|
jrodefeld posted:What you are saying is patently absurd. http://scholar.google.it/scholar?start=0&q=effects+of+global+warming&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 Go ahead. Choose. Then sum the effects of the various effects. Then proceed to really think about how's a planet with a mainly CO2 atmosphere is doing: That'd be Venus. No, we're not going to get to those levels: But apart of sulphate levels, the heat, what else spans Venus? STORMS. Big, continental-spanning, incredibly strong, storms. Just like this one, only MUCH bigger, MUCH stronger, MUCH longer: http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/33084/title/Opinion--Super-Storm-Sandy/ For the rest of the post: Okay, we got it. Your pet issue is Libertarianism. We have threads for those. It's okay to have a pet issue. Mine is nuclear power. I may even bring it up between times when it's only tangentially relevant. But sure as hell, I'm not going to slander a full 1920x1080 page of questionable statements when they're not relevant in any way or form. I'd have multiple responses to your "Keynes does not work" statements, but all of those will be withheld until you actually post your libertarian views in a thread where they're relevant.
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 00:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 06:10 |
|
|
jrodefeld posted:What you are saying is patently absurd. Uh okay, let's stay within the scope of the thread. I'll just ignore the bizarre historical interpretations and move on. You could be right that some humans will survive. We're a resilient species, and I'm sure that even well over 2 degrees average global temperature increase a few hundred thousand people might survive. I'm unclear as to whether or not you believe that C02 itself will cause desertification, or you're saying that the greenhouse effect from there being more C02 in the atmosphere wont have an impact on agriculture. Either way, even before we see our agricultural land turn into desert, our crops germinate within a specific temperature range. If the temperature goes above that threshold, then the crop fails. And if germination wasn't worrying enough crops are also vulnerable when they flower. Take for example rice. Studies show that the most wildly grown varieties of rice - lowland indica and upland japonica - are vulnerable to high temperatures during flowering, so that they'll be essentially sterile if the temperature goes above thirty five degrees C for more than an hour during that period. Currently where those crops are grown - in the agriculturally productive tropic and sub-tropic areas - the temperature is already within a degree or two of 35 C already. We saw the same thign happen this year with the corn crop failure in Canada and the United States. And with a higher temperature you also have a higher rate of soil evaporation. While there will also be more rainfall, the rain wont be equally distributed, and will mean that we'll see areas more vulnerable to draught. Desertification is pretty well scientifically documented process, which means you need to read more about climate patterns. The Hadley cells - resulting from the atmospheric circulation of warm, moist air rising from the equator, cooling down into tropical showers leaving cool, recently dried air that is pushed away to the north and south between 2500 and 3500 km away from the equator, where it descends and warms up, leaving us with the perfect air conditions for deserts. Just a bit further away from those deserts that are the world's breadbaskets - Australia's wheat belt, the Mediterranean, the American Midwest, etc. Any increase to the global temperature increases the energy in the Hadley cells, and means an expansion of the world's deserts right into where we get a lot of our food. If you're really concerned about environmental problems and other things that can threaten the future of humanity, well here you go. This is the threat climate change poses to our food supply. Dreylad fucked around with this message at 00:48 on Nov 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 00:28
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Why not free up the energy market and allow private investment into green energy and technology? Only the most efficient and reliable green technology and energy will succeed amidst a torrent of competition which will raise the quality of the resulting product. Here is why green energy can't be cost competitive on its own. Every year, the coal industry imposes costs of up to $500 billion on the American population due to pollution that neither they nor their consumers have to directly pay for (source: http://solar.gwu.edu/index_files/Resources_files/epstein_full%20cost%20of%20coal.pdf ). That's over $0.25 per kWh. When inefficiencies (externalities, information asymmetry, etc.) lead the market to make poor decisions, the JOB OF THE GOVERNMENT IS TO "PICK A WINNER" that results in better outcomes for the population as a whole.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 00:30
|
|
|
Inaction Jackson posted:Here is why green energy can't be cost competitive on its own. Sorry to bust this myth, but wind is already cost competitive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 00:38
|
|
|
Wind power is irrelevant and useless as a replacement for fossil fuels.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 00:40
|
|
|
I'm seeing people argue the finer points of global warming (this is the scientifically correct term) by "highlighting" that the human race will survive. Are you loving stupid? The survival of the human race is not the baseline for any argument. This is a totally avoidable set of circumstances that will place increasing levels of strain on several parts of the machinery of civilization. When a system is stressed, the likelihood of catastrophic failure resulting from minor shocks to the system increases. If you think that we'll find some technological fix for any problem that arises, you're on par with the Rapture Ready crowd.
