AKingsbury

https://mastodon.social/@AlexanderKingsbury

One thing I will promise; I never block anyone just because I may disagree with or dislike their words. Because the only people who do are cowards. Want to attack me? Fine. If you think that makes the world a better place, go ahead; you cannot hurt me with your words.

Public Key

npub182ruma6z5ylfumske4kcxlz2v5dzpmgtgstnxkax7485rknu8pdqulpm8s

NIP-05 Address

alexanderkingsbury_at_mastodon.social@momostr.pink

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsr4p7d7ap2z057dctv6mvr039x2x3qa595g9entwn02n6pmf7rskspz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduqs6amnwvaz7tmwdaejumr0ds2r8gw4

Publishing to

relay.damus.io

nos.lol

Author Public Key

npub182ruma6z5ylfumske4kcxlz2v5dzpmgtgstnxkax7485rknu8pdqulpm8s

Show more details

Last Notes

2026-05-03 03:10:02 UTC

- reply

No, really, of all the thousands of data centers that have been built, surely none of them have ever had to figure out how to deal with an invasive species. Over decades of environmentally-oriented action, surely all people had to do was come up with the right plant to stop people in their tracks. It's not as if humanity figured out how to raze hundreds of acres of wildlands at a time over a hundred years ago.
No, sure, "poison oak" is going to stop a developer.

2026-05-03 02:57:11 UTC

- reply

Right. You really cannot conceive of any way this might work out poorly, can you? You think newly build, professionally made reinforced concrete slabs will have cracks in them. You're fine with huge amounts of powerful herbicides getting sprayed.
Well, best of luck. I'd ask you to let me know about any successes, but I doubt you'll ever have a single one with this plan.

2026-05-03 02:39:40 UTC

- reply

Try to put yourself in their shoes. You've spent 8 or 9 figures building this place, and there are some invasive species causing problems.
Do you give up and walk away from an investment that's supposed to pay out for a decade?
Or do you, for example, spend 50 grand on the most powerful herbicides you can buy?

2026-05-03 02:12:07 UTC

- reply

They're going to regrow up through a concrete slab?

2026-05-03 01:51:21 UTC

- reply

How resistant are any of these to bulldozers? Because I'm pretty sure they just use bulldozers.

2026-05-01 19:48:49 UTC

- reply

Okay, see, perfect example. Where are you getting that definition from?

2026-05-01 17:45:04 UTC

- reply

I've never seen anyone who shares that quote demonstrate an actual understanding of even basic economics. None of them seem to understand what capitalism even is, much less have an actual articulable objection to it.

2026-03-21 16:35:01 UTC

- reply

I often hear people complaining about "unregulated capitalism". And yet, when asked for examples, they almost always point to things like healthcare, or finance; AKA, some of the most heavily regulated sectors of the economy.

2026-02-15 10:05:22 UTC

- reply

But it doesn't "automatically go everywhere", does it? Someone needs to tell the system which creators you support. And why should someone whose song you listened to once get the same support as someone whose songs you listen to daily?

2026-02-15 00:57:11 UTC

- reply

I doubt it can get much easier.

2026-02-14 22:34:58 UTC

- reply

People already can (and, sometimes, do) just put their work on their own websites and have people pay them directly. I've bought such media myself. As it turns out, though...platforms provide useful services to creators. That is why many creators choose to go to them. No one is forcing them to; they are doing it voluntarily. Do you think they're all just too stupid to just know that your way is better? Do they not know they can sell their work direct to consumers? Something else?

2026-02-14 21:10:31 UTC

- reply

"just unnecessary."
That's it? So anything that's "unnecessary" has to go?

2026-02-14 19:29:34 UTC

- reply

"Patreon is the closest to what I'm advocating but they've gotta go too."
Why?

2026-02-14 17:31:08 UTC

- reply

That doesn't really seem in accord with your plan; patreon seems rather a "corporate middleman", which you want there to be none of. Right?

2026-02-14 17:24:11 UTC

- reply

I'm not sure what nuances I'm missing. You want some sort of a deal where you send out money on a monthly basis to various creators, with no "corporate middlemen". Which sort of begs the question of who is going to handle all the accounting, tracking who you want you money to go to, how much, etc. Most people are going to want a middleman, instead of juggling dozens or hundreds of payments a month, that will frequently change.

