Post B05fFgocdzARWv82eu by futurebird@sauropods.win
(DIR) More posts by futurebird@sauropods.win
(DIR) Post #B05P3BmSbfLWXG8QIS by futurebird@sauropods.win
2025-11-09T11:10:10Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
There are two major ways that people do large expensive projects: private sector or the government. The number of public companies has been shrinking. New companies with promising futures are quickly bought out. Gold is up, real estate is up, there is too much money that wants to be invested and not enough opportunities to invest.The market has too much money not enough ideas.And not enough of these private sector operations will build infrastructure or really get anything productive done.
(DIR) Post #B05P3CroZFDtu9eDHU by futurebird@sauropods.win
2025-11-09T11:13:07Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Consider the rail road boom. In many ways it was similar to what we are seeing now, but at least they were manufacturing trains and laying rail. What are we going to have when the dust settles?Data Centers. Couldn't we at least build power plants instead?There is nothing magic about "The Market" sometimes it produces competitive circumstances that may drive innovation, sometimes it can distribute resources somewhat effectively. But it can also simply fail to do those things.
(DIR) Post #B05P3DrUruYyzSVTQO by futurebird@sauropods.win
2025-11-09T11:15:56Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
What if every company that needs public investment has already raised as much money as they possibly need? What if there simply isn't any real need for more money to go into the stock market? If there isn't a company with a need to buy something, or build something so they can pay dividends in the future when they make a lot of money then maybe the stock market is full. What happens when the stock market is full?Anyway it's time to raise taxes and build things with government money.
(DIR) Post #B05PvA4DC5gErGAqVU by david_chisnall@infosec.exchange
2025-11-09T11:19:49Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@futurebird There’s also a problem with the private sector and infrastructure. In general, infrastructure is stuff that makes something else more efficient. At a society level, infrastructure is typically a cost centre, but the existence of infrastructure makes other things more profitable (in the abstract sense of reward exceeding effort, rather than a specifically market-based definition).Having a transport network makes it possible for producers of any kind of physical goods to reach more consumers. An information network does the same thing for less tangible goods. Telecommunication networks allow expertise to be consulted from a larger pool and reduce information asymmetry when trying to pair producers and consumers. Readily available drinking water in houses reduces the amount of time people need to spend going to wells or collecting rainwater and boiling it and decreases the amount of time spent sick. Similarly, good sewage systems reduce illness and deaths. Electric lighting means people can spend more time awake.But none of these things are necessarily profitable. And, often, making them operate at a profit is a net drain. Charging for public transport often ends up reducing tax revenue by more than you gain from the ticket fees, for example. Water and electricity are natural monopolies (so competition doesn’t work), but making them cheaper almost always increases economic activity.
(DIR) Post #B05PvAg8v41Oktv8d6 by futurebird@sauropods.win
2025-11-09T11:22:05Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@david_chisnall It's impossible to make money in transportation. People forget this over and over again, but there are social pressures that keep it from being profitable and overtime, the more useful the network, the less profitable it is. And this is a good thing. It's also where a government can play a positive role.
(DIR) Post #B05PvBC30RXgLqqcMK by paulc@mstdn.social
2025-11-09T23:57:57Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@futurebird @david_chisnall Money is mad in transportation but it is via real estate and not transit itself. If we allowed transit authorities to tax land close to stations they do better. But that would mean land owners would be less profitable.
(DIR) Post #B05RU6pVK0XwuKWTcO by promovicz@chaos.social
2025-11-09T11:17:27Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@futurebird Also: people forget, that the rail ended up very different for different people, even among capitalists. It made people rich in the US, and some other places - but UK railway capitalists didn't fare so well if I recall correctly? The London subway is super-quirky because it was built under heavy competition, with stations competing side-by-side.
(DIR) Post #B05SxMbzp5csCtia5g by david_chisnall@infosec.exchange
2025-11-09T12:07:09Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@futurebird the more useful the network, the less profitable it is. This is the key part and it’s also true in reverse: reducing profit typically increases utility (at least, as long as it’s done by reducing cost to users, not just cutting maintenance). This even works for roads: toll roads encourage people to use other roads, for example. That may be the desirable outcome (if you use the tolls to encourage people to take the train instead, rather than caring about the profit that they make).You can make profit on transport, but doing so reduces the utility of the transport network.
