Yes, the poor in England really will appreciate this additional kicking. I actually don't understand what has to happen to someone for them to be able to disassociate from normality like this.
The poor in England won't be getting an additional kicking from because it will have barely any impact on them, but even if they couldn't buy crappy sausages which barely have anything you'd describe as meat in them, it would be good for them as even cheaper food like beans is far more healthy for them, and their finances.
One of the unspoken benefits of paying OSS projects is that you then attract the money motivated rather than the ideologically or politically movement. That has value in and of itself.
Fixing it here would mean acknowledging that you cannot run an entire continent of different peoples, languages and cultures (which affect priorities, such as climate be economy) using one central entity.
The NHS has been unable to send an ambulance to me in two separate cases in which the operator confirmed I was high priority.
5 years apart. Once in York, once in Bedfordshire.
But it doesn’t matter —- it’s anecdata.
The NHS has a lot of data available. Some is public, some available only to those that have a commercial relationship with them.
There are areas in which the NHS is exceptional — generally those areas which require no personalisation of care and a mass-production style of work (e.g. cervical smear tests and their associated health outcomes) - and then there are the many areas in which it really is appalling.
Lionising the NHS doesn’t help it. Opening discussing its faults does.
In fact, the level of effort required to estimate electricity uses for multiple franchises on one physical section of railway has resulted in nearly all British rolling stock having built-in electricity metering.
You genuinely think a carbon tax would cost more than all the other costs associated with flying an empty plane? Pilots, cabin crew, ground services, fuel, depreciation of the aircraft, landing fees, ATC service fees, etc?
It wouldn’t be. The massive cost already isn’t stopping it.
Capitalism means different things to different people and in different contexts.
Separation of ownership from management. Tradeable claims on the firm. Legal personhood of the firm. Private property. Free trade between countries. Market determined prices.
But it’s lazy and wrong to use it as a synonym for greed. Despite Gordon Gecko, greed is not good. Just seeing something we consider bad and saying “Capitalism” is a pose and not an argument.
It doesnt forbid but it strongly inhibits. A system under which you are able to acquire vast resources then creates the ability to use those vast resources to sway the political process in your favor.
Even when the regulations exist (e.g. antitrust) regulatory capture will inhibit their enforcement.
It's surprising how many people consider this process to be somehow irrelevant or out of scope when you analyze how capitalism functions. It's a core feature.
This just isn’t true. Every social species found in the wild relies on brutal social regulating behaviors that maintain social conditions necessary for group survival.
Objectively not wrong, but self-evidently relative. Of course, if you somehow believe an entire society of exploiters is coherent, then maybe it seems rational to think hard work can infinitely “pay off.” But if you account for the need of exploiters to have somebody to exploit, then the idea doesn’t seem so sound.
