> That 1% can't possibly spend 50% of the entire output of a modern civilization.

That's a good thing. It means that they are saving that money. Even better, instead of sitting on it, they normally invest it in hope of getting a positive return -- an indication that the way they invested their money created value. But even if they sat on it, that's okay too! Now everyone else it just that much richer because the man who sits on his money doesn't divert any productive resources to himself. This is why government spending is problematic -- it diverts productive resources away from everyone else to do whatever happens to be politically expedient.

There are two things you can do with money: consume or save. Saving creates capital, increasing productivity per capita, and consuming (as you would expect) consumes it. Rich people tend to save more, so they actually grow the economy the most.

That's not to say that all rich people are that way because they invested their money well -- a lot of them have gained it through political favors (i.e. military contracts, ISP monopolies, etc). These people quite literally don't deserve to be rich.

But it doesn't follow that somehow the broken window fallacy is broken. If you think so, you don't understand it or are intentionally misleading people who don't understand it.

No, the value of Bitcoin is that other miners have not shut down, and therefore it takes much more than one computer to control what blocks get added to the blockchain. Specifically, the "waste" of computing resources is part of its value proposition.

Read to this point. Whoever wrote this article needs to do a little bit of research before pretending to know anything about blockchains.

The part that makes it "crypto" is the fact that cryptographic signatures are used. No encryption involved.

s/disflation/deflation

I apologize for the typo.

This is true (in the past hundred and fifty years or so), but there is no good reason to believe that disflation is causing the depressions. If you're interested, here is a nice short article on it.

Nuclear weapons are quite a technical achievement, but I don't think it would ever be okay to call nuclear weaponry "the greatest invention of the 20th century."

Brilliant! Now those "wage slaves" will have no option but do work that's even less desirable. Why do you think they are working in electronics manufacturing? They would rather do that work than any other option they have. Do you presume to know better than they do about where they should work?

You've also just made electronics (and whatever else you presume worthy of virtue-signaling tariffs) less affordable for the poor in the tariff-imposing countries.

Two birds, one stone.

Tariffs are only good for one thing: bestowing political favors.

Those Christians were not communist. "No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own" means they acknowledged that they were stewards of God's property, not that they advocated for governments to take their and others' property.

No, there's a word for what they were: generous.

Everything will get cheaper as a result of automation. It will take less work and resources to achieve the same result. Productivity will continue to rise.

This is clearly a "growing global crisis." What a tragedy!

No, he's complaining about the shift in usage of the world itself: liberalism. From an article on the matter:

...for airspace.

They should pay for the airspace they use. That is, the rocket companies as well as the airline companies. If you use a lot of air space and cause inconveniences for others in the space, you pay a lot. If you use a little, you pay less. People who buy airplane tickets shouldn't have to subsidize commercial space companies (nor the other way around, but that doesn't seem like an issue at the moment). No special favors for anyone -- not even Musk.

I thought the same thing. Slashdot editing is pretty bad. Apparently it's some kind of online shopping website: Flipkart (Wikipedia)

The class at Carnegie Mellon is actually at the undergraduate level.

> If I may say, no. Violently enforcing your opinion would be extremist. Mere disagreement is hardly extremist.

If this is true, then most people are extremists, as they believe in violently enforcing their opinions, albeit indirectly through government. I think the dictionary definition of "a person who holds extreme or fanatical political or religious views, especially one who resorts to or advocates extreme action" is more accurate.

You're linking to a page that talks about something completely different: unwillingness to divulge financial information of clients. That's pretty much completely unrelated to corruption. A more relevant list (sorry I don't know how to link to it with sorting by government integrity) will show us that Venezuela, Nigeria, Cambodia, Madagascar, and Somalia top the list of most corrupt.