House passes 'global warming' legislation...

[CastleBravo]

Is Germany ready to step up? You are now the world leader. Try not to execute too many people.

HOUSE PASSES 'GLOBAL WARMING' LEGISLATION... (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/24232.html)

[nikimcbee]

God save us all:shifty:. I wonder how my industry is going to handle this? A semiconductor fab uses a hellva large amount of eletricity.:hmmm: I'll laugh my ass off, if every semiconductor company moves to India/China. That will wipe out the economy on the West Coast. Case in point: My former place of employment was the largest employer in the county (outside of working for local Gov't:o:nope:). The city/county fought them at every turn when they wanted to expand production, because of they're greenie-marxist ideology. The company decided it was time to close it's US fab and shut down last Aug. It was priceless to hear the local news bitch and moan about the millions of tax dollars that were now... no longer going to be coming in.:har:


HA!HA! You @#!$$#@ing greenies are morons. and you get what you deserve for voting that jackass(es) in to office.

:woot:

I need a drink:-?

[SteamWake]

Dont give up hope yet. It still has to pass the senate.

[SteamWake]

every semiconductor company moves to India/China.

This will exactly be the results seeing as those contries arent silly enough to follow the US and besides there exempt from this.

[SteamWake]

Good god !

Republicans accused the Democrats of ramming the bill through the House. Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.), managing the debate for his party, asked repeatedly if there was even a copy of the current version of the bill anywhere in the House chamber. Democratic Rep. Ellen Tauscher – sitting in the speaker’s chair although she’s already been confirmed as Obama’s undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security — repeatedly dodged the question.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/24232.html

[CastleBravo]

Dont give up hope yet. It still has to pass the senate.

This is the worst of the worst....legislating poverty.

[geetrue]

New York Times (http://timespeople.nytimes.com/getstarted?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2009 %2F06%2F27%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2F27climate.html%3Fref% 3Dglobal-home)


Only eight Republicans voted for the bill, which runs to more than 1,300 pages.

In the months of horse-trading leading to Friday’s vote, the bill’s targets for emissions were weakened, its mandate for renewable electricity was scaled back, and incentives for various industries from automobiles to natural gas were sweetened.


The bill grants a majority of the permits free in the early years of the program, to keep costs low. The Congressional Budget Office (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/congressional_budget_office/index.html?inline=nyt-org) estimated that the average American household would pay an additional $175 a year in energy costs by 2020 as a result of the provision, while the poorest households would end up with $40 in rebates.

The bill also sets a national standard of 20 percent for the production of renewable electricity by 2020, although a third of that could be met with efficiency measures rather than renewable energy sources like solar, wind and geothermal (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/geothermal_power/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier).

It also devotes billions of dollars to new energy projects and subsidies for low-carbon agricultural practices, clean-coal research and electric vehicle (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/e/electric_vehicles/index.html?&inline=nyt-classifier) development.


How do you read 1,300 pages in just a few hours ... give US a break.

[UnderseaLcpl]

“I look forward to spending the next 100 years trying to fix this legislation,” said California Republican Brian Bilbray.

That about sums it up. Take it from a Californian, they've been there, done that, messed it all up, and ruined their state. Hopefully, the Senate will kill this thing.

What really perturbs me is how immune the dems are to empyrical evidence. Nearly a century of catastrophic failures by big government has done nothing to weaken their resolve.

[Buddahaid]

Anybody else been to China? It's great! On sunny days you can tell where sun is by noticing the somewhat brighter part of the inside of the pingpong ball of a sky. Any little creek or river in town smells like your arse. Point being there must be something better than banking our way to death. What do YOU suggest as a better alternative? I'm open to ideas.

Budahaid

[Skybird]

Only when the last tree has died and the last river been poisoned and the last fish been caught will we realise we cannot eat money. - Cree Prophecy

[SteamWake]

Only when the last tree has died and the last river been poisoned and the last fish been caught will we realise we cannot eat money. - Cree Prophecy

"White mans greed runs a world in need" Jerimiah Wright, Barrack Obama

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdLX3aRNaNk

Im pretty sure there will be rivers and fish and trees long after the human race has moved on Sky.

We certainly can say your an optimist at least :rotfl:

[Skybird]

"White mans greed runs a world in need" Jerimiah Wright, Barrack Obama

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdLX3aRNaNk

Im pretty sure there will be rivers and fish and trees long after the human race has moved on Sky.
:rotfl:

You'll know in time.

[CastleBravo]

I just learned that house rules allow five days for it's members to change their votes. Who knew? Anyway with the vote being so close 219-212, and 8 repiblicans voting in favor of this 1,300 page bill which no one read, there is the possibility for the bill to fail. Here are their names and links.

HR 2454 RECORDED VOTE 26-Jun-2009 7:17 PM
BILL TITLE: American Clean Energy and Security Act


Mary Bono Mack (http://www.congress.org/bio/id/668) R (CA)
Mike Castle (http://www.congress.org/bio/id/697) R (DW)
Mark Steven Eirk (http://www.congress.org/bio/id/40130) R (IL)
Leonard Lance (http://www.congress.org/bio/id/6493) R (NJ)
Frank LoBiondo (http://www.congress.org/bio/id/383) R (NJ)
John McHugh (http://www.congress.org/bio/id/429) R (NY)
Dave Reichert (http://www.congress.org/bio/id/142979) R (WA)
Chris Smith (http://www.congress.org/bio/id/385) R (NJ)

[XabbaRus]

Wea re facing the same thing in the UK. Energy prices are going to shoot up because of Broons green initiatives.

I believe in global warming and I believe man is contributing to it but I am also tired of the knee jerk reactions and half hearted measures.

The grants given out over here to transform your heating to solar are pitiful.

Case in point, on my street apart from my house and two neighbours the houses belong to a housing association. They rent to low income families (though they all seem to have flashier cars than me). Anyway teh housing association for free fits solar panels on the roofs.

Pisses me off.

[Frame57]

That is precisely the problem with the whole global warming hoax. They have the masses fooled just so that they can rape you monitarily and try to make you feel good about it while they do it. Not much different than what the health care scenario is. Total and complete nonsense with the whole cholesterol scam. But everyone I know over 50 is on a statin drug. Fear is the greatest motivator for mankind. I guess I expect too much from the educated man, but it seems that education was a moot point for the followers of the heavens gate cult. So nothing surprizes me anymore, but in the end you get what you pay for in life and this is what we got.:salute:

[SteamWake]

I just learned that house rules allow five days for it's members to change their votes. Who knew? Anyway with the vote being so close 219-212, and 8 repiblicans voting in favor of this 1,300 page bill which no one read, there is the possibility for the bill to fail. Here are their names and links.

HR 2454 RECORDED VOTE 26-Jun-2009 7:17 PM
BILL TITLE: American Clean Energy and Security Act


Mary Bono Mack (http://www.congress.org/bio/id/668) R (CA)
Mike Castle (http://www.congress.org/bio/id/697) R (DW)
Mark Steven Eirk (http://www.congress.org/bio/id/40130) R (IL)
Leonard Lance (http://www.congress.org/bio/id/6493) R (NJ)
Frank LoBiondo (http://www.congress.org/bio/id/383) R (NJ)
John McHugh (http://www.congress.org/bio/id/429) R (NY)
Dave Reichert (http://www.congress.org/bio/id/142979) R (WA)
Chris Smith (http://www.congress.org/bio/id/385) R (NJ)

Only real supprise there is Mark Erik /shrug

Most of the others are Rino's anyhow

[Schroeder]

Anybody else been to China? It's great! On sunny days you can tell where sun is by noticing the somewhat brighter part of the inside of the pingpong ball of a sky.

Budahaid

You don't have to go to China to find that. Just go to LA and pay a visit to the Griffith Observatory (I think that was it's name) located on a mountain a bit outside of it. You can see the beautiful smog bubble over LA from there. Believe me it really makes you want to go down into the city again....not.:nope:

After walking for twenty minutes through LA I had a light pain in my lungs (o.k. we took a walk close to the airport so the air might have been even worse there).

[Buddahaid]

Here's an idea I recently heard of.

http://thefutureofthings.com/news/1079/hyperion-nuclear-batteries.html

http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/

Buddahaid

[SUBMAN1]

They are forcing me into politics aren't they? I will help out the opposition party to any candidate that voted for this come election time. This is pure nonsense.

Well, I think the Republicans at least understand how to get their seats back at least. Bills like this clearly show the democrats lack more self control than a child, and are clearly out of control.

-S

[Platapus]

After walking for twenty minutes through LA I head a light pain in my lungs (o.k. we took a walk close to the airport so the air might have been even worse there).

But it should be noted that the air quality in LA is a hell of a lot better than it was in the 1970's.

Cities like LA and Newark are good examples of how relatively small changes can improve things over a few decades.

What we can't afford is trying to "fix" the environment in 5 years or so. I don't think that can be done. What is needed is many people making small reasonable changes over 20, 30, 40 years and more.

But politicians don't want to hear about 20 years, they want stuff done now (to garner the votes). The current state of the environment, regardless of the causes, took a long time to get this way and it will take a long time to get better.

Throwing money at the problem won't make it change any faster. :nope:

Nor will passing unreasonable drastic laws. :nope:

[CastleBravo]

They are forcing me into politics aren't they?
-S

Forcing you? And who are they?

[SUBMAN1]

Forcing you? And who are they? Read your list.

-S

[CastleBravo]

Read your list.

-S

Read? What is that? This is a cut and paste world don'tcha know? :woot:

[Safe-Keeper]

That is precisely the problem with the whole global warming hoax:rotfl:Repeating ourselves, are we?
http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r292/safe-keeper/28149d1e907d3f18.jpg

They have the masses fooled just so that they can rape you monitarily and try to make you feel good about it while they do it.[creepy music] They... [/creepy music]

Which part of AGW is a 'hoax'? The observed warming? The observed changes in weather patterns? The lives lost and climates altered? You guys remind me of 9/11 deniers sometimes... "the planes are CGI, the thousands of witnesses were all wrong, the rescue workers are in on it, they never found the wreckage, the wreckage they found was planted, the plane over Pennsylvania was shot down by an F-16", etc. etc. etc. Only instead of the terrorists killing 3000 Americans it's the climate changing for the worse.

It must be exhausting to work so hard to block out reality. It's amazing you find time to post on Internet forums.

Not much different than what the health care scenario is. Total and complete nonsense with the whole cholesterol scam. But everyone I know over 50 is on a statin drug.Don't what what on earth a statin drug is, so I can't comment.

Fear is the greatest motivator for mankind.Yup. It got you the PATRIOT ACT, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and torture and indefinite detention of suspects. I see why you love it... what, you... don't?
Only when the last tree has died and the last river been poisoned and the last fish been caught will we realise we cannot eat money. - Cree Prophecy I'm very, very, very happy these people weren't around in the fourties.

Roosevelt: ladies and gentlemen, yesterday our country was attacked suddenly and deliberately by the Empire of Japan! I call upon all Americans to do their utmost to produce materials and weapons for the war effort! We will turn our factories into the world's arsenal of democra--

AGW deniers (angrily interrupting him) : is that government intervention into privately owned industry I see?

Roosevelt: Excuse me?

AGW deniers :angrily waving copies of The Great Global Imperialism Swindle: War is a natural thing for humans! It's happened before and we've always adapted! The Pearl Harbour attack cannot have been man-made because I have a long list of ships sunk by natural forces such as storms - why is it all of a sudden Japan's fault!

Roosevelt: But... bu... :stutters:

AGW Deniers: You're just a commie trying to run the US into the sand! :start rooting for the Japanese:

Roosevelt: Damnit. Next time I'll open by letting the guy who lost the election make a propaganda movie for me.

I believe in global warming and I believe man is contributing to it but I am also tired of the knee jerk reactions and half hearted measures.Agreed.

[CastleBravo]

Wasn't the EPA established in 1972? Since then the temps have been climbing. Is there a correlation?

[Tchocky]

1970.

And oh boy is that a stupid question.


safe-keeper - good post

[CastleBravo]

1970.

And oh boy is that a stupid question.


safe-keeper - good post

I was always taught that there is no such thing as a stupid question. If you have to take issue with the question please do so in a civil manner, ISO being rude. Thank you.

[Sailor Steve]

And calling a question stupid is not an answer. It's hard to debate something when the reply is about something else entirely.

[SteamWake]

Hey SK I see that graph only goes back 30 years. How about putting some datat back to say I dunno 1940's you know the whole dustbowl thing?

http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh312/UlteriorModem/US_temps_2008.jpg

Doesent seem so radical now does it.

Even this graph is skewed. But a whole degree and a half ... wow

Whats with all those spikes in the early 1900's?

[geetrue]

And calling a question stupid is not an answer. It's hard to debate something when the reply is about something else entirely.


Are your personalties clashing or is this just a bad saturday afternoon for you two? Perhaps he was in a hurry ... :yep:

[Sailor Steve]

Not a bad day, or a personality issue - just pointing out that calling somebody's question stupid serves no purpose other than to insult the person. It neither furthers the conversation nor makes the insulter right.

[geetrue]

Notice the time difference in Ireland and the USA ...

Tchocky has been known to be tempermental ...

But if someone else (no user names) had of said the same thing in
a long drawn out manner using links and poetic language ...

What would be the responce then?

Not that I agree ... Castle Bravo is AOK with me :yep:

[CastleBravo]

... Castle Bravo is AOK with me :yep:

Back at you geetrue.:yeah:

[geetrue]

Almost forgot my 2 cents worth ...

The worlds axis is changing ... you know negative and positive, north pole and south pole related as per a prophecy by Edgar Cayce in 1937.

Not that I agree with everything Edgar Cayce the sleeping prophet said, but he is on record as having said this would happen and even put the time line of 1997 in it 60 years before it happened.

In 1997 a small heat spot called El Nino in the South Pacific caused a whole lot of strange weather to happen in Southern California and Arizona. I witnessed it ... I was rained on a lot in 97/98 in that area and the local weatherman even predicted this would happen due to El Nino.

Other items predicted by Edgar Casey include, but are not limited to the Great Lakes empting all of their water out into the Gulf of Mexico, California falling into the sea and islands being birthed coming out of no where.

No amount of money can be spent to stop what is going to happen.

What will be will be :cry:

[Stealth Hunter]

And calling a question stupid is not an answer. It's hard to debate something when the reply is about something else entirely.

Agreed.

There are no stupid questions in life, just inquisitive idiots.:up:

[SteamWake]

This thread has gone horribly astray.

I'm afraid I added to that.

The question at hand is not wether or not the earth is warming.

The question is wether or not a bunch of eliteist in washington grab your pocketbook by the balls and wring the last drop of blood from a stone.

We the pepole are so far removed from this ovature, we stand as ants under the proviberial sunglass.

Let us diminsh jobs, let us pump billions into obscure industrys, let us "save the world".............

Spread the wealth indeed.

[Buddahaid]

I seem to recall the auto industry screaming bloody murder over adding $10.00 worth of seat belts in the sixties. They lived through it. I seem to recall the auto industry screaming bloody murder over smog controls. They lived through it (well, not the British as the union was strong enough to freeze any progress). Change can be healthy, it can hurt, but change is inevitable and the winners know how to change. The losers cry about lost money trees and blame progress.

You want to keep manufacturing alive in the USA? Tax the crap out of businesses that offshore everything and avoid paying their fair share. They are foreign companies so their goods should be taxed as such.

Yes the standard of living will fall. It will fall from the artificial high propped up by runaway credit, and cheap foreign manufactured goods.

People just don't understand how good they've had it compared to 50-100 years ago.

Rant , rant, etc. I should erase this as I've had a few beers. :damn:

Buddahaid

[UnderseaLcpl]

I seem to recall the auto industry screaming bloody murder over adding $10.00 worth of seat belts in the sixties. They lived through it. I seem to recall the auto industry screaming bloody murder over smog controls. They lived through it (well, not the British as the union was strong enough to freeze any progress). Change can be healthy, it can hurt, but change is inevitable and the winners know how to change. The losers cry about lost money trees and blame progress.

You want to keep manufacturing alive in the USA? Tax the crap out of businesses that offshore everything and avoid paying their fair share. They are foreign companies so their goods should be taxed as such.

Yes the standard of living will fall. It will fall from the artificial high propped up by runaway credit, and cheap foreign manufactured goods.

People just don't understand how good they've had it compared to 50-100 years ago.

Rant , rant, etc. I should erase this as I've had a few beers. :damn:

Buddahaid


Firstly, I don't see any need to erase it. That is a valid position and addresses a lot of rational concerns. I don't agree with it, but that doesn't make it any less pertinent.

Nonetheless, I'm compelled to offer some argument. I will begin by saying that you appear to view this as a case of state vs. industry. It is not.
This is, and will increasingly resemble, a case of state and industry corroberation. That's how it always is. You say yourself that winners know how to change and that the losers cry about lost money trees and blame progress. You are quite correct, but not in the manner you posit.
All you do by giving the state power over industry is to ensure that the most politically successful industries run the show. Surely, you have noticed the tendency of big business to influence government policy?
You have noticed the considerable amount of funds spent subsidizing multi-billion dollar industries like agriculture, raw materials, and heavy manufacturing, yes? Why do you suppose that is? Is it because government is regulating business, or because business is regulating government? I will tell you now that virtually every type of regulation that has been envisioned by this government in the past century has served only to stratify the business environment and eliminate competition. Again, you are correct in your assumption that the winners adapt, but to what criterion do they adapt? The firms that succeed are consistently the ones with the most capital and the most lobbying power. Then they use that power to wipe away competitors at the expense of the consumer and the worker. In most cases, they don't even do it deliberately or out of malice, it is just a natural process. As the state imposes more and more regulations, businesses naturally try to play a part in that process. They are often asked to help, in fact. Regulations, licensures, fees, and standards are set, and become a deterrent to new entrepeneurs because of the expense and complication. Without a consistent crop of new competitors, incentive is destroyed and only those firms most entrenched in the system are allowed to do business on a large scale. How many times must that lesson be learned?

That, however, is not my biggest pet-peeve, and I do not intend to single you out with that statement or what is to follow. It's a general attitude, and nothing more. What really irks me is that many people seem to think that the state is an effective agency for desired changes.
I can see where the logic comes from, and I used to subscribe to it myself, but the fact is that it is fallacious reasoning. Show me a state initiative anywhere in the world that you consider to be successful. List its' successes, and I will give you a list of harms that is at least twice as long and that will include many of the purported triumphs.
I am fond of the idea that the state never does anything right, except when it elects to do nothing at all. Take it as you will, but let history be your guide. There is an exception to that rule, however. The state often doe sright by a certain group of people at the expense of all others. Oftentimes, it does that so frequently that it simultaneously benefits and harms groups at the same time, and the only real winner is the state itself. Simply put, there is no greater harm that can be done than what governments contrive. But you already know this. The worst examples of efficiency in any field always belong to the state, and why shouldn't they?
You wouldn't give a friend money to buy a present for someone they don't know and know nothing about, would you? You would not, unless you were under extreme circumstances, because it would be a dumb idea. The state is only different in that it has the power to force people to surrender wealth and other assests.

I have digressed a bit, but I'll get back on track by addressing another argument, the idea that one can keep manufacturing in the US alive by penalizing companies that choose to outsource. That is another pet-peeve of mine, because it doesn't make any sense. Think like a capitalist that actually produces goods at competitive prices and who already has enough headaches shopping around for affordable and competent labor.
If you already have trouble meeting your overhead costs, and your labor is made more expensive by state regulation, the wise thing to do would be to outsource. If that is made costly by taxation as well, you would simply relocate. U.S. industries have been doing this for decades and will continue to do so until the country is an acceptable place to do business again. Again, there is an exception, and it comes in the form of business that has cemented itself in the political agenda. Companies that get subsidies have no need for competitive advantage. The people are forced to provide them with advantage. In the end, you are left with big-business and state, which become increasingly intertwined. In the meantime, the free-market nations outcompete you and ruin your industrial base, aided by firms you drove off with your taxation. Again, how many times do we have to learn this? It isn't as if this hasn't been happening for years.

If you wonder why the U.S. economy is plagued by bubbles and bursts, and why some people think a simple policy change here and there could cause catastrophic harm, you need look no further than the state of commmerce in the U.S today. The state began a policy of interfering with the market and the currency in the mid-19th century, expanded it in the early 20th, and led the nation into a series of fiscal crises created by the free market taking advantage of, or being skewed by the state. This legislation will be no different than other "landmark" pieces in the past. It will be a tremendous drain on the economy and it will take years for business to adapt, probably to the detriment of the economy and consumers, and therefore workers.

Just because current state policy sort of agrees with your views does not mean that you will get what you expect. If history is any kind of tutor, you will get something much worse, and it will be very difficult to eradicate.

[Skybird]

As always you forget to outline how liberal markets should help to prevent monopolies, Lance. Your law-of-the-jungle-model simply never has worked so reasonable as you advertise, and the more liberal the market was, the sharper the contrast was between the haves and have-nots. In fact they cause monopolies even faster than politics, because establishing monopolies is the very intention of capitalism.

That political systems are messsed up does not lessen the serious mistakes in your economy model that you want to give as an alternative. And if giving them enough time to unfold, both lead to a mess.

A third way must be found, or we are screwed. State-run economies and liberal market are the two most extreme poles, like socialist'S call for distribution instead of earning and capitalist's demands for maximising personal egoism are polarised extremes as well. If a leading caste of people cannot be avoided in both perspectives, than at least I prefer that caste beinf recruited by criterions of competence instead of selfishness exclusively. That's why I argue against both the kind of capitalism you want, and democracies as well (and socialism anyway, btw.).

For German-readers: interesting interview with the Dalai Lama on economy, greed, responsible economic acting and the financial crisis:

http://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article4004903/Dalai-Lama-Gier-macht-Unternehmen-krank.html?print=yes#reqdrucken

Neither the left nor the conservatives will like him for his views, for he violates both group's agendas.

I do not tend to glorify the man, but where he is right, he is right.

[Frame57]

:rotfl:Repeating ourselves, are we?
http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r292/safe-keeper/28149d1e907d3f18.jpg

[creepy music] They... [/creepy music]

Which part of AGW is a 'hoax'? The observed warming? The observed changes in weather patterns? The lives lost and climates altered? You guys remind me of 9/11 deniers sometimes... "the planes are CGI, the thousands of witnesses were all wrong, the rescue workers are in on it, they never found the wreckage, the wreckage they found was planted, the plane over Pennsylvania was shot down by an F-16", etc. etc. etc. Only instead of the terrorists killing 3000 Americans it's the climate changing for the worse.

It must be exhausting to work so hard to block out reality. It's amazing you find time to post on Internet forums.

Don't what what on earth a statin drug is, so I can't comment.

Yup. It got you the PATRIOT ACT, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and torture and indefinite detention of suspects. I see why you love it... what, you... don't?
I'm very, very, very happy these people weren't around in the fourties.

Roosevelt: ladies and gentlemen, yesterday our country was attacked suddenly and deliberately by the Empire of Japan! I call upon all Americans to do their utmost to produce materials and weapons for the war effort! We will turn our factories into the world's arsenal of democra--

AGW deniers (angrily interrupting him) : is that government intervention into privately owned industry I see?

Roosevelt: Excuse me?

AGW deniers :angrily waving copies of The Great Global Imperialism Swindle: War is a natural thing for humans! It's happened before and we've always adapted! The Pearl Harbour attack cannot have been man-made because I have a long list of ships sunk by natural forces such as storms - why is it all of a sudden Japan's fault!

Roosevelt: But... bu... :stutters:

AGW Deniers: You're just a commie trying to run the US into the sand! :start rooting for the Japanese:

Roosevelt: Damnit. Next time I'll open by letting the guy who lost the election make a propaganda movie for me.

