Yeah, but that is a bit naive. If you only have one dollar to give, you can still subdivide it to give $x toward laptops and $(1-x) toward food.
This creates a "social wellbeing" function of x, U(x). The statement "It's one of the other", which is equivilent to stating "The maximum of U(x) is either 0 or 1".
Low-wage manufacturing jobs, normally reserved for third world countries, are indisputably relocating to the South. But this is only because per capita, the South is the poorest area of the US, and therefore has the cheapest labor.
I am an Israeli Jew, and well aware of Israeli history.
Jews have about as much right to live in Israel as the Roma Gypsies have a right to live in Kashmir. Persecution is not a consistent justification for the creation of a religious state.
Moreover, even accepting the validity of that tenuous concept (that persecuted people have the right to a homeland), there is reason that the Jews had to have Israel. They could have settled in West Texas, Belize, Uganda, etc. Past persecution definitely did not justify the mass expulsion of native Palestinians.
Yes, they were expelled, they did not run away. The idea that Palestinians all fled because of the words of their Arab leaders was a propaganda myth told by a fledgling state to keep their people together. Israel opened their state archives in the 1980's, and their records indicate that indeed, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were kicked out of their homes. I've provided some evidence earlier in the thread, but if you wish, I'd be glad to provide credible Israeli sources.
""What would they do with the 50,000 civilians in the two cities... Not even Ben-Gurion could offer a solution, and during the discussion at operation headquarters, he remained silent, as was his habit in such situations. Clearly, we could not leave [Lydda's] hostile and armed populace in our rear, where it could endanger the supply route [to the troops who were] advancing eastward.... Allon repeated the question: What is to be done with the population? Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture that said: Drive them out!... 'Driving out' is a term with a harsh ring... Psychologically, this was one of the most difficult actions we undertook. The population of [Lydda] did not leave willingly. There was no way of avoiding the use of force and warning shots in order to make the inhabitants march the 10 to 15 miles to the point where they met up with the legion. (Soldier of Peace, p. 140-141)" -Yitzhak Rabin, former Prime Minister of Israel.
"At least 55% of the total of the exodus was caused by our (Haganah/IDF) operations." To this figure, the report's compilers add the operations of the Irgun and Lehi, which "directly (caused) some 15%... of the emigration".... This leads to a figure of 73% for departures caused directly by the Israelis. In addition, the report attributes 22% of the departures to "fears" and "a crisis of confidence" affecting the Palestinian population. As for Arab calls for flight, these were reckoned to be significant in only 5% of cases..." - "The emigration of Palestinian Arabs in the period 1/12/1947-1/6/1948" by SHAI military intelligence of Haganah.
"Israeli vans with loudspeakers drove through the streets ordering all the inhabitants to evacuate immediately, and such as were reluctant to leave were forcibly ejected from their homes by the triumphant Israelis whose policy was now openly one of clearing out all the Arab civil population before them.... From the surrounding villages and hamlets, during the next two or three days, all the inhabitants were uprooted and set off on the road to Ramallah.... No longer was there any "reasonable persuasion". Bluntly, the Arab inhabitants were ejected and forced to flee into Arab territory.... Wherever the Israeli troops advanced into Arab country the Arab population was bulldozed out in front of them"-O'Ballance, Edgar (1956): The Arab-Israeli War 1948. London: Faber and Faber, p. 147, 172.
I could go on and on. Nobody with any knowledge of history disputes that Israel expelled at the very least, ten's of thousands of Palestinians.
"The Palestinians left at the urging of their "Arab Brothers" and when they did their "Brothers" stuck them in the refugee camps permantly for the PR value that sticking them in camps and blaming Isreal woulkd have."
That is not true, at all. Look up Operation Dani, where the Arab cities of Ramle and Lydda were emptied. Let me quote Yitzhak Rabin, a former prime minister of Israel.
""What would they do with the 50,000 civilians in the two cities... Not even Ben-Gurion could offer a solution, and during the discussion at operation headquarters, he remained silent, as was his habit in such situations. Clearly, we could not leave [Lydda's] hostile and armed populace in our rear, where it could endanger the supply route [to the troops who were] advancing eastward.... Allon repeated the question: What is to be done with the population? Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture that said: Drive them out!... 'Driving out' is a term with a harsh ring... Psychologically, this was one of the most difficult actions we undertook. The population of [Lydda] did not leave willingly. There was no way of avoiding the use of force and warning shots in order to make the inhabitants march the 10 to 15 miles to the point where they met up with the legion. (Soldier of Peace, p. 140-141)"
New documents from Israel's state archives indicate that most of the Arabs were expelled from Israel, they did not run away. In fact, Israeli SHAI military intelligence documents from the time indicate that the words and actions of the "Arab brothers" were only responsible for 5% of the total exodus.
"Doesn't sound like a peaceful government to me. How do you reckon that Hamas doesn't want to co-exist with a Jewish Israel state? Hamas is a _recognized_ terrorist organization due to its actions. Suicide bombing, declared jihad, and the obliteration of the Jewish state of Israel are the key points against Israel."
Ever read Irgun's charter? The highlight was the part where they said, "Political violence and terrorism" were "legitimate tools in the Jewish national struggle for the Land of Israel". Kind of radical, considering they were the second largest militia in the 48 war, and that their ministers served in high-ranking posts in Israeli government.
Seriously, every independence movement used terrorism, including ours. Get over yourself and get off your moral high ground. Keep in mind, Israel has killed far more innocent civilians than the Palestinians have. You might say "it's only because of the terrorists", or you can even say "they use human shields"(And by the way, my first cousin is in the Sayeret Egoz of the IDF, and he assures me that they use human shields too). Nevertheless, the fact remains: More people that are innocent have died because of Israel's actions than the Palestinians'. Yes, the intentions were different, but that is of little concern to the innocent man who was killed.
I'm not condemning Israel. I am just pointing out that your moral language is useless and inconsistent in this argument, and that Israel has no moral authority in this conflict.
"Furthermore, Hamas swayed Palestinian public opinion by promising social programs. All I've seen this government do in the last year is fight a civil war inside Gaza. How is increasing violence between Gaza refugees helping the Palestinians in that region?"
Don't you think that had anything to do with Israel's complete embargo into the country after their victory? The West Bank's GDP decreased by over 40% over the course of two months after Israel shut down all trade and aid. There was absolutely no money for new social programs, and a great deal of them had to be shut down.
"As far as refugees, also consider that nearly 700k - 900k Jewish residents in Arab states were expelled out of Israel's surrounding neighbors. Compare this with the 750k displaced Moslem Arabs from the State of Israel."
Two rights do not make a wrong. My parents were some of those Jews who were displaced(Morocco), but they had nothing to do with the forced expulsion of the Palestinians from their homes.
By the way, most of those countries, Morocco included, have granted an unlimited right of return to the Sephardi Jews. Is Israel prepared to do such a thing?
That would certainly be an effective way. I once read a paper that suggested that destruction of oil production facilities is the only real way to decrease oil consumption.
And to think, some people volunteer to do it for free!
"First of all you have too assume that there is limit to the number of 767s available. "
For all intents and purposes, there are. The amount of time from order to production, combined with the fundamentally limited production runs possible(and of course, the actions of governments to offset cyclical demand fluctuation for aircraft producers), ensures that Jumbojet production is not going to be very responsive to market demand(Not that prices won't, those will fluctuate tremendously)
"I can promise you that no Airline is going "Well I guess those people can not fly because Larry Page bought our 767!"
Certainly not. But the relevant markets are very small, and the buy-out of a couple of planes decreases the supply of planes, driving up prices. I can imagine an Airline saying "Wow, at this cost, it is not worth it to open up this new Route".
"But let's say that an Airline is going to have delay the purchase of a 767 because of this... They will in all likely hood then be flying an older and less fuel efficient plane in it's place! So the net carbon out but is EVEN higher. "
Fully possible, but older planes have a higher operating and fuel cost, so it's fully possible that the price-increase will push prices so that the airline simply does not service the route that it previously did. In some cases, this would cause diversion to more polluting car use, and in some cases, it would divert it to more efficient train usage, or, it might even encourage travel to other routes.
In other words, whether or not the impact is positive or negative depends on information that neither of us have. Once we have a carbon cap system, this will be easy. All we will have to do is pick the cheapest good, guilt free.
"All that aside my problem is with them trying to claim that they are working on being Green at the same time. It isn't that they own a private jet. It isn't that they own a private 767. It is that they are preaching alternative energy and conservation while owning a private 767."
They are not "preaching" Alternative energy, they are spending money on it. I would prefer not to discourage such actions by placing ludicrous moral restrictions on donation.
To quote
"Incorporating these measurements into their assessments, scientists reached surprising conclusions. Most notably, they found that lamb raised on New Zealand's clover-choked pastures and shipped 11,000 miles by boat to Britain produced 1,520 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions per ton while British lamb produced 6,280 pounds of carbon dioxide per ton, in part because poorer British pastures force farmers to use feed. In other words, it is four times more energy-efficient for Londoners to buy lamb imported from the other side of the world than to buy it from a producer in their backyard. Similar figures were found for dairy products and fruit."
As for your case, you would most likely be better off eating local foods. But I don't have the training to conduct a life-cycle study, so I say that with great trepidation.
No, life-cycle studies take that into account. The trucks that bring in produce to super-markets from ports are far larger, and urban super-markets are considerably closer to ports and airports then they are to nearby farms. So the distance that trucks need to travel is far smaller in the case of internationally shipped foods.
"In that case you can have no problem with every SUV owner on the planet. Or people that don't car pool. Or people that shop at Walmart.
It is their own money and their own business."
Precisely. Guilt is a very inefficient way to control CO2 pollution, and I refuse to use morality as a tool for resource management.
We need an actual carbon tax/cap and trade scheme(I'm leaning toward the latter). And until we do, every voluntary effort will be nothing but self-righteous bullshit.
Why? Because unless carbon is priced, life-cycle analysis is extremely difficult, counter-intuitive, and error prone. Decisions are made based intuition, and this can backfire. For example, many well meaning people only buy locally produced organic food, because they believe that the increased proximity to their food will decrease on transportation related CO2 emissions. But the world is not so simple, it turns out that trucks produce far more CO2 per ton of produce transported, and that it is drastically more efficient, from an emissions point of view, to ship food in from the other side of the world. There might be other reasons to like local food, but CO2 does not factor into it.
In a similar fashion, you cannot critique Google's CEOs unless you institute either a full-life cycle study, or a carbon pricing scheme. If they did not buy the 767, it would almost certainly have been snapped by an airline, which would have used it far more often then then it is right now. Perhaps the most environmentally efficient way to prevent CO2 emissions is to buy Jumbo-Jets and under-utilize them.
This might not be true, but in the absence of a carbon pricing system, neither of us really know. So until such a system is in place, stop intruding into others personal business.
Are you familiar with fourth generation generator technologies? We've fixed that problem pretty well.
Also, keep in mind that Coal plants are really expensive to decommission too. The radioactive traces in coal build up over time, and the plants become dangerously radioactive.
"we still are left with plutonium-239 as a waste product, and while there are some charming countries willing to buy it off me for cash I'm not sure I want to sell it, yet where in the name of Mary's tit do I put it safely for the next 24K years?"
Why not process the plutonium for energy in a separate reactor?
No, coal is not anywhere close to peaking. We have enough to maintain current consumption for another couple hundred years. We just want to avoid it because of it's dirty nature.
No, that is anarchy. The General Welfare Theorem requires that firms lack Market Power, that Externalities don't exist, and there is perfect regulation.
It is the responsibility of government to approximate these conditions as accurately as possible.
Ma Bell had a monopoly. In a true free-market, governments robustly monitor companies to enforce copyright. Perhaps that is where you should focus your outrage.
Proving that an optimum exists is trivial, the aggregate utility as a function of music production is a bounded function, and all bounded functions have absolute maxima. By the general welfare theorem and Coases theorem, a properly designed IP law would reach this social maximum.
As for your anti-utilitarian rant, are you against pollution control and the Do-Not-Call list? Its the same logic.
Slashdot Mirror
This creates a "social wellbeing" function of x, U(x). The statement "It's one of the other", which is equivilent to stating "The maximum of U(x) is either 0 or 1".
I find that statement nontrivial.
Not something to brag about.
Jews have about as much right to live in Israel as the Roma Gypsies have a right to live in Kashmir. Persecution is not a consistent justification for the creation of a religious state.
Moreover, even accepting the validity of that tenuous concept (that persecuted people have the right to a homeland), there is reason that the Jews had to have Israel. They could have settled in West Texas, Belize, Uganda, etc. Past persecution definitely did not justify the mass expulsion of native Palestinians.
Yes, they were expelled, they did not run away. The idea that Palestinians all fled because of the words of their Arab leaders was a propaganda myth told by a fledgling state to keep their people together. Israel opened their state archives in the 1980's, and their records indicate that indeed, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were kicked out of their homes. I've provided some evidence earlier in the thread, but if you wish, I'd be glad to provide credible Israeli sources.
How many times has it been conquered in the last 500 years? And how many times in the period from 1500-1900?
Could I have a source?
"At least 55% of the total of the exodus was caused by our (Haganah/IDF) operations." To this figure, the report's compilers add the operations of the Irgun and Lehi, which "directly (caused) some 15%... of the emigration". ... This leads to a figure of 73% for departures caused directly by the Israelis. In addition, the report attributes 22% of the departures to "fears" and "a crisis of confidence" affecting the Palestinian population. As for Arab calls for flight, these were reckoned to be significant in only 5% of cases..." - "The emigration of Palestinian Arabs in the period 1/12/1947-1/6/1948" by SHAI military intelligence of Haganah.
"Israeli vans with loudspeakers drove through the streets ordering all the inhabitants to evacuate immediately, and such as were reluctant to leave were forcibly ejected from their homes by the triumphant Israelis whose policy was now openly one of clearing out all the Arab civil population before them .... From the surrounding villages and hamlets, during the next two or three days, all the inhabitants were uprooted and set off on the road to Ramallah.... No longer was there any "reasonable persuasion". Bluntly, the Arab inhabitants were ejected and forced to flee into Arab territory.... Wherever the Israeli troops advanced into Arab country the Arab population was bulldozed out in front of them"-O'Ballance, Edgar (1956): The Arab-Israeli War 1948. London: Faber and Faber, p. 147, 172.
I could go on and on. Nobody with any knowledge of history disputes that Israel expelled at the very least, ten's of thousands of Palestinians.
That is not true, at all. Look up Operation Dani, where the Arab cities of Ramle and Lydda were emptied. Let me quote Yitzhak Rabin, a former prime minister of Israel.
""What would they do with the 50,000 civilians in the two cities ... Not even Ben-Gurion could offer a solution, and during the discussion at operation headquarters, he remained silent, as was his habit in such situations. Clearly, we could not leave [Lydda's] hostile and armed populace in our rear, where it could endanger the supply route [to the troops who were] advancing eastward. ... Allon repeated the question: What is to be done with the population? Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture that said: Drive them out! ... 'Driving out' is a term with a harsh ring ... Psychologically, this was one of the most difficult actions we undertook. The population of [Lydda] did not leave willingly. There was no way of avoiding the use of force and warning shots in order to make the inhabitants march the 10 to 15 miles to the point where they met up with the legion. (Soldier of Peace, p. 140-141)"
New documents from Israel's state archives indicate that most of the Arabs were expelled from Israel, they did not run away. In fact, Israeli SHAI military intelligence documents from the time indicate that the words and actions of the "Arab brothers" were only responsible for 5% of the total exodus.
Please reread your history.
Ever read Irgun's charter? The highlight was the part where they said, "Political violence and terrorism" were "legitimate tools in the Jewish national struggle for the Land of Israel". Kind of radical, considering they were the second largest militia in the 48 war, and that their ministers served in high-ranking posts in Israeli government.
Seriously, every independence movement used terrorism, including ours. Get over yourself and get off your moral high ground. Keep in mind, Israel has killed far more innocent civilians than the Palestinians have. You might say "it's only because of the terrorists", or you can even say "they use human shields"(And by the way, my first cousin is in the Sayeret Egoz of the IDF, and he assures me that they use human shields too). Nevertheless, the fact remains: More people that are innocent have died because of Israel's actions than the Palestinians'. Yes, the intentions were different, but that is of little concern to the innocent man who was killed.
I'm not condemning Israel. I am just pointing out that your moral language is useless and inconsistent in this argument, and that Israel has no moral authority in this conflict.
"Furthermore, Hamas swayed Palestinian public opinion by promising social programs. All I've seen this government do in the last year is fight a civil war inside Gaza. How is increasing violence between Gaza refugees helping the Palestinians in that region?"
Don't you think that had anything to do with Israel's complete embargo into the country after their victory? The West Bank's GDP decreased by over 40% over the course of two months after Israel shut down all trade and aid. There was absolutely no money for new social programs, and a great deal of them had to be shut down.
"As far as refugees, also consider that nearly 700k - 900k Jewish residents in Arab states were expelled out of Israel's surrounding neighbors. Compare this with the 750k displaced Moslem Arabs from the State of Israel."
Two rights do not make a wrong. My parents were some of those Jews who were displaced(Morocco), but they had nothing to do with the forced expulsion of the Palestinians from their homes.
By the way, most of those countries, Morocco included, have granted an unlimited right of return to the Sephardi Jews. Is Israel prepared to do such a thing?
And to think, some people volunteer to do it for free!
For all intents and purposes, there are. The amount of time from order to production, combined with the fundamentally limited production runs possible(and of course, the actions of governments to offset cyclical demand fluctuation for aircraft producers), ensures that Jumbojet production is not going to be very responsive to market demand(Not that prices won't, those will fluctuate tremendously)
"I can promise you that no Airline is going "Well I guess those people can not fly because Larry Page bought our 767!"
Certainly not. But the relevant markets are very small, and the buy-out of a couple of planes decreases the supply of planes, driving up prices. I can imagine an Airline saying "Wow, at this cost, it is not worth it to open up this new Route".
"But let's say that an Airline is going to have delay the purchase of a 767 because of this... They will in all likely hood then be flying an older and less fuel efficient plane in it's place! So the net carbon out but is EVEN higher. "
Fully possible, but older planes have a higher operating and fuel cost, so it's fully possible that the price-increase will push prices so that the airline simply does not service the route that it previously did. In some cases, this would cause diversion to more polluting car use, and in some cases, it would divert it to more efficient train usage, or, it might even encourage travel to other routes.
In other words, whether or not the impact is positive or negative depends on information that neither of us have. Once we have a carbon cap system, this will be easy. All we will have to do is pick the cheapest good, guilt free.
"All that aside my problem is with them trying to claim that they are working on being Green at the same time. It isn't that they own a private jet. It isn't that they own a private 767. It is that they are preaching alternative energy and conservation while owning a private 767."
They are not "preaching" Alternative energy, they are spending money on it. I would prefer not to discourage such actions by placing ludicrous moral restrictions on donation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/06/opinion/06mcwilliams.html?_r=1&oref=slogin is a pretty good survey on the subject, and it lists a nice collection of studies.
To quote "Incorporating these measurements into their assessments, scientists reached surprising conclusions. Most notably, they found that lamb raised on New Zealand's clover-choked pastures and shipped 11,000 miles by boat to Britain produced 1,520 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions per ton while British lamb produced 6,280 pounds of carbon dioxide per ton, in part because poorer British pastures force farmers to use feed. In other words, it is four times more energy-efficient for Londoners to buy lamb imported from the other side of the world than to buy it from a producer in their backyard. Similar figures were found for dairy products and fruit."
As for your case, you would most likely be better off eating local foods. But I don't have the training to conduct a life-cycle study, so I say that with great trepidation.
As I said, the world is a strange place.
Precisely. Guilt is a very inefficient way to control CO2 pollution, and I refuse to use morality as a tool for resource management.
We need an actual carbon tax/cap and trade scheme(I'm leaning toward the latter). And until we do, every voluntary effort will be nothing but self-righteous bullshit.
Why? Because unless carbon is priced, life-cycle analysis is extremely difficult, counter-intuitive, and error prone. Decisions are made based intuition, and this can backfire. For example, many well meaning people only buy locally produced organic food, because they believe that the increased proximity to their food will decrease on transportation related CO2 emissions. But the world is not so simple, it turns out that trucks produce far more CO2 per ton of produce transported, and that it is drastically more efficient, from an emissions point of view, to ship food in from the other side of the world. There might be other reasons to like local food, but CO2 does not factor into it.
In a similar fashion, you cannot critique Google's CEOs unless you institute either a full-life cycle study, or a carbon pricing scheme. If they did not buy the 767, it would almost certainly have been snapped by an airline, which would have used it far more often then then it is right now. Perhaps the most environmentally efficient way to prevent CO2 emissions is to buy Jumbo-Jets and under-utilize them.
This might not be true, but in the absence of a carbon pricing system, neither of us really know. So until such a system is in place, stop intruding into others personal business.
Right, because starving people are trying to find food. What is your point?
Also, keep in mind that Coal plants are really expensive to decommission too. The radioactive traces in coal build up over time, and the plants become dangerously radioactive.
Why not process the plutonium for energy in a separate reactor?
Prices meanwhile, have been decaying at about 6% per year.
No, coal is not anywhere close to peaking. We have enough to maintain current consumption for another couple hundred years. We just want to avoid it because of it's dirty nature.
The "just following orders" excuse died a long time ago.
The sum of every individual's utility across the entire population. Proxima described the concept pretty well, http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=362541&cid=21384245 .
As for your opposition to pollution control and the Do-Not-Call list, at least you are consistent. What about property rights over land?
It is the responsibility of government to approximate these conditions as accurately as possible.
Income and Sales taxes cause large distortions. We should move as much of the government's fundraising to auctioning of externalities as possible.
Ma Bell had a monopoly. In a true free-market, governments robustly monitor companies to enforce copyright. Perhaps that is where you should focus your outrage.
How do you propose they distribute radio spectrum then?
Proving that an optimum exists is trivial, the aggregate utility as a function of music production is a bounded function, and all bounded functions have absolute maxima. By the general welfare theorem and Coases theorem, a properly designed IP law would reach this social maximum.
As for your anti-utilitarian rant, are you against pollution control and the Do-Not-Call list? Its the same logic.