sculptor
Valued Senior Member
all technology
Climate change Threatens the Future of World Crop Production
- Thread starter Woody1
- Start date
all technology
Let me repeat . . . . in very simple thought trains . . . ."I CUT/PASTED (excerpted verbatim!) from the lead-line of the DC article!" The 'article' is a link to the study. -read as you wish.
Re: poor journalism/reporting sources: Other 'poor' sources - MSN? MSNBC? CNN? NYT? WAPO? . . . Sciforums? . . . . (HAHA!) . . . . ad infinitum!
Unfortunately for readers (any) communications are commonly hampered by participants erroneously transforming their biases and prejudices into written narratives and representing such as FACTS!
Last edited:
Good! So you have learned to not trust right wing bias in such news stories.
Disagree! That may be what YOU have learned! Please quit trolling!
REPEATING!! . . . . . . . THAT is what the article said!! Please quit trolling!
?? You just posted something incorrect, and then stated that the mistake was not your fault - you just posted without checking. In your own words you "CUT/PASTED (excerpted verbatim!)" and did not check, and as a result posted "poor journalism/reporting sources."
So I assumed you learned your lesson and will not post such right wing bias without checking in the future. But perhaps I was wrong, and you will continue to make that mistake. Many people do.
OK. So you did not learn anything from your mistake, and will continue to blindly post right wing bias. (And you think that anyone who tries to point out your error is "trolling.") Good to know.
The Tuesday science section of the NYT is pretty good.
The Daily Caller is, as you have just discovered, worthless.
It is not what the study said. The article claimed to be reporting on the study, but the study said something quite different.
You can verify that for yourself by reading the study.
So the article was wrong. Almost all articles in the Daily Caller that deal with climate science are wrong, for some reason.
In the future, you could avoid posting wrong reports of studies by linking to the studies themselves, or to sources of news more reliable in such matters (the more left and liberal news does a much better job of reporting on scientific issues, but almost any actual news source will to better than the Daily Caller).
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
And who would pay for these independent studies, especially if they pertain to our use of national natural resources, and interstate commerce.
I am all in favor of efficiency and cost controls in all government services, but unless national standards are applied, there can be no reliance that these services are distributed fairly and produce consistent results.
What most people forget is that government is a not for profit institution, which provides necessary services to the general public and the administration of these services provides jobs at fair wages. But the government itself is forbidden to make a profit, IOW, it cannot levy taxes that exceed the actual cost of these services.
Unfortunately people are so opposed to paying taxes that the government is often underfunded and forced to borrow money from for-profit banks, which charge interest on borrowed money. That just means part of your taxes is used to pay interest to for-profit banks. Money wasted!
This is why the majority of developed countries employ a single-payer system of healthcare, it removes the for-profit insurance companies from the chain of healthcare distribution, which translates in cost savings.
Medicare is such a model. The EPA is such a model. The Dept. of Transportation which maintains Interstate Highways is such a model. The Dept. of Interstate Commerce is such a model. The FBI, CIA, and NSA are such models. We have to fund these programs through taxation, but at least we know that the government makes no profit over actual expenditures.
These are all non-profit Social Services which serve ALL the national citizenry without making a profit.
The government does employ many for-profit companies, but it does so by competitive bids, by qualified contractors to ensure the lowest possible cost.
To put it simply, we can employ the government which pays Peter a fair wage but does not (cannot) make a profit, or we can employ Paul's company which pays Peter a fair wage but must also make a profit (as evidenced by the yearly bonuses paid out to stockholders.) Which is cheaper ? The maths are not that difficult.
As with all large organizations, the main problem is corruption. And it is clearly evident today that some government officials make a profit in the conduction of government business. This is why we have oversight committees, to ensure that government business is removed from any profit motive.
Last edited:
To your last statement ; does it work ?
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
In principle the delivery of common social services which benefit All, without profit can work very well.
I used to work as accountant for a large non-profit community service company and the way it works is that the company submits a budget of expected expenditures with documentation why these expenditures are necessary to the community. If approved, the government sets aside funds for the requested budget, from which the non-profit can draw upon presentation of actual expenditures.
btw. the non-profit company is supposed to have a certain prior investment which is called "in-kind" value, such as office space, and administrative tools such as a start-up capital, computers, desks, trucks, etc. which are usually acquired by donations from fund-raisers or private foundations.
Here is how it works in practice. The non-profit provides the service and records the actual cost of that service say, weatherization of homes for poor people who qualify for assistance. Then only after the service has been provided the company submits an exact accounting of expenditures to the funding Agency, which then reimburses the non-profit. This practice is followed for all expenses such as administrative costs, which cannot exceed a fixed % of the total amount of the grant.. The larger the grant the lower the % of the total is allowed for administrative costs. When I was still working, this percentage for administrative costs ranged from 10% down to 2% depending on the total size of the grant. Thus at least 90% of the grants was used to deliver actual services. And of course part of the salaries paid from the 10% administrative costs were taxed just like anyone else . The company itself would not be taxed because it made no profit, all expenses for purchase of insulation or windows were taxed by the for-profit manufacturer, who would then pay taxes like any other for-profit company.
If this system is used properly it leads to savings to the tax payer, while providing maximum services to the qualified needy.
IMO, this is why a not-for-profit single-payer healthcare system would save a tremendous amount on administrative costs and profit by intermediary insurance companies and free up more money for needed hands-on healthcare services. This is why it works pretty good in most European countries as well as in Canada.
Private for-profit insurers just treat health care as a commodity and as a means to make a profit. That's just wasted money.
I would rather see 90% of available funds be used for its intended purpose than say, 70 %.
Last edited: