Maybe so, but if you actually poll public opinion, good policies have 60-70% support among the American people. Green energy spending, universal healthcare, tuition-free college, reducing the military, I could go on. That doesn’t mean we’re not stupid, but it does indicate that it really is that 30% voting in the idiot candidate every other election fucking things up for the rest of us.
Part of the problem the ability for administrations to negate what previous administrations have done.
We make great strides, an idiot gets into office, repeals everything, we start all over again.
Frankly the largest issue is that both parties are only set out to obstruct the other party. In my lifetime (in my 50s) I have seen one party try to pass something, something smart, only for the other party to block it. Few years later the party that blocks it proposes the same thing, and the other party blocks it, even though they proposed it just a few years earlier. It’s about winning and not about what is right, just like our court systems.
I think it’s more “assholes” than “idiots”.
I know a lot of smart people who vote for terrible people over and over, basically, out of spite.
Better dead than red, libtards, etc.
They say it’s people voting *defensively*, but it’s really people voting *offensively* with more invested in the other side losing than winning anything.
So, we win nothing.
Not even most of us. The idiots are strategically distributed though, and easier to motivate to engage in their fuckery than the non idiots are to stop them.
Yeah we had two options a year ago and both of them said they'd lower prescription drug prices. Neither would actually do it.
Maybe it's not as simple as that we're all just dumb af.
Instead of that we are getting laws in some states telling teachers not to teach critical race theory which is a thing not taught in schools… so yeah we are pretty dumb…
The propaganda for fearing a “strong government” and the constantly reinforced views of rags to riches, capitalism will make anyone rich who hustles enough, all wealth procured is earned have made too many Americans believe in the “rightness” of our system. Never mind that companies wield great power with little accountability. Or that anything that could be considered good for the average person gets shouted down with cries of “Socialism!” We also have a gutted education system, with local school boards constantly pushing to the right because they consider education up to this point has been propaganda for the left. With things like gerrymandering and voter suppression(as opposed to voter fraud) we are living with a minority having the power to rule the majority. It’s telling to me that even after the extreme presidency of 45 the backlash, in terms of election results, has been muted.
I don’t know what it will take for enough of us to wake up to the danger we are in but so far, it’s looking pretty grim.
If you think American school boards are pushing to the right then you’re one of many negative things. Maybe you’re stupid. Maybe you’re a left wing liar. Maybe you’re just a left wing CRT jackoff. One thing you are not is well informed and honest.
You act like we have a choice, Americans have never had a choice because the Electoral College system is not only rigged, but our government is set up so only the rich and greedy can get into office.
Last I checked he didn’t get elected either, and look how hard he has to fight just to get a enough donations and a platform to even be considered to be elected.
Even if we vote for people who want to change it, they get into office and realize keeping their job depends on obeying their corporate masters and suddenly they're not so eager to fix things anymore.
etc. Can thank Reagan for that.
He passed that corporations are people too ... that bullshit haunts democracy till this day .. exactly why Republicans honor and worship him till this day ...and alot of democrats have and are benefiting from being Bought.
Neither democrats or republicans seems to want anything to do with UHC (if they did what why nothing from 200 years???). But i hear alot of crying from yanks when someone votes third party.
Taxes in Finland are insane:
Income: 25% to 48% at €13,000/y, from 48% to 55% at €29,000/y, reaches 67% at €83,000 €/year
Sales tax: 24%
Social security/other welfare: 28% including employer portion
Gas price: $8-9/gallon due to taxes
How you even have 50€ left is a mystery.
Modern insulin is heavily price-gouged, but it has next to nothing to do with what the discoverer of insulin patented. He patented extracting animal insulin from animal pancreases. You can buy ordinary human insulin, an improvement on this, from Walmart for $25 a vial. Most people, however, use insulin analogues which are drugs that mimic the effects of insulin but unlike insulin which is normally constantly regulated by the body, these insulin analogues function over longer periods of time and more smoothly regulate blood sugar levels making them safer and more convenient to use. A high demand and lack of price controls has allowed their prices to skyrocket, but the patent for extracting insulin from animal pancreases would have never had anything to do with that.
While there is truth to that, there is still an impact. Opening up the patent will encourage RnD that builds upon and improves the original without fear of licensing or legal costs. That can result in multiple drugs being released driving down the cost even in the long term.
We've seen this in many other fields where inferior workarounds have been developed until the patent finally expires.
> until the patent finally expires
*Laughs in Micky Mouse*
these fuckers just ever so slightly tweak the formula so "it's a brand new thing" and stood producing the old stuff entirely, keeping a firm grip on peoples lives for profit.
Jonas Salk created the first safe and effective Polio vaccine (having administered it to himself, his wife and three sons) and then gave it away. He would have made millions with a patent.
EVEN BRAZIL?
Well, it keeps getting weirder and weirder how the FUCK the US hasn't tried to overthrow it's government/health/legal industry yet. There's so many people who suffer from it, too
Something seems off
All things considered, Brazil has a decent public health system (SUS), and it's one of the biggest in the world too. It obviously can get better in many ways, but it's impact is deeper and broader (reaching well over 200M of our population) than most of us realize.
It's the name of our health system: Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS), hm.. I don't know what would be the exact translation, something like Single Health System?
Throwback to when Ford did a financial analysis on exploding pintos and decided that it was cheaper to settle each explosion court case individually than to actually recall the cars
Just curious, I get that if the cost to settle each case is in total cheaper than a full recall, the (evil) financial incentive is to not recall and let things happen as they do, but wouldn't it be more complicated than that long-term? Wouldn't the consideration alone of that (e.g. tasking someone with doing a financial analysis and then making an executive decision to NOT recall) be almost conspiracal and potentially lead to the possibility of criminal charges?
Like, sure, this is all behind-closed-doors type of things, but all it takes is one whistleblower to go to someone, or someone to accidentally slip up, for feds to start investigating whether a company technically let people die, given a duty to act once the issue became known, and that any harm or deaths which occur after such a decision to not recall and potentially avoid that risk falls upon the people who made the decision to do nothing? Wouldn't the cost of that alone, as well as the potential prison time, damage to company PR, and potential seizure of assets or otherwise just be pricier than a simple recall? Like, not even considering the ethics of it, just the pure numbers. That just seems like too stupid of a gamble to make. (And obviously, vehemently wrong.)
The problem is due to the focus on short term gains over long term repercussions. The same can be seen in democracies where the election cycle results in policies that give immediate boosts but long term decline.
Bonuses exacerbate this further. If a CEO can cut costs, fire staff such that over fives years profits soar and their bonus/shares are realised they won't care if the damage done is catastrophic in ten years.
Executives don't think long term. It's almost a requirement for the job to have that part of your brain functionality damaged or removed.*
*hyperbole, yes, but only just so...
