When it's pointed out they do expire, and, moreover, essentially all sales would take place at the start of each quarter, you somehow assert people should be free to hoard them, despite you already pointing out the exact problem with that.
Yes. It's not a contradiction, they're both flawed. I'm speaking to both possibilities -- do try to keep up. If they don't expire, they can be hoarded. If they expire, it's even more transparently a money grab. If it's a choice of the two, let them be hoarded so at least people get what they paid for.
You know, I'm just going to have explain this damn law, aren't I? Because you appear to have a lot of misconceptions about it.
Yep. Considering very few people had any time whatsoever to read this bill, and even most Congressmen didn't have the opportunity to read the 300-page addendum that was dropped in their laps at 3AM yesterday. What was in the addendum? Have you read the bill? You speak with a lot of certainty and arrogance for someone who's most likely abstracting and making a lot of assumptions. Maybe you can pass on your explanation to Congress -- I'm sure most of them will be enlightened.
There are not a bunch of people trading, there are people handing their credit to one company, who holds it until someone buys it.
Really? They hand it over, free of charge? Why would they do that? Doesn't that place them at risk of running out for their own purposes, since any amount "handed over" would necessarily be based on projections for the rest of the year? What if someone snaps them up and it turns out they needed them? And if they've "handed" over these credits, yet someone else is "buying" them, that sounds very one-sided. And that guy in the middle? Sounds a lot like a broker. And the guys who decide when to buy or sell? Those guys are traders. That's the "TRADE" part. Brokers, Traders, buys and sells... wow. Sounds suspiciously like a "market" -- stock, commodities, derivatives, or any other.
The entire point of this bill is to limit ("CAP") the supply of credits and create a "Carbon Credit Market." The entire point of a "Carbon Credit Market" is to create, yes, a "market" -- buyers and sellers, which generates, yes, a "market price."
the government could, of course, just invent a bunch more credits and dump it in to stave off this hypothetical 'everyone dies cause of hoarders' scenario you've invented.
Man, what part of "CAP" don't you understand? The entire point is that they WON'T just invent new credits -- at least not if this thing is to retain any semblance of legitimacy. Why?
1. It's basically printing money, and it destroys the market price of these things. That's not generally something you want to do because the traders stop trading until the rules of the game stabilize again. 2. IT DEFEATS THE ENTIRE POINT OF THE BILL. If the government will just create new credits on a whim, what's the point of the "cap and trade" in the first place?
The part you're missing here is the creation of a "market price." No one will just "hand over" their credits to "the market" so "the market" can make money on it. They're going to want their cut, and it's going to have to be more than they paid for it or they won't bother. If "the market" is coming up short on supply, it'll need to pay more. I'm missing how a "market" works without a "market price," as you seem to assert it will. Unless there's a law establishing the "market price," then the price will fluctuate per demand.
Regardless, this is incredible and unnecessary complication that will do nothing but put people out of work and drive inflation. Rising unemployment + inflation = disaster. This is not a good idea.
It's loosely based on other countries -- not a copy. Besides, even Congress doesn't know what's in the thing. They only got the full text of it at 3AM yesterday morning, a few hours before the vote. They even hired a speed reader as a joke, and Boehner's "filibuster" was that he tried to read the bill to the Congress.
This thing is an unknown quantity in every way. As of the vote, very few, if any, Congresspeople had read it. Given that, I still wonder how you speak with such certainty.
Dude -- are you missing the meaning of the word "cap" ?? If it's "capped", it can be "cornered."
I wonder how you speak with such certainty about a system that doesn't even exist yet. How do you know that "the amount of people that will need to purchase them mid-cycle are negligible" ?
I also wonder at the rhetorical capacity of someone who continually reverts to name-calling and obscenities to prove their point.
Wow. Start out with ad hominem and finish it off with a total lack of foresight. You actually explained several of the problems with this system in the course of trying to defend it.
You think it's the fucking stock market, or selling a tangible non-expiring good to consumers.
Question for you: Why do these expire? If I bought the "Right to Pollute" and didn't use it all, why can't I use it at a later time? You don't think this is driven by a profit motive -- a desire to create an income stream for the sellers of these carbon credits?
This entire thing *is* a huge money-making scheme. People who hold these to sell will find a way to scare people into paying more for them. I wonder if you'd have more imagination if you stood to gain $50M? As the source of these credits is the government, this is a tax, and the government is the ultimate winner, with brokers and intermediaries winning out as they charge commissions and win by volume, regardless of the price of this fiat commodity. Their commissions will be passed into the price of the final goods, further taxing the poor. There will be all of the "strategery" of the stock market before long, and the poorest among us will be hurt the most.
Companies know how much carbon credits they need, because they've been told the amount by various regulatory industries, and they've been buying that amount every year.
They have been? This hasn't even passed yet, and these "regulatory industries" (interesting term -- industry implying a profit motive) don't even exist yet. This money that they spend buying credits from this "regulatory industry" could instead have gone to capital investment (employing people at their vendors' companies), employing people at their own company, dividends to shareholders, and countless other things. Instead, they're going to the "regulatory industry" -- every year, with quantities defined by the the edicts of the seller. Nice system you have there so far. Maybe they can take a page from Cingular and do Rollover Credits? That would disrupt their income stream though, even though it would make all the sense in the world.
And they already bought any extra needed credit in the huge carbon market at the start of the year, or sold their extras, and couldn't care less about the delusional 'cornering' of the market you've done midseason.
Why would that be delusional? You don't think companies' credit requirements might fluctuate during the year? Maybe they sold their credits and then had a busier-than-usual month and need to buy some back?
Seriously, if you don't understand that companies know exactly how much carbon credits they need, each and every year, and buy it out of the damn huge pool to start with, and there is almost no actual 'trading' during the year, (Companies that expand some might need more, which will be provided by companies that go out of business and have their assets sold at auction.) there's really no hope in continuing this discussion.
So they know exactly what they need, the "regulatory industries" know exactly what they need, yet they've been blessed with this surplus to trade. And you admit that their needs might fluctuate throughout the year, implying that they *don't* know exactly what they'll need. You're just full of contradictions, aren't you?
Shouldn't they get exactly what they need and no more? And your idea counts on fire sales from doomed companies to supply the needs of the rest of industry? Seems demand might outstrip supply there, possibly causing inflated prices. Hm.
Don't you see the incredible can of worms created by all of this? This is a regulatory nightmare. Who will monitor the output of every industry in the country? Do you really think it'll be measured or just spitballed? If "regulatory industries" determine the requirement, then this has to be done every year, requiring a huge governmental agency to regulate it an
Speculation. The whole idea of these things is that there's a market behind it. Why did gas go through the roof when there was no shortage? Speculation.
1. Obtain credits to sell 2. Spread FUD 3. Wait until the price is high enough and sell. 4. Profit!
Happens every day. The people who must buy during this FUD-cycle must pay market prices, which may be hugely inflated. That's why you paid $4+ at the pump a few months ago. That's how you force consumers to buy your stuff at a higher price -- mind control by causing fear in enough people and exploiting the needs of people who must buy now.
The idea that people would 'hang on' to carbon credit...that cost them money each year to renew from whatever company they got them from, and are making them no money at all, just because prices might go up before they expire, shows a rather fundamental misunderstanding of how markets work.
When you short sell, you pay interest on the shares you borrowed. Additionally, I believe you're on the hook for any dividends that come out while you're short. Obviously, this is a particularly stupid idea, that people would pay to sell something they don't have just because prices might go down before they go broke. I'm sure that's why no one does such a thing.
Also, what happens to that wasted 5%? I assume there's a "no refunds" policy? That's not money wasted on nothing that could have gone to pay a salary or become a capital investment?
1. You severely underestimate the ingenuity of the commodities markets. 2. You don't "make" money -- you get to keep more of your own money. 3. It's a profit center for *somebody* -- or are they burning the money to stay warm when gas is too expensive?
You're (unfortunately) not the first person to fundamentally misunderstand it. Congratulations.
Right. And you can tell how often this happens by looking around you and seeing all the rich businessmen driving '85 Honda Civics and wearing clothing with holes in the pants. They're sure to live in hovels and slums, and want no material reward for their hard work. Those noble creatures, saving everything for their progeny
And their progeny are sure to save it all until the 5th generation to ensure that inflation has destroyed the value of the principle.
Also, I'm sure the rich businessman, in his greed, has buried the money in a coffee can so that no bank can use it to make loans to other entrepreneurs, or home and auto buyers.
They don't believe anything positive from the media because the media has been unabashedly in the tank for the man. Positive is all you get. The Obamas have been on the cover of Time magazine *17 TIMES* in the past year. I didn't even know they published that much.
The fact is that the love fest has discredited them. It's like asking a 16 year old about her boyfriend. You can see he's a trouble maker, but you'll never hear that from her.
I wasn't making value judgments on Bush's presidency. The point was that the media was so quick to criticize him over even meaningless things, compared to the kid gloves they use with Obama. I'm seeing promising "green shoots" (*sigh*) that some in the media are beginning to realize what they've done, but I don't think we'll see any meaningful criticisms for a long time, if ever.
