Random Politics & Religion #00

Findland got beaten out by Myanmar...Proof Findland Sucks

How so? A CEO decides on production, supply, regional presence, investment, and other things that greatly affect the production of the company.

For instance, a CEO decides on either being a dominating presence in the southern states where there's little competition, or a significant presence in the midwest where there are some resistance with competitors, or a small part of the entire region in New England. That decision determines the actual production of the company, the price offered by their services or production, and the amount of necessary inventory (if production) or workforce needed in that region.

That decision alone contributes hundreds of millions of dollars to the GDP. And many CEOs make this type of decision in various industries all over the country.

Yes, workers contribute some value of the production, but to disclude the CEO's decision value based by your own prejudices is a little extreme.

Businesses contribute to society a whole lot more than you are willing to give credit for.

I'm not saying that. You cannot ignore China's presence in the world market and their production capacity.

The FCC is looking to do what it already does with other media. Your cynicism loses its teeth when the dire predictions you want to make haven't yet come true with the breadth of power the FCC already wields.

Meanwhile, I see no good results from leaving the 'net in the hands of monolithic American telecoms who all cooperate with each other against consumers.

I'm not saying teachers are infallible, I'm saying that you'd see more competition for the jobs from good teachers if you made it more worth their while.

I'm not discounting their contribution. I'm discounting giving them full credit for said contribution at the expense of people doing actual work.

He said "they're not do jack *** by themselves" (my emphasis). Although I could provide counter-examples of top-level executives who clearly have no clue what's going on in their companies, especially the huge multi-nationals that own a ridiculous diversity of companies (don't imagine for a second that Rupert Murdoch decides whether or not to build a Fox station in Bumfuck, Nebrahoma), the real point is that we don't get to discount the legions of people who make an executive's decisions possible.

I can walk around all day deciding that Bumfuck, Nebrahoma, really needs a Tyson Foods plant, but that decision is meaningless.

Which is why I stated that, as long as they don't go the "EPA" route, then I have no real issue with it.

Power does corrupt, and it doesn't corrupt just people.

Can't tell if this constant typo is supposed to mean something or not.

I also can't figure out why one would use GDP to judge a state. Most states don't have anything like the number of people the US has and GDP is, well, a gross number, not an adjusted per capita one. Are you deliberately trying to destabilize an argument that is already wobbly as hell?

To answer both of you at the same time:

I already excluded the production worker's contribution in my earlier statement. I still believe that some people contribute more to the GDP than some countries do.

My earlier statement against the usage of "per capita" reporting shows that it attributes part of the production to those who either cannot or refuse to contribute. Which is why I think we shouldn't use that method to determine the more productive country.

NO....Finland Sucks!/b]

What measure are you using to figure that it doesn't?

I'm curious, what do you mean by this? The "government" or the "EPA" or whatever is not some unique entity comprised of things other than people. Even if we produced truly sentient artificial intelligences, their patterns would still be based on human ones, but we're still a ways away from that point.

Remind me what the EPA has done that's so terrible. If they're the ones who administer the Endangered Species Act, which has been a ridiculous failure on multiple levels, I suppose I can see what you mean.

On the other hand, I grew up in a city that got smacked hard by the EPA in the '70s. It went from being a major steel producer to basically having no economy to speak of. The reason being that the air was literally toxic. Even though we moved there well over a decade after the steel mills shut down, my brother and I both developed asthma as a direct result of the lingering ***in the air. We can talk about how bad it sucks that Youngstown went from one of the richest small cities in the country to a place that no one in their right mind would choose to reside in, but we can also talk about the chronic lung problems and cancers that plagued the population.

I don't get why the discussion always boils down to dollars. There's more in life than the exchange of goods and services, however important that may be.

Assuming that a more productive country is somehow a relevant statistic, what do you propose to use instead? It's hardly reasonable to compare a state of 300,000,000 people to one with less than 500,000.

I'm not.

GDP as a means of measuring the effectiveness of education is a pretty esoteric (read: trying-too-hard) argument to make, though.

/gives you both atomic super wedgies

NERDS!

Not to some people.

Believing in the arts, education changes, or the benefit of others means you think too much with your feels and aren't rational.

Also, your story about Youngstown is an anecdote, and anecdotal evidence is now allowed.

*shakesfist*

Hmm. 100/100 fiber for the equivalent of 38USD/mo.

I can ignore them just fine... watch... <does so successfully>


if you google "finland leads the world in education" you come up with 30 million stories about how great finland is...

If their educational system is the greatest what the *** are they doing with it? NOTHING!

It's chicken fried ***. they're a *** TREE FARM

Spending their time less worried about making money and enjoying lives of quiet contemplation.

And heavy metal.

The FCC just gave itself the power to regulate if the need arises.



In the meantime, absolutely nothing changes. Just something new to cry about and thats it.

My only major concern is if the FCC were to use this to take it upon themselves to further expand and somehow apply censorship or some such, much as they do with television and radio.

But that seems highly unlikely.

YES BECAUSE IF THERE IS ONE THING YOU NEED TO QUIETLY CONTEMPLATE HEAVY METAL AND WATCH TREES GROW..., IT'S EDUCATION.

I haven't said this in a while.

Potato.

Finally some substance in this thread !

Does this mean faster porn for those that demand it !

Nik. Eat a Snickers.

Years of legal battles sure to ensue from this !

There are no checks/balances in regards to group corruption. Especially like minded individuals who's purpose is to save the endangered dodo bird (that's already extinct).

Cap and trade additional regulations, out of the wazoo.

Original regulation was fine as it was. But every single amendment was either to add revenue (in terms of fines) to the government or to impose new caps to businesses that are already exceeding the old recommendations, and the new regulations just increased the limit by a marginal amount.


Good, that company needed to be shut down. I'm not against the EPA's original goal, I'm against the new EPA's extended goals of revenue raising by excessive regulations.

Also, I was raised in a city that had a major steel mill too, and never has the air been toxic, because that steel mill was responsible for the community and kept their mills at the best condition possible. They have been lauded as one of the cleanest mills in the world. Their pollution is well above the EPA standards, and yet, in 2014, they were assessed by the EPA $900,000 in fines just for existing.

Is that an acceptable fine in your mind? How would you like to be fined $XXX amount of money from a government agency just for living?

Overall production instead of per capita, since per capita favors smaller countries more than higher producing countries in that standard.

Government regulating the internet nothing could possibly go wrong from that... wait a minute Comcast that was my ISP you maniacs blew it up damn you damn you all to hell !

Drones in France... funny because they are unable to track them down, or scary because they have been seen spying on various place where terroristic actions could have great symbolic impact? (Nuclear power plants, president's Palace ect.)

Edit: of course the first mistakenly caught ones were Al-Jazeera journalists