You're making more baseless, vague assertions ("massive hit", "increasingly unpredictable", "chaotic flux"). Pure, unscientific FUD.
And your statement is irrelevant to my point anyway: famine is caused by an imbalance between population size and agricultural productivity. I made a statement about carrying capacity and population sizes. Try to understand it, and then you can perhaps respond meaningfully.
You're either lying, or not paying any attention to the widespread thawing of permafrost, to name just one of the most obvious processes already begun.
You're confusing positive feedback with "runaway greenhouse effects".
A runaway greenhouse effect is a process in which a net positive feedback between surface temperature and atmospheric opacity increases the strength of the greenhouse effect on a planet until its oceans boil away.
In fact, it is likely physically impossible at this point to have a runaway greenhouse effect on Earth through the release of fossil and biological carbon: there is only a limited amount of such carbon available; we can raise atmospheric CO2 concentrations maybe to 1000 ppm, no more, and even that is unlikely. On top of that, the effect of atmospheric carbon concentrations is logarithmic, meaning you need to double the CO2 concentrations in order to increase global average temperatures by a few degrees.
to make a comment about nationality that is wholly irrelevant
I didn't "make a comment about nationality"; I refered to "American liberalism" because. as a political movement, it is distinct from contemporary European liberalism, neo-liberalism, and classical liberalism. "American liberalism" is a label for an ideology, not your nationality. Many Europeans are "American liberals", they just call themselves something different in Europe.
My views fall closer to modern liberalism in many areas, and I value individual freedom and self-reliance, but also recognise value in collective action and social justice that it's unlikely to arise out of a free market.
If you believe that social justice is a valid political objective and that the free market needs to be restrained, you are an authoritarian leftist. Saying that you "value individual freedom and self-reliance" is just a fig leaf. As a classical liberal, I strongly oppose social justice as a political objective because it is in fundamental conflict with a just society and equality under the law (in addition, social justice is also a harmful policy for government to pursue).
it is entirely possible to have a rational debate with some modern liberals
It is certainly not possible to have a rational debate with you at this point because you haven't even stated a rational, consistent political or moral position. That's characteristic of the modern American left, which has rejected rationality and instead embraces critical theory, identity, and postmodernism. You even illustrate this nicely:
I believe though when you say you are a classical liberal, but in the USA, and to some extent in the UK, this is associated with conservatism.
For you, "association" with something is sufficient to identify me with that something, ignoring the clear explanation I gave of how conservatism and classical liberalism actually differ. That's what I was getting at with my hyperbolic statement "they will call you a Nazi and white supremacist": you don't reason and you ignore rational arguments, you just "associate".
So, yes, classical liberalism is "associated with" conservatism in the US, but they are still different ideologies. I am not a political conservative.
The view that modern liberalism is a continuation of classical liberalism is not universally shared
I certainly don't share it. That's why I emphasize that I am a classical liberal. Modern American "liberalism" is an authoritarian leftist ideology.
According to Deepak Lal, only in the United States does classical liberalism—through American conservatives—continue to be a significant political force.
So? Why would I care that some pompous "neo-liberal" British ass lumps together classical liberalism and American conservatism? They are not the same. As a classical liberal, I think you should be free to f*ck and marry whoever you want to, but you should have to accept responsibility for the consequences. The conservative American position is that the law should prohibit you from f*cking and marrying people social conservatives disapprove of, so that's not a classically liberal position. The modern "liberal" American position is that you should be free to f*ck and marry whoever you want to and the state should force others to pay for the consequences, again, not a classically liberal position either. That's why classical liberals are neither conservatives nor modern "liberals".
Classical liberalism is closer to conservatism only in the sense that classical liberals and conservatives can actually have rational discussions about issues and agree to disagree. Nobody can have a rational discussion with American "liberals" anymore: if you disagree with their party line, they will call you a Nazi and white supremacist and try to destroy your life.
"Cleanliness" isn't the same as environmental responsibility. Some countries collect the garbage from city streets, and then just dump it into the ocean.
But Europe is already doing a lot to clean up and reduce its plastic use. This is most urgently needed pretty much everywhere else. In particular both in the US and in Asia.
Do you have any evidence that Europe is doing more than the US? Historically, the US has been ahead of Europe in terms of environmental issues.
"The traditional view is simply to think that women aren't suitable to be programmers," said Chen Bin, a former Microsoft engineer and the Beijing-based founder of Teach Girls Coding, a campaign to get more women into the sector. "Things are better now than ten years ago, but overall the number of women getting into tech is really small," he said.
So she is actually saying that women choose not to go into coding. There is no evidence that once they do, they are evaluated or treated unfairly.
Wow, and they don't pay other taxes around that income bracket?
Not a lot. Average sales tax is around 7%. Gas taxes are small compared to Germany. Property taxes are around 1% per year, a little lower than in Germany.
Sounds quite absurd from an european point of view, especially when you hear all the whining of "middle class" americans about the high taxes.
It is indeed absurd. Keep in mind, however, that more than half of all American tax payers will make more than $100000/year for several years during their lifetime and people making $200000-500000/year would still consider themselves "middle class" in the US.
In any case, Americans recognize that there is a problem: America spends about as much per capita on social welfare as Sweden (on top of massive military spending), but doesn't collect enough in taxes to pay for it, leading to massive debt. But nobody knows how to fix it in a way that voters would vote for.
Sorry, but that sounds absurd. You must have absurd prices for the things the government is doing if you need such an absurd income to be in equilibrium with your tax spendings and what the government is paying for you.
US government spending is indeed very wasteful, starting with the massive military budget and interest on the national debt, but also much higher spending on social welfare, education, retirement, and healthcare.
But the biggest difference is tax progressivity. Median household income (middle class) in the US is around $60000. Average federal income tax at that income is 3.8%, and about 12% with social security and Medicare/Medicaid. Nearly half of Americans pay no federal income taxes, and low income earners actually "pay" negative taxes (they get additional money from the government). In contrast, median household income in Germany is about $46000, and average taxes at that income level are around 22%, and about 40% with social security. That is, Europe taxes its middle class much more heavily than the US, while the US places a much larger burden on high income earners and redistributes the revenue.
He did not say he is "hanging out and only surfs"
I didn't say that he just "hangs out". He seems to work in fitness (surfing, martial arts); a typical annual income would be $40000 and he'd probably have no income tax liability at all.
there actually seems to be a will to try to fix these things. There's a budget surplus in Sacramento
If that were true, California could lower some of its crushing tax burden. In reality, I think those are nice political fictions based on creative accounting and irrational assumptions; in reality, California is in for massive fiscal and economic problems.
And it's perfect for me. When I was younger, I undervalued the importance of living somewhere beautiful and what a tonic it can be for the soul. My sleepy little coastal town is as perfect a place as I've ever been, and that includes the coast of Montenegro. I get up in the morning and cannot believe I'm in such a perfect place.
Oh, it's great for you personally, but it's a selfish choice. Since you are below your pension age, these should be your peak earning years and the peak years in which you pay taxes. With the choice you are making, you will likely never pay back the money society invested in you. Of course, you don't care, and I don't blame you for that.
I will actually join you, in that I'm planning on retiring early to some nice place: I don't see why I should be working my ass off when other people are making choices like you do. However, I won't be retiring to a California beach town. As California's and America's welfare system invariably deteriorates, these beautiful communities will increasingly be filled with human misery. I have seen enough beach towns in the third world to know that I don't want to live in such a place.
However, I think you ought to reflect on your behavior against your political views. What's the leftist motto for a perfect society? From each according to their ability, to each according to their need. Is your maximum ability to contribute to society that of a surfer? Do you have a need to live in a beach resort? Of course not. Your ability to contribute is that of working as an IT manager until you die from a heart attack, and your need is for a few hundred square feet close to work, in a dull gray city. You only have the freedom to make the choices you are making because the US does not implement your political views.
A classical liberal. Meaning, I think you should be free to do whatever you want to, but nobody else should be forced to pay for the consequences of your choices.
What a nonsense. As long as he makes more money than he spends, no one is subsiding him.
