Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Banned in California

bannedincalifornia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 749 posts

Re: Banned in California

#411

Post by bubbleRefuge »

Fischgericht wrote: post #243

There is a reason these kind of things are no longer possible in much of the western world and especially Europe-like US states like California: After the deindustrialization people started to enjoy healthy air and clear water. As always when it comes to "the good old times" or "make great again", your brain will remember very selectively. I used to live next to a large river for about 35 years. As a kid, it was forb…

In a modern money/fiat money regime, the federal government can afford anything in nominal terms. As such, the solution would be to subsidize the industries that make the most sense for standard of living and national security so they can participate in the market. Use government subsidies to offset the costs of environmental remediation .

Re: Banned in California

#412

Post by chaboud »

When I was a kid growing up in Texas, our ocean visits were to the Gulf of Mexico, off the Texas coast, and you would grab little alcohol wipes for when you got out of the ocean, to wipe the oil off.

Years later, swimming in Hawaii, I found myself looking for wipes. I mentioned it to a snorkel-outfit operator, and she looked at me like I was insane. They didn't even put damaging sunscreen in the water, and there was no expectation of little 1-2 inch sticky spots of oil.

The good old days, in the 80's, where we swam in oceans filled with slow-motion natural disasters. I wonder how much of it was place (Hawaiians seem to have a stronger relationship with the land and nature surrounding them) and how much of it was the time (20 years later).

Re: Banned in California

#413

Post by lokar »

PurpleRamen wrote: post #408
lokar wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

California has droughts, but never water shortages.

Depends on the usage. According to news, there were water shortages in the past in California. Though, we are not talking just about California here.

The only shortages are for farmers, and a few isolated and very poor towns.

IMO, the (existing) towns should get more state support to have affordable safe domestic water. The shortage is not raw untreated water, but just transporting it and treating it.

The farmers? I sympathize, but they are trying to grow crops in an extremely fertile but arid valley. It's going to be constrained by the natural environment.

Re: Banned in California

#414

Post by lxgr »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #341
unbalancedevh wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If I had a button that would wipe out the entire Amazon jungle and replace it with a world class high technology industry, I wouldn't even think twice before pressing it. I used to think this way, but I've come to realize that it's very short-sighted. It's not sustainable, and we're already seeing how unchecked industrialization over the last couple centuries is leading to unintended/undesirable effects on our heal…

> It's not sustainable You know what's not sustainable? Exponential growth fueled by credit. Banks loaning money at nearly zero percent interest. Money that gets loaned out, spent, deposited back into the bank and loaned out again , and again , exponentially, until a ludicrously huge financial callstack is created. This financial callstack wants to unwind. It can only do so safely by the payment of debts. At some poi…

> At some point, someone will actually have to go out there and extract value out of this planet in order to pay back those debts.

Not a single atom on the planet has to be moved to extinguish all debts. Money and debt are (very useful and powerful!) bookkeeping constructs only.

> Look at the national debts of countries the world over. That's money they don't have.

Then who has it? Modern money is based on debt, and where there's a debt, there must be a creditor.

> Banks loaning money at nearly zero percent interest. Money that gets loaned out, spent, deposited back into the bank and loaned out again [...] Money is not infinite.

You seem to be basing your argument on some seriously outdated and thoroughly refuted models of money.

Re: Banned in California

#415

Post by 5upplied_demand »

lokar wrote: post #384
kardianos wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are the incorrect choices. You CAN actually do these processes, and still keep the environment clean. I believe in procedural symmetry: if you ACTUALLY care about people and the environment, then you wouldn't let other poorer do these thing. The USA being richer, can afford to do it right and safer, not through regulation, but through process. There is a difference. So what would you do if you ACTUALLY cared ab…

FWIW, California can't restrict the importation and sale of items manufactured legally in other states if the item itself (after manufacture) is safe. CA can't tell other states to ban various manufacturing techniques.

> California can't restrict the importation and sale of items manufactured legally in other states if the item itself (after manufacture) is safe.

I'm not sure about that, maybe it is based on the definition of "safe". There are tortilla chips made in Chicago that explicitly say they cannot be sold in California on the packaging. This is due to chemicals banned in Prop 65.

https://www.reddit.com/r/mildlyinteresting/comments/1220zn9/...

Re: Banned in California

#416

Post by lxgr »

jdross wrote: post #278
JaggerJo wrote: post #273

[flagged]

I’m married to a Brit and she is constantly in awe of how much better our healthcare is here in the US. And she paid for private insurance there too. Quality of facilities, low wait times, quality of staff interactions, organization, etc. She even freaks out about how we have free parking at our doctors and hospitals here! We’re on corporate insurance.

US healthcare is excellent – if you can afford it.

Re: Banned in California

#417

Post by _DeadFred_ »

parineum wrote: post #371
temp8830 wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

USA is already effectively priced out of manufacturing due to high labor costs. Doing things with the "correct choices" simply makes the impossible even more so.

It's actually not labor costs at all. The difference between the USA and, for example, China, in manufacturing is the difficulty of getting a new factory built. If you have a product designed and ready for production, it will take you years to build a factory in the USA. All the while you'll be losing money managing the build, paying your employees and, most importantly, letting your competitors get a head start. Lik…

'Company learns from mistakes, third time it does something it does it better, quicker'

Re: Banned in California

#418

Post by kspacewalk2 »

joe_mamba wrote: post #370
kspacewalk2 wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Central/Eastern Europe, the problem is increasingly one of demographics. You can sometimes find somewhat cheap labour due to shitty (geo)politics, stagnant economies and poorly trained workers, but big-picture-like, the age of labour abundance is over. These economies have nowhere to go but down, down, down, starved of talent due to the twin cancers of bad demographics and emigration. Some countries are better, so…

>the age of labour abundance is over. There IS labour over abundance. Unemployment in most EU countries is at record highs. And it shows no sign of slowing down. The problem is it's mostly white collar labor overabundance. And those college educated people aren't gonna want to make sneakers in sweatshops.

The number of kids born in 2025 in Uzbekistan (population 38 million) is about the same as the number of kids born in 2025 in Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Romania, Croatia, Slovenia, Hungary, Czechia, Slovakia and Poland, *combined* (total population 131 million). The age of labour abundance IS OVER, we're witnessing its very last days in EE. Unemployment may remain due to terrible politics and economic mismanagement.

There's not going to be any point even having sweatshops or factories in this region soon. Why bother? If it's anything low or medium-skill and low or medium-capital intense, just open up shop in... Well, why not Uzbekistan? And if double-landlocked isn't your thing, there's dozens of other options.

Re: Banned in California

#419

Post by lxgr »

ecshafer wrote: post #295
GJim wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So why are so many of your citizens without even basic affordable healthcare?

They aren't. Anyone can go to the ER, and if you're poor it'll be billed through Medicaid. When I was young and poor, I had a multi-day hospital stay and multiple surgeries that totaled to $3.50 out of pocket. Urgent cares are everywhere and affordable.

[flagged]

Re: Banned in California

#420

Post by lokar »

5upplied_demand wrote: post #415
lokar wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW, California can't restrict the importation and sale of items manufactured legally in other states if the item itself (after manufacture) is safe. CA can't tell other states to ban various manufacturing techniques.

> California can't restrict the importation and sale of items manufactured legally in other states if the item itself (after manufacture) is safe. I'm not sure about that, maybe it is based on the definition of "safe". There are tortilla chips made in Chicago that explicitly say they cannot be sold in California on the packaging. This is due to chemicals banned in Prop 65. https://www.reddit.com/r/mildlyinteresting/c…

Right, because the "bad" chemical will be in CA, harming CA residents.

CA can't say "the factory that made these chips emitted chemical X into the air during manufacturing, but none of it is in the final product", so you can't import it.

The Federal Government can, but not an individual state.

Post reply on HN