I don't disagree, but the actions but US politics are generally either all or nothing, and neither is a good solution. How do we get US politicians willing to compromise (and other politicians to take "compromise" as something other than a sign of weakness)?
They worked. The "Big-3" still includes Chrysler. But last I saw, Toyota makes more cars in the US than Chrysler, and Chrysler is foreign-owned. One American maker down, one foreign maker so entrenched as to be an American maker now. More Toyotas are made outside Japan than in, and more Toyotas are sold in North America than in Japan. When do we get to call it a US maker? (I'm not being deliberately obtuse with my wording, it's just that's what I found for the numbers - I couldn't find the production numbers for Toyota by country, nor sales by country, just some regional aggregates)
I'd rather see foil double in price than continued subsidies of "old" energy. I'd like to see an end to all subsidies, and any future subsidies be set for only for specific times, with specific stated goals for early termination. There's no reason to indefinitely subsidize anything, unless the goal is pure socialization (leveling fixed-line phone costs between low-density rural and high-density urban areas).
Until the subsidies are wiped, we can't see how much of the foil cost is subsidized. The difference between unsubsidized coal and unsubsidized solar may not be as large as assumed.
Solar is enough to power the world. Add in wind, water, and thermal where available, and you can do just fine. If all buildings were covered in panels, we'd have more energy than we need.
CAFE put in place with collusion between the Big-3 and Congress to harm Mercedes and BMW who didn't sell any small cars at the time? No, that doesn't count. Import duties on pickups designed to guarantee the F-150, Chevy C1500 (silverado) and Dodge Ram stay the top-3 selling pickups? And the US had a luxury tax passed by Bush (1990) and repealed by Clinton (93), but it didn't last long.
You can claim most are false, and identify what you think I was thinking of, but until you identify a definition of what I said I was talking about, your words are no more useful than a 3-year old with his fingers in his ears chanting "I can't hear you" repeatedly.
Nope, it's the institutional investors who vote along the lines of the chairman's recommendations, efectively putting the board/CEO as a majority shareholder, so long as they don't piss off the institutions.
You go on about a market. I'm not sure what that has to do with anarchy.
It means nobody has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force (which is the textbook definition of a state, and thus the precise antonym of anarchy), but not that nobody provides that legitimate use of force (which is necessary to curtail illegitimate uses of force, and without which we would have "fastest draw of their gun" rule everywhere). It just means that the provision of that legitimate use of force (which is to say, the provision of regulation, or in simpler terms, protection of each market participant from the others) comes from voluntary agreements in an open market of providers.
That's just one of the many forms of libertarianism. The government exists to stop the person who first used violence, and arbitrate when both use violence. Anarchy is absence of government. In practice a government that weak is rapidly deposed by a warlord. Anarchy *is* feudal warlordism. Anarchy may be an ideal, but the real world abhors a vacuum, even a power vacuum, and a government with no power leaves an attractive target.
Getting rid of one state is not so hard. Keeping another from popping right up to replace it, and doing that indefinitely, is the challenge.
Doing that for one day is hard. If you achieve anarchy at 8 a.m., you'll have a "government" by noon, even if it's only local, and warring with the other "local" warlords. Since anarchy is impossible, why bother to debate it? A benevolent dictatorship is better.
Libertarianism is the belief that any power vacuum in government will be filled by a benevolent dictator who will give up power the first time it's asked of him.
Libertarianism is inherently anti-democratic. The problem is, if the people aren't governed popularly, how do you get the support of the disenfranchised? Exploit until revolt? Have a "libertarian" government with a standing army large enough to defeat any insurrection?
Ah yes, the invisible hand is more efficient than regulation. The difference is that the invisible hand benefits the bad actors before the correction, and regulation punishes the bad actors. So the difference between the invisible hand and regulations is, do you want a system that encourages people to act in everyone's worst interest?
An ideal "free market" is one where there are no barriers to entry, all information is free, and all actors are rational. A standard "free market" is one with low barriers to entry, no fraud, and everyone knows all publicly available information, and acts mostly rationally.
None of these bear any resemblance to an unregulated market. Where companies can lie, collude, and the actors are not necessarily rational.
The economic definition of "free market" would take significant regulation to achieve. The loonitarian definition of "free market" is no a free market, but an unregulated one, and those are often the least free.
Him being a hypocrite doesn't invalidate the argument. It just shows that you are unable to refute the logic, and instead must attack the man offering it. The only thing I can't tolerate is intolerance.
