Slashdot Mirror
Intel Sucks Up Water Amid Drought In China
An anonymous reader sends along a Bloomberg piece on Intel and the coming water wars. "Intel is going head-to-head with businesses like Coca-Cola to swallow up scarce water resources in the developing world. According a 2009 report ... 2.4 billion of the world's population lives in 'water-stressed' countries such as China and India. Chip fabrication plants in those countries, as well factories such as the soft drink giant's bottling plants, are swallowing up scarce resources needed by the 1.6 billion people who rely on water for farming. ... Li Haifeng, vice president of sewage treatment company Beijing Enterprises Water Group, told Bloomberg, 'Wars may start over the scarcity of water.' China's 1.33 billion citizens each have 2,117 cubic meters of water available to them per year.... In the US, consumers can count on as much as 9,943 cubic meters."
What's the big deal it's not like you need water to live...
You know you are truly fucked in terms of population density when technically renewable and basically unlimited resources like water start to be discussed as possible causes of war... Interesting times ahead, guys.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
I suspect they included the amount of water used to produce the goods you consume, not only your immediate personal consumption.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
"Water flows uphill towards money." -Unknown
Although I believe in captialism, this is just wrong. Intel has the money that they can afford to delsalinate water. Many of their employees are based in India and China, and this is incredibly unfair that they have to make their own employees and those who can't afford water, suffer. If they were efficient, they could probably incorporate a desalination plant and keep a server farm there cooled by water from a salt ocean and then desalinate it.
Capitalism has taken a lot of water in the largest aquifer in Peru. The Bush family actually own a large section of land on their aquifer and may consider selling it if oil doesn't work out. (Source: Blue Gold, documentary).
There's a lot of indirect water use associated with modern life. The food you eat comes from crops and animals which need water irrigation and feed. The computer you're using has parts in it which were smelted and refined in processes which used lots of water. The electricity you're using comes from a plant which uses water as part of its cooling system. etc.
You know what determines your worth in China? Capital.
One that hath name thou can not otter
and others have to do it for us...
Instead of becoming muscular, sexy hardworking people, look what we have done to ourselfs in the latest 50 years:
1. we forgot how food is made - have you ever seen a pigslaughter? I have...
2. we forgot how textiles are made, do we even make clothes in western europe? Except expensive ill-fitting italian shit?
3. we have new types of morons: celebrities, entrepreneurs, hairstylists, economists, socionomists
4. we have laboriously invented new psychical diseases - new types of "voluntary railroadworkers in siberia" never seem to end
5. education: 90 percent of us are just using complicated jargon... say, how many electrical engeneers (in sweden) know what actual mathematical field the FFT belongs to... Do you?
we are becoming morons; when the people educated in the 70-80ies die, there will be only educated psychopats and some health care left in the modern western world...
Muuuuuuaaaaaahaahhhaaahaaahaaahaaaaa....
and please do not bother me with your deep economic wisdom... entertain your hemorrhoids instead...
Intel has the money that they can afford to delsalinate water.
But their stockholders have heard that that would lower the profits. Guess what happens next.
Ezekiel 23:20
Oh sure they will, using a little word known as Lebensraum. Look up Chinese weapons manufacturing, they are cranking out ballistic subs like they had a war scheduled for next Tuesday. Why would little capitalist friendly China suddenly need huge fleets of missile boats? Because someone high up knows their current way of life isn't sustainable, and they want to have the firepower handy if/when they decide they need to "liberate" a country that has resources they need.
And would anybody really be surprised if they did? It isn't like the USA and Russia haven't had questionable wars...err I mean "police actions" in the past, so why not China? While my heart says the bad blood between China and Japan and Korea might point the dragon in that direction, my head says Africa. There is simply too many precious minerals and other resources controlled by warlords and crushing the militaries in that region would be quite easy for the Chinese army.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Although I believe in captialism, this is just wrong.
Expecting corporations (or, often, people) to do the 'right' or 'moral' thing, at a net loss to themselves, is a losing battle. The evidence is everywhere. Decry this as the harbinger of our society's doom if you must, but don't waste time trying to kid yourself that it's not the case.
Legislate in such a way that it's cheaper for Intel to desalinate ocean water on site and they'll start doing so (or possibly move to a different jurisdiction, if that turns out cheaper). Simple.
