Those same models (page 34) show that it may, in fact, never actually become ice-free, and that is assuming that the climate sensitivity to CO2 is at least 3 deg C/doubling. And there is data to suggest it's actually down around 1.5 deg C/doubling of CO2. Meaning - we'd never have an ice-free summer.
The issue is that the models in the IPCC assume over twice (on average) the climate sensitivity. It's closer to about 1.3 deg C to 1.5 deg C for a doubling of CO2, rather than the average of 3 deg C. And here's the kicker - we don't know if that's even correct, because we don't know how much warming is natural. Does that mean there is ZERO human-induced warming? Nope. But it also means we really don't know how much of an impact we are having.
W = N + H. You want to keep W under some magic number (it used to be 3, then 2, now it is 1.5). You think you can control H. You do not know what N is. Solve for H. THAT is the issue.
What about the model margins of error for the prediction of ZOMG WE'RE GOING TO DIE? that this IPCC report makes? Can you tell us the 95% confidence level?
Which IPCC projection or model has been correct? So far, 95% of the models have been wrong - and have significantly overstated the heating impact of CO2. Claims based on bad models should be properly discounted...
The Nordic model is built upon, and requires, free market capitalism. It is only due to the high level of economic activity (supported by a free market approach) that the rest of the Nordic model works.
As far as socialism requiring a dictator - can you point to a socialist economy that was not run by a dictator (or a small group of dictators, such as in China)?
So every working individual pays another $1200 per month in taxes? Or is this an additional tax on "the rich"? You would have to about double the tax rate on the top 10% of income earners to cover this benefit, taking them to more than 42% in just Federal income taxes alone (and pushing close to 63% effective tax rate in some States like California). How many would continue to earn - or keep their earnings in the US - to support that level of taxation? It would be above all European countries at that point, and the highest it has ever been in the US (marginal rates were higher, but effective rates have rarely reached 50%).
Capitalist economic models (US, the EU, Scandinavia, etc) seem to work really well, even long-term. Socialist (USSR, China, Venezuela, Cuba) and related dictatorial (North Korea, China to a large extent, Vietnam, most of Africa) economic models don't seem to do nearly as well. The more power the Government has to tell you how much you can earn, and what you can do with your money, the more incentive there is for those running the Government to clamp down harder on you. A capitalist economic model breaks that kind of yoke.
That is a complete nonsese. Let's say everyone will get $1000 UBI. Does this mean, that they will earn $1000 more of value? NO. It will inflate global prices about $1000 so prices will be
As shaky as the the "science" of economics is, any Econ grad student could explain to you why that is simply, and absolutely not true historically. In the United States, we have had a rapidly growing money supply, based entirely on the Fed printing money, and it has not led to inflation.
It has led to inflation, just not "the usual" inflation. Most of that was given (via stimulus/quantitative easing) to large financial institutions who then lent it to large borrowers and other institutions, who invested heavily in the stock market. It's why we end up with companies losing billions of dollars a year being valued in the mid-high 11 figure range, and P/E ratios in the insanity range. Inflation has hit the stock market, not necessarily the grocery store.
Poverty is defined as about $12,000 per year for a single person. Assume we wish to set UBI at 125% of poverty level - about $15,000 per year. The AGI for the bottom 50% of all taxpayers averages out to about $16,000 (divide their income by number of returns). Assume it's a normal distribution. This means about 25% of all working people earn about 125% of poverty levels.
For 25% of the population, it would be better to simply stop working and collect UBI - there would be no net change to their situation. So we have, effectively, 3 people working to support 1 person not working, meaning an additional $400 per month per worker to support the UBI situation. How many more will simply opt-out and take UBI-only because the additional $5000/year in taxes is simply too much?
Every road and highway in the US is already a toll road, via the gas taxes collected (which, nominally, are supposed to pay for the roads - but rarely are dedicated to that purpose). In California, the State makes ~$0.50 per gallon; with about 15 billion gallons of gas purchased annually, that's around $7.5 billion in tax revenue, which is well above CalTrans (and local municipality) spending on road repair. Gas taxes are the tolls we pay to maintain the road - it's just often that the pot of money is raided for non-road use and thus poverty is claimed when it's time to raise more taxes/tolls for roads.
In 2014, about $324 billion (page 5-18) was spent on all transportation initiatives by local, State, and Federal agencies. This includes transit as well as roads. Those same Governmental agencies collected about $355.1 billion (page 5-21), making transportation more than self-sufficient - if it was all spent on transportation.
The Federal Government made $39 billion in gas and road taxes alone, even through it spent just $33 billion total on all transportation (a large portion of which went to transit). Of that $39 billion in revenue from roads, the Federal Government spent just $3.2 billion supporting roads.
Far from "capitalist roads killing you with tolls", we're already being excessively tolled by the Government - it's just done a gallon at a time.
Under the guise of compassion, UBI really just turns us from stakeholders or even citizens to mere consumers.
That's all we are now - consumers. And having to work two jobs and STILL not be able to afford health insurance is a flaw in free market capitalism. Or the fact that housing is affordable to many people. To afford to just have an apartment in my area of Metro-Atlanta, Family Promise says that a person needs to make $18.62 an hour and that's assuming he's getting scheduled 40 hours a week. My sub division is being scooped up by private equity firms. Every time a house goes on sale, they come in and buy it. They then rent it.
Prices are no longer restricted by people's income. It's controlled by capital. And the bridge? Debt. Making us all serfs.
My point is that the negatives they are harping on have already happened without UBI.
Healthcare is the most regulated industry, it is filled with exceedingly complex regulations and prices exploded when the Government really stepped in. Far from being a "free market capitalism" issue, it's essentially the result of Government trying to manage an industry whilst simultaneously being greased (via contributions) by the industry it's seeking to manage. Obamacare was a massive giveaway to insurance companies (guaranteed consumers, restitution payments, guaranteed sales of services not needed - like men paying for OB/GYN and childless adults paying for pediatric), and only made the situation worse.
If you want to talk housing, house prices in some areas are exploding (SF, NYC, etc) mainly because Government restricts supply. San Francisco's housing shortage has it's own Wikipedia page where we find:
San Francisco and the surrounding Bay Area have enacted strict zoning regulations.[6] Among other restrictions, San Francisco does not allow buildings over 40 feet tall in most of the city, and has passed laws making it easier for neighbors to block developments.[7] Partly as a result of these codes, from 2007 to 2014, the Bay Area issued building permits for only half the number of needed houses, based on the area's population growth.
Fill the area with new-found wealth from tech and you have massive bidding wars forcing prices so high only those with 7 figure budgets can even think of living there. Strict regulation has, once again, turned out to be the source of pain for most.
I believe that Chromebooks are a lot closer in functionality to tablets than they are to PCs... Especially Android-based tablets; here are several that have file systems, storage options, removable storage, and USB host connector capability (with an OTG cable adapter sometimes needed).
Wait, what? From the Gartner link which generated this/. post, Apple's US sales were 2,189,000 units in Q3 2017, and 2,022,000 units in Q3 2018. Apple's worldwide sales were 5,385,000 units and 4,928,000 units for Q3 2017 and Q3 2018, respectively. That's not an 18% increase, that's about an 8% drop in each case.
What should be news is not just that Microsoft has exploded on the scene in the US, but that Lenovo is simply crushing it worldwide (up nearly 11%) and in the US (up over 22%).
So what you're saying is that Obama drove labor participation rates down, and President Trump is now starting to reverse that, by first lowering unemployment of those in the labor force to historic lows?
So what you're saying is that Google should not only provide the OS, but all the updates for each custom build, AND provide all the distribution, for free? The way Google makes money to do those services for you (saving you all the money for engineers and bandwidth) is to let them make money on your customers via ads and such on the default apps - apps which are not guaranteed to be used, and in fact can have other options loaded by default (like Samsung with their own browser also loaded by default).
Uh, no? My point was that Tesla really doesn't sell that many vehicles, is getting trounced in the biggest EV market in the world, and still sells every vehicle at a loss...
Amazon and others seem to take the AOSP updates from Google, roll them into their own version of Android, and release them. Why would a manufacturer who releases a modified version on the Android platform expect Google to provide all the support for that platform?
Slashdot Mirror
And we see that about 95% of all models are overestimating warming too... Yeah, it's only SOME, not all...
Those same models (page 34) show that it may, in fact, never actually become ice-free, and that is assuming that the climate sensitivity to CO2 is at least 3 deg C/doubling. And there is data to suggest it's actually down around 1.5 deg C/doubling of CO2. Meaning - we'd never have an ice-free summer.
