You certainly don't attempt to back up any of your assertions about weaking emissions standards, lead, government funding of religion etc. The problem here isn't one of logic, the problem is of the premises. What if I don't accept your premises, your unverified assertions upon which your arguement rests. What do you have to offer to me?
The idea that we "don't lose anything" by expending resources on something that turns out to be not caused by human actions (or caused by human actions to a much smaller degree than believed) means that resources that would be devoted to other problems, wants, and needs aren't going to be there. There's always a cost. TANSTAAFL.
I guess I don't agree with your assessment that the words facism and jingosim are apt, though I would certainly agree that the govenment certainly does have a bad case of "do something" disease. I think the new airport screening system was the wrong thing to do. For all the talk about poor airport security, the problem in this instance wasn't because of lax baggage security (box cutters, come on!) it was not sharing intelligence and the assumptions we had previously made about hijackers.
All of this airport security business is the equivlent of fighting the last war. Are we going to screen every major public facility in the US like this?? It's simply not feasible. Increasing the number of Air Marshalls was a great idea, and it cost probably a fraction of what this screening system does, plus we don't have to agrue about the civil liberties of those being searched.
I don't, however, agree with the thesis that the US "provoked" this by "interfearing" with the middle east. The hatred for the US isn't predicated only on those things that you cite. And Islamic fundamentalists openly say so, if you are truly willing to listen. They want nothing less than the destruction of secular western civilization. They know that won't happen overnight, and so you hear lots of intermediate goals like "get the US out of the middle east", but don't assume it stops there.
I think parent was talking about mercury and other pollutants etc., not CO2 or greenhouse gasses generally, but I can't speak for him.
With regards to the following statement, "No, of course not -- their plan is to continue to ignore the problem for as long as possible, because that's how they can maximize the short-term profits of their corporate supporters." let me channel Barak Obama who said that the biggest problem in politics today is the assumptions we make about the motives of the "other side". Or, as Arnold Kling would say, the discussion is centered around type M questions (motives) rather than than type C questions (consequences). Genuine political debate can take place (though we may still end up disagreeing because we place differing values on things) when you talk about issues, solutions, and consequences. When debate degenerates into type M accusations, you aren't going to convince anyone.
Do many people on the right have a smug tone now? Sure, but I can name just as many people on the other side of the asile. I'm sure if the shoe were on the other foot we'd be hearing talk of a Democrat party mandate, american values, etc. That's politics in general, not the sole domain of those you disagree with.
I agree that the new policies wrt background checks are reducing the number of foreign students comming to the US in general, but there are also other contributing factors including the improvements in many foreign universities. I've observed that many people who don't like these policies can't simply disagree with them and promote a useful altenative (what alternative would you propose that would improve security that would have fewer negative side effects), they have to throw around epithets like facism and jingosim. How arrogant. Pot, Kettle, Black.
The problem is that these "enemy combatants" fit neither the definitons of a civilian or a POW according to the GC. They are (basically) an unanticipated third party that does not (and should not) be treated as civilians, nor do they qualify for the protections afforded to POWs, since they don't meet the definition of a POW either. So how SHOULD they be treated?
It's a real good question.
The problem with income is that you have to control for the correlation between income and motivated parents, income and school funding, income and....
It's not that income explains education (if it did, why are the kids of immigrants so successful?), it's that income has a positive correlation with traits that DO lead to better education. Or rather parents with high incomes tend to care about thier kids education, they are both more likely to be involved and they can elect to move if they feel their child's school isn't doing a good job.
It's true that vouchers "take money away from public schools" but they would also be taking away students too. Remember, most states have a funding formula that awards on a per student basis, but all the local funding is usually not distributed that way, it's a simple property tax or sales tax etc. I don't think that private schools should get that money (or have the tax authority to take it) The suggestion AFAIK, is for vouchers to only be a fraction of the "per student" spending. Thus the district is out one student, but only half their funding for that student. How is this bad for the district?
If you wanted to prove of disprove this, try it in the worst district (ie a place with NOTHING to loose and everything to gain).
Bottom line, if the kids don't care and the parents don't care, then no amount of funding is going to result in an educated student. Funding (at least to some extent) is a necessary but not sufficent condition for education. Eventually you reach a point where additional funding hits diminishing returns and eventually near zero returns on the dollar. Why not at least let the poor parents and kids who CARE about their education have a chance at a good school? Are you "leaving kids behind"? Sure, but almost all of them wouldn't have been educated under the current system either.
