That article you quote from states that the subsidy from 1950 to 2010 for the US for fossil fuels amounted to $600bn, while that for renewables amounted to $74bn.
Yes. Now, as I was saying, put that in relationship to the amount of energy derived from the two sources over the same period. That is, you need to look at subsidies per unit of energy, not in terms of absolute amounts.
A single year's figures show sweet fuck all.
A single year's figures from within the last decade is actually biased in favor of renewables since renewables have been getting more efficient.
Why you think quoting this article helps you make your case is beyond me.
Well, your inability to read and do basic division isn't my problem.
You do realise that the very article you quoted from has two numbers, right?
The article I link to has lots of numbers. Hence my point: if you actually do the math, look at the data [wikipedia.org], and get past the obfuscation of left wing crony capitalists. The numbers you point to are bullshit because it counts lots of things as "subsidies" that aren't.
The more relevant numbers are below that under "Allocation of subsidies in the United States"; you need to divide that by the energy share of each energy being subsidized. You'll find that renewable energies are subsidized at 20x the rate of fossil fuels.
I mean, really. Can't you at least quote from an article that supports the case you're trying to make?!
The article does support the case I'm making. You simply need to use your head.
Your specific comments were about President Obama needing to obey the law when faced with a hostile legislature.
Correct. And my point was that whenever there is a conflict between what he thinks is the right thing to do and what the law says, he needs to obey the law.
My two comments addressed those points directly, with citations.
No, you didn't address the question of whether he "needs to obey the law," you addressed the question of whether he "was obeying the law." I'm sorry if the distinction eludes you.
If "corporations are people", then they can get the death penalty
Corporations are people in the sense that soylent green is people: they are composed of people. So you are saying that you want to put all the shareholders of a corporation into the electric chair. Doesn't seem like a good idea. In fact, it's exactly the sort of thing that corporations were created to prevent.
Incredibly, this same division makes it simple to access detailed salary and employment history on a large portion of Americans
Sweden makes tax returns public with no apparent ill effect. The US already makes real estate values, ownership, and taxes public, and we should do the same thing for income tax returns.
POTUS is supposed to be a leader; you know, the person who sees what others don't yet see
POTUS is simply the head of the executive branch of the federal government, that is the chief bureaucrat. And the federal government was supposed to have very limited powers (mostly defense, interstate commerce).
The idea of POTUS as a "leader" and visionary came out of 20th century progressive and fascist movements; it's no accident that "leader" translates to "Fuhrer" in Germany and "Duce" in Italian.
you know, the person who sees what others don't yet see, and makes decisions, (even unpopular ones), based on logic, evidence, and science, for the long-term good of all concerned.
In that sentence, you pretty much sum up the basic ideology of fascism and the justification for the Enabling Act. It's utterly reprehensible that anybody would actually still advocate that crap half a century after WWII.
Not really. It is the century plus of subsidies which really hurt the poor.
Subsidies for renewable energies in 2013 were $7.3 billion and for fossil fuels were $3.2 billion. But renewables are less than 10% of US energy production, meaning that renewables were subsidized twenty times as much per unit of energy than fossil fuels.
If u really wanted to help national security, you would back not just wind/solar, but Geothermal and nuclear, while dropping all subsidies on fossil fuels.
"National security" is the darling phrase of totalitarians and other crooks--people like you.
What helps Americans as whole would be for government to stop picking winners and losers in the market; that is, government should stop "backing", "supporting", or "subsidizing" any form of energy production because such "backing" is useless.
So we can pull all the oil, coal, and gas subsidies as well, and see which ones win out on their own merits.
If you actually do the math, look at the data, and get past the obfuscation of left wing crony capitalists, you'll find that oil, coal, and gas subsidies are small compared to alternative energy subsidies.
Oil and gas do NOT want to have to compete on an even playing field.
What is the alternative when you have an openly hostile legislature?
The alternative is to obey the law: if the legislature didn't give Obama a mandate to regulate carbon emissions, then Obama should not be regulating carbon emissions.
since anti-[scientism] agendas have ruled the GOP for quite some time
Yes, the GOP is anti-scientism and has been for a long time. And that's a good thing, even if you don't realize it.
What's next? Penalize solar and wind and other renewables?
No, just stop subsidizing them.
Tax people who already have solar panels on their houses and businesses?
No, just don't do anything special for them: no energy buyback, no subsidies, no mandatory net metering.
All so some ass-backwards, mostly dead already coal industry can hang on for a while longer?
Correct: oil and gas should "hang on" until alternative energies are actually competitive without subsidies. Right now, subsidies for alternative energies are massively unjust and hurting poorer Americans.
Actually, laws against false adevertising are a free speech violation. That's because those laws were made in the realisation that it is in the interest of big corporations and politicians to be able to restrain the speech of competitors and citizens whenever they feel like it
There, FTFY
It is people who actually want their speech to be privileged, or immature teenagers, who think that free speech is absolute, without actually checking their facts.
Ah, you are making the favorite argument of totalitarians. Glad you showed your true colors.
If you advertise with false claims, I buy the product, and the product doesn't live up to what you claimed, that is a contractual violation. It can be addressed through regulation, but it is better addressed through the courts.
"Truth in advertising", "fair trade", and "consumer protection", on the other hand, may actually be a restraint on free speech. Those can be prosecuted even when there is no demonstrable injury to any party. That opens doors to abuse and corruption.
So, you're right that existing laws and regulations address this, but at least some of them may well be infringing on free speech rights already.
Even if the complexity arguments they are trying to make are valid (which seems unlikely), that would still be missing the point. A simulation only needs to be good enough to fool human observers; that is, if you claim "exponential complexity" somewhere, it needs to be distinguishable b human observers from "good enough" approximations.
In fact, it doesn't even need to do that: since humans are part of the simulation, the simulation itself can simply change the brain state of any physicist in such a way that the physicists believes the simulation behaves in whatever way he thinks it ought to behave in.
It's only in the last few years that companies have created totally vertical integration with content creation to delivery. That is a major difference, in my mind; hence the need for laws.
Nonsense; we've had those kinds of companies since the earliest days of the Internet.
First, you know nothing of my medical history. I'm not talking generalities here, but specific things that could have killed or crippled me that were averted by good health care.
The good thing about the Internet is that you can just make shit up. But your specific medical history is irrelevant anyway, what matters is population statistics.
Fact is that a large part of high US healthcare costs is due to preventable causes and lifestyle choices. The US has more deaths from cardiovascular disease than other developed nations not because our healthcare system is worse, but because people don't get enough incentives to prevent it. In fact, politics goes out of its way in the US to remove any such incentives.
If you had a heart attack before age 65, it was probably preventable. And the way to prevent it is not to tell people at age 30 "you really ought to eat less and exercise more, but don't worry, you're covered no matter what, and here are some expensive pills that may help", the way to prevent it is to tell people at age 30 "if you don't lose weight now and exercise regularly, you won't see your 60th birthday because nobody is going to pay the cost of treating your heart disease and you probably can't pay for it yourself".
I agree that, if one can get high-paying employment, amassing a million or two in savings over one's working lifetime isn't that difficult. I disagree that that counts as being rich.
The median family savings close to retirement age are $17000, and average savings are $163000, so having 10x-100x of that saved certainly makes you rich, your personal delusions notwithstanding.
Universal health care obviously is paid through taxes
No, that's false. Both Germany and Switzerland have universal healthcare, but they are private insurance companies and private providers. The UK has universal healthcare, but it's a nationalized insurance program with nationalized providers. The US (since ACA) also has universal healthcare, provided as a mix of public and private insurance and providers. What you seem to argue for is something different from either, namely nationalized insurance with private providers, a system that is uncommon and extremely prone to abuse.
but literally every country with universal health care pays a whole lot less than we do
All countries pay a whole lot less than we do, both countries with and without universal healthcare, with public systems and with private systems. So, neither "universal healthcare" or "public healthcare system" are the causes of lower healthcare costs, since you can have lower healthcare costs without them.
The way other countries keep costs down is through one of two mechanisms: government price controls and market mechanisms. Government regulations in the US have disabled both mechanisms. That is, the US government has disabled market mechanisms in private healthcare (through coverage mandates, mandates for preexisting conditions), and the US government is unable and unwilling to impose strict cost controls in the public system. In fact, costs in the public system in the US are even higher than in the private system. Not only is the US system costly, it also makes people sick. In a private system, a doctor might tell you "if you don't lose weights, you'll face expenses of $20000/year for diabetes and heart disease, or you will die", whereas in the US, the doctor will simply tell you "lose some weights and take these statins for free". Probably half of US medical expenses can be attributed to factors under people's control.
We should go either to a UK-style nationalized healthcare system (with private add-on insurance) or a fully private system with little government regulation. By advocating socialized payments with private providers, however, you are advocating corruption and crony capitalism on a massive scale.
And if they where on final approach then its perfectly acceptable to be that low. You don't like aircraft flying over your head, don't live next to a airport.
As I was saying: And when they have a legitimate reason, they should be able to fly as low as necessary. When they are simply getting from point A to point B, there is no reason for them to be below 1000 ft except during takeoff and landing.
