I specified the decades leading up to the First World war. That is by itself starts at least by 1897 (20 years before the US's entry into the First World War.
UAW is not, as far as I can determine, a corporation.
You are correct in that labor unions are not called corporations by the US code of laws. The UAW may indeed not be officially incorporated (I too am unable to determine its exact legal status). But the UAW has a charter and means to insure its perpetuation, holds assets, can be sued, and its members are not financially responsible for the actions of the union. It is also treated identically to official corporations for purposes of "corporate personhood" (eg, the "Citizens United" ruling by the US Supreme Court).
So yes, the occasional exception exists but it remains the exception, not the rule.
There are a lot of exceptions to the rule. The point here is that corporation and related legal groupings like religious groups or labor unions are powerful legal tools for organizing a group of people when liabilities or assets of value are involved. The majority are for profit, because for profit businesses are both numerous and always involve liabilities and assets.
The original claim was that the "only purpose" for corporations to exist was profit. I gave two large categories of exceptions: non profit charities and labor unions. Another large category of non profit corporations in the US are homeowners associations.
But even in for profit corporations, it is clear that there are other goals than merely profit. Bylaws can list other goals that the corporation must meet. The business can arbitrary chose legally binding non profit goals (like advertising "10% of all our sales goes to a charity") or make charitable donations with the approval of the shareholders.
The Chinese are going to find out what happens when your wages get to a certain point. Soon we'll be hearning about the overpass Chinese workers costing too much. Pretty simple, a combination of human nature, monetary facts of life, and pathological pecuniary shakers and movers.
The US had a similar situation in the decades leading up to the First World War. Human nature was the same. Monetary facts of life were the same. The greed was the same. Somehow the facts of life turned out differently than you suggest with the US experiencing a century of prosperity.
Are you unaware that the Koch brothers finance a lot of right-wing extremists? There's nothing "unhinged" about opposing people who undermine our political process by helping RWNJs get elected via their disproportionate influence. Money should not equal political power in a democracy.
So what? Their "right-wing extremists" are better than a lot of things they could be funding.
How would that be a bad thing? I see no sign that things will be different anyway or that spending US money on a Mars mission would be done in a sensible way.
The Overpaid American Worker meme, who at one point was was buying homes, cars, and taking vacations to places like Disneysomething, won't be doing that any more. They'll either be unemployed, or have their wages depressed to third world levels.
Fortunately the Chinese and Indian workers whose incomes are increasing are stepping up to replace the American worker. So all is well, right?
Because they haven't seen fit to waste any money on it because it's such a meaningless endeavour. There's so little money in it, except for tourism, which government space programs (possibly excepting the Russians) have no interest in.
I've been told on occasion (by posters that warble on about the virtues of "blue sky" research) that's precisely why government space programs should be wasting money on this crap. Because nobody else will!
So why try to save a few bucks outsourcing? I don't get it, the money saved is literally insignificant to them.
It's not a decision made once or in vacuum. A large part of the reason they've making those record profits is because they make those "few bucks" decisions a few orders of magnitude more often.
This makes corporate-centric people on stashdot explode every time I say it, but the corporation is (at least supposed to be) a creature of the state.
Here's why. It's a stupid idea. Business-state separation can't be made as complete as that of religion-state (because the state will need goods and services from those businesses), but it is necessary to prevent a vast abuse of power. After all, aren't we already complaining about the degree of collusion between businesses and government? Why make the problem vastly worse?
The parent of this post doesn't do this, but a lot of people like to pretend that somehow the idea of "maximizing profits" comes down from God. It doesn't. It's the outcome of years of evolution and with national law. It is changeable if the political will is there.
The parent of this post doesn't do this, but a lot of people like to pretend that somehow the idea of "maximizing profits" comes down from God. It doesn't. It's the outcome of years of evolution and with national law. It is changeable if the political will is there.
Shouldn't you have to show that there's a problem first before demanding a change?
The pettiness of chemical rocket propulsion makes weaponization of space unlikely in the short term. We are currently in the "pentacontera" age: five stacked storeys of oarsmen needed to propel a toylike, tiny ancient greek boat across the wine-coloured sea, full of sirens and better not lose sight of the shore if you want to live!
Turned out to be necessary to weaponize the sea back then.
Okay, so you simply think that the Arctic Death Spiral and the Methane Time Bomb is just a bunch of nonsense, that these reportsArctic Methane Emergency Group.
Yes, that is an accurate characterization of my opinion on the matter. To consolidate your other question
on the matter:
Do you wonder why they bothered to form a group called the Arctic Methane Emergency Group?
Because there's big money in crisis management.
