1. Yes, all sorts of human labor has been made obsolete since the dawn of the industrial revolution. So what... Do you know that prior to the mechanization of farms over 60 percent of all human labor was devoted to the production of food. 60 percent of everything we did was just to feed ourselves.
What portion of human labor in the first world goes to agriculture? It is between 1.5 and 2 percent in the US and we are net food exporters.
The problem with this whole "the robots are stealing our jobs" line is that people just get other jobs. When machines and improved agricultural practices made subsistence farmers obsolete those people got factory jobs.
Once the factories started automating or building better machines... which they've been doing for about 100 years at least... we had jobs go to clerical work, office jobs, accounting, management, calculation, etc.
Computers are reducing the labor required in ALL segments of the economy. Farming is becoming more efficient... we can use drone harvesters, automatic soil tillers, automatic watering systems, etc. Same thing in factories... robotic arms, etc. Same thing in clerical work with computers just automating huge portions of the business.
But humans still have value. Things they can do. And before you tell me they can't, I'll point out that in asia they are having no trouble finding uses for people.
The problem in the US is not a lack of demand for labor but rather that the cost of living is so high that it is very hard to find jobs that pay enough to support that cost of living.
However, that cost of living is artificially high because of problems in our urban and social planning. If you spread the population out a bit more and didn't cluster people into the densest population areas possible which drives up real estate prices then you could cut the cost of living for many people dramatically. Add to that there is an enormous amount of waste with your subsidies. Giving away all that money to people raises taxes which raises the cost of living which makes it more important to have subsidies which raises the taxes further... its a feed back loop.
You stop the feed back loop by reducing what is causing it and it can just outright stop leaving you with a reasonable income and standard of living without massive subsidies being required to prop everything up.
2. As to it not mattering why people can't afford to pay their bills, this is just lazy. It absolutely always matters and refusing to analyze why is unforgivable. I literally can't have this discussion with you if you're going to refuse to even look into any of your own premises.
Explain these draconian laws? Because another point I'd lay out there is that the enforcement and policing of federal parks is so poor that drug cartels are growing marijuana in them. That either isn't happening or is happening much less in state parks. Which is another argument in favor of giving them to state institutions where the state should at least police the land for people growing drug plantations.
1. Labor isn't obsolete and shall never be obsolete until robots are in all ways superior to the average person. That is unlikely to happen at any point in the near future. What is more, if that does happen... we all get personal robot slaves and we'll probably devolve into an incredibly decadent society... before being slaughtered by rebelling robots that will surplant us as a species and carry on until they realize that the stupid humans they killed had some essential quality the needed... too bad they're all dead... and the robots power down or rust or whatever.
2. Much of the cost of living problems are the result of rising COSTS not the falling value of the labor itself. Compare the cost of living in Chicago for example with the cost of living in Anchorage Alaska. Now on simple logical grounds you'd think that the cost of living in Alaska should be higher because after all everything has to get literally shipped into an often ice locked port. There are no trains or reliable roads up there. You bring everything in by boat or plane. And yet... it is cheaper to live there... to feed yourself... to get access to basic services such as water, power, phone service, medical care... then in fucking chicago. Now is the quality of some of those services higher in chicago? Sure... mostly their hospitals are a good deal better but lets not pretend that is a deal breaker. The point is that the fact you're finding it harder and harder to subsidize housing, food, etc for people living in densly populated major cities is not because the value of their labor has fallen. It is rather because the cost of living in those cities has gone up while the wages earned by most people in those cities has stagnated or fallen. The obvious solution is to depopulated the cities of excess labor. This is already happening. We are seeing a major population shift away from those cities and that is good. The more it falls the more prices in those cities should fall as demand falls. And that should at some point in the future bring the whole system back into equilibrium. However, it is continually destabilized by the government which insists on paying people effectively to live in these cities. They're given free housing, free food, free medical care, free education... etc. When really they should be encouraged to move somewhere else they can afford to actually support themselves.
In effect, the problem you're describing was caused by bad social programs in the first place. And the more money you shovel at this problem the worse it is going to get. Its like trying to cure a fat man by feeding him larger and larger blocks of cheese. It is not helping. Do I need to go through the long list of cities that were pretty much outright destroyed by social programs? The worst case was Detroit... ground zero for the "great society" program. The city has not recovered from that since and likely will not in my life time... and I am not old.
As to what people would do without these programs... well, you are quite correct that people are now addicted to the programs but addictions are not justifications for giving people all the cocaine they can snort either. Clearly they need help. And understand... I want to help them. I really do. My end goal however is for them to be cured of it. The dependency these social welfare programs create is not a solution. It is a syndrome. What I would like to do is rehabilitate as many people as possible, reduce the dependency of those that can't be fully self sufficient as much as possible, and for those that really can't live on their own... I will support keeping them comfortable. However, the last category cannot exceed 10 percent of the population. Ideally it must be as small as possible. If it exceeds 10 percent... which is an arbitrary number take it as a rough guideline... then I will look very hard for solutions to reduce the number below that point. I will also be open to drastic and hopefully creative solutions to arrive at that point.
Please understand... I do not want to hurt people. I do not wa
Wrong. This is ANOTHER stupid law and ANOTHER sign that the parks are being mismanaged. My solution to this ONGOING problem is to turn the parks over to the states where they will likely be better taken care of and problems at the federal level will not effect the parks at that point.
I don't accept that the last word was in 1776... however you must concede that without that word there would be no federal government. In fact, practically every expansion of federal power was triggered by an external threat. Absent those threats the federal government would either not exist at all or would be a much more limited organization.
It is only recently that social programs have been used to expand federal power. And really, though you might feel this is cynical... I think the only reason that has happened is because some corrupt politicians have figured out that they can buy votes from poor people by giving away money from other people.
Point blank.
As to your claim that democracy is flawed... of course it is... we've always known it was flawed. The problem is that no one knows of anything that is less prone to corruption. What would your alternative be? A technocracy where some elite group of thinkers made choices for everyone? The problem with that is that there is no way to ensure those people don't just act for their own interests rather then anyone else's or society's. Effectively it would just be an oligarchy... a new age nobility with barons, counts, and dukes by new names.
Yes, democracy has problems. However, we know what most of those problems are and this ability for politicians to buy votes with other people's money is one of the known flaws in the system. In fact, it is a flaw that was discussed at the founding of the country. Sadly, constitutional laws were not laid down at the time to make the practice illegal as it obviously should have been all along.
Due to this hole in our system... we are slowly killing ourselves with out of control entitlement spending. The entitlement budget grows every year at a greater rate then the economy grows... all cuts in other programs simply mean the entitlement spending grows even faster.
Its cancer. And it is probably terminal. Your call for more social programs frankly is absurd in this context. The solution to cancer is not more cancer.
1. We have state parks that are as well run as anything the feds manage.
2. I referenced the fed managed land to point out that just because the feds are running something doesn't mean they're doing it well.
Look, I generally hold that people that live in an area tend to care more about that area then people that live thousands of miles away and have never been there before.
Do you disagree? Do you think that people that live in a place care less about it then people that have never been there? Yes or no?
Kay... so given that you have to conclude that the locals care more why would you put people that do not live there and may not have ever seen the place with their own eyes more control over it then the people that actually happen to reside there in the first place?
And before you say something about locals turning national parks into strip mines or something equally goofy... I will again remind you of the state parks where for some reason that doesn't happen... so why this fixation on federal control of something that could very easily be state run? Just tell me why you care? Because I have been upfront with my interests here. I think the feds mismanage these properties because they don't really matter to them as much. The closure of federal parks during the budget crisis was a good example of that. The feds did that as a political power play. They did not do it to save money as they claimed because closing the parks actually COST them more money then leaving them open. They had to put rangers on guard duty keeping people out of parks. They had to put them on overtime. They spent MORE money keeping people out then they would have simply running the parks as usual. And yet they tried to keep them out to put pressure on political rivals to relax budget controls.
This is just one of the many things you expose our park system to by leaving it in federal control. Every time there is a budget dispute you could see a sitting president play games with the parks. I believe a park ranger pulled a gun on a tour bus of senior citizens during this last altercation. I'd just assume avoid this situation in the future. Give the parks to the states.
The feds can save whatever they're spending on parks for whatever they want to spend money on elsewhere. The states would be very happy to take up stewardship of the parks and should run them as well or better then the feds.
I really don't see the argument for not doing this yesterday.
As to 1-3, we appear to agree. This will have implications for 4.
As to "all we can determine." that is again fine. However, in taking that short cut you lose the ability to say you are backed by science. You are rather backed by your opinions and guesses ABOUT science.
Now those opinions might be reasonable and the guesses could be educated... but they are not science. What this means is that if you DO take these shortcuts whether you had a choice or not you must show a bit of humility in stating your case.
Science as per 1-3 doesn't care if you had a hard time figuring something out or if it was impossible to get good information. Science isn't about what is and is not convenient. It is a process. You follow the process or you did not follow the process. Either/or. And if you didn't follow the process you're going to have be upfront about that, honest with yourself, and try to work with people and peers in a manner that reflects the common understanding that shortcuts were made.
Beyond this we both reserve the right to listen to whom we choose. However, if you aspire to cooperation from the public at large it is not in your interest to browbeat people for merely pointing out that you have overstated your reasonable degree of confidence on issues for political gain. This has been done repeatedly which is why many of the IPCC reports have come under such savage criticism and several of them have been sent back for massive reediting.
Beyond that, let us get to the real heart of the issue here. It is not the science and it is not whether or not the planet is warming. The heart of the issue is what some propose to do about it. It is THAT which is ultimately causing most of the controversy. Not the science but rather the political solution to the science. If you admit that point then we can talk about what we might be able to do to bring about a meeting of minds. The conceit of many that the opposition is stupid is in error. Neither side is stupid. They merely disagree on some things and have mutually enough power to prevent the other from acting without their consent. Regardless of what you think in this matter you must admit to that political reality. Which means if you care about the environment... you must either successfully suppress hundreds of millions of people in a democracy... good luck there... Or you must sit down and talk about solutions we can all find palatable. This compromise is possible. The politicians don't like it because they find factional rivalries to be better for getting voters to show up on election day. But if you care about the issue and not whether the blue team or the red team wins... you'll talk.
