People don't just spend 5% of their income. They may spend 5% on food but we spend at least 8 hours a day earning money to enable us to buy that food. 500 years ago an individual might have grown many of their own crops, built their own home and sold or bartered excess crops to get whatever they couldn't grow themselves.
There's no way in hell a modern society can be compared to anything in the past. Technology has progressed for too much and society changed too dramatically. And what the hell is wrong with a better standard of living anyway?
Money is a representation of energy expended (work). Bringing up "hours" of labor, after I've already given a percentage of income, is a bit...uh...stupid. Actually, I don't see any point in your post, other than you want cheap junk for nothing. You're in good company in America, right?
"And I'm sure if the cooling business had its way, we'd still be arguing about CFCs and have a massive, inexplicable hole."
We replaced CFC with HCFC which are only 90% as bad. Tell me again about the breadth and depth of your research about this solved problem.
(CFC's are bad, they worse than CO2 say some scientists)
That wasn't the point. I was saying that if industry had anything to say about it, we'd still be arguing the cause. The post was about industry misleading the public, not the CFCs or CO2. Was making a point, nothing technical.
You didn't rebut any of his points, you just posted snark with no substance.
So, I must assume you have no reasonable/logical argument to present, otherwise you would have.
I didn't even bother reading his entire post. Can only reply to the same thread so many times, you realize. After reading it, I just have to say that nothing he posted is all that amazing. He basically said that capitalism is great because it's brought a lot of people out of poverty (wrong). That's just not true at all. Actually, if you want to look at the Soviet Union so much, they WERE a 2nd world country under the USSR. The real reason the US disliked the USSR so much had nothing to do with the internal freedoms of its citizens, but it was a different system than capitalism and the US knew it wasn't going to play ball with its companies. That's it. You honestly think the US cares about the internal freedom the inhabitants of other countries enjoy? Yeah right...tell that to any South American who's lived under a US installed dictator their whole lives. The US was threatened by the USSR because it "presented itself as a model for modernization within a single generation". The cold war had NOTHING to do with the oppressed people of the Soviet Union. That's just bull. It's the same bull you can believe if you believe the US went into Iraq for the same reasons. To give freedom to the people who people under the dictator WE installed. Make no sense? Yeah, it doesn't because it's bull. We went in because Iraq wasn't playing ball right with our country. The same reason we go to war EVERY time. If you don't get that, you just don't know what's going on.
As far as this whole humanitarian aid thing, look, the US gives very little international aid, in fact the US has the worst record among the industrialized countries in percentage of the economy, the gross domestic product. The public’s attitude toward this is interesting. The public thinks we give way too much money for public aid but when asked how much we should be giving thinks we should be giving far more than we’re actually giving. There’s just gross illusion about the amount.
To me, arguments about how much better capitalism is than the terrible past alternatives is a poor argument. Every thinking person knows we could do a lot better. I don't advocate total socialization of everything, but everything can't be handled by private business. Right now, business is getting its way more and more and look where the standard of living for most Americans is going. Down the drain.
Happy now? I fucking responded to his dumb shit and I'm tired of responding to this thread.
>Capitalism is the only system ever created where wealth is a renewable resource for everyone regardless of economic class as long as they are willing to work and/or come up with an idea, skill, or invention that's useful to someone else.
>Capitalism has raised more people from poverty worldwide than any other system ever created.
>Capitalism has allowed more people to live in freedom than any other system ever invented.
>Capitalism has allowed the US to provide more humanitarian assistance to those in need both domestically and around the world than any other system or country in history.
Sorry, but as bad as you may think Capitalism is, it's still light-years ahead of any other system ever tried. Ask some former residents of former Soviet satellite states about your ideas. I'd stay out of arm's reach when you do, however.
Strat
The argument that it's not as bad as totalitarianism, feudalism or slavery has never been used before. I've never heard it and it's a wonderful argument. You're a genius. Why not take the rest of the day off?
I don't think you know what fascism is, some companies could defiantly be accused of being authoritarian but fascists absolutely not. Larger companies which employ a little less then half the workforce may fall under this category though many strive to keep employees happy, small companies which employ over half the workforce would have even fewer examples that fall under your ignorant stereotypes. I'm sorry you work in a shitty job where management sees you as nothing more then a number but your experience is not what the majority of people experience.
Yeah because totalitarianism is so much better than fasciem. You a joke or what? You just wanting to argue now? I'm sorry you have no excuse for capitalism, but it is what it is. Also, you have no idea what I do or where I work or even if I work. And I do know quite a few people and they don't vote for what goes on in their offices, believe it or not! You're a moron. Go waste someone else's time, ok?
More like Jobs had a huge quarter. Once Tim's been in charge and the germinating seeds Jobs planted aren't still coming to fruition, Tim can go ahead and take the credit. If, in a few years, the company is still making money hand over fist, I'll salute him. Right now it's Thanks Steve. RIP
I don't know where people get off thinking they can spend 5% of their income on food when throughout history it required practically 100% of their labor. How about spending 25%.