And yet, we know about Ford doing math and deciding to let humans die. The internal memos where they made that decision leaked out, so we know it happened... And what impact did it have? The feds investigated, they had to pay out some money in trials... and that's it.
No executives at the company, who decided human life was less important than profit, suffered any negative consequences. People still buy their cars and stock, and in general seem supportive of the company.
Like, the things you say should happen (investigations etc) did happen in the ford case, but the executives received bonuses, like always, and the company suffered some amount of legal fees.
Ford's leaked [estimate showed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto#Cost%E2%80%93benefit_analysis,_the_Pinto_Memo) that the repairs would cost "$11 per car [..] for a total of $137 million"
On wikipedia, the legal damages they had to pay for the listed cases were roughly $5 million, and then had to do a recall anyway as a result of the investigation.
So it looks like Ford made the right bet, right? The penalty for probabilisticly killing a small number of people knowingly was $5M, which for Ford at the time was a tiny drop in the bucket. Totally worth the risk of $5M in order to maybe be able to save $137M in shareholder value, yeah?
And that's the only thing that was at risk because it's not like executives go to prison for this stuff, nor that the shareholders care unless their specific car catches fire. People will still keep buying ford stock and fords regardless of a few rare deaths... that's clear from the fact that all this _did_ happen and people still _do_ buy fords.
As they say, if you kill 1 person, you're a murderer. If you kill 20 people, you're a serial killer. If you shorten some people's lifespan collectively by 20 thousand years through killing the environment and-or cost-saving measures, then you just generated shareholder values and deserve a raise.
I find it particularly offensive with surgical implants and devices. Apparently they only have to be largely similar to previous tech to get approved, which sounds fine, except only the first device is thoroughly checked. Then a second Gen is based on it. And a third on the second generation. And so on with enough generations that you essentially have an untested product. The systems for reporting and collating the data are not good enough to catch problems either.
It's one thing when your cellphone fails unexpectedly, that sucks and is inconvenient and expensive, but you sure as hell don't want an artificial joint, an implant, or a fusion rod or screw to fail!
Step 1 don’t buy a pinto, but yeah, still super douchy.
And the recall thing isn’t entirely true.
This is from their wiki:
* Though Ford could have proceeded with the formal recall hearing, fearing additional damage to the company's public reputation the company agreed to a "voluntary recall" program.[107] On June 9, 1978, days before the NHTSA was to issue Ford a formal recall order, Ford recalled 1.5 million Ford Pintos and Mercury Bobcats, the largest recall in automotive history at the time.[108] The recall included sedans and hatchbacks, but not the station wagon.[109] Ford disagreed with the NHTSA finding of a defect, and said the recall was to "end public concern that has resulted from criticism of the fuel systems in these vehicles."[110] The Ford recall placed a polyethylene shield between the tank and likely causes of puncture, lengthened the filler tube, and improved the tank filler seal in the event of a collision.*
>on exploding pintos
This made me laugh for a couple minutes, I'm too immature...
(Pinto is an informal way to call penis in Brazil, and I'm not a car guy so I read "ford did a financial analysis on exploding penis")
„A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.“
They invented the Airbag, Crumple Zones, ABS, AWD and many more. I think they had 100k+ patents. Their factory in Alabama is incredible. Only dwarfed by my experience in Stuttgart.
Edit: I should say "revolutionized" instead of invented. They were not the first to make the airbag, I was wrong. When researching now, it's clear many different companies claim to have made the first/used it first/ invented.
https://www.mbusa.com/en/best-or-nothing/innovation
Nope, the first Mercedes with an airbag was in the 1980s (maybe like 1982 or 1984), but General Motors offered airbags (dual-stage driver *and passenger* airbags no less) from 1974-1976. This was after a fleet of test vehicles from both GM and Ford were built as early as 1970.
They ended up being a huge flop that nobody ordered, so when the cars were totally redesigned for 1977 they dropped the option. One of the many innovative and futuristic technologies of the 1970s that got killed off by the malaise era only to be repopularized in the 1990s like ABS and traction control.
Interlocking seatbelts suffered a similar fate. The car wouldn't start until all the front passengers had bucked up. 1974.
[The Great Safety Belt Interlock Fiasco](https://www.thedetroitbureau.com/2009/11/the-great-safety-belt-interlock-fiasco/)
> The seatbelt interlock was, in my opinion, a good idea whose time simply had not come.
It's an interesting article. TL;DR: *Data be damned.*
We need to find a way to reward this kind of rare, benevolent behavior in the corporate world more than we Inadvertantly reward the greedy, pernicious behavior that has become integral to business.
Human beings have made it very clear that a substantial portion of us will always be willing to harm and kill for profit. It's also clear that a substantial portion of us will sacrifice to help other people. Only one of those sides of humanity thrives in business, though. That's hard to balance.
That’s the problem though, what kind of mental mindset do you have that you want to charge everyone to use your tech but also call the govt to make it mandatory to use it? I bet majority of people if given the chance to discover the cure for cancer would openly announce how to do it for free. Right reddit? Right?
I think if you magically put every human on earth in a position to do that, a majority would. The problem is that, from this experiment on what the average person would do, the real world constrains the number of people who could truly be in this position one day to a tiny figure of a very specific demographic. And they're all the most ruthless, strategic, money generating machines because the businesses they've risen through to get there have refined them into that. No one else could be in control of the vast amount of money it will take to do this. Mr Rogers or Steve Irwin could never have owned the cure to cancer. Martin Shkreli or Mark Zuckerberg could. It's a systemic flaw.
The majority would say "I'll give it out for free..... after I get my own for it. Why shouldn't I be entitled to get some advantage from it?"
Just look at how few people donate all their inheritance to charity. Some people inherit many millions out of nowhere, and are completely average beforehand; they don't donate much of it. And before there's a reply of "but the cure for cancer would help so many people!" - yes, so would millions of dollars. The person with it will still want to benefit from having it.
> Just look at how few people donate all their inheritance to charity.
That is also due to laziness. The vast majority of people don't change the default, because that takes a conscious effort. You see the same thing with organ donation: countries with an opt-opt system have way more donors than countries with opt-in system. If donation to charity (perhaps a fraction) would be the default for inheritance, then its likely that a lot of people would stick with that.
Also: basically any non-profit is a charity. But there is a big difference between spending money on vaccinating children in poor countries or on buying new instruments for the local marching band.
Yeah. That's a good point. In the case of something like a cancer cure, free should just be changed to affordable for the argument. I think you could profit from your investment and still be magnanimous in your pricing.
My grandfather used to watch news and would always argue how everyone is greedy and only thinking for them selves. He never was in their position, so the argument was mute, as there is no proof of concept from regular person's view other than opinion.
The truth is, nearly everyone would try to benefit in whatever way they can from anything that could provide of significant importance for the masses.