As to social programs being the main point of the government... really? So in 1776... it was all about socialized medical care?
Oh wait... it was about repelling british control... which was foreign aggression to the colonists... and since then the primary justification for federal power has always been protecting people from foreign aggression.... not social programs.
So... you're wrong.
As to paying to import goods into the US... neither Mexico nor canada pays them so why would a former US state pay them? Obviously they wouldn't. So... wrong again... unless you just want to punish states for excising that self determination you have no problem with... which I suspect is all this little point is really about.
As to people that need the programs not being able to pay for them, that is fine... but do you not see the problem with those same people VOTING on whether the programs are created in the first place? When you vote on OTHER people's money it isn't really very fair is it? By all means... let everyone vote on things that we all must support. However, if you are on subsistance from the government, I think that should have some cost to you... the first and most reasonable cost is a limitation of your voting rights such that you are unable to vote yourself additional subsidies. This will also reduce the value of such people to politicians because they will be less able to buy votes with other people's money.
Absent that change, the politicians can just buy elections with other people's money which is in large part what many subsidies are entirely about. They are often not even helping people. It just gets a politician some extra numbers in some communities because they get free stuff.
As to only raising taxes on the rich. Done. Do that. Cut taxes on the middle class and "TRY" to tax the hell of the super rich. I won't stop you. You'll fail and get less money but from my perspective it will all work out.
The reason the middle class is targeted for taxes is because they can't escape them. The rich can. They have the lawyers, the accountants, the loopholes, the off shore accounts, etc. They often are not even breaking the law. They're just so practiced at it that they will avoid your taxes without breaking the rules. Warren buffet is probably the best at it from what I've seen. He has structured his whole enterprise around NOT paying taxes. With the result that his tax burden is about 10 percent what it would be otherwise. You could tax men like that at a rate of 100 percent and they'd probably still ACTUALLY pay less then you and me. Which is why the government likes to go after the middle class and the small business people. They have enough money that you can take it but lack the sophistication and resources to protect themselves from you.
But you say you'd leave them alone? Fine. Do it then. You never have in the past. These businesses are dying in the US right now. You need to cut taxes on the small businesses TODAY if you actually believe what you said there. And as to going after the rich and powerful... go for it. It has never succeeded before but maybe this time it will be different.
As to the Danish cousins, the point was that the VAT is suppressing their demand for goods. They are buying LESS because the tax is high. Follow the logic of that through and see that buying less will have an impact on the economy and will have an impact on multiple points of taxation. Consider further that the pent up demand was so extreme that it made economic sense for them to bring EMPTY luggage on a plane flight from Denmark to the US, fill it up with stuff at our stores, and then fly it back home. That is an extreme differential. If the price difference were small they wouldn't go to those extremes. They went to those extremes because the price difference was very large and impacted their buying choices profoundly.
That is hardly the only example of that. The danish also like to buy things in Germany and other neighboring countries, pack it into luggage, and then take it home with them often by ferry boat. That is a clear sign of an over taxed market place. You can see similar examples in the US. The tax rate for cigarettes was increased in NYC which has lead to a black market in cigarettes flowing into new york from New Hampshire of all places. What is more, smoking has actually INCREASED since the taxes were put in place. I am not sure if they are making more money. I suspect they are at best treading water. But they've managed to fund organized crime with another black market good and have apparently failed to curb smoking for some reason. These heavy handed taxation policies piss people off, encourage fraud, encourage black markets, undermine government authority, and ultimately undermine the legitimate economy itself.
As to which taxes... you used an unacceptable dodge when you said "a stable economy". By definition, any economy that crosses over the laffer curve is not going to be stable. That is like asking for an example of an economy with a collapsing currency that also has a stable economy. You're not going to find the two in the same place at the same time in the same sense.
So unless you're willing to accept unstable economies it is impossible to cite an example of an economy crossing over the laffer curve.
the people turning their nose up at this are failing to see the implications. We can 3d model reality in precise detail with this and then replay the model realistically.
that is amazing. What is more, the data is precise enough that you could reconstruct the whole thing exactly. That is completely amazing.
As to games... I look forward to them. I remain a little skeptical as to the animations but maybe they really did sort it all out.
No, you merely insisted that everyone be labeled ideologically which is an implicit political classification... you completely brain dead waste of oxygen.
would you like a similar article from four other newspapers? I found one at the new york times, the guardian, the london times, and even some paper ins Sydney. Does every lost discussion on the internet have to end with mindless denial? Because any fool that knows how to use a search engine could bombard your stupid ass with every publication that talked about this at the time.
70 percent is arrived at by averaging predictions made by various people.
That does not mean the number is itself meaningful or that any of the studies thus examined had a rational basis for concluding one number or another.
