U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-12-2018, 12:48 PM
 
1,802 posts, read 419,615 times
Reputation: 2059

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mingna View Post
Why, thank you. And since everyone would be none the wiser, they will keep repeating the same mistakes again and again, a la Groundhog Day, so we will have a guaranteed self-perpetuating business model.

The problem with housing is that what was once a localized commodity, previously viewed primarily as a place in which to live, has now become a globalized commodity, viewed as short-term and long-term investment vehicles in which make money. Complicated by local regulatory laws, clustering of employment centers, and geographical restrictions. Hypercapitalism?
Habits are hard to break, the behaviors that led to the bad memories will likely resurface, especially if the "lesson learned" disappeared with the selective memory treatment...

And yes I agree with that second paragraph - I suppose it's still a little weird to some that the place in which they are raised, or buy to grow their own family should be viewed as an investment and not a sentimental extension of themselves. I live in the south. Multi-generational family homes "built with your great grandpa's own two hands" are nice for story time, but realistically might not be the best option for the youngest working generation if their jobs are located hours away.

I think emotions lead to a lot of bad investments and bad financial decisions that leads to more emotions and self-entrapment when there didn't have to be. I've seen friends make choices based off of what a DEAD person "would have wanted" over their own sound assessment of a situation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-12-2018, 01:04 PM
 
6,963 posts, read 4,530,674 times
Reputation: 12243
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
When a massively chaotic system can be understood well enough write genuine laws of behavior. Meteorology as a predictive and analytical science is still wobbling around on pipecleaner legs...Economics is even further back on the curve, because it has those fraggin' people in the mix...
This just means that an accurate, predictive (as opposed to merely descriptive) theory is outright impossible. Don't you think that that makes maligning our current theoretical understanding... a bit unfair?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
Consider that in 1939, Poland had what may have been the finest cavalry to ever exist on Earth, at least in modern times. Germany, using tactics, techniques and theory radically different from almost everything that had come before, turned it into dog food in about two weeks.... We may have a damned fine cavalry in our economic assumptions and practitioners, but the coming triad of problems won't even bother using them for pup chow.
But the thing is, that a rapid attack spearheaded by tanks, with close air-supported, all coordinated by radio, aimed to encircle enemy formations, while the infantry then mops up… was already tried (with great success!) in the closing weeks of 1918… WW1.

The Poles remained reliant on their cavalry not because Polish military leaders were ignorant of WW1 military history, but because of the enormous cultural cachet of men-on-horseback as a traditional fighting unit. The Poles got slaughtered not because they went around obdurately clutching rosary-beads of Econ-101, but because it’s so awfully hard to behold a looming crisis rationally, and to react with wisdom and willpower… whether or not we have the right theory/science/data.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
1) We will spend at least the next century coping with climate change, and we haven't even begun to feel the political, economic and everyday impact of this disaster.

2) Global and national populations are reaching completely unprecedented levels, and any system has to accommodate this reality.

3) An entire field of mechanization, automation, robotics and AI has progressively reduced the need for human labor, across the spectrum of jobs.
Maybe a year ago, we had a protracted exchange on whether AI will “fundamentally transform” society, in a qualitative and unprecedented way, or whether it’s but another of the periodic technological/social upheavals visited upon us every couple of generations or so. The usual example cited here, is how the revolution in agricultural methods reduced the population-percentage engaged in agriculture from something like the majority, to less than 2%... and yet, we don’t have hordes of unemployed peasants (even in Ohio). Meanwhile, the usual counterexample is Kurt Vonnegut’s “Player Piano”.

There are really five sub-questions here:

1. Assuming that AI is indeed a substantial problem, does a reasonable solution even exist – at all?
2. If a solution does exist, would it be organic, situational improvised – or somehow rooted in theory? I mean, maybe NO theories or “scientific approach” of any kind would be adequate – but sheer intuition and trial-and-error would ultimately work?
3. If a theory-based solution does exist, do we already have the requisite theories and conceptual tools to develop the solution, or do we need a wholly different set of concepts?
4. Does Econ-101 provide at least the rudimentary basis of a successful theory, or is it so inadequate, that we must outright un-learn it, before we gain the temerity of trying for real progress?
5. Whether or not we have the tools to effect a solution, do we have the wisdom and willpower?

