3 ms·
A generalization of this solution: If you're faced with a seemingly intractable socioeconomic problem, nine point eight times out of ten the problem will become
by 827a 2y ago
A generalization of this solution: If you're faced with a seemingly intractable socioeconomic problem, nine point eight times out of ten the problem will become less severe with Supply Growth. What's more: the easier-to-predict second-order negative impacts of that Supply Growth also become solved because of the harder-to-predict third-order impacts.
One good example of this might end up being the American energy policy under Trump (with emphasis on the word "might"). Energy costs being high can be well-solved by increasing the supply of energy (drilling, etc). The easy-to-predict second-order negative impact of this is likely to be a harsher global warming curve. But, a harder to predict third-order impact might be increased innovation due to lowered costs of energy, enabling humanity to out-innovate global warming. Again, this is speculation, but that's how this generalization works, nine point eight times out of ten.
With housing: You increase the supply. An easy-to-predict second order impact is: housing values go down because of increased supply. But: A hard-to-predict third order impact is: Because there's more people, more businesses open shop, and that access to services actually raises your property value.
- lostdog 2y agoThe guy banning solar and wind is improving our energy supply?
- MajimasEyepatch 2y agoMeanwhile domestic energy production hit record highs under the Biden administration.
- miki123211 2y ago> a harder to predict third-order impact might be increased innovation due to lowered costs of energy, enabling humanity to out-innovate global warming. This is already happening. Texas is building insane amounts of solar capacity because there's very little environmental regulation there, which makes solar cheap to build. Meanwhile, California is stuck with non-renewables because it's impossible to build anything new in California.
- PaulDavisThe1st 2y agoSince 2019, Texas solar PV has grown around 14x, California around 9x. While that's a difference, it doesn't really support your claim that "California is stuck ..."
- PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago> One good example of this might end up being the American energy policy under Trump (with emphasis on the word "might"). Energy costs being high can be well-solved by increasing the supply of energy (drilling, etc). But energy supply (by many different metrics) have been increasing for years. So either (a) energy costs are not high (b) increasing energy supply will not affect energy costs (c) it takes way more energy supply than we've seen over the last several years to affect energy costs.