Explain this to me. Water is renewable. It's not getting gobbled up. It's not getting ruined. We're not "running" out of drinking water. It's not syphoning out of the planet. The whole fucking planet is water. It's stupid easy to desalinate water and purify toxic water for drinking. My wife is always telling me about the water crisis. I'm like what fucking crisis? Water isn't going anywhere. Desalination is expensive but it will become cheaper when we need it. Supply and demand. Fossil fuels--THERE is something you should be worried about.
If you are going to establish a dictatorship with nearly unlimited power (like the Chinese system) shouldn't it be that government that provides from its citizens?
+1 idealism, -5 naivety.
Do you really think the party hacks give a damn about mud farmers in the distant provinces? All they care about is adding another 0 on the end of their bank balance.
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
Yep, this is exactly the kind of situation where you'd expect communism to work, and this is the situation where in real life it fails. In theory the government should reserve water for its citizens. In practice, the people who are actually in charge have more incentive to make tons of money from Intel and Coke than to protect the lives of nearly-worthless workers.
Oh sure they will, using a little word known as Lebensraum.
They had to import a German word to describe their devious plans? Sounds like China's experiencing a word shortage as well.
You don't even need to go so far as to refer to lebensraum.
China, India, and other countries all have disputed claims on areas of the Tibetan plateau. There was a war fought over some of that territory only a few decades ago. And those disputes are heating up again... because the Tibetan plateau is the location of the headwaters of some of the largest rivers in Asia.
The prospect of war between India and China is a scary one, IMO. I sometimes wonder if China would push into a war over the Tibetan plateau in order to help pacify their own citizens in case their economy dips even further.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
So lets see here, your trying to prove a point against capitalism in China which is... Communist. Yeah, its not "true" communism but its sure not pure capitalism.
This particular case is pure capitalism: whoever pays more, gets a larger share of a particular resources, period.
When you start worrying about how some people will just die without it, it's not capitalism anymore. It's the beginning of a welfare state.
It's not a problem yet (at least, not any more than water always has been a problem). In India, the article mentions, they won't exhaust their water supply until 2050. The article mentions Intel, but it isn't their job to do water allocation; that's the job of the government. Intel should ask for the water they want, and the government should decide whether they have enough or not. The primary water fight, as in many places, is between farmers and city-dwellers, and it's been going on for centuries.
In the western US a decade or so ago, there was a drought, and they had to post armed guards on some of the dams to keep the farmers from taking the water. In the fight between crops dying of thirst and people dying of thirst, the people obviously win, but it really sucks if you just planted an orchard of trees and now they are going to die. Even farther back, as early as the 1800s, there were huge water fights in the western US. Control of water supply is serious. Incidentally, California is predicted to exhaust our water supply by the mid 2030s, so this isn't just in India.
The reason the article mentions that wars may be fought over water (other than they already have been fought over water) is because a number of rivers start in the Himalayas, and China is thinking of diverting water from a river that ends up in India. So who 'owns' the river? Eventually it will probably be settled that each side gets a certain percentage of the water coming from the river, but there is a reason India is interested in building up its army. Water is more important than oil.
Qxe4
There's two key themes of the article and both are inadequately covered by the OP.
1. Criticism of China's mismanagement of their water resource, principally with reference to the humanitarian results.
2. The impact on industry if:
a) China continues to mismanage, in which case industry in China is going to have a major problem.
b) China begins to manage, in which case there is going to be a huge opportunity for water supply industries.
Industry itself is given some of the blame but their focus is rightly on the government. It is their responsibility for telling Intel that they cannot build a factory there because there is insufficient water for everyone else. Sure, maybe Intel should install a desalination plant or whatever, but the government is supposed to be demanding that as a requirement for building the factory, not relying on Intel deciding it would be a nice thing to do. Even if Intel suddenly had a case of the guilts and built a plant, all that would happen is someone else builds a factory to utilise the water Intel are no longer using. It would be a totally pointless gesture unless part of a government plan.
How do ballistic missile subs help China liberate a country with resources it needs?
If China wants to prevent another country from intervening in some war of conquest that China starts, all China has to do is to publicly say "We have several hundred ICBMs with nuclear warheads that we will shoot at all your major population centers if any of your military forces stand in our way of conquering county . We are deadly serious."
