Obama to "fast track" more free exploitation treaties
dimanche 26 mai 2013 à 14:00Obama plans to "fast track" more free exploitation treaties.
Site original : Richard Stallman's Political Notes
Obama plans to "fast track" more free exploitation treaties.
The unnecessary one-day shutdown of Boston caused around 200 million dollars of economic damage. (Here's how I estimate that).
This was directly harmful, since it shows any future terrorist how to magnify the effect of his attack. Aside from that, was that money well spent?
200 million dollars could pay for vitamin A supplements for a year for all the 190 million children that need them, world wide, which would save the lives of 600,000 children, more or less.
350,000 additional children would be saved from blindness. This costs one dollar per child per year, so 200 million is exactly the amount needed.
If we limit our consideration to American lives, it costs around 100,000 dollars (very roughly) to treat cancer. This means with 200 million dollars we could save 2000 Americans who have cancer and can't afford treatment.
Every year, 10000 Americans with no insurance get cancer and can't afford treatment. Obamacare may correct some of this problem, but not all; they may not be able to afford the deductible and their food.
How stupid to spend over 200 million dollars to avoid the unlikely chance that a wounded man, on the run and with few supplies, might kill another handful. And if we don't reject the idea that this was a wise decision, it will be repeated over and over, doing damage each time.
Second, the economic cost of a snowstorm that shuts down all of Massachusetts is estimated as $265,000,000 per day, and since Boston-Cambridge-Quincy have 85% of the state's GDP, it would be around 220 million for them.
The actual shutdown was for Boston, Watertown, Waltham, Newton, Belmont, Cambridge, Allston/Brighton, and Brookline. Perhaps it was justified to shut down Watertown. How Waltham, Newton, Belmont, Allston/Brighton, and Brookline compare with Quincy, I don't know, but this line of reasoning points once again at roughly 200 million.
UK gas companies falsely claimed there was a gas shortage emergency, for speculative profits apparently.
Isn't this a crime?
Thugs in the UK stole homeless people's possessions.
Why are they being "criticized" instead of prosecuted for theft?