Our healthy groceries are expensive because subsidies go to the large companies that make foods with additives and using growth hormones and such. The invisible hand does not work because corporations are for their own self interest, and that is not acceptable when it comes to healthcare, education, food, or anything else that is considered a necessity. Take the old Pinto case, the company did a cost evaluation on the fact that people would die and the amount of the lawsuits that would result. Now think about how our whole healthcare system is set up. It does not make sense to allow corporations to run anything of public concern at all, they are always INCREASING the cost because of their NEED for profit maximization.
This is also why there is so much pollution and waste. They PUBLIC absorbs those costs, not the "free market" companies causing the waste. In the USA, corporations are given a free ride for most of the costs they inherently create, and while this keeps the price of the good itself lower, it does not take into account the TOTAL cost due to other "externalities".
As for the increase in cost of clothing... that has actually gone down dramatically because of trade agreements. Again, companies are able to use slave labor in other countries to make goods cheaper in the USA, but do not pay the overall cost to the world at large. With globalization, the impact of everything becomes much more apparent... on a world stage. But easier for those of us in the USA to ignore the real cost because the burden is put on other countries. Just look where so much of our toxic waste ends up... poor countries.
How about the idea that driving to a store added to the equation of buying? If the consumer did their homework ahead of time anyway, the purchase rate would be higher in stores. Add to that the idea that they had to get in their car, drive all the way to the store, find a parking spot, then find the item... and they are even willing to pay a bit more once they get to the store because they've already invested so much in it already and get instant product.
Humans are "outside" of the slow process of "nature". Just because we come from "nature" doesn't make everything we do "natural" or "right". It isn't that humans accelerate the process, we can throw off balances that took thousands of years to be set. Just look at how destructive alien species can be on a non-native environment.
Our actions can have huge ramifications that we cannot predict. Biospehere2 failed because the scientists didn't account for the CO2 from soil bacteria and that blunder was in a very controlled environment. If nothing else, respect for nature is a self-preservation tactic... already humans have turned forests into deserts and destroyed countless species of life. Who knows what the impact is? Even if you don't care about a particular animal, its purpose and impact on the planet is beyond any model or simulation that we could run to predict the consequences of it. But really, do you want genetic diversity to die out? Do you want tigers to become a history lesson? In the end, we have enough knowledge to live in a much less destructive fashion, and unfortunately, we may not see the impact until it is too late and the earth's balance is thrown off enough that the entire world becomes less inhabitable.
I don't think any ONE thing will make a difference. Simply giving people the ability to vote online will help those that forget, or don't have time (I won't get into the value people place on voting). Only about 15% of my students (I teach Math at a community college) vote. Is it because they feel soft money runs government? Yes. Is it because it is inconvenient? Yes. Is it because they don't feel educated about the issues? Yes. For a system to be truly successful I believe it needs to address ALL of these issues. The soft money issue simply needs to be taken care of. The online voting should do more than allow people to vote, it should be a gateway for people to EDUCATE themselves on the issues. On a ballot you only get a paragraph or 2 describing the resolution. For positions, you only see the names and party affiliations. If the system linked to something fairly independent like http://news.google.com for articles and the house and senate for incumbent voting history online, to read up on political candidates and topics BEFORE voting, and made it that easy, I truly believe more people would do it. It isn't necessarily that people don't want to put time into it, they don't want to WASTE time on something that takes time and makes them feel out of touch with what is going on and wouldn't make a difference because of soft money anyway. Should people take the time to educate themselves? Certainly. But then we would get the same turnout we are getting now. To get a higher turnout requires lining everything up in a row for them and making it not only easy, but makes them educate themselves all at once. I think of it as an hour spent to educate AND vote, not just mindlessly vote. It could work right? Well, that's my theory anyway!;-)
Slashdot Mirror
Our healthy groceries are expensive because subsidies go to the large companies that make foods with additives and using growth hormones and such. The invisible hand does not work because corporations are for their own self interest, and that is not acceptable when it comes to healthcare, education, food, or anything else that is considered a necessity. Take the old Pinto case, the company did a cost evaluation on the fact that people would die and the amount of the lawsuits that would result. Now think about how our whole healthcare system is set up. It does not make sense to allow corporations to run anything of public concern at all, they are always INCREASING the cost because of their NEED for profit maximization.
This is also why there is so much pollution and waste. They PUBLIC absorbs those costs, not the "free market" companies causing the waste. In the USA, corporations are given a free ride for most of the costs they inherently create, and while this keeps the price of the good itself lower, it does not take into account the TOTAL cost due to other "externalities".
As for the increase in cost of clothing... that has actually gone down dramatically because of trade agreements. Again, companies are able to use slave labor in other countries to make goods cheaper in the USA, but do not pay the overall cost to the world at large. With globalization, the impact of everything becomes much more apparent... on a world stage. But easier for those of us in the USA to ignore the real cost because the burden is put on other countries. Just look where so much of our toxic waste ends up... poor countries.
How about the idea that driving to a store added to the equation of buying? If the consumer did their homework ahead of time anyway, the purchase rate would be higher in stores. Add to that the idea that they had to get in their car, drive all the way to the store, find a parking spot, then find the item... and they are even willing to pay a bit more once they get to the store because they've already invested so much in it already and get instant product.
Humans are "outside" of the slow process of "nature". Just because we come from "nature" doesn't make everything we do "natural" or "right". It isn't that humans accelerate the process, we can throw off balances that took thousands of years to be set. Just look at how destructive alien species can be on a non-native environment.
Our actions can have huge ramifications that we cannot predict. Biospehere2 failed because the scientists didn't account for the CO2 from soil bacteria and that blunder was in a very controlled environment. If nothing else, respect for nature is a self-preservation tactic... already humans have turned forests into deserts and destroyed countless species of life. Who knows what the impact is? Even if you don't care about a particular animal, its purpose and impact on the planet is beyond any model or simulation that we could run to predict the consequences of it. But really, do you want genetic diversity to die out? Do you want tigers to become a history lesson? In the end, we have enough knowledge to live in a much less destructive fashion, and unfortunately, we may not see the impact until it is too late and the earth's balance is thrown off enough that the entire world becomes less inhabitable.
I don't think any ONE thing will make a difference. Simply giving people the ability to vote online will help those that forget, or don't have time (I won't get into the value people place on voting). Only about 15% of my students (I teach Math at a community college) vote. Is it because they feel soft money runs government? Yes. Is it because it is inconvenient? Yes. Is it because they don't feel educated about the issues? Yes. For a system to be truly successful I believe it needs to address ALL of these issues. The soft money issue simply needs to be taken care of. The online voting should do more than allow people to vote, it should be a gateway for people to EDUCATE themselves on the issues. On a ballot you only get a paragraph or 2 describing the resolution. For positions, you only see the names and party affiliations. If the system linked to something fairly independent like http://news.google.com for articles and the house and senate for incumbent voting history online, to read up on political candidates and topics BEFORE voting, and made it that easy, I truly believe more people would do it. It isn't necessarily that people don't want to put time into it, they don't want to WASTE time on something that takes time and makes them feel out of touch with what is going on and wouldn't make a difference because of soft money anyway. Should people take the time to educate themselves? Certainly. But then we would get the same turnout we are getting now. To get a higher turnout requires lining everything up in a row for them and making it not only easy, but makes them educate themselves all at once. I think of it as an hour spent to educate AND vote, not just mindlessly vote. It could work right? Well, that's my theory anyway! ;-)