We can't emit into the atmosphere 15,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2 without something going wrong! Are people so short sighted as to not understand this?

Do you want to own up to your kids and say that you sat by and did nothing while you waited for absolute proof then realise it was too late? How will your kids view you in 10, 20 or 30 yrs time?

No Paul. What they are saying in this thread, is that regardless of what is being emitted the net total emissions does not fall. If net total emissions do not fall, then spending what will amount to trillions of total dollars won't mean anything anyway.

The kid thing is specious. I could just as easily ask if you want to I own up your kids and say that you wasted the price of their college education and it was meaningless and had no effect whatsoever? Think your kids would appreciate that?

No Rush, you don't get it. You are saying "If net total emissions do not fall....." Wow, let's all just give up now! We have the ultimate choice. Do we try to reduce CO2 emissions and try to lower atmospheric greenhouse levels? Or, do we sit back and wait for 10, 20 or 30 years and see how things pan out and then let our children be the judge and suffer the consequences?

What if they do fall? What if the actions we take now mean that the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels slow and then drop? What if the inaction we take now mean that the increase in CO2 levels continue to accelerate? I know I'd prefer to spend my sons colledge education (I will tell him) in reducing CO2 levels so that he has the opportunity to enjoy life in the future with his head out of the sand.

We do have the ability to do something. If we do nothing then the overwhelming consensus is that we will be right royally screwed. Let's try and do something so that we end up just a little screwed and are able to get passed it.

Live long and BOINC.

---

Paul
(S@H1 8888)
And proud of it!

I earned 1/532 of what my bosses "bonus" was last year let alone his salary!

Wow, you mean you were both free to contract with the company to work for them? And you both agreed to work for different amounts?

If you can understand why you try to get employers to pay you as much as possible (just like everyone else does) you can understand why your boss does the same thing.

That's really bad isn't it? So your salary depends on how good you are at negotiating..not how good you are at your job. There is something seriously wrong with that. The more you tell me about capitalism the more I realise how flawed it is.

---

Reality Internet Personality

That freedom extends even to you Rush...to believe as you like...oh and feel free to exercise your freedom of choice to not think beyond your wallet.

Exactly. That's what freedom is. It means that no one else has to think as you do, regardless of your opinion about it. For 99.999% of the economic decisions you make (i.e., all of them) you cannot think beyond your wallet. You don't have enough information. There's too much out there.

I don't believe I claimed to know about every step used to make everything that I use in my daily life; however I do use my freedom of choice to become informed so that I may make better decisions as to where I choose to spend my money. Often those choices at my expense are for the betterment of the environment.

The point being, that's just what you think about the decisions you have made. You actually don't have enough information to make "informed" decisions as you seem to be using the term. They aren't "better" decisions per se (better as compared to what?), they're simply what you want, they're simply making you feel better about yourself. You do as everyone else does--you value what you buy over what you have in your wallet.

Good for you, I'm glad you have the freedom to make these choices. But I'm going to lobby the gov't to take your computer away from you, because I think you use too much energy.

Ok...now that was about the least intelligent thing I have read on this thread. Not that I didn't expect it considering your prior posts. I'd get great joy form comparing my energy bill with yours, considering what you have stated. On the other hand reading the above statement again it seems to me like you feel you don't have those choices. Interesting...very interesting...or maybe it's rather that you don't want to make those choices. Could it be?

It was a joke, designed to illustrate why it doesn't make sense to comment on others based on what one "feels." I would never restrict your freedom, ever. You live as you wish.

But say you use less power than some, so what? There are people who think you use too much. Should they be allowed to tell you what you do? Should you be allowed to tell the family of six that they have to live as you do? That their children must be uncomfortable because you would set their thermostat differently than they have chosen to? Should some guy in Burkina Faso be able to tell you that you must shut your computer down because global warming "caused" some storm that might kill him? Can you tell everyone to shut down BOINC because it uses too much power? They value the knowledge gained over the resources used. But the use of those resources causes global warming.

