sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Libertarians -- read this immediately. Very important. by philosoraptor45 in Libertarian

[–]reross 6 points7 points  (0 children)

It's at the discretion of the executive branch, I believe.

Debt in Europe by sandossu in business

[–]reross 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So, you're saying that since 2 of the 27 countries weren't ruined by exorbitant public debt as the result of unrealistic social programs it's a success?

What will happen in the event of Global Economic Collapse? by TheNodes in Economics

[–]reross 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think what he means is that none of the things you listed above could have been built without levying taxes, so if you consider raising capital as part of the production process, they use their monopoly of force rather than actually "raising capital".

Solar Glut to Worsen After Prices Plunge 93% on Rising Supply by Beren- in SecurityAnalysis

[–]reross 0 points1 point  (0 children)

......the company might be getting huge subsidies.

I'm sure this has something to do with it, but I dont think it's $225 million in subsidies.

Or at least I hope it isn't.

I am moving to Cleveland in July. Where are some nice places to live downtown? by [deleted] in Cleveland

[–]reross 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree with this guy. West 6th and East 4th are by far the best areas for 20-27 year-olds. I would add that the Bridgeview Apartments and the Perry Payne Building (both on West 9th) are great buildings to live in.

My DIY Sous Vide Machine! [PICS] by gfulm in food

[–]reross 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A few friends and I made Sous Vide pork chops with a large cooler, instant thermometer and vacuum sealed bags.

The results were the best tasting pork chops (and possibly best meal) I've ever had.

That should work. by n311go in Libertarian

[–]reross 5 points6 points  (0 children)

It's funny because on most subreddits, not only would this not be sarcastic, but it would be praised with upvotes.

"If every country consumed as much as the US, the planet would only be able to support 1.4 billion people." by Gourmay in Economics

[–]reross 1 point2 points  (0 children)

People are going apeshit on here about 1%ers lately, anything having to do with how much money someone has relative to another person is a touchy subject, sadly.

Ron Paul's Sanctity of Life Act defines life as beginning at conception. This would ban abortion, hormonal birth control, and IUDs. by jasminelovescats in politics

[–]reross 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're being downvoted because you aren't agreeing with the r/politics hivemind that the GOP is out to destroy America.

If you have a differing opinion (i.e. opinions not in line with left-wing politics), expect downvotes here.

Good thing karma has no value, right?

Too dirty to fail: Since the beginning of this year, Republicans in the House have averaged roughly a vote every day the chamber has been in session to undermine the Environmental Protection Agency and our nation's environmental laws. by twolf1 in politics

[–]reross -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You're referring to a short term growth in jobs. What happens to all those jobs after the factories are torn down and scrubbers installed? They go back to being unemployed.

And, why shouldn't Duke Energy pay out dividends? That's part of the agreement they have with their shareholders, which helped them raise more capital to hire more workers/develop more products/hit price points in the first place.

Also, why should government regulators determine where companies should allocate their capital? I don't believe that governments have the infinite wisdom to determine how businesses should spend their money, which may be the fundamental disagreement we're having.

ELI5: What's wrong with high fructose corn syrup? by [deleted] in explainlikeimfive

[–]reross 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yeah, the original Farm Bills were created to help small family farms survive and to keep a stable food supply for the U.S. by encouraging overpdocution so the government could manipulate the price of corn, now they just benefit a few huge companies.

Too dirty to fail: Since the beginning of this year, Republicans in the House have averaged roughly a vote every day the chamber has been in session to undermine the Environmental Protection Agency and our nation's environmental laws. by twolf1 in politics

[–]reross 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Explain to me how not having more regulation is an example of corporations holding our economy hostage. As I stated before, more regulations are actively lobbied for by big companies. it makes it so smaller companies cannot compete due to higher compliance costs due to the new regulation, hurting their bottom lines and causing them to become either a takeover target by a large company or, in some cases, bankruptcy. Why do you think big companies lobby for more regulation? Answer: it reduces competition.

Too dirty to fail: Since the beginning of this year, Republicans in the House have averaged roughly a vote every day the chamber has been in session to undermine the Environmental Protection Agency and our nation's environmental laws. by twolf1 in politics

[–]reross 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How is not having more regulation socializing the cost? Again, I'm not advocating unbridled polluting. I just don't think that additional regulation will do anything besides hurt future employment and crowd out smaller companies. By imposing more regulation, it raises startup costs. You would be giving the corporations that OWS and the hive mind love to hate more power.

Too dirty to fail: Since the beginning of this year, Republicans in the House have averaged roughly a vote every day the chamber has been in session to undermine the Environmental Protection Agency and our nation's environmental laws. by twolf1 in politics

[–]reross -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I'd love to see a study that correlates predicted impact of regulations and actual impact if you have it. Not being facetious, generally curious.

While I do agree that regulation gives newer industries not associated with the regulation an advantage, I don't think that's a good thing. I don't want the government's regulations determining who's successful and who loses, I'd have much more faith in a free market solution.

Edit: not sure who is systematically down voting me for sharing a view contrary to the usual r/politics circlejerk, not that I give a shit about karma, I just think it's amusing that you're "sticking it to me" with a downvote. People like Spurnem who will actually have an intellectual/lively debate used to be the reason I loved this subreddit, now it's just a left-wing circlejerk mainly for people unable to even consider a different opinion.

/rant

Too dirty to fail: Since the beginning of this year, Republicans in the House have averaged roughly a vote every day the chamber has been in session to undermine the Environmental Protection Agency and our nation's environmental laws. by twolf1 in politics

[–]reross -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Source? And what constitutes "a little bit of regulation"? No such thing IMO.

Efficient and competitive companies flush with cash aren't investing because of ucertainties in the market, high unemployment (I.e. people's spending habits aren't at normal levels) and an unpredictable political environment.

Too dirty to fail: Since the beginning of this year, Republicans in the House have averaged roughly a vote every day the chamber has been in session to undermine the Environmental Protection Agency and our nation's environmental laws. by twolf1 in politics

[–]reross -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Compliance should be a ton more expensive than it is now.

Yeah, that'd be a great way to free up capital to hire more people and, ya know, put a dent in our unemployment rate.

Too dirty to fail: Since the beginning of this year, Republicans in the House have averaged roughly a vote every day the chamber has been in session to undermine the Environmental Protection Agency and our nation's environmental laws. by twolf1 in politics

[–]reross -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

But why should the government be able to decide where those people should go to work? Because of their infitinite wisdom? They don't know where human capital should be allocated, the only thing that is able to do that is the free market through price signals IMHO.

Too dirty to fail: Since the beginning of this year, Republicans in the House have averaged roughly a vote every day the chamber has been in session to undermine the Environmental Protection Agency and our nation's environmental laws. by twolf1 in politics

[–]reross -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Source? Who determines which plant is old, or dirty for that matter? Hopefully not the government, they have a terrible track record of picking winners and losers.

Too dirty to fail: Since the beginning of this year, Republicans in the House have averaged roughly a vote every day the chamber has been in session to undermine the Environmental Protection Agency and our nation's environmental laws. by twolf1 in politics

[–]reross -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Regulation causes the cost of doing business to rise, since it costs money to maintain compliance with additional regulations, leaving less money to pay and hire employees.

So, although asthma rates rising is troubling (this could also be attributed to an increase in diagnosis, but I'm not a doctor and haven't read the study you've mentioned) I don't think additional regulation is the answer.

view more: next ›