Draconian vacation policies for US slave workers
in [Europe]
|
From: Tchiowa on 27 Jul 2006 20:19 The Reid wrote: <Obstinate denial that you mis-spoke despite undeniable proof snipped, not worth the effort to repeat the proof> > >"Yesterday's battles"??? There was a discussion about medical care > >*TODAY*, economic policy *TODAY*, etc. Those are today's discussions. > >People like you are still trying to cling to an economic philosophy > >that failed. > > Nonsence, I live and work in a free market capitalist system that > chooses to fund medical care from taxes, that isnt a failed > communist state. you dont seem to be able to differentiate the > two. You don't seem to understand that what you just described is called "Socialism". > I'm looking at economic mechanisms that will be needed in the > *future*, you are looking at the past, seeing capitalism beat > communism and basing all your thinking around that one point.. Again you demonstrate a basic lack of understanding. Capitalism didn't "beat" Communism. Communism/Socialism failed all by itself. Socialism is a fatally flawed theory and any attempt to implement it will always fail over time. That has been proven over and over again. > >> Economic theory and warming are linked in that in a purely > >> capitalist system dependant on growth there is no mechanism to > >> accomodate the new reality of the priority of reducing emissions. > >> this was my original point. > > > >I guess you need to learn what Capitalism means before you continue to > >make comments. > > you guess wrong. > > >Capitalism has exactly zero do with mechanisms to > >accomodate new realities. > > Capitalism has to do with profit orientated privately (as opposed > to state) controlled systems that flourish or fail by levels of > profit or loss, nothing much else. The new realities may clash > with that. You mean your personal view of reality which has been shown to be more than a little bit skewed. > >Or are you talking about some other form of Capitalism that you forgot > >to specify and are assuming that people here can read you mind? > > Maybe *you* cant comprehend what i'm talking about. For example > our system depends on growth, one particular example is pension > fund investment. Growth is going to be in part incompatible with > reducing pollution. This is a problem. Growth is *not* incompatible with reducing pollution. That's what you don't get. There is a common term to describe the state in which an organism is no longer growing. It's called "death". Those who demand that the world quit growing and advancing are promoting yet another guaranteed-to-fail theory.
From: Tchiowa on 27 Jul 2006 20:24 Keith W wrote: > "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:1153993163.701557.41520(a)s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > >> In Thailand the situation is somewhat similar, AC is fairly widespread > >> amongst the upper socio economic classes but not available for > >> the majority. > > > > Blithering nonsense. I live in Thailand. A/C is not commonly used in > > farming areas because the houses aren't sufficiently well-insulated. > > But during the hottest times of the year the locals complain about > > difficulty sleeping. > > > The majority of people in Thailand have A/C available. Whether they > > choose to buy it or not is a different story. In Bangkok probably 95% > > of the middle class has A/C and half of the poor. > > Most people dont live in Bangkok and most of the population DONT have AC Most of the population either has A/C or doesn't need it (living up north it's not always necessary). And the portion I responded to was the statement that A/C is "not available" for the majority which is simply silly. > >> In Nigeria outside of foreign compounds and government offices > >> its almost unknown. Most Nigerians count themselves lucky > >> to have a transistor radio let alone AC > > > > I've lived in Nigeria for 2-3 years total. Again, in the rural areas > > where there is no A/C you're right. But in Lagos or Abuja or PH A/C is > > not at all uncommon. > > They are a small part of the country and I doubt you spent much time in > the poorer districts. When 60% of the population hevent even got > electricity you wont seem many air conditioners Which is what I said if you re-read it. > > And your comment about radios is kind of silly. > > Maybe 20 years ago. > > Nope, according to official Nigerian Govt statistics only 10% of > rural households and 40% of the total population have > access to electricity. Were you under the impression that transistor radios don't run on batteries? Battery powered radios are the most common form of "home entertainment" in the remote areas.
From: Tchiowa on 27 Jul 2006 20:27 Mxsmanic wrote: > The Reid writes: > > > is the difference here between a perception of an "international" > > district and one of the country in general? > > Perhaps it is the difference between a civilized metropolis and a > backward countryside. I think it is the difference between a perception of a poverty stricken Third World country and reality which is a maturing economy and a substantial middle class. Thailand isn't First World yet, but neither is it Third World. 20 years ago the village where my wife was raised had no electricity, no phones, 1 dirt road coming in. Now there are paved roads, phones, electricity, cable TV, satellite TV, cell phone towers and, yes, air conditioning. And this is still considered a "poor farming areas".
From: Tchiowa on 27 Jul 2006 20:33 Miguel Cruz wrote: > Mxsmanic <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > The Reid writes: > >> is the difference here between a perception of an "international" > >> district and one of the country in general? > > > > Perhaps it is the difference between a civilized metropolis and a > > backward countryside. > > Call them what you will, they still work hard and have no trouble with > the climate. Of course Tak is up north and it is significantly cooler there than in Bangkok or the south. I agree with the "they still work hard" and I'm kind of offended by the "backward countryside" remark. The Thai are not "backward" in my experience.
From: Tchiowa on 27 Jul 2006 20:38
Miguel Cruz wrote: > "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > The majority of people in Thailand have A/C available. Whether they > > choose to buy it or not is a different story. In Bangkok probably 95% > > of the middle class has A/C and half of the poor. > > Half of the poor? What? Have you stepped outside the Paragon and the > Skytrain recently? You clearly move in rarefied circles that do not > represent the reality of Bangkok. Walk along the railroad tracks, along > the khlongs, all the really high-density areas. I'd be surprised if half > the poor in Bangkok have running water and four walls, let alone AC. > > There is not a chance in hell that 50% of the Thai population has AC > available, unless you mean they have the option to walk into a 7-Eleven. > > miguel If you look at the poorer sections of Bangkok as you drive through you'll see A/C units mounted on a substantial portion of them. Wooden houses that don't seem (and probably aren't) sealed well enough to fully take advantage of A/C still have them. So, yes, in Bangkok (as I said) probably half of the poor have access to A/C and not from 7-11. I hope your comment about half not having 4 walls was intended to be a facetious exageration because it has no bearing on the reality of Bangkok in 2006. In fact the water situation has improved so much over the past couple of decades that the doctors no longer warn people to avoid it. And remember that Bangkok is largely middle class (the poor are a small and shrinking minority in Bangkok). So the poor are not representative of Bangkok. |