virtually everyone I talk to these days is complaining about the decline in salaries
I don't know much about the German economy (I have a friend that moved there a few years ago, but he doesn't talk much about the economy), but the US economy is actually doing quite well. We had a recession (technically, it wasn't even a recession according to the definition, but it's generally recognized as a recession). Now the recession is over and we are recovering (not that it was very bad anyway).
To me, the problems in the German economy signify the superiority of a market economy, but I am an economic conservative. In the U.S., salaries tend to increase for a given individual as that person ages and gains experience. Income tends to increase with increased hours of work. Also, unemployment in the U.S. is low compared with countries like Germany and France (http://www.destatis.de/indicators/e/arb210ae.htm indicates Germany has double-digit inflation regularly, while 6% in the US is considered high). Even public salaries are often determined by the marketplace. Sowell (the author I recommended) does a good job of explaining why the market economy produces better results. Again, I'm an economic conservative (and so is Sowell), so you should consider these statements critically.
You in the US are already in the situation where many "normal folk" have to work several shit-jobs just to be able to earn the minimum needed to eat and not sleep under a bridge.
I live in San Diego, one side of the busiest border crossing in the world. It's also one of the areas where around 1M immigrants per year enter this country illegally and without education or skills (of course that's the entire border, not just San Diego). These people come here, and for the most part are productive citizens. They often work many hours, not just to support themselves but also relatives south of the border. I am sure that you can find examples of people who work hard and have a tough time in America. But generally speaking, people who are hard working, motivated, and ambitious are able to support themselves and often have money left over, even if they have no skills or education. Generally the poor in America are considered obese, rather than malnourished. We are far from perfect around here, but I think that from an economic perspective, the US provides opportunity for nearly everyone. If that were not true, there would not be so many successful immigrants from Mexico. And there are a LOT of successful immigrants from Mexico who own property and live comfortably (again, even with no education or skills coming in here).
I believe that it's the working class who works most, 60 hours per week aren't uncommon
If you show me a man in the U.S. who has worked 60 hours per week for 30 years, I will show you a wealthy man. I'm sure you can find exceptions, but generally, in the US, if you work a lot of hours, you make a lot of money.
Even if the real inflation rate in the US is 10% (most international estimates hover around 15%), it's pretty massive.
Can you provide a source? If that were true, banks would not lend money in the U.S. at the rates that they do. Mortgages are much lower rates than 10%, and clearly a bank would lose if the inflation exceeded the interest they made. Real inflation in the U.S. is a couple percent by any reasonable estimate. At a rate of 10%, $1.00 in 1900 would be the same as about $14,000 in 2000, which is rediculous.
I frankly don't understand why the rest of the world still relies on the USD while your government prints as much as it sees fit while there's a HUGE and growing trade deficit.
Like everything else, people choose among the options they have. USD and EUR both have problems, but they are both used because they are better than th
Not true. It depends on how rich you are. Let me illustrate:
In your example, your salary is declining, because the value in dollars is constant while the value of a dollar is declining (inflation). Generally, as your skills and experience increase, your salary will follow. A person's salary will decrease if the market value of their job decreases, or if it was higher than market value to begin with (for instance, in the case of minimum wage).
But yes, "the rich" or middle class sometimes benefit (in the short term) from inflation, and the poor rarely benefit from inflation. Middle class tends to have a higher debt/credit ratio because it's typical to have a house that's mortgaged at a fixed or nearly fixed rate, and inflation is likely to drive up the middle class wages, meaning an overall benefit. Inflation causes wage increases, and the people who benefit the most from that are the people that work the most, which are "the rich" and the middle class.
I believe that the USA are in for a big surprise if they don't stop their rampant inflation.
Inflation is a problem, but it's far from "rampant". And something is being done, we are raising the discount rate. Since around 2000, the discount rate started falling rapidly, causing inflation as well as (perhaps) a real estate bubble. However, now the discount rate is going back up, and we can expect inflation to decrease.
If you have some recommended reading on this
If you're interested in monetary policy, you can't beat reading some resources at http://www.federalreserve.gov/. I suggest the "Monetary Policy Report to Congress" in the "News and Events" section. Many of those reports (which are basically speeches to Congress) are available going back years. Also there are more resources linked from the site in the "Publications and Education Resources" section.
As for economic reading in general, I think the best author around is Dr. Thomas Sowell. He presents his ideas in a very readable fashion, but his works are very well-researched. He draws from current events and history, and analyzes policy in a simple, step-by-step manner. The author grew up in a (very) poor black family in the Bronx, and his writing comes across as plain english that relates to real people, not abstract academic theories built upon other abstract academic theories. Most other academics either use such rich language that you can't understand what they are saying in plain english, or they are so boring that you can't make it past page 10.
The closer to the supply of money, the larger is the differential, the larger is the benefit.
I think I see what you're getting at, but could you please provide a source? I am not trying to disagree, but I am not entirely convinced and I would be interested to read a more thorough explanation.
If the inflation rate gets very high it's very bad indeed for the debtor. High interest rates, payments out of control, house lost and all that.
No, inflation is very good for any debtor. If you owe $1000 at 5%, and inflation is 10%, then the debtor actually makes money in the transaction. Even ARM (adjustable rate mortgages) are typically fixed for years, and even when they do adjust they are not likely to change more than inflation. And that's only talking about mortgages, there are many other types of loans, and many don't adjust at all.
Inflation is bad for creditors, and good for debtors, because the debtors borrow in today's dollars, and pay back in tomorrow's dollars. It's also bad for currency holders, but there is a lot more debt in existence than currency.
Japan "adds value" to resources that have been exploited by someone else.
But expansion doesn't necessarily mean the "exploitation" of new resources. It could add value to existing resources, or more efficiently allocate existing resources. That's actually where most of the money is, not in selling raw materials. So, value add is also where most of the expansion would happen.
I will agree that the modern world is accustomed to economic expansion. However, debt only makes sense when expanding the economy, so if we didn't expand economically we wouldn't need debt at all.
The closer you are to source of the money the more you benefit.
The person who printed the money benefits. If you throw around money left and right because you have a printing press, you'll immediately feel the forces of inflation. You still benefit because you have essentially used inflation to rob creditors and currency holders of $1M, but you'll feel the same forces of inflation as if someone on the other side of the country spent the money. If I am wrong about this point, please provide me with a reliable source that says that the people printing the money don't feel the effects of it's inflation as they spend it.
Inflation. Though it's percieved to be a general increase in prices it's essentially a tax on the currency holding population.
The effect on debtors and creditors should far outweigh the effect on holders of currency. If you loaned money to someone to buy a house, inflation is very bad for you and very good for the person to whom you lent money.
The more you expand, the smaller the debt is in proportion, so you must expand. Which basically means there must be a continual increase in the exploitation of resources.
Economic expansion does not require the exploitation of resources. If exploitation of resources was as important to economic expansion as you imply, Mexico would be rich and Japan would be poor.
in fact they get the cash before the inflation hits the economy generally so they benefit and grow hugely
Huh? When the money is in circulation, the inflation has already hit.
Legislating responsibility can only go so far. You could make the same argument about someone tuning a radio.
There is an endless list of ways people can distract themselves while driving. You can't ban all of them. Perhaps if there were nothing to keep your mind working while driving, boredom (and perhaps weariness) itself would be a bigger distraction than playing some music or having a casual conversation on the phone. I've never caused an accident (or been in an accident that caused damage), but all of my "close calls" were when I wasn't distracted by anything, I was just being absent-minded.
Maybe it's best to blame the people rather than the thing that they distracted themselves with.
Is it soley private use if the new use results in significant and new tax reveneues for the city?
Yes. Private use of resources often has side effects, that doesn't make it any less private.
ED should be used for the benefit of the public - I think nearly everyone can accept that concept.
No. "Public use" is not "public benefit" (or "public purpose" as the SCOTUS said). If you allow confiscation of private property for "public benefit" you have one of the following: socialism, fascism, and/or communism.
I've always thought that an land acquired through ED should have 2 costs associated with it.
You do not solve the heart of the problem by trying to mandate "fair" (always a bad idea).
The ONLY correct uses for ED are true public projects: roads, dams, etc. I don't care how much tax revenue something generates. It must be for public use, or no ED.
There are some things that could be argued about at the local level regarding eminent domain. However, if the reason the government is confiscating the property is to transfer it to another private party, the answer should ALWAYS be "NO". The most liberal reading of the 5th + 14th Amendments would require at a minimum that the land be owned and controlled by the public after using ED.
The solution to this, and what has happened in many places, is that the states and local governments need to discuss and determine the limitations of eminent domain in their area.
Try replacing "limitations of eminent domain" with "limitations of speech" to see what you're really saying.
To confiscate land for private use is a violation of the 5th Amendment, and should be prohibited throughout the U.S.
I was replying to the poster who wanted me to define "good" and "bad". Good is the condition that allows the most humans to survive. I don't care if moving is required, since we're talking about long timescales.
I never suggested that we should neglect things that humans require. Allowing the most humans to survive means an entire thriving planet. But then again, the Earth has had thriving life under much hotter temperatures than there are now.
Ok. Just tell me we won't be fighting "Global Cooling" as the next big political crisis. I don't want to see a bunch of money spent trying to cool the Earth, merely to find later that it's too cold and Earth can only sustain 100M people.
Well, the problem is that the climate may change whether we release another molecule of CO2 or not. It may get much colder when the next Ice Age comes.
If your interested in the proliferation of the human species, we should try to stabalize the climate to be something that is most helpful to our species.
And of course, my questions come from the perspective of a skeptic to the whole Kyoto Protocol crowd. But simple answers are more effective than attacking my motivations. My suspicion is that you don't really have answers to these questions. Many people want to spend many billions of dollars on a scheme to control something that they don't know how to control. And I say, not my money, until you answer some simple questions satisfactorily.
Global warming is filled with logical leaps. CO2 traps heat. Ok. A lot of scientists believe that humans are responsible for a recent warming trend. Ok, I'll buy that until I hear otherwise. But when people start talking about attempting to control it, that's where I need more analysis. Who says that we won't be fighting Global Cooling in the next 100 years? I need to know the answer to that question before I willingly give a dime to anyone.
Perhaps it is normal for the planet to go through trends of warming and cooling, but a few people might complain about losing San Francisco and New York to rising water levels.
I am precisely trying to determine what our goals are, natural or not. Natural does not mean good, but many people seem to be implying that it is. If we are entering a cooling trend, maybe global warming is good, right? Are we entering a cooling trend? What margins of error do we have on the future climate, and if we make an error, which is the "safe" bet? Is it safer to be a little too hot or a little too cold?
So, if we are entering a natural cooling trend, we should pump more CO2/methane into the atmosphere, right? Are we entering a cooling trend? When will the next Ice Age happen, and can human-induced global warming prevent it?
That is a completely useless response. I am talking about good or bad for HUMANS. Since we're talking about a long time from now, I don't care where the humans are. If one area is bad, and one is good, people will move to the good area. So, on the whole, is it good or bad for humans?
If we don't have an answer within some margin of error for that simple question, why are we trying to spend billions of dollars to prevent the climate from warming?
As far as the natural cycles, which is it? Warmer or cooler?
And we don't have the option to not err. We will err, but it's a good idea to know the risks. For instance, if you know how much ammunition you need within a margin of +/- 1 bullet, the risk of carrying one extra bullet is much less than the risk of carrying one bullet too few.
"Global Warming" as a scientific topic has many problems. Here are my questions:
(1) If the world heats up, is it bad? (2) If the world cools down, is it bad? (3) Are the natural cycles pushing us toward warmer or cooler conditions? (4) If the natural cycles push us toward cooling (I've heard that we're due for an Ice Age any century now), is human-caused global warming still bad? Or does it just keep the planet a better climate for longer? (5) If we're not really sure where the climate is going overall, is it better to err on the side of "too hot" or "too cold".
As you can see, I really don't care whether it is human caused or not. The only thing that matters is that we have a comfortable climate to live in for a while. And the last thing I want is for us to be thinking in 300-400 years "Wow. This Ice Age is cold. Too bad we can't think of a way to warm up.".
To me it seems more likely that humans would be hurt by global cooling than global warming. I understand that global warming can cause some areas to be colder (like Europe), but on the whole it seems like it would promote more life.
Go ahead, embrace your mutually assured destruction with your hostile enemies while I sit peacefully in Canada with my poutine and rich tasty beer. I'd rather be taxed poor than shot dead.
Sure, when you have your allies doing all the dirty work for you, it's a sweet deal. You have the U.S. as a nice buffer zone. Just like when U.S. citizens are paying for the development of pharmaceuticals through high prices.
As an aside, what's a good Canadian import? I mostly just drink microbrew down here because I know it's fresh and I know some places that make good beer. I want something that they actually serve in bars down here because I don't trust bottles in a supermarket. I don't even know if I've had a single Canadian beer ever.
I hate to break the news to you, but the US does not have a defensive army.
When Russia is trying to store missles in Cuba, we can't be "defensive" according to your definition of "defensive". All military actions can be seen as offensive unless it's just a giant brick wall. Guns themselves are inherently offensive weapons.
The U.N. is a corrupt cesspool. I have no interest in annointing those thugs as "world police". And the U.S. went to war after Iraq ignored the U.N. resolutions, and the U.N. refused to enforce them.
Isn't Syria on the Human Rights Commission? Wow. I can't believe anyone takes that organization seriously. I would evict those deadbeats from Manhattan in a heartbeat, and cut U.S. funding.
So, you're saying is that you need a military in order to coerce other countries into doing what you want them to do, as opposed to what they want to do?
Yes. Sometimes "what they want to do" is to kill you. Our military deters foreigners from killing U.S. citizens. That's their job, and they do it well. Call it what you want, with your moral relativism. I won't fall for it for a second. The fact is, if there are one million foreigners that plan or attempt to kill U.S. citizens, I'd rather that all one million die than one U.S. citizen.
But without capital they don't have the choice whether to work for someone else.
Who does? All work is for someone else on some level, unless you're a farmer feeding yourself or something. If you consider having a business "working for yourself" then there are some types of businesses that don't really require capital, such as a housecleaner (they can start out by just using the homeowner's cleaning supplies and charging less than the competition).
The key word here is work. If you want more than you currently have, you need to work to get it. And almost invariably, you need to satisfy someone else to be paid for your work. This is true whether you have capital or not. There are of course people who have so much capital that the capital provides all of their needs, and some of those people choose to stop working. But that type of person represents such a tiny fraction of the economy, I don't really see that as a detractor from the overall system.
Perhaps you should try using the normal meaning of "capital".
Well, I think, when starting out, the only choice you really have is which employer to work for. Ideally, there are many employers who must compete for labor and so the person with no capital does have a choice. That is more true in some areas than others, so for some people it might be a wise idea to move.
Also, most people, even people below the poverty line in America, get some initial capital from their parents. Education, room and board, maybe even some spiffy clothes and a computer, are all provided by parents. That, of course, assumes that the parents are good parents, and usually works best when a child has two parents helping them.
I can certainly see how someone with absolutely zero capital would have a serious problem. But I mean zero: no education (can't read, write, or understand spoken language), no home, no food, no clothes, nothing. But that type of person is going to have a problem pretty much no matter what. Usually these types of people are orphans, and historically some social structure has provided for them as a humanitarian effort. Often that is intertwined with the government, but it doesn't need to be. Often, churches provide that kind of service.
I kind of see where you're going with all of this: you see it as a bootstrapping problem. And it is. But that's really more of a theoretical problem that would probably date back to the primordial ooze. In reality, most people in America can produce more than they consume, and most people have the ability to translate that into earning more income than they spend. As long as that statement is true, no one family is really "stuck". It may take a generation or two, but if they save, it can be done.
Of course, it CAN'T be done if property rights are not protected.
The US is a nation that does not keep its dominance through diplomacy and exports, but instead by force.
Force is a very valid way of coercing nations' behavior. If the U.S. had no military, a rival nation could just march in. Or they could stockpile nukes in Cuba in launching range of our major cities and extort U.S. citizens.
It's important for the U.S. to have a military, and it's also important that other nations know we are willing to use it. Remember, there are no world police.
Negotiations don't really accomplish much if the nations have mutually exclusive interests. If we negotiate with Britain or Canada, it works out great because most of what we want is the same. But negotiating without a backing of force is useless against places like North Korea or Iran. There's no common ground.
No they don't. They do that because they don't have any capital, so they can't choose to have other people working for them.
Both are reasons. Someone without capital chooses to work for someone with capital.
No they don't. They pay them because otherwise the workers wouldn't contribute their labour.
That's why the employer pays the employee. The employee works for the employer so that they can sustain their consumption and acquire property.
Given the chance I suspect that most of the workers would prefer to simply take the capitalists' property.
