Except a treaty that puts you in a disadvantage while it lets China and India pollute away is a STUPID treaty.
Unless your goal is to pretend to do something for the environment while your real goal is income redistribution from the evil industrialized countries to the virtuous developing countries.
Even if electric cars take off as the author states Big Oil and Auto Manufacturers will do just fine.
Big Oil is not in the drilling business. They are in the refining business. They will do just fine.
Auto Manufacturers will not do as well as Big Oil but there will still be a tremendous need for their goods and services. Tons of new vehicles will need to be built. And at the same time tons of new businesses will pop-up transporting people from here to there and they will need vehicles of different sizes and configurations.
Do you thing Antifa respects freedom of speech and privacy? They call me, a hard-core Libertarian, "fascist" and then proclaim that it's OK to do violence to fascists. What are fascists to Antifa? Evidently it's almost any position that they disagree.
Are progressives for freedom of speech? Or are they turning into Red Guard fanatics spewing vile on anyone that doesn't toe the party line?
Communism is antithetical to liberalism, to the respect of the individual and individual freedoms.
So. Become a shareholder (along with millions of other people who, like you know better) and then have a say in how the company works.
One million people like you who put in a dollar a day into such a great fund could do wonders. You could change the world. You could be the change you're looking for.
Really? Don't you think that Hillary would have played just well with the Russians? All Putin would have to do is put a few dollars in the Clinton Foundation and bingo.
There is no evidence of a hack or of any collusion between Trump and Russia - especially collusion that would be counter to US interests.
Ooo. An international company (Exxon-Mobil) had business dealings with Russia. Wow. Proof of collusion. Yeah Right.
Ooo. An international real estate company had business negotiations with Russians. Wow. Lock them the f**k up.
Keep this stuff up guys and you'll see the end of the Democratic Party.
Well, most treaties are backed up by more than good intentions. MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) was the military strategy behind the treaties btwn the US and USSR.
Liberals respect privacy and free speech? They used to.
Of course if your point is that progressives and SJWs and Antifa are not liberal then you're correct. I would agree with that. Progressivism is antithetical to liberalism.
First of all we're talking about treaties regarding combat not concentration camps. This "Even Hitler did not use chemical weapons" phrase has been used since
at least the 1980s. I first heard about it when people were talking about chemical weapons being used in the Iraq-Iran war.
Hitler could have used it with great affect in the Battle of Stalingrad, He could have pulled his troops out of the city and used artillery and planes to saturate the city with chemical weapons. He did not.
There is evidence that the Germans used poison gas was used in a few instances. But it was rare, it was not part of their military strategy.
The key point here is not "was chemical weapons used in an isolated case here or there" (Hitler, Iraq, Syria) but whether or not treaties regarding use of military weapons actually work. They surely seem to.
My post was referring back to the statement that "civilized warfare" sounds like "military" and "intelliigence"
We don't use chemical weapons. Even Hitler did not.
We have agreements on bullets and stick to them.
The only part of the geneva convention that is NOT followed are by those people who aren't wearing uniforms and blend back into the civilian population. Hmmm. Wonder why no one mentions that sh!t.
Are you stupid? And who the eff found this "Insightful." What is possibly wrong with this?
You raise money because up front costs are a worry and you share the burden. Land costs are trivial compared to construction costs.
For instance:
Building costs in the NYC area is $200/square foot for very basic construction. Kitchens and bathrooms and radiant heating, and wood floors add tremendously to the cost. And that's not including elevators and balconies and roof gardens.
Construction costs easily reach $5-700/square foot. Sale prices of luxury apartments are easily $2000 / square foot with many reaching far, FAR more. Therefore one 2000 square foot apartment would be 4 million dollars+.
Again what possibly is corrupt about a builder getting investors? It would be unusual to find a construction project of this magnitude that does not have investors. And investors, for the most part are NOT stupid. They are very careful and there is a considerable amount of due diligence.
