• 0 Posts
  • 663 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: August 20th, 2023

help-circle


  • Lots of business logic can contradict the business logic that is applied to government. Often because the people applying it aren’t concerned about efficiency at all, they just want to steal or disempower the government.

    Often the government is encouraged to outsource or privatise its services. The most efficient businesses don’t do this. They are vertically integrated, Starbucks makes their own cups and this leads to more profit as they don’t lose out on paying for the cup manufacturers profit. Therefore the government should look to own most of their services not outsource or privatise them.

    Highly efficient business use extra cash to invest in the business, to make more money in the following years. They don’t cut and stripe services, unless the business is failing. Therefore the government should use its cash to make its services more effective in the longer term.

    Government can be capable and competent. It’ll never be the case when we elect people that think government is inherently inefficient. Ideally everyone gets one vote and so we all have an equal say in how the government handles things. When the government is weak each individuals power is weaker and wealth becomes a bigger factor in how our society is run. I think this is the prime motivation of neoliberals, less liberty for the individual (working people) more for liberty for money.

    A good contrast to the approach of delivering government services in the UK is Scotland. Water supply in Scotland is by a company that the Scottish Goverment owns. People in Scotland use more water per person than the rest of the UK, the quality of the water supply is the highest in the UK and the price is the lowest. At the end of the year the Scottish goverment often gets money back from Scottish Water. In England the water companies require heavy subsidies, pollute water ways at a higher rate, limit water due to droughts (their is enough water just the amount of leaks causes this to be lost) and charge based on metered consumption. Privatisation of water doesn’t work for most people. Now in England the water companies have people over the barrel. To such an extent they can extort the tax payer for their poor performance. Business logic wouldn’t tolerate this. They would not source water from such businesses and would become their own supplier if they had the capital to do so.








  • The stuff that works in herbal medicine have been studied and improved in modern medicine. The two can’t and shouldn’t be equated. Anyone claiming herbal medicine should be respected and not condemned is a crook and/or idiot. Most proponents are crooks, trying to sell things they know or don’t care if they work.

    Things like paracetamol and lithium have a basis in herbal medicine. Paracetamol was improved to stop the horrendous damage the herbal medicine did to your kidneys. Lithium was quantified and controlled to minimise the impact of taking a toxic mental (Lithium was sold as natural healing waters found in springs, it was scientist investigating these waters that identified lithium as an element), newer less toxic medicines are now available for these conditions.

    Medicine displaced herbal remedies. The regulation of medicine means the only practionationers of herbal medicines are unregulated crooks.




  • Churchills attitude and comments about it suggests otherwise. He was hailed as an evil cruel racist, not in retrospect, but during the war. Churchill wasn’t well liked, as people think he was during his time. The people that think Churchill was one of Britain best PMs have only a basic understanding of British history. Churchill was immediately voted out as soon as elections resumed. When he got back in a PM his party had less votes than the opposition.




  • They would. Anyone seriously attempting it in their country would have already accept the possibility of all out war with Israel.

    Countries like Canada and those in western Europe have stronger military alliances than Israel. They also have a better network of procuring arms, blocking and sanctioning (long term) and are likely to win in a total war senario. Israel’s main backer (USA), would be compelled by NATO to support the NATO members over Israel. Without the US arms, intelligence and presence Israel would be invaded by its neighbours (this doesn’t justify Israel’s current actions, I believe it was entirely possible for Israel to make an acceptable peace with their neighbours - they choose not to and use the consequences of their actions to justify their actions ).

    When your doing something like arresting a genocidial head of state, you don’t send a couple of police officers. You send multiple armoured vehicles, hundreds of soldiers and some air support. His security will surrender, aid in his arrest or be shot. The first two are more likely. Israel would rather contest this legally and politically than with might. If the body guards start resisting in anyway then their legal and political case falls apart. It’s all out war of which they will eventually lose and be overrun by their neighbours. Unless NATO invades Israel and decides to provide security for several years.