In the US, government spends about $21000/person/year on infrastructure, services, and other expenses and that money needs to come from somewhere. Just maintaining the California beach town he loves so much takes a lot of money. Given the US progressive tax system, you hit the balance where you pay more in taxes than you consume in services in about the 80th percentile, that is at around $95000.
I find his CV exciting enough
Indeed, but an "exciting CV" doesn't pay the national bills. That is, the fact that he can hang out in a California beach town and surf is only possible because people in Silicon Valley, Boston, New York, etc. are working their asses off and paying massive amounts of taxes. And as many more people emulate him, namely having fun instead of working the stressful, dreary job that society spent large amounts raising and training him for, the country increasingly slides into insolvency.
I'm a California taxpayer. I don't start collecting a pension for some years yet, thank you. I pay for what I use, and there's a little left over to send to the poor red states like South Carolina.... Currently, I surf.
You implied earlier you had been an academic and were making your money from a pension, but I guess you're just a surfer. And unless you make more than $90k/year, other people are subsidizing you.
That's not what I spent my life studying. That's just my area of expertise. I was also a Director of Computing, a cameraman for sports television and a director of films for medical education. I put myself through school driving a cab and playing in a band. I now teach martial arts. I was already accomplished when I started pretending to be an academic and scholar. Currently, I surf.
With a CV like that, California is indeed perfect for you.
Correct, but you don't seem to understand how academic pensions work. They are not "monetary transfers from the working population"
I wasn't talking about your pension; I was talking about the infrastructure and services you enjoy in California.
I can understand your confusion though, since you apparently don't have any experience with higher education.
Since you spent your life studying and teaching critical theory and postmodernism, it's obvious that it is actually you who doesn't have any experience with higher education; you just shamelessly pretended to be an academic and scholar for a few decades.
No doubt California is wonderful to you; as a retired academic, you are the recipient of significant monetary transfers from the working population and you can pick yourself a nice little corner of California to live in. You have no ambition to create anything or contribute either, so California's stifling regulations don't matter to you. Your positions are perfectly rational from your point of you. What makes you such a jerk is that you try to tell other people that what's best for you is best for them, a bald faced lie. For those of us who actually have to work and pay the cost of your cushy retirement, the pyramid scheme that works so well for you makes little sense.
Since I've moved here, I'm really amused at how obsessed with California conservatives in other states seem to be.
Why are you telling me? I have lived in California for many years, and I'm not a conservative.
You seem to have moved here only recently. And I suppose from your socialist vantage point, everybody who doesn't toe the socialist party line is a "conservative".
Most of the people leaving California are low-income, not "middle-class"
If by "low income" you mean "people making less than $110000/year, then I suppose that's true. I call those people "middle class".
California leads the way for the rest of the US...
... just like it is near the top in inequality, housing costs, poverty rates, poor schools, political polarization, debt, and numerous other negative social indicators.
You're welcome, and please don't come here.
Don't you worry, the middle class is already leaving.
The problem is that power generation and distribution is a natural monopoly. There's only one set of wires going to the consumer.
I have half a dozen wires going to my home, plus several conduits. Several of those carry Internet. The only reason there aren't more options for other utilities is because of government-mandated monopolies, not natural monopolies.
On top of that, power generation and distribution aren't one thing, they can be separated.
Politicians try to dress that up and provide competition but the underlying reality is that's just more middlemen taking a cut - usually with a % going back to said politicians.
At best, you are arguing for a monopoly of the last mile wires; your arguments simply don't apply to generation and distribution in general.
And even for government mandated monopolies, private ownership is still preferable to public ownership because it makes companies auditable, reveals their financials, lets anybody benefit from the company by investing in it, forces companies to survive without subsidies (or makes subsidies transparent), and can be replaced.
Similarly, having the vast majority of the world's population suffering from climate-driven famine is going to become our problem, even if we're lucky enough to be doing okay for ourselves - because those people have weapons and ingenuity, and it's unlikely that they'll all choose to lie down and die quietly rather than some of them trying to take our food, or at least take well-justified revenge.