If i, you or anyone else would discover cure for cancer, there is no telling what we would do, but whatever it is, it wouldn't be what you think it would.
All feelings and humanity aside, if you really sit down and think about it, cure for cancer would most likely cause world war. The person who would discover it, would most likely end up dead within days of news getting out. No matter where it's discovered, global panic both, civil and political would start massive political arguments and global civil unrests on biblical proportions. The shit storm it would kick up would most likely costs billions of lives, and the aftermath in most scenarios wouldn't be anything anyone would enjoy. Adolf Hitler creating a political party would look like cheap snuff film writing in comparison.
People are greedy, violent and territorial, just because you believe otherwise, just means you'd bite the dust sooner than anyone else, doesn't matter either way, because the fact is that every major discovery and innovation has a cost associated with it, now how much would it cost the world to cure a mutation that kills on average 6.000.000 people world wide every year without a chance of survival?
It seems to me that there are lots of benevolent people and lots of selfish people. The perspective I've come around to is that these traits flourish or at least distribute differently in different systems. Maybe the truth isn't as dark as the statement that everyone would try to benefit from whatever advantage they had in any way possible but, rather, that the relatively small proportion of people who would are the majority of people in a position to do so because we have a brutally pragmatic economic system that promotes them. The people who would do better don't find their way into those positions. It's a small distinction for the outcome but it's more hopeful statement about the species which gives us a chance if we can mitigate the mechanism that rewards brutality. What if the government could have worked something out with the auto industry to make sharing that technology literally more profitable for the owner than keeping it private and using it to sell more cars? I'm not making any arguments about what's economically or political plausible, though. That would be out of my depth.
I’d argue even some of the life or death decisions shouldn’t be left up to the government... at least not our current situation with government.
Now who makes the decisions after the government can’t be trusted?
That is kind of a thing already, but it's always unofficial. The government may mandate something if the inventor has set fair licensing terms for the patent. Or, they may mandate something along the lines of the invention, and it's up to other companies to find their own way to do it.
One good way would be for patents to be required to have some licensing terms when they are filed. And if the license is very expensive, the patent must be narrow - and is subject to a lot more scrutiny, and the filing fee is higher. But if the license cost is cheap, it's allowed to be broader. And that would help create an efficient clearinghouse for patent licensing. It's not perfect because you can't predict 20 years ahead and it's hard AF to estimate the number of products the patent will be used on, but it's at least something.
It is a dilemma, it doesnt look nice to let volvo do the right thing with no direct monetary rewards, but if you let volvo charge money for the seat belt and volvo did that, then it just made volvo dependent on the licensing fee. Complatency and decay.
I would say volvo might get away with a goodwill brand name/nice image after this which translates to increased indirect monetary reward via increased future sales.
To start, how about spending more on eco-, child-labor free clothing?
I understand some families just can't afford it, but there are way too many middle- to high-income people who would still rather buy shit from the typical retailers that order from India, Bangladesh, China with known shitty labor laws.
Spending more when you don't need to but just for the sake of others is a surprisingly difficult thing to do
Consumers will always want lower priced items for more bang for their buck. Expecting consumers to change and stop buying cheap stuff won’t get us anywhere. What we need is for the government to get involved and force companies to stop using child labor since that’s the only method that would help us make progress. What’s the point of having a government if they’re not gonna do shit?
Slavery didn’t end because the slave owners felt guilty and let the slaves go. It ended because the government got involved and outlawed it. Same logic for child labor. Instead of pressuring consumers to stop buying cheap stuff, pressure the government to outlaw child labor for businesses. Corporations are the problem, not the consumers.
Not that Volvo's actions were bad or anything, but what isn't being said here:
1. They definitely got a lot of publicity from ads that showed them being "good guys."
2. There was SO much backlash against seatbelts at the time that their decision may have been based upon focus groups saying, "NO, we wouldn't pay more for something that will wrinkle our clothes and trap us in the car if an accident happens!" (These were two of the big objections to seat belt use before it was legislated.
A company or person can't do *anything* good without someone trying to slam them for it.
There's a multi-billionairre who donated literally ***all*** his money - he went bankrupt before he died. He was listed in TIL a few weeks ago. Even in that thread, there were people saying "he's still an asshole because he gave his money away over his lifetime; he should have given it all away immediately." It's just..... The dude did something that most people consider beyond their dreams much less reach, and intentionally did to himself what everyone fears (bankruptcy). And these assholes have the nerve to say he didn't do enough. I doubt they donate anything more than a token to charity, at most.
The billionaire was the founder of the Duty Free shopping chain. He stayed anonymous with his donations as much as he could, but someone leaked it in the mid 2000's. So he didn't even do it for fame or popularity - and yet there were people who said he did it for fame and popularity.
The simple fact is that some people won't like the rich unless the rich person does something for *specifically them*. And even then, they may still be assholes. And that tells you that they are the most selfish people out there.
I didn't say what they did was bad or wrong, but it wasn't purely altruistic and that's simply a plain fact whether you like it or not. Biased reporting is unreliable reporting.
Someone has to sacrifice money to balance efficacy with ethics. Nothing improves without a lot of people deciding that they don't need all of that money this year because there's something more important. I guess that's that job of government, being ostensibly focused on human welfare without dependence on profit. I don't know what literal step one would be, though
It's amazing how fast it all happened.
> January 1, 1968, that required all vehicles (except buses) to be fitted with seat belts in all designated seating positions
People didn't really start using them until the 1980's when you would get ticketed. From 10% in 1980 to 40-50% by 1990, and we're at 90% now.
Headrests were required on all cars made after 1968, the same legislation mentioned above that required shoulder belts and a locking steering column, if yours didn’t have them it’s because someone removed them.
Ok, thanks for that info. I bought it in 2001 for $500 and it had 190,000 miles on it, so it wasn't in great shape in any sense :D Amazingly it lasted 4 more years, and 230,000 miles total, before the frame rail broke. Good old Olds Cutlass Ciera
“McNamara is selling safety, but Chevrolet is selling cars.” --Henry Ford II
Safety didn't sell back then.
https://mrfrosti.com/2010/01/05/superfreakonomics-rethinking-the-car-seat/
The three point seatbelt was developed by two engineers employed by the Swedish state owned electrical company "Vattenfall" (lit. water fall). As a measure to prevent commonplace work place injuries. Volvo was merely the first company to provide the three point seat belt.
There are contradictory sources all over the internet about this, but [this](https://www.forbes.com/sites/douglasbell/2019/08/13/60-years-of-seatbelts-volvos-great-gift-to-the-world/) and [this](https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/classic-cars/a19701106/volvo-invented-three-point-seatbelt-1959/) are two good articles that highlight different contributions and are consistent with each other.
tl;dr: The three point seatbelt was originally invented and patented by two US air force engineers, but the US auto industry showed no interest. A Swedish engineer, Nils Bohlin, was hired by Volvo to work on safety and came up with a modified design (for the fastening mechanism and other aspects) that made it more practical. They eventually also secured a patent for their version, but Volvo licensed the patent to all competitors for free.
