Pushing baby booms to boost economic growth amounts to a Ponzi scheme

Re:Pushing baby booms to boost economic growth amounts to a ... by ben_w on Tuesday August 13, 2024 @10:56AM (#41236110)

Really? So far as I can tell, only used in avgas (and being phased out), banned in paints in many countries. Food legal limits are outside my ability to judge — though I know they exist, I don't know if the legal limits are "the smallest reliability detectable level at the time the law was written" or something else.

That said, if you know how to turn any lab-only solution into an economically viable solution, please do — the world has plenty of room for improvement! :D

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Pushing baby booms to boost economic growth amounts to a ... by paulryanrogers on Tuesday August 13, 2024 @12:49PM (#41237119)

My point is we cannot leave it to market research and forces to solve this for us. Unwavering collective action is required to overcome the greed and apathy that allows things like lead to continue to destroy our minds and environments.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Pushing baby booms to boost economic growth amounts to a ... by ben_w on Tuesday August 13, 2024 @04:36PM (#41239559)

Depends on the issue.*

I think you can make a good argument that collective action helped end slavery, I don't think you can make a good argument that anything other than market forces is bringing us the transition to renewable energy.

Where's lead in that? I don't know. I don't even know if it's the same answer for each of your three uses of lead.

Ozone was easy to get an international agreement to fix, because it already had economic alternatives.

* and if you want to argue semantics over "are economic forces anything other than the de-facto collective action of the agents in the economy?", which I'm sure someone has energy for, but I'm not that someone, so I'll acknowledge it and move on.

[ Parent | on HN ]