Anti-Government, but don't touch my Medicare

POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Friday, May 7, 2010 16:50
VIEWED: 8545
PAGE 5 of 16

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Saturday, April 24, 2010 3:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

What nature is that? Profit can be calculated in both long and short term goals. I don't see what kind of "nature" restricts it to short term goals.

Even long term business goals are relatively short term - long term might be considered 10 -20 years? In the grand scheme of things, particularly environmental concerns, it's still pretty short term. Businesses are interested in staying afloat and that means that the majority of their concerns are even less that the 10-20 year mark.

Quote:
Exploitation occurs only with short sighted capitalism, the "bad" kind that have no long term commitments and no long term profits.

There is no 'only' about it. It's not like exploitation within the capitalist system is rare phenomenon. From the use of child labour in third world countries to produce goods to supporting corrupt and violent regimes in the name of 'trade relations' to the destruction of rainforests, mining in sensitive environments....the list really goes on and on. It seems to me that corporations that aren't exploitative are rarer than the other way around.

Quote:

It's not as well documented as you think. :)

It is quite well documented. The theory is supported by the vast majority of scientific institutions in the world, and discredited with a tiny but very vocal minority.

Quote:
Where is this outcry coming from, have you noticed? How are these people being affected financially by GW? Do you have any concrete examples of outcriers being financially invested in denying GW? (A link and source would be nice too.)

sorry i'm not going to link and source because there's too much stuff around. Google 'cap and trade' or 'carbon tax' and you'll see that most of the concern is about the affect upon profit and with it the denial or minimisation of GW.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Saturday, April 24, 2010 3:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

Think of economics like an ecological system. A good natural system has a good cycle of life, where everything has a predator or other natural factor to limit its population growth.

Well it depends on how you define 'good' again. If you think of the natural world as being like a Disney film then I can see how you might think that, but in reality nature is cruel and hard. Life is violent and short. You're born, and the most you can expect is to stay ahead of the predators and starvation long enough to breed, and then you're time is pretty much up. Ever seen a predator catch its prey? It goes for the old or the very young, and usually they are eaten alive, screaming in pain and distress. Nothing pretty or kind about it at all.

The natural world is full of wonders, but I wouldn't base an economic system on it.

CANTTAKESKY

Saturday, April 24, 2010 3:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Even long term business goals are relatively short term - long term might be considered 10 -20 years?
Quote:
Exploitation occurs only with short sighted capitalism, the "bad" kind that have no long term commitments and no long term profits.

There is no 'only' about it. It's not like exploitation within the capitalist system is rare phenomenon.

It seems like you are defining capitalism as only short-term, then saying all capitalism is exploitive. I have already agreed short term capitalism is exploitive, and if long-term capitalism truly does not exist, then you would be right that it is inherently exploitive.

But long term does not mean 10-20 years. In our current quarterly earnings system, perhaps. But capitalism doesn't have to operate within this current system. It has no inherent time limit, as you allege. Ten to twenty years might be mid-term. Long-term goals have NO inherent ceiling. A business can think about the next 1000 years if it wants to. Who's to say it can't?

Quote:
sorry i'm not going to link and source because there's too much stuff around. Google 'cap and trade' or 'carbon tax' and you'll see that most of the concern is about the affect upon profit and with it the denial or minimisation of GW.

Oh I see. You are equating outcry over "cap and trade"/"carbon tax" as outcry over "global warming." They are not the same thing you know.

My reasons for outcry over cap and trade is very different from my outcry over global warming. The first outcry is over cost to businesses and society, and the second outcry is over intellectual exaggeration if not outright fraud.

Now you will note I don't own any of those business and I have no financial or emotional investments in them. But it makes very little sense to me to penalize businesses for something that has no empirical substantiation. You do know it is all based on data from computer modeling, right?

-----
I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe — "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.

-- HDT

CANTTAKESKY

Saturday, April 24, 2010 3:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Well it depends on how you define 'good' again.

I mean sustainable.

-----
I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe — "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.

-- HDT

CANTTAKESKY

Saturday, April 24, 2010 3:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
It is quite well documented. The theory is supported by the vast majority of scientific institutions in the world, and discredited with a tiny but very vocal minority.

I find it very interesting that "well documented" means "faith in lots of authority I trust."

-----
I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe — "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.

-- HDT

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Saturday, April 24, 2010 3:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

It seems like you are defining capitalism as only short-term, then saying all capitalism is exploitive. I have already agreed short term capitalism is exploitive, and if long-term capitalism truly does not exist, then you would be right that it is inherently exploitive.

But long term does not mean 10-20 years. In our current quarterly earnings system, perhaps. But capitalism doesn't have to operate within this current system. It has no inherent time limit, as you allege. Ten to twenty years might be mid-term. Long-term goals have NO inherent ceiling. A business can think about the next 1000 years if it wants to. Who's to say it can't?

there is nothing to say that it can't, but it just doesn't. It wouldn't make sense for a business to plan 100- years ahead. Businesses want profits, and they want them now. A business won't bank on something coming into fruition in 1000 years, because it won't survive long enough to see it happen.

Capitalism is something that focuses on the relatively short term, that's the way it has always operated. Maybe it might be capable of doing it differently in the future, but that's the way it has been.

Quote:

Oh I see. You are equating outcry over "cap and trade"/"carbon tax" as outcry over "global warming." They are not the same thing you know.

One is a response to the other.

Quote:
My reasons for outcry over cap and trade is very different from my outcry over global warming. The first outcry is over cost to businesses and society, and the second outcry is over intellectual exaggeration if not outright fraud.

why would anyone give a toss what scientists say unless they are concerned about how it will affect them? Scientists might say that one day people will land on Uranus - who'd care that it was hyperbole unless they thought it would affect them adversely in some way.

Quote:
Now you will note I don't own any of those business and I have no financial or emotional investments in them. But it makes very little sense to me to penalize businesses for something that has no empirical substantiation. You do know it is all based on data from computer modeling, right?

Data based on what has happened and what is likely to happen? Isn't that how most businesses would assess future options for themselves?

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Saturday, April 24, 2010 3:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

I find it very interesting that "well documented" means "faith in lots of authority I trust."

As opposed to believing crap that someone has written on the internet. Yeah, I'd prefer to believe qualified people who have worked and studied in the field.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Saturday, April 24, 2010 3:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

I mean sustainable.

Except that it aint sustainable and that's the whole point.

Nice debating with you, I've got to go paint a room now.

CANTTAKESKY

Saturday, April 24, 2010 4:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
As opposed to believing crap that someone has written on the internet.

No, as opposed to looking at the data and how they obtained the data, from the official publications and websites of said "qualified people who have worked and studied in the field."

That's what scientists do. They go to the source.

-----
I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe — "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.

-- HDT

CANTTAKESKY

Saturday, April 24, 2010 4:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Scientists might say that one day people will land on Uranus - who'd care that it was hyperbole unless they thought it would affect them adversely in some way.

OK, good point. I probably wouldn't outcry GW if it weren't for cap and trade and making me pay for carbon sequestration. I would have laughed at it, but I wouldn't have outcried it.

Here is the thing though. It is not about losing money, for the consumer or for the business. If all this hoopla were about mercury or sulfur oxide sequestration or paying more to reduce THOSE emissions, I'd be all for it. Here's my checkbook--who do I make the check to?

It's about losing money for something that has a very small chance of existing outside the minds of a bunch of people. It's like being forced to pay for someone's religion that you don't believe in. Then you outcry the deity and you outcry the deity tax.

Quote:
Data based on what has happened ...

But it's not data based on what's happened. It's based on data the computer thinks has happened. Big difference. The first one is real. The second is, well, imaginary.

-----
I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe — "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.

-- HDT

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE