Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Changeup on November 02, 2013, 09:01:30 AM
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420783/Worlds-climate-scientists-confess-Global-warming-just-QUARTER-thought--computers-got-effects-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html
-
Its the daily mail....
That's like using the National Enquirer as a source.
-
computers = garbage in, garbage out.
Since the last ice age (roughly 10,000 years ago) the planet has been gradually warming. No big deal. The geological record shows the cycles of warming/cooling over time. It's a natural thing.
-
Its the daily mail....
That's like using the National Enquirer as a source.
The article was supported by the NY Times the same week. It wasn't so much about the narrative as it was about the scientists that were quoted.
EDIT: But even the narrative wasn't biased...it was simply stating the evidence presented and the model's flaws (that are supported by the chief US climate scientist).
-
Its the daily mail....
That's like using the National Enquirer as a source.
I like Daily Mail, one of my favorite site for years, always something easy interesting or entertaining to read; well not all the news posted are verifiable.
-
the friday frodos are far more entertaining...
-
Global cooling has artsy fartsy graphics and the fm sucks compared to global warming. Your all stupid anyway.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGscoaUWW2M
The Mail is read by the wives...
-
Look to the oceans if you don't see a problem.
If you can debunk man made climate change; write a paper, get it peer reviewed, and accept your Nobel prize.
-
Look to the oceans if you don't see a problem.
If you can debunk man made climate change; write a paper, get it peer reviewed, and accept your Nobel prize.
Find a paper that definitely proves man made climate change. The vast majority that I have read are based on flawed or outright fraudulent data. Kind of more than makes their conclusions a bit suspect.
-
Find a paper that definitely proves man made climate change. The vast majority that I have read are based on flawed or outright fraudulent data. Kind of more than makes their conclusions a bit suspect.
Hey...ya can't make money from a fraud if you can't lie ya know! Yup....the earth has cooled and got warmer on its' own for years.
Prove otherwise!
-
0bama said it i believe that settles it. :rofl
-
There is measurable evidence that the earth has an ice age/non-ice age recurring cycle. 20000 years with ice age, 10000 years non-iceage. So yes the planet itself is in constant flux.
The idea that our actions as a tech species does not affect climate change is plain ignorant however. Herd animals cover wide territories because they will and do eat themselves out of house and home, so they look for greener pastures. Humans as a species have taken over the entire planet to the point that we no longer have greener pastures to turn too.
ie: the Mayan Indians of South America, changed their environment so much that their culture was no longer sustainable, it disappeared. They cut down so many trees that their farm lands became silted over.
Our current dilemma is very similar. We are cutting down trees at a fast rate. The rainforests of the world are disappearing. There is no more old growth forests left in America, except the Sequoias. Trees eat green house gases and expel oxygen. Animal life on this planet is a direct result from trees. Trees enmass are heat sinks and water sinks. Remove the trees and the heats stays in the atmosphere, water levels in the ocean increase. The artic and Antarctic icecaps are disappearing, this increases water levels.
We today will not pay the price for our species voracious behavior. We will be our own extinction event in the future if we as a species refuse to open our eyes today. We need to step out of our animal behavior and step into a common sense approach as to how we use our earth's resources, or else we get what we deserve.
Extinction
Those that deny this the most are probably those that benefit the most in our society. History is full of examples where we impacted the environment locally. Now we cover the planet, we impact the environment globally. Common sense dictates..................... .......................
-
There is measurable evidence that the earth has an ice age/non-ice age recurring cycle. 20000 years with ice age, 10000 years non-iceage. So yes the planet itself is in constant flux.
The idea that our actions as a tech species does not affect climate change is plain ignorant however. Herd animals cover wide territories because they will and do eat themselves out of house and home, so they look for greener pastures. Humans as a species have taken over the entire planet to the point that we no longer have greener pastures to turn too.
ie: the Mayan Indians of South America, changed their environment so much that their culture was no longer sustainable, it disappeared. They cut down so many trees that their farm lands became silted over.
Our current dilemma is very similar. We are cutting down trees at a fast rate. The rainforests of the world are disappearing. There is no more old growth forests left in America, except the Sequoias. Trees eat green house gases and expel oxygen. Animal life on this planet is a direct result from trees. Trees enmass are heat sinks and water sinks. Remove the trees and the heats stays in the atmosphere, water levels in the ocean increase. The artic and Antarctic icecaps are disappearing, this increases water levels.
We today will not pay the price for our species voracious behavior. We will be our own extinction event in the future if we as a species refuse to open our eyes today. We need to step out of our animal behavior and step into a common sense approach as to how we use our earth's resources, or else we get what we deserve.
Extinction
Those that deny this the most are probably those that benefit the most in our society. History is full of examples where we impacted the environment locally. Now we cover the planet, we impact the environment globally. Common sense dictates..................... .......................
Except that the article explains the Antarctic ice is EXPANDING and the Polar cap is coming back quicker than expected. Those are not Changeup's views, those are in the report the article cited and they have no explanation for it.
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420783/Worlds-climate-scientists-confess-Global-warming-just-QUARTER-thought--computers-got-effects-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html
Uh, welcome to 7 weeks ago. Since then, the Mail on Sunday and several other papers which followed their report verbatim have been obliged to print climb-downs, as the error was made by the paper, not by the IPCC.
We're fortunate enough down here to have a national-broadcaster program dedicated entirely to keeping media honest (and, before you ask, yes, they also lance their own colleagues when required).
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3854782.htm
Hasn't stopped one shock-jock from repeating the original, erroneous, and since-corrected-elsewhere claims, but he's known to struggle with the truth, and has had to answer both to the licensing authorities and the courts on previous occasions.
-
Uh, welcome to 7 weeks ago. Since then, the Mail on Sunday and several other papers which followed their report verbatim have been obliged to print climb-downs, as the error was made by the paper, not by the IPCC.
We're fortunate enough down here to have a national-broadcaster program dedicated entirely to keeping media honest (and, before you ask, yes, they also lance their own colleagues when required).
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3854782.htm
Hasn't stopped one shock-jock from repeating the original, erroneous, and since-corrected-elsewhere claims, but he's known to struggle with the truth, and has had to answer both to the licensing authorities and the courts on previous occasions.
Ah. Good catch. What about the ice? None of the articles talk about that being in the report. It only talks of temp changes.
-
Don't know, was it in the IPCC report?
All I know about ice is from NASA, which says N ice cap is up from a record low last year, still sixth lowest on record and well below the 30-year average.
-
Don't know, was it in the IPCC report?
All I know about ice is from NASA, which says N ice cap is up from a record low last year, still sixth lowest on record and well below the 30-year average.
Ya that's what was on the IPCC report along with Antarctic ice aggression numbers.
-
A lie gets half way around the world before the truth gets its trousers on.
-
A lie gets half way around the world before the truth gets its trousers on.
There is no lie in the ice situation...unless of course you're smarter than NASA. I suppose you could be smarter than NASA but I'm thinking pretty much.....................no.
-
With regards to the ice basically they did what climate change sceptics allways do and pointed to a very small slice of the overall trend, in this case the annual seasonal trend.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2013/09/10/the-daily-mail-is-wrong-the-earth-keeps-warming/
-
Its all because americans have big cars :old:
-
Its all because americans have big cars :old:
Bloodknock: I'll have you know that I'm a patriotic English gentlemen sir!
Moriarty: And what does that mean?
Bloodknock: It means I'll only do it for money!
Moriarty: Very well! Here is a carbon copy of an imitation £100 note.
Bloodknock: Wait a moment! How do I know this carbon copy isn't a forgery?
Moriarty: How? Look here! Here is a life size oil painting of me robbing the bank with it.
Bloodkbock: But it shows you clean shaven?
Moriarty: I was wearing an invisible beard!
Bloodknock: Great malleable lumps of steaming thung!
Moriarty: I apologise.
Bloodknock: You Chinese think of everything!
Moriarty: But I'm not Chinese!
Bloodknock: Then you must have forgotten something! You should be more careful. Give me the money.
-
There is measurable evidence that the earth has an ice age/non-ice age recurring cycle. 20000 years with ice age, 10000 years non-iceage. So yes the planet itself is in constant flux.
The idea that our actions as a tech species does not affect climate change is plain ignorant however. Herd animals cover wide territories because they will and do eat themselves out of house and home, so they look for greener pastures. Humans as a species have taken over the entire planet to the point that we no longer have greener pastures to turn too.
ie: the Mayan Indians of South America, changed their environment so much that their culture was no longer sustainable, it disappeared. They cut down so many trees that their farm lands became silted over.