Really now? We can expect this good outcome for the same reason that we can expect not lose half of our children to childhood diseases. We now have the knowhow to produce food at a rate which frees up most of the population for other activities. The world has changed and the old situation is no longer relevant. It should also be noted that our ancestors worked hard to build the future we now inhabit, so their children (us) could live in a better world. Why should we throw away their gift to us so easily?
Additionally, I don't think you understand just how dire the implications are of raising agricultural prices. It won't be the first world middle class that suffers the most from this, but the first world poor and third world population. If it costs 25% of a first world middle class income to buy food for the year, then that implies it would cost around $10,000 to not starve each year (around $27/day). Anyone making less than that basically starves, which is a LOT of people. Furthermore, we can't just use wealth redistribution or similar methods to solve the problem, as the prices would be higher due to lower supply. With such a large change, even if we were distributing the food fairly we wouldn't have nearly enough to keep everyone alive (and a fair distribution is overly idealistic anyway). Basically, what you're talking about will kill billions. When billions of lives are on the line, then perhaps we should put a bit more thought into how to avoid that outcome, hmm?
Lastly, who are you to tell me how much of my income I should have to spend on food? How about spending as little as possible to get what I want? If only we had some system that would set prices to match the current availability and desirability of goods...
Now that's not saying things should stay the same. The current situation is unsustainable due to resource limitations and/or environmental impact. Plus, new energy technologies will eventually yield much higher levels of energy (nuclear energy [which includes solar] is way better than chemical energy). However, we shouldn't dive headfirst into this without a really good plan...a plan which will not likely kill billions of people and not meet heavy resistance from billions more who know that a better life is still possible...and also hopefully a plan that won't lead to an overcontrolling central government that sticks its nose into every little area of our lives.
I wasn't really addressing result. I've read plenty of things on both sides of the political fence that predict the death of literally billions. The truth is, food is getting more expensive and that trend will likely continue (trends tend to continue in general). Any level headed assessment will tell you that our farming practices are unsustainable. I'm not anybody to *tell* you what percentage of your income should go to food, but I can tell you that it *will* increase by the day. I'm more the bearer of bad news here, than the person dictating it. What I'm saying is we're 'diving headfirst into this' whether we have a plan or not, so best to have one and the status quo isn't a 'plan'. Truthfully, I'm more interested in saving the planet for the next few generations and making it a more livable place for the people who are born here rather than propping up a few extra billion people artificially and in misery. The planet should probably have 1-2 billion people on it. We don't get along in these numbers, we don't live well in these numbers, several billion people are better off dead anyway. Sorry, but that's my opinion.
Business are democratic, all the share holders vote for a group of people, the board, to make decisions an their behalf for the company.
When you have an organization with only one goal (profit) and a group of people (shareholders) with the same goal who vote on issues that can have an effect on people who are not shareholders and cannot vote, that's not a democracy.
Is the US democratic because minors which are bound by laws can not vote, or how about other countries they may receive aid or other things from the US they don't vote in US elections?
Also, most shareholders are actually just mutual fund holders who don't have any real power over the actual real world decsions of any company or who the board is. They own a ridiculously small piece of 100 companies Sounds real democratic.
Your ignorance strikes again most share holders are not mutual fund holders, mutual funds held 23% of all publicly traded stock in 2005.
Look, moron, nobody but YOU is arguing that business is in any way democratic. Nobody. Internally, they're so facist it would make Stalin blush, externally, their behavior is totally single minded. They aren't popularly controlled. There's nothing "Democratic" about them and I'm not arguing against your fringe beliefs all day. Good day to you. I SAY GOOD DAY!
Business are democratic, all the share holders vote for a group of people, the board, to make decisions an their behalf for the company.
When you have an organization with only one goal (profit) and a group of people (shareholders) with the same goal who vote on issues that can have an effect on people who are not shareholders and cannot vote, that's not a democracy. Also, voting shareholders are an extremely elite group and what they're voting on is so narrow. "Hmm which profiteer shall we elect to help steer the business to the same goal it has to have by corporate charter"......Also, most shareholders are actually just mutual fund holders who don't have any real power over the actual real world decsions of any company or who the board is. They own a ridiculously small peice of 100 companies Sounds real democratic. I suggest books and courses on capitalism and economics for you. Maybe corporate law, too, since then you'd know that the choice of boardmemeber is about as broad as picking who your next south american dictator is. They're all just out to make the most $ for the company and externalities like the environment or working wages be damned.
I don't know where people get off thinking they can spend 5% of their income on food when throughout history it required practically 100% of their labor.
This is because agricultural productivity was so much lower in the past. It's not that food is artificially cheap today – it's that food is much cheaper and easier to produce now due to advances in technology. Mechanization, chemical research (fertilizers) and more recently biotechnology have all dramatically increased how much food you can get out of an acre of land, and decreased how much labor you need to put in to get it. Just 100 years ago, farmers were about 31% of the workforce in the United States. Nearly one of three Americans was a farmer. Today it's one-tenth that and yet we are producing far more food than ever before.