I am most skeptical about point #5. If I’m right, then the core problem isn’t that our, ahem, paradigms are wrong – but that there’s something intractable about us a society. There is of course a subtlety here: what if our paradigms/theories were more accessible? Would THAT be enough to sway public option, spurring action?

Econ-101 ultimately isn’t even a theory about the flow of wealth, as it is a collection of phenomenological statements about human nature. Human nature hasn’t much changed in 50,000 years. It won’t change after we’re all slaves to robotic-overlords, or scattered on Martian colonies, or 99% of mankind has been wiped-out by plague or nuclear holocaust.

Econ-101 states precepts such as “people will act in their self-interest, but are often misguided as to what that interest is”. Or: “high moral principle rarely survives, if seduced by a sufficiently good offer”. Or: “incentives matter”.

Do we suppose that some new theory of flow-of-wealth would somehow supplant these precepts, with new and more valid ones?

The consequences of global warming, population explosion or AI are distant, abstract and uncertain. Any proposed remedy is discomfiting, scary, speculative, and requires some definite sacrifice in the here-and-now. It’s an exchange of a sure-thing (my comfort and earnings in the present) for an unsure thing (us having enough food, clean water and air, energy and living-room in 50 years). How can we collectively agree on a remedy – even if we KNEW what to do! – if we (1) can’t agree that there’s even a whiff of a problem, and (2) can't agree that even if the problem exists, that it won't just magically go away?

Ask the average “man on the street” here in Ohio. Tell him about climate change. He’s likely to retort that it’s a hoax, a Commie conspiracy or something from the “deep state”. And if it’s real, well, if temperature rises by 4 degrees, here in Ohio that might be greeted as an outright improvement, even if that temperature-rise causes the death of 10 million people in Bangladesh. And even if it becomes a problem right here in Ohio, well, God will take care of it, so don’t worry. What is your response to this viewpoint? Suppose that Quietude’s New Economics (QNE) would crushingly supplant Econ-101. How would you even begin to use QNE to convince the man-on-the-street in Ohio?

The problem isn’t that we’re all suckers for Econ-101, but rather, that our own human nature is working against us. Referring to my 5-points above, we might ultimately muddle through, survive and prosper – even if our theories are inadequate and our knowledge is shoddy.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
This would all be wonderfully theoretical, suitable for endless debate in a nice club or faculty lounge somewhere, were we not facing a couple of crises of multi-national and global scale like absolutely nothing civilization has seen before.
Perhaps. But surely you recognize, that the "deniers" (of climate change, or whatever else) are in a powerful position; we've heard the wolf-cry innumerably often before. We've heard Thomas Malthus (is he part of Econ-101?) before. These are powerful arguments AGAINST doing anything - even if your analysis is exactly right, and your dire warnings come to be exactly true.

-----

Now let me propose a counter-dilemma for your consideration. For 300+ years, the enduring theme in the West – and now essentially everywhere – has been exponentiating innovation. Our gadgets improve, our skills and capacities improve, and with it, quality of life improves. What if the pace of innovation is slowing down? What if the changes from say 1870-1970 would ultimately be viewed by history as a brilliant golden-age of innovation, followed by centuries of comparative stasis? Then what?

Suppose that I asserted that centuries from now – and I do mean centuries! – our descendants will still be sitting around in their suburban homes, driving personally-owned mechanical vehicles that roll on paved roads, communicating with each other by electronic means, and wondering about job-security, the pangs of old age, the ingratitude of youth and the stratification of class-structure? Is it totally impossible, that far from being on the cusp of momentous and unfathomably vast changes, our descendants will have to adjust to a static, unchanging world, and will look back to the 19th and 20th centuries as a New Classical era of expansion and progress?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2018, 02:09 PM
 
799 posts, read 521,967 times
Reputation: 1239
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant View Post
...
Econ-101 states precepts such as “people will act in their self-interest, but are often misguided as to what that interest is”. Or: “high moral principle rarely survives, if seduced by a sufficiently good offer”. Or: “incentives matter”.

Do we suppose that some new theory of flow-of-wealth would somehow supplant these precepts, with new and more valid ones?

The consequences of global warming, population explosion or AI are distant, abstract and uncertain. Any proposed remedy is discomfiting, scary, speculative, and requires some definite sacrifice in the here-and-now. It’s an exchange of a sure-thing (my comfort and earnings in the present) for an unsure thing (us having enough food, clean water and air, energy and living-room in 50 years). How can we collectively agree on a remedy – even if we KNEW what to do! – if we (1) can’t agree that there’s even a whiff of a problem, and (2) can't agree that even if the problem exists, that it won't just magically go away?

Ask the average “man on the street” here in Ohio. Tell him about climate change. He’s likely to retort that it’s a hoax, a Commie conspiracy or something from the “deep state”. And if it’s real, well, if temperature rises by 4 degrees, here in Ohio that might be greeted as an outright improvement, even if that temperature-rise causes the death of 10 million people in Bangladesh. And even if it becomes a problem right here in Ohio, well, God will take care of it, so don’t worry. What is your response to this viewpoint? Suppose that Quietude’s New Economics (QNE) would crushingly supplant Econ-101. How would you even begin to use QNE to convince the man-on-the-street in Ohio?

The problem isn’t that we’re all suckers for Econ-101, but rather, that our own human nature is working against us. Referring to my 5-points above, we might ultimately muddle through, survive and prosper – even if our theories are inadequate and our knowledge is shoddy.




Perhaps. But surely you recognize, that the "deniers" (of climate change, or whatever else) are in a powerful position; we've heard the wolf-cry innumerably often before. We've heard Thomas Malthus (is he part of Econ-101?) before. These are powerful arguments AGAINST doing anything - even if your analysis is exactly right, and your dire warnings come to be exactly true.

-----

Now let me propose a counter-dilemma for your consideration. For 300+ years, the enduring theme in the West – and now essentially everywhere – has been exponentiating innovation. Our gadgets improve, our skills and capacities improve, and with it, quality of life improves. What if the pace of innovation is slowing down? What if the changes from say 1870-1970 would ultimately be viewed by history as a brilliant golden-age of innovation, followed by centuries of comparative stasis? Then what?

Suppose that I asserted that centuries from now – and I do mean centuries! – our descendants will still be sitting around in their suburban homes, driving personally-owned mechanical vehicles that roll on paved roads, communicating with each other by electronic means, and wondering about job-security, the pangs of old age, the ingratitude of youth and the stratification of class-structure? Is it totally impossible, that far from being on the cusp of momentous and unfathomably vast changes, our descendants will have to adjust to a static, unchanging world, and will look back to the 19th and 20th centuries as a New Classical era of expansion and progress?
I'm going to have to disagree with the bolded. I believe once a person's basic needs are met to a comfortable enough level that allows them some sense of security, most people are capable of being altruistic enough to act in ways that may not benefit them directly, but "society" as a whole. I believe we all want similar things, but differ in how we go about getting them.

Conflict arises when the problem is not clearly explained, nor the solutions well-presented. Especially for complex issues such as climate change, because now you are tying a phenomena of nature to human behaviors at the societal level in seeking a resolution to the problem. That's a big ship to steer. Additionally, the solutions to climate change rests not so much with the individuals per se, but with the individual governments, which may differ significantly in how they approach that issue (China, India, Africa).

Back to Econ 101...

If given choices, consumers can influence an industry. Take for example the food industry. Previously, most folks had little knowledge of the negative health impact of certain food items and their nutritional value. With time, consumers applied pressure to the food industry to offer healthier items, whether by modifying current products, or introducing new ones that met the market demand. Viola, win-win for both consumers and businesses.

I believe that if given choices, consumers lead and businesses follow. The key word is choices. Can we say we have a capitalistic system if consumers are given no choices in their ability to access certain products or services?


Lastly, I believe for every product a business creates, whether to meet a current need or create one where there previously was none, it also inadvertently creates another problem down the line that will require yet another solution. And so it goes.

Innovation does not occur linearly, but in spurts over time, in the right conditions. We can't assume the conditions are constant, nor that human kind "progresses" in a linearly fashion. It may just be one step forward, two steps back.

Last edited by mingna; 12-12-2018 at 02:34 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2018, 04:11 PM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
3,942 posts, read 1,321,132 times
Reputation: 5532
You kids.

I am going to post some specific replies to the long posts above, as I can focus some time, but let me just throw out some course markers first.

I'm not quite sure how, but somehow this thread flipped one end of things for another. I come at the whole meta-topic from two directions. Years back, I saw the issues of consumerism, consumer tracking and manipulation and a predatory consumer goods industry as the immediate problem. It's the end I've done the most work on, thought about the most and - to my great satisfaction - seen rise in awareness and discussion over the past few years. It wasn't that long ago that I was making posts about consumer tracking and the depth of data collection on individuals, and most participants in the threads either said the UFO people had told them the same thing or wanted to know whether I wore the tin foil shiny or dull side out. Now, of course, it's an everybody-knows, and we've gone from one form of who-cares dismissal ("it's fake/trivial") to a reactive form ("it benefits us and we can't stop it anyway"), with real concerns crushed in the middle. This is still my primary focus, and my squee over the term "hypercapitalism" is mostly in how well the term encapsulates the wide topic of consumerism == fostered consumption == predatory economics.

And then somehow this thread became about the other end of my interests, the really big picture of how our economic systems have to evolve not only to break the back of (predatory, destructive) consumerism, but create a sustainable economy without it and, oh, yeah, survive the other coming crises. My position on that end is far more theoretical and in-development.

The two ends are connected by the murky middle of reality and affect one another in multiple ways, but in trying to discuss both, more than one discussion has gone off the rails, and this one has already seen some confusion. But both are really huge subjects - biggest of the big - and I still tend to see them in the biggest, broadest context and try to avoid getting bogged down in, say, personal transport or housing or other components of the issue. Those tails are interesting, but will follow the dog.

Reasonably or not, I am past arguing the five or six anchors of my thinking (population, erosion of employment opportunity, climate change, predatory capitalism and destructive consumerism). None of these points is new or lightly considered; I put them down as absolutes because long consideration, study and arguments with qualified minds has convinced me they are.

I don't own the thread; take the discussion anywhere that interests you. But I will pretty much stand mute on the issues I already believe need addressing, and instead focus on how they should be addressed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2018, 08:32 PM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
3,942 posts, read 1,321,132 times
Reputation: 5532
Quote:
Originally Posted by artillery77 View Post
I'm not sure which handbag you're talking about.
The Birkin bag. A name which wouldn't come to me until I googled "expensive peasant bag" and there it was.

Quote:
The reality is that, if you're going to sell in America, your product has to be safe, and you should expect to be reviewed both scientifically (Consumers Digest) and anecdotally (Yelp) if your company is to achieve any meaningful size.
I wouldn't disagree, but you've reduced "protections" to a small range of what that term might mean. Ready for a deep dive on the predatory consumerism end of things?

"Consumer protection" in the sense of product safety goes back to the Code of Hammurabi, which specifies a number of punishments for faulty goods. The one that sticks in my mind is that if a builder builds a faulty wall that collapses and injures anyone, the same injuries (up to death) must be inflicted on an equivalent person - the builder, his child, his slave etc. Other than letting shoddy builders off too easily these days (e.g., no one was ever punished for the Kansas City skywalk collapse that killed 114 people), the idea of makers and sellers being responsible for the safety of their goods is pretty well established.

"Consumer protection" as to the financial exchanges involved are also pretty well established, although it's limited to a strict and artificial notion of protection. As long as both parties agree the transaction is in balance, things are fine. Our current notion of protection here is against fraud and deception, which had to be strenuously applied to do things like make credit card terms and statements understandable. Until then, and in most complex purchases, there's no limit to the amount of obfuscation and fine print and countervailing clauses, until the average consumer has no business accepting the deal without professional review... but do to the tune of millions of transactions a day where the consumer is either flat-out screwed or is one wobble on a high wire from being so. This protection comes and goes in season; the board established to protect consumers from credit predation cleaned house until 2016, and is now a gormless worm.

So does that cover it? "Safe" products sold under mutually agreeable terms? It must be, as that's what we live with and any number of red-blooded American Joes hereon will jump all over any argument to the contrary.

But, beg pardon, I disagree. There's a third level of protection we owe ourselves as consumers, and it is rarely seen and almost never enforceable.

I maintain that we need, and deserve, "consumer protection" on an ethical level - that transactions must of course be subject to buyer/user safety, and buyer financial transparency and enforcement, but also to a requirement of ethical behavior on the part of sellers. It should be no more possible to sell a worthless, grossly overpriced product than to sell one that will maim the user or on terms that will drain his retirement account. I reject the idea that any "fault" in a sale - poor value, excessive cost, lack of purpose or suitability, lack of actual need, etc. - is entirely that of the buyer. We live with the ingrained idea that caveat emptor applies only to the buyer; that any idiot is free to do whatever they want with their money, and that any consequences of buying consumer goods fall entirely on the buyer.

I disagree. The idea that a seller's hands are clean if the transaction balances and any product laws are observed is at best incomplete. It is at best something from a time long past, in which a small economic system of a village would implement those venerated pressures and corrections on someone who gave poor value as a merchant, and run them out of business if not out of town. Those pressures barely exist any more; a merchant can legally flim-flam tens of thousands before the stink gets dense enough for anyone to notice. (And there's a small example of what I mean when I say economic practices that once worked fine are dead in the water at today's scale.)

I also disagree because it's not a level playing field between sellers and consumers, and hasn't been for a very long time; in some categories, it's a vertical wall. When an entire industry can work together in what might be seen as a leaderless conspiracy to sell the idea of a product, when the screaming bellow of marketing never stops but goes on for years to generations, consumers are stripped of the ability to make an uninfluenced decision. They are all but pre-sold, not only on things they manifestly do not need, but on the entire idea of acquisition as a lifestyle. It takes only a whim or a push from some specific ad or exhortation to make them commit to another grossly unreasonable - but oh, entirely legal - purchase.

(And no, you're not too smart or too independent or too savvy to be uninfluenced in this way. You believe that in part because marketing frequently tells you so. There's zero point in arguing this online, though, where we all have perfect sock puppets.)

Just one example: When a young couple decides they need a new car, it's based on generations of conditioning; a rational, frugal mind would see that a good used car at one-tenth the price was a better, more sensible choice. But the pounding of new-car advertising never stops, with the come-ons and the promises and the deals, and the deeply ingrained notions that only a new car is really safe, or reliable, or worth the money, and the promise of respect and admiration from all around for having one. So when this couple makes the indoctrinated mistake of walking onto a dealership, is it really a free-will act? Frack, no. Are they coming to a level dealing table? Frack, no. When they drive away in the car (probably an F-150) they were convinced was the perfect fit, with options and add-ons shoveled in "for just a few dollars a month more!"... was it an ethical deal? Even if the dealership, which was given a naked look at the couple's financial situation, knows the sale leaves them on a razor's edge, with any stumble likely leading to financial disaster or bankruptcy?

(Think about that one: how many stories of someone scraping and pinching and juggling their credit, usually in a dealer's hands, have you heard... or lived? Buying something enormously costly only by the thinnest stretch of their "creditworthiness"? With the kindly dealer's help on all fronts?)

