It requires a large amount of chemical fertilizers, and they are not using good farming methods.
Also note that they are experiencing capital flight now, and have imposed rules against taking capital out of the country. They are about to go *poof*.
Lol, you think you can just string random words together and make it stick, Coward?
By definition, a free market is one devoid of government interference. If someone argues for more government interference, they are not making a free market argument. You might as well tell your mother that she is using the "no true scotsman" fallacy when she tells you to clean your room, and then wax intellectual about the meaning of the word "clean". There are differing degrees of cleanliness, sure, but you can't argue that the open sewer that is our economy is in any way "clean", or that people dumping more shit into it are "pro-cleanliness".
Socialism is redistribution of wealth. Normal socialism takes from the rich and gives to the poor until everyone is poor (except those doing the distributing). Fascism/socialism for the rich distributes everyone's money to the rich/people doing the distributing. Pretty much the same thing.
Why narrow it down? Every one of those things improved massively as a result of the development of new resources, save perhaps for debt, which is what is killing our economy at the moment (but go back 50 years, and SURPRISE! No debt!).
And yes, religious families have more children than non-religious families, but you totally missed out on the fact that the same trend applies to them, ie as they get richer, they have fewer children. A hundred years ago, most rural American families (likely religious) had nine or more children. Now it is down to four. See the trend?
If you don't know anything about a subject, perhaps you should remain silent on it? There are plenty of consequences, from boycotts, to lawsuits, to asset forfeiture (only applies to an anarchic society). Most libertarians don't argue for anarchic societies, so you have the government's court system to extract monetary damages and to pursue legal challenges (with pollution being a form of assault and/or vandalism).
ITT Malthusians don't understand how microbiology works.
FYI, microbes experience an exponential growth phase that lasts about 24 hours until they form a strong biofilm, at which point growth stops, and the remaining cells tune themselves to use less and less energy (due to the ECM they build up, which protects the cells passively). The human analogy is that we grow until we build up the capital base such that each individual consumes a minimal amount of energy, ie we live in apartments, where food and other products are produced far away in a highly efficient manner, and shipped into the population centers, ie we become a highly urbanized society. We don't just live on ever more subdivided plots of farmland left to us by our great great grandparents.
I see, so the median person today is no better off than they were 150 years ago?
Also, there aren't that many religious people having that many babies. You are pointing to a totally undefined anecdote and claiming it is a trend of some sort.
You are making the assumption that nuclear power plants would nut be profitable under free market conditions. You further make the assumptions that materials inside of nuclear power plants are not valuable, and would not make up the cost of decommissioning, and likely turn a profit.
But you are right on about everything else. We can't do anything with fascism. We have to ditch this fascist economics system or we will all be doomed. You seem to indicate a preference for socialist policy, but your assumptions for such policies are unsound. We could, of course, find out fairly quickly if they are true or not by at least temporarily lifting the ban on new nuclear plant development and nixing all subsidies on the industry.
I would highly advise that you not move to Argentina right now. They are about to become Venezuela, but without the oil.
In addition, they have set themselves up for an agricultural disaster in ten years, as they are now planting nothing but soy anywhere, which ruins the land.
This is TEPCO's fault, and their government enabled them. The government should have stepped back long ago and allowed them the freedom to replace that crappy plant with a newer model that would use up their spent fuel. That alone would have cut the severity of this disaster by 75%!
Which is why the corporate form should be abolished, as it would be under a free market (the corporate veil and the inability to sue shareholders is a protection afforded to corporations by the government).
Actually, yes they were. The "reports" you read about were about government run orphanage workhouses which treated children like slaves. Non-government run facilities that used child labor had much better conditions. They had also largely disappeared by the time child labor was abolished, simply because capital had grown to the extent that a single member of the family was able to support their entire family with just his labor, freeing the wife to stay at home and improve their living conditions, and freeing the children to go to school, allowing them to get a BETTER job later.
What is it about freedom that makes people want to tell lies about how terrible it is, even as every other system collapses around their ears?
That is not free market economics. That is fascism/socialism for the rich. People who want free markets are 100% against bailouts, or they don't know what they are talking about.
Remove the government created corporate veil, and you can pursue individual shareholders, ensuring that no-one gets away scot-free.
People tend to equate free markets with corporate rule, but the fact is that corporations can't exist without the government. Only companies can. And the owners of companies are liable for any and all damage they cause.
Under a free market, such ratings and standards organizations would thrive to a much greater extent than they do today, and you could trust them because each organization would always point out the faults in others, forcing them all to be on their best behavior and totally open.
What does the different between English and American spelling have to do with the difference between measurements systems? Other than the fact that some people hate America just 'cause.
Think about the extent to which companies go to avoid being sued. Now allow nuclear power plants to be sued for radiation release (they currently can NOT be sued if they meet regulatory requirements, which Fukushima did). Do you see how this works?
Slashdot Mirror
It requires a large amount of chemical fertilizers, and they are not using good farming methods.
Also note that they are experiencing capital flight now, and have imposed rules against taking capital out of the country. They are about to go *poof*.
For further reading on the subject, I would suggest Ferfal's blog: http://ferfal.blogspot.com/2011/10/and-so-it-ends-for-argentina.html He survived the 2000-1 economic collapse, and has blogged about the state of things there for some time.
You watch too much Futurama.
Lol, you think you can just string random words together and make it stick, Coward?
