> Terra preta soils are found mainly in the Brazilian Amazon, where Sombroek et al. estimate that they cover at least 0.1–0.3%, or 6,300 to 18,900 square kilometres (2,400 to 7,300 sq mi) of low forested Amazonia; but others estimate this surface at 10.0% or more (twice the area of Great Britain).
You could say the exact same thing about the broader stock market volatility (read: downturn) we’re experiencing. How one can be considered gambling and the other not?
At least the crypto investors aren’t expecting a wholesale bailout at any point, unlike “sophisticated” institutional investors as we saw in 08…
>How one can be considered gambling and the other not?
Because stocks have inherent value in the form of dividends or the potential of future dividends (or the current/potential stock buybacks, which are mathematically similar).
I think this misconception must be the root of the whole issue.
Stocks appear to have inherent value if you don't look at the entire planetary economy as a system.
In reality dividends don't distinguish between productive innovation and wealth extraction.
Innovative dividends are derived from the use value of new goods and services which increase freedom of action for the majority of the population. Wealth extraction is derived from zero-sum movements of capital, typically benefiting rentiers at the expense of productive employees, decreasing majority freedom of action.
But even the first can create externalities - which are real physical cost which are not accounted for.
A house that burns down because of climate catastrophe is a real physical loss. A increase in the value of a house created by aggressive speculation is an imaginary gain that only exists because the people in the game believe in it.
Trad economics exists to hide these differences, and make a hallucinatory financial reality which seems more real than the physical world.
Crypto is an obvious symptom of this hallucinatory mindset. Not only are the tokens imaginary, but the environmental costs are catastrophic.
But the rest of the economy really isn't built on firmer ground.
The fact that there is wealth to extract implies that the ticket that allows you to control the extraction has value. The company has assets and the ticket gives you proportionate ownership of them and proportionate control of where they go.
>A house that burns down because of climate catastrophe is a real physical loss. A increase in the value of a house created by aggressive speculation is an imaginary gain that only exists because the people in the game believe in it.
And a house that is built creates real value by taking land, adding materials and labour, and creating something worth more than the sum of its parts.
I don't need to forgive all of the economic system's sins to explain why stocks have value.
> Stocks appear to have inherent value if you don't look at the entire planetary economy as a system
Stocks have value because companies have value. You can buy the whole company and have something with positive value. Buying every outstanding derivative nets out to zero. Buying every cryptocurrency leaves you with something worthless.
You’re arguing semantics. No one is arguing that dumping all your money into Bitcoin or PTON specifically is a good idea.
> One, I can buy a Peloton. People pay for Pelotons. Positive sum.
Yes and once Peloton runs out of people to sell overpriced bikes and treadmills to, the valuation will (hopefully) return to reality. Uber continues to lose money on every ride.
If you’re going down the “people pay for it” route, we could say that people also pay for NFTs of monkey pictures.
Some call it retribution, others call it reversing a privilege that should not have existed in the first place.
I find it most humorous that the ones calling it retribution would generally support this measure if it had been forced on, say, Koch Industries in a red district of a purple state.
> Some call it retribution, others call it reversing a privilege that should not have existed in the first place.
Sure. But rolling back those privileges within an act of overt political revenge - that insures it becomes yet another expensive, taxpayer funded bench-slap.
Thanks for the links! I agree with you that it's almost certainly related to recent events and probably not the best course of action to save taxpayer money in the short term.
To restate my position - I don't believe that Disney (or any other corporation) should ever have the ability to levy taxes in their own special district as that is explicitly a function of government.
Instances of political revenge, especially in this day and age, are not rare or limited to one side of the political spectrum. I oppose any attempts to target groups of non-affiliated people (by race, sexual orientation, etc), but can't be too upset when the casualty is a mega corp like Disney.
So, your position is that it's OK if it's political revenge against Disney, because they make lots of money?
You realize that is a very slippery slope, right? The first amendment confers free speech as a right regardless of your financial status. If you start to erode that right, and say "if you are 'rich' it's OK if your rights are trampled," then the subjective definition of "rich" will just be adjusted to match the person currently in the crosshairs, until one day, the person in the crosshairs is you.
Some of us are ok with pointing out issues regardless of "whose side" is involved. It would be nice if there were more of us like that.
edit: @stuxnet I can't reply to your reply so I'll amend here:
I'm not a Disney fan either but that's not the concern being addressed -- it's the "reasoning" behind it and the fact that it fits into a pattern of harassments and intimidation of all who do not support them.
Punishing others as political theater is dangerous territory and it only seems to be accelerating. Public officials/applicants are advocating for death to all who oppose them. If that doesn't bother you because you're on the right team then I encourage you to revisit that and examine how that might not be good for society.
I'm not particularly a fan of Disney or the Florida legislature so I totally agree with your second point.
The point I was trying to make is that regardless of the recent motivations, the end result is that a mega corporation is stripped of privileges that they shouldn't have had in the first place. I would support that in this case and also the other fictional case I presented with Koch Industries.
So I guess the point of contention is in the motivation, but that doesn't matter to me as long as the end result is the same.
It's your interpretation that Disney should never have had those rights. The state of Florida clearly strongly disagrees with you, given that they have granted the same/similar rights to thousands of entities over more than 200 years (yes, before Florida was even a state). 1800 different active entities currently have special district rights in Florida.
I think debating whether special districts should be allowed at all would be a good discussion to have, but it is completely separate from whether what the government did in passing SB-4C is a violation of Disney's (and possibly the Orange and Osceola county taxpayers') first amendment rights.
Why would you place stock in anything Marc Elias has to say? He is, at the very least, a partisan ideologue. And he’s certainly not a journalist unlike “the pillow guy, but with tenure”.
> Terra preta soils are found mainly in the Brazilian Amazon, where Sombroek et al. estimate that they cover at least 0.1–0.3%, or 6,300 to 18,900 square kilometres (2,400 to 7,300 sq mi) of low forested Amazonia; but others estimate this surface at 10.0% or more (twice the area of Great Britain).