Shai Hulud fucked around with this message at 00:45 on Nov 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 00:42
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:Wind power is irrelevant and useless as a replacement for fossil fuels. The Internet makes an expert out of us all. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 00:46
|
|
|
MaterialConceptual posted:I think the scholarly consensus on this is that we don't have LESS regulation, we have different (and sometimes more) regulation that is more favourable to transnational capital flows. There were some neoliberals who tried to actually "deregulate" but that turned into such a poo poo show that they needed to create new regulations. In a way it makes sense that if you have an expanded private sector you will need more regulations. I want to expand upon this as it is an important point for you all to grasp. The term "regulation" needs to be defined better. It is a broad term that means different things to different people. In terms of number of pages in the Federal Register and the actual degree to which our federal government intervenes in the private economy, we have a much more regulated economy and much more government intervention that we have ever had. Now, I understand that many progressives think of regulations as laws and rules that are designed to protect consumers from corporate abuse and misconduct. Therefore, as with the economic crash of 2008, they attribute the unprecedented banking and corporate fraud and abuse to mean that we have less regulations than we did before. The truth is that business interests and corporations actually lobby for more regulations in order to hurt their competitors or grant themselves a monopoly. Therefore a great number of regulations on the books actually protect corporate interests rather than protecting consumers. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. Now, I support regulations if the term means, broadly, a method of protecting consumers and holding corporations and businesses accountable for the harm they do to the environment, to consumers, etc. However, the market provides regulations that are usually stricter and more comprehensive than government regulations. The fear of bankruptcy is one of the greatest regulators, and if subverted by an explicit or implicit guarantee of bailout, there aren't too many government regulations that can prevent risky behavior on the part of that bank or corporation. How many government regulations do you think could be eliminated or be shown to be unnecessary if only we could eliminate the moral hazard of guaranteed bailouts of large banks that traded in derivatives? That is only one example. So, if I say I want a free market, therefore I want to reduce regulations, you need to remember that a majority of regulations on the books don't even pretend to be about protecting consumers, rather they are explicitly about corporate interests gaining a market advantage through partnerships with government. I certainly assume Progressives would be opposed to that type of regulation, right? Therefore you would support "deregulation" of those types of regulations. As far as making corporations accountable and protecting consumers, I want to oppose "prior restraint" types of regulations but strengthen laws dealing with fraud and pollution and acts of aggression. To make the distinction, prior restraint regulations affect every entrepreneur equally regardless of whether or not they had acted to harm anyone. Prior restraint regulations create a tremendous barrier to entry which makes it very hard to start a business or fill out all the paperwork or comply with the hoops they make you jump through simply to invest your own capital in the manner you see fit to enrich the lives of others by putting out a product or service on the market. We need to drastically reduce these types of regulations, which merely help to protect the large corporations that have the economies of scale to comply with the labyrinthine regulatory structure, if they even have to comply with all the rules equally which they usually don't. Now, laws against fraud, pollution, breaking a contract, or harming another come into effect after an act has been committed. Then, it is the role of the court system and legal system to use the full force of the law to crack down on those that committed the harmful act, including forcing the perpetrator to pay the victim and spend time in jail. Believe me, no large corporation is sweating some regulator cracking down on them. But if we started to go after those who demonstrably committed fraud in the recent economic crisis, and threw some of the perpetrators in jail they would get the message in a hurry. But morality would dictate that we need a legal system to prove guilt first. But prior restraint regulations lead to abuses by governments, collusion with large corporations and negative effects on economic growth and prosperity as it becomes almost impossible to create a business or enter the market with an idea or invention. This doesn't help anyone. To conclude, yes we have far more regulations and government interventions into the private economy than we have ever had. But this is benefiting corporate interests to the detriment of consumers and average Americans. You need to clarify the term "regulation" and understand that there are far more effective ways to hold business accountable than granting government license to regulate and intervene in the economy in any way it might desire. That will only lead to corporatism and gross abuses of personal and economic liberties and a weak economy and reduced prosperity in society.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 00:47
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:Hmm, yes, that time you speak of would be between 1776 and 1856. Best not to regulate stuff like slavery or child labor. The market will take care of it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 00:48
|
|
|
The White Dragon posted:I totally understand that capitalism is in opposition to democracy. On the other hand--while I'd like to live in a society that places great worth on preserving the environment--wouldn't a somewhat strict environmentalist system be kind of in opposition to democracy too? I'm thinking it would require a technocracy because I'm worried that many people can't get sufficiently educated on enough specialized issues to make informed decisions on them (whether it's that they don't have enough interest in the fields, they just don't have enough time/money/the opportunity to study them, or they're just voluntarily ignorant as we see in people who reject literacy). Or is environmentalism separate enough from the economy and politics that it could be integrated into a democracy on its own terms? If we can educate and get enough people on board to enact drastic, immediate change to how they live and how society is organized, then yeah, I don't think democracy will be abandoned or compromised beyond recognition. If nothing is done though, I don't think democracy will survive the necessary transition to a environmentally sensitive society. Some people might read this as a threat. It's not. My point is that if democracy is unable to produce the necessary changes, as things get worse, states and other political actors will make the decision for us and we will not have a say in what that economic/political system looks like.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 00:52
|
|
|
