I'll admit I was wrong and give you the benefit of the doubt if you state that the Chinese government's tactics are worse than the US's government's tactics.
You do the exact same thing as the original poster. You lump the US and China together in "all goverments".
True, you shouldn't blindly trust ANY government, but some governments are way more deserving of trust than others. Copy and paste my post here for the reasons the Chinese government is less trustworthy than the US.
No. Regulating the carbon economy gives the government complete control over everything. The number of children you choose to have, the size of your dogs, the food you eat, the clothes you wear all have a carbon footprint. Give the government control over your carbon footprint and you give them control over your life.
Personally, I tend to gravitate towards solutions that actually solve the problem. Pump those trillions of dollars in to fusion research and the problem of carbon emissions goes away in 30 years.
Of course, my solution ends with everyone having cheap clean energy and the government stays out our lives. Politicians won't be happy.
I'm sorry, I mis-stated my assertion. Of course global warming won't run-away. I meant that the damage is already done and we'd be better off investing in long term solutions like fusion.
No we're not doomed. Things will be fine. Worst case scenario a few Wall Street bankers will lose their beach front properties and everyone else will have to move a few meters inland.
Forget carbon credit, forget cap-n-trade. Start investing now in fusion energy and in 50 years carbon emissions won't be an issue.
The carbon dioxide reduction policies are a economic threat to Utah.
The carbon dioxide reduction policies are an economic and political threat to the entire world. Unless we return to the stone age there is no way to stop global warming at this point. There is no point in threating the economy and everyone's rights to implement a policy that will accomplish nothing.
The entire debate is a waste of time and irrelevant. Climate change will happen whether or not we give the government 100% control over carbon emissions. The time for prevention was 100 years ago -- now we need to find ways to adapt.
Green technology is great. But, that isn't the solution politicians are proposing. They want to regulate the carbon economy, which gives them control over ever facet of human existence.
There is no indication that a massive reduction in greenhouse gas emissions will stop global warming. Resources should be allocated to adapting, not preventing.
No, we should give up because there is no indication that cutting carbon emissions now can do anything to prevent climate change. Those who propose cap and trade are simply riding the public wave of fear to achieve power -- but their efforts will not change things.
I remember reading books as a child in the 1980's that said the world would run out of oil in 1994. I also remember "Acid Rain" coming to destroy us all.
Exactly, I've been flying for 25 years and definitely noticed as the seats in front of me got closer and closer. For me it isn't a width issue. The rows of seats are too close to one another. I'm only 6'1", but suffer horrible crushing pain in my knees whenever the person in front of me reclines.
Airlines aren't providing adequate space for average Americans.
I think the big difference is that China uses the information to murder human rights activists and in the US Jon Stewarts gets to rail against the establishment every night on national TV.
When the US government becomes reliant on these (or other) companies for access to space will they become "to big to fail"? If they go broke can I expect another bailout?
Fuck it, I already wasted three hours replying to your last post, might as well finish off.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need
I would rate this phrase as one of the most destructive to have ever been inflicted on humanity. If I were to describe the Meritocracy I would say:
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his ability"
And no, this isn't half-way to Marxism. Marxism allows lazy parasites to suck the productive life out of everyone else in the name of "need".
So now the "poor" are forced to spend their lives in frantic consumption, trying to keep up with the robots' extravagant production, so that the "rich" can live lives of simplicity.
Can I pick a random author from the 1950's and say "This is where society is heading" without any rationality? OK, I pick Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged.
Is that not to some extent already what we have, as depicted by the life of the rich woman you referenced? She lives a life of simplicity riding horses someone else probably owns, teaching non-materialist yoga, buying an expensive handbag of high quality which in the scheme of things takes next-to-no resources to produce, while the poor people around her are on the treadmills of heavy consumption with huge TV screens blaring messages at them of consume, consume, consume, and are captivated by huge monster trucks and eating all the latest complex synthetic foods and partaking of all the expensive medical care you need when you don't do a bit of yoga and simple living and eating now and then. Are we not, already, suffering from a Midas Plague?:-)
You are wrong to assume she was less materialistic because of her wealth. I said that her materialism didn't destroy the world, but I never said anything amount the amount of materialism.
In fact, she goes a long way to disprove your core assertions. 1.) She had a guaranteed basic income ($65k with no expenses or taxes). It was never enough and eventually drove her into deep credit card debt. 2.) Her wealth did not help her become more "enlightened". In fact, without a need to earn a living she desperately filled her days with activities trying to find some "meaning". Yoga, pilates, horse riding, painting, among a 100 other activities were never enough. She eventually found fulfillment, in drugs. 3.) A simple, organic diet did not make her more healthy. She developed food allergies to everything and it only got worse the more "simple" she tried to eat. She had an allergy to wheat. Gave it up. Developed an allergy to soy. Gave that up. Developed an allergy to rice. Etc. 4.) There is no such thing as "enough" healthcare. She went to the doctor's at least 3 times a week and they were more than happy to diagnose "treat" her "conditions". In fact, that's how she got into drugs as they were legally prescribed to her for her many conditions.
GDP is just annual production measured in currency. It is not a good indicator of true progress
Irrelevant. I've already said that happiness and love don't feed people. GDP is a good measurement of the "abundance" in society.
Also, US$10,000 a year would go really far in India or China or parts of Africa
Wrong. World GDP is calculated on PPP negating this argument. $10,000 US translates to much less everywhere else.
Nor is GDP a good indicator of total wealth. Total wealth would include the biosphere, all ideas, all land, the moon, all genetic information, everyone's skills, all buildings, and so on.
Correct. GDP is a measurement of production, not wealth. Total wealth is irrelevant unless you plan to destroy it. GDP is interest on total wealth.
So, the question is, what are we trying to accomplish here? Produce the most stuff?
Yes. Happiness is for religion, not economics. We must produce more to provide for everyone.
Distribute stuff so everyone gets enough to live comfortable with and have the freedom to make choices about how to spend their time?
The market distributes wealth. The alternative is to allow man (which one?) to decide to distribute wealth, which is Marxism.
The remaining half of the GDP would then motivate some of the individuals in society who wanted more than a subsistence living to run businesses to supply various needs and have a greater private income.
This is a fallacy for two reasons. The first fallacy is that 1/2 GDP would ever be enough to pay for universal health care. I see no reason why it wouldn't grow to 100% or more, especially in a democracy. The second fallacy is to equate GDP with excess cash. GDP includes investment and government spending.
If many people were content with their basic income, this would lead to either increased wages for those who wanted to work or would prompt ever increasing automation
This fallacy assumes that 1) people will ever be satisfied with their income and 2) that increased automation is possible without investment. If it were cheaper to automate than do it manually then a greedy CEO would find this efficiency and exploit it. If a greedy CEO failed to automate, then a competitor's CEO would.
the points about competition are more about *waste* than they are about equity.
Competition promotes efficiency not waste. See all of the evolutionary theory as reference.
The point is, we have a dysfunctional economic system because it is based around a paradigm of scarcity, but industry is capable of producing abundance.
Not true. There is no indication that industry has much unused capacity. There are always limiting reagents, especially energy. We can't produce an infinite amount of goods until we have infinite energy.
Competition and make-work and guarding and hoarding all help to create the very sorts of scarcity they decry. Even with them, our society is still, through the advance of technology, moving towards abundance for everyone. But it is moving there despite competition, not because of it.
Again, competition creates efficiency. Lack of competition creates inefficiency. You use Open Source as an example so you should be familiar with the inefficiencies created by the lack of competition in software (Microsoft).
The USA just spend trillions of dollars on two or three wars and trillions of dollars more on bank bailouts. But when the price tag for health care for everyone is an extra US100 billion a year, well that's too much
There is no indication it would cost a mere $100 billion (mere $100 bilion? mere?).
And when the price tag for the whole US moving to renewables is at most US$500 billion
Who says it will cost a mere $500 billion? The editors of Scientific American? Give me a break, they are hardly economists. They ignore the huge costs of transmission, the fact that there aren't enough solar panels in the world to accomplish this,
Sorry, I have been busy and haven't had time to respond. But, that being said, your responses are just too long and disjointed for me to respond to effectively. Also, I would rather respond to your thoughts than the copied and pasted thoughts of others.
Lets keep things short and simple, we can address everything but let's do it one point at a time. OK?
Slashdot Mirror
How about this for unstandard fare for /. :
I'll admit I was wrong and give you the benefit of the doubt if you state that the Chinese government's tactics are worse than the US's government's tactics.
Haha, that is awesome. I love it.
WTF? Who is justifying the terrible things done in the US. Reread the my post, I specifically said the US has made mistakes.
The Chinese government is less trustworthy than the US government. Hands down. End of story.
How can you compare these incidents to the murder of 30 million?
No one said the US is perfect, but China has a long way to go before it can claim the same level of "imperfection".
You do the exact same thing as the original poster. You lump the US and China together in "all goverments".
True, you shouldn't blindly trust ANY government, but some governments are way more deserving of trust than others. Copy and paste my post here for the reasons the Chinese government is less trustworthy than the US.
In an article about China I'm not sure why you would bring up the US.
No. Regulating the carbon economy gives the government complete control over everything. The number of children you choose to have, the size of your dogs, the food you eat, the clothes you wear all have a carbon footprint. Give the government control over your carbon footprint and you give them control over your life.
Personally, I tend to gravitate towards solutions that actually solve the problem. Pump those trillions of dollars in to fusion research and the problem of carbon emissions goes away in 30 years.
Of course, my solution ends with everyone having cheap clean energy and the government stays out our lives. Politicians won't be happy.
If you really want to solve the problem pour those trillions of dollars into fusion research and the whole carbon emission issue goes away.
Politicians don't want a solution that doesn't end with them having a totalitarian grip on the economy.
I'm sorry, I mis-stated my assertion. Of course global warming won't run-away. I meant that the damage is already done and we'd be better off investing in long term solutions like fusion.
No we're not doomed. Things will be fine. Worst case scenario a few Wall Street bankers will lose their beach front properties and everyone else will have to move a few meters inland.
Forget carbon credit, forget cap-n-trade. Start investing now in fusion energy and in 50 years carbon emissions won't be an issue.
I've re-read your post and it still seems to me that you are equating FBI wire tapping with Chinese wire tapping.
When did I say those mistakes were excused?
I'm fucking sick of people comparing the US government to the Chinese government. Get a fucking clue. The US government has made some mistakes but the Chinese government killed 30 MILLION of its citizens, it attacks protesters with tanks, executes the mentally retarded, and jails those who protest their own children's deaths at the hands of the government corruption.
Are you paid by the Chinese government to write these posts or just ignorant?
The carbon dioxide reduction policies are a economic threat to Utah.
The carbon dioxide reduction policies are an economic and political threat to the entire world. Unless we return to the stone age there is no way to stop global warming at this point. There is no point in threating the economy and everyone's rights to implement a policy that will accomplish nothing.
It is time to adapt, not prevent.
Also proven:
4/ nothing will stop global warming short of a return the stone age.
Giving the government control over the carbon economy will do nothing to stop global warming.
The entire debate is a waste of time and irrelevant. Climate change will happen whether or not we give the government 100% control over carbon emissions. The time for prevention was 100 years ago -- now we need to find ways to adapt.
Green technology is great. But, that isn't the solution politicians are proposing. They want to regulate the carbon economy, which gives them control over ever facet of human existence.
There is no indication that a massive reduction in greenhouse gas emissions will stop global warming. Resources should be allocated to adapting, not preventing.
"it's impossible to be certain, so lets give up".
No, we should give up because there is no indication that cutting carbon emissions now can do anything to prevent climate change. Those who propose cap and trade are simply riding the public wave of fear to achieve power -- but their efforts will not change things.
There is no indication that a massive reduction in greenhouse gas emissions will prevent Global Warming.
I remember reading books as a child in the 1980's that said the world would run out of oil in 1994. I also remember "Acid Rain" coming to destroy us all.
Exactly, I've been flying for 25 years and definitely noticed as the seats in front of me got closer and closer. For me it isn't a width issue. The rows of seats are too close to one another. I'm only 6'1", but suffer horrible crushing pain in my knees whenever the person in front of me reclines.
Airlines aren't providing adequate space for average Americans.
I think the big difference is that China uses the information to murder human rights activists and in the US Jon Stewarts gets to rail against the establishment every night on national TV.
When the US government becomes reliant on these (or other) companies for access to space will they become "to big to fail"? If they go broke can I expect another bailout?
Fuck it, I already wasted three hours replying to your last post, might as well finish off.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need
I would rate this phrase as one of the most destructive to have ever been inflicted on humanity. If I were to describe the Meritocracy I would say:
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his ability"
And no, this isn't half-way to Marxism. Marxism allows lazy parasites to suck the productive life out of everyone else in the name of "need".
So now the "poor" are forced to spend their lives in frantic consumption, trying to keep up with the robots' extravagant production, so that the "rich" can live lives of simplicity.
Can I pick a random author from the 1950's and say "This is where society is heading" without any rationality? OK, I pick Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged.
Is that not to some extent already what we have, as depicted by the life of the rich woman you referenced? She lives a life of simplicity riding horses someone else probably owns, teaching non-materialist yoga, buying an expensive handbag of high quality which in the scheme of things takes next-to-no resources to produce, while the poor people around her are on the treadmills of heavy consumption with huge TV screens blaring messages at them of consume, consume, consume, and are captivated by huge monster trucks and eating all the latest complex synthetic foods and partaking of all the expensive medical care you need when you don't do a bit of yoga and simple living and eating now and then. Are we not, already, suffering from a Midas Plague? :-)
You are wrong to assume she was less materialistic because of her wealth. I said that her materialism didn't destroy the world, but I never said anything amount the amount of materialism.
In fact, she goes a long way to disprove your core assertions.
1.) She had a guaranteed basic income ($65k with no expenses or taxes). It was never enough and eventually drove her into deep credit card debt.
2.) Her wealth did not help her become more "enlightened". In fact, without a need to earn a living she desperately filled her days with activities trying to find some "meaning". Yoga, pilates, horse riding, painting, among a 100 other activities were never enough. She eventually found fulfillment, in drugs.
3.) A simple, organic diet did not make her more healthy. She developed food allergies to everything and it only got worse the more "simple" she tried to eat. She had an allergy to wheat. Gave it up. Developed an allergy to soy. Gave that up. Developed an allergy to rice. Etc.
4.) There is no such thing as "enough" healthcare. She went to the doctor's at least 3 times a week and they were more than happy to diagnose "treat" her "conditions". In fact, that's how she got into drugs as they were legally prescribed to her for her many conditions.
GDP is just annual production measured in currency. It is not a good indicator of true progress
Irrelevant. I've already said that happiness and love don't feed people. GDP is a good measurement of the "abundance" in society.
Also, US$10,000 a year would go really far in India or China or parts of Africa
Wrong. World GDP is calculated on PPP negating this argument. $10,000 US translates to much less everywhere else.
Nor is GDP a good indicator of total wealth. Total wealth would include the biosphere, all ideas, all land, the moon, all genetic information, everyone's skills, all buildings, and so on.
Correct. GDP is a measurement of production, not wealth. Total wealth is irrelevant unless you plan to destroy it. GDP is interest on total wealth.
So, the question is, what are we trying to accomplish here? Produce the most stuff?
Yes. Happiness is for religion, not economics. We must produce more to provide for everyone.
Distribute stuff so everyone gets enough to live comfortable with and have the freedom to make choices about how to spend their time?
The market distributes wealth. The alternative is to allow man (which one?) to decide to distribute wealth, which is Marxism.
The remaining half of the GDP would then motivate some of the individuals in society who wanted more than a subsistence living to run businesses to supply various needs and have a greater private income.
This is a fallacy for two reasons. The first fallacy is that 1/2 GDP would ever be enough to pay for universal health care. I see no reason why it wouldn't grow to 100% or more, especially in a democracy. The second fallacy is to equate GDP with excess cash. GDP includes investment and government spending.
If many people were content with their basic income, this would lead to either increased wages for those who wanted to work or would prompt ever increasing automation
This fallacy assumes that 1) people will ever be satisfied with their income and 2) that increased automation is possible without investment. If it were cheaper to automate than do it manually then a greedy CEO would find this efficiency and exploit it. If a greedy CEO failed to automate, then a competitor's CEO would.
the points about competition are more about *waste* than they are about equity.
Competition promotes efficiency not waste. See all of the evolutionary theory as reference.
The point is, we have a dysfunctional economic system because it is based around a paradigm of scarcity, but industry is capable of producing abundance.
Not true. There is no indication that industry has much unused capacity. There are always limiting reagents, especially energy. We can't produce an infinite amount of goods until we have infinite energy.
Competition and make-work and guarding and hoarding all help to create the very sorts of scarcity they decry. Even with them, our society is still, through the advance of technology, moving towards abundance for everyone. But it is moving there despite competition, not because of it.
Again, competition creates efficiency. Lack of competition creates inefficiency. You use Open Source as an example so you should be familiar with the inefficiencies created by the lack of competition in software (Microsoft).
The USA just spend trillions of dollars on two or three wars and trillions of dollars more on bank bailouts. But when the price tag for health care for everyone is an extra US100 billion a year, well that's too much
There is no indication it would cost a mere $100 billion (mere $100 bilion? mere?).
And when the price tag for the whole US moving to renewables is at most US$500 billion
Who says it will cost a mere $500 billion? The editors of Scientific American? Give me a break, they are hardly economists. They ignore the huge costs of transmission, the fact that there aren't enough solar panels in the world to accomplish this,
Sorry, I have been busy and haven't had time to respond. But, that being said, your responses are just too long and disjointed for me to respond to effectively. Also, I would rather respond to your thoughts than the copied and pasted thoughts of others.
Lets keep things short and simple, we can address everything but let's do it one point at a time. OK?
How do your ideas differ from Marxism?