Yeah I get there have been advances in productivity and a lot of it is unsustainable. So in the future, you won't have to spend 100% of your labor on food, but it's not going to be 5%, either. Even a free-market fantasy moron can see that's not the way the winds are blowing.
Why are you changing the subject from financial regulations? It's because you don't have a single valid counter-argument that relates to the subject of financial regulations, isn't it?
Please start such posts with "While you're 100% correct about everything you say about financial regulations,...". Or just try to keep your posts on subject. Thanks.
You're an idiot. You make corporations out to be these harmless entities that can do nothing wrong without consent and it's all about choice. That's the biggest load of crap I've ever heard. Nothing off topic about it, other than it's something your dumbass doesn't want to hear.
Actually, the hole isn't inexplicable. There's a strong correlation between ozone depletion and cosmic rays. It's possible the CFC theory is a load of old baloney, based on a few years worth of data and not very much actual understanding. But, well, I guess I'll get down-modded for making the point:).
If you want to know what's causing the depletion, you can find out. What you'll want to avoid is sources that come from industry. You can bet they'll be skewing research to keep the status quo for business. If you want the answer to anything, just follow the money. If there's money involved, you can bet there's going to be some propaganda to sift through. I don't know anything about a cosmic ray theory, but you can bet if it's a buisness backed theory, it's bullshit. About like climate change denial...total corporate propaganda.
Actually, the hole isn't inexplicable. There's a strong correlation between ozone depletion and cosmic rays. It's possible the CFC theory is a load of old baloney, based on a few years worth of data and not very much actual understanding. But, well, I guess I'll get down-modded for making the point:).
What I'm saying is it would be inexplicable to the propaganda fodder (fox, cnn viewers) CFC hole denialists that would exist if industry had its way. Do you get that? I know the fucking hole is easily explained. I'm saying business doesn't like change and if duping a few suckers will stop change or slow it to another business cycle, that's exactly what business will do. That's exactly what's happening with climate change; problem is, it's a matter of human survival this time, not just some smog hanging out over LA or needing some extra sunblock. This stuff is getting serious and it's time the propaganda fodder wised up.
If I start my own business I am instantly transformed into an evil creature that can be only controlled through government regulation and labor union? Business are run by people. They have accountability for their product and business practices every day. You can choose to buy the product or not. Unless the government is involved. Examples of companies where the government is involved included utilities (granted monopoly via right aways), large corporations (tax breaks for locating, laws that grant them an advantage), and any business that litigates a patent. There have been numerous times for different reasons I have stopped buying a company's product. The government is only accountable on a regular cycle, sometimes two, four, and even six years. With the elected official the incumbents have significant advantage in resources and infrastructure for getting relected. With the unelected officials you have a labor rules that makes it virtually impossible to fire someone, so you wind up moving them to the position where they do the least damage. With labor unions they only have to sell their product every time the contract is up for renegotiation this can also be a number of years. They also gain from the fact that their product is a nebulous we make your life better.
Your small business, which you'll likely never start, isn't the same as the local coal plant. That kind of business needs heavy regulation. And yes, once you're a real "corporation", you do need to be regulated. Here's what people don't seem to get. CEOs are nice guys. I get that. They have kids, families, care about the environment, etc. The problem is corporate charter says that in their institutional role, they must do whatever they can to make the most profit. So however nice a person is, in their institutional role, they can't always be so nice and are often quite destructive. This concept is confusing to a simpleton, I know.
It seems you don't think corporations always have the best of intentions, but it sounds like you don't want restrictions on them, which seems contradictory.
Their intentions are none of my business unless they enlist the government to use force against people. Without government force, the only thing corporations can do to interact with me is by my consent. To get my consent, they have to offer me something good enough for me to want to consenting to. Why should I want those offers to be restricted?
The rest of your post can be summed up as "we should keep adding regulations and laws until we reach a utopia where nothing could ever go wrong for anyone". This ignores history. It ignores the fact that regulations essentially protect big powerful companies with the resources to comply and freeze out smaller competitors -- which leads to more corporate power backed by government. It replaces voluntary private transactions with government force. It's based on fears of private-sector criminality but ignores even the possibility of government-sector criminality -- as if humans somehow become infallible the instant they get hired by government.
Why are you so eager to spend middle class taxpayers' money to try to safeguard millionaires' and billionaires' foreign bond-trading schemes?
Yeah, they can't dump chemicals and waste into your water and haven't filled the fish so full of mercury as to render them inedible, right? When profit is the only goal, bad things ensue and you aren't immue for lack of participation. Probably the most naive post I've seen in a long time. Get with the program and stop lay off the corporate propaganda...buy a book or something.