I make energy conscious decisions, regularly. Every bulb on my property is a compact florescent. Yet, some of the outside ones shine all night because it keeps my house safer. I value the fact that it is harder to break into a well-let home, more than I value the money used to pay the electric bill.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Informed is the keyword here Rush. How are people to get informed?

I have no idea. That is up to them. To learn as they wish, or not. To take classes. Or not. To read various sources and points of view. Or not. They are free, they do as they wish.

Does everyone have equal access to the information?

I have no idea. It doesn't matter. No one on earth has ever had equal access to information and they never will because information by its very nature is unequally distributed.

Are they even aware it is there?

I have no idea. That is up to them. Not me, or you, or DA.

Who is controlling the education system in your utopia?

"Utopia," that's not a word I used. The parents who have children are responsible for educating their children.

Are they training people up to be free thinkers or consumers? There is no free choice without education and access to all the information. However..if the information agenda is being set by people who are trying to maximise profits then that will never happen.

I have no idea what this means. People learn for themselves (or not). I can't train you to be libertarian, anymore than you can train me for the Borg collective. Individuals are responsible for what they learn (or not), and no one has the right to force them to choose otherwise.

The freedoms you go on about are an illusion.

This is argument? What freedoms did I go on about, and why are they an illusion? Because you sez so?

The only freedom that exists truly, is the right to yourself, to be free from the interference of others. That's it, there's nothing else, and I have never suggested otherwise. There is no freedom to be free from the laws of reality. One must eat to live. One must act to survive.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

I earned 1/532 of what my bosses "bonus" was last year let alone his salary!

Wow, you mean you were both free to contract with the company to work for them? And you both agreed to work for different amounts?

If you can understand why you try to get employers to pay you as much as possible (just like everyone else does) you can understand why your boss does the same thing.

That's really bad isn't it? So your salary depends on how good you are at negotiating..not how good you are at your job. There is something seriously wrong with that. The more you tell me about capitalism the more I realise how flawed it is.

In Germany they call that game social market economy. And why should we have a workers' representation in our company? We are all mature and with equal opportunities to safeguard our interests...

---

Love, Jenny

No Rush, you don't get it.

Au contraire, I do get it. I get that if you people don't come up with something better than "the U.S. must sign a piece of paper," you're doomed.

You are saying "If net total emissions do not fall....." Wow, let's all just give up now! We have the ultimate choice. Do we try to reduce CO2 emissions and try to lower atmospheric greenhouse levels? Or, do we sit back and wait for 10, 20 or 30 years and see how things pan out and then let our children be the judge and suffer the consequences?

I've never said to give up. What I have said is that gov't force will not save you. Kyoto failed. Even countries that willingly signed the silly thing and wanted to meet their goals did not.

The position is very simple. X will happen if total emissions are not cut. The total emissions will not be cut because significant emitters have been exempted. Therefore, spending trillions to not cut total emissions is a complete waste.

I didn't say you shouldn't try effective solutions. I didn't say you shouldn't bring zero-emissions cars to the market (what's stopping you?) I didn't say you shouldn't build new generation breeder reactors as fast as you can. I didn't say you shouldn't get fusion reactors on-line as fast as possible. I didn't say you shouldn't try. I didn't say you should give up.

I did say the non-economic solutions are doomed to fail and they have. I did say that signing a treaty that does not cut total net emissions will not save you. I did say that no matter what you feel about them, actions that do not cut emissions in an increasingly populated world are doomed to fail you. I did say it doesn't make any sense to spend trillions on nothing.

I didn't tell you to give up--I told you not to waste your time on efforts that do not cut total emissions.

What if they do fall? What if the actions we take now mean that the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels slow and then drop? What if the inaction we take now mean that the increase in CO2 levels continue to accelerate? I know I'd prefer to spend my sons colledge education (I will tell him) in reducing CO2 levels so that he has the opportunity to enjoy life in the future with his head out of the sand.

What if? What if they don't? All you've got so far is ever-increasing emissions, except a bunch of countries have signed a piece of paper. Before that piece of paper, you had ever-increasing emissions. Now, after the piece of paper, you have what? You guessed it, ever-increasing emissions.

