Just as some people needed a god to be good,
so companies need laws to keep them being upstanding contributing patrons of society.
Yes, thats about the size of it... especially when large chunks of the shareholders are other companies or investment schemes... not just "mom+pop" investors who might be convinced that good corporate citizenship was a thing worth having.
“Maximising returns for shareholders”?
Its a shitty argument
I concur completely...
I do not wish, for one second, to be seen as supporting or applauding multinationals with billions in revenue, not paying their fair share and supporting our governments revenue base, which will help pay for government services and relieve the personal tax burden. on individual citizens...
I will however point out, that said companies, are generally required (by law ?), to maximise returns for shareholders... which obviously, includes not "spending" money that does not need to be spent... thus, it's not just a "moral" matter... they are obliged either by legal requirement or at least perceived duty, to minimise their tax exposure/payments by any LEGAL means possible...
Short version... Big companies will not be shamed into voluntarily coughing up more tax payments... it's the Laws that need to be changed so they don't have a legal way to avoid them...
Bottom line – nobody owns the missing million.
And their support is worthless anyway because they don’t vote. .
If they continue to not vote, then sure it's worth nothing... but many suspect it's easier to convert them from not voting to voting, (ie. from not counting to worth something) if you can give them something to vote for... easier than getting previously voted for X to now voting Y...
So you seem to be suggesting non-voters will always remain so? Self fulfilling if you dont even try to appeal to them...
I’m curious if you know how many, and how you know. Longitudinal studies aren’t that common. It’s common to say “Labour lost voters to National”, but actually proving this based on opinion polls of total support is not very compelling.
I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve been polled over the years… +5 at least… (including UMR, Curia, Colmar)
Most of them ask who you voted for at the last election before asking about current topics and intentions… if you say undecided, then most ask which way you are leaning… most ask if you intend to vote at all if an election is imminent…
So while that wont* give multi-election sequential longitudinality (is that a word? :) it will at least cover change from last time…
* I’m assuming that the results are randomised, and so they are only collecting 7% voted Oasis last election but will now vote Blur… as opposed to “survey respondee xy23a5" voted Oasis last election, intends to vote Blur in the coming one, and has previously voted Blur, Blur, Oasis and Maroon5 ?
I'm pretty sure I made the descent into the crater (and climb back out) on my first or second visit as a teenager, way back in the early '80s before it was suggested to be a bad idea for either cultural respect or geographic conservation reasons...
Does anyone else recall the old mechanical cash register in there? It's long gone now, but stayed for many years to my recall.. presumably thrown from the top as a lark, and not removed for considerable time due to it's weight and the difficulty of the slope? I'm sure I saw it at least ten times, only visiting a few times a year?
Also, just going back to the original post… I think it’s pretty awesome that a medicine introduced so long ago (ie, Ventolin aerosol inhaler) is still the go-to product as a symptom reliever… when the “preventers” have been 1) ever-changing, and 2) not working as well as expected… is pretty cool.
Thanks, are indeed, owed to it’s invention/inventors.
As I’ve already posted about the drugs I take and how long I’ve been on them (since mid/late 1970’s)…
I also have done a Buteyko breathing course here in NZ…. after being encouraged to investigate it locally after family members saw a 60-minutes (or similar?) 20-minute segment on it on Australian TV some-time in the 1990’s. And while I’m unsure if the “theory or reasons” they provide are accurate, or “psuedo-science”, I am convinced that the course provided plausible explanations about what I already knew about my condition, the actions they suggested seemed to help my condition, and while my drug use has not been eliminated, it has been reduced significantly, and I suspect it could have been reduced further had I been bothered to follow through and continue the breathing exercises (some of which are difficult) for longer…
I paid several hundred dollars for the course($300-$500? I forget?) about 18 or 20 years ago… While it seemed expensive at the time, I think I’ve reaped enough benefit that I don’t begrudge it… but I’m not sure I would “recommend” it… (I believe the price has gone up considerably since I partook?)… but if you can buy a book, or find some info with Google.. I’d definitely say asthmatics who are not aware of these teachings should investigate it… The “theory” may or may-not be correct, but the “practise” seems to work for many….
For me, two of the best indicators of someone who can step up from MP to PM are their ability to engage deeply across a wide range of issues, and their ability to cope with the demands of sustained periods in the spotlight.
Desirable traits, no doubt, but our current PM doesn't seem to have needed that first one?
I was diagnosed around age 7 or so in the mid ’70’s and had Ventolin blue Inhaler (releiver) and,"Intal” in the “Spinhaler” preventer, which is the one Russell described. (pierce the capsule, small propeller inside, no propellant).
I got moved off the aerosol propellant Ventolin and changed to the “Diskhaler” described by Pete Sime sometime in the mid 80’s, but then after a few years back to the standard inhaler.
Intal preventer got exchanged for Palmacourt in a “Turbuhaler” which is a metered dose dispenser, but human rather than aerosol powered. This was then given up for the Seretide about 5 or so years ago?
Both the Intal and the Palmacourt which are taken on a regular schedule, rather than “as required” (like Ventolin reliever), had the undesirable effect of actually CAUSING a mild shortness of breath…. not quite an asthma attack, but worrying none the less seeing as that is exactly what they are supposed to reduce….
I believe it is this effect that actually lead to the idea of putting some reliever in with the preventer to be taken simultaneously, as per the new(-ish) Seretide and competitors? These seem to work FAR better than the older preventers.
.I often wondered…..does fear of an attack sometimes exacerbate the condition?
I’m sure of it….
I could go whole days without needing a puff of Ventolin, but I’ve always (intended to) have an inhaler in my pocket or very close by on a continuous basis…. And on many occasions in the last 30+ years I’ve been dealing with this… Discovery that the inhaler had been forgotten was a near immediate trigger to a mild attack- usually within the next 5-10 minutes (when you’d gone half a day or more without the need to puff, but ignorant of it's lack of availability).
My asthma is now under much better control than it used to be, now that I’m on Seretide (purple inhaler, reliever and preventer combination), so I can go whole weeks without a puff on the ventolin… but I still have it by my side on a continuous basis…