Wrong! Every major corp. "cooks the books"...I wouldn't be surprised if we find more and more companies being caught.
Back in 1989 when I had to study accounting as a requirement for my degree I came to the conclusion that accounting was busy work that was created by and for accountants in order to justify their existance. Even in 1989 it could ALL be done by computers, so if accountants still existed it was mostly because of tradition and the accounting industry keeping themselves relevant by constantly updating GAAP.
More than a scandle of Corporate America, these are all products of the Accounting Industry. Period.
Of course companies cook their books. When "Generally Acceptable Accounting Principles" accept tactics which make sense and are acceptable in accounting but which, in fact, make the companies LESS accontable to the government and stockholders, the accountants are no longer keeping the companies accountable and, by definition, are no longer accontants. When the only purpose of accountants is to filter or "modify" the true information to present a rosy picture, that's PR, not accounting.
I think the ultimate fix for the scandals we are seeing is the complete elimination of the "accounting industry." All that is needed, and has been needed for the last 15 or so years, is a complete accounting program. I'm not talking about an accounting program that allows accountants to shift ledger accounts all day long, but do it electronically. Accounting should be as follows: 1) Money is earned or spent. 2) That data is captured into the accounting software. The data should include the amount and the reason. 3) The computer automatically reports both to the SEC and the stockholders in REAL-TIME. Everyone should know within no more than 24 hours the complete position of a company. If there are large amounts that seem to be miscategorized, believe me, with so many eyes scrutinizing the data they would be called to task within days.
The entire public, stockholders, competition, EVERYONE, becomes the accountants that make companies accountable.
At the same time, such a system would cost orders of magnitude less than to hire a company to do your accounting and to overlook your accounting. And perhaps the savings of money could be put to better use. Perhaps some companies could avoid bankruptcy from the savings...
Well I, for one, doubt that you really have that goal.
To earn a shitload of money? Yes, I strive for that. Daily.
Assuming you have any experience and education, you're silly to work for that little
I have education and plenty of experience. That's why I've been an independent consultant since 1999. Before the recession I did quite well. I still charge $100/hr but, believe it or not, there have been fewer contracts during this recession.
It's times like these one regrets not having accepted a nice stable job earning more. But so it goes.
Your economics are seriously fucked. Assuming a band can actually get 260 gigs a year (sounds easy, doesn't it), you're not allowing them any expenses. They have to buy a tour bus, hire a driver and a manager (to get them the 260 gigs), somehow buy and repair their instruments and amps, eat in restaurants all the time, etc.
I know they won't get 260 gigs a year. I know there are expenses. There are also expenses involved in getting a 4, 6, or 8-year education for those careers that require it. And we all have to eat, too, whether at home or on the road.
My point? Where is it written that musicians should earn a lot of money? There are a ton of jobs where the people earn peanuts. Many people can't even make ends meet, but they still go to work and do their job.
Whether an artist is making a profit or even making ends meet is not my concern any more than it should be your concern whether this particular independent consultant has food on the table tomorrow. The market dictates what will be paid and how. All the musician (or I) can do is do our best to make the best of the situation. And if ends truly can't be met, find a different or additional source of income.
Just as there are people who love to write code and make it open source and free for everyone--and many of these projects are arguably better than those which cost $300 off the shelf--there will be musicians that will create good music (arguably better than Britney Spears) and make little or no money doing it. Heck, if you consider their time they might even lose money... just like open-source programmers.
And I don't ask anyone to work for free. If the artist doesn't want to produce music, that's fine. But the market has spoken and the market will no longer pay for the digital representation of a song. I'm part of that market and will continue to pay the current market price for sound recordings: zero.
$1800 split over 10 guys, $180 per, wow tons of cash.
Well, $180 for a few hours of work. Two bands, one evening. Say they play from 10pm to 2am. So let's say they play 2 hours. $180 / 2 hours = $90/hour. That's almost what I charge as a consultant.
On the other hand you say they might drive 6 hours/day to do that. So let's just say they can earn $180 per day per person. Assuming they work 52 week years (I know *I* do a s a consultant), that comes to 180 x 5 x 52 = $46,800 per year. That's above the per capita U.S. income last time I checked.
Perhaps they only work once or twice per week? Well, I wish *I* only worked once or twice per week. Actually, I could... but I'd probably have to find another job to earn me some more money because I couldn't get by on the money I could earn in one or two days.
I think the problem is, perhaps, musicians have gotten it in their heads that they're somehow entitled to earning millions of dollars like Phil Collins. Well, I have a goal of making as much as Bill Gates but yet I only earned $50k last year.
I haven't bought any CDs since that time when Napster was around
Me neither. Music is free now. Do the artists want to earn some money? Do some gigs, go on tours. They can and will still earn $20+ on each ticket there.
As for the RIAA, they can shrivel up and die. They had their half century milking the public and building a monopoly that got rich off the work of the artists at the expense of both the public and the artists. Their monopoly is now obsolete. Good bye.
I don't see how this "new" system that IBM has created is much different than a slightly modified version of what I have just described.
Because it assumes that you answer ALL the questions accurately ALL the time, but they will add "noise" so supposedly your exact answer cannot be known. They assume that since they add noise that people will answer all the questions accurately all the time. That, unfortunately, is not the case.
All they'll end up with is a dataset where the few accurate answers are now distorted by noise, and the lies are also distorted making it harder to differentiate the two.
The commonly used term is "American", yes. As a/.er and presumed techie, though, you should be well aware that ambigutity in naming is to be frowned upon, and that using the same word to mean "of or pertaining to the United States of America" and "of or pertaining to the Americas" is non-optimal. For example, what are "American interests"?
There is no ambiguity except for those that wish to create it by confusing a continent (either North America or South America, or both) with the country referred to, in short version, as "America."
"American intersts" refer to interests of the United States.
"North American interests" refer to intersts of the continent of North America while "South American intersts" refers to the interests of South America. If talking about both continents, "Intersts of the Western Hemisphere" would be the most accurate.
It's all really quite academic. If you say "I'm an American" everyone knows you're from the United States, not from Canada or Mexico. Only those that want to be confused will be.
Well, you were kind enough to provide the first THRID of the definition. For the benefit of everyone else, let me provide the ENTIRE definition from the site you cited:
Main Entry: America Pronunciation: &-'mer-&-k& Usage: geographical name 1 either continent (N. America or S. America) of the western hemisphere 2 or the Americas/-k&z/ the lands of the western hemisphere including N., Central, & S. America & the W. Indies 3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Observations:
1. If you subscribe to definition #1, then someone calling themselves an "American" based on continent at best is being vague (which part of America?). A better name would be "North American" or "South American" or to name yourself by country, any of which would be more precise then "America" in definition #1.
2. Definition #2 confirms my earlier comment that the two continents, together, are often called "The Americas."
.
3. Definition #3 confirms that, whether you like it or not, "America" is an acceptable way to identify the United States of America.
Citizens of the United States of America can proudly call themselves Americans. Citizens of other countries in the Americas may call themselves Americans if they would rather the world think they are citizens of the United States rather than of whatever country they may be citizens of. I guess I can understand wanting to be associated with the greatest country on earth.:)
Citizens of the "United States of Mexico" are commonly called "Mexicans" just as citizens of the United States of America are commonly called Americans.
Someone who lives in North America may be called "North American" and someone who lives in South America may be called "South American."
There is no continent called "America", although North and South America are often referred to collectively as "The Americas."
Now can we please just accept that Americans are Americans? Those that persist with this "Americans is everyone in the western hemisphere" line are just people with an axe to grind and are trying to take away part of Americans' identity by making it politically incorrect to call yourself American.
Often it's a take it or leave it deal. Allow this product on your market or we stop all trade with your country. And being a poor country, this hardly leaves an alternative.
Not knowing one way or the other, can you cite any examples of this? I know of the standard trade wars--and I can see "accept this or we will levy 50% importation on your $PRODUCT". But completely stopping trade with a country based on a trade dispute?
That said, I've already mentioned that I'm 100% in favor of 0% tarrifs on everything between every country, period. So whether or not the above is true, I'd be opposed to it and the practice would be moot if there were no tarrifs anywhere.
Again this is a measure that will benefit our economy, but hardly benefits theirs.
You missed my point. You said that rich countries can force certain policies/tarrifs on poor countries. I said something along the lines of "Whether or not this is in the rich country's long-term interest is questionable." I stand by that. I think, in the long term, the above would be bad for both the rich and poor country.
Do those countries really have an alternative or is it a theoretical one? Knowing they hardly have an alternative it would be extortion to 'ask' them for their trees. We HAVE the freedom to ask them for their wood, but knowing they have no alternatives, that makes us the responsible ones.
I disagree with that completely and stand by my original comment. Being poor does not absolve one of responsibility or give them the right to "pass the buck." I will concede that perhaps responsibility is harder for those with fewer options, but that doesn't make them any less responsible.
The effect of last option is to say to your poor people "sorry, we know you desperately need the money, but you can't work in that Japanese sweatshop".
I'd rather see them say to the rich company, "Hey, you want to exploit our labor? Fine. Here are the minimum labor standards and pay."
I'd rather see that the foreign company in this example would see it as a moral duty to offer a working environment that stands up to their own standards with working and safety conditions in which they would let their own employees work too.
I would do that myself if I had a company. Others may not. Others may look at it at outsourcing. The ethics of any given businessman (or any given person) is a wildcard. The local government should protect their own so that wildcard businessmen / companies / countries don't abuse them.
Personally, I'd love to see both--ethical businesses and local governments overseeing that. But since we don't live in a perfect world and not everyone is 100% ethical what we CAN expect is local governments protecting working conditions.
You're right. It's is very likely that there are more factors involved. But it's hard to say cuttimg down trees contributes for xx% of the flooding problem and global warming for yy% etc.
I plan to read the links you provided previously regarding trees and floods... But, as is the case with global warming, I'm sure that 99% of the cause is natural and, maybe, 1% is man-made. In other words, I think that even if they hadn't cut the trees down there still would have been a flood in Germany. Perhaps the flood would have been 2.95 meters instead of 3.00, but would that have been any less destructive?
In many cases plants don't have an eternal life and improvements have to be made anyway... Those are perfect moments to think about less polluting methods and measures, but a company must be willing to do so or nothing happens.
I agree. New plants should be built with the latest, lower-pollution technologies available at the time.
But what if a certain technology reduces the pollution but to implement it would bankrupt the company or make the product no longer viable? How much CO2 is permissible to avoid X number of people being thrown out of work?
Again, I must stress that I'm talking mostly about CO2 since that's mostly what environmentalists seem concerned about these days. I don't dispute that toxic waste shouldn't be thrown in rivers, nuclear waste shouldn't be thrown in trash dumps, and that cancer-causing contaminants should be extremely well-filtered.
Having with 'only' 250.000.000 inhabitants and being that influencial also carries responsabilities to listen to others. I just don't like to see the U.S. to go their own way in this matter.
No-one has a responsibility to listen to a babbling idiot. I'm not suggesting that you are one, but I am suggesting that if the United States, in its own informed opinion, thinks that what everyone else is saying is hogwash we have absolutely NO responsibility to listen to them just because they outnumber us. In fact, our government has a responsibility to its citizens to protect us from such nonsense by not going along with the crowd.
I actually can't tell if they are really true, but to put the story aside saying it's bullshit is ignorant.
No. Ignorant is when you frame your argument around the possibility of having to find two additional planets to support the population in 2050. As someone else said in this thread, they framed two options 1) Reduce our consumption now. 2) Find two more planets. Since the second one is impossible, the conclusion is that we must reduce consumption now.
.
That's an inaccurate conclusion, certainly not scientific. It doesn't contemplate the possible--dare I say PROBABLE--improvements in technology in the next 50 years that will reduce pollution without reducing consumption. THAT'S the third choice and it's not one they significantly addressed.
The reason they didn't talk to the third option is because they aren't making a real effort to present the possible options to the public. They are trying to scare the public into accepting their politics. That's why their story was written off by most as bullshit...
I believe we agreed that developing the economy of a 3rd world country is important for them to achieve wealth and money and in the ling term for us for trade. Imposing all kings of regulations on their industry will withhold them more than it will us. Sure eventually they have to live to the restrictions, but they need to develop first and with our help they can do that in a 'good' way.
The fact is, in most cases 3rd world countries end up developing because richer nations invest in them. If RICH nations are investing in them anyway they should be required to use the latest in pollution-controlling technology, should they not?
Me: First, it doesn't take an economics degree to understand that if labor is cheaper in India and China *AND* they aren't facing Kyoto restrictions, that polluting companies will simply moved to those countries. You: The same thing as my sweatshop example. Responsible behaviour from the companies would restrict that from happening.
You seem to have a lot of faith in companies' "responsible behavior." History shows that your faith is misplaced. If you set up the scenario described by Kyoto (expensive labor and environmental restrictions in 1st world, cheap labor and no environmental restrictions in 3rd world) then I can assure you that the companies WILL move there, they WILL pollute there, and they WILL take their jobs there.
You can talk about corporate responsibiltiy all you want. I'm talking about reality. And that's why the U.S. didn't sign on to Kyoto. I invite you review the U.S. stand. Unfortunately, the U.S. didn't even dispute the goals and reductions required by Kyoto--the U.S. disputed it being implemented in some countries and not in others.
Me: Second, it doesn't take a climate science degree to understand that since the above is true you really haven't reduced pollution on a global scale--you've just moved the pollution to developing countries where we can't see it. You: More responsible behaviour...
In what theoretical utopia do you live in? Again, I'm talking about reality.
Me: 1) redistribute wealth to developing countries by moving jobs there at the expense of developed countries. 2) redistribute pollution so that we can feel squeaky clean in the developed world while the developing world becomes even dirtier. You: Well, the 1) isn't bad. It will pay off. The 2) is a problem that requires a lot of attention.
And therein lies the real problem. You've agreed that Kyoto will do little more than redistribute pollution and requires "a lot of attention" but also agree that "it isn't bad, it will pay off" that we redistribute wealth from the 1st world to the 3rd world.
I don't want to enter the whole socialism debate, but this is my exact point: If you want to redistribute world wealth then propose it. See if the world accepts it. DON'T camaflouge it as environmental regulations that don't help the environment but do achieve worldwide socialism/wealth distribution.
Me: A better question is: Why does anyone think that Kyoto will actually help the environment? You: I think CO2 IS accepted as problem by many countries, and it's assumed (to play it safe) a reduction of CO2 WOULD help the environment.
The influence of european governments on the market and companies is bigger than America's government. Blackmail by companies is occuring here, but there is a climate here that consumers demand more and more responsability from companies. Consumer behavior and governmental regulations have effects on companies. My impression is that the US government is run/bought by industry or lobby groups. Therefore they are very influencial on the american politics. Perhaps in Europe it's easyer to enforce Kyoto and force responsable behaviour on companies.
Well, I disagree that CO2 is harmful pollution. But even if it is, let me re-ask the question you didn't answer: Why does anyone think that Kyoto will actually help the environment? As you essentially conceded above, pollution will be redistributed to exempt countries, not eliminated. So why does anyone think Kyoto will help the environment? Unless you refer to the environment of developed countries at the expense of the environment of developing countries?
If you milk a society that can afford it I'd say that's economy. But with medicine it's a little more complicated. I think people deserve to be healthy. Health souldn't be a priviledge for the rich.
As I tried to say in my last post, I basically agree. Some controls needs to be placed on health care in terms of how much profit is acceptable.
Health care is a tough political issue and is also not what we're talking about here. We're talking about the environment.
I would even go as far as saying that the 1st world should be opened for the 3rd worlds' products. You should have _some_ protection for your local products, but it would be good if there was some (more) money to flow to the 3rd world and not the other way around. This also means the 3rd world has to be protected from our products. At least until the 3rd world has become more like the 1st world and they truely can play their past in the global trade game.
I believe there should be 0% tarrifs tomorrow, period. Rich, poor, developing, developed. 0% tarrifs. No-one should be protected in the U.S., and no-one should be protected in Malaysia.
I believe the above would in the short-term help the developing countries and hurt the developed countries, but in the long-term (10+ years) it would help everybody.
But, unlike Kyoto, it has to be UNIVERSAL. No exceptions. Not for me, not for you, not for Bill Gates, and not for poor Ethiopians.
Me: Exactly. Which is why Kyoto should apply to everyone, not just the developed countries. You: The thing is that WE can afford the live up to Kyoto. Developing countries, at the moment, hardly can.
Let me summarize:
Most development in the 3rd world happens because the 1st world invests in it. Since the 1st world has the money, it should invest in doing it cleanly.
If it doesn't apply to everyone, including developing countries, pollution will just be relocated, not eliminated.
The end-result of Kyoto is not pollution reduction but wealth and pollution redistribution. Kyoto should be debated as a wealth redistribution treaty, not an environmental one.
Do what you can. That's responsible.
So it would be responsible for the U.S. to institute environmental restrictions on CO2 gas, which does not carry any negative health effects, to the point that it is not possible to perform many industries in the U.S., while agree to make it permissible to do those same things in China, give our American companies a financial incentive to move out of the country, and leave countless millions of our citizens out of work? And for what gain? To pollute China instead of the U.S.?
I'm sorry, if the futileness of the Kyoto treaty--except for wealth redistribution--isn't clear to you by now I'm not sure that re-explaining it to you again will help.
Me: Today we have tarrifs, tomorrow we don't. Done. You: But then the poor countries would be overrun by our companies?
Yes, that's probably true. Our companies would overrun them to take advantage of cheap labor. That would happen at the cost of laborers in the rich countries. But, within 10-20 years, the poor countries would increase in wealth and those incentives would disappear. Eventually, there'd be no reason for the U.S. to be any richer than Afghanistan. But, in the long run, the U.S. wouldn't LOSE--we'd gain because there'd now be 6 BILLION potential consumers with disposable income rather than, what, about 1.5 billion or so now?
Since our conversation has gone all over the board, from environment to socialism to health care to corporate responsibility, let me try to summarize my viewpoint:
Kyoto is about worldwide wealth redistribution, not the environment. As written and with the exemptions that it has, Kyoto will not reduce worldwide pollution. What it WILL do is redistribute jobs and wealth. It should be debated as a jobs and wealth redistribution treaty, not an environmental one.
The original article doesn't contemplate technological advances that will allow us to reduce pollution without reducing consumption. They gave us the choice of finding two more planets or reducing consumption. Those aren't the only two options and that's why the article was dismissed as alarmist bullshit.
The buck stops locally which means that blaming the developed world for all of the problems in the developing world is just about as reasonable as blaming the nuclear arms race on the first multi-cell organism that inhabited the earth.
Responsibility doesn't decrease with wealth. As poor as I may be and as tempting as it may be to kill someone for a million bucks, I can't ignore my responsibility to reject that offer. The same goes for Brasil cutting down its trees or whatever. I'm sure the situation for Brasil is as desperate as the poor man considering killing someone to make a buck...
Certainly we will still have the data just as we now have the equivalent of all those floppies we had. Wether we can read it all or not is unimportant.
The answer is simple. As you see one format going out, back up your data on the new format. I used to have data on floppies. Then I backed them up on CD-ROM. That'll work and when the next format comes along there will be a time that both CD-ROM and the new format are available--you move your backup to the new format.
I hope you find this discussion as interesting as I do because I really took some time to write a reply.
I do. I had been checking for your reply periodically over the last two days.:)
To me responsability is a duty that comes with freedom. We can apply that to nature too. We have the freedom to do with it whatever we want, but we have to do it in a responsable way.
I agree with you 100%.
I'd say freedom a universal right.
I again agree with you 100%.
Do we have the right to force poor farmers to buy our seeds for a high price by refusing to buy their regular product if they don't?
I'd say we have the right to set terms for our business deals just as they have the right to take their business elsewhere. There are few products that can only be obtained from a single country.
Whether the above is ethical or even good long-term for the rich country is another story. I'm personally in favor of 0% tarrifs on everything worldwide. "Customs" should exist only to make sure nothing illegal or dangerous is coming in, not to levy taxes.
Is it right to cut rainforests in other countries because they hardly have any other resources?
It's not our RIGHT to cut rainforests, but it is our right to look around the world for the resources we want. It is the right of the country that owns the rainforest to decide whether they want to satisfy existing demand.
Those countries can't do anything about it. They're with their backs against the wall. They have no other options that to do what we want them to do. That is no freedom for them.
I agree they are in a hard place. I'm sure it is very tempting for them to go ahead and chop down rainforests to earn a few bucks. But to say they have no choice isn't correct. As you said, everyone has rights and corresponding responsibilities. That applies to everyone, not just the rich.
In the case of sweatshops even in circumstances that we wouldn't accept here. Compared to what their work is worth we pay hardly them. That is slavery. The only difference is that it's not happening in our oun countries, but far far away so that we don't have to think about it.
Believe me, I'm not in favor of sweatshops nor exploiting child labor. That's bad and regardless of what company I happened to own I would never do it--that's a question of ethics.
But those practices are all tacitly "approved" by their local government. The local government should look out for their own--in fact, that is there RESPONSIBILITY. If they lived up to their responsibility, the problem of child exploitation and sweatshops would go away. Sure, the company might leave for another country--until that country also lived up to its responsibility to its citizens.
Again, I think it is unethical for companies of rich countries to knowingly support child/sweatshop labor. But at the same time I can't help but thinking if Japan were to start a sweatshop in Los Angeles and Americans willingly went to work there--even if those Americans were penniless homeless people--should the world complain about Japan looking for the best deal or about the U.S. that isn't enforcing labor laws within its territory?
Isn't it safe to assume that something that has bad effects locally, also has bad effects globally??
I'd say that depends on the issue. Something bad locally may or may not have bad effects regionally or globally.
If you're using a mathematical model there will ALWAYS be someone saying that the model is flawed.
In the case of the environment, the model can be applied to a past scenario to see if it is able to reproduce the current scenario. If it does, you're half-way there. Then, if it continues to get it right for a reasonable period of time (perhaps 5 or 10 years? Depends on what you're modeling I guess) then you can consider it proved.
At the same time, I don't think a model has to be 100% right. I would be willing to accept a model that was 90% right 90% of the time. But so far we have don't have anything remotely close to that--and therein lies the problem. We don't have a second earth to do experiments, and the models haven't been able to successfully reproduce todays environment based on past scenarios. That puts the environmentalists in a tough place selling their case to the public.
For example cutting down trees to make skiing possible... The result is that with heavy rain and in the spring (melting snow) the amount of water in the Rhine has increased and causes floods in Germany like in Kohln (Colonge)
Wow, do they completely remove every tree from the mountainside? I'm an avid skier (Ski Colorado!) but we have "ski runs." It's kind of like a narrow road through the forest, and that ski run has grass on it so that when the snow melts it doesn't take the topsoil with it.
Assume Swiss has the right / freedom to cut down their trees. Does this give them the right to cause floodings and damage in Germany and the Netherlands?
That's a tough one. I admit I haven't read about the Swiss Tree/German flood scenario but unless they are downing an ungodly number of trees I would truly have to think that the floods are caused by varying precipitation levels--not solely by the lack of trees. That is, I can accept that the trees are an aggravating factor, but I find it hard to believe that the downed trees are the only cause of the floods.
I don't know about the cause of the floods in Texas, but the economical damage is enormous [usatoday.com]
I currently live in Monterrey Mexico, about 5 hours south of San Antonio which is where the major flooding occurred. In fact, we were hit by the same storm. The flooding was due to an unusual storm that just camped over Texas and rained. Floods happen.
Something like "If you have to pollute, make sure to maximize profit, but if you have to make profit, make sure to minimize pollution."
I'd say both of the above are true. What it really comes down to "Make as much wealth as possible with as little pollution as possible."
Pollution per dollar is only interesting to point out (in)efficient industries.
And I'm 99% sure (I'm participating in multiple threads) that that's what I said at the beginning. The pollution per dollar analysis is useful in determining what countries need to have their efficiency improved.
Many companies can perfectly function with a smaller profit and invest that in exhaust filters or other measures.
If that's all it was, I'd agree with you. Unfortunately, the demands of many environmentalists are so extreme that we're not talking about installing filters--we're talking about building entirely new plants, or perhaps terminating production completely.
That's the question. I'm not against taking logical steps to reduce dangerous pollution. Dumping chemicals into rivers is not acceptable. Throwing nuclear waste into a garbage dump isn't either. I don't, however, believe that CO2 production is "dangerous pollution." That's far from proved. Regardless of how much we pump into the air, it won't kill us. The worst possible scenario is the indirect effects from global warming--but that hasn't been proved beyond a reasonable doubt yet. See paragraph above concerning how to test models and how much accuracy is needed to make the case to the public.
And the general reaction on/. is total denyal of the article we were reacting to.
Most everyone discounts the report because its absurd. But believe me, my Karma has taken a hit for my "I don't believe the whole environmental crisis story."/. might not agree with the report (because it IS absurd) but believe me, the majority would side with you, not with me.
"We have a damn near infinite supply of oil..." (this person forgot the 70's oil crisis)
That was due to purely human/political reasons, not because of any real lack of oil.
The question that interests me is why the US is completely refusing to participate in Kyoto. Perhaps you can help me out?
First, it assumes that we have concluded that not only is global warming happening but that humans are the major cause of it. That is far from proven.
Second, it assumes that even if there is global warming that it must be bad. That is also far from proven. In fact, I read an article yesterday that stated that a slightly warmer winter last year saved the U.S. economy over $21 billion and saved lives from severe winter storms (sorry, I'm not going to hunt it down right now--feel free to google it).
Third--and I think this is the biggest--it makes no sense to apply Kyoto restrictions/reductions to the developed world and not apply them to developing countries--especially when two of the exempted countries (India and China) account for nearly 50% of the world population and one of them is even less efficient than the U.S. on a GDP/Pollution basis.
First, it doesn't take an economics degree to understand that if labor is cheaper in India and China *AND* they aren't facing Kyoto restrictions, that polluting companies will simply moved to those countries. That will cause more employment in India and China but it will also cause more pollution there AND cost jobs in the developed countries.
Second, it doesn't take a climate science degree to understand that since the above is true you really haven't reduced pollution on a global scale--you've just moved the pollution to developing countries where we can't see it.
My conclusions (and I speak for myself, not the U.S. as a whole or the U.S. Senate, etc.) are that Kyoto will NOT reduce global pollution, period. What it will do is 1) redistribute wealth to developing countries by moving jobs there at the expense of developed countries. 2) redistribute pollution so that we can feel squeaky clean in the developed world while the developing world becomes even dirtier.
A better question is: Why does anyone think that Kyoto will actually help the environment?
But why are big industrials asking $60.= for an AIDS medicine in Africa.
I would like to think because they spent 40 billion dollars (made up number) on research and only by selling the drugs at these prices can they recoup their investment to (hopefully) research and deploy even better drugs in the future.
That said, I personally think there should be some limits to what companies can charge for medical goods. They definitely need to recoup their investment, they definitely need to make a reasonable return on their investment... but milking the market once they've recouped their investment is unethical.
It's a tough question. You don't want to put so many restrictions on profits from medicine that no-one researches it. At the same time, I have a hard time swallowing (literally) my asthma-control medication that costs $1 per pill. At some point they've recouped their investment and the price ought to come down.
Stimulating the economy in the developint countries will eventually benefit us.
I agree. I'd like to see every world be a 1st world country. Remember, I currently live in Mexico (a 3rd world country).
Therefore I say we have to invest in the developing countries.
We do. Unfortunately, it is often painted as "exploiting third world countries" but the fact remains that we do invest in developing countries paying the local prevailinng labor rates.
They need to grow to a point where they can compete with our industry.
I agree. Hopefully some day my asthma medication will cost $0.02 per pill instead of a dollar.
Helping eachother getting to higher standards will in long term benefit us all.
That's capitalism. With zero tarrifs, companies will go in and exploit (i.e. invest) other countries. Over time, developing countries will develop and their wealth should become on par with the "rich countries."
That will happen all by itself without us making an "effort" to invest in developing countries. It requires no action on behalf of governments. The problem is that all governments that I know of currently impose tarrifs and THAT is what causes developing countries to not advance.
We were the ones buiding the factories in Taiwan, we will build factories in the developing countries. But with our possibilities we can build cleaner factories there.
Exactly. Which is why Kyoto should apply to everyone, not just the developed countries.
Back in the 90's, the U.S. Senate voted 99-0 that they would not sign on to any Kyoto treaty that applied to us but not to developing countries. That's reasonable. And that's the main (official) reason the U.S. would not participate in Kyoto.
Mainly they're against THE WAY the globalisation process takes place.
Whatever. I think they are hoodlums myself. The way globalization should take place is like this: Today we have tarrifs, tomorrow we don't. Done.
Claim that these are the only two possible solutions, prove one unworkable, and then just leave people to assume that the other solution must be the only solution.
Exactly correct.
But as our technological prowess improves, our ability to alter the planet will only become more pronounced.
Perhaps. On the other hand, as our technological prowess improves I tend to believe that we will be able to accomplish more while at the same time affecting the environment less. History has shown that to be true.
The WWF has provided two options: 1) Find two more planets to live on. 2) Reduce consumption.
They've forgotten what is truly the most practical and probable solution: 3) Allow science to continue advancing so that we can accomplish more while causing less damage.
Reducing consumption is just a way of saying, "We've decided to proceed with caution.
True. Although I would again say that the end-goal should be increasing our efficiency so that we don't HAVE to reduce consumption. Reducing consumption is a stop-gap solution that offers a "quick fix" until technology can catch up and allow us to do what we want without causing serious damage.
However, if reducing consumption causes serious economic problems that reduces the amount of money available to scientific research into increasing efficiency then I think the consumption reduction, in the long term, has done more harm than good.
On the other hand, let's not turn buying an SUV into a courageous act of hope and optimism.
My view is that simple economics will keep the proliferation of SUVs in check. There are only so many people that can afford to buy SUVs to start with, much less pay for the gas they consume, etc. We're in no danger of everyone in the U.S. driving a SUV.:)
I heared Chinese people about this subject. Their position is indeed that it is a reduction of freedom, but to them it's a small price to pay
Perhaps to the Chinese a reduction in freedom is a small price to pay. They don't have a very large tradition of "freedom." Overpopulation also isn't a problem in most of the developed world, so imposing those kinds of reductions in freedoms would be unnecesssary.
What kine freedom do you have when there is no food or no one will take care of you when you need it?
I'm sorry, my freedoms are not negotiable. As the saying goes, "Those that give up freedom to ensure security deserve neither."
If environmentalists ever present a convincing case based on science and logic rather than politics and fear, I think you will see that a vast majority of Americans will take action without someone forcing it on us.
The point is NOT how efficient we pollute. You state 'it's about how much good that person can due for society', but you can do good for society without polluting.
Of course it's about how efficient we pollute--or, more clearly put, it's about how efficiently we can generate wealth with the least amount of pollution.
You can do some good for society without polluting, but for you to be able to do those things you--and the economy around you--have to be in sufficiently good shape to support those activities. If you don't have food, medicine, shelter, etc. you won't be spending much time helping society, I can assure you. And for you to have your food, medicine, and shelter certain activities much take place--and those activities create pollution.
So what we can do is try to increase the efficiency of inefficient countries. We can try to increase our own efficiency as long as doing so provides a net gain in efficiency. If, by implementing a given policy, our GDP/pollution efficiency is reduced we've actually moved in the wrong direction.
By investing in pollution reducing products or processes you decrease the pollution per $.
"Investing" (spending) on these products needs to reduce the amount of pollution per dollar. The problem is, many times the policies actually would INCREASE the amount of pollution per dollar--although overall pollution may be reduced.
What that means is that, yes, you may have less pollution but you've also created less wealth in the world. Those that look at ONLY the environmental side of the equation without looking at the economic side are as shortsighted and out-of-touch with reality as those businesses that dump their toxic waste into rivers.
Still, it's not about how efficient we pollute, it's about how much we pollute.
It's about both. But if we can improve our efficiency, the total amount of pollution will tend to decrease for a given amount of "social good" (wealth).
People don't like seeing the word "wealth" or "money." But these people simply don't understand that in the real world there is a very real relation between "wealth/money" and "standard of living" and "societal good." Sure, we can clean up our environment 100%--and all live like Ethiopians. But despite the fact that we'll have a cleaner environment, few would argue we've served the good of society.
Those few that WOULD suggest we live like Ethiopians if that's what it takes to clean the environment are just as extremists and without merit as those businesses that think that dumping toxic waste in rivers is ok. Neither extreme is acceptable.
Yes indeed. It's an investment that will pay off in the future. Not in hard bucks, but in health and quality of life.
What you and many forget is that our health AND our quality live are very tightly linked to "hard bucks." I know it's an unpopular view, but it's the truth.
Without the hard bucks, we will not have the money to support medical research to produce new medicines that save millions of lives per year. Or reduce the pain and suffering of those that are sick. Or distribute food to those that are starving.
These are ALL aspects of health and quality of life that cannot be addressed without a thriving economy ("hard bucks") to support it. If certain policies that "save our environment" but destroy our economy are implemented, any potential gains in quality of life and health due to a cleaner environment very easily will be overshadowed by the decreases in our ability to address other issues of quality of life.
but compared to health, income, economy, education, infrastructure and so on they're totally nothing compared to the U.S. _OR_ Europe. It's a really cheap excuse. They're FAR from the point where we are. We ARE developed countries. They're not. And placing restrictions on the developing countries will dramatically slow their development.
So it's ok to let developing countries pollute the world for money, but developed countries cannot? I don't see the consistency in that argument based on the rest of your post that seems to imply that the environment is more important than "hard bucks."
Simple mathematics tell me that if the average family has more than two children the worldpopulation will increact. China realised this and came up with their one-child politics to prevent overpopulation.
Obviously, the Chinese plan will actually REDUCE population over time. It also reduces freedom, but that's often an afterthought to many envrionmnetal radicals.
Simple logics tell me that the land for agriculture will not increase exponentially and neither will the production of food.
Luckily, the world is not ruled by simple logic. Check the information for the last 200 years and you will see that U.S. agricultural production has increased by leaps and bounds due to new techniques and science. Agricultural production has increased faster than population in the U.S.--that's why we don't have famine here.
True, but spending time in a traffic jam or in public transport is a choise. The solution is simple. Live close to job.
I agree. And I work at home. I love it.
Ah. I get it. Oil companies should make fuel more expensive. This A. ingreases their profit and B. will get people to buy cars that will use less fuel.
(A) is not true since by increasing prices the oil companies would cause people to use less, so their total profit would not be significantly effected. (B), however, is true. Although I do not condone the use of price-fixing to strongarm society into taking certain actions.
I would say you need to calculate the pollution per head of the populaton...
No, that is precisely wrong.
If I drive 1000 miles and consume 10 gallons of gas and generate $5000 of wealth (which I may use, in part, for things that benefit society) and someone else drives 1000 miles and consumes 10 gallons of gas and generates only $1500, are we the same? No, I've produced much more wealth which CAN be used for the good of society and generated the same amount of pollution as the person that only generated $1500.
That's why a simple "pollution per person" analysis is flawed. It's not just about how much pollution someone creates, it's about how much good that person can due for society (via the economy) as a result of that pollution.
Are you calculating how efficient countries are polluting the world? But that tells more about the eficiency of the production process, but not about the total procuced amount of pollution.
By increasing efficiency, total pollution will be reduced.
Anyway even IF they are not the worst polluters they, together with Europe and Japan, have FAR more means to decrease their pollution and help other countries to decrease their pollution.
So, in other words, the "rich" countries should subsidize the "poor" countries because we are rich?
Sadly, that is. I think it is too bad that the U.S. is rejecting it while the rest agrees there is a problem and are willing to do something together. And playing together is just a part of the globalisation game.
The main reason the U.S. rejected is because not everyone was "playing together." It placed certain restrictions on the developed world, such as the U.S., Europe, and Japan, while exempting large parts of the developing world, such as India and China which, together, amount to nearly HALF of the world population.
Give us a level playing field in which EVERYONE plays and perhaps we'll consider it. Give freebies to certain countries while we throw our own out of work, prepare yourselves to get a good look at our backs as we walk away...
Why is it up to the United States to set a good example? Can the world not do anything without us? Or must the United States ALWAYS lead?
why in hell should bit players like Cuba and N Korea change?
Well, they contaminate more than the United States if you consider how much pollution they produce and how much wealth they produce.
But, if it's the "right thing to do," why does Cuba, North Korea, or anyone else in the world need to wait for the United States to do it?
And, more importantly, why should the United States do it if so many countries aren't going to do it (a la exemptions in Kyoto). Perhaps the United States would have considered it if there was a level playing field and the same rules applied to all countries.
No thanks... We need to "lead by example" by standing up to popular environmentalism and world pressure to do the "right thing" and, instead, do the "scientific thing" which is to base our decisions on reality and scientific fact, not half-baked psuedo-science filtered through an international PR machine which propose solutions that, if fully implemented, would make the United States' pollution efficiency closer to that of North Korea's... a step in the wrong direction.
Riiiight.. Put a dollar value on the world. That's a great way to keep things going the way they are. Because our planet doesn't matter, but MONEY DOES!
I'm not putting a dollar value on the world. I'm calculating the EFFICIENCY of each country to find problem countries which, contrary to popular belief, the United States is NOT. If you do not calculate efficiency you risk making important decisions based on the wrong information.
Of course that's what the environmentalists are counting on because the real information would not suggest that we'll need two planets nor would it suggest that the U.S. is the main problem. God forbid that North Korea, China, and Cuba (communist) all appear higher on the list of pollutants than the United States (capitalist) in any list that compares pollution in a useful way (see my post elsewhere in this thread).
Maybe the 'tree-hugging morons' are wrong, but if they are right, are you willing to take that chanse?
I'd rather take the chance. They've been proved wrong so many times in the past that they've lost all credibility to the point of what they say almost being a guarantee of what WON'T happen.
Taking public transport (or a bike) doesn't hurt me.
Depends where or when you want to go and how fast you need to get there compared to private transportation.
Neither does using 40W lamps in stead of 60W
Depends what you want to light up and where. I use 24W energy-saving bulbs to light up many rooms--because it saves me money, not out of any concern for the environment. And I use 60W bulbs where I need some good working light.
I know America (and Russia for that matter) isn't that happy with anti-pollution measures, but together the two nations are good for 50% of the CO2 (and other exhaust) production in the world.
And how much, percentage-wise, of the world GDP does the U.S. produce? Yes, we consume more and produce more pollution but that alone doesn't tell the whole story. You need to compare it to how much "gross world product" is created by the nation in question.
When you look at pollution from an efficiency standpoint, there are about 47 countries that produce less CO2 per dollar produced and about 150+ countries that produce MORE CO2 per dollar produced.
The United States is not the worst polluter in any important way.
But why are companies like Shell, Q8, Esso and Texaco looking for other alternatives and what is wrong with that?
Nothing, alternatives are great! Especially if some day my car can run on free energy stored from the sun on sunny days and I don't have to pay for gas anymore.
But don't come up with BS reports about the end of the world if we don't stop driving tomorrow. That's nuts and is misinformation.
Importing oil, wood and other products from the 3rd world leaves THEM with the effects while we have the products.
That's economics. If they are unhappy with the effects, stop selling the product.
And even if, in 50 years the statistics turned out to be wrong, at leas it is good to be aware of the (possible) consequences of our lifestyle.
In other words, "Even if they are lying or making absurd claims, at least they're making us aware of a (non-existant) problem."
Come on... It's misinformation and lies. At best, it's conjecture. The more educated can and will take this for what it is--the monthly quota of enviro-hype that must be published to keep the media from losing interest and maintaining their funding.
But to provide the general public, who believes most of what they read, with grossly inaccurate information is dangerous. It raises the risk that politicians will respond to the public's (un-necessary) concern by enacting policies that aren't based on science but on popular culture. That's when you get knee-jerk reactions not based on science such as Kyoto; luckily that's essentially dead since the U.S. has rejected it out of hand.
so let me think... first they said we'd be gone by 1985, then it was 2000, now its 2050? hrm...
WWF is another environmentalist group that takes turns with others in releasing "impending disaster" type predictions. This is still somewhat "hip" but I get the feeling that even the media is getting a little tired of the gloom-and-doom-oops-we-were-wrong-again.
The good news is that, for the most part, no-one really listens to these fools. They see the panda logo, hear their spew, and then say "Oh, that's too bad" and buy an SUV. Good! That's about the level of importance that should be attached to their rhetoric.
Why do you feel it's a better place to live than anywhere else in the world? Have you been anywhere else in the world?
I have. I'm an American and currently live in a third world country. I definitely prefer the United States.
Someone else: Oh yeah, that pretty much rules out the rest of the fucking world. You: Maybe you should visit the rest of the world before saying this.
I've traveled the world and lived in non-U.S. countries. The man is right. The United States is the best I've seen so far.
More money - true, but also higher debts and more volatile markets.
You asked what 1st world countries have that 3rd world countries don't. He answered "more money." He is right. Whether or not our economy has other features, as you mentioned, has nothing to do with the topic at hand and isn't what you asked.
That said I would disagree that our markets are any more volatile. The whole world is generally linked now and a bad day in Asia usually leads to a similar day in the U.S., and vice versa. No-one really cares about South Africa, though, so a bad day there doesn't really affect anyone else.:)
Bigger guns - well, that may be true, but it's yet to be seen how effective they really are, and what this has to do with the topic at hand
Of course it has to do with the topic at hand. It's something the 1st world has (bigger guns) that the 3rd world doesn't.
As for effectiveness, shall I list the names of the countries that we have smashed? You may argue the morality or justification of smashing those countries but you certainly can't argue the effectiveness of the guns.
You haven't mentioned a single thing so far. Sorry
Hello? He mentioned "money" and "bigger guns." You acknowledged both. And now you say he hasn't mentioned a single thing so far?
Actual rights - what "actual rights" do you have in the U.S that I don't have here?
From what I've seen of 3rd world countries, most citizens of those countries supposedly have the same rights as we do in the U.S. So many 3rd world countries have modeled their constitutions after ours. The main difference, though, is in whether those "rights" can be freely excercised in reality. This varies from country to country and may not apply to yours.
I have no idea of the situation in South Africa. If you have everything you want and need there, stay there. We'll continue living in the U.S. and everyone will be happy, ok?
If 1st world=3rd world to you and when you visit the U.S. and look past our greatness to see our failure, well, you are either a pessimist or a person with a bone to pick. Arguing with either is futile.
1. establishing income (finding even IT work that will allow you to work remotely seems challenging), is there IT work there for americans?
If you speak Spanish, you can generally find work. Americans are in demand because it seems having an American on-board gives the company a certain prestige--and the fact that you speak fluent English is a big plus for most companies.
Things have probably cooled down since the recession began so it may be harder to find work these days.
You won't earn much money unless you get some kind of upper management position. If you are the IT Director of an entire bank you'll earn good money, but if you are a network administrator for that same bank you won't do so well. There's a huge difference between what "most" of the people (IT and not) make and what the upper few people make.
Back in 1996-1999 I worked as a software engineer at a Mexican company down here. When I could have been making $50k-$90k in the States, I was making about $18k here in Mexico. For obvious reasons, in 1999 I quit and now I do independent consulting--most of which I do for American companies. I really don't do much business with Mexican companies, I just happen to live in Mexico because my wife is Mexican and she isn't ready to move to the States yet.
As for interesting work, that may also be a problem. Most of the IT work is rather cut-and-dry business apps. Accounting systems, other applications running a business. Truly cool and interesting development projects are less common here than in the United States, I'd say.
The USA gets ALONG with it's neighbors. We get along with Canada, we get along with Mexico, we get along with the entire South America.
I agree. I'm an American and have lived the last 6+ years in Mexico. I've never been called anything worse than "amigo americano." I've traveled to Ecuador and Colombia--in both cases they were THRILLED that I was visiting their country and wanted to make sure I was having a positive trip and thought well of their countries. Everyone I was introduced to would ask, "What do you think of Colombia?"
North and South America generally gets along. It's the "Old Continent" and basicaly the "other" hemisphere that is FUBAR. We've only solved their "world" wars twice and are involved around the world so that WE don't have to finish another war that someone else starts in a continent thousands of miles away.
Perhaps we'll stop sticking our nose in "other's" business when they give some feeble demonstration that they won't kill each other as soon as we withdrawl...
If people started walking into Wal-Mart every day and taking things off the shelves and leaving (not that anyone would want to), does that make their business model outdated?
It's not the same thing.
If I could obtain what I wanted for free without even making a TRIP to Wal-Mart and, thus, stopped buying stuff there then, yes, Wal-Mart either has an outdated business model and has to figure out some other way to get me into the store. No-one is walking into record stores and walking away with CDs without paying. We just are getting what we want without even going there.
Theft, piracy, and knock-offs, while often illegal, are facts of any business.
Nike can only charge a certain amount before the public will spend 10% as much on a "knock-off" which is 90% as good.
Microsoft can only charge so much before increasing piracy eats into profit.
Whether or not you think knock-offs or piracy is acceptable, it's a part of the free-market. Not a legal part, just as monopolistic activity isn't legal--but it's a part of the market that must be factored into any business decision.
A company selling a product that could be easily pirated or "mimicked" (like Nike shoes) targets their price to maximize profits--and that includes maximizing price while minimizing the "losses" to activities such as knock-offs or piracy. It must be assumed that the RIAA is maximizing their profits--including taking into account "piracy"--with the prices they have chosen. Otherwise, they would choose another price.
"Piracy" can be thought of as an individual's response to a perceived abuse of the free market. It's not necesarrily legal, but it IS a response.
It is often said that if you aren't happy with the price you just shouldn't buy the product--THAT's the free market in action. True, but just as the government occasionally has to take drastic measures to limit monopolistic abuse, an individual sometimes perceives a need to take drastic measures too. The goal of the RIAA should be to maximize profits while minimizing the perception of individuals that piracy is a reasonable response to what they perceive to be an abuse of the market.
Further, the price which piracy eventually forces a company to sell their product at is the "natural" price that would have eventually been reached by the free market legally. Piracy just forces that price to be met sooner.
Slashdot Mirror
Back in 1989 when I had to study accounting as a requirement for my degree I came to the conclusion that accounting was busy work that was created by and for accountants in order to justify their existance. Even in 1989 it could ALL be done by computers, so if accountants still existed it was mostly because of tradition and the accounting industry keeping themselves relevant by constantly updating GAAP.
More than a scandle of Corporate America, these are all products of the Accounting Industry. Period.
Of course companies cook their books. When "Generally Acceptable Accounting Principles" accept tactics which make sense and are acceptable in accounting but which, in fact, make the companies LESS accontable to the government and stockholders, the accountants are no longer keeping the companies accountable and, by definition, are no longer accontants. When the only purpose of accountants is to filter or "modify" the true information to present a rosy picture, that's PR, not accounting.
I think the ultimate fix for the scandals we are seeing is the complete elimination of the "accounting industry." All that is needed, and has been needed for the last 15 or so years, is a complete accounting program. I'm not talking about an accounting program that allows accountants to shift ledger accounts all day long, but do it electronically. Accounting should be as follows: 1) Money is earned or spent. 2) That data is captured into the accounting software. The data should include the amount and the reason. 3) The computer automatically reports both to the SEC and the stockholders in REAL-TIME. Everyone should know within no more than 24 hours the complete position of a company. If there are large amounts that seem to be miscategorized, believe me, with so many eyes scrutinizing the data they would be called to task within days.
The entire public, stockholders, competition, EVERYONE, becomes the accountants that make companies accountable.
At the same time, such a system would cost orders of magnitude less than to hire a company to do your accounting and to overlook your accounting. And perhaps the savings of money could be put to better use. Perhaps some companies could avoid bankruptcy from the savings...
To earn a shitload of money? Yes, I strive for that. Daily.
Assuming you have any experience and education, you're silly to work for that little
I have education and plenty of experience. That's why I've been an independent consultant since 1999. Before the recession I did quite well. I still charge $100/hr but, believe it or not, there have been fewer contracts during this recession.
It's times like these one regrets not having accepted a nice stable job earning more. But so it goes.
Your economics are seriously fucked. Assuming a band can actually get 260 gigs a year (sounds easy, doesn't it), you're not allowing them any expenses. They have to buy a tour bus, hire a driver and a manager (to get them the 260 gigs), somehow buy and repair their instruments and amps, eat in restaurants all the time, etc.
I know they won't get 260 gigs a year. I know there are expenses. There are also expenses involved in getting a 4, 6, or 8-year education for those careers that require it. And we all have to eat, too, whether at home or on the road.
My point? Where is it written that musicians should earn a lot of money? There are a ton of jobs where the people earn peanuts. Many people can't even make ends meet, but they still go to work and do their job.
Whether an artist is making a profit or even making ends meet is not my concern any more than it should be your concern whether this particular independent consultant has food on the table tomorrow. The market dictates what will be paid and how. All the musician (or I) can do is do our best to make the best of the situation. And if ends truly can't be met, find a different or additional source of income.
Just as there are people who love to write code and make it open source and free for everyone--and many of these projects are arguably better than those which cost $300 off the shelf--there will be musicians that will create good music (arguably better than Britney Spears) and make little or no money doing it. Heck, if you consider their time they might even lose money... just like open-source programmers.
And I don't ask anyone to work for free. If the artist doesn't want to produce music, that's fine. But the market has spoken and the market will no longer pay for the digital representation of a song. I'm part of that market and will continue to pay the current market price for sound recordings: zero.
Well, $180 for a few hours of work. Two bands, one evening. Say they play from 10pm to 2am. So let's say they play 2 hours. $180 / 2 hours = $90/hour. That's almost what I charge as a consultant.
On the other hand you say they might drive 6 hours/day to do that. So let's just say they can earn $180 per day per person. Assuming they work 52 week years (I know *I* do a s a consultant), that comes to 180 x 5 x 52 = $46,800 per year. That's above the per capita U.S. income last time I checked.
Perhaps they only work once or twice per week? Well, I wish *I* only worked once or twice per week. Actually, I could... but I'd probably have to find another job to earn me some more money because I couldn't get by on the money I could earn in one or two days.
I think the problem is, perhaps, musicians have gotten it in their heads that they're somehow entitled to earning millions of dollars like Phil Collins. Well, I have a goal of making as much as Bill Gates but yet I only earned $50k last year.
It's reality, get used to it.
Me neither. Music is free now. Do the artists want to earn some money? Do some gigs, go on tours. They can and will still earn $20+ on each ticket there.
As for the RIAA, they can shrivel up and die. They had their half century milking the public and building a monopoly that got rich off the work of the artists at the expense of both the public and the artists. Their monopoly is now obsolete. Good bye.
Because it assumes that you answer ALL the questions accurately ALL the time, but they will add "noise" so supposedly your exact answer cannot be known. They assume that since they add noise that people will answer all the questions accurately all the time. That, unfortunately, is not the case.
All they'll end up with is a dataset where the few accurate answers are now distorted by noise, and the lies are also distorted making it harder to differentiate the two.
It's a non-starter and useless...
There is no ambiguity except for those that wish to create it by confusing a continent (either North America or South America, or both) with the country referred to, in short version, as "America."
An "American" is a citizen of the United States of America just as a Mexican is a citizen of the "United States of Mexico" (Estados Unidos Mexicanos).
"American intersts" refer to interests of the United States.
"North American interests" refer to intersts of the continent of North America while "South American intersts" refers to the interests of South America. If talking about both continents, "Intersts of the Western Hemisphere" would be the most accurate.
It's all really quite academic. If you say "I'm an American" everyone knows you're from the United States, not from Canada or Mexico. Only those that want to be confused will be.
- Main Entry: America
/-k&z/ the lands of the western hemisphere including N., Central, & S. America & the W. Indies
Observations:Pronunciation: &-'mer-&-k&
Usage: geographical name
1 either continent (N. America or S. America) of the western hemisphere
2 or the Americas
3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
1. If you subscribe to definition #1, then someone calling themselves an "American" based on continent at best is being vague (which part of America?). A better name would be "North American" or "South American" or to name yourself by country, any of which would be more precise then "America" in definition #1.
2. Definition #2 confirms my earlier comment that the two continents, together, are often called "The Americas."
. 3. Definition #3 confirms that, whether you like it or not, "America" is an acceptable way to identify the United States of America.
Citizens of the United States of America can proudly call themselves Americans. Citizens of other countries in the Americas may call themselves Americans if they would rather the world think they are citizens of the United States rather than of whatever country they may be citizens of. I guess I can understand wanting to be associated with the greatest country on earth. :)
Citizens of the "United States of Mexico" are commonly called "Mexicans" just as citizens of the United States of America are commonly called Americans.
Someone who lives in North America may be called "North American" and someone who lives in South America may be called "South American."
There is no continent called "America", although North and South America are often referred to collectively as "The Americas."
References:
- World Atlas
- World Atlas 2000
- The Continents
- Continents of the World
- World Facts and Figures
Now can we please just accept that Americans are Americans? Those that persist with this "Americans is everyone in the western hemisphere" line are just people with an axe to grind and are trying to take away part of Americans' identity by making it politically incorrect to call yourself American.Get over it.
You're kidding, right?
Not knowing one way or the other, can you cite any examples of this? I know of the standard trade wars--and I can see "accept this or we will levy 50% importation on your $PRODUCT". But completely stopping trade with a country based on a trade dispute?
That said, I've already mentioned that I'm 100% in favor of 0% tarrifs on everything between every country, period. So whether or not the above is true, I'd be opposed to it and the practice would be moot if there were no tarrifs anywhere.
Again this is a measure that will benefit our economy, but hardly benefits theirs.
You missed my point. You said that rich countries can force certain policies/tarrifs on poor countries. I said something along the lines of "Whether or not this is in the rich country's long-term interest is questionable." I stand by that. I think, in the long term, the above would be bad for both the rich and poor country.
Do those countries really have an alternative or is it a theoretical one? Knowing they hardly have an alternative it would be extortion to 'ask' them for their trees. We HAVE the freedom to ask them for their wood, but knowing they have no alternatives, that makes us the responsible ones.
I disagree with that completely and stand by my original comment. Being poor does not absolve one of responsibility or give them the right to "pass the buck." I will concede that perhaps responsibility is harder for those with fewer options, but that doesn't make them any less responsible.
The effect of last option is to say to your poor people "sorry, we know you desperately need the money, but you can't work in that Japanese sweatshop".
I'd rather see them say to the rich company, "Hey, you want to exploit our labor? Fine. Here are the minimum labor standards and pay."
I'd rather see that the foreign company in this example would see it as a moral duty to offer a working environment that stands up to their own standards with working and safety conditions in which they would let their own employees work too.
I would do that myself if I had a company. Others may not. Others may look at it at outsourcing. The ethics of any given businessman (or any given person) is a wildcard. The local government should protect their own so that wildcard businessmen / companies / countries don't abuse them.
Personally, I'd love to see both--ethical businesses and local governments overseeing that. But since we don't live in a perfect world and not everyone is 100% ethical what we CAN expect is local governments protecting working conditions.
You're right. It's is very likely that there are more factors involved. But it's hard to say cuttimg down trees contributes for xx% of the flooding problem and global warming for yy% etc.
I plan to read the links you provided previously regarding trees and floods... But, as is the case with global warming, I'm sure that 99% of the cause is natural and, maybe, 1% is man-made. In other words, I think that even if they hadn't cut the trees down there still would have been a flood in Germany. Perhaps the flood would have been 2.95 meters instead of 3.00, but would that have been any less destructive?
In many cases plants don't have an eternal life and improvements have to be made anyway... Those are perfect moments to think about less polluting methods and measures, but a company must be willing to do so or nothing happens.
I agree. New plants should be built with the latest, lower-pollution technologies available at the time.
But what if a certain technology reduces the pollution but to implement it would bankrupt the company or make the product no longer viable? How much CO2 is permissible to avoid X number of people being thrown out of work?
Again, I must stress that I'm talking mostly about CO2 since that's mostly what environmentalists seem concerned about these days. I don't dispute that toxic waste shouldn't be thrown in rivers, nuclear waste shouldn't be thrown in trash dumps, and that cancer-causing contaminants should be extremely well-filtered.
Having with 'only' 250.000.000 inhabitants and being that influencial also carries responsabilities to listen to others. I just don't like to see the U.S. to go their own way in this matter.
No-one has a responsibility to listen to a babbling idiot. I'm not suggesting that you are one, but I am suggesting that if the United States, in its own informed opinion, thinks that what everyone else is saying is hogwash we have absolutely NO responsibility to listen to them just because they outnumber us. In fact, our government has a responsibility to its citizens to protect us from such nonsense by not going along with the crowd.
I actually can't tell if they are really true, but to put the story aside saying it's bullshit is ignorant.
No. Ignorant is when you frame your argument around the possibility of having to find two additional planets to support the population in 2050. As someone else said in this thread, they framed two options 1) Reduce our consumption now. 2) Find two more planets. Since the second one is impossible, the conclusion is that we must reduce consumption now.
. That's an inaccurate conclusion, certainly not scientific. It doesn't contemplate the possible--dare I say PROBABLE--improvements in technology in the next 50 years that will reduce pollution without reducing consumption. THAT'S the third choice and it's not one they significantly addressed.
The reason they didn't talk to the third option is because they aren't making a real effort to present the possible options to the public. They are trying to scare the public into accepting their politics. That's why their story was written off by most as bullshit...
I believe we agreed that developing the economy of a 3rd world country is important for them to achieve wealth and money and in the ling term for us for trade. Imposing all kings of regulations on their industry will withhold them more than it will us. Sure eventually they have to live to the restrictions, but they need to develop first and with our help they can do that in a 'good' way.
The fact is, in most cases 3rd world countries end up developing because richer nations invest in them. If RICH nations are investing in them anyway they should be required to use the latest in pollution-controlling technology, should they not?
Me: First, it doesn't take an economics degree to understand that if labor is cheaper in India and China *AND* they aren't facing Kyoto restrictions, that polluting companies will simply moved to those countries.
You: The same thing as my sweatshop example. Responsible behaviour from the companies would restrict that from happening.
You seem to have a lot of faith in companies' "responsible behavior." History shows that your faith is misplaced. If you set up the scenario described by Kyoto (expensive labor and environmental restrictions in 1st world, cheap labor and no environmental restrictions in 3rd world) then I can assure you that the companies WILL move there, they WILL pollute there, and they WILL take their jobs there.
You can talk about corporate responsibiltiy all you want. I'm talking about reality. And that's why the U.S. didn't sign on to Kyoto. I invite you review the U.S. stand. Unfortunately, the U.S. didn't even dispute the goals and reductions required by Kyoto--the U.S. disputed it being implemented in some countries and not in others.
Me: Second, it doesn't take a climate science degree to understand that since the above is true you really haven't reduced pollution on a global scale--you've just moved the pollution to developing countries where we can't see it.
You: More responsible behaviour...
In what theoretical utopia do you live in? Again, I'm talking about reality.
Me: 1) redistribute wealth to developing countries by moving jobs there at the expense of developed countries. 2) redistribute pollution so that we can feel squeaky clean in the developed world while the developing world becomes even dirtier.
You: Well, the 1) isn't bad. It will pay off. The 2) is a problem that requires a lot of attention.
And therein lies the real problem. You've agreed that Kyoto will do little more than redistribute pollution and requires "a lot of attention" but also agree that "it isn't bad, it will pay off" that we redistribute wealth from the 1st world to the 3rd world.
I don't want to enter the whole socialism debate, but this is my exact point: If you want to redistribute world wealth then propose it. See if the world accepts it. DON'T camaflouge it as environmental regulations that don't help the environment but do achieve worldwide socialism/wealth distribution.
Me: A better question is: Why does anyone think that Kyoto will actually help the environment?
You: I think CO2 IS accepted as problem by many countries, and it's assumed (to play it safe) a reduction of CO2 WOULD help the environment. The influence of european governments on the market and companies is bigger than America's government. Blackmail by companies is occuring here, but there is a climate here that consumers demand more and more responsability from companies. Consumer behavior and governmental regulations have effects on companies. My impression is that the US government is run/bought by industry or lobby groups. Therefore they are very influencial on the american politics. Perhaps in Europe it's easyer to enforce Kyoto and force responsable behaviour on companies.
Well, I disagree that CO2 is harmful pollution. But even if it is, let me re-ask the question you didn't answer: Why does anyone think that Kyoto will actually help the environment? As you essentially conceded above, pollution will be redistributed to exempt countries, not eliminated. So why does anyone think Kyoto will help the environment? Unless you refer to the environment of developed countries at the expense of the environment of developing countries?
If you milk a society that can afford it I'd say that's economy. But with medicine it's a little more complicated. I think people deserve to be healthy. Health souldn't be a priviledge for the rich.
As I tried to say in my last post, I basically agree. Some controls needs to be placed on health care in terms of how much profit is acceptable.
Health care is a tough political issue and is also not what we're talking about here. We're talking about the environment.
I would even go as far as saying that the 1st world should be opened for the 3rd worlds' products. You should have _some_ protection for your local products, but it would be good if there was some (more) money to flow to the 3rd world and not the other way around. This also means the 3rd world has to be protected from our products. At least until the 3rd world has become more like the 1st world and they truely can play their past in the global trade game.
I believe there should be 0% tarrifs tomorrow, period. Rich, poor, developing, developed. 0% tarrifs. No-one should be protected in the U.S., and no-one should be protected in Malaysia.
I believe the above would in the short-term help the developing countries and hurt the developed countries, but in the long-term (10+ years) it would help everybody.
But, unlike Kyoto, it has to be UNIVERSAL. No exceptions. Not for me, not for you, not for Bill Gates, and not for poor Ethiopians.
Me: Exactly. Which is why Kyoto should apply to everyone, not just the developed countries.
You: The thing is that WE can afford the live up to Kyoto. Developing countries, at the moment, hardly can.
Let me summarize:
- Most development in the 3rd world happens because the 1st world invests in it. Since the 1st world has the money, it should invest in doing it cleanly.
- If it doesn't apply to everyone, including developing countries, pollution will just be relocated, not eliminated.
- The end-result of Kyoto is not pollution reduction but wealth and pollution redistribution. Kyoto should be debated as a wealth redistribution treaty, not an environmental one.
Do what you can. That's responsible.So it would be responsible for the U.S. to institute environmental restrictions on CO2 gas, which does not carry any negative health effects, to the point that it is not possible to perform many industries in the U.S., while agree to make it permissible to do those same things in China, give our American companies a financial incentive to move out of the country, and leave countless millions of our citizens out of work? And for what gain? To pollute China instead of the U.S.?
I'm sorry, if the futileness of the Kyoto treaty--except for wealth redistribution--isn't clear to you by now I'm not sure that re-explaining it to you again will help.
Me: Today we have tarrifs, tomorrow we don't. Done.
You: But then the poor countries would be overrun by our companies?
Yes, that's probably true. Our companies would overrun them to take advantage of cheap labor. That would happen at the cost of laborers in the rich countries. But, within 10-20 years, the poor countries would increase in wealth and those incentives would disappear. Eventually, there'd be no reason for the U.S. to be any richer than Afghanistan. But, in the long run, the U.S. wouldn't LOSE--we'd gain because there'd now be 6 BILLION potential consumers with disposable income rather than, what, about 1.5 billion or so now?
Since our conversation has gone all over the board, from environment to socialism to health care to corporate responsibility, let me try to summarize my viewpoint:
The answer is simple. As you see one format going out, back up your data on the new format. I used to have data on floppies. Then I backed them up on CD-ROM. That'll work and when the next format comes along there will be a time that both CD-ROM and the new format are available--you move your backup to the new format.
This is not rocket science.
I do. I had been checking for your reply periodically over the last two days. :)
To me responsability is a duty that comes with freedom. We can apply that to nature too. We have the freedom to do with it whatever we want, but we have to do it in a responsable way.
I agree with you 100%.
I'd say freedom a universal right.
I again agree with you 100%.
Do we have the right to force poor farmers to buy our seeds for a high price by refusing to buy their regular product if they don't?
I'd say we have the right to set terms for our business deals just as they have the right to take their business elsewhere. There are few products that can only be obtained from a single country.
Whether the above is ethical or even good long-term for the rich country is another story. I'm personally in favor of 0% tarrifs on everything worldwide. "Customs" should exist only to make sure nothing illegal or dangerous is coming in, not to levy taxes.
Is it right to cut rainforests in other countries because they hardly have any other resources?
It's not our RIGHT to cut rainforests, but it is our right to look around the world for the resources we want. It is the right of the country that owns the rainforest to decide whether they want to satisfy existing demand.
Those countries can't do anything about it. They're with their backs against the wall. They have no other options that to do what we want them to do. That is no freedom for them.
I agree they are in a hard place. I'm sure it is very tempting for them to go ahead and chop down rainforests to earn a few bucks. But to say they have no choice isn't correct. As you said, everyone has rights and corresponding responsibilities. That applies to everyone, not just the rich.
In the case of sweatshops even in circumstances that we wouldn't accept here. Compared to what their work is worth we pay hardly them. That is slavery. The only difference is that it's not happening in our oun countries, but far far away so that we don't have to think about it.
Believe me, I'm not in favor of sweatshops nor exploiting child labor. That's bad and regardless of what company I happened to own I would never do it--that's a question of ethics.
But those practices are all tacitly "approved" by their local government. The local government should look out for their own--in fact, that is there RESPONSIBILITY. If they lived up to their responsibility, the problem of child exploitation and sweatshops would go away. Sure, the company might leave for another country--until that country also lived up to its responsibility to its citizens.
Again, I think it is unethical for companies of rich countries to knowingly support child/sweatshop labor. But at the same time I can't help but thinking if Japan were to start a sweatshop in Los Angeles and Americans willingly went to work there--even if those Americans were penniless homeless people--should the world complain about Japan looking for the best deal or about the U.S. that isn't enforcing labor laws within its territory?
Isn't it safe to assume that something that has bad effects locally, also has bad effects globally??
I'd say that depends on the issue. Something bad locally may or may not have bad effects regionally or globally.
If you're using a mathematical model there will ALWAYS be someone saying that the model is flawed.
In the case of the environment, the model can be applied to a past scenario to see if it is able to reproduce the current scenario. If it does, you're half-way there. Then, if it continues to get it right for a reasonable period of time (perhaps 5 or 10 years? Depends on what you're modeling I guess) then you can consider it proved.
At the same time, I don't think a model has to be 100% right. I would be willing to accept a model that was 90% right 90% of the time. But so far we have don't have anything remotely close to that--and therein lies the problem. We don't have a second earth to do experiments, and the models haven't been able to successfully reproduce todays environment based on past scenarios. That puts the environmentalists in a tough place selling their case to the public.
For example cutting down trees to make skiing possible... The result is that with heavy rain and in the spring (melting snow) the amount of water in the Rhine has increased and causes floods in Germany like in Kohln (Colonge)
Wow, do they completely remove every tree from the mountainside? I'm an avid skier (Ski Colorado!) but we have "ski runs." It's kind of like a narrow road through the forest, and that ski run has grass on it so that when the snow melts it doesn't take the topsoil with it.
Assume Swiss has the right / freedom to cut down their trees. Does this give them the right to cause floodings and damage in Germany and the Netherlands?
That's a tough one. I admit I haven't read about the Swiss Tree/German flood scenario but unless they are downing an ungodly number of trees I would truly have to think that the floods are caused by varying precipitation levels--not solely by the lack of trees. That is, I can accept that the trees are an aggravating factor, but I find it hard to believe that the downed trees are the only cause of the floods.
I don't know about the cause of the floods in Texas, but the economical damage is enormous [usatoday.com]
I currently live in Monterrey Mexico, about 5 hours south of San Antonio which is where the major flooding occurred. In fact, we were hit by the same storm. The flooding was due to an unusual storm that just camped over Texas and rained. Floods happen.
Something like "If you have to pollute, make sure to maximize profit, but if you have to make profit, make sure to minimize pollution."
I'd say both of the above are true. What it really comes down to "Make as much wealth as possible with as little pollution as possible."
Pollution per dollar is only interesting to point out (in)efficient industries.
And I'm 99% sure (I'm participating in multiple threads) that that's what I said at the beginning. The pollution per dollar analysis is useful in determining what countries need to have their efficiency improved.
Many companies can perfectly function with a smaller profit and invest that in exhaust filters or other measures.
If that's all it was, I'd agree with you. Unfortunately, the demands of many environmentalists are so extreme that we're not talking about installing filters--we're talking about building entirely new plants, or perhaps terminating production completely.
That's the question. I'm not against taking logical steps to reduce dangerous pollution. Dumping chemicals into rivers is not acceptable. Throwing nuclear waste into a garbage dump isn't either. I don't, however, believe that CO2 production is "dangerous pollution." That's far from proved. Regardless of how much we pump into the air, it won't kill us. The worst possible scenario is the indirect effects from global warming--but that hasn't been proved beyond a reasonable doubt yet. See paragraph above concerning how to test models and how much accuracy is needed to make the case to the public.
And the general reaction on /. is total denyal of the article we were reacting to.
Most everyone discounts the report because its absurd. But believe me, my Karma has taken a hit for my "I don't believe the whole environmental crisis story." /. might not agree with the report (because it IS absurd) but believe me, the majority would side with you, not with me.
"We have a damn near infinite supply of oil..." (this person forgot the 70's oil crisis)
That was due to purely human/political reasons, not because of any real lack of oil.
The question that interests me is why the US is completely refusing to participate in Kyoto. Perhaps you can help me out?
First, it assumes that we have concluded that not only is global warming happening but that humans are the major cause of it. That is far from proven.
Second, it assumes that even if there is global warming that it must be bad. That is also far from proven. In fact, I read an article yesterday that stated that a slightly warmer winter last year saved the U.S. economy over $21 billion and saved lives from severe winter storms (sorry, I'm not going to hunt it down right now--feel free to google it).
Third--and I think this is the biggest--it makes no sense to apply Kyoto restrictions/reductions to the developed world and not apply them to developing countries--especially when two of the exempted countries (India and China) account for nearly 50% of the world population and one of them is even less efficient than the U.S. on a GDP/Pollution basis.
First, it doesn't take an economics degree to understand that if labor is cheaper in India and China *AND* they aren't facing Kyoto restrictions, that polluting companies will simply moved to those countries. That will cause more employment in India and China but it will also cause more pollution there AND cost jobs in the developed countries.
Second, it doesn't take a climate science degree to understand that since the above is true you really haven't reduced pollution on a global scale--you've just moved the pollution to developing countries where we can't see it.
My conclusions (and I speak for myself, not the U.S. as a whole or the U.S. Senate, etc.) are that Kyoto will NOT reduce global pollution, period. What it will do is 1) redistribute wealth to developing countries by moving jobs there at the expense of developed countries. 2) redistribute pollution so that we can feel squeaky clean in the developed world while the developing world becomes even dirtier.
A better question is: Why does anyone think that Kyoto will actually help the environment?
But why are big industrials asking $60.= for an AIDS medicine in Africa.
I would like to think because they spent 40 billion dollars (made up number) on research and only by selling the drugs at these prices can they recoup their investment to (hopefully) research and deploy even better drugs in the future.
That said, I personally think there should be some limits to what companies can charge for medical goods. They definitely need to recoup their investment, they definitely need to make a reasonable return on their investment... but milking the market once they've recouped their investment is unethical.
It's a tough question. You don't want to put so many restrictions on profits from medicine that no-one researches it. At the same time, I have a hard time swallowing (literally) my asthma-control medication that costs $1 per pill. At some point they've recouped their investment and the price ought to come down.
Stimulating the economy in the developint countries will eventually benefit us.
I agree. I'd like to see every world be a 1st world country. Remember, I currently live in Mexico (a 3rd world country).
Therefore I say we have to invest in the developing countries.
We do. Unfortunately, it is often painted as "exploiting third world countries" but the fact remains that we do invest in developing countries paying the local prevailinng labor rates.
They need to grow to a point where they can compete with our industry.
I agree. Hopefully some day my asthma medication will cost $0.02 per pill instead of a dollar.
Helping eachother getting to higher standards will in long term benefit us all.
That's capitalism. With zero tarrifs, companies will go in and exploit (i.e. invest) other countries. Over time, developing countries will develop and their wealth should become on par with the "rich countries."
That will happen all by itself without us making an "effort" to invest in developing countries. It requires no action on behalf of governments. The problem is that all governments that I know of currently impose tarrifs and THAT is what causes developing countries to not advance.
We were the ones buiding the factories in Taiwan, we will build factories in the developing countries. But with our possibilities we can build cleaner factories there.
Exactly. Which is why Kyoto should apply to everyone, not just the developed countries.
Back in the 90's, the U.S. Senate voted 99-0 that they would not sign on to any Kyoto treaty that applied to us but not to developing countries. That's reasonable. And that's the main (official) reason the U.S. would not participate in Kyoto.
Mainly they're against THE WAY the globalisation process takes place.
Whatever. I think they are hoodlums myself. The way globalization should take place is like this: Today we have tarrifs, tomorrow we don't. Done.
Exactly correct.
But as our technological prowess improves, our ability to alter the planet will only become more pronounced.
Perhaps. On the other hand, as our technological prowess improves I tend to believe that we will be able to accomplish more while at the same time affecting the environment less. History has shown that to be true.
The WWF has provided two options: 1) Find two more planets to live on. 2) Reduce consumption.
They've forgotten what is truly the most practical and probable solution: 3) Allow science to continue advancing so that we can accomplish more while causing less damage.
Reducing consumption is just a way of saying, "We've decided to proceed with caution.
True. Although I would again say that the end-goal should be increasing our efficiency so that we don't HAVE to reduce consumption. Reducing consumption is a stop-gap solution that offers a "quick fix" until technology can catch up and allow us to do what we want without causing serious damage.
However, if reducing consumption causes serious economic problems that reduces the amount of money available to scientific research into increasing efficiency then I think the consumption reduction, in the long term, has done more harm than good.
On the other hand, let's not turn buying an SUV into a courageous act of hope and optimism.
My view is that simple economics will keep the proliferation of SUVs in check. There are only so many people that can afford to buy SUVs to start with, much less pay for the gas they consume, etc. We're in no danger of everyone in the U.S. driving a SUV. :)
Perhaps to the Chinese a reduction in freedom is a small price to pay. They don't have a very large tradition of "freedom." Overpopulation also isn't a problem in most of the developed world, so imposing those kinds of reductions in freedoms would be unnecesssary.
What kine freedom do you have when there is no food or no one will take care of you when you need it?
I'm sorry, my freedoms are not negotiable. As the saying goes, "Those that give up freedom to ensure security deserve neither."
If environmentalists ever present a convincing case based on science and logic rather than politics and fear, I think you will see that a vast majority of Americans will take action without someone forcing it on us.
The point is NOT how efficient we pollute. You state 'it's about how much good that person can due for society', but you can do good for society without polluting.
Of course it's about how efficient we pollute--or, more clearly put, it's about how efficiently we can generate wealth with the least amount of pollution.
You can do some good for society without polluting, but for you to be able to do those things you--and the economy around you--have to be in sufficiently good shape to support those activities. If you don't have food, medicine, shelter, etc. you won't be spending much time helping society, I can assure you. And for you to have your food, medicine, and shelter certain activities much take place--and those activities create pollution.
So what we can do is try to increase the efficiency of inefficient countries. We can try to increase our own efficiency as long as doing so provides a net gain in efficiency. If, by implementing a given policy, our GDP/pollution efficiency is reduced we've actually moved in the wrong direction.
By investing in pollution reducing products or processes you decrease the pollution per $.
"Investing" (spending) on these products needs to reduce the amount of pollution per dollar. The problem is, many times the policies actually would INCREASE the amount of pollution per dollar--although overall pollution may be reduced.
What that means is that, yes, you may have less pollution but you've also created less wealth in the world. Those that look at ONLY the environmental side of the equation without looking at the economic side are as shortsighted and out-of-touch with reality as those businesses that dump their toxic waste into rivers.
Still, it's not about how efficient we pollute, it's about how much we pollute.
It's about both. But if we can improve our efficiency, the total amount of pollution will tend to decrease for a given amount of "social good" (wealth).
People don't like seeing the word "wealth" or "money." But these people simply don't understand that in the real world there is a very real relation between "wealth/money" and "standard of living" and "societal good." Sure, we can clean up our environment 100%--and all live like Ethiopians. But despite the fact that we'll have a cleaner environment, few would argue we've served the good of society.
Those few that WOULD suggest we live like Ethiopians if that's what it takes to clean the environment are just as extremists and without merit as those businesses that think that dumping toxic waste in rivers is ok. Neither extreme is acceptable.
Yes indeed. It's an investment that will pay off in the future. Not in hard bucks, but in health and quality of life.
What you and many forget is that our health AND our quality live are very tightly linked to "hard bucks." I know it's an unpopular view, but it's the truth.
Without the hard bucks, we will not have the money to support medical research to produce new medicines that save millions of lives per year. Or reduce the pain and suffering of those that are sick. Or distribute food to those that are starving.
These are ALL aspects of health and quality of life that cannot be addressed without a thriving economy ("hard bucks") to support it. If certain policies that "save our environment" but destroy our economy are implemented, any potential gains in quality of life and health due to a cleaner environment very easily will be overshadowed by the decreases in our ability to address other issues of quality of life.
but compared to health, income, economy, education, infrastructure and so on they're totally nothing compared to the U.S. _OR_ Europe. It's a really cheap excuse. They're FAR from the point where we are. We ARE developed countries. They're not. And placing restrictions on the developing countries will dramatically slow their development.
So it's ok to let developing countries pollute the world for money, but developed countries cannot? I don't see the consistency in that argument based on the rest of your post that seems to imply that the environment is more important than "hard bucks."
Obviously, the Chinese plan will actually REDUCE population over time. It also reduces freedom, but that's often an afterthought to many envrionmnetal radicals.
Simple logics tell me that the land for agriculture will not increase exponentially and neither will the production of food.
Luckily, the world is not ruled by simple logic. Check the information for the last 200 years and you will see that U.S. agricultural production has increased by leaps and bounds due to new techniques and science. Agricultural production has increased faster than population in the U.S.--that's why we don't have famine here.
True, but spending time in a traffic jam or in public transport is a choise. The solution is simple. Live close to job.
I agree. And I work at home. I love it.
Ah. I get it. Oil companies should make fuel more expensive. This A. ingreases their profit and B. will get people to buy cars that will use less fuel.
(A) is not true since by increasing prices the oil companies would cause people to use less, so their total profit would not be significantly effected. (B), however, is true. Although I do not condone the use of price-fixing to strongarm society into taking certain actions.
I would say you need to calculate the pollution per head of the populaton...
No, that is precisely wrong.
If I drive 1000 miles and consume 10 gallons of gas and generate $5000 of wealth (which I may use, in part, for things that benefit society) and someone else drives 1000 miles and consumes 10 gallons of gas and generates only $1500, are we the same? No, I've produced much more wealth which CAN be used for the good of society and generated the same amount of pollution as the person that only generated $1500.
That's why a simple "pollution per person" analysis is flawed. It's not just about how much pollution someone creates, it's about how much good that person can due for society (via the economy) as a result of that pollution.
Are you calculating how efficient countries are polluting the world? But that tells more about the eficiency of the production process, but not about the total procuced amount of pollution.
By increasing efficiency, total pollution will be reduced.
Anyway even IF they are not the worst polluters they, together with Europe and Japan, have FAR more means to decrease their pollution and help other countries to decrease their pollution.
So, in other words, the "rich" countries should subsidize the "poor" countries because we are rich?
Sadly, that is. I think it is too bad that the U.S. is rejecting it while the rest agrees there is a problem and are willing to do something together. And playing together is just a part of the globalisation game.
The main reason the U.S. rejected is because not everyone was "playing together." It placed certain restrictions on the developed world, such as the U.S., Europe, and Japan, while exempting large parts of the developing world, such as India and China which, together, amount to nearly HALF of the world population.
Give us a level playing field in which EVERYONE plays and perhaps we'll consider it. Give freebies to certain countries while we throw our own out of work, prepare yourselves to get a good look at our backs as we walk away...
Why is it up to the United States to set a good example? Can the world not do anything without us? Or must the United States ALWAYS lead?
why in hell should bit players like Cuba and N Korea change?
Well, they contaminate more than the United States if you consider how much pollution they produce and how much wealth they produce.
But, if it's the "right thing to do," why does Cuba, North Korea, or anyone else in the world need to wait for the United States to do it?
And, more importantly, why should the United States do it if so many countries aren't going to do it (a la exemptions in Kyoto). Perhaps the United States would have considered it if there was a level playing field and the same rules applied to all countries.
No thanks... We need to "lead by example" by standing up to popular environmentalism and world pressure to do the "right thing" and, instead, do the "scientific thing" which is to base our decisions on reality and scientific fact, not half-baked psuedo-science filtered through an international PR machine which propose solutions that, if fully implemented, would make the United States' pollution efficiency closer to that of North Korea's... a step in the wrong direction.
I'm not putting a dollar value on the world. I'm calculating the EFFICIENCY of each country to find problem countries which, contrary to popular belief, the United States is NOT. If you do not calculate efficiency you risk making important decisions based on the wrong information.
Of course that's what the environmentalists are counting on because the real information would not suggest that we'll need two planets nor would it suggest that the U.S. is the main problem. God forbid that North Korea, China, and Cuba (communist) all appear higher on the list of pollutants than the United States (capitalist) in any list that compares pollution in a useful way (see my post elsewhere in this thread).
I'd rather take the chance. They've been proved wrong so many times in the past that they've lost all credibility to the point of what they say almost being a guarantee of what WON'T happen.
Taking public transport (or a bike) doesn't hurt me.
Depends where or when you want to go and how fast you need to get there compared to private transportation.
Neither does using 40W lamps in stead of 60W
Depends what you want to light up and where. I use 24W energy-saving bulbs to light up many rooms--because it saves me money, not out of any concern for the environment. And I use 60W bulbs where I need some good working light.
I know America (and Russia for that matter) isn't that happy with anti-pollution measures, but together the two nations are good for 50% of the CO2 (and other exhaust) production in the world.
And how much, percentage-wise, of the world GDP does the U.S. produce? Yes, we consume more and produce more pollution but that alone doesn't tell the whole story. You need to compare it to how much "gross world product" is created by the nation in question.
When you look at pollution from an efficiency standpoint, there are about 47 countries that produce less CO2 per dollar produced and about 150+ countries that produce MORE CO2 per dollar produced.
The United States is not the worst polluter in any important way.
But why are companies like Shell, Q8, Esso and Texaco looking for other alternatives and what is wrong with that?
Nothing, alternatives are great! Especially if some day my car can run on free energy stored from the sun on sunny days and I don't have to pay for gas anymore.
But don't come up with BS reports about the end of the world if we don't stop driving tomorrow. That's nuts and is misinformation.
Importing oil, wood and other products from the 3rd world leaves THEM with the effects while we have the products.
That's economics. If they are unhappy with the effects, stop selling the product.
And even if, in 50 years the statistics turned out to be wrong, at leas it is good to be aware of the (possible) consequences of our lifestyle.
In other words, "Even if they are lying or making absurd claims, at least they're making us aware of a (non-existant) problem."
Come on... It's misinformation and lies. At best, it's conjecture. The more educated can and will take this for what it is--the monthly quota of enviro-hype that must be published to keep the media from losing interest and maintaining their funding.
But to provide the general public, who believes most of what they read, with grossly inaccurate information is dangerous. It raises the risk that politicians will respond to the public's (un-necessary) concern by enacting policies that aren't based on science but on popular culture. That's when you get knee-jerk reactions not based on science such as Kyoto; luckily that's essentially dead since the U.S. has rejected it out of hand.
WWF is another environmentalist group that takes turns with others in releasing "impending disaster" type predictions. This is still somewhat "hip" but I get the feeling that even the media is getting a little tired of the gloom-and-doom-oops-we-were-wrong-again.
The good news is that, for the most part, no-one really listens to these fools. They see the panda logo, hear their spew, and then say "Oh, that's too bad" and buy an SUV. Good! That's about the level of importance that should be attached to their rhetoric.
I have. I'm an American and currently live in a third world country. I definitely prefer the United States.
Someone else: Oh yeah, that pretty much rules out the rest of the fucking world.
You: Maybe you should visit the rest of the world before saying this.
I've traveled the world and lived in non-U.S. countries. The man is right. The United States is the best I've seen so far.
More money - true, but also higher debts and more volatile markets.
You asked what 1st world countries have that 3rd world countries don't. He answered "more money." He is right. Whether or not our economy has other features, as you mentioned, has nothing to do with the topic at hand and isn't what you asked.
That said I would disagree that our markets are any more volatile. The whole world is generally linked now and a bad day in Asia usually leads to a similar day in the U.S., and vice versa. No-one really cares about South Africa, though, so a bad day there doesn't really affect anyone else. :)
Bigger guns - well, that may be true, but it's yet to be seen how effective they really are, and what this has to do with the topic at hand
Of course it has to do with the topic at hand. It's something the 1st world has (bigger guns) that the 3rd world doesn't.
As for effectiveness, shall I list the names of the countries that we have smashed? You may argue the morality or justification of smashing those countries but you certainly can't argue the effectiveness of the guns.
You haven't mentioned a single thing so far. Sorry
Hello? He mentioned "money" and "bigger guns." You acknowledged both. And now you say he hasn't mentioned a single thing so far?
Actual rights - what "actual rights" do you have in the U.S that I don't have here?
From what I've seen of 3rd world countries, most citizens of those countries supposedly have the same rights as we do in the U.S. So many 3rd world countries have modeled their constitutions after ours. The main difference, though, is in whether those "rights" can be freely excercised in reality. This varies from country to country and may not apply to yours.
I have no idea of the situation in South Africa. If you have everything you want and need there, stay there. We'll continue living in the U.S. and everyone will be happy, ok?
If 1st world=3rd world to you and when you visit the U.S. and look past our greatness to see our failure, well, you are either a pessimist or a person with a bone to pick. Arguing with either is futile.
Monterrey. About 5 hours south of San Antonio.
1. establishing income (finding even IT work that will allow you to work remotely seems challenging), is there IT work there for americans?
If you speak Spanish, you can generally find work. Americans are in demand because it seems having an American on-board gives the company a certain prestige--and the fact that you speak fluent English is a big plus for most companies.
Things have probably cooled down since the recession began so it may be harder to find work these days.
You won't earn much money unless you get some kind of upper management position. If you are the IT Director of an entire bank you'll earn good money, but if you are a network administrator for that same bank you won't do so well. There's a huge difference between what "most" of the people (IT and not) make and what the upper few people make.
Back in 1996-1999 I worked as a software engineer at a Mexican company down here. When I could have been making $50k-$90k in the States, I was making about $18k here in Mexico. For obvious reasons, in 1999 I quit and now I do independent consulting--most of which I do for American companies. I really don't do much business with Mexican companies, I just happen to live in Mexico because my wife is Mexican and she isn't ready to move to the States yet.
As for interesting work, that may also be a problem. Most of the IT work is rather cut-and-dry business apps. Accounting systems, other applications running a business. Truly cool and interesting development projects are less common here than in the United States, I'd say.
I agree. I'm an American and have lived the last 6+ years in Mexico. I've never been called anything worse than "amigo americano." I've traveled to Ecuador and Colombia--in both cases they were THRILLED that I was visiting their country and wanted to make sure I was having a positive trip and thought well of their countries. Everyone I was introduced to would ask, "What do you think of Colombia?"
North and South America generally gets along. It's the "Old Continent" and basicaly the "other" hemisphere that is FUBAR. We've only solved their "world" wars twice and are involved around the world so that WE don't have to finish another war that someone else starts in a continent thousands of miles away.
Perhaps we'll stop sticking our nose in "other's" business when they give some feeble demonstration that they won't kill each other as soon as we withdrawl...
It's not the same thing.
If I could obtain what I wanted for free without even making a TRIP to Wal-Mart and, thus, stopped buying stuff there then, yes, Wal-Mart either has an outdated business model and has to figure out some other way to get me into the store. No-one is walking into record stores and walking away with CDs without paying. We just are getting what we want without even going there.
Theft, piracy, and knock-offs, while often illegal, are facts of any business.
Nike can only charge a certain amount before the public will spend 10% as much on a "knock-off" which is 90% as good.
Microsoft can only charge so much before increasing piracy eats into profit.
Whether or not you think knock-offs or piracy is acceptable, it's a part of the free-market. Not a legal part, just as monopolistic activity isn't legal--but it's a part of the market that must be factored into any business decision.
A company selling a product that could be easily pirated or "mimicked" (like Nike shoes) targets their price to maximize profits--and that includes maximizing price while minimizing the "losses" to activities such as knock-offs or piracy. It must be assumed that the RIAA is maximizing their profits--including taking into account "piracy"--with the prices they have chosen. Otherwise, they would choose another price.
"Piracy" can be thought of as an individual's response to a perceived abuse of the free market. It's not necesarrily legal, but it IS a response.
It is often said that if you aren't happy with the price you just shouldn't buy the product--THAT's the free market in action. True, but just as the government occasionally has to take drastic measures to limit monopolistic abuse, an individual sometimes perceives a need to take drastic measures too. The goal of the RIAA should be to maximize profits while minimizing the perception of individuals that piracy is a reasonable response to what they perceive to be an abuse of the market.
Further, the price which piracy eventually forces a company to sell their product at is the "natural" price that would have eventually been reached by the free market legally. Piracy just forces that price to be met sooner.