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.
Well, if we continue on the path we're on, in which we consider it our divine right to burn as much fossil fuel as possible, the Earth's climate will clap us back into the pre-industrial days.
You might want to read up on the Harvard Solar Geoengineering project & its research:
We can change the temperature of the planet. We can brighten the marine cloud layer, reflecting energy from the Sun back into outer space. We can thin the high altitude clouds, so energy being reflected from Earth goes to outer space rather than being reflected back to the planet. We can inject dissipative reflective aerosols into the upper atmosphere, mimicking the effects of the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption, which cooled the planet by 1 degree for 3 years running. We can launch translucent space parasols in a geo-stationary orbit to cut 1% of the solar radiation from reaching Earth.
I think we've established that conservation, so-called renewable energy, and other commandments of the Church of Tree-Hugging are not viable strategies by themselves.
I'm shocked. SHOCKED, I tell you. Round up the usual suspects.
Shaddap, Louie.
Quote:
My point is there is frequently a substantial difference between:
a) The regulation we want in order to have a civilized society, and
b) The regulation we get, which tends to serve entrenched economic players and special interests.
And I disagree with both "frequently" and "substantial." Both are utterly subjective and usually used in this context by someone whose aims are thwarted by them damn regs... because their aims don't really include the consequences of their actions, like worker safety, environmental impact or economic imbalance.
You can always find some absurd section or paragraph or rule, or a dozen... but I reject the common assertion that "there are too many regulations" or that any industry in the US is "over regulated" - barring a few overzealous and limited-area jurisdictions, and then only for relatively short periods. The system finds equilibrium both ways.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalExpectations
I think we've established that conservation, so-called renewable energy, and other commandments of the Church of Tree-Hugging are not viable strategies by themselves.
It appears she has many more followers that scorn her than praise her. Wow! Talk about empowerment!
Because she's the glittering star... of Fox News. As always, it takes only a whiff of heat for them to go utterly rabid and thrash madly at the fences.
You blamed capitalism for not producing something (cars with catalytic converters) that is more expensive. I just pointed out that when you blame capitalism for something it is not supposed to do (set the rules) - it shows your ignorance.
I'm shocked. SHOCKED, I tell you. Round up the usual suspects.
You might have missed it, but I never called for "no regulation" or anything approximating it.
My point is there is frequently a substantial difference between:
a) The regulation we want in order to have a civilized society, and
b) The regulation we get, which tends to serve entrenched economic players and special interests.
Exactly.
So long as people exist, bad Actors will exist.
The purpose of regulation should be to eliminate bad Actors. That's how insurance came to be regulated by the States.
A long time ago, bad Actors sold worthless life insurance polices. The bad Actors never intended to make good on the policies. Their intent was solely to collect premiums from policy-holders and then spend that money on themselves to live the high life.
Protecting consumers against fraud and misrepresentation through regulation is the right thing to do, but all States have now gone way over-board.
Now, States force consumers to buy insurance they neither need nor want, and not for the sake of protecting the consumer, but rather for the sake of making some people in a special interest group feel good about themselves.
That kind of interference in the market is harmful, not beneficial.
Quote:
Originally Posted by redguard57
Well, if we continue on the path we're on, in which we consider it our divine right to burn as much fossil fuel as possible, the Earth's climate will clap us back into the pre-industrial days.
So, who caused climate change in the other seven previous Inter-Glacial Periods?
Because in every one of those Inter-Glacial Periods, sea levels were 3 meters to 14 meters higher than present, even when CO2 levels fell in the range 260 ppm to 280 ppm CO2.
If we were still living in caves, the climate would still change and the sea level would still rise another 3 meters to 14 meters and there isn't a damn thing anyone can do to stop it.
You blamed capitalism for not producing something (cars with catalytic converters) that is more expensive. I just pointed out that when you blame capitalism for something it is not supposed to do (set the rules) - it shows your ignorance.
AOC maybe politically irrelevant now, but with colleges producing millions after millions of brainwashed mini AOC every year - she might as well be very politically relevant by the time she is old enough to run for a president. And was it you who advocated for free college for all? Right, that what the country needs: more taxes on working people so that we had millions more of ignorant SJWs like aoc.
P.S.
And I decided to voice my opinion about AOC because this very topic is named same a the phrase she used recently. I know, those lowly peasants have a nerve to discuss someone who is considered politically irrelevant by great Quitetude.
I have high hopes for the kids. My 8th grader had a group over, and after running around all day they'd come back to cocoon for a bit and were all on their devices. A lot of the school goes to a particular chat room.
I poked in to see how they were doing....and after getting them to speak they had an odd topic that they were all in agreement in.
"These bullying rules are so stupid. They get misused all the time and waste everyone's time.
Yeah, I wish they would just allow bullying again. It was just someone that's stupid. Why does the mod have to worry about it?"
All nodding heads in agreement.
Then they started badmouthing their frenemy that believes the world would be a better place if it only had ladies and gay men.
They all think Trump is a bad, but they're not in love with the liberal agenda either. Their science teacher brought in a speaker saying that global warming was because people ate meat and they should all be vegan.
These kids are bright. They are cynical about what they're presented with. They are seeing how far it carries off some in their own friend group and are realizing....something's not right here. They don't challenge the system. There's an amazing sense of....I know I need to make mine. I know I need to contribute to my friend group. I know that we need to watch out for one another.
They're also seeing other peers fall to drugs. They look negatively on dopes that are cheating to get by in the 8th grade....and pressured through by use of group projects on almost everything. This enforced socialism is making for a whole new kind of conservative that will likely start conservative and tough, and mellow as they get older.
The purpose of regulation should be to eliminate bad Actors. That's how insurance came to be regulated by the States.
A long time ago, bad Actors sold worthless life insurance polices. The bad Actors never intended to make good on the policies. Their intent was solely to collect premiums from policy-holders and then spend that money on themselves to live the high life.
Protecting consumers against fraud and misrepresentation through regulation is the right thing to do, but all States have now gone way over-board.
Now, States force consumers to buy insurance they neither need nor want, and not for the sake of protecting the consumer, but rather for the sake of making some people in a special interest group feel good about themselves.
That kind of interference in the market is harmful, not beneficial.
So, who caused climate change in the other seven previous Inter-Glacial Periods?
Because in every one of those Inter-Glacial Periods, sea levels were 3 meters to 14 meters higher than present, even when CO2 levels fell in the range 260 ppm to 280 ppm CO2.
If we were still living in caves, the climate would still change and the sea level would still rise another 3 meters to 14 meters and there isn't a damn thing anyone can do to stop it.
In which case you'd better be prepared for the economic effects of global pressure on human societies who have organized themselves based on the old climate patterns. I'm not particularly looking forward to it.
If we want to think in large-scale terms capitalism certainly won't survive. It's very likely that by 2100 the economy will be quite different, and by 2200 more different still. Heck, it was only 150 years ago that we still had slavery, and only 80 years before that, that we had a working definition of capitalism.
If or when China becomes the world economic leader, the economy will have a major paradigm shift, probably so significant that humans will term the world economy something different. Chinese values are more collective and less individualistic than the American version of Western values.
Just because they can, it does not logically follow they should, and given the fact that they're clueless, they shouldn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by redguard57
In which case you'd better be prepared for the economic effects of global pressure on human societies who have organized themselves based on the old climate patterns. I'm not particularly looking forward to it.
There are no effects.
It's an irrefutable scientific fact that when Earth warms, it gets wetter, not drier.
At no time in Earth's history has it ever been warm and dry. It's been cold and dry, but never once has it been warm and dry. There's a reason why that's true.
Claims that increased temperatures will turn Earth into a big giant desert are just scare-tactics by pompous asses seeking power and control.
What happens when sea levels rise?
The surface area of the oceans increases.
What happens when the surface area of the oceans increases?
The amount of water evaporated increases.
