• Bubbaonthebeach@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    17 hours ago

    We also ended up with climate change, obesity, vastly increased cancer rates. Some of the great things of the past had long term bad consequences even if they seemed perfect in the beginning. Add to it that since Reagan, the average person stopped gaining any share of the wealth created with any progress.

  • ChicoSuave@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    17 hours ago

    Every person pictured was a progressive. When neoliberals and conservatives pushed progressives out the country stopped making meaningful progress and started making money.

  • hypna@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    15 hours ago

    Not much in this article really. Starts out with claiming that progressives didn’t like pollution, and thus became anti science. Doesn’t elaborate. Drops the thread entirely, and continues with a couple different arguments.

    First that subsidizing demand with constrained supply just increases prices. Fair enough. Second argument is that there are too many veto points in the building/producing pipeline. Probably also fair.

    But that’s really the whole Abundance argument, and the article alludes to that book repeatedly. I can’t tell if this was supposed to be its own original argument, or just a description of the Abundance arguments. I bet there are better synopses of the Abundance arguments than this article though.

  • JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    18 hours ago

    Frameworks that lower barriers to entry and people who cant be buggered to find out how things work?