The rest of the world is then faced with the choice of allowing China to swallow up whatever country it has chosen to conquer, or take the nuclear armaggedon end-of-life-as-we-know-it path. Which path do you prefer?
yea. a single fucking dictionary entry, encompasses the entire spectrum of a political ideology. alright. after all, if we look at the definition of human, it will come out that we are just 'monkeys with advanced advanced tool usage'. since we are homo sapiens sapiens. that makes us, well, just the same.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
Read radical news here
No, of course not. Well, if you ask me - I'm not a libertarian.
That is a terribly childish view to believe that even in pure capitalism there would be no regard for self preservation.
Without a work force there are not likely to be future gains.
Even a pure capitalist regime would have some system (even if it is external to itself) to provide for at least a set number of individuals.
I believe you are confusing capitalism with the inability to perceive gains beyond the absolute moment.
"You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
...but according to the summary, China has "citizens" whereas the US has "consumers" -- interesting word choice!
Radical Terrorists are to Islam, what Totalitarian Regimes have been to Communism, are what White supremacists are to caucasians, are what the Westboro Baptist church is to Christianity.
they are people and groups who use a basic idealogy, harnessed for radical, evil ends. They are no more the "true expression" of an ideology than "Small Government" Nazis would be Republicans. Just because they share something doesn't mean they are the same.
Also, while you champion capitalism, consider the proper capitalist response to the utter destruction of the gulf of mexico would be.... simply... to ignore it and drill through the oil.
Finally, communism is not socialism. which you should understand before trying to critique either one.
So lets see here, your trying to prove a point against capitalism in China which is... Communist. Yeah, its not "true" communism but its sure not pure capitalism.
No, it's not "communism" at all in any meaningful of the word, unless one is of the persuasion that kneejerk-labels any undemocratic and unfree system as "communist". (*) They may have started out as that- supposedly- but they sure as hell aren't now.
One description I've heard of China is as the world's first example of a truly mature fascist state- that's as in Mussolini's original sense of the word where the interests of business and the government are one and the same, and it blatantly *isn't* democratic.
(*) Not that I'm defending communism, but China isn't communist nowadays, regardless of what some- including themselves- might assert. I mean the German Democratic Republic blatantly wasn't democratic, regardless of their self-appointed name.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Does Intel *consume* the water like coke does, or do they just use it then eject it out of the building? I bet their 'dirty water' is cleaner then what coke puts in their process and could be reclaimed for human use.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
so, then, swedish, norwegians, finns, and danish are dying out of famine for the last 60 years ?
or, are they on top of the world :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index
?
some european countries you speak of, are SOCIAL DEMOCRAT, which is a subset of SOCIALISM. in which, the government closely follows and regulates any activity in the country, and ensures minimum standards in all respects. also, they tax the upper part of the society, to fund and keep the lower rung of the society in good order. it is not 'variety of the elements of welfare state', its a SUBSET OF SOCIALISM.
and, no, they are not failing in any respect. everything was going dandy, until the fucked up ayn randists in america, wall street, SCAMMED entire world by peddling poisonous investement tools, and breaking the world economy for decades to come. the global crisis affected each and every single individual bar the tribes in amazon, it was impossible for any country that does business with the outside world to escape it.
read the human development index i linked above.
Read radical news here
Although I believe in captialism
Why ? Capitalism doesn't believe in you.
Unless I missed it I'm not seeing that Intel is "sucking up" water and is only mentioned in passing. The drought in Southwest China affects 24 million of the 1.6 billion people in China/India that rely on farming and Intel's location isn't mentioned. And from TFA: China ... has contaminated 70 percent of its rivers and lakes. Those numbers indicate there are steps that can be taken that will provide more benefit than targeting Intel.
I'm not saying there's not a concern, but to paint Intel as Baron Vladimir Harkonnen is a stretch.
Well coca-cola has been a leader in pretty sophisticated and very very large scale water purification systems. The water they put in put in their soft drinks is clean, clear, odorless and tasteless. They use the same water in their Dasani bottled water and charge 2x more than a coke, too bad their bottled water is so tasteless that you can pick up the smells of the plastic bottle before you get anything interesting from the water.
But you do bring up a good point, coca-cola uses water and then ships it out on trucks and boats never to be seen again locally because it is part of their product. While Intel would be using the water for an industrial process and would need to dispose of it. Let us hope that their waste water doesn't contain arsenic or antimony, two common silicon doping agents. I wouldn't want to drink Intel's waste water even through a simplistic purifier unless it was carefully tested.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
On the contrary.... this is normally where communism fails.
Whenever you have a scarce resource, the socialist response is to invoke price controls and try to ration.
The capitalist response is that high prices force people to conserve, and the extra money gets poured into new ways to gather that resource.
The easiest example is oil. As supply gets low... prices go high... this spurs investment into harder to reach reserves (oil sands...
In the case of water... if China is short and it spurs higher water prices... it will also spur more desalination plants...
In COMMUNISM it would work, but China has been communist in name only for a long time now much in the way the USSR was a democracy.
For social insects.
Humans, OTOH, are aggressive social animals. Put into a system where all are ostensibly "equal", a few will always attempt to become "more equal than others". With appropriately gameable systems in place, this just gives them a framework to work from (rather than constructing one themselves).
This is why communism always fails, eventually.
It's just going to do a lot of damage on it's way down.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
We used to make our own distilled water for topping off the lead acid batteries for the solar PV arrays. Just a watertight box with a clear sheet of glass on top and a place to pour water in and a place to get the distilled out basically. The glass is at a slight slope so the water droplets run down into the gutter-collector, then out to the collection jug. You can get at least two gallons a day in georgia during the summer from a 3x6 foot collector box. (that was a commercial unit, they can be built easily enough though)
We have the tech to do solar fusion power distilled, it's pretty low tech really, just takes a lot of space for mass quantities, but it *is* quite doable. You can get enough to at least cover minimum drinking and cooking requirements as long as you have a source of not suitable water to start with.
That's probably a pretty high figure most likely from some estimates using 100% artificially irrigated land and pure corn fed in a feedlot. I know I have put some larger feeder calves in a barn (just temporarily, under a week) where they were only getting some richer/better quality hay with just a small scoop each of corn, mostly hay fed in other words, and during their growth stage where they were slapping on a pound a day, and no way in heck were they drinking a hundred gallons apiece a day, not even close to that, more like around 5-7 gallons a day (IIRC didn't exactly measure it, but didn't need to fill the hundred gallon tank except every third day for around five calves). How much water for the hay..sorta immaterial, it falls from the sky anyway. We don't irrigate here, and a lot of places don't need to irrigate.
If it is grass fed, and locally/self processed, you can knock those water requirements way way down from that high figure in order to get a steak to the plate.
And seeing as how we have a lot of slopes, it makes way more sense to grow turf, that feeds the cattle, than to open it up to massive erosion and try to grow row crops there. It's a conversion principle and economics plus looking at the terrain that dictates the type of farming. Yes, gallon for gallon, you can get more generic food feeding straight veggies to the humans, but it also won't ever be as nutrient dense a food either, no matter which veggie you are talking about. In other words you can't compare a bite of lean beef to a bite of cabbage. Both are good, both take water, but bite for bite the beef just has a lot more nutrients, so is that water really all that wasted? The humans just cannot eat that grass, it must be converted. You can go all the way to nutrient light veggies like spuds, a grown man living entirely on spuds like back during the Irish potato famine was eating 10-14 lbs a day to get enough energy and nutrient requirements to stay barely functional and working (working as in outside hard physical labor working, not diddly bopping around from city apartment to ultra light duty office or retail work, etc).
There are a lot of tradeoffs and considerations when doing resource analysis.
I'm a fan of both of those guys, but they don't write serious economic texts like Capital. That book is about far more than a bunch of problems of English factory workers; he describes the meaning of value itself and its relationship to money. It's a real worldview changer for people like myself who had only been exposed to Chicago-style econ in school.
For leftist reading in general, I consider folks like Chomsky to be more of a starting point than a conclusion, you know? They've got great and worthwhile perspectives, but don't perform the same abstract analysis as Marx. He'll never be outdated as long as capital investment controls production.
Legislate in such a way that its mandatory for Intel to desalinate ocean water on site, and they will make a token effort at doing so, then pay bribes to the right politicians so they can get away without doing so. Capitalism works on the principle that whatever makes the most money for the corporate owners - regardless of how many people die or are forced to suffer - is the preferred choice. Rationalization to make the corporate lackey's feel like they are acting morally comes afterwords. Capitalism isn't exactly evil, but its sure as hell not a good thing from the point of someone who doesn't own any shares. I would like to see a change to reign in Corporations and make them morally responsible, but I don't expect it to ever happen.
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
My guess is that much of the farming in China currently is low-tech, and thus very inefficient on a bushels per acre-foot of water basis. There are probably upgrades to China's agriculture that would save a lot of water much cheaper than desalinating more fresh water.
Of course, that leaves the question of who will pay. If we just leave it to supply and demand, pretty soon the rich will be shooting the poor for drinking out of their swimming pools.
the situation in the aforementioned social democrat (socialism is their greater set) countries with regulations and taxes are so that, companies are taxed heavily of their profits, and channelized to whatever is needed by society and their success by the regulations, which causes them to become, in practice, semi-autonomous, self-budgeting, revenue-sharing government branches. it is an intended, planned effect.
social democracy, was precisely something that was devised to reach ultimate goal of socialism, through this mild method, giving both the society an adaptation and transition period. so far, it has been wildly successful.
read the below :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy
Social democracy is a political ideology of the centre-left on the classic political spectrum. It is by tradition a form of evolutionary reformist socialism.[1] The Frankfurt Declaration of the Socialist International, attended by many social democratic parties from across the world, committed the adherents to the replacement of capitalism with socialism and committed adherents to oppose Bolshevik communism.[2]
Social democracy supports gradualism, in the belief that a gradual process of reforming existing capitalist economies in a democratic manner will succeed in creating socialism.[3] It rejects revolutionary forcible imposition of socialism.[3] Its gradualism has resulted in communists and the far left accusing social democracy of not being true socialism and accuse it of accepting the values of capitalist society.[3] Social democracy promotes the creation of economic democracy as a means to secure workers' rights.[1] Social democracy rejects the Marxian principle of dictatorship of the proletariat, claiming that gradualist democratic reforms will improve the rights of the working class.[4]
Read radical news here
Ruminants are fairly good at converting grass/forage to meat, and they also produce a food that suits the palate to billions of people. Does not much good to produce some superfood if it tastes rank and no one likes it.
As to the water needs for processing, I addressed that in my post, saying locally grown/consumed or self processed directly on the farm, along with being grass fed, can result in much lower water consumption.
You are throwing out theoretical highest possible figures,(pure corn fed, corn grown on pure irrigated land in a near desert situation, then processed through the most water wasteful plant out there, etc, plus physical transport of everything involved back and forth numerous times and over long distances, all of that thing)). I am just countering by saying there are modalities in place that can result in a huge variable in outcome. "Thousands of liters of water per kg weight delivered" is by far the highest possible outcome there, makes for a short PR soundbite, but isn't exactly always accurate either. That's a worst most extreme case, not a norm or even a median most likely. I am guessing there but it's just too much of a variable to accept a one size fits all situation.
As to how much meat people eat, etc, again too much of a variable. I would agree a lot of folks just eat way too much, meat included, I see the roly poly waddlers same as you do. And a lot of people sure don't get enough, of anything, meat or veggies. That's why I like farming, to feed people, even though I could "make more money", a lot more, doing something else. Most people just want to "make more money" no matter what, so that's my personal tradeoff. I just don't give much of a crap about "making money", I never have either, as opposed to doing what I like and what I think is at least half way righteous. People who fixate on "making more money", which is probably most people here I would guess, wind up spending it as well, and their total resource use, water included, goes straight into the stratosphere compared to a simpler life.
