20 years of taxes paid for by the increase in home value. Seems like a pretty good deal for everyone!

Self-driving cars decrease the internal costs of driving (allowing you to do it without having to pay attention) while keeping the external costs (congestion, danger, pollution, noise, etc) basically the same. So we'll end up with more driving, with society at large bearing the cost.

Locking this future in for good because of "present infrastructure" would be short-sighted.

Different people have very different relationships to art (in this case, music). For me, the aspects of communication and empathy are key: I think of a song as a message from a particular person at a particular time trying to get across a particular feeling, message, etc.

There is nothing wrong with your approach to music appreciation (removing the author entirely and appreciating it as an isolated work), but it's worth recognizing that a lot of people have different values from you here and their preferred mode of music appreciation is equally valid.

I like the thought behind the piece, but what I think the criticisms are reacting to is the profusion of short, bursty sentences (just like the ones in the parent post), which can be great when used sparingly, but start to feel repetitive and have a "LinkedIn"-ish vibe, at least to me. For example the very end:

  Most of you won't be able to answer that. And you already know it.
  
  That's the conversation this industry needs to have. Not tomorrow. Now.

I hope you don't take this the wrong way and do continue writing - I enjoyed this piece, just wanted to give some constructive feedback

This is normal for the Economist. I don't really understand why -- they clearly have an American edition (I get their print version in the US and its headlines and organization is totally different than the same edition in the UK), yet they leave all the "colours" and "boffins" in there, when it would be pretty trivial to regionalize the language same as they do the currencies and structure. My assumption is that being a bit eccentric and foreign-seeming is part of their brand.

Can you explain more why you think this? As I see it, cars in general remain very highly negative-externality, and self-driving doesn't change it much.

Regular ICE cars: - air pollution from tire wear and brake dust - air pollution from exhaust - embodied carbon - noise - endangering other road users - traffic congestion - land use (sprawl) - long term health impacts (encouraging sedentary lifestyle)

Switch to all-electric and you lose a bit of noise and all the tailpipe emissions, but gain whatever emissions generated the power (sometimes solar, great, but sometimes lignite, boo), whatever environmental damage resulted from the battery materials, and probably marginal worsening of safety as the same ranger requires a heavier vehicle

Switch to self-driving and you may increase safety (feels like Waymo basically yes, Tesla probably no based on their track record with stat manipulation), but also vastly increase use, worsening congestion and land-use. The others stay the same.

So I don't understand why you're saying the externality ratio is good. From my perspective self-driving cars don't really move the needle.

I don't think this is a crazy take, but it is missing two big factors that self driving maximalists often ignore.

First is the cost of driving. A reasonable rule of thumb is $0.50/mile all in (i.e. including depreciation, repairs, gas, etc) -- you can get down to half that pretty easily and maybe a little lower, but especially if you're spending tons of time in this car you're probably going to want a nice comfy one, which will cost more and depreciate faster. So, these trips you're imagining everyone taking constantly are not going to be accessible to most people. Cars are already the second biggest expense in most Americans' budgets, one which scales with mileage, and which self driving would only increase (have to pay for the lidar, on-device compute, whatever remote service handled edge cases, etc).

The second thing your predictions miss is geometry. Despite the decades of predictions about self-driving cars being able to run safely at much higher speeds and with much tighter tolerances than human-run cars, the tyranny of geometry and stopping distances (which actually won't change much even with millisecond reaction times) means that throughput of car lanes is unlikely to change much (though we could all imagine top-down infrastructural changes helping this a lot, eg coordinated self driving cars and smart roads, those seem unlikely to land anytime soon given American political inclinations). Imagine how spaced-out people are on the highway -- in each lane, 1.6 people (average car occupancy) every football field (300 feet -- safe stopping distance at 70mph). If you're trying to go anywhere more densely packed than that -- e.g., a city, a restaurant, a ball game -- you're going to start to run into capacity constraints. Mass transit, walking, and cycling all can manage an order of magnitude higher throughput.

So while I think your prediction -- that self driving cars will increase demand for road space -- is right, the valence that takes for me is much more negative. The wealthy will be able to take up way more space on the road (e.g., one car each dropping off each kid at each extra curricular activity), condemning the poor to even worse traffic (especially the poor who cannot afford a self driving vehicle, who will not even be able to play candy crush while they're waiting in this traffic). People will continue to suburbanize and atomize, demanding their governments pay for bigger and bigger roads and suburbs, despoiling more of the areas you'd like to hike in, with debt that will keep rolling over to the next generation. Bikes and peds will continue to be marginalized as the norm for how far apart people live will continue to grow, making it even more impossible and dangerous to get anywhere without a car. I hope I'm wrong but this is how mass motorization played out the first time, in the post-war period, and if anything our society is less prepared now to oppose the inequitable, race-to-the-bottom, socialize-your-externalities results of that phase of development.

The bright line distinction is Pepsi watching Food Lion's end-consumer pricing and trying to force it up in order to mollify Walmart.

I actually doubt this is remarkable in the world of major producers and retailers (e.g. I've heard anecdotes of brands sending around reps to ensure that their shelves at retail stores are appropriately well lit and placed, so having an agreement on price seems pretty normal). However, it's probably a good case to get the public thinking about the desireability of such an oligopoly -- evidence that it's not merely better economies of scale and logistics that are keeping Walmart's prices low, but also explicit, private deals that feel shadier. I don't know that anyone did anything objectionable here given the norms and incentives in front of them, but it's a bad look for those norms and incentives.

It's not the discounting that's a problem -- it's the intentionally watching other stores and preventing them from closing the "price gap" with Walmart

> As a result of Food Lion threatening Walmart’s price gap, Pepsi created a plan to nudge Food Lion’s retail prices on Pepsi products upward by reducing promotional payments and allowances to Food Lion and raising other costs for Food Lion

I cannot understand this sentiment. If you commit a crime in a country and don't pay the fine, why would you be surprised if they made you pay the fine next time you crossed the border? Even if it were a parking ticket I wouldn't find Canada's actions here objectionable, and DUI is a lot more serious than that. Unless I've misunderstood the scenario you're describing.