I assume the "we" means you're a reporter. I suggest you and your colleagues stop making excuses, stop worrying about whether The Chosen One likes you, and start doing your jobs before you don't have a job to do. There are a LOT of very big, world changing things happening right now that absolutely can NOT be glossed over because it's "only been six months." Give me a break.
Then I guess that proves my point: the media has lost the trust, and therefore the influence they once had. If you're the "news" media and no one believes you, there's a very big day of reckoning coming very quickly.
They sunk that low a long time ago. It's just that the people who should have been calling them on it were too caught up in their Bush-bashing frenzy to care. They were just happy that the media was so biased in their favor. It won't be long until we see the real fruits of a media that doesn't question authority, and instead revels in a sycophantic love fest with said authority.
The media should be questioning Cap and Trade, Health Care Reform, voter fraud, and yes, even presidential eligibility (if only for the purpose of laying the issue to rest) with the same zeal that they showed for mocking Bush every time he mispronounced a word. Mispronounced words don't ruin lives and economies, but these things just might. Where's the in-depth analysis? I don't see it -- for or against. Where's the investigation into winners and losers? We sure heard enough about "big oil" during the Bush years.
The Freedom of the Press was to safeguard their ability to question authority. What they're doing now is betraying that sacred trust and, in my opinion, endangering it by allowing the government to empower itself further and further without resistance or investigation. When the government decides that a free press is too dangerous to allow, the media will probably not have the influence necessary to fight it. They're already at record low levels in viewership because people just don't care about them anymore. Most people see their propaganda for what it is and are getting their news elsewhere -- from blogs if need be -- because at least those sources are genuine and up-front about their biases. The recent "infomercial" and White House-controlled media events are only a further indication of the future path of independent (non-government-run) media.
YES, real, unbiased reporting is just about dead, replaced by the new generation of pundit-reporters who thinks that it's their job to convince people rather than report the facts of the matter. I'm just waiting for these "reporters" to start crying that their business is dead, when it was them that held the pillow over its face.
Greed and capitalism of the entertainment industry keep anything from being free for too long.
Greed and capitalism is the reason most products exist in the first place. Do you think these millionaire socialists and communists in Hollywood make these massively expensive movies just to release them for free? Why bother? Even the quasi-communistic F/OSS we all know and love is driven by certain types of greed, and increasing amounts of capitalism.
Why Open Source? Altruism, sure, validation of your programming prowess, sure, but the main reason is free labor. Every participant gets the free work of others. Wanting more and better software than you can afford or make yourself sure sounds like greed. Money isn't the only thing you can be greedy about.
Greed and capitalism is the only reason that companies like Red Hat, IBM, Sun, and hundreds of other companies contribute to F/OSS projects. They perceive it as a strategic move that will or does somehow positively impact their bottom line. In the days before they saw the profit motivation, they didn't contribute. (Red Hat was formed because they saw the profit potential, where the IBMs and Suns of the world had to be convinced.)
I don't know where people get off thinking others shouldn't try new strategies to compete in a free market. My problem is when these guys try to use the power of government to help them "compete" by creating favorable regulations or mandates, but that's not capitalism, nor is it free market. Greed and capitalism are wonderful motivators, properly channeled.
At this point you're wilfully conflating Catholicism with Christianity in order to "prove" your point. I've seen several others point out to you that they are two different things. You've constructed a strawman by taking an implementation of an idea, showing its faults, and then claiming that the idea itself is bad. Doubly so because you're wilfully ignoring an entire swath of Christianity under the Protestant umbrella, and which never had most of the problems you're talking about.
The fact is that yes, the Catholic organisation has had problems over the years. They've abused the trust that people put in them, they've used it as a racket to fleece people of their money, and they've done bad things to little boys. However, NONE of that speaks to the idea of Christianity. It speaks to the disgusting people who have used it as a vehicle for their own personal agendas -- always IN SPITE of what Christianity teaches.
Christianity is, and always has been, based on the idea of free will. This was borne out several times in the story of Jesus, who is looked to as the model of behavior for Christians. That Christians many times come nowhere close to living up to that standard is a sad commentary on the Christians, but not of the standard.
Consider that the early Christians and Jews at the time expected that he would lead an armed revolution against Rome. Instead, he told them to love their neighbors and their enemies, to pay their taxes ("Render unto Caesar..."), and to dedicate their souls to God. The only force involved there would be that of the Romans toward people who don't pay their taxes.
Consider the story Jesus told about the rich man. Jesus told him to sell what he valued and follow him. The guy walked away, and Jesus let him.
Consider the very act of "getting saved." You need to ask Jesus to save you. You need to make the request -- no force involved. You agree to try to follow a certain set of rules to govern your life, but the only consequence of refusing to do so is whatever your actions directly lead to (jail time, bad health, etc.)
