The assumed reason for inflation, as I understand it, is that on one hand things devalue over time and on the other we build our system around infinite growth and rewarding innovation (many asterisks here…)

During the Middle Ages, neither statements were considered true, the world was considered stagnant and there was virtually no inflation. That was before the banking system - so with 0% inflation i would expect the banks to collapse…

And then… I don’t know! Stuff is hard and economics harder…

Judgemental stare

Overall, I disagree.

I have a good friend that never contacts me first. But if I start the conversation, they engage, often propose extra plans and are great to hang out with. They just postpone reaching out.

I have friends that often beat me to the punch, and initiate the conversation first way more often than I do. I am grateful and we then have nice chats. Only sometimes we end up making plans, but I always thank them for reaching out.

I have vague acquaintances with which I exchange birthday wishes every year. If by chance we were meeting up again, we would have a pleasant surface level conversation. They used to be friends, but we live far away now and the friendship dwindled. Still going to send birthday wishes to minimally keep in touch. That’s fine too.

Scale it considering that a president is appointed for 4 years, a monarch for life. Overall, I don’t find it weird that people need time to mourn when their political system gets a good shake…

But Queen Elizabeth was not “former” queen. What would happen if a President would die (of natural causes) on the job?

How are the two on the same level?

Production is absolutely not the bottleneck, here. We are producing too much, constantly.

Most of the world is far from replacement levels of population and the global trend is a decrease in fertility. Overall, we are at 2.4 kids per woman, the replacement level being estimated between 2.1 and 2.3 (depending how likely you think it is to die from wars). This data has been (mostly) decreasing since the 60s.

This is already happening, but i don’t think it’s fast enough: with the exceeded life expectancy, we are first seeing an increase and aging of population. Only after the wave of now 50-60 year olds will be dead will we see a stable degrowth. Is that soon enough? Sure it’s preferable to extermination?