The White Dragon posted:wouldn't a somewhat strict environmentalist system be kind of in opposition to democracy too? Yes, especially when you take into account how serious the environmental issues we're facing are. Not that an authoritarian government would be better (humans are just terrible at government) but waiting for voters to wake up and smell the coffee will not stop climate change, as evidenced by the past 40 years. We're at the point where consequences are only becoming more catastrophic and the public is more often than not happy to maintain the status quo via either of the major two parties. Democracy only works as well as the people who are voting, who are by and large uninformed. Beyond that, climate change is an incredibly complicated issue that is difficult for us to understand due to how it's slow instead of fast, global versus local, etc. Not to mention our society and standards of living are basically built upon the edifice driving climate change (fossil fuel extraction)
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 00:53
|
|
|
Any suggestion that markets are capable of protecting the environment as well as, or better than, government should be tempered by the reality that a capitalist model (of which most sane people, including me, are supporters) will consume a given resource until factors intervene to make it inefficient to do so. The environment is a commons, and it's equally trite and true to trot out the phrase "tragedy of the commons" when explaining why policy is probably a necessary ingredient.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 00:53
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:Wind power is irrelevant and useless as a replacement for fossil fuels. You should go inform the power companies of this before they start using it to replace fossil fuels.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 01:10
|
|
|
Eyes Only posted:Sorry to bust this myth, but wind is already cost competitive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 01:11
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:Yes, especially when you take into account how serious the environmental issues we're facing are. Not that an authoritarian government would be better (humans are just terrible at government) but waiting for voters to wake up and smell the coffee will not stop climate change, as evidenced by the past 40 years. We're at the point where consequences are only becoming more catastrophic and the public is more often than not happy to maintain the status quo via either of the major two parties. I think it goes beyond even how well-informed the electorate is. When it comes down to imposing austerity measures on yourself to benefit a nebulous other/future, humanity simply isn't emotionally advanced enough to do it. Even if you could educate an entire electorate to understand that they were suffering to preserve the future of their culture, you would have to convince them that not only was the suffering worth it, but suffering even more the following election cycle and then even more the following election cycle (as you impose stricter and stricter emissions limits) and so on would also be worth it. Politicians would be running on the platform of making things even shittier while their opponents promise to ease the suffering. Summed up well by this, which has been posted here before. Only an autocrat is capable of imposing the long-term austerity needed to address the issue, in my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 01:19
|
|
|
Inaction Jackson posted:I'm aware of that. It would not be, right now, if it had not been for massive amounts of research done largely due to government incentives. And the currently technology would likely still not be cost competitive with coal if not for government regulations that force coal companies to bear at least some of their external costs. I agree about the research, it has done wonders for getting renewables jumpstarted. I haven't seen any reliable data on the actual costs incurred due to coal regulations, though. I don't expect it to be a huge factor in terms of cost (which does not detract from the necessity of emissions regulations).
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 01:29
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Now, laws against fraud, pollution, breaking a contract, or harming another come into effect after an act has been committed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 01:29
|
|
|
snowball39 posted:Responding to jrodefeld's post quoting me I didn't say that all or most in the environmental movement were socialists or had a secret plot to destroy capitalism. I think by and large most environmentalists are very good and sincere people who simply want to protect the environment and lessen our environmental impact. I do think some environmentalists fall prey to emotionalism and abandon rationality and reason. Obviously we need to drill for a certain amount of oil. We need to "exploit" (not in a negative sense) the land we live on to a certain degree. And I do feel that techniques have gotten better and more environmentally sound in ways that environmentalists do not always acknowledge. I also think that some percentage of the more extreme environmental movement verge on being anti human. There are some who would readily sacrifice a million humans to save an endangered species, for example. There are others who honestly believe that we need to reduce the world's population by a couple billion in order to save the planet. I honestly don't want you to think I am trying to tarnish the entire environmental movement by picking out a few nuts, but I just think it is worth acknowledging some of the shortcomings in the movement. As I have pointed out before, I consider myself an environmentalist. I want to live in a clean environment. However, I simply don't share some of the unchallenged assumptions of a significant portion of the environmental movement. As for my belief that a portion of the academics and intellectuals pushing the "green" agenda hold socialist or anti capitalist views, I honestly don't think that should be too controversial of a statement. As Murray Rothbard pointed out in "Anatomy of the State", the intellectuals tend to provide an important function to the state in lending legitimacy to its actions by molding opinion among the masses. Politicians are always looking for ways to expand their power and control economic resources. Government funded intellectuals, in my mind, are always suspect because their views or work will always be politically motivated, building a case for government intervention. Don't you think there is a reason why solutions that are consistent with free markets and capitalism are not entertained in the mainstream? That is not a coincidence. The other reason for my concern is that the implications of global warming advocates and some intellectuals is that policy regarding this problem MUST be antithetical to capitalism. The reason is that the free market is a system that allows progress for human kind and the creation of prosperity and ever increasing standards of living. What some environmentalists are advocating really, is that this trend must stop for the foreseeable future. We cannot really see continued increased standards of living, or the emergence of third world nations into more prosperous first world nations because, inevitably, that would mean more energy production and more resources being consumed by the people. This does NOT, I don't think, imply environmental devastation, although that is the thought that is held by many environmentalists. The other concern I have is that if the problem is as serious and dire as some tend to think it is, the solutions offered will be absolutely tyrannical and authoritarian. Should we have a one child policy in this country? I would think that would be extremely oppressive and not remotely consistent with liberty. Or we will need to have authoritarians dictating to, not only citizens of the US, but peoples of third world nations, exactly how much resources they can use and carbon emissions they can emit. It is simply an authoritarians greatest dream to have the kind of power and authority over resources and their use. And you can be very sure that the sacrifice won't be felt equally. The very rich and people in power will continue to use many resources in the maintenance of a lifestyle that most of use will never know. And there are some in power who would love to reduce the world population. I don't even want to think about how that could be morally defended. You might think that some of these concerns are overblown and I am nitpicking at the more extreme end of the spectrum. But I think it would be unwise to ignore the implications for liberty and the abuses that leaders can perpetrate under the guise of protecting the environment. Especially when there are market based solutions compatible with individual liberty and a limited government. snowball39 posted:
You know, I am not sure if progressives and leftists are aware of the inner contradiction in their ideology as it plays out. Many become leftist in orientation because they are wary of corporate power and abuse. They want government to regulate and protect the public against abuse at the hands of business interests. Yet, they tent to inevitably support government and business "partnerships" (really a form of fascism) which inevitably is the source of real corporate abuse and misconduct. When government gets involved in medicine, the big pharmaceutical companies and the AMA get involved and write the regulations and get the contracts and make all the money. When the government gets involved in energy or environmental legislation, favored industries and cronies get involved and make all the profits and write the rules and get no bid contracts and make a lot of money they didn't earn on the market. I don't understand how you can endorse such a system. I don't understand why you cannot see that Cap and Trade is a corporatist scam to legalize pollution for certain industries and make a lot of money for certain interests. Here are a few bullet points: 1. The economists who invented cap-and-trade say that it won’t work for global warming 2. European criminal investigators have determined that there is a tremendous amount of fraud occurring in the carbon trading market. Indeed, organized crime has largely taken over the European cap and trade market. 3. Former U.S. Undersecretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs Robert Shapiro says that the proposed cap and trade law “has no provisions to prevent insider trading by utilities and energy companies or a financial meltdown from speculators trading frantically in the permits and their derivatives.” 4. Our bailout buddies over at Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup and the other Wall Street behemoths are buying heavily into carbon trading. As University of Maryland professor economics professor and former Chief Economist at the U.S. International Trade Commission Peter Morici writes: "Obama must ensure that the banks use the trillions of dollars in federal bailout assistance to renegotiate mortgages and make new loans to worthy homebuyers and businesses. Obama must make certain that banks do not continue to squander federal largess by padding executive bonuses, acquiring other banks and pursuing new high-return, high-risk lines of businesses in merger activity, carbon trading and complex derivatives. Industry leaders like Citigroup have announced plans to move in those directions. Many of these bankers enjoyed influence in and contributed generously to the Obama campaign. Now it remains to be seen if a President Obama can stand up to these same bankers and persuade or compel them to act responsibly." In other words, the same companies that made billions off of derivatives and other scams and are now getting bailed out on your dime are going to make billions from carbon trading. I don't see how you could expect any different. This is how our government currently operates. Now, as far as a carbon tax is concerned, if that is all it is then that wouldn't be a disaster but I don't think it would do much good either. Besides, if the problem is as serious as we tend to think it is, then a tax will not be the sole solution. snowball39 posted:3. I don't think we're going to go extinct. We could see a substantial portion of the world's population die, though. The agricultural impacts are going to be devastating - US corn production, for instance, was severely impacted this year due to a drought, which was due to the US having its hottest summer ever. This is going to increase food prices for the entire world. Keep in mind that we really haven't seen anything yet - we're at like 1 degree C of warming, and have another 2 to 5 coming if we do nothing. Drought is probably the single biggest problem; of course we can adapt eventually to differing agricultural conditions, but in the meantime a ton of people will probably starve to death. Things could get really, really bad if we run into resource constraints for water and fertilizer components (phosphorus is the big one) as well, although I'm guessing you think the market will come up with substitutes before the problem becomes dire (I don't, at least about the "before it becomes dire" part; also, the price of the substitutes will almost certainly be higher than the originals). Americans will probably be fine - we can afford food if the price doubles or triples - it's the poor people in India and Africa that will be hosed I don't want to sacrifice a bunch of people. But I see a lot of these problems headed our way regardless of climate change. What you seem to be ignoring is that you make the case for action for the benefit of poorer nations who will be hurt more by climate change. However the proposed legislation will hurt these people a great deal now. A lot of these people in poorer nations require increasing amounts of emissions to move out of poverty and increase their standard of living. If we prevent that, then a lot of people will starve now due to their inability to produce enough food or heat their homes or any number of consequences. Even if we design perfect policy in the United States, how are you honestly going to account for China and developing nations that desperately want to increase their standard of living and become industrial, prosperous nations? It just seems highly unlikely that such a scenario could occur, that you could convince a large enough percentage of the worlds population to voluntarily remain in poverty or refrain from improving their standard of living so that the ocean's don't rise by two inches in fifty years. I am just being a realist. As much as I don't have faith in government policy being the ultimate answer, I think the wonderful think about the market economy and free individuals employing their ingenuity and intellect in a free exchange of ideas is that solutions we cannot even begin to account for will emerge, but only if the State allows people the freedom to innovate. No one can say absolutely what the future will bring. I just think, as a student of history, that the best outcomes will result from human ingenuity on the market, rather than from a political solution. The temptation is too high for governments to look to the short term and/or use the issue of climate change to achieve other ends. jrodefeld fucked around with this message at 02:07 on Nov 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 02:03
|
|
|