Agreed.You may have a poster of Al Gore in your bedroom...:rotfl:. The current global warming issue is nothing more and nothing les than natural. The earth warms and cools periodically. The northern cap was alllllll water before Industry came into being. The south pole is actually gaining Ice mass, again this is normal. Yes we know that there are actually trees under the glaciers that we have known for hundreds of years. So by sheer logic those glaciers must have at one point, uh, NOT BEEN THERE! The fact remains that the Al Gorleone cronies have completely and utterly ignored the natural cycles the earth goes through has discredited them. I would look up statin drugs because in all probability your doctor will advise you to take them because the AMA has recommended an even lower cholesterol number in order for more physicians to pedal their witchcraft. I may write Al Gore and suggest that polar shifts are primarily due to Obese people and see if he runs with idea and who knows maybe even get another movie going.....Chris farley and John Candy cannot be in it....Ah yes, we can have Michael Moore star in it...:salute:

[Buddahaid]

Your forgetting plate tectonics! Scotland used to be tropical, etc. Also huge volcanic eruptions like Krakatoa that spew gazillions of tonnes of greenhouse gasses, etc. And way back when oxygen was pollution, etc.

Those are all natural. The layer of smog above your city and the poisons in your water are not. There's a reason Chicago built that quaint water tower you know. They had to find water way out in Lake Michigan since the river was full of animal bits and sewage, etc.

Just saying because you can explain GW as a normal cycle, doesn't make polluting OK.

Buddahaid

[SteamWake]

A glimmer of hope


Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) had a few choice words about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.) landmark climate-change bill (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/house-passes-pelosis-signature-bill-2009-06-26.html) after its passage Friday.

When asked why he read portions of the cap-and-trade bill on the floor Friday night, Boehner told The Hill, "Hey, people deserve to know what's in this pile of s--t."


http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/boehner-climate-bill-a-pile-of-s--t-2009-06-27.html

[UnderseaLcpl]

As always you forget to outline how liberal markets should help to prevent monopolies, Lance. Your law-of-the-jungle-model simply never has worked so reasonable as you advertise, and the more liberal the market was, the sharper the contrast was between the haves and have-nots. In fact they cause monopolies even faster than politics, because establishing monopolies is the very intention of capitalism.

So you and many others say, but how often have you been right? Even on a national scale, the free market has only ever created a handful of monopolies, and none of those were true monopolies, other than perhaps the East India Company and maybe DeBeers. There have been some examples of near-monopolies, and a few oligopolies, but pure monopoly and monopsony is virtually non-exsistent in the free market.
Even where companies come close to attaining monopolies, how much harm have they ever done? The most damaging example of a monopoly I can think of was actually an oligopsony, and that came in the form of a glut of unskilled labor in the U.S. in the late 19th century.

On the other hand, pretty much every state in the world is a monopoly of some type at the national level, and examples of state-sponsored monopolies are many and varied. Similarly, the harms that states and state-sponsored monopolies have caused would fill many books. Need I start listing them? I can think of a couple of U.S. GSEs that played a prominent role in the current crisis, and another one that has consistently been at the forefront of fiscal crises the world over.


That political systems are messsed up does not lessen the serious mistakes in your economy model that you want to give as an alternative. And if giving them enough time to unfold, both lead to a mess.

A third way must be found, or we are screwed. State-run economies and liberal market are the two most extreme poles, like socialist'S call for distribution instead of earning and capitalist's demands for maximising personal egoism are polarised extremes as well. If a leading caste of people cannot be avoided in both perspectives, than at least I prefer that caste beinf recruited by criterions of competence instead of selfishness exclusively. That's why I argue against both the kind of capitalism you want, and democracies as well (and socialism anyway, btw.).

In truth, I did read your very long post wherein you explain your neofeudal system, and surprisingly, I find merit in the idea. Unfortunately, since neither you nor I know exactly how to create an effective example of such a system, it is kind of a moot point.
Personally, I think it is a very innovative approach, but it also has great potential for harm if it is not properly implemented. Power structures are not easily removed once they are in place, and that is doubly true in a non-representative government.

Back OT, I mentioned some time ago that your strongest argument against lassiez-faire economy and limited government was the damage they could do to the environment. Fortunately, there is a solution, of sorts, to that, and it comes conveniently packaged with the Austrian School's economic philosophy.
Under a free-market state, sovereignty of the individual is paramount, and there are penalties for infringing upon another's personal liberties and rights. Pollution, by its' very nature, affects a lot of people and therefore violates their sovereignty over their bodies and property. Naturally, we can't just eradicate pollution, and the only reason it exsists is because people want the good that industry provides, so the solution is a regular cash stipend as compensation to the public, in the form of an effluent tax.
The more you pollute, the more you pay. As long as the tax is not excessive and is uniformly applied, it will provide an incentive to pollute less and funds for treatment of damaged ecosystems.
This will probably do very little to forestall climate change, but as I have always said, there is little that can be done about it, anyway. The Earth's average temperature is well above what it has been for the past few tens of thousands of years, so the globe is eventually going to heat up no matter what we do. Unless you have a plan to save the Earth that involves killing off a few billion people, there is only ever going to be more emission, and even that is only a temporary solution.
The best path lies ahead. The market must be allowed to function, innovate, and create wealth, and in time we will have cleaner industry and more efficient consumables. At the very least, we will have a wide range of conveniently-priced products to adapt to the effects of climate change.:DL
Seriously though, the functions of supply and demand create efficiency. When natural resources become scarce, they get expensive, and the market innovates to adapt. When gas becomes scarce, cars get smaller or use different fuel. When steel became too expensive (mostly as a result of government interference in the industry), plastics were marketed. When land or food is scarce, agribusiness regularly revolutionizes production. When people started becoming environmentally conscious, business responded, and continues to respond with a host of green initiatives.

The state breaks this model by artificially creating supply or demand. When gas prices go up, the state responds with price controls and automotive regulations, and all that ends up happening is that we get a shortage of gas and an inefficient auto industry. When steel becomes too expensive, the state levies tariffs at the request of unions and industries to protect them from competitors, and only achieves the virtual destruction of the steel industry. When food is scarce, the state provides subsidies to non-productive farms, making the shortage more acute because nothing changes. When people are environmentally conscious, the state responds with a host of useless and costly initiatives. Does ethanol ring a bell? We still have that, even though everyone has admitted that it was a complete failure. We spend billions on wind farms that produce virtually nothing and swallow vast tracts of land. We have busses and passenger rail systems that routinely operate with few passengers, if any, and only add to emissions. We have millions of pages of environmental regulations that have done virtually nothing over the past 3 decades other than to give wealthy companies the right to pollute and deny small business the ability to break into the market.

We may not ever see eye to eye on economic issues, Sky, but answer me this; If you had a choice between the states of the world today effecting climate-change policy, and the rule of the market, with very limited government, which would you choose? Knowing the dangers of plutocracy as you do, which one would you really choose?

Always a pleasure discussing these things with you, Sky:salute:

[Skybird]

We may not ever see eye to eye on economic issues, Sky, but answer me this; If you had a choice between the states of the world today effecting climate-change policy, and the rule of the market, with very limited government, which would you choose? Knowing the dangers of plutocracy as you do, which one would you really choose?


The difference between you and me on this is that I am aware that both of the two mentioned options do not work, from a status of knowledge that we have today. Thus I am looking for a third, new way in solving the underlying problem (while ignoring for the sake of my thought-experiment that we do not have the time to implement such long-lasting processes). While I may be right or may be wrong, your idea is to simply go back to an archaic understanding of ultraliberal capitalism - and by that you admit that you are not aware of that being no solution to the problem (but being the cause of creating the problem itself). Or in other words: you try to solve the problem by ignoring that there is a problem. You tell me about the dangers of plutocracies in your question - but you do your best to convince people they should allow maximum opportunity for plutocracies (aka monopolies) to establish themselves. that is where your theory serves no reasonable explanatory purpose anymore.

To cut it short, I refuse your option "let the market regulate ecologic issues" completely, and think it is the worst case scenario that spells desaster for our civilisation.

I also do not think that current political structures are independant enough form economic lobbying that they can be trusted to fully succeed in establishing the needed economic reorientations to allow us adaptation of our ways of livings to the planetary mess we have caused.

You always complain about politics that cannot be trusted, and the evil state. But you do not think it to the end, you opportunistically stop in the middle of the thought. That way you stop before you see that that ultrafree market that for the most should regulate itself, by your theory is given the opportunity and invitation to unfold that ammount of right that lobbying power that corrupts the politics that you complain about, and it necessarily always tries that, for it nis based on an ideal of materialism and egoism. You see that politics are corrupted - but you do not ask why, because the answer would screw this anachronistic theory of the invisible hand regulating the market that you happen to confess to.

Add to this the many sidelines of thoughts that you have gotten from me in my long two-part reply some days ago, about basic democratic structures in local regions, and somewhat feudalistic structures on a national and supernational level. There I said that it nevertheless is a new form of feudalism I talk of, that is not defined by possession and wealth, but qualification through life-long education that is kept so indepedant that it cannot be corrupted by the market interests or populistic elections (because just allowing to elect anybody, is no criterion of educational and character's qualification at all).

What you argue in favour of, is just a social-darwinistic oligarchy of more and more monopolists that kill the free market and reduce the competition you see as a basic mechanism and that you claim to want. Your solution precisely and exactly causes that which you want to prevent. You are falling to your own self-fulfilling prophecy.

And it is beyond my understanding adn imignation why you can't see that - even more so when considering that we currently (and once again) need to clean the broken glass your (unregulated) market has caused. The way the finance sector behaved with maximum lack of responsibility and maximum egoism and selfishness and greed - was no violation to rules of your model, and no pervertion of your model's nature: but the consequent result from your market model. You asked for it, you invited it, you created and demanded the space and opportunity for it to emerge and unfold. To claim that evil liberal politicians regulated that market so much and that is what has caused the mess, is almost infame and turns the downside up and declares left side what is right side.

I do agree to your implications made in several postings that socialistic models are no answer, and abuse the philosophical concept of "justice" to declare a redistribution of possession and wealth the goal and focus of their policies. the term "justice" is in inflationary use with polticiians anyway, and most of the time is abused massively, even in contexts where the term neitzher a disucssion about it has any room at all. It is the cheap way of politicians to trick the crowds by appealing to their superficial emotions in order to lull their mind. All the political parties are is masters of it. Because politicians are too much about opportunism and self-interest, and to less about respkmnsibility and education. but when yoiu criticise this in poltiicians and how it corrupts the political culture, how could you assume that the same atttiude of people, the same thinking and the same mindset would lead to any different results if it is allowed to unfold in an explicitly economical, business context? Your self-regulating market bases on egoism. and that works as an interaction basis on very small, low social interaction levels, eventually. agai my argument that dmeocracy and self-reglating market only works mostly uncorrupted in relative small-sized communities. That the size of a community matters and that administration- and interaction structures matter as well due to their different complexity and so demand different ways to organise and to handle them, also mis somethign you never mention. But you simply can't run a nation or a supranational community with several hundred million people like your raun the social relations, politics and trade in a small village of 200. This is one of the biggest mistakes practcially all national and international bodies make today: they try to implement administrative procedures for complexity structures that they simply are unsuited for.

However, your question was which of two options that you gave I would prefer. My reply is: none of them. They are not radical enough, they are not functional enough, they are basing on wrong assumptions, and they set irrelevant priorities. We are screwed with both of them, partially for different and partially for similiar reasons.

However, the critical factor is time, and honestly said I really think we have already run out of it. As I see it, mankind is unlikely to extinct in the forseeable future, but I do not see our planetary civilisation survive in the long run. To me a scenario of a drastically warmed environment with a steep decrease in diversity of life forms, tremendous loss of agriculturally usable soil, disrupted international communication lines, no longer existing national entities, a tremendous loss of scientific knowledge and technical ability, oceans that are hostile to most forms of higher organic life and man reduced to just a fraction of today'S global population, living a nomadic life in tribal social structures, is the most likely if considering the future beyond the next couple of decades. On the way there it is very likely that there will be several small or one major nuclear war. That ideologic extremisms, both of poltiical and religious nature, win dominant status, I consider to be very likely. and even in the forseebale future of the next 2-3 generation I think that neither your free market nor today's democracies nor my "third way model" will survive, but that nations will turn towards totalitarian control mechanisms and state-regulated supra-economies (with the additonal option of a poltiical-economical conglomerat will replace national states anyway) - before it all desintegrates due to lacking ressources, living space, wars and an environment increasingly hostile to higher organic life. We will not die out in the next couple of centuries, but our current golden age I fear has already been sentenced to death. By us.

[SteamWake]

To cut it short

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Sorry just found that amusing.

[Skybird]

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Sorry just found that amusing.

Well, comparing to my former standards some years ago... ;)

[XabbaRus]

That is precisely the problem with the whole global warming hoax. They have the masses fooled just so that they can rape you monitarily and try to make you feel good about it while they do it. Not much different than what the health care scenario is. Total and complete nonsense with the whole cholesterol scam. But everyone I know over 50 is on a statin drug. Fear is the greatest motivator for mankind. I guess I expect too much from the educated man, but it seems that education was a moot point for the followers of the heavens gate cult. So nothing surprizes me anymore, but in the end you get what you pay for in life and this is what we got.:salute:

I don't think it is a hoax but I do think it is taken advantage of by certain businesses and politicians...

[Schroeder]

How about you call it the Patriotic Act II. Your nation will get more independent from oil which mainly comes from Muslim nations. See it as a strategical step towards energy independence. What could hurt you more than not getting any oil any more, or the Sheiks deciding to let the price skyrocket?
Some of you are always concerned about the US's safety. Don't you think that a military (and a country) that is hugely depending on foreign oil is quite a risky thing for your safety?

[SteamWake]

How about you call it the Patriotic Act II. Your nation will get more independent from oil which mainly comes from Muslim nations.

Every time I hear this it just makes my blood boil. The only freakin reason we are so dependant on foregin sources of oil is because of the same bunch of enviromentalist whom are in the tank for this legislation to begin with.

[Tchocky]

Energy independence isn't a great idea if all you'll be doing is burning oil from under different ground.

[SteamWake]

Energy independence isn't a great idea if all you'll be doing is burning oil from under different ground.

Like it or not oil is the lifeblood of industry and will remain so for a long long time. Without oil industry stops, without industry the economy stops. Soon food would stop as well.

We do alot more with oil than 'burn' it. Hell even asprin has its roots in hydrocarbons. That keyboard you typed your post from was created from hydrocarbons.

To say stop burning oil and save the universe is simply nieve.

[Skybird]

His point is that our dependance on oil - is our seal of doom. At least in that we so sturbbornly refused to move beyind it while there still was time.

and btw, the last time I checked things, most ammounts of oil were used for energy production and gasoline - not for producing fertilizers, PVC bags and drugs.

[SteamWake]

His point is that our dependance on oil - is our seal of doom. At least in that we so sturbbornly refused to move beyind it while there still was time.

and btw, the last time I checked things, most ammounts of oil were used for energy production and gasoline - not for producing fertilizers, PVC bags and drugs.

Thanks for reinforcing my point on dependancy :salute:

My point was that we do not have to be that dependant but due to enviromental concearns we are.

Very true the vast majority of oil is used for energy production, however there is a plethora of other things that require oil for their production. Just look around you nearly every single object you touch or use has their roots in hydrocarbons. Yes even your beloved bicycle.

[Schroeder]

And that is exactly why we should stop burning it and use different forms of energy.

[SteamWake]

And that is exactly why we should stop burning it and use different forms of energy.

Show me a car that runs on water and is priced competitively and I will gladly buy it. :up:

[Tchocky]

Damn environmentalists, keeping us dependent on oil!

[SteamWake]

Damn environmentalists, keeping us dependent on [Foriegn] oil!

Fixed for you :yep:

[Task Force]

schroeder, we should try to do that, swhiching to cleaner fuels, but the Technology isnt advanced for it to be realy safe... but with the way the world is now, aint gonna happen for a long time. There are hundreds of thousand of cars on the road right now... buning fuel... at this second...

People are comfertable with oil, and fossil fule fuled machinery. and as we know people dont realy look to get out of the stuff they feel comfertable... so people arnt gonna do it anytime soon...

Also... the govenment probably isnt too suportive of this, cause a car that runs on sunlight, or water cant be taxed realy easy like fuel.... which brings in money...

[Buddahaid]

Or we could buy cars that get 35mpg instead of 16-25. Heck, Triumph made cars in the twenties that got 30. All we've done is make them cleaner and more powerful. Do you really need a passenger car with 250bhp? Look how much of a difference last summers price spike made. You know we can use what we get better, and keep the reserves untapped for farther in the future. The nation can also do much better in recovering used plastics. But all this, requires people to change the behavior of waste and consumption made easy by cheap plentiful oil.

[Task Force]

yes all good ideas... but to get people to do things like that. that would be near impossiable... An example... a man has had a dodge ram that gets around 10-15 mpg, he has had this truck since 1999... it still runs good, and gets him from point a to b. Hese not gonna get rid of it for some car that will cost him acouple thousand dollars that an average american dosent have.

as with recycleables, some will, some wont.... some places make people pay to even have a recycle bin, and if I can just throw things in the trash... and pay less on my bills.... Why the heck am I gonna keep a retarted blue bin that will add to my costs.

[Schroeder]

Or we could buy cars that get 35mpg instead of 16-25. Heck, Triumph made cars in the twenties that got 30.

35 miles per gallon is about average in Europe (or even below). my car is 17 years old, runs 112 mp/h if it has to and goes about 32 miles per gallon. this is the standard for almost all European and Asian cars that are sold over here. Most of them need less fuel for more power (and weight...:shifty:) than my old car has.


Do you really need a passenger car with 250bhp?
Mine is bigger than yours.;)

@Task Force

There are plenty of cars available that need much less fuel. But then you can't buy American (yet).;)

[Task Force]

yea, I myself think we should look more into disiel.:yep:

[SteamWake]

Here is a good example of what the private sector is capable of given the chance.

Solar-Powered Plane Sets Sights for Flight Around World

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,529408,00.html

[SteamWake]

Sen. Inhofe Calls for Inquiry Into 'Suppressed' Climate Change Report


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/29/gop-senator-calls-inquiry-supressed-climate-change-report/

:06:

[AVGWarhawk]

A top Republican senator has ordered an investigation into the Environmental Protection Agency's alleged suppression of a report that questioned the science behind global warming.


Yeah, it is called junk science. Do you realize we are being forced into this change of the way we live. This is not a gee, what do you think type deal. This is ram rod of new legislation and if enacted we will see our energy expenditures go through the roof.

I'm beginning to believe Pelois is the devil.

[geetrue]

Yeah, it is called junk science. Do you realize we are being forced into this change of the way we live. This is not a gee, what do you think type deal. This is ram rod of new legislation and if enacted we will see our energy expenditures go through the roof.

I'm beginning to believe Pelois is the devil.

At least you spelled the devil's name right ...

Her name is Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi

She is of course in co-hoots with the President Barrack Obama who looks like and sounds like a normal person, but he does not act like any previous president that I know.

Did you see the president get miffed when a reporter told him what McCain said about Iran ... Obama, "I am the president of the United States" Spells ego problem ...

There was a lady in the sunday morning ABC news show with that greek guy George something something (I really like him, but I can't spell his name) that said Obama better get as much as he can before the American public
catch on to him and then she said the best thing that could happen to Obama isfor a majority of the senate to become republicans and then he could blame them."

[SteamWake]

Her name is Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi

Thats Senator to you peon she worked hard for that title :rotfl:

[CastleBravo]

Quote:
Originally Posted by geetrue http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/smartdark/viewpost.gif (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=1126490#post1126490)
Her name is Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi

Thats Senator to you peon she worked hard for that title :rotfl:


Now I'm confused asto who is confused:06:

[geetrue]

Thats Senator to you peon she worked hard for that title :rotfl:

I went to highschool and you went to highschool, but one of us took that day off ...


Since 1987, Nancy Pelosi has represented California's Eighth District in the House of Representatives.


A senator is a senator and a congress woman is a congress woman :yep:

[CastleBravo]

yep, Speaker of the House, number three in line for POTUS. More politically powerful, in theory, than any Senator.

[AVGWarhawk]

http://netmail.verizon.net/webmail/driver?nimlet=download&fn=Trash&mid=4212&partIndex=0.1.1&disp=inline

[SteamWake]

Sorry I got my arrogant bitches mixed up :haha:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=152914

Anyhow back on topic.


Republicans in the U.S. Congress, who warn that climate change legislation is the "biggest job-killing bill" ever, see a bright side: Some people who lose their jobs could be Democrat lawmakers who vote for the bill.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/8583541

[UnderseaLcpl]

The difference between you and me on this is that I am aware that both of the two mentioned options do not work, from a status of knowledge that we have today. Thus I am looking for a third, new way in solving the underlying problem (while ignoring for the sake of my thought-experiment that we do not have the time to implement such long-lasting processes). While I may be right or may be wrong, your idea is to simply go back to an archaic understanding of ultraliberal capitalism - and by that you admit that you are not aware of that being no solution to the problem (but being the cause of creating the problem itself). Or in other words: you try to solve the problem by ignoring that there is a problem. You tell me about the dangers of plutocracies in your question - but you do your best to convince people they should allow maximum opportunity for plutocracies (aka monopolies) to establish themselves. that is where your theory serves no reasonable explanatory purpose anymore.
Before I begin in earnest, I will attempt to clear up a couple of misunderstandings. Firstly, a capitalist monopoly is not a plutocracy until it has control of the law. In the market, even a monopoly must adhere to the laws of supply and demand. If a monopoly cannot offer a product at a price people are willing to pay, there is no transaction. People have a choice, and when confronted with undesireable choices they will simply find a way around. This fact is proven by the very nature and scale of illicit trade that takes place globally every day. Even when faced with severe legal consequences, people simply bypass the exsisting market structure and create another one.
If the state, with a monopoly on force, cannot prevent that, what hope does a run-of-the-mill capitalist monopoly have? Furthermore, I have already pointed out the scarcity of capitalist monopolies and you have had nothing to say about that.
The truth of the matter is that if the state is very limited in freedom to expand its' powers so that business cannot take advantage, there is little to fear from monopolies. They simply cannot endure in a truly free market. How many examples of monopolies can you produce that did not rely on state legislation or subsidy? I have no doubt that you can conjure any number of theories as to how monopolies could become prevalent and do significant damage, but what proof do you have? I will save you some time and tell you that there are none. Again, the reason that is so is because even monopolies must obey the natural laws of the market. They must offer a product at a price people are willing to pay on a large scale or they die. Monopolies may make things a bit more expensive, but they cannot force anyone to do anything without backing from the state.
In short, capitalistic monopolies are not a plutocratic entities. They must have state aid to become plutocratic, and I think you have difficulty determining where the line between good government and plutocracy lies. To be even more succinct, we still agree on the premise of "as little government as possible, but as much as is needed", but you think we need far too much.
It is pointless to apply your neofeudal model to this example because neither of us knows what it is, exactly, but that is not to say that your model cannot work. I have been toying with the idea of a constitutional feudal government, wherein the state has very limited power in creating legislation, so that business will not have any incentive to seek state aid.
What do you think of that premise?


To cut it short, I refuse your option "let the market regulate ecologic issues" completely, and think it is the worst case scenario that spells desaster for our civilisation.
I didn't say the market should regulate ecologic issues. In fact, I specifically offered the concession of a reasonable and uniform effluent tax where companies pay based on how much they polute. The only caveat is that the tax must not be so high as to be anything other than an inconvenience and a minor profit drain. That would provide an incentive to pollute less, but would not encourage industry to find a way around it by relocating or pursuing legal action. Remember that the key is incentive. If incentive is destroyed the market does not work properly.

