Hmm not quite following: 500MW was created at connected to grid as required although delegated to 3rd party. And the DC uses that power. So what's the problem?
Should we abolish tractors and mechanical looms on the basis that they put farmers and weavers out of work, and only concentrate "money and power" to the "capitalist class"?
> Should we abolish tractors and mechanical looms on the basis that they put farmers and weavers out of work, and only concentrate "money and power" to the "capitalist class"?
If you don't have good jobs (or some equivalent) ready for all the farm workers, sure. Progress should serve everyone, rather than have the costs concentrated on those less able to bear them.
And you need an actual plan, not just a fallacious hand-wave of, "it'll all work this time, because it worked out in the past." You can't assume history will repeat itself (and you may not even want that: a genocide feels far different to those killed than the survivors, and an economic disruption feels far different to those harmed by it than some kid reading about it 100 years later).
But if you can't come up with that, I wouldn't mind some law that forbids businesses from owning and operating AI, reserving that exclusively for workers and worker-organizations.
At some point, automation will mean there won't be any jobs left (at least for most people, and don't hand-wave that away), and AI means we're far closer to that point than we ever have been. Something different will need to happen (though it'll probably a loosening of morals around the value of human life, with billionaire killing off the excess population (us) their kingdoms with vibecoded AI attack drones).
> It makes no sense for that value to be captured for all future time by a single owner, that just encourages pointless speculation and makes it harder to allocate real estate towards its highest and most valuable use.
How do 99 year leases fix the problem? Do people actually get kicked out at 99 years, or does the government renew it for a nominal fee?
The overwhelming majority of homes in Singapore are HDB flats built by the government. These are torn down and new, taller buildings fitting more people built in their place. It's called the Selective En-Block Redevelopment Scheme, or SERS[1]. People sell their flats to the government and are given new flats in other neighbourhoods, while their old homes are torn down and new ones rebuilt. So, yes, in some way, they are 'kicked out'.
If the lease gets renewed at market value then there's no point in speculating about what that land might be worth in the farther future. It's a key difference from a system where all of the future value must be captured at once by a single owner.
Doesn't that just turn into a property tax of 1% per year, without a massive tax bill every 99 years? 99 years is long enough that there's going to be at least 2 owners, which means all sorts of strategizing required on how to plan for the renewal of the lease.
>The parent contributor has conveniently left out the fact that the 37% of CPF contributions is split 20-17 in terms of employee-employer contributions[1]
This point is a shell game, because the employer's share is still effectively being taken from the employee. It's equivalent of "tariffs are paid by foreigners!" that's trotted out for supporting tariffs.
I almost feel like the employee/employer distinction is actually worse than tariff fakery because at least tariffs are somewhat confusing to the average person, so you almost see why they get fooled.
But I feel like no-one would be fooled if you changed an e to an r on payslips (employee contribution to employer) - it's just obviously the same.
>It's essentially a forced loan to the government at subpar rates. The "tax" is the delta between what the government pays out for the bonds vs what a bond of equivalent risk in the free market would have paid.
Doesn't seem too hard to force the datacenter to put up a bond for it, and then if the requirements/timelines aren't met the bond's seized.
reply