Really. That's your explanation? That's the be-all and end-all of this problem? Scientists are faking it to make money?
Again, yes. I don't think this has anything to do with actual science, but rather that hysteria and panic sells.
I was on the USAF's SpaceX Certification program. We were basically directed by congress to certify their rocket, regardless of what may be in or missing from their documentation, design process, production process and QA. I'd give my left nut to go tot he ISS, but won't fly on a SpaceX rocket until they get a rigorous design process.
And I wouldn't trust a US government-derived "rigorous design process". The US orbital launch industry is chock full of failed "rigorous design processes" which add cost and do nothing to make the design of launch vehicles or the handling of launch failures even slightly better. We didn't need two years to figure out Shuttle launch failures. We didn't need the NASA and Congressional imposed stagnation of the US launch industry (1975-2005).
Instead, real world launch records are far better than any such process. If they have launch failures to a sufficiently low fraction of total launches, then they have solved the problem whether or not they have a "rigorous design process".
The problem is NOT CO2, it is the Methane that is released from methane hydrates on the sea floor when the Arctic Sea ice melts.
Asserting that will happen is not the same as that happening. There are three obvious things which get ignored. First, methane levels just aren't that high now. Second, the additional pressure of 100 meters of water after the ending of the last glacial period plus the current run of increasing sea level. That stabilizes methane clathrates against significant rise in temperature. Third, consumption of methane in the environment. Just because it is assumed that methane has a significant lifespan in sea and air, doesn't mean it actually does.
Slashdot Mirror
Your point is impossible to prove.
Opportunity cost is always invisible.
gravity is as instantaneous as people can detect - ie its not at the speed of light.
That is not actually known. We still haven't figured out if gravity propagates at the speed of light or not.
Which years specifically are you talking about?
I specified the decades leading up to the First World war. That is by itself starts at least by 1897 (20 years before the US's entry into the First World War.
UAW is not, as far as I can determine, a corporation.
You are correct in that labor unions are not called corporations by the US code of laws. The UAW may indeed not be officially incorporated (I too am unable to determine its exact legal status). But the UAW has a charter and means to insure its perpetuation, holds assets, can be sued, and its members are not financially responsible for the actions of the union. It is also treated identically to official corporations for purposes of "corporate personhood" (eg, the "Citizens United" ruling by the US Supreme Court).
So yes, the occasional exception exists but it remains the exception, not the rule.
There are a lot of exceptions to the rule. The point here is that corporation and related legal groupings like religious groups or labor unions are powerful legal tools for organizing a group of people when liabilities or assets of value are involved. The majority are for profit, because for profit businesses are both numerous and always involve liabilities and assets.
The original claim was that the "only purpose" for corporations to exist was profit. I gave two large categories of exceptions: non profit charities and labor unions. Another large category of non profit corporations in the US are homeowners associations.
But even in for profit corporations, it is clear that there are other goals than merely profit. Bylaws can list other goals that the corporation must meet. The business can arbitrary chose legally binding non profit goals (like advertising "10% of all our sales goes to a charity") or make charitable donations with the approval of the shareholders.
The Chinese are going to find out what happens when your wages get to a certain point. Soon we'll be hearning about the overpass Chinese workers costing too much. Pretty simple, a combination of human nature, monetary facts of life, and pathological pecuniary shakers and movers.
The US had a similar situation in the decades leading up to the First World War. Human nature was the same. Monetary facts of life were the same. The greed was the same. Somehow the facts of life turned out differently than you suggest with the US experiencing a century of prosperity.
He promises stuff he fails to deliver.
Compared to who? You just described the majority of established aerospace actors including government agencies.
In a carbon neutral way.
Are you unaware that the Koch brothers finance a lot of right-wing extremists? There's nothing "unhinged" about opposing people who undermine our political process by helping RWNJs get elected via their disproportionate influence. Money should not equal political power in a democracy.
So what? Their "right-wing extremists" are better than a lot of things they could be funding.
How would that be a bad thing? I see no sign that things will be different anyway or that spending US money on a Mars mission would be done in a sensible way.
The difference being that aside from a small retainer fee, a lawyer doesn't charge you unless he actually does something.
Unless, of course, the lawyer is receiving a large fee for doing nothing. They're not that different from labor unions.
The problem has been stated. The problem is that the only reason that corporations exist is for shareholder profit.
So Greenpeace or the United Auto Workers labor union exists only for shareholder profit?
The Overpaid American Worker meme, who at one point was was buying homes, cars, and taking vacations to places like Disneysomething, won't be doing that any more. They'll either be unemployed, or have their wages depressed to third world levels.