2026-02-14 17:18:11 UTC

- reply

For the purposes of this discussion, I am entirely indifferent to the politics of who owns which media outlets. People are going to seek out the media which suits them. Extremists will seek and find extremist media, moderates will find moderate media, authoritarians will find authoritarian media, and libertarians will find libertarian media.

2026-02-14 17:13:06 UTC

- reply

We already have plenty of opportunities to fund creators directly. Lots of podcasts, for example, have subscriptions, but I doubt one person in ten thousand pays as much for all the media they consume as they would have to if there were no advertising.
And, in a very real way, advertising benefits some of us. It's basically a transfer payment from those who buy the things advertised to those who do not. The less you buy, the more it benefits you.

2026-02-14 17:02:17 UTC

- reply

I mean...money for things like newspapers and podcasts and whatnot has to come from somewhere if they're going to exist. May people are reluctant to pay enough to get the service entirely without ads; even those of us who do subscribe to some things rarely pay the full fair price for all the media we consume. How are you planning on getting most people to pay a lot more?

2026-02-14 16:46:01 UTC

- reply

"Mostly by making it so that wealth can't be used to buy attention."
I'm not sure how that would even work. So you could never buy an advertisement? Never pay for a spot in the newspaper? Never use your wealth to produce a book or move or song?

2026-02-07 22:57:40 UTC

- reply

I agree that SOME SECTORS of what we have now are not in accord with a free market. Others are. And even those sectors which are not in accord with free markets are not automatically "oligarchy".
As to "giving them over to the state and thus removing the profit motive", that SOUNDS nice, but it's nonsense. People don't stop being greedy or power-seeking when they enter public service. You really think that, say, congresspeople never abuse their power to enrich themselves?

2026-02-07 21:59:26 UTC

- reply

Again, someone who blames capitalism for what they dislike but is apparently confused about what it even is.
The government paying these companies is clearly NOT in accord with the free markets that capitalism directs. The reason that amazon made those $75M is not because any of us chose to give it to them, voluntarily; it is because the government TOOK it from us, through threat of violence. That is not a free market.

2026-01-28 00:35:19 UTC

- reply

That's a very narrow way to define "efficient". It ignores things like "energy consumption".

2026-01-17 23:34:42 UTC

- reply

To be 100% clear; both main parties have been terrible on immigration for decades, if not longer. If you support the democratic party or the republican party when it comes to immigration, you support the forcible removal of millions of peaceful, productive people from this nation.

2026-01-17 23:30:25 UTC

It's a good thing that #immigration and #ICE are receiving a lot of attention; the immigration system in the USA is poorly structured, and it should be overhauled completely.
Remember; both #democrat and #republican congresses and presidents have upheld this system; there's a reason then-president Obama was called "deporter in chief", with over 3 MILLION people deported over his tenure.
Is there a group that has long held that the system needs to be overhauled? Yes. The #libertarians.

2025-12-05 22:07:57 UTC

- reply

I brought it up specifically as an example of a trivial monopoly; I wouldn't expect to see much conversation about it.
I also support non-formal education; and, indeed, formal education. Getting rid of government-run schools would not be the end of formal education in any way.

2025-12-05 20:20:29 UTC

- reply

I think what counts as "meaningful" is a conversation. I have yet to meet anyone willing to seriously claim that, for example, a monopoly in baseball trading cards is a serious issue for society. I pay attention to plenty of economists, and yes, I do have some formal education in it. Not a degree, but some education. No, I do not think state-run universities should exist.

2025-12-05 20:10:01 UTC

- reply

None that I'm aware of, but I am not an economic historian. My confidence that no such thing exists in the developed world now comes from A. several economists making that claim and B. the absence of a single counterexample despite years of looking for one.

2025-12-05 19:59:07 UTC

- reply

"No examples" of what?

2025-12-05 19:50:36 UTC

- reply

Oh, I'm sure there have been meaningful monopolies in the past without government assistance. There may even be a few now, in countries with more poorly developed economies. But I've looked and asked for years for an example of one NOW, and people have so far been unable to point to even a single one. And no, I don't "control the definition"; I didn't make up what monopoly means, or what a free market is. These are well-understood and developed economic concepts.

2025-12-05 18:13:21 UTC

- reply

I'm not asking for perfect monopolies; I'm asking for something that is even meaningfully a monopoly. We do have plenty of meaningfully free markets, and many have existed throughout history.
I'm perfectly willing to accept how the real world works. I am also willing to talk about how it could work better. For example, I'm an advocate for abolishing certificate of need laws.