"Everything that should have been more expensive to begin with. I don't know where people get off thinking they can spend 5% of their income on food when throughout history it required practically 100% of their labor. "
Because unlike you we don't want to live in the dark ages.
There's a special place that lies somewhere between the "dark ages" and a free-wheeling, unsustainable moronathon. Get it??
if one makes a hole in the ozone, kind sir, more solar radiation hits more oxygen, exciting it and creating ozone.
Fair enough, and industry would have us think it was happening with no help from us. That's just how it goes. Short term profit is their only goal, all terrible externalities be damned. That was my point.
Yes, because a large (massive) government that heavily controls industry is soooo much better for the environment. *cough*China*cough*USSR*cough*.
HA shows how little you know about government and industry. The reason China has such filthy industry is unregulated capitalism and lack or regulation enforcement. Has nothing to do with the SIZE of government, simpleton. The problems with the USSR had nothing to do with the SIZE of government and the government had nothing in common with socialism, contrary to populat opinion. In fact, the propagandists in the USSR wanted its citizens to think they were living in socialism because the people there (rightly) wanted it. It was really totalitarian. That all worked out well for the propagandists in the US who wanted us to think socialism sucks, so they could point at the USSR and say "Look, that's an example of socialism". Same propaganda for different purposes. Pick up a book someday.
First, Governments aren't bound by corporate charter and are (supposedly) democratic. Not sure if you've worked at a business lately, but democratic they aren't.
Second, Yeah, killing millions is beyond the scope of this discussion. We're talking about regulation, not tryrants, stupid.
Why's that? Not many people would stop using refrigeration just because the coolant is more expensive. The cost of coolant is a relatively small factor in most Americans' lives.
On the other hand, AGW proponents want us to change transportation, construction, agriculture, etc, making almost everything in life more expensive. So you've got increased costs in many areas, plus legislation that often comes off as petty or patronizing. I mean, a tax on plastic grocery bags? And the point is to get all those evil oil users to change their behavior and be more good and eco friendly.. that's a far bigger role for government than I'm comfortable with.
Everything that should have been more expensive to begin with. I don't know where people get off thinking they can spend 5% of their income on food when throughout history it required practically 100% of their labor. How about spending 25%. I really don't care about people's corporate propaganda induced need for "small government". If it wasn't for government regulation and unions, you'd be working 7 days a week, breathing foul air, drinking very filthy water and God even knows what else. Left to its own devices, business is pretty nasty and only out for one thing: profit at *any* cost. The bastards need more regulation, not less.
You clearly didn't work in the cooling business. To them, they sky WAS falling, and it was falling on them. Until they found a replacement (which was more expensive and less efficient, but legal). Dismantling is a very harsh word.
And I'm sure if the cooling business had its way, we'd still be arguing about CFCs and have a massive, inexplicable hole.
This guy is saying the sort of things that have been getting me downmodded here on slashdot for years.
Global Warming/Climate Change may or may not be happening. But if it is it ain't happening at anything like the rate that would justify dismantling civilization over, we still aren't sure whether it is us or a natural cycle we don't undertstand, etc. And he doesn't go there but I will: too many politicians with a preexisting anti-civilization (Western industrial captialism based ccivilization that is...) bias glommed onto AGW with the willing consent of a lot of brand name scientists, thereby (rightly) harming the public's trust of all science.
Curbing CO2 emissions is hardly "dismantling civilization". Good grief. By that logic, emission regulations should have sent us to the stone age, but they haven't. What regulations on emissions have done is reduced smog and improved human health. You found a few stupid scientists who took things too far and now you see a way to deny the whole thing, but it's not going to work. Just because the extreme scenarios (that nobody believed anyway) didn't happen in two business cycles, doesn't mean the whole thing is bunk. http://www.kcet.org/socal/departures/landofsunshine/laws-that-shaped-la/how-los-angeles-began-to-put-its-smoggy-days-behind.html
That the new race of superhumans that came from eating this mana from the gods is about embark on a long voyage to a distant new world they can see with their naked super eyes, and leave you sad organic nibbles to what's left of the earth.
I've met quite a few of these "Gods" while drinking beer. Don't get your hopes up.
Not eating cloned anything or anything that's been screwed around with. I know it's unpopular here, but I eat everything organic...everything. As far as meat, if it didn't eat what it was supposed to eat; pasture raised and organic at that, I avoid it. Chickens eat bugs and grass, not feed. They like to scratch around in dirt, not hang out idly in cages all day. Same with Beef, less the bugs. We're likely evolved to eat a paleolithic era type diet. Going to stick as close to that as possible. You aren't just what you eat, you're also what your food ate. Why would I support something like 800 million pounds of pesticide being dumped on the land every year? Now it's some pesticide killing the bees. I remember when my Father's doctor had him eating trans-fat for his heart trouble. What will researchers discover ten years after this cloned junk's been foisted on the public?
Slashdot Mirror
People don't just spend 5% of their income. They may spend 5% on food but we spend at least 8 hours a day earning money to enable us to buy that food. 500 years ago an individual might have grown many of their own crops, built their own home and sold or bartered excess crops to get whatever they couldn't grow themselves.
