are you kidding? it's because the monied interests almost never have to deal with negative externalities and the cleanup of direct negatives because they are the ones that pay the people voted into power with that money to make the laws that could do such a thing. california is about as progressive as it comes in that regard but even then the machine of progress inches.
look at the pg&e dixie fire that had a cost of well over 1 billion dollars (1000 million dollars) and they got fined 55 million dollars so they could avoid criminal charges.
In fairness, the corruption that led to PG&E accidentally burning down a city every few years occurred back in the 70’s, so those people are retired / dead, and the statute of limitations applies.
We don’t know how many people their current blatant and widespread corruption will kill, so I guess we’ll need to wait and see, then prosecute the responsible parties in 50 years.
should there be a statute of limitations on ecological catastrophe? that seems like it would strongly, and perversely, incentivise cover-ups and other nefarious weaponisations of information asymmetry against the interests of the commons.
This sounds nice, but I'm struggling to imagine how it will be effective in practice. Could you offer any elaboration?
> These changes undoubtedly reflect a more progressive view of regulation. Yet, they do not jettison cost-benefit analysis. Instead, they have a basis in recent academic research, and they appear to be designed with an eye toward helping agencies withstand court challenges to their cost-benefit analysis.
As I understand it, a cost benefit analyses did not factor into the recent supreme court ruling against the EPA, nor the one from last summer.
that is big news. even as a really online person i didn't see that. though it's an executive order so it's not going to stand up to the next republican president whenever that is unfortunately... though if that comes to fruition with how it's trending we are not going to need to worry about negative externalities and environmental assessments. I do hope you are right that it's a big win in the long run but i do feel jaded.
Not adding much except maybe a tiny signal boost: capture.
Capture is the root of all evil in the way that various ancient/sacred texts said that “money is the root of all evil”.
President Truman was so poorly compensated by capture that they both increased the salary and created a pension because of how embarrassing it was that a President suffered personal financial hardship.
We don’t worry about that sort of thing these days.
Fwiw, the quote is actually “the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil.”
Essentially greed. If you really boil the root of evil down to its base, I think you’ll find pride is the true root. IMO pride is the root of greed itself too.
This is kind of funny because Keynes' liquidity preference concept can be loosely translated into a "love for money" but it is about not wanting to let go of money rather than earning it.
Dictator needs to be a ruler, that also you cannot get rid of. In most of the us you can ditch your boss tonight.
It looks like you want a real dictator to “protect” you from possible poor decisions you can make. Which is fine, just don’t get me and others like me involved please.
As an American working in Germany after working in San Francisco for a company with unlimited time off (Uber), I prefer Germany without even thinking about it.
The US labor system is so insanely broken I don't even know where to begin.
I may agree that 25 days off at a certain job is better for that individual, or even me. What i am against is creating creating government rules that impose such schemes into everyone without their consent.
Without the government imposing such schemes you end up where the USA is right now: a few skilled jobs are granted the extreme privilege of time off, for the rest you grant nothing. Are they peasants in your eyes?
The government should be responsible to provide a minimum of quality of life to its citizens, to give away this power is to relinquish one of the main benefits of being a State.
End of child labour and slavery was imposed onto a lot of societies without everyone's consent, it doesn't mean it is wrong for the government to do so.
Imposing a minimum of paid time off to humans, allowing humans to have time off from work to actually enjoy being humans, is to determine a minimum baseline of quality of life to all of your citizens. You seem to rather prefer to only allow that to a privileged class, because that's what happens in reality when the government does not impose a modicum of morality into the system.
> a few skilled jobs are granted the extreme privilege of time off, for the rest you grant nothing. Are they peasants in your eyes?
No not at all. I believe lower skilled workers are on this position due to the policies we have had for some time now, which most of them actually support. I respect all workers that contribute honestly.
You think in your country the government serves you. That is a very naive way of thinking. Why would they love you so much, is it because you bother to show up at a polling station once in a couple of years, or is there some other source of attraction?
No, i am not the one advocating for mandatory schemes, which some people push into the rest, usually through government. By default no such schemes exist, so i am not the one that meddles in others business. If you want to get involved you are free to do so.
> No, i am not the one advocating for mandatory schemes, which some people push into the rest, usually through government.
I can conclude then that you are also not an advocate against child labour, as that is a mandatory scheme pushed through government. You are also not an advocate against monopolies, since those are regulated through the government.
During the pandemic, they were sending droves of doctors to Europe. They offered to assist in NYC but Trump turned them away as our population dwindled. Famously, when a British cruise ship with ill passengers aboard was denied by ports in Florida, Cuba took them in and saved many lives.
I'm not sure how they could have assisted with anything, they basically have no medical supplies[1][2][3][4]. And before you bring it up, no medical supplies aren't covered by the embargo, they get a special exemption since the 90s.
There's a US law that says any ship that docks with Cuba can't dock with the US. Considering that modern shipping relies on big ships making many port calls, this law restricts Cuba's access to stuff like medical supplies.
There was a time where supplies was the issue, and I doubt Cuba could help there. But there was also a time when medical labor was the issue, and Cuban doctors could have helped with that.
Probably not. They definitely wouldn’t have had training with modern medical equipment, which isn’t available in Cuba. Also we take a dim view here on slave labor which is the most accurate way to describe the Cuban medical mission.
It speaks about how, since most people in Cuba have roughly equal (equally low) salaries, prostitution is present in all strata of society. Example citation from the link; a prostitute speaking: "We're all on a survival plan, no matter who you are, if you're a doctor, a philosopher, a teacher, we are all pretty much the same, we make the same money,
20 or 30 cuc a month is not enough at all."
What’s with the scare quotes around communist? Sure they have a lot of doctors. And how many of those doctors are allowed to do business as a private practice? Or how many would be allowed to change careers if they wanted to? How many are allowed to spend their income at fancy places, where the currency they get paid in isn’t even accepted?
Hate to break it to you, but “your” worldview is incredibly, laughably, misinformed.
I’m not a fan of communism, but your worldview about it is also misinformed. People are allowed to change careers under communism: source I was born in USSR, my mother had many careers in the 70s and 80s.
I’d give you the inability to work for a private practice, that is true, but I am not entirely convinced it’s all that beneficial to society.
Lastly, Cuba can have some things better than the US, it doesn’t necessarily mean communism is a superior type of system. It just means that even a broken clock can show the right time
Again, it's best not to align planning to political methodologies. Cuba has success stories. That isn't a vote for communism.
Equally, another "communist" state (China) is doing very well and while there is a lot of planning there, there is also a lot of free-market. Again, not a vote for communism.
I use communist in quotes here because Chinese communism is different to communism as practiced in the USSR. Just like capitalism is different in the US compared to say Switzerland.
There are (literally) hundreds of political systems, and we find it helpful to lump them together under broad names, but that can lead to a misunderstanding of the actual system.
Incidentally some planning is necessary- but it remains hard.
Cuba planned for, and got, a fantastic heath system built around primary health care. Cuban doctors are well respected, and are exported all over the world.
Cuba also got a lot wrong, and saying they got something right is not an endorsement of all ideas Cuban.
Cuba actually has a terrible health system that lacks even basic medical supplies like aspirin and antibiotics[1]. The state department and in the past MSF have called their medical missions modern day slavery[2][3]. There are also a lot of questions about the quality of Cuban medical training[4].
The first three articles are various flavours of FUD and vague assertions of coercion of the usual kind of "flood the field" BS everyone is used to from MSM.
The fourth link you provided "asks questions" but then the actual conclusion is that their trainings fine and people are spouting FUD and they'll need some extra focus on country specific problems.
"""
Results
South African students trained in Cuba have had beneficial experiences which orientate them towards primary health care and prevention. Their subsequent training in South Africa is intended to fill skill gaps related to TB, HIV and major trauma. However this training is ad hoc and variable in duration and demoralizing for some students. Cuban-trained students have stronger aspirations than those trained in South Africa to work in rural and underserved communities from which many of them are drawn.
Conclusion
Attempts to assimilate returning Cuban-trained students will require a reframing of the current negative narrative by focusing on positive aspects of their training, orientation towards primary care and public health, and their aspirations to work in rural and under-served urban areas. Cuban-trained doctors could be part of the solution to South Africa’s health workforce problems.
"""
Really because the Cuban state bio pharmaceutical industry items at least a 40% shortage in medical supplies[1](I hope you read Spanish). Here’s another from Univision[2]. I could dig through the state news and find where they say the same thing but I have limited patience for stalinist ramblings.
As for the training, I did only cite one study. But I know doctors who have worked along side Cuban doctors in Africa through MSF, and they’re according to multiple people I’ve spoken with very poorly trained. The medical missions are also as I pointed out basically slavery.
The shortage of medical supplies is a problem created by the US which is then recycled into evidence of medical failure which is quite a nice little Gordian knot.
