But most of that relative sea changes comes from the land locally sinking, not from the sea globally rising. The title making it sound as if its climate change causing this issue is sensationalist, this would have happened even if the seas didn't rise.

The headline is literally "Rising seas will swallow New Orleans", not "New Orleans is sinking below the seas", this would be an issue regardless if sea levels were raised or not, it would still sink down into the sea.

And conversely, if New Orleans was not sinking it would still face the same issues as the sea level is still rising. It would just be a little slower.

Just regulate it, make every home buyer buy an insurance for when it eventually happens. That way people who think its worth it will live there and all the relocation is already paid for.

No outcome improves except by hiding a horror inside it. This is the Omelas reading of government intervention.

You don't think the police union is too powerful? You should worry, nobody likes it when unions are too powerful.

Because European unions doesn't have as much power over workers as American unions, since Europe as right to work. Right to work means you can just quit a bad union if you don't like it without having to change your job.

What does that have to do with "power begets power"

Unions doesn't protect you in revolutionary times, so no. Detroits manufacturing sector was totally devastated even though they had extremely high unionization rates.

And why can money hire workers? Its because that money lets them get goods that was produced by previous investments. Without the investor class you wouldn't get large new projects organized. The alternative to private investments is communism, and we all know how that works out, it results in politicians hogging all the wealth and generally making even worse decisions with that money than the greedy capitalists does.

People prefer working for greedy capitalists since it generally pays better than working for the government.

The only reason capital has money is incompetence of our revolutionary ancestors. There is no evidence people with money deserve it. I say, let us at the least take everything they own and redistribute it reasonably, and let us see who the real investors are. We should probably repeat this process every six months or so until society can stabilize

Meritocracy is still a slur word by the left, that never changed, the left doesn't like meritocracy and the right likes it. So a left winger writing about the horrors of meritocracy doesn't mean that meritocracy is bad.

I find the left/right approach altogether ridiculous for this, it's but a spurious oversimplification which usually shows lack of understanding for the topic discussed. In this particular case, it also shows that you didn't bother to read what meritocracy actually is, since you claim, against the very inventor of the word, that it's a good thing without producing any evidence or reasoning.

I think he would expect the movie to not feature undisclosed ads everywhere, if those ads would ruin the movie then the movie shouldn't have any.

> When was the payoff of a stock not from selling it later?

This is such a funny comment, historically you bought stocks to extract profits, ie dividends. Now you make money from houses and stocks by value appreciation instead of rent and dividends, you can see how that leads to very different behaviours and how that is not very stable compared to buying based on rent and dividends.

Yeah, I'm kind of in shock that anyone would think this is the normal way things always worked. I'm not that old yet, I was born in the 90s!