Message boards :
Politics :
Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects: DENIAL (#2)
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 . . . 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 . . . 25 · Next
Author | Message |
---|---|
anniet Send message Joined: 2 Feb 14 Posts: 7105 Credit: 1,577,368 RAC: 75 |
Not really a scientific study this, more an anecdotal personal story. :) I like the calculations too. |
KWSN - MajorKong Send message Joined: 5 Jan 00 Posts: 2892 Credit: 1,499,890 RAC: 0 |
Agricultural subsidies exist to keep food prices HIGH, not to lower them. Look, I think it is YOU that doesn't understand introductory economics. The subsidy scheme you mention is about price supports on agricultural goods. You left out another entire class of subsidies. One where the government PAYS farmers to NOT grow their crops (or at least scale back and leave a certain amount of their land fallow). This directly leads to higher food prices. The US Government makes use of both schemes. The scheme you mentioned leads to higher food prices because as you say 'the people still pay for it, just not at the supermarket'. You have to pay the salaries of all the Government Bureaucrats and other employees needed to administer the program, a non-trivial cost. Then, the Government has to pay to STORE all the agricultural goods it has bought until such time as they are distributed. And, Government being Government, a LOT of this food ROTS in the warehouse due to incompetence, before the Government can distribute it. You beginning to see? Agricultural subsidies invariably lead to higher food prices.
You are incorrect in this assumption. The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) of 1977 as amended in 1995 required banks to make a sufficient number of loans to Low and Moderate Income borrowers to keep the Federal regulators happy. The ONLY way banks could do this was by disregarding standards of safe lending, and to start making home loans to people without sufficient (and in many cases ANY) down payment and insufficient ratio of debt and income. You know, people that shouldn't have HAD the home loans because they were not likely to be able to pay them back. There is a bit more to this, such as the Government agencies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac repackaging these loans to sell to investors, and the use of Adjustable Rate Mortgages (ARMs) to give these people low introductory interest rates to help them qualify... but I have hit the high points. The important points. It was US Government interference in business (the banking industry) that directly CAUSED the 2008 economic crash and the ongoing Great Recession.
Are you familiar with just who Tacitus was? He was a Roman policitian and historian. His public career spanned the time period between about 80CE and 116CE. The Roman empire at the time was a highly complex society, perhaps the most complex society that had yet existed. After all, it ruled the bulk of the 'known-world' of the time. Perhaps even as complex as ours. Sorry, but your 'complexity' objection falls flat.
Uhh.. All that already *IS* the law. It *IS* regulated. It doesn't work, you admit it yourself. We are, after all, talking about the highest level politicians in the USA, and HUGE piles of money. You really think that more regulations will fix it, when the regulations in place now get routinely ignored?
OK, then let me rephrase... Corporations EXIST due to Government interference. After all, they are a Government creation. And perhaps you don't understand what a 'free market' means. It means a market FREE of Government interference. The way markets become 'unfree' is when Government interference enters the picture.
Well, in the case of the Government bank bailouts of the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, perhaps I might not object too strongly, since it was the Government that screwed the banks to begin with and forced them to make bad loans via the CRA law. But so much of the money that Congress allocated to rescuing the banks got spent on other items (insurance companies {AIG}, non-bank companies {GM}... the list goes ON and ON). I don't believe there should be such a thing as TOO Big to Fail. Not the mom&pop corner store... and not even the biggest 'corporation' of them all, the US Government. |
KWSN - MajorKong Send message Joined: 5 Jan 00 Posts: 2892 Credit: 1,499,890 RAC: 0 |
Oops, forgot a point... That depends. If you want to make a law about environmental protection, wouldn't it be better to have an expert on the environment tell you what he needs for the best kind of protection? Or would you leave it to a bunch of lawyers who spend their whole lives in DC and don't have a clue about the environment come up with measures to protect it? Or, in some cases, (such as the ACA or 'Obamacare') until AFTER its put to the vote. http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/library/video-podcast-media/video-speaker-nancy-pelosi-we-have-pass-health-care-bill-so-you-can-find-out-whats-it “Truth is confirmed by inspection and delay; falsehood by haste and uncertainty.†What would be so wrong with doing things a little differently. You say you want openness and transparency. How about doing away with the lobbyists altogether, and having congress hold open, public hearings on various important matters, while getting 'expert testamony' from various people involved with the subject through its power of subpena if they are unwilling to appear. The hearings would, of course, be a matter of public record (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/LegislativeData.php?n=Record) not to mention being broadcast on CSPAN. And any proposed legislation be published in its final form for a period of at least 30 days before any vote (to give time for the public to weigh in and inform their Congressmen). Open. Transparent. Deliberative instead of hasty. Not to mention that the people that have the responsibility to write the legislation would actually have to do it. Better accountability. Less of a chance for corruption. This idea have any merit? But, regardless, this is getting quite a bit off-topic for this thread. Perhaps starting a new one for this discussion might be in order. |
KWSN-GMC-Peeper of the Castle Anthrax Send message Joined: 28 May 99 Posts: 274 Credit: 6,936,182 RAC: 0 |
Not really a scientific study this, more an anecdotal personal story. enough said right there..and you had the nerve to present it HERE? If you don't touch it, you can't break it. ; |
KWSN-GMC-Peeper of the Castle Anthrax Send message Joined: 28 May 99 Posts: 274 Credit: 6,936,182 RAC: 0 |
No idea where you get those figures from, I'm still skeptical That's your disconnect. WE deal with reality, you deal with 'the way you'd like things to be' But thanks for the 'i wasn't talking to you so you can't refute my statement and I can't tell the difference between a suggestion and a command' post. If you don't touch it, you can't break it. ; |
KWSN-GMC-Peeper of the Castle Anthrax Send message Joined: 28 May 99 Posts: 274 Credit: 6,936,182 RAC: 0 |
Oops, forgot a point... Never happen. It's impossible to steal a country's treasure and turn proud free citizens back into wage slaves if we run it YOUR way. If you don't touch it, you can't break it. ; |
KWSN-GMC-Peeper of the Castle Anthrax Send message Joined: 28 May 99 Posts: 274 Credit: 6,936,182 RAC: 0 |
IF that 400 billion dollars were spread across those gallons of gasoline and removed, it'd raise the price less than 1 USD/US gallon Add in the fact that after 30 years of 'Reaganomics' and tax cuts, so much wealth has been concentrated in so few hands it has actually become possible to blackmail your own country by withholding local investments till your demands are met. If you don't touch it, you can't break it. ; |
Мишель Send message Joined: 26 Nov 13 Posts: 3073 Credit: 87,868 RAC: 0 |
Look, I think it is YOU that doesn't understand introductory economics. It rots in the stores because frankly there is just no demand for it, not because of government incompetence. But you will see, these subsidies will become necessary to achieve food security. The EU has done it for years, it is in fact one of their most successful policies. Sure, lakes of wine and mountains of butter and all that. But also much lower costs at the supermarket. And ever since they stopped doing it and left it to the free markets, prices have only gone up. You are incorrect in this assumption. The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) of 1977 as amended in 1995 required banks to make a sufficient number of loans to Low and Moderate Income borrowers to keep the Federal regulators happy. The ONLY way banks could do this was by disregarding standards of safe lending, and to start making home loans to people without sufficient (and in many cases ANY) down payment and insufficient ratio of debt and income. You know, people that shouldn't have HAD the home loans because they were not likely to be able to pay them back. Eh no, the 1995 revision was aimed at streamlining the process and prevent banks from not loaning you any money because you came from a specific part of town or the country. You still had to be able to pay back the money. Then in 1999 they came up with the Financial Services Modernization Act, which repealed things like the Glass-Steagall act and completely changed the financial services landscape. As a result, it was simply to hard for the regulators to check whether banks where sticking to the rules. In any case, there was no law that actually mandated banks to loan money to everyone who walked in and asked for a loan. Banks loaned the money themselves to people who couldn't afford it because those loans were profitable, not because they would be paid back, but because banks got money for everyone who defaulted on their loans. It was US Government interference in business (the banking industry) that directly CAUSED the 2008 economic crash and the ongoing Great Recession. Yeah, that government interference was nothing more than the repeal of a lot of safety measures that used to prevent the financial sector from going nuts. It was deregulation that led to the crisis, or in other words, the government retreating from the market. Are you familiar with just who Tacitus was? He was a Roman policitian and historian. His public career spanned the time period between about 80CE and 116CE. The Roman empire at the time was a highly complex society, perhaps the most complex society that had yet existed. After all, it ruled the bulk of the 'known-world' of the time. Perhaps even as complex as ours. Sorry, but your 'complexity' objection falls flat. Oh right, because I forgot the Romans also had the internet, a globally intertwined financial system, overfishing, environmental degradation, modern industries that pollute, cars, planes, and every aspect of all of those things that requires regulation if its not going to end up causing tons of damage and deaths. I'm sorry but the Romans had it comparatively easy. Uhh.. All that already *IS* the law. It *IS* regulated. It doesn't work, you admit it yourself. We are, after all, talking about the highest level politicians in the USA, and HUGE piles of money. You really think that more regulations will fix it, when the regulations in place now get routinely ignored? Almost all lobby laws are jokes. The registers aren't mandatory or the rules around it are so full of loopholes no one ends up using them. And sure, politicians have to tell every time they get presents and trips. But that kind of lobbying happens relatively little. Lobbyists have tons of other, legal ways of getting in bed with the politicians. Promises of campaign donations, of future jobs, lending their expertise to a certain lawmaker, etc. The regulations in place get ignored because they lack teeth, they aren't tight enough and as a result, no one has to take notice of them. But improving the regulation can work. The only problem is that the people who need to approve of such a law are not being pushed enough to approve it. There is no huge voter backlash if they don't push for it, and for now they only benefit from having lax regulations. After all, they benefit from all the lobbyists. And perhaps you don't understand what a 'free market' means. It means a market FREE of Government interference. The way markets become 'unfree' is when Government interference enters the picture. A free market run by cartels is not free either. A free market means there is healthy competition between everyone operating on it and that it is free for anyone to enter. A market run by cartels and monopolies is by definition non of that. But who is the one that does all the cartel busting and who prevents from any corporation from getting so big they become monopolies? Right...the government. EDIT: you are right, it is getting completely off topic. Lets leave this for another topic. |
KWSN-GMC-Peeper of the Castle Anthrax Send message Joined: 28 May 99 Posts: 274 Credit: 6,936,182 RAC: 0 |
Those are not 'studies' they're polls and opinion pieces. How neatly you dodge the basic point in my post that the 'evidence' presented is of NO SUBSTANCE. Exactly like your post. Well done. But not for a forum of critical thinkers. If you don't touch it, you can't break it. ; |
KWSN-GMC-Peeper of the Castle Anthrax Send message Joined: 28 May 99 Posts: 274 Credit: 6,936,182 RAC: 0 |
Look, I think it is YOU that doesn't understand introductory economics. always the best tactic when you're being thoroughly drubbed. If you don't touch it, you can't break it. ; |
Мишель Send message Joined: 26 Nov 13 Posts: 3073 Credit: 87,868 RAC: 0 |
How neatly you dodge the basic point in my post that the 'evidence' presented is of NO SUBSTANCE. Exactly like your post. Oh right, a study that goes directly into how much is invested in sustainable energy is of no substance in an argument where the other party claims that no one invests in it. And pray tell, what is wrong with this study? And hey, again no sources, studies, reports or anything else that even looks remotely like evidence. Because all real critical thinkers just think, they don't need anything as bothersome as evidence or facts, especially if that goes against their deeply held critical thoughts. I've presented 51 reports by now which all indicate you are wrong on almost every count. You have presented nothing, all you did was claim that anything I presented had no substance, even though you have given no reason for why that is the case. So last time, show me evidence that supports your argument that no one invests in sustainable energy, that my sources are all wrong and that the only reason companies think they are doing better is because their sustainable programs rack in government subsidy cash. always the best tactic when you're being thoroughly drubbed. It just seems to me that a thread about climate change denial is not exactly the best place to discuss the cause of the 2008 financial crisis, lobbying, government subsidies for agriculture and the US government in general. I'll be happy to continue opposing Major Kwong's views in another thread if he so desires to continue this little verbal sparring match. |
KWSN-GMC-Peeper of the Castle Anthrax Send message Joined: 28 May 99 Posts: 274 Credit: 6,936,182 RAC: 0 |
How neatly you dodge the basic point in my post that the 'evidence' presented is of NO SUBSTANCE. Exactly like your post. again, unlike you, i actually READ some of it. they're not 'studies' they're polls and opinion pieces. you sure do need to ignore a whole lot of what other people say to keep this up. If you don't touch it, you can't break it. ; |
Julie Send message Joined: 28 Oct 09 Posts: 34054 Credit: 18,883,157 RAC: 18 |
|
Julie Send message Joined: 28 Oct 09 Posts: 34054 Credit: 18,883,157 RAC: 18 |
How neatly you dodge the basic point in my post that the 'evidence' presented is of NO SUBSTANCE. Exactly like your post. You sure need to ignore bad energy. rOZZ Music Pictures |
KWSN-GMC-Peeper of the Castle Anthrax Send message Joined: 28 May 99 Posts: 274 Credit: 6,936,182 RAC: 0 |
Not really a scientific study this, more an anecdotal personal story. My problem? LOL that I refuse to take your word for it and hold you to some standard of proof rather than sitting around the campfire with you singing Kumbaya. The whole internet is feelings..nothing more than feelings..HERE we have a concentration of people who think clearly for a living and I'm making a stand. I'll add, the only reason a solar install (which i've already said) can pay off for an individual is the fact government regulations force the power company to buy your production for far more than it's worth and you let your neighbors without solar cut you that check. The had to get rid of the 'house battery' in these installs in favor of selling production directly to the power company to get these things to pay off at all. If you don't touch it, you can't break it. ; |
Julie Send message Joined: 28 Oct 09 Posts: 34054 Credit: 18,883,157 RAC: 18 |
Not really a scientific study this, more an anecdotal personal story. Standpoint taken, but everyone here is open to hear that standpoint, if it's brought in a correct manner imo rOZZ Music Pictures |
anniet Send message Joined: 2 Feb 14 Posts: 7105 Credit: 1,577,368 RAC: 75 |
May I make a quick point before we move on (if we do :)) Major Kong, you said: You left out another entire class of subsidies. One where the government PAYS farmers to NOT grow their crops (or at least scale back and leave a certain amount of their land fallow). This directly leads to higher food prices. Some of the subsidy to farmers in the uk has gone to encouraging farmers to return some of their land back to nature, and replacing hedgerows between fields etc. It's actually a very sound environmental policy as it provides oasis' for our natural fauna and flora, and has helped put the brakes on a disturbing decline in butterflies, bees and small insectivores which are in fact helpful to crop yield. It's also encouraged the return of smaller birds of prey. Whether that's enough remains an open question. The weird thing about britain's pollinating insects is that they may be doing better in our towns and cities because they have a greater variety of flowering plants available to them which might be providing them with better disease resistance. |
KWSN-GMC-Peeper of the Castle Anthrax Send message Joined: 28 May 99 Posts: 274 Credit: 6,936,182 RAC: 0 |
Not really a scientific study this, more an anecdotal personal story. Well then. Address all my points instead of the ones you want to. Civility falls off when people debate like grammar school children. When I make the same point 2 or 3 times and it's consistently ignored in favor of repeating what you already posted, I do tend to get irritated. call it a character flaw. If you don't touch it, you can't break it. ; |
KWSN-GMC-Peeper of the Castle Anthrax Send message Joined: 28 May 99 Posts: 274 Credit: 6,936,182 RAC: 0 |
May I make a quick point before we move on (if we do :)) I hope it's actually working that way for you. In the USA it's turned into massive gentleman farmer estates with millions of fallow acres.. usually land it wouldn't profit anybody to try and farm. If you don't touch it, you can't break it. ; |
Julie Send message Joined: 28 Oct 09 Posts: 34054 Credit: 18,883,157 RAC: 18 |
Not really a scientific study this, more an anecdotal personal story. I haven't addressed any point to you yet, but I'm open to have a civilized conversation with you. We all have character flaws, we learn to live with it, as we do with Mother Earth. rOZZ Music Pictures |
©2024 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.