Hillary won more votes for President
Comments
-
well ... i don't really like the use of the term force ...benjs said:
I wholeheartedly agree with this, so how do we force government to intervene when our obligations to our planet aren't being met by businesspeople?polaris_x said:
sustainability by definition denotes long term health ... it's not that I don't understand the notion of business interests - it's just that what I am saying is that it is flawed ... it's a system that is designed to allow the rich to get richer without factoring the consequences ... when you look at the metrics businesses operate by (growth, roi, head count, etc...) - what if any, satisfies what is really needed in our society!? ... at the end of the day, people need food, water and shelter ... how can we sustain a system that ensures everyone has reasonable access to that? ... by having a system where corporations are beholden to shareholders who operate on a notion that cutting head count drives the stock up so therefore, that is what must happen? ...benjs said:
I'm not trying to deny the correlation between environmental sustainability and economic sustainability: I suppose what I'm trying to say is that environmentalists and economists have by and large failed at showing that long-term (environmental sustainability) and short-term (economic sustainability) can both be attained - the optimal blend has not been met. It's like a game of tug of war, when instead the two parties should be pushing forward in trying to integrate the two ideals better.polaris_x said:
Yes except economic sustainability IS tied to environmental sustainability ... your rational is correct however that is not the rationale being applied to our so called economy ... our current economy rewards short term exploitation rather than long term sustainability ... both economic and environmental ...benjs said:
TRUNCATEDpolaris_x said:
I would also make sure that the farm is long-term viable: i.e. does my current production rate of my farm maintain nutrient-rich soil, or is my (resource regeneration) to (resource consumption) rate trending down when investigated over longer timespans? This is harder to isolate the causality relationships, and there are certainly unrelated variables contributing to the nutrient levels, but ultimately, it's the whole that matters - not one variable. So my KPI would be overall resource reproduction vitality.
I should say that while responsible resource extraction is vital for agriculture production or any resource-finite industry, our economies are more than that: we possess other industries based on infinite resources - knowledge, creativity, vanity, human services. My point is that our economic KPIs are multiple other KPIs summed together. We should absolutely be concerned with our overall finite resource reproduction vitality, as these resources are fundamentally necessary for life. We should also be concerned with our overall infinite resource industries, as they can often introduce new, positive variables into our finite resource reproduction. Injecting research and development funds into these critical non- or semi-renewable realms will help drive our future, but a holistic view recognizing the value of short-term economic growth - necessary for ideating in innovative ways - will help us pave the way too. I think for most, the Green Party platform represents a great deal of care and concern for environmental sustainability (resource protection), and not enough attention to economic sustainability (initiatives not directly related to resource production/consumption). The Democratic and Republican parties, unfortunately, are greatly skewed towards economic sustainability, and less so with regards to environmental sustainability.
Does any of this make sense or is my latest batch too good for conversations like this?
apple posted record profits last year and the stock went down because it didn't meet analysts forecasts ... how fucked is that? ... imagine a world where the value of the stock was tied into a company's ability to pay fair wages; maintain a long term viable economic model; contributes to the community at large; etc?
I'm proposing for environmentalists to gain a better understanding of business' need for accountability, either to management teams, employees, or shareholders, through short-term ROI, and for economists to gain a better understanding of humans' needs for long-term accountability to ourselves, in terms of not exploiting non- or semi-renewable resources, and seeking out opportunities to replace demand for non-renewable resources, with renewable ones.
As for Apple and record profits - I don't really care what analysts say. Especially with Apple, you get such polarizing analyses, and very few of them are actually pragmatic and holistic. I think a metric that's much more important than how Apple did compared to what some guy thinks they should've been able to do - is change per change per time - a company's acceleration or deceleration in its acquisition of momentum. And actually, with this metric, it's very possible to see year over year profit decreases but still have a net positive scenario for acquiring momentum (or decreasing negative momentum). I also see a company like Apple, whose retail facilities are running 98% on renewable energy, as not doing this exclusively out of the goodness of their hearts: supply and demand rules dictate that non-renewable energy will inevitably increase in price, as we hit or approach peak oil, and as such, an investment in renewable energy and infrastructure is certain to be a positive one - so long as you can educate your shareholders on that topic.
