Compared to the known problems with coal, I think it's a worthy trade off and a manageable risk, but perhaps you'd prefer to demand perfection instead of incremental improvement and keep burning coal for the next 50-100 years while we figure out Fusion. I'm sure the coral reefs will thank you for the continued acidification.
Nuclear has some operational issues (storing waste being the biggest) but the failure issues are the big ones. They occur infrequently but unlike every single other source of fuel, render 100s of square miles uninhabitable for decades. Nothing else has that problem.
There is a pretty straightforward market based solution to that sort of problem, double liability. It was used in the past when we had a more private banking system to ensure that institutions and shareholders would take risk seriously. Combined with moving to Gen III and newer reactor designs the overall problem should be quite manageable for the 100 years or so we need till Fusion is widely deployed.
Climate change isn't an important externality, it's bullshit. And that fact is becoming increasingly clear to the public.
Even if that were true there are plenty of other externalized costs for coal. Here is a short list: Health problems caused by coal dust and fly ash, radioactive carbon-14 being spewed all over the place, atrocious mining practices that pretty much destroy the entire area, mercury pollution and sulfur dioxide emissions just to name a few.
True, there are no completely clean power sources but coal is pretty much the worst. The correct answer would be to create an externalized costs tax and apply it to all sources of power generation based on their various impacts then let the market sort it out.
I agree that's what the supreme court decided in a close 5-4 decision. I don't agree that's the correct interpretation. A corporation is much more than just a tax classification, it includes limits on liability, easier financing and a separation of ownership & management that makes it very different from a private institution. I agree with the primary dissenting opinion in this case where Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg writes "The exercise of religion is characteristic of natural persons, not artificial legal entities".
I agree that's what they are saying, however my argument is that it is incorporation itself which is the dividing line rather than the private/public divide.
Civilization itself requires that we give up certain rights and accept certain constraints. For example, if someone kills my dog I'm not allowed to go next door and shoot him. Instead I'm required to report it to the police and allow the justice system to prosecute him instead. It's all a matter of which trade offs are reasonable and ethically consistent.
Your argument is based on the idea that the government is taking away the rights of an individual to express his religious freedom. My argument is that incorporation means the business is not an extension of it's individual owners but a public institution. Public institutions are governed in a much different fashion than private ones and rightly so. I'm not arguing that they should have to surrender their rights in order to participate in commerce, I'm merely arguing that they should have to be formed as a sole proprietorship or partnership to express this particular right under the current set of laws.
The Hobby Lobby case is/was about individual owners of a company not losing their rights just because they formed a corporation for tax or liability purposes. It treats these individuals just like they were still a sole proprietorship or partnership. Simply put, the decision says that if you form a business, you do not give up any rights regardless of the form of that business.
Which is why it's a bad ruling. Corporations are a specific grant of public privilege and as such should have different rules than a sole proprietorship or partnership. A corporation is a public institution not a private one and thus has to be held to a higher standard. As a libertarian I completely agree that private institutions should be able to do exactly what the owners of The Hobby Lobby desire, a corporation should not. The correct response would be to revoke their corporate charter and require them to reform as a sole proprietorship or partnership.
In reality, an economic system is ideal when it most fairly distributes resources those who need them.
Sorry, I have to disagree with you there. In any system with limited resources they should be allocated to those that produce the greatest net benefit to the society in question. Allocation based solely on need is a road to starvation and poverty.
For the Employes: Show some loyalty to the company and don't job hop for 2K or 3K more a year. If the company is good to you be good to them. Let the company benefit from their investment in you for a bit before moving on.
I disagree completely. The main issue was the development and use of securitized debt. Once the banks were able to sell off their risk there was no reason for them to maintain sensible lending standards and every reason for them to push as much product as possible. Disaster was inevitable. The interest rate change just sped things up.
If you're formed as a sole proprietorship or partnership then I agree completely, do whatever you like. A corporation however, is a grant of public privilege that deliberately isolates the organization from the individuals involved. In such a case their private beliefs are irrelevant because we're talking about a public institution. Since Hobby Lobby doesn't understand that I recommend revoking their corporate charter.
