Johnson & Johnson has sued four doctors who published studies citing links between talc-based personal care products and cancer, escalating an attack on scientific studies that the company alleges are inaccurate.
Dinosaurs existed in the past. Their policies resulted in no shelter from asteroids.
Wat.
Using your own rhetoric I could argue that the United States had famines in the past so therefore it will have them again.
Hah.
You could, if there was a history of famines in America’s past. The closest we really got was the dust bowl, and that was never really a famine.
Of course, the possibility is always open with global warming becoming a thing that we could experience some form of famine in the future. However, when it happens it’s almost certainly going to be because of global warming cannot because of asinine communist economic decision making that dis encourages people from producing any sort of surplus by imposing state quotas on them.
Forget that hunger and famine only exists in the now because we let it to justify capitalism
In the world? Hunger and famine largely exists because people live in regions with really corrupt governments and no way to produce food locally, it’s geopolitical more than economic and there really is no fixing it.
In the United States?
You guys have to use a chart that shows statistics on food insecurity instead of actual lack of access to food because lots of food programs exist and lots of people actually are able to get meals even when they are poor. Actual starvation is very rare in the United States, thanks to things like the snap programs.
The United States has problems to fix, but we seriously have a bigger epidemic of obesity among the poor than starvation.
Gee I wonder what economic system is causing global warming.
Oh yes, the Soviet Union, wonderful passion of green technology and environment.
You blame capitalism for shit that would be happening and would be even worse under other systems. The status quo is Not the fault of capitalism and you can’t simply blame the status quo on capitalism without showing that some new system would actually perform better.
Historically, non-capitalist systems are less efficient and pollute more.
Why shift the goal post
Yes, was shifting goalpost by responding to the two possible interpretations of your comment.
you even say yourself that obesity is a problem and obesity is a result of food deserts and terrible food programs in the US that stem from subsidized corn.
Yes.
This isn’t… What do you think you’re making a point here for? We should end subsidies on corn in the United States and allow the market to make that decision of what to produce.
That would be more capitalism.
You’re either trolling or unwilling to actually communicate on these topics at this point.
And you’re engaging in the age old internet tradition of accusing everyone who disagrees with you as a troll.
And famine is just the start. If you think any government is competent enough to handle the orchestration of a system is large and complicated as a modern economy you are hilariously mistaken.
I wouldn’t even know where to start. Basically every single item in your house runs through some sort of supply chain that would get fucked up if we tried to manage them all through some central planned economy.
During collectivization, the peasantry was required to relinquish their farm animals to government authorities. Many chose to slaughter their livestock rather than give them up to collective farms. In the first two months of 1930, kulaks killed millions of cattle, horses, pigs, sheep, and goats, with the meat and hides being consumed and bartered. In 1934, the 17th Congress of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) reported that 26.6 million head of cattle and 63.4 million sheep had been lost.[68] In response to the widespread slaughter, the Sovnarkom issued decrees to prosecute “the malicious slaughtering of livestock” (Russian: хищнический убой скота).[69]
Resistance
Thousands of Kazakhs violently resisted the collectivization campaign with weapons left over by the white army with 8 rebellions occurring in 1930 alone. [97] In the Mangyshlak Peninsula 15,000 rebels resisted between 1929 and 1931.
Also
Some kulaks responded by carrying out acts of sabotage such as killing livestock and destroying crops intended for consumption by factory workers
They fought against collectivization thinking something would happen. They unleashed a famine upon themselves.
EDIT: This part is so ridiculous I need to repeat it:
reported that 26.6 million head of cattle and 63.4 million sheep had been lost.
So much milk lost, could have fed so many people, you can bet there were millions of chickens too, millions of eggs that were never laid, kill the cattle, kill the natural cycle of reproduction, tonnes and tonnes of meat that were never born.
Some reactionaries BURNED FARMS to oppose communism, no wonder they starved.
The cattle part could could cause shortages, but at the end of the day when you don’t have cattle you can still feed people perfectly fine.
You won’t get to eat nearly as much meat, but you can still eat.
I’m mainly referring to the fact that you’re trying to blame the rebellion from the evil rich people for the cause of the famine instead of the very real economic misincentices created by the Soviet Union
deleted by creator
The Soviet Union existed in the past. Their policies resulted in famine.
deleted by creator
Wat.
Hah.
You could, if there was a history of famines in America’s past. The closest we really got was the dust bowl, and that was never really a famine.
Of course, the possibility is always open with global warming becoming a thing that we could experience some form of famine in the future. However, when it happens it’s almost certainly going to be because of global warming cannot because of asinine communist economic decision making that dis encourages people from producing any sort of surplus by imposing state quotas on them.
In the world? Hunger and famine largely exists because people live in regions with really corrupt governments and no way to produce food locally, it’s geopolitical more than economic and there really is no fixing it.
In the United States?
You guys have to use a chart that shows statistics on food insecurity instead of actual lack of access to food because lots of food programs exist and lots of people actually are able to get meals even when they are poor. Actual starvation is very rare in the United States, thanks to things like the snap programs.
The United States has problems to fix, but we seriously have a bigger epidemic of obesity among the poor than starvation.
deleted by creator
Oh yes, the Soviet Union, wonderful passion of green technology and environment.
You blame capitalism for shit that would be happening and would be even worse under other systems. The status quo is Not the fault of capitalism and you can’t simply blame the status quo on capitalism without showing that some new system would actually perform better.
Historically, non-capitalist systems are less efficient and pollute more.
Yes, was shifting goalpost by responding to the two possible interpretations of your comment.
Yes.
This isn’t… What do you think you’re making a point here for? We should end subsidies on corn in the United States and allow the market to make that decision of what to produce.
That would be more capitalism.
And you’re engaging in the age old internet tradition of accusing everyone who disagrees with you as a troll.
War resulted in famine.
War resulted in famine my ass.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1930%E2%80%931933
And famine is just the start. If you think any government is competent enough to handle the orchestration of a system is large and complicated as a modern economy you are hilariously mistaken.
I wouldn’t even know where to start. Basically every single item in your house runs through some sort of supply chain that would get fucked up if we tried to manage them all through some central planned economy.
Same page:
Also
They fought against collectivization thinking something would happen. They unleashed a famine upon themselves.
EDIT: This part is so ridiculous I need to repeat it:
So much milk lost, could have fed so many people, you can bet there were millions of chickens too, millions of eggs that were never laid, kill the cattle, kill the natural cycle of reproduction, tonnes and tonnes of meat that were never born.
Some reactionaries BURNED FARMS to oppose communism, no wonder they starved.
You do a very good job cherry picking, but all of these things together couldn’t starve a nation.
At the end of the day what killed the Soviet Union was the fact that they.
Created a system or the people producing the food weren’t making shit and had no incentive to actually work.
Opted to try to blame rich people instead of their own shitty system for causing the famine.
Killing millions of cattle and burning crops couldn’t starve a nation, hmm. OK, supremacist.
The cattle part could could cause shortages, but at the end of the day when you don’t have cattle you can still feed people perfectly fine.
You won’t get to eat nearly as much meat, but you can still eat.
I’m mainly referring to the fact that you’re trying to blame the rebellion from the evil rich people for the cause of the famine instead of the very real economic misincentices created by the Soviet Union
Burning crops, how many times do I need to repeat this part. They were also actively sabotaging collective farms.