Note that the evaporation rate does not change, but the amount of water evaporated does. That's why Earth is always warmer and wetter, and never warmer and drier.
Sea level rise is so slow as to be unnoticeable, and the Free Market will effectively deal with any issues.
As the amount of flood damage increases, regardless of the reason, insurance companies will either stop insuring specific properties, or census tracts, or entire zip codes as the case may be, or they'll increase the rates so that property owners, including homeowners, businesses and governments cannot afford them.
At that point, financial institutions stop lending money, which not only halts all new development on coastal areas, it also halts re-development of existing properties.
At that point, people, businesses and even governments start trickling inland to other locales away from affected areas.
There's no mass migration of Millions of people, it's just a trickle effect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by redguard57
If we want to think in large-scale terms capitalism certainly won't survive.
Why wouldn't it?
Nothing fundamental has changed, nor will it change.
Individuals know best, and they know far better than government. The individual always has known better than government and always will know better than government.
Individuals respond faster to the changing market and the needs of the consumers than governments ever could. That has always been true and always will be true.
Technology won't alter that reality, either.
And, if history is any indicator, then China will become more democratic, not less.
I'd only add that capitalism will only grow stronger. It will outlast monarchs, republics, central planned economies, communists....countries may choose to go with those systems, and those systems don't like to let go....but the comparative differences are telling. East vs West Germany. North vs South Korea. Columbia vs Venezuela.
China's growth came after Deng freed up large portions of China's economy to provide services people will actually pay for with things China could actually do. Ireland became known as a tiger that was a place to go AFTER it revoked its socialist tendancies that purported to care for everyone as millions of Irish immigrated around the world.
I mean, imagine how powerful Russia would actually be if they could get to free markets? They have every resource. They can produce food. They have engineering talent. They have military strength. Their size and scope is unbelievable. But their people are not free. They are not free because their lives are not worth as much. They are worth less (not worthless, read the spacing) because they cannot freely achieve to their maximum potential.
What happens when a nation's top minds realize they can achieve nothing more than what an idiotic controlling bureaucrat will allow them to achieve? They leave. Why are they allowed to leave? Less pressure on the controlling idiots.
Let's face it, those brilliant leaders are the ones we all follow. They will go to where they have the best chance of succeeding. Where years of research can't be ripped off in a month by a competitor. But, when allowed, capital can move even faster than people can. Capital will flow to where it has investment opportunities, it is protected.
People can't be expected to know everything about everything, but what I hate the most about people that attack socialism is they aren't honest about any of it. If a government says that an area will have low cost housing for all, they have effectively signed up to be the only provider of capital for a given area. There's no longer any money in an entire industry. Existing housing stock will no longer be maintained after a certain point because it is no longer profitable to do so. This is not a surprising result, yet the headline sounds so good. Affordable housing for all. Socialists hook people on the dream even though they know it isn't possible. Here there's not even a place. NIMBYism rules everywhere. Either fight that to change the reality, or accept it and govern accordingly. Here it's offered and never done. Distraction of a lie while what was actually planned lies buried beneath.
The reality is, everyone can strive to make their area more attractive for capital. Some progressive steps are often helpful in doing this. That's the middle ground. I can't send everyone to college unless I want to devalue what a college grad is and cause inflation in the costs. However, if I set clear regulations and requirements on what's required to call an entity a university...and worked with my industries likely to be affected....maybe I could attract private capital to an investment.
The biggest fight is to actively seek ways to stamp out corruption. Corruption can be more than pay to play schemes. It can be feel good overzealous requirements that essentially create monopolies or near monopolies. It can be uneven application of requirements. That's impossible to know up front, but considering we have statisitics on everything else, starting to pass legislation with check back reporting to see if the proposed mission of a new requirement was accomplished and/or there was unintended side effects would help the most.
Because the world will continue to run on free markets....but the winners will be those that have figured out how to legislate for the right level of legislation that creates the most free market....which is not anarchy...it is regulated.
But when socialists start talking....any idiot nominally free market does default to the better choice.
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.
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.
