Food is pretty fungible actually. You can replace meats with all sorts of other things, I haven't touched meat for near 20 years now (nor fish nor eggs). Growing plants is really fairly simple, especially when compared to growing large livestock.
People are constantly looking for solutions that allow them to grow more food in tighter spaces with less waste, etc., it's one of our most important endeavours.
- in the same sense that they are not really forced to breath either.
d. They are willingly paying those prices, willingly paying taxes, set by officials they willingly elected and accepted
- I agree with you, but it all is to a point, at some point the balance is off so much that they stop paying taxes and stop paying prices and stop electing people and instead they take the gov't down. It's not a revolutionary concept *pun intended*.
What you propose is to force people who are otherwise content with the way things are, to do something else, just so some other people in another part of the world get to feed themselves.
- no, you again do not understand the issue.
Subsidy takes money away from the payers of those taxes (whoever they are) and then this money is given to somebody to run an otherwise unprofitable business, which implies, that the end product is unsustainable if there was no subsidy.
This means that it's not about somebody in another part of the world, it's about these very people who are getting robbed by taxes and subsidies.
The fact that by ending this nonsensical behaviour, there would be multiple winners, including some people half way around the world, just proves how stupid the people who support this system while not directly being involved in the governing process are (and no, people who are not politicians and those who do not run the Federal reserve, Treasury and the biggest banks, military industrial complex are not involved in the governing process).
Sorry, but you're talking about America, the Randean paradise where everybody is looking out for themselves, not starving children in another country they never heard of and probably can't even locate on a map/globe.
- but that's the problem, they have abandoned the Randian ideas (if they ever had them, which would be strange, people don't abandon real convictions of that type).
They never had principles and they never really thought through much and they probably don't even have the ability to think through it, with the gov't sponsored propaganda-education system and all.
These people are in the Matrix, they are convinced it's the real deal.
Tyranny is what is done to the people right now, that they are forced to buy food at higher prices due to the subsidies with their own tax money, so they are robbed twice: first time when they are forced to pay taxes (or money is printed and it's a tax) and then the second time, when they are forced to buy more expensive food.
Free market of governments using tax payer money to buy weapons from preferred corporations so that these weapons can be given as a subsidy to the tyrannical dictators of the world?
You have some sickly warped understanding of what free market is.
The only people who were 'dying on the streets' prior to Russian revolution as an example, were policeman killed by the terrorists that wanted a regime change.
Where is that supply going to come from? Claims of infinite productivity (given enough technological advance) ring hollow. There isn't an infinite supply of oil, there isn't an infinite supply of farmland, there isn't an infinite supply of anything.
- that's right, there isn't an infinite supply of anything, that's why we substitute and go further.
150 years ago you could have said the same thing about whale oil - the whales were going extinct. Then people switched to our current form of energy.
FREE people will figure out supply as long as gov't keeps its hands off the market. Supply of oil is not infinite, so we will switch to other forms of energy eventually anyway, but we will switch and thus we will have supply.
Supply runs the economy, not consumption, production. Without production there can be no consumption and if we do not allow the market to be free, then we CAN stop this process and prevent supply from being developed and then there will be starvation.
What will actually happen is that as demand outstrips supply (exponentially, as population curves are wont to grow) the price will rise sharply and the population will collapse whether you want it to or not.
- sure, if we just relied on nature to provide, that is what would happen. But we do not rely on nature to just hand us new stuff, we are actively looking for new stuff, that's how we are different from other animals.
Nuclear power is going to be used one way or another to offset the diminishing supplies of other forms of energy, it doesn't have to be uranium either.
Then it could be thermonuclear at some point. We will have our supply as long as we understand that people need to be free to try and develop it.
As I said, people are not a drain on the system, they are a resource.
Maybe if the foreign countries stopped sponsoring dictators around the world and giving them weapons there would be less of a problem around the world as well.
Next best thing foreign countries can do is leave Africa to itself and also reduce subsidies to domestic farmers. Let the real market work and all of a sudden Africa will become a net food exporter.
You still don't understand.... Earth is finite. That means there is a guaranteed upper limit on the number of humans that it can handle, if for no other reason than there is a limit to the number of people who can physically fit on/in this planet.
- more nonsense.
Again: don't stifle the market and stop with your totalitarian bullshit, you are too stupid and shortsighted to be able to dictate to the people. We build skyscrapers and we can have flying and floating and underwater cities with multiple levels, for all I know.
We could dig into the planet and build above it. We could build levels of space cities if we needed.
There are all sorts of things that neither you nor I can predict that would happen should humanity be left alone and not be ruled by the tyrants, and people would just do what they always do: create more supply and solve problems.
I am well aware that the current hunger problem is one of distribution. That says nothing about some point in the future where there is nothing left with which to create more food, and where no amount of redistribution will fix things.
- it's always the same problem.
People always look for ways to make profit, and tyrants are standing in the way.
Profit is the virtue, the most virtuous thing that most people can ever hope to do, because profit is approval by the people of whatever activity. Profit is what tells us that we are doing the right thing by the market, but it must be free market, otherwise wrong signals can lead us in the wrong direction (so profit achieved during a stock or a housing bubble or a money bubble is a response to government meddling with the market and it's not solving a real market need).
PROFIT is the ENGINE that will DRIVE the people to find new ways to provide supply where YOU cannot even IMAGINE what the problem is in the first place, the solution will be found.
As I'd just stated, I am dealing with a point in time where you can't create more supply because there is nothing left with which to create more supply! It's all used up! I make no claim of knowing when we might reach such a point, but the fact that earth is finite guarantees that it is possible to reach such a point if we aren't careful.
- trillions and trillions of years from now, when all of the stars die off you will finally be right.
Until then you are wrong.
There is no such thing as "nothing left", the only place where there is nothing left is your head. People will create supply, people will substitute one supply with another, they will create products even if all they can manage to collect is some sunlight and dirt. Just because you don't understand this basic concept means you are not one of those who will achieve profit, but hey, not everybody is really going to anyway. Some are just ballast, but even ballast is needed to keep the ship steady.
Ok, now you're just making shit up. If you're going to resort to making shit up, then this discussion is over.
- I don't make shit up.
I'll quote you yourself right back, see if it sounds familiar:
We could have avoided all this conflict if we'd just agreed to limit our birthrates. Instead, you decided to be a selfish prick and just had to pop out one more kid.
- you are talking about "all agreeing to limit birthrates".
But your REAL meaning is: government mandating this, and that means you want gov't to give you something.
I KNOW you want a gov't mandate even if you didn't think about it at first, it's what happened in China - they had a gov't mandate. Most people didn't agree to this voluntarily obviously.
Anyway, do what you need to do and I'll do what I need to do.
African countries could easily output huge amounts of food, but they are prevented from even competing by what I mentioned: 1. Huge subsidies by most other nations into food supply. 2. Wars. Many nations in Africa are in a near perpetual state of emergency of some kind, and there is very little that people can do in many places without being destroyed by that sort of activity. Those wars are in large part supported by the foreigners via subsidies to the dictators, arms trade.
Solution is to stop subsidising farming everywhere. Africa could supply huge amounts of grown food much cheaper than many other places can, but there is a problem: other places are heavily subsidised and compared to the wealthy nations that do the subsidies, African nations cannot compete.
Of-course that, and stopping with the meddling of the foreign affairs of countries of the world, maybe no longer supporting the dictators that are convenient to support.
Thus what? The core problem is the oil itself as a burned fuel.
- says who? It's not a problem, it's the best solution that the market has for now in that sector of economy.
A way forward as it gets started in the face of a complacent market and competition with a vested interest in it not getting off the ground?
- as I said: says who? Who are you to tell the market that it needs to move in a manner that you want rather than using the most convenient and really the cheapest solution available to do what the market does today? You are so smart about this, just like Obama, why don't you put your own money into an enterprise like that, see how market cares about your business.
So we should just stick forever with fossil fuels and just hand the entire market over to the Chinese? We're already learning that this is bad for anyone but the owners of the companies involved.
- USA is now net exporter of oil.
Not only are you going to 'stick' to oil for sometime, you are going to depend on it to buy the goods you want, because as opposed to your paper money, your oil actually can be used by others.
Precisely, they're subsidizing such purchases so we don't buy from vendors in the US.
- so what? It just means you have access to much cheaper stuff than your domestic companies can produce, again, say: thank you, stupid Chinese workaholics for working for me so cheaply and giving me this stuff for nothing.
China likes to play a long game whereby they peg their currency close to the USD and manipulate it so that it's perpetually below rather than fluctuating like it should. The core advantage to this is that Chinese goods are always cheaper, and this, combined with lax environmental regulations and subsidies allows them to perpetually undercut foreign vendors and eventually drive them out of business.
- this only benefits the politicians and the top management of the companies, who can show worthless nominal increases in quarterly statements, but it destroys the purchasing power of the Chinese who work in those factories, so the Chinese people should really be angry with their gov't that it steals from them to subsidise others for no good reason.
Then the price goes up, but not enough to start production again. This game is playing out right now with the rare earths.
- that's retarded. If prices will go up (and they will go up only because US dollar is being inflated by YOU gov't), then there may just be room for profit for more expensive solutions, but that's of-course nonsense anyway, because if prices go up for the cheap Chinese solutions today, then if they go up, the US solutions that are more expensive today will also be more expensive later on.
So what you're saying that China is basically running bad economics that will lead to it eventually self destructing? Yeah, so by keeping some manufacturing in the US we have a chance of protecting ourselves from it. Doubt we will, but it's worth a shot.
- Chinese government is running bad economics and bad policies of stealing from their own people to subsidise your consumption.
They are probably doing it out of corruption and also because they are trying to keep their own people down and not let them to enjoy fruits of their own labour in a way that would allow them to start really questioning the purpose of the central government authority, that only seems to exist in order to punish them in every way rather than to do something useful for a change.
Hahahah. No, corporations have destroyed it by moving it all to China to get around the regulations the people of this country demanded be put in place.
1. Is the right of the businesses to search for better places to do business (and it is the right of the individuals to search for better places to live.
2. It's not just regulations and taxes, it's also inflation - destruction of the currency by the government fiscal policy of printing - punishing the savers and investors and promoting policy of debt.
They won't bring it back until we're willing to accept labor conditions and pollution equivalent to what China has now.
- that will NOT be enough, you also have to stop destroying the money.
Now, to address your underlying assumption:
All of the things that you are talking about the private industry is basing their decisions on - those things are the creation of the government.
Prior to 1913 basically there was no business regulations, there was no income or corporate or payroll taxes either, and USA was building up its wealth and reserve faster than anybody else on the planet, USA paid out its debts and became largest creditor nation, while its currency appreciated in value by the factor of 2 over the 19th century and while USA became the largest exporter of high quality low cost consumer goods.
In 2009 specifically, ExxonMobilâ(TM)s total taxes and duties to the U.S. government and its subdivisions exceeded $7.7 billion, an amount that includes ExxonMobilâ(TM)s U.S. income tax expense related to 2009 activities of approximately $500 million. Our U.S. income tax expenses over the last five years alone reach almost $20 billion.
Furthermore, one only has to look at ExxonMobilâ(TM)s previous tax bills to realize that any claim we donâ(TM)t pay taxes is absurd.
ExxonMobil is one of the countryâ(TM)s largest taxpayers, having incurred a total U.S. tax expense of $60 billion over the past five years â" a tax cost that exceeded our U.S. earnings in that same period by $19 billion. Simply stated, for every dollar of net earnings in the U.S. between 2005 and 2009, we paid almost $1.50 in taxes to federal, state and local governments.
We are not only a large source of revenue for the government through taxes, but we also continue investing substantial sums even in a weak economy. While others have cut back, ExxonMobil made capital and exploration investments of $26.1 billion in 2008 and $27.1 billion in 2009. We invested nearly $11 billion directly in U.S. operations during this time, generating jobs and other economic benefits.
And for those who still say oil and natural gas companies âoedonâ(TM)t pay their fair shareâ compared to other companies, consider this: ExxonMobilâ(TM)s effective tax rate for 2009 was about 47 percent; a recent study found that the tax rate for U.S. oil and gas companies is about 20 points higher than the rest of the S&P Industrials. Iâ(TM)d consider that more than our fair share.
ExxonMobilâ(TM)s activities add billions of dollars a year to the U.S. economy through our tax obligations and our business investments, and federal, state, and local government budgets all benefit.
When it comes to political theatre, itâ(TM)s time for a new line â" because the old line about ExxonMobil not paying taxes just isnâ(TM)t true.
I am fine with money laundering, I am wondering what's wrong with people here who don't want some foreign government to subsidise their own purchases? What? It makes sense - take it and shut up.
Well that's nonsense, USA government is the entity that destroyed the private sector in the first place, now that they are done with that, you think they can run the economy?
And yet the subsidies that the fossil fuel companies get are above and beyond what the alternative energy groups get.
- it's false, because it makes no sense. The oil industry pays huge amounts of taxes and it provides the people with all the oil they need for all the uses.
The alternative energy industry LIVES on taxes, what does it provide people with? Bad business model and more taxes going towards some chosen contractors for political reasons.
Yup, efficiencies like free money from the Chinese government coupled with extremely low labor costs and extremely lax environmental standards.
- whatever, say thank you, Chinese government, for the subsidy that you are giving to people, who clearly are too dumb to understand that they are getting it (IF that's what the Chinese are doing - they are subsidising you at the moment.)
China, of course.
Unless you're thinking that we actually have a "Free Market," in which case I have several bridges and inland oceanside property to sell you.
- yeah, you have already been sold a bad bridge. Chinese people are NOT gaining, they are losing by subsidising your consumption, and it is done by their gov't destroying their currency in order to cause lower prices for the products that the Chinese are making via the fake exchange rate.
So you are complaining that the Chinese are taking a few of your dollars and giving you a superior product at a tiny price? So let's see - do you want things for the sake of having them or do you want things so that you can work to make them?
My point is that while the Chinese are having this ridiculous policy of subsidising your purchasing power (both, with any kind of direct subsidies to their manufacturers and by destroying their own currency to give you the cheapest price possible), you are complaining that you are getting a product at the cheapest price possible.
It's a nice RC toy, but how is it a robot? Just having a receiver, an electric motor to drive and some spring mechanism and a person controlling it over radio makes a robot?
The US gov't believes it can run the economy for some reason.