Yes, cutting interest rates helped inflate things big time. No, that wasn't the full extent of the problem.
1) Government cancels Glass Steagall and Interstate Banking Acts allowing massive consolidation of the banking sector which increases risk of catastrophic failure
2) Government pushes the home loan industry to encourage home ownership more broadly and allows higher banking leverage ratios
2) Securitized debt like mortgage backed securities and collateralized debt obligations become popular and banks start selling off all their risk, removing much of the prudence they previously displayed
3) Bond rating agencies operate with a major conflict of interest, the issuers being rated are paying the bills for the rating
4) The Federal reserve lowers interest rates which encourages borrowing
5) As the pool of good debtors begins to dry up banks lower lending standards in order to keep the MBS gravy train rolling
6) Eventually everyone who wants a loan, worthy or not, has one and with the market saturated all it takes is a minor spark to set things ablaze
7) A minor economic wobble starts the ball rolling down hill and it's all over but the screaming
I think even to the casual observer there was clearly a price bubble. The ratio of median house prices to personal income was insanely high. Anyone in his right mind knew those prices were well, well above what was sustainable, and yet they kept getting higher.
I was a rational, knowledgeable but casual observer at the time. I knew something odd was going on because there was no way my California duplex was worth half a million dollars, but for the life of me I couldn't figure out then what was happening or if/when it would end. In retrospect it's obvious but at the time it was just confusing.
being an illegal immigrant is not a crime. It's a federal civil infraction, legally less serious than minor copyright infringement.
Whoa slow down there, I don't think it's fair to compare immigration to something as heinous as minor copyright infringement. At worst it's a lesser crime like first degree murder or human trafficking.
In order for an activity to be illegal, it needs to be one wherein a court case would have an aggrieved party. In the case of assault or theft the aggrieved party is obvious, but if someone plays blackjack there is no such counterpart. In the case of prostitution allow me to paraphrase George Carlin "If selling is legal and sex is legal then why is selling sex illegal?"
To address your gambling losses comment, consider the following. Car accidents are one of the leading causes of death in the US, losing a parent is a terrible blow for a child therefore by the same logic you presented shouldn't parents be prevented from driving or riding in cars?
As I said pretty much everyone agrees on the no aborting humans part, we just can't agree on when that occurs. Third trimester abortions are banned in 36 states there is pretty broad support even among pro-choice advocates that it's not appropriate except in cases where the life of the mother is threatened. Your anytime before actual birth rule seems excessive.
Drugs, prostitution and gambling are a no brainer since they're victimless crimes.
Abortion should be legal up until the point we consider the fetus to be a human being, which is generally what all the arguing is about. For me personally I'd define that as being roughly in the late 2nd trimester when the thalamocortical connections are formed, a requirement in order for it to have a nervous system developed enough to feel pain. Obviously there other opinions on that issue.
On the plus side however hydrogen production would be a perfect match for intermittent power sources like wind or solar. Send any needed amounts to the grid and instead of wasting the excess run a hydrogen production plant.
I'm a libertarian, yet I agree. In a society without a frontier workers born without significant capital often have little choice other than to sell their labor to live. A major power imbalance between parties significantly impacts what are supposedly voluntary contracts.
The world is running out of hellholes that tolerate slave labour, so those companies that can't turn profit without it have nowhere to go and no future save bankruptcy auction.
Ahh, Capitalism at work! The nice thing about Capitalism is that it often ends up doing the right thing (lifting people out of poverty in this example) for all the wrong reasons. Never fear though, there is still a whole new continent (Africa) that needs to experience the joys of low paid slave labor before we're really done with that part of things.
It's fairly obvious that he's developing all the technologies needed for an evil fortress built on the moon. Just think about it: Space launch capability to get there, solar power to run the place and electric vehicles so his minions can move around the service corridors. If his next large venture is some sort of laser technology then we'll know for sure.
Democracy is rubbish, but it's definitely less rubbish than dictatorship. If you don't agree, feel free to move to sunny North Korea where I hear things are just spiffy.
Slashdot Mirror
Compared to the known problems with coal, I think it's a worthy trade off and a manageable risk, but perhaps you'd prefer to demand perfection instead of incremental improvement and keep burning coal for the next 50-100 years while we figure out Fusion. I'm sure the coral reefs will thank you for the continued acidification.
