They have paper qualifications?
They didn't go to a plytechnic?
Inside, there's a hidden armature?
They have paper qualifications?
They are suitable for Degree dispensers?Aitch wrote: ↑Thu Mar 26, 2020 4:36 pmMy corner shop normally sells cheap loo-rolls at 4 for 90p (approx. He's currently selling 4 for £1.69, but I don't think he's profiteering...
30801ces.jpg
...these are Professional toilet rolls! Whatever THAT means...
Right, you can all go back to being serious now.
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/ ... ironmentalThe Environmental Protection Agency, headed by former coal lobbyist Andrew Wheeler, announced on Thursday a sweeping and indefinite suspension of environmental rules amid the worsening coronavirus pandemic, a move green groups warned gives the fossil fuel industry a "green light to pollute with impunity."
Under the new policy (pdf), which the EPA insisted is temporary while providing no timeframe, big polluters will effectively be trusted to regulate themselves and will not be punished for failing to comply with reporting rules and other requirements. The order—applied retroactively beginning March 13, 2020—requests that companies "act responsibly" to avoid violations.
That's only different to profiteering if nobody buys 2 packs at once. And as for "Think of the other people." - yes try it. Try thinking of people who are shopping for a large family, or for themselves and elderly neighbours who should not go out themselves.Cardinal Fang wrote: ↑Sat Mar 28, 2020 3:51 pmWhat's the opposite of profiteering?
Like this shopkeeper in Oz. To stop bulk buying, he's priced his loo roll as one for $3.50, 2 for $99.
What company hoarded tests at the cost of testing NHS workers? Note that testing of NHS workers is done in accordance with government policy.EACLucifer wrote: ↑Thu Mar 26, 2020 3:25 pmGetting a fucktonne of money from a firm hoarding tests and selling them to those with money, rather than those we urgently need to test, eg frontline NHS workers.
You should think carefully on that position as it seems to me to be dangerously close to that of someone who killls her unfaithful husband rather than let someone else have him.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Thu Mar 26, 2020 4:16 pmWell, given the choice between selling scarce life-saving resources based on money rather than need or "not at all", I think "not at all" is the clear winner.
That helps show just how remote from reality his ideas were. He claimed that a society could run solely on principles of mutual aid. Reality shows that it only works in narrow circumstances. Mutual aid works reasonably well in circumstances where there is a clear common goal and the costs of achieving this goal are considered reasonable by the participants. It also does not scale well. That's why we have a Welfare State. Once the numbers are large enough that individuals are effectively anonymous you get cheaters - either failing to pay their share of the costs, or taking more than their share of the benefits.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Thu Mar 26, 2020 4:21 pmKropotkin was definitely a leftie. He was imprisoned for distributing communist literature, and is still widely regarded amongst various flavours of leftists (and evolutionary biologists, for that matter).
And it seems odd to call his work "remote from reality" at a time when a distributed network of grassroots community organisations, that literally has 'Mutual Aid' in its name, has stepped in to help people survive the pandemic in the absence of anything organised by the government.
Far and away the former, I would have thought.Millennie Al wrote: ↑Sun Mar 29, 2020 5:21 amThat's why we have a Welfare State. Once the numbers are large enough that individuals are effectively anonymous you get cheaters - either failing to pay their share of the costs, or taking more than their share of the benefits.
watMillennie Al wrote: ↑Sun Mar 29, 2020 5:09 amYou should think carefully on that position as it seems to me to be dangerously close to that of someone who killls her unfaithful husband rather than let someone else have him.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Thu Mar 26, 2020 4:16 pmWell, given the choice between selling scarce life-saving resources based on money rather than need or "not at all", I think "not at all" is the clear winner.
Halleluja bangbang ...A coalition of gun owner groups filed a federal lawsuit Friday against the Los Angeles County Sheriff, Gov. Gavin Newsom and state and county health officials seeking to block the closure of gun shops during the coronavirus shutdown.
Sheriff Alex Villaneuva closed gun stores in L.A. County Thursday to everyone except police and licensed security company employees after the governor deemed that firearms sellers are considered nonessential businesses during California’s shutdown of commerce in an effort to limit and slow the spread of the coronavirus...
In the lawsuit filed in federal court in Los Angeles on Friday seeking declaratory relief, the gun owner groups characterized the closure as a clear violation of the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.
“California’s attack on fundamental rights in times of emergency must be stopped in its tracks,” said Alan Gottlieb, executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation...
Here major healthcare provider groups are cutting pay and not paying retirement benefits, because they aren't getting enough income from insurers paying for elective procedures.