There is all this nonsense talk about how oil industry is getting 'subsidies', while in reality those so called 'subsidies' are just deductions in tax payments that the oil companies make, all while the real subsidies is money that the gov't wastes giving uninsured loans or just straight money to all these 'alternative energy' companies, that in reality would have never gotten anywhere based on the real market, all this, while the Chinese companies found all the necessary efficiencies to produce lots and lots of those solar panels very cheaply, and now there are all these tariffs by the US gov't on the Chinese solar panel products.
Who do you think gets hurt in all of this? Well, it's obvious - who is really gaining when the Chinese are importing cheap solar panels into USA in exchange for US dollars? If you can answer this second question, then you can answer the first one.
By the way, Obama believes he is a great genius of a businessman, why is he not using his own money to sponsor all these 'alternative energy' companies but insists on spending other people's money on this?
I am a "murdering thug" is because your actions threaten my kid's life.
- no, you are a murdering thug because that's the starting point for you. You can't understand simplest of things, that with the actual freedom, free market, people do provide for themselves and we have seen the population near quadruple in 100 years and we know that the ONLY reason that there are starving people out there are governments that prevent people from working, trading freely, applying themselves in ways that governments are dead set to prevent from happening in order to protect their power and their friends.
My kid is starving because what little food is available is going to your kids, and there's nothing left over for my kid.
- no, you dumb schmuck. If your kid is starving it's because you are voting for free stuff to be given to you by the government, and thus you are destroying the freedom that allows the people to provide for themselves.
The more people there are the more demand there is, the more supply is created, because there is new profit to be made (and that's why profit is a virtue all in itself, whoever is making profit is basically improving the world unlike 99% of anybody who is not making a profit).
Your ideology is to have government control the people in a totalitarian fashion, which prevents them from building new stuff, coming up with new ideas and companies and supply for all that new demand, and then you want the gov't also to give you something? Gov't doesn't have anything it doesn't steal from the people who produce, but if you are going to impose the totalitarian control, there will be NO production capacity and distribution channels available to satisfy that demand, so your entire ideology is leading to the very outcome that you are so afraid of and you are absolutely blind not to see it.
You may have a right to self defense, but I have every right to protect my progeny from selfish pricks like you who threaten our very existence by the over-utilization of our limited resources.
- whatever. I already said everything about this in the last paragraph.
. It's just a real shame you're so stubborn and set in your ways. We could have avoided all this conflict if we'd just agreed to limit our birthrates. Instead, you decided to be a selfish prick and just had to pop out one more kid.
- you bet I am selfish. I am looking out for myself, but that's your best bet - let the people be selfish and look out for themselves and they'll be searching for profit and doing all sorts of work that brings profit to them, and this includes creating all those things that you think your kids need.
Your problem is your absolute lack of understanding of economics. 0 understanding of it, no surprise there of-course, modern day 'edumacation system' does that to a person.
If you were the one with only one kid and I had three hungry mouths to feed? Now your one kid is the one starving because there's no food left over after my three use what they require.
- I wouldn't be trying to impose the totalitarian crap on anybody and I would gladly allow for people to make profit producing all that supply that my kids might then use. See how easy it is to avoid conflict? It's called free market.
Again, I am not saying we have reached this tipping point. But unlike you, I do not desire us to ever reach that tipping point. And for that, I truly feel sorry for you.
- it's funny, I also feel something, but it's not what you feel. I feel sorry for myself for having to tolerate idiots.
It wasn't perfect but it used to work, it was called the Constitution. Of-course they abandoned it due to their Marxist and/or fascist ideologies, they used the desire of the masses for free bread and circuses and willingness of the masses to pay for that with what actually matters - freedom.
There can be no accountability to the people without the rule of law ABOVE the government, and the rule of law was the Constitution. The circle-blabber-mouth here believes that the Constitution is outdated and that Marxism must prevail in order to achieve his perfect dream of totalitarian utopia (hopefully with him at the helm of power). And that's the problem, isn't it?
Some want power and thus they hate the rule of law ABOVE the gov't, and they buy the people who are ready to give away the only thing that keeps them free and able to build a real economy for themselves - the very power that is set above the government that prevents the government from becoming a totalitarian system that destroys freedom.
Oh, and if you think that what I wrote here is nonsense, consider that when society is NOT ready or is actively unwilling to participate in some nonsense law that is pushed by a crazy gov't of some kind, then the society actively finds ways around the laws, generally disregards them and creates means to go around them one way or another, and the only real consequence of this is that the costs go up, the efficiencies and quality go down.
This is true for every such situation, for example prohibition or the war on drugs or war on prostitution, whatever.
Slashdot Mirror
Food is pretty fungible actually. You can replace meats with all sorts of other things, I haven't touched meat for near 20 years now (nor fish nor eggs). Growing plants is really fairly simple, especially when compared to growing large livestock.