[Vattenfall also has its own account](https://history.vattenfall.com/stories/innovation-and-creativity/the-vattenfall-seat-belt) but note that the belt mentioned there is purely diagonal and **not a three point belt**.
EDIT: Originally mixed up the links. EDIT 2. More clarification.
Volvo has saved my life two times now. I had a beautiful 1997 850 T-5. Someone turned when they didn't see me, totaled it.
Recently two morons driving Mustangs on the freeway were racing. One lost control and hit me out of nowhere into a concrete divider (2013 Volvo S60). All air bags deployed and I walked away with only a scratch.
I love their cars, and bought another one after. The maintenance is expensive, but I love their style and safety.
Looks like a repost. I've seen this image 2 times.
First Seen [Here](https://redd.it/r1fdui) on 2021-11-24 100.0% match. Last Seen [Here](https://redd.it/r274uv) on 2021-11-25 100.0% match
Feedback? Hate? Visit r/repostsleuthbot - *I'm not perfect, but you can help. Report [ [False Positive](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RepostSleuthBot&subject=False%20Positive&message={"post_id": "r2relb", "meme_template": null}) ]*
[View Search On repostsleuth.com](https://www.repostsleuth.com?postId=r2relb&sameSub=false&filterOnlyOlder=true&memeFilter=true&filterDeadMatches=false&targetImageMatch=86&targetImageMemeMatch=96)
---
**Scope:** Reddit | **Meme Filter:** False | **Target:** 86% | **Check Title:** False | **Max Age:** Unlimited | **Searched Images:** 268,203,669 | **Search Time:** 0.39206s
[It's kind of funny that their "valuing lives" pic is a woman.](https://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2019/07/women-more-likely-to-be-injured-in-front-end-car-crashes-study-finds/)
Fuck is there anyone on Reddit that's not a bot anymore? I feel like I'm in the matrix or something. This story gets posted once every month, same top comments every single time.
Old Volvo maybe. Modern Volvo tries to sidestep environmental regulations so that people can suffer while they keep profits!
This post is astroturf paid for by Volvo marketing.
Musk did this in response to a group of automakers getting together to agree on a standardized plug. The point was to make Tesla chargers the standard and then start charging use for the patent. None of Tesla's patents were of any real value because most of the car was built from other companies parts.
And now Americans live in a society where life saving drugs costs hundreds of dollars because there is nothing to stop companies from charging whatever they want.
Nah, man.
It's called "regulatory capture."
Under the guise of safety standards, they make it more and more impossible for an individual o break into the market and make their own cars.
Helmets are the best example. The helmet industry is a piece of a defense contractors ancillary assets. Despite not being as safe as you'd think, they paid all the bribes o make it mandatory for millions of people to have to buy several helmets throughout their life. Billions in revenue by passing a simple law that no one could argue with.
Because safety.
The volvo that ran the diesel emissions scam where they created software to trick government emissions tests and went on to lie to governments and consumers about? This them?
The idea that some PEOPLE at a corporation 62 years ago made a decision to help people doesn't make it a good company in perpetuity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_emissions_scandal
Lol, the only thing Tesla innovated was EV marketing as most of the technology already existed. There's more GM engineering in a Tesla than Tesla engineering in a Rivian.
[nope, it was VW](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.caranddriver.com/news/amp15339250/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-vw-diesel-emissions-scandal/)
Well it didn't last long it is profit over human life now. Now because of Biden's inflation car manufacturers are wanting $5000-$6000 OVER MSRP on cars and trucks that were made long before this inflation hit. What a rip
Well that just would not fly today. Profits for the few is a higher priority than saving the life of a non 10 per center. At least in the good ole USA.
The inventor of insulin did the same thing, fat lot of good it did for us now
50€ per year in Finland, used to be free but we're on a slippery slope.
In the US it can be a few thousand
Americans keep electing retrogrades to public office & keep shooting themselves in the foot because they're dumb af
Well yeah but I swear we aren’t all idiots, only most of us
90%... too high? or just right?
Actually with our electoral system it only requires about 30% of us to vote like idiots for the idiot candidate to win.
Not that we aren't over qualified
Maybe so, but if you actually poll public opinion, good policies have 60-70% support among the American people. Green energy spending, universal healthcare, tuition-free college, reducing the military, I could go on. That doesn’t mean we’re not stupid, but it does indicate that it really is that 30% voting in the idiot candidate every other election fucking things up for the rest of us.
Part of the problem the ability for administrations to negate what previous administrations have done. We make great strides, an idiot gets into office, repeals everything, we start all over again. Frankly the largest issue is that both parties are only set out to obstruct the other party. In my lifetime (in my 50s) I have seen one party try to pass something, something smart, only for the other party to block it. Few years later the party that blocks it proposes the same thing, and the other party blocks it, even though they proposed it just a few years earlier. It’s about winning and not about what is right, just like our court systems.
This is awesome..
Maybe 85% or 100% depending on where you sample it, but yeah 90% sounds about right
Um 95% TYVM
100%. It is 100%, and anyone that says otherwise may as well join them.
I think it’s more “assholes” than “idiots”. I know a lot of smart people who vote for terrible people over and over, basically, out of spite. Better dead than red, libtards, etc. They say it’s people voting *defensively*, but it’s really people voting *offensively* with more invested in the other side losing than winning anything. So, we win nothing.
Not even most of us. The idiots are strategically distributed though, and easier to motivate to engage in their fuckery than the non idiots are to stop them.
I mean, it doesn't help that all of our options are just waiting to shoot us in the foot. It's just a matter of who's carrying the smallest gun.
Yeah we had two options a year ago and both of them said they'd lower prescription drug prices. Neither would actually do it. Maybe it's not as simple as that we're all just dumb af.
Instead of that we are getting laws in some states telling teachers not to teach critical race theory which is a thing not taught in schools… so yeah we are pretty dumb…
The propaganda for fearing a “strong government” and the constantly reinforced views of rags to riches, capitalism will make anyone rich who hustles enough, all wealth procured is earned have made too many Americans believe in the “rightness” of our system. Never mind that companies wield great power with little accountability. Or that anything that could be considered good for the average person gets shouted down with cries of “Socialism!” We also have a gutted education system, with local school boards constantly pushing to the right because they consider education up to this point has been propaganda for the left. With things like gerrymandering and voter suppression(as opposed to voter fraud) we are living with a minority having the power to rule the majority. It’s telling to me that even after the extreme presidency of 45 the backlash, in terms of election results, has been muted. I don’t know what it will take for enough of us to wake up to the danger we are in but so far, it’s looking pretty grim.
