What about all "greenhouse gases" emitted from destroying cars in "cash for clunkers" Or taxpayer resources down the crapper investing in winners like Solyndra?Hello Drew. Back at it again eh? Certainly would expect such an explanation from a landscaper who designs so called “green” jobs.
Sure has been a cold winter. ROFLMAO
PS do you drive a car...truck...or bicycle.
PPSS do use use a fossil fuel truck to haul your landscaping materials around?
America was great. This video brilliantly explains how great it was and why it fell. A must watch.
Not at all. It's one of the greatest short to the point videos I have ever seen describing how America has this rapid rise than slow burn decline. The elite's have been empowered by the greed of democracy which takes from one and gives to another through the ability to vote for the ones that will do their bidding. This is what both Jefferson and Hamilton warned about. I would watch and share this video with everyone you know. It really describes it all.I don't understand the video. Its extremely light on insight and heavy on thematic music. Is it anti-democracy? anti- populism? It seems to be Pro-elitism.
Not at all. It's one of the greatest short to the point videos I have ever seen describing how America has this rapid rise than slow burn decline. The elite's have been empowered by the greed of democracy which takes from one and gives to another through the ability to vote for the ones that will do their bidding. This is what both Jefferson and Hamilton warned about. I would watch and share this video with everyone you know. It really describes it all.
Tell me if I am missing the point:
America became great because immigrants came here and prospered. Some of them became rich and powerful. No mention of the toll this took on the common worker.
America today is failing because the common man wants higher minimum wages and a safety net. No mention of current immigration.
Democracies are bad because the majority of people have a say in how their government is run. No alternative is given.
Interestingly the people depicted in the second half of the video are majority black. In the first half, majority white. Perhaps some subliminal messaging there?
Perhaps a highly sophisticated program pretending to be an economic topic however with extremely covert political hidden agenda designed to be a vital part of : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_marketing
lol
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckr...-maine-examiner-campaign-sites-disguised-news
As Doug Howard, executive director of the government transparency advocacy group the Sunlight Foundation, put it, these site disclosures are the only way that “the public, when they’re staring at the same glowing box, has at least a prayer of being able to understand who paid for it, what that entity is and what its goals are.”
That's interesting, so these "respected scientists" have proven that increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere most certainly don't cause climate change? Or done any original research in that area at all? Or they've simply questioned some of the basis (one could say an "infinitesimal" part of the basis) for the overwhelming majority of climate science that shows it does? Because those are two very different things. If you are asserting that we should go ahead with something that the broad consensus of scientists agree will have significant consequences, the onus on you is to prove that this experiment of increasing CO2 levels by 40% over 150 years (by the way the word "infinitesimal" means something different than you apparently think it does) will almost certainly not cause these significant consequences. Not trot out a handful of dissenting voices and use that to say we should not only ignore the consensus but actually stop researching it further, nothing to see here.In the documentary there are many respected scientists that are scholars and professors from universities and institutions around the world stating that human emitted C02 is too infinitesimal to cause any change in climate. More importantly they map out a timeline that shows the planet actually cooling during periods of high output of C02 and warming with lower outputs. There was also ice core data showing the exact opposite of what you alarmists and politicians are claiming.
So you are no scientist. You need to weigh the evidence as a taxpayer and see if one side of the argument requires people to pay fortunes in "carbon taxes" and destroy jobs. While the other side supports jobs without these taxes and silly horrible waste like "cash for clunkers" or "Solyndra." Those were real winners weren't they?
Listen guy, I have been around. When there is a scientific dispute and one side wants to use their narrative to tax, regulate, destroy jobs and waste resources, I will consider the other side of the argument thank you very much. Oh and lastly keep your grimy dirty fingers out of my pockets.
Is Massive Immigration an Unmitigated Blessing? An Interview on Immigration With Harvard Economist George Borjas
By John B. Judis | October 26, 2017
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/john-judis-interview-george-borjas
The debate over immigration is very similar to the trade debate, We talked about trade for thirty years — that it was a great thing, that everybody was supposed to gain — but we now know that that is untrue. Some people were left behind, and it’s a pretty big political problem. Immigration is the same way, not everybody will gain, and the people who lose out from low-skilled immigration. are the people we are trying to protect in many other ways. So from one perspective low skilled immigration is attenuating the beneficial impact of everything else we do to help these people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overtrading
Overtrading
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Overtrading is a term in financial statement analysis. Overtrading often occurs when companies expand their own operations too quickly (aggressively).Finance Wales: "A practical guide to cash-flow management", page 28. CIMA, 2004 http://www.highpeak.gov.uk/business/econdev/General/Cash_flow_management_17_08_04.pdf Retrieved on 2010-11-10</ref> Overtraded companies enter a negative cycle, where an increase in interest expenses negatively impacts the net profit, which leads to lesser working capital, and that leads to increased borrowings, which in turn leads to interest expenses and the cycle continues. Overtraded companies eventually face liquidity problems and/or run out of working capital.
Thailand deliver vitamins to up birth rate
Health officials in Bangkok have handed out folic acid and iron pills in pink boxes to entice couples to prepare for pregnancy amid Thailand's dire birth rate.
Panu Wongcha-um and Amy Sawitta Lefevre
ReutersFebruary 14, 2018
http://www.news.com.au/world/breaki...e/news-story/2188ebabe04f1fa306c7f51acb5db52e
Thailand has tried cash bonuses and tax incentives to boost the country's birth rate, but on Valentine's Day it adopted a new approach - handing out vitamin pills.
It is my simplistic view that, when before implementing a good immigration policy, a country of high living standards however without legally providing adequate low-fees medical services and/or partly paid pregnancy/maternity/paternity/parental leave covering a reasonable period of extended time, would be a fairly weak or even an inferior policy - in long term.
That some of the politicians trying to provide mainly short-term remedial solutions would not see or understand the potential problem for next generations.
Comparing countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_leave#cite_note-Addati_p_137-75
Why?
I Robot: U Tax?
https://crawford.anu.edu.au/news-events/events/12164/i-robot-u-tax
In a 2017 interview, Microsoft founder Bill Gates recommended taxing robots to slow the pace of automation. Funds raised could be used to retrain and financially support displaced workers. Up to 47 per cent of US jobs are at risk by advancements in artificial intelligence. Low-wage workers currently hold a majority of those at-risk jobs. Increased automation is likely to exacerbate income inequality.
While employment changes due to automation are not new, advances in artificial intelligence threaten many more jobs much more quickly than historic automation did. When considering how to tax job replacing robots, we should think about the broader purpose of a tax system. Taxes raise revenue, but for whom? The informal title of the most recent tax bill gives a clue: The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA). The chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Paul Ryan, said the legislation was about “More jobs, fairer taxes, and bigger paychecks. Faster growth and real upward mobility. A strong economy that makes all of us stronger.” At least in terms of political rhetoric, the tax system serves people. Indeed, in the words of a scholar espousing the utilitarianism view of tax policy, “improving aggregate social welfare, as measured by the individual utility levels or happiness of the population, remains one important goal of tax policy.” British philosopher Jeremy Bentham is considered the father of utilitarianism. He was the first philosopher to define the ethics of utilitarianism, under which an action is deemed ethical if it promotes pleasure and diminishes pain. Economic growth has not been found to increase happiness. Increasing the wealth of the already wealthy will not increase happiness, although it might decrease happiness for the stagnating middle class who find themselves falling farther behind. British researcher Andrew Oswald finds (unsurprisingly) that unemployment diminishes happiness. Therefore, if the U.S. tax system exists to serve the American people, it should not lead to unemployment.