Overall, you seem to agree with me: it's perfectly fine to raise the lower limit for flights to 1000 ft, except in cases of takeoff/landing or active military/police operations. Thanks!
But we are not talking about Joe Millionaire Air Taxi are we?
That's what commercial flight limits are for.
We are talking about legitimate reasons for aircraft to be below 500 feet.
Not in this case; the Army chopper in question wasn't engaged in a military operation, it was simply transporting people. There was no reason for it to be flying low.
Civilian helicopters and fixed wing aircraft are routinely involved in search and rescue of downed aircraft.
And when they have a legitimate reason, they should be able to fly as low as necessary. When they are simply getting from point A to point B, there is no reason for them to be below 1000 ft except during takeoff and landing.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. Now, as I was saying, put that in relationship to the amount of energy derived from the two sources over the same period. That is, you need to look at subsidies per unit of energy, not in terms of absolute amounts.
A single year's figures from within the last decade is actually biased in favor of renewables since renewables have been getting more efficient.
Well, your inability to read and do basic division isn't my problem.
IBM is a stable, successful company. Giving up their monopolistic ambitions made them a better company, and the same is happening to Microsoft.
Not if your tax returns were public.
By definition, obtaining government-published data is not "corporate espionage".
And the problem with that would be... ?
Subsidies don't "encourage new technologies".
If renewables "just die out" without subsidies, they are not competitive.
There shouldn't be any subsidies for any energy technologies.
There is little pollution from fossil fuels these days. And the danger of producing it is accounted for in its cost structure. So, not an argument.
The article I link to has lots of numbers. Hence my point: if you actually do the math, look at the data [wikipedia.org], and get past the obfuscation of left wing crony capitalists. The numbers you point to are bullshit because it counts lots of things as "subsidies" that aren't.
The more relevant numbers are below that under "Allocation of subsidies in the United States"; you need to divide that by the energy share of each energy being subsidized. You'll find that renewable energies are subsidized at 20x the rate of fossil fuels.
The article does support the case I'm making. You simply need to use your head.
Correct. And my point was that whenever there is a conflict between what he thinks is the right thing to do and what the law says, he needs to obey the law.
No, you didn't address the question of whether he "needs to obey the law," you addressed the question of whether he "was obeying the law." I'm sorry if the distinction eludes you.
We weren't discussing whether "Obama obeyed the law" so your arguments about whether he did is irrelevant.
That's the typical strategy of people like you: when you can't win an argument, you obfuscate, confuse, and put up straw men.
Corporations are people in the sense that soylent green is people: they are composed of people. So you are saying that you want to put all the shareholders of a corporation into the electric chair. Doesn't seem like a good idea. In fact, it's exactly the sort of thing that corporations were created to prevent.
Sweden makes tax returns public with no apparent ill effect. The US already makes real estate values, ownership, and taxes public, and we should do the same thing for income tax returns.
POTUS is simply the head of the executive branch of the federal government, that is the chief bureaucrat. And the federal government was supposed to have very limited powers (mostly defense, interstate commerce).
The idea of POTUS as a "leader" and visionary came out of 20th century progressive and fascist movements; it's no accident that "leader" translates to "Fuhrer" in Germany and "Duce" in Italian.
In that sentence, you pretty much sum up the basic ideology of fascism and the justification for the Enabling Act. It's utterly reprehensible that anybody would actually still advocate that crap half a century after WWII.
AC asked "What is the alternative when you have an openly hostile legislature?", and I responded that the president ought to obey the law.
You now claim something different, namely that the openly hostile legislature was irrelevant. Make up your mind.
Subsidies for renewable energies in 2013 were $7.3 billion and for fossil fuels were $3.2 billion. But renewables are less than 10% of US energy production, meaning that renewables were subsidized twenty times as much per unit of energy than fossil fuels.
"National security" is the darling phrase of totalitarians and other crooks--people like you.
What helps Americans as whole would be for government to stop picking winners and losers in the market; that is, government should stop "backing", "supporting", or "subsidizing" any form of energy production because such "backing" is useless.
If you actually do the math, look at the data, and get past the obfuscation of left wing crony capitalists, you'll find that oil, coal, and gas subsidies are small compared to alternative energy subsidies.
That's your conspiracy theories, not reality.
The alternative is to obey the law: if the legislature didn't give Obama a mandate to regulate carbon emissions, then Obama should not be regulating carbon emissions.
Yes, the GOP is anti-scientism and has been for a long time. And that's a good thing, even if you don't realize it.
No, just stop subsidizing them.