The point is very simple: signing a piece of paper will not lower total emissions and therefore will not save you.

The actual question I asked is what would you tell your son if you spent his college education and didn't reduce CO2 levels whatsoever? That you utterly and completely wasted it and it had no effect whatsoever? That you could just have easily thrown his college education into a lake?

We do have the ability to do something.

If Kyoto is any indication, no, you don't. If exempting countries is any indication, then no, you don't.

If we do nothing then the overwhelming consensus is that we will be right royally screwed. Let's try and do something so that we end up just a little screwed and are able to get passed it.

Good luck.

I would start by cutting total emissions. The way to cut total emissions is through the things I mentioned above, not by holding hands and singing "Kumbaya," hoping the gov't saves you.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Informed is the keyword here Rush. How are people to get informed?

I have no idea. That is up to them. To learn as they wish, or not. To take classes. Or not. To read various sources and points of view. Or not. They are free, they do as they wish.

Does everyone have equal access to the information?

I have no idea. It doesn't matter. No one on earth has ever had equal access to information and they never will because information by its very nature is unequally distributed.

Are they even aware it is there?

I have no idea. That is up to them. Not me, or you, or DA.

Who is controlling the education system in your utopia?

"Utopia," that's not a word I used. The parents who have children are responsible for educating their children.

Are they training people up to be free thinkers or consumers? There is no free choice without education and access to all the information. However..if the information agenda is being set by people who are trying to maximise profits then that will never happen.

I have no idea what this means. People learn for themselves (or not). I can't train you to be libertarian, anymore than you can train me for the Borg collective. Individuals are responsible for what they learn (or not), and no one has the right to force them to choose otherwise.

The freedoms you go on about are an illusion.

This is argument? What freedoms did I go on about, and why are they an illusion? Because you sez so?

The only freedom that exists truly, is the right to yourself, to be free from the interference of others. That's it, there's nothing else, and I have never suggested otherwise. There is no freedom to be free from the laws of reality. One must eat to live. One must act to survive.

But that's just rubbish because we aren't all born equal, we don't all have access to the same opportunities. You talk about choice..but how is it a choice if you aren't even aware of alternatives because your family aren't aware of them..or you aren't even aware you're not aware. You go on about consumer choice and people buying bad products that destroy the environment and assume that it is a choice. When people are living on very little money the only choice they have is to buy the cheapest, not matter how bad it is for the planet or for themselves. That is no choice at all.

You give people the freedom to stay in poverty yet you think that everyone has access to the resources to remove them selves from that situation. You assume that everyone has all the talents, the ability and the background support to do it. That's the attitude that blames the poor for being poor and quite frankly it sucks.

---

Reality Internet Personality

That's really bad isn't it? So your salary depends on how good you are at negotiating..not how good you are at your job. There is something seriously wrong with that. The more you tell me about capitalism the more I realise how flawed it is.

That's silly, and you know it. Sure some of your salary depends on how good you are at negotiating, but only within a certain range. Overwhelmingly it depends on your skill set, how good you are at your job, your educational background, and your experience. If those are flaws, well, I can't help you, because those are rational reasons to determine salary. You are, of course, welcome of demonstrate how that is flawed.

Again, if you can understand why people try to get employers to pay them as much as possible, you can understand why your boss does the same thing.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

But that's just rubbish because we aren't all born equal, we don't all have access to the same opportunities.

Welcome to reality. The universe did not take us into account as it formed. You are welcome to take that up with the powers that be, but I don't think they care.

It isn't "rubbish," it just is, no matter what you feel about it. By the way, what you feel about it won't change those choices either.

You talk about choice..but how is it a choice if you aren't even aware of alternatives because your family aren't aware of them..or you aren't even aware you're not aware. You go on about consumer choice and people buying bad products that destroy the environment and assume that it is a choice. When people are living on very little money the only choice they have is to buy the cheapest, not matter how bad it is for the planet or for themselves. That is no choice at all.

