Anyone with a basic modern education should know exactly what that phrase references. It's like pretending "that's all, folks!" doesn't immediately evoke Looney Tunes
> It's like pretending "that's all, folks!" doesn't immediately evoke Looney Tunes
It doesn't for people who haven't grown up with Looney Tunes. You're on a fairly international site here. Similarly, you can't expect everyone's education about the Holocaust to have covered this specific thing in a way they'd reliably remember and avoid an embarrassing mistake like that.
I mean, a "bottomless well of need" is basically exactly what a chronic illness is. Have some compassion; doctors and medical professionals deserve to clock out at some point just like the rest of us. It doesn't mean they are in the wrong profession.
I am in my 30s. I think people around my age will be able to live out most of our lives in relative normalcy. I think children born today will inherit a world that's even more cruel, brutal, and difficult to survive in. The rich will wall themselves off in heavily guarded citadels while climate disasters and the resulting refugee crises tear the rest of the world apart.
I am in my fifties. I have seen a dramatic enough change in my lifetime (lack of proper winters any more, massive loss of insects and wildlife, loss of diversity in the countryside and a terrifying[1] growth of consumerism and plastics) to think you will probably significantly reassess that relative normalcy. Or you might be lucky to live somewhere that will isolate you from most of it.
My kids, of course, grew up with all those huge losses and changes being their baseline normal on which all expectations are set. They think fields without diversity or wildlife and everything in plastic packaging is normal, unless they see some archive footage or history of primitive pre-internet times. They've barely seen snow, so don't expect to, etc.
[1] I grew up with slow consumerism 1.0 in the 70s. My parents generation mainly replaced their car, TV, appliance or even kitchen only when it broke or wore out. Not that much went in the bin, now the wheelie bin is filled with unavoidable packaging. We are apparently supposed to replace everything when the ads say there's a new colour, or the spec got bumped 2%, long before it becomes unusable or worn. Can't help but feel we're going backwards at a rate of knots.
For society, by making the distribution of goods/services more efficient. Amazon enriches our lives (compared to no Amazon) every time anyone uses it. The resources we all save, the delta, go partially to Mr. Bezos and owners of Amazon stock in the form of profit. They are rewarded for having allocated their capital efficiently. They can spend the money on whatever they want, but it is mostly allocated back into making Amazon more efficient -- not locked away as the gp suggests.
Bear in mind this is the extremely idealistic neoliberal take.
Unless you are a multimillionaire, no it will not be your wealth being redistributed. The problem is not well-off people driving their Teslas around and taking two vacations a year, it is the relatively few people hoarding such obscene levels of wealth that their personal holdings dwarf those of entire lower economic classes of people. More than they could possibly need for 1000 lifetimes.
If you expropriate the entire wealth of the top 0.1% (6 trillion dollars), it will last around 2-3 years (social security/medicare/medicaid expenditure of the US is more than 2 trillion dollars per year). The "relatively few people" are of course rich, but they are, as you have said, relatively few. Most of the taxable money are made by the middle class.
I think the idea that free-market capitalism drives innovation is not something you can take for granted at all. How many companies making copycat apps that serve no purpose or complete bullshit like Juicero get millions in funding?
The market rejecting a product has nothing to do with innovation. It's people saying I can't afford this or I don't value this at the price you're selling it at, or even I don't like the politics of someone that works for you. But it says nothing about if a product is innovative or not.
Innovation includes factors like actually being able to manufacture the product at a price people are willing to pay. If something is worth at most $10, coming up with a novel way to do it for less than $10 is innovative; coming up with a way to do it for $1000 is just wasting time.
It's easy to come up with crazy, impractical ideas. The essence of innovation is turning those ideas into sustainable, marketable, and thus profitable products.
The NYT in particular is so flagrant with this. Endless profiles of Trump voters in diners, who are always the same bewildered, inarticulate hicks. We don't need to hear any more from these people.
I mean, you can be non-partisan and objective and STILL write "negative" headlines about Trump, because so much of what he does is hateful, baffling or otherwise negative.
That's where I disagree. taking a negative stance on Trump IS taking a side.
What I would like is for the journalist to report the fact and let us reader chose if it is negative or positive.
The facts can include the views of external people giving their views on it (as long as it is clearly documented in the sources that it is the views of someone external). But if the journalist himself takes a side, then all bets are lost.
Here are the Trump-related headlines on CNN right now:
Trump says he's on same page as intel chiefs after insulting them
Erin Burnett: Tapes don't lie, but Trump ...
Even some Republicans balk as Trump targets US spy chiefs
None of those would violate your criteria, but any reasonable person would say they are negative. At some point you just have to accept reality and stop expecting news outlets to bend over backwards trying to make it seem like both sides are the same.
He did insult them. That is a fact of the story. What word would you prefer?
It attributes the stance to Erin Burnett, which you said is fine.
Saying "Even" is perfectly justified here. Parties, especially the Republican party, tend to march in lockstep with their president. The fact that GOP members are opposing Trump on this IS the story