2025-12-05 17:57:52 UTC

- reply

I agree; there are many ways to make things worse without being a monopoly. But I also believe that it's worthwhile to be accurate; if we want to make good policy to avoid monopolies, that begins by being accurate about what a monopoly even is. It's not enough for a business to simply be big. As to gains for one beings losses to another, that is extremely uncommon in a free market, and when it does occur it's almost always due to fraud.

2025-12-05 17:29:24 UTC

- reply

That would be far closer, because the price of installing solar on one's home is prohibitive for many, many cannot do so at any practical price , many are legally barred from doing so, etc. But Amazon? There's nothing they come even close to having a monopoly in, except arguably some of their media. And I shed exactly zero tears for someone who's problem is "I want to watch a show made by amazon".

2025-12-05 16:47:21 UTC

- reply

Well, they are not a monopoly, and they get a huge amount of government assistance. So they do not fit my criteria. Never changed any of those criteria. But again, please, tell me what they have a monopoly in; something only they sell that I cannot get the same thing or a perfectly adequate substitute elsewhere easily. Anything.

2025-12-05 16:36:15 UTC

- reply

The internet? As an example of what?

2025-12-05 16:35:34 UTC

- reply

Sure, Amazon is dominant. But in what do they have a monopoly? What can I buy ONLY from them that I cannot get the same thing or a perfectly adequate substitute easily from elsewhere (e.g., sure, they have a monopoly in their branded goods, but other perfectly suitable substitutes are available)?
As to the amount they get from the government, they get BILLIONS a year, but also a lot of other government assistance.

2025-12-05 16:19:45 UTC

- reply

Two things. One, they're not a monopoly, and two, they get a HUGE amount of government money and other assistance. So they're really the opposite of the government-independent monopoly I've asked people to point to.

2025-12-05 16:10:25 UTC

- reply

Well, over 20% of homes in the US use septic; so that's a hefty chunk that are not getting sewer from the government right there.
As to the market working well, competition is part of that. For years, I have challenged people to point out any significant monopoly that does not rely on government protection or assistance to survive. Not a single person has been able to do so.

2025-12-05 15:48:25 UTC

- reply

Well, a few things. One, no, sewer is not "much more fully controlled" by the government than healthcare, nor is water; there is VASTLY more regulation around banking, healthcare, etc., than there is around serer systems. But also, where they are controlled, they mostly are controlled by much lower (and therefore more accountable) levels of government. Finally, they are much less ripe for abuse.

2025-12-05 15:32:35 UTC

- reply

I have yet to see anyone point to a major problem in the market that does not have a significant government component. Which sectors do people complain about most? Healthcare, housing, banking...oddly, some of the most highly regulated sectors out there.

2025-11-29 11:45:49 UTC

- reply

Food can be 3d printed. It's trivial at this point. https://www.3dsourced.com/rankings/food-3d-printer/
There is a difference between creating a material and fabricating it. I might just as well say that a lathe doesn't make metal. True, but...did anyone say it did? Is anyone claiming that 3d printing is a substitute for agriculture?

2025-11-21 15:20:15 UTC

- reply

You apparently think of it immediately when you see stories about people getting fired.

2025-11-21 00:28:43 UTC

- reply

You know, I never see anyone saying "Such-and-such many people got hired; capitalism at work!!!". It's almost as if emotionally motivated, biased commentary is popular.

2025-11-04 08:46:11 UTC

- reply

"I'm excluded from #crowdfund platforms like #kickstarter"
Why?

2025-11-03 01:30:13 UTC

- reply

I want an example of them ACTIVELY HARMING you, not of them exerting perfectly reasonable control over their own property. I might as well whine that you won't let me store my stuff in your home for free without asking. If I thought you were infringing on my IP, I'd respond too.
"Probably maybe"? No, you definitely could, unless it's filled with smut or classified information or something.

2025-11-03 00:36:45 UTC

- reply

Okay, so no examples. Got it. You have no examples, not even one, not even that you would present from behind a veil of anonymity. Not really surprising.

2025-11-03 00:08:51 UTC

- reply

You're really doing yourself a solid by whining instead of taking any of the dozens of opportunities available to you.
What has any publisher, anywhere, ever done to actively harm you? Just one thing. Because a beating is active harm.