Right, but that's game theory. An individual has motivation to steal. But this is not a zero sum game. So, a higher economic efficiency is achieved when there is a strong deterrent for anyone to steal. If that deterrent disappears, as in a riot, the selfish game theory takes over and efficiency declines to that of Bosnia.
No, the difference is that libertarians want the government to protect the people's property rights.
Although it may seem like the only people who want property protections are property owners, that's actually not true.
For example, some people choose to start their career by (gasp!) working for someone who has capital that is protected as private property. The property owner pays them so that, one day, the person that started out with no property is able to acquire some. It's not a zero sum game.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know much about the German economy (I have a friend that moved there a few years ago, but he doesn't talk much about the economy), but the US economy is actually doing quite well. We had a recession (technically, it wasn't even a recession according to the definition, but it's generally recognized as a recession). Now the recession is over and we are recovering (not that it was very bad anyway).
To me, the problems in the German economy signify the superiority of a market economy, but I am an economic conservative. In the U.S., salaries tend to increase for a given individual as that person ages and gains experience. Income tends to increase with increased hours of work. Also, unemployment in the U.S. is low compared with countries like Germany and France (http://www.destatis.de/indicators/e/arb210ae.htm indicates Germany has double-digit inflation regularly, while 6% in the US is considered high). Even public salaries are often determined by the marketplace. Sowell (the author I recommended) does a good job of explaining why the market economy produces better results. Again, I'm an economic conservative (and so is Sowell), so you should consider these statements critically.
I live in San Diego, one side of the busiest border crossing in the world. It's also one of the areas where around 1M immigrants per year enter this country illegally and without education or skills (of course that's the entire border, not just San Diego). These people come here, and for the most part are productive citizens. They often work many hours, not just to support themselves but also relatives south of the border. I am sure that you can find examples of people who work hard and have a tough time in America. But generally speaking, people who are hard working, motivated, and ambitious are able to support themselves and often have money left over, even if they have no skills or education. Generally the poor in America are considered obese, rather than malnourished. We are far from perfect around here, but I think that from an economic perspective, the US provides opportunity for nearly everyone. If that were not true, there would not be so many successful immigrants from Mexico. And there are a LOT of successful immigrants from Mexico who own property and live comfortably (again, even with no education or skills coming in here).
If you show me a man in the U.S. who has worked 60 hours per week for 30 years, I will show you a wealthy man. I'm sure you can find exceptions, but generally, in the US, if you work a lot of hours, you make a lot of money.
Can you provide a source? If that were true, banks would not lend money in the U.S. at the rates that they do. Mortgages are much lower rates than 10%, and clearly a bank would lose if the inflation exceeded the interest they made. Real inflation in the U.S. is a couple percent by any reasonable estimate. At a rate of 10%, $1.00 in 1900 would be the same as about $14,000 in 2000, which is rediculous.
Like everything else, people choose among the options they have. USD and EUR both have problems, but they are both used because they are better than th
In your example, your salary is declining, because the value in dollars is constant while the value of a dollar is declining (inflation). Generally, as your skills and experience increase, your salary will follow. A person's salary will decrease if the market value of their job decreases, or if it was higher than market value to begin with (for instance, in the case of minimum wage).
But yes, "the rich" or middle class sometimes benefit (in the short term) from inflation, and the poor rarely benefit from inflation. Middle class tends to have a higher debt/credit ratio because it's typical to have a house that's mortgaged at a fixed or nearly fixed rate, and inflation is likely to drive up the middle class wages, meaning an overall benefit. Inflation causes wage increases, and the people who benefit the most from that are the people that work the most, which are "the rich" and the middle class.
Inflation is a problem, but it's far from "rampant". And something is being done, we are raising the discount rate. Since around 2000, the discount rate started falling rapidly, causing inflation as well as (perhaps) a real estate bubble. However, now the discount rate is going back up, and we can expect inflation to decrease.
If you're interested in monetary policy, you can't beat reading some resources at http://www.federalreserve.gov/. I suggest the "Monetary Policy Report to Congress" in the "News and Events" section. Many of those reports (which are basically speeches to Congress) are available going back years. Also there are more resources linked from the site in the "Publications and Education Resources" section.
