Cars and building for car infrastructure is part of it. Another part, I think, is the decline in neighborhood communities. By that I mean the social pressure to get to know/socialize with your neighbors, through everything from block parties to shared church membership. When kids go “wandering the neighborhood” they were never far from one of the member’s houses, or at least a familiar neighbor who would notice them and keep an eye out.
Which also goes back to car infrastructure. If you need to drive everywhere for any and all errands/activities, you won’t interact with people in nearby houses, you wont see neighbors at the local bar or small grocery store.
So many of the issues in the US stem from an isolating car (instead of people) oriented infrastructure. Everything from social breakdown, obesity, aggressive brodozers, insane utility and insurance expenses - the list goes on.
I don’t think business and rich people will use it either. The Concorde worked because you were in a black hole while you crossed the Atlantic, unable to work and unplugged from what was going on. So saving 5 hours was extremely valuable. Now, we have laptops and in-flight wifi, so you don’t miss much on the plane like you used to. Combine that with ultra luxury first class cabins that make the flight extremely comfortable, and saving some time while having to sacrifice all the amenities that come with a good first/business class cabin on a full sized airplane just doesn’t make sense.
Even private planes just don’t feel like they would make sense. Most private jets are used for regional and transcon, and the time savings would be much less significant at those distances. I feel like most wealthy individuals would rather upgrade to a larger, more comfortable, and/or longer-range jet than to sacrifice comfort, size, and range for supersonic. Only the truly ultra-wealthy seem like they might pick up a few, but that is such a vanishingly small market.
I couldn't find any sources for widespread beatings of children to death by teachers.
>Ahn noted that prisoners detained in the punishment chambers were often crippled after three months and dead within five months. Ahn and other former guards have testified to the brutality that they were encouraged to demonstrate while punishing prisoners. Former guards have confessed that they were taught not to view prisoners as humans. However, the number of deaths from beating prisoners was so high that at one point, the guards were encouraged to be less violent.
https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Prisons-of-...
>One inmate recalls that as a 10-year-old he was told to lift a 30kg sack of earth (more than his own body weight) 30 times a day. If he slipped he was beaten with sticks by his teachers. Kang Cheol-hwan (former Yodok inmate. He was detained with family as a young boy). Here called: The work was too much for me or for any child of my age. But I did not dare to complain. After the first ten rounds, my legs started shaking, my body was hurting and my shoulder skin was peeling off. I was near collapse but the teachers were watching us and beating us with sticks if we stopped.”
>Kang Cheol-hwan also recalls deaths of children who were working at a work site. “The children in my class were ordered to dig and move earth to a work site 200 metres away. Twelve children dug holes with shovels and the other children carried the dirt in sacks or buckets. The dig site was a clay hill and the clay was quite soft. But we were afraid that as we dug deeper, it could collapse at any time. The teachers who were supervising us told the children to keep digging. After three days, the hill suddenly collapsed. There were six children who were on top of the hill when it collapsed. Three children were killed and the other three were badly injured. However, the teachers blamed the children for the carelessness.”
>Between the ages of 13 and 16, Shin recalled: “I was forced to undertake dangerous work and saw many children killed in work. Sometimes, four to five children were killed in a day. On one occasion, I saw eight people killed by an accident. Three men were working high up on a tall cement wall, three 15-year-old girls and two boys were helping them with mortar below. I was carrying mortar to the children when I saw the cement wall falling. Eight were buried under many tons of mortar; there was no rescue. Instead, the security officers told us not to stop work.”
https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/asa240...
>Security officials armed with machine guns gathered together all the political prisoners at the camp to witness the hanging of the two adults and the execution by firing squad of the three children.
>“Interviews were conducted with 35 defectors who had escaped from various detention facilities in the preceding 18-month period, and 31 of them testified to having witnessed the killing of newborns.”
https://web.archive.org/web/20141006072142/https://www.kinu....
Take a million dollars, give 1,000 poor people $1,000 and every dollar will be spent on goods and services. The companies running those services and making those goods will need to have their employees work more hours, putting more money back in poor people’s pockets in addition to the money the companies make. Those employees have a few extra dollars to spend on goods and services, etc.
Give a rich person a million dollars, and they will put it in an offshore tax shelter. That’s not exactly driving economic activity.