It is a choice, whether you are comfortable with it or not. It can be just a really crappy choice, or an extremely limited choice, but they are choices nonetheless, c'est la vie. Whether people live in the DPRK or Hong Kong, the U.S.S.R or the U.K., Burkina Faso or the U.S., people are ultimately responsible for themselves. What they are aware of (or not) is entirely up to them. What they choose is based on the tools and resources they have, nothing more.

You give people the freedom to stay in poverty yet you think that everyone has access to the resources to remove them selves from that situation.

I said no such thing, I never have. I don't think everyone has access to such resources. I said that they are ultimately responsible for the choices they make, regardless of how limited those choices may be. It is going to significantly harder for a kid from Burma to become rich, than it will for a Harvard graduate to do so. Nobody can change that fact because it is part of reality.

You assume that everyone has all the talents, the ability and the background support to do it. That's the attitude that blames the poor for being poor and quite frankly it sucks.

I don't assume anything of the sort. I assume nothing more than people are people. Some will fare better than others, some will fare worse. I do not blame the poor for being poor. I cannot control them, I cannot be responsible for their choices, I cannot change their station in reality. Only they can.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

That's really bad isn't it? So your salary depends on how good you are at negotiating..not how good you are at your job. There is something seriously wrong with that. The more you tell me about capitalism the more I realise how flawed it is.

That's silly, and you know it. Sure some of your salary depends on how good you are at negotiating, but only within a certain range. Overwhelmingly it depends on your skill set, how good you are at your job, your educational background, and your experience. If those are flaws, well, I can't help you, because those are rational reasons to determine salary. You are, of course, welcome of demonstrate how that is flawed.

Again, if you can understand why people try to get employers to pay them as much as possible, you can understand why your boss does the same thing.

I get paid the same as everyone else that does my job who has the experience and qualifications I have. So no..I can't understand why a boss would try and diddle someone out of a fair wage.

---

Reality Internet Personality

But that's just rubbish because we aren't all born equal, we don't all have access to the same opportunities.

Welcome to reality. The universe did not take us into account as it formed. You are welcome to take that up with the powers that be, but I don't think they care.

It isn't "rubbish," it just is, no matter what you feel about it. By the way, what you feel about it won't change those choices either.

You seem resigned to the way things are...yet you don't seem happy with them. YOu say reality as if this is the only way it has ever been and the only way it will be.

You talk about choice..but how is it a choice if you aren't even aware of alternatives because your family aren't aware of them..or you aren't even aware you're not aware. You go on about consumer choice and people buying bad products that destroy the environment and assume that it is a choice. When people are living on very little money the only choice they have is to buy the cheapest, not matter how bad it is for the planet or for themselves. That is no choice at all.

It is a choice, whether you are comfortable with it or not. It can be just a really crappy choice, or an extremely limited choice, but they are choices nonetheless, c'est la vie. Whether people live in the DPRK or Hong Kong, the U.S.S.R or the U.K., Burkina Faso or the U.S., people are ultimately responsible for themselves. What they are aware of (or not) is entirely up to them. What they choose is based on the tools and resources they have, nothing more.

Then the system is wrong. You should stop advocating for it.

You give people the freedom to stay in poverty yet you think that everyone has access to the resources to remove them selves from that situation.

I said no such thing, I never have. I don't think everyone has access to such resources. I said that they are ultimately responsible for the choices they make, regardless of how limited those choices may be. It is going to significantly harder for a kid from Burma to become rich, than it will for a Harvard graduate to do so. Nobody can change that fact because it is part of reality.

Again this fatalistic approach. The individual in Burma might not be able to change his situation, but others can. People are not just individuals acting in isolation. If the way the world is oraganised now causes people to suffer unfairly then it is our responsibility to change it, even if the way it is set up at the moment benefits us personally.

You assume that everyone has all the talents, the ability and the background support to do it. That's the attitude that blames the poor for being poor and quite frankly it sucks.