Again - what is wrong with a real estate / construction company building? This is what they do. This is going to be one more building in Jersey City.
New York City (along with LA, San Francisco, Vancouver, Sidney) has sold lots of apartments to Chinese people wanting to diversify their portfolio and provide an exit strategy for them and their families in case things go south.
The issue is government connections; where companies succeed BECAUSE they get funding from the public trough. Now, there is a big difference between a company getting a contract to provide a good or service and government picking technologies and solutions. I think we can get broad consensus on government giving incentives (we'll pay you "x" if you can find a way to do "y"). Where things go wrong and leads to bad decisions and corruption is when government starts picking winning technologies and winning companies.
And this is not referring to government officials using tax payer dollars as a pay-for-play or kickback scheme. That is a separate issue.
Who is against alternative energy is the US? There isn't any political sector in the US, left or right, which is opposed to clean energy that will make us independent of religious fanatics in the middle east and will allow people to live off the electric grid.
As a matter of fact I would think that the right, especially in rural areas, would be ecstatic by having their energy needs being locally sourced.
What's the problem? Oh you know, little things, like using taxpayer dollars to fund companies that have connections to the powers that be - you know, little f**king things like that.
The purpose of the government in general is to uphold the social contract which is:
"I promise not to kill you and take your stuff if you promise not to kill me and take mine."
It's not "I promise to stop everyone from eating trans-fats if you promise to stop everyone from smoking."
The US is built on the concept of an extremely limited Federal Government and allows almost total leeway for states, So the Federal Government should be small. It should deal with foreign affairs (including military), interstate trade conflicts and, by extension externalities such as pollution, and interstate transport.
Everything else - namely social services - should be done by the states.
Everything is monitored; every website visited..Words are flagged and blocked from delivery. Even words like pr0n, s3x - not to mention all the other words that would obviously be blocked.
He may have put it poorly but there is some truth there.
There's a lot of homelessness in NYC and the overwhelming majority falls into two camps: those with mental issues and those with substance abuse issues. The percentage of able bodied and able minded people (is that a word?) who are homeless is a small.
Free market != anarchy. Free market capitalism would still have regulations. Do you think that free market capitalists say that there should be no rules for the road? The stop signs cannot exist because they're put there by government? Or that we can drive which ever way we want? No.
Free market is not anarchy. Menger, von Mises, Hayek, Freidman were not anarchists.
A simple example:
Can you smoke in a bar? And who decides.
Free market solution: Let the bar owner decide. Enough people want smoke free bars that the overwhelming majority of bar owners would chose smoke free.
Can you smoke on a sidewalk? Let the people decide as it is a common space. I prefer referendums for issues like this but accept decisions made by elected officials.
Can you smoke in an office? Ah. That's a gray area. And that would have to go through the court system. Free market capitalists are not for small government (read low taxes). They are for limited government. In times of war, think of WWII, if the cost of defending yourself reaches 50% of GDP then... that's what it costs. But the Federal Government is ( or should be ) limited in what it does. The Federal Government is simply the framework for all the states.
If you think YOUR state should provide free health care fight for it. This is not the pervue of the federal government. I will fight against in my state but will not lift a finger against you in yours. We will then see how your policy works. I think it will fail. You, the proponent of Universal Health Care, thinks it will succeed. We'll see.
This is the way people with vastly different ideas can co-exist well. When the Federal Government becomes all-powerful then we will fight each other tooth and nail on every single issue.
Open markets != government regulators in the pockets of companies.
The whole purpose behind laissez-faire economics is to reduce the influence of government peddling. The whole criticism of a mixed economy (slippery slope and all that) is that the inevitable result is corporatism. The solution may be counter-intuitive to you but you can combat corporatism with free market capitalism. The two are opposed to each other. This is a place where left and right can make some temporary alliances in combating the rise of corporatism (which in yesteryear was called mercantilism).
Either that or he isn't a fascist because the FBI director wasn't closing in on anything and there wasn't a hack of the election.
