The rise of populism has rattled the global political establishment. Brexit came as a shock, as did the victory of Donald Trump. Much head-scratching has resulted as leaders seek to work out why large chunks of their electorates are so cross.
...
The answer seems pretty simple. Populism is the result of economic failure. The 10 years since the financial crisis have shown that the system of economic governance which has held sway for the past four decades is broken. Some call this approach neoliberalism. Perhaps a better description would be unpopulism.Unpopulism meant tilting the balance of power in the workplace in favour of management and treating people like wage slaves. Unpopulism was rigged to ensure that the fruits of growth went to the few not to the many. Unpopulism decreed that those responsible for the global financial crisis got away with it while those who were innocent bore the brunt of austerity.
2017 Davos says: The 99% should just try harder.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Wednesday March 29 2017, @08:03PM (2 children)
Constantly and by design. If it wasn't so damn sad I'd find it hilarious how many people miss this. The EPA exists in order to immunize polluters from lawsuits. The cost of complying with the relatively weak (and often wholly inadequate) EPA standards is FAR lower than the cost of dealing with lawsuits from the people whose water you are poisoning to do business.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday March 29 2017, @09:49PM (1 child)
"When has EPA compliance ever positively impacted corporate profits (unless the corporation is specifically in the business of EPA compliance)?"
Constantly and by design. If it wasn't so damn sad I'd find it hilarious how many people miss this. The EPA exists in order to immunize polluters from lawsuits. The cost of complying with the relatively weak (and often wholly inadequate) EPA standards is FAR lower than the cost of dealing with lawsuits from the people whose water you are poisoning to do business.
O.K. - good point, EPA compliance is cheaper than lawsuits, but pre-EPA environmental contamination lawsuits were relatively rare, and sometimes the EPA limits actually do take things farther than necessary to protect the environment - as you say they are usually inadequate, but mostly they're just arbitrary.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Arik on Wednesday March 29 2017, @10:04PM
Historically the EPA was created to head off a rising flood of them, however, as awareness and scientific understanding of the negative effects had just hit critical mass.
If the EPA had not been created, then the insurance companies would have effectively made the regulations, and it stands to reason they'd tend to be tighter than what we have now, because they'd have to pay whenever a court decided they'd gotten it wrong, a worry the EPA has removed from the calculations.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?