No. A free market is a market free from government interference, and where supply and demand determine pricing. Government sponsored dumping is the opposite of a free market. So, it was already pretty obviously non-free even before the tariffs. This is not a question of free market vs non free market, but rather, a deciding of which non-free option is superior.
I really hate the "MY kids" argument. Your kids are not your property. They are independent human beings, and properly belong to themselves. You are merely a caretaker until they are of age to decide for themselves.
Taking actions that are well known to cause risk to children SHOULD result in liability for you when the predictable result does happen.
In any wealth transfer, there is overhead, though. So...it's inherently a negative sum game. The net benefits will always be less than the net payments.
It's also spending, though. You can call it whatever you want, but it involves payment for a service now, not payment for an investment property. That makes it spending, even if it isn't the worst thing to spend money on.
I'm no millionaire, but I'm well above the average income, as I expect many here in the tech industry are. My upbringing was mostly paid for by my parents, and any subsidies involved in that were no choice of mine. Worked through college and thus had minimal loans.
Sure, I suppose there's always the defense argument, but the eight years I served in the USAF should account for that.
I never wanted into this system, and if I had the option to stop paying into programs such as social security now, and abandon all future benefits, I would. Plenty of successful people are so because they made it happen. This IS an issue of entitlement. I didn't beg for more government handouts in college, and neither should this generation.
I suspect that a 1 degree change is a lot more minor than a desert to a swamp. If a 1 degree change irrevocably kills the local climate...guess what, that ecosystem was doomed anyway. The world isn't getting cooler.
Every construction has some local effect. Most cities have warmer temperatures by several degrees than they would without structures. This is...really not that big of a deal. I would not call it climate change, more of a minor local weather change. Planting a line of trees would also result in minor local weather changes, possibly on a much larger scale. This isn't really a problem, though, and linking it to the larger climate change issue is unfortunate.
All this is likely to do is ensure that wealth is stored in countries that do not tax wealth. The idea of chasing wealth out of the country seems like it might run into some flaws in the real world.
That sounds ridiculous. What if I don't WANT a local swat team to kick in my door over some false alarm and shoot up my pets(yes, this happens around here)?
Can I just not pay for that service, then? I'd really love to stop. If you cannot differentiate between your society and a mob enforcer, I suspect that your model of society is terribly broken.
Working for free does not define slavery. If it did, every volunteer position should be decried as an attempt an enslavement.
Forcing a person to work against his will is slavery. That's a different matter altogether. Regardless of if these actions are ethical, comparing them to slavery comes off as hyperbole and makes your argument sound a bit ludicrous.
Believing in a religion, even a fake one, may be better than certain other belief structures without being the best(most accurate) belief structure. For instance, it is not uncommon for criminals to engage in "I'll get away with it" sorts of mis-evaluations of risk. This shouldn't be surprising...humans are generally not fantastic at accurately assessing risk. The belief that there is no chance to get away with it, due to god, may be better than believing he'll certainly get away with it, and this can be beneficial. However, a more considered approach to risk evaluation is likely superior to both.
I wouldn't suggest outright confrontation, but perhaps a normal, honest dialog that encourages analytic thinking. There's no need to outright state that he's wrong and such, but certainly you can point out that there are quite natural rewards for taking a socially friendly path.
As you decrease the area for the sample size, you kind of select for better yields. Higher ratio of things like rows to aisles, for instance, and less natural variation in land.
At an extreme example, you could select a single plant as a sample size...but since that doesn't scale outward to an acre, the results are pretty meaningless.
A few bushes in your yard are not a reasonable comparison to farms spanning hundreds of acres.
Honestly, if the big obstacle to making something work is that "minimum wage is too expensive", it's probably not a great idea to begin with. Your time is not free, and minimum wage is kind of low as is.
Square foot gardening is not an inherently organic method. It IS space efficient, but that's a layout/work intensive thing, not an organic thing. If you combine it with organic or not is entirely up to you, but plant layout is not traditionally considered something that defines if something is organic.
There was some controversy about it perhaps two decades back, and it was in notable use by Minnesotan farmers at the time(where I grew up). One of the farmers, at a public meeting, drank a glass of it, and he was fine. That's probably not a great idea, as large doses of basically anything tend to be unhealthy, but the vastly smaller amount you normally encounter seems comparatively safe. Now, as this is an anecdote, you'll want to google up some studies on the substance, but they'll also generally support that it's safe when used normally.
Organic farming also frequently uses techniques, etc developed in the last century. The difference between the two is not really based on how old processes are at all.
We *could* farm much more land...but costs abound there, too. Historically, many wetlands were drained to make farmland, and farming frequently displaced local wildlife. Now, we need farms, but the fact that we could utilize a lot more land for farming doesn't necessarily mean that we should. Using say, 20% more farmland would have a non-trivial effect on wildlife, and would result in notably longer trips for farm vehicles and transportation vehicles, on average, which likely would result in increased fuel consumption.
This means that a higher percentage of society will be engaged in feeding of it. This leaves a smaller percentage to do stuff like developing new tech. This is the real cost indirectly reflected in those higher prices. A more agrarian society means a society that is less capable of progress.
The idea that a trained baker is less efficient at you in transforming raw goods into finished ones is...pretty obviously wrong. Now, there are benefits to making food at home instead buying pre-made items, but efficiency is not one of them. Making your own crackers is likely healthy, but you are not going to compete on efficiency with a factory doing the same.
I grew up on a strawberry farm, and was part of a local organization of strawberry farmers, some of which were organic, most of which were not. Overall, the non-organic farmers were invariably the major players and producers. This was not merely coincidence, either. Only a couple miles from our farm was another, organic farm. They used similar(often identical) varieties of strawberries and had similar acreage, but total production was vastly lower. They went out of business some years back as a result, while the farm I worked on is still going strong. I suspect the 3% result is only applicable to highly specific conditions and that normal results are much, much different.
Organic is...mostly a meaningless word in the context of farming. A substance is not guaranteed to be harmful because it is artificially created, nor does natural occurrence guarantee safety.
The popular image of an organic farm not using pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers is...incorrect. They merely have a notably smaller pool of them to draw from, which means they are often using less effective ones. As one example, the use of manure as fertilizer is quite common, and risks carrying disease. Therefore, you can usually expect a higher rate of E Coli from organically grown food.
The idea that organics are superior is definitely untrue from a yield standpoint, and is also not true from a health standpoint, as study after study fails to show benefits from an organic diet. I don't know the numbers offhand for how green it is, but I suspect that the increased size of farms, with the corresponding increased inputs such as fuel to handle that, is likely going to compensate for any gains.
I suggest doing the following experiment. Take two clear containers, identical in every way. Put a thermometer in each. In one, fill it with a goodly concentration of CO2, leave the other as just air. Dry ice should be sufficient for this task.
Seal both, place in the sun. If the one with more CO2 gets hotter, congrats, you've just demonstrated, for yourself, the warming effect of CO2.
Proving that we use and release CO2 is trivial. You should be able to think up at least one product you use that releases CO2.
This doesn't give you an overall rate of warming, but it's pretty easy to personally conclude that we are contributing to warming at some rate.
Slashdot Mirror
No. A free market is a market free from government interference, and where supply and demand determine pricing. Government sponsored dumping is the opposite of a free market. So, it was already pretty obviously non-free even before the tariffs. This is not a question of free market vs non free market, but rather, a deciding of which non-free option is superior.
I really hate the "MY kids" argument. Your kids are not your property. They are independent human beings, and properly belong to themselves. You are merely a caretaker until they are of age to decide for themselves. Taking actions that are well known to cause risk to children SHOULD result in liability for you when the predictable result does happen.
In any wealth transfer, there is overhead, though. So...it's inherently a negative sum game. The net benefits will always be less than the net payments.
It's also spending, though. You can call it whatever you want, but it involves payment for a service now, not payment for an investment property. That makes it spending, even if it isn't the worst thing to spend money on.
I'm no millionaire, but I'm well above the average income, as I expect many here in the tech industry are. My upbringing was mostly paid for by my parents, and any subsidies involved in that were no choice of mine. Worked through college and thus had minimal loans. Sure, I suppose there's always the defense argument, but the eight years I served in the USAF should account for that. I never wanted into this system, and if I had the option to stop paying into programs such as social security now, and abandon all future benefits, I would. Plenty of successful people are so because they made it happen. This IS an issue of entitlement. I didn't beg for more government handouts in college, and neither should this generation.
Irradiating babies for science? Sounds like it'd work.
I suspect that a 1 degree change is a lot more minor than a desert to a swamp. If a 1 degree change irrevocably kills the local climate...guess what, that ecosystem was doomed anyway. The world isn't getting cooler.
Every construction has some local effect. Most cities have warmer temperatures by several degrees than they would without structures. This is...really not that big of a deal. I would not call it climate change, more of a minor local weather change. Planting a line of trees would also result in minor local weather changes, possibly on a much larger scale. This isn't really a problem, though, and linking it to the larger climate change issue is unfortunate.
All this is likely to do is ensure that wealth is stored in countries that do not tax wealth. The idea of chasing wealth out of the country seems like it might run into some flaws in the real world.
That sounds ridiculous. What if I don't WANT a local swat team to kick in my door over some false alarm and shoot up my pets(yes, this happens around here)? Can I just not pay for that service, then? I'd really love to stop. If you cannot differentiate between your society and a mob enforcer, I suspect that your model of society is terribly broken.
Working for free does not define slavery. If it did, every volunteer position should be decried as an attempt an enslavement. Forcing a person to work against his will is slavery. That's a different matter altogether. Regardless of if these actions are ethical, comparing them to slavery comes off as hyperbole and makes your argument sound a bit ludicrous.
Believing in a religion, even a fake one, may be better than certain other belief structures without being the best(most accurate) belief structure. For instance, it is not uncommon for criminals to engage in "I'll get away with it" sorts of mis-evaluations of risk. This shouldn't be surprising...humans are generally not fantastic at accurately assessing risk. The belief that there is no chance to get away with it, due to god, may be better than believing he'll certainly get away with it, and this can be beneficial. However, a more considered approach to risk evaluation is likely superior to both. I wouldn't suggest outright confrontation, but perhaps a normal, honest dialog that encourages analytic thinking. There's no need to outright state that he's wrong and such, but certainly you can point out that there are quite natural rewards for taking a socially friendly path.
As you decrease the area for the sample size, you kind of select for better yields. Higher ratio of things like rows to aisles, for instance, and less natural variation in land. At an extreme example, you could select a single plant as a sample size...but since that doesn't scale outward to an acre, the results are pretty meaningless. A few bushes in your yard are not a reasonable comparison to farms spanning hundreds of acres.
Honestly, if the big obstacle to making something work is that "minimum wage is too expensive", it's probably not a great idea to begin with. Your time is not free, and minimum wage is kind of low as is.
Square foot gardening is not an inherently organic method. It IS space efficient, but that's a layout/work intensive thing, not an organic thing. If you combine it with organic or not is entirely up to you, but plant layout is not traditionally considered something that defines if something is organic.
There was some controversy about it perhaps two decades back, and it was in notable use by Minnesotan farmers at the time(where I grew up). One of the farmers, at a public meeting, drank a glass of it, and he was fine. That's probably not a great idea, as large doses of basically anything tend to be unhealthy, but the vastly smaller amount you normally encounter seems comparatively safe. Now, as this is an anecdote, you'll want to google up some studies on the substance, but they'll also generally support that it's safe when used normally.
Organic farming also frequently uses techniques, etc developed in the last century. The difference between the two is not really based on how old processes are at all.
Well, 80% of the corn crop is GMO, so yeah, it's pretty conventional at this point. It may not be traditional, but that's something else entirely.
We *could* farm much more land...but costs abound there, too. Historically, many wetlands were drained to make farmland, and farming frequently displaced local wildlife. Now, we need farms, but the fact that we could utilize a lot more land for farming doesn't necessarily mean that we should. Using say, 20% more farmland would have a non-trivial effect on wildlife, and would result in notably longer trips for farm vehicles and transportation vehicles, on average, which likely would result in increased fuel consumption.
This means that a higher percentage of society will be engaged in feeding of it. This leaves a smaller percentage to do stuff like developing new tech. This is the real cost indirectly reflected in those higher prices. A more agrarian society means a society that is less capable of progress.
The idea that a trained baker is less efficient at you in transforming raw goods into finished ones is...pretty obviously wrong. Now, there are benefits to making food at home instead buying pre-made items, but efficiency is not one of them. Making your own crackers is likely healthy, but you are not going to compete on efficiency with a factory doing the same.
I grew up on a strawberry farm, and was part of a local organization of strawberry farmers, some of which were organic, most of which were not. Overall, the non-organic farmers were invariably the major players and producers. This was not merely coincidence, either. Only a couple miles from our farm was another, organic farm. They used similar(often identical) varieties of strawberries and had similar acreage, but total production was vastly lower. They went out of business some years back as a result, while the farm I worked on is still going strong. I suspect the 3% result is only applicable to highly specific conditions and that normal results are much, much different.
Organic is...mostly a meaningless word in the context of farming. A substance is not guaranteed to be harmful because it is artificially created, nor does natural occurrence guarantee safety. The popular image of an organic farm not using pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers is...incorrect. They merely have a notably smaller pool of them to draw from, which means they are often using less effective ones. As one example, the use of manure as fertilizer is quite common, and risks carrying disease. Therefore, you can usually expect a higher rate of E Coli from organically grown food. The idea that organics are superior is definitely untrue from a yield standpoint, and is also not true from a health standpoint, as study after study fails to show benefits from an organic diet. I don't know the numbers offhand for how green it is, but I suspect that the increased size of farms, with the corresponding increased inputs such as fuel to handle that, is likely going to compensate for any gains.
The FBI is a member of the US intelligence community. It IS an intelligence agency. You could learn this trivially quickly on wikipedia.
I suggest doing the following experiment. Take two clear containers, identical in every way. Put a thermometer in each. In one, fill it with a goodly concentration of CO2, leave the other as just air. Dry ice should be sufficient for this task. Seal both, place in the sun. If the one with more CO2 gets hotter, congrats, you've just demonstrated, for yourself, the warming effect of CO2. Proving that we use and release CO2 is trivial. You should be able to think up at least one product you use that releases CO2. This doesn't give you an overall rate of warming, but it's pretty easy to personally conclude that we are contributing to warming at some rate.