This a tech site (or it used to be). What was the f**king hack? Eh? Getting Podesta's email account? You're kidding right. This counts as a hack to you?
And, by the way, it seems more likely that wikileaks was the result of an actual leak as opposed to a dum dum duuuum "a hack".
Trump and the coal workers DO NOT CARE particularly about coal. It's about respect for Blue Collar professions. Over the past few generations the love of tinkering with ones hands of building things has been denigrated; been considered a "dead-end" job for people without brains and ambition. These photo ops are NOT for coal - it's showing respect.
There have been enough interviews with coal miners that show that they realize that coal mining is done for. What they rightfully object to is the contempt and ridicule that the is heaped upon them from self-righteous hipsters. (Now I'm what would be classified as espresso-sipping, craft-beer snob, NY foodie hipster. I just happen to have respect for physical work and don't think the solution is turning everyone into IT workers; attorneys and whatever other "retraining" fad comes into people's minds.
I think we should frack and drill and use the tax revenue for energy production (tidal, wind, solar), storage (batteries, flywheels) etc... We are in an in between stage. Alternate (non-fossil fuel) energy is growing fast, incredibly fast, but not fast enough. The only way to continue this is by having an economy that can afford the transition. We will need fracking and the pipeline, and off-shore drilling for
1. tax revenues to spend on new infrastructure (storage,etc..)
2. and to stop sending money to religious fanatics.
Islam had lots of sects that were not backward looking fanatics. Until recently the Saudi Wahabbi's were looked down upon. And now, billions of dollars later, they are dominant. Yeah!!! So drilling here makes sense.
3.The environment is global. We'll do a better job looking after the environment here than the Saudi's and Kuwati's will be there.
No. You walk on beams. Nobody is to the side of you. You straddle the beam, and tack a piece of metal there. Most of the time you put on the apron and gloves and shield because you do everything at one time, one after another (or you are truly doing structural welding as opposed to tacking something down in which case you obviously wear protectoin).
There doesn't need to be a regulation that compels use of an apron. There are too many instances when it isn't necessary. Same as hard hats. EVERYONE puts them on when going down to lower floors or if there are things above their head. But helmets will not help if you fall off the side of a building. An inspector should be honest and see if there are unsafe activities. Unsafe, that is in context of the job. Climbing an outside column is by definition more unsafe than sitting at a desk and typing this reply. I suspect that this is corruption on the part of OSHA employees. Pay us or we'll harass you and shut you down.
And people tend to be diligent and anal about safety when it's their lives on the line. "A clean working floor is a safe working floor." "Tie that motherf**king ladder down." Hey [apprentice] what the f**k are you doing? You tie it like this. How many f**king times do I have to tell you."
Not to mention that each trade has their own shop stewards, whose job it is to look after working conditions (which includes, obviously, safety).
If on the other hand we play a thought game and we assume a scenario of EVIL corporation v OPPRESSED worker then there ought to be a regulation that compels the company to provide aprons and gloves to their employees.
If this was a time and place where the company had the power to force people to work in unsafe conditions and you couldn't tell if the employee was willingly choosing to not wearing gloves versus being compelled by EVIL corporation then you would have a valid point.
Let's put your prediction on record. What will be the dire effects of Brexit on the UK? Scotland may vote to separate from the UK. Is that a good thing? I think so. England will have greater control over its borders and laws. I think that's a good thing as I'm not in favor of either Imperial Washington or Imperial Brussels,
You think there will be dire economic consequences. I disagree.
Slashdot Mirror
Except a treaty that puts you in a disadvantage while it lets China and India pollute away is a STUPID treaty.
Unless your goal is to pretend to do something for the environment while your real goal is income redistribution from the evil industrialized countries to the virtuous developing countries.
Even if electric cars take off as the author states Big Oil and Auto Manufacturers will do just fine.
