That’s not really an ad hom. I don’t think you run a petrol station, so I’m not calling you a moron

It just economically make no sense that you’d have 3 different businesses that close together with wildly different prices. Like who would ever go to the expensive one? And why?

I actually don’t believe you. $1 difference in petrol price and people still go to the expensive one? You’d have to be a moron surely

Right, but the in order for the other station to not go out of business they have to match. But are incentivised to beat that price by a further 10c to increase the amount of business they get See where I’m going?

Only if the price is actually increasing. Otherwise you’d just sell cheap petrol and put them out of business

I can’t find any solid evidence for this Pakistan claim. I see that an anonymous source reached out to one outlet, but I haven’t found anything to corroborate Seems a bit tenuous thus far. Do you have any evidence you’ve seen in particular?

In what world are those imperialist projects? Can you qualify that in some way? Let’s go with 1, say Pakistan

What imperialism is America doing currently?

But besides that, even if your nation is doing imperialist things surely you would agree that maintaining an army to not get your country absolutely destroyed by any other country at any time is valid

Do you believe that a nation has no need for weapons?

Or rather is it immoral for a nation to keep and equip a defence force?

Yes this will bring people over to your cause surely. Jesus christ this site sometimes I swear

Do you think investors make decisions in real time? Like do you think the fire services called each member of the board and asked for a vote? I swear some of you guys have never considered any part of the system you supposedly want to dismantle

I think it would also be healthier if you didn’t consider the wealthy as inherently your enemy. Try to consider the actions taken by these people as individuals, otherwise you truly will never get anywhere as any outside person will rightly look at you like a lunatic

Do you have any data to back that up? It would be quite interesting

I don’t think regulation is impossible to achieve, look at the EU. And what I am fairly sure of is you have better odds of passing regulation than replacing capitalism entirely

So material waste can be directly tied to cost. If you’re trying to bring down cost then you’re going to try to reduce waste correct? That’s why there is so much work being done for reusable launch vehicles

For space debris and pollution I don’t think we can squarely blame capitalism. Under a purely communist economy there’s no guarentee that anyone would care any more about it than currently And you can attack that issue by a combination of penalising companies that create debris and rewarding those that remove it under a capitalist economy

As for it not being entirely comparable. Sure the government spent a lot of money on that early R&D. But do we think that if we banned companies from doing this kind of work that govt agencies like NASA would be necessarily more cost effective, cause less pollution, and less debris?

Ah I see you’re a perfectly rational individual with a perfectly sane world view. Carry on

Do we truly think the board would have wanted the company to keep power on against the request of the govt/fire services?

Is there any proof of that, if so that’s very concerning and I’d agree

But I don’t see any evidence that the shareholders held some kind of vote and decided to continue on, or had some rule on the books about not complying with emergency services

Like sue the company for sure, it’s the fault of the company, but not necessarily the individual investors. They will inherently lose money if you sue the company anyway as their stock will depreciate and they should then exert pressure to make sure this kind of situation can’t happen in future

That might be the case right? Let’s say there a percentage chance that would have succeeded call it 10%

Now your first attempt fails, maybe because of some miscalculation or lack of engineering precision

Even if the older way more expensive version had a 100% success rate you’d probably still rather the cheaper version right?

Also not sure how this is about capitalism, replace the above for material cost and it’s the same thing

Not really no. It’s not often that a stock is short sold really hard when there isn’t an underlying reason Otherwise large investors could regognise this and just take a long position. The short seller is then screwed if the price doesn’t drop far enough and fast enough before their options expire