Nuclear has some operational issues (storing waste being the biggest) but the failure issues are the big ones. They occur infrequently but unlike every single other source of fuel, render 100s of square miles uninhabitable for decades. Nothing else has that problem.
There is a pretty straightforward market based solution to that sort of problem, double liability. It was used in the past when we had a more private banking system to ensure that institutions and shareholders would take risk seriously. Combined with moving to Gen III and newer reactor designs the overall problem should be quite manageable for the 100 years or so we need till Fusion is widely deployed.
Climate change isn't an important externality, it's bullshit. And that fact is becoming increasingly clear to the public.
Even if that were true there are plenty of other externalized costs for coal. Here is a short list: Health problems caused by coal dust and fly ash, radioactive carbon-14 being spewed all over the place, atrocious mining practices that pretty much destroy the entire area, mercury pollution and sulfur dioxide emissions just to name a few.
True, there are no completely clean power sources but coal is pretty much the worst. The correct answer would be to create an externalized costs tax and apply it to all sources of power generation based on their various impacts then let the market sort it out.
I agree that's what the supreme court decided in a close 5-4 decision. I don't agree that's the correct interpretation. A corporation is much more than just a tax classification, it includes limits on liability, easier financing and a separation of ownership & management that makes it very different from a private institution. I agree with the primary dissenting opinion in this case where Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg writes "The exercise of religion is characteristic of natural persons, not artificial legal entities".
I agree that's what they are saying, however my argument is that it is incorporation itself which is the dividing line rather than the private/public divide.
Civilization itself requires that we give up certain rights and accept certain constraints. For example, if someone kills my dog I'm not allowed to go next door and shoot him. Instead I'm required to report it to the police and allow the justice system to prosecute him instead. It's all a matter of which trade offs are reasonable and ethically consistent.
Your argument is based on the idea that the government is taking away the rights of an individual to express his religious freedom. My argument is that incorporation means the business is not an extension of it's individual owners but a public institution. Public institutions are governed in a much different fashion than private ones and rightly so. I'm not arguing that they should have to surrender their rights in order to participate in commerce, I'm merely arguing that they should have to be formed as a sole proprietorship or partnership to express this particular right under the current set of laws.
The Hobby Lobby case is/was about individual owners of a company not losing their rights just because they formed a corporation for tax or liability purposes. It treats these individuals just like they were still a sole proprietorship or partnership. Simply put, the decision says that if you form a business, you do not give up any rights regardless of the form of that business.
Which is why it's a bad ruling. Corporations are a specific grant of public privilege and as such should have different rules than a sole proprietorship or partnership. A corporation is a public institution not a private one and thus has to be held to a higher standard. As a libertarian I completely agree that private institutions should be able to do exactly what the owners of The Hobby Lobby desire, a corporation should not. The correct response would be to revoke their corporate charter and require them to reform as a sole proprietorship or partnership.
In reality, an economic system is ideal when it most fairly distributes resources those who need them.
Sorry, I have to disagree with you there. In any system with limited resources they should be allocated to those that produce the greatest net benefit to the society in question. Allocation based solely on need is a road to starvation and poverty.
For the Employes: Show some loyalty to the company and don't job hop for 2K or 3K more a year. If the company is good to you be good to them. Let the company benefit from their investment in you for a bit before moving on.
Excuse me for a moment while I laugh myself sick.
Then you're not paying enough. The only way to have open positions for a long time is to not have a high enough value proposition.
I disagree completely. The main issue was the development and use of securitized debt. Once the banks were able to sell off their risk there was no reason for them to maintain sensible lending standards and every reason for them to push as much product as possible. Disaster was inevitable. The interest rate change just sped things up.
If you're formed as a sole proprietorship or partnership then I agree completely, do whatever you like. A corporation however, is a grant of public privilege that deliberately isolates the organization from the individuals involved. In such a case their private beliefs are irrelevant because we're talking about a public institution. Since Hobby Lobby doesn't understand that I recommend revoking their corporate charter.
Wrong.
