What is Digg?94 Comments
- michaelpinto, on 12/12/2008, -1/+23Very sobering article: "In 2009 sustainability will take on a new meaning in boardrooms: staying in business. As recession bites and growth slows, bankruptcies will soar. To sustain profits, companies will slash costs and cut jobs, while consumers will be even less prepared to pay extra for organic food or air-travel offsets."
- Ghoztt, on 12/12/2008, -4/+21Governments and Corporate Masters are NOT interested in the environment, your health nor sustainability.
They are interested in banknotes, property, riches, gold, silver, wealth & money. If they were interested in such positive items such as sustainability the FULLY ELECTRIC CAR FROM 1996, the EV1 would never have been recalled in full (regardless of owners pleading to buy the car) and shredded to tiny little pieces. - foolfoolz, on 12/12/2008, -3/+17More fearmongering by the media.
Should read "2009: The year after 2008" - jojopumpkin, on 12/12/2008, -1/+122009: The Year of INSTABILITY.
- Zeitgeister, on 12/12/2008, -2/+11There's nothing sustainable about going bankrupt, we need better corporate leadership on the enviroment and management not more suits mouthing buzzwords.
- spyd3rweb, on 12/12/2008, -1/+102009: The year I move out of my parents basement, stop spending all day on digg and get a job... Well maybe I'll put it off just one more year.
- toxsid, on 12/12/2008, -2/+102009 is actually the year of the ox
...but don't take my word for it - vivvivtzz, on 12/12/2008, -0/+7penniless or rich, to be alive is the best. 2009 will be hell or maybe it won't, one thing for sure, I'll be alive right through it all and so will you. I'm not going to worry about it, just going to do my best to ease the pain.
- immatellyouwhat, on 12/12/2008, -2/+92009 is the Year of Bacon
- theadvinci, on 12/12/2008, -1/+8Too bad that after bad politics and wars sustainability suffers... and with it everyone else.
- treelovinhippie, on 12/12/2008, -1/+7The problem is our entire financial system which we know as capitalism is established on the premise of debt... something which is unsustainable. We live in a world of scarcity and finite resources (economics understands this), but our monetary and financial system is run on the premise that exponential growth is not only possible, but must be achieved at all costs.
The current bailouts are simply trying to maintain the profit margin growth of the big corporations. This is not how it should operate.
Does the government and central banks not understand the business cycle?
The system builds-up perpetual debt, crashes and starts over again... causing all kinds of chaos between the change-over.
In times like these the big corporations should bite their lips, understand their profit margins are going to drop, keep employees on-board and dig into savings (which they should have for the inevitable collapse of the economy every decade or so).
What I'm really worried about is that they're pushing very heavily for a global government and financial system within the next decade. Imagine a global system run on the same capitalist financial system! ... Every time the economy collapses (as it must in this system) there will be global conflict, global wars and global famine. Yay humanity. - stompk, on 12/12/2008, -0/+5[this box exists only to allow TWO thumbs up to the above post]
- mecharabbit, on 12/12/2008, -0/+5No, I think 2008 is the Year of Bacon. I think 2009 will be the Year of Government Cheese.
- JoshuaGross, on 12/12/2008, -1/+6I thought 2009 was the year of the Linux desktop? Ugh... 2010?
- casuallyevil, on 12/12/2008, -2/+6At least the economic crisis is making the environmentalists finally admit these green initiatives were never economically advantageous in the first place... now if only they would be up-front about what they're really asking for (hint: it's the same reason they wear Che on their shirts).
- stompk, on 12/12/2008, -0/+4"Despite the high cost of living. . . it's still just as popular as ever!"
- mal1964, on 12/12/2008, -0/+4If saying "Unsustainability" is making money, Companies and Marketers will say it until the cows come home.
- NonLeftistDiggr, on 12/13/2008, -0/+3Yeah, seems to me just about every article I found from google searching says canadian health care spending is growing faster than the economy and inflation. I'm surprised that anybody could be sceptical of that.
