You mad?
Yes, to support everyone on what our economy outputs today will involve the quality of life decreasing for a lot of people. And the economy will have to change, to build the things that people need but are currently unable to pay for. This is unsurprising.
Probably the living space is more to show this is feasible over it being the expected/desired solution. It would be very counterproductive to tear down good houses, but small apartments work well for “house single unhoused people”.
Rural transport is a rounding error compared to the number of private cars that could be converted with minimal fuss in cities.
Why would an export economy be a bad model? They literally have a surplus; all you need to do to fix it is… Make less?
daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
I’m not mad. I will just not allow anyone to reduce my living standards because they don’t want to use a rubber.
A export model is not bad. I just said that’s unreasonable to think that all the world could follow that model. Because then “who would we export to?”. It’s like liberals thinking that the tax rate in a tax heaven are proof that every country could have those tax haven rates.
Atlas_@lemmy.world 10 hours ago
Who said anything about using a rubber? Let’s properly support the people that exist now.
Iapetus@slrpnk.net 7 hours ago
And do you think that’s likely to happen any time soon in the real world?
It’s all well and good coming up with theories on paper but if your theories only work on paper, then don’t count them as solved.
Genius@lemmy.zip 2 hours ago
Well a good first step for helping the people who exist now live decent lives would be to scrap your car and ban your meat.