Yea, it's impossible to support somebody without being a sheep. We get it.
i don't think it's so much being a sheep as it is ... that the reasons some are voting for Clinton is to make sure Trump doesn't win ... that's a poor rationale to vote for the supposed leader of the free world ... then telling people who strive for a different ideal that they have to support her using fear mongering ...
Why is that a poor rationale? As a voter, if neither candidate is someone I like, why not vote for someone as a vote against someone? Why is that not acceptable?
Yea, it's impossible to support somebody without being a sheep. We get it.
i don't think it's so much being a sheep as it is ... that the reasons some are voting for Clinton is to make sure Trump doesn't win ... that's a poor rationale to vote for the supposed leader of the free world ... then telling people who strive for a different ideal that they have to support her using fear mongering ...
Why is that a poor rationale? As a voter, if neither candidate is someone I like, why not vote for someone as a vote against someone? Why is that not acceptable?
Did I say it was unacceptable!? I don't believe I did. I understand it wholly and do not begrudge anyone who feels that way.
But for me - the end game will never be reached continuing this cycle. It's just not going to change with this form of democracy where the choices are based on dollars and the decision is based on the lesser of two evils.
Yea, it's impossible to support somebody without being a sheep. We get it.
i don't think it's so much being a sheep as it is ... that the reasons some are voting for Clinton is to make sure Trump doesn't win ... that's a poor rationale to vote for the supposed leader of the free world ... then telling people who strive for a different ideal that they have to support her using fear mongering ...
Why is that a poor rationale? As a voter, if neither candidate is someone I like, why not vote for someone as a vote against someone? Why is that not acceptable?
Did I say it was unacceptable!? I don't believe I did. I understand it wholly and do not begrudge anyone who feels that way.
But for me - the end game will never be reached continuing this cycle. It's just not going to change with this form of democracy where the choices are based on dollars and the decision is based on the lesser of two evils.
No, you said it was poor rationale, I added unacceptable.
will myself to find a home, a home within myself we will find a way, we will find our place
Yea, it's impossible to support somebody without being a sheep. We get it.
i don't think it's so much being a sheep as it is ... that the reasons some are voting for Clinton is to make sure Trump doesn't win ... that's a poor rationale to vote for the supposed leader of the free world ... then telling people who strive for a different ideal that they have to support her using fear mongering ...
Why is that a poor rationale? As a voter, if neither candidate is someone I like, why not vote for someone as a vote against someone? Why is that not acceptable?
Did I say it was unacceptable!? I don't believe I did. I understand it wholly and do not begrudge anyone who feels that way.
But for me - the end game will never be reached continuing this cycle. It's just not going to change with this form of democracy where the choices are based on dollars and the decision is based on the lesser of two evils.
No, you said it was poor rationale, I added unacceptable.
ya ... poor in terms of delivering a country that you would want ...
look - if we had a general election right now where there were no parties and you had all the candidates from stein and johnson to sanders and cruz ... if people simply voted on each candidate's platform ... i'm gonna guess clinton and trump don't even come close to winning ...
Yea, it's impossible to support somebody without being a sheep. We get it.
i don't think it's so much being a sheep as it is ... that the reasons some are voting for Clinton is to make sure Trump doesn't win ... that's a poor rationale to vote for the supposed leader of the free world ... then telling people who strive for a different ideal that they have to support her using fear mongering ...
They aren't "using" fear mongering...the fear is there. People fear an idiot running our country.
So, are the check and balances that have been put in place useless? ... You guys had W for 8 years - so, it's already been proven that an idiot can run your country ...
Vastly different. Bush was not on the same intelligence level as Clinton/Obama but he was not a knee jerk asshole either.
but that's my point ... trump is all over the place with what he says ... so, ya he'll be an embarrassment like Rob Ford was here but at the end of the day - the checks and balances will prevent him from doing anything major ...
It would prevent legislation but it can't prevent the diplomacy disaster that we would most certainly see under Trump.
so ... it's really just about not having an embarrassing POTUS!? ...
I guess my response was more toward Bush not being an idiot. He wasn't articulate and wasn't nearly as educated as Clinton/Obama but he was not on the same level as Trump.
I believe our system itself will prevent a Trump from being elected....it's playing out nicely right now.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Chicago; 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
Yea, it's impossible to support somebody without being a sheep. We get it.
i don't think it's so much being a sheep as it is ... that the reasons some are voting for Clinton is to make sure Trump doesn't win ... that's a poor rationale to vote for the supposed leader of the free world ... then telling people who strive for a different ideal that they have to support her using fear mongering ...
Why is that a poor rationale? As a voter, if neither candidate is someone I like, why not vote for someone as a vote against someone? Why is that not acceptable?
Did I say it was unacceptable!? I don't believe I did. I understand it wholly and do not begrudge anyone who feels that way.
But for me - the end game will never be reached continuing this cycle. It's just not going to change with this form of democracy where the choices are based on dollars and the decision is based on the lesser of two evils.
No, you said it was poor rationale, I added unacceptable.
ya ... poor in terms of delivering a country that you would want ...
look - if we had a general election right now where there were no parties and you had all the candidates from stein and johnson to sanders and cruz ... if people simply voted on each candidate's platform ... i'm gonna guess clinton and trump don't even come close to winning ...
I've been saying for years that the entire party system should be abolished. Each candidate should have to raise his/her own money and campaign on his/her own beliefs and policy. Not a partys.
In a race you're talking about, I still think Clinton would beat sanders. She beat him in the primaries.
Post edited by Degeneratefk on
will myself to find a home, a home within myself we will find a way, we will find our place
Yea, it's impossible to support somebody without being a sheep. We get it.
i don't think it's so much being a sheep as it is ... that the reasons some are voting for Clinton is to make sure Trump doesn't win ... that's a poor rationale to vote for the supposed leader of the free world ... then telling people who strive for a different ideal that they have to support her using fear mongering ...
They aren't "using" fear mongering...the fear is there. People fear an idiot running our country.
So, are the check and balances that have been put in place useless? ... You guys had W for 8 years - so, it's already been proven that an idiot can run your country ...
Vastly different. Bush was not on the same intelligence level as Clinton/Obama but he was not a knee jerk asshole either.
but that's my point ... trump is all over the place with what he says ... so, ya he'll be an embarrassment like Rob Ford was here but at the end of the day - the checks and balances will prevent him from doing anything major ...
It would prevent legislation but it can't prevent the diplomacy disaster that we would most certainly see under Trump.
so ... it's really just about not having an embarrassing POTUS!? ...
I guess my response was more toward Bush not being an idiot. He wasn't articulate and wasn't nearly as educated as Clinton/Obama but he was not on the same level as Trump.
I believe our system itself will prevent a Trump from being elected....it's playing out nicely right now.
I think Trump is smarter than Bush ... I would say Bush was probably the least educated and most ignorant president ever ... Trump is just a sociopath ...
Yea, it's impossible to support somebody without being a sheep. We get it.
i don't think it's so much being a sheep as it is ... that the reasons some are voting for Clinton is to make sure Trump doesn't win ... that's a poor rationale to vote for the supposed leader of the free world ... then telling people who strive for a different ideal that they have to support her using fear mongering ...
They aren't "using" fear mongering...the fear is there. People fear an idiot running our country.
That may just be my favorite post ever. Thank you.
Verifying that fear is driving the election is your favorite post?
Lighten up, Free. Your fervor is working against your cause.
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 ...
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.
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 ...
I believe in comparing absolute results to theoretically potential results, and thus judging and enhancing the efficiency of your processes.
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?
'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 1
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,870
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 ...
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.
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 ...
I believe in comparing absolute results to theoretically potential results, and thus judging and enhancing the efficiency of your processes.
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?
This!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
This seems to be a slip of the tongue (but not a Freudian slip). Her plan includes tax cuts for the middle class. From her own website: "Hillary is proposing middle-class tax breaks to help families cope with the rising cost of everyday expenses, like child care and education- and she’s announced new tax credits to help families caring for an ill or aging family member. She’ll pay for them by raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans and closing loopholes in our tax code." I'm pretty sure someone fucked up her teleprompter notes, ahahaha, or she just brain-farted while speaking. Embarrassing, but not a big deal, though she should perhaps publicly correct herself for good measure. What is somewhat unsettling is that people in the audience applauded her fuck up, lol. You can see a little confusion on their faces, but they still clap, including Warren Buffet. It's like they weren't really listening very closely or something. Crowds need to stop being a mob. Mob mentality makes everyone dumb.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
This seems to be a slip of the tongue (but not a Freudian slip). Her plan includes tax cuts for the middle class. From her own website: "Hillary is proposing middle-class tax breaks to help families cope with the rising cost of everyday expenses, like child care and education- and she’s announced new tax credits to help families caring for an ill or aging family member. She’ll pay for them by raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans and closing loopholes in our tax code." I'm pretty sure someone fucked up her teleprompter notes, ahahaha, or she just brain-farted while speaking. Embarrassing, but not a big deal, though she should perhaps publicly correct herself for good measure. What is somewhat unsettling is that people in the audience applauded her fuck up, lol. You can see a little confusion on their faces, but they still clap, including Warren Buffet. It's like they weren't really listening very closely or something. Crowds need to stop being a mob. Mob mentality makes everyone dumb.