I also do not think that current political structures are independant enough form economic lobbying that they can be trusted to fully succeed in establishing the needed economic reorientations to allow us adaptation of our ways of livings to the planetary mess we have caused.
Perhaps current political establishments are too entrenched for you to consider as being removeable or changeable, but for me they are not.
I agree that in their current form there is little that can be done, but in the U.S. the government has to contend with an armed populace that may become violent. That's why so many of us fight to keep our weapons, and why we were protected from state measures to take them to begin with.
I have said before that the U.S. is not a democracy, and that is true, but if the state refuses to comply with popular demands for a free society and market, we have the power to forcefully revolt, and there are many who would. This policy is part of a recurrent theme wherein the rights of the individual are key. Are you seeing a pattern yet? As long as the individual cannot be forced into doing anything other being penalized for forcing others to comply with their will, there is harmony. A limited state is perfectly capable of achieving that aim by being constitutionally legislated into its' proper role. It should punish fraud and trespasses upon individiual rights, and little else.

You always complain about politics that cannot be trusted, and the evil state. But you do not think it to the end, you opportunistically stop in the middle of the thought. That way you stop before you see that that ultrafree market that for the most should regulate itself, by your theory is given the opportunity and invitation to unfold that ammount of right that lobbying power that corrupts the politics that you complain about, and it necessarily always tries that, for it nis based on an ideal of materialism and egoism. You see that politics are corrupted - but you do not ask why, because the answer would screw this anachronistic theory of the invisible hand regulating the market that you happen to confess to.
On the contrary, I know why politics are corrupted. It is as simple as the old maxim; "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
What you are failing to see is that in the free market and in free society, there is no power other than what any one person allows to another, and that power is constantly subject to revocation. Therefore, there is always an incentive to provide a mutually beneficial exchange.
In a free market you can charge whatever you wish for a jug of milk, but I am under no obligation to buy it. Even if you try to fix prices with others who have milk, you can't force anyone to buy. If your prices are high enough, and you are stubborn enough, I'll simply drink water or buy a cow, or drink soymilk, or use some other alternative, as will many others. Eventually, your prices will fall or you will change businesses or a competitor will offer milk for less or you will have to take extraordinary measures to regain your customer base. Most likely, you will simply go out of business and there will be no need for anyone to bother with you any more.
The "invisible hand" is very much alive in today's world. Where it seems to be dead, you can always find the hand of the state, and even then, the invisible hand persists, just in a perverted form.

Add to this the many sidelines of thoughts that you have gotten from me in my long two-part reply some days ago, about basic democratic structures in local regions, and somewhat feudalistic structures on a national and supernational level. There I said that it nevertheless is a new form of feudalism I talk of, that is not defined by possession and wealth, but qualification through life-long education that is kept so indepedant that it cannot be corrupted by the market interests or populistic elections (because just allowing to elect anybody, is no criterion of educational and character's qualification at all).
Again, I see merit in the idea but without a clearly defined system it remains an idea and nothing more. I think there might be room for a constitutional system of qualifications for ruling parties, but it must be extremely difficult to change and it must require at least some degree of popular support, lest any party attempt to use the power for their own ends. Even amongst the brilliant, there are wicked souls and misguided prodigies, Sky. It only takes one to ruin everything for everyone for a very long time in your system.


What you argue in favour of, is just a social-darwinistic oligarchy of more and more monopolists that kill the free market and reduce the competition you see as a basic mechanism and that you claim to want. Your solution precisely and exactly causes that which you want to prevent. You are falling to your own self-fulfilling prophecy.

So you say, but that has never come to pass. You are correct in your accusation that it is a form of social darwinism, but again you miss the forest for the trees. In a capitalist system, the most greedy and innovative take the risks, should they not be entitled to the greatest rewards and penalties, depending upon their merit? Remember that a market, even when dominated by a monopoly, must provide goods at a price people are willing to pay. There is no company on this planet that can or was ever able to force people to buy something from them unless the state sanctioned it.
There is, however, a vital differentiation from Darwinsim of any type. In a market, the weak benefit from the strong. Choice and competition yield better products for the average consumer, and a strong private sector increases demand for labor, therby increasing the price of labor and the lot of the worker.

On the topic of monopolies, you consistently assume that the market creates harmful monopolies, and I only ask that you show me one instance in the history of our entire species where a market monopoly, unabetted by the state, did more damage than a state-sponsored monopoly or a state pursuing a similar course of action. You won't find one, because such a thing does not exsist. The market always relies upon mutually beneficial transaction, because that is its' most basic component. The state always relies upon forced compliance, because that is what it is based upon. More on that in a moment.

And it is beyond my understanding adn imignation why you can't see that - even more so when considering that we currently (and once again) need to clean the broken glass your (unregulated) market has caused. The way the finance sector behaved with maximum lack of responsibility and maximum egoism and selfishness and greed - was no violation to rules of your model, and no pervertion of your model's nature: but the consequent result from your market model. You asked for it, you invited it, you created and demanded the space and opportunity for it to emerge and unfold. To claim that evil liberal politicians regulated that market so much and that is what has caused the mess, is almost infame and turns the downside up and declares left side what is right side.
This is something that I hear from you over and over again, no matter what I say, so I am going to be very direct in my response this time in an attempt to clarify my argument. It is not my intent to be rude or condescending, I'm just trying to put things as simply as I possibly can;
You clearly do not understand the nature of the market. It is a very fluid force, and it has a tendency to find the path of least resistance. The state does not upset the market only by hindering it, it also upsets the market by aiding it, and by creating markets where they do not exsist.
Your constant accusation that the current economic crisis is an example of the failure of the market is false, by a wide margin. The housing bubble may have been created by free-market decisions, but the groundwork for it was laid by the state, as was the resultant economic collapse.
Try to see it in terms of supply and demand; with the creation of Fannie Mae, the government created a secondary mortgage market out of thin air. It created demand where demand did not exsist and funded that market with taxpayer dollars. Earlier than that, the Federal government created a Central Bank with the power to fiat currency into exsistence, paving the way for a massive increase in the supply of currency that was completely out of proportion to demand. As with any supply-demand scenario, the supply became worth less as the demand diminished.
The state simply followed its' natural path and stole more and more money from people to sustain its' own exsistence. Where it couldn't take the money, it created it, which is really just another form of stealing if you think about it. If you had a Euro and I magically made it worth 25% less, I'd be stealing from you. States do this all the time, but only on a large scale. They print or borrow money to serve as a medium for trade in order to fund state initiatives but in so doing they add to the currency supply and therefore reduce demand for currency, thereby indirectly taxing the populace. This is not helped by the fact that the number of profitable states that have ever exsisted in the world is exactly zero. States always cost more than what it takes to maintain them, and you will never find an example that proves otherwise.
The market did not invent the subprime industry, nor the demand for it, nor the fiat system of currency and credit that ballooned it beyond sustainable proportion. Those things, my friend, are all inventions of the state, not the free will it is supposed to be protecting.



I do agree to your implications made in several postings that socialistic models are no answer, and abuse the philosophical concept of "justice" to declare a redistribution of possession and wealth the goal and focus of their policies. the term "justice" is in inflationary use with polticiians anyway, and most of the time is abused massively, even in contexts where the term neitzher a disucssion about it has any room at all. It is the cheap way of politicians to trick the crowds by appealing to their superficial emotions in order to lull their mind. All the political parties are is masters of it. Because politicians are too much about opportunism and self-interest, and to less about respkmnsibility and education. but when yoiu criticise this in poltiicians and how it corrupts the political culture, how could you assume that the same atttiude of people, the same thinking and the same mindset would lead to any different results if it is allowed to unfold in an explicitly economical, business context? Your self-regulating market bases on egoism. and that works as an interaction basis on very small, low social interaction levels, eventually.
Well I'm glad we can find some common ground, even if it is in the same place we usually find it, but I disagree with your logical extension that markets would behave the same way politicians would. The key difference between the market and the state is the presence of competition and the factor of fiat authority through violence or the threat of violence.
I'm repeating myself a bit, but a market that is unabetted by the state has no true power to force anyone to do anything. That is what makes the market work, and what makes the state fail so often. Incentive and mutual benefit are concepts foreign to the state as a rule. I will expound upon that premise if you so desire, but I think you will understand the meaning well enough.


again my argument that dmeocracy and self-reglating market only works mostly uncorrupted in relative small-sized communities. That the size of a community matters and that administration- and interaction structures matter as well due to their different complexity and so demand different ways to organise and to handle them, also mis somethign you never mention. But you simply can't run a nation or a supranational community with several hundred million people like your raun the social relations, politics and trade in a small village of 200. This is one of the biggest mistakes practcially all national and international bodies make today: they try to implement administrative procedures for complexity structures that they simply are unsuited for.
There's that word again; democracy. Let us put that term aside now and forevermore. I am not a champion of democracy, and you are not a champion of socialism. Democracy is simply tyranny of the masses, where I stand for individual liberties, even in the face of majority. You favor the state, but only in a properly guided form, possibly administrated by a neofeudal state, but always with careful attention to the well-being of society and the planet, which is not a socialist philosophy. That is mostly correct, yes? I'm aware that I'm cutting your stance a bit short, but it is complex and you already know the nuances I did not mention, so in the interest of brevity I will leave it at that and give you a space here to re-emphasize anything I am not paying due respect to.

In any case, the nice thing about the market is that it works no matter how many people are involved. Democracy aside, a state based upon the market, limited in power, and sworn to the preservation of many individual rights by constitutional law will work on any scale. The reason for this is that it is based upon the market. The market allows billions of individuals to interact and gain mutual beneift every day without the need for any kind of regulatory authority. Regulatory agencies may be present, but their only essential function is to prevent fraud, theft, defamation, and other insidious means of gaining unfair advantage or violating individual freedoms.
A state based upon market concepts is no different. People are free to pursue their individual agendas and interact as they see fit, but are not given the power to violate others' rights without penalty. Everyone has a voice of their own, but may not silence the voices of others.
Through seeming chaos, you create order because the most basic unit is ordered well. Mutual benefit begets mutual benefit.

However, your question was which of two options that you gave I would prefer. My reply is: none of them. They are not radical enough, they are not functional enough, they are basing on wrong assumptions, and they set irrelevant priorities. We are screwed with both of them, partially for different and partially for similiar reasons.

A PM in response to this paragraph.



However, the critical factor is time, and honestly said I really think we have already run out of it. As I see it, mankind is unlikely to extinct in the forseeable future, but I do not see our planetary civilisation survive in the long run.

We're in some agree somewhat in this. I also see mankind's extinction in the near or even semi-near future as being unlikely. As far as the "long run" is concerned, I have no input of any value. The chance that we will destroy ourselves or become our own salvation is unknown to me. It all depends upon how well we adapt, both consciously and on a genetic level, and I must say that we have adapted remarkably wel thus far, so I am optimistic. That said, we have a lot of genetic failings that could use improving. As a species, we are prone to infant mortality and the passage of traits that are less than desireable, by virute of our social nature, amongst other interesting adaptions.

To me a scenario of a drastically warmed environment with a steep decrease in diversity of life forms, tremendous loss of agriculturally usable soil, disrupted international communication lines, no longer existing national entities, a tremendous loss of scientific knowledge and technical ability, oceans that are hostile to most forms of higher organic life and man reduced to just a fraction of today'S global population, living a nomadic life in tribal social structures, is the most likely if considering the future beyond the next couple of decades. On the way there it is very likely that there will be several small or one major nuclear war. That ideologic extremisms, both of poltiical and religious nature, win dominant status, I consider to be very likely. and even in the forseebale future of the next 2-3 generation I think that neither your free market nor today's democracies nor my "third way model" will survive, but that nations will turn towards totalitarian control mechanisms and state-regulated supra-economies (with the additonal option of a poltiical-economical conglomerat will replace national states anyway) - before it all desintegrates due to lacking ressources, living space, wars and an environment increasingly hostile to higher organic life. We will not die out in the next couple of centuries, but our current golden age I fear has already been sentenced to death. By us.

I offer only a brief reply to this, and for that I apologize, but I'm a bit short on time. I'm just going to write a paragraph that roughly follows and responds to yours in order.
I think that you underestimate the human capacity for ingenuity. I don't think we posses the technogical marvels that woul be needed to control or even markedly affect global climate changes, but I have no doubts about our capability to adapt. I also think that you're being a bit too simplistic in your assumptions of damages to the earth resulting from climate change. If historic geology is any kind of example, we should actually see an increase in the amount of arable land, even though total landmass may decline in the event of global warming. Oceans serve as precipitators and moderators of temperature, and most of Earth's landmass is simply not floodable, though a surpsing amount of it is arid because of the past few tens of thousands of years' worth of cool temperatures.
Whether or not your fears of nuclear war will come to pass, I cannot say Too many variables to consider.

[SteamWake]

I offer only a brief reply to this


:rotfl:Id hate to see an extended reply.

[AVGWarhawk]

Can we get this reply in Cliff Notes?

[Skybird]

Gimme some time and Lance and me will set a new board record. :03:

[CastleBravo]

This is a long read but it gives some insight asto just how bad cap and trade is for the US.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...jNmM2MWE=&w=MA (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTc1MmVhMGYxY2UzNzAwMTJlODBjZjg2NDJjNmM2MWE=&w=MA)

[UnderseaLcpl]

This is a long read but it gives some insight as to just how bad cap and trade is for the US.


At least its' a lot shorter than the bill itself. I still haven't gotten through it. Looking up the legislative references alone would take many hours, if not a few days. No wonder nobody read the whole thing.

Can we get this reply in Cliff Notes?

That was the Cliff's notes. I'll write the whole book if you promise to buy it:DL

[Skybird]

@ Lance,


I sent this through an auto-corrector to tackle my annoying tendency for creating typos en masse while practicing excessive speed-typing, and I hope I made it more comfortable to read, therefore. Especially in the first half there was so much on my mind that I fear I leave a better structure to be desired, but let’s not forget that this all is a “talking in writing”, not a work of academic written exam, please bear with me then, if some things are scattered around a bit, maybe.

Before I begin in earnest, I will attempt to clear up a couple of misunderstandings. Firstly, a capitalist monopoly is not a plutocracy until it has control of the law. In the market, even a monopoly must adhere to the laws of supply and demand. If a monopoly cannot offer a product at a price people are willing to pay, there is no transaction. People have a choice, and when confronted with undesireable choices they will simply find a way around.

Choice. Hm. I have the choice to consume electricity or not, but is that really a choice I have as long as I do not wish to go back to the stone age or live with the beggars in the park? And the market is dominated by a small handful of producers that have silent agreements how they divided the market amongst themselves to prevent competition, we call that a cartel. If I depend on a car, I have still the choice to buy gasoline or not – but that statement is almost philosophic only and has no practical relevance. But when I gas, I depend on the market prices of an economy that has heavily prevented competition since decades, and where established monopolists have divided the market amongst themselves - and thus for example have the power to raise prices in synchronicity independent from any eventual fall of oil costs. For example the prices at the gas station always rise (independent from oil market situations) before holidays, even before the traffic volume increases. But they do not fall accordingly afterwards.

Some days ago a speculator manages to boost the price for oil by a factor of 34 for a short while. An extreme example of egoism willing to do maximum damage to the market model of yours, if only it serves his egoism – that you want to assure maximum freedom to unfold. Speculators are also massively influencing the prices for food, another example, bringing prices to levels that have nothing to do with reality and that are artificially boosted to possible maximums, disconnecting them from any regulation by free competition on the “self-regulating” market.

The freedom for egoism to unfold, you idealistically see as naturally accepting healthy functional limits. You simply do not get that maximum freedom for egoism simply leads to – maximum egoism at the cost of your market functionality.

Some things people need to buy, some things are vital. And here monopolism and cartels are most hurting. The market for agricultural seeds for example is dominated by Monsanto. They practically dictate the prices, and they also dictate which types of seeds are produced, and which not. In Germany for example they have just pulled a very popular potato type from the market, despite protest by consumers and farmers alike, because they replaced it with another potato type - that is more expensive and less long-lasting in storage (so people have to buy more often). Quality and consumer-orientation got sacrificed for profit. Or beer brewers throughout Europe – they dictate prices as they like, with the local pub owner being bound by treaties that do not allow him to change suppliers to his liking, and being pressed to the penny. Same is true with gasoline stations that are leased from suppliers only (which is the rule over here). They are not free in making choices for suppliers, and can only bill the prices dictated by the gas suppliers. There is no competition, because gas suppliers have formed de-facto cartels, a collective monopoly. Think of electricity, gasoline, oil, water, pharmaceutics. And of course: Microsoft. I would add Deutsche Bundespost and Deutsche Bahn as German examples, as well as German supermarket chains blackmailing farmers and producers in order to be able to battle their competition with dumping prices – here you also have to deal with something like monopoles or cartels, it’s just not that obvious at first glance. All these sectors are heavily dominated by groups of monopolists that have formed cartels. Especially the powerful position of oil companies has caused havoc in Western societies, preventing since decades the development of alternatives to fossil burning engines and fossil-depending energy production.

Sometimes it also works in a self-supporting feedback-loop. There are forms of monopolism that only indirectly affect the consumer, but affect him nevertheless, and that are working in reverse, so to speak, in kind of a feedback caused by the consumer. To come back to supermarkets, for example in Germany we have many scandals with rotten meat. It stinks and is foul like something from the grave, but gets cleaned superficially, relabelled and repacked and then brought into the shop, or get used for frozen convenience food, on pizzas for example. This is because the supermarkets are bitterly engaged in a ruinous competition via self-damaging dumping pricing. But that low price level has as a result that low quality food is being produced and circulated, because the supermarkets dictate prices for the producers of food, namely farmers and farming companies, who cannot sell their products if they do not accept the low prices dictated by the supermarkets.

Another story is milk, which could serve as something like the functional counterpart of a monopole: the creation of overproduction. In Germany, and throughout the EU, milk farmers currently make losses, because the money they get for their milk does not cover the costs to produce it, and by quite a huge margin. They want subsidies and a higher price for milk in the supermarket, therefore. What is not said usually is that they raised their milk production when the demand for milk from Asia exploded some years ago. But China has started it’s own milk-production (although Chinese people have problems with their digestion when consuming it, it is an artificially created demand that is profitable for some businessmen, but against reason and health). When the world demand for milk fell, the European milk producers were left with massive overcapacities – which helped to kill the price level for it. Here, the dictate by supermarkets combines in destructive power with the home-made overproduction that now gets regulated by the market as you usually describe it. But even here, the self-regulation of the market in your meaning is not pure and clean, but is heavily accompanied and distorted by additional processes and factors that damage that self-regulation. – What I want to say here is that it simply is not as pure and clean and ordered and according to theory as you often explain.

Don't tell me you do not see how massively monopolists do or try to dominate the market. It is almost everywhere. Now they are patenting future discoveries in future species, and genes. They try to establish monopoles on life itself, and on vital, life-supporting variables too.


This fact is proven by the very nature and scale of illicit trade that takes place globally every day. Even when faced with severe legal consequences, people simply bypass the exsisting market structure and create another one.

If the state, with a monopoly on force, cannot prevent that, what hope does a run-of-the-mill capitalist monopoly have?

Invalid comparison. Then items you compare do not match.

Furthermore, I have already pointed out the scarcity of capitalist monopolies and you have had nothing to say about that.

If you refuse to see the omnipresence of monopolism and cartels everywhere, than that is not my fault. There will come a day when they sell breathing air - and you still will not consider that to be an issue. And since many years you could already ride an electro-car fueled by nil-emission-produced electricity. But you do not wonder why you don't, but why oil suppliers still dictate market conditions for cars and energy.


The truth of the matter is that if the state is very limited in freedom to expand its' powers so that business cannot take advantage, there is little to fear from monopolies. They simply cannot endure in a truly free market. How many examples of monopolies can you produce that did not rely on state legislation or subsidy? I have no doubt that you can conjure any number of theories as to how monopolies could become prevalent and do significant damage, but what proof do you have? I will save you some time and tell you that there are none. Again, the reason that is so is because even monopolies must obey the natural laws of the market. They must offer a product at a price people are willing to pay on a large scale or they die. Monopolies may make things a bit more expensive, but they cannot force anyone to do anything without backing from the state.

All in all, that paragraph is insane, and incredibly naive. Pharmaceutics, energy, fertilizer, water, seeds, fossil-burning engines - all that is heavily monopolised here, and I have little reason to assume it is different in the US. You Americans often laugh about European health care system, especially Germany. Have you ever wondered why in America the medical standard is like that in Germany, but a much greater amount of your population does not have access to it in full, but only to most basic - and not rarely - non-sufficient minimum-services? Have you never wondered why with that kind of "market-regulated" (and thus naturally heavily lobbied) system you nevertheless pay roughly twice as many bucks per Bang than we Germans do? As we see it, you do waste a lot of money, but not gaining more quality, but even accepting more parts of the population not having access in full.

On the other hand, drugs in Germany are the most expensive medical market in Europe. The same drugs cost 20-65% less in neighbouring countries.

You see no monopoles around you, no problems with your self-regulating market? Above just one example, and more to follow.

Ever heard of the tea and spice monopoles of European traders? 17th and 18th century – the Dutch East-India Company – does it ring a bell? ;) There have been more like that.

German cars cost more in Germany, than in other European countries. I wonder why.

Telecommunication also was extremely monopolised in Germany - until politicians and the EU (!) stepped in and liberalised the market against the bitter resistance of the established key-player companies, with a result of falling of former excessive prices, and new companies forming up. But now, these new companies again accumulate to lesser, but bigger companies, the fall of prices has stopped and it is expected to rise again, and their ruinous competing to kill their rivals and establish new monopoles by themselves has lead to a general decline in service. I can sing a song of IT company services, with five companies I had, I had troubles over months with four, and twice it stopped just before going to court. To me telephone and IT companies are legitimate targets for NATO air raid exercises. Many practices there are simply criminal, I say.

We are just in the middle of the biggest banking meltdown in history. Banks were given a lot of financial fuel, paid with tax moneys. But as we just have learned - currently almost all banks do an even more irresponsible job in advising customer who are insane enough wanting to buy investment packages and bonds. Hidden tests by consumer protection organisation showed that now they try to sell all toxic assets of theirs to private customers, and do so be cheating, hiding and lying even more unscrupulous than before.

There is nothing better for a capitalist than to have a monopole in a sector that consumers cannot evade, and depend on. Then consumers do not have the choice you hail so much. They must pay the price dictated by the monopolist. And the monopolist artificially raises the prices to maximise his profit. One of the good things the EU has done by regulation: from next year on, all cell phones must have one and the same type of power connector. the free market before led to more and more different types of AC units, when the consumer bought a new cell phone he also needed to buy a new power charger, because these included not only different connectors, but also electronic circuits that make sure they cannot be used on other cell phones. Politics finally ultimately ordered the industry to comply - et voilá, all of a sudden the technical solutions they refused to produce since 15 years, pop up within just 8 months. From next year on, all cell phones sold will be chargeable with just one and the same power charger, and if you buy a new cell phone, you do not need to throw money into a cell phone producer's jaw by buying a new charger as well.

In Japan, the government has had a regulation since long, that in a given category of electronic products, the currently available item with the highest fidelity in economic and ecologic quality (power consummation for example) sets a new standard to which to adapt all other competitors have I think two years time – then they must have brought their own products to that level regarding the characteristic in question, or withdraw from the market. The industry, as was to be expected, ran amok against this when it was brought up, now it is established routine that serves the Japanese quality of electronics extremely well. If the market would have been left to itself, we would have an artificially increased number of different cell phone power chargers for all time to come, and we would have the Japanese clever trick not being there, too.

In Germany, we have four major electricity and energy suppliers, each of them having their claim. Inside it, they used to dictate prices to their liking, and it mostly never reflects international market events. That way they made profits in stellar dimension even at the height of the current crisis, while ripping of private households. When there came a regulation that forced them to separate power gridlines and powerplants, and was meant to help new competitors to access the market for they can use the established power-gridlines, this cartel reacted by raising a fake competition: the six most important alternative power-suppliers in Germany – are just daughters of the four established monopolists. The result is that for the most their monopole is still intact – just better camouflaged. They are still in a position to dictate prices disconnected from realities at the international oil and gas markets.

The liberal market does not take care of monopoles by itself. The liberal market naturally forms monopoles and destroys it’s liberal nature itself. Accepting self-regulating markets compares to accepting cancer and not treating it. Where the market has the freedom and opportunity, it creates monopoles that are against consumer interest - it always tries to do so in a system context beyond a certain size. It also reduces the number of competitors, with the surviving one becoming more and more powerful, preventing competition even more - until they are the only monopolist left who does not need to form alliances over market shares and divisions anymore. And then consumers are really screwed.

The way you see it, only works in small community sizes, and small markets that can be overlooked at a glance by community members. I said that often before now. You ignore system sizes being a relevant variable to these issues. You want to run nations, like a small village could be run, but that does not work in our huge and complex world.

You also oversee another component, that is a social one. They now sell cell phones with an integrated barcode scanner. It lets you scan a product, and then tells you the cheapest price on the web. Which will be the biggest companies that can afford dumping prices to kill smaller competitors that cannot afford to lower their prices to the same level. What to become of the small individual shopkeeper? The internet has destroyed a lot of jobs and shop diversity, especially specialised shops, bookshops, electronics shops. We now see a slow death of the classic department store. Three of the five traditional chains we had, are dead now, one more is currently dying, a fourth one is in the process of insolvency procedures, and how long the last can hold, out remains to be seen. In Germany, we have seen that fierce competition first on the electronics market. 30 years ago, centre towns had plenty of small electronics shops. They have died almost all now. What is left are town centres that are the pendant to what monocultures are in agriculture. Diversity in shops are gone, in many places you only have chain shops and boutiques anymore. The many small family-led shops for the most are gone. With them left diversity, living quality, jobs, existences, attractiveness of town centres.

In short, capitalistic monopolies are not a plutocratic entities. They must have state aid to become plutocratic, and I think you have difficulty determining where the line between good government and plutocracy lies. To be even more succinct, we still agree on the premise of "as little government as possible, but as much as is needed", but you think we need far too much.

It is pointless to apply your neofeudal model to this example because neither of us knows what it is, exactly, but that is not to say that your model cannot work. I have been toying with the idea of a constitutional feudal government, wherein the state has very limited power in creating legislation, so that business will not have any incentive to seek state aid.

What do you think of that premise?

At first glance nice, at second glance: in itself it does nothing to prevent monopolism that kills the market and relocates the social costs of that from the business sector to the private sector - the taxpayer, that is. All profits are privatised, but the costs get externalised. That is a very huge problem, because first it affected only regions. But now, with global money travelling around the globe with the daily business cycle and globalisation forming global players that take the cream off in all nations and evade taxing by being overseas, this has become a life-threatening phenomenon, threatening the very financial survival of nations who are running out of incomes, and profiteers all to often not paying anything into the hosting national economy they are sucking off it’s blood. The worst perverting of this praxis are of course unscrupulous investment fonts, hedge fonts, and so-called “locusts”, whose behaviour in my eyes border to criminal activity and high treachery against the most vital interests of nations.

Managers and decision-makers in companies should be held accountable with their full private property for decisions they make. If they create a mess that is not caused by factors beyond their reach, they should help with all what they have to repair the damage, and atone for the rest they cannot pay for by sitting in prison. Now that is what I call an incentive: an incentive to head for cautious management, foresight, and sustainability being more important than short-termed profits and rapid growth. Increasing profits and constant growth means nothing, if it leads to cyclic collapse every couple of years. Sustainability (Nachhaltigkeit) is a thousand times more important. Almost no economic guru today understands that.

I also am convinced that the general culture of stockholding is one of the biggest evils man has ever created, it is a cancer that erodes the social unity and integrity of a national community from within. Holding shares of companies is only acceptable if you have any personal link to that company, and have an interest in it (for example your job) that goes beyond just getting as much money form it, and that's it. It has led to the phenomenon of globally acting locusts that not only kill damaged, unhealthy companies, but suck all lifeblood from healthy companies as well and leave them behind as dying corpus - again at the social cost of the taxpayer. Therefore I think that investment fonts should be lined up against a wall. And that has little to do with any Marxist idea or communistic abandoning of private property.

The German finance minister, known to not be shy of starting diplomatic rows over substantial issues, first has attacked Switzerland and Lichtenstein over their assistance for tax fraud in other nations, by which he paved the way for the US to confront these nations over tax fraud, too, but just now Steinbrück repeatedly has turned against Britain as well, for Britain trying to prevent any changes in monitoring finance markets, instead wanting to return to the status before the crisis broke out – and accept a situation that again would allow such a crisis like the current to emerge and unfold. For Britain, the finance place London has a greater economic importance than for the rest of Europe, but is it really clever of them to return to the disaster-forming conditions of before the crash? And must the world allow them to prevent any more effective rules to prevent such developments? The minister heavily complains about the British blockade policy to any reforms of the finance system, saying that even the Americans have moved far ahead of their British cousins. Read the story here:

German Finance Minister Accuses Brits of Kowtowing to Bankers
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,druck-633893,00.html

I must say I fully agree with him. I also like his aggressive style, I admit. He is not diplomatic at all cost.

I didn't say the market should regulate ecologic issues. In fact, I specifically offered the concession of a reasonable and uniform effluent tax where companies pay based on how much they polute. The only caveat is that the tax must not be so high as to be anything other than an inconvenience and a minor profit drain.

No. It must serve it’s purpose. That is the priority – not company interests. Reaching a policy of sustainability in ecologic protection and conservation is much, much more important than bankers’ or company’s profit interests. In the end, the interest of the many, in this case: vital interests that defend the elemental basis of life itself, weigh heavier than the financial interest of the few or the one. The basics of biological life and human life get defined by natural variables exclusively – not by economic theories and profit interests. Like the Cree I still wait for the first man demonstrating that one can life and survive by eating money.

That’s why such environmental protection.things do not work nationally, but only internationally – so that companies do not have the option to move to other places with lower such taxes. If a nation acts like this alone, but does not get others moving, too, in only reaches to weaken itself. Another argument why more market policy basing on egoism will only destroy us. We need to learn that cooperation is of paramount importance for us. And that means to be on collision course with the basics of capitalism itself. Another form of economy, we can survive, even if it means to lower our living standards drastically, which are quite excessive anyway in the West. A too damaged environment – we can not survive. So let there be no doubt what is more important, economy or ecology. But changing economy to protect ecology does not work with single solutions by national individualists. It can only gain the needed level of effectiveness if there is international cooperation. If we fail in achieving that, we will lose our civilisation and the chance for future things that could have been, but will not be anymore.

That would provide an incentive to pollute less, but would not encourage industry to find a way around it by relocating or pursuing legal action. Remember that the key is incentive. If incentive is destroyed the market does not work properly.

Fine. If it serves the intended effects, nice. If it does not reach the needed effectiveness, scrap it and just force them to comply. I note that appeals and gestures towards the main industry to change established paradigms, almost always fail to impress them. They only understand one language: that of winning and loosing money. Capitalism in it’s pure form is materialism par excellence. And it rejects the existence and meaning of anything beyond that.

Perhaps current political establishments are too entrenched for you to consider as being removeable or changeable, but for me they are not.

I agree that in their current form there is little that can be done, but in the U.S. the government has to contend with an armed populace that may become violent. That's why so many of us fight to keep our weapons, and why we were protected from state measures to take them to begin with.

Hm? What has that to do here? The US in the past has not blocked environmental obligations on international levels due to fear of armed riots in the federal states, but economic-financial calculations and lobby influence. I think you serve too much a cliché here.

I have said before that the U.S. is not a democracy, and that is true, but if the state refuses to comply with popular demands for a free society and market, we have the power to forcefully revolt, and there are many who would. This policy is part of a recurrent theme wherein the rights of the individual are key. Are you seeing a pattern yet? As long as the individual cannot be forced into doing anything other being penalized for forcing others to comply with their will, there is harmony. A limited state is perfectly capable of achieving that aim by being constitutionally legislated into its' proper role. It should punish fraud and trespasses upon individiual rights, and little else.

I think you see it heavily confused and intentionally one-eyed. But that we could not disagree more on this we both know, I assume. I don’t buy a single word here. I also object to the imperial tyranny of the individual. There is no unlimited freedom as long as the individual is not the only being on planet earth. Where it is embedded in an existential network, its conditions and interactions, it faces limits to it’s freedoms, necessarily, and responsibilities that are considered to be defining for higher state of what is called “civilisation”.

Human world is not revolving around individuals, but communities. The only question is in how far these communities are formed up or joined voluntarily, or not. But you cannot escape communal contexts. To quote from a movie: “In this world a man himself is nothing.”

On the contrary, I know why politics are corrupted. It is as simple as the old maxim; "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

So thinks you. You are not so much wrong, but not complete in thinking so. I gave the reason, already.

What you are failing to see is that in the free market and in free society, there is no power other than what any one person allows to another, and that power is constantly subject to revocation. Therefore, there is always an incentive to provide a mutually beneficial exchange.

Works not in too big community sizes, as I repeatedly said. You claim an ideal only, the utopia and how it is meant to be by the textbook. You do not check reality. And reality fails you, by general rule. Else there would be less selfishness. Less egoism (the basis of your economy model!). Less war, less monopolism, less plutocratic structures corrupting their host, less oligarchies establishing. Fewer ruinous economic competition. Less corruption. Less greed. Less crime and violence.

It simply is not in reality like you claim it to be from theory. What else can be said.

In a free market you can charge whatever you wish for a jug of milk, but I am under no obligation to buy it. Even if you try to fix prices with others who have milk, you can't force anyone to buy. If your prices are high enough, and you are stubborn enough, I'll simply drink water or buy a cow, or drink soymilk, or use some other alternative, as will many others. Eventually, your prices will fall or you will change businesses or a competitor will offer milk for less or you will have to take extraordinary measures to regain your customer base. Most likely, you will simply go out of business and there will be no need for anyone to bother with you any more.

You are fooling either me, or yourself, and probably us both. People NEED to buy certain things. Recommending them to live under a bridge if they do not want to buy (or cannot), hardly can be seen as a serious argument.

The "invisible hand" is very much alive in today's world. Where it seems to be dead, you can always find the hand of the state, and even then, the invisible hand persists, just in a perverted form.

Did you know that in 1776 Adam Smith himself already warned in his writings that capitalism has an inherent tendency for forming monopolies, and that his (Smith’s) idea of capitalism could only work if there are intentional, determined efforts to fight monopolies? So even Smith himself has not had the illusions you have, Lance. He was aware that they form up all by themselves sooner or later if the market is left to itself.

Therefore already in 1890 you had the Sherman Antitrust Act in the US, and in 1957 we had the “Gesetz gegen Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen” in Germany (although the German law has many holes, they say, I admit I don’t know it beyond general summary).

Again, you mistake the utopia, the textbook idea, with reality.

Again, I see merit in the idea but without a clearly defined system it remains an idea and nothing more. I think there might be room for a constitutional system of qualifications for ruling parties, but it must be extremely difficult to change and it must require at least some degree of popular support, lest any party attempt to use the power for their own ends. Even amongst the brilliant, there are wicked souls and misguided prodigies, Sky. It only takes one to ruin everything for everyone for a very long time in your system.

So you say, but that has never come to pass. You are correct in your accusation that it is a form of social darwinism, but again you miss the forest for the trees. In a capitalist system, the most greedy and innovative take the risks, should they not be entitled to the greatest rewards and penalties, depending upon their merit?

Not if it is at too much disadvantage for the public interest. So: no unlimited reward, no, never, because “unlimited” reward means: taking it all, leaving no rest for the others, being in imperial, tyrannical, absolute control.

Inventions for example are de facto monopoles in the beginning, and protected by law for some time, because what is newly invented obviously is unique, you can’t get it anywhere else than at the inventor: the inventor has a monopole in the beginning. Not before he is being copied, market competition sets in. But when it leads to perversions like the pharmaceutical industry taking an old drug that looses protection after some years, changes a minor molecule that does not mean anything and does not change the effect of the drug, and then gets a renewed patent for it that is protected for the next couple of years again, than there is something going wrong.

Remember that a market, even when dominated by a monopoly, must provide goods at a price people are willing to pay. There is no company on this planet that can or was ever able to force people to buy something from them unless the state sanctioned it.

There are goods people cannot afford not to want. I again refer to the example of the energy cartels. But there are many other examples possible.

There is, however, a vital differentiation from Darwinsim of any type. In a market, the weak benefit from the strong. Choice and competition yield better products for the average consumer, and a strong private sector increases demand for labor, therby increasing the price of labor and the lot of the worker.
I fail to see how weak consumer take benefit from the ever-growing profits of energy suppliers and oil and electricity companies. You again see the theory only of how it should be. You ignore the much darker reality.

On the topic of monopolies, you consistently assume that the market creates harmful monopolies, and I only ask that you show me one instance in the history of our entire species where a market monopoly, unabetted by the state, did more damage than a state-sponsored monopoly or a state pursuing a similar course of action. You won't find one, because such a thing does not exsist.

I have listed many now, haven’t I. I only give you a point here: that state-owned monopoles tend to last longer than business-owned monopoles. But the latter often only get broken because the state enforces it.

“Such a thing does not exist”…? On what planet are you living? Definitely not on mine.

The market always relies upon mutually beneficial transaction, because that is its' most basic component.

Only where there is no monopole held.

The state always relies upon forced compliance, because that is what it is based upon.

In a democracy, compliance is hoped to be reached through accepting the rule that the majority will outvotes the minority will, and that decisions made that way are followed by all. A state needing to enforce compliance by it’s population, is a totalitarian regime. For a truly capitalistic economy, any attempt to regulate it must appear as a tyrannical behaviour by the state. Nevertheless the state should do so where the interests of the few profit-makers in the economy violates the interest of the population. The implication is most critical: it means that democracy and capitalism are natural antagonists. In Europe our fathers tried to find a balance: free enterprise and liberal markets yes, as little regulation as possible - but as much as needed to protect basic and vital interests of the community against the economy. That is what has been called “social market economy”. As far as I am aware, you have no pendant to this concept in the theory you stand for. It was meant for example to prevent what we see all too often today: that company profits get privatised, but costs get externalised and must be paid for not by the economy, but the tax payer. We see the totally sick extreme of this method right now, in the crisis we currently have.

This is something that I hear from you over and over again, no matter what I say, so I am going to be very direct in my response this time in an attempt to clarify my argument. It is not my intent to be rude or condescending, I'm just trying to put things as simply as I possibly can;

You clearly do not understand the nature of the market. It is a very fluid force, and it has a tendency to find the path of least resistance. The state does not upset the market only by hindering it, it also upsets the market by aiding it, and by creating markets where they do not exsist.

Oh, I understand how you think the market should work in theory, I understand it perfectly, it is no new theory you represent, hell, we even learned your model at school a bit, Adam Smith . Damn, I even read Adam Smith a bit a long time ago. Laissez-faire and the invisible hand of the Market, John Stuart Mill and David Ricardo, even Milton Friedman – all that is not really new, it is very old hats. It’s just that I can’t see it working as advertised, and thus conclude the theory simply is wrong in major parts – and I am not the first one thinking so. Even back then in the European founding era of these ideas, it led to increasing children work (compared to the standards before) and excessive abuse of the social weakness of the poor working class that emerged in the time of establishing capitalism and the industrial revolution, and that got unscrupulously exploited in it’s weakness by those possessing the capital and the factory and them mines and the land.

And already back then in those days, history books will show you that the growing monopolism of the rich and of the production-property-owners switched off the competition that in the theory of laissez-faire is so very much important a basic variable. This and social unrest triggered growing calls for more market regulation and supervision over the doing of those owning factories and production capacities, as well as the banks. But originally, laissez-faire and that the extreme liberal economic ideas where an answer to a problem they wanted to counter: the economic production circumstances during the age of absolutism (mercantilism, and excessive taxes by the feudal class). One extreme gave birth to the other extreme here. The force you inflict, inevitably returns. Pressure causes counter-pressure. I repeatedly indicated that I think your model is an extreme, and I mean that. Why it is like it is can only be understood by understanding the context of the time in which it was thought out and brought to paper. It is in no way that self-explaining and original and natural as you try to make it appear. It is an extreme born by another extreme.

I understand the nature of your market idea, the model you cling to and having a general understanding of Adam Smith and laissez-faire pretty much is general education, I would say. Heck, I even have read the first volume of “Wealth of Nations” some 20 years ago, most of it. Understanding the mechanism of thinking in this tradition I do, in a general meaning. But do YOU understand what I just said in the above paragraphs…? ;)

Your model is not such that everybody understanding it necessarily must agree with its emanating light of everlasting glorious truth, you know. And I would claim that quite a majority not only in Europe but around the globe has doubts about the truthfulness of the claims the theory makes that you happen to represent. I save me from referring to your business model, social developments and what that had to do with the German revolution, the first world war, the wider effects of the treaty of Versailles and the chance for Hitler to come to power. All that also is linked to the history of your economic model.

Live with it, over here a very lot of people think this theory is simply crap. And to make those not agreeing with it responsible for it to fail, like you constantly do when complaining about every bit of state regulation, is a bit rich, really. If your theory would work as advertised, we would not need state regulation, nor would lobbyism and the immense entanglement between the leadership in politics and economics be such a huge issue today like it is, unfortunately. To have a public mandate and own a seat while belonging to a board of directors of a company, is a death sentence for any democratic state system, because it is the most classic conflict of interest you can think of.

Your constant accusation that the current economic crisis is an example of the failure of the market is false, by a wide margin. The housing bubble may have been created by free-market decisions, but the groundwork for it was laid by the state, as was the resultant economic collapse.

So says you, but your camp is a minority on this, worldwide, in Europe, and maybe even in America. When considering the history of events that lead to it all, ideo9logically ambitious decisions helped to create the crisis, but they only assisted it a bit. Creating it and driving it is a result of the ultra-liberalism and lacking supervision of free greed and free egoism that you defend so much.

You are right in so far only that today’s politicians not necessarily are the better economy managers just because they are politicians.

Try to see it in terms of supply and demand; with the creation of Fannie Mae, the government created a secondary mortgage market out of thin air. It created demand where demand did not exsist and funded that market with taxpayer dollars. Earlier than that, the Federal government created a Central Bank with the power to fiat currency into exsistence, paving the way for a massive increase in the supply of currency that was completely out of proportion to demand. As with any supply-demand scenario, the supply became worth less as the demand diminished.

Even before the housing bubble, the market was increasingly flooded with more and more complex finance products that randomised risks and responsibilities, and this was something that was not ordered by the state, but was the result of the creativity of bankers trying to maximise their profits. I cut it short here for the sake of not straying off to far. Your liberal system allowed the freedom to capitalism to do what it has in its genes: to try to maximise profits at all costs, independent from higher communal interests. Artificial demand was created, a trap was laid out to encourage people to spend more than they could afford and live beyond their means, so that the banks make profit from getting tax for credits that replaced credits that replaced credits, ad infinitum. IT WAS THE TYPICAL SNOWBALLING SYSTEM THAT MAIL FRAUDSTERS USE TO ESTABLISH. And like these fraudsters, many bankers found the right point to sack in the cash and jump off the boat, leaving the sinking ship behind.

And what you do is to defend the freedom that this can happen, and you ignore that by the very nature of capitalism it necessarily must go this way if it is being given the time and space, and you do not ant any effective ,mechanism of an early warning system that rings the bell when such a process starts again, or fraudsters show up. I can imagine that you applaud the British trying to go back to the status quo before the banking crisis, and to attempt preventing any new supervision mechanism at all. And you can imagine that I welcome any politicians trying to kick the Brit’s a$$ and either throw them out of the international banking system, or making them to comply with new, tougher stricter rules. Even Washington, still inferior to for example the German stockmarket supervision, has set a course that brings it lightyears ahead of London regarding finance business rules and stockmarket supervision.
Once again the market has proven that if it is left to itself, it only tries to maximise the few’s profit, at the cost of all others, no matter how high these costs are. You model is flawed, dysfunctional, it never has worked they way you want it to work, it doesn’t work that way right now, and there is no reason to conclude form that that it ever will work the way you expect it to work.

The state simply followed its' natural path and stole more and more money from people to sustain its' own exsistence. Where it couldn't take the money, it created it, which is really just another form of stealing if you think about it. If you had a Euro and I magically made it worth 25% less, I'd be stealing from you. States do this all the time, but only on a large scale. They print or borrow money to serve as a medium for trade in order to fund state initiatives but in so doing they add to the currency supply and therefore reduce demand for currency, thereby indirectly taxing the populace. This is not helped by the fact that the number of profitable states that have ever exsisted in the world is exactly zero. States always cost more than what it takes to maintain them, and you will never find an example that proves otherwise.

The market did not invent the subprime industry, nor the demand for it, nor the fiat system of currency and credit that ballooned it beyond sustainable proportion. Those things, my friend, are all inventions of the state, not the free will it is supposed to be protecting.

Well, you can imagine my reply by now.


Well I'm glad we can find some common ground, even if it is in the same place we usually find it, but I disagree with your logical extension that markets would behave the same way politicians would.

The markets heavily form the politicians we have, and often there is no separation between an economist and a politicians anymore. By lobbies and personal unions private business tries heavily to corrupt decision-making in politics – not to ensure free markets, but to distort legislation so that the company or business branch in questions is favoured by legislation. That means the philosophy of your market – has massively formed, influenced and brought up the political misery we have today. And that is what you constantly ignore when leaving it to complaining about evil politics. You complain about politicians behaving like they do. That they are mirroring basic natural essences of your economic model, and that powerful decision makers often unite private business and political power in their person (although the independence of politics is a vital key precondition for our states to function as laid down in our constitutions) – well, I can see you do not want to see that, for it would cause havoc on the theoretic fundament for defending your market model.

The key difference between the market and the state is the presence of competition and the factor of fiat authority through violence or the threat of violence.

Hardly. That is true only for totalitarian regimes, assuming that they do not take totalitarian control of the eco0nomy as well.

I'm repeating myself a bit, but a market that is unabetted by the state has no true power to force anyone to do anything.

In the meaning of that I am also not forced to breath, to eat and to sleep.

The final paragraphs of yours are – forgive me – a bit too much omni-euphemistic missinising and self-glrofgication, and anyhow, what had to be said has been said already, and often.

We cannot help it, but we are totally disagreeing. That’s how it is.

That is what makes the market work, and what makes the state fail so often. Incentive and mutual benefit are concepts foreign to the state as a rule.

That depends on the shape and type of state formed up. You Americans too often make the mistake to assume that state in general means “socialism”. The polarising between “Americanism” and “socialism” (as if that would make any sense) I see as one of the most prominent and most obvious examples of a typical American habit, that is to always think in exactly two opposing dualistic extremes only. American political thinking always seems to be dualistic, polarising thinking. O what degree that is owned to America being America, and to what degree it is because of America’s – though fading – imperial position, can be discussed. It’s what makes dealing with your nation extremely difficult at times – and sometimes even impossible. The very hostile sentiments between Democrats and Republicans to me also have something to do with this, so it probably is more an American than an imperial thing.

There's that word again; democracy. Let us put that term aside now and forevermore. I am not a champion of democracy, and you are not a champion of socialism. Democracy is simply tyranny of the masses, where I stand for individual liberties, even in the face of majority. You favor the state, but only in a properly guided form, possibly administrated by a neofeudal state, but always with careful attention to the well-being of society and the planet, which is not a socialist philosophy. That is mostly correct, yes? I'm aware that I'm cutting your stance a bit short, but it is complex and you already know the nuances I did not mention, so in the interest of brevity I will leave it at that and give you a space here to re-emphasize anything I am not paying due respect to.

In any case, the nice thing about the market is that it works no matter how many people are involved.

Again you take that as granted and being beyond doubt, and again I will object. The market does not work no matter how many people are involved. Community size has something to do with it, like it effects the functioning of state and democratic principles, too. And as I pointed out earlier, history knows many examples proving your most basic assessment wrong, too. Not too mention that “no matter how many people are involved” includes for example shipping distances. It makes an environmental difference whether a sack of potatoes gets transported via ship or airlift from Egypt to Europe or fruits get transported from the Far East to Germany, or if fruits and vegetables get bought by a German family at a local farmer 2 km outside of town. That’s why some favour this old-fashioned idea called “seasonal cuisine”.

Democracy aside, a state based upon the market, limited in power, and sworn to the preservation of many individual rights by constitutional law will work on any scale. The reason for this is that it is based upon the market. The market allows billions of individuals to interact and gain mutual beneift every day without the need for any kind of regulatory authority. Regulatory agencies may be present, but their only essential function is to prevent fraud, theft, defamation, and other insidious means of gaining unfair advantage or violating individual freedoms.

You are very well arguing in circles. “The state should be limited due to the market functioning, because the market functions when the state is limited.” That is pretty much the basis of your thinking. But I will insist on that you oversee too many aspects in reality and history that simply prove you wrong.

A state based upon market concepts is no different. People are free to pursue their individual agendas and interact as they see fit, but are not given the power to violate others' rights without penalty. Everyone has a voice of their own, but may not silence the voices of others.

That’s where we are world apart, aren’t we: people not to be given the power to violate the rights of others without penalty. Even more, I point out the value of prevention. You insist on chances being left for things and individuals to go wrong, and repairing damage afterwards.

Through seeming chaos, you create order because the most basic unit is ordered well. Mutual benefit begets mutual benefit.

The most basic unit is not the market, but family to me. Nor do I see the market left to itself as “well ordered”. In fact it is lacking any order at all, is anarchic and favours the law of the strongest at the cost of the weaker. For some unknowing animals that may be okay for they do not know it better, but man has the potential to know it better for sure, and not leaving those born weaker behind. Not to mention that neither your ideas nor my ideas about the ideal society guarantee same chances and same starting conditions to everyone. In fact, your market model, due to it’s inherent tendency to form monopolies, guarantees inequality of chances and inequality of starting conditions.

I think that you underestimate the human capacity for ingenuity. I don't think we posses the technogical marvels that woul be needed to control or even markedly affect global climate changes, but I have no doubts about our capability to adapt.

As I hope to have successfully expressed, to me it is an issue of speed. We are confronted with a rapidly accelerated need to adapt, and like any species, we just can manage that much a speed, but not more. I see time being a critical factor, and thus my pessimism and my readiness to accept even solutions that just a historically short moment ago would have been considered as unacceptable. Man, like any species, is limited by a certain frame of biological and physical limits that define what he is – and what not, and from these frames derive the potential for what we are able to change into – and what not, always considering that even in the widest possible perspective, time is a limiting factor, always. We call it “being mortal”. Individuals die, so do species, cultures and civilisations.

I also think that you're being a bit too simplistic in your assumptions of damages to the earth resulting from climate change. If historic geology is any kind of example, we should actually see an increase in the amount of arable land, even though total landmass may decline in the event of global warming. Oceans serve as precipitators and moderators of temperature, and most of Earth's landmass is simply not floodable, though a surpsing amount of it is arid because of the past few tens of thousands of years' worth of cool temperatures.

That is extremely simplistic and ignores a plethora of knowledge that we have that shows us that we know it better than like you say, but for the sake of not blowing up this thread completely let’s leave environmental issues out of here – since I expect us to totally disagree here again, judging by what you wrote above.

Whether or not your fears of nuclear war will come to pass, I cannot say Too many variables to consider.

It is somewhat a probability statement by me, no statement expressing a total certainty.

[CastleBravo]

The latest global averaged satellite temperature data for June 2009 reveals yet another drop in the Earth's temperature (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/03/uah-global-temperature-anomaly-for-june-09-zero/). This latest drop in global temperatures means despite his dire warnings, the Earth has cooled .74°F since former Vice President Al Gore released "An Inconvenient Truth" in 2006.
According to the latest data courtesy of algorelied.com: "For the record, this month's Al Gore / 'An Inconvenient Truth' Index indicates that global temperatures have plunged approximately .74°F (.39°C) since Gore's film was released." (see satellite temperature chart here (http://algorelied.com/?p=2429) with key dates noted, courtesy of www.Algorelied.com (http://www.algorelied.com/) - The global satellite temperature data (http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/)comes from the University of Alabama in Huntsville. Also see: 8 Year Downtrend Continues in Global Temps (http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/june_global_temperatures_drop_to_1979_1998_average/) .

[Buddahaid]

The latest global averaged satellite temperature data for June 2009 reveals yet another drop in the Earth's temperature (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/03/uah-global-temperature-anomaly-for-june-09-zero/). This latest drop in global temperatures means despite his dire warnings, the Earth has cooled .74°F since former Vice President Al Gore released "An Inconvenient Truth" in 2006.
According to the latest data courtesy of algorelied.com: "For the record, this month's Al Gore / 'An Inconvenient Truth' Index indicates that global temperatures have plunged approximately .74°F (.39°C) since Gore's film was released." (see satellite temperature charthere (http://algorelied.com/?p=2429) with key dates noted, courtesy of www.Algorelied.com (http://www.algorelied.com/) - Theglobal satellite temperature data (http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/)comes from the University of Alabama in Huntsville. Also see:8 Year Downtrend Continues in Global Temps (http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/june_global_temperatures_drop_to_1979_1998_average/) .

See it's working. :har: Nice find.

Buddahaid

[CastleBravo]

See it's working. :har: Nice find.

Buddahaid

Only in the bizzaro world would anyone think we can legislate cooler temperatures which are already occuring.
This summer I have only used the A/C twice, and once for only two hours.

[AVGWarhawk]

Junk science after all:hmmm: Who would have guessed? :shifty:

[Skybird]

Strange that this endless effort to spread emotionally spiced doubt about a reality that is violating conservative worldviews and short-termed conservative economy interests - always is done in the same manipulative, unqualified manner.

A website named "AlGoreLied". What else do you need to know. I could imagine a wbesite named "www.mypimpislongerthanyours.com". It would deal with questions of Greek philosophy, quantum physics, stellar astronomy and pizza recipes.

[Skybird]

Lance,

it seems the Pope has followed our little dispute and now gives me some flank cover: :) Maybe he missed that I am atheist. :D



http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/07/pope-capitalism-abortion

The pope today called for a "profoundly new way" of organising global finance and business, calling for a new social and ethical dimension to capitalism and arguing the case for a new world political authority to help champion "the common good".

In the third encyclical of his pontificate (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html), entitled Charity in Truth, Pope Benedict XVI (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/pope-benedict-xvi) urged the financial sector to "rediscover the genuinely ethical foundation of their activity".

The economy, he said, was marked by "grave deviations and failures" – an area of life "where the pernicious effects of sin are evident".

"The conviction that the economy must be autonomous, that it must be shielded from "influences" of a moral character, has led man to abuse the economic process in a thoroughly destructive way," the pope said. "In the long term, these convictions have led to economic, social and political systems that trample upon personal and social freedom, and are therefore unable to deliver the justice that they promise."

"Financiers must rediscover the genuinely ethical foundation of their activity, so as not to abuse the sophisticated instruments which can serve to betray the interests of savers," he added.

To revive the global economy without creating greater imbalances, inequalities and insecurities, he said, "there is urgent need of a true world political authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago."



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6657155.ece

He adds: "To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority.

"Such an authority would need to be regulated by law, to observe consistently the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity, to seek to establish the common good, and to make a commitment to securing authentic integral human development inspired by the values of charity in truth.

"Obviously it would have to have the authority to ensure compliance with its decisions from all parties, and also with the co-ordinated measures adopted in various international forums. Without this, despite the great progress accomplished in various sectors, international law would risk being conditioned by the balance of power among the strongest nations."

He urges the construction of a social order that conforms to the moral order, "to the interconnection between moral and social spheres, and to the link between politics and the economic and civil spheres, as envisaged by the Charter of the United Nations".

He also condemns neo-paganism, moral relativism and the pursuit of financial goals without moral ends as contributing to a recession which hits the poorest the hardest. He describes this as the "scandal of glaring inequalities".

He writes: "It is true that growth has taken place, and it continues to be a positive factor that has lifted billions of people out of misery — recently it has given many countries the possibility of becoming effective players in international politics. Yet it must be acknowledged that this same economic growth has been and continues to be weighed down by malfunctions and dramatic problems, highlighted even further by the current crisis.

"This presents us with choices that cannot be postponed concerning nothing less than the destiny of man."

The pontiff says that the market does not exist in isolation. "Economy and finance, as instruments, can be used badly when those at the helm are motivated by purely selfish ends. Instruments that are good in themselves can thereby be transformed into harmful ones. But it is man's darkened reason that produces these consequences, not the instrument per se. Therefore, it is not the instrument that must be called to account, but individuals, their moral conscience and their personal and social responsibility.

"Without internal forms of solidarity and mutual trust, the market cannot completely fulfil its proper economic function. And today it is this trust which has ceased to exist, and the loss of trust is a grave loss."

On how to resurrect the world's financial systems, he writes: "Above all, the intention to do good must not be considered incompatible with the effective capacity to produce goods. Financiers must rediscover the genuinely ethical foundation of their activity, so as not to abuse the sophisticated instruments which can serve to betray the interests of savers. Right intention, transparency, and the search for positive results are mutually compatible and must never be detached from one another. If love is wise, it can find ways of working in accordance with provident and just expediency, as is illustrated in a significant way by much of the experience of credit unions."

He sees a need for what he calls a world political authority. At the BBC and some other places they conclude he just means a refomred UN, but I get the impression thart that he means exactly not. While I gave another answer to this need than he does with his "world authority", nevertheless I and he see the same need that must be answered.

Of course, his stand on what he euphemistically calls the non-regulation of life - contraceptives - is something that will always set us apart, no matter his comment on economical misery.

[SteamWake]

Strange that this endless effort to spread emotionally spiced doubt about a reality that is violating conservative worldviews and short-termed conservative economy interests - always is done in the same manipulative, unqualified manner.

It would seem that global warming proponents fit that description quite aptly.

[Skybird]

It would seem that global warming proponents fit that description quite aptly.
And another one...

For getting your five minutes of fame, draw a number and step back into the line.

I will not discuss this seriously anymore - as if a massive, man-caused climate-change really would be in doubt. It is not in doubt, and everybody not having poked his eyes out of his head can see that: in deserts, in forests, in mountains and where once glaciers have been, and statistics on temperatures that clearly show a trend upward, and research done that is related to oceanography in general, the poles and the permafrost areas. You neither need microscopes nor telescopes to see it happening. You just need to open your eyes.

[SteamWake]

I will not discuss this seriously anymore - as if a massive, man-caused climate-change really would be in doubt.

It is in doubt, it is just that those that try to point this out are dismissed. That is the root of the problem neither side is listening to the other.

Yea its hot in the desert :rotfl:

and where are these statistics that 'clearly show' the rising tempratures. I thought this had already been discussed and proven to be at best a bad guess.

Then there is this kind of rhetoric which is not exactly helping your cause
Al Gore likens fight against climate change to battle with Nazis

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6658672.ece

[Tchocky]

Trends - http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

Models - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090519134843.htm

[SteamWake]

Trends - http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

Models - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090519134843.htm

Again these 'trends' only go back a couple of hundred years hardley a blink of the eye in 'global' scale.

Here is another interesting report from nasa that states that global warming is cause by (duh) the sun of all things.

http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/06/nasa-study-shows-sun-responsible-for-planet-warming/

I had to dig this up from some podunk newspaper as this wont be seen in mainstream media or on the house or senate floor for that matter.

[Tchocky]

That headline is way off base.


Citing DailyTech again. Their quote

Thomas Woods, solar scientist at the University of Colorado in Boulder concludes, "The fluctuations in the solar cycle impacts Earth's global temperature by about 0.1 degree Celsius, slightly hotter during solar maximum and cooler during solar minimum. The sun is currently at its minimum, and the next solar maximum is expected in 2012."Now check out the full article that DailyTech cites, the longer segment rather changes things.


"The fluctuations in the solar cycle impacts Earth's global temperature by about 0.1 degree Celsius, slightly hotter during solar maximum and cooler during solar minimum," said Thomas Woods, solar scientist at the University of Colorado in Boulder. "The sun is currently at its minimum, and the next solar maximum is expected in 2012."
Using SORCE, scientists have learned that about 1,361 watts per square meter of solar energy reaches Earth's outermost atmosphere during the sun's quietest period. But when the sun is active, 1.3 watts per square meter (0.1 percent) more energy reaches Earth. "This TSI measurement is very important to climate models that are trying to assess Earth-based forces on climate change," said Cahalan.
Over the past century, Earth's average temperature has increased by approximately 0.6 degrees Celsius (1.1 degrees Fahrenheit). Solar heating accounts for about 0.15 C, or 25 percent, of this change, according to computer modeling results published by NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies researcher David Rind in 2004. Earth's climate depends on the delicate balance between incoming solar radiation, outgoing thermal radiation and the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Even small changes in these parameters can affect climate. Around 30 percent of the solar energy that strikes Earth is reflected back into space. Clouds, atmospheric aerosols, snow, ice, sand, ocean surface and even rooftops play a role in deflecting the incoming rays. The remaining 70 percent of solar energy is absorbed by land, ocean, and atmosphere.
"Greenhouse gases block about 40 percent of outgoing thermal radiation that emanates from Earth," Woods said. The resulting imbalance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing thermal radiation will likely cause Earth to heat up over the next century, accelerating the melting polar ice caps, causing sea levels to rise and increasing the probability of more violent global weather patterns.
Non-Human Influences on Climate Change
Before the Industrial Age, the sun and volcanic eruptions were the major influences on Earth's climate change. Earth warmed and cooled in cycles. Major cool periods were ice ages, with the most recent ending about 11,000 years ago.
"Right now, we are in between major ice ages, in a period that has been called the Holocene,” said Cahalan. “Over recent decades, however, we have moved into a human-dominated climate that some have termed the Anthropocene. The major change in Earth's climate is now really dominated by human activity, which has never happened before."
The sun is relatively calm compared to other stars. "We don't know what the sun is going to do a hundred years from now," said Doug Rabin, a solar physicist at Goddard. "It could be considerably more active and therefore have more influence on Earth's climate."
Or, it could be calmer, creating a cooler climate on Earth similar to what happened in the late 17th century. Almost no sunspots were observed on the sun's surface during the period from 1650 to 1715. This extended absence of solar activity may have been partly responsible for the Little Ice Age in Europe and may reflect cyclic or irregular changes in the sun's output over hundreds of years. During this period, winters in Europe were longer and colder by about 1 C than they are today.
Since then, there seems to have been on average a slow increase in solar activity. Unless we find a way to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases we put into the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning, the solar influence is not expected to dominate climate change. But the solar variations are expected to continue to modulate both warming and cooling trends at the level of 0.1 to 0.2 degrees Celsius (0.18 to 0.26 Fahrenheit) over many years.Also, check out Michael Andrews article history on DailyTech. Looks fairly balanced to me.


http://www.dailytech.com/NASA+Study+Acknowledges+Solar+Cycle+Not+Man+Respon sible+for+Past+Warming/article15310.htm


Also, the Dakota Voice columnist seems to be the heart of balance and reason
If our media, culture and a large portion of the “scientific” community were really honest, it would be the worshippers of the religion (http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/05/british-judge-sees-belief-in-global-warming-as-religion/) of anthropogenic global warming who are called “skeptics,” wouldn’t it?EDIT - this columnist is hilarious.

He's purporting to write about science, but check out his response to criticism in the comments.


Do you realize how incredibly silly that is? Especially since the planet has been much warmer in the past than it currently is? Without utter catastrophe?

This theory is total BS, and if people would turn off their herd instinct and degree-worship and turn on their brains a few minutes, it would be abundantly clear.He's a nice guy, too.

Until we invented SUVs and coal power plants, earth was a frozen ball of ice.

You, Tom, are a great illustration of what a deluded human being looks like.Certainly a "podunk" newspaper, SteamWake.

see that Al Gore's adoring disciples have come out of the woodwork, and unfortunately I simply don't have the time to debunk each individual dose of nonsense.

The information contained in this article speaks quite clearly for itself. Only a devoted socialist, fanatic, moron, or other type of Koolaid drinker could (1) be presented with this information, then (b) fail to grasp what it clearly indicates, and then (c) rationally continue believe that the evil capitalists and their SUVs are causing the planet to warm up. There is simply no rationality involved in the faith in AGW once one is exposed to the facts.

So since the mission of Dakota Voice is to be a voice of truth and dispel the malarkey passing itself off as reality in pop culture, and not a forum for continued perpetuation of that same nonsense, no more comments from AGW zombies will be accepted.My favourite part: 1, b, c.

In fits of giggles here.

[SteamWake]

Ah now the motives are a bit more clear now. :oops:


To fairly divide the climate change fight between rich and poor, a new study suggests basing targets for emission cuts on the number of wealthy people, who are also the biggest greenhouse gas emitters, in a country


http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N06427635.htm

Class warfare !

[Buddahaid]

Again these 'trends' only go back a couple of hundred years hardley a blink of the eye in 'global' scale.

Here is another interesting report from nasa that states that global warming is cause by (duh) the sun of all things.

http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/06/nasa-study-shows-sun-responsible-for-planet-warming/

I had to dig this up from some podunk newspaper as this wont be seen in mainstream media or on the house or senate floor for that matter.

That's the crux of the matter. Industrialization only goes back a couple hundred years.

Buddahaid

[UnderseaLcpl]

My apologies for taking so long to respond, Sky. I haven't had a sufficient block of time to write a proper response until now.

I wonder, though, how much good it will do. Your mode of thinking seems decidedly top-down and centralist to me, and that is difficult thinking to influence or change. I'd have to write a whole book just to address your last post completely, but I will attempt again to do it one post.

Btw, thanks for using the auto-corrector but you don't really need it. I found the post, like most of yours, quite easy to follow, even with the jumping around and the occasional typo or grammatical oddity. Now without further adieu....

Don't tell me you do not see how massively monopolists do or try to dominate the market. It is almost everywhere. Now they are patenting future discoveries in future species, and genes. They try to establish monopoles on life itself, and on vital, life-supporting variables too. I wouldn't think of telling you otherwise. I know they do that, even when they don't try. As a market advocate, I'm actually counting on them to try to do that, because it is a key part of market functionality. Infinite incentive for growth.
What you still do not see is that in a free market, they cannot ever really become monopolies, and even if they did, they certainly cannot become harmful monopolies for long. Yes, I said that last time, and you responded with this;
All in all, that paragraph is insane, and incredibly naive. Pharmaceutics, energy, fertilizer, water, seeds, fossil-burning engines - all that is heavily monopolised here, and I have little reason to assume it is different in the US. You Americans often laugh about European health care system, especially Germany. Have you ever wondered why in America the medical standard is like that in Germany, but a much greater amount of your population does not have access to it in full, but only to most basic - and not rarely - non-sufficient minimum-services? Have you never wondered why with that kind of "market-regulated" (and thus naturally heavily lobbied) system you nevertheless pay roughly twice as many bucks per Bang than we Germans do? As we see it, you do waste a lot of money, but not gaining more quality, but even accepting more parts of the population not having access in full.
I take the comment that my views are insane and naive in good stride, but then you proceed to list a host of industries that are infamous for regulation, subsidization, and protectionist measures, and then go on to make the point I make time and time again by pointing out that these industries lobby heavily.
Have you not heard anything I have ever said? I specifically want to cripple the state's legislative ability so there will be no lobbying. Only a fool would pursue expensive lobbying efforts directed at a congress with virtually no power to make new laws. You accomplish that with strict Constitutional limitations on the state, and the requirement for overwhelming majorities for passage of legislation. The key is to remove the incentive for business to circumvent the free market by using the state.

I will not address your healthcare example in-depth here, but I will tell you this. I pay $150 per month for myself and an unlimited (within reason)number of dependents with a one-million dollar annual cap and thousands of physicians, specialists, clinics and hospitals to choose from, all of which will make appointments within hours or a couple of days. Whether I have a routine physical exam or a surgery, I pay $25 out-of -pocket per visit. My "unethical" employer pays for all that, because if they didn't, I'd work somewhere else. It's part of my compensation.
How does your healthcare compare? Bear in mind the tax rate you pay.

Pressing on, I'll address your logical extension of the monopoly argument wherein you claim that monopolies might monopolize essential goods and services. It is true that they will try, but they will fail, and continue to try.
You give the example of Monsanto. Okay, let's look at Monsanto. The firm is infamous for litigation and lobbying (thanks, state) to restrict competition. No wonder it resembles a monopoly, although it still isn't because it faces international competition in the form of the organic food market and national competition by major food producers like ConAgra, who pursue a vertical integration strategy. Even aided by the state, it has not become a monopoly capable of producing the harms you fear, because food generally continues to become cheaper and more abundant. The one major exception to that rule is the surge in corn prices, and fault for that has been near-universally ascribed to the state for the creation of an ethanol market through subsidy.
You also offer the example of an energy cartel controlling the electricity supply. And how do you suppose it gets to that position? It lobbies the state to keep competition out, thereby ensuring that it is not challenged by new competitors. In a free market, that does not happen. Big business is not some universally-aligned conglomerate of greedy fatcats. It is millions of small entities jostling each other about in pursuit of different goals. If an energy cartel is charging exorbitant prices, other businesses will simply bypass the cartel by establishing their own energy infrastructure, and if they are wise, they will enter the now-ripe market for low-cost electricity. Even individual consumers still have a choice, and are not resigned to "living with beggars in the park" as you put it. Why not buy a generator, or install solar energy systems, or back an upstart provider,or simply use less electricity?
I consider some of the possibilities you offer to be extremely unlikely, but I have offered concessions in the past wherein the government maintains trust-busting authority. My only condition is that this authority must be subject to the same strict regulations that other state legislation suffers under my system. You seem to be well-aware of the dangers of monopolies, but you ignore the dangers of having a beneficial monopoly pulled down by masses of smaller and less beneficial competitors, although this danger is more prevalent on a national rather than an international scale. Standard Oil and U.S. Steel are good examples of this. Those monopolies were pulled apart by less efficient and less competitive producers through legislative action, despite the fact that the big guys produced oil and steel for less and paid employees more. This was a major factor in the economic turbulence that the U.S experienced in the very early 20th century. Fearful of further unpredictable legislative interference, investors began pulling out, resulting in a lending boom that caused a bank run when prices spiked and ruined consumer confidence.

As an aside;
In Germany, we have four major electricity and energy suppliers, each of them having their claim. Inside it, they used to dictate prices to their liking, and it mostly never reflects international market events. That way they made profits in stellar dimension even at the height of the current crisis, while ripping of private households. When there came a regulation that forced them to separate power gridlines and powerplants, and was meant to help new competitors to access the market for they can use the established power-gridlines, this cartel reacted by raising a fake competition: the six most important alternative power-suppliers in Germany – are just daughters of the four established monopolists. The result is that for the most their monopole is still intact – just better camouflaged. They are still in a position to dictate prices disconnected from realities at the international oil and gas markets.
In Texas, one of the most free-market states in the genreally free-market inclined United States, I have a choice of about 20 different energy suppliers, any of which is constantly trying to undercut the others and offering promotional programs. I simply switch from one to the next based upon who has the best deal at the time. The reason for that variety of choice was the deregulation U.S. power infrastructure. Even now, it is too heavily regulated for my taste, especially when it comes to EPA guidelines and legal liabilities, but it is far better off than Germany's system, even after the supposed "deregulation" there.
You once said (or perhaps quoted someone, I can't remember) that Americans are masters of appearing to regulate whilst actually doing very little. That's a good thing for us where it holds true, and you need only juxtaposition states with free-market policies with those that do not to see how true that is.
But I digress.......