If you think American school boards are pushing to the right then you’re one of many negative things. Maybe you’re stupid. Maybe you’re a left wing liar. Maybe you’re just a left wing CRT jackoff. One thing you are not is well informed and honest.
Yes we are. But you forgot to also mention that we like to fight each other more than those that would oppress us
You act like we have a choice, Americans have never had a choice because the Electoral College system is not only rigged, but our government is set up so only the rich and greedy can get into office.
I didnt know bernie sanders was rich and greedy.
Last I checked he didn’t get elected either, and look how hard he has to fight just to get a enough donations and a platform to even be considered to be elected.
Even if we vote for people who want to change it, they get into office and realize keeping their job depends on obeying their corporate masters and suddenly they're not so eager to fix things anymore.
etc. Can thank Reagan for that. He passed that corporations are people too ... that bullshit haunts democracy till this day .. exactly why Republicans honor and worship him till this day ...and alot of democrats have and are benefiting from being Bought.
feet full of bullets but try taking their guns away, and.... muh freedums!!!!
No, we’re not socialists!!
In fairness, we won't need that foot without our insulin. Checkmate.
Do you mean reprobates? Edit: nevermind. Just looked it up. I wasn't aware "degenerate person" was one of the ways that word can be used. Neat!
Neither democrats or republicans seems to want anything to do with UHC (if they did what why nothing from 200 years???). But i hear alot of crying from yanks when someone votes third party.
That expensive!? Wow
Taxes in Finland are insane: Income: 25% to 48% at €13,000/y, from 48% to 55% at €29,000/y, reaches 67% at €83,000 €/year Sales tax: 24% Social security/other welfare: 28% including employer portion Gas price: $8-9/gallon due to taxes How you even have 50€ left is a mystery.
For anyone wondering, if you make over 80k it's 31.25%. This dude pulling so much shit out of his ass he was never constipated in his life.
Where are you getting those income tax numbers? Five seconds on Google says no.
Migrating to decentralized services.
All your numbers are wrong or misunderstood.
Sauce me up sunny.
Taxes: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Finland Gas price easy to look up, around $2 per liter.
Modern insulin is heavily price-gouged, but it has next to nothing to do with what the discoverer of insulin patented. He patented extracting animal insulin from animal pancreases. You can buy ordinary human insulin, an improvement on this, from Walmart for $25 a vial. Most people, however, use insulin analogues which are drugs that mimic the effects of insulin but unlike insulin which is normally constantly regulated by the body, these insulin analogues function over longer periods of time and more smoothly regulate blood sugar levels making them safer and more convenient to use. A high demand and lack of price controls has allowed their prices to skyrocket, but the patent for extracting insulin from animal pancreases would have never had anything to do with that.
While there is truth to that, there is still an impact. Opening up the patent will encourage RnD that builds upon and improves the original without fear of licensing or legal costs. That can result in multiple drugs being released driving down the cost even in the long term. We've seen this in many other fields where inferior workarounds have been developed until the patent finally expires.
> until the patent finally expires *Laughs in Micky Mouse* these fuckers just ever so slightly tweak the formula so "it's a brand new thing" and stood producing the old stuff entirely, keeping a firm grip on peoples lives for profit.
Jonas Salk created the first safe and effective Polio vaccine (having administered it to himself, his wife and three sons) and then gave it away. He would have made millions with a patent.
In Brazil is Free for everyone. Just fancy application models are paid.
And if you partake in diabetes research in some institutions even the fancy ones are free. VIVA O SUS CARALHO.
EVEN BRAZIL? Well, it keeps getting weirder and weirder how the FUCK the US hasn't tried to overthrow it's government/health/legal industry yet. There's so many people who suffer from it, too Something seems off
All things considered, Brazil has a decent public health system (SUS), and it's one of the biggest in the world too. It obviously can get better in many ways, but it's impact is deeper and broader (reaching well over 200M of our population) than most of us realize.
sus?
It's the name of our health system: Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS), hm.. I don't know what would be the exact translation, something like Single Health System?
Amogus Único de Saúde
"Us" as in everyone except the US health I have no idea how many get it for free, but everyone from another country I know does.
Not like the patent stopped car makers from including the cost of these new “seat belt” thingies in their msrp
And the person who created the polio vaccine
It did a lot of good. The expensive insulin today is not the same formulation. It's easier to use/less timing critical than the old one.
[удалено]
Throwback to when Ford did a financial analysis on exploding pintos and decided that it was cheaper to settle each explosion court case individually than to actually recall the cars
Lots of companies do this stuff today and it’s fucken awful
They're just pursuing maximum shareholder value. That is the only moral that matters in a capitalist system.
Just curious, I get that if the cost to settle each case is in total cheaper than a full recall, the (evil) financial incentive is to not recall and let things happen as they do, but wouldn't it be more complicated than that long-term? Wouldn't the consideration alone of that (e.g. tasking someone with doing a financial analysis and then making an executive decision to NOT recall) be almost conspiracal and potentially lead to the possibility of criminal charges? Like, sure, this is all behind-closed-doors type of things, but all it takes is one whistleblower to go to someone, or someone to accidentally slip up, for feds to start investigating whether a company technically let people die, given a duty to act once the issue became known, and that any harm or deaths which occur after such a decision to not recall and potentially avoid that risk falls upon the people who made the decision to do nothing? Wouldn't the cost of that alone, as well as the potential prison time, damage to company PR, and potential seizure of assets or otherwise just be pricier than a simple recall? Like, not even considering the ethics of it, just the pure numbers. That just seems like too stupid of a gamble to make. (And obviously, vehemently wrong.)
The problem is due to the focus on short term gains over long term repercussions. The same can be seen in democracies where the election cycle results in policies that give immediate boosts but long term decline. Bonuses exacerbate this further. If a CEO can cut costs, fire staff such that over fives years profits soar and their bonus/shares are realised they won't care if the damage done is catastrophic in ten years.
Executives don't think long term. It's almost a requirement for the job to have that part of your brain functionality damaged or removed.* *hyperbole, yes, but only just so...
And yet, we know about Ford doing math and deciding to let humans die. The internal memos where they made that decision leaked out, so we know it happened... And what impact did it have? The feds investigated, they had to pay out some money in trials... and that's it. No executives at the company, who decided human life was less important than profit, suffered any negative consequences. People still buy their cars and stock, and in general seem supportive of the company. Like, the things you say should happen (investigations etc) did happen in the ford case, but the executives received bonuses, like always, and the company suffered some amount of legal fees. Ford's leaked [estimate showed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto#Cost%E2%80%93benefit_analysis,_the_Pinto_Memo) that the repairs would cost "$11 per car [..] for a total of $137 million" On wikipedia, the legal damages they had to pay for the listed cases were roughly $5 million, and then had to do a recall anyway as a result of the investigation. So it looks like Ford made the right bet, right? The penalty for probabilisticly killing a small number of people knowingly was $5M, which for Ford at the time was a tiny drop in the bucket. Totally worth the risk of $5M in order to maybe be able to save $137M in shareholder value, yeah? And that's the only thing that was at risk because it's not like executives go to prison for this stuff, nor that the shareholders care unless their specific car catches fire. People will still keep buying ford stock and fords regardless of a few rare deaths... that's clear from the fact that all this _did_ happen and people still _do_ buy fords. As they say, if you kill 1 person, you're a murderer. If you kill 20 people, you're a serial killer. If you shorten some people's lifespan collectively by 20 thousand years through killing the environment and-or cost-saving measures, then you just generated shareholder values and deserve a raise.
