True enough, but like a lot of grand ideas lately we're betting on a huge leap in battery technology when history says it's not likely. Fun to think about though.
What I have found is that 95% of the folks working for the Government are slugs. The only reason they do any work at all is because they are prodded along, and they resist this. If the building is on fire, and it's lunch break, they take an hour lunch before throwing any water on the fire. The other 5% are people who really care, and they are the only ones doing any work.
In business, the ratio depends on the size of the organization. In a small business, with less than 100 employees, 95% of the people are working hard, 5% are slugs, and unless they contribute something useful they don't last. In a Union shop it's 50% slugs, who scream and howl if asked to do anything extra. In a really big corporation you find 20% slugs at most.
I've met plenty of government managers who barely worked at all. I've met zero of these managers in business, zero.
The only exception on the government side is law enforcement, and the,military, because these groups have to react to external pressures.
Nobody runs for office... unless they want vanity or power... Just my two cents. A lot of the great moral quest folks are using the quest as a smokescreen to cover their own greed.
I'm convinced that we really don't know what is happening. I do know that many of the claims made 15 years ago by so called "experts" and "scientists" just haven't come to pass.
What I am personally doing? Trying to be a good steward of the land I own, and the waterways I enjoy. Contributing money to causes I believe in. Continuing to read the evidence, but with a very careful eye. Trying to educate young people that things aren't as black and white and they seem, and that science, and religion actually have more in common than they have different. Asking people to look at motivations, and follow the money before going bat-shit crazy.
Seems we agree on many things. I'd love to continue but do need to do other things this week.
The idea that "However, we *must* make sure that businesses aren't pushing their costs onto the powerless and onto the commons" flies in the face of business reality. This was a problem at the turn of the century, but not today. Even the lowliest customer has access to social media, and Google - both of which have a long tail.
Second, the idea that government is as efficient as business just doesn't fly. If this was true, then why does a million dollar X-Prize result in solutions to problems that the government has shelled out millions and millions of dollars over years and years to solve? Business invests and expects results. Government invests - and expects loyalty and quid pro quo. It's just not the same thing. There's no sense of urgency in government, and no profit motive. There are very few people in government working for the "common good" - but there a lot of folks in business trying to get rich. It's just not the same. Inside the Beltway - you might as well be on another planet entirely.
The difference between us is quite clear. You're basically an academic, whereas I live in the real world.
Expressing debt as a percentage of GDP is a common statistical trick used to make debt sound not quite so bad. It's not a debt to asset ratio. There is absolutely no reason for any governmental entity to have massive debt, except for capital expenditures financed by the issuance of municipal bonds. Governments run up massive debts out of greed, and because politicians use the funds in the public trust to buy votes.
Sure, a carbon tax looks great on paper. But only on paper. First, the government is the worst possible choice in terms of picking someone to redistribute wealth. Second, a carbon tax would increase prices on everything - with the biggest losers being the poor, and people on fixed income. Third, if these things are to be traded on an exchange, the people running said exchanges would become fabulously wealthy. Fourth, the law of unintended consequences arising from any form of taxation that punishes consumption is never, ever predictable. These "economists" who "predict" that there will be little to no impact are clearly financed by the very people who would stand to become fabulously wealthy from the implementation of such a system. This gives rise to the fifth problem, which is what started this whole discussion, which is that the government, unlike private industry, has a remarkable ability to pay for exactly the "result" it wants and call it "science" - which corrupts science absolutely.
What government strives to do is to obscure the amount of your money it is stealing from you, because if it was out there in the open, you'd be screaming for a more efficient, less wasteful, and less greedy government. So politicians direct your anger at corporate excesses - when the truth is that the excesses in government make all the crimes committed by the Wall Street Bankers look like petty larceny.
Keynesian economics, another darling philosophy the left uses to justify massive government greed, is one of many theories that fails to explain many things. But ask any modern "progressive" and they repeat Keynsian ideas like they are some kind of theology.
Yes, Obama has launched a class warfare attack as part of his populous messaging. The rich are evil, and their wealth should be confiscated, because (the insinuation goes) they didn't play fair to get it, they somehow cheated society, etc. Yet, funny thing, all of the rich people I know work harder than most folks, whereas the politicians I know are a pretty lazy bunch. Sure, there are a few "idle rich" but I have yet to meet one.