There's no way in hell a modern society can be compared to anything in the past. Technology has progressed for too much and society changed too dramatically. And what the hell is wrong with a better standard of living anyway?
Money is a representation of energy expended (work). Bringing up "hours" of labor, after I've already given a percentage of income, is a bit...uh...stupid. Actually, I don't see any point in your post, other than you want cheap junk for nothing. You're in good company in America, right?
"And I'm sure if the cooling business had its way, we'd still be arguing about CFCs and have a massive, inexplicable hole."
We replaced CFC with HCFC which are only 90% as bad. Tell me again about the breadth and depth of your research about this solved problem.
(CFC's are bad, they worse than CO2 say some scientists)
That wasn't the point. I was saying that if industry had anything to say about it, we'd still be arguing the cause. The post was about industry misleading the public, not the CFCs or CO2. Was making a point, nothing technical.
You didn't rebut any of his points, you just posted snark with no substance.
So, I must assume you have no reasonable/logical argument to present, otherwise you would have.
I didn't even bother reading his entire post. Can only reply to the same thread so many times, you realize. After reading it, I just have to say that nothing he posted is all that amazing. He basically said that capitalism is great because it's brought a lot of people out of poverty (wrong). That's just not true at all. Actually, if you want to look at the Soviet Union so much, they WERE a 2nd world country under the USSR. The real reason the US disliked the USSR so much had nothing to do with the internal freedoms of its citizens, but it was a different system than capitalism and the US knew it wasn't going to play ball with its companies. That's it. You honestly think the US cares about the internal freedom the inhabitants of other countries enjoy? Yeah right...tell that to any South American who's lived under a US installed dictator their whole lives. The US was threatened by the USSR because it "presented itself as a model for modernization within a single generation". The cold war had NOTHING to do with the oppressed people of the Soviet Union. That's just bull. It's the same bull you can believe if you believe the US went into Iraq for the same reasons. To give freedom to the people who people under the dictator WE installed. Make no sense? Yeah, it doesn't because it's bull. We went in because Iraq wasn't playing ball right with our country. The same reason we go to war EVERY time. If you don't get that, you just don't know what's going on. As far as this whole humanitarian aid thing, look, the US gives very little international aid, in fact the US has the worst record among the industrialized countries in percentage of the economy, the gross domestic product. The public’s attitude toward this is interesting. The public thinks we give way too much money for public aid but when asked how much we should be giving thinks we should be giving far more than we’re actually giving. There’s just gross illusion about the amount. To me, arguments about how much better capitalism is than the terrible past alternatives is a poor argument. Every thinking person knows we could do a lot better. I don't advocate total socialization of everything, but everything can't be handled by private business. Right now, business is getting its way more and more and look where the standard of living for most Americans is going. Down the drain. Happy now? I fucking responded to his dumb shit and I'm tired of responding to this thread.
I'm sorry you have no excuse for capitalism, but it is what it is.
Capitalism needs no "excuse", TYVM.
From one of my posts a couple days ago.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2805043&cid=39777445
>Capitalism is the only system ever created where wealth is a renewable resource for everyone regardless of economic class as long as they are willing to work and/or come up with an idea, skill, or invention that's useful to someone else.
>Capitalism has raised more people from poverty worldwide than any other system ever created.
>Capitalism has allowed more people to live in freedom than any other system ever invented.
>Capitalism has allowed the US to provide more humanitarian assistance to those in need both domestically and around the world than any other system or country in history.
Sorry, but as bad as you may think Capitalism is, it's still light-years ahead of any other system ever tried. Ask some former residents of former Soviet satellite states about your ideas. I'd stay out of arm's reach when you do, however.
Strat
The argument that it's not as bad as totalitarianism, feudalism or slavery has never been used before. I've never heard it and it's a wonderful argument. You're a genius. Why not take the rest of the day off?
And you still have nothing meaningful to say on the subject of financial regulation.
Nothing you want to hear.
I don't think you know what fascism is, some companies could defiantly be accused of being authoritarian but fascists absolutely not. Larger companies which employ a little less then half the workforce may fall under this category though many strive to keep employees happy, small companies which employ over half the workforce would have even fewer examples that fall under your ignorant stereotypes. I'm sorry you work in a shitty job where management sees you as nothing more then a number but your experience is not what the majority of people experience.
Yeah because totalitarianism is so much better than fasciem. You a joke or what? You just wanting to argue now? I'm sorry you have no excuse for capitalism, but it is what it is. Also, you have no idea what I do or where I work or even if I work. And I do know quite a few people and they don't vote for what goes on in their offices, believe it or not! You're a moron. Go waste someone else's time, ok?
