• 0 Posts
  • 240 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 1st, 2023

help-circle

  • Ummm no.

    In the real world consumers ultimately end up paying the tariffs.

    Domestic suppliers have a tendency to raise prices is response to increased demand and decrease competition from imports.

    When Trump implemented a tariff on Washing Machines in 2018 during his first term. The price of imported washing machines went up, the price of domestic washing machines went up, the price of dryers… which weren’t tariffed went up.

    Eventually it did led to more washing machines and dryers being manufactured domestically. Which did lead to a small increase manufacturing in jobs. But it was a net loss for the consumers.

    Tariffs function as a flat tax on goods. Like all flat taxes this benefits the wealthy and hurts poor and the working class.


  • this just feels more like an suped up Switch model.

    To be fair, the last 2-3 generations of PlayStation and Xbox consoles have also been a little more than a bump in CPU/GPU specs. Anything else they added was just gimmicky fluff like Kinect that never really caught on.

    Were we really expecting Nintendo to come out with something that wasn’t also just a souped up version of the last console?





  • I want to see a trial.

    I also want to start a go fund me for his or her legal defence find.

    I’d love to see a well funded law firm make the argument that the shooter acted in defence of self and others and drag all of UHC bullshit under a very large and uncomfortable deposition microscope to prove the CEO was responsible for letting people die.

    Maybe we could even start putting these health insurance CEOs on trial for all the wrongful deaths they’re causing without needing someone to take justice into their own hands first.




  • Newsrooms with a large base of popular support receive greater funding

    “Popular” newsroom receiving greater funding is the problem with the current approaches.

    Currently popular newsrooms have more viewers, which means more eyeballs on advertising, which generates more ad revenue. It creates an incentive to use fear mongering (because fear keeps people watching the news) and biased news (because most people want to hear news that reinforces their beliefs and they turn off news that challenges them.)

    I don’t know what the solution is, but somehow we need to get to a solution where funding favours unbiased factual reporting regardless of popularity.









  • You seem to be misunderstanding friend.

    I’m all for building as much wind, hydro, and solar power as possible. It is the cheapest option.

    I’m not arguing against that.

    People here seem to think that money spent on nuclear is money NOT spent on Wind/Solar/Hydro/Storage/etc as if there’s a fixed budget for all energy transition projects. That’s not the situation.

    Insurance and financial institutions are losing big money on climate change disasters, and they are getting data from their actuaries and climate scientist, saying it’s going to get massively worse. There is rapidly growing interest from “big money” private sector investors, In any technology that might solve the climate crisis.

    There’s more money investors wanting invest in wind, solar, or hydroelectric projects, than there are projects to invest it. The limiting factor isn’t money.

    Believe me, no one would be happier than me to be proven wrong that we can build enough wind, solar, and hydroelectric to get off a fossil fuels by 2050.

    But if you extrapolate the current data and the current trend lines, they don’t come anywhere close.

    If we also invest in nuclear, we come closer.



  • From an investor perspective, solar farm projects are a slam dunk once they reach the point of being ready to purchase panels.

    There are a lot of things to line up to build a grid-scale solar farm before you get to that point. You need to acquire (the rights to) the land, get permits to connect to the grid, which usually includes construction of the new transmission line to the grid. You need to line up panels from a manufacturer (who in turn has supply chains to manage), and labor to install it. And 100 other things. It typically takes a few years of planning, but get all that in order and it’s a small percentage of the total expense of the project.

    At the point you need to do the larger capital raise needed to buy the panels and hire the labour it’s a slam dunk. The project can be completed typically within 12-24 months so there’s a quick process to get to generating revenue for investors, and because solar has gotten so cheap it doesn’t take long to see positive ROI. It’s not like electricity demand is going away either. It’s a very safe bet, once all the pieces are lined up, and not difficult to raise funds once you get to the point of needing the big money.

    People on Lemmy/Reddit have this mental model that there’s a fixed budget for investment in the energy transition. If that was the case, then yes it would make sense to go all in on the cheapest technology option.

    But that’s how it works. Energy projects are competing with the global market for investment capital with non-energy related investments and there’s no shortage of wealth wanting to throw money at a solar project because they’re low risk/high ROI.

    Nuclear projects are a different story, long timelines from construction to revenue generation and high upfront capital costs make them unfavourable investments, they generally need government support to derisk the investment before investors jump on board. Which the governments are reluctant to do because they lack a mandate to do so from the populace. In part because of this mindset that nuclear investment impedes solar or wind investments.