Jobs are not created by "science based environmentalism". Jobs are created because of demand. False demand created by subsidies is not demand. Show me an alternative energy that could stand on it's own without assistance. There aren't any. Truth is, these technologies needed time to evolve, but the heavy hand of government gave certain technologies advantages over others, meaning that LESS science was done, because the money was in wind and solar. By this action the government set alternative energy research back at least ten years. Anyone with the slightest bit of business sense knows that the first person who comes up with a new energy source that is more cost effective than the current methods will be fabulously wealthy, and that this incentive is a stronger motivator than all the government grants handed out since the dawn of time.
The net/net here is that climate science, alternative energy, and environmentalism have all been so hopelessly corrupted by well intentioned people who sat around and decided "Somebody ought to do SOMETHING" and when nobody fit the bill, it became "There ought to be a LAW".... That's the worst thing that can happen to anything. If you put the government in charge of the Sahara desert, in five years there would be a sand shortage (Friedman said this and while I don't agree with everything he said or wrote he makes an
I was making a joke. As my left wing lunatic friends start hurling those insults at me when they run out of arguments.
I am an ex Democrat, registered independent, one of the evil rich (according to Obama), who certainly doesn't consume conservative media as you have convinced yourself. I run a successful company - so I believe i understand economics. I have a graduate degree, but not in economics.
You are still an annoying person with your snarky little insults, but that is what passes for intelligent conversation online.
Now you're just hurling insults, a sure sign of a person who just doesn't understand what it is to get along with others and play nice on any team.
Yes, I respect the opinion of good friends. And yes, I stand by this statement:
The plain truth is that overly aggressive environmental regulations take money away from producers, also known as job creators, putting those funds in the hands of government, who is extremely inefficient at redistributing that capital.
Next, I'll be a racist, that's coming, I am sure of it.
My stand is on the side of the scientific method, honesty, truth, and morality.
I refuse to parrot a narrative, and I refuse to deal with people who want to classify sentient beings as "narrative believers" or "the enemy". Such black and white duality has caused so much human suffering I want no part of it.
I'm sorry if that position offends you. I'm insulted that you believe I am "taking no action" -- You don't know squat about me, but if you want to stand in judgement of me based on a few words written on slashdot, then I truly feel sorry for you, I really do.
I agree with you, and would add that Obama proved that the folks who spin the "We care about you" story are the one's that care the least about anybody except themselves.
The real problem is how did so much of society become so gullible that they are happy reciting "The Narrative", and attacking anyone who doesn't parrot it exactly the same way they do as an ignorant hayseed, clinging to guns and religion, extremist, homophobic, xenophobic, racist woman hater that is evil beyond evil and therefore there will be NO understanding, NO compromise, and NO listening just shouting at each other. Thereby causing your opponent to behave exactly the same way...
You're one of those people who just has to have the last word, aren't you? I make a one sentence post and you want to argue about it - for weeks.
Okay if you MUST know, my OPINION that is MINE is based on what friends in Europe have told me. And for your information I am not even a registered Republican, so terribly sorry.
What I believe is that money corrupts science, and that the money poured into Climate Science has corrupted it so badly that the outcomes of studies are meaningless. That's completely different than where YOU want me to be - A climate change DENIER. I've made up my mind that the believability of both sides is extremely low, close to zero. The contradictions over the years - that you want to hide - are real.
Your overall assertion - which has the underlying tone of words like "people like you" and "You're going to choose to believe" and "You don't study "real science""... this is all based on a philosophy where the enemy/opposition is an ignorant hayseed, country bumpkin, uneducated, ill-informed sort of person who isn't terribly bright, and therefore dangerous. This is a classic propaganda technique. People who practice this technique are not scientists, they are politicians intent on controlling people so they can live aristocratic lives at the expense of others. People who practice this technique have caused more human suffering than anybody else, and I, for one, do not trust their motives.
I wish you luck in your career of finding mistakes in all human endeavors, and hope you become fabulously wealthy. In my humble opinion you're a terribly annoying person that isn't worth my time, but that's just one man's opinion.
Ah the instant polarization of the enemy by creating a straw man that doesn't exist, and then declaring that the enemy believes it. You've mastered the Alinsky propaganda tactics quite well, grasshopper, and are to be commended, Please report to the nearest train station - and bring a blanket and a shovel, that's all you'll need!