Whether good or ill-intentioned, the state is harmful to the market, and must be kept away from it. I am sure you are quite aware of the harms caused when the state begins messing around with religion, why do you think the market is so much different?

Now, though it is a bit out of turn and the point has already been made, I felt I had to address this little gem;
Another story is milk, which could serve as something like the functional counterpart of a monopole: the creation of overproduction. In Germany, and throughout the EU, milk farmers currently make losses, because the money they get for their milk does not cover the costs to produce it, and by quite a huge margin. They want subsidies and a higher price for milk in the supermarket, therefore. What is not said usually is that they raised their milk production when the demand for milk from Asia exploded some years ago. But China has started it’s own milk-production (although Chinese people have problems with their digestion when consuming it, it is an artificially created demand that is profitable for some businessmen, but against reason and health). When the world demand for milk fell, the European milk producers were left with massive overcapacities – which helped to kill the price level for it. Here, the dictate by supermarkets combines in destructive power with the home-made overproduction that now gets regulated by the market as you usually describe it. But even here, the self-regulation of the market in your meaning is not pure and clean, but is heavily accompanied and distorted by additional processes and factors that damage that self-regulation. – What I want to say here is that it simply is not as pure and clean and ordered and according to theory as you often explain.

That is not "another story". Assuming that the milk-producers were not eventually subsidized, I consider that to be a happy ending. Obviously, these dairy farmers had an unwise business strategy, and so do not belong in business. The ones that wisely set aside capital for such occurences or diversified their assets will stay in business, the ones that wasted capital foolishly will not, and the market corrects itself. Those who risked their efforts are entitled to the benefits and consequences they may reap. Those who did not risk do not suffer the same magnitude of consequences, but neither will they reap the same magnitude of benefits.
Is there a flaw in my logic? It sounds like justice to me but perhaps it sounds differently to you.

Next;
This fact is proven by the very nature and scale of illicit trade that takes place globally every day. Even when faced with severe legal consequences, people simply bypass the exsisting market structure and create another one.

If the state, with a monopoly on force, cannot prevent that, what hope does a run-of-the-mill capitalist monopoly have?

Invalid comparison. Then items you compare do not match.

You're right, they don't match, and that is my point. From the tone of your article, I assume that you disagree with me because I have obviously not thought of what might happen if some monopoly were to control all the resources in a given market, especially if that market provided essential goods. My God, where would people turn then? (if you'll pardon my jesting sarcasm:DL)
Think about this for a bit. In a free market, where business does not have the incentive to lobby the state, and where the state does not have the power to cater to business for ignoble purposes, people are free to pursue whatever alternatives they can conjure. Neccessity is the mother of invention, as the saying goes. You routinely give such little credit to the free market's capacity for innovation:O:
On the other hand, in a state-controlled system, people are prevented from pursuing whatever course of action they might invent (often due to the influence of business) and they face imprisonment and the threat of violence if they do not comply. Even then, the market works around the obstacles, though not in a markedly beneficial fashion. It creates a black market that is governed by those willing to pursue illicit activities for profit
and drives up the prices for goods, as well as increasing criminal activity.
The market is a fundamental aspect of cooperative human nature. Violence is a fundamental aspect of domineering human nature. Why do you insist on championing the latter (or in your case, a yet-unfinished system) over the former?


Furthermore, I have already pointed out the scarcity of capitalist monopolies and you have had nothing to say about that.
If you refuse to see the omnipresence of monopolism and cartels everywhere, than that is not my fault. There will come a day when they sell breathing air - and you still will not consider that to be an issue. And since many years you could already ride an electro-car fueled by nil-emission-produced electricity. But you do not wonder why you don't, but why oil suppliers still dictate market conditions for cars and energy.
I see the omnipresence of monopolies and cartels almost exactly where I see the omnipresence of state. If you are unable to discern a true monopoly that triumphed over competitors through merit rather than by thousands of pages of state legislation, that is not my fault. The only concieveable examples of free-market monopolies you have provided thus far are Microsoft, which is a natural monopoly that has done virtually no harm compared to the harms done by the state(and even MS has a lot of protective legislation surrounding it), and the Dutch East India Company, which I mentioned previously, but which benefitted from the fact that the English controlled the sea lanes and imposed taxes on competitors (though they were not significant at the time). You also forgot DeBeers, which is a natural monopoly(that I mentioned previously) given the scarcity of diamond mines and the groundwork laid by colonial interests. If you're looking for an example of a harmful "free-market" monopoly, that would be it. Wow, a monopoly empowered by narcissictic persons who value natural diamonds regardless of their market value and cannot observe the DeBeers has been hoarding diamonds for the better part of a century. What ever shall we do?

I won't even mention the example of companies selling breathing air because I assume you're using hyperbole, but I will tell you why I do not drive an electric car. I do not drive an electric car because it is wasteful and therefore expensive. That kind of technology has not come into its' element yet, but if it does, it should be because the market decides it is time. I find it much cheaper to drive a four-cylinder gasoline-powered KIA Spectra for the time being. Ideally, I'd like to have a motorcycle again. I'd take either over a $20,000-$80,000 electric car for the same reason that manufacturers would produce either over an electric car; they are cheaper and more effective.
Electric cars may be more efficient in power consumed per mile but they have little endurance and are not very versatile. They use larger toxic batteries and must still rely upon power-generation facilities.
Furthermore, do you have any idea what it would cost to revamp the American electric grid to accomodate the demands incurred by one hundred and sixty million electric cars? The damage to the budget and the currency supply would be even more catastrophic than the current "stimulus".

No matter what you may think of oil suppliers and auto manufacturers, whom are given a number of state subsidies, electric cars are still more impractical, even though companies that develop them are also given state subsidies. Why not just let the market do its' job? When and if petroleum becomes scarce enough, demand for electric cars will increase rapidly and the market will adapt. Or perhaps the market will discover a better alternative. In whose hands is a billlion dollars better spent; those of the politicians or those of an army of profit-driven entepeneurs who must find a way to break into the current market by offering superior and/or cheaper goods, all whilst competing against each other?

Moving on...

In Japan, the government has had a regulation since long, that in a given category of electronic products, the currently available item with the highest fidelity in economic and ecologic quality (power consummation for example) sets a new standard to which to adapt all other competitors have I think two years time – then they must have brought their own products to that level regarding the characteristic in question, or withdraw from the market. The industry, as was to be expected, ran amok against this when it was brought up, now it is established routine that serves the Japanese quality of electronics extremely well. If the market would have been left to itself, we would have an artificially increased number of different cell phone power chargers for all time to come, and we would have the Japanese clever trick not being there, too.


I feel that this is one of your better arguments, especially when it comes to arguments that contain substantive empyrical evidence. There can be no doubt that the Japanese business model was both successful and unique amongst the Southeast Asian "Tiger" markets. You provide the example of cell-phone accessories, but they did so much more before that. I really think we could have learned more from them if they had not been so heavily pressured by U.S. tariffs and diplomacy. As it stands now, most Japanese products are produced in the U.S and are considerably more expensive than they would otherwise be, and that is due almost wholly to tariffs and the grass-roots "Buy American" movement, both of which required heavy state intervention on behalf of American producers.
I hate that my country continually pursues this kind of policy, because they perverted the Japanese markets as well as our own. Rather than adapting and demonstrating the virtues of the business model Americans pride themselves on, our companies were given an easy out by the state, and wrecked both the U.S. and Japanese business models. Even worse, we leveraged our tremendous purchasing power to force the Japanese into compliance. Imo, that was a disastrous state-sponsored oligopsony if ever there was one, and another reason why I distrust the state so.

There may have been merit in the Japanese model, assuming it could be adapted into a western culture. Don't forget that there was something of a corporate code there during the Japanese economic resurgence, almost like Bushido, and I don't know whether or not that could be adapted readily, but now we will probably never know. Another grand market process ruined by the state at the expense of all.

You also oversee another component, that is a social one. They now sell cell phones with an integrated barcode scanner. It lets you scan a product, and then tells you the cheapest price on the web. Which will be the biggest companies that can afford dumping prices to kill smaller competitors that cannot afford to lower their prices to the same level. What to become of the small individual shopkeeper? The internet has destroyed a lot of jobs and shop diversity, especially specialised shops, bookshops, electronics shops. We now see a slow death of the classic department store. Three of the five traditional chains we had, are dead now, one more is currently dying, a fourth one is in the process of insolvency procedures, and how long the last can hold, out remains to be seen. In Germany, we have seen that fierce competition first on the electronics market. 30 years ago, centre towns had plenty of small electronics shops. They have died almost all now. What is left are town centres that are the pendant to what monocultures are in agriculture. Diversity in shops are gone, in many places you only have chain shops and boutiques anymore. The many small family-led shops for the most are gone. With them left diversity, living quality, jobs, existences, attractiveness of town centres.

Do you remember when you said that I had either misinterpreted you or that you had misspoke when you felt I was spending too much time addressing the issue of face-to-face interaction?
It is statements like this that cause me to believe that you value face-toface interaction and traditional market structures, and that is why I address them.
To begin with, I do not care how many small shops are destroyed by the fact that people can conveniently find the lowest price, and that price is often offered by the biggest providers. That is a good thing. That is how the market is supposed to work. I would love the idea of being able to simply scan a barcode and get the lowest price immediately. Even better, it should provide some product information. It would save a lot of time I would otherwise spend looking for the best value, and that is time I could spend with friends or family, or typing these inordinately long replies to a friend in Germany:DL

I cannot comment on the social ramifications of the economic situation in Germany, because I have never been there other than for a short stopover, but you sound a lot like the people who lament the "death" of American small businesses. Small business is not dead, and it is in fact a source of frequent consternation to consumers because it routinely charges higher prices and offers lesser-quality service than larger chains.
Take Wal-Mart for instance, a veritable Holy Grail of American-brand capitalism. It has manufacturing and supply arrangements overseas, as well as in the U.S. It is convenient and consistently undercuts competitors, especially small businesses that offer similar products. It contracts entry-level employees, which is exactly what it needs, and passes some of the savings on to consumers.
Some people call those traits evil and counterproductive, but they are not. Wal-Mart is a paragon of efficient capitalism and even pseudo-monopoly. Obviously, it pays its' employees enough that it has no shortage of labor compared to some other low-compensation enterprises, amd it obviously offers low-enough prices that it is the primary retailer in the U.S. Some feel differently, but they have no shortage of alternatives. Some even prefer to buy goods at higher prices from smaller retailers. Even better, small business that survived the Wal-Mart tsunami has been finding market niches in places where Wal-Mart has no influence. Only the businesses that price-gouged consumers or failed to establish a loyal customer base were swept away, and that is a good thing.

Now, because I had to go pick up a friend, it is late and I have lost my train of thought, so I will conclude for the time being, but I will address your other arguments in the morning. I only wish to know if you are still willing to discuss ecological and climatological issues, which are a significant part of what I have left to address. You call my arguments simplistic(and have also stated that you are finished having any serious discussion over climatological change), but if you are willing to listen despite that stance, I will elaborate upon them. If not, I will leave you your own views, but do not expect to me to take into account environmental considerations when I present my remaining arguments and counterpoints for the free market.

I look forward t0 continuing our discussion. :salute:

[Skybird]

I look forward t0 continuing our discussion.

Well, while it is always a pleasure to talk with you, I wonder if it makes any sense at all to continue, since we are so diametrically apart and most likely will not reach any agreement anyhow. We're like ice and fire, it seems.

I wonder, though, how much good it will do. Your mode of thinking seems decidedly top-down and centralist to me, and that is difficult thinking to influence or change.

That is because to you everything not embracing your model is “top-down-thinking”. Indeed I want as little regulation as possible, but as much as needed to protect the common good against the selfishness of the individual. I also seek to reach any form of balance between the freedom of the one and the freedom of the many, as well as between freedom of enterprise and the authority supervising that the above principles get respected (even against business interest, where the situation is like that), for which a greater independence of policy-makers from economic groups is inevitable. You think the solution is to “prevent” politicians altogether, but you ignore that these politicians are the very product of your own economical system. They are not violating it, they are not a contradiction to it –t hey are the consistent result of it. Your business model will always seek to gain p0oltical power, you cannot avoid it.


What you still do not see is that in a free market, they cannot ever really become monopolies, and even if they did, they certainly cannot become harmful monopolies for long.

Judging by history as well as present world conditions, obviously you are totally wrong, because historic and present developments opposing your description were not mishaps in violation of your model, but the consequence caused by your model. Not only can they become monopolies, but they must become monopolies. In your model, you cannot avoid it. And as I said last time, even Adam Smith himself, to whose name your economy model heavily owes, was aware of that and warned that this inherent tendency must be actively tackled. I object to you by argument of your very own prophet, so to speak. ;) Anyhow, it is unthinkable anyway what you claim. It simply does not make sense. And practices in various economy fields, pharmaceutics for example, prove you wrong by the brutal facts. Monopolies can form up. They want to form up. They tend to become stronger by eating their competitors, and preventing equal starting chances to new ones. That is the very nature of your model.

I take the comment that my views are insane and naive in good stride, but then you proceed to list a host of industries that are infamous for regulation, subsidization, and protectionist measures, and then go on to make the point I make time and time again by pointing out that these industries lobby heavily.

Yeah, but you reverse cause and effect when wanting to blame politicians for being targeted by lobbyists (or being replaced by lobbyists). When you want to cripple legislation as a result of your model’s lobbying, you declare economy free of guilt for abusing political systems and distorting democracy and violating the rights of the community by putting the freedom of the few above the freedom of the many - and you blame the society for being lobbied. In other words the victim is the perpetrator, and the real perpetrator is to be pardoned because he wants to maximise his egoism. Which for you is acceptable and excusable. Well, again I refer to what the Pope said on the abuse of economics by the few I his latest encyclical. One of the few opportunities when I wholeheartly agree with the church. It is unfair, unjust, and inhumane. And this is what makes it so unacceptable.

Have you not heard anything I have ever said? I specifically want to cripple the state's legislative ability so there will be no lobbying. Only a fool would pursue expensive lobbying efforts directed at a congress with virtually no power to make new laws. You accomplish that with strict Constitutional limitations on the state, and the requirement for overwhelming majorities for passage of legislation. The key is to remove the incentive for business to circumvent the free market by using the state.

By that you make sure only one thing: that the interests of the potential lobbying party get realised and faces no opposition, making these interests strong and fostering. When the state and the national community leaves you your will to selfishly act like you want, you do not have a reason to invest in lobbying indeed.

That is like throwing out the baby with the bathing water. Man, get reasonable again! You don’t protect a flock of sheep from the hungry wolves - by shooting the shepard dog!

Pressing on, I'll address your logical extension of the monopoly argument wherein you claim that monopolies might monopolize essential goods and services. It is true that they will try, but they will fail, and continue to try.

Wrong. They already have done that. The battle now is not to prevent monopolies – but to get rid of them.

You complained about me having listed traditionally monopole-heavy industries as examples. Hm. I mentioned Energy. Oil. Food. Pharmaceutics. I could list international monopole-like intricacies in the textile industry as well. All these are important, most vital business fields with whom everybody of us has to deal in any form on a daily basis. And if would take the time and interest, I could list many more examples. I fail to see the argument in your complaint. It seems you want to get rid of my examples because they so heavily question the truth of your model.

You give the example of Monsanto. Okay, let's look at Monsanto. The firm is infamous for litigation and lobbying (thanks, state) to restrict competition.

No, the state is not wrong here, the state is not the perpetrator. It is Monsanto. How could you always reverse the cause-effect relation so totally? I throw a stone at you, for you stand in my way. You get hit. Your own fault – why are you standing in my way? I want something what is yours and is not mine. I shoot at you. Your own fault – why is it yours, and not already mine? I want to maximise my profits and interests at the cost of the community. I lobby in politics, to make them decide like I want it for fostering my own egoism. Politic’s fault that I lobby (or should I say: raid?) it – why do they have the power to supervise competition rules and hinder me in behaving like being the only man on earth?

Sorry to be blunt here, Lance, but I cannot take your stand serious here. It is the climax of absurdity.

No wonder it resembles a monopoly, although it still isn't because it faces international competition in the form of the organic food market and national competition by major food producers like ConAgra, who pursue a vertical integration strategy. Even aided by the state, it has not become a monopoly capable of producing the harms you fear, because food generally continues to become cheaper and more abundant. The one major exception to that rule is the surge in corn prices, and fault for that has been near-universally ascribed to the state for the creation of an ethanol market through subsidy.

Obviously German authorities see it very different than you do – on the basis of the dominant market shares, criminal business practices that border blackmailing, and unscrupulous exploitation of the weakness of for example Southamerican farmers to make them subjugating to become Monsanto customers and paying their costly seeds – else getting sued by Monsanto over Monsanto-caused intentional infection of their fields with seeds owned by Monsanto: for violation of copyrights. That is as if the girl is being sued for not being cooperative towards the thug raping her. Monsanto is famous for this bullying behaviour, and also is famous for investing much into corrupt political structures that then should protect Monsanto. In Germany, they have repeatedly knowingly infested public land with genetic seeds that had been prohibited to be brought out. By that they have created facts that turn laws into rubbish, because once released, you cannot limit the spreading of such seeds. German farmers bordering these places also already have been threatened and sued when these forbidden plants spread to their acres – since the genetic design is patented by Monsanto, the company now wants them to buy the seeds and subscribe to their inhibitory system that is designed to make them buy every year – with Monsanto only.

And your answer is to remove all authority or strip it of all effective powers, that could – and should – fight against such criminal behaviour. To battle crime, you dismantle the poultice, so that o crime statistics get collected anymore. No statistic, no crime – problem solved. That is your logic.

Have you lost your mind…?

Whether good or ill-intentioned, the state is harmful to the market, and must be kept away from it. I am sure you are quite aware of the harms caused when the state begins messing around with religion, why do you think the market is so much different?

The state has kept out of banking market for too long – as a result, unimaginable values have been vaporised by a few greedy fat cats for whom enough never is enough, and already do like that again right now, having learned NOTHING. The ordinary honest man on the streets around all the globe now pays the bill.

There has not been too much regulation. For too long, there has been far too little. Change politics, if you want, make them less prone and less vulnerable to economic lobbying, but give it the tools needed to cut back irresponsible egoism of the few that cause havoc on the many for the sake of their own interests. It is not as if there has not been competition between banks.

Think about this for a bit. In a free market, where business does not have the incentive to lobby the state, and where the state does not have the power to cater to business for ignoble purposes, people are free to pursue whatever alternatives they can conjure. Necessity is the mother of invention, as the saying goes. You routinely give such little credit to the free market's capacity for innovation

And you obviously are not aware of the real situations most people live in: that their alternatives are limited or non-existent and that they can not avoid to submit to the conditions they face in a given place, because they do not have the means to move away. There are many things you cannot avoid to consume. And due to the spreading poverty, many people do not have the assets to invest in alternatives that make them more independent from market monopolies. That is simply the harsh reality that most have to face , whether you like that or not.

That is the very purpose of monopolies: to leave people no alternatives! It is part of the nature, part of the definition of monopolies. The monopoly of the one, means the weakness of the other that can be exploited. Where it is not like this, it is no real monopole. Why do you think have the major energy suppliers flooded the market with fake companies that are their own daughters? To leave people no alternatives, and to make them think they already use an alternative while indeed they do not.

On the other hand, in a state-controlled system, people are prevented from pursuing whatever course of action they might invent (often due to the influence of business) and they face imprisonment and the threat of violence if they do not comply. Even then, the market works around the obstacles, though not in a markedly beneficial fashion. It creates a black market that is governed by those willing to pursue illicit activities for profit

You either mean totalitarianism or socialism here. But that is not what I mean when saying: as much regulation as needed - but as little as possible. Socialism and totalitarianism want ultimate, unlimited control of every individual and every resource and every piece of the economy. And indeed, where totalitarianism is “top-down” of the kind you complained about me somewhere in your opening, socialism discourages own initiative and creativity, and tries to equalise people not by motivating those performing inferior to do better, but by pulling back those doing better into the swamp of collective mediocrity. That’s how I see it, and that’s what makes it so extremely disgusting for me.

The market is a fundamental aspect of cooperative human nature. Violence is a fundamental aspect of domineering human nature. Why do you insist on championing the latter (or in your case, a yet-unfinished system) over the former?

Your ideal of an anarchic, egoist market IS violence, transformed from the blood-and-meat level of things to abstract number-juggling. I fail to see your model any different than like the jungle law of the strongest, and the rest is prey. Maybe that worked nice for Tyrannosaurus. But if we humans accept that as model, I see no need why we have been born not as some lower animals, but humans. I demand more from “being a human” than just acting like Tyrannosaurus. And I demand to make use of the additional potentials we have over dear old Rex, that give us the freedom to raise ourselves above our heritage of natural drives and lower instincts. We could be more than just a primitive beast driven by sex and hunger only. But we will not be - if we even do not want to reach for that. The choice is ours.


I see the omnipresence of monopolies and cartels almost exactly where I see the omnipresence of state.

And your solution is, as already said, to throw out the baby with the bathing water.

I won't even mention the example of companies selling breathing air because I assume you're using hyperbole, but I will tell you why I do not drive an electric car.

As a matter of fact an oxygen toll raised by private enterprise cleaning the smog in smog-ridden metropolis, already has been ,mentioned by several businessmen over the past 10 years or so – I heard it repeatedly. That it is the smog caused by private industries, and car traffic because the development of environment-friendly car technology has been hindered by the oil producers since decades – who cares. There is profit in messing up the world, and there is profit in cleaning some of the mess. All costs – get paid by the community, all profits – get privatised.

That is market logic that is left to itself, unregulated.

I do not drive an electric car because it is wasteful and therefore expensive. That kind of technology has not come into its' element yet, but if it does, it should be because the market decides it is time.

the market does not decide or define the shape the world is in, nor does it define physical realities. That is a fiction that is very widespread in your model’s thinking. This model also says that there is no imagining possible that a needed resource could run out. It is assumed that access to such resources is only a matter of investments made. Which in all cases, sooner or later, of course necessarily turns out to be total nonsense.
I find it much cheaper to drive a four-cylinder gasoline-powered KIA Spectra for the time being. Ideally, I'd like to have a motorcycle again. I'd take either over a $20,000-$80,000 electric car for the same reason that manufacturers would produce either over an electric car; they are cheaper and more effective.

It does not matter. You equal a financial argument with an argument about natural realities and environmental variables. You imply that nature and environmental only have a value that can be financially calculated.

Plus your argument, if there is any real one, suffers from that your number balance depends on the costs of gas at the place you live in. That’s why it is argued that the costs of gas must be massively raised.

Furthermore, do you have any idea what it would cost to revamp the American electric grid to accomodate the demands incurred by one hundred and sixty million electric cars? The damage to the budget and the currency supply would be even more catastrophic than the current "stimulus".

Your powergrid often is referred to to be on the level of a third world country, and constantly becoming older. Do you have an idea of what it will cost to modernise it once you cannot evade it any longer? Probably the costs for the currently needed modernisation, plus costs for the additional damages accumulating until you finally get started.

Was that meant to be an argument what you said? ;)

To begin with, I do not care how many small shops are destroyed by the fact that people can conveniently find the lowest price, and that price is often offered by the biggest providers. That is a good thing. That is how the market is supposed to work. I would love the idea of being able to simply scan a barcode and get the lowest price immediately. Even better, it should provide some product information. It would save a lot of time I would otherwise spend looking for the best value, and that is time I could spend with friends or family, or typing these inordinately long replies to a friend in Germany.

