>People from other countries literally cannot tell us apart.

What does the media-warped opinion of people who have never lived in either country got to do with reality?

>That’s an unnecessary amount of protein for people who aren’t weight training or maintaining a large amount of muscle

Recommendations for sedentary (that is, people without much exercise) adults are about 0.75g/kg

I'd agree 2g/kg is high, but 1g/kg is pretty much a basic need if you're doing any kind of exercise a few times per week and want muscle for anything - from hiking, to recreational sports, ability to move things around your house safely etc.. And if you're not, you need to start doing it, and then up your protein intake!

This is a public comment thread. Literally anyone can read it and see that I'm not lying.

>It was answered you numbskull.

It wasn't. You haven't given me any examples of people harmed by the things you're claiming is very very serious and very very bad.

>The fact of the matter is your position on democracy and voting is inconsistent with the near entirety of the civilized and educated world

I haven't expressed any position on that. I'm not sure who you've mistaken for me from another comment.

>E.g. You can’t buy asbestos insulation anymore.

This is a really good example, because asbestos insulation was directly linked to a huge number of deaths and chronic debilitating ilnesses.

We were able to get a rough quantification of the damage done to people's lives, and we decided to (mostly) get rid of asbestos because that damage was very high.

So I'm asking - what level of damage is being caused by plastics used within this country (the ones that can be controlled by legislation) - how much harm/damage is caused.

If it's a lot, we should get rid of it. If it's not, then we shouldn't be banning it.

>I disagree with ‘we aren’t running out of landfill space for sporks.’ Its not about having space for sporks now, it’s about the impact plastics have in the future.

What impact do you believe plastics disposed of in a landfill (or incinerator) will have on you in the future?

>there's plenty of research that needs to be done still in this field

Doesn't appear to be any kind of quantification of damage, however. The size of the problem appears to be unknown, but we can conclude it's relatively small, otherwise it would be easier to detect and quantify.

>On that note, show me a fish, and I'll show you plastic.

Plastic that didn't make it to a landfill or incinerator, sure. But when properly disposed of, that's not an issue.

>What are the potential benefits of keeping them

As the people who are buying them? Various options exist, but some people still buy the plastic option - they obviously perceive benefits - maybe price, maybe functionality, maybe hygiene.

> getting rid of something that takes 100s of years to breakdown

In landfill, that doesn't matter, we're not running out of landfill space for sporks.

>Some googling gives me data from 2019 at around ~50kg per person per year for countries like the USA (53kg), Australia (59kg), UK (44kg). From here.
>
>That's estimated single use plastics, not other trash.

That's quantifying how much plastic is used. I asked for quantification of the damage/harm caused.

>To add to this, we know reducing plastic use is good

That's my entire point. We don't.

He isn't, at least not in this post.

Perhaps you could quote the thing you think he has said which is misleading? Might help to explain our different understandings of what he said.

Is this actually uplifting?

It doesn't appear anyone even attempted to quantify the damage they're claiming these things do. Lots of people will now be inconvenienced, and we don't even know if it's a good idea or not.

So still trying to ignore my questions which you couldn't answer.

Got it.

>I guess I'm trying to say it feels like Neoliberals focus on economic growth is solely to ensure they're gaining more profit.

I think that's a fair statement about some neoliberals - though it's worth pointing out that only a tiny percentage of people make big profits, and there are a lot more neoliberals than that.

It's worth pointing out that many people push whatever scheme or system would make them the most money - capitalists voting for capitalism to make more profit is (in my opinion) no more or less evil than communists voting for communism because they are incapable of exchanging their time/skills for the money they want, so they desire a system that takes it from others by force.

>There doesn't seem to be any other benefit to economic growth if all the additional 'money' (for lack of the educated term) is just being funnelled away in untouchable dragon hoard's and not put back into the economic system

It is put back into the system though. These people don't keep 20 billion in cash. They invest it in new companies/ventures all the time. Those new companies (and the services/goods they offer) are economic growth. And their employees and customers are gaining from that growth.

Now, whether or not those people should CONTROL such a huge amount of the system is another discussion. But the profits they make don't go away.

>From my understanding economic growth has it's roots in capitalism

No, economic growth is simply what happens when we do more for each other, or do existing things for each other better. It can happen under capitalism, communism, anarchism etc.

>Neoliberalism's singular objective is to maximise profit whilst cutting costs.

That's not a singular objective, that's two objectives. Your sentence would be more accurate if you just left it at "Neoliberalism's singular objective is to maximise profit" - however, that's not the objective. Profit is simply an incentive within the neoliberal system, used to promote it's actual objective - to create as much wealth as possible.

The problem is that neoliberalism (for the most part) is concerned primarily with creating wealth, and doesn't really get involved with how fair the distribution of that wealth is. That's why we need progressive taxes on that wealth creation, to redistribute some of it.

>I often wondered if you built a business where you... have the sole ambition of providing stable work for people

Command economies have been attempted many times, and they generally result in terrible conditions for the workers and people within the system, except perhaps a small number of people at the upper echelons of "the party"

>but who would profit off that?

Who would profit off economic growth based on innovation? I dunno, maybe people like Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Steve Jobs and Jeff Bezos?

Jesus Reddit, stop hating economic growth just because you don't understand it.

Unbounded economic growth is possible even in a world with static resources available.

