hitmyspot @ hitmyspot @aussie.zone

Posts

2

Comments

1,436

Joined

2 yr. ago

I think kitkats taste nice but I haven't had one in years. Whether you think they are shit or not, the point is that they provide some value for some people. On ethical grounds, I don't buy them.

For many people, this is the same thing. Lemmy provides value to me. However, it is open source with other forks and the devs don't run my home instance. If Lemmy required advertising or a fee to use, it would have failed. However users are not under an obligation to donate. Generally, I would advocate donating for foss software. However, there is a difference between supporting software and supporting people.

So does nestlé, I still boycott them as our values don’t align.

Yep, inequality was up, cost of living was down. The economy was doing fine. What the democrats failed to see is that generally when the economy is doing well, the rising tide lifts all boats. In this instance, with post Covid inflation, the economy was not lifting all boats. It was making the asset rich wealthier while making day to day living harder for all that work for a living.

Candy bars were 30p in Ireland in 1990s and that equates to about $0.50. I went on a trip to the USA around then and most things, especially junk food, was cheaper.

He also doesn’t know anything about a lot.

Lol, yes they do. Look at Ireland and Croatia. Ireland has gone from being one of the poorest to wealthiest. Croatia is moving that way.

Wealthy countries all continue to grow also, obviously. So it's the rate that matters, so gaps close and people are better off on average.

Lol, no. It's to help them catch up so they can purchase products the wealthier countries sell. It's mutually beneficial.

In what way? I thought unemployment was down significantly, which is a big help for a lot of people.

You do know that these wealthier countries pay more into the EU and the poorer countries get structural funding for infrastructure etc to help them catch up to the wealthier?

Which worked. It also worked for Portugal and Ireland. Greece may or may not have been able to correct their issues on their own. However, there were lots of structural issues, including cultural issues around taxation.

Fun fact: the USA is a union of states.

Ask Croatia, Ireland, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Slovakia andSlovenia if they are? Hint, they absolutely are.

Any union with such a variety of policies will have winners and losers for every project and legislation. Sometimes that will be individuals, sometimes countries. The point is that most are better off in general and that every country is better off from the sum of policies.

Countries have less control of their individual exchange rate. That was problematic for Greece, who underwent austerity, successfully I might add as access to the EU wide economy and trade, including (over)tourism is what's taken them back from the brink.

In terms of larger countries, it has been beneficial for France and Germany, less so for Italy, but also less of a problem and less of the fluctuations the lira used to suffer.

Fun fact, the USA is a union of states.

The currency is only one aspect and a quite recent aspect. Many other aspects of sovereignty are ceded as a condition of joining. However, the pros outweigh the cons.

The point of the increased cooperation is that everyone is better off, with less risk of war and better protections. The EU sets many minimum standards for goods, services, interoperability and budgets, legislation, courts etc that countries cannot override.

Death to the US is reductive and inflammatory.

So, abandon the EU? Abandon the concept of the USA? My comment was tongue in cheek but deep cooperation can be a good thing. It's part of the reason for the EU. Mutual dependency reduces the risk of war. Isolationism, like the USA is tending towards leads to more war.

Well, you can safely store it with trusted allies….

All while those in power seek more power. Fighting back as a rep becomes harder, not easier when the rule of law is ignored.

It, of course affects pricing. If they pay $5 to apple, you pay $5 more. It's just like Trump's tariffs. The end user pays. Sure, the market encourages keeping prices down to attract customers, but if everyone pays a toll, you can't compete below that.

Now the companies can. Just like you don't care about companies paying each other, companies don't care where they can cut costs. Making their product cheaper, and therefore more attractive to increase sales is good for them. In this case it just happens to be good for consumers too. They may not pass on that hypothetical $5 but if they pass on $4, we're still better off. Apple is worse off.

I wonder how long before services are targeted for tariffs in response to Trump. It may be that prices for apps and games go back up immediately.

I'm glad they used up political capital that hasn't directly done damage and now allows her to take the position without as much resistance, most likely. I'm sure they will still try to go against her, but it will be all the harder when articles like this allude to a non progressive agenda in the old establishment within the party.

Being able to circumvent their measures doesn't mean they aren't actively trying to increase harms for residents.