Pablo Hidalgo was having a semi-breakdown on his twt yesterday because of people using words based on things that only exist in our world (milestone, dumpster, etc) and tbh this was so real of him he might be one of my favorite Star Wars creators
i hate when a villainous character gets popular enough to become a hero and writers try and retcon their histories so they never fucked up in the first place. "harley quinn was actually a good psychiatrist who cared about her patients!" "eddie brock was actually correct in his exposure of a serial killer and it wasn't negligent journalism!" i think it's way more compelling if they did in fact actively choose to do awful things and then actively chose to try and become better people afterwards.
companies really have got to be okay with stagnant profits. what is wrong with earning the same amount every year? why does it always have to be more? it's not sustainable. there are only so many people on the planet you can profit from 😭
The thing is, the people who run companies love stability. It means they get to keep doing the jobs they've been doing for years, maybe a few updates to adjust to shifts in culture or technology, but everybody keeps making product/performing service and everybody keeps getting paid.
But investors, they want to know that when they put money into something, they will get 7% more money out of it next year. They don't care what the company does, they don't have any idea how the industry it's in works, all they know is they want number to go up and if number does not go up then they will burn the whole thing to the ground.
That's why the stock market is the worst possible thing for the economy.
It's illegal for them not to. (by legal precedent, not by legislation.)
If shareholders - investors who own stock in a company - believe that the company is not doing everything possible to increase the value of their shares, they can sue. For-profit corporations are required to make "line go up" - as in, not just profits increase, but returns to the people who own the company increase, their number one priority, and if they don't, they can be held liable for not doing that duty.
The biggest problem is actually that they literally cannot increase forever, because we live on a finite biosphere with finite resources and finite numbers of people engaging in any company. So once they've done the most they can by normal routes like "sell more good/service" and "raise prices of good/service" and even shitty things like "buy competitors of good/service so we can raise prices" and "pay workers less," they . . . still have to keep making more than they did last year. So they start shrinking their staff, laying off as many people as possible, even if it means the company isn't functional anymore, producing their good/service as cheaply as possible, even if it means it actually becomes unusable or dangerous, and eventually, when the investors have sucked every drop of potential profit out of the company, they sell it, walk away, and buy shares in some other company.
Under eBay v. Newman, the law is as Al Franken said: “it is literally malfeasance for a corporation not to do everything it legally can to m
I am absolutely convinced that the single law that would do the most good in this country would be making it law that instead of considering shareholder return increase their first priority, for-profit corporations must consider their top four priorities in equal measure: (1) the quality of the good or service they offer, (2) the working conditions and retention of their labor, (3) the environmental impact of their business, and (4) stability/non-decreasing returns to their investors.
So if the workers could show that they had sacrificed retention/labor conditions in order to increase profits by laying off so many employees that they were understaffed, they'd have a case against the executives; if the community or EPA could show that the company had sacrificed environmental impact to raise the quality of their service by using materials that poisoned the air/water around the factory, they'd have a case; and even if the shareholders could show that the company had sacrificed returns on their profits to the point of decrease or something, they would have a case. (Because if you cut out shareholder profits at all, it wouldn't stand a chance of even making it out of the first committee in Congress, and because "Every year the company makes less money than last year even though our customers are reliable and we haven't made huge improvements to our facilities because our CEO has sixteen executive assistants and keeps hiring his friends" is actually a fair complaint, if it ever happened.)
(I mean honestly none of this would ever pass because rich people would scream and poor people who believe they will be rich someday by the skin of their bootstraps would also scream. but i like to dream of legislation that might exist in a better world because i am too embittered about/by The Glorious Revolution rhetoric.)
That was the public-facing rhetoric, anyway. But this system has, predictably, become unstable. And the facade is falling down.
I think Innuendo Studios has a video about this, and how Capitalism has always been this way...
Ah. Here it is. Under 15 minutes. Proper closed closed captions, very little direct eye contact (brief still photos). And it's how Conservatism has always been this way, but how that conservatism is built on the accumulation of wealth for wealth's sake.
my advice to kids on the internet is don't get too attached to your username and absolutely do not blend your offline life with your online presence. you do not want your future self to have any connection to the stuff you are saying and doing right now
you don't have the privilege of every embarrassing thing you said being lost to a defunct bbcode forum like my generation did. please, please leave yourself the opportunity for a clean slate. you'll thank yourself later.
btw this post is just as much about online safety and protecting yourself from stalkers/employers as it is being able to distance yourself from kin drama and ship wars when you realize the absurdity of it all
Girl, you can't erase race from class issues. The rich are not storming white countries and using white bodies for labor like they're doing to people of color.
I'm a lesbian and i see myself in media about bi women, also in media about gay/bi men. even if it's not Entirely made for me, it's still for me. and I know and hope that other gay/bi people are able to see parts of themselves in lesbian media. sorry to be cheesy but we are more similar than we are different and it's those experiences we share that draw us to these stories in the first place, and the reason we're even telling them <3
I think the best thing is you can analyze Anakin Skywalker in any infinite number of ways, but the minute you try to make him anything less than irrevocably off his rocker you've failed
the best thing about tantrum!anakin (specifically hayden's anakin) is the way it simmers behind his eyes. when tantrum!anakin is deathly silent; where the full force of his constant near-breakdown is churning miasma behind those good old fallen angel baby blues
germansingergirl
discoholicmusic
ellievsbear
amandla
stormborns