quote:If nothing is done though, I don't think democracy will survive the necessary transition to a environmentally sensitive society. Some people might read this as a threat. It's not. My point is that if democracy is unable to produce the necessary changes, as things get worse, states and other political actors will make the decision for us and we will not have a say in what that economic/political system looks like. This needs to be repeated because it is so, so, so right. Will we go extinct? Probably not. Will a coming global catastophe without any precedent be an excellent opportunity for an aristocracy to come and sweep away all of the social progress that's been made, and for humanity to descend into a pseudo-medieval period? You bet your rear end. quote:I think it goes beyond even how well-informed the electorate is. When it comes down to imposing austerity measures on yourself to benefit a nebulous other/future, humanity simply isn't emotionally advanced enough to do it. Even if you could educate an entire electorate to understand that they were suffering to preserve the future of their culture, you would have to convince them that not only was the suffering worth it, but suffering even more the following election cycle and then even more the following election cycle (as you impose stricter and stricter emissions limits) and so on would also be worth it. Politicians would be running on the platform of making things even shittier while their opponents promise to ease the suffering. Summed up well by this, which has been posted here before. If a politician had the courage to say it, and stood their convictions behind it, I think people would be willing to shoulder the weight. Enough people to keep the politician in power for a while, anyway. President Obama used the language of shared sacrifice as a marketing tool and it worked pretty well, even if he didn't really mean a drat word of it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 02:10
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:Hmm, yes, that time you speak of would be between 1776 and 1856. Best not to regulate stuff like slavery or child labor. The market will take care of it. Look, this post is shocking for its ignorance. How many libertarians do you know that think slavery should be legal? Slavery is antithetical to liberty obviously, we want to expand the notion of individual liberty to all individuals and protect all people from coercion and violence. And no, libertarians do not pine for the wonderful days of the early 19th century. The founders of our nation were very good at philosophy and they gave us a brilliant system of government with the concepts of individual liberty, separation of powers, property rights, sound money and the Lockean theory of natural "inalienable" rights, laid out in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It is the philosophy of liberalism, emerging from the great philosophers of the European Enlightenment period that I draw from. In fact, many intellectuals, especially the Austrian School economists such as Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Henry Hazlitt, Hans Hermann-Hoppe, and many others have far advanced beyond any theories of the 19th century. We need to build upon and advance beyond the concepts of our founders, keeping the emphasis on liberty and human rights. By the way, I know very well that the free market is in direct opposition to democracy. Democracy is a horrible system of government. The founders abhorred democracy. Democracy means mob rule, the ability of the majority to oppress the minority. In a democracy, rights don't exist as they are subject to the whim of the majority. All individuals in a democracy seek to exploit and expropriate their fellow man and garner benefits to themselves. Liberty diminishes and leads inevitably to totalitarian rule. We have a Republic (or are supposed to). A Republic is a government ruled by law where it is limited in its function and all people have personal, individual liberty which cannot be revoked by any other individual or group of individuals. You raise some points which I will address one by one. First "Capitalism works by concentrating economic power into the hands of a few." No it doesn't. Government power, central banking and fiat money concentrate economic power into the hands of the few. The Free market distributes economic power among the masses of people better than any other system. Only in a free market are the free choices of individual consumers choosing between multiple products available on the market the most important, and indeed, only way of determining which products and services need to be produced to satisfy the demands of a majority of consumers. Businessmen aren't in charge of planning the economy. Government politicians and bureaucrats are not in charge of planning the economy. Only consumers are in charge of economic planning, as the most efficient allocation of goods and services can be attained by the market signals of multiple individual consumers choosing their most desired goods and services. Thus the most needs are met and the most efficient allocation of resources is achieved. In fact, contrary to the mythology you seem to believe, a market economy actually leads to rather egalitarian results. In fact, the early economists, especially Adam Smith saw the market economy and Laissez-Faire as the antidote to concentrated economic power of the kings and aristocracy that he saw in his day. In fact, the market economy leads to less disparity of wealth and a large middle class. Central banking, and government coercion leads to an entrenched corporate class, business monopolies and a diminishing middle class. The exact opposite is true in a free market with sound money. Second, "Democracy works by distributing political power to the people." Yes, it does, but is that really a good thing? I don't want political power, I want liberty and the ability to pursue happiness unmolested. Democracy leads to continued erosion of personal liberty. If 51% of the people elect a president, it is assumed that the government can then act with impunity to expropriate and exploit the 49% for the benefit of the 51% Not only is such a thing abhorrent to decency and morality, but the truth is that governments don't even work in the interests of the majority that elect them. If you elect a president, say Obama yesterday, do you have any contract where he is obligated to measure up to his campaign promises? Of course not. All we have is a series of elected dictators, except the people are fooled that they are working in their interest because they are elected. Nothing could be further from the truth. You don't really have political power. The State does what it wants. All you have accomplished is in lending credibility to this massive extortion scheme called the government. Not to mention the fact that a democracy is entirely contrary to the Constitution and therefore expressly illegal unless you amend the Constitution and change our system of government legally. Third, "Economic power allows for the few elite to amass greater wealth." The current system, fiat money from the Federal Reserve, government regulation and control of the economy and the expansive nature of the State allow for a few elite to amass greater wealth. A market economy allows the middle class to amass greater wealth. The rich are only able to amass wealth to the degree that they can satisfy consumer demands. Don't you think it is more dangerous for the wealthy to get more wealth through lobbying government or getting free money from the Federal Reserve discount window? In this current environment, corporations and special interests get wealthier without providing anything to the consumer. Forth, "Concentration of wealth means increasing the disparity of wealth in a society.": Yes, but like I've explained, this is not what happens in a market economy with sound money. Fifth, "An increasing disparity of wealth in a society is associated with decreasing democratic governance." Absolutely false. Remember, a free market is the only system where consumers make the decisions on who succeeds and who fails. Isn't it better to have a system where consumers have direct control over the success of companies rather than merely electing a person who will supposedly "manage" the economy to our benefit? Sixth, "Ergo, Capitalism hurts Democracy." I am not sure exactly what you mean by capitalism but I wouldn't be surprised if you have an entirely different concept of capitalism. The type of free market I am talking about, in the Austrian tradition, is one that is different from democracy for sure but is the only system compatible with individual liberty. And, a market economy will inevitably yield the highest standard of living for the masses than any other system of government and economy. I would suggest that you have a faulty idea of exactly what the State, as an institution, actually is. If you have the time, I suggest you listen to this audio book version of Murray Rothbard's essay "Anatomy of the State", this will clarify your understanding of what state power actually is in reality. http://mises.org/media/7640/Anatomy-of-the-State I actually think everyone should listen to (or read) this essay. It really cuts through the myths of state power to elucidate the reality of the situation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 02:53
|
|
|
You have a bad habit of completely dodging other people's arguments just to continue with your libertarian evangelism. If you want to pontificate about the glory of the free market, please take it to another thread, as other posters have suggested. Citing Murray Rothbard while chiding other people for falling under the spell of extremist intellectuals is possibly the least self-aware action possible. I'm pretty sure I told you on the second point that I really don't care about the potential for abuse with cap-and-trade, so long as it gets the job done. Who really cares if Goldman Sachs makes a windfall if we manage to significantly reduce carbon emissions in the process? A carbon tax very well could be the whole solution, theoretically. Tax carbon at a rate commensurate with the damage it causes. Bam, problem solved. The problem, of course, is figuring out the exact amount of damage caused, but theoretically it should resolve the entire problem. This assumes we're working with fully rational actors and perfect information and all the standard neoclassical economics bullshit assumptions, but you seem to buy into these fully anyway, so it shouldn't be a problem. I again ask you what China's actions have to do with ours. Our emitting carbon hurts people. We can handle reducing our emissions with minimal disruption of our standard of living. What harm does it do for the US to cut its emissions, regardless of what China does? I guess I just don't get why you care so much about what other countries do, given your individualist outlook. Admittedly, you're right that the problem won't be solved without cooperation from the developing world. Maybe if we poured a few hundred billion dollars into renewables research, we could get the costs down enough that they could just skip coal/oil in their development? But that would entail government spending money (and some might go to special interests  !!!), so that's off the table I guess.Sorry if I'm getting sarcastic and dismissive, but I increasingly get the feeling that you're not actually listening to what I (or anyone else) am saying and are just taking every opportunity to spew libertarian talking points. Fake edit: The above hypothesis is accruing support at an alarming rate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 02:59
|
|
|
Dr. Furious posted:This is the foundation for your entire argument. What in the world makes you think landowners do not and will not exploit their land in a shortsighted manner for an immediate gain? What happens when the value gained by destructive enterprise is greater than the value generated by responsible stewardship of the environment? That is not my entire argument. The other half of the argument is that the means by which property is allocated and violations of property rights should be adjudicated need to be reformed and strengthened in terms of environmental harm. But as far as you question is concerned, logic and common sense already lead to the logical conclusion that my argument is right. But we also have the facts that public land is exploited far more than private land. There have been many studies done on this subject. However, before I bother to list a bunch of links, why don't you think about it logically. Let's say a company has a permit to chop down wood on property it owns but nowhere else. Or a fishing company can fish in a lake it owns but nowhere else. What economic sense does it make for the company to chop down all the trees or catch all the fish without efforts to replenish the supply for future years? For a logging company, unless it really wants to destroy its business, it will plant as many trees as it chops down so in a year, or couple of years, it can have value in the property to continue to sell lumber. Of course, no such thing occurs in public land, where there is no owner so the incentive is to exploit as much of the land as possible before someone else does. That is why property rights are crucial to sustainability. Does this honestly not make sense to you? I can't see how anyone could honestly dispute this argument.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 03:03
|
|
|
JESUS loving CHRIST. THIS IS THE CLIMATE CHANGE THREAD. THIS IS NOT THE RON PAUL BROWN NUGGET BIN. IF YOU NEED A LIBERTARIAN PORT-A-POTTY FOR ALL OF THAT poo poo, GO TO THE BITCOIN GBS THREAD. gently caress. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 03:05
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:That is not my entire argument. The other half of the argument is that the means by which property is allocated and violations of property rights should be adjudicated need to be reformed and strengthened in terms of environmental harm. Just for a moment, let's assume you're right about land use and private property and all that crap. Fine. We can divvy up the land, sell it all, and issue the owners their property titles. Logically, they'll take care of their investments forever, with perfect foresight. Awesome, job well done. However...This thread isn't about the land. It's about the climate. So how are you going to go about selling off the atmosphere? Or the weather? Hell, who owned Hurricane Sandy? They owe a bunch of people money! Who owns the 10 mile column of air above your house? Can you sue airlines for the emissions of the jets flying over your land? What about the chemical plant upwind? Do you own the clouds that drift by overhead? Are you even listening to yourself? You cannot divvy up the air and the jet streams and the loving methane deposits at the bottom of the ocean and expect each individual to take care of their own little sector forever and ever, amen. It is NOT POSSIBLE. The system is too chaotic, too mobile and too drat complex. Everybody has to take care of the whole planet. And that takes top-down administration. It takes government regulations. And we needed them decades ago.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 03:38
|
|
|