People are constantly looking for solutions that allow them to grow more food in tighter spaces with less waste, etc., it's one of our most important endeavours.
This reminded me of something Bigger, Longer & Uncut.
Nonsense. People are not forced to buy food
- in the same sense that they are not really forced to breath either.
d. They are willingly paying those prices, willingly paying taxes, set by officials they willingly elected and accepted
- I agree with you, but it all is to a point, at some point the balance is off so much that they stop paying taxes and stop paying prices and stop electing people and instead they take the gov't down. It's not a revolutionary concept *pun intended*.
What you propose is to force people who are otherwise content with the way things are, to do something else, just so some other people in another part of the world get to feed themselves.
- no, you again do not understand the issue.
Subsidy takes money away from the payers of those taxes (whoever they are) and then this money is given to somebody to run an otherwise unprofitable business, which implies, that the end product is unsustainable if there was no subsidy.
This means that it's not about somebody in another part of the world, it's about these very people who are getting robbed by taxes and subsidies.
The fact that by ending this nonsensical behaviour, there would be multiple winners, including some people half way around the world, just proves how stupid the people who support this system while not directly being involved in the governing process are (and no, people who are not politicians and those who do not run the Federal reserve, Treasury and the biggest banks, military industrial complex are not involved in the governing process).
Sorry, but you're talking about America, the Randean paradise where everybody is looking out for themselves, not starving children in another country they never heard of and probably can't even locate on a map/globe.
- but that's the problem, they have abandoned the Randian ideas (if they ever had them, which would be strange, people don't abandon real convictions of that type).
They never had principles and they never really thought through much and they probably don't even have the ability to think through it, with the gov't sponsored propaganda-education system and all.
These people are in the Matrix, they are convinced it's the real deal.
Tyranny is what is done to the people right now, that they are forced to buy food at higher prices due to the subsidies with their own tax money, so they are robbed twice: first time when they are forced to pay taxes (or money is printed and it's a tax) and then the second time, when they are forced to buy more expensive food.
Free market of governments using tax payer money to buy weapons from preferred corporations so that these weapons can be given as a subsidy to the tyrannical dictators of the world?
You have some sickly warped understanding of what free market is.
The only people who were 'dying on the streets' prior to Russian revolution as an example, were policeman killed by the terrorists that wanted a regime change.
Where is that supply going to come from? Claims of infinite productivity (given enough technological advance) ring hollow. There isn't an infinite supply of oil, there isn't an infinite supply of farmland, there isn't an infinite supply of anything.
- that's right, there isn't an infinite supply of anything, that's why we substitute and go further.
150 years ago you could have said the same thing about whale oil - the whales were going extinct. Then people switched to our current form of energy.
FREE people will figure out supply as long as gov't keeps its hands off the market. Supply of oil is not infinite, so we will switch to other forms of energy eventually anyway, but we will switch and thus we will have supply.
Supply runs the economy, not consumption, production. Without production there can be no consumption and if we do not allow the market to be free, then we CAN stop this process and prevent supply from being developed and then there will be starvation.
What will actually happen is that as demand outstrips supply (exponentially, as population curves are wont to grow) the price will rise sharply and the population will collapse whether you want it to or not.
- sure, if we just relied on nature to provide, that is what would happen. But we do not rely on nature to just hand us new stuff, we are actively looking for new stuff, that's how we are different from other animals.
Nuclear power is going to be used one way or another to offset the diminishing supplies of other forms of energy, it doesn't have to be uranium either.
Then it could be thermonuclear at some point. We will have our supply as long as we understand that people need to be free to try and develop it.
Mouth control.
How about you control your mouth.
As I said, people are not a drain on the system, they are a resource.
Maybe if the foreign countries stopped sponsoring dictators around the world and giving them weapons there would be less of a problem around the world as well.
Next best thing foreign countries can do is leave Africa to itself and also reduce subsidies to domestic farmers. Let the real market work and all of a sudden Africa will become a net food exporter.
You still don't understand.... Earth is finite. That means there is a guaranteed upper limit on the number of humans that it can handle, if for no other reason than there is a limit to the number of people who can physically fit on/in this planet.
- more nonsense.
Again: don't stifle the market and stop with your totalitarian bullshit, you are too stupid and shortsighted to be able to dictate to the people. We build skyscrapers and we can have flying and floating and underwater cities with multiple levels, for all I know.
We could dig into the planet and build above it. We could build levels of space cities if we needed.
There are all sorts of things that neither you nor I can predict that would happen should humanity be left alone and not be ruled by the tyrants, and people would just do what they always do: create more supply and solve problems.
I am well aware that the current hunger problem is one of distribution. That says nothing about some point in the future where there is nothing left with which to create more food, and where no amount of redistribution will fix things.
- it's always the same problem.
People always look for ways to make profit, and tyrants are standing in the way.
Profit is the virtue, the most virtuous thing that most people can ever hope to do, because profit is approval by the people of whatever activity. Profit is what tells us that we are doing the right thing by the market, but it must be free market, otherwise wrong signals can lead us in the wrong direction (so profit achieved during a stock or a housing bubble or a money bubble is a response to government meddling with the market and it's not solving a real market need).
PROFIT is the ENGINE that will DRIVE the people to find new ways to provide supply where YOU cannot even IMAGINE what the problem is in the first place, the solution will be found.
As I'd just stated, I am dealing with a point in time where you can't create more supply because there is nothing left with which to create more supply! It's all used up! I make no claim of knowing when we might reach such a point, but the fact that earth is finite guarantees that it is possible to reach such a point if we aren't careful.
- trillions and trillions of years from now, when all of the stars die off you will finally be right.
Until then you are wrong.
There is no such thing as "nothing left", the only place where there is nothing left is your head. People will create supply, people will substitute one supply with another, they will create products even if all they can manage to collect is some sunlight and dirt. Just because you don't understand this basic concept means you are not one of those who will achieve profit, but hey, not everybody is really going to anyway. Some are just ballast, but even ballast is needed to keep the ship steady.
Ok, now you're just making shit up. If you're going to resort to making shit up, then this discussion is over.
- I don't make shit up.
I'll quote you yourself right back, see if it sounds familiar:
We could have avoided all this conflict if we'd just agreed to limit our birthrates. Instead, you decided to be a selfish prick and just had to pop out one more kid.
- you are talking about "all agreeing to limit birthrates".
But your REAL meaning is: government mandating this, and that means you want gov't to give you something.
I KNOW you want a gov't mandate even if you didn't think about it at first, it's what happened in China - they had a gov't mandate. Most people didn't agree to this voluntarily obviously.
Anyway, do what you need to do and I'll do what I need to do.
Cheers.
African countries could easily output huge amounts of food, but they are prevented from even competing by what I mentioned:
1. Huge subsidies by most other nations into food supply.
2. Wars. Many nations in Africa are in a near perpetual state of emergency of some kind, and there is very little that people can do in many places without being destroyed by that sort of activity. Those wars are in large part supported by the foreigners via subsidies to the dictators, arms trade.
I noticed that the most devoted Marxists are born into systems that never saw the inevitable result of such bankrupt ideologies (yet).
Solution is to stop subsidising farming everywhere. Africa could supply huge amounts of grown food much cheaper than many other places can, but there is a problem: other places are heavily subsidised and compared to the wealthy nations that do the subsidies, African nations cannot compete.
Of-course that, and stopping with the meddling of the foreign affairs of countries of the world, maybe no longer supporting the dictators that are convenient to support.
Thus what? The core problem is the oil itself as a burned fuel.
- says who? It's not a problem, it's the best solution that the market has for now in that sector of economy.
A way forward as it gets started in the face of a complacent market and competition with a vested interest in it not getting off the ground?
- as I said: says who? Who are you to tell the market that it needs to move in a manner that you want rather than using the most convenient and really the cheapest solution available to do what the market does today? You are so smart about this, just like Obama, why don't you put your own money into an enterprise like that, see how market cares about your business.
So we should just stick forever with fossil fuels and just hand the entire market over to the Chinese? We're already learning that this is bad for anyone but the owners of the companies involved.
- USA is now net exporter of oil.
Not only are you going to 'stick' to oil for sometime, you are going to depend on it to buy the goods you want, because as opposed to your paper money, your oil actually can be used by others.
Precisely, they're subsidizing such purchases so we don't buy from vendors in the US.
- so what? It just means you have access to much cheaper stuff than your domestic companies can produce, again, say: thank you, stupid Chinese workaholics for working for me so cheaply and giving me this stuff for nothing.
China likes to play a long game whereby they peg their currency close to the USD and manipulate it so that it's perpetually below rather than fluctuating like it should. The core advantage to this is that Chinese goods are always cheaper, and this, combined with lax environmental regulations and subsidies allows them to perpetually undercut foreign vendors and eventually drive them out of business.
- this only benefits the politicians and the top management of the companies, who can show worthless nominal increases in quarterly statements, but it destroys the purchasing power of the Chinese who work in those factories, so the Chinese people should really be angry with their gov't that it steals from them to subsidise others for no good reason.
Then the price goes up, but not enough to start production again. This game is playing out right now with the rare earths.
- that's retarded. If prices will go up (and they will go up only because US dollar is being inflated by YOU gov't), then there may just be room for profit for more expensive solutions, but that's of-course nonsense anyway, because if prices go up for the cheap Chinese solutions today, then if they go up, the US solutions that are more expensive today will also be more expensive later on.
So what you're saying that China is basically running bad economics that will lead to it eventually self destructing? Yeah, so by keeping some manufacturing in the US we have a chance of protecting ourselves from it. Doubt we will, but it's worth a shot.
- Chinese government is running bad economics and bad policies of stealing from their own people to subsidise your consumption.
