Discussions about degrowth and all sorts of related topics. This includes UBI, economic democracy, the economics of green technologies, enviromental legislation and many more intressting economic topics.
Regime change in Iran could be a great thing for lots of people, first of all for Iranians.
Trying to change the regime in Iran by bombing the country to ruins is a lose-lose scenario for everyone, as waves at everything in all directions demonstrates.
regime change in the US would make the world a much better place, especially for Iranians but here we are
And the worsed growth at that, as it makes oil and gas cheaper. The Iran war and also Ukraine war were really good pushed for going green and hit the sectors of the economy relying on fossil fuel the most, the hardest. It is said, that this needs wars though.
What? Please restate clearly
Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz increases the price of oil and gas. That was also the case, when the West sanctioned Russian energy after Russia invaded Ukraine. At the same time green technologies, like solar, wind turbines, heat pumps, evs and so on are getting cheaper. So when you get a price shock, you end up with reduced emissions.
If Iran would have a regime change favorable to the US, then the Strait of Hormuz would be opened and oil and Iranian oil and gas would no longer be under sanctions. That would reduce the price of that. At the same time Western technology would end up in Iran increasing production.
Punchable face
We need to get rid of corpo capitalism and concentrate on local business again. We have the computers now so we should be able to manage the scale when it comes to figgerin' it out.
Is that the "you vill eat ze bugz" meme guy?
Yeah and you also can fuck off
The original source seems to be this Welt interview by Felbermayr:
A good headline is a short summary of an article's content. What it doesn't supply is a hell of a lot in the way of context.
Seibel might be arguing that it's a good thing 1000s of people got killed in the Middle East by the rogue heads of 2 nuclear-armed, failed democracies, because it's likely to make the global economy grow. He might be arguing that it's a terrible thing, and the available data suggesting it will lead to growth in the global economy exposes a perverse incentive that the global community needs to address. Has anyone sought out the article to check what his actual point is, or are we all just throwing darts at his face based on decontextualised screenshots of a headline he probably didn't write himself (editors usually do that)?
lol
