OK, now the argument makes more sense.
Some bodies came up with requiring newly built housing to have planned in a renewable energy source. The idea is that those who build are investing into the future already and gathered large amounts of capital anyway. The disadvantage is the creation of a mid-term disincentive for housing construction, so keeping the housing supply in control might be more crucial. This method is also slow.
Solar is expensive.
Please explain. PV is cheap AF.
Aye dame, baba ganoush it is then
Chickpea dictatorship.
A day without chickpea consumption will be punished.
rage rage rage
That's a bit incomplete.
Those who stay back would find cities, economy, infrastructure and culture crumbling and uprooted. Ghost town culture doesn't exactly inspire hope and confidence.
On the other hand, there would be somewhat of a plague syndrome benefitting those.
Half a million movers per month would both wreck California and rural states real quick.
Tickle tickle
that his support can largely be explained by his compelling, if not mesmerizing hold on crowds.
Don't forget that there was massive propaganda to create this narrative, especially after the power grab for the NSDAP and Nazi movement.
I think he was likely good at instilling anger in his temporary audience. There's a lot of emotion transported.
Also important to note: The 1933 power grab and the totalitarian regime in the next 12 years wasn't Hitler's work alone. The German electorate, Hindenburg and those who followed knew what they were doing.
Popular jungle producer Roni Size mentioned in an interview that he used to live in a council flat with prepaid electricity and he could only work 15-20 minutes on a track before the flat ran out of electricity and he was forced to top up the meter.
Hmm.
Steakhaus