Famine is not caused by climate change, famine is caused by an imbalance between population size and agricultural productivity. The population of subsaharan Africa in the 19th century was less than 100 million, a population size that Africa could easily sustain no matter what. It's the massive population growth through Western development, followed by the adoption of socialist regimes that causes people to starve.
And what those people should take revenge for is socialism/communism, because that's what's killing them. But we in the West seem to be pretty good at isolating ourselves from the consequences of mass starvation and killings; Socialism/communism killed around 100 million people in a few decades in the 20th century, in large part through starvation, fairly close to Western Europe. Were there mass migrations? Refugee crises? No. In fact, most people didn't even notice.
And besides, the discussion is academic anyway; CO2 concentrations will go up to 600-800 ppm and then stabilize, come hell or high water (and higher water will also come). Deal with it.
No, the fact that it's one of the largest extinction events in the geologic record make it one of the largest.
That happens to be not a fact at all. Extinction rates are about 100x higher than average right now, but that doesn't make it a "large extinction event".
And lets be completely clear - nothing we're seeing now is a real problem by climate change standards - we're only seeing minor fluctuations as the system begins to shift out of it's Icehouse phase - the REAL problems are still a few hundred years away once the runaway process we're setting in motion completely dwarfs our own contributions.
There is not a shred of evidence for "runaway processes".
As for problems and responsibilities: the problem was pretty much caused by the US and Europe
Actually, more Europe than the US. And those emissions were translated into technology that have resulted in staggering increases in wealth and life expectancy across the globe, even outside Europe and the US.
Weather patterns always change, over spans of years, decades, and centuries. They always have and they always will. Local climate is never stable. Coastlines are not stable. Rainfall isn't stable. Temperatures aren't stable. People adapt.
Slashdot Mirror
You're making more baseless, vague assertions ("massive hit", "increasingly unpredictable", "chaotic flux"). Pure, unscientific FUD.
And your statement is irrelevant to my point anyway: famine is caused by an imbalance between population size and agricultural productivity. I made a statement about carrying capacity and population sizes. Try to understand it, and then you can perhaps respond meaningfully.
You're confusing positive feedback with "runaway greenhouse effects".
A runaway greenhouse effect is a process in which a net positive feedback between surface temperature and atmospheric opacity increases the strength of the greenhouse effect on a planet until its oceans boil away.
In fact, it is likely physically impossible at this point to have a runaway greenhouse effect on Earth through the release of fossil and biological carbon: there is only a limited amount of such carbon available; we can raise atmospheric CO2 concentrations maybe to 1000 ppm, no more, and even that is unlikely. On top of that, the effect of atmospheric carbon concentrations is logarithmic, meaning you need to double the CO2 concentrations in order to increase global average temperatures by a few degrees.
I didn't "make a comment about nationality"; I refered to "American liberalism" because. as a political movement, it is distinct from contemporary European liberalism, neo-liberalism, and classical liberalism. "American liberalism" is a label for an ideology, not your nationality. Many Europeans are "American liberals", they just call themselves something different in Europe.
If you believe that social justice is a valid political objective and that the free market needs to be restrained, you are an authoritarian leftist. Saying that you "value individual freedom and self-reliance" is just a fig leaf. As a classical liberal, I strongly oppose social justice as a political objective because it is in fundamental conflict with a just society and equality under the law (in addition, social justice is also a harmful policy for government to pursue).
It is certainly not possible to have a rational debate with you at this point because you haven't even stated a rational, consistent political or moral position. That's characteristic of the modern American left, which has rejected rationality and instead embraces critical theory, identity, and postmodernism. You even illustrate this nicely:
For you, "association" with something is sufficient to identify me with that something, ignoring the clear explanation I gave of how conservatism and classical liberalism actually differ. That's what I was getting at with my hyperbolic statement "they will call you a Nazi and white supremacist": you don't reason and you ignore rational arguments, you just "associate".
So, yes, classical liberalism is "associated with" conservatism in the US, but they are still different ideologies. I am not a political conservative.
I certainly don't share it. That's why I emphasize that I am a classical liberal. Modern American "liberalism" is an authoritarian leftist ideology.