In the mid1970's, when you were but a gleam in your mother's eyes, I was a Senior in High School, and we were taught that it was SCIENTIFIC FACT that the next ice age was coming. Now the modern re writers of history sell a new version where these teachings were a right wing fantasy - they are liars. I was there, and eagerly read Time Magazine, a leading news source at the time (Before Internet)... who ran story after story about the coming ice age.
In those times the same loons that exist today were claiming anyone who didn't believe in AGC was an ignorant hayseed who was bad for America, that there was scientific consensus, etc. etc.
So what do I believe? I believe that climate science has been so corrupted by greed that nobody really knows what the truth is about any of this. And that the corruption of climate science is one of the greatest crimes perpetrated on the advancement of the human condition. There is ample proof of so called scientists fabricating data to get more grant money. There is ample proof of folks who allegedly care about the human condition becoming fabulously wealthy by running around claiming that the end is near.
I urge you to learn to think with your brain, and not your heart. Learn to recognize propaganda, now re branded as "community organizing" and realize that the people spinning these well crafted, emotional arguments are only trying to part you from your money. Speak out in the name of truth. Learn what real science is, and how it works, not the bullshit that passes for science on the Internet.
Building fantasy straw men and then using them to prove the other guy wrong is the height of ignorance, my friend.
You've managed to turn a SINGLE SENTENCE into a complete character analysis, identification of my politics, and have turned "Much of" into absolute cause.
You are clearly incapable of listening - but live to argue.
First, I didn't quote anything. Second, because I disagree with you, I am labeled a right-wing person - and in a very demeaning, sarcastic way you attack me as an individual, insinuating that I'm not very smart, clinging to dumb ideas (no doubt guns and religion), and I'm not nearly as educated, or "enlightened" as you are.
This kind of attack tells me you're very immature, and have this crazy notion that your beliefs are absolutely correct, whereas the opposing position isn't just wrong, it's evil. The opposition is wrong, dead wrong, and they must be vanquished.
Therefore, people with opposing viewpoints are to be ridiculed, and talked down to.
I'm sorry, but this just isn't how the world works. If one wants to get along, and prosper, they learn to respect all opinions, and treat people as equals. There's little point in arguing with you, as you're probably not a very good listener, but please, try to be a little less condescending, you'll get a lot farther in life.
Much of the trouble in Spain is due to an overly aggressive green agenda by the previous administration.
It caused a significant increase in unemployment, which contributed to where they are today. The plain truth is that overly aggressive environmental regulations take money away from producers, also known as job creators, putting those funds in the hands of government, who is extremely inefficient at redistributing that capital.
You're absolutely right, of course, and it is, in fact, even worse than this.
Now the new plan is to shut down the coal plants - which were at 89% of capacity last winter - replacing them with NOTHING. Which means the next hot summer, or cold winter, we'll get rolling blackouts and people with no heat and air conditioning. What will happen? We'll burn up oiur fossil fuels faster, of course.
And then we have the ludicrous idea that by taxing the crap out of everything (Carbon Tax), and giving that money to the most corrupt government we've ever had... they will spend that money wisely!! No, a few people will get fabulously wealthy, a few folks will get even more power over our lives, and our freedoms will be reduced. The middle class will become more poor, and the income gap (which has gotten far, far worse under Obama & the Democrats) will get even wider.
And yet most people here are arguing for exactly these things to happen, because? I don't get it.
Yeah those evil Koch brothers, with 301 million in politics,.vs. Soros with 3.5 billion in the game. They do really horrible stuff, like fund Nova on PBS for instance - a show about SCIENCE, how terrible they are.
Actual facts mean nothing to people who are so gullible they would give a large portion of their income to someone else, who will use it to live a lavish lifestyle, in the name of saving humanity, the planet, etc.
What we really need to study is why so many people have so little common sense, and believe the most outlandish things, and the enormous greed of those who push these beliefs.
Slashdot Mirror
True enough, but like a lot of grand ideas lately we're betting on a huge leap in battery technology when history says it's not likely. Fun to think about though.
Exactly Lithium ion energy density just isn't comparable to actual fuel. Put a real motor on thing, like a Rotax... then it flies.