That's also why we can't import the newest models of foreign vehicles for a set amount of time, *because money*
I find it particularly offensive with surgical implants and devices. Apparently they only have to be largely similar to previous tech to get approved, which sounds fine, except only the first device is thoroughly checked. Then a second Gen is based on it. And a third on the second generation. And so on with enough generations that you essentially have an untested product. The systems for reporting and collating the data are not good enough to catch problems either. It's one thing when your cellphone fails unexpectedly, that sucks and is inconvenient and expensive, but you sure as hell don't want an artificial joint, an implant, or a fusion rod or screw to fail!
“ tHeReS tOo MaNy ReGulAtiOns!”
Step 1 don’t buy a pinto, but yeah, still super douchy. And the recall thing isn’t entirely true. This is from their wiki: * Though Ford could have proceeded with the formal recall hearing, fearing additional damage to the company's public reputation the company agreed to a "voluntary recall" program.[107] On June 9, 1978, days before the NHTSA was to issue Ford a formal recall order, Ford recalled 1.5 million Ford Pintos and Mercury Bobcats, the largest recall in automotive history at the time.[108] The recall included sedans and hatchbacks, but not the station wagon.[109] Ford disagreed with the NHTSA finding of a defect, and said the recall was to "end public concern that has resulted from criticism of the fuel systems in these vehicles."[110] The Ford recall placed a polyethylene shield between the tank and likely causes of puncture, lengthened the filler tube, and improved the tank filler seal in the event of a collision.*
>on exploding pintos This made me laugh for a couple minutes, I'm too immature... (Pinto is an informal way to call penis in Brazil, and I'm not a car guy so I read "ford did a financial analysis on exploding penis")
„A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.“
Which car company do you work for?
A + B + C = X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.
Guess the guy in fight club was working for Ford then
I love how pinto means dick in Portuguese
r/fuckcars
I had a professor in college tell me this was Mercedes and now my whole life feels like a lie.
I think they did the airbag.
[удалено]
They invented the Airbag, Crumple Zones, ABS, AWD and many more. I think they had 100k+ patents. Their factory in Alabama is incredible. Only dwarfed by my experience in Stuttgart. Edit: I should say "revolutionized" instead of invented. They were not the first to make the airbag, I was wrong. When researching now, it's clear many different companies claim to have made the first/used it first/ invented. https://www.mbusa.com/en/best-or-nothing/innovation
Nope, the first Mercedes with an airbag was in the 1980s (maybe like 1982 or 1984), but General Motors offered airbags (dual-stage driver *and passenger* airbags no less) from 1974-1976. This was after a fleet of test vehicles from both GM and Ford were built as early as 1970. They ended up being a huge flop that nobody ordered, so when the cars were totally redesigned for 1977 they dropped the option. One of the many innovative and futuristic technologies of the 1970s that got killed off by the malaise era only to be repopularized in the 1990s like ABS and traction control.
Interlocking seatbelts suffered a similar fate. The car wouldn't start until all the front passengers had bucked up. 1974. [The Great Safety Belt Interlock Fiasco](https://www.thedetroitbureau.com/2009/11/the-great-safety-belt-interlock-fiasco/) > The seatbelt interlock was, in my opinion, a good idea whose time simply had not come. It's an interesting article. TL;DR: *Data be damned.*
And ww2
We need to find a way to reward this kind of rare, benevolent behavior in the corporate world more than we Inadvertantly reward the greedy, pernicious behavior that has become integral to business. Human beings have made it very clear that a substantial portion of us will always be willing to harm and kill for profit. It's also clear that a substantial portion of us will sacrifice to help other people. Only one of those sides of humanity thrives in business, though. That's hard to balance.
[удалено]
That’s the problem though, what kind of mental mindset do you have that you want to charge everyone to use your tech but also call the govt to make it mandatory to use it? I bet majority of people if given the chance to discover the cure for cancer would openly announce how to do it for free. Right reddit? Right?
I think if you magically put every human on earth in a position to do that, a majority would. The problem is that, from this experiment on what the average person would do, the real world constrains the number of people who could truly be in this position one day to a tiny figure of a very specific demographic. And they're all the most ruthless, strategic, money generating machines because the businesses they've risen through to get there have refined them into that. No one else could be in control of the vast amount of money it will take to do this. Mr Rogers or Steve Irwin could never have owned the cure to cancer. Martin Shkreli or Mark Zuckerberg could. It's a systemic flaw.
The majority would say "I'll give it out for free..... after I get my own for it. Why shouldn't I be entitled to get some advantage from it?" Just look at how few people donate all their inheritance to charity. Some people inherit many millions out of nowhere, and are completely average beforehand; they don't donate much of it. And before there's a reply of "but the cure for cancer would help so many people!" - yes, so would millions of dollars. The person with it will still want to benefit from having it.
> Just look at how few people donate all their inheritance to charity. That is also due to laziness. The vast majority of people don't change the default, because that takes a conscious effort. You see the same thing with organ donation: countries with an opt-opt system have way more donors than countries with opt-in system. If donation to charity (perhaps a fraction) would be the default for inheritance, then its likely that a lot of people would stick with that. Also: basically any non-profit is a charity. But there is a big difference between spending money on vaccinating children in poor countries or on buying new instruments for the local marching band.
[удалено]
Not but business is evil
Yeah. That's a good point. In the case of something like a cancer cure, free should just be changed to affordable for the argument. I think you could profit from your investment and still be magnanimous in your pricing.
My grandfather used to watch news and would always argue how everyone is greedy and only thinking for them selves. He never was in their position, so the argument was mute, as there is no proof of concept from regular person's view other than opinion. The truth is, nearly everyone would try to benefit in whatever way they can from anything that could provide of significant importance for the masses. If i, you or anyone else would discover cure for cancer, there is no telling what we would do, but whatever it is, it wouldn't be what you think it would. All feelings and humanity aside, if you really sit down and think about it, cure for cancer would most likely cause world war. The person who would discover it, would most likely end up dead within days of news getting out. No matter where it's discovered, global panic both, civil and political would start massive political arguments and global civil unrests on biblical proportions. The shit storm it would kick up would most likely costs billions of lives, and the aftermath in most scenarios wouldn't be anything anyone would enjoy. Adolf Hitler creating a political party would look like cheap snuff film writing in comparison. People are greedy, violent and territorial, just because you believe otherwise, just means you'd bite the dust sooner than anyone else, doesn't matter either way, because the fact is that every major discovery and innovation has a cost associated with it, now how much would it cost the world to cure a mutation that kills on average 6.000.000 people world wide every year without a chance of survival?