I don't assume anything of the sort. I assume nothing more than people are people. Some will fare better than others, some will fare worse. I do not blame the poor for being poor. I cannot control them, I cannot be responsible for their choices, I cannot change their station in reality. Only they can.

But you are responsible. Can't you see that? You advocate a system that keeps them that way while you benefit. You defend that system and tell people that it is the only system and it is right. You are responsible.

---

Reality Internet Personality

I get paid the same as everyone else that does my job who has the experience and qualifications I have.

Maybe in your immediate area (county or country), but not world wide.

I believe that I am safe to say that someone with equivalent qualifications in rural India or China will be paid less in terms of real buying power.

I also believe that with equivalent qualifications in the United States will be paid slightly more, depending on location and, again, in terms of real buying power.

If you want to increase your income, increase your skill set or move to where your skill set is in greater demand. This is an economic reality.

I get paid the same as everyone else that does my job who has the experience and qualifications I have. So no..I can't understand why a boss would try and diddle someone out of a fair wage.

We weren't talking about that. We were talking about DA making 1/532 of what his boss did.

But whatever boss you're talking about isn't necessarily trying to diddle someone out of a fair wage. The boss' idea of "fair" may differ from yours. Which may differ from the prospective employee's idea of fair. Which may differ from other prospective employees' idea of fair.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

You seem resigned to the way things are...yet you don't seem happy with them. YOu say reality as if this is the only way it has ever been and the only way it will be.

Some people are born in Burma. Some people are born Prince William. Some people are born brilliant, some people are born retarded. That is the way it always has been, and it is the way it always will be. Most simply, people aren't the same, and they never have been, nor will they be. That's just reality. It is what it is.

Then the system is wrong. You should stop advocating for it.

I have never advocated for the "system," depending on how you mean that. I've been quite clear--I'd shut 99% of the "system" down. That includes the Department of Defense, just as much as it includes welfare programs.

Again this fatalistic approach. The individual in Burma might not be able to change his situation, but others can. People are not just individuals acting in isolation.

You read things that aren't there. I'm not being fatalistic. If you want to change the situation for that person in Burma, do so. No one is stopping you, certainly not I. Go nuts. Get everyone that thinks like you do and send him to Harvard or Oxford.

If the way the world is oraganised now causes people to suffer unfairly then it is our responsibility to change it, even if the way it is set up at the moment benefits us personally.

Well then, we come full circle. The way the world is organized right now is through government. Which, as I've said 1000 times, I would shut down. So long welfare, so long corporate welfare, so long Ministry of Defense, so long National Health Service.

But you are responsible. Can't you see that?

There's nothing to see. I'm not responsible for any human being born on this earth. No one else is either. Your stating it doesn't make it so. You can choose to do all that you wish, or, you can choose to do nothing at all. Many people choose to help a little and do the best that they can for their families.

You advocate a system that keeps them that way while you benefit. You defend that system and tell people that it is the only system and it is right. You are responsible.

Not at all. I advocate almost no system at all. One that says you cannot force other people to do your will. That means you won't have the NHS, but you won't have the MOD either. I don't stand in anyone's way. I don't advocate billing poor people to pay for War in Iraq, or corporate welfare, or any of that. I don't propose tax systems that charge those that can afford it the least, the most. I don't a right to tell DA how to live, or anyone else for that matter.

Many in this thread seem to want the exact opposite. They want to tell others how to live, what car to drive, where to set their thermostat, how to raise their families, et cetera ad infinitum. THAT is the system that is responsible. THAT is the system that skrews people.

When you advocate a system that simply uses force, you may get a little health care, but you'll also get corporate welfare, and nuclear weapons, and War in Iraq. Yay.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Let's just distill this arguement to its' basic component...the earth is going to hell in a hand basket and with the over population of the human species there is no way of stopping it. At its' very best, the human race can only slow down the its' march to extinction. The why's and what for's are just hot air.

...and the band played on...

---

Account frozen...

Let's just distill this arguement to its' basic component...the earth is going to hell in a hand basket and with the over population of the human species there is no way of stopping it. At its' very best, the human race can only slow down the its' march to extinction. The why's and what for's are just hot air.