She clearly says "We AREN'T"....come on
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Chicago; 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
This seems to be a slip of the tongue (but not a Freudian slip). Her plan includes tax cuts for the middle class. From her own website: "Hillary is proposing middle-class tax breaks to help families cope with the rising cost of everyday expenses, like child care and education- and she’s announced new tax credits to help families caring for an ill or aging family member. She’ll pay for them by raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans and closing loopholes in our tax code." I'm pretty sure someone fucked up her teleprompter notes, ahahaha, or she just brain-farted while speaking. Embarrassing, but not a big deal, though she should perhaps publicly correct herself for good measure. What is somewhat unsettling is that people in the audience applauded her fuck up, lol. You can see a little confusion on their faces, but they still clap, including Warren Buffet. It's like they weren't really listening very closely or something. Crowds need to stop being a mob. Mob mentality makes everyone dumb.
She clearly says "We AREN'T"....come on
Does she? I didn't catch that, so it's not that clear I guess. I really thought she said "We are going to raise taxes on the middle class." Watched three times and it still sounds like "are" to me. I thought it was a mistake. But okay, she said "aren't" and didn't fuck up. I trust you. I can see why people thought otherwise though. She needs to pronounce "aren't" a lot better than that.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Well either way, it's not like it's working. I'd didn't even occur to me that she might actually think taxes should be raised for the middle class even when I thought she said it. It's a ridiculous notion that a Democrat would run with that idea.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
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"
I actually did watch her face because I thought maybe the idiot who posted the video had edited it or something. I honestly didn't think she said "aren't". I am taking your word for it though, because it makes a lot more sense.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
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 ...
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.
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 ...
I believe in comparing absolute results to theoretically potential results, and thus judging and enhancing the efficiency of your processes.
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?
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 ...
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 believe in comparing absolute results to theoretically potential results, and thus judging and enhancing the efficiency of your processes.
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?
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 ...
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 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.
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.
Post edited by benjs on
'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 1
I believe in comparing absolute results to theoretically potential results, and thus judging and enhancing the efficiency of your processes.
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?
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 ...
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 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.
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.
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? ...
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?
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 ...
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 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.
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.
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? ...
it's a fraud ... and the results are clear ...
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?
'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 1
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?
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 ...
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 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.
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.
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? ...
it's a fraud ... and the results are clear ...
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?
well ... i don't really like the use of the term force ...
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 ...
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"
She said "are". why else would I post this?
And look at her supporters... They applaud any away, meaning they don't even listen to what she says.
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?
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
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"
She said "are". why else would I post this?
And look at her supporters... They applaud any away, meaning they don't even listen to what she says.
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?
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"
She said "are". why else would I post this?
And look at her supporters... They applaud any away, meaning they don't even listen to what she says.
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?
It was funny. Lighten up.
What, are you fuckin' serious? Okay, NOW I'm laughing, that you said that!!
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
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"
She said "are". why else would I post this?
And look at her supporters... They applaud any away, meaning they don't even listen to what she says.
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?
It was funny. Lighten up.
What, are you fuckin' serious? Okay, NOW I'm laughing, that you said that!!
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"
She said "are". why else would I post this?
And look at her supporters... They applaud any away, meaning they don't even listen to what she says.
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?
It was funny. Lighten up.
What, are you fuckin' serious? Okay, NOW I'm laughing, that you said that!!
Has anyone told you that you overanalyze things?
Beats under-analyzing things!
'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 1
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"
She said "are". why else would I post this?
And look at her supporters... They applaud any away, meaning they don't even listen to what she says.
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?
It was funny. Lighten up.
What, are you fuckin' serious? Okay, NOW I'm laughing, that you said that!!
Has anyone told you that you overanalyze things?
Beats under-analyzing things!
True dat. Yet, viewing the world simply has a lot to be said for it.
Post edited by Free on
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,870
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!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Comments
But for me - the end game will never be reached continuing this cycle. It's just not going to change with this form of democracy where the choices are based on dollars and the decision is based on the lesser of two evils.
we will find a way, we will find our place
look - if we had a general election right now where there were no parties and you had all the candidates from stein and johnson to sanders and cruz ... if people simply voted on each candidate's platform ... i'm gonna guess clinton and trump don't even come close to winning ...
I believe our system itself will prevent a Trump from being elected....it's playing out nicely right now.
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 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
In a race you're talking about, I still think Clinton would beat sanders. She beat him in the primaries.
we will find a way, we will find our place
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?
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
I'm pretty sure someone fucked up her teleprompter notes, ahahaha, or she just brain-farted while speaking. Embarrassing, but not a big deal, though she should perhaps publicly correct herself for good measure. What is somewhat unsettling is that people in the audience applauded her fuck up, lol. You can see a little confusion on their faces, but they still clap, including Warren Buffet. It's like they weren't really listening very closely or something. Crowds need to stop being a mob. Mob mentality makes everyone dumb.
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 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
Read her lips...."aren't"
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 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
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.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
it's a fraud ... and the results are clear ...
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
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 ...
And look at her supporters... They applaud any away, meaning they don't even listen to what she says.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
It's go-o-o-o-o-d for ya!