American Politics

[SharkBait]

Wait: People get CHARGED in the US for using an ambulance?
Honestly?

http://health.costhelper.com/ambulance.html

 

[shionoro]

http://health.costhelper.com/ambulance.html

THAT really sounds bizarre from the viewpoint of a european.

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 15, 2016, Original Post Date: Nov 15, 2016 ---

I don't even want to imagine how many poor people died to a heart attack just because they thought they will be fine and there's no need to call an ambulance.

 

[M3J]

Now let's don't get crazy.

It's what I"ve been reading. They're bankrolling ads against legalizing weed because it means losing business.

Since people get charged more for using an ambulance I thought people prefer opting for their own transportation to get to hospitals.


Videos have always shown them operating coal trains in coal mines to carry the coal, is this not the form of transportation used?

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 15, 2016, Original Post Date: Nov 15, 2016 ---

Companies are often formed with the premise of saving the world by [insert task] one at a time. Financial sector positions are necessary for helping companies get started, find investors, and helping them grow. So these are necessary jobs to better mankind.

Companies are often formed with the premise of making as much money as possible, at least in financial sector. They help only to make more money. It's not as good a job as you delude yourself to be, especially when many people in financial sector are known to cheat and be dishonest, which has hurt our economy.

 

[shionoro]

It's what I"ve been reading. They're bankrolling ads against legalizing weed because it means losing business.

And that might even be true, but not because weed has better health effects than most of their products (while i cannot talk for the US since it legalizes a lot of nasty shit, in general credible pharma corps do dish out effective products).
But many people will go for the cheaper alternative, which is not necessarily more healthy.

 

[kkck]

What m3j mentions sounds like the whole opiates vs weed debate. I believe there is a debate on the issue going on right now with the arguments for weed being that it is less addictive, extremely effective, insane cheap in comparison and more natural (though regardless of circumstances this is a meaningless claim IMO). Or am I thinking of a different drug from weed?

 

[SharkBait]

Companies are often formed with the premise of making as much money as possible, at least in financial sector. They help only to make more money. It's not as good a job as you delude yourself to be, especially when many people in financial sector are known to cheat and be dishonest, which has hurt our economy.

How does helping to make more money become a bad thing. More money means more spending, more spending means a stronger economy.

 

[shionoro]

How does helping to make more money become a bad thing. More money means more spending, more spending means a stronger economy.

But is also means damage to the consumer if it is done like that.
If poor people cannot afford your medical product but it still makes more money due to taking more from rich, it is good for the corps, but bad for the sick poor people.

 

[Zehahaha]

How does helping to make more money become a bad thing. More money means more spending, more spending means a stronger economy.

Not exactly, if a large fraction of the population doesn't benefit from it then it is a bad thing
Currently, the trend is that more wealth has been created and also it gets more concentrated in the hands of few people, the majority of people are simply not feeling this growth

Wealth inequality is a very important topic in economics and something that needs to be solved or else bad consequences will happen in the long term

 

[kkck]

The fact of the matter remains that US companies are for the most part making historic amounts of money. And the vast majority of people aren't quite benefiting from that nor from the economic recovery the US has gone through over the last years. US companies are making money, in that regard the main concern should be to figure out how to make this benefit more people.

 

[Zehahaha]

The fact of the matter remains that US companies are for the most part making historic amounts of money. And the vast majority of people aren't quite benefiting from that nor from the economic recovery the US has gone through over the last years. US companies are making money, in that regard the main concern should be to figure out how to make this benefit more people.

That's impossible to do because the solution is way too complex to achieve

The global economy can already be considered a service based economy rather than manufacturing, a look at GDP can show that service based activities represents a large percentage of GDP in a lot of countries, plus the increased automation makes it hard to solve inequality. One can ask, is it moral that companies like Tesla are testing self-driving trucks which could potentially lead to kill an entire industry and ruin the lives of many people ? For me, it is morally inacceptable to do so and more than that, it is useless to begin with (I see no benefits from self-driving trucks, except obviously for companies/employers), this increasing automation in everything is creepy to say the least

There's also the education matter, college/universities are more popular than ever, the increasing amount of degree holders is huge without enough demand for that. Governments should encourage more and more craftmanship and provide packages to help them start their small businesses, college/university is not the end or the ultimate goal. What happens is that a lot of people screw up in university, perhaps not doing the right degree as well (as much as I hate this term, but there's some truth in this), so you end with people not having skills to enter in the job market, and sadly enough they do not have any other craftmanship skills as well+ student debt. Not all people should be directed towards university/college, some people depending on their talents would be good carpenters for example rather than your average college grad. Also, it is very important at least in US/UK that tuition fees should decrease, the massive amount of student debt makes it really hard for graduates to start their lives correctly, there are lucky ones who can afford uni/college thanks to their parents, and even afford a house after that, but that is a luxury.

Finally, there's a social aspect to this. A society cannot exist for long without solidarity, I don't think many rich people consider the thought of helping others, this is just in general but wealth redistribution also goes through rich people helping other people. One would say, but rich people are heavily taxed and now you want them to give more money ? That is true to some extent, but let's not forget a lot of rich people also go through tax heavens and what not in order to avoid that, making them morally guilty of not paying their share of taxes, obviously this problem requires all the countries cooperating effectively in order to stop this (unless tax heavens exist on Mars or what not lol)

Point is, wealth inequality is a mixture of ethical/economical/social issues, one could argue that the economical/social could be fixed somehow, but the ethical ones are just impossible to begin with

 

[kkck]