Now there's fatalistic.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

I get paid the same as everyone else that does my job who has the experience and qualifications I have.

Maybe in your immediate area (county or country), but not world wide.

I believe that I am safe to say that someone with equivalent qualifications in rural India or China will be paid less in terms of real buying power.

I also believe that with equivalent qualifications in the United States will be paid slightly more, depending on location and, again, in terms of real buying power.

If you want to increase your income, increase your skill set or move to where your skill set is in greater demand. This is an economic reality.

So you think the workers in India or China should move to the U.S.? I agree. They should have the freedom to do that. However..I believe you would think differently and I suspect you are against immigration.

However..I am not sure I would be better off in the US. So I will be staying here thank you.

---

Reality Internet Personality

You seem resigned to the way things are...yet you don't seem happy with them. YOu say reality as if this is the only way it has ever been and the only way it will be.

Some people are born in Burma. Some people are born Prince William. Some people are born brilliant, some people are born retarded. That is the way it always has been, and it is the way it always will be. Most simply, people aren't the same, and they never have been, nor will they be. That's just reality. It is what it is.

Are you sure you're not a Hindu?

Then the system is wrong. You should stop advocating for it.

I have never advocated for the "system," depending on how you mean that. I've been quite clear--I'd shut 99% of the "system" down. That includes the Department of Defense, just as much as it includes welfare programs.

If you took down all the barriers to people helping themselves, and made sure everyone had access to education and free Healthcare then you wouldn't need such a huge welfare system. It is a by product of the need to have a subset of unemployed labour as demanded by the capitalist system. It ensures that people are grateful for what they can get and helps keep wages low and maximise profit.

Again this fatalistic approach. The individual in Burma might not be able to change his situation, but others can. People are not just individuals acting in isolation.

You read things that aren't there. I'm not being fatalistic. If you want to change the situation for that person in Burma, do so. No one is stopping you, certainly not I. Go nuts. Get everyone that thinks like you do and send him to Harvard or Oxford.

You are being facetious and you know it. but perhaps you are right and we should help each get the education supplied by Harvard and Oxford. If we all worked together it could happen.

If the way the world is organised now causes people too suffer unfairly then it is our responsibility to change it, even if the way it is set up at the moment benefits us personally.

Well then, we come full circle. The way the world is organized right now is through government. Which, as I've said 1000 times, I would shut down. So long welfare, so long corporate welfare, so long Ministry of Defense, so long National Health Service.

But you are responsible. Can't you see that?

There's nothing to see. I'm not responsible for any human being born on this earth. No one else is either. Your stating it doesn't make it so. You can choose to do all that you wish, or, you can choose to do nothing at all. Many people choose to help a little and do the best that they can for their families.

You advocate a system that keeps them that way while you benefit. You defend that system and tell people that it is the only system and it is right. You are responsible.

Not at all. I advocate almost no system at all. One that says you cannot force other people to do your will. That means you won't have the NHS, but you won't have the MOD either. I don't stand in anyone's way. I don't advocate billing poor people to pay for War in Iraq, or corporate welfare, or any of that. I don't propose tax systems that charge those that can afford it the least, the most. I don't a right to tell DA how to live, or anyone else for that matter.

Many in this thread seem to want the exact opposite. They want to tell others how to live, what car to drive, where to set their thermostat, how to raise their families, et cetera ad infinitum. THAT is the system that is responsible. THAT is the system that skrews people.

When you advocate a system that simply uses force, you may get a little health care, but you'll also get corporate welfare, and nuclear weapons, and War in Iraq. Yay.

I think when the way a certain group of people are living (ie the industrialised nations) effect the entire planet then we do have to sit up and take action. Sometimes there really is no room for selfish behaviour. If people like some of the ones that post in this thread refuse to see that they need to do something, then we do have to enforce change from without. We simply do not have the time to convince everyone that there is a real problem. People will not willingly change until it directly affects them...by then it will be too late.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Are you sure you're not a Hindu?