I believe that, if managed properly, there can be a symbiotic relationship between economic success and environmental success.
it's a fraud ... and the results are clear ...
i just think there are some constructs that need to be shattered ... similar to how we've dealt with human rights issues - we need to rethink the whole economic concept ... ultimately, it starts with our value system both as people and as gov'ts - we should be supporting as best as possible businesses that best reflect values that will sustain our economy justly and fairly ... in turn, gov'ts need to stop catering to corporations that do not provide that social value for us ... we also, need to factor the consequences of our decision making ... the so called triple bottom line is a start ...0 -
She said "are". why else would I post this?Gern Blansten said:If someone tells you she says "we are" then I could see where you might here that...obviously whoever posted the video had that intention
Read her lips...."aren't"
And look at her supporters... They applaud any away, meaning they don't even listen to what she says.0 -
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make though. Even if she did say "are", that isn't her actual platform, it was a verbal mistake, so who cares? I agree it's weird that the crowd applauds, as I mentioned, but it's not like they were applauding for raising taxes for the middle class. They are applauding either because they just assumed she meant "are" (which she did), or because they are confused and just did the norm (it does sound like confused applause), or because they weren't even really listening, haha. In any case, did you post it because you thought it was funny that it sounds like she says raise taxes for the middle class?Free said:
She said "are". why else would I post this?Gern Blansten said:If someone tells you she says "we are" then I could see where you might here that...obviously whoever posted the video had that intention
Read her lips...."aren't"
And look at her supporters... They applaud any away, meaning they don't even listen to what she says.Post edited by PJ_Soul onWith all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
It was funny. Lighten up.PJ_Soul said:
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make though. Even if she did say "are", that isn't her actual platform, it was a verbal mistake, so who cares? I agree it's weird that the crowd applauds, as I mentioned, but it's not like they were applauding for raising taxes for the middle class. They are applauding either because they just assumed she meant "are" (which she did), or because they are confused and just did the norm (it does sound like confused applause), or because they weren't even really listening, haha. In any case, did you post it because you thought it was funny that it sounds like she says raise taxes for the middle class?Free said:
She said "are". why else would I post this?Gern Blansten said:If someone tells you she says "we are" then I could see where you might here that...obviously whoever posted the video had that intention
Read her lips...."aren't"
And look at her supporters... They applaud any away, meaning they don't even listen to what she says.0 -
What, are you fuckin' serious? Okay, NOW I'm laughing, that you said that!!Free said:
It was funny. Lighten up.PJ_Soul said:
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make though. Even if she did say "are", that isn't her actual platform, it was a verbal mistake, so who cares? I agree it's weird that the crowd applauds, as I mentioned, but it's not like they were applauding for raising taxes for the middle class. They are applauding either because they just assumed she meant "are" (which she did), or because they are confused and just did the norm (it does sound like confused applause), or because they weren't even really listening, haha. In any case, did you post it because you thought it was funny that it sounds like she says raise taxes for the middle class?Free said:
She said "are". why else would I post this?Gern Blansten said:If someone tells you she says "we are" then I could see where you might here that...obviously whoever posted the video had that intention
Read her lips...."aren't"
And look at her supporters... They applaud any away, meaning they don't even listen to what she says. With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
Has anyone told you that you overanalyze things?PJ_Soul said:
What, are you fuckin' serious? Okay, NOW I'm laughing, that you said that!!Free said:
It was funny. Lighten up.PJ_Soul said:
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make though. Even if she did say "are", that isn't her actual platform, it was a verbal mistake, so who cares? I agree it's weird that the crowd applauds, as I mentioned, but it's not like they were applauding for raising taxes for the middle class. They are applauding either because they just assumed she meant "are" (which she did), or because they are confused and just did the norm (it does sound like confused applause), or because they weren't even really listening, haha. In any case, did you post it because you thought it was funny that it sounds like she says raise taxes for the middle class?Free said:
She said "are". why else would I post this?Gern Blansten said:If someone tells you she says "we are" then I could see where you might here that...obviously whoever posted the video had that intention
Read her lips...."aren't"
And look at her supporters... They applaud any away, meaning they don't even listen to what she says.0 -
Beats under-analyzing things!Free said:
Has anyone told you that you overanalyze things?PJ_Soul said:
What, are you fuckin' serious? Okay, NOW I'm laughing, that you said that!!Free said:
It was funny. Lighten up.PJ_Soul said:
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make though. Even if she did say "are", that isn't her actual platform, it was a verbal mistake, so who cares? I agree it's weird that the crowd applauds, as I mentioned, but it's not like they were applauding for raising taxes for the middle class. They are applauding either because they just assumed she meant "are" (which she did), or because they are confused and just did the norm (it does sound like confused applause), or because they weren't even really listening, haha. In any case, did you post it because you thought it was funny that it sounds like she says raise taxes for the middle class?Free said:
She said "are". why else would I post this?Gern Blansten said:If someone tells you she says "we are" then I could see where you might here that...obviously whoever posted the video had that intention
Read her lips...."aren't"
And look at her supporters... They applaud any away, meaning they don't even listen to what she says.'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 10 -
True dat. Yet, viewing the world simply has a lot to be said for it.benjs said:
Beats under-analyzing things!Free said:
Has anyone told you that you overanalyze things?PJ_Soul said:
What, are you fuckin' serious? Okay, NOW I'm laughing, that you said that!!Free said:
It was funny. Lighten up.PJ_Soul said:
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make though. Even if she did say "are", that isn't her actual platform, it was a verbal mistake, so who cares? I agree it's weird that the crowd applauds, as I mentioned, but it's not like they were applauding for raising taxes for the middle class. They are applauding either because they just assumed she meant "are" (which she did), or because they are confused and just did the norm (it does sound like confused applause), or because they weren't even really listening, haha. In any case, did you post it because you thought it was funny that it sounds like she says raise taxes for the middle class?Free said:
She said "are". why else would I post this?Gern Blansten said:If someone tells you she says "we are" then I could see where you might here that...obviously whoever posted the video had that intention
Read her lips...."aren't"
And look at her supporters... They applaud any away, meaning they don't even listen to what she says.Post edited by Free on0 -
Hey all, be sure to visit the "Will you people get SERIOUS here for a second!! :-(" thread.
It's go-o-o-o-o-d for ya!
"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
You know lawyers they look out for each other.....
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/27/hillary-clinton-loves-idea-obama-supreme-court/
Peace*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)0 -
She said aren't. Listen for it.Free said:
She said "are". why else would I post this?Gern Blansten said:If someone tells you she says "we are" then I could see where you might here that...obviously whoever posted the video had that intention
Read her lips...."aren't"
And look at her supporters... They applaud any away, meaning they don't even listen to what she says.Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt20 -
-
Everybody say, "Fuck yeah".PJ_Soul said:
What, are you fuckin' serious? Okay, NOW I'm laughing, that you said that!!Free said:
It was funny. Lighten up.PJ_Soul said:
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make though. Even if she did say "are", that isn't her actual platform, it was a verbal mistake, so who cares? I agree it's weird that the crowd applauds, as I mentioned, but it's not like they were applauding for raising taxes for the middle class. They are applauding either because they just assumed she meant "are" (which she did), or because they are confused and just did the norm (it does sound like confused applause), or because they weren't even really listening, haha. In any case, did you post it because you thought it was funny that it sounds like she says raise taxes for the middle class?Free said:
She said "are". why else would I post this?Gern Blansten said:If someone tells you she says "we are" then I could see where you might here that...obviously whoever posted the video had that intention
Read her lips...."aren't"
And look at her supporters... They applaud any away, meaning they don't even listen to what she says.
Fuck yeah!!"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
i for one would welcome this appointment.g under p said:You know lawyers they look out for each other.....