That's impossible to do because the solution is way too complex to achieve

The global economy can already be considered a service based economy rather than manufacturing, a look at GDP can show that service based activities represents a large percentage of GDP in a lot of countries, plus the increased automation makes it hard to solve inequality. One can ask, is it moral that companies like Tesla are testing self-driving trucks which could potentially lead to kill an entire industry and ruin the lives of many people ? For me, it is morally inacceptable to do so and more than that, it is useless to begin with (I see no benefits from self-driving trucks, except obviously for companies/employers), this increasing automation in everything is creepy to say the least

There's also the education matter, college/universities are more popular than ever, the increasing amount of degree holders is huge without enough demand for that. Governments should encourage more and more craftmanship and provide packages to help them start their small businesses, college/university is not the end or the ultimate goal. What happens is that a lot of people screw up in university, perhaps not doing the right degree as well (as much as I hate this term, but there's some truth in this), so you end with people not having skills to enter in the job market, and sadly enough they do not have any other craftmanship skills as well+ student debt. Not all people should be directed towards university/college, some people depending on their talents would be good carpenters for example rather than your average college grad. Also, it is very important at least in US/UK that tuition fees should decrease, the massive amount of student debt makes it really hard for graduates to start their lives correctly, there are lucky ones who can afford uni/college thanks to their parents, and even afford a house after that, but that is a luxury.

Finally, there's a social aspect to this. A society cannot exist for long without solidarity, I don't think many rich people consider the thought of helping others, this is just in general but wealth redistribution also goes through rich people helping other people. One would say, but rich people are heavily taxed and now you want them to give more money ? That is true to some extent, but let's not forget a lot of rich people also go through tax heavens and what not in order to avoid that, making them morally guilty of not paying their share of taxes, obviously this problem requires all the countries cooperating effectively in order to stop this (unless tax heavens exist on Mars or what not lol)

Point is, wealth inequality is a mixture of ethical/economical/social issues, one could argue that the economical/social could be fixed somehow, but the ethical ones are just impossible to begin with

I wouldn't put this in terms of it being moral or not. In the end once it becomes a thing there is no stopping it and we have to find solutions to it. New jobs and whatnot.. Automation has been a thing since industrial revolution and for the most part we have dealt with it one way or another and with time new jobs appear to make up for it. Automation is simply a reality of life.

I would in general be more optimistic about the whole thing because, well, automation has for the most part served to increase life quality for the past 200 years. Granted we are going to have to make adjustments but if the middle classes are actually neutered by automation companies do face a huge issue, who the hell buys their products? There is no reason this is a problem that simply can't be solved though.

I wouldn't really agree with the idea that companies and rich people pay enough taxes (though it depends on the country). In the end companies and governments and countries will need to find a way to keep people consuming simply because there is no other way for any economy to function.

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 15, 2016, Original Post Date: Nov 15, 2016 ---

http://www.nbcnews.com/card/mccain-warns-against-russian-reset-n684221

Holy crap Mccain said something sensible that I agree with. World must be on fire or something.

 

[SharkBait]

What data are people using to make the claim that sanders would have beat trump? If its the same data that predicted clintons win then I think its flawed. Cant believe sanders is still in offline convos

 

[Onyx Darkmatter]

What data are people using to make the claim that sanders would have beat trump? If its the same data that predicted clintons win then I think its flawed. Cant believe sanders is still in offline convos

I think people are using the Primary results, especially when Sanders got states like Wisconsin and even Michigan, both of the states that Hillary lost during the election. I think Sanders would've probably obtained some states that Trump won as well, like some of the Midwest states and possibly even Alaska.

 

[M3J]

How does helping to make more money become a bad thing. More money means more spending, more spending means a stronger economy.

more money doesn't mean more spending or stronger economy when the money goes to select few people while robbing middle-class of money. But then again, you seem to be okay with stealing money from middle classes and lower as long as it goes to upper class people.

What data are people using to make the claim that sanders would have beat trump? If its the same data that predicted clintons win then I think its flawed. Cant believe sanders is still in offline convos

Just facts as Hillary lost a lot of Bernie supporters due to dems stabbing him in the back and many of those went over to Trump's side. Fewer people even voted for her because they didn't want to vote or because they were confident she'd win.

 

[shionoro]

Would it really have been a better sign if even only 40% of the american voters had voted someone without any knowledge or ethics about politics who has told countless of offensive lies about lots of minorities and political opponents?

 

[SharkBait]

Im glad they are finally addressing this. To many non americans come to our schools and leave benefiting our economy in no way at all.

 

[kkck]

Seriously, how dare they. It's not like they pay for educations or anything of the sort. They just abuse the US's free schools and go back home like assholes.

 

[xi0]

Seriously, how dare they. It's not like they pay for educations or anything of the sort. They just abuse the US's free schools and go back home like assholes.

Yeah, fuck you dude...why'd you leave?????????????

 

[M3J]

Im glad they are finally addressing this. To many non americans come to our schools and leave benefiting our economy in no way at all.

You don't... understand how anything works, do you?

Anyway, Trump lost any chance I was gonna give him. Fuck him, and I hope rioters get the job done.

 

[kkck]

You don't... understand how anything works, do you?

Anyway, Trump lost any chance I was gonna give him. Fuck him, and I hope rioters get the job done.

There was never any reason to give trump a chance. There is no rational reason to think he won't at least try to do what he offered. Well, there are a few things which are simply impossible (the wall nears on impossible, the president bringing back jobs from china is impossible....) but him being foiled by conceptual impossibilities shouldn't be much relieve here. Republicans won't be a filter to him, the majority of them will simply submit to him as they are doing right now. If there is going to be a filter to trump it won't be the republican controlled house or senate. The only plausible filter than can and will exist at least until democrats gain control of the senate and congress is non stop protest to trump's agenda every step of the way and maybe ridiculously low aproval ratings because the guy's self stem is as frail as an over inflated party balloon.