![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/pictrs/image/a18b0c69-23c9-4b2a-b8e0-3aca0172390d.png)
There was that hot Somali who was Tik Tokking himself while boarding a cargo ship.
But he was enforcing a blockade enacted by his government within Yemeni territorial waters so unfortunately it wasn’t piracy.
There was that hot Somali who was Tik Tokking himself while boarding a cargo ship.
But he was enforcing a blockade enacted by his government within Yemeni territorial waters so unfortunately it wasn’t piracy.
I pretend I’m in a zoo observing people, which I guess is called disassociation.
It’s because in a capitalist or other market driven system, economic planning is decentralized.
Let’s say trucks become really popular. There’s a lot of demand for trucks, so you can charge a higher price and make more profit. People want to buy 1000 trucks a day but only 500 are being built per day. Demand exceed supply. You’re making bank.
Other people see that profit and want a piece so they decide to build a truck factory of their own. Let’s say 10 people decide to make a factory and each factory is capable of making 100 trucks a day.
You’ll note this increases the total supply of trucks to 1500, the original 500 plus additional capacity of 1000.
But these factories take some time to build so for a while everyone is happy. Slowly and gradually supply catches up to demand but only slowly. At first we reach 600 trucks per day, then 700, then 800… demand still exceeds supply so the economy is growing and we are all making profit.
But then the rest of the factories get finished. Now we are making 1500 trucks per day which exceeds demand. Now we have a problem. Now supply exceeds demand and the price of trucks crash which means we can’t pay back the loan we took to fund our factory.
We overinvested in the capacity to build trucks because we all wanted a piece of that profit, and as a result of over investing we have now crashed the market for trucks because we are simply making too many trucks.
This creates a cascading effect in the economy since now the market needs to “correct” this imbalance, which is economics-speak for some of us need to go bankrupt and shut down our factories since the market only supports 1000 trucks per day but we are making 1500.
As some factories start losing money, we lay off staff, some of us start going bankrupt which means the banks (we got a loan from to build our factories) have to take a loss. The economy is now in recession because in our earlier exuberance to chase that amazing profit we built too much capacity and over invested creating a “bubble” in the market. Bubbles have to pop to restore equilibrium.
You don’t get this dynamic in a centrally planned economy because in a centrally planned economy we can make a more straightforward investment decision: there is demand for 1000 trucks but we are only making 500, so only create capacity for 500 more trucks. Since our centralized planning allows for a coordinated investment decision with access to full economic data, we don’t over-invest meaning we don’t create excess capacity meaning there is no need for a “correction”.
A market based system is decentralized. Every corporation is making their own investment decisions, each corporation is trying to make and sell as many trucks as they can. A corporation doesn’t care if the economy as a whole is making too many trucks, their sole interest is to sell as many of their trucks as possible which is why a market system results of cycles of over- and under- supply.
It’s a cycle. Capital chases profit and invests in production, leading to first a boom as production soars but then inevitably leading to a bust as capital keeps piling in chasing that profit result in over-investment and excess capacity.
Markets are decentralized. A socialist system is centralized meaning it can make decisions that take the entire economy into consideration instead of only the immediate interests of a single corporation.
Obviously this pretty idealized and all actually existing socialist systems have had at least some degree of internal markets and all have had exposure to markets in the form of international trade so you still see ups and downs in centrally planned economies since an economy is never fully centralized or fully decentralized.
Also in socialist systems there is still the risk of over-investment due to bad decision making or inaccurate economic data, or eg in the USSR the economic interests of the collective farms were over-protected which resulted in something analogous to overinvestment in agriculture so there is also political risk, etc.
So you still saw periods of economic stagnation in socialist systems but the swings are massively dampened. Also with centralized planning the state can more easily intervene to correct these issues when they arise (assuming the political will exists) which makes it easier to reboot the economy when things go awry - eg the socialist economies recovered more rapidly following WW2.
The main drawback is that a socialist economy can be less responsive to demand. Like, if blue jeans suddenly become very fashionable, in a socialist system the economic planners might be worried that denim is a passing fashion trend and averse to the risk of over investing in denim production, whereas in a market system the corporations will say fuck it let’s make money today and let the future worry about excess supply issues not my problem I’ll already be rich.
So the benefit of central planning is that growth is more stable and sustained at the cost of being potentially less responsive, whereas a market economy can be very responsive but at the cost of boom-bust cycles, and at the cost of concentrating enormous political and economic power into the hands of the individuals who own the factories.
China for example seeks to get the benefit of both in a partially mixed system where consumer products and growth industries that are more likely to see rapid shifts in demand are left to private industry while the backbone of the economy that is more stable (eg mining, energy generation, etc) are subject to planning directives.
It was a fringe position in the Polish far-right before the election and now that the libs have won it’s even less likely to happen.
The Polish far-right are a dominant political force.
And it’s under the relatively lib coalition that relations have reached their lowest point.
I think if Ukraine comes out of this with borders that roughly resemble the current front lines then they’ll keep Lviv but there’s a real possibility of political collapse in Ukraine, if things get worse and if the currently cooperating power centers turn on each other, and in that collapse scenario it becomes pretty plausible.
probably still less likely to happen than not but it’s definitely plausible and there are multiple plausible-to-likely pathways where you can see the political situation in Ukraine deteriorating to the point of collapse.
I don’t think I buy the current Russian narrative that the military camp are about to coup Zelenskyy but he’s definitely under enormous pressure right now, and even if a coup likely isn’t about to happen you can nonetheless see Zelenskyy and the military camp making political defense lines between each other, and the number of high level aides, spouses, and the like opening boxes that accidentally contained a grenade or suffered an unfortunate food poisoning incident is pretty eyebrow raising.
Comment sorting
Interactivity
Active communities
I think it’s a game of diminishing returns.
Let’s say 6 minutes gives you perfect 100% cleaning.
Well 30 seconds probably already gets you 50% or more of the total benefit just by getting fluoride on your teeth and rinsing your mouth a bit so getting people to 3 minutes is probably approaching perfection anyway and if you start asking people to do 6 minutes then they’ll say fuck it I won’t bother at all so settle for the 80% win.
I assume.
Also Brave allows for background playback of YouTube videos on mobile, iOS at least
Writing prompts or some kind of creative writing exercise
It seems the true number was 18 after all, like Hamas was saying, and not 54 like Israel was saying.
https://www.nationthailand.com/thailand/general/40032323
Also Hamas has already reached an agreement with Thailand to release the Thai hostages but Israel is so far refusing to cooperate with their release.
https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/general/2673106/hamas-ready-to-free-all-thais
The Times’s finding does not answer what actually did cause the Al-Ahli Arab hospital blast, or who is responsible.
…
The footage also suggests that Israeli bombardment was taking place and that two explosions near the hospital can be seen within two minutes of it being struck.
A whodunnit for the ages.
deleted by creator
Implying Spotify pays artists a fair fee.
Fuck, and I cannot emphasize this enough, them
it fucks your liver
You have a drink in your hand, you go “oh hey it’s Alex how have you been man?”
Alex tells you about his new hobby.
You gesture to your friend “hey Alex have you met Jamie?”
Alex and Jamie get to know each other.
Rinse and repeat.
Jamie meets a friend and starts chatting. You awkwardly stand beside Jamie taking sips of your beer until Jamie says “hey Andrea have you met my friend 420?”
You introduce yourself.
After a while everyone has met and had a few drinks and some good music starts playing and you start dancing in the dance floor. At first it’s very self conscious but after several songs and another drink you start vibing.
From
They literally voted for it and elected Bibi, and that’s after he boasted about how he was funding Hamas as a wedge tactic.
Israelis literally voted for this.
VPNs are much cheaper than Netflix, torrents don’t have ads, it’s always perfect quality, and the content catalog is excellent.