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/27/hillary-clinton-loves-idea-obama-supreme-court/
Peace"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."0 -
.Post edited by OffSheGoes35 on0
-
I'd like to jump on this one..polaris_x said:
Yes except economic sustainability IS tied to environmental sustainability ... your rational is correct however that is not the rationale being applied to our so called economy ... our current economy rewards short term exploitation rather than long term sustainability ... both economic and environmental ...benjs said:
I believe in comparing absolute results to theoretically potential results, and thus judging and enhancing the efficiency of your processes.polaris_x said:
let's go back to my farm example ... say you lived on a farm with a commune of people ... and that farm had to sustain you and everyone else in perpetuity ... what metrics would you use? ... YOY growth!? ... maximum yield? ... that wouldn't make any sense ...mrussel1 said:
To Benjs's point, unemployment is not the only factor, but it is a key KPI for sure. What else would you use? I'm fairly certain you can come up with precious few that aren't being evaluated already today. If you can, well then you ought to head right over to the Fed or CBO and get a job.polaris_x said:the economy and all its metrics is the biggest fraud out there ... everything is based on "growth" ... the sky is falling if we don't have growth ... we have corporations that make decisions based on shareholder or stock value ... the concept of sustainability is lost on everyone ... and I'm not even just talking about the environment ... the antiquated conditions by which decisions are made do not translate as an indicator of the "health" of a nation ...
how someone can use the unemployment rate as a measure of how "great" everything is just shows how irrational the thinking is ... those stats are manipulated into making people feel like everything is ok ... when everything points to utter failure ...
I would make sure that the farm is short-term economically viable: i.e. are my crops (either immediately harvested or reserved/preserved surplus from previous harvests) producing economically sustainable situations for me in the year I depend on my land? I would say that this is my survival metric: do I generate enough profit to live off of my work? With an agrarian lifestyle this might be easy to measure, but of course given that every city costs a different amount to live in, food prices vary greatly, house prices vary greatly, extravagance of life varies greatly, you'd have to first define your cost of living, define what a reasonable cost of living is for your region, and then your KPI might be (Cost of living) to (Earnings) ratio. If the per capita ratio is below what is deemed 'short-term sustainable' for the region, this would be a net-negative short-term economic scenario.
I would make sure that the farm is not wasted in the short-term, and yes, if the theoretical yield limits of my crops are greater than my realized yields, I would make sure that I am attempting to drive the realized yield towards that theoretical yield limit (so long as that trend does not conflict with the soil's ability to regenerate its nutrients). So, soil should either be regenerating nutrients or used for high-efficiency production. You have two KPIs here, and the optimal mix would depend on your rates, but the first is resource regeneration rate (the resource being nutrients in your soil - containing energy to create economic product), and your second is resource consumption rate (the actual conversion from energy to economic product). Of course, a good rule of thumb would be that your resource regeneration rate should, at the very least, equal your resource consumption rate on a short-term basis, in order to serve the short-term sustainability check.
I would also make sure that the farm is long-term viable: i.e. does my current production rate of my farm maintain nutrient-rich soil, or is my (resource regeneration) to (resource consumption) rate trending down when investigated over longer timespans? This is harder to isolate the causality relationships, and there are certainly unrelated variables contributing to the nutrient levels, but ultimately, it's the whole that matters - not one variable. So my KPI would be overall resource reproduction vitality.
I should say that while responsible resource extraction is vital for agriculture production or any resource-finite industry, our economies are more than that: we possess other industries based on infinite resources - knowledge, creativity, vanity, human services. My point is that our economic KPIs are multiple other KPIs summed together. We should absolutely be concerned with our overall finite resource reproduction vitality, as these resources are fundamentally necessary for life. We should also be concerned with our overall infinite resource industries, as they can often introduce new, positive variables into our finite resource reproduction. Injecting research and development funds into these critical non- or semi-renewable realms will help drive our future, but a holistic view recognizing the value of short-term economic growth - necessary for ideating in innovative ways - will help us pave the way too. I think for most, the Green Party platform represents a great deal of care and concern for environmental sustainability (resource protection), and not enough attention to economic sustainability (initiatives not directly related to resource production/consumption). The Democratic and Republican parties, unfortunately, are greatly skewed towards economic sustainability, and less so with regards to environmental sustainability.
