which every economist that doesn't have their head so far up their arse they can see sunlight would say you're wrong about.
At the beginning of the depression government intervention did worsen it, because of wrong-headed libertarian/laissez-faire policies combined with economists still stuck on mercantilism. But then along came economists who knew what they were doing and said "the government needs to inject money into the system. Now." and the government did that and things got better. After the great depression we passed numerous banking regulations and other anti-predatory-corporation regulations and everything was fine and Dandy - the boom/bust cycle even stopped and we stayed on a generally upward trend continuously.
until President Raygun [intentional] with the help of congress in the 80s started pulling strings out of those regulations: almost instantly the S&L crisis hits.. then we started back into the boom/bust cycle. then even more regulations were pulled out by the right-wing-dlc-democrat clinton along with the republican congress in 1998 then a great many more under bush 2000-2006 along with other various bad fiscal policies [lets cut the already unreasonably low* taxes of the rich thereby further subsiziding their excess] and WHAAAM massive stock market crash along with a massive banking shock: just like the crash of 1929.
[*
Laffer Curve describes the "maximum utilization" point for tax rates, above that and the tax rate does harm, below that and the tax rate isn't fully utilizing the tax base. Lowest estimate of that t* in the US is 50%, highest 80%. Top flight marginal tax rate for the rich under clinton 36%, under bush tax cuts, 33%. CBO places us clearly on the left side of the curve where tax cuts as a means of economic stimulus are virtually a waste of time. Virtually because cutting them for the bottom wage earners is always effective stimulous, cutting them for the top tier wealthy individuals is ONLY effective when you're on the right side of the Laffer curve]
"organic" meat (and "organic farming" as a whole) is actually worse for the environment than non-organic farming
Why you ask? because massively larger amounts of land are required to produce the same amount of food crop.
I'm not saying we couldn't be doing a hell of a lot better job in non-organic farming (hell.. i live in iowa.. fertilizer pollution up the waazooo in every waterway in the state) - especially when it comes to meat product: if they just replaced cows with bison in those huge feedlots they wouldn't have to pump em full of freaking antibiotics, and bison is a leaner and healthier meat.
There are a lot of valid complaints about our food production industry, but "organic farming" as it exists right now is not only not the answer: it makes things worse while making people think they're helping the environment.
"The early part of the Carboniferous was mostly warm; in the later part of the Carboniferous, the climate cooled."
The carbon load in the atmosphere dropped due to significant coral reef activity over a great number of epicontinental sea area fixing that carbon into limestone.
most of the farmers do simply rotate soy and corn back and forth - so yeah, not very diversified. we also have soil that is prime for that type of farming.
The flatness of Iowa is greatly exaggerated. We're a gently rolling hills glacial terrain in most of the state except the Driftless Zone in NE corner of the state (NW IL, SW WI as well) which can have significant relief (600' vertical in just a mile or so) when compared to the rest of the Midwest.
and there has been a lot of work in the past decade to designate new natural preserves and do a lot of natural prairie restoration.
A) huge war spending B) huge try-to-keep-our-economy-from-imploding spending.
yeah.
We mostly need to work on getting a better return per tax dollar. If we had anything near the return rates of some of our european friends we're really be high on the hog.
unfortunately a lot of that is wasted on two CRAPPY money sinks: 1) Military spending [which is massively wasteful... i'm not against military spending.. just wasteful military spending] 2) Social Security. I'm a democrat, but social security was never intended to be used as a primary retirement income which is what people are treating it as these days - it was meant to be an insurance policy if your private pension went bankrupt or something. Kill it. Kill it now.
actually it just needs roughly equal bargaining power between all parties involved. You're right "pure Capitalism" is impossible, so is "Pure socialism" (nothing like what people throw that term around at here in the United States)
anything "Pure " is impossible in the real world.
The best mix tends to be on the "Regulated Capitalism to Socialism" spectrum if you look at the healthiest economies on the planet.
Whoever -1 flamebaited me needs to read the wiki article. I was talking about something that is ON THE PUBLIC RECORD. Things ON THE PUBLIC RECORD are hardly flamebait.
Then they need to post an apology in this thread to undo their moderation.
The NOAA and it's subsidiaries (which the NCS would be one) are one of the most effective government agencies ever created. Not only is it filled with competent scientists it's also filled with ones that know how to keep up with technology to disseminate information as efficiently as possible.
Capitalism tries to externalize (and therefore ignore) all costs. Environmental impact is a cost everyone has been doing a great job of externalizing and taking is right into an ecological disaster in the process.
It's the government's job to make sure that those costs that can just be tossed off on everyone else get paid by the entity that is attempting to externalize them.
that's how capitalism works.
Capitalism is not laissez faire [aka Anarcho-Capitalism]
1) actually food planet based biofuels (esp soy diesel) just got canned by Obama's EPA - failed some tests that disqualify it from the running for those new green biofuel subsidies. I live in Iowa, our farmers were howling - I told them to go rent space to wind farms ($2k-$5k/year per turbine)
2) I doubt the administration hates it.. find me cites [Yucca doesn't count, the site was actually found upon further analysis to be unsuitable for long term waste storage - has a semi-active fault line running right under it]
The problem with Nuclear energy in this country is that it has been demonized - Look at the media reaction to TMI
3) Prove it. If you mean "the companies will just pass on the cost" you MIGHT have an argument. PS I'm hardly some rich elitist My parents, combined, made less than $45k/year when I grew up... so I'm not exactly what you'd call "rich" (though I now make that singlehandedly.. 1 year out of college w/ a computer science degree) Between my wife and I we have a house worth of college loans to pay back
4) As for Al Gore and MTBE, he never claimed to be infallible.
Yes you are trolling. How about you produce some real scientific evidence to support your apparent position that either "global warming doesn't exist" or that "humans didn't cause it"
keep in mind the steady-state atmospheric carbon load has increased by 50% since the start of the industrial revolution and at the fastest growth rate in the last.5 Ma and possibly (probably?) longer. [the last chart I saw and can clearly remember only went back to.5 Ma]
If AccuWeather and Rick Santorum had their way not only would we be paying for the NOAA/NWS to make those forcasts, but then we wouldn't be able to get that data from them without going through a pay-company like AccuWeather.
AccuWeather wants us to pay for it twice, just so we can pay them for work they didn't do.
How about using the agency that's job already IS monitoring climate, and meteorology, and just about everything related to the atmosphere and hydrosphere
Slashdot Mirror
which every economist that doesn't have their head so far up their arse they can see sunlight would say you're wrong about.
At the beginning of the depression government intervention did worsen it, because of wrong-headed libertarian/laissez-faire policies combined with economists still stuck on mercantilism. But then along came economists who knew what they were doing and said "the government needs to inject money into the system. Now." and the government did that and things got better. After the great depression we passed numerous banking regulations and other anti-predatory-corporation regulations and everything was fine and Dandy - the boom/bust cycle even stopped and we stayed on a generally upward trend continuously.
until President Raygun [intentional] with the help of congress in the 80s started pulling strings out of those regulations: almost instantly the S&L crisis hits.. then we started back into the boom/bust cycle. then even more regulations were pulled out by the right-wing-dlc-democrat clinton along with the republican congress in 1998 then a great many more under bush 2000-2006 along with other various bad fiscal policies [lets cut the already unreasonably low* taxes of the rich thereby further subsiziding their excess] and WHAAAM massive stock market crash along with a massive banking shock: just like the crash of 1929.
[*
Laffer Curve describes the "maximum utilization" point for tax rates, above that and the tax rate does harm, below that and the tax rate isn't fully utilizing the tax base. Lowest estimate of that t* in the US is 50%, highest 80%. Top flight marginal tax rate for the rich under clinton 36%, under bush tax cuts, 33%. CBO places us clearly on the left side of the curve where tax cuts as a means of economic stimulus are virtually a waste of time. Virtually because cutting them for the bottom wage earners is always effective stimulous, cutting them for the top tier wealthy individuals is ONLY effective when you're on the right side of the Laffer curve]
your statement is outright false see
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1224943&cid=27859561
"organic" meat (and "organic farming" as a whole) is actually worse for the environment than non-organic farming
Why you ask? because massively larger amounts of land are required to produce the same amount of food crop.
I'm not saying we couldn't be doing a hell of a lot better job in non-organic farming (hell.. i live in iowa.. fertilizer pollution up the waazooo in every waterway in the state) - especially when it comes to meat product: if they just replaced cows with bison in those huge feedlots they wouldn't have to pump em full of freaking antibiotics, and bison is a leaner and healthier meat.
There are a lot of valid complaints about our food production industry, but "organic farming" as it exists right now is not only not the answer: it makes things worse while making people think they're helping the environment.
As someone who has some knowledge of climate science:
you're just flat wrong.. deal with it
you know what the problem with libertarianism is?
we've been there, done that and wound up in the great depression because of it.
your "Science" is wrong.
"The early part of the Carboniferous was mostly warm; in the later part of the Carboniferous, the climate cooled."
The carbon load in the atmosphere dropped due to significant coral reef activity over a great number of epicontinental sea area fixing that carbon into limestone.
try this graph:
http://www.scotese.com/images/globaltemp.jpg
the Carboniferous started with average around 20C in the Devonian then dropped to 10C by the Early Permian
Gore isn't really an extremist, just a hypocrite.
most of the farmers do simply rotate soy and corn back and forth - so yeah, not very diversified. we also have soil that is prime for that type of farming.
The flatness of Iowa is greatly exaggerated. We're a gently rolling hills glacial terrain in most of the state except the Driftless Zone in NE corner of the state (NW IL, SW WI as well) which can have significant relief (600' vertical in just a mile or so) when compared to the rest of the Midwest.
and there has been a lot of work in the past decade to designate new natural preserves and do a lot of natural prairie restoration.
Oh.. forgot to compensate for the
A) huge war spending
B) huge try-to-keep-our-economy-from-imploding spending.
yeah.
We mostly need to work on getting a better return per tax dollar. If we had anything near the return rates of some of our european friends we're really be high on the hog.
unfortunately a lot of that is wasted on two CRAPPY money sinks:
1) Military spending [which is massively wasteful... i'm not against military spending.. just wasteful military spending]
2) Social Security. I'm a democrat, but social security was never intended to be used as a primary retirement income which is what people are treating it as these days - it was meant to be an insurance policy if your private pension went bankrupt or something. Kill it. Kill it now.
Only because conservatives live in a fantasy world. :P
actually it just needs roughly equal bargaining power between all parties involved. You're right "pure Capitalism" is impossible, so is "Pure socialism" (nothing like what people throw that term around at here in the United States)
anything "Pure " is impossible in the real world.
The best mix tends to be on the "Regulated Capitalism to Socialism" spectrum if you look at the healthiest economies on the planet.
Whoever -1 flamebaited me needs to read the wiki article. I was talking about something that is ON THE PUBLIC RECORD. Things ON THE PUBLIC RECORD are hardly flamebait.
Then they need to post an apology in this thread to undo their moderation.
Capitalism isn't in the 10th ammendment.
The constitution doesn't specifically enable or prohibit any single economic system.
Try a reliable source.
You know why I say that? your number is off by a magnitude of 10 when compared to all other numbers I've seen.
that's what this does - the NCS would be another NOAA department, just like the NWS
The NOAA and it's subsidiaries (which the NCS would be one) are one of the most effective government agencies ever created. Not only is it filled with competent scientists it's also filled with ones that know how to keep up with technology to disseminate information as efficiently as possible.
Capitalism tries to externalize (and therefore ignore) all costs. Environmental impact is a cost everyone has been doing a great job of externalizing and taking is right into an ecological disaster in the process.
It's the government's job to make sure that those costs that can just be tossed off on everyone else get paid by the entity that is attempting to externalize them.
that's how capitalism works.
Capitalism is not laissez faire [aka Anarcho-Capitalism]
1) actually food planet based biofuels (esp soy diesel) just got canned by Obama's EPA - failed some tests that disqualify it from the running for those new green biofuel subsidies. I live in Iowa, our farmers were howling - I told them to go rent space to wind farms ($2k-$5k/year per turbine)
2) I doubt the administration hates it.. find me cites [Yucca doesn't count, the site was actually found upon further analysis to be unsuitable for long term waste storage - has a semi-active fault line running right under it]
The problem with Nuclear energy in this country is that it has been demonized - Look at the media reaction to TMI
3) Prove it. If you mean "the companies will just pass on the cost" you MIGHT have an argument.
PS I'm hardly some rich elitist
My parents, combined, made less than $45k/year when I grew up... so I'm not exactly what you'd call "rich" (though I now make that singlehandedly.. 1 year out of college w/ a computer science degree)
Between my wife and I we have a house worth of college loans to pay back
4) As for Al Gore and MTBE, he never claimed to be infallible.
5) No. Shit. A Tank gets .5 MPG Diesel.
Replying to myself: .5 Ma chart: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png
(wiki) "Present carbon dioxide levels are likely higher now than at any time during the past 20 Myr" (citing: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig3-2.htm )
Yes you are trolling. How about you produce some real scientific evidence to support your apparent position that either "global warming doesn't exist" or that "humans didn't cause it"
keep in mind the steady-state atmospheric carbon load has increased by 50% since the start of the industrial revolution and at the fastest growth rate in the last .5 Ma and possibly (probably?) longer. [the last chart I saw and can clearly remember only went back to .5 Ma]
If AccuWeather and Rick Santorum had their way not only would we be paying for the NOAA/NWS to make those forcasts, but then we wouldn't be able to get that data from them without going through a pay-company like AccuWeather.
AccuWeather wants us to pay for it twice, just so we can pay them for work they didn't do.
[see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AccuWeather ]
Since the start of the industrial revolution the steady state carbon dioxide load in the atmosphere has gone up 50% in ppm and total tonnage.
fastest growth rate in the last half a million years on this planet, maybe longer. [last graph I saw only went to .5 Ma]
36% of the GDP? rotfl.
citation, right now.
How about using the agency that's job already IS monitoring climate, and meteorology, and just about everything related to the atmosphere and hydrosphere
Bollocks, [Citation Needed]