Author Topic: EPA appointee says air is too clean  (Read 629 times)

Offline Baruch

Re: EPA appointee says air is too clean
« Reply #30 on: November 07, 2017, 07:40:32 PM »
It wasn't sarcasm.

Then keep petulantly holding your breath while clicking your ruby slippers together and return to Kansas ;-)  The Republicans nor the Democrats won't go anywhere, without CIA say so ... and I suspect they say no.  The system is too useful to cointelpro.
שלום

Re: EPA appointee says air is too clean
« Reply #31 on: November 08, 2017, 04:07:58 PM »
If I'm not mistaken, Republicans and Democrats used to have much more common ground. The polarization of the two parties is a somewhat recent thing in American history, and it's only getting worse. Somehow, Republicans managed to err almost exclusively on the extremes of stupidity and bigotry.
I don't think you're mistaken, I think the polarization of America has been an intentional, "divide and conquer" strategy by the wealthy elite. They've got us pretty well divided, so how will they accomplish the actual conquering phase?
God Not Found
“Money supplants skill; it's possession allows us to become happily stupid.”
Bill McKibben, The Age of Missing Information

Offline SGOS

Re: EPA appointee says air is too clean
« Reply #32 on: November 08, 2017, 04:17:24 PM »
I don't think you're mistaken, I think the polarization of America has been an intentional, "divide and conquer" strategy by the wealthy elite. They've got us pretty well divided, so how will they accomplish the actual conquering phase?
They are winning as we speak.  They get the tax breaks, the bailouts, and our taxes pay for the tax breaks.

Offline Hydra009 (OP)

Re: EPA appointee says air is too clean
« Reply #33 on: November 08, 2017, 05:31:59 PM »
There are times when I wish we could vote for 2 candidates a 1st choice and a 2nd, so 3rd parties got more recognition.
What you're describing is Instant-runoff voting (aka alternative vote, aka transferable vote).  Imo, it would reduce a lot of the problems associated with first-past-the-post problems like a spoiler effect, negative campaigning, and voter apathy due to dislike of the two major contenders.



I'm very supportive of alternative vote.

Quote
2nd choice Libertarian, Green, other?
Green for me, provided they don't run horrible candidates.

Quote
I would like the Presidential debates to be more open.  The top 4 or 5 regardless of polls.
Amen to that.

Offline Baruch

Re: EPA appointee says air is too clean
« Reply #34 on: November 08, 2017, 07:23:49 PM »
They are winning as we speak.  They get the tax breaks, the bailouts, and our taxes pay for the tax breaks.

And it is bipartisan.
שלום

Offline Baruch

Re: EPA appointee says air is too clean
« Reply #35 on: November 08, 2017, 07:25:14 PM »
I don't think you're mistaken, I think the polarization of America has been an intentional, "divide and conquer" strategy by the wealthy elite. They've got us pretty well divided, so how will they accomplish the actual conquering phase?

Everyone starts riding in autonomous cars ... and like that Toyota in San Diego a few years ago ... a glitch happens.  Fortunately the wealthy have taken out life insurance policies on the 99%, with them as the beneficiaries.  Yes, that is legal.
שלום

Re: EPA appointee says air is too clean
« Reply #36 on: November 09, 2017, 12:59:35 AM »
Everyone starts riding in autonomous cars ... and like that Toyota in San Diego a few years ago ... a glitch happens.  Fortunately the wealthy have taken out life insurance policies on the 99%, with them as the beneficiaries.  Yes, that is legal.
How does that work???

In theory you can take out life-insurance on any old person about to die and name yourself as a beneficiary...
another quote from an antagonist agnostic: not expecting god to show up, but if he does we’re going to have to beat the prick up.

Re: EPA appointee says air is too clean
« Reply #37 on: November 09, 2017, 01:04:59 AM »
O.P. Its not just the EPA!!! The Department of the Interior is also in on this mess. Besides the damage already done to our National Parks by Trump henchmen we got another crime reported today:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/nov/08/chaco-canyon-national-park-new-mexico-drilling

Fucked up in the head Sec of Interior has been approving drilling on or near sacred Native American lands
another quote from an antagonist agnostic: not expecting god to show up, but if he does we’re going to have to beat the prick up.

Offline Baruch

Re: EPA appointee says air is too clean
« Reply #38 on: November 09, 2017, 05:20:59 AM »
How does that work???

In theory you can take out life-insurance on any old person about to die and name yourself as a beneficiary...

Companies take out policies on their own employees, with the company as beneficiary.  If an insurance company is willing to contract the policy, it is legal.  So as part of the non-disclosure-binding-arbitrarion agreement you sign when using a driverless taxi ... you get the equivalent of flight insurance, except your family doesn't get the money.  Then you have made a positive feedback loop that encourages the corporations so crash you.
שלום

Offline Hakurei Reimu

Re: EPA appointee says air is too clean
« Reply #39 on: November 09, 2017, 11:57:09 AM »
What Baruch is oh-so-conveniently forgetting is that the insurance company is a greedy SOB, too, and they don't want to pay out benefits they don't need to, and if they do, they are as sure as hell going to make sure that the benefits they expect pay out do not exceed the amount of money they collect in premiums on those policies. That is, after all, how insurance companies make their money, and it is the reason why insurance companies are willing to make these contracts in the first place — they want to make money, too.

As such, no driverless taxi company could take out life-insurance on the entire population of its customer base and expect to make a net profit off of them — the insurance companies are only going to be willing to play if there is a net profit for them, and that automatically means there's a net loss for the driverless taxi company. Sure, they can pass off that cost to the consumer, but that just means that their driverless taxi service is more expensive than it needs to be, and that's even before we factor in the fact that, because their taxis are deliberately hazardous on top of the normal hazard level, the driverless fleet will be overall have higher repair and replacement costs, and will cause more collateral damage. This will result in higher legal costs as more people sue them for damages.

And the insurance companies are going to quickly notice this. They're going to notice that the taxi company's fleet incurs higher-than-normal amounts for incidental damage and injury, and is sued more often. They will respond to that by upping their premiums until they are making net profit off of the taxi company again. While this might not completely wipe out the additional profit, it does make the option much less attractive. Especially, if one of the insurance companies decides that the taxi company is too far out of whack to be believed and investigates. They're going to find out, and sue to get their benefits returned with interest.

This scheme you've dreamed up requires insurance companies to simply take it up the ass and accept a net loss, which companies are very adverse to doing. The insurance company is going to be a greedy SOB too, you know, and if it can hang on to its profits by exposing a heartless scheme to kill people and collect their insurance money, all the better for them.
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from Iosys' Neko Miko Reimu

Re: EPA appointee says air is too clean
« Reply #40 on: November 09, 2017, 12:29:50 PM »
That’s what happens when you get greedy... but if you get one policy on say: your uncle or your grandma🤔
another quote from an antagonist agnostic: not expecting god to show up, but if he does we’re going to have to beat the prick up.

Offline Baruch

Re: EPA appointee says air is too clean
« Reply #41 on: November 09, 2017, 12:56:56 PM »
That’s what happens when you get greedy... but if you get one policy on say: your uncle or your grandma🤔

I have a coworker, who in a previous job, even though they were not a critical management employee (she was in software testing for pre-shipment) ... they took out a contract on her.  So of course the company is an immoral monster, as is the insurance company that lets such a contract out.  Let the monsters battle it out ... but you are dead, your corpse is what they are fighting over.  Now my model is hypothetical.  People who believe that there is no such thing as evil, or that human beings generally mean well (even when in organization mode) can believe in the tooth fairy for all I care.  Another thing for sure, car liability will be modified, so that the owner and manufacturer of the autonomous vehicle, is never held liable (see banks responsible for 2008).  It had to have been an act of G-d.
שלום

Offline Hakurei Reimu

Re: EPA appointee says air is too clean
« Reply #42 on: November 09, 2017, 01:07:11 PM »
Yes, in specific cases with enough specific information, you can get it to work, especially if you have a hand in when Uncle Ben or Grandma Joan die. Otherwise, most people who take out an insurance policy on those people can expect to lose money, because actuaries are a thing — the policy will only be cheap compared to payout if your uncle is likely to live through the period.