Yes.

If you took down all the barriers to people helping themselves, and made sure everyone had access to education and free Healthcare then you wouldn't need such a huge welfare system.

Except that you cannot take down all the barriers to people helping themselves AND make sure everyone had access to education and free health care. They're mutually exclusive. Why? Because there is no such thing as "free health care." Health care and education have costs and someone has to pay them, those people that you force to pay those costs for others find themselves presented with nearly insurmountable barriers to helping themselves. A significant amount of their income is stolen from them to pay for Barbra Streisand. Now that's a barrier.

It is a by product of the need to have a subset of unemployed labour as demanded by the capitalist system. It ensures that people are grateful for what they can get and helps keep wages low and maximise profit.

Wow. Subscribe to the Daily Worker, do you?

There is no "need" to have a subset of unemployed labor, or any of the rest of that marxist horse-hockey. The market rate is the market rate.

You are being facetious and you know it. but perhaps you are right and we should help each get the education supplied by Harvard and Oxford. If we all worked together it could happen.

Except that I'm not being facetious. You are free to live your life as you wish. If it is important to you to find people who have not won in life's little lottery and send them to Harvard, you are welcome to do it. You are welcome to group together other people to help you if they wish to.

You are not welcome to force me to help you.

I think when the way a certain group of people are living (ie the industrialised nations) effect the entire planet then we do have to sit up and take action.

Which is the argument that is always used to initiate force. Dubya used that to invade Iraq, "the terrorists have to be stopped, they effect the entire planet, and I'm going to sit up and take action." Boy did he. Yay, Dubya. You may not agree with him, but so what? All you are arguing that is that it is OK to use force when you agree with it: "we do have to sit up and take action." Or look at your next paragraph. That's exactly what Dubya is doing.

Sometimes there really is no room for selfish behaviour. If people like some of the ones that post in this thread refuse to see that they need to do something, then we do have to enforce change from without. We simply do not have the time to convince everyone that there is a real problem. People will not willingly change until it directly affects them...by then it will be too late.

Ah, that's nice. Now you must think for them as well. This comment is fundamentally the problem: "If people like some of the ones that post in this thread refuse to see that they need to do something, then we do have to enforce change from without." Did it ever cross your mind that they don't agree with you? Did it ever cross your mind that they could say the same thing about your position?

That comment is why there is corporate welfare. And the Department of Defense. And a tax system that destroys people. And nuclear weapons. And B1-Bs and Trident submarines. Why? Because someone used the argument that those against such things refuse to see why they are important and therefore such things were imposed on them from without.

Again, the crappy principle is the same, you just disagree on what to spend the money on. You want to waste it on global warming. Others want to waste it on nuclear weapons and war in Iraq. You want to waste it on inefficient health care, others want to waste it on the CIA.

What have you really done? Created those nearly insurmountable burdens for those that can afford it the least. You built massive barriers to people helping themselves and gave them very very little in return.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

I get paid the same as everyone else that does my job who has the experience and qualifications I have.

Maybe in your immediate area (county or country), but not world wide.

I believe that I am safe to say that someone with equivalent qualifications in rural India or China will be paid less in terms of real buying power.

I also believe that with equivalent qualifications in the United States will be paid slightly more, depending on location and, again, in terms of real buying power.

If you want to increase your income, increase your skill set or move to where your skill set is in greater demand. This is an economic reality.

So you think the workers in India or China should move to the U.S.? I agree. They should have the freedom to do that. However..I believe you would think differently and I suspect you are against immigration.

However..I am not sure I would be better off in the US. So I will be staying here thank you.

I am, and always be, for legal immigration. That is how my Father's family got to America from near Battle on Essex in the early 1800's. That is how my Mother's family got to Windham, Connetticut, in the 1760's.

I will never accept illegal immigrants, just as the United Kingdom does not accept illegal immigrants.

And I used the US as a readily verified example. I would never dream of pressuring you or any one else to leave their comfort zone, but that is part of my point.