I don't see why owning farmland is "ridiculous" even if you don't use said farmland. Nobody says everyone should be a farmer, I am saying they should have a fallback so they don't starve if they can't find a corporation to hire them. Remember, I replied to a person who asked how we prevent feudalism, that's a potential solution.

Because there are so many fish in the sea. In fact, some nations are giving existing owners of fishing boats money to scrap their boats and leave the trade permanently. Also, new permits are given in a very limited manner. This is done to protect whatever is left of marine biodiversity.

I said make people farmland owners, not necessarily farmers. Make sure they own some farmable land, and they can fall back on it if they need it, that way, their existence doesn't rely on being hired by a corporation. There is lots of uncultivated federal land, I don't see why it can't happen. Industrial farmers are unaffected.

Yes, temporary benefits already exist and are a good thing. Yes, there is some administrative burden to ensure SNAP recipients continue their job search, still better than having freeloaders draining the system. Also, psychology plays a role here too. If people see their friends getting free money just because they don't have a declared income (including SNAP benefits, since money is fungible), they start feeling like fools for not doing the same.

For old-timers who need more info, Gen-Z has invented the concept of the "blown account", which is basically a Klarna account (or similar service) with lots of debt that you don't use anymore and just let the debt in it to exist. Much like leaving the debt on a maxed-out credit card to exist. Which is all fun and games until you run out of accounts to "blow" (much like running out of credit cards to max out) or until the debt inevitably goes to collection.

Note: The term "blown account" should not be confused with the term "blowing up account"/"account blowing up" which is something completely different

We've heard all of that before in Citigroup's "Plutonomy Memo" (right before the GFC): "We don't need ordinary consumers, we only sell luxury goods to ballers and McMansion dwellers, just look at the stock market, the ordinary consumer may be squeezed from all sides, but the line keeps going up!" Then the GFC happened, and the line stopped going up, because most of those "ballers" were poor people maxing out their credit cards. And the housing bubble collapsed too, since many of those McMansion dwellers had borrowed beyond their means. And suddenly, "value for money" mattered again for corporations.

Similarly now, how many of those "ballers" are people addicted to BNPL services (aka the new credit cards)? And how much of the investments in AI are sustainable financially?

Is there a third solution I'm not seeing or are we just going to descend into a feudal dystopia?

Realistically? Make people farmland owners again, so they always have a job to fall back on (farming). That way, working for a corporation becomes optional. And stop allowing in illegal immigrants, who, being landless by default, will have to be substituted by the landed citizens one way or another.

Next thing you know they'll say that all those eliminated SNAP benefits (and resulting purchases) are saving money on storage space, refrigeration, gasoline (for transport), labor. All that money saved!

Call me old-fashioned, but if you are not actively looking for a job, you shouldn't get any benefits from the government (including SNAP). People permanently reliant on SNAP are a burden on taxpayers and a contributing factor to inflation (since they consume without producing). To reply to your assertion directly, any reduced demand from all those eliminated SNAP benefits is a good thing for the productive people, since it will bring down prices (supply and demand etc).

*where available (sorry)

The real advantage of 4K is avoiding the low-bitrate 1080p that most streamers and broadcasters pass off as "HD" these days. Don't get me wrong, streamers and broadcasters are stingy with 4K bitrate too, but at least the resolution is higher, so the bitrate has to be higher (which means more information for your eyes). It's the reason 4K looks better even on 1920x1080 screens. Also, HDR were available (though 1080p HDR is also a thing).

As previously stated, go and tell all that to someone who cares, I don't.

You go and tell that to someone who cares, I don't.

BTW I don't want to spend too much time entertaining your inability to read, so let me make it as simple for you as I possibly can: Most jobs are either dirty or boring or physically taxing or mentally taxing. Sure, there is a small minority of people who enjoy their jobs, but they are the exception. Generally speaking, a job is something you don't enjoy doing so you have money to do things you enjoy doing. So, most people would rather keep as much of their hard-earned income as possible instead of giving it to other people who do nothing all day. Also, all my gains are from a mentally taxing job, none of them are ill-gotten, my dear sycophant.

Nope, I said what I said, read my previous posts again to understand what I said, it's not my problem if you fail at basic reading comprehension.

No, it wouldn't, because there are jobs out there that are boring, dirty, or physically intense but are required if you want to have a functioning society, because those jobs haven't been automated yet, since we don't live in a post-scarcity society. Even in white collar jobs, there is the digital equivalent of emptying the garbage bins because there is no automation in place (or the cost of automation is too high to justify) or doing complex financial calculations or complex trading that requires human thought and creativity and is mentally taxing.

Such comments (from people who think that society as we know it can function with people only doing the jobs they like) reaffirm my belief that we are really in "weak men create hard times" times.