These are for profit public companies, they are legally required to prioritize profits over anything else. Even if you had a controlling stake if you tried to push through something that would decrease profits, like lowering fossil fuel production, or even adding expensive carbon capture methods that would cut into the bottom line, the rest of the shareholders could sue you.
Owning a stock keeps the price high though as you’re restricting supply, and it looks like his trust has also bought more shares so it’s increasing the demand as well.
A high stock price doesn’t fund the industry directly, unless it’s a smaller company that’s still issuing stock which he also seems to be invested in a lot of those. It does increase the power of the industry though. If a lot of people divested from fossil fuels that would lower the value of the stock and the net worth of the principal owners. Those principal owners are currently using their money to bribe politicians into ignoring the climate crisis and to increase fossil fuel extraction. If they had less money to do that, then it’d be a lot easier to pass legislation to address climate change.
He also seems to be buying bonds in the industry as well which is more directly funding the industry. Also, a high stock price allows the companies to get more bonds at a cheaper rate, so that also helps to fund the industry.
All of this is also missing the main point of the article in that bill gates is profiting from the fossil fuel industry and has a stake in seeing it continue, while pretending he’s a champion for climate change.
Yeah, if you repeated this test with the person having access to a stack exchange or not you’d see the same results. Not much difference between someone mindlessly copying an answer from stack overflow vs copying it from AI. Both lead to more homogeneous answers and lower critical thinking skills.
America doesn’t work like that. Due to the way the electoral system is set up only two parties can be viable at any given time. The only time you can create a new party is in a realignment, eg. When Lincoln formed the republican party as an explicitly anti slavery northern party and the democrats became the pro slavery southern party. Prior to that it was the whigs and the democrats, which were aligned around issues other than slavery.
So unless the progressives can force a realignment along some new issue and subsume a major party, creating another party would just be handing a lot of elections over to the Republicans.
This is why lemmy was so vehemently against Jill stein and the greens even though most people on here agree with her politics more than kamala, because they saw her as sabotaging the democrats chances and handing the election to trump.
Also hijacking a party is easier than building a new one and if you gain control you can use the power of that party to shift opinion. Most voters these days vote based on there team, or more recently against the other team. So if the democratic party started pushing a green new deal then the rank and file would fall in line, if nothing just to stop the Republicans. You can see this in how trump hijacked the Republicans. If you showed a republican project 2025 in 2015 they wouldve called it absurd, but now most are in support of it.
How does that compare to microk8s? I have been using that for a while and like the plugins.
Yes bidens diplomats made the deal, along with Qatari and Egyptian mediators, but they were unable to get Israel to sign it. It was only after trump was elected and started talking to bibi as the president elect that the Israelis signed the same deal that they rejected 6 months ago.
They hadn’t achieved any significant accomplishment that would prompt them to say “we’re good now” and finally sign. The only thing that changed was the incoming administration.
I don’t know what trump said to bibi but whatever it was it changed his mind on a ceasefire. My guess is he just wanted a 6 week break so that he could roll out all the horrible shit he’s been doing in his first month without having to deal with Gaza. They probably went along with it because trump is more likely to follow through on stopping weapons shipments because he’s less committed to the zionist cause and political norms of unwavering “defensive” support for Israel.
Or maybe bibi was just tanking peace talks to drag down Biden and they were actually fine 6 months ago but wanted to help trump win first. Possibly with some collusion with the trump campaign but I doubt the dems will ever investigate that like they did russia because that would be anti-semetic.
In either case I don’t think bibi would’ve signed if Harris won. Either because he doesn’t respect her or he wants to drag down the democratic party.
where are all the genocide Joe’s at?
Here? It looks like the person who posted this is what you’d call a “genocide joe”. There are tons of people in this thread like me arguing that what he did is still horrible. Do you want us to say trump is worse? Yeah rhetorically, but objectively Biden presided over a year and a half of unmitigated horrors and trump has presided over a ceasefire.
Money rules all. The war machine demands blood to convert into dollars.
If this were true, Biden wouldn’t have pulled out of Afghanistan. He did though, despite huge backlash, which i commend him for, because he knew the war was an unjust waste of money. He didn’t do the same for Gaza because he is a staunch zionist. This also ignores his lame duck period where he wasn’t beholden to any corporate interests, and he still kept sending weapons to Israel, because he’s doing it out of principal not pressure.
Also it’s not like Afghanistan since there’s still another war going on. If Biden cared about the genocide he could make a deal with these oligarchs to compensate any loss in sales in gaza with more spending on Ukraine.