Big Oil is not in the drilling business. They are in the refining business. They will do just fine. Auto Manufacturers will not do as well as Big Oil but there will still be a tremendous need for their goods and services. Tons of new vehicles will need to be built. And at the same time tons of new businesses will pop-up transporting people from here to there and they will need vehicles of different sizes and configurations.
Do you thing Antifa respects freedom of speech and privacy? They call me, a hard-core Libertarian, "fascist" and then proclaim that it's OK to do violence to fascists. What are fascists to Antifa? Evidently it's almost any position that they disagree.
Are progressives for freedom of speech? Or are they turning into Red Guard fanatics spewing vile on anyone that doesn't toe the party line?
Communism is antithetical to liberalism, to the respect of the individual and individual freedoms.
So. Become a shareholder (along with millions of other people who, like you know better) and then have a say in how the company works.
One million people like you who put in a dollar a day into such a great fund could do wonders. You could change the world. You could be the change you're looking for.
Carpe Diem muthaf**ker.
Really? Don't you think that Hillary would have played just well with the Russians? All Putin would have to do is put a few dollars in the Clinton Foundation and bingo.
There is no evidence of a hack or of any collusion between Trump and Russia - especially collusion that would be counter to US interests.
Ooo. An international company (Exxon-Mobil) had business dealings with Russia. Wow. Proof of collusion. Yeah Right.
Ooo. An international real estate company had business negotiations with Russians. Wow. Lock them the f**k up.
Keep this stuff up guys and you'll see the end of the Democratic Party.
Well, most treaties are backed up by more than good intentions. MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) was the military strategy behind the treaties btwn the US and USSR.
Liberals respect privacy and free speech? They used to.
Of course if your point is that progressives and SJWs and Antifa are not liberal then you're correct. I would agree with that. Progressivism is antithetical to liberalism.
First of all we're talking about treaties regarding combat not concentration camps. This "Even Hitler did not use chemical weapons" phrase has been used since at least the 1980s. I first heard about it when people were talking about chemical weapons being used in the Iraq-Iran war.
Hitler could have used it with great affect in the Battle of Stalingrad, He could have pulled his troops out of the city and used artillery and planes to saturate the city with chemical weapons. He did not.
There is evidence that the Germans used poison gas was used in a few instances. But it was rare, it was not part of their military strategy.
The key point here is not "was chemical weapons used in an isolated case here or there" (Hitler, Iraq, Syria) but whether or not treaties regarding use of military weapons actually work. They surely seem to.
My post was referring back to the statement that "civilized warfare" sounds like "military" and "intelliigence"
We have rules and many are followed.
We don't use chemical weapons. Even Hitler did not.
We have agreements on bullets and stick to them.
The only part of the geneva convention that is NOT followed are by those people who aren't wearing uniforms and blend back into the civilian population. Hmmm. Wonder why no one mentions that sh!t.
Really? I think ISIS and the Muslim Brotherhood consider themselves Muslim and that their actions are indeed proper under the Koran.
What's needed is a reformation within Islam - but to think the Muslim Brotherhood has "hijacked" Islam is BS.
Are you stupid? And who the eff found this "Insightful." What is possibly wrong with this?
You raise money because up front costs are a worry and you share the burden. Land costs are trivial compared to construction costs.
For instance:
Building costs in the NYC area is $200/square foot for very basic construction. Kitchens and bathrooms and radiant heating, and wood floors add tremendously to the cost. And that's not including elevators and balconies and roof gardens.
Construction costs easily reach $5-700/square foot. Sale prices of luxury apartments are easily $2000 / square foot with many reaching far, FAR more. Therefore one 2000 square foot apartment would be 4 million dollars+.
Again what possibly is corrupt about a builder getting investors? It would be unusual to find a construction project of this magnitude that does not have investors. And investors, for the most part are NOT stupid. They are very careful and there is a considerable amount of due diligence.
Again - what is wrong with a real estate / construction company building? This is what they do. This is going to be one more building in Jersey City.