This is a common problem with statistics and people that read them. A statistic is not evidence. A statistic is DATA. Data must be analyzed and audited to have meaning. Simply averaging numbers together is not meaningful.
Data in and of itself is not science or meaningful.
Lets say you have a bunch of students that all answer a math problem. Should I average all their answers together to get the average answer to the math problem? Obviously not. First of all, you need to really break down which were the most common answers. Then you need to try and examine the methodology and justification provided for each of those answers provided by students. And then somewhere in there since this is supposed to be a rational discussion it would be nice if you actually established the correct methodology and simply showed which answer was valid.
But no... lets just average all answers together into a giant smear and call it the record.
That the above logic wasn't second nature to you is merely evidence that you're poorly educated. By all means... disagree. Quote Wikipedia again... I dare you. Your pathetic attempt at sophistication bores me.
As to my anecdote... they wouldn't have bought those things in their own country. They might have bought some of it but not all of it or even most of it. The taxes suppress demand which is a change in consumer behavior DOWNWARD.
there are other examples... you admit the french one so apparently you weren't aware that both england and france were basically interested in the same solution to the same problem.
Look, logic doesn't enter into this discussion with you if you think 70 percent tax rates are sustainable or not damaging to the economy. It is too frothing at the mouth stupid to be taken seriously.
You're just admitting that you're incapable of seeing this as anything but a political dispute. And that is sad. Because what you've just done is admit that you can't discuss environmental issues scientifically. You can't discuss the data. You can't discuss the theory.
All you can do is be an activist. Which I think anyway is pretty sad because you probably could have been more at one point before you were brainwashed.
I don't want to tell you what to believe or what to support. I don't really care. I just want discussions about science to be about science and not about the politics and the activism.
People like you make that impossible. You turn everything into an US vs THEM shit storm where no one can even start to examine anything because everything is covered in smug assholes that know nothing and yet presume to tell everyone what to believe despite often not even reading the fucking article in the first place.
It is sad. You could have been more then you are but you probably won't ever change... You are one depressing piece of shit.
Okay. Ask me to back one thing up. I'm not backing it all up because YOU should be expected to be know how the internet works at this point.
But for the sake of argument... I will back ONE thing up of your choosing in this argument. Ideally you should take this challenge seriously and ask a real question.
Yes... someone suggests that the issue is too factionalized and polarized and of course that is threatening to the factional tribalized participants of the discussion.
So some moron like you says "hey, I don't know how to deal with you... take a side so I know whether you're on my side or their side."
I am on neither of your stupid sides you completely witless asshat. I want to actually discuss articles about new scientific discoveries without having them polluted and ruined by dancing twits that think every discussion revolves around their pathetic ideolgoical rivalries.
Think about how many discussions people like you have ruined utterly with your insistence on politicizing everything... seriously.
I've had enough of it. Either just discuss the issue as itself without bringing all your stupid baggage into it every single fucking time... or we can't even talk about this stuff any more. Seriously... not another environmental article ever again. Pick one. Because the alternative is that every time one is posted all anyone will be able to see is you fools slapping your bellies together and calling the other side a bigger fucktard then your side.
It was amusing at one point... But it has palled. Kindly just stop it.
the laffer curve does not suggest anything about 70 percent anymore then quantum mechanics is all about giraffes.
You're not arguing the issue. You're attempting to score political points. You're clearly a socialist that finds talk about government debt to be threatening to your agenda. Which is fine... you're clearly a political creature. But political creatures are just that... ideologues that will run around pushing their agenda.
You are not arguing the economics or the issue. You're just trying to score points for the sake of the points. And in doing that you make no effort to protect your own integrity or credibility. All that matters is if you think you got a point and denied a point to your opposition. It is a game.
And it is a game I could win if I so chose. But why? It isn't interesting to me. You're not a rational agency. You're just mechanically gainsaying and grasping at anything that undermines. It is at best tedious.
... Then MS software won't be designed by Americans... and American designers won't work for Microsoft.
Those American programmers will do something else. We don't need these mega corps especially in programming. If MS wants to piss off and go to India then they can be an Indian company. We'll see just how long MS remains relevant in the US when they make that move.
Indeed. The arrogance of that movement was rather laughable. It is also sort of amazing how complete their failure was to attack something they thought was so weak.
Much of this is because their power largely comes from the respect or fear others have for them. Simply not caring what those people think or being beyond their ability to harm you renders their threats toothless.
Absent some means to shame, bully, or extort... their whole modus operandi collapses.
Slashdot Mirror
1. Yes, all sorts of human labor has been made obsolete since the dawn of the industrial revolution. So what... Do you know that prior to the mechanization of farms over 60 percent of all human labor was devoted to the production of food. 60 percent of everything we did was just to feed ourselves.
What portion of human labor in the first world goes to agriculture? It is between 1.5 and 2 percent in the US and we are net food exporters.
The problem with this whole "the robots are stealing our jobs" line is that people just get other jobs. When machines and improved agricultural practices made subsistence farmers obsolete those people got factory jobs.
Once the factories started automating or building better machines... which they've been doing for about 100 years at least... we had jobs go to clerical work, office jobs, accounting, management, calculation, etc.
Computers are reducing the labor required in ALL segments of the economy. Farming is becoming more efficient... we can use drone harvesters, automatic soil tillers, automatic watering systems, etc. Same thing in factories... robotic arms, etc. Same thing in clerical work with computers just automating huge portions of the business.
But humans still have value. Things they can do. And before you tell me they can't, I'll point out that in asia they are having no trouble finding uses for people.
The problem in the US is not a lack of demand for labor but rather that the cost of living is so high that it is very hard to find jobs that pay enough to support that cost of living.
However, that cost of living is artificially high because of problems in our urban and social planning. If you spread the population out a bit more and didn't cluster people into the densest population areas possible which drives up real estate prices then you could cut the cost of living for many people dramatically. Add to that there is an enormous amount of waste with your subsidies. Giving away all that money to people raises taxes which raises the cost of living which makes it more important to have subsidies which raises the taxes further... its a feed back loop.
You stop the feed back loop by reducing what is causing it and it can just outright stop leaving you with a reasonable income and standard of living without massive subsidies being required to prop everything up.
2. As to it not mattering why people can't afford to pay their bills, this is just lazy. It absolutely always matters and refusing to analyze why is unforgivable. I literally can't have this discussion with you if you're going to refuse to even look into any of your own premises.
Good day, sir.
Explain these draconian laws? Because another point I'd lay out there is that the enforcement and policing of federal parks is so poor that drug cartels are growing marijuana in them. That either isn't happening or is happening much less in state parks. Which is another argument in favor of giving them to state institutions where the state should at least police the land for people growing drug plantations.
1. Labor isn't obsolete and shall never be obsolete until robots are in all ways superior to the average person. That is unlikely to happen at any point in the near future. What is more, if that does happen... we all get personal robot slaves and we'll probably devolve into an incredibly decadent society... before being slaughtered by rebelling robots that will surplant us as a species and carry on until they realize that the stupid humans they killed had some essential quality the needed... too bad they're all dead... and the robots power down or rust or whatever.
2. Much of the cost of living problems are the result of rising COSTS not the falling value of the labor itself. Compare the cost of living in Chicago for example with the cost of living in Anchorage Alaska. Now on simple logical grounds you'd think that the cost of living in Alaska should be higher because after all everything has to get literally shipped into an often ice locked port. There are no trains or reliable roads up there. You bring everything in by boat or plane. And yet... it is cheaper to live there... to feed yourself... to get access to basic services such as water, power, phone service, medical care... then in fucking chicago. Now is the quality of some of those services higher in chicago? Sure... mostly their hospitals are a good deal better but lets not pretend that is a deal breaker. The point is that the fact you're finding it harder and harder to subsidize housing, food, etc for people living in densly populated major cities is not because the value of their labor has fallen. It is rather because the cost of living in those cities has gone up while the wages earned by most people in those cities has stagnated or fallen. The obvious solution is to depopulated the cities of excess labor. This is already happening. We are seeing a major population shift away from those cities and that is good. The more it falls the more prices in those cities should fall as demand falls. And that should at some point in the future bring the whole system back into equilibrium. However, it is continually destabilized by the government which insists on paying people effectively to live in these cities. They're given free housing, free food, free medical care, free education... etc. When really they should be encouraged to move somewhere else they can afford to actually support themselves.
In effect, the problem you're describing was caused by bad social programs in the first place. And the more money you shovel at this problem the worse it is going to get. Its like trying to cure a fat man by feeding him larger and larger blocks of cheese. It is not helping. Do I need to go through the long list of cities that were pretty much outright destroyed by social programs? The worst case was Detroit... ground zero for the "great society" program. The city has not recovered from that since and likely will not in my life time... and I am not old.
As to what people would do without these programs... well, you are quite correct that people are now addicted to the programs but addictions are not justifications for giving people all the cocaine they can snort either. Clearly they need help. And understand... I want to help them. I really do. My end goal however is for them to be cured of it. The dependency these social welfare programs create is not a solution. It is a syndrome. What I would like to do is rehabilitate as many people as possible, reduce the dependency of those that can't be fully self sufficient as much as possible, and for those that really can't live on their own... I will support keeping them comfortable. However, the last category cannot exceed 10 percent of the population. Ideally it must be as small as possible. If it exceeds 10 percent... which is an arbitrary number take it as a rough guideline... then I will look very hard for solutions to reduce the number below that point. I will also be open to drastic and hopefully creative solutions to arrive at that point.
Please understand... I do not want to hurt people. I do not wa
Wrong. This is ANOTHER stupid law and ANOTHER sign that the parks are being mismanaged. My solution to this ONGOING problem is to turn the parks over to the states where they will likely be better taken care of and problems at the federal level will not effect the parks at that point.
That was my point... which YOU missed.
Good day, sir.
I don't accept that the last word was in 1776... however you must concede that without that word there would be no federal government. In fact, practically every expansion of federal power was triggered by an external threat. Absent those threats the federal government would either not exist at all or would be a much more limited organization.
It is only recently that social programs have been used to expand federal power. And really, though you might feel this is cynical... I think the only reason that has happened is because some corrupt politicians have figured out that they can buy votes from poor people by giving away money from other people.
Point blank.
As to your claim that democracy is flawed... of course it is... we've always known it was flawed. The problem is that no one knows of anything that is less prone to corruption. What would your alternative be? A technocracy where some elite group of thinkers made choices for everyone? The problem with that is that there is no way to ensure those people don't just act for their own interests rather then anyone else's or society's. Effectively it would just be an oligarchy... a new age nobility with barons, counts, and dukes by new names.
Yes, democracy has problems. However, we know what most of those problems are and this ability for politicians to buy votes with other people's money is one of the known flaws in the system. In fact, it is a flaw that was discussed at the founding of the country. Sadly, constitutional laws were not laid down at the time to make the practice illegal as it obviously should have been all along.
Due to this hole in our system... we are slowly killing ourselves with out of control entitlement spending. The entitlement budget grows every year at a greater rate then the economy grows... all cuts in other programs simply mean the entitlement spending grows even faster.
Its cancer. And it is probably terminal. Your call for more social programs frankly is absurd in this context. The solution to cancer is not more cancer.
Two points.
1. We have state parks that are as well run as anything the feds manage.
2. I referenced the fed managed land to point out that just because the feds are running something doesn't mean they're doing it well.
Look, I generally hold that people that live in an area tend to care more about that area then people that live thousands of miles away and have never been there before.
Do you disagree? Do you think that people that live in a place care less about it then people that have never been there? Yes or no?
Kay... so given that you have to conclude that the locals care more why would you put people that do not live there and may not have ever seen the place with their own eyes more control over it then the people that actually happen to reside there in the first place?
And before you say something about locals turning national parks into strip mines or something equally goofy... I will again remind you of the state parks where for some reason that doesn't happen... so why this fixation on federal control of something that could very easily be state run? Just tell me why you care? Because I have been upfront with my interests here. I think the feds mismanage these properties because they don't really matter to them as much. The closure of federal parks during the budget crisis was a good example of that. The feds did that as a political power play. They did not do it to save money as they claimed because closing the parks actually COST them more money then leaving them open. They had to put rangers on guard duty keeping people out of parks. They had to put them on overtime. They spent MORE money keeping people out then they would have simply running the parks as usual. And yet they tried to keep them out to put pressure on political rivals to relax budget controls.
This is just one of the many things you expose our park system to by leaving it in federal control. Every time there is a budget dispute you could see a sitting president play games with the parks. I believe a park ranger pulled a gun on a tour bus of senior citizens during this last altercation. I'd just assume avoid this situation in the future. Give the parks to the states.
The feds can save whatever they're spending on parks for whatever they want to spend money on elsewhere. The states would be very happy to take up stewardship of the parks and should run them as well or better then the feds.
I really don't see the argument for not doing this yesterday.
As to 1-3, we appear to agree. This will have implications for 4.
As to "all we can determine." that is again fine. However, in taking that short cut you lose the ability to say you are backed by science. You are rather backed by your opinions and guesses ABOUT science.
Now those opinions might be reasonable and the guesses could be educated... but they are not science. What this means is that if you DO take these shortcuts whether you had a choice or not you must show a bit of humility in stating your case.
Science as per 1-3 doesn't care if you had a hard time figuring something out or if it was impossible to get good information. Science isn't about what is and is not convenient. It is a process. You follow the process or you did not follow the process. Either/or. And if you didn't follow the process you're going to have be upfront about that, honest with yourself, and try to work with people and peers in a manner that reflects the common understanding that shortcuts were made.
Beyond this we both reserve the right to listen to whom we choose. However, if you aspire to cooperation from the public at large it is not in your interest to browbeat people for merely pointing out that you have overstated your reasonable degree of confidence on issues for political gain. This has been done repeatedly which is why many of the IPCC reports have come under such savage criticism and several of them have been sent back for massive reediting.
Beyond that, let us get to the real heart of the issue here. It is not the science and it is not whether or not the planet is warming. The heart of the issue is what some propose to do about it. It is THAT which is ultimately causing most of the controversy. Not the science but rather the political solution to the science. If you admit that point then we can talk about what we might be able to do to bring about a meeting of minds. The conceit of many that the opposition is stupid is in error. Neither side is stupid. They merely disagree on some things and have mutually enough power to prevent the other from acting without their consent. Regardless of what you think in this matter you must admit to that political reality. Which means if you care about the environment... you must either successfully suppress hundreds of millions of people in a democracy... good luck there... Or you must sit down and talk about solutions we can all find palatable. This compromise is possible. The politicians don't like it because they find factional rivalries to be better for getting voters to show up on election day. But if you care about the issue and not whether the blue team or the red team wins... you'll talk.
No rebuttal or follow up? Did you watch any of the video?
... parks.
Look, lets have everything we have from the parks now... just put them under state control. It would be for the best.
As to social programs being the main point of the government... really? So in 1776... it was all about socialized medical care?
Oh wait... it was about repelling british control... which was foreign aggression to the colonists... and since then the primary justification for federal power has always been protecting people from foreign aggression.... not social programs.
So... you're wrong.
As to paying to import goods into the US... neither Mexico nor canada pays them so why would a former US state pay them? Obviously they wouldn't. So... wrong again... unless you just want to punish states for excising that self determination you have no problem with... which I suspect is all this little point is really about.
As to people that need the programs not being able to pay for them, that is fine... but do you not see the problem with those same people VOTING on whether the programs are created in the first place? When you vote on OTHER people's money it isn't really very fair is it? By all means... let everyone vote on things that we all must support. However, if you are on subsistance from the government, I think that should have some cost to you... the first and most reasonable cost is a limitation of your voting rights such that you are unable to vote yourself additional subsidies. This will also reduce the value of such people to politicians because they will be less able to buy votes with other people's money.
Absent that change, the politicians can just buy elections with other people's money which is in large part what many subsidies are entirely about. They are often not even helping people. It just gets a politician some extra numbers in some communities because they get free stuff.
As to only raising taxes on the rich. Done. Do that. Cut taxes on the middle class and "TRY" to tax the hell of the super rich. I won't stop you. You'll fail and get less money but from my perspective it will all work out.
The reason the middle class is targeted for taxes is because they can't escape them. The rich can. They have the lawyers, the accountants, the loopholes, the off shore accounts, etc. They often are not even breaking the law. They're just so practiced at it that they will avoid your taxes without breaking the rules. Warren buffet is probably the best at it from what I've seen. He has structured his whole enterprise around NOT paying taxes. With the result that his tax burden is about 10 percent what it would be otherwise. You could tax men like that at a rate of 100 percent and they'd probably still ACTUALLY pay less then you and me. Which is why the government likes to go after the middle class and the small business people. They have enough money that you can take it but lack the sophistication and resources to protect themselves from you.
But you say you'd leave them alone? Fine. Do it then. You never have in the past. These businesses are dying in the US right now. You need to cut taxes on the small businesses TODAY if you actually believe what you said there. And as to going after the rich and powerful... go for it. It has never succeeded before but maybe this time it will be different.
As to the Danish cousins, the point was that the VAT is suppressing their demand for goods. They are buying LESS because the tax is high. Follow the logic of that through and see that buying less will have an impact on the economy and will have an impact on multiple points of taxation. Consider further that the pent up demand was so extreme that it made economic sense for them to bring EMPTY luggage on a plane flight from Denmark to the US, fill it up with stuff at our stores, and then fly it back home. That is an extreme differential. If the price difference were small they wouldn't go to those extremes. They went to those extremes because the price difference was very large and impacted their buying choices profoundly.
That is hardly the only example of that. The danish also like to buy things in Germany and other neighboring countries, pack it into luggage, and then take it home with them often by ferry boat. That is a clear sign of an over taxed market place. You can see similar examples in the US. The tax rate for cigarettes was increased in NYC which has lead to a black market in cigarettes flowing into new york from New Hampshire of all places. What is more, smoking has actually INCREASED since the taxes were put in place. I am not sure if they are making more money. I suspect they are at best treading water. But they've managed to fund organized crime with another black market good and have apparently failed to curb smoking for some reason. These heavy handed taxation policies piss people off, encourage fraud, encourage black markets, undermine government authority, and ultimately undermine the legitimate economy itself.
As to which taxes... you used an unacceptable dodge when you said "a stable economy".
By definition, any economy that crosses over the laffer curve is not going to be stable. That is like asking for an example of an economy with a collapsing currency that also has a stable economy. You're not going to find the two in the same place at the same time in the same sense.
So unless you're willing to accept unstable economies it is impossible to cite an example of an economy crossing over the laffer curve.
The logic that last point should be self evident.
the people turning their nose up at this are failing to see the implications. We can 3d model reality in precise detail with this and then replay the model realistically.
that is amazing. What is more, the data is precise enough that you could reconstruct the whole thing exactly. That is completely amazing.
As to games... I look forward to them. I remain a little skeptical as to the animations but maybe they really did sort it all out.
First, I'd like to point out you're ignoring the french example which you know full well does support my position.
Second, you are apparently utterly ignorant of the issue:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fin...
Do the honorable thing and commit rhetorical seppuku... honor demands it, scumbag.
*waits for Stuart to disembowel himself while standing ready to knock his head off out of mercy.*
*takes a bow and walks*
No, you merely insisted that everyone be labeled ideologically which is an implicit political classification... you completely brain dead waste of oxygen.
would you like a similar article from four other newspapers? I found one at the new york times, the guardian, the london times, and even some paper ins Sydney. Does every lost discussion on the internet have to end with mindless denial? Because any fool that knows how to use a search engine could bombard your stupid ass with every publication that talked about this at the time.
yawn.
