I immediately dislike calling it commerce for 3 reasons:
I think I will try saying “regulated capitalism” from now on and see if it works better.
Yeah, the terminology around this kinda sucks. I always have an issue with whether I should call it capitalism or not when I mean a heavily regulated version of it, including some social policies.
I just don’t know a better word for it and it is difficult to concisely express what I mean without saying capitalism and hoping people figure out what I mean from context.
Sorry if it is unclear, I am saying CGB Gray explains how corruption happens in leadership structures and why it is so difficult to prevent.
The opinion that this is why capitalism can work better than communism is entirely my own logical conclusion. I am not trying to claim CGP Gray said so.
Again sorry for the confusion.
CGP gray very specifically refers to democracies as well and explains how things like farm subsidies are used to buy votes. Maybe re-watch the videos.
And yes, CGP gray also indirectly explains why Marxists kept pumping resources into the government, police and bureaucracy. (Clarification: CGP Gray never mentions Marxists specifically, he just explains why leaders have to funnel resources to areas that help them stay in power.) It is inevitable in a system where you concentrate power in a limited group of people.
That is why distributing power between large number of independent capitalists and voters is the system that so far worked best, although still very far from perfect.
As long as humans behave like humans and are in charge, the utopian communism is as realistic as wizards in flying castles.
It is the opposite. In capitalism, there is at least a chance a good person has some power because power is distributed, not only held by governments. There are multiple examples in the main post. Even better examples are European countries where the government and businesses hold each other in check instead of govt being bought off legally like in the US.
In communism, the way power is distributed ensures corrupt people raise to the top. See an amazing video “rule for rulers” by CGP gray for a simplified explanation how that corruption works and why a good person can’t hold power.
In all leadership positions, period. Capitalist or communist. Democratic or autocratic. Does not matter, those that are not held back by their morals have an advantage.
Almost, yes. It should be close enough as an estimate.
If you want to be precise, one thing you want to be careful about is that not every fuel releases the same amount of energy per kg of CO2. So you should be comparing to the CO2 released by whatever is being replaced by the biofuel (most likely fossil fuel), not the biofuel itself.
Another consideration is how much CO2 is released by the production of the biofuel compared to what it is replacing. Since farming equipment, transportation etc. all could produce CO2.
A very good question.
It is a very common misconception that trees and plants just always absorb CO2. The Carbon © in CO2 does not just disappear when plants produce Oxygen (O2). Plants use it as material to grow themselves and their fruits. Once they are fully grown, they don’t really absorb any more. So if you burn a tree in a fireplace and grow a new tree in its place, the new tree will eventually re-capture all the CO2 burning the wood released as it grows. This works even better with fast growing plants used for biofuel. The CO2 released by burning biofuel is re-captured when you grow more plants to make more biofuel.
So chopping down a forest to create fields is bad in the short term since it releases and does not recapture the CO2 from the trees, but is sustainable in the long term since you “recycle” the same Carbon.
I feel like CrowdStrike did some much groundbreakingly stupid shit that this term will be too ambiguous…
deleted by creator
Sad. In a way, it is amazing that The Sims 3 is 15 years old now and still, no game is able to match it.
Two reasons:
I agree, but on the other hand 12 years? This sounds more like a 12 days crime…
*Orcas are nice dolphins
… and you have a strange way of arguing your point.
That’s the issue, I am not arguing any point other than the main post is misleading. US gun laws are absolutely stupid. You desperately need a reform. I never disagreed with that. Sure, more people die of heart disease but that is much harder to fix than gun laws.
You are just projecting shit onto my comments that was never there and then get confused when I don’t disagree in the way you expect.
Yeah, deleted the comment immediately when I realized it was poorly written. My stupid habit of pressing send before proof reading.
That being said, you may want to read again yours as well. Since when does calling lies lies means I support anything?
Oh no, kids are dying. Quickly tell everyone nothing ever happened in Tiananmen Square because spreading misinformation will help apparently.
Surely only people who want kids dead would point out misinformation. /s
deleted by creator
It says “a leading cause”, not “the leading cause”. Depending on how long your list of leading causes is, anything could qualify.
English is not my native language but this sounds like it should not be a thing. Sounds like it was made for con artists…
Netherlands? Switzerland? Norway?
Like sure, there always is some corruption but relatively insignificant amount.
Honestly, I can’t think of an EU country that is anywhere near the US levels of “corrupted by capitalism”.
What? Top? What do you mean?