New York City (along with LA, San Francisco, Vancouver, Sidney) has sold lots of apartments to Chinese people wanting to diversify their portfolio and provide an exit strategy for them and their families in case things go south.
Again. What's the effing problem?
It would be both.
The issue is government connections; where companies succeed BECAUSE they get funding from the public trough. Now, there is a big difference between a company getting a contract to provide a good or service and government picking technologies and solutions. I think we can get broad consensus on government giving incentives (we'll pay you "x" if you can find a way to do "y"). Where things go wrong and leads to bad decisions and corruption is when government starts picking winning technologies and winning companies.
And this is not referring to government officials using tax payer dollars as a pay-for-play or kickback scheme. That is a separate issue.
Bigoted much?
Oh, you think that 85% was the average for the month?
ha ha ha ha ha ha
I'll go with the rednecks on this one.
Power company or regulation?
Or are you of the opinion that only bad can come from companies and only good can come from regulators?
Who is against alternative energy is the US? There isn't any political sector in the US, left or right, which is opposed to clean energy that will make us independent of religious fanatics in the middle east and will allow people to live off the electric grid.
As a matter of fact I would think that the right, especially in rural areas, would be ecstatic by having their energy needs being locally sourced.
What's the problem? Oh you know, little things, like using taxpayer dollars to fund companies that have connections to the powers that be - you know, little f**king things like that.
The purpose of the government in general is to uphold the social contract which is:
"I promise not to kill you and take your stuff if you promise not to kill me and take mine."
It's not "I promise to stop everyone from eating trans-fats if you promise to stop everyone from smoking."
The US is built on the concept of an extremely limited Federal Government and allows almost total leeway for states, So the Federal Government should be small. It should deal with foreign affairs (including military), interstate trade conflicts and, by extension externalities such as pollution, and interstate transport.
Everything else - namely social services - should be done by the states.
Everything is monitored; every website visited..Words are flagged and blocked from delivery. Even words like pr0n, s3x - not to mention all the other words that would obviously be blocked.
He may have put it poorly but there is some truth there.
There's a lot of homelessness in NYC and the overwhelming majority falls into two camps: those with mental issues and those with substance abuse issues. The percentage of able bodied and able minded people (is that a word?) who are homeless is a small.
Free market != anarchy. Free market capitalism would still have regulations. Do you think that free market capitalists say that there should be no rules for the road? The stop signs cannot exist because they're put there by government? Or that we can drive which ever way we want? No.
... that's what it costs. But the Federal Government is ( or should be ) limited in what it does. The Federal Government is simply the framework for all the states.
Free market is not anarchy. Menger, von Mises, Hayek, Freidman were not anarchists.
A simple example:
Can you smoke in a bar? And who decides.
Free market solution: Let the bar owner decide. Enough people want smoke free bars that the overwhelming majority of bar owners would chose smoke free.
Can you smoke on a sidewalk? Let the people decide as it is a common space. I prefer referendums for issues like this but accept decisions made by elected officials.
Can you smoke in an office? Ah. That's a gray area. And that would have to go through the court system. Free market capitalists are not for small government (read low taxes). They are for limited government. In times of war, think of WWII, if the cost of defending yourself reaches 50% of GDP then
If you think YOUR state should provide free health care fight for it. This is not the pervue of the federal government. I will fight against in my state but will not lift a finger against you in yours. We will then see how your policy works. I think it will fail. You, the proponent of Universal Health Care, thinks it will succeed. We'll see.
This is the way people with vastly different ideas can co-exist well. When the Federal Government becomes all-powerful then we will fight each other tooth and nail on every single issue.
Open markets != government regulators in the pockets of companies.
The whole purpose behind laissez-faire economics is to reduce the influence of government peddling. The whole criticism of a mixed economy (slippery slope and all that) is that the inevitable result is corporatism. The solution may be counter-intuitive to you but you can combat corporatism with free market capitalism. The two are opposed to each other. This is a place where left and right can make some temporary alliances in combating the rise of corporatism (which in yesteryear was called mercantilism).
