One Ring to rule them all @sarahlovespolarbears - Tumblr Blog

Incredibly fucked up that you have to clean the dust off of fans. You are a machine that creates wind; get your shit together.

cocorossss

kuttithevangu

Reading about an arsenic murder case in which probably a daughter killed her mom with poisoned clam chowder but she was acquitted because the defense were like “can you prove that ANYONE wouldn’t die after eating takeout clam chowder delivered by children in August? In 1896?” and the jury were like no yeah fair point I too have had clam chowder stomach

superhelldeactivated

Bold of shows to try to decide who's the main character. I think that's up to me.

theroyalgardens

sabrinabinx

starkwoes

There's this video of nuns talking about their favourite things to do outside of nun activities and one of them says "ultimate frisbee" and the other one goes "and sister you are so good at that." I literally cannot get "and sister you are so good at that" out of my head. Out of all my stims this one is my fav lolol

legallybrunettedotcom

inbabylontheywept

Until death, all defeat is psychological.

grace--upon--grace

Sarah Harrison

vampiredoriangray

fuck my gay life. pharmacist asked for my ID when I was picking up my testosterone and instead of my driver’s license, I accidentally grabbed the fool tarot card I keep behind it in my phone case and went to hand that to her

swingsetindecember

i feel like people think companies will be altruistic and do the right thing regardless of government intervention. like no, companies are driven by capitalism. to make the most out of the day and money they have and maximize profits, especially fortune 500 companies

like without government intervention, strawberry jam would have wood in it. like it's a thing. food companies realized that they could use less of the expensive strawberries as ingredients and just use wood. there are laws you cannot legally call it strawberry jam if you do this. you have to call it a strawberry product or spread. food companies are always trying to get that shit through. they have lobby groups pushing that all the time

it is more expensive to put metal detectors in a food processing plant. companies want to cut costs. it is a legal requirement in a lot of countries to have them. so it forces companies to install them.

also to do routine inspections. that is a government requirement. so are building codes. a lot of codes are the bare minimum. like some companies will exceed the code and have more protections but a lot don't. like if it is not in the code, they don't do it. so that's why having governing bodies that regulate building safety, worker safety, food safety and product safety are crucial. because without them, your employer will not see the need to have exit doors with quick release handles, or do routine fire sprinkler inspections or have road salt for the sidewalks. some of it is basic fucking stuff.

companies when left alone do not regulate themselves. it's been historically untrue. companies want to give you a product that is cheap for them to make and that they can sell at the highest price so they can get the most profit. for everyone who loves capitalism, that's what it is. the free market will not self-regulate. if you don't have anti-monopoly laws and anti-wage theft laws and workers' protections, the open market will not fix that organically.

when government officials talk about removing protections it is not good. like they were put in place for a reason. like drinking water and food regulations were written in blood. same with human rights and freedoms. like people died for the building code to be written. people died for occupational healthy and safety codes to be written. there is a reason food safety codes are there. companies will look at 100 people dying and say it was the cost of doing business. it is the government's job to say that is an unacceptable and for companies to do better

bundibird

Manufacturers of matches knew that the sulfur they were using was making their employees sick, but the safer alternative was more expensive so they buried the knowledge for as long as they could and only swapped to the safer option once word got out and they were forced to make changes.

Arsenic miners knew that their fun little green colourant was killing people, but green clothes and furniture and wallpaper was super in vogue at the time and the miners were making bank, so they hid the knowledge for as long as they could.

DuPont/Teflon knew that their non-stick coating was poisonous, but it was super popular and making them loads of money, so they buried the information and kept making it (knowingly poisoning their employees) and emptying their waste into local waterways (poisoning local communities and animals) and selling it (poisoning their customers).

Cigarette companies new the harm that their products caused, and buried it for as long as possible. PG&E knew that they were causing cancer clusters, and they tried to bury that. Purdue Pharma knew their drug was addictive, and they not only tried to hide that fact, they also did their best to get as many people hooked on it as possible. Watch makers knew the paint they had their employees using was horribly toxic well before they stopped using it.

There are countless examples of a company knowing full well that their product or processes or etc were causing harm, but choosing to persist anyway because making money is more important to them than the health and wellbeing of their employees and customers. Thw only thing that has ever stopped them from doing this is public outcry and legislation.

People dont say "those regulations are written in blood" for no reason. They are literally written in the blood of all those individuals who were sacrificed before the rich and powerful were forced to stop their harmful practices. The second anyone starts talking about stripping back protective legislation, you know theyre either an absolute moron or theyre on the payroll of someone who wants to get very rich at the expense of people's lives.

cosmicretreat

strawberry-crocodile

the thing about capitalism is that at a certain point a product reaches its maximum audience and cant really be improved (at least not while remaining profitable), but capitalism requires a product provide infinite growth, and at that point the only way to increase profits is to raise prices, cut corners, and in the case of services start adding advertisements. this is just how the system works.

charyou-tree

Rent-seeking is the act of growing one's existing wealth by manipulating the social or political environment without creating new wealth.[1] Rent-seeking activities have negative effects on the rest of society. They result in reduced economic efficiency through misallocation of resources, reduced wealth creation, lost government revenue, heightened income inequality,[2][3] risk of growing political bribery, and potential national decline.

The actual economic term for this parasitic behavior is "Rent Seeking", as in "charging you rent for things that didn't used to cost money just because we can."

paintedpolarbear

"The classic example of rent-seeking, according to Robert Shiller, is that of a property owner who installs a chain across a river that flows through their land and then hires a collector to charge passing boats a fee to lower the chain. There is nothing productive about the chain or the collector, nor do passing boats get anything in return. The owner has made no improvements to the river and is not adding value in any way, directly or indirectly, except for themselves. All they are doing is finding a way to obtain money from something that used to be free." obtain money links to the wikipedia article for Parasitism which might be the most brutal diss I've ever seen on wikipedia ever