No, just don't do anything special for them: no energy buyback, no subsidies, no mandatory net metering.
Correct: oil and gas should "hang on" until alternative energies are actually competitive without subsidies. Right now, subsidies for alternative energies are massively unjust and hurting poorer Americans.
There, FTFY
Ah, you are making the favorite argument of totalitarians. Glad you showed your true colors.
If you advertise with false claims, I buy the product, and the product doesn't live up to what you claimed, that is a contractual violation. It can be addressed through regulation, but it is better addressed through the courts.
"Truth in advertising", "fair trade", and "consumer protection", on the other hand, may actually be a restraint on free speech. Those can be prosecuted even when there is no demonstrable injury to any party. That opens doors to abuse and corruption.
So, you're right that existing laws and regulations address this, but at least some of them may well be infringing on free speech rights already.
Even if the complexity arguments they are trying to make are valid (which seems unlikely), that would still be missing the point. A simulation only needs to be good enough to fool human observers; that is, if you claim "exponential complexity" somewhere, it needs to be distinguishable b human observers from "good enough" approximations.
In fact, it doesn't even need to do that: since humans are part of the simulation, the simulation itself can simply change the brain state of any physicist in such a way that the physicists believes the simulation behaves in whatever way he thinks it ought to behave in.
Yes, there were.
In any case, whatever problem you delude yourself into thinking exist in the marketplace, regulation by the FCC is not the answer.
Nonsense; we've had those kinds of companies since the earliest days of the Internet.
The good thing about the Internet is that you can just make shit up. But your specific medical history is irrelevant anyway, what matters is population statistics.
Fact is that a large part of high US healthcare costs is due to preventable causes and lifestyle choices. The US has more deaths from cardiovascular disease than other developed nations not because our healthcare system is worse, but because people don't get enough incentives to prevent it. In fact, politics goes out of its way in the US to remove any such incentives.
If you had a heart attack before age 65, it was probably preventable. And the way to prevent it is not to tell people at age 30 "you really ought to eat less and exercise more, but don't worry, you're covered no matter what, and here are some expensive pills that may help", the way to prevent it is to tell people at age 30 "if you don't lose weight now and exercise regularly, you won't see your 60th birthday because nobody is going to pay the cost of treating your heart disease and you probably can't pay for it yourself".
The median family savings close to retirement age are $17000, and average savings are $163000, so having 10x-100x of that saved certainly makes you rich, your personal delusions notwithstanding.
No, that's false. Both Germany and Switzerland have universal healthcare, but they are private insurance companies and private providers. The UK has universal healthcare, but it's a nationalized insurance program with nationalized providers. The US (since ACA) also has universal healthcare, provided as a mix of public and private insurance and providers. What you seem to argue for is something different from either, namely nationalized insurance with private providers, a system that is uncommon and extremely prone to abuse.
All countries pay a whole lot less than we do, both countries with and without universal healthcare, with public systems and with private systems. So, neither "universal healthcare" or "public healthcare system" are the causes of lower healthcare costs, since you can have lower healthcare costs without them.
The way other countries keep costs down is through one of two mechanisms: government price controls and market mechanisms. Government regulations in the US have disabled both mechanisms. That is, the US government has disabled market mechanisms in private healthcare (through coverage mandates, mandates for preexisting conditions), and the US government is unable and unwilling to impose strict cost controls in the public system. In fact, costs in the public system in the US are even higher than in the private system. Not only is the US system costly, it also makes people sick. In a private system, a doctor might tell you "if you don't lose weights, you'll face expenses of $20000/year for diabetes and heart disease, or you will die", whereas in the US, the doctor will simply tell you "lose some weights and take these statins for free". Probably half of US medical expenses can be attributed to factors under people's control.
We should go either to a UK-style nationalized healthcare system (with private add-on insurance) or a fully private system with little government regulation. By advocating socialized payments with private providers, however, you are advocating corruption and crony capitalism on a massive scale.
As I was saying: And when they have a legitimate reason, they should be able to fly as low as necessary. When they are simply getting from point A to point B, there is no reason for them to be below 1000 ft except during takeoff and landing.
Overall, you seem to agree with me: it's perfectly fine to raise the lower limit for flights to 1000 ft, except in cases of takeoff/landing or active military/police operations. Thanks!
That's what commercial flight limits are for.
Not in this case; the Army chopper in question wasn't engaged in a military operation, it was simply transporting people. There was no reason for it to be flying low.
And when they have a legitimate reason, they should be able to fly as low as necessary. When they are simply getting from point A to point B, there is no reason for them to be below 1000 ft except during takeoff and landing.