(DIR) Post #B05TGwqrJCqu6Y0ano by debcha@saturation.social
2025-11-09T15:59:45Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@futurebird Also, a lot of private infrastructure networks were made public and consolidated — like both the water supply and the MTA in New York! — because they work badly as for-profit network monopolies and much better as unified networks and public services. And yes, we would be better served by building (community-owned) power plants and *then*, if we still want them, private data centres. [I wrote a whole book about this, HOW INFRASTRUCTURE WORKS.]
(DIR) Post #B05b7Dtns4DRiKG9ce by dancast@wandering.shop
2025-11-09T18:30:19Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@futurebird I feel profoundly sad about the fundamental economics of financial and entrepreneurial black holes bending all economic activity into eventual assimilation
(DIR) Post #B05c8ancJWoIyuaBxg by jakemiller@federate.social
2025-11-09T11:45:43Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@futurebird IIRC, Bill McKibben has proposed that DC builders fund grid improvements, residential rooftop solar, and most of all, residential energy efficiency investments, because adding generation capacity will take far longer to do. Efficiency lets DCs use power already on the grid. This would be a great benefit of this buildout, while being economically rational for builders. (We will have to see how many DCs actually get built before the music stops though.)
(DIR) Post #B05fFgocdzARWv82eu by futurebird@sauropods.win
2025-11-09T18:39:30Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@dancast Everyone is feeling so crushed by layoffs. We could really use some new companies with real new ideas, or even just the bravery to try to do something that's already being doing just a little better. But, what a horrible environment to start a company. Unless you start it with the aim of getting it bought. That's how everyone seems to think about it now and I think it's very dysfunctional.
(DIR) Post #B05fusUk7oo9crTEG0 by yodaladywhooo@mastodon.social
2025-11-09T18:58:24Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@futurebird Exactly why difference is required.
(DIR) Post #B05hq3jn66G8xGL53w by burnitdown@beige.party
2025-11-09T14:37:17Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@futurebird the Homestead strike tho...
(DIR) Post #B05il7DAr0O2EeHzQ8 by david_chisnall@infosec.exchange
2025-11-09T13:44:58Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@Virginicus @futurebird The same applies to freight. A universal freight carrier makes the rest of industry more efficient. Governments tend to subsidise last-mile delivery because, without that, companies will focus on only the profitable bits (towns and cities)l but there’s a systemic hit if delivering to people outside these regions is too expensive. When they then allow competition, private companies compete only in the most profitable areas and that drives up costs for whoever has universal service obligations (the same applies to phone and Internet services).
(DIR) Post #B05l7tp4zxlhHQ0kts by graydon@canada.masto.host
2025-11-09T14:19:53Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@futurebird There is an immensity of stuff to be done. Almost nothing is the most profitable thing, and the people making decisions in the private sector refuse to invest if it's not the most profitable thing. (Which is why they stampede between fads.)If there should, ideally, be one of it, or if there must, by the necessities, be one of it, it should be entirely public. Refusal to acknowledge this (because renting necessity is profit) breaks the economy.Not instantly, but certainly.
(DIR) Post #B05lEXNKr8NXggCPr6 by oblomov@sociale.network
2025-11-09T13:07:14Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@futurebird (especially when instead of an actual free market (i.e. one where there is no imbalance of contractual power) it's just a clusterfuck of abusive monopolies, cartels and the billionaires that profit from them.)
(DIR) Post #B05p1KXxdnOPx67ww4 by PizzaDemon@mastodon.online
2025-11-09T15:36:15Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@futurebird This has been endemic to the U.S. economy since the early 80s tax cut of the high marginal rates and the drastic reduction in unionization. There seems to be a slice of wealth that doesn't have solid options for investment. That weather either finds some whack-a-doo company or overinflates the latest useful thing. It should either be with the lower earning quintiles to bolster basic industries or ,as you note with the government for infrastructure.