The issue is that the models in the IPCC assume over twice (on average) the climate sensitivity. It's closer to about 1.3 deg C to 1.5 deg C for a doubling of CO2, rather than the average of 3 deg C. And here's the kicker - we don't know if that's even correct, because we don't know how much warming is natural. Does that mean there is ZERO human-induced warming? Nope. But it also means we really don't know how much of an impact we are having.
W = N + H. You want to keep W under some magic number (it used to be 3, then 2, now it is 1.5). You think you can control H. You do not know what N is. Solve for H. THAT is the issue.
What about the model margins of error for the prediction of ZOMG WE'RE GOING TO DIE? that this IPCC report makes? Can you tell us the 95% confidence level?
Which IPCC projection or model has been correct? So far, 95% of the models have been wrong - and have significantly overstated the heating impact of CO2. Claims based on bad models should be properly discounted...
The Nordic model is built upon, and requires, free market capitalism. It is only due to the high level of economic activity (supported by a free market approach) that the rest of the Nordic model works.
As far as socialism requiring a dictator - can you point to a socialist economy that was not run by a dictator (or a small group of dictators, such as in China)?
PopeRatzo worked for Government agencies before - profit by private enterprise actually paid his wages, via taxes.
So every working individual pays another $1200 per month in taxes? Or is this an additional tax on "the rich"? You would have to about double the tax rate on the top 10% of income earners to cover this benefit, taking them to more than 42% in just Federal income taxes alone (and pushing close to 63% effective tax rate in some States like California). How many would continue to earn - or keep their earnings in the US - to support that level of taxation? It would be above all European countries at that point, and the highest it has ever been in the US (marginal rates were higher, but effective rates have rarely reached 50%).
Profit is the wages paid to the investor, the person who owns the company and hires the workers.
Capitalist economic models (US, the EU, Scandinavia, etc) seem to work really well, even long-term. Socialist (USSR, China, Venezuela, Cuba) and related dictatorial (North Korea, China to a large extent, Vietnam, most of Africa) economic models don't seem to do nearly as well. The more power the Government has to tell you how much you can earn, and what you can do with your money, the more incentive there is for those running the Government to clamp down harder on you. A capitalist economic model breaks that kind of yoke.
As shaky as the the "science" of economics is, any Econ grad student could explain to you why that is simply, and absolutely not true historically. In the United States, we have had a rapidly growing money supply, based entirely on the Fed printing money, and it has not led to inflation.
It has led to inflation, just not "the usual" inflation. Most of that was given (via stimulus/quantitative easing) to large financial institutions who then lent it to large borrowers and other institutions, who invested heavily in the stock market. It's why we end up with companies losing billions of dollars a year being valued in the mid-high 11 figure range, and P/E ratios in the insanity range. Inflation has hit the stock market, not necessarily the grocery store.
Poverty is defined as about $12,000 per year for a single person. Assume we wish to set UBI at 125% of poverty level - about $15,000 per year. The AGI for the bottom 50% of all taxpayers averages out to about $16,000 (divide their income by number of returns). Assume it's a normal distribution. This means about 25% of all working people earn about 125% of poverty levels.
For 25% of the population, it would be better to simply stop working and collect UBI - there would be no net change to their situation. So we have, effectively, 3 people working to support 1 person not working, meaning an additional $400 per month per worker to support the UBI situation. How many more will simply opt-out and take UBI-only because the additional $5000/year in taxes is simply too much?
Every road and highway in the US is already a toll road, via the gas taxes collected (which, nominally, are supposed to pay for the roads - but rarely are dedicated to that purpose). In California, the State makes ~$0.50 per gallon; with about 15 billion gallons of gas purchased annually, that's around $7.5 billion in tax revenue, which is well above CalTrans (and local municipality) spending on road repair. Gas taxes are the tolls we pay to maintain the road - it's just often that the pot of money is raided for non-road use and thus poverty is claimed when it's time to raise more taxes/tolls for roads.
In 2014, about $324 billion (page 5-18) was spent on all transportation initiatives by local, State, and Federal agencies. This includes transit as well as roads. Those same Governmental agencies collected about $355.1 billion (page 5-21), making transportation more than self-sufficient - if it was all spent on transportation.
The Federal Government made $39 billion in gas and road taxes alone, even through it spent just $33 billion total on all transportation (a large portion of which went to transit). Of that $39 billion in revenue from roads, the Federal Government spent just $3.2 billion supporting roads.
Far from "capitalist roads killing you with tolls", we're already being excessively tolled by the Government - it's just done a gallon at a time.
Under the guise of compassion, UBI really just turns us from stakeholders or even citizens to mere consumers.
That's all we are now - consumers. And having to work two jobs and STILL not be able to afford health insurance is a flaw in free market capitalism. Or the fact that housing is affordable to many people. To afford to just have an apartment in my area of Metro-Atlanta, Family Promise says that a person needs to make $18.62 an hour and that's assuming he's getting scheduled 40 hours a week. My sub division is being scooped up by private equity firms. Every time a house goes on sale, they come in and buy it. They then rent it.
Prices are no longer restricted by people's income. It's controlled by capital. And the bridge? Debt. Making us all serfs.
My point is that the negatives they are harping on have already happened without UBI.
Healthcare is the most regulated industry, it is filled with exceedingly complex regulations and prices exploded when the Government really stepped in. Far from being a "free market capitalism" issue, it's essentially the result of Government trying to manage an industry whilst simultaneously being greased (via contributions) by the industry it's seeking to manage. Obamacare was a massive giveaway to insurance companies (guaranteed consumers, restitution payments, guaranteed sales of services not needed - like men paying for OB/GYN and childless adults paying for pediatric), and only made the situation worse.
If you want to talk housing, house prices in some areas are exploding (SF, NYC, etc) mainly because Government restricts supply. San Francisco's housing shortage has it's own Wikipedia page where we find:
San Francisco and the surrounding Bay Area have enacted strict zoning regulations.[6] Among other restrictions, San Francisco does not allow buildings over 40 feet tall in most of the city, and has passed laws making it easier for neighbors to block developments.[7] Partly as a result of these codes, from 2007 to 2014, the Bay Area issued building permits for only half the number of needed houses, based on the area's population growth.
Fill the area with new-found wealth from tech and you have massive bidding wars forcing prices so high only those with 7 figure budgets can even think of living there. Strict regulation has, once again, turned out to be the source of pain for most.
Profit is what paid your wages...
I believe that Chromebooks are a lot closer in functionality to tablets than they are to PCs... Especially Android-based tablets; here are several that have file systems, storage options, removable storage, and USB host connector capability (with an OTG cable adapter sometimes needed).
Wait, what? From the Gartner link which generated this /. post, Apple's US sales were 2,189,000 units in Q3 2017, and 2,022,000 units in Q3 2018. Apple's worldwide sales were 5,385,000 units and 4,928,000 units for Q3 2017 and Q3 2018, respectively. That's not an 18% increase, that's about an 8% drop in each case.
What should be news is not just that Microsoft has exploded on the scene in the US, but that Lenovo is simply crushing it worldwide (up nearly 11%) and in the US (up over 22%).
Seems odd, they perform an identical role to Chromebooks
Dwarf planet? DWARF planet? How planetist of you! They prefer to be called differently massed planets, you bigot...
Yo dawg, I heard you liked moons, so I got you a moon for your moon so you can swoon over your moon's moon!
So what you're saying is that Obama drove labor participation rates down, and President Trump is now starting to reverse that, by first lowering unemployment of those in the labor force to historic lows?
So what you're saying is that Google should not only provide the OS, but all the updates for each custom build, AND provide all the distribution, for free? The way Google makes money to do those services for you (saving you all the money for engineers and bandwidth) is to let them make money on your customers via ads and such on the default apps - apps which are not guaranteed to be used, and in fact can have other options loaded by default (like Samsung with their own browser also loaded by default).
Uh, no? My point was that Tesla really doesn't sell that many vehicles, is getting trounced in the biggest EV market in the world, and still sells every vehicle at a loss...
It'll work, it's in Chile, they're industrious folks. Now, if it was in Brazil or Agentina, well - NO ONE works there...
Amazon and others seem to take the AOSP updates from Google, roll them into their own version of Android, and release them. Why would a manufacturer who releases a modified version on the Android platform expect Google to provide all the support for that platform?