- logandurand, on 12/12/2008, -1/+4Let's see ... Canada's health care spending is growing 30-40% faster than its economy ... The Medicare system has at least 55 trillion dollars in unfunded obligations, which Republicans were happy to expand ... money is continually funneled into an interventionist foreign policy with no sign of ending ... the war on drugs fought by various nations continues to waste money trying to deprive people of ownership of their own bodies ... inflation continues unabated to pay for all of this ... and the U.S. just elected a president who is for more of all of the above, all under the guise of 'change'.
Sustainability does not seem to be in the vocabulary of our governments or our citizenry. - logandurand, on 12/13/2008, -0/+3I would most definitely volunteer my money to pay for the medical expenses of a loved one. The one thing I would never do is put a gun to my neighbor's head to obtain that money.
- zacharytelschow, on 12/13/2008, -0/+3Sustainability is making investments and living in a way that you could continue perpetually, for both businesses, individuals, and governments. I can promise that the current round of bailouts and absurd government spending is unsustainable. Just because many private citizens are living like financial idiots is no reason for government to follow suit. Democracy: rule by the lowest common denominator.
- lonesome1, on 12/12/2008, -0/+3"...(N)OT interested in the environment, your health nor sustainability...."
This is a poor sentence. The sentence should have parallel construction: "...not interested in environment, health, nor sustainability...." - NexusV2, on 12/12/2008, -0/+3Makes a change from "2009: The year of the Linux desktop".
- mythicflux, on 12/13/2008, -0/+3The read problem is that our current view of capitalism is based on the premise of perpetually sustainable growth. This means that investors expect higher and higher profit margins every quarter (if I made 1mil this quarter I should be able to make 1.2mil next quarter). This leads to companies doing stupid ***** like mergers and buyouts to get bigger with more money. This leads to bad decisions by individuals at companies chasing profit, all for the sake of keeping the illusion of growth going. This leads to slow downs when big companies suddenly don't have more profit this quarter than they did last quarter.
When inevitably things fall apart because there simply is no longer more money to be made thats when we have problems like this economic slowdown. It's because as a society, and as a world, we haven't realized one fundamental truth: as soon as you make dime one over your expenses you succeeded as a business.
Until we start judging corporate success based of it's ability to hit realistic goals of profit we will keep having these problems. As soon as businesses are judged on the reality of how stable they are over a period of time (and not how much more money they made this quarter over last) then we can minimize the fundamental danger of unchecked capitalism: greed. - mishabear, on 12/13/2008, -0/+3That's why they are pleading for financial help in the BILLIONS of dollars. Ya, great job!
They are looking for the fast, easy cash, not the cash that requires thought, planning, ability, and product. - JoshuaGross, on 12/12/2008, -3/+6Capitalism didn't cause this crisis. Economic socialism, collectivism, communism - none of them work.
- geoffg, on 12/12/2008, -3/+6Clearly Communism proved entirely sustainable.
- Jarasmen, on 12/13/2008, -1/+3It brings faith for the world to my heart knowing that there still are people who can use sarcasm without putting "/s" at the end of the paragraph.
- omegared, on 12/13/2008, -2/+4its true think about there is a only a fixed amount of resources on the planet, and we keep on using up renewable resources quicker than they can be regenerate. Eventually economic growth will use up all the resources.
The earth is a closed system, what we have on this planet is all that their is. People who talk about the gold standard should realize that, there is a limit to economic growth, because there is only a limited amount of gold in the world. - Opiate, on 12/13/2008, -0/+2His numbers may be off depending how you spin it, but it's certaintly not cheap.
OTTAWA, Nov. 13 /CNW Telbec/ - Canada's health care spending is expected
to reach $171.9 billion in 2008, or $5,170 per person, according to new
figures released today by the Canadian Institute for Health Information
(CIHI). This represents an increase of $10.3 billion over estimated
expenditures for 2007, or a growth of 6.4%. These figures are featured in
National Health Expenditure Trends, 1975 to 2008, Canada's most comprehensive
source of information tracking how dollars are spent on health care in this
country.
When looking at health care spending as a proportion of Canada's overall
economy, health expenditure is expected to reach 10.7% of the gross domestic
product (GDP), the highest share ever recorded. This rate has climbed
gradually, from 10.0% in 2002, to an estimated 10.6% last year.