Ever seen an electric helicopter - that carries people? That's what this idea is.
What I have found is that 95% of the folks working for the Government are slugs. The only reason they do any work at all is because they are prodded along, and they resist this. If the building is on fire, and it's lunch break, they take an hour lunch before throwing any water on the fire. The other 5% are people who really care, and they are the only ones doing any work.
,military, because these groups have to react to external pressures.
In business, the ratio depends on the size of the organization. In a small business, with less than 100 employees, 95% of the people are working hard, 5% are slugs, and unless they contribute something useful they don't last. In a Union shop it's 50% slugs, who scream and howl if asked to do anything extra. In a really big corporation you find 20% slugs at most.
I've met plenty of government managers who barely worked at all. I've met zero of these managers in business, zero.
The only exception on the government side is law enforcement, and the
Nobody runs for office... unless they want vanity or power... Just my two cents. A lot of the great moral quest folks are using the quest as a smokescreen to cover their own greed.
I'm convinced that we really don't know what is happening. I do know that many of the claims made 15 years ago by so called "experts" and "scientists" just haven't come to pass.
What I am personally doing? Trying to be a good steward of the land I own, and the waterways I enjoy. Contributing money to causes I believe in. Continuing to read the evidence, but with a very careful eye. Trying to educate young people that things aren't as black and white and they seem, and that science, and religion actually have more in common than they have different. Asking people to look at motivations, and follow the money before going bat-shit crazy.
Seems we agree on many things. I'd love to continue but do need to do other things this week.
The idea that "However, we *must* make sure that businesses aren't pushing their costs onto the powerless and onto the commons" flies in the face of business reality. This was a problem at the turn of the century, but not today. Even the lowliest customer has access to social media, and Google - both of which have a long tail.
Second, the idea that government is as efficient as business just doesn't fly. If this was true, then why does a million dollar X-Prize result in solutions to problems that the government has shelled out millions and millions of dollars over years and years to solve? Business invests and expects results. Government invests - and expects loyalty and quid pro quo. It's just not the same thing. There's no sense of urgency in government, and no profit motive. There are very few people in government working for the "common good" - but there a lot of folks in business trying to get rich. It's just not the same. Inside the Beltway - you might as well be on another planet entirely.
The difference between us is quite clear. You're basically an academic, whereas I live in the real world.
Expressing debt as a percentage of GDP is a common statistical trick used to make debt sound not quite so bad. It's not a debt to asset ratio. There is absolutely no reason for any governmental entity to have massive debt, except for capital expenditures financed by the issuance of municipal bonds. Governments run up massive debts out of greed, and because politicians use the funds in the public trust to buy votes.
Sure, a carbon tax looks great on paper. But only on paper. First, the government is the worst possible choice in terms of picking someone to redistribute wealth. Second, a carbon tax would increase prices on everything - with the biggest losers being the poor, and people on fixed income. Third, if these things are to be traded on an exchange, the people running said exchanges would become fabulously wealthy. Fourth, the law of unintended consequences arising from any form of taxation that punishes consumption is never, ever predictable. These "economists" who "predict" that there will be little to no impact are clearly financed by the very people who would stand to become fabulously wealthy from the implementation of such a system. This gives rise to the fifth problem, which is what started this whole discussion, which is that the government, unlike private industry, has a remarkable ability to pay for exactly the "result" it wants and call it "science" - which corrupts science absolutely.
What government strives to do is to obscure the amount of your money it is stealing from you, because if it was out there in the open, you'd be screaming for a more efficient, less wasteful, and less greedy government. So politicians direct your anger at corporate excesses - when the truth is that the excesses in government make all the crimes committed by the Wall Street Bankers look like petty larceny.
Keynesian economics, another darling philosophy the left uses to justify massive government greed, is one of many theories that fails to explain many things. But ask any modern "progressive" and they repeat Keynsian ideas like they are some kind of theology.
Yes, Obama has launched a class warfare attack as part of his populous messaging. The rich are evil, and their wealth should be confiscated, because (the insinuation goes) they didn't play fair to get it, they somehow cheated society, etc. Yet, funny thing, all of the rich people I know work harder than most folks, whereas the politicians I know are a pretty lazy bunch. Sure, there are a few "idle rich" but I have yet to meet one.