More like Jobs had a huge quarter. Once Tim's been in charge and the germinating seeds Jobs planted aren't still coming to fruition, Tim can go ahead and take the credit. If, in a few years, the company is still making money hand over fist, I'll salute him. Right now it's Thanks Steve. RIP
I don't know where people get off thinking they can spend 5% of their income on food when throughout history it required practically 100% of their labor. How about spending 25%.
Really now? We can expect this good outcome for the same reason that we can expect not lose half of our children to childhood diseases. We now have the knowhow to produce food at a rate which frees up most of the population for other activities. The world has changed and the old situation is no longer relevant. It should also be noted that our ancestors worked hard to build the future we now inhabit, so their children (us) could live in a better world. Why should we throw away their gift to us so easily?
Additionally, I don't think you understand just how dire the implications are of raising agricultural prices. It won't be the first world middle class that suffers the most from this, but the first world poor and third world population. If it costs 25% of a first world middle class income to buy food for the year, then that implies it would cost around $10,000 to not starve each year (around $27/day). Anyone making less than that basically starves, which is a LOT of people. Furthermore, we can't just use wealth redistribution or similar methods to solve the problem, as the prices would be higher due to lower supply. With such a large change, even if we were distributing the food fairly we wouldn't have nearly enough to keep everyone alive (and a fair distribution is overly idealistic anyway). Basically, what you're talking about will kill billions. When billions of lives are on the line, then perhaps we should put a bit more thought into how to avoid that outcome, hmm?
Lastly, who are you to tell me how much of my income I should have to spend on food? How about spending as little as possible to get what I want? If only we had some system that would set prices to match the current availability and desirability of goods...
Now that's not saying things should stay the same. The current situation is unsustainable due to resource limitations and/or environmental impact. Plus, new energy technologies will eventually yield much higher levels of energy (nuclear energy [which includes solar] is way better than chemical energy). However, we shouldn't dive headfirst into this without a really good plan...a plan which will not likely kill billions of people and not meet heavy resistance from billions more who know that a better life is still possible...and also hopefully a plan that won't lead to an overcontrolling central government that sticks its nose into every little area of our lives.
I wasn't really addressing result. I've read plenty of things on both sides of the political fence that predict the death of literally billions. The truth is, food is getting more expensive and that trend will likely continue (trends tend to continue in general). Any level headed assessment will tell you that our farming practices are unsustainable. I'm not anybody to *tell* you what percentage of your income should go to food, but I can tell you that it *will* increase by the day. I'm more the bearer of bad news here, than the person dictating it. What I'm saying is we're 'diving headfirst into this' whether we have a plan or not, so best to have one and the status quo isn't a 'plan'. Truthfully, I'm more interested in saving the planet for the next few generations and making it a more livable place for the people who are born here rather than propping up a few extra billion people artificially and in misery. The planet should probably have 1-2 billion people on it. We don't get along in these numbers, we don't live well in these numbers, several billion people are better off dead anyway. Sorry, but that's my opinion.
Business are democratic, all the share holders vote for a group of people, the board, to make decisions an their behalf for the company.
When you have an organization with only one goal (profit) and a group of people (shareholders) with the same goal who vote on issues that can have an effect on people who are not shareholders and cannot vote, that's not a democracy.
Is the US democratic because minors which are bound by laws can not vote, or how about other countries they may receive aid or other things from the US they don't vote in US elections?
Also, most shareholders are actually just mutual fund holders who don't have any real power over the actual real world decsions of any company or who the board is. They own a ridiculously small piece of 100 companies Sounds real democratic.
Your ignorance strikes again most share holders are not mutual fund holders, mutual funds held 23% of all publicly traded stock in 2005.
Look, moron, nobody but YOU is arguing that business is in any way democratic. Nobody. Internally, they're so facist it would make Stalin blush, externally, their behavior is totally single minded. They aren't popularly controlled. There's nothing "Democratic" about them and I'm not arguing against your fringe beliefs all day. Good day to you. I SAY GOOD DAY!
Business are democratic, all the share holders vote for a group of people, the board, to make decisions an their behalf for the company.
When you have an organization with only one goal (profit) and a group of people (shareholders) with the same goal who vote on issues that can have an effect on people who are not shareholders and cannot vote, that's not a democracy. Also, voting shareholders are an extremely elite group and what they're voting on is so narrow. "Hmm which profiteer shall we elect to help steer the business to the same goal it has to have by corporate charter"......Also, most shareholders are actually just mutual fund holders who don't have any real power over the actual real world decsions of any company or who the board is. They own a ridiculously small peice of 100 companies Sounds real democratic. I suggest books and courses on capitalism and economics for you. Maybe corporate law, too, since then you'd know that the choice of boardmemeber is about as broad as picking who your next south american dictator is. They're all just out to make the most $ for the company and externalities like the environment or working wages be damned.
I don't know where people get off thinking they can spend 5% of their income on food when throughout history it required practically 100% of their labor.