As for economic reading in general, I think the best author around is Dr. Thomas Sowell. He presents his ideas in a very readable fashion, but his works are very well-researched. He draws from current events and history, and analyzes policy in a simple, step-by-step manner. The author grew up in a (very) poor black family in the Bronx, and his writing comes across as plain english that relates to real people, not abstract academic theories built upon other abstract academic theories. Most other academics either use such rich language that you can't understand what they are saying in plain english, or they are so boring that you can't make it past page 10.
I think I see what you're getting at, but could you please provide a source? I am not trying to disagree, but I am not entirely convinced and I would be interested to read a more thorough explanation.
No, inflation is very good for any debtor. If you owe $1000 at 5%, and inflation is 10%, then the debtor actually makes money in the transaction. Even ARM (adjustable rate mortgages) are typically fixed for years, and even when they do adjust they are not likely to change more than inflation. And that's only talking about mortgages, there are many other types of loans, and many don't adjust at all.
Inflation is bad for creditors, and good for debtors, because the debtors borrow in today's dollars, and pay back in tomorrow's dollars. It's also bad for currency holders, but there is a lot more debt in existence than currency.
But expansion doesn't necessarily mean the "exploitation" of new resources. It could add value to existing resources, or more efficiently allocate existing resources. That's actually where most of the money is, not in selling raw materials. So, value add is also where most of the expansion would happen.
I will agree that the modern world is accustomed to economic expansion. However, debt only makes sense when expanding the economy, so if we didn't expand economically we wouldn't need debt at all.
The person who printed the money benefits. If you throw around money left and right because you have a printing press, you'll immediately feel the forces of inflation. You still benefit because you have essentially used inflation to rob creditors and currency holders of $1M, but you'll feel the same forces of inflation as if someone on the other side of the country spent the money. If I am wrong about this point, please provide me with a reliable source that says that the people printing the money don't feel the effects of it's inflation as they spend it.
The effect on debtors and creditors should far outweigh the effect on holders of currency. If you loaned money to someone to buy a house, inflation is very bad for you and very good for the person to whom you lent money.
Economic expansion does not require the exploitation of resources. If exploitation of resources was as important to economic expansion as you imply, Mexico would be rich and Japan would be poor.
Huh? When the money is in circulation, the inflation has already hit.
Legislating responsibility can only go so far. You could make the same argument about someone tuning a radio.
There is an endless list of ways people can distract themselves while driving. You can't ban all of them. Perhaps if there were nothing to keep your mind working while driving, boredom (and perhaps weariness) itself would be a bigger distraction than playing some music or having a casual conversation on the phone. I've never caused an accident (or been in an accident that caused damage), but all of my "close calls" were when I wasn't distracted by anything, I was just being absent-minded.
Maybe it's best to blame the people rather than the thing that they distracted themselves with.
No. "Public use" is not "public benefit" (or "public purpose" as the SCOTUS said). If you allow confiscation of private property for "public benefit" you have one of the following: socialism, fascism, and/or communism.
You do not solve the heart of the problem by trying to mandate "fair" (always a bad idea).
The ONLY correct uses for ED are true public projects: roads, dams, etc. I don't care how much tax revenue something generates. It must be for public use, or no ED.
There are some things that could be argued about at the local level regarding eminent domain. However, if the reason the government is confiscating the property is to transfer it to another private party, the answer should ALWAYS be "NO". The most liberal reading of the 5th + 14th Amendments would require at a minimum that the land be owned and controlled by the public after using ED.
The solution to this, and what has happened in many places, is that the states and local governments need to discuss and determine the limitations of eminent domain in their area.
Try replacing "limitations of eminent domain" with "limitations of speech" to see what you're really saying.
To confiscate land for private use is a violation of the 5th Amendment, and should be prohibited throughout the U.S.
Allowing the most number of humans to survive in the long term.
I was replying to the poster who wanted me to define "good" and "bad". Good is the condition that allows the most humans to survive. I don't care if moving is required, since we're talking about long timescales.
I never suggested that we should neglect things that humans require. Allowing the most humans to survive means an entire thriving planet. But then again, the Earth has had thriving life under much hotter temperatures than there are now.
Thank you. Although not a direct answer, that's a very good point.
The way I understand it, if we start going into an Ice Age, it will be a long time before we get back to warming.
Ok. Just tell me we won't be fighting "Global Cooling" as the next big political crisis. I don't want to see a bunch of money spent trying to cool the Earth, merely to find later that it's too cold and Earth can only sustain 100M people.