Example, people who fly all over the planet on vacation or those ridiculous business trips when we have the internet now, but then are vegans and will say they don't use as much resources. Well that's nonsense. People who "need" to use ten times the electricity I use, just by choosing to live in the megatropolises with their huge advertising signs running 24/7 and every room lit up, etc, constantly artificially climate controlled, etc. but because they walk to the subway claim they use less resources, water included. Nuts, just ain't so. They use them, it is just removed from direct use, but they still use them. What they might save on being vegan is more than offset on just the transportation and infrastructure needed to keep them living where there are *no* resources locally and everything about their lives has to be shipped in to them. They live in concrete and steel buildings that used tons of resources, I live in an old cabin that was made from locally cut timber a hundred years ago. No comparison on resource use square foot to square foot for living area, mine is significantly lower. I don't own or use a big screen Tv or a "gaming rig" right there my total water resource requirement drops severely compared to some vegan who has a large TV and wastes electricity to own such a computer and runit just for games. I mean, that's the point of the article, computer chip fabs suck it down, bigtime. If you avoid the constant upgrade cycle, especially with "having" to have the latest triple throw down cross fired mega blaster 4-d rig...you save the use of thousands of gallons of water that was used in that manufacture, not to mention how much other water was contaminated from the factory outflow..and we can agree I hope that in most lands, there is shall we say not as much oversight on sewage and waste disposal. Another reason these corporations love to outsource, no pesky enviro regs..
Anyway, you can blame evil cows for wasting too much water, I'll blame people who insi
Wow, so we are dealing with a real old school firebrand socialist here. How cute, I thought you guys went extinct back in the 80s.
hahahahahaha. save your zeal. you cant cope up with me. im actually not socialist, or social democrat. im actually center view, and have been raised and educated and have been a capitalist a loooong time.
i am supporting social democracy since a while and towards eternity, because despite all the machinations and attempts of the capitalist machine in various countries of the world, they succeeded in delivering what the capitalist ones couldnt deliver to their own people, even at their peak of exploitation of natural resources of other countries en large. it doubles up the success of those countries. if social democracy worked in northern europe, it can work everywhere.
Your fantasy has only one problem, it does not correspond in any way to reality. Corporate taxes in those countries are not very high, in fact they are lower than in the USA:
did you check the income taxes of individuals ? do so.
The problem with heavy taxes on corporate profits is that pretty soon there will be no more profits to raid, no more investment in new business, no more innovation. Where do you think corporate profits go exactly? To pay for shareholders yachts? Tiny portion perhaps, but vast majority gets reinvested. You know, the "capital" in capitalism.
if the situation in united states of america, which has been an ayn rand laissez faire capitalist with a greenspan tint for the last 30 years shows anything, you are wrong.
capital does not get invested. capital seeks to gain even more money even less effortlessly, and this has been the reason for the financial sector to become overblown, and then plop. that is, of course, totally leaving out the global scam that wall street has pulled off. i wont comment on that, and what 'deregulation' does to society, leave aside business. but, i will set the logic straight with that outdated, 19th century delusion of investment by capital :
backin in 19th century and earlier, when communication and collaboration tools available to society was low, the volume and value and complexity of the goods and services provided were low, coordination was harder, it was necessary and natural to have a capitalist system. because, financial power concentrated in centralized hands of the invidiuals would allow better coordination of investment. the capital wasnt so big, and the will and need to reinvest and make even more wealth was there.
fast forward to 20th century. there are already 12 corporations that are in the list of top 20 economic entities of the world, outclassing more than 180 countries. corporations have become as big as countries, employing millions of people globally.
and with all things in life, inefficiencies started. you may want to invest when you have X amount of wealth, you may still want more wealth when you have Y amount of wealth, but, after a point, when you have Z amount of wealth and more, investing it becomes inefficient. you already have garnered huge amounts of wealth that can be used to acquire other economic entities. from this point on, either acquisitions of other economic entities by financial muscle begins, or, the lust for making easy gains by increasingly investing and inflating the value of finance sector begins.
therefore, investments get stalled as the wealth gets bigger and bigger.
managing becomes inefficient too. a corporation that is as large as a country, is basically a country. because of the size, and difficulties in managing it, the corporation increasingly invests less, and tries to improve its existing investments through any means possible. which ends up in a lot of damaging effects to society, and business.
therefore, it has gone out of hand since mid 20th century - investment of capital is a delusion, and in the past. the capital has already inve
Read radical news here
National Socialists were not socialists
Actually, they were about as socialist as the German Democratic Republic and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea were/are democratic.
They were a command economy, though. Not all command economies are socialist, and not all socialism is a command economy.
How are communism and fascism opposite in philosophy? They both hold that the good of the individual should be sacrificed for the good of the group. In practice, both end up being "rule by edict" rather than "rule of law".
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison