So it seems to me that instead of messing up the whole world in order to secure its access to cheap oil, the U.S. should do the responsible thing and find ways to lessen dramatically its addiction to oil.
Actually, oil is not the problem. It's WHERE we get it.
The U.S. should do the responsible thing and obtain as much as possible from within our own borders, including Alaska, and import it--when necessary--from more stable and friendly countries such as Mexico.
Sure, alternative energy is a good goal. But it doesn't help us today. For the time being we need to exploit our own oil reserves and reduce our dependency on unstable, Arab oil while we look for a good alternative.
1
Yeah, too bad it rarely happens, and when it does happen, it's to the benefit of HIS country, not the Earth and humanity as a whole.
I don't feel like getting into an environmental debate today; suffice it to say that not all of us are convinced that using carbon fuels is as bad as some environmentalists would have us believe--which is, in large part, why no-one is really all that interested in paying more for alternative, more costly fuel.
Hydrogen Fuel Cells have been known since the 70s, and they're still not in consumer vehicles. Why is that? Because they would help break the lucrative business of the new oil barons. Sure switching to fuel cells would cost a lot of money up front - so what?
Hello, McFly... You suggest that fuel cells aren't in use because it would help break the lucrative oil barons, then recognize that fuel cells would cost a lot of money up-front...
Has it ever occurred to you that the reason we don't use fuel cells is precisely BECAUSE it is more expensive and it's a cost that we don't feel, on balance, is worth it? It's not the "oil barons" that are preventing the implementation of fuel cells... it is society that doesn't see a big enough benefit to justify spending the entire money.
You guys are the richest, most powerful nation in the world! Surely you could afford this...
Perhaps, but we'd rather spend our money on something else and that's our right. If you want to use fuel cells, go for it. I don't. Gas is currently cheaper and more efficient and I'm happy using it. Don't expect me, in those conditions, to be eager to switch to fuel cells that are going to cost me more...
My point is that the technology that has "fueled" the most hatred and misunderstanding in the twentieth century is the modern car engine.
Heheh, you must be related to Algore... While I see where you're coming from it's NOT the modern engine that has fueled so much hatred and misunderstanding--it's our source of oil. Much of that hatred and misunderstanding would go away if we'd just use our own domestic oil and oil from Mexico and maybe Venezuela.
Well, I said I was done, but what the heck. It's a good troll...
I did go read your links quite extensively, and it sounded like a lot of propaganda to me.
As does IPCC and most pro-global warming sites seem to me to be propaganda. I explicitly told you that you would probably see the sites as biased, but hopefully be able to read the "other" side, consider what you already know, and come up with a balanced view. I guess, even with my disclaimer, you were unable to do that.
if the US flatly refuses to make any effort to curb emissions, WHY THE HELL should any other country?
They shouldn't and we shouldn't ask them to.
But if they are expecting the U.S. to make cuts they shouldn't expect exemptions just because they are developing countries. All that will do is export pollution (and jobs) to developing countries without actually solving the problem.
Sounds like the only thing achieved is a wealth transfer from rich countries to poor countries. That economic system crashed and burned last century.
The US should be leading the way on this, providing the example for other countries to follow, and they can best afford to.
So we should say, "We can afford it. A few billion dollars. A few million jobs. Let's provide an example of what happens to an economy when jobs are exported overseas."
I'm fully in favor of free-trade and all that means. That means that we should ZERO import/export tarrifs and let the chips fall where they may. If Malaysia is more efficient at producing product X than we are, they should produce it and we should import it. And if we're more efficient at something else, we should export it.
But I am not going to accept that the U.S. unilaterally give up a competitive position. That's just stupid business. If we're going to solve the environment it has to be done TOGETHER. No exemptions for anyone. Anything less will NOT solve the environment but will cause a transfer of jobs and wealth to other countries--again, an economic system that died in the last millenium.
Further, since the "solutions" many environmentalists propose clearly will not do anything to help the environment but will cause a wealth transfer to developing nations, I must conclude that THAT is their real goal. And I am opposed to that.
And this has NOTHING to do with global warming - it should be done because its the right thing to do.
It's the right thing to do? It has nothing to do with global warming?
If it has nothing to do with global warming, then why is it the right thing to do? Why is it "right" to throw millions of Americans out of work and transfer those plants, jobs, and money to developing countries and pollute THEIR neighborhood? Why is that the right thing to do?
Come on, if you're now saying "It's not a matter of global warming" then you've given up the only possible justification for such a radical worldwide change. The developed worls is not going to accept a massive wealth transfer if it's just to make those countries richer at our expense. We struggled to be as productive as we are and they too will achieve what we've achieved... in time. It is not our job to make them rich today. It's their job to work for a better tomorrow.
You don't seem to be able to see it, but those sites are plainly propaganda mouthpieces.
I don't want to resort to name-calling, but IDIOT: RE-READ MY MESSAGE. I EXPLICITLY TOLD YOU THAT YOU'D SEE THEM AS BEING BIASED. Likewise I see most environmental sites and news as being biased propaganda. What the heck is the difference? What you see as propaganda I see as facts, and what you see as facts I see as propaganda...
... Which is fine. I'm just pissed off that you keep calling it propaganda when I already had told you that you'd probably think it was biased.
Whenever equipment measurements are not in their favour, they blame the equipment (even making sweeping statements in some cases like "3rd world equipment, badly maintained"). Basically any *evidence* that contradicts their own agendas they make up some BS why that is not valid.
Check the article again. Where they have said the measurements are wrong they have even supplied PICTURES where you can see the problems yourself.
If you can't see that these sites are *biased*, you are blind.
Hello, McFly! Re-read my previous post. I TOLD YOU THEY WERE BIASED. If you can't read my post then YOU are blind... This is what I get for getting into a discussion with an Anonymous Coward, i Know...
That said, I provided them to BALANCE the BIASED sites that YOU have been reading that promote the falacy of global warming.
Please provide me with some links to sites that you consider to not be biased? I'd be interested in seeing that...
I'm not saying that sites on the other side are not biased, on the contrary. Nor am I saying that this proves that global warming is happening, I'm not saying that at all. I'm just saying that these sites are definitely biased.
And I knew that, as I mentioned in my previous post.
That said, I'd like to see some links to sites that you consider worthy of me checking out. You know, some good unbiased sites that present the facts of global warming...
Note, *I* am not the one who is falling prey to propaganda here. YOU are the one who *refuses* to look at the issue from outside your already-decided position.
You know, I'm not rich. I'm currently an independent consultant that is currently without work. I don't have any investments that will be hurt whether global warming is true or false.
I have made my decision based on reading both sides of the story. My standpoint is, "No, I don't believe global warming is happening and in the absence of proof that it is I believe any solutions that disrupt the economy are not justified." There you have it.
Please, re-read this msg and previous msgs before replying. You either didn't read my previous posts or chose to ignore them when you replied and it'll save us both time if you'll not attack me on points that I've already conceded (that the sites I provided are biased)--with the exception of the site regarding mean sea level measured by Cap. Cook in New Zealand--that article seems to be completely unbiased, not supported by any corporate interest whatsoever. Check it out if you haven't already.
And, again, I'll be waiting for your list of reliable, unbiased sites with information regarding global warming so I can see what a truly independent and unbiased site on the topic looks like.
But now in order to get these MP3s, you rip the CD, which you cannot because of these restrictions!
But as someone else said, the tracks are already in MP3 format on P2P networks.
As has also been said, it's just a matter of finding CD-ROM drives that work. And if none truly does, just put the CD in a standard Discman, lineout->soundcard, done. It takes one person an hour to rip and share the CD rather than 10 minutes.
Net effect is that the music is shared anyway and those of us that only listen to music on our computers have one less reason to buy the CD. Besides the fact that it's Celine Dion...
The Bush administration did nothing for Enron because it was too late (therefore too dangerous).
Or, perhaps, just not appropriate.
But there's no question that the Bush administration is that of Big Oil - every aspect of the Bush foreign policy is dominated by this: the upcoming Desert Storm sequel, the non-condemnation of (and probable involvment in) the failed Venezuelan coup, Arctic Drilling, the privileged relation with the saudis, the many members of the cabinet who come from Big Oil companies, etc.
Many liberals have been complaining about this since the Gulf War.
Has it ever occurred to you that the reason EVERY administration is a "big oil" administration is because the U.S. is a "big oil" country? News flash: Without oil our country would collapse. It's strategically important to our politics, military, and economy.
Now, I'm not going to delve into the business dealings of the Bush, Clinton, or any other political family.
Any president that doesn't show the same level of concern about oil is a president that shouldn't be president. We are dependnent on it. If a candidate has prior investments before becoming president is he supposed to abandon the national interest in oil just because he's invested? That'd be absurd.
And, finally, believe me, it IS possible for people to be invested in something and still do what's right for the country. It's also possible for people in power to do what's right for the country and also have their investments benefit. The fact that someone's investments earn money by him doing something he'd have done anyway doesn't lessen the validity of what he did.
Well, yes, it doesn't take a genius to figure that even a relatively small rise in sea level would be extremely bad for millions of people who live along the coast, not to mention the negative economic impact.
What makes you think the sea level will rise? Because "warmer temperature, ice melts, sea level rises?" Ok, maybe it's that simple. Or maybe not.
In short, evidence shows that the sea level has fallen over the last 150 years despite the modest rise in temperatures in the early 1900's. That combined with the above links that show that many believe that global warming does not necessarily mean rising sea levels mean that even if there were global warming, it is far frrom certain that sea levels would rise.
Check the links out. The first one is especially convincing and interesting reading.
All in all I see you falling prey to lots of propaganda that has been repeated in the media but that a precious few have really taken the time to investigate. You automatically assume that there is global warming. You automatically assume that that means there would be a rise in sea level. You automatically assume that that would be bad for humans.
Unfortunately there isn't much middle ground. Whatever you read is either for it or against it--almost always with the disclaimer "...but we really don't know yet." I can give you evidence after evidence and you can discard it one after the other claiming it is biased. But from my point of view your sources are biased.
Data shows that average temperatures all over the world have been rising over the last 150 years. That much is a fact. Thats pretty undebatable evidence that the earth IS warming up. Additionally, ice at both poles *is* melting.
Bzz, wrong, try again. Better yet, check the following links for your own personal intellectual growth:
I highly recommend the last article. It shows that, among other things:
Of the 0.9 degrees that the temperature has risen since 1890, 2/3rd of the increase occured before 1940.
The majority of the the remaining 1/3rd of heating actually occured in 1998, and is attributed to an El Nino effect that year.
The satellite record and the surface record tend to coincide quite nicely (and show no significant warming, except for above mentioned El Nino) in N. America, Western Europe, and Australia where the surface record is more reliable. Most of the "global warming" is occuring in areas of the world where the surface record is not as reliable, such as S. America, Africa, Asia. That is, the surface temperature record only shows a deviation from the no-warming satellite trend in those areas with unreliable stations.
Since 1979, there has been no warming except for an El Nino event in 1998. In fact, were it not for the El Nino event there would have been global cooling since 1979.
There was also global cooling of -0.2C from 1940 to 1975.
So, no, there is not any undebatable evidence that the earth is warming up. I would say you've only looked at the global warming claims without truly investigating the facts. I invite you to start your investigation with the above links.
The question is not whether or not the earth is warming up, we *know* it is.
Again, wrong. We don't know that. In fact, the evidence disproves your assertion. Please review the above sites, including NASA, which contradict your belief.
The only debate left is what is *causing* it, whether or not it is "natural", and whether or not it is cause for alarm (which is not necessarily the same as whether or not it is natural - even if it turns out to be an entirely naturally-caused warming, if it might harm millions (or billions) of people, we should damn well do something about it anyway).
Again, I stress that the evidence cited above (and available elsewhere if you spend some time in google) shows that global warming is far from proven.
Even if there is global warming, again you make the assumption that it is bad. The earth has warmed and cooled many times in the last 4 billion years. The mini-ice age some 500 years ago cooled things off and, since then, earth has been rebounding to its pre-ice age temperature.
Are we really so arrogant as to believe that we can know whether global warming is bad? Especially if it's naturally occuring, who are we to alter that course just because we are used to things the way they are? Every species has to adapt... We are no exception. If the seas rise, we will move. If the seas fall, we'll extend our beaches. If there is more severe weather we'll build stronger homes.
I think the most important thing here, though, is that you review the above links. You seem to believe that global warming is an undebated fact. While many people have chosen to believe it due to rather one-sided reporting in the media, it is far from proven. Even if you consider some of the sources biased, at least they will balance the other bias you've been reading so far. PLEASE READ THE LINKS.
You seem to be quite convinced that global warming is NOT happening.
Yes, based on the evidence (or lack thereof) to-date, I'm quite convinced that global warming is not happening.
Since we're getting into the "nobody knows" mindset here, tell me, how do YOU know?
Well, I know there has been no global warming since 1979 when the satellite record was started. That's a fact.
In the light of the fact that there's been no global warming in the last 23 years, I need to be shown evidence that it IS happening to disregard the satellite record. And that evidence has to be VERY compelling.
The only way for you to *know*, would be if *you* had an accurate prediction model, which you just claimed noone has.
As I said, I only know that there hasn't been any in the last 23 years. That's the satellite record, and that's the fact. It's not based on assumptions, predictions, or personal beliefs. It is based on hard concrete data collected by satellites.
Whether there will be any global warming in the future I can't say any more than the envrionmentalists. But in the absence of compelling evidence that would somehow be more important than actual, concrete worldwide observations I have no reason to believe that it will occur.
Yet if that was the result they eventually chose, it sounds to me like you would be *satisfied* with that result - simply because it would fall in line with *your* opinion (and believe me, it *is* just an opinion).
You assume too much. No, I would not be satisfied. The whole excercise is a waste of time and even if they did publish results that contradicted global warming, the model itself would not be any more significant. It might give me hope in that the media would actually report something that contradicts the trendy global warming craze, but the model itself would remain as irrelevant as always.
That makes you about the same as them.
Actually it makes you just about the same as them since both you and they assume too much about unknown values.
And how, exactly, do you know what they're going to do, besides your Liberal Cabal of Environmentalists conspiracy theory?
It's the only thing that they can do. If they know the values then they don't need to run the model a million different times. Unless each run is using a different model, but I highly doubt that they have a million different models they want to test. They want to plug what should be known values into their probably-flawed models to see what works.
If we knew the reflectivity of Earth is 0.67, then we wouldn't use it as a parameter in the model. As you said yourself, they're choosing parameters that we don't already know.
You're probably right that that's what I said. What I meant, however, is they almost certainly will test values for variables we know and also those that we don't. When they run their models with known values, they don't work. They're looking for values that do.
If they manage to correctly predict the climate, and if all of the models that do so give the same future predictions, then they can quite legitimately be said to have calculated a prediction of the model. It doesn't prove the model, but getting predictions from a model is the first step. The prediction won't be borne out as valid until we can get independent confirmation for the parameters.
I agree, if they had multiple runs using different values that got the right answer for 2000 and they all predicted the same effect in the future then perhaps they'd be on to something.
But perhaps not. Like I've already said, if you have some fancy equation that takes numbers in and produces new numbers based on the input if you feed it enough random numbers you will eventually get the right answer for 2000. Different sets of random numbers might both get the right answer for 2000. Different sets of random numbers might even get the same answer for 2000 and predict the same effect for 2050. None of that is particularly convincing if the source of the numbers is random. It just proves the old theory that enough monkeys typing randomly for enough time will reproduce the works of Shakespear.
Incorrect. It's possible that the model could be right
It's possible it's right. So they should validate that by inserting the observed variables, entering the data for start year 1950 and see if it gets 2000 right. That's how they can test the model. Not by plugging in random numbers into a million runs of the model.
The real test will be to try it for two consecutive periods, both for which we have data. The first is used to determine the model parameters, and the other will be the control against which "future predictions" of the model are tested. That way, the model's predictions can be tested against real data. It will only test the model out to half as far as they want it, but it would be a solid test.
I'd agree with that.
What they ought to do is come up with a model that takes 1950 data and predicts 1975 and 2000 climate. See if it got it right. If it doesn't, keep working on the model--don't look for random values for variables that MAKE it work.
The thing that concerns me is that if they run these models and come up with some model that shows global warming for 2050 it'll certainly make news. After all, it "predicted" 2000 climate correctly so it will be spun such that everyone thinks the whole thing has been proven.
If, however, the model shows global cooling or no change I am reasonably sure that the model will be conveniently forgotten and there will be no news media reports.
The sad thing is that I'm NOT a cynical person, but I believe the above is true.
If we consider that Thawte is selling their 128-but SuperCerts [thawte.com] at the price of US $300 per year, which is not even the highest price on the market (Verisign, $348 [verisign.com], then: it is completely understandable that the price is similar, as they are supposed to go into similar actions to verify the authentity of the registran
Don't even get me started on SSL certification.:)
The whole thing is so bogus. The only thing SSL is good for is encryption. Do you or anyone else really get a warm fuzzy feeling when dealing with a website because it's supposedly been verified? I don't. I am reasonably confident no-one got my credit card number during transmission but, beyond that, I don't feel any safer about the site itself.
Thawte or Verisign "verifies" cert applicants? Please...
It is so easy to get a site a cert with totally bogus data. In fact, the whole thing is a hassle for those of us who "play by the book" to satisfy their document requirements. If I wanted to lie I could have easily gotten my cert in days with bogus data and they wouldn't have known better. Since I was honest they asked for documents I didn't have (they seem to have no concept of what documents a partnership has) and I had to end up registering the cert in my name personally.
It's all bogus. Certs should be $30/year and be nothing more than a way to secure communication between two points. Knowing what I know about Verisign/Thawte I have absolutely no confidence that they've really "validated" anyone I do business with and it's downright fraud to charge $300/year for a cert based on the assumption it has been properly verified.
Now WHO is pushing a political agenda and unwilling to accept any result that doesn't reinforce his preconceptions, huh? Looks to me like it's you...
Oh, come on. Give me some science I can believe in and I will. What these people are doing (by running millions of climate models) isn't science.
These people are essentially running a climate model with the same "starting variables" (1950) millions of times using different random values for the values they don't know (effect of greenhouse gases, effect of the sun, effect of plants, reflectance of the atmosphere, etc.). Then they can look through those results that are accurate to 2000 and then say, "Here is a model that works."
If the numbers plugged in for these variables are based on some logical scientific observation that suggests a value then that is ok and that is science. A scientist says, "The observed reflectivity of the Earth is 0.67. We plug it into our model and the model doesn't work; the model must be wrong."
These people, however, are running a million models and seeing which variables make the model right. They then (presumably) will go back and say, "Oh, this works if the reflectivity of the Eath is 0.34. Well, the observed reflectivity of the Earth is 0.67, but 0.34 is what makes the model work. There must be something wrong with the observed reflectivity. It must be more reflective now than it was; probably because there are more greenhouse gases. See, we need to reduce CO2 emissions!"
The point is: Climate models are currently inaccurate and they know it. Their models haven't been able to correctly predict the actual climate observed 1900-2000. What they want to do here is run their model millions of time until they find some combination of variables that produces the right climate data for the year 2000. Their conclusion, then, is their model worked.
That's not science. They are trying to find values for their model that should be obtained by scientific observation--those values should be used and the model refined until it produces the correct answer based on the known variables.
Rather, they want to find the values that make their current model work. But that supposes that the model itself is right. But if the model was right they wouldn't have to do this in the first place.
But mark my words. When this process is done (if anyone participates) you'll see a story on CNN (and a few weeks later on Slashdot) about how they now have a climate model that successfully predicted 1950-2000 climate and which further predicts additional warming for 2000-2050. "It must be right because it guessed 1950-2000." Well, yeah, but a million monkeys will eventually guess it right, too--but I wouldn't trust those same monkeys to guess 2000-2050 correctly.
The bank corrected the distribution of capital to allow the laborer to take advantage of his labor and his raw materials to create wealth.
What? I see you posted this at 8:33am, probably before your first cup of coffee.
First, your comment "corrected the distribution of capital," as if the previous distribution was incorrect, contaminates any reasonable chance of having a logical discussion with you. Not to get into calling people "communists" (that is so 80s) but it's hard to read your statement any other way.
The laborer didn't take advantage of his labor and his raw materials to create wealth (i.e. buy a house and a car). If he had to take advantage of only his labor and his raw materials he wouldn't be buying a car or a house, at least not for another 5 or 30 years, respectively.
Instead, the bank enabled the laborer to take advantage of someone ELSES labor and raw materials (the 40b earned and deposited by MS) to obtain what he wants and create wealth. The laborer didn't create the wealth, the depositor did via the banking system.
I'd suggest that you stop posting on the subject of economics until you've taken a good macroeconomics course.
I will assume you are young. Wisdom will (hopefully) catch up with you in time if you don't run too quickly.
Predicting climate 50 years in the future is a computationally difficult task, but it isn't impossible the way that predicting weather would be.
Perhaps it's not impossible, but no-one has been able to do it yet. That's why they're resorting to this...
Can anybody read between the lines here? They're essentially saying, "Every climate model we have (that predicts global warming) wasn't able to accurately predict the global warming 1900-2000. We're fresh out of ideas so let's run a couple of million models with varying random values. When one of them (inevitably) comes pretty close we can cling to that as "proving" it to be a working model and use its results as convincing evidence that we must cut CO2 production or we will all die."
I'm not giving these jokers a minute of my CPU time. They are guessing. They don't have a workable model so instead of trying to keep thinking they're in a rush to get a "verified" (by passed events) model within a year so they can try to use the results to push their political agenda. The fact that a few of the millions of models they run correctly guesses the last 50 years of climate change is no indication it will predict future climate change unless there is a reasonable belief that the model was based on some logic. These models are based on random guesses at chaotic values.
Trust me, the results are already known. It will show global warming for 2000-2050. Can you imagine the coup if the random model that happened to guess 1950-2000 also showed global cooling of 5 degrees in the next 5 decades? How much you wanna bet that that result would NEVER see the light of day...
I no longer buy CDs. I get all my music via P2P. I'm not ashamed to say that.
The current "sharing" environment was created by the RIAA and their monopolistic price gouging. They had 50+ years to make a killing and they did so. Perhaps they thought the gravy train would never end--they were able to stick it to the consumer AND to the artists.
Now, alternatives exist. Yes, they're free. No, the RIAA can't and won't be able to compete.
Their price gouging LED to the creation of technologies that circumvent them completely. Perhaps if they had priced reasonably no-one would have bothered; but they gave everyone all the incentive they needed to develop and deploy P2P networks by charging what they've charged us for cassettes and, recently, CDs. Now that P2P exists it's a little late for them to come up with their own digital distribution scheme. It's already been done and, again, yes, IT'S FREE.
Under current copyright law much of the trading that occurs may be illegal. But keep in mind that the RIAA only has a legal leg to stand on because they FORCE their artists to assign their copyrights to the RIAA monopoly. "Ok, yeah, we'll give you a contract. But all your creative works is belong to us."
Am I really supposed to feel bad about sharing music when the only reason the offended parties (RIAA) even have a say in the matter is because they virtually stolen the work from the real creators? "Hey, you P2P can't do that. That's stealing! Only the RIAA is allowed to steal from the artists!"
Puuuhhhlllleeeeasee....
Music is free now. P2P is what radio was, a way to hear music. Free. If artists want to make money then they can tour and we can go to their concerts. No, they aren't going to make millions of dollars by spending a couple of weeks in a recording studio and sitting on their butts collecting royalties. That time has passed...
I'm wondering exactly how it is that you feel the MS cesspool, to use our term for it, was collected if not for favorable tax laws allowing its collection under the theory that it was better for the economy...
I think we're discussing different things which may be why we're not agreeing on much.
Someone simply mentioned "If MS has $40b and is earning interest won't they eventually have all the money and leave everyone else poor." I attempted to explain why this could not happen.
Whether or not it is "right" for MS to have so much money is a topic for another discussion. And THAT is a discussion I don't have time for right now.:)
...is that the wealth creation is concentrated, i.e. only a handful of people are actually benefitting. If you are arguing that MS is making a handful of investors and financial executives rich, then we agree.
We don't agree.
The $40b cesspool is the RESULT of Microsoft getting rich. The cesspool itself isn't making the investors themselves any money, i.e., they aren't receiving dividends. That's why if I were an MS investor I'd be pissed off.
In that case, I am confused why you mentioned mortgages, which for the overwhelming majority of Americans are subsidized by tax credits and GSE's such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
I've repeated this many times in this thread. Please search on my name to find more in-depth posts. The summary is that: "The $40 bil is deposited in banks which subsequently loan money to thousands of people to do things such as buy houses and cars. Without deposits banks would not be able to do that."
So, yes, even though I don't have the $40 bil I can receive some benefits of it in that there is more money available in the banking system that I can borrow. This gives me buying power I would not otherwise have.
We've been having this argument on "wealth creation" in the US since Reagan, and I would think that after David Stockman himself called Reaganomics BS, that this trickle-down nonsense would have died out by now. It hasn't. But I will give you credit for attempting to argue that extraordinary collections of liquid assets provide benefits to others than those who hold them.
While I agree, in theory, with the "trick-down nonsense," this has absolutely nothing to do with it.
It's a simple matter of basic economics. The banks receive deposits, loan that money out to many others which, in the process, stimulates the entire economy to create more wealth. As another poster has even told me not even the liberals supposedly disagree with this. It's one of the foundations of our economy and there really isn't much debate about whether or not it is true. If everyone took their savings and hid it under their pillow, believe me, we'd be looking at an economic crisis that would make the great depression look like a picnic.
Trickle-down was more about giving large tax cuts to the wealthy based on the assumption that that will give them more money that they may invest in their business and, subsequently, hire more people and improve the economy such that everyone makes out well. What we're talking about isn't taxes and thus not trickle-down--it's the affect of the banking system in our economy.
No, no, no -- the bank never generated $300 worth of wealth. The bank at best enabled someone to labor more efficiently by acting as a central access point for capital by those who have it and those who want it.
Uhm, ok, semantics. Call it what you will. The fact is that the bank enabled the creation of more wealth than the laborer.
So the more money you owe, the wealthier you are?
Paying an interest premium to borrow someone else's money to buy depreciating (most) cars does not equate to "wealth creation" for the car buyer.
Wealth creation doesn't mean the borrower is richer. The borrower obtains immediate graitifaction by obtaining a product that he either would not be able to obtain, or to obtain for 5 or 30 years. Cars depreciated, real estate usually appreciates.
In any case, the "wealth creation" happens at macroeconomic level. As I mentioned in another post in this thread you have to consider the immediate creation (or maintenance) of jobs building the cars and houses. The 40b allowed the borrower to purchase items that they would not have otherwise been able to purchase, and those purchases allowed many thousands of people to be gainfully employed.
THAT'S the wealth creation... not whether or not someone is in debt or not.
When did you take the last econ class? Don't you realize that if they pay out dividends there will be still the same amount of money in the system, i.e., the same amount of money available for loans. If they payout dividends, the money just goes from one account to another. Nothing changes for the BANK! or the money available for loans.
Sure it does. If you have 40 billion in the bank, that's a lot of money for the bank to loan out. However, if you distribute that money to millions of stockholders it is entirely possible not all of them will deposit it in their banks.
That said, I was never saying that it's a good thing Microsoft doesn't pay dividends. With that much money I'd be pissed off if I was an investor and wasn't getting dividends. But the fact that they have 40 billion in the bank isn't harming the economy as a whole. It might even be helping it if the investors spend, rather than save, their dividends.
Wealth is finite in terms of present value -- how much am I wealth do I have at some fixed point. Obviously this has to be a finite number -- nobody is worth infinity.
On that we agree. My statement is not that there is an infinite amount of CURRENT wealth, but that there is an infinite amount of potential FUTURE wealth. If I make a billion dollars today that does NOT need to mean that the rest of the world lost a billion.
The statement that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer is about the trends in wealth distribution towards fewer, wealthier people and more, poorer people. Attempting to dispute this by claiming that "liberals believe in a finite amount of wealth" is disengenious at best and just insulting at worst.
If you'll re-read one of my previous posts, I said that those that say that "the rich got richer" SO "the poor got poorer" is an indication that they believe in a finite amount of wealth. If they believe that as a RESULT of the rich getting ticher the poor got poorer then, yes, they believe in a finite amount of wealth.
I will agree that those that observe that "the rich got richer and the poor got poorer" are not necessarily saying that there is a finite amount of wealth. Actually, the people saying this are just wrong at best or insulting at worst, to use your words, since looking at government income per population segment since 1970 I have yet to find a single year where the rich got richer AND the poor got poorer. I've found years that the rich got richer faster than the poor got richer, but I have yet to find a year where the poor got poorer as the rich got richer...
But, that's beside the point. The point is that the people that use that cliche don't automatically believe in finite wealth. But those that say "the richer got richer so the poor got poorer" DO believe in finite wealth.
You're not possibly agreeing with the labor theory of value are you?
Are you suggesting that I ever said we just all sit on our butts and somehow let banks create income for us? Never said that.
*labor* produces wealth. Someone who can loan you money to more efficiently utilize your labor (ie, buy a truck instead of walking to deliver your product).
Labor produces wealth, banks multiply it. I might be able to earn $100 today. But if I deposit that in the bank the bank will be able to use it in ways that may be able to create $400 of wealth for the economy as a whole. THAT'S what I'm saying.
Both are necessary, although there is far more emphasis and reward through finance-based wealth generation than labor-based generation
I agree, both are necessary. Banks can't function if no-one works and no-one earns money. But, given the reality that people need to work to earn a living, banks actually create more wealth than a labroer. I.e., my example above where my $100 turns into $400. I generated $100 of wealth, and the bank generated $300 of wealth with that. So, yes, there is more emphasis on the financial side because it does produce more wealth than a laborer. Of course, if all the laborers stop laboring then we're toast. But that's not reality.
You claimed that a (what is the word? cesspool?) of liquid assets of that size feeds into wealth creation through capitalistic use of the banking system.
Not withstanding your complaints about corruption, yes, those assets do allow for wealth creation through capitalistic use of the banking system.
I won't disagree that that much money is, perhaps, a temptation or even SOURCE of abuse. Money, like anything, can be misused.
But the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of that money that's just "sitting in a cesspool" allows banks to loan money to people in the BANKS quest for more money. They can't pay MS a billion a month in interest if they just misuse the funds.
So while I appreciate your concern about corruption and totally agree that it should be dealt with, and many times is not properly dealt with, it does not invalidate the fundamental fact that large amounts of cash DO create wealth for many totally unconnected parties in the economy.
In fact, the only thing that really seems to get "created", is debt. I'm actually not trolling, I've just never understood how it is that we create wealth as opposed to simply redistributing it.
Look at it this way. If Microsoft takes 40b and puts it underneath Bill's pillow they've effectively taken that money out of circulation. The money isn't doing anything. Your bank doesn't have any money to loan you so you can't buy that house and car.
When they put it in a bank the bank uses that money to loan to people; I think they're permitted to loan 70% of deposits, but someone correct me if I'm wrong. But let's say it's 70%. So of that 40b they're allowed to loan 28b. Assuming your house and car together cost $250k, banks can loan that money out so that 112,000 people can buy a new house and buy a new car. And they do, because that's our culture.
So... You and 111,999 people take out loans and buy a new house and a new car. For the sake of argument let's say it takes 5 people to build a house -- those 112,000 houses allow 560,000 people to be employed for the time it takes to build those houses. Likewise, some number of people are employed to build, distribute, and sell the 112,000 cars.
So... The fact that Microsoft has deposited 40b in a bank allows 112,000 to buy houses (that's your benefit), allows 560,000-600,000 to have jobs building houses and cars (that's their benefit), allows the bank to make a profit and pay their employees (that's the bank's benefit), and allows Microsoft to earn (I heard) a billion a month in interest (that's Microsoft's benefit).
Microsoft still technically has 40 billion dollars to play with. But that 40 billion has created wealth in the banking, housing, automotive, and shipping industries. And you got a house and a car!
If banks didn't have money to loan you, the majority of those 112,000 people probably wouldn't be able to buy a car and almost no-one would be able to afford a house. So the automotive workers and house builders would most likely be out of a job...
That's how the whole "wealth creation through the banking system" works.
Don't be stupid, liberals do not believe in a "finite" amount of money
Perhaps not all, but many do. They believe that if the "rich got richer" that means the "poor got poorer." When they wack off cliche lines like that they are implicitly saying that they believe in a finite amount of wealth.
They believe that wealth is created through labor, unlike conservatives, who believe that wealth is created through interest, forgetting that wealth created through interest is destroyed through inflation.
Uhm, I know NO-ONE (Democrat nor Republican) who believes that wealth is created by interest. Interest is a by-product. Wealth is created by the banking system that takes Microsoft's money and loans it to thousands of people which allows them to further their economic goals, purchasing cars and houses that would otherwise have been unaccessible to them.
The banking system permits wealth creation, not interest. Of course, everyone has to WORK to create wealth, but banks allow the effect of that work to be multiplied.
For someone who made a crack about a/. reader not having taken any economics classes, you obviously don't know your macro economics very well either.
I'm fine on macro economics. You either misunderstood my post or are yourself a little bit lacking in study. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you read my original post too quickly.
It's a nice little system called corruption and it allows wealth to be CONCENTRATED, at least until the market collapses.
This has nothing to do with the original topic of wealth creation through capitalistic use of the banking system.
Unfortunately, just as handling cost overruns on single-source no-bid cost-plus contracts is not taught in CS 101, practical tips on perpetrating multimillion-dollar market frauds aren't going to be covered in ECON 101.
It's fraud and will be prosecuted. See previous paragraph about your reply having nothing to do with topic at hand.
Instead, you'll be taught happy little myths about friction-free perfect meetings of supply and demand, which is like discussing Earth's gravitational pull while disregarding Earth's atmosphere when trying to understand aviation.
Uhm, see previous paragraph about your reply having nothing to do with the topic at hand.
My guess is, though, that you were burned by Enron. My condolences.
... But you having been burned by Enron doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, oil is not the problem. It's WHERE we get it.
The U.S. should do the responsible thing and obtain as much as possible from within our own borders, including Alaska, and import it--when necessary--from more stable and friendly countries such as Mexico.
Sure, alternative energy is a good goal. But it doesn't help us today. For the time being we need to exploit our own oil reserves and reduce our dependency on unstable, Arab oil while we look for a good alternative.
1 Yeah, too bad it rarely happens, and when it does happen, it's to the benefit of HIS country, not the Earth and humanity as a whole.
I don't feel like getting into an environmental debate today; suffice it to say that not all of us are convinced that using carbon fuels is as bad as some environmentalists would have us believe--which is, in large part, why no-one is really all that interested in paying more for alternative, more costly fuel.
Hydrogen Fuel Cells have been known since the 70s, and they're still not in consumer vehicles. Why is that? Because they would help break the lucrative business of the new oil barons. Sure switching to fuel cells would cost a lot of money up front - so what?
Hello, McFly... You suggest that fuel cells aren't in use because it would help break the lucrative oil barons, then recognize that fuel cells would cost a lot of money up-front...
Has it ever occurred to you that the reason we don't use fuel cells is precisely BECAUSE it is more expensive and it's a cost that we don't feel, on balance, is worth it? It's not the "oil barons" that are preventing the implementation of fuel cells... it is society that doesn't see a big enough benefit to justify spending the entire money.
You guys are the richest, most powerful nation in the world! Surely you could afford this...
Perhaps, but we'd rather spend our money on something else and that's our right. If you want to use fuel cells, go for it. I don't. Gas is currently cheaper and more efficient and I'm happy using it. Don't expect me, in those conditions, to be eager to switch to fuel cells that are going to cost me more...
My point is that the technology that has "fueled" the most hatred and misunderstanding in the twentieth century is the modern car engine.
Heheh, you must be related to Algore... While I see where you're coming from it's NOT the modern engine that has fueled so much hatred and misunderstanding--it's our source of oil. Much of that hatred and misunderstanding would go away if we'd just use our own domestic oil and oil from Mexico and maybe Venezuela.
I did go read your links quite extensively, and it sounded like a lot of propaganda to me.
As does IPCC and most pro-global warming sites seem to me to be propaganda. I explicitly told you that you would probably see the sites as biased, but hopefully be able to read the "other" side, consider what you already know, and come up with a balanced view. I guess, even with my disclaimer, you were unable to do that.
if the US flatly refuses to make any effort to curb emissions, WHY THE HELL should any other country?
They shouldn't and we shouldn't ask them to.
But if they are expecting the U.S. to make cuts they shouldn't expect exemptions just because they are developing countries. All that will do is export pollution (and jobs) to developing countries without actually solving the problem.
Sounds like the only thing achieved is a wealth transfer from rich countries to poor countries. That economic system crashed and burned last century.
The US should be leading the way on this, providing the example for other countries to follow, and they can best afford to.
So we should say, "We can afford it. A few billion dollars. A few million jobs. Let's provide an example of what happens to an economy when jobs are exported overseas."
I'm fully in favor of free-trade and all that means. That means that we should ZERO import/export tarrifs and let the chips fall where they may. If Malaysia is more efficient at producing product X than we are, they should produce it and we should import it. And if we're more efficient at something else, we should export it.
But I am not going to accept that the U.S. unilaterally give up a competitive position. That's just stupid business. If we're going to solve the environment it has to be done TOGETHER. No exemptions for anyone. Anything less will NOT solve the environment but will cause a transfer of jobs and wealth to other countries--again, an economic system that died in the last millenium.
Further, since the "solutions" many environmentalists propose clearly will not do anything to help the environment but will cause a wealth transfer to developing nations, I must conclude that THAT is their real goal. And I am opposed to that.
And this has NOTHING to do with global warming - it should be done because its the right thing to do.
It's the right thing to do? It has nothing to do with global warming?
If it has nothing to do with global warming, then why is it the right thing to do? Why is it "right" to throw millions of Americans out of work and transfer those plants, jobs, and money to developing countries and pollute THEIR neighborhood? Why is that the right thing to do?
Come on, if you're now saying "It's not a matter of global warming" then you've given up the only possible justification for such a radical worldwide change. The developed worls is not going to accept a massive wealth transfer if it's just to make those countries richer at our expense. We struggled to be as productive as we are and they too will achieve what we've achieved... in time. It is not our job to make them rich today. It's their job to work for a better tomorrow.
You don't seem to be able to see it, but those sites are plainly propaganda mouthpieces.
I don't want to resort to name-calling, but IDIOT: RE-READ MY MESSAGE. I EXPLICITLY TOLD YOU THAT YOU'D SEE THEM AS BEING BIASED. Likewise I see most environmental sites and news as being biased propaganda. What the heck is the difference? What you see as propaganda I see as facts, and what you see as facts I see as propaganda...
Whenever equipment measurements are not in their favour, they blame the equipment (even making sweeping statements in some cases like "3rd world equipment, badly maintained"). Basically any *evidence* that contradicts their own agendas they make up some BS why that is not valid.
Check the article again. Where they have said the measurements are wrong they have even supplied PICTURES where you can see the problems yourself.
If you can't see that these sites are *biased*, you are blind.
Hello, McFly! Re-read my previous post. I TOLD YOU THEY WERE BIASED. If you can't read my post then YOU are blind... This is what I get for getting into a discussion with an Anonymous Coward, i Know...
That said, I provided them to BALANCE the BIASED sites that YOU have been reading that promote the falacy of global warming.
Please provide me with some links to sites that you consider to not be biased? I'd be interested in seeing that...
I'm not saying that sites on the other side are not biased, on the contrary. Nor am I saying that this proves that global warming is happening, I'm not saying that at all. I'm just saying that these sites are definitely biased.
And I knew that, as I mentioned in my previous post.
That said, I'd like to see some links to sites that you consider worthy of me checking out. You know, some good unbiased sites that present the facts of global warming...
Note, *I* am not the one who is falling prey to propaganda here. YOU are the one who *refuses* to look at the issue from outside your already-decided position.
You know, I'm not rich. I'm currently an independent consultant that is currently without work. I don't have any investments that will be hurt whether global warming is true or false.
I have made my decision based on reading both sides of the story. My standpoint is, "No, I don't believe global warming is happening and in the absence of proof that it is I believe any solutions that disrupt the economy are not justified." There you have it.
Please, re-read this msg and previous msgs before replying. You either didn't read my previous posts or chose to ignore them when you replied and it'll save us both time if you'll not attack me on points that I've already conceded (that the sites I provided are biased)--with the exception of the site regarding mean sea level measured by Cap. Cook in New Zealand--that article seems to be completely unbiased, not supported by any corporate interest whatsoever. Check it out if you haven't already.
And, again, I'll be waiting for your list of reliable, unbiased sites with information regarding global warming so I can see what a truly independent and unbiased site on the topic looks like.
