There are bus services in rural US where companies pick up people who've signed up. It's not even a market problem at this point.

People are just NIMBYs and averse to change, or at least the ones who show up to the local town council.

In college I was taught that a belief = a good reason:

Good as in the traditional Greek sense that the end is either the truth or the flourishing of people, including any instruments that serve as a means to those ends;

Reason as in a cause originating in the mind that influences action or behavior.

So if you had a belief of something, you had a good reason to do something. Believing is good reasoning.

Obviously, you can easily devolve into moral relativism here, so I think the Aristotelian school can ground us again, favoring perception, deduction, and induction to get at "objective" reality, like you say.

The issue is when pundits and rhetoricians hijack these projects by basing them on religion or political party, using language and pseudo-logic that can appear as trustworthy to those easily convinced.

I like your description of ideas though. This sort of concept has been jostling around in my head for a few months. Appreciate the illustration!

Ripbozo

Right, because voting doesn't matter. Got it.

Rotate monthly tips! Or only tip your favorite

Not arguing with you, but I wanted to contribute by saying that most people, at least in the US, are also deficient in magnesium, zinc, and vitamin D. For all this effort carnivores are putting into to convince others that their diets are sufficient, often times those making those claims haven't looked inward to see what they themselves are lacking. Perhaps it's a complex issue, dunno

Would any group structure of the size you describe lead to the same state of affairs? Does this include government as well as any community that collects over any life activity?

I'm not claiming they would act in good faith, just that they would have less (unconscious) biased towards plaintiffs/defendants. Conscious biases would still be in play

And it's most costly to increase interest rates not because those directly affect the investors, but because those interest rates affect the borrowers since the borrowers will need to make more and more money to be able to pay back the initial injection + interest.

If borrowers don't think they can pay back, then they probably won't borrow in the first place. If they do borrow but don't make enough to pay back those loans + interest, then the investor loses out.

And if borrowers don't borrow in the first place, then investors sit on their money when they could theoretically inject it into other businesses so they can earn on what they own, and not just let their assets stagnate (or decay). To investors, this might also be perceived as a loss.

Do I have that right?

The fact you can't have dialogue with people and repeat your talking points means you don't have good faith for your argument, and so no one should take your words to mean anything. Good job bombing your own narrative

Corporations make things either for consumers, governments (for consumers), or other corporations (for consumers). There is a lot to be said about what changes in consumption can change

This is perfect xD I saw people calling it Trump Steel but this is so much better xD