2025-11-03 00:04:16 UTC

- reply

Sure, "everywhere else" besides literally dozens of channels. Lots of industries are over-regulated and/or captured. But publishing? Please. Stop playing the victim. For heaven's sake, zine culture is over a century old. And those folks didn't have easy access to cheap, high-quality printers they could keep and use in their own homes. You can literally advertise via dozens of venues, you could quite feasibly print the book YOURSELF.

2025-11-02 23:49:56 UTC

- reply

You could literally tell me about it right here, right now, and no publishing company on earth can stop you or punish you (unless you already have some kind of contract with them with clauses about permitted advertising). You could tell anyone on here who hasn't blocked you. You could get on reddit and tell people there. Or facebook. Or tiktok. Or bluesky. PLENTY of options out there to promote your work in ways publishers cannot prevent.

2025-11-02 22:38:04 UTC

- reply

You could....and this is just brainstorming, here....you could tell people about it.

2025-11-02 20:18:28 UTC

- reply

You do know you can publish your stories for all of about fifty bucks on your own website, right? And that there are plenty of websites where they will post them for free?

2025-10-24 11:53:41 UTC

- reply

Meh. For years, when I saw people making these sorts of claims, I'd read the article. Every single time, without any exception whatsoever, their analysis was so deeply flawed as to be laughable.
At some point, it became clear that such claims are fallacious, and that those making them are, at best, fools.

2025-10-18 13:36:04 UTC

- reply

Eh. You can re-learn all those skills, if you want. Many people do. But most people have decided that their time is better spent in other ways.

2025-09-28 00:01:37 UTC

- reply

I adhere to the server character limit, so just to take your second point; functionally mandatory union memberships are ABSOLUTELY still a thing in many places in the US; namely, everywhere that isn't a "right to work" state. You might say "Oh, you're only required to pay dues, you don't HAVE to be a member!" So, you're required by law to take the bad part of the deal and not the "good" part of the deal? Hmmm.

2025-09-27 16:49:42 UTC

- reply

The odd thing about unions is that they're supposedly such a great idea, and yet many of them happily use force of law to make people either join them, or deny them their right to work in the field.
Which means either A. unions aren't actually that good for their members or B. their members are too stupid to understand that they're a good deal, and have to be coerced at gunpoint.
VOLUNTARY #unions? Go for it, all day long. FORCED unions? Pure authoritarianism.

2025-09-06 19:06:26 UTC

- reply

Is it disturbing to you that someone would offer such work arrangements, or that people would take them? Or both?

2025-09-06 18:40:46 UTC

- reply

"The 996 work model is modern slavery, nothing less."
Any time someone compares something to #slavery, the first question that comes to my mind is "Can the people in question quit?"
Oh, they can? And they won't be imprisoned or beaten? No one else owns them, and they do indeed own themselves? Then it's #notslavery.

2025-09-04 10:53:42 UTC

- reply

"As long as capitalism governs through war & crisis, true socialism cannot emerge."'
Great news! Capitalism does not govern us. It is an economic system, not a political one. Does it exert influence? Of course, just as any economic system must in order to be relevant to anything but mere discussion.

2025-08-31 18:33:35 UTC

- reply

Yes, I am talking about you. That's an entirely inaccurate characterization of capitalism. "We do the work, they get the money."?
Uh, no. For one thing, workers are paid or otherwise compensated (e.g., with health benefits, 401(k) matching, etc), so it's dishonest to say "Oh, THEY get the money!"

2025-08-31 18:27:05 UTC

- reply

"#Capitalism: We do the work, they get the money. How fair is that?"
Well, it's never really "fair" when people completely misrepresent an idea just because they hate it, but that's life.

2025-08-29 12:54:40 UTC

- reply

Actually, again, I can and will comment as I please.

2025-08-29 11:54:00 UTC

- reply

Actually, I can comment. And I've heard plenty of people try to come up with reasons they are "slaves" because they (gasp!) have a job; it has been nonsense, each and every time, with no exceptions.
Again, your life is nowhere near that bad. Not even close. Get over yourself.

2025-08-29 00:14:10 UTC

- reply

"My favourite quote: "Capitalism is wage slavery"
Yes, I'm a slave"
Please.
This man was a slave: https://www.abhmuseum.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Scouraged-Back-Private-Gordon-1863-M.Brady_.jpg
You are not.
Get over yourself.