You are simply disagreeing with 99% of economists.
Money in tax shelter doesn't go threw a portal in another universe. Its either invested or saved as some kind of asset and in that form is in circulation. And again, even if you assume it increases monetary demand (decreases velocity) the central bank targets AD and balances that out.
Based on your logic, a country that taxes 100% of all income and redistrubtes it would become infinity rich. Your logic is basically 'if nobody saves and everybody spends all income' everybody will be better off.
This is not how the economy works even if it feels good to think that. Its a fallacy.
Where you could have a point is that potentially the tax impact is slightly different, but that's hard to prove.
This feels like you intentionally gave this the least charitable reading. Obviously, I do not think that you could just scale to infinity. If I had said that eating a banana was healthier, I don't think it would be reasonable to say that assertion is ridiculous because that would mean eating 1,000 bananas would make someone the healthiest person. I was pointing out the difference in economic activity, where additional money to a wealthy individual mostly goes into savings/investing while additional money to low-income individuals mostly goes directly into consumption, and that the higher consumption generates more economic activity.
> Take a million dollars, give 1,000 poor people $1,000 and every dollar will be spent on goods and services.
If we're being realistic a bunch of this will go to paying off existing debt. Still good, but not the economic stimulus you're imagining. There are also "services" like gambling apps that act as a sponge to soak up money from those foolish enough to use them and transfer that money back to the wealthy shareholders. I'm sure there is research on what percentage of that $1000 can be expected to stimulate the economy, but it's not 100%.
The shift in the US to the idea of “job creators” being business owners is part of it. It was just a way to direct money to the already rich, as if they would hire more people with that money. When it is plainly obvious that consumers are job creators, in that if they buy more goods and services, businesses will hire more people to make or provide more of those things.
Or maybe it was trickle down economics. Trickle up economics still end up with the rich getting the money since we all buy things from companies they own, it just goes through everyone else first. Trickle down cuts out the middleman, which unfortunately is all of us.
The framing of X or Y are job creators is idiotic. Its literally the most basic fact of economics that you need producers and consumers, otherwise you don't have an economy.
The more economically correct way to express this would be that entrepreneurs and companies who innovated increase productivity and that makes the overall economy more efficient allowing your country to grow.
> Or maybe it was trickle down economics. Trickle up economics still end up with the rich getting the money since we all buy things from companies they own, it just goes through everyone else first. Trickle down cuts out the middleman, which unfortunately is all of us.
This just sounds like quarter baked economics ideas you have made up yourself. Neither 'trickle down' nor 'trickle up' are concepts economist use. And that you confidently assert anything about the social outcomes of these 'concepts' is ridiculous.
Analogies are never the same, hence why they are analogies. Their value comes from allowing better understanding through comparison. Psychopaths don’t “feel” emotion the way normal people do. They learn what actions and words are expected in emotional situations and perform those. When I hurt my SO’s feelings, I feel bad, and that is why I tell her I’m sorry. A psychopath would just mimic that to manipulate and get a desired outcome i.e. forgiveness. When LLMs say they are sorry and they feel bad, there is no feeling behind it, they are just mimicking the training data. It isn’t the same by any means, but it can be a useful comparison.
So you rail against "advanced" as a meaningless concept and then start talking about the "hierarchy of life". How does one rank life on this hierarchy?
>both Boeing and Airbus have given up on quadjets.
It is possible “to make appropriate decisions” up to a certain size. They didn’t stop making new quadjets because the design doesn’t work as well as a twin engine, but because airlines don’t need/want aircraft that large. You wouldn’t build a successor to the A380 as a twin engine.
Airlines currently don't want them (which is not even 100% accurate since airlines pulled A380s out of storage, and continue to push back plans to retire them). You started this by saying "You know you can just make the wing engines 50% more powerful, right?". You weren't talking about commercial decisions, you were talking about engineering decisions and capabilities. So, no you can't just make twin engines bigger in all situations. If airlines want large capacity aircraft again, they will be quad jets, not super powerful twin engines.
Which also goes back to car infrastructure. If you need to drive everywhere for any and all errands/activities, you won’t interact with people in nearby houses, you wont see neighbors at the local bar or small grocery store.
reply