And what about the black people harassed by "the man" (whatever form that takes)? I'm thinking of something like http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new... though I was personally involved with a person (of color) arrested for loitering at a bus stop. It's not one isolated case in FL. It's everywhere in the US, every day. Still. When that ends, then maybe some more people will take the hand offered to them. Until then, I don't blame them for the lack of trust in the help offered. Free treatment for syphilis? Sounds fun, why are my symptoms getting worse?
Income isn't wealth. The 1% "earn" nothing. They have trusts and companies they control that make billions, but don't show up on tax forms or surveys. The 1% is mostly invisible because they hide, both themselves and their wealth. a 1% income earner is a Bobby Brown. Tolerated because he'll make $50M in a year, but spend $75M the year after and never actually see wealth. Income doesn't equal wealth, and those that equate them don't understand the issues.
yes, and specifying "copy Glidden" would have fixed the problem, but stating "I want the cheapest possible red paint" you get a robot that stabs you in the face and paints the wall with your blood. When it meets all your requirements, but doesn't work, you are the idiot, not the person you gave the stupid and incomplete requirements to.
I just have to be cryptic when people ask on here where I moved that's better than the US. I don't want any more of those damned Americans moving here.
The US immigration policy is "my family's here now, time to close the borders". Isn't it about time for that protectionism in NZ? Key went to England and was told "no, we won't let Kiwis in any easier than anyone else, we have to close our borders because of all the EU citizens that come here to work for a season, then go back home." Or Australia where Kiwis are no longer residents, but instead get to stay, but will never get benefits like flood relief or earthquake relief, all to make sure no kiwis get on the dole.
Since you think it's a joke to allow a country to go through an industrial revolution unfettered by pollution controls, like England and the US did, then clamp down after the economy has transitioned to a "modern" one, what would you propose as "fair" to all the countries trying to follow the example of the USA?
I think that there was some "simplification" of the details to make it easier, and they screwed up some things. The slashdot article title is probably closer to the truth. 25% is from China, of that, one could presume 20% is US-products. There are other options, but they would be guesses without more details.
Slashdot Mirror
It's the cars that drive demand for new roads, and trucks that do the damage that causes maintenance. That disparity has never been handled sanely.
I don't disagree, but the actions but US politics are generally either all or nothing, and neither is a good solution. How do we get US politicians willing to compromise (and other politicians to take "compromise" as something other than a sign of weakness)?
They worked. The "Big-3" still includes Chrysler. But last I saw, Toyota makes more cars in the US than Chrysler, and Chrysler is foreign-owned. One American maker down, one foreign maker so entrenched as to be an American maker now. More Toyotas are made outside Japan than in, and more Toyotas are sold in North America than in Japan. When do we get to call it a US maker? (I'm not being deliberately obtuse with my wording, it's just that's what I found for the numbers - I couldn't find the production numbers for Toyota by country, nor sales by country, just some regional aggregates)
I'd rather see foil double in price than continued subsidies of "old" energy. I'd like to see an end to all subsidies, and any future subsidies be set for only for specific times, with specific stated goals for early termination. There's no reason to indefinitely subsidize anything, unless the goal is pure socialization (leveling fixed-line phone costs between low-density rural and high-density urban areas).
Until the subsidies are wiped, we can't see how much of the foil cost is subsidized. The difference between unsubsidized coal and unsubsidized solar may not be as large as assumed.
You do know that solar panels can be tilted, right?
Solar is enough to power the world. Add in wind, water, and thermal where available, and you can do just fine. If all buildings were covered in panels, we'd have more energy than we need.
CAFE put in place with collusion between the Big-3 and Congress to harm Mercedes and BMW who didn't sell any small cars at the time? No, that doesn't count. Import duties on pickups designed to guarantee the F-150, Chevy C1500 (silverado) and Dodge Ram stay the top-3 selling pickups? And the US had a luxury tax passed by Bush (1990) and repealed by Clinton (93), but it didn't last long.
You can claim most are false, and identify what you think I was thinking of, but until you identify a definition of what I said I was talking about, your words are no more useful than a 3-year old with his fingers in his ears chanting "I can't hear you" repeatedly.
Nope.
Nope, it's the institutional investors who vote along the lines of the chairman's recommendations, efectively putting the board/CEO as a majority shareholder, so long as they don't piss off the institutions.
I have a major bone to pick: Anarchy is freedom.
You go on about a market. I'm not sure what that has to do with anarchy.
It means nobody has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force (which is the textbook definition of a state, and thus the precise antonym of anarchy), but not that nobody provides that legitimate use of force (which is necessary to curtail illegitimate uses of force, and without which we would have "fastest draw of their gun" rule everywhere). It just means that the provision of that legitimate use of force (which is to say, the provision of regulation, or in simpler terms, protection of each market participant from the others) comes from voluntary agreements in an open market of providers.
That's just one of the many forms of libertarianism. The government exists to stop the person who first used violence, and arbitrate when both use violence. Anarchy is absence of government. In practice a government that weak is rapidly deposed by a warlord. Anarchy *is* feudal warlordism. Anarchy may be an ideal, but the real world abhors a vacuum, even a power vacuum, and a government with no power leaves an attractive target.
Getting rid of one state is not so hard. Keeping another from popping right up to replace it, and doing that indefinitely, is the challenge.
Doing that for one day is hard. If you achieve anarchy at 8 a.m., you'll have a "government" by noon, even if it's only local, and warring with the other "local" warlords. Since anarchy is impossible, why bother to debate it? A benevolent dictatorship is better.
Libertarianism is the belief that any power vacuum in government will be filled by a benevolent dictator who will give up power the first time it's asked of him.
Libertarianism is inherently anti-democratic. The problem is, if the people aren't governed popularly, how do you get the support of the disenfranchised? Exploit until revolt? Have a "libertarian" government with a standing army large enough to defeat any insurrection?
Ah yes, the invisible hand is more efficient than regulation. The difference is that the invisible hand benefits the bad actors before the correction, and regulation punishes the bad actors. So the difference between the invisible hand and regulations is, do you want a system that encourages people to act in everyone's worst interest?
An ideal "free market" is one where there are no barriers to entry, all information is free, and all actors are rational. A standard "free market" is one with low barriers to entry, no fraud, and everyone knows all publicly available information, and acts mostly rationally.
None of these bear any resemblance to an unregulated market. Where companies can lie, collude, and the actors are not necessarily rational.
The economic definition of "free market" would take significant regulation to achieve. The loonitarian definition of "free market" is no a free market, but an unregulated one, and those are often the least free.
Him being a hypocrite doesn't invalidate the argument. It just shows that you are unable to refute the logic, and instead must attack the man offering it. The only thing I can't tolerate is intolerance.
And what about the black people harassed by "the man" (whatever form that takes)? I'm thinking of something like http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new... though I was personally involved with a person (of color) arrested for loitering at a bus stop. It's not one isolated case in FL. It's everywhere in the US, every day. Still. When that ends, then maybe some more people will take the hand offered to them. Until then, I don't blame them for the lack of trust in the help offered. Free treatment for syphilis? Sounds fun, why are my symptoms getting worse?
Income isn't wealth. The 1% "earn" nothing. They have trusts and companies they control that make billions, but don't show up on tax forms or surveys. The 1% is mostly invisible because they hide, both themselves and their wealth. a 1% income earner is a Bobby Brown. Tolerated because he'll make $50M in a year, but spend $75M the year after and never actually see wealth. Income doesn't equal wealth, and those that equate them don't understand the issues.
yes, and specifying "copy Glidden" would have fixed the problem, but stating "I want the cheapest possible red paint" you get a robot that stabs you in the face and paints the wall with your blood. When it meets all your requirements, but doesn't work, you are the idiot, not the person you gave the stupid and incomplete requirements to.
I just have to be cryptic when people ask on here where I moved that's better than the US. I don't want any more of those damned Americans moving here.
The US immigration policy is "my family's here now, time to close the borders". Isn't it about time for that protectionism in NZ? Key went to England and was told "no, we won't let Kiwis in any easier than anyone else, we have to close our borders because of all the EU citizens that come here to work for a season, then go back home." Or Australia where Kiwis are no longer residents, but instead get to stay, but will never get benefits like flood relief or earthquake relief, all to make sure no kiwis get on the dole.
Since you think it's a joke to allow a country to go through an industrial revolution unfettered by pollution controls, like England and the US did, then clamp down after the economy has transitioned to a "modern" one, what would you propose as "fair" to all the countries trying to follow the example of the USA?
I think that there was some "simplification" of the details to make it easier, and they screwed up some things. The slashdot article title is probably closer to the truth. 25% is from China, of that, one could presume 20% is US-products. There are other options, but they would be guesses without more details.
Yes, you can. Like the GP said, yours is a failure of imagination.
"Pollution is a product of me exercising my property rights, state infringement on which is unacceptable
If you wanted clean air, you are free to scrub the air before you breath it. I don't need to give you air hand-outs. Go earn your own air.