posted
I do so enjoy how Ron's hatred of Obama wedded to his dishonesty creates statements such as that one. Obama isn't just a liar, he's the lyingest liar who ever lied in American politics *EVER*, and not only that it will be proven to be so.
Obama isn't just evil, he's actually a sort of heroic level of evil, a once-in-centuries level of evil. I'm not sure Romney's horse is white enough or his lance long and keen enough to slay such a beast!
Perhaps Lyrhawn, especially with his studies of late, might regale us with some really shining examples of lying politicians that might be less well known but also especially amusing, but that would only ever be a sidebar since you, Ron, are infamous in politics for believing only what you wish to believe. I could almost wish Obama was what you claim he is-secret foreign Muslim commie atheist-because if so you would've found yourself carted off to a camp somewhere ages ago.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Four: Eliminate all income and payroll taxes. All of them. For everyone. Taxes discourage whatever you're taxing, but we like income, so why tax it? Payroll taxes discourage creating jobs. Not such a good idea. Instead, impose a consumption tax, designed to be progressive to protect lower-income households.
WTF? How would this work? What is a consumption tax, a sales tax? How do you make a progressive one?
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Every day, all across the world, American diplomats and civilians work tirelessly to advance the interests and values of our nation. Often, they are away from their families. Sometimes, they brave great danger.
Yesterday, four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi. Among those killed was our Ambassador, Chris Stevens, as well as Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith. We are still notifying the families of the others who were killed. And today, the American people stand united in holding the families of the four Americans in our thoughts and in our prayers.
The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. We're working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats. I've also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world. And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.
Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.
Already, many Libyans have joined us in doing so, and this attack will not break the bonds between the United States and Libya. Libyan security personnel fought back against the attackers alongside Americans. Libyans helped some of our diplomats find safety, and they carried Ambassador Stevens’s body to the hospital, where we tragically learned that he had died.
It's especially tragic that Chris Stevens died in Benghazi because it is a city that he helped to save. At the height of the Libyan revolution, Chris led our diplomatic post in Benghazi. With characteristic skill, courage, and resolve, he built partnerships with Libyan revolutionaries, and helped them as they planned to build a new Libya. When the Qaddafi regime came to an end, Chris was there to serve as our ambassador to the new Libya, and he worked tirelessly to support this young democracy, and I think both Secretary Clinton and I relied deeply on his knowledge of the situation on the ground there. He was a role model to all who worked with him and to the young diplomats who aspire to walk in his footsteps.
Along with his colleagues, Chris died in a country that is still striving to emerge from the recent experience of war. Today, the loss of these four Americans is fresh, but our memories of them linger on. I have no doubt that their legacy will live on through the work that they did far from our shores and in the hearts of those who love them back home.
Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourned with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.
As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.
No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.
But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers. These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity. They should give every American great pride in the country that they served, and the hope that our flag represents to people around the globe who also yearn to live in freedom and with dignity.
We grieve with their families, but let us carry on their memory, and let us continue their work of seeking a stronger America and a better world for all of our children.
Thank you. May God bless the memory of those we lost and may God bless the United States of America.
(emphasis mine)
If we're gonna talk about it, let's have the text handy.
And here's where it was discussed during the debate:
quote:OBAMA: Secretary Clinton has done an extraordinary job. But she works for me. I'm the president and I'm always responsible, and that's why nobody's more interested in finding out exactly what happened than I do. The day after the attack, governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people in the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened. That this was an act of terror and I also said that we're going to hunt down those who committed this crime. And then a few days later, I was there greeting the caskets coming into Andrews Air Force Base and grieving with the families. And the suggestion that anybody in my team, whether the Secretary of State, our U.N. Ambassador, anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we've lost four of our own, governor, is offensive. That's not what we do. That's not what I do as president, that's not what I do as Commander in Chief. CROWLEY: Governor, if you want to... ROMNEY: Yes, I — I... CROWLEY: ... quickly to this please. ROMNEY: I — I think interesting the president just said something which — which is that on the day after the attack he went into the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror. OBAMA: That's what I said. ROMNEY: You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it was an act of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you're saying? OBAMA: Please proceed governor. ROMNEY: I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror. OBAMA: Get the transcript. CROWLEY: It — it — it — he did in fact, sir. So let me — let me call it an act of terror... OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder, Candy? CROWLEY: He — he did call it an act of terror. It did as well take — it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that. ROMNEY: This — the administration — the administration indicated this was a reaction to a video and was a spontaneous reaction. CROWLEY: It did. ROMNEY: It took them a long time to say this was a terrorist act by a terrorist group. And to suggest — am I incorrect in that regard, on Sunday, the — your secretary — OBAMA: Candy? ROMNEY: Excuse me. The ambassador of the United Nations went on the Sunday television shows and spoke about how — OBAMA: Candy, I'm — ROMNEY: — this was a spontaneous — CROWLEY: Mr. President, let me — OBAMA: I'm happy to have a longer conversation — CROWLEY: I know you — OBAMA: — about foreign policy. CROWLEY: Absolutely. But I want to — I want to move you on and also — OBAMA: OK. I'm happy to do that, too. CROWLEY: — the transcripts and — OBAMA: I just want to make sure that — CROWLEY: — figure out what we — OBAMA: — all of these wonderful folks are going to have a chance to get some of their questions answered.
Without going into my opinions on what any of this meant, I would like to point out that Candy Crowley is CNN's chief political correspondent, and I would expect her to be very familiar with what was said where and when. That's her job.
Also, she has said that she feels the administration is vulnerable on this point -- something she even pointed out at the time -- and she was trying to move the debate along:
quote:Listen, what I said on that stage is the same thing I said to you, actually, last night. What I was trying to do ... I was trying to move this along. The question was Benghazi. There is no question that the administration is quite vulnerable on this topic — that they did take weeks to go, “Well, actually, there really wasn’t a protest and actually didn’t have anything to do with the tape. That took a long time. That’s where he was going. That was his first answer. And then we got hung up on this, “Yes, he said. No, I didn’t. I said terror. You didn’t say terror.” And then there was this point they both kind of looked at me. You know, he was looking at me and the president was looking at me. And what I wanted to move this along — could we get back to this? So I said, “He did say acts of terror, called it an act of terror. But Governor Romney, you are perfectly right that it took weeks for them to get past the tape.
posted
Blayne, perhaps this is just a quibble, but when the first president Bush said, "Read my lips--no new taxes"--and then a couple of years later he did raise taxes, he was not lying, he was breaking his promise. And many people credit it as one of the main reasons for his failure to win re-election. So he paid for it. Americans do not tolerate a president who lies to them, or fails to keep his promises. On both counts, Obama is headed for the dustbin of history.
And Rakeesh, it is not accurate to claim that I hate Obama. I hate his policies, and what he represents as someone who does not believe in America, and in his utter lack of qualifications to ever have been elected. I also hate the stupidity of people who ignored all the valid criticisms and warnings and went ahead and voted for him in 2008. That whole attitude of willful blindness I regard as exasperating, and I worry about how soon such thinking will succeed in completely negating all the good that America has stood for, when they they allow evil to take over effective control and turn the "lamblike-beast" of Revelation 13 into a dragon.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron, perhaps this is just a quibble, but please stop referring to Americans as one single-minded group. At least half flatly disagree with you on Obama (and many other points), and they are every bit as American as you are. Knock it off.
(Posted this before Ron added his second paragraph, and while I'd ordinarily argue about Obama's Americanism it seems obvious that Ron considers him the Anti-Christ or the harbinger of same, and I stopped getting into religious arguments a long time ago. No point, and it wastes my time.)
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, let me say the majority of voting Americans do not tolerate a president who lies to them, or fails to keep his promises. Which is manifestly demonstrated by the fact that the first president Bush failed to win re-election.
I am also concerned about WHY anyone at this late date would still support Obama and even try to defend him. Truly, logic and factual argument are not everything to everyone, no matter what they may profess.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am also concerned about WHY anyone at this late date would still support Obama and even try to defend him.
To be fair to Ron, I had the same question about George W. Bush the second time around. I couldn't come up with any answers that were not highly critical of his supporters and derogated their motives, information sources, and/or intelligence, and still have not been able to do so.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The first Bush failed to be re-elected for several reasons. His broken promise on taxes was one, as it annoyed his base, but there was also the death of Lee Atwater, Bush's main operative; the Clarence Thomas-Anita Hall hearings which angered women voters against the old-boy network; Bush's support of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Civil Rights Act of 1990; affirmative action, and the Clean Air Act, all of which annoyed his supporters; and most of all there was the tanking economy that forced Bush to raise taxes in the first place. Then there was the charismatic Clinton who came from a poor background and promised to fight against the rich fatcats (i.e. Bush) for the middle class.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron: I could have an honest discussion about Obama's faults if I felt you would be fair-minded. It doesn't seem occur to you that Romney has lied repeatedly to secure election, yet you are quick to chew up Obama on this point.
Any conversation we'd have would be intolerably one-sided. Republicans good Democrats bad. Republicans love America, Democrats hate it.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You may say you don't hate (with a capital H or something) Obama all you like, Ron. But then on the subject of Obama you are first a known liar*, and second your own words explaining your thoughts on the man undercut your claim anyway. You think he's destroying America, and willfully lying in order to do so. America is a country you claim to love quite a lot, but you also claim that Obama is willfully and with prior intent working to weaken and ultimately cripple it.
Very few people could truthfully claim not to hate someone who was maliciously working in wicked ways to destroy something they dearly love, so your claims to the contrary I feel quite comfortable in rejecting your words that you don't hate Obama-particularly since you can be relied upon to lie to your position's advantage, even on factual matters-see below.
*I need go no further than to point to your behavior with respect to a video you claim and claimed for a long time to portays clear statements that Obama was not born in America. Even when it was proven beyond any doubt that it didn't say what you claimed, even when you were informed that the portion you said proved your case was shown not to do so, you continued to lie and claim it did. You simply cannot be trusted to speak honestly when it comes to Barak Obama, and no one reading this needs to take my word for it. The thread and links to it are still here.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
For some voters (and politicians) it's actually pretty simple. White, god-fearing Christian men are supposed to be in charge, wealth and success must be rewarded as proof of worth, poverty must be shunned because all poor people are willful drags on the country, and everyone else should just do as they're told. Anything else is un-American.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bush didn't get re-elected because the Dem's actually had a decent candidate. Too bad the Republicans don't, this time around.
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
- The economy is slowly coming back from the position the last administration left us. Obama has passed 18 tax cuts for small businesses, presided over thirty straight months of job growth, passed the Recovery Act that helped prevent another Great Depression, and prevented the collapse of the auto industry. In the first quarter of this year the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the S&P 500 posted their best quarters in nearly fourteen years, while the NASDAQ had its best quarter since 1991. I see no reason to return to the failed financial policies that got us here in the first place. -He protects citizens against predatory practices. He passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that represented the toughest financial overhaul in decades, and passed the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure (CARD) Act to prevent credit card companies from scamming customers. - He expanded tax credits for hiring and training veterans, and expended the GI Bill. - He overturned Bush's stem-cell ban, and generally promotes science over ideology. - ObamaCare. - He's for equality. He signed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to improve women's chances for equal pay and he (finally) got rid of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. - Foreign policy. He focused on Al Queda as a police investigation rather than a war and has seen remarkable results, including the death of Osama bin Laden and the decimation of the Taliban leaders. He restored much of the world's trust in the U.S. after Bush pissed most of it off. He supports Israel without automatically rubber-stamping everything the current head of Israel.
That's off the top of my head. And I'm pretty sure just about all of that will be proof to Ron that Obama should be stopped.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
And all of that with republicans in congress whose main purpose was to cause the president to fail.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
An interesting inside look at the end of the interview on how campaigns digitize voters and hyperfocus their attention on an ever shrinking portion of the electorate.
More evidence on the terrible effects of the EC.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Without forgetting that that isn't mere political supposition of the usual kind, but publicized statements made by Republican leaders in Congress.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: From Senoj's link:
quote:Four: Eliminate all income and payroll taxes. All of them. For everyone. Taxes discourage whatever you're taxing, but we like income, so why tax it? Payroll taxes discourage creating jobs. Not such a good idea. Instead, impose a consumption tax, designed to be progressive to protect lower-income households.
WTF? How would this work? What is a consumption tax, a sales tax? How do you make a progressive one?
The Fair Tax has been kicking around for years.
The idea is to replace all forms of taxation with a consumption tax, which I think is priced at something like 27% on all goods. Supposedly, the price of goods actually wouldn't change all that much, since corporate tax rates and other tax hits on businesses would actually offset the cost of goods and keep prices stable, but we'd all have a ton more money in our pockets.
On top of that, you get reimbursement checks from the government if you're of a certain income level to cover the tax hit on housing, food and the like, so the tax isn't regressive.
That's the basic gist.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
OK, let me say the majority of voting Americans do not tolerate a president who lies to them
Hah. The opposite is often far, far more true. The American people love being lied to.
One of the better examples I like to use is Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. Carter went on TV and told Americans that the best way to fight our enemies was to change the way we live. Stop consuming so much, stop using so much energy, and it would alleviate many of our economic and foreign policy problems.
