That’s not really an ad hom. I don’t think you run a petrol station, so I’m not calling you a moron

It just economically make no sense that you’d have 3 different businesses that close together with wildly different prices. Like who would ever go to the expensive one? And why?

I actually don’t believe you. $1 difference in petrol price and people still go to the expensive one? You’d have to be a moron surely

Right, but the in order for the other station to not go out of business they have to match. But are incentivised to beat that price by a further 10c to increase the amount of business they get See where I’m going?

Only if the price is actually increasing. Otherwise you’d just sell cheap petrol and put them out of business

I can’t find any solid evidence for this Pakistan claim. I see that an anonymous source reached out to one outlet, but I haven’t found anything to corroborate Seems a bit tenuous thus far. Do you have any evidence you’ve seen in particular?

In what world are those imperialist projects? Can you qualify that in some way? Let’s go with 1, say Pakistan

What imperialism is America doing currently?

But besides that, even if your nation is doing imperialist things surely you would agree that maintaining an army to not get your country absolutely destroyed by any other country at any time is valid

Do you believe that a nation has no need for weapons?

Or rather is it immoral for a nation to keep and equip a defence force?

Do you have any data to back that up? It would be quite interesting

I don’t think regulation is impossible to achieve, look at the EU. And what I am fairly sure of is you have better odds of passing regulation than replacing capitalism entirely

So material waste can be directly tied to cost. If you’re trying to bring down cost then you’re going to try to reduce waste correct? That’s why there is so much work being done for reusable launch vehicles

For space debris and pollution I don’t think we can squarely blame capitalism. Under a purely communist economy there’s no guarentee that anyone would care any more about it than currently And you can attack that issue by a combination of penalising companies that create debris and rewarding those that remove it under a capitalist economy

As for it not being entirely comparable. Sure the government spent a lot of money on that early R&D. But do we think that if we banned companies from doing this kind of work that govt agencies like NASA would be necessarily more cost effective, cause less pollution, and less debris?

That might be the case right? Let’s say there a percentage chance that would have succeeded call it 10%

Now your first attempt fails, maybe because of some miscalculation or lack of engineering precision

Even if the older way more expensive version had a 100% success rate you’d probably still rather the cheaper version right?

Also not sure how this is about capitalism, replace the above for material cost and it’s the same thing

Not really no. It’s not often that a stock is short sold really hard when there isn’t an underlying reason Otherwise large investors could regognise this and just take a long position. The short seller is then screwed if the price doesn’t drop far enough and fast enough before their options expire