This guy used to write a Substack that I’d read as I had time, but usually always got to his Links writeup. You can see this week’s here; all the bits are choice, but I’m snipping one into this post. It’s a varied lot, but there’s at least something for everyone. When you need something to read, take a look!

Here are snippets of the piece I mentioned just above.

I’m on my hols right now.

Breakfast from the supermarket and bakery, for three people, costs a shade over 7 euros. Two fancy-pants coffees to-go costs a shade over 8 euros.

That seems like the right kind of gearing? Essentials are easily within reach; luxury items you have to think about.

Essentials are like: basic groceries, broadband/phone, roads, education, healthcare, energy, water, rent up to a certain amount etc. “Normal” coffee, house wine, that kind of thing.

It’s very hard to justify, in my head, why these should be the province of profit-seeking companies. Given we all have to have them, why should some people get to leach on that? Yes the profits are taxed but that’s an inefficient way to collect extra money from citizens.

We all form a government which is a kind of enlarged co-operative really. Why don’t we make a basket of essentials, democratically argued about and iterated over time, then nationalise not-for-profits to run supply chains and shops for them?

Just… take essentials out of the for-profit bit of the economy.

Our priorities have lost their way somewhere along the line.

And good for for-profit companies too, right? People without broadband can’t buy from Shein; can’t receive deliveries from Amazon. People without their health, without education can’t staff them. Remove the friction by making essentials work. (snip)

Come to Europe and get low-key radicalised haha

The EU may (or may not) be making technology policy missteps, but they are gently and patiently promoting a certain way of life which feels globally very, very special, and fundamentally counter to the hypercapitalism found elsewhere. (emph. mine-Ali)

Honestly I’d like to see serious economic papers that compare the two approaches. Why not do it this way? Why not go further and, as I suggested, choose radical nationalised businesses for essentials? Genuinely what is the problem with that? Why isn’t it simply obvious that we should live our lives in comfort, with room to participate and be kind to each other, and knock off early to go to the beach early on sunny days? And that’s not compatible with profit-extracting water suppliers etc, and shops run by people not just on minimum wage but without any kind of employment protection?

Why can’t politicians propose these kind of ideas, even as a generational directional plan rather than an election promise, without getting yelled at? (snip)