-12
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Feb 2024
-12 points (26.9% liked)
Unpopular Opinion
6052 readers
328 users here now
Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!
How voting works:
Vote the opposite of the norm.
If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.
Guidelines:
Tag your post, if possible (not required)
- If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
- If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].
Rules:
1. NO POLITICS
Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.
2. Be civil.
Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...
Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.
5. No trolling.
This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.
Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
My guess is this would be a "penny-wise but pound foolish" or "stepping over a dollar to pick up a dime" approach. The main group "losing out" on tax benefits by allowing this loophole are nation states (or groups of nation states) and are well aware of it. As such, its likely that they make even more money from other steps in this chain toward the GDP or other measures that they're interested in. So while they could force the shipping companies to flag ships for defense, doing so would me less overall money for the nation states providing a safe and predictable environment for international commerce (safe for commerce).
Do you get where I'm going with this or would you like more detail?
I work in the industry and see how the industry treat it's workers, climate and environment.
For me it's more important to future proof our species then feeding some capitalist hedgefund dollars.
Flagging the ships to countries with proper societal structures with military defence and laws is beneficial for everyone except the sharks. Lemmy is pretty anti-capitalist untill their cheap Chinese electronics are under threat.
IMO has codes to better the conditions at sea with SOLAS, MARPOL and MLC. With a foot inside the industry you are a fool to see these regulations are far from enough.
The regular philipine seaman is onboard 9 months on a single contract, and has to get a new contract for the next time. The regular western seafarer has a 1/1 rotation with an employment contract with a shipping company.
More expensive shipping forces less shipping. Which might re-establish local industries. Europe made much of its stuff before. Now it's moved to cheap countries in the east. Norway sends fish to china for processing, it gets sent back and sold in Norway. This is insane to me.
Norway has 1 shoe maker left. Other Norwegian shoemakers has their head office in Norway, but production is moved to Asia.
So you're making a philosophical argument instead of a pragmatic one? Until those in power agree with your mission statement of "future proof our species", any desired actions toward that aim are moot.
While our current system has lots of downsides, it allows for nearly everyone to have more than they did before (yes it is disproportionately distributed). Additionally, the large global interconnected system is the strongest check against war in history. Trade helps prevent total global war.