@Finance85 — in my opinion this is worse than SF shoplifting.* And, yes, I consider this a type of theft.
OK. So you think it's worse than theft. Are you actually trying make some comparison of two completely unrelated wrongs?@Finance85 — in my opinion this is worse than SF shoplifting.* And, yes, I consider this a type of theft.
*This is not an "acceptance" of SF shoplifting.
These are not unrelated. This is my point. You want people to care about some dumbass purse? Build a society that clearly values humans over the dollar. Water over the dollar. This is the society we have created. It's all related, to some degree or another.OK. So you think it's worse than theft. Are you actually trying make some comparison of two completely unrelated wrongs?
These are not unrelated. This is my point. You want people to care about some dumbass purse? Build a society that clearly values humans over the dollar. Water over the dollar. This is the society we have created. It's all related, to some degree or another.
Maybe in your mind they are unrelated. I don't think they are entirely unrelated. History tells me I'm right.
Do I think the shoplifter is thinking about water in Iowa while shoplifting? Of course not.
Maybe we're just not good discussion companions. I think you like to focus on things and assume them separate and consider them in isolation. I like to look at things broadly, compare them to similar circumstances in history, draw parallels, attempt to diagnose, etc.
I don't accept theft.
I accept you, though.
Yep, and if there's one thing we've seen time and time again is that individuals and businesses never "voluntarily internalize" their Externalities unless required to by regulation.Both are examples of "Externalized Costs"
With the acceptance of shoplifting (or failing to prosecute it), the externalized costs fall to the vendor, and to anyone else who shops there, because to stay in business the vendor must increase the prices of everything else to cover his losses OR pay higher insurance premiums over lost merchandise.
With the water/herbicide/waste runoff, farmers are being allowed to pollute a public resource, which everyone who needs that resource must pay much higher costs to clean the water, while the private farmers hold no liability for their pollution.
It IS theft. From our children and grandchildren and far worse than shoplifting.OK. So you think it's worse than theft. Are you actually trying make some comparison of two completely unrelated wrongs?
Oh no! You're accepting of shoplifting? Now, do tell, just how accepting are you?!It IS theft. From our children and grandchildren and far worse than shoplifting.
69. Duh.Oh no! You're accepting of shoplifting? Now, do tell, just how accepting are you?!
10 accepting?
28 accepting?
69 accepting?
Come for the pig shit, stay for the racism!New Iowa Slogan. Enjoy the Feces!
I believe Des Moines puts the nitrates back into the water as it is processed to be discharged. It’s too expensive to pay to dispose of all that upstream pollution, so they put it back in the water and the GOP junta that runs this state is fine with that.How clean is the river water running out of DSM?
Covid Kim and or Cholera KimProposal: time to ditch the name “Covid Kim” for “Cholera Kim.”
Can I get a second?
Yep, and if there's one thing we've seen time and time again is that individuals and businesses never "voluntarily internalize" their Externalities unless required to by regulation.
I believe Des Moines puts the nitrates back into the water as it is processed to be discharged. It’s too expensive to pay to dispose of all that upstream pollution, so they put it back in the water and the GOP junta that runs this state is fine with that.
Wait just a damn minute! Iowa has beaches?
They did when I was growing up, but most have become festering cesspools due to the reasons cited above.Wait just a damn minute! Iowa has beaches?
🤣 🤣 🤣This is easy to fix. Stop testing.
A lot of green yards and concrete in DSM. They are adding to the nitrogen problem.I believe Des Moines puts the nitrates back into the water as it is processed to be discharged. It’s too expensive to pay to dispose of all that upstream pollution, so they put it back in the water and the GOP junta that runs this state is fine with that.
So obvious. I mean, if we quit testing beaches for E.coli, the E.coli goes away.This is easy to fix. Stop testing. Let the people swim! Don’t let big government tell you what you can and cannot do.
#That'sJustScienceBroSo obvious. I mean, if we quit testing beaches for E.coli, the E.coli goes away.
Duh.
They did do it for years, but it seems like Des Moines is transitioning to a system where the nitrates are pulled out, and then disposed of. What would be the argument for allowing upstream users to pollute the river, then penalize Des Moines for doing so? But, it’s nice of them to pull the s*** out.I'm surprised they'd be allowed to do that. Even if it is 'putting it back', that would still be considered dumping a regulated waste into a water of the state.
Okay, but they did let Des Moines do that for years.Non point source vs point source.
If they could pin point the upstream source, and take action, they would.
But, they can’t let a water supply remove diluted contaminants, concentrate them, and then dump them downstream.
Okay, but they did let Des Moines do that for years.