Jobs are not created by "science based environmentalism". Jobs are created because of demand. False demand created by subsidies is not demand. Show me an alternative energy that could stand on it's own without assistance. There aren't any. Truth is, these technologies needed time to evolve, but the heavy hand of government gave certain technologies advantages over others, meaning that LESS science was done, because the money was in wind and solar. By this action the government set alternative energy research back at least ten years. Anyone with the slightest bit of business sense knows that the first person who comes up with a new energy source that is more cost effective than the current methods will be fabulously wealthy, and that this incentive is a stronger motivator than all the government grants handed out since the dawn of time.
The net/net here is that climate science, alternative energy, and environmentalism have all been so hopelessly corrupted by well intentioned people who sat around and decided "Somebody ought to do SOMETHING" and when nobody fit the bill, it became "There ought to be a LAW".... That's the worst thing that can happen to anything. If you put the government in charge of the Sahara desert, in five years there would be a sand shortage (Friedman said this and while I don't agree with everything he said or wrote he makes an
I was making a joke. As my left wing lunatic friends start hurling those insults at me when they run out of arguments.
I am an ex Democrat, registered independent, one of the evil rich (according to Obama), who certainly doesn't consume conservative media as you have convinced yourself. I run a successful company - so I believe i understand economics. I have a graduate degree, but not in economics.
You are still an annoying person with your snarky little insults, but that is what passes for intelligent conversation online.
Yes, I respect the opinion of good friends. And yes, I stand by this statement:
The plain truth is that overly aggressive environmental regulations take money away from producers, also known as job creators, putting those funds in the hands of government, who is extremely inefficient at redistributing that capital.
Next, I'll be a racist, that's coming, I am sure of it.
My stand is on the side of the scientific method, honesty, truth, and morality.
I refuse to parrot a narrative, and I refuse to deal with people who want to classify sentient beings as "narrative believers" or "the enemy". Such black and white duality has caused so much human suffering I want no part of it.
I'm sorry if that position offends you. I'm insulted that you believe I am "taking no action" -- You don't know squat about me, but if you want to stand in judgement of me based on a few words written on slashdot, then I truly feel sorry for you, I really do.
I do have a degree in economics.
Obama had two years of a majority in both houses to overturn the civil rights horrors he howled and wailed about during the Bush years... and did not.
Instead, they have used the full power of these organizations to go after political enemies.
Sure does explain where their allegiance is. To themselves, and to greed.
I agree with you, and would add that Obama proved that the folks who spin the "We care about you" story are the one's that care the least about anybody except themselves.
The real problem is how did so much of society become so gullible that they are happy reciting "The Narrative", and attacking anyone who doesn't parrot it exactly the same way they do as an ignorant hayseed, clinging to guns and religion, extremist, homophobic, xenophobic, racist woman hater that is evil beyond evil and therefore there will be NO understanding, NO compromise, and NO listening just shouting at each other. Thereby causing your opponent to behave exactly the same way...
You're one of those people who just has to have the last word, aren't you? I make a one sentence post and you want to argue about it - for weeks.
Okay if you MUST know, my OPINION that is MINE is based on what friends in Europe have told me. And for your information I am not even a registered Republican, so terribly sorry.
What I believe is that money corrupts science, and that the money poured into Climate Science has corrupted it so badly that the outcomes of studies are meaningless. That's completely different than where YOU want me to be - A climate change DENIER. I've made up my mind that the believability of both sides is extremely low, close to zero. The contradictions over the years - that you want to hide - are real.
Your overall assertion - which has the underlying tone of words like "people like you" and "You're going to choose to believe" and "You don't study "real science""... this is all based on a philosophy where the enemy/opposition is an ignorant hayseed, country bumpkin, uneducated, ill-informed sort of person who isn't terribly bright, and therefore dangerous. This is a classic propaganda technique. People who practice this technique are not scientists, they are politicians intent on controlling people so they can live aristocratic lives at the expense of others. People who practice this technique have caused more human suffering than anybody else, and I, for one, do not trust their motives.
I wish you luck in your career of finding mistakes in all human endeavors, and hope you become fabulously wealthy. In my humble opinion you're a terribly annoying person that isn't worth my time, but that's just one man's opinion.
