2 ms·
1. It is "per capita" not "per capital". 2. All the graphs relate to energy, energy is the economy. It is literally impossible to fabricate/transport any good
by roenxi 2y ago
1. It is "per capita" not "per capital".
2. All the graphs relate to energy, energy is the economy. It is literally impossible to fabricate/transport any good or run any service without some sort of energy consumption happening. The reason the energy trend matters so much is because it leads every activity.
> I feel compelled to ask, how are you using your personal 400 kW today?
There is, and I speak with a great deal of literalness when I say this, no aspect of either of our lifestyles that doesn't involve consuming energy. I suspect you have a poor understanding of what energy is.
> Also, congrats. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a bolder claim than calling the US stock market since 1970 an underperformer
An economy isn't the stock market. And I don't know how you made that mistake since just in another of your post you were complaining that too much money was going to billionaires! The stock market has been going great, the economy has been going so-so trending towards poorly.
- quink 2y agoI mean I’m of the weird belief that moving an item from point A to point B fundamentally uses, more or less, amount of energy x regardless of whether it’s 1950 or 2000 or 2050, but if you want to make the laws of Physics obey exponential growth to make sure we all remain economically prosperous then good luck to you. Maybe not in this universe, but good luck to you nevertheless. And yeah that was a typo. I guess that’s what happens when you use but a few watts on a mobile phone instead of an AI on the latest RTX to burn the equivalent half a log for every letter. I guess I’m not respecting the needs of the economy too much by doing that, eh?