They are probably doing it out of corruption and also because they are trying to keep their own people down and not let them to enjoy fruits of their own labour in a way that would allow them to start really questioning the purpose of the central government authority, that only seems to exist in order to punish them in every way rather than to do something useful for a change.
Hahahah. No, corporations have destroyed it by moving it all to China to get around the regulations the people of this country demanded be put in place.
1. Is the right of the businesses to search for better places to do business (and it is the right of the individuals to search for better places to live.
2. It's not just regulations and taxes, it's also inflation - destruction of the currency by the government fiscal policy of printing - punishing the savers and investors and promoting policy of debt.
They won't bring it back until we're willing to accept labor conditions and pollution equivalent to what China has now.
- that will NOT be enough, you also have to stop destroying the money.
Now, to address your underlying assumption:
All of the things that you are talking about the private industry is basing their decisions on - those things are the creation of the government.
Prior to 1913 basically there was no business regulations, there was no income or corporate or payroll taxes either, and USA was building up its wealth and reserve faster than anybody else on the planet, USA paid out its debts and became largest creditor nation, while its currency appreciated in value by the factor of 2 over the 19th century and while USA became the largest exporter of high quality low cost consumer goods.
Exxon Mobile paid plenty of taxes on money that they earned in US.
Out of horses mouth:
In 2009 specifically, ExxonMobilâ(TM)s total taxes and duties to the U.S. government and its subdivisions exceeded $7.7 billion, an amount that includes ExxonMobilâ(TM)s U.S. income tax expense related to 2009 activities of approximately $500 million. Our U.S. income tax expenses over the last five years alone reach almost $20 billion.
Furthermore, one only has to look at ExxonMobilâ(TM)s previous tax bills to realize that any claim we donâ(TM)t pay taxes is absurd.
ExxonMobil is one of the countryâ(TM)s largest taxpayers, having incurred a total U.S. tax expense of $60 billion over the past five years â" a tax cost that exceeded our U.S. earnings in that same period by $19 billion. Simply stated, for every dollar of net earnings in the U.S. between 2005 and 2009, we paid almost $1.50 in taxes to federal, state and local governments.
We are not only a large source of revenue for the government through taxes, but we also continue investing substantial sums even in a weak economy. While others have cut back, ExxonMobil made capital and exploration investments of $26.1 billion in 2008 and $27.1 billion in 2009. We invested nearly $11 billion directly in U.S. operations during this time, generating jobs and other economic benefits.
And for those who still say oil and natural gas companies âoedonâ(TM)t pay their fair shareâ compared to other companies, consider this: ExxonMobilâ(TM)s effective tax rate for 2009 was about 47 percent; a recent study found that the tax rate for U.S. oil and gas companies is about 20 points higher than the rest of the S&P Industrials. Iâ(TM)d consider that more than our fair share.
ExxonMobilâ(TM)s activities add billions of dollars a year to the U.S. economy through our tax obligations and our business investments, and federal, state, and local government budgets all benefit.
When it comes to political theatre, itâ(TM)s time for a new line â" because the old line about ExxonMobil not paying taxes just isnâ(TM)t true.
I am fine with money laundering, I am wondering what's wrong with people here who don't want some foreign government to subsidise their own purchases? What? It makes sense - take it and shut up.
Well that's nonsense, USA government is the entity that destroyed the private sector in the first place, now that they are done with that, you think they can run the economy?
And yet the subsidies that the fossil fuel companies get are above and beyond what the alternative energy groups get.
- it's false, because it makes no sense. The oil industry pays huge amounts of taxes and it provides the people with all the oil they need for all the uses.
The alternative energy industry LIVES on taxes, what does it provide people with? Bad business model and more taxes going towards some chosen contractors for political reasons.
Yup, efficiencies like free money from the Chinese government coupled with extremely low labor costs and extremely lax environmental standards.
- whatever, say thank you, Chinese government, for the subsidy that you are giving to people, who clearly are too dumb to understand that they are getting it (IF that's what the Chinese are doing - they are subsidising you at the moment.)
China, of course.
Unless you're thinking that we actually have a "Free Market," in which case I have several bridges and inland oceanside property to sell you.
- yeah, you have already been sold a bad bridge. Chinese people are NOT gaining, they are losing by subsidising your consumption, and it is done by their gov't destroying their currency in order to cause lower prices for the products that the Chinese are making via the fake exchange rate.
I already talked about it, clearly not everybody is getting the point.
So you are complaining that the Chinese are taking a few of your dollars and giving you a superior product at a tiny price? So let's see - do you want things for the sake of having them or do you want things so that you can work to make them?
My point is that while the Chinese are having this ridiculous policy of subsidising your purchasing power (both, with any kind of direct subsidies to their manufacturers and by destroying their own currency to give you the cheapest price possible), you are complaining that you are getting a product at the cheapest price possible.
Well then. Why don't you start a war?