The Ender posted:...Do you invest in BitCoins? No, I NEVER said I didn't care what happens. But with so much fear mongering and hyperbole, I just want to establish an honest and reasonable prediction of what will happen without any action and what will happen if we act. How much can we control in other words. What is wrong with that? Another reason for bringing up this question is because I honestly believe that Cap and Trade and other environmental legislation being proposed will have almost no discernible impact because I have studied the legislation and I know the special interests involved. As you indicate, you and I cannot control the behavior of other people. You want the Federal Government to use violence to compel individuals to do what you think they should do. What I am saying is that even if that were effective, you cannot control the behavior of people in other nations. Given this objective reality, what we CAN do is do what I suggest in protecting property rights and persuading people to modify their behavior. This will happen when it becomes economically advantageous for them to do so. The only thing that will get this to happen is innovations on the market. If a technology is efficient, cheap, and convenient, you will NOT need to use violence to force people to use that technology. We can use diplomacy to encourage other nations peoples to conserve their environment. If this is not enough, you will have to prove that government legislation will succeed given all the drawbacks I have listed. As to your notion that without our action, Earth will look like Venus after a couple centuries, that is beyond absurd. I would have no reason to even ask the question about what the REAL prognosis or effects of man caused climate change are if people like yourself didn't just pull facts out of your rear end to bolster your argument. There is no science that would support an outcome like that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 03:41
|
|
|
Gorilla Salad posted:Yes, but the libertarian position is to feed poor people into furnaces to heat the homes of the rich until everyone's dead. What an enlightening and intelligent statement.(sarc) I don't want to derail the thread too much with broader defense of the libertarian position, but I will create a thread discussing real economics and theories that destroy the gross ignorance you are spouting. In fact, I don't think the (lack of) effort you put into this post dignifies a further response.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 03:46
|
|
|
Gorilla Salad posted:Do we really need to have yet another purestrain gold debate? It's the loving climate change thread. I will create a different thread at another time. But the fact that you mock honest money (money with a backing besides the word of the government) shows you to be ill informed at best.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 03:49
|
|
|
Hello goons, I’ve been lurking on SA for quite a while, but this climate change thread has inspired me to read more thoroughly and hopefully make some substantial posts. Just as a little bit of background, I live in the United States, and I’m currently in my first year of a Master’s in Environmental Policy. As many institutions of higher learning can be, my program tends to be a bit of an echo chamber. Hopefully through this thread I can learn a little about policy viewpoints outside of my academic circle and share some of my own. Though I would prefer to discuss climate change in the climate change thread, people like Jrodefeld who support the unchecked continuation of a neo-classical economic system undermine the ability of our society to make the necessary changes to avoid climate change and environmental degradation. Jrodefeld’s views in support of free market solutions are well argued but I think he (or she) misses some critical points and failings, in my view, of the market to adequately address climate change and environmental problems more generally. Firstly, and forgive me if I’ve missed your point previously as I only skimmed the thread until the last page, how do you account for monopoly and domination of markets by overly successful conglomerates? In a truly free-market arrangement, individuals and businesses will continue to pursue their self interest until such a point that one (or a small group of elites) comes to dominate the market. Those dominating entities will not act in such a way that benefits broader society, they have no reason to. You self-identified yourself as a realist, so I’m sure you would agree with me that these market dominating entities would view business as a zero-sum game. Economies of scale can and will undercut and outperform smaller businesses even if those businesses technically provide a superior good or service. Once some individuals have reached this point of absolute domination, they can alter their business practices at a whim (even if it means temporary losses) to eradicate competitors struggling to provide a better service to the market. Though I’m sure libertarians, like any sensible person abhor slavery, a free market with no regulation would eventually lead to the excesses that plagued the United States during the Gilded Age. You go on to say that businessmen aren’t in charge of the economy, and imply that this fact somehow diminishes their ability to concentrate economic power. What about businesses that control and supply critical resources? Food, water, shelter, healthcare; these are things that will always be required by people regardless of market conditions. If entities in a free market system can dominate these resources, they do effectively control the economy. How exactly does that lead to less wealth disparity? As I was writing this reply I can see people don’t want to talk about economics anymore (thank you), but as a final climate change related comment I’d like to emphasize the inherent finite nature of neo-classical economics. Surely the world isn’t going to throw out capitalism tomorrow, or anytime soon for that matter, but a real discussion needs to be made regarding what comes after. Our planet cannot sustain an infinite growth paradigm, even if you include eventual exploitation of space resources. If the global economy continues to consume in the current fashion, we are facing the increasing rarity if not exhaustion of many key resources. Though capitalism in some form or another will likely dominate our economic outlook for some time, we as a species must begin to search for a new way forward. Have any of you heard of Bhutan’s concept of Gross National Happiness? To take that a step farther, I think an economy based on a stable level of material wealth that supports self fulfillment and well being among participants is an interesting concept. Looking forward to talking with you all when I’m not working on soul crushing amounts of grad school homework. This thread moves too drat fast. Cyclopean Horror fucked around with this message at 03:55 on Nov 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 03:51
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I don't want to derail the thread too much with broader defense of the libertarian position, but I will create a thread discussing real economics and theories that destroy the gross ignorance you are spouting. This is a good idea. I wholeheartedly encourage taking this particular sub-topic to its own thread.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 03:53
|
|
|
The Ender posted:If we can change policies and get our loving emissions under control now, we will probably be okay, even without any kind of large-scale mitigation experiments. I just want to point out a very destructive and dangerous attitude that many seem to have been conditioned to adopt. Your attitude is that, beyond changing your light bulb, the only thing we can do is call our Congressman and ask them to do something about this problem. Therefore, you are abdicating your responsibility to the problem and assuming you are helpless to do anything about it. If we accepted, as I do, that government legislation will likely be ineffective, bureaucratic and inefficient, we can get involved in our communities and volunteer to clean up pollution at a local beach or park, boycott companies that pollute too much and educate your fellow man on how to pressure companies that pollute, through economic pressure of withholding from giving them money and so forth. If we are really doomed, it will be because we believe we are hopeless and need our elected officials to solve this problem for us. You still haven't addressed how you propose to force other nations (especially China and developing nations) to reduce emissions as they desperately want to climb out of poverty and become industrialized?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 03:58