Well, the problem is that the climate may change whether we release another molecule of CO2 or not. It may get much colder when the next Ice Age comes.
If your interested in the proliferation of the human species, we should try to stabalize the climate to be something that is most helpful to our species.
And of course, my questions come from the perspective of a skeptic to the whole Kyoto Protocol crowd. But simple answers are more effective than attacking my motivations. My suspicion is that you don't really have answers to these questions. Many people want to spend many billions of dollars on a scheme to control something that they don't know how to control. And I say, not my money, until you answer some simple questions satisfactorily.
Global warming is filled with logical leaps. CO2 traps heat. Ok. A lot of scientists believe that humans are responsible for a recent warming trend. Ok, I'll buy that until I hear otherwise. But when people start talking about attempting to control it, that's where I need more analysis. Who says that we won't be fighting Global Cooling in the next 100 years? I need to know the answer to that question before I willingly give a dime to anyone.
Perhaps it is normal for the planet to go through trends of warming and cooling, but a few people might complain about losing San Francisco and New York to rising water levels.
I am precisely trying to determine what our goals are, natural or not. Natural does not mean good, but many people seem to be implying that it is. If we are entering a cooling trend, maybe global warming is good, right? Are we entering a cooling trend? What margins of error do we have on the future climate, and if we make an error, which is the "safe" bet? Is it safer to be a little too hot or a little too cold?
So, if we are entering a natural cooling trend, we should pump more CO2/methane into the atmosphere, right? Are we entering a cooling trend? When will the next Ice Age happen, and can human-induced global warming prevent it?
That is a completely useless response. I am talking about good or bad for HUMANS. Since we're talking about a long time from now, I don't care where the humans are. If one area is bad, and one is good, people will move to the good area. So, on the whole, is it good or bad for humans?
If we don't have an answer within some margin of error for that simple question, why are we trying to spend billions of dollars to prevent the climate from warming?
As far as the natural cycles, which is it? Warmer or cooler?
And we don't have the option to not err. We will err, but it's a good idea to know the risks. For instance, if you know how much ammunition you need within a margin of +/- 1 bullet, the risk of carrying one extra bullet is much less than the risk of carrying one bullet too few.
"Global Warming" as a scientific topic has many problems. Here are my questions:
(1) If the world heats up, is it bad?
(2) If the world cools down, is it bad?
(3) Are the natural cycles pushing us toward warmer or cooler conditions?
(4) If the natural cycles push us toward cooling (I've heard that we're due for an Ice Age any century now), is human-caused global warming still bad? Or does it just keep the planet a better climate for longer?
(5) If we're not really sure where the climate is going overall, is it better to err on the side of "too hot" or "too cold".
As you can see, I really don't care whether it is human caused or not. The only thing that matters is that we have a comfortable climate to live in for a while. And the last thing I want is for us to be thinking in 300-400 years "Wow. This Ice Age is cold. Too bad we can't think of a way to warm up.".
To me it seems more likely that humans would be hurt by global cooling than global warming. I understand that global warming can cause some areas to be colder (like Europe), but on the whole it seems like it would promote more life.
Go ahead, embrace your mutually assured destruction with your hostile enemies while I sit peacefully in Canada with my poutine and rich tasty beer. I'd rather be taxed poor than shot dead.
Sure, when you have your allies doing all the dirty work for you, it's a sweet deal. You have the U.S. as a nice buffer zone. Just like when U.S. citizens are paying for the development of pharmaceuticals through high prices.
As an aside, what's a good Canadian import? I mostly just drink microbrew down here because I know it's fresh and I know some places that make good beer. I want something that they actually serve in bars down here because I don't trust bottles in a supermarket. I don't even know if I've had a single Canadian beer ever.
I hate to break the news to you, but the US does not have a defensive army.
When Russia is trying to store missles in Cuba, we can't be "defensive" according to your definition of "defensive". All military actions can be seen as offensive unless it's just a giant brick wall. Guns themselves are inherently offensive weapons.
Sometimes the best defense is a good offense.
No World Police? What's the UN supposed to be then?
9 806r.htm
Well, right now they are too busy trading food for sex with young children. Link:
http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20060509-090826-
The U.N. is a corrupt cesspool. I have no interest in annointing those thugs as "world police". And the U.S. went to war after Iraq ignored the U.N. resolutions, and the U.N. refused to enforce them.