Economic growth happens when we do more things, or build more things, for each other.

New techniques and innovation constantly allow us to do more with less.

The sentence "Wealthy countries can create prosperity while using less materials and energy" is true - you don't even need to append "if they abandon economic growth as an objective." onto the end of the sentence. The sentence is true without it - in fact, adding it is misleading because when you add it, the sentence insinuates that it cannot be done without abandoning that objective, which is simply not true.

Just to confirm, after claiming that the issue of phantom shares/votes were a huge issue, and me pointing out that it's not a huge issue and asking you for examples of who has been harmed by this huge issue, I just wanted to confirm for anyone reading that:

you ignored all of my points, and my question, and tried to change the subject to talk about tax revenues - which I pointed out have nothing to do with your original point, and the problem you highlight is one related to proper recording of income, and not to phantom shares.

>Well, you'd be wrong to think it doesn't matter or make a difference "in any meaningful degree."

Can you give me examples of people who have been harmed by these votes, and the events which caused the harm?

The links you sent appear not to be related to a problem around phantom shares and their voting rights, but instead relate to how companies handle the tax implications of FTDs. I don't know what percentage of the FTDs are caused by the phantom share issue you are talking about, but the entire problem the author highlights is that brokers are failing to keep track of which revenue is taxable versus which is not.

>The fact shares held in a brokerage aren't actually owned by the person purchasing them - and are lent out without people's knowledge -
>
>multiple times - is NOT a fringe issue

It's a fringe issue, because it doesn't matter. If you think it matters, please explain what serious consequences have happened to all these people (because it's just about everyone, right?) as a result?

>You're free to provide some sourced commentary andor rebuttals from professionals in the industry about any of this

I don't need to provide any sources because I'm not debating you by claiming that what you said is untrue, inaccurate, misleading or false. I am telling you that it doesn't fucking matter. It's an irrelevance, a curiosity, something that is interesting only as a piece of a trivia on a London City pub quiz for banking toffs.

It doesn't matter because the outcome of what you're saying exists (which does exist) doesn't affect anyone - negatively or positively - in any meaningful degree.

>You don't find it odd that there's too many votes in almost all corporate elections/votes?

It would be odd if it was unusual. It's not unusual though, so no it's not odd.

The question you should be asking is "does it matter". That is to say, "is this of real consequence in my life".

>counter to competent due diligence and wise investing

What's counter to wise investing is spending huge amounts of time on fringe issues that don't have a significant detrimental effect on you.

>That's not your decision to make for people

Oh? But it's yours?

>This is financial education and information that should be common-knowledge and it isn't.

It isn't because nobody fucking cares. Because it doesn't fucking matter.

If, suddenly, a company with 100 million shares has 100 trillion votes turn up, I'll start to get worried about the future of our financial system. But when a company with 100 million shares has 101 million shares turn up, I'm not going to get my panties in a twist.

> It's really not that difficult to understand.

He has understand it. I have. We have.

There is no substantial benefit to using direct registration. There is also no substantial risk or negative impact to not using it.

It's just a meme at this point paraded around by the sad remnants of the WSB crowds who want to be revered by other people for their knowledge.

But that knowledge has little to no real value, which is why the GP suggested it is noise, and why anyone reasonable should tune it out.

What does this have to do with free market economies? I think maybe you misunderstand what a free market economy is.R

egulations like this are not incompatible with a free market... A free market is simply something where people or organizations compete to supply goods and services and prices are determined by a combination of the sellers and buyers desires.

It doesn't suddenly stop being a free market if government regulates that you can't take a dump on your neighbours property. That would still be a free market.

> it does destroy "pristine" environments

I don't get it. What's the benefit of those pristine environments?

What percentage of them should be left pristine, and for how? Like a National Parks type system?

Wouldn't this ratio be highly affected by the ratio of publicly-traded versus privately traded companies?

What does this figure tell us?

If several large companies were to IPO, then the ratio would rise rapidly, but little would have changed within those companies or the country. Similarly, if a number of large companies had management buyouts with private equity, again the ratio would drop - but those companies would continue to operate with the same staff doing the same things.

Not sure what conclusions we can draw from this data?

>instead of holding the actual drug manufacturers accountable

Ermm... the manufacturers of the Fentanyl causing all these deaths aren't exactly listed on the NYSE

>The gig economy is exploitative, he is literally being abused.

That's a strong statement. Got any proof of abuse? Some people like the gig economy because of the flexibility of hours, are they choosing to be abused?

>He has no health insurance, no benefits

Most contractors don't, either.

>is applying no real skill of any kind

Neither are most people working in retail.

>That is one third of minimum wage where I am at.

Yet he chooses to do it, instead of getting a minimum wage job.

>I would love it if he were to work at a bakery, walk dogs, or became yoga a instructor and taught a couple lessons at various studios as a contractor.

Other than (possibly) the bakery, none of those jobs would give him health insurance, or any benefits. Walking dogs is applying no real skill of any kind. Same for yoga instructor, I would argue.

>I get it that some people just can’t handle normal employment.

Exactly. When I was younger, the people who couldn't handle normal employment just didn't have any income of their own. They had no job, and were just a burden on those people around them, or on society. Now many of those people can work (long hours) and make enough money to scrape by. That's an improvement.