Nowhere in the story of Jesus is force involved, except when it is used against him. The one time someone picks up a sword to defend Jesus (in the garden when Judas betrays him to the Romans), Jesus tells him to knock it off.
So I ask you again, where is the fault in that model of behavior? Or is it the people in certain positions using their influence to advance their own interests? Yes, they may be "representatives" of Christianity, but they're acting in direct opposition to it -- the same as crooked cops don't prove that the rule of law is bad. And, like cops, there are a lot more good pastors and priests out there than bad ones, but you only hear about the bad ones.
Now, I know you'll bring up the idea of Hell being the unspoken threat. There are a couple problems with that though. First, Jesus didn't invent the idea of Hell, nor did the Jews. It's been around in one form or another at least since the early Egyptians had Hades (different, but analogous), possibly before. Second, Jesus was not threatening to send people to Hell. The idea is that you're going there by default, but if you ask him to, he'll save you from it. It was an offer of salvation, not a threat of damnation. It's only natural that an offer like that should come with strings attached. After all, he's asking people to live in his house for eternity, and I doubt you'd invite just anyone to your house for that long either -- especially the unrepentant scum of humanity.
Another point is that you don't need to believe the supernatural aspects of Christianity to find it a useful model of behavior. Don't steal, don't murder, be infinitely forgiving, even if it costs your life, never coerce people, and lots of other ideas most liberals should identify with rather than rail against.
The effects on society without such a standard of behavior are much worse than the paltry things that Slashdotters complain about. Cr
If you remember, people were jumping to their deaths not a quarter mile away not 8 years ago because they were trapped *inside* the building with no way out. I'll take my chances with my feet on pavement, thankyouverymuch. At least that way there's somewhere to run.
When you see a jumbo jet, tailed by a fighter jet, take multiple passes of your building and then come straight for it 150 feet off the ground, I want to see how you react. There was nothing normal about the behavior of these planes, and their flight paths were dangerous and aggressive.
I wasn't even in the building at the time, but hearing the stories and seeing the videos people took from their cell phones, I certainly can't blame them.
I do not think these people were overreacting. Although I feel that their fears were statistically misplaced, I more than likely would have opted to "take a brisk walk in the park" upon seeing that uncommon event out my window.
I work in one of the buildings these planes "buzzed," and you're right -- these people were absolutely not overreacting. To see the absolutely bizarre behavior of a jumbo jet diving and climbing close to city skyscrapers and the Statue of Liberty being tailed by fighter jets -- there's no other way to react. When Air Force One (WTF?!?!) came straight at our building, there was only one thing the people inside could possibly think: run like hell.
No one had the information about it being a photo shoot at the time. Apparently some people somewhere were told, but the information simply didn't get passed around. Without the knowledge that this was a planned event, there was absolutely no reason to think that this was anything other than a cataclysm in progress.
Our building is right across the river from "ground zero", and a 5 minute boat ride puts you right next to the hole where several thousand people died in an incredibly similar event. That they chose this location to do this is incredible -- incredibly dumb, incredibly insensitive, just.... incredible. Even the damned mayor of New York didn't know about this, and the NYPD said they were told to keep quiet?! What's that about?
Someone needs to get canned, but I'm not sure who. People could have died today for a frikking photo shoot.
Just out of curiosity, what would be the difference between skeletons that age at 1/5th the rate (for whatever reason) and lived to 200 years old versus those of people who lived for 40 years? I'm no aging expert, but there's one thing that's always puzzled me: Why can the body repair itself to almost new, most of its cells are constantly being replaced, and yet over time its ability to do so diminishes? Is it possible that this diminution could have happened slower at one point? Maybe only in certain sets of people? And is it possible that something genetic was introduced into the bloodlines that quickly reduced lifespan of the groups that could live that long?
I honestly have no idea, but I don't think it's quite so cut and dry. As far as I know, we still don't really understand why "aging" happens, and last I heard, there were some who classify aging itself as a disease to be cured, rather than something inevitable.
For instance, we know that cells have "self destruct" signals that tell it when to die. Could this have not existed at one point? Could evolution have reduced the frequency of cancers by killing us sooner? I've also heard there are "tails" on DNA ( I forget the name ) that get shorter each replication, and that this affects the cell's ability to repair itself or reproduce or something. Maybe that wasn't happening at one point?
I suppose if anyone has a good answer, someone on this site will have heard it and can relate it. I'm not making any points, just curious.
Why do people insist on believing this is one-sided? I work to make life better for ME. Why do you insist that I derive no benefit from my job? Why would people work anyway? Of course the employer benefits -- and he benefits more than any one employee, certainly. Then again, he runs a business, has taken the big risks, and has put in the effort required to be in that position to begin with.