Reagan went on TV and said he'd fight to keep everything exactly the way it was, and our goal wasn't to change ourselves, it was to change our enemies. America ate it up.
Carter lost, not just because of his sobering energy speech, of course, but it's a fantastic point of exception where an American president got real with the people for a moment, and was swatted down, hard, by the electorate for it. We generally do not respond well to hard truths, and we reward presidents who hide us from them.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
OK, let me say the majority of voting Americans do not tolerate a president who lies to them
Hah. The opposite is often far, far more true. The American people love being lied to.
One of the better examples I like to use is Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. Carter went on TV and told Americans that the best way to fight our enemies was to change the way we live. Stop consuming so much, stop using so much energy, and it would alleviate many of our economic and foreign policy problems.
Reagan went on TV and said he'd fight to keep everything exactly the way it was, and our goal wasn't to change ourselves, it was to change our enemies. America ate it up.
Carter lost, not just because of his sobering energy speech, of course, but it's a fantastic point of exception where an American president got real with the people for a moment, and was swatted down, hard, by the electorate for it. We generally do not respond well to hard truths, and we reward presidents who hide us from them.
Seems like you're conflating advocating something deeply evil with telling a "hard truth."
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
OK, let me say the majority of voting Americans do not tolerate a president who lies to them
Hah. The opposite is often far, far more true. The American people love being lied to.
One of the better examples I like to use is Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. Carter went on TV and told Americans that the best way to fight our enemies was to change the way we live. Stop consuming so much, stop using so much energy, and it would alleviate many of our economic and foreign policy problems.
Reagan went on TV and said he'd fight to keep everything exactly the way it was, and our goal wasn't to change ourselves, it was to change our enemies. America ate it up.
Carter lost, not just because of his sobering energy speech, of course, but it's a fantastic point of exception where an American president got real with the people for a moment, and was swatted down, hard, by the electorate for it. We generally do not respond well to hard truths, and we reward presidents who hide us from them.
Seems like you're conflating advocating something deeply evil with telling a "hard truth."
You're going to have to explain to me how asking Americans to use less gas is "deeply evil."
posted
Dan considers reducing consumption to be an evil act. He's said as much before. His belief is that we will science our way out of scarcity.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even if he does believe that, evil would seem to be a dramatic overreach.
And that's not even addressing a host of other issues that are problematic with such a belief, like what to do with interim problems.
Even so, consumption and scarcity aren't even the biggest issues with oil use, it's a strategic concern as well. It's one that presidents have been talking about since at least EISENHOWER. But we haven't done a thing about it, with the possible exception of CAFE standards, in the last 50 years.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote: Seems like you're conflating advocating something deeply evil with telling a "hard truth."
What? Is Tom right in describing your opinion that technology and the ~invisible hand~ of the market will magick us out of scarcity issues? If so I have a 2 hour series to direct you too because this is far from the reality.
posted
It is possible he was reading a broader meaning into 'changing how we live' than simply reducing consumption of fossil fuels. Some, even many of those potential meanings could he considered 'deeply evil'.
That said, if you consider advocating reducing the consumption of fossil fuels to be deeply evil...well. You've got a huge amount of work ahead of you in explaining how reducing the use of a resource that is expensive, scarce, politically problematic to obtain in many cases let's just say, and negatively impacts the environment (and thus human and ecological welfare, with all sorts of unknown long term impacts) in favor of a gradual switch to less scarce, less dirty, less politically dangerous and yes, potentially more expensive means of energy supply...well. A lot of work ahead of you.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh's first paragraph is closest to what I meant.
But since Tom brought it up, I can go off on that tangent too!
I'm not specifically saying any advocacy of reduction in fossil fuel use is evil, no. I've repeatedly clarified this, and Tom keeps forgetting it.
The thing is, I think a lot of people who advocate such reductions are dramatically underestimating the immense good that has come from our use of fossil fuels. And they are way too unconcerned about the ramifications of such a "changed lifestyle."
It's not that reducing "consumption" is evil. It's that such calls invariably also call for all sorts of human sacrifice, which is evil.
"Consumption" of fuels provides us energy, which increases productivity, which increases progress. Not to mention increasing wealth, and therefore quality of life, lifespan, etc.
Also, people handwave away the "more expensive" part of alternate fuel sources, which is brutally unfair. "More expensive" means "more limited." Worse, it means "less wealth," which means less wellbeing, shorter lifespans, etc. It's a terrible thing.
For example: If I argue we should remove the minimum wage and you say "No, then the poorest people will take a 10% pay cut," I sound like a heartless monster. But if you advocate for switching to an energy source that is 10% more expensive, it causes the same loss of wealth for poor people. And yet this sort of thing is advocated all the time.
------
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: His belief is that we will science our way out of scarcity.
We "will?" I mean, we already have. Many, many times.
------
Blayne: I'm not interesting in spending 2 hours watching something if it can be at all accurately summed up by those link text titles. "We can only delay the inevitable" is such a wrongheaded sentence it's actually staggering.
Yeah, we can delay the inevitable, through technology. This is a good, not a bad, thing.
For example: All life in our solar system will cease to exist, unless we create sufficient knowledge and technology fast enough to avert it. That's inevitable.
But there are no laws of physics that we know yet that prevent us from delaying this inevitability. In fact, we could even do so indefinitely! But again, only if we have sufficient knowledge.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
If your uninterested in seeing the debate from the perspective of the other side than obviously you will never be swayed by the evidence.
The evidence is that the energy provided from fossil fuels is rapidly declining, we have already in fact hit peak coal, the amount of energy extracted from coal mining in the United States has in fact flatlined, every additional tonnes of coal mined does not in fact provide us any net gain in energy; and this holds true virtually every extractable resource.
The ultimate fact is Dan is there's going to be an adjustment, a by forceful adjustment anyways eventually because complex society cannot exist without an discretionary energy surplus; a surplus that is rapidly shrinking.
Of course you don't have to "scale back" voluntarily, it will be forced upon you regardless of what you wish; but by not taking steps now it will be sooner rather than later.
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:
For example: If I argue we should remove the minimum wage and you say "No, then the poorest people will take a 10% pay cut," I sound like a heartless monster. But if you advocate for switching to an energy source that is 10% more expensive, it causes the same loss of wealth for poor people. And yet this sort of thing is advocated all the time.
This is not true whatsoever and has never held true and has never been true.
Putting in the investment into energy production like nuclear power is more expensive, but this isn't something that causes a 10% difference in a person's standard of living. It is the job of the government to prepare for the forthcoming energy crunch through investment and incentives.
Subsidies into the hydrogen economy for instance, is fungible with non fossil fuel energy's;it's something that can scale to the country as a whole.
What is true, that people can and should be encouraged to drive less, especially in cities and rely on walking, public transportation, bikes and so on. This is incentive and does not constitute "sacrifice"; even 10% less cars on the roads would be huge for reducing emmissions while still allowing people to have good quality of life through other means.
Cars are more of status symbol, if every major American city had a subway transit system as large and comprehensive as new yorks, and light rail that helped connect every american to every part of America the way China currently now is setting up its own light rail infrastructure; there wouldn't be a need for cars as it exists now.
Asking people to drive less, or car pool more, or ride the bus isn't asking them to sacrifice something anymore than making icecream slightly more expensive.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: If your uninterested in seeing the debate from the perspective of the other side than obviously you will never be swayed by the evidence.
The evidence is that the energy provided from fossil fuels is rapidly declining, we have already in fact hit peak coal, the amount of energy extracted from coal mining in the United States has in fact flatlined, every additional tonnes of coal mined does not in fact provide us any net gain in energy; and this holds true virtually every extractable resource.
The ultimate fact is Dan is there's going to be an adjustment, a by forceful adjustment anyways eventually because complex society cannot exist without an discretionary energy surplus; a surplus that is rapidly shrinking.
Of course you don't have to "scale back" voluntarily, it will be forced upon you regardless of what you wish; but by not taking steps now it will be sooner rather than later.
Me not wanting to watch your video ≠ Me being uninterested in the "other side" of the debate. Nice try, though!
I have no doubt that one day we will no longer use oil or coal. And I'm not opposed to that. What does that have to do with anything? I oppose "scaling back" our use of these products if doing so would have a negative impact on wealth. Right now, it seems like that's the case. Ten or fifty or a hundred years from now, it may not be. Great!
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
There's an abridged video linked above at 40 minutes; there's very little excuse to not watch them, everything I say is largely sourced through those videos.
The fact is we need to scale back now because if we don't the readjustment the western first world will go through will be that much harder, harsher and faster and worse for everyone involved.
By scaling back on fossil fuels you reduce greenhouse gas emissions (something that the United States and much of the world successfully worked together on to ban aresols that damaged the ozone layer), you make it more economically viable for alternatives such as nuclear power and cause significantly less environmental pollution. If done smartly, through incentives such as taxation to discourage the use of fossil fuels and reckless consumption of energy you can direct those revenues towards the investment; either in R&D of new sources of alternate energy or substitute industrial materials. Or into the next generation of energy infrastructure for a hydrogen or nuclear economy.
Scaling back on fossil fuels by scaling back on the usage of automotive transit is the easiest means of accomplishing this, with the least amount of pain and suffering and won't affect growth with sufficient investment in other sectors.
A New Deal styled jobs plan, to get millions into work to rebuild America's infrastructure, and upconverter it for more energy efficient alternatives and renewables would be a massive improvement.
IP: Logged |
posted
Man, Blayne, it just sounds worse and worse the more detailed you get.
You even managed to throw in "New Deal style" at the end there! It's like you're trying to make me never watch this thing! Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The thing is, I think a lot of people who advocate such reductions are dramatically underestimating the immense good that has come from our use of fossil fuels. And they are way too unconcerned about the ramifications of such a "changed lifestyle."
It's not that reducing "consumption" is evil. It's that such calls invariably also call for all sorts of human sacrifice, which is evil.
"Consumption" of fuels provides us energy, which increases productivity, which increases progress. Not to mention increasing wealth, and therefore quality of life, lifespan, etc.
Also, people handwave away the "more expensive" part of alternate fuel sources, which is brutally unfair. "More expensive" means "more limited." Worse, it means "less wealth," which means less wellbeing, shorter lifespans, etc. It's a terrible thing.
Well, first of all, I think you're conflating "reduction" with "elimination."
Also, for someone with such faith in technology, I find it surprising that you think things that are expensive now will be expensive forever.
But let's look at this from yet another angle. If the United States had gradually raised the gas tax over the last couple decades to a couple bucks a gallon, we would have collected hundreds of billions of dollars for research and infrastructure investments that would have puts us years ahead of where we are now. Our consumption of fuel would be dramatically less than it is now. Our cars would be more fuel efficient, and we'd likely have more advanced, cheaper biofuels. And the price of gas wouldn't be any higher than it is right now.
We've allowed ourselves to be held hostage by price shocks to the global supply of oil, and to international affairs. We've also allowed it to dominate our foreign policy, costing us yet more untold billions of dollars.
If your really want to make this about money: An ounce of prevention is worth ten pounds of cure. We keep putting things off until we're FORCED to make a change, rather than starting the ball rolling before we have to to make the transition cheaper and easier.
Biofuels have come an incredibly long way in a short period of time, and they're carbon neutral in addition to being totally domestically produced. We're really not that far away from being able to grow our own fuel without sacrificing food stocks to do it.
The bitch of it is, the axe HAS fallen the hardest on the poor, but not necessarily because of high gas prices. Prices have spiked most precipitously because we've done nothing for years to prepare the country for these price shocks. And as we tighten our belts, public services like mass transit services, used overwhelmingly by the poor, also take major hits. These are services we would have invested in more if we needed alternatives to cars, but we don't, so they suffer even more.
You're only looking at an incredibly narrow set of criteria and thus are producing a very narrow hypothesis for what you think people are advocating and what would happen as a result.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The thing is, I think a lot of people who advocate such reductions are dramatically underestimating the immense good that has come from our use of fossil fuels. And they are way too unconcerned about the ramifications of such a "changed lifestyle."
It's not that reducing "consumption" is evil. It's that such calls invariably also call for all sorts of human sacrifice, which is evil.
"Consumption" of fuels provides us energy, which increases productivity, which increases progress. Not to mention increasing wealth, and therefore quality of life, lifespan, etc.
Also, people handwave away the "more expensive" part of alternate fuel sources, which is brutally unfair. "More expensive" means "more limited." Worse, it means "less wealth," which means less wellbeing, shorter lifespans, etc. It's a terrible thing.
Well, first of all, I think you're conflating "reduction" with "elimination."
Also, for someone with such faith in technology, I find it surprising that you think things that are expensive now will be expensive forever.
I don't!
That you think I do means there was a misunderstanding somewhere. Sorry about that!
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: But let's look at this from yet another angle. If the United States had gradually raised the gas tax over the last couple decades to a couple bucks a gallon, we would have collected hundreds of billions of dollars for research and infrastructure investments that would have puts us years ahead of where we are now. Our consumption of fuel would be dramatically less than it is now. Our cars would be more fuel efficient, and we'd likely have more advanced, cheaper biofuels. And the price of gas wouldn't be any higher than it is right now.
You're making rapid fire hypotheses with no way to back them up, here.
We also could have sunk a lot of money down a hole with little gain.
But this part of the argument is really hitting upon a substantive disagreement you and I have about government vs. free market solutions. It's not anything unique to gas/energy prices, really.
The solution you advocate here presupposes a win/lose way of life, where the government should force us to suffer a little now for future benefit. It assumes a win/win scenario is impossible. But that's a bad way of looking at life.
If it's possible to produce alternate energy in a viable way that doesn't require sacrifice, then when people discover how to do that, they will have a profitable venture. They can then persuade people to buy their energy, because it will be worth it.
We don't need to use force and human sacrifice to make it happen.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: If your really want to make this about money: An ounce of prevention is worth ten pounds of cure. We keep putting things off until we're FORCED to make a change, rather than starting the ball rolling before we have to to make the transition cheaper and easier.
I don't think I've mentioned money once. Have I? It's about wealth, not money.
And it's not about us being "forced" to make a change, Lyr. It's about not forcing them to change, and people only making that changes that they see as worth it.Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's not that reducing "consumption" is evil. It's that such calls invariably also call for all sorts of human sacrifice, which is evil.
1. So, basically, anything mandating "human sacrifice" like governmentally requiring energy saving windows in new construction is evil, I guess?
quote:"Consumption" of fuels provides us energy, which increases productivity, which increases progress. Not to mention increasing wealth, and therefore quality of life, lifespan, etc.
2. Why is consumption in quotes
quote:We "will?" I mean, we already have. Many, many times.
3. Should policy be predicated on the idea that (a) we can always count on science to science away our shortages, or (b) that it is entirely possible to catastrophically overconsume or overuse available resources in a way which causes disaster later
Like for instance, what's going to replace cheap phosphorous that is going to prevent the Green Revolution from collapsing into a larger famine once India once again filled to capacity via consumption?
quote:You're making rapid fire hypotheses with no way to back them up, here.
We also could have sunk a lot of money down a hole with little gain.
Here's the thing though, we already HAVE sunk a lot of money down a hole. We've spent billions on tax breaks and giveaways, on foreign "aid" to dictators, on wars, on subsidies to drivers, and more, over the last couple decades.
In just the last four years, we've spent a good chunk on renewables and biofuels, and it's already made huge advances. Imagine if we had done this a long time ago when the need wasn't quite so urgent. We could have spent less and had the time to let it develop slowly and cheaply. Now we don't have the time and we have to pay more. People were making the arguments for it back then. People making your argument stopped them.
quote:But this part of the argument is really hitting upon a substantive disagreement you and I have about government vs. free market solutions. It's not anything unique to gas/energy prices, really.
The solution you advocate here presupposes a win/lose way of life, where the government should force us to suffer a little now for future benefit. It assumes a win/win scenario is impossible. But that's a bad way of looking at life.
If it's possible to produce alternate energy in a viable way that doesn't require sacrifice, then when people discover how to do that, they will have a profitable venture. They can then persuade people to buy their energy, because it will be worth it.
We don't need to use force and human sacrifice to make it happen.
This presupposes, bizarrely, that people don't suffer under your system (i.e., what we already do now). I find that a puzzling idea. Prices have spiked in the last decade due to inaction in the public and private sector. The problem is, the free market doesn't care about people, it cares about, as you say, wealth creation, but not for specific peoples, just on the whole. So if all those profits go to a few people, the free market is perfectly happy. Corporations don't exist to create a stable energy market, they don't exist to ensure price stability for consumers, they exist to make money. With prices for commodities spiking, they can corner the market on an absolutely necessary fuel source and reap huge profits from consumers. And that's what's happened.
So, where in that scenario is the free market protecting people in a way that makes it better for people than if government tried to plan ahead?
I'm not sure if I understand what your idea of "sacrifice" is. Maybe that's another fundamental misunderstanding. You seem to be implying that in a contest of our two theories, yours has no sacrifice, and mine is unreasonably painful. Is that accurate?
quote:I don't think I've mentioned money once. Have I? It's about wealth, not money.
And it's not about us being "forced" to make a change, Lyr. It's about not forcing them to change, and people only making that changes that they see as worth it.
You'll have to explain the importance of the distinction.
You'll also have to explain why you think individuals should be in charge of national energy policy. But I think I know what you'll say on that one.
I'm also not sure what you mean by force. Circumstances have dictated changes in the past, but they usually force them in painful ways that hit the poor (who you brought up) far worse than other segments of society.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: So like, three questions.
quote:It's not that reducing "consumption" is evil. It's that such calls invariably also call for all sorts of human sacrifice, which is evil.
1. So, basically, anything mandating "human sacrifice" like governmentally requiring energy saving windows in new construction is evil, I guess?
Why is human sacrifice in quotes?
I don't know if energy saving windows involve a real human sacrifice. Don't they save money in the long term? I don't know much about them, honestly. Assuming they do, that might make them a valuable upfront expenditure of energy in exchange for a long-term payoff. So, no more human sacrifice than getting an IRA or something.
Now, I might still have an issue with forcing people to get them. Why not let the people who think they're worth it get 'em, and everyone else do what they want? That holds true whether we're talking about IRAs or windows, of course.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:"Consumption" of fuels provides us energy, which increases productivity, which increases progress. Not to mention increasing wealth, and therefore quality of life, lifespan, etc.
2. Why is consumption in quotes
I was quoting!
Also, to scare you.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:We "will?" I mean, we already have. Many, many times.
3. Should policy be predicated on the idea that (a) we can always count on science to science away our shortages, or (b) that it is entirely possible to catastrophically overconsume or overuse available resources in a way which causes disaster later
Like for instance, what's going to replace cheap phosphorous that is going to prevent the Green Revolution from collapsing into a larger famine once India once again filled to capacity via consumption?
Or, erm, "consumption."
(a) is closer, but still off.
Problems are inevitable, but they can be solved.
And progress helps solve problems. Technological progress, specifically, has solved countless problems in almost every aspect of our lives. And it keeps solving problems, too.
Also, technological progress takes wealth.
So when we talk about solving problems, and the proposed solution involves giving up current optimal technologies and forcing people to spend a lot of wealth, this has consequences. This is, in several ways, slowing down technological progress.
So the call is to solve a current problem now, but curbing our ability to solve problems in the future.
This is a terrible approach to problem solving.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Now, I might still have an issue with forcing people to get them. Why not let the people who think they're worth it get 'em, and everyone else do what they want? That holds true whether we're talking about IRAs or windows, of course.
Why? Both government and private companies compel us to do things all the time. At least this one is actually good for you and the nation as a whole.
quote:So when we talk about solving problems, and the proposed solution involves giving up current optimal technologies and forcing people to spend a lot of wealth, this has consequences. This is, in several ways, slowing down technological progress.
This only works if you ignore the benefits of forced changes.
Example:
New rules on mercury emissions for coal fired power plants cost money and jobs right? So they're bad, right?
But they save billions of dollars in medical costs because mercury emissions cost the healthcare industry billions and creates long lasting chronic diseases, like asthma in children.
Also, the new jobs and wealth created by the filtration systems necessary to retrofit old plants more than offsets the wealth and jobs lost to the old school technology.
So what's the problem with it?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:You're making rapid fire hypotheses with no way to back them up, here.
We also could have sunk a lot of money down a hole with little gain.
Here's the thing though, we already HAVE sunk a lot of money down a hole. We've spent billions on tax breaks and giveaways, on foreign "aid" to dictators, on wars, on subsidies to drivers, and more, over the last couple decades.
That's a good point. The problem is definitely much deeper than what we've been talking about so far. You can probably guess that I'm not specifically in favor of oil subsidies, or other government policies put in place to try to force down the price of gas. If you weren't sure, well, there you go. Now I'm on the record.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: In just the last four years, we've spent a good chunk on renewables and biofuels, and it's already made huge advances. Imagine if we had done this a long time ago when the need wasn't quite so urgent. We could have spent less and had the time to let it develop slowly and cheaply. Now we don't have the time and we have to pay more. People were making the arguments for it back then. People making your argument stopped them.
Who made my argument, exactly? I'm not those people, right? That's just a rhetorical flourish to score points off of me. It works, as far as it goes, but it's not really saying anything substantive. It's beneath you.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:But this part of the argument is really hitting upon a substantive disagreement you and I have about government vs. free market solutions. It's not anything unique to gas/energy prices, really.
The solution you advocate here presupposes a win/lose way of life, where the government should force us to suffer a little now for future benefit. It assumes a win/win scenario is impossible. But that's a bad way of looking at life.
If it's possible to produce alternate energy in a viable way that doesn't require sacrifice, then when people discover how to do that, they will have a profitable venture. They can then persuade people to buy their energy, because it will be worth it.
We don't need to use force and human sacrifice to make it happen.
This presupposes, bizarrely, that people don't suffer under your system (i.e., what we already do now). I find that a puzzling idea. Prices have spiked in the last decade due to inaction in the public and private sector. The problem is, the free market doesn't care about people, it cares about, as you say, wealth creation, but not for specific peoples, just on the whole. So if all those profits go to a few people, the free market is perfectly happy. Corporations don't exist to create a stable energy market, they don't exist to ensure price stability for consumers, they exist to make money. With prices for commodities spiking, they can corner the market on an absolutely necessary fuel source and reap huge profits from consumers. And that's what's happened.
"My system" is certainly not what we do now. I'm just arguing that changing what we do in the ways you (or Jimmy Carter, I guess?) want isn't actually a good idea.
Anthropomorphizing markets is weird. Anyway, companies exist to make money by selling people stuff that they want more than they want what they're trading for it. A free market is just a (nonhuman) system in which two parties can create wealth by exchanging that stuff.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: So, where in that scenario is the free market protecting people in a way that makes it better for people than if government tried to plan ahead?
I'm not sure if I understand what your idea of "sacrifice" is. Maybe that's another fundamental misunderstanding. You seem to be implying that in a contest of our two theories, yours has no sacrifice, and mine is unreasonably painful. Is that accurate?
In context here, "our two theories" doesn't refer to specifics of energy policy. It refers to a broad approach to problem solving and economics. Win/Win, or Win/Lose.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:I don't think I've mentioned money once. Have I? It's about wealth, not money. And it's not about us being "forced" to make a change, Lyr. It's about not forcing them to change, and people only making that changes that they see as worth it.
You'll have to explain the importance of the distinction.
When people are persuaded that X alternate energy source is a better option, they'll take it. If they aren't persuaded, I don't think we should force them.
If the broad context changes (say, we run out of oil) and they change their mind because of that, it's perverse to call that "force." They changed their mind.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: You'll also have to explain why you think individuals should be in charge of national energy policy. But I think I know what you'll say on that one.
Yeah, I've typed enough, and I suspect you've got the gist of it. Short answer: We're individuals.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'm also not sure what you mean by force. Circumstances have dictated changes in the past, but they usually force them in painful ways that hit the poor (who you brought up) far worse than other segments of society.
Force is a word with multiple meanings.
I don't mean "force" in the sense of F = ma
I don't mean "force" in the sense of responsibility denial, where we describe our choices as being forced. "Taco Bell was closed so I was forced to go to McDonald's."
I mean "force" as in one or more external reasoning beings are forcing you to do what they want you do instead of what you would prefer to do.
Some people have a hard time distinguishing between the second and third types. If you want to go down that rabbit hole with me, let me know. Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: From Senoj's link:
quote:Four: Eliminate all income and payroll taxes. All of them. For everyone. Taxes discourage whatever you're taxing, but we like income, so why tax it? Payroll taxes discourage creating jobs. Not such a good idea. Instead, impose a consumption tax, designed to be progressive to protect lower-income households.
WTF? How would this work? What is a consumption tax, a sales tax? How do you make a progressive one?
I believe Europe has something closer to this model, where the majority of revenue is generated by VAT taxes, although they still have significant income taxes as well. They haven't gone to the effort of making it significantly progressive, however; their tax systems generally a quite a bit more regressive than ours. I imagine the way to go about making a progressive consumption tax would be to vary the rate depending on the demographic group primarily purchasing the good, so yachts have a high VAT rate and instant noodles have a low VAT rate.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Who made my argument, exactly? I'm not those people, right? That's just a rhetorical flourish to score points off of me. It works, as far as it goes, but it's not really saying anything substantive. It's beneath you.
Republicans and fossil fuel executives in the 70s and the 80s. You aren't those people, but you both represent the same underlying argument. They were wrong then. I think you're wrong now. There's nothing malicious about the comparison, so I'm not sure what you took offense to specifically.
quote:"My system" is certainly not what we do now. I'm just arguing that changing what we do in the ways you (or Jimmy Carter, I guess?) want isn't actually a good idea.
The system you describe is a lot closer to what we've done, historically, than mine. I respect that you don't want the government propping up the status quo any more than you want them propping up an alternative, but I have bigger picture interests in mind.
quote:Anthropomorphizing markets is weird. Anyway, companies exist to make money by selling people stuff that they want more than they want what they're trading for it. A free market is just a (nonhuman) system in which two parties can create wealth by exchanging that stuff.
It's not that weird. It emphasizes the point that there's nothing inherently good or evil about the market. The free market has no defining virtues that make it positive or negative. It is only what we put into it. I think you'd agree with that, yes?
The problem is, people are greedy, and they use the free market system to create massive disparities within society and to create political power disparities as well. So while the market itself is neither good nor evil, the people who use it as a vehicle for amassing wealth are the ones who don't care what happens to everyone else. The effect is still the same.
quote:In context here, "our two theories" doesn't refer to specifics of energy policy. It refers to a broad approach to problem solving and economics. Win/Win, or Win/Lose.
Wait, you're suggesting yours is win/win and mine is win/lose? Generously defined, I'd say they both have the potential to be win/lose, but neither is automatically win/win, so long as we're using this binary.
quote:When people are persuaded that X alternate energy source is a better option, they'll take it. If they aren't persuaded, I don't think we should force them.
If the broad context changes (say, we run out of oil) and they change their mind because of that, it's perverse to call that "force." They changed their mind.
That's about the least efficient system I've ever heard of. Who in their right mind would design a system where you use something until it runs out without planning for an alternative ahead of time? I suppose the answer to that question is; America, but that proves all the more so why people can make individually stupid short term decisions that aren't in their best long term or the national long term interests.
And if oil runs out but they preferred to choose oil, they didn't CHOOSE to stop using oil. The choice was removed. Removing choice is a form of force.
quote:Yeah, I've typed enough, and I suspect you've got the gist of it. Short answer: We're individuals.
Individuals living in a society, not in the wild on the plains of the Serengeti. I get your argument, I just think it's silly, for the same reason I think a similar approach to health care is silly. You create a more efficient system when you plan ahead a system that works best and cheapest for everyone. The individualist approach is often more expensive and provides worse outcomes. That applies, at the very least, to energy and health care.
quote:I don't mean "force" in the sense of responsibility denial, where we describe our choices as being forced. "Taco Bell was closed so I was forced to go to McDonald's."
I mean "force" as in one or more external reasoning beings are forcing you to do what they want you do instead of what you would prefer to do.
Some people have a hard time distinguishing between the second and third types. If you want to go down that rabbit hole with me, let me know
Well, I disagree with your example as it would seem to apply. I understand why that distinction would be incredibly valuable to your philosophy, but it strikes me as semantic difference rather than a substantive one. Either way I think it fails a test. Companies force people to do all sorts of things they'd rather not do. But it's only when the government forces you to do something that people tend to get up in arms about it.
ETA: Thanks for taking the time to go back and forth with me. You're one of my favorite people to discuss things with.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the electoral college: I said I wasn't going to wade in, but just for fun I calculated how much a candidate could win the popular vote by and still lose the electoral college. I assumed that each state's voting population share was the same as its overall population share*.
Essentially the way to do this is to assume the candidate wins all the votes in the big population states, but loses just over 50% in the small population states. I didn't solve the problem exactly, because it ends up as a knapsack problem, but I used the heuristic of descending population share until I couldn't pack any more and then chose the next largest state that would keep you under the threshold. This will give a lower bound, and the lower bound should be pretty close to the actual answer.
Anyway, if a candidate won all the votes in: CA, TX, NY, FL, PA, IL, OH, MI, GA, NC, and VA, and won 49.9% of the votes in all the rest of the states, then she would have received appr. 80% of the votes, but would have only tied in the electoral college. Assuming the House is held by the other party, she could thus lose the Presidency despite garnering 4/5 of total popular support.
* If you assume that there is no significant voting population in the small population states (like only one guy shows up and votes in each of the small states) you essentially end up with the loser getting 100% of the popular vote, which is a trivial finding.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
You can win the Electoral College with only 20% of the total popular vote.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: You can win the Electoral College with only 20% of the total popular vote.
Right. That's what I just said (along with the analysis of how you can win the Electoral College with only 20% of the vote).
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wait a second. This part may have passed me by, but your concern that we might have thrown money away if we did what Lyr suggested doesn't wash when you factor in that that-spending a lot of time and resources on finding new energy sources-is effectively your long-term plan *anyway*.
Except with what he advocated, using government regulation as a tool we would've geared our economy towards a gradual, incremental buildup of those resources *and* slowly increased the incentive to do so.
So if your concern about throwing money away is valid, under your 'wait and see and delay' plan, we would desperately throw that money away when we were much closer to an end of fossil fuel supplies.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Though it's not likely to matter much in the grand scheme of things, the Green and Libertarian candidates had a debate.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Parties whose very existence are damaging to the political system through the spoiler effect are so adorable.
IP: Logged |
quote:Who made my argument, exactly? I'm not those people, right? That's just a rhetorical flourish to score points off of me. It works, as far as it goes, but it's not really saying anything substantive. It's beneath you.
Republicans and fossil fuel executives in the 70s and the 80s. You aren't those people, but you both represent the same underlying argument. They were wrong then. I think you're wrong now. There's nothing malicious about the comparison, so I'm not sure what you took offense to specifically.
I wasn't offended at all, actually. But I can see how my comment could be construed that way.
I was just trying to point out that it's not a relevant or substantive comment. And considering that we're still working on understanding each other's arguments, I think it's premature to say that I have the same argument as X person 30 years ago.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:"My system" is certainly not what we do now. I'm just arguing that changing what we do in the ways you (or Jimmy Carter, I guess?) want isn't actually a good idea.
The system you describe is a lot closer to what we've done, historically, than mine. I respect that you don't want the government propping up the status quo any more than you want them propping up an alternative, but I have bigger picture interests in mind.
Heh.
They don't seem bigger to me, but let's keep going.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Anthropomorphizing markets is weird. Anyway, companies exist to make money by selling people stuff that they want more than they want what they're trading for it. A free market is just a (nonhuman) system in which two parties can create wealth by exchanging that stuff.
It's not that weird. It emphasizes the point that there's nothing inherently good or evil about the market. The free market has no defining virtues that make it positive or negative. It is only what we put into it. I think you'd agree with that, yes?
Eh... sort of? The market doesn't have a reasoning mind, so it's silly to ascribe motive to it. So in that sense it's not good or evil, in the way that I could be good or evil.
But, taken as a system for trade and cooperation between individuals, it can be considered good or evil the same way that a rival system (say, communism) could be, or the same way that some other abstract system of interaction (say, murder) could be.
In this context, good and evil don't represent a morality system we're ascribing to a non-reasoning concept. Good and evil represent value judgments we are placing on the systems in question.
In that context of "good and evil," I would say that a free market is good. Not evil, and not amoral, but actively good.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: The problem is, people are greedy, and they use the free market system to create massive disparities within society and to create political power disparities as well. So while the market itself is neither good nor evil, the people who use it as a vehicle for amassing wealth are the ones who don't care what happens to everyone else. The effect is still the same.
You're implying that a "disparity" is a bad thing (bad in the context above). I don't get that. It's like the whole "income inequality" stuff going on lately.
I don't think there's anything inherently bad about income inequality. If anything, income inequality (between free citizens) indicates a society where there is less oppression and more opportunity for outliers and individual success. Lots of really horrific and oppressive societies, past and present, had great income equality.
I don't understand the income inequality bogeyman.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:In context here, "our two theories" doesn't refer to specifics of energy policy. It refers to a broad approach to problem solving and economics. Win/Win, or Win/Lose.
Wait, you're suggesting yours is win/win and mine is win/lose? Generously defined, I'd say they both have the potential to be win/lose, but neither is automatically win/win, so long as we're using this binary.
quote:When people are persuaded that X alternate energy source is a better option, they'll take it. If they aren't persuaded, I don't think we should force them.
If the broad context changes (say, we run out of oil) and they change their mind because of that, it's perverse to call that "force." They changed their mind.
That's about the least efficient system I've ever heard of. Who in their right mind would design a system where you use something until it runs out without planning for an alternative ahead of time?
I used that as an obvious example. I don't think that's the likely outcome.
Rockefeller didn't rest on his laurels after he made light cheaply available to everyone, extended the country's usable hours by orders of magnitude, and drove the price of kerosene down to the lowest it had ever been. He spent money figuring out other uses for oil, because he wanted to be ready for the next thing.
Oil companies sink huge quantities of cash into R&D for a reason. When it's more profitable to frack or to build wind turbines or nuclear plants or whatever, they'll do that! Unless the government is incentivizing them not to, I suppose.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I suppose the answer to that question is; America, but that proves all the more so why people can make individually stupid short term decisions that aren't in their best long term or the national long term interests.
And if oil runs out but they preferred to choose oil, they didn't CHOOSE to stop using oil. The choice was removed. Removing choice is a form of force.
A person forcing someone not to take a choice they would otherwise be able to take... is force.
Someone simply not having, or no longer having, the option they like... is not force.
Are you forced to be unable to see live dinosaurs? No. That you can't see them is a simple scientific fact, and if you feel forced by it, that's a conflict caused in your mind. It's a conflict you can resolve by thinking more rationally about the world and not wanting the impossible. Literally no one is forcing you not to see live dinosaurs, just as no one is forcing you not to travel at the speed of light.
Again, this is why I said calling those circumstances "force" is perverse.
If someone says "You can't produce more oil," and enforces it, then that is force.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Yeah, I've typed enough, and I suspect you've got the gist of it. Short answer: We're individuals.
Individuals living in a society, not in the wild on the plains of the Serengeti. I get your argument, I just think it's silly, for the same reason I think a similar approach to health care is silly. You create a more efficient system when you plan ahead a system that works best and cheapest for everyone. The individualist approach is often more expensive and provides worse outcomes. That applies, at the very least, to energy and health care.
[/QUOTE] Worse outcomes for who? In what context?
The problem with this attitude is that you're just pivoting to avoid the individualist position. You're saying "people are collectively better this way," which, even if factually true (and I'm not conceding that right now), avoids the actual crux of the difference.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:I don't mean "force" in the sense of responsibility denial, where we describe our choices as being forced. "Taco Bell was closed so I was forced to go to McDonald's."
I mean "force" as in one or more external reasoning beings are forcing you to do what they want you do instead of what you would prefer to do.
Some people have a hard time distinguishing between the second and third types. If you want to go down that rabbit hole with me, let me know
Well, I disagree with your example as it would seem to apply. I understand why that distinction would be incredibly valuable to your philosophy, but it strikes me as semantic difference rather than a substantive one.
I don't think it is. See my earlier explanation. The difference is relevant, and has consequences.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Either way I think it fails a test. Companies force people to do all sorts of things they'd rather not do. But it's only when the government forces you to do something that people tend to get up in arms about it.
This is an interesting claim. For argument's sake, could you give me a concrete example we could look at?
I think it will get back to the distinction between actual force, and responsibility denial that uses the idea of "force" as a shield.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ETA: Thanks for taking the time to go back and forth with me. You're one of my favorite people to discuss things with. [/QB]
Thanks! Back at you!
Well, you and Destineer. He's a lot of fun too, but he's less prolific than you.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Wait a second. This part may have passed me by, but your concern that we might have thrown money away if we did what Lyr suggested doesn't wash when you factor in that that-spending a lot of time and resources on finding new energy sources-is effectively your long-term plan *anyway*.
Except with what he advocated, using government regulation as a tool we would've geared our economy towards a gradual, incremental buildup of those resources *and* slowly increased the incentive to do so.
So if your concern about throwing money away is valid, under your 'wait and see and delay' plan, we would desperately throw that money away when we were much closer to an end of fossil fuel supplies.
Oh man, Rakeesh. Using words like "gradual, incremental buildup" in regards to technological progress! Are you trying to turn me on?
If we take spending government money developing energy tech is a given (which I don't), then my objections to that tech being "Green" are smaller. Mostly just surrounding the fact that too much of the Green movement is so deeply wrongheaded and ass backwards, so I'm reluctant to trust 'em with actually making good progress.
But there are some promising exceptions that Lyr has mentioned.
My problem with it is that I think that's fundamentally the wrong approach. It's preferable for people to make gradual and incremental progress using their own money and their own goals and their own research, based on what looks profitable.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Technological progress isn't a game of Civilization dan, you need a *lot* of government investment to get anywhere. The average % of government spending invested into R&D for the average G20 nation is something around 20% to 30% of government spending, including the United States. This includes deployment of technologies, something that is very expensive to do all at once, such as adopting the metric system; something the United States couldn't do because of its costs from a "all at once" approach.
It is *not* preferable to do what's needed to do by profit, especially not in all cases. Green technology and renewables would not be anywhere near where it is today in the United States without significant government subsidies, and the USA would be significantly behind China, and the European Union who have been putting the money where their mouths are.
The United States only has its technological lead that it can be argued to possess, from significant government investment and R&D; this is fact.
We're not talking about the "Green" political movement, they're irrelevant for this discussion. What's relevant is accepting that government has a crucial role in enabling the development, discovery and implementation of new technologies that better society, always have, and always will.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Parties whose very existence are damaging to the political system through the spoiler effect are so adorable.
Could you elaborate on what you mean here Blayne?
Posts: 1574 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
