That was something the current administration cracked down on. Plus with the war, there isn’t a lot of loose money floating around, but there’s lots being spent on military and infrastructure, so they’re making enough in legit business to not need to use corrupt means to get it. And a lot of the Russian oligarchy has left which was part of why they didn’t want them.
Because we’re exhausted and can’t afford to lose what little we all have. Even one day in jail can mean losing your job, even if charges are dropped. And a conviction could mean being stuck with only jobs that don’t pay a living wage for the rest of your life and few of us have enough savings to survive that for long.
Brag about it and use it as leverage for power. The money doesn’t actually exist, it’s stock mostly that gets instantly created from nothing. But they can use the idea of its existence to take other people’s real money for the things they want and the rest is just other people agreeing to do what they want because of the idea of power that having it conveys.
Russia is our enemy and Israel our ally and the US, especially the right wing, has been trying to delegitimize the UN for years, mostly so the corporations can keep selling weapons to both our own military as well as our allies. It’s not like the sanctions against Russia were ever going to stop the war. They were just designed to give Ukraine a chance to prolong it and sell more weapons to the American people to give to Ukraine. Russia wanted a quick war and that wouldn’t be good for business. With Israel, since they’re looking to keep the war going until there are no more Muslims, we don’t want anything to interfere with that.
Economic growth is fine to a point. Problem is measuring economic growth through the arbitrary price of a small group of companies using a market system designed for gambling rather than long-term investing. Better is to base it on the amount of goods exchanged across all levels of society. When the top has all the money and increases their stock prices by buying and selling their own stocks, and the rest can’t afford to participate in the economy beyond necessities, that’s not a good economy.
Because it’s an ad and this is spam.
I mean I don’t disagree with the headline, but the article is just an ad.
No need, just need to force them to sell their property here along with all the other rich people who are holding on to vacant property as an investment. There are plenty of homes in most places if they’d do something like double the property tax on any property that’s vacant more than a few months per year.
Because it was designed for very specific tasks. A specialized tool will always be better at the things it’s designed for. Just like a graphics card in a computer is better at processing graphics than a general use CPU even if the CPU is running at much faster speeds.
But if you didn’t care about those specific tasks or utilize those specific services, then it wasn’t that useful.
Not even religion, culture. My grandma used to wear a headscarf pretty much everywhere. She was Italian and not Muslim.
Plus, if they are being forced, then either they’re going to get beaten or murdered for taking it off, or they won’t go to school to avoid being beaten or murdered. So it doesn’t help those women either. It’s purely a far right PR stunt to appeal to people who hate Muslims.
Yeah, this is just growing pains for any website. Get popular enough for it to be “fun” to target. Then get enough data that it’s “profitable” to target. Etc. And the usual way to deal is to first use an external solution at least until it becomes too expensive due to traffic volume. Then make your own solutions for problems you can solve yourself and pay external companies for the ones you can’t.
But changing society takes waiting a generation at least. We don’t have that kind of time. People are already dying.
And yes when produced in bulk, a vegan diet can be cheaper but the meat industry is powerful and gets lots of subsidies. Plus animal products are used in lots of products other than food, so all of the industries have to change and subsidies moved to realize that savings. Right now it’s definitely cheaper to buy animal products if you do a calorie to cost comparison which is what’s important to the majority of the world. It’s only wealthy places that are concerned with low calorie foods.
So again. What’s easier/faster. Educate the young, wait for the old to die off, slowly change the industries as demand changes… Or incentivize the companies, that produce by far the majority of greenhouse gasses, to stop doing it now with their money and power to make quick changes. I mean even Walmart has shifted significantly to green energy. And not because of public opinion, because they obviously don’t care about that, it’s because it saves money.
I’m saying what is the most efficient way to save the planet. If you convince 500 people to stop eating meat vs. convince 500 CEOs to reduce wasting energy and generating pollution. Which one is likely to be helpful? I can guarantee that convincing 500 people to stop eating meat isn’t going to have any impact on climate change at all. Even 500 million switching away from meat wouldn’t have the same impact as 500 CEOs. Concentrate on the things that are both impactful and possible.
But the impact of convincing 7 billion people to change their eating habits will never be as high as convincing 500 CEOs to change the direction of their companies to use cheaper, green energy and reduce their energy usage. Plus they’d save money in the long term where as individuals will lose money. Seems like a much easier task to undertake for a government.
Ok, I think you’re not getting my point. One person cutting meat, will reduce the amount of greenhouse gases by x amount. This is the action a single person has on the earth. A fortune 500 company like let’s say Walmart, deciding to turn a single store to green energy is going to save a hell of a lot more. And that’s the decision of a single person.
So let’s instead of concentrating on convincing 7 billion people to stop eating meat, convince 500 people (CEOs of the fortune 500) to do their part to reduce energy usage or switch to green sources. Not only will it save the company money in the long term, but for the individual it will actually cost them money.
But no CEO wants to have a quarter of reduced profit building green, even if it leads to decades of increased profit. And that’s the main issue. Short term profit is all publicly traded companies care about.
Yeah, but the big difference is these are small bombs, and a ton of them, that are really difficult to detect and clear. These things can be a buried for decades, and unlike a mine field someone could have walked or driven over it a thousand times before the one time it finally goes off or gets unearthed and someone picks it up not knowing it’s about to kill or maim them. And the place they’re dropping them might not be an urban area now, but what about in 40 years? The ones the US dropped on Laos, for example, are still killing people. There are millions and millions of them still to this day.
But they all produce greenhouse gasses. And a single one of them produces way more than a person going vegan is going to save.
But one person stopping eating meat compared to one company making a change. Heck one company adding solar panels to one office building is still probably going to make a bigger difference than one person going vegan.
Yeah 4 times 0.0000000000000000000000001% of what the largest companies produce.
Vance is there so Trump can scapegoat him for handing Putin everything he wants, that’s about it.