Government sponsored lotteries are worse than a tax. There are whole departments set up using most of the lottery income to pay staff and advertising budgets. How much of the lottery profit goes to pay for things the community needs, like say... help for gambling addiction?
You could add a line on your state's tax form saying "donate a dollar to X fund" and net more money, even if only 5% checked the box, but i suppose someone's friend would lose their job in the lottery commission.

How will we know it's fake if it doesn't make us pause to consider our life choices?

Instead, hire a post-AGI ethicist, post-AGI epistemologist, and other philosophers. What is a research scientist going to do without empirical data except spew forth untestable hypotheses? And once you can test the societal effects of post-AGI, the cat's out of the bag. Science isn't always the peak of useful discourse. Sometimes philosophy gets to rear its ugly head (even the best physicists are doctors of philosophy).

We've moved on VMWare. It wasn't us. It was you. We won't even short your stocks. Goodbye.

I always laugh / cry when people say something about "stop indoctrination!" because what they really mean is "we don't want that kind of indoctrination, we want this kind!"

What we really need as a society is critical thinking skills, the ability to draw conclusions from evidence instead of reporting only supporting evidence for a preconceived conclusion and suppressing other evidence. We need to have people that can determine if the evidence is complete and conclusive, not just matching what people want emotionally.

I think you would see a price increase. In most food markets what happens is food is set at a price; if it sits on the shelf long enough it gets discounted. If it still doesn't sell it is thrown out. So what will happen is the the shelf-time of non-discounted prices will be longer relative to discounted price, meaning that the price level increases.

The other option is that the stock of goods at a low price sells out first, leaving only the higher-priced alternatives remaining on the shelves, also pushing up the price level.

I have never seen an example ever where increased demand leads to decreased price except where supply increases. If you have an example otherwise... I'd be interested in seeing it.

I don't disagree that this might happen in the medium to long term, as people see that prices are up (because of more money to spend on things) so they might be willing to invest to create companies to take some of that new profit margin.

But this lags the initial influx of money, meaning the final price level is more likely higher than the initial price level, even after new business come online.

Also, if there is less money in banks for the reserve ratio, or there is less money available for "investors" to create new companies, who do you think (and, with what money?) is going to be creating these new companies?

it would just be redistributing the same amount of money around. This would not cause inflation since the same amount of dollars would be chasing the same amount of goods.

Only in aggregate. It's generally the case that the ultra-rich are not buying the goods and services that the lower classes are trying to buy. This means that if you suddenly shift a bunch of money (spending power) to the lower classes, there will very likely be an increase in prices for the goods those lower classes purchase because you can increase their money supply way faster than the supply of the things they want to buy.

In fact, the argument goes that it will be a double-whammy because the thing "the rich" buy are companies that generally make stuff. So if you shift spending to the masses, you will increase demand for goods and services while simultaneously decreasing the available supply of new businesses.

An approach that actually gives the desired outcome on all fronts is to tax the rich and directly create new businesses, therefore creating new supply of all goods and services, dropping prices, and likely employing people. It also helps protect against monopoly by ensuring a steady supply of competition. Sadly, this idea is "too left" for most people.

Forcing the public to stop buying junk that ends up in landfills;

I dunno if I'd term Anker products as 'Junk' that ends up on landfills.

From my experience they are some of the best portable batteries and cables I've bought....they seem to perform well for me and are long lasting.

No..."woke" is basically political correctness taken to insane levels of extremes.

I mean, that's very funny and all that, but it is another unintentional example of America-centricism on Slashdot.

Err....Slashdot has ALWAYS been a US centric site. It is in the US, and has always been US centric.

Hell, once upon a time I think it was actually explicitly stated in a FAQ somewhere around here.

There is no "both sides" in America. There is "right-wing" and "absolute fascist"

All you have to do is look at Canada, Australia, UK, or EU and see that even at it's best, the "Democratic Party" in the US is basically a right-wing party with a few left wing priorities. There is no fully left-wing party. They've been sliding in that direction since Reagan. If they were truely a left-wing party, the christians would be backing them on the principle of "help the poor, homeless and sick". The US still doesn't have medical care for everyone. That should have been the democrats priority 1, ever economy. Housing should be priority 2. Left-wing parties in Canada are hyper aware of this and left-wing parties always push medical care and housing objectives over economic concerns. This is why the conservatives in Alberta constantly whine-bitch-moan about not being able to find markets for their oil and gas, because they get cock-blocked by BC to the West, NWT to the north, and Ontario to the East. They can only sell to Canada and the US.

Please..get off this.

When discussing the right/left in the US it has fuck all to do with how Europe or other similar places views the world.

Just not even in the same discussion.

There, people trust the government and want a nanny state....that is fundamentally different than how the US started and still thinks....

Even as bad as it has gotten over the past couple decades, we still promote the individual here over "the state"....

So, please quit bringing up the old trope about how our "left" is far right compared to EU....it's apples and oranges and doesn't mean squat.

We are fundamentally different here in mindset and how we govern ourselves and our priorities from you.....and that's ok.

If you like what we do, its a great place to be...if you don't...well, your countries are a nice option.

We don't ever want to be like you...we fought wars and broke away because of that....

The party of John McCain and Mitt Romney is well and truly dead.

Thankfully it was NEVER the party of those two RINOs.....

I think in the REMAKE of Red Dawn...they were going to have the invaders be Chinese...instead they had to change them to North Koreans so as not to offend the CCP market.

Yea it worked out so well for him right?

A progressive state elected an extremely progressive supreme court judge that's exactly what he wanted right? How are you going to spin that around to make sense in la-la land?

At the same time they also voted overwhelmingly for Voter ID laws.

So, not a total loss and not completely left wing it seems.