Fortunately the Chinese and Indian workers whose incomes are increasing are stepping up to replace the American worker. So all is well, right?
Because they haven't seen fit to waste any money on it because it's such a meaningless endeavour. There's so little money in it, except for tourism, which government space programs (possibly excepting the Russians) have no interest in.
I've been told on occasion (by posters that warble on about the virtues of "blue sky" research) that's precisely why government space programs should be wasting money on this crap. Because nobody else will!
So why try to save a few bucks outsourcing? I don't get it, the money saved is literally insignificant to them.
It's not a decision made once or in vacuum. A large part of the reason they've making those record profits is because they make those "few bucks" decisions a few orders of magnitude more often.
This makes corporate-centric people on stashdot explode every time I say it, but the corporation is (at least supposed to be) a creature of the state.
Here's why. It's a stupid idea. Business-state separation can't be made as complete as that of religion-state (because the state will need goods and services from those businesses), but it is necessary to prevent a vast abuse of power. After all, aren't we already complaining about the degree of collusion between businesses and government? Why make the problem vastly worse?
The parent of this post doesn't do this, but a lot of people like to pretend that somehow the idea of "maximizing profits" comes down from God. It doesn't. It's the outcome of years of evolution and with national law. It is changeable if the political will is there.
The parent of this post doesn't do this, but a lot of people like to pretend that somehow the idea of "maximizing profits" comes down from God. It doesn't. It's the outcome of years of evolution and with national law. It is changeable if the political will is there.
Shouldn't you have to show that there's a problem first before demanding a change?
What do you think the word "capital" in "Capitalism" means? Rule of those with capital., i.e. rule of the rich.
No, that is what "plutocracy" means.
But the GOP is in control of the purse strings and they want to de-fund even essential services.
Right, must not be essential then.
The pettiness of chemical rocket propulsion makes weaponization of space unlikely in the short term. We are currently in the "pentacontera" age: five stacked storeys of oarsmen needed to propel a toylike, tiny ancient greek boat across the wine-coloured sea, full of sirens and better not lose sight of the shore if you want to live!
Turned out to be necessary to weaponize the sea back then.
Okay, so you simply think that the Arctic Death Spiral and the Methane Time Bomb is just a bunch of nonsense, that these reportsArctic Methane Emergency Group.
Yes, that is an accurate characterization of my opinion on the matter. To consolidate your other question
on the matter:
Do you wonder why they bothered to form a group called the Arctic Methane Emergency Group?
Because there's big money in crisis management.
Really. That's your explanation? That's the be-all and end-all of this problem? Scientists are faking it to make money?
Again, yes. I don't think this has anything to do with actual science, but rather that hysteria and panic sells.
The fact that the only customer is the government
Why won't anyone else use the Dragon? Will the US government make it illegal to use a Dragon capsule for private purposes?
using taxpayer money.
Who's money should the US government be using to buy goods and services? Are you volunteering?
I was on the USAF's SpaceX Certification program. We were basically directed by congress to certify their rocket, regardless of what may be in or missing from their documentation, design process, production process and QA. I'd give my left nut to go tot he ISS, but won't fly on a SpaceX rocket until they get a rigorous design process.
And I wouldn't trust a US government-derived "rigorous design process". The US orbital launch industry is chock full of failed "rigorous design processes" which add cost and do nothing to make the design of launch vehicles or the handling of launch failures even slightly better. We didn't need two years to figure out Shuttle launch failures. We didn't need the NASA and Congressional imposed stagnation of the US launch industry (1975-2005).
Instead, real world launch records are far better than any such process. If they have launch failures to a sufficiently low fraction of total launches, then they have solved the problem whether or not they have a "rigorous design process".
And where is the overpriced white elephant now?
Being made by SpaceX.
What makes the Dragon capsule an overpriced white elephant? What should NASA pay for it?
Funny how Boeing and SpaceX are competing for it but there is no mention of Boeing in the title. I smell bias.
No mention of Orbital Sciences or Rocketplane Kistler either. They were competing too before Congress killed off that competition.
Do you wonder why they bothered to form a group called the Arctic Methane Emergency Group?
Because there's big money in crisis management.
The problem is NOT CO2, it is the Methane that is released from methane hydrates on the sea floor when the Arctic Sea ice melts.
Asserting that will happen is not the same as that happening. There are three obvious things which get ignored. First, methane levels just aren't that high now. Second, the additional pressure of 100 meters of water after the ending of the last glacial period plus the current run of increasing sea level. That stabilizes methane clathrates against significant rise in temperature. Third, consumption of methane in the environment. Just because it is assumed that methane has a significant lifespan in sea and air, doesn't mean it actually does.