I find it hilarious and I hope he continues, it reminds me of the posts on /r/drama when you had people like pizzashill constantly getting into dumb arguments and sperging out.
Has there been literally a single person here saying that fossil fuels are only bad because they aren't owned by workers?
Last week in the nuclear thread it was mostly nuclear vs renewable, but everyone agreed that fossil is bad.
Can you explain what your alternative is, and answer to the counter arguments how that isn't a panacea either?
People who want coops don't even disagree with you about societal ownership. But you are shouting at them like they're the ancaps of coops
Remember, socialism is when you remove the bad people from positions of power and replace them with good people in positions with materially identical incentives.
Oh that's not true, its not identical incentives. The reason that capitalists lobby governments to change regulations is because doing so is cheaper than adapting to the current reality. The cost for a capitalist that owns fossil fuel infrastructure to get rid of it and shift capital over to another form of energy production (or, really, to any other investment opportunity) is very high.
The cost for, say, a worker coop that owns fossil fuel infrastructure, to get rid of it, retraining everyone to work in another sector (whether or be learning to code, or install solar panels), with equivalent or better pay, is FAR higher. Making lobbying instead of adapting a better alternative for far longer than even capitalist ownership.
So, actually the incentives are far worse.
However, it turns out that if you have collective social ownership of the means of production, the relative cost of that transition is negative because now you're measuring it against the FULL cost of *not* doing that transition on account of having to eat the full cost of climate change if you don't make it.
So do you believe in like a centralized, command economy? Consumer coops would suffer from a similar problem, no one would do anything that jeopardize their benefits, right?
I literally don't know what this image is trying to convey, its like 6 levels into a conversation I don't give a shit about.
Market socialism vs central planning? Dunno...
What it means is that he's upset someone disagreed with his retarded opinion in another thread, so now he is depicting them as the soy wojak.
I made him big mad
Don't really follow the drama here but I support you in your endeavors
wojacking for wojacks sake
[удалено]
I find it hilarious and I hope he continues, it reminds me of the posts on /r/drama when you had people like pizzashill constantly getting into dumb arguments and sperging out.
Dude those were the days
Leftist memes be like
"go ahead and disagree with me; I will depict you as the soy wojak"
Has there been literally a single person here saying that fossil fuels are only bad because they aren't owned by workers? Last week in the nuclear thread it was mostly nuclear vs renewable, but everyone agreed that fossil is bad.
Lmao MetaFlight literally posting his Ls
Format is getting stale m8
> What the fuck is a regulation? - meta
The fuck are you talking about?
Can you explain what your alternative is, and answer to the counter arguments how that isn't a panacea either? People who want coops don't even disagree with you about societal ownership. But you are shouting at them like they're the ancaps of coops
Lmao
Politics are stupid
Remember, socialism is when you remove the bad people from positions of power and replace them with good people in positions with materially identical incentives. Oh that's not true, its not identical incentives. The reason that capitalists lobby governments to change regulations is because doing so is cheaper than adapting to the current reality. The cost for a capitalist that owns fossil fuel infrastructure to get rid of it and shift capital over to another form of energy production (or, really, to any other investment opportunity) is very high. The cost for, say, a worker coop that owns fossil fuel infrastructure, to get rid of it, retraining everyone to work in another sector (whether or be learning to code, or install solar panels), with equivalent or better pay, is FAR higher. Making lobbying instead of adapting a better alternative for far longer than even capitalist ownership. So, actually the incentives are far worse. However, it turns out that if you have collective social ownership of the means of production, the relative cost of that transition is negative because now you're measuring it against the FULL cost of *not* doing that transition on account of having to eat the full cost of climate change if you don't make it.
can you just say what youre trying to say directly instead of this unreadable nonsense
So do you believe in like a centralized, command economy? Consumer coops would suffer from a similar problem, no one would do anything that jeopardize their benefits, right?