70 percent is arrived at by averaging predictions made by various people.
That does not mean the number is itself meaningful or that any of the studies thus examined had a rational basis for concluding one number or another.
This is a common problem with statistics and people that read them. A statistic is not evidence. A statistic is DATA. Data must be analyzed and audited to have meaning. Simply averaging numbers together is not meaningful.
Data in and of itself is not science or meaningful.
Lets say you have a bunch of students that all answer a math problem. Should I average all their answers together to get the average answer to the math problem? Obviously not. First of all, you need to really break down which were the most common answers. Then you need to try and examine the methodology and justification provided for each of those answers provided by students. And then somewhere in there since this is supposed to be a rational discussion it would be nice if you actually established the correct methodology and simply showed which answer was valid.
But no... lets just average all answers together into a giant smear and call it the record.
That the above logic wasn't second nature to you is merely evidence that you're poorly educated. By all means... disagree. Quote Wikipedia again... I dare you. Your pathetic attempt at sophistication bores me.
Good day, sir.
As to my anecdote... they wouldn't have bought those things in their own country. They might have bought some of it but not all of it or even most of it. The taxes suppress demand which is a change in consumer behavior DOWNWARD.
As to England:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
there are other examples... you admit the french one so apparently you weren't aware that both england and france were basically interested in the same solution to the same problem.
Look, logic doesn't enter into this discussion with you if you think 70 percent tax rates are sustainable or not damaging to the economy. It is too frothing at the mouth stupid to be taken seriously.
Good day, sir.
You're just admitting that you're incapable of seeing this as anything but a political dispute. And that is sad. Because what you've just done is admit that you can't discuss environmental issues scientifically. You can't discuss the data. You can't discuss the theory.
All you can do is be an activist. Which I think anyway is pretty sad because you probably could have been more at one point before you were brainwashed.
I don't want to tell you what to believe or what to support. I don't really care. I just want discussions about science to be about science and not about the politics and the activism.
People like you make that impossible. You turn everything into an US vs THEM shit storm where no one can even start to examine anything because everything is covered in smug assholes that know nothing and yet presume to tell everyone what to believe despite often not even reading the fucking article in the first place.
It is sad. You could have been more then you are but you probably won't ever change... You are one depressing piece of shit.
...*face...palm*
Okay. Ask me to back one thing up. I'm not backing it all up because YOU should be expected to be know how the internet works at this point.
But for the sake of argument... I will back ONE thing up of your choosing in this argument. Ideally you should take this challenge seriously and ask a real question.
You might find this interesting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Just have an open mind.
Everyone knows who and what she is at this point. It is over.
Yes... someone suggests that the issue is too factionalized and polarized and of course that is threatening to the factional tribalized participants of the discussion.
So some moron like you says "hey, I don't know how to deal with you... take a side so I know whether you're on my side or their side."
I am on neither of your stupid sides you completely witless asshat. I want to actually discuss articles about new scientific discoveries without having them polluted and ruined by dancing twits that think every discussion revolves around their pathetic ideolgoical rivalries.
Think about how many discussions people like you have ruined utterly with your insistence on politicizing everything... seriously.
I've had enough of it. Either just discuss the issue as itself without bringing all your stupid baggage into it every single fucking time... or we can't even talk about this stuff any more. Seriously... not another environmental article ever again. Pick one. Because the alternative is that every time one is posted all anyone will be able to see is you fools slapping your bellies together and calling the other side a bigger fucktard then your side.
It was amusing at one point... But it has palled. Kindly just stop it.
the laffer curve does not suggest anything about 70 percent anymore then quantum mechanics is all about giraffes.
You're not arguing the issue. You're attempting to score political points. You're clearly a socialist that finds talk about government debt to be threatening to your agenda. Which is fine... you're clearly a political creature. But political creatures are just that... ideologues that will run around pushing their agenda.
You are not arguing the economics or the issue. You're just trying to score points for the sake of the points. And in doing that you make no effort to protect your own integrity or credibility. All that matters is if you think you got a point and denied a point to your opposition. It is a game.
And it is a game I could win if I so chose. But why? It isn't interesting to me. You're not a rational agency. You're just mechanically gainsaying and grasping at anything that undermines. It is at best tedious.
Good day, sir.
... Then MS software won't be designed by Americans... and American designers won't work for Microsoft.
Those American programmers will do something else. We don't need these mega corps especially in programming. If MS wants to piss off and go to India then they can be an Indian company. We'll see just how long MS remains relevant in the US when they make that move.
... I think I brought up that as one option actually. Try again.
Indeed. The arrogance of that movement was rather laughable. It is also sort of amazing how complete their failure was to attack something they thought was so weak.
Much of this is because their power largely comes from the respect or fear others have for them. Simply not caring what those people think or being beyond their ability to harm you renders their threats toothless.
Absent some means to shame, bully, or extort... their whole modus operandi collapses.
You're out of date. Her many attempted frauds have been brought to light and all that have been paying attention already know it.
They tried to pull a fast one and lost. Update your information and be enlightened.