I think most reasonable people would agree that there are many objectively good things about the modern world, but progress isn’t a strict good/bad binary. Often, progress results in both good and bad circumstances.

For instance, I think most reasonable people would agree that modern medicine is a very good thing. Vaccines and antibiotics have saved countless lives. Also, more advanced agricultural technology has allowed us to grow more food and feed more people. However, progress has also resulted in significant ecological damage, depletion of natural, nonrenewable resources and a significant loss of biodiversity. I think most reasonable people would agree that these are very bad things.

I don’t think the point is to ignore the very real, important positives about the modern world, but to point out that there are still things that need to improve, and unintended negative effects of progress that need to be dealt with.

I appreciate that for you the modern world is overall good, but that’s not necessarily everyone’s experience. Some people do feel purposeless, depressed and worn down, despite being relatively wealthy and comfortable, especially compared to humans of past eras.

“Well in those days Mars was just a dreary, uninhabitable wasteland - much like Utah - but unlike Utah it was eventually made livable”

The national urban poverty rate plummeted from 52.9% to 38.1% in six months, while extreme poverty halved to 8.2%, marking the sharpest decline in decades.

President Javier Milei’s administration achieved this while slashing public spending by 5% of GDP and navigating a 1.7% economic contraction in 2024. Key drivers included targeted welfare programs and inflation control.

The government expanded the Universal Child Allowance (AUH) to cover teens up to age 17 and increased food card coverage, directly aiding vulnerable households.

So they cut spending overall, but expanded their Universal Child Allowance. I mean, that right there is probably what did most of the poverty reduction. The article doesn’t really say where the spending cuts came from. Could be they just cut a lot of waste, but it could be they’ve made cuts to important government services, and the effects haven’t necessarily been felt yet.

The IMF projects 5.5% GDP growth for 2025, fueled by rebounding consumption and investment. This turnaround challenges conventional wisdom that austerity inevitably harms vulnerable populations, showing market-oriented policies can coexist with poverty reduction when paired with precise safety nets.

Does it? Again, we don’t know what’s been cut and we don’t know what the long term effects of those cuts will be. All we know is that they made significant cuts overall, while also expanding two specific safety net programs. Admittedly, that has resulted in a significant reduction in the urban poverty and extreme poverty rates, for now, which is undoubtedly a good thing, but only time will tell if those will last.

This reads like neoliberal propaganda, but honestly Javier Milei is right of even most neoliberals. I seriously doubt the expansion of the Universal Child Allowance and the increased food card coverage will last. I’m certain Milei will want to cut those programs, at some point. He is anarchocapitalist adjacent, so I’m sure he wants to get as close as possible to no government spending at all, eventually.

No major kernel decisions were made,” jokes Russinovich in a post on LinkedIn.

Man, wouldn’t that be wild, though?

No body wants that.

Somebody must want it, otherwise it wouldn’t exist. And that’s fine. People want what they want, I don’t think it’s mine, or anyone else’s place to tell someone what they can or cannot like or want. But, I hope you understand why it’s hard for some to find the motivation to fight for a society that they don’t particularly like.

Well, the quote I was responding to used the words “open borders” specifically. I may not understand the meaning of the term, as it is being used here, but hopefully you can understand my confusion. I didn’t realize that “open borders” meant “you can have and enforce borders.” I proceeded on the assumption that those two states exist in opposition to one another.

If they’ll accept Ukrainian law and, you know, not attempt to take over the country, yes why not?

And if the Russians don’t accept those terms? Or, say that they accept them to gain entry only to then carry out a campaign of slow annexation?

During Sunday mass in St Peter’s Square, the pope asked that God ‘open borders, break down walls [and] dispel hatred’

Borders do serve a purpose, though. Should Ukraine open their borders to Russians? There are legitimate reasons for wanting to keep other people out.

I couldn’t care less.

I wasn’t trying to adhere to a strictly Marxist semantic structure. And the reason for that is: I’m not a Marxist. But you’ve made it quite clear that when words like “socialism” or “socialist,” or the term “socialist mode of production” are used incorrectly (according to Marxists), this can cause great consternation. Therefore, in the future I will use different words/terms, so that I might avoid offending the sensibilities of Marxists, such as yourself. Hopefully that will help me avoid interactions like this one, in the future.

Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production, as opposed to private ownership.

Social ownership can take various forms, including public, community, collective, cooperative, or employee.

Source

Go back to my original comment where I described the socialist mode of production:

the socialist mode of production (when the means of production are owned by the government, or a group of workers, or a community)

No system is purely public or private

I know, that’s what I’ve been saying. That’s my whole point.

Socialism is a mode of production determined by public ownership

That’s what I’m talking about. Essentially every national economy on the planet includes at least some socialist production. I can’t think of a single national economy on the Earth where the production of all goods and services is carried out exclusively by privately owned, for-profit firms. Can you?

For some reason, people still act like capitalism and socialism (or communism) are mutually exclusive, that an economy must be one or the other. But if you look at essentially every national economy on the planet today, they are all some mix of the socialist mode of production (when the means of production are owned by the government, or a group of workers, or a community) and the capitalist mode of production (when the means of production are owned by a private individual or group of investors, operating for a profit). Almost no economy is exclusively one or the other.

It is true that in most countries with robust high speed rail, there is significant government involvement, like planning and building infrastructure, subsidies, or just providing rail travel as a public service. I definitely think that for a national rail service network to work, you need to do some planning. Here in the US, government and planning are bad words, but clearly they needn’t be.

It doesn’t. I think these people are well meaning, but I’m not sure they’ve given much thought to the effectiveness of these kinds of demonstrations, in regards to actually affecting policy. I’m not sure they even care. I think stuff like this might be more about expressing their outrage than actually making any meaningful changes.

The difference is that one costs a minimum of $30k, while the other can be had for less than $1k.

That’s true, yet I still think many people will opt to spend the additional money for a car. They’re covered and climate controlled, and they offer more passenger and cargo capacity. In the Netherlands, which you mentioned as an example of a country with high e-bike adoption, there are still millions of cars. I’m sure there are fewer cars than there otherwise would have been, but cars are still very much in the transportation mix. Not a bad thing, necessarily. I definitely think it has reduced car dependency - cars are no longer as much of a necessity - but cars are not eliminated.

I used to do something like what you’re describing. I would drive my car to a light rail station then take the train into the city to work. I suppose what you’re talking about is just replacing the car with an e-bike. That’s fine, but I don’t see a huge difference in this scenario between an e-bike and an electric car, especially since I wasn’t just driving to the light rail station, I was also driving to the grocery store and to restaurants and to the houses of friends and family, etc.

Now, if I had lived in the city nearer to my work, and to stores, and restaurants, and shops, etc, an e-bike would have made a lot more sense.

Many millions of Americans spend at least an hour commuting to and from work every day. I don’t think they’re going to want to do that on an e-bike.

As long as a majority of Americans live in suburban areas, car dependency will continue.