Are you really that sour that your boss makes more than you do? Seriously?
Slashdot Mirror
When it's pointed out they do expire, and, moreover, essentially all sales would take place at the start of each quarter, you somehow assert people should be free to hoard them, despite you already pointing out the exact problem with that.
Yes. It's not a contradiction, they're both flawed. I'm speaking to both possibilities -- do try to keep up. If they don't expire, they can be hoarded. If they expire, it's even more transparently a money grab. If it's a choice of the two, let them be hoarded so at least people get what they paid for.
You know, I'm just going to have explain this damn law, aren't I? Because you appear to have a lot of misconceptions about it.
Yep. Considering very few people had any time whatsoever to read this bill, and even most Congressmen didn't have the opportunity to read the 300-page addendum that was dropped in their laps at 3AM yesterday. What was in the addendum? Have you read the bill? You speak with a lot of certainty and arrogance for someone who's most likely abstracting and making a lot of assumptions. Maybe you can pass on your explanation to Congress -- I'm sure most of them will be enlightened.
There are not a bunch of people trading, there are people handing their credit to one company, who holds it until someone buys it.
Really? They hand it over, free of charge? Why would they do that? Doesn't that place them at risk of running out for their own purposes, since any amount "handed over" would necessarily be based on projections for the rest of the year? What if someone snaps them up and it turns out they needed them? And if they've "handed" over these credits, yet someone else is "buying" them, that sounds very one-sided. And that guy in the middle? Sounds a lot like a broker. And the guys who decide when to buy or sell? Those guys are traders. That's the "TRADE" part. Brokers, Traders, buys and sells... wow. Sounds suspiciously like a "market" -- stock, commodities, derivatives, or any other.
The entire point of this bill is to limit ("CAP") the supply of credits and create a "Carbon Credit Market." The entire point of a "Carbon Credit Market" is to create, yes, a "market" -- buyers and sellers, which generates, yes, a "market price."
the government could, of course, just invent a bunch more credits and dump it in to stave off this hypothetical 'everyone dies cause of hoarders' scenario you've invented.
Man, what part of "CAP" don't you understand? The entire point is that they WON'T just invent new credits -- at least not if this thing is to retain any semblance of legitimacy. Why?
1. It's basically printing money, and it destroys the market price of these things. That's not generally something you want to do because the traders stop trading until the rules of the game stabilize again.
2. IT DEFEATS THE ENTIRE POINT OF THE BILL. If the government will just create new credits on a whim, what's the point of the "cap and trade" in the first place?
The part you're missing here is the creation of a "market price." No one will just "hand over" their credits to "the market" so "the market" can make money on it. They're going to want their cut, and it's going to have to be more than they paid for it or they won't bother. If "the market" is coming up short on supply, it'll need to pay more. I'm missing how a "market" works without a "market price," as you seem to assert it will. Unless there's a law establishing the "market price," then the price will fluctuate per demand.
Regardless, this is incredible and unnecessary complication that will do nothing but put people out of work and drive inflation. Rising unemployment + inflation = disaster. This is not a good idea.
It's loosely based on other countries -- not a copy. Besides, even Congress doesn't know what's in the thing. They only got the full text of it at 3AM yesterday morning, a few hours before the vote. They even hired a speed reader as a joke, and Boehner's "filibuster" was that he tried to read the bill to the Congress.
This thing is an unknown quantity in every way. As of the vote, very few, if any, Congresspeople had read it. Given that, I still wonder how you speak with such certainty.
Dude -- are you missing the meaning of the word "cap" ?? If it's "capped", it can be "cornered."
I wonder how you speak with such certainty about a system that doesn't even exist yet. How do you know that "the amount of people that will need to purchase them mid-cycle are negligible" ?
I also wonder at the rhetorical capacity of someone who continually reverts to name-calling and obscenities to prove their point.
Wow. Start out with ad hominem and finish it off with a total lack of foresight. You actually explained several of the problems with this system in the course of trying to defend it.
You think it's the fucking stock market, or selling a tangible non-expiring good to consumers.
Question for you: Why do these expire? If I bought the "Right to Pollute" and didn't use it all, why can't I use it at a later time? You don't think this is driven by a profit motive -- a desire to create an income stream for the sellers of these carbon credits?
This entire thing *is* a huge money-making scheme. People who hold these to sell will find a way to scare people into paying more for them. I wonder if you'd have more imagination if you stood to gain $50M? As the source of these credits is the government, this is a tax, and the government is the ultimate winner, with brokers and intermediaries winning out as they charge commissions and win by volume, regardless of the price of this fiat commodity. Their commissions will be passed into the price of the final goods, further taxing the poor. There will be all of the "strategery" of the stock market before long, and the poorest among us will be hurt the most.