Our national communities and their social models, yours as well as ours, depend on people having a job to get an income by which they pay for their very existence. But due to constant modernisations, more and more goods got and get produced in larger quantities and – hopefully – in better qualities – by less and lesser people. The economic basis that has formed our national-social community structures, has changed so much that it does not support that community structure anymore. As a matter of fact we do not need so many workers anymore. That’s why people more and more work in mini-jobs, and must accept to get minimised wages – a system that only works (for the sake of creating the illusion of employment) due to subsidies by the state. In America you have the phenomenon of the so-called working poor. In Germany, we now have it, too. In Germany we have the extreme of one-euro jobs. I myself worked for free over many years, in several projects – but only because I could afford that. In a society where people depend on getting a fair income by doing a fair amount of work in a job, an economic change making more and more workers superfluous, this is a major problem with the potential to care revolutions and civil wars sooner or later, because it threatens people at the basis of there mere existence.

For that reason I have become hesitant to buy at Amazon and other internet shops, I use it for research only, but where possible and where eventual higher costs are in a range can afford, I prefer to buy in small shops to support them. It is important for the national community to do so, and it is vital for the individual shop keeper. It is difficult to do so, because not many shops are left – and those there are, often are chain stores.

It is called solidarity. Your market model has no equivalent for that, so do not even search for it. If I were egoist, I would send the small shops to hell, and only care for my own interest. And after me - the flooding, who cares.

I cannot comment on the social ramifications of the economic situation in Germany, because I have never been there other than for a short stopover, but you sound a lot like the people who lament the "death" of American small businesses. Small business is not dead, and it is in fact a source of frequent consternation to consumers because it routinely charges higher prices and offers lesser-quality service than larger chains.

Strange that I have made almost exclusively exactly opposite experiences. The friendliest service I have with small companies fighting for survival. All worst case scenarios I had (and I had, with IT and electronic companies), I had with huge chain stores and huge companies.

Take Wal-Mart for instance, a veritable Holy Grail of American-brand capitalism. It has manufacturing and supply arrangements overseas, as well as in the U.S. It is convenient and consistently undercuts competitors, especially small businesses that offer similar products. It contracts entry-level employees, which is exactly what it needs, and passes some of the savings on to consumers.

At the cost of it’s employees. We have that in Germany, too, Lidl, Schlecker or KiK. Walmart failed miserably in Germany, btw, though not only for reasons of miserably social policies, but Germans not accepting to behave like Americans in their consumer-habits.

Some people call those traits evil and counterproductive, but they are not. Wal-Mart is a paragon of efficient capitalism and even pseudo-monopoly. Obviously, it pays its' employees enough that it has no shortage of labor

Or it simply exploits the fact that there are many people who cannot afford not to accept unacceptable conditions. Having a high level of unemployment – is paradise for capitalism. The higher the unemployment, the lower wages companies can pay. The costs for supporting those being unemployed – get externalised to those working for low wages. Isn’t it great? Cheers!

compared to some other low-compensation enterprises, amd it obviously offers low-enough prices that it is the primary retailer in the U.S. Some feel differently, but they have no shortage of alternatives. Some even prefer to buy goods at higher prices from smaller retailers. Even better, small business that survived the Wal-Mart tsunami has been finding market niches in places where Wal-Mart has no influence. Only the businesses that price-gouged consumers or failed to establish a loyal customer base were swept away, and that is a good thing.

Can’t judge that, but can say it is not like that over here. Here, healthy business structures got destroyed, often at the social and financial costs of the national community/tax payer.





You are right, I refuse to discuss climate things, due to the things being so obvious that I could as well discuss whether there is a sky and clouds and sun or not, and due to the way it always degenerated on this board, and crap science and propaganda blogs were presented as the latest data equal in value to what more generally agreed scientific sources have on their websites. especially NASA essays have so often be misquoted, and qouted out of context, that I see no value in caring for such a mess anymore.

It has nothing to do with you personally.

Also, certain things like solar activity, polar ice and global temperature curves and CO2 swindle I have adressed several times in the past years, and linked to profound data by institutions with a better prestige than any rightwinger'S propaganda blog. I simply am bored to pick all that together from the web again and write again long essays that I have written before. As I see it, scepticism is a hundreds-of-millions heavy lobby industry in itself, that accuses established science to cry wolf over nothing, so that established business structures must not be changed and living styles must not be changed, too.

I am very sure that we will ruin things until the mess ruins us - pretty much the same way like the people on the Easter Island probably also found endless clever intellectual mindgames and hairsplitting reasonings just to destroy themselves.

[SteamWake]

May I offer a Pepto Bismol for that case of verberia? :rotfl:

Anyhow not so many words from me. Just an example of the types of things you run into when trying to advance the cause of alternative energy.


HOUSTON — Plans for the world's largest wind farm in the Texas Panhandle have been scrapped, energy baron T. Boone Pickens said Tuesday, and he's looking for a home for 687 giant wind turbines.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,530649,00.html?test=latestnews

[Safe-Keeper]

Also, certain things like solar activity, polar ice and global temperature curves and CO2 swindle I have adressed several times in the past years, and linked to profound data by institutions with a better prestige than any rightwinger'S propaganda blog. I simply am bored to pick all that together from the web again and write again long essays that I have written before.I hear you - I feel exactly the same way. The way people like AGW deniers manage to stay so wilfully ignorant of AGW in the face of so much information and so many people correcting them is just mind blowing.

New thread: Temperatures have dropped the last two years! AGW isn't real!
Rational crowd: {patiently explains difference between local weather and global climate trends}

New thread, same people: Coldest summer in 34 years in Vancouver!
Rational crowd: {patiently explains difference between local weather and global climate trends}

New thread, same people: OMG, this is the coldest summer ever! this must mean teh agw is fake!1
Rational crowd: {patiently explains difference between local weather and global climate trends}

New thread: Gawd, is it cold today! What happened to AGW?!
Rational crowd: {experiences strange feeling of deja vu}

You know, I know it's impossible that all of them are hopeless trolls (see SUBMAN1), but sometimes, just sometimes, I wonder... I mean, is it possible to be that mindlessly, childishly stubborn? How can adults be that incredibly rude?

May I offer a Pepto Bismol for that case of verberia? :rotfl:Yeah, I hate it when people put time and effort into their posts. How makes them spend so much time addressing the arguments you give them, as if you actually plan to read them. Suckers :D ...

[AVGWarhawk]

It is warm outside. :D

[SteamWake]

It is warm outside. :D

Continued warm for at least the next 4 months :salute:

[August]

Continued warm for at least the next 4 months :salute:


Not here. It's been the coldest summer here in New England that I can remember. Even colder than last year, which was the coldest NE summer I could remember until this one.

I guess that makes me one of Safe-Keepers "AGW Deniers".

[VipertheSniper]

It is warm outside. :D

Bah it's cold here... ;)

[SteamWake]

LOL... just LOL :rotfl::har:


For the first time, America and the other seven richest economies agreed to the goal of keeping the world’s average temperature from rising more than 2C (3.6F).


Good luck with that. But uh frankly I dont want to pay for it.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6670327.ece

[UnderseaLcpl]

Well, while it is always a pleasure to talk with you, I wonder if it makes any sense at all to continue, since we are so diametrically apart and most likely will not reach any agreement anyhow. We're like ice and fire, it seems.
It seems that way, and you may be correct, but I don't think we're as diametrically opposed as you believe. While it would not be fair to say that I understand your reasoning and logic, I feel like I do because it sounds much like reasoning and logic I once swore by.
We can end the discussion if you wish, but I'll go ahead and respond for now. I'm not going to hold unanswered arguments over your head as though I somehow triumphed. I'm getting close to the end of my primary arguments and their extensions anyway, and either you see merit in them or you do not.
So here we go again:DL



to you everything not embracing your model is “top-down-thinking”. That's actually true most of the time. Guilty as charged.:D But that is hardly surprising considering that most manmade and natural systems operate as top-down systems. There is always a heirarchy, always system of direction that starts at the top and sways the rest of the pyramid beneath it. That in itself would not be such a bad thing if the elite that rose to the top could continually be trusted to act correctly and not oppress those beneath them simply to keep their station, but they never have and they never will.
The same insatiable desire to rise to the top and accquire more power that exsists in the free market and that you so dread also exsists in the political world. The difference is that in my free market model people have a choice and are not chained to a fiat caste system wherein they can forced to do or not do as the powers that be wish. The only law concept is that one may not infringe upon another's rights without their knowledgeable consent, and the state may punish those who violate that law, though they have little power to interpret or expand it, unless the overwhelming majority of the people support such a thing.
You know as well as I do who consistently rises to the top of any social hierarchy first. It is not those with the most merit or wisdom or compassion, but those who are the most effective decievers, and the most duplicitous. It is the greedy who have the most incentive to grab for power, yes?
The beauty of the free market is that the greedy must pay to get to the top. They have to create jobs(even if only through investiture), they have to produce, and they have to be able to convince people to willingly surrender their money in exchange for something. And even if they make it to the top, the must constantly fight to maintain their position. They must defend themselves against innovation and upstart industries and fickle consumers, and in the process they must create desireable jobs and products, because people can always choose something else. Sometimes they can temporarily accomplish supremacy with effective and very expensive marketing or accquisitions, but their preferred method is to subvert the state , which is itself composed of the same kinds of people. Do you deny this? You tell me of the disagreeable state of politics and business in Germany, but you fail to realize that they are already one and the same.

Your neofeudal model may seek to prevent all this, but who do you think will run such a system for the benefit of all? It will not be you, or anyone like you, or even someone like me, and that is for sure. Do you deny that?
You may be a very smart individual Sky but even you cannot hope to best a real politician in a political arena. Even the most qualified individual can be easily bested by a good liar and speaker, and if that liar is given power of state, that power is difficult to take away.
Perhaps I am mistaken, but this is part of why I think we are not so diametrically opposed after all. We (and evidently, the Pope:DL) are agreed upon the harms that unethical persons can bring to society, even if we do not yet agree on how best to neutralize them.
I will respond to the rest of your argument, but this is the crux of mine.


Indeed I want as little regulation as possible, but as much as needed to protect the common good against the selfishness of the individual. I also seek to reach any form of balance between the freedom of the one and the freedom of the many, as well as between freedom of enterprise and the authority supervising that the above principles get respected (even against business interest, where the situation is like that), for which a greater independence of policy-makers from economic groups is inevitable. You think the solution is to “prevent” politicians altogether, but you ignore that these politicians are the very product of your own economical system. They are not violating it, they are not a contradiction to it –they are the consistent result of it. Your business model will always seek to gain p0oltical power, you cannot avoid it.
I somewhat agree with you here. Politicians and political systems are a product of free-market interests in many cases, and that is a scenario that must be prevented at all costs. We are both keenly aware of the dangers of plutocracy, even if we disagree upon which edge of the sword is sharper.
Again, I feel that the best solution to eradicating plutocracy is to have a strictly-limited Constitutional Republic, protected by an armed populace.
I posit the American model as a prototype for success. Remember that when our constitution was drafted, the ideals of individual freedom and limited state were still in their formative years. Despite a few failings in our constitution, we remained a non-interventionist state for most of our history, and when the federal state first attempted to violate its' bounds, it resulted in civil war. Even after the war for states' rights was lost, the populace retained a non-interventionist attitude for quite some time, only participating in the Spanish and Mexican-American wars and the two world wars reluctantly. Once the contstitution's power was mostly broken through a couple of loopholes that resulted in the Central Bank, the New Deal and its' spawn, and a half-century of American interference around the globe, we became a universally unwelcome nation governed by a plutocracy that sought to establish more plutocracy.
If our political system could be re-invented by strictly interpreting the original constitution, or by amending it, nations like yours would not suffer from our mistakes like they do now. There would be no US Central Bank to have undue influence over world currencies, there would be no state-directed initiatives to interfere in the affairs of other nations, and there would be no subsidized U.S. corporations undermining the economies of other nations by offering lower, state-subsidized prices and higher, state-subsidized wages, not to mention diplomatic pressures to adhere to this or that economic policy. There would be no global U.S. military mission to establish democracy in the style we see fit.
All those things are products of the state and the collusion of state-business interests.


Judging by history as well as present world conditions, obviously you are totally wrong, because historic and present developments opposing your description were not mishaps in violation of your model, but the consequence caused by your model.
Don't be ridiculous, Sky. Neither the free market nor free-market monopolies have ever been the rule in any society, save early American society, and even that ended after barely half a century. You again confuse state-enabled monopoly with free-market monopoly. For every one example of a free-market monopoly that is not kept in place or significantly aided by the state, I will give you ten state-abetted monoplies, which will probably include your examples.
If you don't believe me, I invite you to try an experiment wherein you pretend to start your own business in Germany. I will even waive the loan process. Start by visiting your local chamber of commerce and work from there. My guess is that within days you will give up because the licensure fees and taxes alone will cost you upwards of 50,000 USD, not to mention what you will have to pay in overhead and overhead-related taxes once you start operations. Use your own residence as a basis for the business, or claim to own a plot of undeveloped land. You'll be stonewalled within minutes in most cases. Zoning requirements, you know. It's for the good of everyone.
Think about it, Sky. Were those requirements drafted by people who wanted to ensure that business operated well, or by people who wanted to ensure that only established business could operate?


Not only can they become monopolies, but they must become monopolies. In your model, you cannot avoid it. And as I said last time, even Adam Smith himself, to whose name your economy model heavily owes, was aware of that and warned that this inherent tendency must be actively tackled. I object to you by argument of your very own prophet, so to speak. ;) Anyhow, it is unthinkable anyway what you claim. It simply does not make sense. And practices in various economy fields, pharmaceutics for example, prove you wrong by the brutal facts. Monopolies can form up. They want to form up. They tend to become stronger by eating their competitors, and preventing equal starting chances to new ones. That is the very nature of your model.

As I said before, I do not deny that the free market wishes to establish monpolies, but it cannot. I even said that the market will form monopolies where it does not try to do so.
As far as my "prophet" Adam Smith is concerned, his specific remarks regarding monpolies were that one supplier could artificially manipulate supply for a short time if there was a natural monopoly over a product(i.e. something new or scarce), and he also commented on how such monopolies are short-lived, which is actually supportive of my argument.
If you seek to turn my "prophet" against me, you might be better off considering his arguments against "immoral" service of self-interest, which I believe reside primarily in Book 3 or 4 of The Wealth of Nations, not that it would matter much. Smith, founder of modern economics though he may be, was still only an early scion of the free-market and it must be remembered that he lived in a time when the church still had a very strong influence. You need only consider his language and frequent use of Christian references to see that. I'm honestly astonished that you even finished most of the book, as I would have assumed that you would have thrown it aside in disgust due to Smith's overall tone:DL Then again, many of Smith's moral arguments could be rationally divorced from Christian morality and viewed in a more general sense, so perhaps I should not be so awestruck.
In any case, it doesn't matter. For one thing, I am a proponent of the Austrian and Chicago schools of economics, which borrow from Smith, but do not echo him in many matters. For another, your continued insistence that present day "monopolies" are evidence of the fallacy of my argument is a fallacy itself. The day you find me a modern "monopoly", or more precisesly, an oligopoly, or even more precisely, a virtual oligopoly, that is protected by less than a thousand pages of trade regulation and that is not a significant lobby in government, I will cede the point. And why do you mention pharmeceuticals again, of all industries? That is one of the most state-saturated industries on the planet! You make my argument for me, yet again. Even in the supposedly "free" market US, pharmaceutical-related government measures cost tens of billions every year for relatively little gain. If you include Medicaid, the cost goes into the trillions, all spent on inadequate healthcare for the poor. If you wish to laugh at the US healthcare system, direct your laughter there. Those of us who choose to take responsibility for the maintenance of our own health have a very nice system.
The "brutal facts", my friend, are that industries that routinely take the most advantage of the people are those that have symbiotic relation with the state, and that without the state, business cannot prevent competitors from rising up, nor can it force people to buy things, nor can it indirectly force their support through state subsidy.

Yeah, but you reverse cause and effect when wanting to blame politicians for being targeted by lobbyists (or being replaced by lobbyists). When you want to cripple legislation as a result of your model’s lobbying, you declare economy free of guilt for abusing political systems and distorting democracy and violating the rights of the community by putting the freedom of the few above the freedom of the many - and you blame the society for being lobbied. In other words the victim is the perpetrator, and the real perpetrator is to be pardoned because he wants to maximise his egoism. Which for you is acceptable and excusable. Well, again I refer to what the Pope said on the abuse of economics by the few I his latest encyclical. One of the few opportunities when I wholeheartly agree with the church. It is unfair, unjust, and inhumane. And this is what makes it so unacceptable.
I love how you claim to agree with the Pope, here. Sweet irony. Sky, the Pope is the figurehead of one of the most totalitarian and centralist regimes ever to exsist on the face of the planet. If he had his way, you'd live in a theocratic state where you would be a second-class citizen for not being a Catholic. And you would agree with this man? Do you not see the similarity between the Catholic church and the state? They are wolves in sheeps' clothing. You might as well praise some Iraninan imam for his sermon on the need for "moral" behaviour.
I've had my fun, now down to business. Yes, the victim is the perpetrator, because the perpetrator gives power to the criminal in this case. Worse yet, they often do it to serve criminal interests of their own, like forcing others to do their bidding. Private industries are not the only ones who lobby, you know. The zeal of free enterprise to secure state favor is only exceeded by the zeal of citizens to secure state favor for their particualar agenda. They whine when someone else gets something passed, but they cheer the state when they manage to impose their will upon others. I find the whole thing sickening.
I find the state itself to be detestable as well. It is, in fact, responsible for
the lobbying it recieves. If you were a market-minded individual, you would see this. The state is a supplier that offers goods in the form of legislation to consumers in the form of voters and lobbyists. It is a socialist form of market, because it is held politically accountable for its' actions(usually), and so it pursues a course that takes it around the restrictions imposed upon it, just like any other black market. The result is corruption, inefficiency, and criminal activity, just as in a black market.

To get back on-topic, I do not reverse cause and effect. As a student of human nature, you should already know this. You cannot blame the market, or even an individual for taking advantage. That is simply human nature, and no system you will ever develop or impose will ever solve that.
Not everyone gives the same thought to social well-being as you do, Sky, and you cannot force them to do so. No matter what system they are in, they will seek advantage and abuse it if they can. The only solution is the market and the truth of supply and demand and prices and mutual exchange. Again, even if certain persons seek to take advantage of that system, they must pay the price in the form of investitutre or innovation or the creation of jobs and wealth for other so or all of those, and then they must maintain those benefits if they wish to continue to prosper.
I know that you will probably respond by railing against the current crop of bankers and CEOs that simply took advantage of the market and then bailed out with golden parachutes, but you must remember that these persons were often suckling from the state that supposedly protects us from people like them. A startling number of executives these days have backgrounds in the legal industry, just as those in Congress do. A coincidence?
You should also remember that despite the tens or even hundreds of millions that these people took for themselves, they had to create tens or hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of wealth for others to get their money. I admit that is not always the case, but those who escaped with the most money and the least culpability were usually members of industries with heavy state involvemet. Surely you have not forgotten the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac scandals of the current crisis and the past decade and the persons who made out well in those affairs? If you have, feel free to consider the airline magnates or the auto potentates or the agricultural barons or the pharmeceutical viziers, to name a few.

you make sure only one thing: that the interests of the potential lobbying party get realised and faces no opposition, making these interests strong and fostering. When the state and the national community leaves you your will to selfishly act like you want, you do not have a reason to invest in lobbying indeed. That is like throwing out the baby with the bathing water. Man, get reasonable again! You don’t protect a flock of sheep from the hungry wolves by shooting the shepard dog!
Hah! Shepard dog, indeed! The state is no shepard of any kind and the people are not sheep and business is not a pack of wolves. Sheep!? Really!? That's the kind of term I would expect to hear from an elitist of business or state or academia. You make it sound as though the people are dependent upon guidance from higher intelligences, an idea I frimly reject.
I get ahead of myself, though. Let me begin with a response to your first statement. I do not make sure that the lobbying party faces no opposition. I make sure that the lobbying party is not there to begin with.
When I speak of a limited state, I speak of a state that may only excercise enumerated powers and even then it must have an overwhelming majority vote to legislate, and even then the legislation must pass through a bi-cameral legislature and two other branches of government. It is the American government redux deluxe.
You then go on to say that business may act as it pleases, but that is not true, either. It is governed by the threat of state penalties for fraud and breach of contract (a power of state that I embrace, so long as it is relatively equal) and the ironclad law of the market. Again, you cannot force people to buy some worthless product. Some may choose to buy a worthless product, but as long as you provided them with a reasonable amount of truthful product information, no harm is done. Perhaps they will even learn a lesson. The vast majority, however, are not going to spend more money than they feel a product is worth, and they should be free to decide how much they think a product is worth. Is a pair of designer tennis shoes worth $150? That depends on how important and affordable deigner fashion is to you. In a bull market, they may well be worth that much because you have the disposable income to spend, in a recession they may not be worth buying at all.

With regard to monopolies and whether or not they exsist....
Wrong. They already have done that. The battle now is not to prevent monopolies – but to get rid of them.
In that case you'd be best served by destroying the legislative exoskeleton that holds them together.

You complained about me having listed traditionally monopole-heavy industries as examples. Hm. I mentioned Energy. Oil. Food. Pharmaceutics. I could list international monopole-like intricacies in the textile industry as well. All these are important, most vital business fields with whom everybody of us has to deal in any form on a daily basis. And if would take the time and interest, I could list many more examples. I fail to see the argument in your complaint. It seems you want to get rid of my examples because they so heavily question the truth of your model. Your examples do not question the truth of my model at all, they only reinforce it. I specifically said that you mentioned a variety of state-empowered monopolies. If you wish to change my mind, I would suggest that you demonstrate how those industries attained "monopoly" status on their own, without state aid, and perhaps provide a few real examples of monopolies that coalesced in a free-market envoronment. I'll give you the Dutch East India company for free. Find me another example.

No, the state is not wrong here, the state is not the perpetrator. It is Monsanto. How could you always reverse the cause-effect relation so totally? I throw a stone at you, for you stand in my way. You get hit. Your own fault – why are you standing in my way? I want something what is yours and is not mine. I shoot at you. Your own fault – why is it yours, and not already mine? I want to maximise my profits and interests at the cost of the community. I lobby in politics, to make them decide like I want it for fostering my own egoism. Politic’s fault that I lobby (or should I say: raid?) it – why do they have the power to supervise competition rules and hinder me in behaving like being the only man on earth?
Sorry to be blunt here, Lance, but I cannot take your stand serious here. It is the climax of absurdity.
No, no, no. Think like a typical entrepeneur for a moment. Imagine that you are not some enlightened individual with a heightened sense of purpose and a partially completed neo-feudal model for society:DL:O:
You seek prosperity in the market, but you are assailed by competitors. Your representative is willing to listen to your heartfelt arguments about the faults of other competitors and how you need his help to preserve jobs your company provides in his district......
Whatever happened to German proficiency in the field of realpolitik? Did you somehow decide that it did not apply to business as well?

You are more than welcome to be blunt in your assesments of my ideas, I will not take offense. I will only invite you take a step through the looking glass and consdier my persepctive for a moment. One does not fix a clock by saying "My God! The time is off, it should be thus!" and pursuing to adjust the hands, one fixes a clock by knowing how it works and fixing the internal fault that caused the time to be off in the first place.
The clock is actually a poor metaphor for the market, because the market is far mor random, and yet far more predictable, but the concept still applies to some degree.

