If you’re aware of what a back-of-card network is then you should understand how transformative a state-backed zero-fee interchange would be.
If you’re aware of what a back-of-card network is then you should understand how transformative a state-backed zero-fee interchange would be.
And credit unions offer accounts with lower fees and higher interest rates than commercial banks, whose only advantages are having more branch offices, ATMs, and a bigger marketing budget.
Postal banking solves this deficit by making every post office a branch of the national credit union.
What service? Debit cards for postal banking accounts?
It absolutely would be because for-profit banks would have to compete with non-profit government services…
Petite bourgeoise, the managerial class who wield structural control over the labor power of others but lack sufficient capital to simply hire someone else to maintain that structure for them. Same as gang members, small business owners, corporate middle-managers, etc.
Cultivate a fascination for neologism and you can be the old person that correctly and unironically uses modern slang to the horror of young people everywhere~
Become the reason that kids have to find new words for things all over again and you’ll never run out of new material~
No need for crypto, there are plans on deck for a postal banking system that already include debit card service (and a government union for the workers who have to maintain the infrastructure). That’s pretty much the end of the credit card mafia if it comes to pass.
*with or without
FTFY
There can be more than two categories.
Cops aren’t workers, they’re the enforcers of Capital.
The only surprising thing here is that this person thought they could exercise copfriend privileges against an actual cop without getting some kind of blowback. XD
It’s not new technology, for one. We’ve been using injection wells like landfills since the 1930’s because it’s cheaper than treating and disposing of wastewater safely.
Yeah, obviously I’d much rather that R&D budgets got spent on things that might actually make a difference rather than new ways of kicking the can down the road for future generations to deal with.
You’re weirdly defensive about this idea. What’s up with that? Daddy got some investments in the fossil fuel industry?
Because this “one trial” was the literal best-case scenario, and it still sprung a leak that would cost more to fix than they could gain by banking carbon sequestration credits.
This isn’t just one leak, this is a leak that got so bad the EPA got involved.
After the election maybe? That seems rather late to me.
Hence this discussion where I made my intentions known well in advance of the election.
Direct action and building up third party alternatives seems to be the best long term courses of action.
Direct action is an easy way to end up in jail (even feeding the homeless is illegal now) and third-parties are useless due to our first-past-the-post electoral system.
The best long-term courses of action are mutual aid and the development of alternative structures of power that can serve human needs without being subject to the whims of the existing political establishment.
If I were american I would work towards unionizing as many people as possible, report that I won’t vote democrat, and then vote democrat unless a third party has a chance of winning in my state.
This is acceptable.
Congrats! I escaped Houston a couple of years back and I know how hard that can be!
Do it.
I’ve seen people debate this endlessly, but I’ve never seen anyone on the side of not voting explain anything beyond “I don’t want to support genocide” as if the republicans aren’t just as gung ho about killing children. What is the utility in not participating in the election? What do you think not voting will achieve?
I’m already planning not to vote for Republicans.
I pay careful attention to local races and evaluate every candidate because I believe voting to be a civic rssponsibility.
But my fundamental principle when choosing who to vote for is not tactical, but moral. I will not vote in support of people that I believe will perpetuate injustice in the world.
You aren’t sending a signal and you certainly aren’t making the democrats commit less genocide.
Voting downballot but making no choice for president sends a very clear signal. The DNC just decided they didn’t need the uncommitted vote and they’re probably right.
Voting democrat is the lesser evil and will have actual positive results for people living in the US, and it isn’t mutually exclusive with other ways of enacting change.
I disagree on principle. Voting for a lesser evil is still voting to perpetuate evil. At best, it maintains an intolerable status quo, and it comes from a fear of the radical change that we know is sorely needed. “Lesser evilism” is conservatism.
If Democrats want trans folks like me to vote for them then maybe they should stop helping Israel blow up children.
Seems like a really, really low bar but this is America so my expectations were already below sea level.
Since you are all knowing, explain to me exactly how deep earth mining is less costly and better for the environment than deep earth drilling.
Easy, just compare the amount of pollution required to make a battery and a solar panel with the amount of pollution required to extract and burn fossil fuels for the equivalent power output over the duration of the renewable’s working lifetime.
Oh, and don’t forget. Fossil fuels are useless without an engine to burn them, so you need to account for those infrastructure costs as well.
Not when you’re a government.
Mandate that payment processors have to support the state debit network and you’ll be on half the terminals in the country in under a year.