Companies know how much carbon credits they need, because they've been told the amount by various regulatory industries, and they've been buying that amount every year.
They have been? This hasn't even passed yet, and these "regulatory industries" (interesting term -- industry implying a profit motive) don't even exist yet. This money that they spend buying credits from this "regulatory industry" could instead have gone to capital investment (employing people at their vendors' companies), employing people at their own company, dividends to shareholders, and countless other things. Instead, they're going to the "regulatory industry" -- every year, with quantities defined by the the edicts of the seller. Nice system you have there so far. Maybe they can take a page from Cingular and do Rollover Credits? That would disrupt their income stream though, even though it would make all the sense in the world.
And they already bought any extra needed credit in the huge carbon market at the start of the year, or sold their extras, and couldn't care less about the delusional 'cornering' of the market you've done midseason.
Why would that be delusional? You don't think companies' credit requirements might fluctuate during the year? Maybe they sold their credits and then had a busier-than-usual month and need to buy some back?
Seriously, if you don't understand that companies know exactly how much carbon credits they need, each and every year, and buy it out of the damn huge pool to start with, and there is almost no actual 'trading' during the year, (Companies that expand some might need more, which will be provided by companies that go out of business and have their assets sold at auction.) there's really no hope in continuing this discussion.
So they know exactly what they need, the "regulatory industries" know exactly what they need, yet they've been blessed with this surplus to trade. And you admit that their needs might fluctuate throughout the year, implying that they *don't* know exactly what they'll need. You're just full of contradictions, aren't you?
Shouldn't they get exactly what they need and no more? And your idea counts on fire sales from doomed companies to supply the needs of the rest of industry? Seems demand might outstrip supply there, possibly causing inflated prices. Hm.
Don't you see the incredible can of worms created by all of this? This is a regulatory nightmare. Who will monitor the output of every industry in the country? Do you really think it'll be measured or just spitballed? If "regulatory industries" determine the requirement, then this has to be done every year, requiring a huge governmental agency to regulate it an
Speculation. The whole idea of these things is that there's a market behind it. Why did gas go through the roof when there was no shortage? Speculation.
1. Obtain credits to sell
2. Spread FUD
3. Wait until the price is high enough and sell.
4. Profit!
Happens every day. The people who must buy during this FUD-cycle must pay market prices, which may be hugely inflated. That's why you paid $4+ at the pump a few months ago. That's how you force consumers to buy your stuff at a higher price -- mind control by causing fear in enough people and exploiting the needs of people who must buy now.
The idea that people would 'hang on' to carbon credit...that cost them money each year to renew from whatever company they got them from, and are making them no money at all, just because prices might go up before they expire, shows a rather fundamental misunderstanding of how markets work.
When you short sell, you pay interest on the shares you borrowed. Additionally, I believe you're on the hook for any dividends that come out while you're short. Obviously, this is a particularly stupid idea, that people would pay to sell something they don't have just because prices might go down before they go broke. I'm sure that's why no one does such a thing.
Also, what happens to that wasted 5%? I assume there's a "no refunds" policy? That's not money wasted on nothing that could have gone to pay a salary or become a capital investment?
1. You severely underestimate the ingenuity of the commodities markets.
2. You don't "make" money -- you get to keep more of your own money.
3. It's a profit center for *somebody* -- or are they burning the money to stay warm when gas is too expensive?
You're (unfortunately) not the first person to fundamentally misunderstand it. Congratulations.
Right. And you can tell how often this happens by looking around you and seeing all the rich businessmen driving '85 Honda Civics and wearing clothing with holes in the pants. They're sure to live in hovels and slums, and want no material reward for their hard work. Those noble creatures, saving everything for their progeny
And their progeny are sure to save it all until the 5th generation to ensure that inflation has destroyed the value of the principle.
Also, I'm sure the rich businessman, in his greed, has buried the money in a coffee can so that no bank can use it to make loans to other entrepreneurs, or home and auto buyers.
A likely scenario, I must admit.
Really? Ad hominem is the best you got? Go sit at the kids table until you grow up a little.
They don't believe anything positive from the media because the media has been unabashedly in the tank for the man. Positive is all you get. The Obamas have been on the cover of Time magazine *17 TIMES* in the past year. I didn't even know they published that much.
The fact is that the love fest has discredited them. It's like asking a 16 year old about her boyfriend. You can see he's a trouble maker, but you'll never hear that from her.