This is because agricultural productivity was so much lower in the past. It's not that food is artificially cheap today – it's that food is much cheaper and easier to produce now due to advances in technology. Mechanization, chemical research (fertilizers) and more recently biotechnology have all dramatically increased how much food you can get out of an acre of land, and decreased how much labor you need to put in to get it. Just 100 years ago, farmers were about 31% of the workforce in the United States. Nearly one of three Americans was a farmer. Today it's one-tenth that and yet we are producing far more food than ever before.
Yeah I get there have been advances in productivity and a lot of it is unsustainable. So in the future, you won't have to spend 100% of your labor on food, but it's not going to be 5%, either. Even a free-market fantasy moron can see that's not the way the winds are blowing.
Why are you changing the subject from financial regulations? It's because you don't have a single valid counter-argument that relates to the subject of financial regulations, isn't it?
Please start such posts with "While you're 100% correct about everything you say about financial regulations, ...". Or just try to keep your posts on subject. Thanks.
You're an idiot. You make corporations out to be these harmless entities that can do nothing wrong without consent and it's all about choice. That's the biggest load of crap I've ever heard. Nothing off topic about it, other than it's something your dumbass doesn't want to hear.
Actually, the hole isn't inexplicable. There's a strong correlation between ozone depletion and cosmic rays. It's possible the CFC theory is a load of old baloney, based on a few years worth of data and not very much actual understanding. But, well, I guess I'll get down-modded for making the point :).
If you want to know what's causing the depletion, you can find out. What you'll want to avoid is sources that come from industry. You can bet they'll be skewing research to keep the status quo for business. If you want the answer to anything, just follow the money. If there's money involved, you can bet there's going to be some propaganda to sift through. I don't know anything about a cosmic ray theory, but you can bet if it's a buisness backed theory, it's bullshit. About like climate change denial...total corporate propaganda.
Actually, the hole isn't inexplicable. There's a strong correlation between ozone depletion and cosmic rays. It's possible the CFC theory is a load of old baloney, based on a few years worth of data and not very much actual understanding. But, well, I guess I'll get down-modded for making the point :).
What I'm saying is it would be inexplicable to the propaganda fodder (fox, cnn viewers) CFC hole denialists that would exist if industry had its way. Do you get that? I know the fucking hole is easily explained. I'm saying business doesn't like change and if duping a few suckers will stop change or slow it to another business cycle, that's exactly what business will do. That's exactly what's happening with climate change; problem is, it's a matter of human survival this time, not just some smog hanging out over LA or needing some extra sunblock. This stuff is getting serious and it's time the propaganda fodder wised up.
If I start my own business I am instantly transformed into an evil creature that can be only controlled through government regulation and labor union? Business are run by people. They have accountability for their product and business practices every day. You can choose to buy the product or not. Unless the government is involved. Examples of companies where the government is involved included utilities (granted monopoly via right aways), large corporations (tax breaks for locating, laws that grant them an advantage), and any business that litigates a patent. There have been numerous times for different reasons I have stopped buying a company's product. The government is only accountable on a regular cycle, sometimes two, four, and even six years. With the elected official the incumbents have significant advantage in resources and infrastructure for getting relected. With the unelected officials you have a labor rules that makes it virtually impossible to fire someone, so you wind up moving them to the position where they do the least damage. With labor unions they only have to sell their product every time the contract is up for renegotiation this can also be a number of years. They also gain from the fact that their product is a nebulous we make your life better.
Your small business, which you'll likely never start, isn't the same as the local coal plant. That kind of business needs heavy regulation. And yes, once you're a real "corporation", you do need to be regulated. Here's what people don't seem to get. CEOs are nice guys. I get that. They have kids, families, care about the environment, etc. The problem is corporate charter says that in their institutional role, they must do whatever they can to make the most profit. So however nice a person is, in their institutional role, they can't always be so nice and are often quite destructive. This concept is confusing to a simpleton, I know.
It seems you don't think corporations always have the best of intentions, but it sounds like you don't want restrictions on them, which seems contradictory.
Their intentions are none of my business unless they enlist the government to use force against people. Without government force, the only thing corporations can do to interact with me is by my consent. To get my consent, they have to offer me something good enough for me to want to consenting to. Why should I want those offers to be restricted?
The rest of your post can be summed up as "we should keep adding regulations and laws until we reach a utopia where nothing could ever go wrong for anyone". This ignores history. It ignores the fact that regulations essentially protect big powerful companies with the resources to comply and freeze out smaller competitors -- which leads to more corporate power backed by government. It replaces voluntary private transactions with government force. It's based on fears of private-sector criminality but ignores even the possibility of government-sector criminality -- as if humans somehow become infallible the instant they get hired by government.
Why are you so eager to spend middle class taxpayers' money to try to safeguard millionaires' and billionaires' foreign bond-trading schemes?
Yeah, they can't dump chemicals and waste into your water and haven't filled the fish so full of mercury as to render them inedible, right? When profit is the only goal, bad things ensue and you aren't immue for lack of participation. Probably the most naive post I've seen in a long time. Get with the program and stop lay off the corporate propaganda...buy a book or something.