I have a filter on my company firewall. It won't go through, If I would quote your reply it would be blocked as well.
:(
Either that or he isn't a fascist because the FBI director wasn't closing in on anything and there wasn't a hack of the election.
This a tech site (or it used to be). What was the f**king hack? Eh? Getting Podesta's email account? You're kidding right. This counts as a hack to you?
And, by the way, it seems more likely that wikileaks was the result of an actual leak as opposed to a dum dum duuuum "a hack".
Respectfully,
Trump and the coal workers DO NOT CARE particularly about coal. It's about respect for Blue Collar professions. Over the past few generations the love of tinkering with ones hands of building things has been denigrated; been considered a "dead-end" job for people without brains and ambition. These photo ops are NOT for coal - it's showing respect.
There have been enough interviews with coal miners that show that they realize that coal mining is done for. What they rightfully object to is the contempt and ridicule that the is heaped upon them from self-righteous hipsters. (Now I'm what would be classified as espresso-sipping, craft-beer snob, NY foodie hipster. I just happen to have respect for physical work and don't think the solution is turning everyone into IT workers; attorneys and whatever other "retraining" fad comes into people's minds.
I think we should frack and drill and use the tax revenue for energy production (tidal, wind, solar), storage (batteries, flywheels) etc... We are in an in between stage. Alternate (non-fossil fuel) energy is growing fast, incredibly fast, but not fast enough. The only way to continue this is by having an economy that can afford the transition. We will need fracking and the pipeline, and off-shore drilling for
1. tax revenues to spend on new infrastructure (storage,etc..)
2. and to stop sending money to religious fanatics.
Islam had lots of sects that were not backward looking fanatics. Until recently the Saudi Wahabbi's were looked down upon. And now, billions of dollars later, they are dominant. Yeah!!! So drilling here makes sense.
3.The environment is global. We'll do a better job looking after the environment here than the Saudi's and Kuwati's will be there.
No. You walk on beams. Nobody is to the side of you. You straddle the beam, and tack a piece of metal there. Most of the time you put on the apron and gloves and shield because you do everything at one time, one after another (or you are truly doing structural welding as opposed to tacking something down in which case you obviously wear protectoin).
There doesn't need to be a regulation that compels use of an apron. There are too many instances when it isn't necessary. Same as hard hats. EVERYONE puts them on when going down to lower floors or if there are things above their head. But helmets will not help if you fall off the side of a building. An inspector should be honest and see if there are unsafe activities. Unsafe, that is in context of the job. Climbing an outside column is by definition more unsafe than sitting at a desk and typing this reply. I suspect that this is corruption on the part of OSHA employees. Pay us or we'll harass you and shut you down.
And people tend to be diligent and anal about safety when it's their lives on the line. "A clean working floor is a safe working floor." "Tie that motherf**king ladder down." Hey [apprentice] what the f**k are you doing? You tie it like this. How many f**king times do I have to tell you."
Not to mention that each trade has their own shop stewards, whose job it is to look after working conditions (which includes, obviously, safety).
If on the other hand we play a thought game and we assume a scenario of EVIL corporation v OPPRESSED worker then there ought to be a regulation that compels the company to provide aprons and gloves to their employees.
If this was a time and place where the company had the power to force people to work in unsafe conditions and you couldn't tell if the employee was willingly choosing to not wearing gloves versus being compelled by EVIL corporation then you would have a valid point.
That was not the case in 20thC NYC.
Let's put your prediction on record. What will be the dire effects of Brexit on the UK? Scotland may vote to separate from the UK. Is that a good thing? I think so. England will have greater control over its borders and laws. I think that's a good thing as I'm not in favor of either Imperial Washington or Imperial Brussels,
You think there will be dire economic consequences. I disagree.
We'll see.