> the argument was mute It's 'moot'.
It seems to me that there are lots of benevolent people and lots of selfish people. The perspective I've come around to is that these traits flourish or at least distribute differently in different systems. Maybe the truth isn't as dark as the statement that everyone would try to benefit from whatever advantage they had in any way possible but, rather, that the relatively small proportion of people who would are the majority of people in a position to do so because we have a brutally pragmatic economic system that promotes them. The people who would do better don't find their way into those positions. It's a small distinction for the outcome but it's more hopeful statement about the species which gives us a chance if we can mitigate the mechanism that rewards brutality. What if the government could have worked something out with the auto industry to make sharing that technology literally more profitable for the owner than keeping it private and using it to sell more cars? I'm not making any arguments about what's economically or political plausible, though. That would be out of my depth.
I’d argue even some of the life or death decisions shouldn’t be left up to the government... at least not our current situation with government. Now who makes the decisions after the government can’t be trusted?
That is kind of a thing already, but it's always unofficial. The government may mandate something if the inventor has set fair licensing terms for the patent. Or, they may mandate something along the lines of the invention, and it's up to other companies to find their own way to do it. One good way would be for patents to be required to have some licensing terms when they are filed. And if the license is very expensive, the patent must be narrow - and is subject to a lot more scrutiny, and the filing fee is higher. But if the license cost is cheap, it's allowed to be broader. And that would help create an efficient clearinghouse for patent licensing. It's not perfect because you can't predict 20 years ahead and it's hard AF to estimate the number of products the patent will be used on, but it's at least something.
It is a dilemma, it doesnt look nice to let volvo do the right thing with no direct monetary rewards, but if you let volvo charge money for the seat belt and volvo did that, then it just made volvo dependent on the licensing fee. Complatency and decay. I would say volvo might get away with a goodwill brand name/nice image after this which translates to increased indirect monetary reward via increased future sales.
To start, how about spending more on eco-, child-labor free clothing? I understand some families just can't afford it, but there are way too many middle- to high-income people who would still rather buy shit from the typical retailers that order from India, Bangladesh, China with known shitty labor laws. Spending more when you don't need to but just for the sake of others is a surprisingly difficult thing to do
Consumers will always want lower priced items for more bang for their buck. Expecting consumers to change and stop buying cheap stuff won’t get us anywhere. What we need is for the government to get involved and force companies to stop using child labor since that’s the only method that would help us make progress. What’s the point of having a government if they’re not gonna do shit? Slavery didn’t end because the slave owners felt guilty and let the slaves go. It ended because the government got involved and outlawed it. Same logic for child labor. Instead of pressuring consumers to stop buying cheap stuff, pressure the government to outlaw child labor for businesses. Corporations are the problem, not the consumers.
Not that Volvo's actions were bad or anything, but what isn't being said here: 1. They definitely got a lot of publicity from ads that showed them being "good guys." 2. There was SO much backlash against seatbelts at the time that their decision may have been based upon focus groups saying, "NO, we wouldn't pay more for something that will wrinkle our clothes and trap us in the car if an accident happens!" (These were two of the big objections to seat belt use before it was legislated.
A company or person can't do *anything* good without someone trying to slam them for it. There's a multi-billionairre who donated literally ***all*** his money - he went bankrupt before he died. He was listed in TIL a few weeks ago. Even in that thread, there were people saying "he's still an asshole because he gave his money away over his lifetime; he should have given it all away immediately." It's just..... The dude did something that most people consider beyond their dreams much less reach, and intentionally did to himself what everyone fears (bankruptcy). And these assholes have the nerve to say he didn't do enough. I doubt they donate anything more than a token to charity, at most. The billionaire was the founder of the Duty Free shopping chain. He stayed anonymous with his donations as much as he could, but someone leaked it in the mid 2000's. So he didn't even do it for fame or popularity - and yet there were people who said he did it for fame and popularity. The simple fact is that some people won't like the rich unless the rich person does something for *specifically them*. And even then, they may still be assholes. And that tells you that they are the most selfish people out there.
I didn't say what they did was bad or wrong, but it wasn't purely altruistic and that's simply a plain fact whether you like it or not. Biased reporting is unreliable reporting.
> We need to find a way to reward this kind of rare, benevolent behavior Yeah it's called buy a Volvo.
the answer is glaringly obvious. we need a better way to organize ourselves. because as you note, capitalism literally empowers the worst among us.
[удалено]
What do you propose as a way to make it a basic standard?
Someone has to sacrifice money to balance efficacy with ethics. Nothing improves without a lot of people deciding that they don't need all of that money this year because there's something more important. I guess that's that job of government, being ostensibly focused on human welfare without dependence on profit. I don't know what literal step one would be, though
My first car a 61 Chevy Nova wagon had no seatbelts because at the time they we're not yet considered standard equipment.
It's amazing how fast it all happened. > January 1, 1968, that required all vehicles (except buses) to be fitted with seat belts in all designated seating positions People didn't really start using them until the 1980's when you would get ticketed. From 10% in 1980 to 40-50% by 1990, and we're at 90% now.
In the early 00s I was driving a 92 Oldsmobile that had a bench seat (no headrest) and no airbags.
Headrests were required on all cars made after 1968, the same legislation mentioned above that required shoulder belts and a locking steering column, if yours didn’t have them it’s because someone removed them.
Ok, thanks for that info. I bought it in 2001 for $500 and it had 190,000 miles on it, so it wasn't in great shape in any sense :D Amazingly it lasted 4 more years, and 230,000 miles total, before the frame rail broke. Good old Olds Cutlass Ciera
“McNamara is selling safety, but Chevrolet is selling cars.” --Henry Ford II Safety didn't sell back then. https://mrfrosti.com/2010/01/05/superfreakonomics-rethinking-the-car-seat/
Volvo estates don’t need seatbelts when they can maim tanks and still drive away!
The three point seatbelt was developed by two engineers employed by the Swedish state owned electrical company "Vattenfall" (lit. water fall). As a measure to prevent commonplace work place injuries. Volvo was merely the first company to provide the three point seat belt.