2025-07-14 08:32:30 UTC

- reply

Yes, about the level of commentary I've come to expect from you. I wish it was a disappointment, but nothing you've said ever led me to expect you to say anything worthwhile.
Well, toss out some more cheap, baseless insults, if you like; I certainly don't expect anything honest, insightful, or otherwise worth reading. You seem the sort who needs the last word to make yourself feel good, so it's all yours.

2025-07-14 01:27:44 UTC

- reply

Hey, assume based on whatever makes you feel good; I never imagined you had any real honesty about facts or reality.
Well, have a nice life, thief; the world is a poorer, worse place because of you.

2025-07-14 01:24:23 UTC

- reply

Oh, I never imagined you could do better than assume you were right, based on nothing.

2025-07-14 01:18:00 UTC

- reply

I don't care about them any more of less. than I care about you. What I care about are principles.
You're a common, cheap thief. Plain and simple. And you steal, not because you have need, but because you have desire. You don't steal bread to feed your hungry family, you steal games to feed your cheap, base desires.
Pathetic. I feel bad for you. You don't even have a real struggle to feel good about.

2025-07-13 23:47:38 UTC

- reply

Ah, yes. Crude sexual accusations; sure evidence of a strong, principled position.

2025-07-13 23:15:43 UTC

- reply

Yes, you're a "victim" now.
Please.

2025-07-13 23:09:44 UTC

- reply

Meh. More of what I expected, never what I hoped for.

2025-07-13 23:05:22 UTC

- reply

By all means. If you ever develop a desire to grasp trivially basic economic concepts, I'm here.

2025-07-13 23:03:01 UTC

- reply

Not at all. I don't feel "superior" to anyone because I understand that 2 and 2 makes 4. I want everyone to grasp basic ideas.

2025-07-13 22:59:19 UTC

- reply

Oh, no! Where will I get my nonsense from?

2025-07-13 22:57:21 UTC

- reply

If I "ignored" everyone who had hairbrained ideas they refused to actually test or who made baseless accusations or who had no real value to contribute to any meaningful conversation...well, actually, things would probably improve.
Definitely a plan to consider.

2025-07-13 22:53:42 UTC

- reply

Meh. Make whatever baseless accusations and excuses you like. I never expected better.

2025-07-13 22:42:38 UTC

- reply

I never said that moving to Venezuela was THE solution. I'm pointing out that there are MANY possible ways of proving that socialism, communsim, etc. are just..just SO much better, and yet somehow, there's a pile of whining and precious few attempts at actually proving the point.
Let me know if you ever decide to have the conversation without changing what you've said along the way.

2025-07-13 22:35:42 UTC

- reply

Nothing much. Just seems like there is a huge amount of whining and complaining, and precious little action on, you know....proving that something, anything else is better by actual experiment.

2025-07-13 21:56:44 UTC

- reply

Meh. More lies, but at least they're low quality and low effort.

2025-07-13 21:54:41 UTC

- reply

I strongly encourage all the folks who hate capitalism so, so much to get together and do better.
Seriously.
Start a commune, an intentional community, whatever. Or move to Venezuela, or start a special economic zone. Go right ahead, and prove your ideas are so great.

2025-07-13 21:33:59 UTC

- reply

It's hardly "unempathetic", and it's perfectly realistic. I understand the urge to steal; it's just that, like most functional adults, I also have a sense of right and wrong.

2025-07-13 13:10:55 UTC

- reply

It's not. People just like stealing stuff because it's cheaper than paying, and they want to feel better about being thieves.

2025-07-13 12:41:04 UTC

- reply

Sure, as long as you ignore things like my point that there are other long-lived fission products than uranium and plutonium.

2025-07-13 12:34:50 UTC

- reply

There is a GIGANTIC difference between "the idea that spent nuclear fuel is an unmitigated risk is wrong" and "it only needing safe storage for 300 years before it becomes radiologically harmless".
I've seen plenty of goalpost shifts around here, but MAN that's a big one.

2025-07-13 12:16:26 UTC

- reply

Accusing people of pedantry is a very common response to people pointing out technical errors. But, for better or worse, nuclear power is a technical field, and attention to detail is important.
Whether people support or oppose nuclear power, the VAST majority of them go around making inaccurate claims. That is not the way to have a rational discussion. For example, ignoring all long-lived fission products except uranium and plutonium? That's, at BEST, ignorant.