But as someone else said, the tracks are already in MP3 format on P2P networks.
As has also been said, it's just a matter of finding CD-ROM drives that work. And if none truly does, just put the CD in a standard Discman, lineout->soundcard, done. It takes one person an hour to rip and share the CD rather than 10 minutes.
Net effect is that the music is shared anyway and those of us that only listen to music on our computers have one less reason to buy the CD. Besides the fact that it's Celine Dion...
Or, perhaps, just not appropriate.
But there's no question that the Bush administration is that of Big Oil - every aspect of the Bush foreign policy is dominated by this: the upcoming Desert Storm sequel, the non-condemnation of (and probable involvment in) the failed Venezuelan coup, Arctic Drilling, the privileged relation with the saudis, the many members of the cabinet who come from Big Oil companies, etc.
Many liberals have been complaining about this since the Gulf War.
Has it ever occurred to you that the reason EVERY administration is a "big oil" administration is because the U.S. is a "big oil" country? News flash: Without oil our country would collapse. It's strategically important to our politics, military, and economy.
Now, I'm not going to delve into the business dealings of the Bush, Clinton, or any other political family.
Any president that doesn't show the same level of concern about oil is a president that shouldn't be president. We are dependnent on it. If a candidate has prior investments before becoming president is he supposed to abandon the national interest in oil just because he's invested? That'd be absurd.
And, finally, believe me, it IS possible for people to be invested in something and still do what's right for the country. It's also possible for people in power to do what's right for the country and also have their investments benefit. The fact that someone's investments earn money by him doing something he'd have done anyway doesn't lessen the validity of what he did.
What makes you think the sea level will rise? Because "warmer temperature, ice melts, sea level rises?" Ok, maybe it's that simple. Or maybe not.
Sea level has fallen 30cm in last 150 years in NZ
Global warming will not cause sea level rise
Sea levels falling in Tuvalu
In short, evidence shows that the sea level has fallen over the last 150 years despite the modest rise in temperatures in the early 1900's. That combined with the above links that show that many believe that global warming does not necessarily mean rising sea levels mean that even if there were global warming, it is far frrom certain that sea levels would rise.
Check the links out. The first one is especially convincing and interesting reading.
All in all I see you falling prey to lots of propaganda that has been repeated in the media but that a precious few have really taken the time to investigate. You automatically assume that there is global warming. You automatically assume that that means there would be a rise in sea level. You automatically assume that that would be bad for humans.
Unfortunately there isn't much middle ground. Whatever you read is either for it or against it--almost always with the disclaimer "...but we really don't know yet." I can give you evidence after evidence and you can discard it one after the other claiming it is biased. But from my point of view your sources are biased.
That said, I think I'm done.
Bzz, wrong, try again. Better yet, check the following links for your own personal intellectual growth:
Corrected Satellite Record still doesn't shown global warming
Ice caps have been melting since last ice age
Satellite record shows no warming in NA, Europe, neither does surface record
I highly recommend the last article. It shows that, among other things:
- Of the 0.9 degrees that the temperature has risen since 1890, 2/3rd of the increase occured before 1940.
- The majority of the the remaining 1/3rd of heating actually occured in 1998, and is attributed to an El Nino effect that year.
- The satellite record and the surface record tend to coincide quite nicely (and show no significant warming, except for above mentioned El Nino) in N. America, Western Europe, and Australia where the surface record is more reliable. Most of the "global warming" is occuring in areas of the world where the surface record is not as reliable, such as S. America, Africa, Asia. That is, the surface temperature record only shows a deviation from the no-warming satellite trend in those areas with unreliable stations.
- Since 1979, there has been no warming except for an El Nino event in 1998. In fact, were it not for the El Nino event there would have been global cooling since 1979.
- There was also global cooling of -0.2C from 1940 to 1975.
So, no, there is not any undebatable evidence that the earth is warming up. I would say you've only looked at the global warming claims without truly investigating the facts. I invite you to start your investigation with the above links.The question is not whether or not the earth is warming up, we *know* it is.
Again, wrong. We don't know that. In fact, the evidence disproves your assertion. Please review the above sites, including NASA, which contradict your belief.
The only debate left is what is *causing* it, whether or not it is "natural", and whether or not it is cause for alarm (which is not necessarily the same as whether or not it is natural - even if it turns out to be an entirely naturally-caused warming, if it might harm millions (or billions) of people, we should damn well do something about it anyway).
Again, I stress that the evidence cited above (and available elsewhere if you spend some time in google) shows that global warming is far from proven.
Even if there is global warming, again you make the assumption that it is bad. The earth has warmed and cooled many times in the last 4 billion years. The mini-ice age some 500 years ago cooled things off and, since then, earth has been rebounding to its pre-ice age temperature.
Are we really so arrogant as to believe that we can know whether global warming is bad? Especially if it's naturally occuring, who are we to alter that course just because we are used to things the way they are? Every species has to adapt... We are no exception. If the seas rise, we will move. If the seas fall, we'll extend our beaches. If there is more severe weather we'll build stronger homes.
I think the most important thing here, though, is that you review the above links. You seem to believe that global warming is an undebated fact. While many people have chosen to believe it due to rather one-sided reporting in the media, it is far from proven. Even if you consider some of the sources biased, at least they will balance the other bias you've been reading so far. PLEASE READ THE LINKS.
Yes, based on the evidence (or lack thereof) to-date, I'm quite convinced that global warming is not happening.
Since we're getting into the "nobody knows" mindset here, tell me, how do YOU know?
Well, I know there has been no global warming since 1979 when the satellite record was started. That's a fact.
In the light of the fact that there's been no global warming in the last 23 years, I need to be shown evidence that it IS happening to disregard the satellite record. And that evidence has to be VERY compelling.
The only way for you to *know*, would be if *you* had an accurate prediction model, which you just claimed noone has.
As I said, I only know that there hasn't been any in the last 23 years. That's the satellite record, and that's the fact. It's not based on assumptions, predictions, or personal beliefs. It is based on hard concrete data collected by satellites.
Whether there will be any global warming in the future I can't say any more than the envrionmentalists. But in the absence of compelling evidence that would somehow be more important than actual, concrete worldwide observations I have no reason to believe that it will occur.
Yet if that was the result they eventually chose, it sounds to me like you would be *satisfied* with that result - simply because it would fall in line with *your* opinion (and believe me, it *is* just an opinion).
You assume too much. No, I would not be satisfied. The whole excercise is a waste of time and even if they did publish results that contradicted global warming, the model itself would not be any more significant. It might give me hope in that the media would actually report something that contradicts the trendy global warming craze, but the model itself would remain as irrelevant as always.
That makes you about the same as them.
Actually it makes you just about the same as them since both you and they assume too much about unknown values.
It's the only thing that they can do. If they know the values then they don't need to run the model a million different times. Unless each run is using a different model, but I highly doubt that they have a million different models they want to test. They want to plug what should be known values into their probably-flawed models to see what works.
If we knew the reflectivity of Earth is 0.67, then we wouldn't use it as a parameter in the model. As you said yourself, they're choosing parameters that we don't already know.
You're probably right that that's what I said. What I meant, however, is they almost certainly will test values for variables we know and also those that we don't. When they run their models with known values, they don't work. They're looking for values that do.
If they manage to correctly predict the climate, and if all of the models that do so give the same future predictions, then they can quite legitimately be said to have calculated a prediction of the model. It doesn't prove the model, but getting predictions from a model is the first step. The prediction won't be borne out as valid until we can get independent confirmation for the parameters.
I agree, if they had multiple runs using different values that got the right answer for 2000 and they all predicted the same effect in the future then perhaps they'd be on to something.
But perhaps not. Like I've already said, if you have some fancy equation that takes numbers in and produces new numbers based on the input if you feed it enough random numbers you will eventually get the right answer for 2000. Different sets of random numbers might both get the right answer for 2000. Different sets of random numbers might even get the same answer for 2000 and predict the same effect for 2050. None of that is particularly convincing if the source of the numbers is random. It just proves the old theory that enough monkeys typing randomly for enough time will reproduce the works of Shakespear.
Incorrect. It's possible that the model could be right
It's possible it's right. So they should validate that by inserting the observed variables, entering the data for start year 1950 and see if it gets 2000 right. That's how they can test the model. Not by plugging in random numbers into a million runs of the model.
