Or we could think and reason. Attorney General is a far more powerful position than whatever lawyer job he's doing now. And really, I think he's just carrying water for the administration here.

Most of the US is predominated by much lower population densities than suburban sprawl. And I was replying to a universal assertion not a predominate one:

Now we see that the assertion was false.

And really, we don't need everyone on board with urban farming in order for there to be a market for it. For example, not everyone surfs, yet somehow there are plenty of surfboard businesses out there. It'll depend on how profitable these urban farming businesses are (which in turn depends on the pricing of the products they sell) as to how large a market will be needed to sustain them.

For example, there's been a lot of joking about "herbs" and "basil" (namely, the marijuana plant) in this discussion. But in a high population density area where marijuana is legalized and hypothetically for sale at current legalized marijuana prices, then an urban farm would easily be supported - that is, it should be able to command a high profit per area/volume used.

Every city sprawls to some degree. That doesn't mean that the urban centers have suburban population densities.

You wrote earlier:

As I demonstrated, that is not true. There's at least 5% of the US (in the areas I mentioned) which lives or works in areas with much higher population density than suburban sprawl. A counterexample trumps a universal assertion.

Further, we haven't even discussed that the vast majority of the US by land area doesn't even have the "sort of sprawly" population density of suburban sprawl. By the argument you've put out before, that means we don't need to consider any sort of high density technology at all. After all, most of the US is farms, wilderness, and water.

You've also genuinely engaged in the sort of "re-writing" that you futilely accuse me of. Perhaps you recall this rewrite of a few replies ago:

You are ignoring 80-85% of the world's economic activity and around 95% of the world's population by brushing off the rest of the world.

In addition, when bandying around claims of "biggest market", we need to consider biggest market for what? For example, I think we can all agree that the US probably will be punching well below its weight for urban farming due to the moderate sprawl of most of the US population. China, Japan, and the EU won't. I would consider each of those regions taken separately bigger markets for urban farming than the US.

And one doesn't need hundreds of millions of customers in order to successfully install and operate an urban farm. If urban farming is practical, then it'll be practical on the very ample US markets I already mentioned, which have around 10-15 million people in total. If it isn't practical, then it doesn't matter if the market is 10 million people or 350 million people.

That number is merely the nominal value of bonds that the Fed purchased. I don't know how much fake liquidity that actually translates into. But given that inflation is fairly stable, it doesn't appear to be very much.

And I rattled off a few large markets that achieve that density. Game, set, match. I don't care that the markets only cover a modest fraction rather than all of the US's population.

Now, you know that I intended all along to imply the existence of the markets.

I imagine you have that trouble with everyone. Just because we disagree and I have elaborated at your request doesn't mean that I'm rewriting my words or even trying to. I simply filled you on why I wrote what I wrote.

And really, this is why having an account is useful. I could then read your account name and decide for myself whether it was worth the trouble to respond to you.

That would be fine, if your comment mattered. It isn't the number of high density urban areas that creates the market, but the many millions of people in those spots. I didn't rattle off a few high density urban areas, I rattled off a few large markets.

I'm not Karmashock, but maybe he's got a really good point.

Even if we ignore that most nitrogen in developed world crops comes from nitrogen-fixing bacteria, it's still going to be a while before methane becomes scarce enough that we stop using it for fertilizer. After all, methane is cheap enough now that they burn it for electricity!

The US isn't the only place in the world and even if we do restrict our attention to the US, there are a number of dense urban centers (eg, New York City, Chicago, and Philadelphia).

What's hyperbolic about it? There are examples in various posts of people who stopped communicating with their loved ones because they couldn't figure out the new interface or who stopped receiving services for the elderly because someone put in a automated voice messenging system. We're turning into a society where computers are becoming essential for both getting things done and for connecting with each other. Bad and arbitrary UI changes break that.

"Brilliant social engineering" that does what? If I don't give a shit, then it doesn't work on me.

How much fake liquidity? I think it's reasonable to ask at this point whether things would be different in the absence of a large pile of QE by the US Fed and other central banks. I note that when Japan tried QE in the 90s, they didn't get anywhere with it.

No, it doesn't sound like you understand. No one in the US prevents you from using a rain barrel. Further, please recall that this thread was originally about the up and coming water-based hydraulic empire. I merely pointed out why that assertion was flawed.

Reminds me of the adjacent story, "Harbingers of Failure".

So is QE a basic income scheme? Why mention it?