It's a nice RC toy, but how is it a robot? Just having a receiver, an electric motor to drive and some spring mechanism and a person controlling it over radio makes a robot?
The US gov't believes it can run the economy for some reason.
There is all this nonsense talk about how oil industry is getting 'subsidies', while in reality those so called 'subsidies' are just deductions in tax payments that the oil companies make, all while the real subsidies is money that the gov't wastes giving uninsured loans or just straight money to all these 'alternative energy' companies, that in reality would have never gotten anywhere based on the real market, all this, while the Chinese companies found all the necessary efficiencies to produce lots and lots of those solar panels very cheaply, and now there are all these tariffs by the US gov't on the Chinese solar panel products.
Who do you think gets hurt in all of this? Well, it's obvious - who is really gaining when the Chinese are importing cheap solar panels into USA in exchange for US dollars? If you can answer this second question, then you can answer the first one.
By the way, Obama believes he is a great genius of a businessman, why is he not using his own money to sponsor all these 'alternative energy' companies but insists on spending other people's money on this?
I am a "murdering thug" is because your actions threaten my kid's life.
- no, you are a murdering thug because that's the starting point for you. You can't understand simplest of things, that with the actual freedom, free market, people do provide for themselves and we have seen the population near quadruple in 100 years and we know that the ONLY reason that there are starving people out there are governments that prevent people from working, trading freely, applying themselves in ways that governments are dead set to prevent from happening in order to protect their power and their friends.
My kid is starving because what little food is available is going to your kids, and there's nothing left over for my kid.
- no, you dumb schmuck. If your kid is starving it's because you are voting for free stuff to be given to you by the government, and thus you are destroying the freedom that allows the people to provide for themselves.
The more people there are the more demand there is, the more supply is created, because there is new profit to be made (and that's why profit is a virtue all in itself, whoever is making profit is basically improving the world unlike 99% of anybody who is not making a profit).
Your ideology is to have government control the people in a totalitarian fashion, which prevents them from building new stuff, coming up with new ideas and companies and supply for all that new demand, and then you want the gov't also to give you something? Gov't doesn't have anything it doesn't steal from the people who produce, but if you are going to impose the totalitarian control, there will be NO production capacity and distribution channels available to satisfy that demand, so your entire ideology is leading to the very outcome that you are so afraid of and you are absolutely blind not to see it.
You may have a right to self defense, but I have every right to protect my progeny from selfish pricks like you who threaten our very existence by the over-utilization of our limited resources.
- whatever. I already said everything about this in the last paragraph.
. It's just a real shame you're so stubborn and set in your ways. We could have avoided all this conflict if we'd just agreed to limit our birthrates. Instead, you decided to be a selfish prick and just had to pop out one more kid.
- you bet I am selfish. I am looking out for myself, but that's your best bet - let the people be selfish and look out for themselves and they'll be searching for profit and doing all sorts of work that brings profit to them, and this includes creating all those things that you think your kids need.
Your problem is your absolute lack of understanding of economics. 0 understanding of it, no surprise there of-course, modern day 'edumacation system' does that to a person.
If you were the one with only one kid and I had three hungry mouths to feed? Now your one kid is the one starving because there's no food left over after my three use what they require.
- I wouldn't be trying to impose the totalitarian crap on anybody and I would gladly allow for people to make profit producing all that supply that my kids might then use. See how easy it is to avoid conflict? It's called free market.
Again, I am not saying we have reached this tipping point. But unlike you, I do not desire us to ever reach that tipping point. And for that, I truly feel sorry for you.
- it's funny, I also feel something, but it's not what you feel. I feel sorry for myself for having to tolerate idiots.
It wasn't perfect but it used to work, it was called the Constitution. Of-course they abandoned it due to their Marxist and/or fascist ideologies, they used the desire of the masses for free bread and circuses and willingness of the masses to pay for that with what actually matters - freedom.
There can be no accountability to the people without the rule of law ABOVE the government, and the rule of law was the Constitution. The circle-blabber-mouth here believes that the Constitution is outdated and that Marxism must prevail in order to achieve his perfect dream of totalitarian utopia (hopefully with him at the helm of power). And that's the problem, isn't it?
Some want power and thus they hate the rule of law ABOVE the gov't, and they buy the people who are ready to give away the only thing that keeps them free and able to build a real economy for themselves - the very power that is set above the government that prevents the government from becoming a totalitarian system that destroys freedom.
It's very unfortunate but it works.
It's better to believe in freedom than in slavery, such as in your case.
Oh, and if you think that what I wrote here is nonsense, consider that when society is NOT ready or is actively unwilling to participate in some nonsense law that is pushed by a crazy gov't of some kind, then the society actively finds ways around the laws, generally disregards them and creates means to go around them one way or another, and the only real consequence of this is that the costs go up, the efficiencies and quality go down.
This is true for every such situation, for example prohibition or the war on drugs or war on prostitution, whatever.