On the scale that Baruch expects companies to make money by taking out insurance? No. Too many people have to be insured to provide a reliable income.
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from Iosys' Neko Miko Reimu

Offline Baruch

Re: EPA appointee says air is too clean
« Reply #43 on: November 09, 2017, 01:09:41 PM »
Yes, in specific cases with enough specific information, you can get it to work, especially if you have a hand in when Uncle Ben or Grandma Joan die. Otherwise, most people who take out an insurance policy on those people can expect to lose money, because actuaries are a thing — the policy will only be cheap compared to payout if your uncle is likely to live through the period.

On the scale that Baruch expects companies to make money by taking out insurance? No. Too many people have to be insured to provide a reliable income.

Government mandated insurance.  It is a thing now.  No anti-trust ... so the car company can own its own insurance company, to cut the mandated insurance.  GM owned its own car finance company, and it made better money than the manufacturing.  CVS is trying to buy Aetna ... my god!  Yes, pure capitalism, with no collusion.
שלום

Offline Hakurei Reimu

Re: EPA appointee says air is too clean
« Reply #44 on: November 09, 2017, 01:39:08 PM »
I have a coworker, who in a previous job, even though they were not a critical management employee (she was in software testing for pre-shipment) ... they took out a contract on her.
Any employee can still represent a non-trivial investment in time and money, and as such may be an asset that it might be worth insuring even if they are not critical. Insurance protects against risk/expected loss. It has nothing to do with criticallity, except where that criticallity intersects with expected loss.

Quote
So of course the company is an immoral monster, as is the insurance company that lets such a contract out.  Let the monsters battle it out ... but you are dead, your corpse is what they are fighting over.
No, the companies are both amoral. That's a critical distinction that makes your screed an unhinged rant. The insurance company doesn't want you to die, because it doesn't want to pay out money. It's betting on your survival. The company taking out the insurance is simply covering its ass in case you may need to be replaced, because it knows that in any period she may be insured for, the expected payout is going to be less than the premiums paid over that time — the company fully expects to lose money off the policy.

Unless you have evidence otherwise, your coworker was in no more danger for having life insurance taken out on her. It's not a jinx, for fuck's sake.

Quote
Now my model is hypothetical.  People who believe that there is no such thing as evil, or that human beings generally mean well (even when in organization mode) can believe in the tooth fairy for all I care.  Another thing for sure, car liability will be modified, so that the owner and manufacturer of the autonomous vehicle, is never held liable (see banks responsible for 2008).  It had to have been an act of G-d.
Baruch, there's evil, and then there's just silliness. This is the latter. Insurance companies will set up the game so that they win. Also, an act of God is outside of human control. If driverless taxis are provably more dangerous than drivered taxis for any reason, it's not an act of god, but a distinct, recognizable and very controllable risk.

Government mandated insurance.  It is a thing now.  No anti-trust ... so the car company can own its own insurance company, to cut the mandated insurance.
So the company is paying itself? How is this the secret to unlimited riches? You still have to pay for repairs to your cars and replacements, and you're still going to get sued for damages. The only way that your life insurance policy scam is going to make net profit is if it's another company supplying it, and all the previous objections attach; if the insurance company is held by the car company, then there's no net profit to the insurance — it's zero-sum.

Quote
GM owned its own car finance company, and it made better money than the manufacturing.  CVS is trying to buy Aetna ... my god!  Yes, pure capitalism, with no collusion.
You do know that a car fiance company makes money is when the customers successfully pay off their loans, right? Even if GM owned it, it was still independently successful.

Again, there's evil, and then there's just silliness.
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from Iosys' Neko Miko Reimu