Comments ajazzfan has made

  • Good article--but you're leaving costs out !

    What about the cost of the energy you used to cook the meal? It's included in the KFC price--but you don't mention it in yours! Energy costs money too! You also spent money on gas for your car so you could drive to the store, or you spent time walking/biking to the store.  

    Time is money too. You spent time going to/from the store, shopping for the items, then cooking the meal when you got home. When you factor your time as a cost, you are probably behind. KFC also must do these things, albeit on a much larger scale, but you don't get a separate bill for this, it's included in the final price that you pay.

    So if you consider these factors, KFC is right.
    (and no, I don't work for KFC!)

    You might think I'm nit-picking here, but it's important to consider all facets of a problem, and not ignore the factors that don't support your thesis.

    JohnOn How I beat KFC's 'family meal' challenge posted 1 year ago 46 Responses

  • Taxes are never the answer...

    We live in a capitalist society--there is nothing wrong with a company making money, that's what they are supposed to do! Taxing the oil companies would just ripple down. Less profits means lower dividends for shareholders, less money for people saving, or already in retirement. Not just "the rich" own stock in these companies. If you are invested in a mutual fund, IRA, 401K, or other investment vehicle the chances are pretty high that some of your money is invested in oil companies--you would be taxing yourself. Speaking for myself, my taxes are already high enough.

    A better idea would be a grant program to support start-up businesses in this area. That would help out small businesses, which drive our economy. It would also most likely create new jobs--expanding our economy and naturally increasing the tax base, these funds (taxes from new jobs) could then be used to pay for the grants.

    We could also form partnerships with other countries--similar to NAFTA and CAFTA, except the primary goal would be to identify and develop feasible alternative energy solutions jointly. To my knowledge this doesn't exist today. Setting guidelines and "targets" doesn't solve the problem. Sharing research and development experience (and costs) would help. On Big Three automakers get plug-in funding from feds posted 1 year, 5 months ago 4 Responses

  • Biking is bad? Is there anything that is Good?

    I am confused that someone would be worried about the environmental impact of biking! Next to walking this is the cleanest mode of transportation I can think of! Is there anything that doesn't affect the environment in some way?

    I also disagree with the implication (in Umbra's answer) that veggie eaters are somehow more environmentally friendly than meat eaters. This is simply not true. Vegetables need to be planted and harvested with machinery (for bulk farms), some farms use manufactured piping for irrigation, and there is also the problem of pesticides and fertilizers--not all farms are organic. So there really is NO food, or transportation,  source that is 100% environmentally friendly!

    So what do we do? Should we all go naked, walk to work (and everywhere else), and only eat grass and roots? Because that's the only way that I can see to achieve a "zero" carbon footprint.

    This is an imperfect world, there is only so much we can do! It is like a "limit line", you can get close to zero, but you can never actually achieve it.  
    On Umbra on the impacts of biking posted 1 year, 5 months ago 21 Responses