Jump to content

Vegas64

Full Members
  • Posts

    1019
  • Joined

Reputation

805 Surly 10%

Recent Profile Visitors

1811 profile views
  1. Saw this graphic and it hit home: We have two factors to work with (of the 4 that are generally understand to contribute to our CO2). 1) the amount of energy used to create a unit of economic development (dollars) 2) the amount of CO2 generated per unit of energy produced
  2. Or.............we can have states step up like California has done (and NY could be next), etc. President 47 ain't gonna do federal climate change regulation any favors.
  3. From where I stand here is what I see is the biggest problem right now: Short of a federal government mandate like you have in Europe (and we were going down that path but it seems completely dead now), in America we have to either a) incentivize businesses in a methodology that enables shareholder value creation or b) rely on states to enact reporting and penalty mandates (a la California). Up to this point it's been largely a "you should do this because it's a good thing to do and even though it's a value destruction in the short and mid-term", IMO.
  4. Like I said, I'm not dying on that hill and I would never quit my job or the service because I'm not anti-vax in any shape or form, but I can see where if you were, you'd be annoyed. Also, like I said, I think the gamble (as much as those service people cared or really thought they would be made whole one day) was such a crazy one that the odds to me were like someone hitting a 10 team parlay. But those guys and gals just hit it though based on what Trump said an hour ago, so what do I know?
  5. Right, I mentioned that the manufacturers, by virtue of being subsidized and profiting from the mandates and being immune from any legal remedy, was an extension of the agency (and which is why I said the issue was on the spectrum of the agency-principle problem).
  6. nah. The principal being the government/employer and the agent being the worker/armyman who has to capitulate via a mandate in opposition of their personal desires and beliefs or suffer a consequence (and further not having any legal remedy while also being at an information disparity and disadvantage). But I get it, it was an emergency and in times of war and emergency, you do things you otherwise wouldn't (the poster before me mentioend habeas corpus), so resonable people can debate the different angles of it all when taking everything into context, IMO. There is rarely a clearly defined right answer and someone somewhere will be hurt or aggrieved no matter what.
  7. my OP said this: "...it's just a spectrum of the agency problem I guess. I mean, I disagree and don't like it, but I'm not going to do anything about it or care more than just notate it on a messageboard." and then the guy responded thinking I was talking about the federal agency, so I responded back that I was actually referencing a well known business issue and linked it above if he wanted to read up on it. Now, delving into my personal opinion which is what I think you were asking: I think that providing a quasi-mandate (and full mandate in other areas like aforementioned armed services and healthcare) by putting a biologic into your body and NOT allowing for legal remedy to the manufacturer's or enforcement is on the spectrum of the problem. Is the definition and if you interpret that the agent is the organization enforcing vaccinations (and as an extension the manufacturer of vaccinations) and the princpal (those who do not want the vaccination), you see there is a problem when there is a lack of means to punish the agent for any ill consequences. You can argue that it was (and is) a necessary mandate and that a utilitarnianism philosophy should reign supreme here, but I think there is reasonable arguements to be made in the realm of ethiical egoism, bodily autonomy, libertarianism, etc. I'm not taking a stance really here except to just say as I did in the OP: "Wow, those service members just got back pay and reinstatement for sticking to their guns, the odds and gamble they took to get here was like if the gamblers you hear about hitting a parlay" to paraphrase.
  8. And it's because of the massive wealth inequality. Everyone is basically like, well..."if he (USA) dies, he dies." because 99.99% of the people don't have much to lose compared to the .01%
  9. The Principal-agent problem, commonly referred to as an agency problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal–agent_problem
  10. Luckily the CFO is at Davos to figure it all out!
  11. The blame is on legacy election theory-- an incumbant does not give up the high ground of incumbancy. You saw it play out here where we were 50/50 on it EVEN after the debate.
  12. Bro, ngl-- that black pastor just ate and left no crumbs. Chills.
  13. More than the 10-15% already announced with the re-org that begin already? I'd love to hear how you have more inside information, maybe we can take it to the O&G thread....
  14. Yea, seems divorced from reality, but hey-- we all need hope. Live look from inauguration:
  15. Gonna be? Already did. BP too. Underwood just nailed that acapella.
Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...