Because the degrees follow the jobs, not vice versa. So ND and IA probably actually graduate a very high percentage of their students (both HS and college) but I'd bet that most of them leave the state since neither state has a top 50 population center. (MN-MPLS, CO-Denver, Illinois-Chicago)
The largest town in ND is Fargo, populatio of 90k. If you include the whole metro area I think its closer to 160k. But that's why Iowa and ND would struggle retaining younger people. Sure some people enjoy smaller towns and rural areas, but you would loose everyone who wants to live in a big city. Sure Fargo and Cedar Rapids or Ames will grow, but most of the truly small towns keep shrinking.
I don't agree with you that this is sudden, or that it is all that extreme.
The courts have allowed the government to restrict speech for years with regards to time/place/manner. That's not a new feature of the Republican convention (heck, just look at the "cage" that they put up for the Democrats convention in Boston, which even I think was over the top.)
I dealt with the warrant issue already in response to another poster's rantings.
With regards to the comment about "enemby combatants", there is actually a long standing part of US jurisprudence that recognizes that combatants in a war aren't considered US civilians and aren't entitiled to constitutional protections, only those afforded by the UCMJ and perhaps international conventions. The issue now is that it is much less cut-and-dried now exactly who constitutes an "enemy combatant", POW, unlawful combatant, etc. as these laws were written in a time where the current situation was not fully anticipated and thus the laws are vague (or don't address at all) the current situation. There are legitimate arguments on both sides as to how exactly these laws are should be interpreted
Of course economists can't predict the future because they can't predict future events. If they could, they'd be Miss Cleo, not economists. What they CAN do is make predictions (if X then Y) that are fairly accurate ex ante, but not very accurate ex post.
The FBI DOES still need search warrents. The only difference is that the circumstances under which the FBI can get the warrant issued under seal (in secret) has been expanded. If you don't think courts should be able to keep this information secret then you have problems with a lot more than the patriot act.
... because the word liberal has been misappropriated by socialists. Now, when people talk about being liberal, what they really mean is that they are socialists (or socialist-lite, quasi-socialist, or whatever you want to call it). Libertarians have to call themselves that because their word (liberal) has already been stolen from them as far as it's use in the common vernacular.
Geez, you people pick up way too many political talking points and spew them out without checking the facts. Ashcroft didn't try to "slash counterterrorism funding" prior to 9/11. What happened was that certain departments and their functions were being reorganized and moved. Thus there appeared to be a substantial reduction in funding for a couterterrorism unit, when actually the responsibility had meerly been transferred (along with most of the funding).
You know, there is a lot of room for disagreement on the tactics and their execution. But we can even have that debate when people are all running around in the fever swamps purposefully engaged in disingenuous behavior.
The federal constitution supercedes state constitutions. Many states do not carry the death penalty on their books and do not execute anyone accused for a crime that is convicted by state courts. However, cases in the federal government's jurisdiction are, by definition, not tried under state (or protectorate) law but under federal law. See separation of powers...
Umm, if I wanted to nitpick I could say that we didn't "know it was a crock", we simply were not able to come to that conclusion independantly. But frankly, it doesn't matter at this point.
"See my point? In the REAL WORLD it IS possible to buy something for less than its worth. "
Of course, and that's what an economist would call consumer (or producer) surplus. At any given price there are people who would have been willing to buy it at a higher price (it's worth more to them than what they are paying) and sellers who would be willing to sell for a lower price. Only those right on the margin are getting no more value than it is worth. Everyone else is getting more than that. And thats the crux of it. It's the marginal people that determine the prices.
Of course NO the model is "true". The truth is incredibly more complex contains a nearly infinite amount of data. Models are inherently a simplification of the complex. Good models aren't true, they are useful. The power of economic "laws" isn't that they are perfect, but that they are good predictors of real world behavior.
PS: Your joke about the economist is wrong/incomplete (he's walking with a finance guy, and you are missing the ending). As to the points about macroeconomics versus microeconomics and unemployment, I would add that your understanding is incomplete, but that comes with more education naturally.