So? Why would I care that some pompous "neo-liberal" British ass lumps together classical liberalism and American conservatism? They are not the same. As a classical liberal, I think you should be free to f*ck and marry whoever you want to, but you should have to accept responsibility for the consequences. The conservative American position is that the law should prohibit you from f*cking and marrying people social conservatives disapprove of, so that's not a classically liberal position. The modern "liberal" American position is that you should be free to f*ck and marry whoever you want to and the state should force others to pay for the consequences, again, not a classically liberal position either. That's why classical liberals are neither conservatives nor modern "liberals".
Classical liberalism is closer to conservatism only in the sense that classical liberals and conservatives can actually have rational discussions about issues and agree to disagree. Nobody can have a rational discussion with American "liberals" anymore: if you disagree with their party line, they will call you a Nazi and white supremacist and try to destroy your life.
Nope, you are missing the point, the point being that a lot of environmentalism in Europe is superficial.
"Cleanliness" isn't the same as environmental responsibility. Some countries collect the garbage from city streets, and then just dump it into the ocean.
Do you have any evidence that Europe is doing more than the US? Historically, the US has been ahead of Europe in terms of environmental issues.
So she is actually saying that women choose not to go into coding. There is no evidence that once they do, they are evaluated or treated unfairly.
That happens constantly and you don't even notice.
Not a lot. Average sales tax is around 7%. Gas taxes are small compared to Germany. Property taxes are around 1% per year, a little lower than in Germany.
It is indeed absurd. Keep in mind, however, that more than half of all American tax payers will make more than $100000/year for several years during their lifetime and people making $200000-500000/year would still consider themselves "middle class" in the US.
In any case, Americans recognize that there is a problem: America spends about as much per capita on social welfare as Sweden (on top of massive military spending), but doesn't collect enough in taxes to pay for it, leading to massive debt. But nobody knows how to fix it in a way that voters would vote for.
US government spending is indeed very wasteful, starting with the massive military budget and interest on the national debt, but also much higher spending on social welfare, education, retirement, and healthcare.
But the biggest difference is tax progressivity. Median household income (middle class) in the US is around $60000. Average federal income tax at that income is 3.8%, and about 12% with social security and Medicare/Medicaid. Nearly half of Americans pay no federal income taxes, and low income earners actually "pay" negative taxes (they get additional money from the government). In contrast, median household income in Germany is about $46000, and average taxes at that income level are around 22%, and about 40% with social security. That is, Europe taxes its middle class much more heavily than the US, while the US places a much larger burden on high income earners and redistributes the revenue.
I didn't say that he just "hangs out". He seems to work in fitness (surfing, martial arts); a typical annual income would be $40000 and he'd probably have no income tax liability at all.
If that were true, California could lower some of its crushing tax burden. In reality, I think those are nice political fictions based on creative accounting and irrational assumptions; in reality, California is in for massive fiscal and economic problems.
Oh, it's great for you personally, but it's a selfish choice. Since you are below your pension age, these should be your peak earning years and the peak years in which you pay taxes. With the choice you are making, you will likely never pay back the money society invested in you. Of course, you don't care, and I don't blame you for that.
I will actually join you, in that I'm planning on retiring early to some nice place: I don't see why I should be working my ass off when other people are making choices like you do. However, I won't be retiring to a California beach town. As California's and America's welfare system invariably deteriorates, these beautiful communities will increasingly be filled with human misery. I have seen enough beach towns in the third world to know that I don't want to live in such a place.
However, I think you ought to reflect on your behavior against your political views. What's the leftist motto for a perfect society? From each according to their ability, to each according to their need. Is your maximum ability to contribute to society that of a surfer? Do you have a need to live in a beach resort? Of course not. Your ability to contribute is that of working as an IT manager until you die from a heart attack, and your need is for a few hundred square feet close to work, in a dull gray city. You only have the freedom to make the choices you are making because the US does not implement your political views.
A classical liberal. Meaning, I think you should be free to do whatever you want to, but nobody else should be forced to pay for the consequences of your choices.