Yes, cutting interest rates helped inflate things big time. No, that wasn't the full extent of the problem.
1) Government cancels Glass Steagall and Interstate Banking Acts allowing massive consolidation of the banking sector which increases risk of catastrophic failure
2) Government pushes the home loan industry to encourage home ownership more broadly and allows higher banking leverage ratios
2) Securitized debt like mortgage backed securities and collateralized debt obligations become popular and banks start selling off all their risk, removing much of the prudence they previously displayed
3) Bond rating agencies operate with a major conflict of interest, the issuers being rated are paying the bills for the rating
4) The Federal reserve lowers interest rates which encourages borrowing
5) As the pool of good debtors begins to dry up banks lower lending standards in order to keep the MBS gravy train rolling
6) Eventually everyone who wants a loan, worthy or not, has one and with the market saturated all it takes is a minor spark to set things ablaze
7) A minor economic wobble starts the ball rolling down hill and it's all over but the screaming
I think even to the casual observer there was clearly a price bubble. The ratio of median house prices to personal income was insanely high. Anyone in his right mind knew those prices were well, well above what was sustainable, and yet they kept getting higher.
I was a rational, knowledgeable but casual observer at the time. I knew something odd was going on because there was no way my California duplex was worth half a million dollars, but for the life of me I couldn't figure out then what was happening or if/when it would end. In retrospect it's obvious but at the time it was just confusing.
And you would know this how? In my experience there are no perpetually happy people.
being an illegal immigrant is not a crime. It's a federal civil infraction, legally less serious than minor copyright infringement.
Whoa slow down there, I don't think it's fair to compare immigration to something as heinous as minor copyright infringement. At worst it's a lesser crime like first degree murder or human trafficking.
In order for an activity to be illegal, it needs to be one wherein a court case would have an aggrieved party. In the case of assault or theft the aggrieved party is obvious, but if someone plays blackjack there is no such counterpart. In the case of prostitution allow me to paraphrase George Carlin "If selling is legal and sex is legal then why is selling sex illegal?"
To address your gambling losses comment, consider the following. Car accidents are one of the leading causes of death in the US, losing a parent is a terrible blow for a child therefore by the same logic you presented shouldn't parents be prevented from driving or riding in cars?
As I said pretty much everyone agrees on the no aborting humans part, we just can't agree on when that occurs. Third trimester abortions are banned in 36 states there is pretty broad support even among pro-choice advocates that it's not appropriate except in cases where the life of the mother is threatened. Your anytime before actual birth rule seems excessive.
Drugs, prostitution and gambling are a no brainer since they're victimless crimes.
Abortion should be legal up until the point we consider the fetus to be a human being, which is generally what all the arguing is about. For me personally I'd define that as being roughly in the late 2nd trimester when the thalamocortical connections are formed, a requirement in order for it to have a nervous system developed enough to feel pain. Obviously there other opinions on that issue.
On the plus side however hydrogen production would be a perfect match for intermittent power sources like wind or solar. Send any needed amounts to the grid and instead of wasting the excess run a hydrogen production plant.
I'm a libertarian, yet I agree. In a society without a frontier workers born without significant capital often have little choice other than to sell their labor to live. A major power imbalance between parties significantly impacts what are supposedly voluntary contracts.
The world is running out of hellholes that tolerate slave labour, so those companies that can't turn profit without it have nowhere to go and no future save bankruptcy auction.
Ahh, Capitalism at work! The nice thing about Capitalism is that it often ends up doing the right thing (lifting people out of poverty in this example) for all the wrong reasons. Never fear though, there is still a whole new continent (Africa) that needs to experience the joys of low paid slave labor before we're really done with that part of things.
It's fairly obvious that he's developing all the technologies needed for an evil fortress built on the moon. Just think about it: Space launch capability to get there, solar power to run the place and electric vehicles so his minions can move around the service corridors. If his next large venture is some sort of laser technology then we'll know for sure.
Democracy is rubbish, but it's definitely less rubbish than dictatorship. If you don't agree, feel free to move to sunny North Korea where I hear things are just spiffy.
The word you're looking for is wage growth, rather than wage inflation. A subtle point to be sure, but an important one.