Of course, what you say assumes that all the competitors have a similar cost structure. If you are Dell, you CAN WIN a race to the bottom, since your bottom is lower than your competitor's. You loose your margins but achieve a permanent increase in market share (since you can actually sustain the lower price, this is especially true for more price sensitive items.) Of course, to maintain this position over time, there has to be some sort of barrier (or really good management) that KEEPS your costs lower than your competition.
You also assume that stores won't try to differentiate somewhat and compete on things other than pure price. Your example would be better for a gas station. And it works for things like Books, DVDs, etc because you are getting the same thing at amazon.com as best buy or musicland (hard to "differentiate"). When it comes to some things though, like any kind of display or maybe a sound system, stores certainly can provide more differing levels of service than for something like a book or DVD.
What you are saying certainly isn't wrong, but it IS a little more complicated of course:D
The problem with Kyoto is that we cannot agree on what constitutes a resonable level of net CO2 production, heck we can't even agree on how to measure it: what level of CO2 is on ok level, should we measure production or "net production" (production minus carbon sinks), should CO2 be measured per capita, per unit of output, per country with a base year (I see problems with all of these measurements). And all this assumes that we know how much of this climate change is human caused, and that such changes are fundamentally preventable by us.
We need a long-term solution that eventually phases out the dominant role of fossil fuels as our main source of energy. But thats going to have to happen anyways as our use of energy expands and our we move forward in time. Bottom line, Kyoto is a very expensive feel-good proposition that doesn't truly address our problems, but it does drain resources away from potentially more productive solutions. Committing to Kyoto is like standardizing, early in the game, on an inferior strategy in the face of a panic that we have no strategy at all.
No, actually, part of the reason that US cars get fewer MPG is our STRICTER pollution control standards. According to the most recent figures that I have seen the US produces almost the exact same % of world CO2 production and GDP. The US "CO2 effeciency" is about average then. If you go by per capita then you ignore the fact that developed countries sacrifice their birth rates to attain a higher standard of living.
"Anyone who supports unfettered immigration is basically feigning concern about the environment and is a hypocrite who should be ignored."
Gee, not speaking in broad generizations or painting with a broad brush or anything??
How exactly does immigration INCREASE the population?? And we are headed for global population decline well before the end of the century. The biggest problem for most of the "developed" world is the aging of the population and preventing a rapid fall in their population.
Actually I'd say that most of the scientists (at least the biologists and climatologists) don't work for Greenpeace or industrial polluters. They probably work for some government institution such as a University, NASA, USFWS, or NOAA. So their bias (and that of their collegues) is much more influencial than that of an industrial giant or even Greenpeace.
"It is interesting that, once again, Bush ignored the scientist, in much the same way he ignores the soldiers, and just assumes his beliefs are facts."
[anal-retentive screed]Once again?? When did Bush "ingnore the soldiers"? You may think that the battle plan in Iraq was poor, but it was the one the commanders decided on. Just like in any group, there was some disagreement about which plan would be best. But at the end of the day the majority of the commanders got their way. Of course we'll never know how well or poorly any alternative plan would have worked since we don't have an alternative copy of the universe to test this one out in.[/screed]
Who is presuming that his beliefs are facts? It's certainly not limited to Bush. (on the "other-side" many biologists etc have an almost religiouly dogmatic (Gaia) view of the environment) It's not just modern science that suffers from dogma. Humanity always has, because it is composed of humans. Individuals filled with beliefs and biases that frequently cannot be changed (at least without time) even with facts.
Slashdot Mirror
Why wouldn't you want to winter in ND???? :)
You certainly don't attempt to back up any of your assertions about weaking emissions standards, lead, government funding of religion etc. The problem here isn't one of logic, the problem is of the premises. What if I don't accept your premises, your unverified assertions upon which your arguement rests. What do you have to offer to me?
The idea that we "don't lose anything" by expending resources on something that turns out to be not caused by human actions (or caused by human actions to a much smaller degree than believed) means that resources that would be devoted to other problems, wants, and needs aren't going to be there. There's always a cost. TANSTAAFL.
Umm, to kill germs. That's why water is heated, not just for comfort.
All of this airport security business is the equivlent of fighting the last war. Are we going to screen every major public facility in the US like this?? It's simply not feasible. Increasing the number of Air Marshalls was a great idea, and it cost probably a fraction of what this screening system does, plus we don't have to agrue about the civil liberties of those being searched.
I don't, however, agree with the thesis that the US "provoked" this by "interfearing" with the middle east. The hatred for the US isn't predicated only on those things that you cite. And Islamic fundamentalists openly say so, if you are truly willing to listen. They want nothing less than the destruction of secular western civilization. They know that won't happen overnight, and so you hear lots of intermediate goals like "get the US out of the middle east", but don't assume it stops there.
With regards to the following statement, "No, of course not -- their plan is to continue to ignore the problem for as long as possible, because that's how they can maximize the short-term profits of their corporate supporters." let me channel Barak Obama who said that the biggest problem in politics today is the assumptions we make about the motives of the "other side". Or, as Arnold Kling would say, the discussion is centered around type M questions (motives) rather than than type C questions (consequences). Genuine political debate can take place (though we may still end up disagreeing because we place differing values on things) when you talk about issues, solutions, and consequences. When debate degenerates into type M accusations, you aren't going to convince anyone.
Do many people on the right have a smug tone now? Sure, but I can name just as many people on the other side of the asile. I'm sure if the shoe were on the other foot we'd be hearing talk of a Democrat party mandate, american values, etc. That's politics in general, not the sole domain of those you disagree with.
I agree that the new policies wrt background checks are reducing the number of foreign students comming to the US in general, but there are also other contributing factors including the improvements in many foreign universities. I've observed that many people who don't like these policies can't simply disagree with them and promote a useful altenative (what alternative would you propose that would improve security that would have fewer negative side effects), they have to throw around epithets like facism and jingosim. How arrogant. Pot, Kettle, Black.
The problem is that these "enemy combatants" fit neither the definitons of a civilian or a POW according to the GC. They are (basically) an unanticipated third party that does not (and should not) be treated as civilians, nor do they qualify for the protections afforded to POWs, since they don't meet the definition of a POW either. So how SHOULD they be treated? It's a real good question.
It's not that income explains education (if it did, why are the kids of immigrants so successful?), it's that income has a positive correlation with traits that DO lead to better education. Or rather parents with high incomes tend to care about thier kids education, they are both more likely to be involved and they can elect to move if they feel their child's school isn't doing a good job.
It's true that vouchers "take money away from public schools" but they would also be taking away students too. Remember, most states have a funding formula that awards on a per student basis, but all the local funding is usually not distributed that way, it's a simple property tax or sales tax etc. I don't think that private schools should get that money (or have the tax authority to take it) The suggestion AFAIK, is for vouchers to only be a fraction of the "per student" spending. Thus the district is out one student, but only half their funding for that student. How is this bad for the district?
If you wanted to prove of disprove this, try it in the worst district (ie a place with NOTHING to loose and everything to gain).
Bottom line, if the kids don't care and the parents don't care, then no amount of funding is going to result in an educated student. Funding (at least to some extent) is a necessary but not sufficent condition for education. Eventually you reach a point where additional funding hits diminishing returns and eventually near zero returns on the dollar. Why not at least let the poor parents and kids who CARE about their education have a chance at a good school? Are you "leaving kids behind"? Sure, but almost all of them wouldn't have been educated under the current system either.
The largest town in ND is Fargo, populatio of 90k. If you include the whole metro area I think its closer to 160k. But that's why Iowa and ND would struggle retaining younger people. Sure some people enjoy smaller towns and rural areas, but you would loose everyone who wants to live in a big city. Sure Fargo and Cedar Rapids or Ames will grow, but most of the truly small towns keep shrinking.
That should be "fairly accurate ex post, but not very accurate ex ante". I had them reversed in the parent post!!
I dealt with the warrant issue already in response to another poster's rantings.
With regards to the comment about "enemby combatants", there is actually a long standing part of US jurisprudence that recognizes that combatants in a war aren't considered US civilians and aren't entitiled to constitutional protections, only those afforded by the UCMJ and perhaps international conventions. The issue now is that it is much less cut-and-dried now exactly who constitutes an "enemy combatant", POW, unlawful combatant, etc. as these laws were written in a time where the current situation was not fully anticipated and thus the laws are vague (or don't address at all) the current situation. There are legitimate arguments on both sides as to how exactly these laws are should be interpreted
Of course economists can't predict the future because they can't predict future events. If they could, they'd be Miss Cleo, not economists. What they CAN do is make predictions (if X then Y) that are fairly accurate ex ante, but not very accurate ex post.
The FBI DOES still need search warrents. The only difference is that the circumstances under which the FBI can get the warrant issued under seal (in secret) has been expanded. If you don't think courts should be able to keep this information secret then you have problems with a lot more than the patriot act.
... because the word liberal has been misappropriated by socialists. Now, when people talk about being liberal, what they really mean is that they are socialists (or socialist-lite, quasi-socialist, or whatever you want to call it). Libertarians have to call themselves that because their word (liberal) has already been stolen from them as far as it's use in the common vernacular.
You know, there is a lot of room for disagreement on the tactics and their execution. But we can even have that debate when people are all running around in the fever swamps purposefully engaged in disingenuous behavior.
The federal constitution supercedes state constitutions. Many states do not carry the death penalty on their books and do not execute anyone accused for a crime that is convicted by state courts. However, cases in the federal government's jurisdiction are, by definition, not tried under state (or protectorate) law but under federal law. See separation of powers...
Umm, if I wanted to nitpick I could say that we didn't "know it was a crock", we simply were not able to come to that conclusion independantly. But frankly, it doesn't matter at this point.
Of course, and that's what an economist would call consumer (or producer) surplus. At any given price there are people who would have been willing to buy it at a higher price (it's worth more to them than what they are paying) and sellers who would be willing to sell for a lower price. Only those right on the margin are getting no more value than it is worth. Everyone else is getting more than that. And thats the crux of it. It's the marginal people that determine the prices.
Of course NO the model is "true". The truth is incredibly more complex contains a nearly infinite amount of data. Models are inherently a simplification of the complex. Good models aren't true, they are useful. The power of economic "laws" isn't that they are perfect, but that they are good predictors of real world behavior.
PS: Your joke about the economist is wrong/incomplete (he's walking with a finance guy, and you are missing the ending). As to the points about macroeconomics versus microeconomics and unemployment, I would add that your understanding is incomplete, but that comes with more education naturally.
You also assume that stores won't try to differentiate somewhat and compete on things other than pure price. Your example would be better for a gas station. And it works for things like Books, DVDs, etc because you are getting the same thing at amazon.com as best buy or musicland (hard to "differentiate"). When it comes to some things though, like any kind of display or maybe a sound system, stores certainly can provide more differing levels of service than for something like a book or DVD.
What you are saying certainly isn't wrong, but it IS a little more complicated of course :D
We need a long-term solution that eventually phases out the dominant role of fossil fuels as our main source of energy. But thats going to have to happen anyways as our use of energy expands and our we move forward in time. Bottom line, Kyoto is a very expensive feel-good proposition that doesn't truly address our problems, but it does drain resources away from potentially more productive solutions. Committing to Kyoto is like standardizing, early in the game, on an inferior strategy in the face of a panic that we have no strategy at all.
No, actually, part of the reason that US cars get fewer MPG is our STRICTER pollution control standards. According to the most recent figures that I have seen the US produces almost the exact same % of world CO2 production and GDP. The US "CO2 effeciency" is about average then. If you go by per capita then you ignore the fact that developed countries sacrifice their birth rates to attain a higher standard of living.
Gee, not speaking in broad generizations or painting with a broad brush or anything?? How exactly does immigration INCREASE the population?? And we are headed for global population decline well before the end of the century. The biggest problem for most of the "developed" world is the aging of the population and preventing a rapid fall in their population.
Actually I'd say that most of the scientists (at least the biologists and climatologists) don't work for Greenpeace or industrial polluters. They probably work for some government institution such as a University, NASA, USFWS, or NOAA. So their bias (and that of their collegues) is much more influencial than that of an industrial giant or even Greenpeace.
[anal-retentive screed]Once again?? When did Bush "ingnore the soldiers"? You may think that the battle plan in Iraq was poor, but it was the one the commanders decided on. Just like in any group, there was some disagreement about which plan would be best. But at the end of the day the majority of the commanders got their way. Of course we'll never know how well or poorly any alternative plan would have worked since we don't have an alternative copy of the universe to test this one out in.[/screed]
Who is presuming that his beliefs are facts? It's certainly not limited to Bush. (on the "other-side" many biologists etc have an almost religiouly dogmatic (Gaia) view of the environment) It's not just modern science that suffers from dogma. Humanity always has, because it is composed of humans. Individuals filled with beliefs and biases that frequently cannot be changed (at least without time) even with facts.