Nope. That it meets the product-safety rules and the narrow, convoluted financial rules car dealers are allowed to bend and flex around is not the end of the story. When those nice kids end up financially screwed because they really couldn't afford $1k a month in payments and insurance, no matter what the thin spread of their finances showed, the vast majority will say it was their fault - they should have known better, they should have thought it through, etc. The dealer's hands are spotless; he merely oversaw the deal with the dispassionate view of a blackjack dealer. A lifetime of intense conditioning is irrelevant.

This is where I wish this namby-pamby forum would relax a little about language, because I'd prefer to spell it out when I say that's all BS. I maintain that sellers have an ethical obligation to go with the narrowly drawn liability and financial ones. I think that a culture that (1) allows endless, unlimited, barely regulated marketing to incessantly invade every aspect of individual and family life; and then (2) maintains that the resulting sales process is inherently fair and level for consumers; and then (3) invariably blames the consumer for any problem or fall-out or consequences of a purchase, because caveat emptor. y'know and "no one forced them" and all variations of "only stupid people do that" - I think that's a cultural sickness of the first order, and it's a large part of what's brought us to this precipice of collapse and destruction...

...for what used to be a more distributed reward, but now serves a few already grossly wealthy percent of us not just at our expense, but to our great detriment.

So. You're welcome to show me where anything in standard economic theory covers that ethical level, other than in the vague, hand-waving, chalkboard-scale, outdated notion that Bad Sellers Get Theirs and Things Always Balance. (Don't bother; you won't find it. And they don't balance any more for consumers, if they ever did.)

Which is all a bottom-looking-up reason we need a completely new economic system; we owe ourselves as a society of consumers better treatment - not humbly accepting endless kicks in the teeth and [sigh] butt because Business! (may prosperity and good wishes be upon it) is always right and must always come first. When you combine that bottom view with the terrifying top view in which our openly predatory system has no way to cope with the three big crises coming... happy dreams, kids.

Quote:
You'll waste a lot of time trying to clean the pig sty and teach the bad pigs to behave better. No doctrine or creed to apply to all is going to change that.
My nearest colleague in this field frequently sends me images of windmills, when he does not gift me with little ones he finds here and there. 'Nuf sed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2018, 09:08 PM
 
Location: Ohio
18,367 posts, read 13,466,837 times
Reputation: 14309
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddm2k View Post
Capitalism also allows for me to write an article on underemployment,...
It's not my fault the underemployed obtained unmarketable skills or blatantly refuse to relocate to obtain gainful employment or take other actions to improve their position.

Those are all personal choices those people have made, and they must live with the choices they make.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ddm2k View Post
...and the fact that there are people who have nothing better to do than sleep for 45 minutes in the middle of the day.
The fact that some are afforded one hour for lunch is none of your business, and it's even less of your business how they want to spend their 1 hour lunch.

Obviously, you're claiming you know better, and yet, here you are.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2018, 10:53 PM
 
Location: Ohio
18,367 posts, read 13,466,837 times
Reputation: 14309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
1) We will spend at least the next century coping with climate change, and we haven't even begun to feel the political, economic and everyday impact of this disaster.
Not relevant, and even if it was, the Free Market and Capitalism provide myriad solutions.

Here are some peer-reviewed scientific articles of interest:

To evaluate the consequences of possible future climate changes and to identify the main climate drivers in high latitudes, the vegetation and climate in the East Siberian Arctic during the last interglacial are reconstructed and compared with Holocen conditions. Our pollen-based climatic reconstruction suggests a mean temperature of the warmest month (MTWA) range of 9-14.5 C during the warmest interval of the last interglacial. The reconstruction from plant macrofossils, representing more local environments, reached MTWA values above 12.5 C in contrast to today's 2.8 C.

https://people.ucsc.edu/~acr/migrate...0al%202008.pdf

From applications of both correspondence analysis regression and best modern analogue methodologies, we infer July air temperatures of the last interglacial to have been 4 to 5 C warmer than present on eastern Baffin Island, which was warmer than any interval within the Holocene.

https://www.researchgate.net/publica..._Arctic_Canada

Just in case you don't get it, and you probably don't get it:

9C - 14.5C = 16.2F - 26.1F

12.5C = 22.5F

4C - 5C = 7.2F - 9.0F

The intelligent person does not ask if or why climate change is occurring, rather the intelligent person asks: Why is this Inter-Glacial Period colder than the all the others?