By definition, a free market is one devoid of government interference. If someone argues for more government interference, they are not making a free market argument. You might as well tell your mother that she is using the "no true scotsman" fallacy when she tells you to clean your room, and then wax intellectual about the meaning of the word "clean". There are differing degrees of cleanliness, sure, but you can't argue that the open sewer that is our economy is in any way "clean", or that people dumping more shit into it are "pro-cleanliness".
Socialism is redistribution of wealth. Normal socialism takes from the rich and gives to the poor until everyone is poor (except those doing the distributing). Fascism/socialism for the rich distributes everyone's money to the rich/people doing the distributing. Pretty much the same thing.
Why narrow it down? Every one of those things improved massively as a result of the development of new resources, save perhaps for debt, which is what is killing our economy at the moment (but go back 50 years, and SURPRISE! No debt!).
And yes, religious families have more children than non-religious families, but you totally missed out on the fact that the same trend applies to them, ie as they get richer, they have fewer children. A hundred years ago, most rural American families (likely religious) had nine or more children. Now it is down to four. See the trend?
Nope. You are dumb, boy. The bacteria, if deprived of nutrients for too long will simply go dormant, and won't reawaken until fresh nutrients appear.
And unlike bacteria, we can escape the petri dish. Not to mention we can find all manner of new sources of "food".
If you don't know anything about a subject, perhaps you should remain silent on it? There are plenty of consequences, from boycotts, to lawsuits, to asset forfeiture (only applies to an anarchic society). Most libertarians don't argue for anarchic societies, so you have the government's court system to extract monetary damages and to pursue legal challenges (with pollution being a form of assault and/or vandalism).
ITT Malthusians don't understand how microbiology works.
FYI, microbes experience an exponential growth phase that lasts about 24 hours until they form a strong biofilm, at which point growth stops, and the remaining cells tune themselves to use less and less energy (due to the ECM they build up, which protects the cells passively). The human analogy is that we grow until we build up the capital base such that each individual consumes a minimal amount of energy, ie we live in apartments, where food and other products are produced far away in a highly efficient manner, and shipped into the population centers, ie we become a highly urbanized society. We don't just live on ever more subdivided plots of farmland left to us by our great great grandparents.
Malthus and his followers have been wrong every time for just how many hundreds of years now?
I see, so the median person today is no better off than they were 150 years ago?
Also, there aren't that many religious people having that many babies. You are pointing to a totally undefined anecdote and claiming it is a trend of some sort.
You are making the assumption that nuclear power plants would nut be profitable under free market conditions. You further make the assumptions that materials inside of nuclear power plants are not valuable, and would not make up the cost of decommissioning, and likely turn a profit.
But you are right on about everything else. We can't do anything with fascism. We have to ditch this fascist economics system or we will all be doomed. You seem to indicate a preference for socialist policy, but your assumptions for such policies are unsound. We could, of course, find out fairly quickly if they are true or not by at least temporarily lifting the ban on new nuclear plant development and nixing all subsidies on the industry.
Over what time frame? A banana per femtosecond would kill just about anyone. But a banana a day is fine, just fine.
Uhhh, yeah they have.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor
I would highly advise that you not move to Argentina right now. They are about to become Venezuela, but without the oil.
In addition, they have set themselves up for an agricultural disaster in ten years, as they are now planting nothing but soy anywhere, which ruins the land.
We spell it axe as well. I have never seen it spelled as ax.
Nice, blame the victims.
This is TEPCO's fault, and their government enabled them. The government should have stepped back long ago and allowed them the freedom to replace that crappy plant with a newer model that would use up their spent fuel. That alone would have cut the severity of this disaster by 75%!
Which is why the corporate form should be abolished, as it would be under a free market (the corporate veil and the inability to sue shareholders is a protection afforded to corporations by the government).
Actually, yes they were. The "reports" you read about were about government run orphanage workhouses which treated children like slaves. Non-government run facilities that used child labor had much better conditions. They had also largely disappeared by the time child labor was abolished, simply because capital had grown to the extent that a single member of the family was able to support their entire family with just his labor, freeing the wife to stay at home and improve their living conditions, and freeing the children to go to school, allowing them to get a BETTER job later.
What is it about freedom that makes people want to tell lies about how terrible it is, even as every other system collapses around their ears?
That is not free market economics. That is fascism/socialism for the rich. People who want free markets are 100% against bailouts, or they don't know what they are talking about.
You don't know what you are talking about. You are anthropomorphizing a system of economic interaction.
You are further confusing "free markets" with "fascism", because it is the boards of directors of corporations that want limits on torts.
Remove the government created corporate veil, and you can pursue individual shareholders, ensuring that no-one gets away scot-free.
People tend to equate free markets with corporate rule, but the fact is that corporations can't exist without the government. Only companies can. And the owners of companies are liable for any and all damage they cause.
Lawsuit==>bankruptcy, responsible company buys the assets.
Not exactly rocket science (just nuclear science!).
Do you trust Consumer Reports?
Under a free market, such ratings and standards organizations would thrive to a much greater extent than they do today, and you could trust them because each organization would always point out the faults in others, forcing them all to be on their best behavior and totally open.
What does the different between English and American spelling have to do with the difference between measurements systems? Other than the fact that some people hate America just 'cause.
Think about the extent to which companies go to avoid being sued. Now allow nuclear power plants to be sued for radiation release (they currently can NOT be sued if they meet regulatory requirements, which Fukushima did). Do you see how this works?