Sen. Cory Booker is dropping out of the 2020 presidential campaign.
Sen. Cory Booker is dropping out of the 2020 presidential campaign.
If this passes I hope it turns everyone on Trump.
The trump administration is proposing a Tariff of 100% on most wines, bubbly, scotches, bourbons and whiskeys from Europe.
What does that mean for pricing? That $15 bottle of wine will now be $30. That $12 glass at your favorite restaurant will now be a $24 glass.
Here in Boston they were interviewing Restaurant and liquor store owners asking them what this would mean for them. And most said it would destroy them. For example, one restaurant says 75% of the wines they server are from Europe and subject to the tariff. And there is no way they can not pass on the price increases to the consumer.
Also included in the new proposed tariffs are olive oils, certain cheeses.
Edit: This tariff is in retaliation on a French tariff on the tech industry.
Read this article about how climate change is communicated. Would put it in the science thread, but what like 5 people hang out in there.
Why Apocalyptic Claims About Climate Change Are Wrong
Climate change is real but it's not the end of the world. And increasingly extreme statements by activists undermine environmental progress, say climate scientists.www.forbes.com
but HEY! don't poo-poo the science thread - we actually talked about this a bit last year. Please post there. It would be nice if people actually were interested in doing some science learning together.
I was just saying that the same people in the science thread overlap here, so what was the point.
It seemed like in this article that the person was subtlety laying more blame of the ills of the world on economic inequality.
What the hell is european bourbon? They have a Kentucky in Europe?If this passes I hope it turns everyone on Trump.
The trump administration is proposing a Tariff of 100% on most wines, bubbly, scotches, bourbons and whiskeys from Europe.
What does that mean for pricing? That $15 bottle of wine will now be $30. That $12 glass at your favorite restaurant will now be a $24 glass.
Here in Boston they were interviewing Restaurant and liquor store owners asking them what this would mean for them. And most said it would destroy them. For example, one restaurant says 75% of the wines they server are from Europe and subject to the tariff. And there is no way they can not pass on the price increases to the consumer.
Also included in the new proposed tariffs are olive oils, certain cheeses.
Edit: This tariff is in retaliation on a French tariff on the tech industry.
Also and on a more serious note. Here in NC, restaurants pay the same as the general public for liquor. This means that the $40 bottle of bourbon, also costs them $40, which means a shot is going to be close to $10 to create profit.If this passes I hope it turns everyone on Trump.
The trump administration is proposing a Tariff of 100% on most wines, bubbly, scotches, bourbons and whiskeys from Europe.
What does that mean for pricing? That $15 bottle of wine will now be $30. That $12 glass at your favorite restaurant will now be a $24 glass.
Here in Boston they were interviewing Restaurant and liquor store owners asking them what this would mean for them. And most said it would destroy them. For example, one restaurant says 75% of the wines they server are from Europe and subject to the tariff. And there is no way they can not pass on the price increases to the consumer.
Also included in the new proposed tariffs are olive oils, certain cheeses.
Edit: This tariff is in retaliation on a French tariff on the tech industry.
Yes to all of this. It's frustrating as someone who works in the natural sciences and who has to talk about climate change all of the rhetoric from the people that are supposedly supporting the science. The left and the right have helped make everyone dumber about the issue. The left are usually less wrong but who cares when you are saying things that are not just factually incorrect but misinformation that is dangerous socially, politically, scientifically, aaaand to your mental and physical health.
but HEY! don't poo-poo the science thread - we actually talked about this a bit last year. Please post there. It would be nice if people actually were interested in doing some science learning together.
So you are saying that the 2 degree celcius rise isn't as important as reported? Because my brother has a degree in this shit and would vehemently disagree while pointing out that the models he was taught 10 years ago have proven too conservative.
Also, this Warren / Bernie thing is obnoxious as fuck and really makes me distrust Warren.
Prescription drugs are a problem. There is no reason that epi-pens should be as expensive as they are. Or insulin. Or anything, really.On an other forum I'm following a discussion on the high costs of healthcare.
A growing trend is brand name companies and pharmacy benefits managers (PBM) are working together to generate more sales of brand names and higher checks.
What does this mean? A lot of people are finding that for certain prescriptions, generics are not being covered by their insurance. Only the brand names are. For certain products that is.
One of the most common things listed in the thread is inhalers. Several people have reported in 2020 their insurance no longer covers generic options. They have to either pay full price for the generic, or get the rand name with a high co-pay. For example I saw someone list $50. What's even more infuriating is that same brand name inhaler is $27 with Good RX if they don't go through their insurance. A savings $23 and the generic through Good RX is even cheaper.
These practices are causing us to pay more for our prescription drugs and increase profits for big pharmaceutical and the insurance companies.
Here is an article on the matter. And this also applies to things like Adderall.
Take the Generic Drug, Patients Are Told — Unless Insurers Say No
Faced with competition, some pharmaceutical companies are cutting deals with insurance companies to favor their brand-name products over cheaper generics. Insurers pay less, but sometimes consumers pay more.www.propublica.org
No
The exact opposite. I have a “degree in this shit” too. A doctorate in earth science if you must know.
If you read what I said and understand the words then I don’t know how you would get that out of myresponse.
What I said was that we are not going to stop warming another 2-4 degrees C, globally, even if we turn off the faucet today, and that faucet isn’t going to be turned off today tomorrow and probably anytime until every profitable fossil fuel is extracted.
Two decades ago we should’ve started investing in adaptation strategies and that’s still where the money should be going. Well there and legitimately uplifting the worlds poorest people who will face the brunt of the damage
That being said the human species is not dying out due to climate change as catastrophists suggest.
I said all of this already
I don't know what the point of the article was. Was it simply to point out that fear-mongering is an issue and provide some evidence? or Was it a more subtle argument for the benefits of globalism uplifting the poorest of the poor into some hypothetical middle-class existence? The latter may be true and if so the author is just as guilty of skewing the facts as the climate activists and media outlets he chastises.
The complexities around the poorest of the poor being "uplifted" out of poverty into some western standard of economic and intellectual complacency are too numerous for my brain to try and go through here, but I will say that those global capitalist ideals are approaching the problems from an extremely biased 'moral' agenda of their own.
My feeling is that while Carbon math and economics are not well understood and more complex than most of the pro-people would like to admit, the carbon story is quite simple imo. As long as there are fossil fuels to be used they will be, and as long as there is money to be made from the mining, processing, and distribution of those fuels they will be harvested. It's true that as people become more urbanized and less desperate they tend to breed less, but I think banking on people breeding less (enough) is another foolish idea.... and why should any other country/people/culture develop in the manner that globalism sees fit?
The fact is that even if we turned off the carbon faucet this second (which we won't) the atmosphere will continue to warm for some time. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't do so but there are still going to be unavoidable and significant consequences. What is needed is a proper tax structure that discourages negative carbon activities, encourages positive ones, and moves some of the wealth from the oil, gas, and mining industries into adaptation and innovation sectors. These would be very different choices than we have been making.
We also just need to stop thinking only in terms of the next fiscal or election cycle and start to think in much longer terms 25, 50, 100 years or more. If we can consider the future and behave conservatively based on our current understanding we have a shot, but again this is very different thinking than most people employ in their day to day lives.
Humans will continue to exist. The weakest and most desperate among us will be punished the most by the past activities of the privileged..... but this is always the case.
I was simply double checking especially because you alluded to your degree.
But the headline (haven't read) of that article implies that people who argue we are facing mass extinction are speaking in hyperbole and hurting the cause... and it's not hyperbole. Thus why I was confused.
I was simply double checking especially because you alluded to your degree.
But the headline (haven't read) of that article implies that people who argue we are facing mass extinction are speaking in hyperbole and hurting the cause... and it's not hyperbole. Thus why I was confused.
40 years or so since acid rain and ozone were recognized
I recently saw a climate denier meme that talked about these two problems. I was taking the chicken little view of these two problem. However they ignored the fact that there were interventions based on science that mitigated the problem. I had a chuckle.