>As for the training, I did only cite one study. But I know doctors who have worked along side Cuban doctors in Africa through MSF, and they’re according to multiple people I’ve spoken with very poorly trained. The medical missions are also as I pointed out basically slavery.
I'll be honest the corporate media has played so fast and loose with information the last few years so they don't get the benefit of the doubt and I'm aware of a fair few countries with various flavours of regimes to stop doctors and/or graduates emigrating instantly with their expensive training so I wouldnt know enough to judge on "slavery". I'd need more context and another viewpoint to form an opinion.
It is categorically not a problem created by the US. Cuba was a satrap of the USSR that never developed any local economic or agricultural capacity. This is despite receiving free oil, machinery, training and fertilizer from the USSR and later free oil from Venezuela. Cuba still has the lowest agricultural output in the Caribbean by miles, clearly this is a result of communist economic policies. One only needs to look to Deng’s agricultural reforms in 1980s China to see this.
The embargo is no excuse. Cuba’s largest trading partner is Spain and they could get any European good or equipment they wanted if they had anything worth exporting for foreign currency. Cuba receives nearly a billion dollars a year in remittances from Cubans in the US alone, yet they are unable to do anything to unlock the potential of that inflow because they’re hung up on broken stalinist policies.
I sent you several Spanish language articles on the topic published outside of the US, this isn’t a “corporate media” narrative. The Cuban government is just terrible. If you can’t read Spanish that isn’t my fault. I know tons of Cubans, including Cuban leftists, and I read Spanish. I’m pretty well informed here and not just buying a narrative.
Human Rights Watch calls the medical mission slavery. They don’t allow the doctors to communicate with family, take their passports, take their wages, often send them into conflict zones, threaten their families, and on and on.
Well, you're right but it's think that despite the definition Marx coined, or the government he imagined, Communism has evolved and so has the definition.
The countries that tried Communism did so differently but with many similarities and all still had/have social classes.
A classless society only works theoretically - those that have tried to implement such societal changes have been unable to realize that goal practically.
Practical application matters most.
It may not be so much that modern Communists have failed to implement Marxist government but rather that Marx failed by focusing so solely on social class.
Inequality is the problem - it eats away at a society and its people. True equality is impossible and honestly not even desirable. Absolute equality doesn't mesh well with individuality.
I don't need to own the same things that everyone else does, live in the same size house or drive comparable cars - it's OK that people have nicer things than I do. It's not OK that everyone I know works hard their entire lives and others don't have too.
It's not OK that I know several people that have died bc they were avoiding medical care they knew they needed due to the expense.
It's not OK that everyone I talk to under 25 all seem to want to skip college and go work wherever - they are not lazy, they are certain that our future is uncertain. Why have goals that can't be reached?
I'm fine with classes as long as all classes have the same MINIMUM quality of life. Society should never limit the individual but should rather empower them to live well, as such, the only limits on maximum wealth I would impose would come after several billions have been added to an account - it does the society that generated that wealth no good if it simply sits an account and gets bigger.
Gates, Zuck, Mush, Bezos and other super rich are examples of our societal failure to regulate OUR economy well enough to prevent the greediest of us all from taking all of OUR collective wealth.
This is what Marx missed. This is why his definition/ideology didn't work out - also why so many have failed.
There will always be owners and workers, rich and poor, good and bad people - this is why government exists. How can a government eliminate the reason it exists?
To be frank, it was kinda stupid to think that paying everyone the same, trying to treat everyone the same, taking away ownership and attempting to equalize access to possessions would transform society into a paradise.
tl;dr: The definition of Communism has changed since Marx because everyone that tried Marx failed miserably and had to make due - today Communism is what they are doing now and isn't at all like Marx proposed.
Quality masks require actual capital investments, so longer term commitments. Toxic hand sanitizer can turn a profit with practically zero capital investment. This is precisely how capitalism works. Socialism or barbarism.
And proper planning and motivation. My jurisdiction (Ontario and Canada) stockpiled 10s of millions of N95 masks after SARS1. Instead of cycling inventory, they let them expire, disposed them and never replaced them.
Then, get this, a few years later, they needed them!
Best part was I already worked at an organization that required mask fitting for all employees, but when the pandemic hit that this was in preparation for, everybody wanted them and there weren’t any available.
You've continued to repeatedly post unsubstantive and flamebait comments after we asked you to stop. I don't want to ban you, but if this keeps up we're going to have to.