Save one Inter-Glacial Period that abruptly ended after only 8,000 years -- they typically last 15,000 to 30,000 years with the last one lasting 26,000 years -- every Inter-Glacial Period has been 7.8F to 15.3F warmer than the present 58.4F.

Again, the intelligent person asks: Why is this Inter-Glacial Period colder than the all the others?

Given that CO2 levels peaked at 287.1 ppm CO2 at a time when average global temperatures were 15.3F warmer than now, and CO2 levels now are 408 ppm CO2, why hasn't the temperature warmed higher and faster?

See EPICA Ice Core data and NOAA for details:

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

Temperatures have risen by 0.85 C since 1880, with more expected, according to the most recent assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Oh, but, wait, because the IPCC's climate models are wrong, they've been forced to admit the increase is less: only 0.7C over the same period.

Climate shifts up to half as large as the entire difference between ice age and modern conditions occurred over hemispheric or broader regions in mere years to decades.

[emphasis mine]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC34297/

One of the more recent intriguing findings is the remarkable speed of these changes. Within the incredibly short time span (by geologic standards) of only a few decades or even a few years, global temperatures have fluctuated by as much as 15F (8C) or more.


For example, as Earth was emerging out of the last glacial cycle, the warming trend was interrupted 12,800 years ago when temperatures dropped dramatically in only several decades. A mere 1,300 years later, temperatures locally spiked as much as 20F (11C) within just several years. Sudden changes like this occurred at least 24 times during the past 100,000 years. In a relative sense, we are in a time of unusually stable temperatures todayhow long will it last?

[emphasis mine]

Glad You Asked: Ice Ages ? What are they and what causes them? Utah Geological Survey


So a 0.7C increase over 140 years is, um, "unprecedented"?

Really? Because your own government refutes that. Temperatures can and have jumped 22F in a matter of years.

That, would be "unprecedented," except that wild temperature fluctuations regularly occur, as there have been 24 in the last 100,000 years alone.

Here we show that the south GIS was drastically smaller during MIS 11 than it is now, with only a small residual ice dome over southernmost Greenland.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13456

That's just one of dozens and dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles proving that the Greenland Ice Sheet, along with the Western Antarctic Ice Sheet and sometimes parts of the Eastern Antarctic Ice Sheet typically undergo substantial melting, resulting in sea level rise during Inter-Glacial Periods.

During the last Inter-Glacial, the Greenland Ice Sheet nearly melted in its entirety, in spite of the fact that CO2 levels never rose above 287.1 ppm CO2.

Climate change is inevitable, and there's nothing you can do to stop it, or mitigate it.

You cannot prove that lowering CO2 levels will not stop temperatures from rising anyway.

Global Warming is junk science, predicated on a false belief that average global temperatures should be 58.4F and no higher, despite the fact that all previous Inter-Glacial Periods were far warmer than present.

At no time in Earth's history have higher temperatures resulted in a drier Earth. On the contrary, warmer temperatures have always resulted in a wetter Earth. Earth's climate only becomes drier when temperatures are cooler, and there's no evidence to refute those facts.

Consider that when average global temperatures exceeded 92F -- about 30F warmer than present -- the entire Earth, including Alaska, Canada, Scandinavia and Siberia were covered with lush tropical rain forests.

Government need not do anything.

When insurance companies can no longer cover their losses, they'll stop insuring property on coastal areas.

When insurance companies stop issuing policies, finance companies will no longer issue mortgages for those properties.

When finance companies stop issuing mortgages, that will halt further development on coastal areas.

Even prior to that, populations will gradually -- not en masse -- begin migrating to inland areas away from the coasts.

No one will starve with a wetter climate. Land that is not arable now will become arable. Not that it matters, because there are 1+ Billion acres of fallow farm land in the US (37 Million acres of fallow farmland in Ohio alone).