"Everything that should have been more expensive to begin with. I don't know where people get off thinking they can spend 5% of their income on food when throughout history it required practically 100% of their labor. "
Because unlike you we don't want to live in the dark ages.
There's a special place that lies somewhere between the "dark ages" and a free-wheeling, unsustainable moronathon. Get it??
if one makes a hole in the ozone, kind sir, more solar radiation hits more oxygen, exciting it and creating ozone.
Fair enough, and industry would have us think it was happening with no help from us. That's just how it goes. Short term profit is their only goal, all terrible externalities be damned. That was my point.
Yes, because a large (massive) government that heavily controls industry is soooo much better for the environment. *cough*China*cough*USSR*cough*.
HA shows how little you know about government and industry. The reason China has such filthy industry is unregulated capitalism and lack or regulation enforcement. Has nothing to do with the SIZE of government, simpleton. The problems with the USSR had nothing to do with the SIZE of government and the government had nothing in common with socialism, contrary to populat opinion. In fact, the propagandists in the USSR wanted its citizens to think they were living in socialism because the people there (rightly) wanted it. It was really totalitarian. That all worked out well for the propagandists in the US who wanted us to think socialism sucks, so they could point at the USSR and say "Look, that's an example of socialism". Same propaganda for different purposes. Pick up a book someday.
First, Governments aren't bound by corporate charter and are (supposedly) democratic. Not sure if you've worked at a business lately, but democratic they aren't. Second, Yeah, killing millions is beyond the scope of this discussion. We're talking about regulation, not tryrants, stupid.
Why's that? Not many people would stop using refrigeration just because the coolant is more expensive. The cost of coolant is a relatively small factor in most Americans' lives.
On the other hand, AGW proponents want us to change transportation, construction, agriculture, etc, making almost everything in life more expensive. So you've got increased costs in many areas, plus legislation that often comes off as petty or patronizing. I mean, a tax on plastic grocery bags? And the point is to get all those evil oil users to change their behavior and be more good and eco friendly.. that's a far bigger role for government than I'm comfortable with.
Everything that should have been more expensive to begin with. I don't know where people get off thinking they can spend 5% of their income on food when throughout history it required practically 100% of their labor. How about spending 25%. I really don't care about people's corporate propaganda induced need for "small government". If it wasn't for government regulation and unions, you'd be working 7 days a week, breathing foul air, drinking very filthy water and God even knows what else. Left to its own devices, business is pretty nasty and only out for one thing: profit at *any* cost. The bastards need more regulation, not less.
You clearly didn't work in the cooling business. To them, they sky WAS falling, and it was falling on them. Until they found a replacement (which was more expensive and less efficient, but legal). Dismantling is a very harsh word.
And I'm sure if the cooling business had its way, we'd still be arguing about CFCs and have a massive, inexplicable hole.
This guy is saying the sort of things that have been getting me downmodded here on slashdot for years.
Global Warming/Climate Change may or may not be happening. But if it is it ain't happening at anything like the rate that would justify dismantling civilization over, we still aren't sure whether it is us or a natural cycle we don't undertstand, etc. And he doesn't go there but I will: too many politicians with a preexisting anti-civilization (Western industrial captialism based ccivilization that is...) bias glommed onto AGW with the willing consent of a lot of brand name scientists, thereby (rightly) harming the public's trust of all science.
Curbing CO2 emissions is hardly "dismantling civilization". Good grief. By that logic, emission regulations should have sent us to the stone age, but they haven't. What regulations on emissions have done is reduced smog and improved human health. You found a few stupid scientists who took things too far and now you see a way to deny the whole thing, but it's not going to work. Just because the extreme scenarios (that nobody believed anyway) didn't happen in two business cycles, doesn't mean the whole thing is bunk. http://www.kcet.org/socal/departures/landofsunshine/laws-that-shaped-la/how-los-angeles-began-to-put-its-smoggy-days-behind.html
That the new race of superhumans that came from eating this mana from the gods is about embark on a long voyage to a distant new world they can see with their naked super eyes, and leave you sad organic nibbles to what's left of the earth.
I've met quite a few of these "Gods" while drinking beer. Don't get your hopes up.
Not eating cloned anything or anything that's been screwed around with. I know it's unpopular here, but I eat everything organic...everything. As far as meat, if it didn't eat what it was supposed to eat; pasture raised and organic at that, I avoid it. Chickens eat bugs and grass, not feed. They like to scratch around in dirt, not hang out idly in cages all day. Same with Beef, less the bugs. We're likely evolved to eat a paleolithic era type diet. Going to stick as close to that as possible. You aren't just what you eat, you're also what your food ate. Why would I support something like 800 million pounds of pesticide being dumped on the land every year? Now it's some pesticide killing the bees. I remember when my Father's doctor had him eating trans-fat for his heart trouble. What will researchers discover ten years after this cloned junk's been foisted on the public?