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:You still haven't addressed how you propose to force other nations (especially China and developing nations) to reduce emissions as they desperately want to climb out of poverty and become industrialized? You don't. The majority of the emissions already out are on the West who have had 200 years industrialization. We're the cause of the problem, not the industrializing nations who have only relatively recently started contributing to c02 emissions. The best solution is for us to either find a different path for a country other than industrializing, or make industrializing green. Developing nations want the level of comfort and living the west achieved through industrialization and you wont convince them that it's not worth pursuing for the good of the environment when we've already benefited from the exact same process.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 04:18
|
|
|
The Ender posted:You being too ignorant and foolish to read the studies that have been done =/= the studies don't exist. First of all, I know this is a climate change thread, but it is absolutely ridiculous to say that World War II got us out of the Depression. I want you to defend that statement with facts. How can war, inherently a destructive and murderous activity, lead to economic prosperity? I have more than a few sources I can cite that will prove my point on this issue. But I want to hear your evidence for your position first. By the way, I would be more than happy to read any links you have about the outcomes of climate change. I have read a number of scientific articles on climate change, more than most, and I guarantee that the science is far more varied and there is more disagreement than you would likely admit to. Climate science is incredibly complex and creating predictions over decades or centuries is extremely hard to do accurately.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 04:19
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:You still haven't addressed how you propose to force other nations (especially China and developing nations) to reduce emissions as they desperately want to climb out of poverty and become industrialized? China and nearly all of the other developing nations recognize that climate change is a serious threat to their economic growth and have begun climate adaptation and mitigation programs. According to a report by Oxfam International the developing world will have done more to mitigate GHG emissions than developed countries by 2020. The Chinese government has incorporated clean energy and sustainability goals into its current 5-year plan. By 2020, China plans to reduce carbon intensity by 40% per unit of GDP based on 2005 levels, and has pledged to increase renewable energy to 15%. Admittedly this progress is a drop in the bucket. There are issues with MRV and the renewable energy component includes nuclear and hydro power generation. China currently generates more wind energy than any single country other than the United States, with roughly 6% of Chinese power generating capacity in 2011 being sourced from wind. Additionally China has made huge investments in manufacturing of both wind and solar power hardware. Similar progress can be found from other transitioning economies such as India, Brazil, and South Africa. The point is, developing countries may not need much convincing to get on board with significant climate mitigation action.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 04:25
|
|
|
Cyclopean Horror posted:China and nearly all of the other developing nations recognize that climate change is a serious threat to their economic growth and have begun climate adaptation and mitigation programs. According to a report by Oxfam International the developing world will have done more to mitigate GHG emissions than developed countries by 2020. The Chinese government has incorporated clean energy and sustainability goals into its current 5-year plan. By 2020, China plans to reduce carbon intensity by 40% per unit of GDP based on 2005 levels, and has pledged to increase renewable energy to 15%. This. I work in the world of defense, and the DoD regularly holds up China as an example of a country that aligns policy to reality. They're building gigawatts of generation because they have the benefit of short-circuiting the carbon economy. And seriously, to second the previously-mentioned point: shut the gently caress up about libertarianism/free market/whatthefuckever. This isn't an economic, philosophic, or political issue. This is a scientific issue. If you have trouble accepting the science, you can attempt to articulate your viewpoint. Don't expect to be treated seriously, though. This matter is rex judicata. Serious people no longer debate it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 04:58
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:That is not my entire argument. The other half of the argument is that the means by which property is allocated and violations of property rights should be adjudicated need to be reformed and strengthened in terms of environmental harm. hey gently caress you idiot (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 05:16
|
|
|
Didn't someone a few pages back post a good paper on why libertarians must reject climate change for ideological reasons? I thought this was a non issue in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 05:27
|
|
|
Eyes Only posted:I agree about the research, it has done wonders for getting renewables jumpstarted. I haven't seen any reliable data on the actual costs incurred due to coal regulations, though. I don't expect it to be a huge factor in terms of cost (which does not detract from the necessity of emissions regulations). I'll edit this post if I find a quantitative answer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 05:34
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:Didn't someone a few pages back post a good paper on why libertarians must reject climate change for ideological reasons? I thought this was a non issue in this thread. I think I already understand this pretty well but I would love to read a substantive paper on it that sums it all up if it is around? It is a shame it has to be this way. At the core of it core pollution and climate change writ large is a massive violation of peoples liberty. Its an externality shunted onto 3rd parties. For all of his ideology's faults even Barry Goldwater seemed to recognise clearly that clean air is a property right in of itself. But it is a global problem, stuff about nations and sovereignty... property rights and environmental regulations !?... oh god the free market is already failing to address any of this... Easier to just say it doesn't exist/deny it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 05:41
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I want you to defend that statement with facts. How can war, inherently a destructive and murderous activity, lead to economic prosperity?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 08:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 06:10 |
|
|
jrodefeld posted:That is not my entire argument. The other half of the argument is that the means by which property is allocated and violations of property rights should be adjudicated need to be reformed and strengthened in terms of environmental harm. Making vague references to studies that prove you correct with no citations isn't a very good way to convince anyone of anything except that you're full of poo poo and bad at hiding it, hth.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 12:50
|
|