Obviously German authorities see it very different than you do – on the basis of the dominant market shares, criminal business practices that border blackmailing, and unscrupulous exploitation of the weakness of for example Southamerican farmers to make them subjugating to become Monsanto customers and paying their costly seeds – else getting sued by Monsanto over Monsanto-caused intentional infection of their fields with seeds owned by Monsanto: for violation of copyrights. That is as if the girl is being sued for not being cooperative towards the thug raping her. Monsanto is famous for this bullying behaviour, and also is famous for investing much into corrupt political structures that then should protect Monsanto.
Other than the last sentence, I have kind of a hard time understanding what you are saying here. It sounds like you are saying that South American farmers are being sued by Monsanto for having Monsanto-brand seed in their fields, seeds that were actually planted there by Monsanto. Is that correct?
If that is the case, I would expect little justice from the notoriously corrupt South American states. This kind of behaviour is better remedied by media exposure and consumer outcry. I freely admit that I do not have any way of making Americans care about what Monsanto is doing in other countries. The plight of other peoples is not and should not be the responsibility of the American state. You know as well as I do how often we mess things up, despite the good intentions of our populace.

In any case, we are at least agreed upon the tendency of companies like Monsanto to take advantage of state where they are able.

In Germany, they have repeatedly knowingly infested public land with genetic seeds that had been prohibited to be brought out. By that they have created facts that turn laws into rubbish, because once released, you cannot limit the spreading of such seeds. German farmers bordering these places also already have been threatened and sued when these forbidden plants spread to their acres – since the genetic design is patented by Monsanto, the company now wants them to buy the seeds and subscribe to their inhibitory system that is designed to make them buy every year – with Monsanto only.
If that is truly the case, I suggest you look at the state which gave Monsanto such power. In some nations, like this one, companies cannot simply scatter their property upon your land and then lay claim to it. The closest thing we have to that is the seperation of terrestrial and mineral property rights, something I also think should be abolished.
In my model, Monsanto would be entitled to nothing more than a loss of perfectly good seeds. The transaction was not voluntary and agreed upon by both parties, so it is null and void. Monsanto would also have no legal power beyond what is given to any individual entity under my model. They would have to make their accusations pro se and they would not have a complex legal code to fall back on. In fact, the owners of the land would have cause to sue Monsanto for violating their property rights for either intentionally or inadvertently allowing their seeds to contaminate the landowner's property, assuming that it could be proven that Monsanto itself contaminated the property.
Yes, Monsanto is the the malign force behind such schemes, but the state enables such schemes to be perpetrated. The market does not. In a true free-market, Monsanto would not even have the right to pursue legal action at all, because the land and crops in question would not be their property unless there was a stipulated written agreement.
Again, you confuse the market with the state-augmented market.

And your answer is to remove all authority or strip it of all effective powers, that could – and should – fight against such criminal behaviour. To battle crime, you dismantle the police, so that so crime statistics will not get collected anymore. No statistic, no crime – problem solved. That is your logic.
Have you lost your mind…?
No, I have not lost my mind and no, that is not my logic. My intent is not to manipulate statistics by simply stating that crimes are not crimes. Surely you give me more credit than that, Sky.
Simply put, there are many cases in which I trust the market to deliver more effective justic than what the state can, because the market is not suysceptible to fiat law that can be, and is frequently, abused.

The state has kept out of banking market for too long – as a result, unimaginable values have been vaporised by a few greedy fat cats for whom enough never is enough, and already do like that again right now, having learned NOTHING. The ordinary honest man on the streets around all the globe now pays the bill.
I agree with everything except for the first 11 words. You accuse me of being blind to the presence of monopoly, and yet you apparently have no awareness of the centuries-old exsistence of government banks and state banking regulation!?
Who on earth do you think gives banks the power to create fiat currency by virtue of a ridiculous fractional reserve system in the first place!? It is certainly not the market. The free market demands a rational fractional reserve, wherein people can decide whether or not to borrow, lend, or store money with a particular bank based upon reputation and business history, and can expect to withdraw their funds on-demand under most circumstances. If they choose a poor bank, more's the pity, but at least they have a choice and are not tied up in a labyrinth of trade machinations that were created by state obstacles to trade.
Simplicity and truth are tantamount to accountability, and the market is simplicity and truth made manifest. Though the market is so complex that no person or group of persons could ever hope to understand it entirely, there is always the basic and simple truth of the value of the exchange.
Wise bets and investments are made. Poor bets and investments are made, but each gets what he deserves, and what the rewards and consequences he was willing to risk. Don't destroy the whole system by charging a state bulldozer into the market's china shop while trumpeting the cause of egalitariansim over a bullhorn.

There has not been too much regulation. For too long, there has been far too little. Change politics, if you want, make them less prone and less vulnerable to economic lobbying, but give it the tools needed to cut back irresponsible egoism of the few that cause havoc on the many for the sake of their own interests. It is not as if there has not been competition between banks.
If only I could change politics to make them less prone to economic lobbying whilst retaining political power to cut back irresponsible egosim, I would do it. However, no such system exsists other than the market, and even that is not a perfect solution. I have said before that the state is a necessary evil, but remember that it must always be regarded as such.
I don't have a perfect solution, but I have offered the concession of letting the state keep some strictly-regulated trust-busting power (so that business will not abuse it much. I prefer a system of popular vote, with at least a 70% majority required) and I have agreed that the state must be able to penalize breaches of contract, fraud, and violations of individual rights. What more do you want? What more can you ask without entrusting the future of nations to the same selfish fools that you so despise in the business world?

you obviously are not aware of the real situations most people live in: that their alternatives are limited or non-existent and that they can not avoid to submit to the conditions they face in a given place, because they do not have the means to move away. There are many things you cannot avoid to consume. And due to the spreading poverty, many people do not have the assets to invest in alternatives that make them more independent from market monopolies. That is simply the harsh reality that most have to face , whether you like that or not.

Oh really? And how did these impoverished people arrive at their condition? Last I checked, most of them lived in countries with benevolent and wise centralist governments that sought to protect them from the evils of the free market. There are over 180 countries in the world, Sky, and the vast majority of them are improverished and under the thumb of centralist governments, despite the aid that has been given them.
Whatever you may think of the vices of unfettered capitalism, you cannot deny that the welfare of the market is key to the prosperity of any population.
Be thankful that the prosperous see fit to give some of their wealth to the oppressed and impoverished, and that religion compels some fools to give more, even if they do so out of hope of an eternal reward in a fantasy aferlife.
If you truly seek to improve the condition of the impoverished, I suggest that you pursue either religion or free enterprise, because they have done more than any supposedly well-intentioned state ever has.

the very purpose of monopolies: to leave people no alternatives! It is part of the nature, part of the definition of monopolies. The monopoly of the one, means the weakness of the other that can be exploited. Where it is not like this, it is no real monopole. Why do you think have the major energy suppliers flooded the market with fake companies that are their own daughters? To leave people no alternatives, and to make them think they already use an alternative while indeed they do not.
No kidding. And where do these kinds of monopolies exsist? Not in my country, but in yours, evidently. Do you think I am such a fool as to not know the relation between parent and daughter companies, Sky? For the most part, I know which companies own which and which are wholly or partially owned subsidiaries of this firm or that. These companies are required to state that information on their products, a service that I admittedly thank the state for. Surprised? You shouldn't be, because I champion transparency in the market as much as you do. The difference is that I only sanction state intervention in stated transparency requirements as a penalty, not as a proactive measure. Proactive state agencies have a way of melding with the industry they are supposed to be policing, just as the state itself has a way of melding policy with the interests of business.
Again, I ramble, but to get back OT, one still has a choice in these "monopoly" markets. Did you learn nothing from the demise of the US auto industry or the German steel industry or the travesty that is the Western oil market? People select the goods that get them the best value for their money. Not always, but often enough to shift the course of the market.
When the state steps in and begins saying that one must pay this for an imported good or that one cannot export this or that, all in the name of protectionsim, they may confuse and muddle the market, but they do not stop it. The market does not care if an American car is more expensive in Germany because of trade restrictions or shipping costs or labor costs or the will of some greedy CEO or whatever. It only knows that the car is more expensive and so fewer of them will be purchased. Better to let the judgement of the consumer and the truth of price dictate policy, rather than the frequently erroneous judgement of some state beaureacrat.


You either mean totalitarianism or socialism here. But that is not what I mean when saying: as much regulation as needed - but as little as possible. Socialism and totalitarianism want ultimate, unlimited control of every individual and every resource and every piece of the economy. And indeed, where totalitarianism is “top-down” of the kind you complained about me somewhere in your opening, socialism discourages own initiative and creativity, and tries to equalise people not by motivating those performing inferior to do better, but by pulling back those doing better into the swamp of collective mediocrity. That’s how I see it, and that’s what makes it so extremely disgusting for me.

I can completely understand this argument and I agree, but I advise caution in the policy you choose to support. The state, no matter what form it comes in, has a tendency to slide towards totalitarianism and socialism. Some call this a slippery-slope argument, but I call it a sticky-slope argument. The state is always on a slide towards harmful centralism,
but the further it slides, the more difficult it is to pull back up. It is easy to lobby the state for this or that. Any fool can say that "this is not working the way I had hoped" or "that is unfair", or that "we should pursue this course of action", but once those decisions are in place, they are extremely difficult to reverse. The state does not willingly surrender power.

If you ever present some kind of feasible model wherein we can simultaneously check the power of state and business whilst harnessing both for the greater good, I will probably adopt it, but until then we have basic human nature, greed, and selfishness to harness and we must make do with that.

Your ideal of an anarchic, egoist market IS violence, transformed from the blood-and-meat level of things to abstract number-juggling. I fail to see your model any different than like the jungle law of the strongest, and the rest is prey. Maybe that worked nice for Tyrannosaurus. But if we humans accept that as model, I see no need why we have been born not as some lower animals, but humans. I demand more from “being a human” than just acting like Tyrannosaurus. And I demand to make use of the additional potentials we have over dear old Rex, that give us the freedom to raise ourselves above our heritage of natural drives and lower instincts. We could be more than just a primitive beast driven by sex and hunger only. But we will not be - if we even do not want to reach for that. The choice is ours.
Oh get real, Sky. The day I am killed or imprisoned for failing to purchase something I'll take this line of thought seriously. The market is nothing akin to violence and you know it.
I can see the logic you pursue here, that by denying or making essential goods less available, the market condemns people to the "law of the jungle" but that is simply not true. Similarly, we are not so superior to the T-rex or any other form of life as you might imagine. I was under the impression that you understood the tremendous genetic compulsion that humanity is beset by, but perhaps you do not understand it, or perhaps you hold a different view. We can discuss that if you wish, but for now I will only advise that you not place so much faith in the higher capacity of humanity. We are intelligent beings, make no mistake, but we are not, as a whole, so intelligent as to have transcended our basic genetic identity.

And your solution is, as already said, to throw out the baby with the bathing water.
And your solution is to equate bathing water and babies with international monetary policy and societal organization. :DL
I have no truly witty retort, I am sorry.


an oxygen toll raised by private enterprise cleaning the smog in smog-ridden metropolis, already has been ,mentioned by several businessmen over the past 10 years or so – I heard it repeatedly. That it is the smog caused by private industries, and car traffic because the development of environment-friendly car technology has been hindered by the oil producers since decades – who cares. There is profit in messing up the world, and there is profit in cleaning some of the mess. All costs – get paid by the community, all profits – get privatised.

That is market logic that is left to itself, unregulated.

Surely you jest, and I do not mean about the idea that people may be charged for cleaning smog by private industry. Evidently, you have not heard of the concept of the state charging everyone for smog so that it can do absolutely nothing about it.
I present to you; California, the most smog-ridden state in the Union, and also the most environmentally-conscious, where billions are spent each year for the purpose of appearing to try to clean up smog. It is a hallmark of environmentally-conscious and business-damaging regulation that does nothing but make everyone poor. Hooray.
Perhaps you prefer a different, non-US example? I present the European Union, a conglomerate of progressive nations that generate pollution almost on par with that of the US(per capita), whilst maintaining a much lower standard of living and and a ridiculous tax rate.
Don't even think about mentioning carbon emissions. The E.U. is home to around half a billion people who emit an average of 22 pounds of carbon dioxide per person per day just by breathing.

If my arguments seem trivial and non-decisive on this topic, it is because they are. Truly, I have not decided whether or not I think global warming is a real threat, or whether anything can be done about it. I know that you said you would not discuss the matter seriously any more, and I can respect that stance, but I invite you to consider some of the mathematics of manmade global climate change. If you are so set in your views, or if you are simply as tired of discussing it as you stated, I will not pursue the topic any further


the market does not decide or define the shape the world is in, nor does it define physical realities. That is a fiction that is very widespread in your model’s thinking. This model also says that there is no imagining possible that a needed resource could run out. It is assumed that access to such resources is only a matter of investments made. Which in all cases, sooner or later, of course necessarily turns out to be total nonsense.

My model says nothing of the sort. Scarcity of resources naturally falls under the jurisdiction of supply. When resources become scarce, price will increase, demand will decline, and people will either seek an alternative or expand production efforts or come up with some other imaginative solution.
Just look at the logging industry, which plants more trees annually than any other entity. It does so to stay in business, but it benefits the planet and the consumer in the process. By ensuring that there is no shortage of wood, prices are kept relatively low and the woodland environment remains relatively healthy, even if it is shifted about from time to time.
Even the oft-villainized petroleum industry follows the same process. It continually searches for more petroleum resources to exploit, even probing the depths of the oceans, but when that petroleum become scarce (which it has not yet, despite nearly a century of prophecy),
we will simply switch to alternative or synthetic petroleum or something even better. If the price for such commodities is high, great! Less petroleum will be burnt and everything gets more efficient. If the price is low, then at least we don't have a dearth of resources for a while, before it becomes scarce and everything becomes more efficient.
You may worry about damage to the earth, but do not worry about humanity running out of resources. As a species, we will be fine, even if there are some difficulties during transitional periods.

You equal a financial argument with an argument about natural realities and environmental variables. You imply that nature and environmental only have a value that can be financially calculated
.
I'll tell you what; the day that there is a public outcry for the preservation of the flora and fauna that populate underground gas reserves, I'll assign something other than fiscal value to them. That's like saying that we should preserve iron-ore deposits.
Like it or not, we as a species must have raw materials to exploit, as must any species. Are we so much worse than any other species on the planet because we are better adapted to expansion and exploitation?
If you have a problem with our systematic exploitation of available resources, I suggest you tell it to the next virus that wracks your body.(though I hope such a thing will never come to pass)
Like it or not, our species is in a war against both other life forms and entropy. It is easy to rest on our laurels and forget that, but that does not make it any less true. We are a young species, with a long way to go yet, and our survival depends utterly upon our capacity for adaption and reconciling our social nature with our inherent propensity towards conflict with each other. It does not depend upon the survival of exsisting ecosystems in their present form, and that is simple truth. I sympathize somewhat with your appreciation for the natural world and its' beauty, but that is secondary to the survival of the human race.
It is upon this point that we may be the most opposed.

Plus your argument, if there is any real one, suffers from that your number balance depends on the costs of gas at the place you live in. That’s why it is argued that the costs of gas must be massively raised.
Really? Well, that explains why British pay five times as much for gas harvested from the North Sea than I do for gas that is pumped, cracked, refined, and shipped from the middle east and Russia.
Sky, I pay less for gas because I live in a nation that is based upon a market system. If we were to be allowed to harvest our own fossil fuel reserves, the price would be even lower. I pay less for everything and earn more becuae I live in a nation where the state does not "protect" my interests, and I am free to make my own choices. The US is leaning towards socialism at an increasingly alarming rate, but we are still the world's bastion of freedom, both in personal and economic rights.
Nothing would make me happier than to see Germany become the new Switzerland, a European continental power that boasts economic prosperity all out of proportion to its' size, but you Germans are shackled by your democratic-socialist model. The state dictates much of your production processes, and you are held hostage by state-regulted monopolies. It is almost as tragic as seeing the US subdued by seven decades of dogged state attempts at control.
Have you forgotten that yours was the nation of the Wirtschaftswunder
and the revolutionary capitalist philophies of Ludwig Erhard?



Your powergrid often is referred to to be on the level of a third world country, and constantly becoming older. Do you have an idea of what it will cost to modernise it once you cannot evade it any longer? Probably the costs for the currently needed modernisation, plus costs for the additional damages accumulating until you finally get started.

Was that meant to be an argument what you said? ;)

Hah! I'll bet that my privately-serivced powergrid provides superior service to yours anyday, and that is including outages caused by severe storms and tornadoes that you do not have. The longest I ever waited for restoration of power was four hours and that was after five tornadoes ripped through the area north of Dallas-Ft.Worth, where I live.
I look very forward to visitng Germany in September, where I can see exactly what kind of national infrastructure your overbrearing government has provided. :DL

Our national communities and their social models, yours as well as ours, depend on people having a job to get an income by which they pay for their very existence. But due to constant modernisations, more and more goods got and get produced in larger quantities and – hopefully – in better qualities – by less and lesser people. The economic basis that has formed our national-social community structures, has changed so much that it does not support that community structure anymore. As a matter of fact we do not need so many workers anymore. That’s why people more and more work in mini-jobs, and must accept to get minimised wages – a system that only works (for the sake of creating the illusion of employment) due to subsidies by the state. In America you have the phenomenon of the so-called working poor. In Germany, we now have it, too. In Germany we have the extreme of one-euro jobs. I myself worked for free over many years, in several projects – but only because I could afford that. In a society where people depend on getting a fair income by doing a fair amount of work in a job, an economic change making more and more workers superfluous, this is a major problem with the potential to care revolutions and civil wars sooner or later, because it threatens people at the basis of there mere existence.
If people in you nation work for such pitiful wages, that is the fault of the state, though I applaud you for your industrious nature.
If the free market were functioning properly in your nation, companies would be begging for employees and offering excellent compensation to attract workers.
Think about this for a moment; you consistently lament the insatiable nature of the consumer-driven economy, but do you ever think about how such an economy must provide more jobs than could possibly be fulfilled?
Modern production technology, while wondrous, cannot ever hope to meet the demand of consumers for goods of all types. Even when people have had their fill of a particular product or cannot afford any more, demand arises anew in a fairly regular cycle as new products are developed and people pay off their debts.
The social structure has not changed so radically as you think. Even though less workers may be required to perform a certain task, there is an ever-increasing demand for more tasks to be performed as the population grows.
The idea behind my system is to ensure that there is constant competition amongst companies to secure not only customers, but employees as well. Through the tribulations of the few, the many benefit, and the few benefit as well when they are deserving of success. This can only be achieved when the state is not offered as a carrot to industry and other private groups. We already know where that path leads.

I have become hesitant to buy at Amazon and other internet shops, I use it for research only, but where possible and where eventual higher costs are in a range can afford, I prefer to buy in small shops to support them. It is important for the national community to do so, and it is vital for the individual shop keeper. It is difficult to do so, because not many shops are left – and those there are, often are chain stores.

More power to you, then. Excercise your choice, regardless of prices or convenience or service. That only make monopolies less powerful, and that is a good thing.

It is called solidarity. Your market model has no equivalent for that, so do not even search for it. If I were egoist, I would send the small shops to hell, and only care for my own interest. And after me - the flooding, who cares.
Give me a break, Sky. The market does have solidarity and it comes in the form of the desire for customer retention. I don't know about Germany, but over here private businesses regularly endorse charity efforts and community programs. They must do so because their consumers expect and demand it.
Who has the small-community system now?

Strange that I have made almost exclusively exactly opposite experiences. The friendliest service I have with small companies fighting for survival. All worst case scenarios I had (and I had, with IT and electronic companies), I had with huge chain stores and huge companies.
That is quite possible, and customer service experiences vary from business to business. I would be lying if I said I had always had pleasant experiences with large companies, or that I consistently had unpleasant experiences with small companies. In my experience, the quality of service is usually proportionate to the level of competition, and I think you can agree with that.


At the cost of it’s employees. We have that in Germany, too, Lidl, Schlecker or KiK. Walmart failed miserably in Germany, btw, though not only for reasons of miserably social policies, but Germans not accepting to behave like Americans in their consumer-habits.
Good for them. More competition for Wal-mart, and competiton is always a good thing when it comes to the market.
Wal-Mart pays its' employees a fair wage, btw. Given the hiring requirements and the nature of the work, $8.00 an hour plus benefits is quite reasonable.



Or it simply exploits the fact that there are many people who cannot afford not to accept unacceptable conditions. Having a high level of unemployment – is paradise for capitalism. The higher the unemployment, the lower wages companies can pay. The costs for supporting those being unemployed – get externalised to those working for low wages. Isn’t it great? Cheers!
You are quite correct here. Companies and capitalists love high unemployment, assuming that they did not agree to pay compensation for furlouged employees. A glut of labor ensures a drop in labor prices.
What you fail to see is that companies and capitalists also hate the conditions that create high unemployment. The consumer base is eroded and net revenues go down.
Believe me, if copmanies loved high unemployment as much as you assume, they would have taken great pains to ensure that high unemployment was the norm.

I will conclude here, as you venture into some responses to my global warming stance, and it is clear that we are not agreed upon anything regarding that, but perhaps we can bring it up at a later time if some more significant argument comes to light.
Until then, I retire from this discussion. I will read and consider whatever you post in response, and I will reply to any questions, but my piece is said.
Even if I have not yet found a reason to adopt most of your economic views, I enjoy the challenge you present and the opportunity to question my own stance, Sky. :salute:

[UnderseaLcpl]

May I offer a Pepto Bismol for that case of verberia? :rotfl:


Okay, now I would like the Pepto-Bismol please. :DL

[SteamWake]

Maybe we need a seperate thread where Undersea and Sky can discuss global warming at length.

After all this thread wasent really about global warming or wether or not it is 'true'. No it was about the financial hardships that would have to be endured in this legislation if it is passed.

[Skybird]

Maybe we need a seperate thread where Undersea and Sky can discuss global warming at length.



That could be discussed. :DL



Lance,

I see little reason to carry on from here, and thus save myself from answering your latest replies. I read it for sure, but for the most part couldn'T disagree more. To me you live in an alternative reality that has nothing to do with my own living place. Any reply from here on just would be a repetition.

Nichts für ungut,
Sky

[CastleBravo]

EPA Admits Cap and Trade Will Fail

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee began their hearings on the 1,500 page Waxman-Markey cap and trade legislation Tuesday, and ranking member Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) won a startling admission from Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lisa Jackson. Inhofe produced an EPA chart generated last year during the Senate’s debate of the Lieberman-Warner cap and trade legislation. The chart showed that the carbon reductions under that bill would not materially effect global carbon concentrations in the atmosphere. Inhofe then asked Jackson if she agreed with the chart’s conclusions. Jackson replied: “I believe that essential parts of the chart are that the U.S. action alone will not impact CO2 levels.”

http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/main/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/893/EPA-Admits-Cap-and-Trade-Will-Fail.aspx (http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/main/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/893/EPA-Admits-Cap-and-Trade-Will-Fail.aspx)

[August]

Winner by unanimous decision: UnderseaLcpl!!!
http://pro.corbis.com/images/42-16508917.jpg?size=572&uid=%7BC9824151-C4E3-4BFE-8EEA-D48907AA287F%7D

[UnderseaLcpl]

Winner by unanimous decision: UnderseaLcpl!!!


Thanks, August. Look Sky, I got a vote!:DL

[SteamWake]

At the risk of spurring another bout of ververia ...

Scare tactics in the senate !


If the Senate doesn't pass a bill to cut global warming, Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer says, there will be dire results: droughts, floods, fires, loss of species, damage to agriculture, worsening air pollution and more.


She is after all an expert :rotfl:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20090711/sc_mcclatchy/3269899

[August]

Scare tactics in the senate !

I'd like to see politicians loose a body part every time they make false claims like this:

She says there's a huge upside, however, if the Senate does act: millions of clean-energy jobs, reduced reliance on foreign oil and less pollution for the nation's children.

The truth is she has no idea if her bill will have any positive effect at all on either the environment or the economy.