I wasn't making value judgments on Bush's presidency. The point was that the media was so quick to criticize him over even meaningless things, compared to the kid gloves they use with Obama. I'm seeing promising "green shoots" (*sigh*) that some in the media are beginning to realize what they've done, but I don't think we'll see any meaningful criticisms for a long time, if ever.
I assume the "we" means you're a reporter. I suggest you and your colleagues stop making excuses, stop worrying about whether The Chosen One likes you, and start doing your jobs before you don't have a job to do. There are a LOT of very big, world changing things happening right now that absolutely can NOT be glossed over because it's "only been six months." Give me a break.
Then I guess that proves my point: the media has lost the trust, and therefore the influence they once had. If you're the "news" media and no one believes you, there's a very big day of reckoning coming very quickly.
They sunk that low a long time ago. It's just that the people who should have been calling them on it were too caught up in their Bush-bashing frenzy to care. They were just happy that the media was so biased in their favor. It won't be long until we see the real fruits of a media that doesn't question authority, and instead revels in a sycophantic love fest with said authority.
The media should be questioning Cap and Trade, Health Care Reform, voter fraud, and yes, even presidential eligibility (if only for the purpose of laying the issue to rest) with the same zeal that they showed for mocking Bush every time he mispronounced a word. Mispronounced words don't ruin lives and economies, but these things just might. Where's the in-depth analysis? I don't see it -- for or against. Where's the investigation into winners and losers? We sure heard enough about "big oil" during the Bush years.
The Freedom of the Press was to safeguard their ability to question authority. What they're doing now is betraying that sacred trust and, in my opinion, endangering it by allowing the government to empower itself further and further without resistance or investigation. When the government decides that a free press is too dangerous to allow, the media will probably not have the influence necessary to fight it. They're already at record low levels in viewership because people just don't care about them anymore. Most people see their propaganda for what it is and are getting their news elsewhere -- from blogs if need be -- because at least those sources are genuine and up-front about their biases. The recent "infomercial" and White House-controlled media events are only a further indication of the future path of independent (non-government-run) media.
YES, real, unbiased reporting is just about dead, replaced by the new generation of pundit-reporters who thinks that it's their job to convince people rather than report the facts of the matter. I'm just waiting for these "reporters" to start crying that their business is dead, when it was them that held the pillow over its face.
Greed and capitalism is the reason most products exist in the first place. Do you think these millionaire socialists and communists in Hollywood make these massively expensive movies just to release them for free? Why bother? Even the quasi-communistic F/OSS we all know and love is driven by certain types of greed, and increasing amounts of capitalism.
I don't know where people get off thinking others shouldn't try new strategies to compete in a free market. My problem is when these guys try to use the power of government to help them "compete" by creating favorable regulations or mandates, but that's not capitalism, nor is it free market. Greed and capitalism are wonderful motivators, properly channeled.
At this point you're wilfully conflating Catholicism with Christianity in order to "prove" your point. I've seen several others point out to you that they are two different things. You've constructed a strawman by taking an implementation of an idea, showing its faults, and then claiming that the idea itself is bad. Doubly so because you're wilfully ignoring an entire swath of Christianity under the Protestant umbrella, and which never had most of the problems you're talking about.
The fact is that yes, the Catholic organisation has had problems over the years. They've abused the trust that people put in them, they've used it as a racket to fleece people of their money, and they've done bad things to little boys. However, NONE of that speaks to the idea of Christianity. It speaks to the disgusting people who have used it as a vehicle for their own personal agendas -- always IN SPITE of what Christianity teaches.
Christianity is, and always has been, based on the idea of free will. This was borne out several times in the story of Jesus, who is looked to as the model of behavior for Christians. That Christians many times come nowhere close to living up to that standard is a sad commentary on the Christians, but not of the standard.
Consider that the early Christians and Jews at the time expected that he would lead an armed revolution against Rome. Instead, he told them to love their neighbors and their enemies, to pay their taxes ("Render unto Caesar..."), and to dedicate their souls to God. The only force involved there would be that of the Romans toward people who don't pay their taxes.
Consider the story Jesus told about the rich man. Jesus told him to sell what he valued and follow him. The guy walked away, and Jesus let him.
Consider the very act of "getting saved." You need to ask Jesus to save you. You need to make the request -- no force involved. You agree to try to follow a certain set of rules to govern your life, but the only consequence of refusing to do so is whatever your actions directly lead to (jail time, bad health, etc.)
Nowhere in the story of Jesus is force involved, except when it is used against him. The one time someone picks up a sword to defend Jesus (in the garden when Judas betrays him to the Romans), Jesus tells him to knock it off.
