Other economic systems don’t incentivise companies to produce trash products that break quickly to keep the customer coming back, or to use non-recyclable materials because they cost 3 cents less.
Oh yes, they do. Corruption, unrealistic n-year plans and secrecy for example lead to defective products, poor quality and accidents. That’s exactly what happened in Chernobyl, and I don’t need to tell you how bad that was for the environment.
What happened at Chernobyl was the politicians refusing to listen to the scientists. They were performing an experiment that the designers of the plant told them was exceedingly dangerous, and blew up their reactor. At least they did it unintentionally, unlike the Army Corps of Engineers.
And why did “the politicians” refuse not to listen to “the scientists”? Part of the answer is definitely due to unrealistic n-year plans.
Also, there were other factors at play such as secrecy around the danger of graphite-tipped control rods. The Soviets had discovered this danger already, but had kept it secret even from their nuclear engineers.
When the response to my question of “what do you think is better” is an esoteric shout out to a culture that’s been dead for thousands of years, that isn’t even in the first page of Google results for “six nations” yeah. You’re right. It’s not a good faith argument
Capitalism is why we have ruined the environment.
Other economic systems aren’t exactly protective of the environment either though, so I don’t really get your point.
Other economic systems don’t incentivise companies to produce trash products that break quickly to keep the customer coming back, or to use non-recyclable materials because they cost 3 cents less.
Oh yes, they do. Corruption, unrealistic n-year plans and secrecy for example lead to defective products, poor quality and accidents. That’s exactly what happened in Chernobyl, and I don’t need to tell you how bad that was for the environment.
What happened at Chernobyl was the politicians refusing to listen to the scientists. They were performing an experiment that the designers of the plant told them was exceedingly dangerous, and blew up their reactor. At least they did it unintentionally, unlike the Army Corps of Engineers.
And why did “the politicians” refuse not to listen to “the scientists”? Part of the answer is definitely due to unrealistic n-year plans.
Also, there were other factors at play such as secrecy around the danger of graphite-tipped control rods. The Soviets had discovered this danger already, but had kept it secret even from their nuclear engineers.
Which economic system, in your opinion, would produce the highest quality products? And you can use whatever definition of quality you like
The Six Nations managed to keep their economic system functioning without a hiccup for at least 15,000 to 25,000 years. That one seems to work.
Ok. Let’s switch to six nations.
That definitely answers my question
It’s very clear you are not arguing in good faith.
When the response to my question of “what do you think is better” is an esoteric shout out to a culture that’s been dead for thousands of years, that isn’t even in the first page of Google results for “six nations” yeah. You’re right. It’s not a good faith argument
Not sure why you brought up quality of products in the first place.
Capitalism is the only one really employed across the world.
They dont do planned obsolecence either.
See, people?..this is what the Temecommunications Act gets you.