but what to do as the enterprise grows varies. And sometimes a state may coordinate production even early on. For example important technologies may be developed by university researchers and to enter production they are state-funded and forced to collaborate with other researchers, with a petty bourgeois payoff (salary, ownership that dwindles until it enters a certain tier, etc). The latter also happens under capitalism but the profits are entirely privatized, capital feeds off the state funding, whereas the point of this industrial policy in socialist states is to either build missing productive capacity, to socialize much of the gains, and eventually turn over to co-ops and state-run enterprise, etc.

ok, i can understand this. so it’s small-business are private run while bigger businesses are organized differently?

to sum it up, i’d like to add a point. businesses spend money mostly on 4 categories:

• raw materials
• wages for workers
• machinery (this one has to be largely paid up-front)
• profits to shareholders

so to “socialize much of the gains” means that company profits are either redirected to the community (“state-run enterprise”), or redirected into extra wages (“co-ops”), am i seeing this correctly?

eh i’m not sure whether this could gather enough resources. for a lot of industries, you need massive machines just to start doing anything. like, basically all heavy industry, construction jobs (consider modern cranes are often 100m high), anything more complicated than what you could do in a village.

i was always wondering, ok not everyone can afford to live in a big city, but what about the periphery? what about living directly next to a big city?

jaa tatsächlich ist “begrenzte energieversorgung” einer der wichtigsten punkte. ich erinnere mich daran gelesen zu haben dass im 20. jhdt diskutiert wurde dass die weltwirtschaft im wesentlichen nur an der beschränkten energie daran gehindert wird, einfach immer weiterzuwachsen. (siehe ölpreiskrise 1970 z.b.)

omg that’s hilarious. thank you

jaa stimmt. vielleicht hätte ich das näher ausführen sollen.

ich erinnere mich mal recherchiert zu haben wieviel fossile rohstoffe überhaupt genutzt werden, um daraus plastik herzustellen. weltweit werden denke ich so größenordnungsmäßig um die 3% der gesamten verbrauchten fossilen rohstoffe für die plastik-erzeugung genutzt, während der ganze rest, also ca. 97% energetisch verwertet werden.

das sind aber nur sehr grobe antworten, die womöglich auch daneben liegen können. nicht gezählt wurde hier z.b. asphalt-herstellung, was auch noch dazu kommt.

ich sollte irgendwann mal bessere zahlen heraussuchen.

jedenfalls, die 3% die für plastik verwendet werden (sofern es wirklich 3% sind) sind gerade so viel, wie erneuerbar nachwachsen könnte. also wenn die ganze energieerzeugung aus erneuerbarer energie kommt, dann können die restlichen 3% auch durch nachwachsende biomasse ersetzt werden. weil derzeit ca. 30x so viel fossile rohstoffe verbraucht werden, wie jährlich nachwachsen können.

Welche (Verbund-)Kunststoffverpackungsarten fast durchweg aus dem Stoffkreislauf herausfallen und größtenteils in die Verbrennung gehen, ist schon lange bekannt und dieses Problem wird durch die hier besprochene EU-Verordnung ab 2030 angegangen. Besser spät als nie wenn man mich fragt.

ok also verstehe ich das richtig dass schwierig zu recycelnde (stoffliche verwertung) kunststoffe weniger erlaubt werden durch dieses neue gesetz?

und darf ich noch fragen, wofür werden kunststoff-abfälle heute üblicherweise stofflich verwertet? also was sind da so typische anwendungsfälle? was wird daraus wieder hergestellt?

yeah, there’s a mastodon account posting these. they’re gold.

hell yeah join the club 😆

eh i remember when a bank robber who stole $100 got 20 years in prison (because it was bank robbery) meanwhile a cop who shot an unarmed innocent civilian got away with a fine.

the cops are not there to protect you, they’re there to protect the banks.

Die EU gibt zukünftig vor, wie hoch der Rezyklatanteil in verschiedenen Verpackungsarten sein muss, also der Anteil aus bereits recyceltem Material.

d.h. alter müll der oft nicht sortenrein ist und allerlei verunreinigungen enthält, muss nun verwendet werden um unsere neuen lebensmittelverpackungen herzustellen (die natürlich geringfügig substanzen direkt an’s essen abgeben)? nein danke

ich bin dafür, bestimmte dinge zu verbieten die giftigen müll produzieren, insb. schwermetallhaltigen müll z.b. nickel-cadmium-batterien etc

und dann alles was übrig bleibt zusammen in große restmülltonnen zu werfen und zu verbrennen. (außer halt papier)

deleted by creator

there’s also other issues that are sometimes being quoted, such as: housing being seen as a commodity, housing being held by a few big house-owners. but i’m not convinced that that alone could cause prices to skyrocket.

if there’s a whole lot of developers trying to gain from housing economy, then there would be more houses being built until there’s more housing supply than demand, then prices would go down again until they stabilize somewhere. but that doesn’t seem to be what’s happening.

sometimes, the city and community are called responsible for keeping land area expensive (by not making more land area available to be built on). this probably varies geographically, and i find it quite hard to believe that communities around the (western) world would not have realized this one simple trick to make houses more affordable again. so i guess there’s more to it.

i think that lots of things broke.

• one issue is that living expenses didn’t rise, but wages fell. this creates the same net effect to the average person, but it’s structurally different. due to ongoing automation (which has actually started since 1900) wages have gone down continuously (in real terms, but not nominally because inflation outpaced that decline). meanwhile, for some expenses such as housing, the real prices have not gone down as quickly, therefore we see a net increase of the ratio of housing prices to wages.

• another issue seems to me that the american public (and unfortunately also large parts of the european public) have been convinced that they need “more” - that they need bigger houses, cars, etc.

the consequence is that new houses are bigger, and therefore more expensive.

unfortunately true. this whole gender issue has been used as a huuge distraction scheme from the economic situation and other urgent issues.

oh very interesting. i’ve been wanting to get into the details of how federation actually works, and i wanted to figure out why mastodon<->lemmy federation does often not seem to work. but i guess that’s a deep rabbit hole too!

zuletzt zum Beispiel eine Übersichtsseite für Behinderteneinrichtungen, mit Standortkarten und Leistungsübersicht

oh ich habe gehört dass OpenStreetMap da teilweise ganz interessante daten dazu hat. (z.b. sitzbänke, öffentliche toiletten, wasserspender etc)

well sounds to me like deaths from toxic emissions sank by roughly 60% from 2008 to 2017. it’s not “almost down to zero” in that time frame but a lot has happened between 1960 and 2008 too.

uh i think there’s a lemmy setting to hide all bot posts (that are marked as bot posts obviously), it’s a client-side setting.