The plant did it.

How long has this been going on?

 

"While much of the world has baked in a heat wave this month, new research points to a surprising culprit when it comes to killing us — plants.

A study published this week in the peer-reviewed journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics found that during heat waves, plants tend to absorb less pollution from the air. That puts more people at risk of developing respiratory complications, which can lead to death." -- source

National Geographic should be so ashamed.  But I'm sure they are not, since they surely profited from publishing this mind-numbing article.  And after all, that's why they are in business, to make a profit, and the public can be damned!

Here we have once again an example of how we are taught to defer to authority and let our critical thinking skills atrophy.  Plants are killing us because they aren't absorbing our pollution fast enough.  What's wrong with that picture?  For the critical thinkers out there, it's obvious.  Humans are killing the plants and themselves by creating the pollution in the first place!  It makes no sense to blame the plants, but there it is, in print, delivered by no less an authority than National Geographic, a beacon of respectability.

So why blame the plants?  Once again, it is all about power and control, deception and manipulation, mind control and slavery.  The ruling sociopaths have engineered a system that has us working against our best interests.  We pollute as a matter of course, due to the sociopathic system we were born into and accept, even though by polluting we are ultimately harming ourselves and all other living things.  The insanity of this system is becoming more and more visible, thus the need to sanitize it with propaganda and disinformation lest the sheeple wake up to their manipulation and revolt.  So yeah, the plants are slacking off, and we need to fix that!  Pay no attention to the sociopaths behind the curtain.

What do they take us for, idiots?

Yep.

 

Wealth reform

 

It isn’t laziness that has caused worldwide poverty, it is the disenfranchisement of millions through the perpetuation of corporate greed.  Even the mega-corporation of Ben & Jerry’s, makers of the popular ice cream, once had a 5 to 1 board member ruling that the CEO would be limited to a 5 to 1 ratio of earnings over his lowest paid worker, but the company ditched this practice when they couldn’t find anyone to replace Ben Cohen, the CEO that worked for just $81,000 a year. -- source

 

Idiots!  Any excellent idea, poorly executed, will fail.  That doesn't mean the idea is a failure.

The flaw in this idea is the 5 to 1 ratio.  What ratios will make this idea succeed, and what ratio is optimal for all involved?

If Ben worked for $81K per year, then the lowest paid worker was getting $16.2K per year, or about minimum wage ($8.10/hour).

What if the ratio had been set to 50 to 1?  Then Ben would make $405/hour, or $810K per year.  Can't find a CEO that will work for that?  BS, you can find lots of them.  Even I would do it.  I've run my own company for 27 years, every one of them in the black.

Maybe the CEO you want requires a million dollars a year.  Set the starting salary for the lowest paid employees at $10/hour, and you've got your million dollar CEO, along with some happier employees.

50 to 1 is probably not the optimal ratio, but it clearly works better than 5 to 1.  A much higher ratio is probably as poor a choice as the 5 to 1 ratio.  Google's CEO takes home an obscene $101 million every year.  That's a ratio of 6234 to 1.

So what is the optimal ratio that will satisfy all employees and still allow a business to thrive?  And if humans are so smart, why haven't we solved this very simple economics problem?  And don't give me any of that "free market" BS.  There are no free markets wherever sociopaths are running the show, and that's exactly what we've got.  At the very least, we need to place limits on the people at the top of the hierarchy.  A 100 to 1 ratio seems like a good place to start.  And if those at the top want more money?  They will have to create the rising tide that lifts all boats.  Isn't that really what they are paid to do anyway?

What if the whole world were modeled in the same way, and the richest among us could not be more than 100 times richer than the poorest among us?  Can you imagine the improvements that would bring?