T-Rex_Woodhaven

T-Rex_Woodhaven t1_jdu6mo3 wrote

Look at the Spice Girls for things on the pop-y side (overly tight-fitting clubbing clothes with belly ribbed sweatshirts) and the show Friends for clothes on the preppy side (everything is too big on guys which includes polo shirts and straight-leg blue jeans). Button-up shirts that are unbuttoned with crazy patterns and colors and a tee underneath.

1

T-Rex_Woodhaven t1_j9hnabg wrote

I would say there are significantly higher % of non-billionares who care about the climate crisis than % of billionaires, but that's not the point. The point is that 1 billionare in a capitalistic system has millions of times the power to change the dynamic on how we address climate change than the average person does. We could have 10 million people march on D.C. to pass legislation that gets us moving toward a more sustainable future, but 5 billionares could determine what is in that legislation because of their lobbying power. It makes regular people feel powerless.

2

T-Rex_Woodhaven t1_j9hk70i wrote

I'm not sure if you're missing the point here or for unknown reasons protecting billionaires. These companies make billions in profits. Profits are after all employees, bills, and taxes are paid. Many corporations don't pay their employees enough to eat or be housed and then make even MORE in profits. I don't really care if the CEO's net worth is based on nonsense stock prices, they still have WAY too much and don't pay nearly enough in taxes.

The point was people with a ridiculous amount of money are not worried about the effects of climate change because they think they have the wealth to protect themselves from resource insecurity.

1

T-Rex_Woodhaven t1_is488y6 wrote

I guess we better give up then since this one part of many hasn't been solved yet. Then the example is "my decades-tested ICE vehicle lasts longer than one of the first EV trucks ever on the market". Yeah.

2