We've also seen a website that collects old paper restaurant placemats from across the ages. Literally disposable, zero value items that were made to be discarded by the thousands.

And yet, when someone has an interesting idea that ties them together, makes us recollect or think about our past in some novel way, these useless uncommon things suddenly become quite interesting.

A book on sermons, o its own, from the 1920s is maybe not that interesting. A book of sermons selected from each decade? A collection that compares regional books of sermons? A compare and contrast of the 2020s and 1920s? I can imagine many interesting thesis where a book like that becomes interesting because of the context of other books that are juxtaposed to it.

A book on Detroit motorways and bus schedules from the 30s isn't interesting or valuable on its own. But when you contextualize it, suddenly it might be a way to understand our history, our path through development and redevelopment. Connecting our present moment to the past.

Here's a bookseller describing some of the books, which he believes are going to middlemen who are playing a sort of arbitrage with the AI companies by buying obscure titles, reselling them, and tossing away anything that doesn't sell. https://charliebecker.substack.com/p/is-an-ai-company-buying...

Like Amazon consuming and presumably destroying rare books should be enraging to everyone, regardless of political persuasion.

The difference is huge between 404 and Fox. Fox is out here trying to tell people there's a trans agenda, and that Biden was a lunatic leftist. They are just making up stories and publishing them because they know their audience engages. 404 definitely make editorial choices about which stories to pursue but I've largely found them to be grounded in real depictions of stuff that is happening.

Broadband. Look at municipal broadband in Chattanooga. EPB is cheap and offers high quality service.

Health care. Typically socialized systems are cheaper. Medicare pays one tenth the administrative costs private health insurance does.

Insurance. National flood insurance for instance simply isn't offered privately because private insurers charge so much.

Loans, in particular student loans. Private loans are so expensive relative to government ones.

Transit. I use the bus and the train when I'm not biking. It costs me $3 to take a 60 minute train to the airport. It costs me $120 to take a 45 minute Uber. Trains are capable of managing stadium traffic, commute traffic, I can put my bike on board. They are clean and safe.

Turns out, governments can be efficient and run things well. You just have to tune the incentive structure correctly.

(Aside, I don't care about cheaply as an axis nearly much as I care about "for the benefit of many". I'd take expensive programs that help everyone, every time.)

On the flip side, plenty of private companies are expensive and corrupt.

I think it's possible both can be good and both can be bad.

I don't think a conspiracy is necessary here. Three factors are at play:

1) It needs research. That takes a long time. 2) If its successful and good, the effects need to be studied in patients for years to understand the long term impact 3) Capitalism is going to try and optimize for profit, not for welfare. Which is the point you are making, except... it's not conspiratorial. Capital absolutely is out in the open about this.

And second, I don't think I said "at the same level as China". It can be the case that both countries are authoritarian and punishing dissidents. And still be the case that China is worse.