2025-07-13 11:29:43 UTC

- reply

The problem (well, one of them) is that you jump from "The long lived isotopes are broadly uranium and plutonium" to "uranium and plutonium are fuel, and anyway it's just alpha radiation". That COMPLETELY ignores other long-lived fission products; Zr-93, Tc-99, Pd-107, etc.
There are a variety of other errors in your claims. For example, oxygen does not have an infinite half-life; SOME isotopes of it do, but others do no.

2025-07-12 23:03:33 UTC

- reply

"it only needing safe storage for 300 years before it becomes radiologically harmless"
What? According to whom?

2025-02-12 09:25:49 UTC

- reply

"showing why definitions matter"
This will be a particularly novel concept for many who purport to hate capitalism.

2025-02-03 11:09:57 UTC

- reply

Socialism is collective (read; governmental) ownership and control of the means of production. It says to people "Oh, you're unfit to have this control, to make these decisions; we'll do it for you. You simply cannot be trusted to make your own decisions in a free market; you might hurt yourself!"

2025-02-03 09:51:32 UTC

- reply

As opposed to the overarching paternalistic attitude of socialism? "Oh, of course you can't handle these sorts of things yourself; the government will run all this hard economic stuff for you, you poor, simple thing."

2025-01-17 14:01:47 UTC

- reply

Yes, my support for open source standards? My boosting of the fairphone? Clear proof that I am making assumptions about your position.
Obvious nonsense. Please drop me a line if you even develop the capacity to have an actual conversation, rather than make baseless claims and accusations that you can't even attempt to support. Have a nice day.

2025-01-17 13:58:04 UTC

- reply

So, no basis for your accusations. Wish I was surprised.

2025-01-17 13:56:35 UTC

- reply

Please. What have I "assumed" about your positions, or anything else?

2025-01-17 13:52:58 UTC

- reply

You can make all the assumptions you want; thinking I regard it as necessary, thinking I'm arguing in bad faith, assuming my position on costs versus benefits. Assuming that other people think things you disagree with is a much more efficient way of dismissing them than, you know...asking what they think. As long as your priority is "dismiss anyone who even might disagree with you" instead of "have actual conversations", you're being very efficient.

2025-01-17 13:42:03 UTC

- reply

I am pointing out that it can and does have utility. That's not even remotely the same as claiming that it's "necessary" in any way. "I like eating chocolate" is not the same as saying "I will die if I don't get chocolate".

2025-01-17 13:37:06 UTC

- reply

I'm not. I never said anything even remotely approaching the claim that AI is necessary or anything of the sort. Why would you imagine that I am "married to the idea of AI's necessity"?

2025-01-17 13:31:28 UTC

- reply

It may be hard to accept, but for the vast majority of people, we simply do not have the time it takes to cultivate most creative skills to the point of being able to make what we can imagine. Just think about it, maybe for a "non-artistic" pursuit; suppose you wanted just a simple piece of software to do something you could understand, but not program. Do you think that AI could be a useful tool in getting that software made? Maybe in making it affordable or even possible for you?

2025-01-17 13:16:17 UTC

- reply

A couple things.
First, capitalism doesn't tell anyone what to value, aside from free exchange and private ownership (that's a very common misconception).
Second, no one under any economic system has all the access they may want to various creative skills. Even putting aside the sheer impossibility of cultivating them al within oneself, it can be very difficult (especially if you're poor) to find someone else with those skills to help you create what you want.

2025-01-10 18:31:02 UTC

- reply

Meh. I'd rather have the problem of food waste than the problem of too little food (AKA, starvation). Anyone who thinks food waste is bad should take a look at the Great Leap Forward under communism.
Is food waste bad? Yes; it's way, WAY better than widespread starvation.

2024-12-01 14:03:08 UTC

- reply

Another day, another attack on a strawman from people who cannot even manage to define capitalism accurately.

2024-11-03 14:03:40 UTC

- reply

"Diablo Canyon Unit 1 was supposed to shut down today.'
Why?

2024-10-06 22:58:43 UTC

- reply

To your first paragraph, not only SHOULD it, it DOES.
And yes, plenty of people would invest in that. And do.
I'm not sure why you're taking the approach of "all else being equal" or "nothing else special". Such economic situations simply don't occur on any meaningful scale in the real world. They are useful constructs to understand principles in economics, but trying to apply them to reality in isolation is not likely to result in better understanding.