Hopefully they’ll switch there tone on the “incumbent advantage” after back to back one term presidencies.
We haven’t invaded Gaza yet, and i don’t think we will just like i don’t think we’ll invade Canada or Greenland. Trump says a lot of dumb shit that will never happen. The only thing that has happened since trump took over is a ceasefire.
we were not gonna stop them no matter who was in charge. I think Joe did as much as he could
He could’ve at least tried by blocking arms shipments. Biden could’ve done that at any time since there’s already a law on the books that the u.s. must stop weapons shipments if there is credible evidence they will be used in war crimes. Biden and his state department refused to enforce this law and ignored multiple reports about war crimes to do so. One time they tried to do it on a specific squad in the Israeli military of ultra orthodox that was doing crimes in the west bank but gave in after bibi said it was anti-semetic.
Even if that wasn’t an option Biden could’ve vetoed the many arms packages that were passed after it was clear Israel was attempting a genocide, he didn’t. Even after he was effectively a lame duck after he dropped out and didn’t have to worry about the Israel lobby. Even after he was actually a lame duck and the dems already lost.
This wasn’t Biden being handcuffed by outside forces, he had multiple opportunities to stand against the genocide and refused to because he is an ardent zionist who is fine with the horrors in gaza.
Alright new atrocity from Israel just dropped, who should we blame:
It has, it’s been a conspiracy on lemmy for the past 6 months. Any time anyone criticized Biden or Harris for aiding a genocide someone would pop up and say they’re a secret republican or Russian bot.
Do you not think Biden was instrumental in setting this up?
This isn’t insurance companies, the LA fires alone cost $250 billion, ~the gdp of new Zealand. Even if we abolished insurance companies someone’s gotta pay for that. In that vein a lot of insurance companies are abolishing themselves, either going under or just leaving the state because Californiais a net loss to most companies, not a profit. So more people go on state insurance which is very expensive, not because the state is “r*ping you” but because it’s a pool of houses highly likely to be burned down or flooded in the next decade and you have to have high premiums to cover that.
The problem is climate change and the increasing disasters it’s causing. The article even says that premiums are still too low to account for this.
First Street found that today, insurance underprices climate risk for 39 million properties across the continental United States — meaning that for 27% of properties in the country, premiums are too low to cover their climate exposure.
Propublica link to the same article
No offense to op but I think they deserve the clicks more than NYT
Arms without organization are useless. If you’re thinking about getting a gun for defense against the government first figure out who you’re going to use that gun with.
Individually owning a gun for the sake of owning a gun does nothing for the cause and is just posturing.
but I have to buy one now because there gonna stop selling them
That is gun industry propaganda to get you to buy more guns.
She promised to do this when she was unemployed with no career prospects during the pandemic. These are the issues and sentiments of a poor person, they may be spoken through her now very successful mouth, but the meaning is still rooted in that economic anxiety.
There are like 5 people who post 90% of the content on lemmy. Cm0002 is one of them and really hates tankies / anyone to the left of them.
Most of the content on the “tankie triad” is general left wing anti-us stuff. Occasionally they’ll be some post praising China then some liberal will comment something about tianemen square or uyghurs, get banned , and then complain that the whole instance is full of genocide apologists.
It’s not like there are regular posts praising Kim jung un or maduro like the liberals make it out to be. There are a decent amount shitting on liberals, like the reverse of this post, which perpetuates this dumb instance war. It’d be best if it stopped as were all “radical leftists” in The eyes of the rest of society and were gonna need some sort of solidarity to accomplish the 90% of things we agree on.
Public for profit companies have a fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder value. When you issue shares of a company you are signing a contract to put the companies needs over anything else when administering the company.
If it just worked off proportional representation like you imagine then the majority shareholder could unilaterally sell the company off to themselves for pennies or do self dealing to enrich themselves at the companies expense. No one would ever invest in a company because they could never be sure their interests would be met unless they had a controlling stake.
Companies need a goal in order to judge the administration by and to be able to call foul if they stray from that goal to pursue personal interests. For most public companies that is profit, and if you stray from that goal for your own personal interests, even if it’s a noble one like preventing climate change, the other shareholders can sue you for that. They didn’t sign up for your personal moral ambitions, they signed up to make money and they have a contract that says so.
If you want to pursue things other than profit you can register as a public benefit corporation which can consider things like climate change in there decision making process without risking a lawsuit from shareholders. This changes the agreement between the shareholder and the company so the shareholder knows that they aren’t going to make the most money at all costs. None of the major oil companies are registered that way though.
Read up on the duty of loyalty here before calling bs and thinking you can change big oil from within