This is a liberal echo chamber but reddit fucked me off.
Anything more neutral? Something with a sense of humour. This are some of the most boring fucks I’ve ever met on the internet. They all got their panties in a twist on their high horse.
But I am left leaning so I don’t want a right wing echo chamber I just want free speech and banter.
Removed by mod
I don’t think anyone alive is a coloniser.
The only people that live in new Zealand are locals and immigrants. Even if you removed all the immigrants it would still be full of full blooded white kiwis that have never lived anywhere else and potentially never even met a relative that has lived anywhere else. They are a New Zealander.
I know. But I made the original comment and I wasn’t on about horses being used for moving men and equipment. I was talking about them being used instead of tanks.
Okay. Horses were used to move men and equipment. How is that related to my original point?
When did the Germans use horses as offensive cavalry in WW2?
You can clearly find references of French and the British dragging their heels in the interwar years because presumably the posh boys want their horses.
You don’t know what you are on about. What Hollywood movies are there about army modernisation in the interwar period you think I am watching? I’ll actually enjoy watching it.
I was watching an old documentary about ww2. When France declared war on Germany they just sat on there border watching them. Some British politician or general or something was there and asked why they didn’t shoot them. They said “they aren’t bothering us so we don’t bother them”. They made one offence at the start of the war when Germany’s western flank was entirely exposed (it was also the only French offence of the entire war) they went about 100m then came back.
Then Germany attacked somewhere else and they folded.
Its actually amazing how much of a cluster fuck the start of ww2 was. Bringing back horses after inventing the tank 20 years before and using it ti win ww1 levels of intelligence.
Supply and demand.
More supply of labour means reduced wages.
Local businesses not being able to attract local talent at low rates should mean they increase their rates, instead they find labour from elsewhere that will work for that low wages.
Wage suppression and lack of capital investment are huge underreported issues in the UK.
Yet another report that groups all immigration as one unit. Separate it by country and education level then look at crime and contributions.
“UK immigration between 1994 and 2016 found it had reduced the hourly wage of UK-born wage earners in the bottom 20 per cent of the labour market by about 0.5p per year”
That’s meant to be a good thing? That’s a huge loss over a time period where wages are expected to be going up.
Nothing about housing.
So what. One of the most densely populated (not small)countries in the world should just keep increasing its population endlessly because it’s good for numbers on a spreadsheet? There got to be more to life than increasing GDP endlessly.
Yea there a big issue with things like nursing. They don’t get paid enough. I don’t see how someone looks at nurses and says “wow they work really hard, have long hours, don’t get paid much, don’t get enough help with training. Should we fix all that? No let’s just get immigrants to suffer like that because the locals won’t”.
But have said all that. Shouldn’t it be the choice of the people? Lower immigration and less GDP growth or high immigration and high GDP growth. A lot of people in the UK would be willing to make comprises to reduce immigration legal, illegal and asylum. There is more to life than GDP.
Every government should put an increasingly aggressive carbon tax on everything.
Then take that money and directly give it back to everyone in the country as UBI. So if you made no carbon you just make money, if you pollute like fuck then you pay for it.
The only way to solve this is with cost. People don’t give a shit about anything else.
Is that the one that says “the glacier may look like this [picture] in 2100 if global warming keeps happening” and the glacier is noticeably more receded than that?
If Putin get replaced and the war stops everyone in Russia will look back to the “good old days” when Russia was strong and could fight a war and have money. Then the cycle will repeat. It’s just moving money from tomorrow to today, on the surface today looks like the economy is strong.
It can be more than one thing.
People are certainly getting away with shopping lifting and believing others do. So they think why shouldn’t I or why shouldn’t I do it more.
Lots of videos on the internet now of people just taking stuff and walking out.
Honestly in this age of over cautious health and safety it’s complete madness easily quantifiable permanent damaging volume is allowed.
Like even a warning and free earplugs are not given. Nothing.
“Here you go children. You pay we will give you a life long disability.”
The analysis of the piece is the educational purpose not the piece itself. Just like as mentioned Shakespeare. Are you suggesting I should use Shakespeare as to understand modern politics?
Grapes of wrath means nothing to be because I haven’t read it. If there is any important facts within it then they will stand alone.
Otherwise the argument for reading it is the same as the argument of “do your own research”.
Provide something of note or don’t bother. Reading a fiction book isn’t my way of learning about the world and I don’t think it should be yours.
It’s not ideal as it’s more expensive than alternatives, and slower. I’m not making the decision so it doesn’t matter.
But i will say Australia just made the decision that nuclear has no place and China built a lot of nuclear then stopped and started rolling out renewables.
Not really, no. I have heard people mention it.
I think some children have read it in school as guided learning. But it doesn’t seem to have much value because people never seem to have gained any knowledge from the book that they mention so I see no reason to read it. No argument or fact is ever generated from people reading the book and bring it up.
Largely I come across is when people mentioned they have read it and have some knowledge how to be critical of it as parroted by some education curriculum. But is seems more of a English project like when I read Shakespeare and was asked what the author meant, rather than something based on science or economics with ideas and knowledge to be learnt.
Externalities and funding are both concepts in capitalism yes.
You can even treat the countries being developing capital. China has invested heavily in renewable capital. They are going to use that capital to make profit.
Say your power supply is 100 low power and 150 high power demand. Giving a need of 50 difference.
If you build Nuclear at say 80. It will give a remanding demand of 20 low power and 70 high power. But the difference remains 50. Nuclear doesn’t solve the issue of supply matching demand in anyway.
EV’s are going to weigh a lot. Lithium will probably be the main usage in cars. But really the solution is less cars. Need trains.
Running a country exclusively on renewables comes with its own costs in storage and emergency solutions
I agree but I think that route will give lower cost, quicker roll out and less co2
What no one wants to accept is too many people on too little land. The earth is barely holding on.
The soil is on it’s deathbed and we got a feeding tube keeping it going. Sure it will keep going. But at what cost.
Thanks.
I would like to know more.