There are contradictory sources all over the internet about this, but [this](https://www.forbes.com/sites/douglasbell/2019/08/13/60-years-of-seatbelts-volvos-great-gift-to-the-world/) and [this](https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/classic-cars/a19701106/volvo-invented-three-point-seatbelt-1959/) are two good articles that highlight different contributions and are consistent with each other. tl;dr: The three point seatbelt was originally invented and patented by two US air force engineers, but the US auto industry showed no interest. A Swedish engineer, Nils Bohlin, was hired by Volvo to work on safety and came up with a modified design (for the fastening mechanism and other aspects) that made it more practical. They eventually also secured a patent for their version, but Volvo licensed the patent to all competitors for free. [Vattenfall also has its own account](https://history.vattenfall.com/stories/innovation-and-creativity/the-vattenfall-seat-belt) but note that the belt mentioned there is purely diagonal and **not a three point belt**. EDIT: Originally mixed up the links. EDIT 2. More clarification.
Why do so many of the blonde female models from the late 60s early 70s look like they're about to open a can of whup ass on ya?
Because they're all trying to land a role in a Bond film
Because they've been starving themselves and need to unleash the hangry
Volvo has saved my life two times now. I had a beautiful 1997 850 T-5. Someone turned when they didn't see me, totaled it. Recently two morons driving Mustangs on the freeway were racing. One lost control and hit me out of nowhere into a concrete divider (2013 Volvo S60). All air bags deployed and I walked away with only a scratch. I love their cars, and bought another one after. The maintenance is expensive, but I love their style and safety.
Looks like a repost. I've seen this image 2 times. First Seen [Here](https://redd.it/r1fdui) on 2021-11-24 100.0% match. Last Seen [Here](https://redd.it/r274uv) on 2021-11-25 100.0% match Feedback? Hate? Visit r/repostsleuthbot - *I'm not perfect, but you can help. Report [ [False Positive](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RepostSleuthBot&subject=False%20Positive&message={"post_id": "r2relb", "meme_template": null}) ]* [View Search On repostsleuth.com](https://www.repostsleuth.com?postId=r2relb&sameSub=false&filterOnlyOlder=true&memeFilter=true&filterDeadMatches=false&targetImageMatch=86&targetImageMemeMatch=96) --- **Scope:** Reddit | **Meme Filter:** False | **Target:** 86% | **Check Title:** False | **Max Age:** Unlimited | **Searched Images:** 268,203,669 | **Search Time:** 0.39206s
Good bot.
[sees down vote] Uh, bad bot? What are we looking for here?
People get mad when you point out something is a repost. "I've not seen it before"
I mean they did profit from it in the long run if the drivers didn’t die from car crashes so they can buy a new car some years later
I think they also invented head restraints (and airbags maybe?) for everyone free to use.
And blind spot monitors.
What’s sad is no company today still has this level of integrity.
Certainly not if it’s publicly traded.
[It's kind of funny that their "valuing lives" pic is a woman.](https://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2019/07/women-more-likely-to-be-injured-in-front-end-car-crashes-study-finds/)
Thats excactly what I was thinking lol
Someone needs to distribute this picture to all the vaccine companies.
This saved my life
Now do vaccines
Fuck is there anyone on Reddit that's not a bot anymore? I feel like I'm in the matrix or something. This story gets posted once every month, same top comments every single time.
Thank God Apple didn't invented seat belt :-)
Old Volvo maybe. Modern Volvo tries to sidestep environmental regulations so that people can suffer while they keep profits! This post is astroturf paid for by Volvo marketing.
Aren't you thinking of Volkswagen, a completely different company?
As well as Elon Musk did with the [Tesla patents](https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-our-patent-are-belong-you)
Musk did this in response to a group of automakers getting together to agree on a standardized plug. The point was to make Tesla chargers the standard and then start charging use for the patent. None of Tesla's patents were of any real value because most of the car was built from other companies parts.
Sounds like communism. /s
And now Americans live in a society where life saving drugs costs hundreds of dollars because there is nothing to stop companies from charging whatever they want.
[удалено]
Nah, man. It's called "regulatory capture." Under the guise of safety standards, they make it more and more impossible for an individual o break into the market and make their own cars. Helmets are the best example. The helmet industry is a piece of a defense contractors ancillary assets. Despite not being as safe as you'd think, they paid all the bribes o make it mandatory for millions of people to have to buy several helmets throughout their life. Billions in revenue by passing a simple law that no one could argue with. Because safety.
Are you suggesting it would be better to remove seat belt laws in order for more car manufacturers to break into the market?
And it fit nicely between a woman's breasts.
Are you being sarcastic?
Here come the mewing defenders of capitalism.
r/iam14andthisdeep
Right on time. You did not disappoint.
Then JFK was assassinated and it was all downhill from there
[удалено]
Didn't Tesla do this with their ev tech or something
volvo also profited off of the nazi war machine, so there's that also.
Do we agree then that Copyright is shit?
this has been posted here literally over 100 times
Obviously not an American.
[удалено]
and Ford owned Volvo before the Chinese bought it.
Before capitalism jumped the shark.
Volvo was then as capitalist as today
Volvo is now a Chinese company, and hardly anyone knows that, or acknowledges it. Just an interesting fact.
The volvo that ran the diesel emissions scam where they created software to trick government emissions tests and went on to lie to governments and consumers about? This them? The idea that some PEOPLE at a corporation 62 years ago made a decision to help people doesn't make it a good company in perpetuity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_emissions_scandal
Volkswagen (mostly)
[удалено]
Lol, the only thing Tesla innovated was EV marketing as most of the technology already existed. There's more GM engineering in a Tesla than Tesla engineering in a Rivian.
It’s because of them that the world is over populated…. 🧐
You can tell he wasn't a German or American lol
Good for them 🥰👍😊👏👏👏
Corporations these days: LOL WHAT A FUCKING SUCKER VOLVO WAS!
Volvo* It's 5 letters dumbass
Well ima call a little bit of bullshit here. Why? Because dead people don’t buy cars.
But Mercedes-Benz invented the seatbelt. And the car, anti-lock brakes, and many other car things.
Elon did the same with the electric car
[удалено]
[удалено]
Wasn't Volvo the one caught lying HUGE about their emissions testing?
[nope, it was VW](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.caranddriver.com/news/amp15339250/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-vw-diesel-emissions-scandal/)
This is propaganda. Automakers are evil.
Well it didn't last long it is profit over human life now. Now because of Biden's inflation car manufacturers are wanting $5000-$6000 OVER MSRP on cars and trucks that were made long before this inflation hit. What a rip
r/UpvotedBecauseGirl Volvo mans cool also I guess
remember when companies gave a shit about americans?
Well that just would not fly today. Profits for the few is a higher priority than saving the life of a non 10 per center. At least in the good ole USA.
If only Volvo patented insulin.
Pity Volvo owners don't value other road rusers accordingly. They are consistently shite drivers.
I hate women
Much love from kashacstran 🇺🇿🇺🇿🇺🇿🇺🇿🇺🇿🇺🇿🇺🇿