The real test will be to try it for two consecutive periods, both for which we have data. The first is used to determine the model parameters, and the other will be the control against which "future predictions" of the model are tested. That way, the model's predictions can be tested against real data. It will only test the model out to half as far as they want it, but it would be a solid test.
I'd agree with that.
What they ought to do is come up with a model that takes 1950 data and predicts 1975 and 2000 climate. See if it got it right. If it doesn't, keep working on the model--don't look for random values for variables that MAKE it work.
The thing that concerns me is that if they run these models and come up with some model that shows global warming for 2050 it'll certainly make news. After all, it "predicted" 2000 climate correctly so it will be spun such that everyone thinks the whole thing has been proven.
If, however, the model shows global cooling or no change I am reasonably sure that the model will be conveniently forgotten and there will be no news media reports.
The sad thing is that I'm NOT a cynical person, but I believe the above is true.
Don't even get me started on SSL certification. :)
The whole thing is so bogus. The only thing SSL is good for is encryption. Do you or anyone else really get a warm fuzzy feeling when dealing with a website because it's supposedly been verified? I don't. I am reasonably confident no-one got my credit card number during transmission but, beyond that, I don't feel any safer about the site itself.
Thawte or Verisign "verifies" cert applicants? Please...
It is so easy to get a site a cert with totally bogus data. In fact, the whole thing is a hassle for those of us who "play by the book" to satisfy their document requirements. If I wanted to lie I could have easily gotten my cert in days with bogus data and they wouldn't have known better. Since I was honest they asked for documents I didn't have (they seem to have no concept of what documents a partnership has) and I had to end up registering the cert in my name personally.
It's all bogus. Certs should be $30/year and be nothing more than a way to secure communication between two points. Knowing what I know about Verisign/Thawte I have absolutely no confidence that they've really "validated" anyone I do business with and it's downright fraud to charge $300/year for a cert based on the assumption it has been properly verified.
Oh, come on. Give me some science I can believe in and I will. What these people are doing (by running millions of climate models) isn't science.
These people are essentially running a climate model with the same "starting variables" (1950) millions of times using different random values for the values they don't know (effect of greenhouse gases, effect of the sun, effect of plants, reflectance of the atmosphere, etc.). Then they can look through those results that are accurate to 2000 and then say, "Here is a model that works."
If the numbers plugged in for these variables are based on some logical scientific observation that suggests a value then that is ok and that is science. A scientist says, "The observed reflectivity of the Earth is 0.67. We plug it into our model and the model doesn't work; the model must be wrong."
These people, however, are running a million models and seeing which variables make the model right. They then (presumably) will go back and say, "Oh, this works if the reflectivity of the Eath is 0.34. Well, the observed reflectivity of the Earth is 0.67, but 0.34 is what makes the model work. There must be something wrong with the observed reflectivity. It must be more reflective now than it was; probably because there are more greenhouse gases. See, we need to reduce CO2 emissions!"
The point is: Climate models are currently inaccurate and they know it. Their models haven't been able to correctly predict the actual climate observed 1900-2000. What they want to do here is run their model millions of time until they find some combination of variables that produces the right climate data for the year 2000. Their conclusion, then, is their model worked.
That's not science. They are trying to find values for their model that should be obtained by scientific observation--those values should be used and the model refined until it produces the correct answer based on the known variables.
Rather, they want to find the values that make their current model work. But that supposes that the model itself is right. But if the model was right they wouldn't have to do this in the first place.
But mark my words. When this process is done (if anyone participates) you'll see a story on CNN (and a few weeks later on Slashdot) about how they now have a climate model that successfully predicted 1950-2000 climate and which further predicts additional warming for 2000-2050. "It must be right because it guessed 1950-2000." Well, yeah, but a million monkeys will eventually guess it right, too--but I wouldn't trust those same monkeys to guess 2000-2050 correctly.
What? I see you posted this at 8:33am, probably before your first cup of coffee.
First, your comment "corrected the distribution of capital," as if the previous distribution was incorrect, contaminates any reasonable chance of having a logical discussion with you. Not to get into calling people "communists" (that is so 80s) but it's hard to read your statement any other way.
The laborer didn't take advantage of his labor and his raw materials to create wealth (i.e. buy a house and a car). If he had to take advantage of only his labor and his raw materials he wouldn't be buying a car or a house, at least not for another 5 or 30 years, respectively.
Instead, the bank enabled the laborer to take advantage of someone ELSES labor and raw materials (the 40b earned and deposited by MS) to obtain what he wants and create wealth. The laborer didn't create the wealth, the depositor did via the banking system.
I'd suggest that you stop posting on the subject of economics until you've taken a good macroeconomics course.
I will assume you are young. Wisdom will (hopefully) catch up with you in time if you don't run too quickly.
Perhaps it's not impossible, but no-one has been able to do it yet. That's why they're resorting to this...
Can anybody read between the lines here? They're essentially saying, "Every climate model we have (that predicts global warming) wasn't able to accurately predict the global warming 1900-2000. We're fresh out of ideas so let's run a couple of million models with varying random values. When one of them (inevitably) comes pretty close we can cling to that as "proving" it to be a working model and use its results as convincing evidence that we must cut CO2 production or we will all die."
I'm not giving these jokers a minute of my CPU time. They are guessing. They don't have a workable model so instead of trying to keep thinking they're in a rush to get a "verified" (by passed events) model within a year so they can try to use the results to push their political agenda. The fact that a few of the millions of models they run correctly guesses the last 50 years of climate change is no indication it will predict future climate change unless there is a reasonable belief that the model was based on some logic. These models are based on random guesses at chaotic values.
Trust me, the results are already known. It will show global warming for 2000-2050. Can you imagine the coup if the random model that happened to guess 1950-2000 also showed global cooling of 5 degrees in the next 5 decades? How much you wanna bet that that result would NEVER see the light of day...
Spend your CPU cycles on SETI...
The current "sharing" environment was created by the RIAA and their monopolistic price gouging. They had 50+ years to make a killing and they did so. Perhaps they thought the gravy train would never end--they were able to stick it to the consumer AND to the artists.
Now, alternatives exist. Yes, they're free. No, the RIAA can't and won't be able to compete.
Their price gouging LED to the creation of technologies that circumvent them completely. Perhaps if they had priced reasonably no-one would have bothered; but they gave everyone all the incentive they needed to develop and deploy P2P networks by charging what they've charged us for cassettes and, recently, CDs. Now that P2P exists it's a little late for them to come up with their own digital distribution scheme. It's already been done and, again, yes, IT'S FREE.
Under current copyright law much of the trading that occurs may be illegal. But keep in mind that the RIAA only has a legal leg to stand on because they FORCE their artists to assign their copyrights to the RIAA monopoly. "Ok, yeah, we'll give you a contract. But all your creative works is belong to us."
Am I really supposed to feel bad about sharing music when the only reason the offended parties (RIAA) even have a say in the matter is because they virtually stolen the work from the real creators? "Hey, you P2P can't do that. That's stealing! Only the RIAA is allowed to steal from the artists!"
Puuuhhhlllleeeeasee....
Music is free now. P2P is what radio was, a way to hear music. Free. If artists want to make money then they can tour and we can go to their concerts. No, they aren't going to make millions of dollars by spending a couple of weeks in a recording studio and sitting on their butts collecting royalties. That time has passed...
I think we're discussing different things which may be why we're not agreeing on much.
Someone simply mentioned "If MS has $40b and is earning interest won't they eventually have all the money and leave everyone else poor." I attempted to explain why this could not happen.
Whether or not it is "right" for MS to have so much money is a topic for another discussion. And THAT is a discussion I don't have time for right now. :)
We don't agree.
The $40b cesspool is the RESULT of Microsoft getting rich. The cesspool itself isn't making the investors themselves any money, i.e., they aren't receiving dividends. That's why if I were an MS investor I'd be pissed off.
In that case, I am confused why you mentioned mortgages, which for the overwhelming majority of Americans are subsidized by tax credits and GSE's such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
I've repeated this many times in this thread. Please search on my name to find more in-depth posts. The summary is that: "The $40 bil is deposited in banks which subsequently loan money to thousands of people to do things such as buy houses and cars. Without deposits banks would not be able to do that."
So, yes, even though I don't have the $40 bil I can receive some benefits of it in that there is more money available in the banking system that I can borrow. This gives me buying power I would not otherwise have.