You can start farming that fallow farmland anytime you want.

And, if people die from heat-related deaths, that just means Homo Erectus, Homo Habilis and Homo Neandertalis were a helluva lot smarter than them.

More recently, higher temperatures didn't bother Brits, although they suffered miserably from Malaria until the Little Ice Age killed off all the mosquitoes in Britain, and they never had a case of Malaria after that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
2) Global and national populations are reaching completely unprecedented levels, and any system has to accommodate this reality.
Only ignorant people believe that.

Global populations have been "reaching completely unprecedented" levels since before modern humans existed.

Ignorant people have never been to Africa or Asia and witnessed children working.

I've spent six weeks in Egypt training the Egyptian army and another 30 days in Burkina Faso, plus a couple months at Mae Hong Song, Thailand at a UN refugee camp.

How do you suppose people in mountain villages in Burkina Faso get water?

If the wife got water, she would spend all day making the 45 minute trip to the river getting water, but if she brings 4-5 children, and they all fill up their containers, she only has to make two trips, one in the morning and one at night.

Her other children herd goats or work the fields, because depending on the crop, it takes 2-4 people to tend one acre of crops, and it takes 1.5 acres of crops to feed one person for one year, so the husband can't do it alone.

Do the math.

50% of the people on Earth have never made or received a phone call.

That's because they don't have electricity. When they get electricity, and running water, and natural gas and sewage and storm drains and roads, they'll become Affluent.

Affluence reduces birth rates, so much so that birth rates become zero or negative.

Your global population will peak at 16 Billion to 18 Billion (or less depending on the rate of development in undeveloped States).

You can use that 1+ Billion acres of fallow farmland to feed them. The US isn't the only State with lots of fallow farmland. There's fallow farmland all across northern Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands, as well as Britain and Ireland, and every country in Europe, East or West.

If you're worried about oil, Central Asia has 5x-7x more oil, natural gas and coal than all of MENA (Middle East & North Africa).

And eastern Russia has 2x more than all of Central Asia.

Both Central Asia and eastern Russia are filled with an abundance of metal ores and non-metallic minerals, as is Africa, that you haven't even touched yet.

Your prophecies of Doom & Gloom are a massive fail.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
3) An entire field of mechanization, automation, robotics and AI has progressively reduced the need for human labor, across the spectrum of jobs.
No, it hasn't and it won't.

The rate of implementation will be so slow, you won't even be able to perceive it, no matter how hard you try.

It'll be a century or more (if ever) before "driver-less trucks" are truly driver-less. In the mean-time, they'll have a paid driver at the wheel observing operations.

Many other jobs will be created, so it's not like you'll experience job losses. On top of that, automation will only affect a small percentage of jobs, so you won't see massive job losses.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2018, 09:02 AM
 
7,192 posts, read 6,773,793 times
Reputation: 5434
All this on a nap hotel. Companies have been providing nap rooms and nap pods for some time now. It means that there is a lot of demand for napping because the commutes have gotten longer. The concept of nap hotels and nap cafes have been around in other cities and countries. There are also cat cafes and similar concepts based on the same principle of providing opportunities for relaxation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2018, 12:42 PM
 
1,802 posts, read 419,615 times
Reputation: 2059
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
It's not my fault the underemployed obtained unmarketable skills or blatantly refuse to relocate to obtain gainful employment or take other actions to improve their position.

Those are all personal choices those people have made, and they must live with the choices they make.



The fact that some are afforded one hour for lunch is none of your business, and it's even less of your business how they want to spend their 1 hour lunch.

Obviously, you're claiming you know better, and yet, here you are.
Exactly what I'd expect to hear from someone who runs one of these luxury nap shops!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2018, 02:04 PM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
3,942 posts, read 1,321,132 times
Reputation: 5532
Quote:
Originally Posted by lchoro View Post
All this on a nap hotel.
Merely the hook on which the word was hung, which was the hook on which this thread was hung. Irrelevant otherwise, except that I'm tired of using bottled water as the example.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top