Quote:
Originally Posted by RedDevil
They refer to https://www.opensecrets.org/ as a source without pinpointing to the actual data.
But one image says all. (oil and gas company donations, 2015-2016)
 |
That one image is a lie, so it proves the source (CleanTechnica) is a worthless pile of garbage that nobody with an ounce of independent thought should spend a second reading.
For instance, Koch Industries backs approximately 15% Democrats throughout time, and during the time in which that graph supposedly depicts, contributed to Democrats though it isn't represented. Koch even donated to Bernie Sanders during 2016!
Better to go to the source than to give credit to a site known to be factually incorrect in nearly everything they publish.
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/rec...t=A&cycle=2000
It doesn't surprise me that people in the oil business back the politics that are favorable to that industry. It also doesn't surprise me that those in the industry consider themselves to be providing a resource of enormous worth to consumers, which is plainly evident considering almost everything we have now is due to oil as energy and as products, and considering the consumer has the choice of whether they will spend their money on oil products or not.
BTW- The American Federation of Teachers spends more on lobbying than Koch, and backs about 0.5% Republicans, which suggests they are even less independent minded. The frightening thing about this is that teachers interact and shape our children, so they tend to be exposed to groupthink echochambers of shallow thinking.
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/top...083&cycle=2018
Quote:
Originally Posted by sendler
Pricing will trend toward the cost of energy, materials, hardware and design time. Which it already has for factory farming and clothing so food will not go much lower since these have been almost fully mechanized with super cheap fossil fuel energy for decades and/ or have shifted to locations where whatever humans are involved get paid next to nothing. AI will now begin to replace engineers and designers.
.
So this also implies earnings potential for laborers will approach zero. We will (already) need a whole new way of distributing wealth or the "owners" of the robots (big corporations) will have all of the money and the people will have none. Already happening.
.
The bottom 90% of people in OECD countries have less wealth now than they did in 2000. All gains in GDP plus a little go to the top 10%. And most goes to the top 1% which now owns 40% of the wealth.
|
The cost of resources is tied to the labor to extract. If that's automated then the cost plummets. There are certain constraints such as land suitable for farming which will set prices at some bottom level, but even energy can eventually be automated with robots building solar/wind/nuclear.... and maintaining it all.
Statistics lie anyhow concerning wealth distribution. Ask the bottom 25% if they would rather be the bottom 25% now, or be the bottom 25% in 2000. They can go back to not owning cell phones, standard definition 27" TVs, and terrible sitcoms.
The real problem is that an increasingly complex world increasingly dispossess a larger percentage of the bottom portion of society. That's how we end up with increasingly popular yet tragically simplistic ideas that if the problem is wealth inequality, than socialism is the best solution. It's a concept that only sounds good if ones understanding of how things work extends out only 1 move into the future.