Ah the instant polarization of the enemy by creating a straw man that doesn't exist, and then declaring that the enemy believes it. You've mastered the Alinsky propaganda tactics quite well, grasshopper, and are to be commended, Please report to the nearest train station - and bring a blanket and a shovel, that's all you'll need!
In the mid1970's, when you were but a gleam in your mother's eyes, I was a Senior in High School, and we were taught that it was SCIENTIFIC FACT that the next ice age was coming. Now the modern re writers of history sell a new version where these teachings were a right wing fantasy - they are liars. I was there, and eagerly read Time Magazine, a leading news source at the time (Before Internet)... who ran story after story about the coming ice age.
In those times the same loons that exist today were claiming anyone who didn't believe in AGC was an ignorant hayseed who was bad for America, that there was scientific consensus, etc. etc.
So what do I believe? I believe that climate science has been so corrupted by greed that nobody really knows what the truth is about any of this. And that the corruption of climate science is one of the greatest crimes perpetrated on the advancement of the human condition. There is ample proof of so called scientists fabricating data to get more grant money. There is ample proof of folks who allegedly care about the human condition becoming fabulously wealthy by running around claiming that the end is near.
I urge you to learn to think with your brain, and not your heart. Learn to recognize propaganda, now re branded as "community organizing" and realize that the people spinning these well crafted, emotional arguments are only trying to part you from your money. Speak out in the name of truth. Learn what real science is, and how it works, not the bullshit that passes for science on the Internet.
Building fantasy straw men and then using them to prove the other guy wrong is the height of ignorance, my friend.
You've managed to turn a SINGLE SENTENCE into a complete character analysis, identification of my politics, and have turned "Much of" into absolute cause.
You are clearly incapable of listening - but live to argue.
No, I didn't but I'll be sure to look out for it, Thanks!
First, I didn't quote anything. Second, because I disagree with you, I am labeled a right-wing person - and in a very demeaning, sarcastic way you attack me as an individual, insinuating that I'm not very smart, clinging to dumb ideas (no doubt guns and religion), and I'm not nearly as educated, or "enlightened" as you are.
This kind of attack tells me you're very immature, and have this crazy notion that your beliefs are absolutely correct, whereas the opposing position isn't just wrong, it's evil. The opposition is wrong, dead wrong, and they must be vanquished.
Therefore, people with opposing viewpoints are to be ridiculed, and talked down to.
I'm sorry, but this just isn't how the world works. If one wants to get along, and prosper, they learn to respect all opinions, and treat people as equals. There's little point in arguing with you, as you're probably not a very good listener, but please, try to be a little less condescending, you'll get a lot farther in life.
Much of the trouble in Spain is due to an overly aggressive green agenda by the previous administration.
It caused a significant increase in unemployment, which contributed to where they are today. The plain truth is that overly aggressive environmental regulations take money away from producers, also known as job creators, putting those funds in the hands of government, who is extremely inefficient at redistributing that capital.
And yes, I do have a degree in economics.
You're absolutely right, of course, and it is, in fact, even worse than this.
Now the new plan is to shut down the coal plants - which were at 89% of capacity last winter - replacing them with NOTHING. Which means the next hot summer, or cold winter, we'll get rolling blackouts and people with no heat and air conditioning. What will happen? We'll burn up oiur fossil fuels faster, of course.
And then we have the ludicrous idea that by taxing the crap out of everything (Carbon Tax), and giving that money to the most corrupt government we've ever had... they will spend that money wisely!! No, a few people will get fabulously wealthy, a few folks will get even more power over our lives, and our freedoms will be reduced. The middle class will become more poor, and the income gap (which has gotten far, far worse under Obama & the Democrats) will get even wider.
And yet most people here are arguing for exactly these things to happen, because? I don't get it.
Yeah those evil Koch brothers, with 301 million in politics, .vs. Soros with 3.5 billion in the game. They do really horrible stuff, like fund Nova on PBS for instance - a show about SCIENCE, how terrible they are.
Actual facts mean nothing to people who are so gullible they would give a large portion of their income to someone else, who will use it to live a lavish lifestyle, in the name of saving humanity, the planet, etc.
What we really need to study is why so many people have so little common sense, and believe the most outlandish things, and the enormous greed of those who push these beliefs.
A few days? It's been cooling for some 15 years now.