Does any of this make sense or is my latest batch too good for conversations like this?
apple posted record profits last year and the stock went down because it didn't meet analysts forecasts ... how fucked is that? ... imagine a world where the value of the stock was tied into a company's ability to pay fair wages; maintain a long term viable economic model; contributes to the community at large; etc?
1. The price for Apple has their forecasted profit priced into the stock valuation. So when a company does not meet its forecast, or the analyst forecast, then it's going to take a hit. It's that simple. That's not fucked up, that is a basic market tenet, you buy the rumor, sell the news. If you are buying a stock based on its latest earnings, you missed the boat.
2. There are indecies for precisely what you are seeking. They are called SRIs.. Or socially responsible indecies. The managers of these funds only invest in companies that have strong employee relationships, commitment to renewable energy, etc. They have tracked closely to the S&P average over the past 20 years.
0 -
1. So, analysts set a forecasted profit margin and the stock price is set for that ... so, corporations are beholden to meet those margins ... so, what do they do in order to try and meet them? ... they cut costs (could be labour, could be screwing over partners, could be using cheaper materials, could be sourcing from suspect suppliers) ... think about it for a second ... nowhere in that stock price is the consideration of protecting our natural resources, ensuring fair wages, ensuring human rights ... it is indeed fucked up ... the system is extremely fucked up ...mrussel1 said:
I'd like to jump on this one..polaris_x said:
Yes except economic sustainability IS tied to environmental sustainability ... your rational is correct however that is not the rationale being applied to our so called economy ... our current economy rewards short term exploitation rather than long term sustainability ... both economic and environmental ...benjs said:
I believe in comparing absolute results to theoretically potential results, and thus judging and enhancing the efficiency of your processes.polaris_x said:
let's go back to my farm example ... say you lived on a farm with a commune of people ... and that farm had to sustain you and everyone else in perpetuity ... what metrics would you use? ... YOY growth!? ... maximum yield? ... that wouldn't make any sense ...mrussel1 said:
To Benjs's point, unemployment is not the only factor, but it is a key KPI for sure. What else would you use? I'm fairly certain you can come up with precious few that aren't being evaluated already today. If you can, well then you ought to head right over to the Fed or CBO and get a job.polaris_x said:the economy and all its metrics is the biggest fraud out there ... everything is based on "growth" ... the sky is falling if we don't have growth ... we have corporations that make decisions based on shareholder or stock value ... the concept of sustainability is lost on everyone ... and I'm not even just talking about the environment ... the antiquated conditions by which decisions are made do not translate as an indicator of the "health" of a nation ...
how someone can use the unemployment rate as a measure of how "great" everything is just shows how irrational the thinking is ... those stats are manipulated into making people feel like everything is ok ... when everything points to utter failure ...
I would make sure that the farm is short-term economically viable: i.e. are my crops (either immediately harvested or reserved/preserved surplus from previous harvests) producing economically sustainable situations for me in the year I depend on my land? I would say that this is my survival metric: do I generate enough profit to live off of my work? With an agrarian lifestyle this might be easy to measure, but of course given that every city costs a different amount to live in, food prices vary greatly, house prices vary greatly, extravagance of life varies greatly, you'd have to first define your cost of living, define what a reasonable cost of living is for your region, and then your KPI might be (Cost of living) to (Earnings) ratio. If the per capita ratio is below what is deemed 'short-term sustainable' for the region, this would be a net-negative short-term economic scenario.
I would make sure that the farm is not wasted in the short-term, and yes, if the theoretical yield limits of my crops are greater than my realized yields, I would make sure that I am attempting to drive the realized yield towards that theoretical yield limit (so long as that trend does not conflict with the soil's ability to regenerate its nutrients). So, soil should either be regenerating nutrients or used for high-efficiency production. You have two KPIs here, and the optimal mix would depend on your rates, but the first is resource regeneration rate (the resource being nutrients in your soil - containing energy to create economic product), and your second is resource consumption rate (the actual conversion from energy to economic product). Of course, a good rule of thumb would be that your resource regeneration rate should, at the very least, equal your resource consumption rate on a short-term basis, in order to serve the short-term sustainability check.
I would also make sure that the farm is long-term viable: i.e. does my current production rate of my farm maintain nutrient-rich soil, or is my (resource regeneration) to (resource consumption) rate trending down when investigated over longer timespans? This is harder to isolate the causality relationships, and there are certainly unrelated variables contributing to the nutrient levels, but ultimately, it's the whole that matters - not one variable. So my KPI would be overall resource reproduction vitality.
I should say that while responsible resource extraction is vital for agriculture production or any resource-finite industry, our economies are more than that: we possess other industries based on infinite resources - knowledge, creativity, vanity, human services. My point is that our economic KPIs are multiple other KPIs summed together. We should absolutely be concerned with our overall finite resource reproduction vitality, as these resources are fundamentally necessary for life. We should also be concerned with our overall infinite resource industries, as they can often introduce new, positive variables into our finite resource reproduction. Injecting research and development funds into these critical non- or semi-renewable realms will help drive our future, but a holistic view recognizing the value of short-term economic growth - necessary for ideating in innovative ways - will help us pave the way too. I think for most, the Green Party platform represents a great deal of care and concern for environmental sustainability (resource protection), and not enough attention to economic sustainability (initiatives not directly related to resource production/consumption). The Democratic and Republican parties, unfortunately, are greatly skewed towards economic sustainability, and less so with regards to environmental sustainability.
Does any of this make sense or is my latest batch too good for conversations like this?
apple posted record profits last year and the stock went down because it didn't meet analysts forecasts ... how fucked is that? ... imagine a world where the value of the stock was tied into a company's ability to pay fair wages; maintain a long term viable economic model; contributes to the community at large; etc?
1. The price for Apple has their forecasted profit priced into the stock valuation. So when a company does not meet its forecast, or the analyst forecast, then it's going to take a hit. It's that simple. That's not fucked up, that is a basic market tenet, you buy the rumor, sell the news. If you are buying a stock based on its latest earnings, you missed the boat.
2. There are indecies for precisely what you are seeking. They are called SRIs.. Or socially responsible indecies. The managers of these funds only invest in companies that have strong employee relationships, commitment to renewable energy, etc. They have tracked closely to the S&P average over the past 20 years.
2. I know about these ... they are a joke ... they represent a nano fraction of the investment community and even that - most of these funds are laden with unsustainable companies ...0 -
That's an interesting paradox. You want there to be some valuation for social responsibility, but you deride those companies that try to achieve that as unsustainable.polaris_x said:
1. So, analysts set a forecasted profit margin and the stock price is set for that ... so, corporations are beholden to meet those margins ... so, what do they do in order to try and meet them? ... they cut costs (could be labour, could be screwing over partners, could be using cheaper materials, could be sourcing from suspect suppliers) ... think about it for a second ... nowhere in that stock price is the consideration of protecting our natural resources, ensuring fair wages, ensuring human rights ... it is indeed fucked up ... the system is extremely fucked up ...mrussel1 said:
I'd like to jump on this one..polaris_x said:
Yes except economic sustainability IS tied to environmental sustainability ... your rational is correct however that is not the rationale being applied to our so called economy ... our current economy rewards short term exploitation rather than long term sustainability ... both economic and environmental ...benjs said:
I believe in comparing absolute results to theoretically potential results, and thus judging and enhancing the efficiency of your processes.polaris_x said:
let's go back to my farm example ... say you lived on a farm with a commune of people ... and that farm had to sustain you and everyone else in perpetuity ... what metrics would you use? ... YOY growth!? ... maximum yield? ... that wouldn't make any sense ...mrussel1 said:
To Benjs's point, unemployment is not the only factor, but it is a key KPI for sure. What else would you use? I'm fairly certain you can come up with precious few that aren't being evaluated already today. If you can, well then you ought to head right over to the Fed or CBO and get a job.polaris_x said:the economy and all its metrics is the biggest fraud out there ... everything is based on "growth" ... the sky is falling if we don't have growth ... we have corporations that make decisions based on shareholder or stock value ... the concept of sustainability is lost on everyone ... and I'm not even just talking about the environment ... the antiquated conditions by which decisions are made do not translate as an indicator of the "health" of a nation ...
how someone can use the unemployment rate as a measure of how "great" everything is just shows how irrational the thinking is ... those stats are manipulated into making people feel like everything is ok ... when everything points to utter failure ...