Isn't Syria on the Human Rights Commission? Wow. I can't believe anyone takes that organization seriously. I would evict those deadbeats from Manhattan in a heartbeat, and cut U.S. funding.
Link: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/2/chrmem.htm
So, you're saying is that you need a military in order to coerce other countries into doing what you want them to do, as opposed to what they want to do?
Yes. Sometimes "what they want to do" is to kill you. Our military deters foreigners from killing U.S. citizens. That's their job, and they do it well. Call it what you want, with your moral relativism. I won't fall for it for a second. The fact is, if there are one million foreigners that plan or attempt to kill U.S. citizens, I'd rather that all one million die than one U.S. citizen.
But without capital they don't have the choice whether to work for someone else.
Who does? All work is for someone else on some level, unless you're a farmer feeding yourself or something. If you consider having a business "working for yourself" then there are some types of businesses that don't really require capital, such as a housecleaner (they can start out by just using the homeowner's cleaning supplies and charging less than the competition).
The key word here is work. If you want more than you currently have, you need to work to get it. And almost invariably, you need to satisfy someone else to be paid for your work. This is true whether you have capital or not. There are of course people who have so much capital that the capital provides all of their needs, and some of those people choose to stop working. But that type of person represents such a tiny fraction of the economy, I don't really see that as a detractor from the overall system.
Perhaps you should try using the normal meaning of "capital".
Ok, fair enough.
Well, I think, when starting out, the only choice you really have is which employer to work for. Ideally, there are many employers who must compete for labor and so the person with no capital does have a choice. That is more true in some areas than others, so for some people it might be a wise idea to move.
Also, most people, even people below the poverty line in America, get some initial capital from their parents. Education, room and board, maybe even some spiffy clothes and a computer, are all provided by parents. That, of course, assumes that the parents are good parents, and usually works best when a child has two parents helping them.
I can certainly see how someone with absolutely zero capital would have a serious problem. But I mean zero: no education (can't read, write, or understand spoken language), no home, no food, no clothes, nothing. But that type of person is going to have a problem pretty much no matter what. Usually these types of people are orphans, and historically some social structure has provided for them as a humanitarian effort. Often that is intertwined with the government, but it doesn't need to be. Often, churches provide that kind of service.
I kind of see where you're going with all of this: you see it as a bootstrapping problem. And it is. But that's really more of a theoretical problem that would probably date back to the primordial ooze. In reality, most people in America can produce more than they consume, and most people have the ability to translate that into earning more income than they spend. As long as that statement is true, no one family is really "stuck". It may take a generation or two, but if they save, it can be done.
Of course, it CAN'T be done if property rights are not protected.
The US is a nation that does not keep its dominance through diplomacy and exports, but instead by force.
Force is a very valid way of coercing nations' behavior. If the U.S. had no military, a rival nation could just march in. Or they could stockpile nukes in Cuba in launching range of our major cities and extort U.S. citizens.
It's important for the U.S. to have a military, and it's also important that other nations know we are willing to use it. Remember, there are no world police.
Negotiations don't really accomplish much if the nations have mutually exclusive interests. If we negotiate with Britain or Canada, it works out great because most of what we want is the same. But negotiating without a backing of force is useless against places like North Korea or Iran. There's no common ground.
No they don't. They do that because they don't have any capital, so they can't choose to have other people working for them.
Both are reasons. Someone without capital chooses to work for someone with capital.
No they don't. They pay them because otherwise the workers wouldn't contribute their labour.
That's why the employer pays the employee. The employee works for the employer so that they can sustain their consumption and acquire property.
Given the chance I suspect that most of the workers would prefer to simply take the capitalists' property.
Right, but that's game theory. An individual has motivation to steal. But this is not a zero sum game. So, a higher economic efficiency is achieved when there is a strong deterrent for anyone to steal. If that deterrent disappears, as in a riot, the selfish game theory takes over and efficiency declines to that of Bosnia.
No, the difference is that libertarians want the government to protect the people's property rights.
Although it may seem like the only people who want property protections are property owners, that's actually not true.
For example, some people choose to start their career by (gasp!) working for someone who has capital that is protected as private property. The property owner pays them so that, one day, the person that started out with no property is able to acquire some. It's not a zero sum game.