In the US, government spends about $21000/person/year on infrastructure, services, and other expenses and that money needs to come from somewhere. Just maintaining the California beach town he loves so much takes a lot of money. Given the US progressive tax system, you hit the balance where you pay more in taxes than you consume in services in about the 80th percentile, that is at around $95000.
Indeed, but an "exciting CV" doesn't pay the national bills. That is, the fact that he can hang out in a California beach town and surf is only possible because people in Silicon Valley, Boston, New York, etc. are working their asses off and paying massive amounts of taxes. And as many more people emulate him, namely having fun instead of working the stressful, dreary job that society spent large amounts raising and training him for, the country increasingly slides into insolvency.
You implied earlier you had been an academic and were making your money from a pension, but I guess you're just a surfer. And unless you make more than $90k/year, other people are subsidizing you.
With a CV like that, California is indeed perfect for you.
I wasn't talking about your pension; I was talking about the infrastructure and services you enjoy in California.
Since you spent your life studying and teaching critical theory and postmodernism, it's obvious that it is actually you who doesn't have any experience with higher education; you just shamelessly pretended to be an academic and scholar for a few decades.
No doubt California is wonderful to you; as a retired academic, you are the recipient of significant monetary transfers from the working population and you can pick yourself a nice little corner of California to live in. You have no ambition to create anything or contribute either, so California's stifling regulations don't matter to you. Your positions are perfectly rational from your point of you. What makes you such a jerk is that you try to tell other people that what's best for you is best for them, a bald faced lie. For those of us who actually have to work and pay the cost of your cushy retirement, the pyramid scheme that works so well for you makes little sense.
Really? What do Californians get for it? Bad roads, bad schools, traffic jams, urban sprawl, homelessness, massive social problems.
Data says otherwise
Isn't it great? It's a place where people like you just don't go.
Why are you telling me? I have lived in California for many years, and I'm not a conservative.
You seem to have moved here only recently. And I suppose from your socialist vantage point, everybody who doesn't toe the socialist party line is a "conservative".
If by "low income" you mean "people making less than $110000/year, then I suppose that's true. I call those people "middle class".
Don't you worry, the middle class is already leaving.
I have half a dozen wires going to my home, plus several conduits. Several of those carry Internet. The only reason there aren't more options for other utilities is because of government-mandated monopolies, not natural monopolies.
On top of that, power generation and distribution aren't one thing, they can be separated.
At best, you are arguing for a monopoly of the last mile wires; your arguments simply don't apply to generation and distribution in general.
And even for government mandated monopolies, private ownership is still preferable to public ownership because it makes companies auditable, reveals their financials, lets anybody benefit from the company by investing in it, forces companies to survive without subsidies (or makes subsidies transparent), and can be replaced.
You always need to ask who it makes financial sense for. It certainly makes financial sense for Tesla and the politicians they lobby.
Famine is not caused by climate change, famine is caused by an imbalance between population size and agricultural productivity. The population of subsaharan Africa in the 19th century was less than 100 million, a population size that Africa could easily sustain no matter what. It's the massive population growth through Western development, followed by the adoption of socialist regimes that causes people to starve.
And what those people should take revenge for is socialism/communism, because that's what's killing them. But we in the West seem to be pretty good at isolating ourselves from the consequences of mass starvation and killings; Socialism/communism killed around 100 million people in a few decades in the 20th century, in large part through starvation, fairly close to Western Europe. Were there mass migrations? Refugee crises? No. In fact, most people didn't even notice.
And besides, the discussion is academic anyway; CO2 concentrations will go up to 600-800 ppm and then stabilize, come hell or high water (and higher water will also come). Deal with it.
That happens to be not a fact at all. Extinction rates are about 100x higher than average right now, but that doesn't make it a "large extinction event".
There is not a shred of evidence for "runaway processes".
Actually, more Europe than the US. And those emissions were translated into technology that have resulted in staggering increases in wealth and life expectancy across the globe, even outside Europe and the US.
Weather patterns always change, over spans of years, decades, and centuries. They always have and they always will. Local climate is never stable. Coastlines are not stable. Rainfall isn't stable. Temperatures aren't stable. People adapt.