I would make sure that the farm is short-term economically viable: i.e. are my crops (either immediately harvested or reserved/preserved surplus from previous harvests) producing economically sustainable situations for me in the year I depend on my land? I would say that this is my survival metric: do I generate enough profit to live off of my work? With an agrarian lifestyle this might be easy to measure, but of course given that every city costs a different amount to live in, food prices vary greatly, house prices vary greatly, extravagance of life varies greatly, you'd have to first define your cost of living, define what a reasonable cost of living is for your region, and then your KPI might be (Cost of living) to (Earnings) ratio. If the per capita ratio is below what is deemed 'short-term sustainable' for the region, this would be a net-negative short-term economic scenario.
I would make sure that the farm is not wasted in the short-term, and yes, if the theoretical yield limits of my crops are greater than my realized yields, I would make sure that I am attempting to drive the realized yield towards that theoretical yield limit (so long as that trend does not conflict with the soil's ability to regenerate its nutrients). So, soil should either be regenerating nutrients or used for high-efficiency production. You have two KPIs here, and the optimal mix would depend on your rates, but the first is resource regeneration rate (the resource being nutrients in your soil - containing energy to create economic product), and your second is resource consumption rate (the actual conversion from energy to economic product). Of course, a good rule of thumb would be that your resource regeneration rate should, at the very least, equal your resource consumption rate on a short-term basis, in order to serve the short-term sustainability check.
I would also make sure that the farm is long-term viable: i.e. does my current production rate of my farm maintain nutrient-rich soil, or is my (resource regeneration) to (resource consumption) rate trending down when investigated over longer timespans? This is harder to isolate the causality relationships, and there are certainly unrelated variables contributing to the nutrient levels, but ultimately, it's the whole that matters - not one variable. So my KPI would be overall resource reproduction vitality.
I should say that while responsible resource extraction is vital for agriculture production or any resource-finite industry, our economies are more than that: we possess other industries based on infinite resources - knowledge, creativity, vanity, human services. My point is that our economic KPIs are multiple other KPIs summed together. We should absolutely be concerned with our overall finite resource reproduction vitality, as these resources are fundamentally necessary for life. We should also be concerned with our overall infinite resource industries, as they can often introduce new, positive variables into our finite resource reproduction. Injecting research and development funds into these critical non- or semi-renewable realms will help drive our future, but a holistic view recognizing the value of short-term economic growth - necessary for ideating in innovative ways - will help us pave the way too. I think for most, the Green Party platform represents a great deal of care and concern for environmental sustainability (resource protection), and not enough attention to economic sustainability (initiatives not directly related to resource production/consumption). The Democratic and Republican parties, unfortunately, are greatly skewed towards economic sustainability, and less so with regards to environmental sustainability.
Does any of this make sense or is my latest batch too good for conversations like this?
apple posted record profits last year and the stock went down because it didn't meet analysts forecasts ... how fucked is that? ... imagine a world where the value of the stock was tied into a company's ability to pay fair wages; maintain a long term viable economic model; contributes to the community at large; etc?
1. The price for Apple has their forecasted profit priced into the stock valuation. So when a company does not meet its forecast, or the analyst forecast, then it's going to take a hit. It's that simple. That's not fucked up, that is a basic market tenet, you buy the rumor, sell the news. If you are buying a stock based on its latest earnings, you missed the boat.
2. There are indecies for precisely what you are seeking. They are called SRIs.. Or socially responsible indecies. The managers of these funds only invest in companies that have strong employee relationships, commitment to renewable energy, etc. They have tracked closely to the S&P average over the past 20 years.
2. I know about these ... they are a joke ... they represent a nano fraction of the investment community and even that - most of these funds are laden with unsustainable companies ...
0 -
Interesting....
Prominent Clinton Researcher Author Victor Thorn found dead of apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound
note–at this point the info is scant, but the ‘official’ story is that Victor apparently took his own life.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help