So I ask you again, where is the fault in that model of behavior? Or is it the people in certain positions using their influence to advance their own interests? Yes, they may be "representatives" of Christianity, but they're acting in direct opposition to it -- the same as crooked cops don't prove that the rule of law is bad. And, like cops, there are a lot more good pastors and priests out there than bad ones, but you only hear about the bad ones.
Now, I know you'll bring up the idea of Hell being the unspoken threat. There are a couple problems with that though. First, Jesus didn't invent the idea of Hell, nor did the Jews. It's been around in one form or another at least since the early Egyptians had Hades (different, but analogous), possibly before. Second, Jesus was not threatening to send people to Hell. The idea is that you're going there by default, but if you ask him to, he'll save you from it. It was an offer of salvation, not a threat of damnation. It's only natural that an offer like that should come with strings attached. After all, he's asking people to live in his house for eternity, and I doubt you'd invite just anyone to your house for that long either -- especially the unrepentant scum of humanity.
Another point is that you don't need to believe the supernatural aspects of Christianity to find it a useful model of behavior. Don't steal, don't murder, be infinitely forgiving, even if it costs your life, never coerce people, and lots of other ideas most liberals should identify with rather than rail against.
The effects on society without such a standard of behavior are much worse than the paltry things that Slashdotters complain about. Cr
Not to take away from what you're saying, but I've always wondered what it is about religion that makes people talk like Yoda.
Well you don't need to be so pissy about it. :-P
The problem was that the user mistook "kill switch" to mean "kill the robot." Sure bet he was surprised!
If you remember, people were jumping to their deaths not a quarter mile away not 8 years ago because they were trapped *inside* the building with no way out. I'll take my chances with my feet on pavement, thankyouverymuch. At least that way there's somewhere to run.
When you see a jumbo jet, tailed by a fighter jet, take multiple passes of your building and then come straight for it 150 feet off the ground, I want to see how you react. There was nothing normal about the behavior of these planes, and their flight paths were dangerous and aggressive.
I wasn't even in the building at the time, but hearing the stories and seeing the videos people took from their cell phones, I certainly can't blame them.
I work in one of the buildings these planes "buzzed," and you're right -- these people were absolutely not overreacting. To see the absolutely bizarre behavior of a jumbo jet diving and climbing close to city skyscrapers and the Statue of Liberty being tailed by fighter jets -- there's no other way to react. When Air Force One (WTF?!?!) came straight at our building, there was only one thing the people inside could possibly think: run like hell.
No one had the information about it being a photo shoot at the time. Apparently some people somewhere were told, but the information simply didn't get passed around. Without the knowledge that this was a planned event, there was absolutely no reason to think that this was anything other than a cataclysm in progress.
Our building is right across the river from "ground zero", and a 5 minute boat ride puts you right next to the hole where several thousand people died in an incredibly similar event. That they chose this location to do this is incredible -- incredibly dumb, incredibly insensitive, just.... incredible. Even the damned mayor of New York didn't know about this, and the NYPD said they were told to keep quiet?! What's that about?
Someone needs to get canned, but I'm not sure who. People could have died today for a frikking photo shoot.
Sounds like she's been reading too many horoscopes.
Just out of curiosity, what would be the difference between skeletons that age at 1/5th the rate (for whatever reason) and lived to 200 years old versus those of people who lived for 40 years? I'm no aging expert, but there's one thing that's always puzzled me: Why can the body repair itself to almost new, most of its cells are constantly being replaced, and yet over time its ability to do so diminishes? Is it possible that this diminution could have happened slower at one point? Maybe only in certain sets of people? And is it possible that something genetic was introduced into the bloodlines that quickly reduced lifespan of the groups that could live that long?
I honestly have no idea, but I don't think it's quite so cut and dry. As far as I know, we still don't really understand why "aging" happens, and last I heard, there were some who classify aging itself as a disease to be cured, rather than something inevitable.
For instance, we know that cells have "self destruct" signals that tell it when to die. Could this have not existed at one point? Could evolution have reduced the frequency of cancers by killing us sooner? I've also heard there are "tails" on DNA ( I forget the name ) that get shorter each replication, and that this affects the cell's ability to repair itself or reproduce or something. Maybe that wasn't happening at one point?
I suppose if anyone has a good answer, someone on this site will have heard it and can relate it. I'm not making any points, just curious.
No, but thanks for the thought. :-)
Why do people insist on believing this is one-sided? I work to make life better for ME. Why do you insist that I derive no benefit from my job? Why would people work anyway? Of course the employer benefits -- and he benefits more than any one employee, certainly. Then again, he runs a business, has taken the big risks, and has put in the effort required to be in that position to begin with.
Are you really that sour that your boss makes more than you do? Seriously?