"Health care spending is expected to grow faster than Canada's economy,
outpacing inflation and population growth," says Glenda Yeates, President and
CEO of CIHI. "In the context of recent changes in the economy, it is important
to keep monitoring these trends in order to better understand how our dollars
are being spent and how we compare to other countries."
After adjusting for inflation and population growth, spending is expected
to grow by 3.4% in 2008, which is similar to adjusted annual growth rates of
recent years: 2.8% in 2007 (estimated), 3.7% in 2006 and 2.8% in 2005.
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/Novembe ... - SuperSexySadie, on 12/13/2008, -0/+2Scary stuff: After rescuing the financial system, many Western governments will imagine that they are the best judges of how to run businesses responsibly.
- FI5HERMAN, on 12/12/2008, -2/+4Sustainability.....and some folks have a very warped interpretation of that word !!!
- kivab4b, on 12/12/2008, -1/+3The article makes a very pertinent point that the shift in people's attitude about global warming, working for companies that operate around certain values etc will not die down. And hence, businesses should continue to support social causes and making their CSR strategies a part of their DNA. I dont see the govt being a major catalyst in the short term.
- omegared, on 12/13/2008, -1/+3true, there is no reason for human rights either. They usually get in the make goods cost more. And also if people want abortions lets just give to them, why should the government look for people to adopt a child using tax payer money. Next we need child labor, so that we can get cheaper goods, screw the justice system, courts take to long, just put the person in jail.
Right human, life is only valuable for the materials that are generated from it, not the persons life. Can i take your family and make them work on a farm for a couple a cents a day and then i give them a little food to survive on. It will make your grocery cost less. - inactive, on 12/12/2008, -0/+2It has already started!
Sorry to be a debbie downer, but:
Look for 2009 to be a year of doom and gloom. Look for 2010 to be on the upswing...we must all hope that! Plus, I'll be in need of an finance job once i graduate! - mal1964, on 12/12/2008, -0/+2Every Failure Is An Opportunity In Disguise
- logandurand, on 12/13/2008, -0/+2I do try.
- mediaspree, on 12/13/2008, -0/+2welcome to the accounting department. Here is your copy of excel. now update these spreadsheets from 9-5 for 32k a year.
- createcontent, on 12/13/2008, -0/+2http://www.flickr.com/photos/28817565@N03/31020657 ...
- NonLeftistDiggr, on 12/13/2008, -0/+2Well, what's wrong with that is people have different views of what a good life is, and most modern environmental activism is based on emotion and popular culture fads.
I figured most people that wear Che on their shirts must think it would be really cool to murder people at will for not agreeing with their viewpoints. - zacharytelschow, on 12/13/2008, -0/+2What's wrong with that is that to have even a marginal immeasurable impact would essentially require sending us back to the stone age. We can act responsibly and adapt to what comes or live lives of poverty and hope our sacrifice will make a difference. What seems a better idea to you?
- NonLeftistDiggr, on 12/13/2008, -0/+2That was awesome, a comment based on facts and common sense.
- zacharytelschow, on 12/13/2008, -0/+2Record government spending is not what I'd consider progress.
- mecharabbit, on 12/12/2008, -0/+2EFIAOID? Uh, okay.
- NonLeftistDiggr, on 12/13/2008, -1/+3Dugg for an article submission from a credible source for once....
Buried for suggesting governments are trying hard to be sustainable. - kinerry, on 12/12/2008, -2/+3Isn't that what everyone is interested in?
Those things enable you to do all the rest.
Don't kid yourself, they are doing what you would do, just a lot better. - zacharytelschow, on 12/13/2008, -0/+1If they'll keep you, that's a sustainable life plan until they die and the food money runs dry.
- lettruthout, on 12/13/2008, -1/+2Until it crashes. Then what?
- kinerry, on 12/12/2008, -1/+2buzzwords like "corporate leadership"?
- anthonyvsshark, on 12/12/2008, -2/+3I'm a sustainability major at Arizona State University. It's the only college that even offers a B.S. in sustainability, and that's terrifying on so many levels.
-
Show 51 - 94 of 94 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is