We've been having this argument on "wealth creation" in the US since Reagan, and I would think that after David Stockman himself called Reaganomics BS, that this trickle-down nonsense would have died out by now. It hasn't. But I will give you credit for attempting to argue that extraordinary collections of liquid assets provide benefits to others than those who hold them.
While I agree, in theory, with the "trick-down nonsense," this has absolutely nothing to do with it.
It's a simple matter of basic economics. The banks receive deposits, loan that money out to many others which, in the process, stimulates the entire economy to create more wealth. As another poster has even told me not even the liberals supposedly disagree with this. It's one of the foundations of our economy and there really isn't much debate about whether or not it is true. If everyone took their savings and hid it under their pillow, believe me, we'd be looking at an economic crisis that would make the great depression look like a picnic.
Trickle-down was more about giving large tax cuts to the wealthy based on the assumption that that will give them more money that they may invest in their business and, subsequently, hire more people and improve the economy such that everyone makes out well. What we're talking about isn't taxes and thus not trickle-down--it's the affect of the banking system in our economy.
Uhm, ok, semantics. Call it what you will. The fact is that the bank enabled the creation of more wealth than the laborer.
Wealth creation doesn't mean the borrower is richer. The borrower obtains immediate graitifaction by obtaining a product that he either would not be able to obtain, or to obtain for 5 or 30 years. Cars depreciated, real estate usually appreciates.
In any case, the "wealth creation" happens at macroeconomic level. As I mentioned in another post in this thread you have to consider the immediate creation (or maintenance) of jobs building the cars and houses. The 40b allowed the borrower to purchase items that they would not have otherwise been able to purchase, and those purchases allowed many thousands of people to be gainfully employed.
THAT'S the wealth creation... not whether or not someone is in debt or not.
Sure it does. If you have 40 billion in the bank, that's a lot of money for the bank to loan out. However, if you distribute that money to millions of stockholders it is entirely possible not all of them will deposit it in their banks.
That said, I was never saying that it's a good thing Microsoft doesn't pay dividends. With that much money I'd be pissed off if I was an investor and wasn't getting dividends. But the fact that they have 40 billion in the bank isn't harming the economy as a whole. It might even be helping it if the investors spend, rather than save, their dividends.
On that we agree. My statement is not that there is an infinite amount of CURRENT wealth, but that there is an infinite amount of potential FUTURE wealth. If I make a billion dollars today that does NOT need to mean that the rest of the world lost a billion.
The statement that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer is about the trends in wealth distribution towards fewer, wealthier people and more, poorer people. Attempting to dispute this by claiming that "liberals believe in a finite amount of wealth" is disengenious at best and just insulting at worst.
If you'll re-read one of my previous posts, I said that those that say that "the rich got richer" SO "the poor got poorer" is an indication that they believe in a finite amount of wealth. If they believe that as a RESULT of the rich getting ticher the poor got poorer then, yes, they believe in a finite amount of wealth.
I will agree that those that observe that "the rich got richer and the poor got poorer" are not necessarily saying that there is a finite amount of wealth. Actually, the people saying this are just wrong at best or insulting at worst, to use your words, since looking at government income per population segment since 1970 I have yet to find a single year where the rich got richer AND the poor got poorer. I've found years that the rich got richer faster than the poor got richer, but I have yet to find a year where the poor got poorer as the rich got richer...
But, that's beside the point. The point is that the people that use that cliche don't automatically believe in finite wealth. But those that say "the richer got richer so the poor got poorer" DO believe in finite wealth.
You're not possibly agreeing with the labor theory of value are you?
Are you suggesting that I ever said we just all sit on our butts and somehow let banks create income for us? Never said that.
*labor* produces wealth. Someone who can loan you money to more efficiently utilize your labor (ie, buy a truck instead of walking to deliver your product).
Labor produces wealth, banks multiply it. I might be able to earn $100 today. But if I deposit that in the bank the bank will be able to use it in ways that may be able to create $400 of wealth for the economy as a whole. THAT'S what I'm saying.
Both are necessary, although there is far more emphasis and reward through finance-based wealth generation than labor-based generation
I agree, both are necessary. Banks can't function if no-one works and no-one earns money. But, given the reality that people need to work to earn a living, banks actually create more wealth than a labroer. I.e., my example above where my $100 turns into $400. I generated $100 of wealth, and the bank generated $300 of wealth with that. So, yes, there is more emphasis on the financial side because it does produce more wealth than a laborer. Of course, if all the laborers stop laboring then we're toast. But that's not reality.
Not withstanding your complaints about corruption, yes, those assets do allow for wealth creation through capitalistic use of the banking system.
I won't disagree that that much money is, perhaps, a temptation or even SOURCE of abuse. Money, like anything, can be misused.
But the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of that money that's just "sitting in a cesspool" allows banks to loan money to people in the BANKS quest for more money. They can't pay MS a billion a month in interest if they just misuse the funds.
So while I appreciate your concern about corruption and totally agree that it should be dealt with, and many times is not properly dealt with, it does not invalidate the fundamental fact that large amounts of cash DO create wealth for many totally unconnected parties in the economy.
Look at it this way. If Microsoft takes 40b and puts it underneath Bill's pillow they've effectively taken that money out of circulation. The money isn't doing anything. Your bank doesn't have any money to loan you so you can't buy that house and car.
When they put it in a bank the bank uses that money to loan to people; I think they're permitted to loan 70% of deposits, but someone correct me if I'm wrong. But let's say it's 70%. So of that 40b they're allowed to loan 28b. Assuming your house and car together cost $250k, banks can loan that money out so that 112,000 people can buy a new house and buy a new car. And they do, because that's our culture.
So... You and 111,999 people take out loans and buy a new house and a new car. For the sake of argument let's say it takes 5 people to build a house -- those 112,000 houses allow 560,000 people to be employed for the time it takes to build those houses. Likewise, some number of people are employed to build, distribute, and sell the 112,000 cars.
So... The fact that Microsoft has deposited 40b in a bank allows 112,000 to buy houses (that's your benefit), allows 560,000-600,000 to have jobs building houses and cars (that's their benefit), allows the bank to make a profit and pay their employees (that's the bank's benefit), and allows Microsoft to earn (I heard) a billion a month in interest (that's Microsoft's benefit).
Microsoft still technically has 40 billion dollars to play with. But that 40 billion has created wealth in the banking, housing, automotive, and shipping industries. And you got a house and a car!
If banks didn't have money to loan you, the majority of those 112,000 people probably wouldn't be able to buy a car and almost no-one would be able to afford a house. So the automotive workers and house builders would most likely be out of a job...
That's how the whole "wealth creation through the banking system" works.
Perhaps not all, but many do. They believe that if the "rich got richer" that means the "poor got poorer." When they wack off cliche lines like that they are implicitly saying that they believe in a finite amount of wealth.
They believe that wealth is created through labor, unlike conservatives, who believe that wealth is created through interest, forgetting that wealth created through interest is destroyed through inflation.
Uhm, I know NO-ONE (Democrat nor Republican) who believes that wealth is created by interest. Interest is a by-product. Wealth is created by the banking system that takes Microsoft's money and loans it to thousands of people which allows them to further their economic goals, purchasing cars and houses that would otherwise have been unaccessible to them.
The banking system permits wealth creation, not interest. Of course, everyone has to WORK to create wealth, but banks allow the effect of that work to be multiplied.
For someone who made a crack about a /. reader not having taken any economics classes, you obviously don't know your macro economics very well either.
I'm fine on macro economics. You either misunderstood my post or are yourself a little bit lacking in study. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you read my original post too quickly.
This has nothing to do with the original topic of wealth creation through capitalistic use of the banking system.
Unfortunately, just as handling cost overruns on single-source no-bid cost-plus contracts is not taught in CS 101, practical tips on perpetrating multimillion-dollar market frauds aren't going to be covered in ECON 101.
It's fraud and will be prosecuted. See previous paragraph about your reply having nothing to do with topic at hand.
Instead, you'll be taught happy little myths about friction-free perfect meetings of supply and demand, which is like discussing Earth's gravitational pull while disregarding Earth's atmosphere when trying to understand aviation.
Uhm, see previous paragraph about your reply having nothing to do with the topic at hand.
My guess is, though, that you were burned by Enron. My condolences.