ABC2019 wrote:Obamot wrote:ABC2019 wrote: Like "we're gonna make money but in a social way"
It's called prohibiting speculation and paying for goods and services at the right price (or you have to introduce the RMI which will have to be done one day anyway!)
all the examples I give are examples that democracies are confronted with. When you put money on a paid booklet, it seems normal to receive interest, where do you think they come from?
It was the case for a long time but “still failed”, we no longer take the path ... There you can not say anything since it is the search for the optimum that led to this
https://www.rtbf.be/info/economie/detai ... d=10612810Besides, what you say doesn't really make sense in a world of “fictitious values” where “
possessing it”Is potentially also the looted (flagrant case of small rolled-up carriers, and large ones: pension funds ruined when investments were toxic, sub-prime crisis and so on and the best ...)
ABC2019 wrote:Obamot wrote: ABC2019 wrote:"we are going to wage war but without killing too many people"
You are a comic ...
but it is possible with a political victory (which no longer causes any death)
if you want to avoid the deaths, it becomes a clear strategy where you know what you want to minimize (the number of deaths), but it is not necessarily the best (see the Munich agreements). But my example was precisely in the case where you resigned yourself to go to war, but you try to be "human" enough. This is what democracies which go to war against dictatorships claim to do, and it is still a problem.
Democracies? Where? Russia waged a “more humane” war in Iraq and Syria! China has established itself in Africa without waging a war, but on the contrary by investing in infrastructure, do you want us to talk about what the West has done there? We can also talk about
“Who supports international terrorism ... are the TOW missiles coming from somewhere? Still missed, at a pinch you would have said
our plutocracies. Here too, it is the search for the optimum that has led the West on this path.
ABC2019 wrote:Obamot wrote: ABC2019 wrote:"we will ensure a good standard of living but without consuming too many resources"
Does it depend on what “good standard of living” suggests? For me a “good standard of living” is a healthy diet and lifestyle, decent housing conditions (which can be heated by geothermal energy) and broad access to culture and study in a peaceful country. It would also be to review the judicial system (and therefore the laws and their application). I don't think it consumes a lot of resources. What consumes the most energy is the frantic race for consumption and I do not call it a “good standard of living”, it is a kind of perpetual frustration because life in joint possession with the material world which does not represent not an “ideal”. As long as people pay rents and taxes, apart from work, this costs little in the way of resources (some solar energy ...)
So, if you think the problem is easy to solve, give me the function we are trying to maximize or minimize.
Your reasoning is inevitably wrong since any level of life perpetuated eternally ends up consuming all resources, including fossils of course. Unless you are only doing 100% renewable but with that there is no known example of a "good standard of living".
Cliché! Sophism! This is where the search for the optimum should apply and this is where you falter
A real civil servant!
ABC2019 wrote: And geothermal energy is quite incapable of meeting the needs of densely populated areas, apart from the fact that it has drawbacks (earthquakes, potential pollution of groundwater). The techniques for implementing geothermal energy are the same as for shale gas, hydraulic fracturing.
This is not what the EPFZ is working on,
renewable-energies / solar-geothermal-heating-project-summer-for-winter-t12060-30.html # p242319 (you who say that I never publish figures
)
it should be understood with 1) the method which consists in “recharging” the geothermal deposit in summer, to use it in winter and with the “passivation” of existing real estate. Obviously, that will have a cost, but it will create jobs.
It's also a “search for the optimum” but you falter too
ABC2019 wrote:Obamot wrote:ABC2019 wrote:"we will fight against covid but by trying not to disturb people too much".
It would suffice to return to social insurance contributors (all of us) the hospital beds that were stolen from them to offer them to public hospitals. (And of course let the doctors do their job by giving them the means to do it .... It costs zero.
no that would not be enough for a covid epidemic.
That was because I stuck on your short-sighted reasoning, to dismantle the principle and I do not believe in a burst of lucidity of the “system”. Of course we have to go further, but it is clear that you have been fiercely opposed to all possible progress in this area for a year ... So don't come and tell us that “that will not be enough” for us who seek and find all kinds of leads and solutions. But hey, since all your smoky fake news and lies / state manipulations have collapsed one after the other, it's not you who is going to teach us anything. There you make us howl with laughter, it is an understatement if the search for the optimum has led to this bewildering finitude. But you don't see these things ... You think they only exist through your perception filter.
ABC2019 wrote:But your reactions clearly show why the problems happen: mainly because at the start we don't want to see them.
And are you telling us that?
- The elimination of 100 beds (and the related staff) over twenty years, and while each year the caregivers took to the streets to complain?
- Covid patients sent home to die with Doliprane?
- PCR tests outside the standards and not indicated for mass testing?
- Interests leading to biased studies?
Does this ring a bell ?