Our current dilemma is very similar. We are cutting down trees at a fast rate. The rainforests of the world are disappearing. There is no more old growth forests left in America, except the Sequoias. Trees eat green house gases and expel oxygen. Animal life on this planet is a direct result from trees. Trees enmass are heat sinks and water sinks. Remove the trees and the heats stays in the atmosphere, water levels in the ocean increase. The artic and Antarctic icecaps are disappearing, this increases water levels.
We today will not pay the price for our species voracious behavior. We will be our own extinction event in the future if we as a species refuse to open our eyes today. We need to step out of our animal behavior and step into a common sense approach as to how we use our earth's resources, or else we get what we deserve.
Extinction
Those that deny this the most are probably those that benefit the most in our society. History is full of examples where we impacted the environment locally. Now we cover the planet, we impact the environment globally. Common sense dictates..................... .......................
interesting point. have you considered americas treatment of its timber lots over the past 60 years? the intelligent decision is hardly being fought for. Humans could manage there land better.
consider some points...
banning people from harvesting wood is a violation of life.
Natural woodlands would burn and control themselves.
If we acted like natural fires we could make a nice forest.
Again, "step into a common sense approach as to how we use our earth's resources" is hard to come by.
especially if you consider your view is more important than a brazilian farmer. :bolt:
-
Its all because americans have big cars :old:
This yank's motorcar was built in Coventry, it has a V-12 and leaks a quart of oil per month. :neener:
-
Sure, there is no pollution/man made warming problem. Keep your head in the sand I'm sure the future generations will be grateful for that.
-
Global temperatures were greater during part of the Roman Empire than they are today, and during times of the dinosaurs, CO2 in the atmosphere was many times higher than now. 400M years ago, it was 10 times higher than today.
We might need more CO2 in the atmosphere to mitigate the next ice age. ;)
-
:uhoh
We may have tipped the iceberg
http://nation.time.com/2013/10/22/efficiency-natural-gas-keep-pushing-u-s-carbon-emissions-down/
(http://timeecocentric.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/chart.png?w=753)
Us is burning more natural gas in place of coal the last decade and as a result emitted less co2.
(http://timeecocentric.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/chart-5.png?w=753)
Total energy consumption is trending down in all sectors.
:banana:
P.S. Does anybody remember this storm last year?
(http://i.livescience.com/images/i/000/034/875/i02/arctic-storm.jpg?1356555377)
Now thats a storm. It appears to cover the entire arctic ocean. :O
-
Unfortunately, the scientific community is not objective as they should be. Know who paid for a study, know who is paying a scientists paycheck and you can make an educated guess on which way the conclusions will fall out.
One big telltale about the increase in our planets mean temp is the fact that the oceans mean temp, the biggest Earth heat sink going, has risen 1 degree. This is measurable. Coral reefs are dying from the increase in temp. From Florida to the great barrier reef, all are at hazard. This is the bottom of the worlds food chain with issues. One cannot look at year to year fluxuations, its the longer spans of time that show trends.
500 years from now, Earth's crude oil will be depleted. Oil is the basis for so many modern day materials that to burn it in cars is insane behavior. As oil disappears all things will cost more, food and materials alike. Rudolph Diesel invented the diesel combustion engine to run on peanut oil, PEANUT OIL! Cannot get anymore renewable than that. Yet...................... Rudolph Diesel boarded a boat, I forget to where, he never got off that boat, he disappeared while on the water, never to be seen again.
Henry Fords wife drove an electric car. Imagine where battery tech would be now if we did not discover crude oil or had it forced on us by the few who reap the profits.
Now mistakes happen, we learn, we grow, we progress, hopefully. But once the obvious has been pointed out, those mistakes should not be allowed to perpetuate further. Whats the definition of insanity...............doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result..............
Right now our culture is about making billionaires, not everyone can be a billionaire. Why do peeps need more money than there are people on the planet?
Why do we consistently allow the ships captain to guzzle moonshine, whilest at the helm, at low tide, in reef infested waters?
Its beyond me.
-
Unfortunately, the scientific community is not objective as they should be. Know who paid for a study, know who is paying a scientists paycheck and you can make an educated guess on which way the conclusions will fall out.
One big telltale about the increase in our planets mean temp is the fact that the oceans mean temp, the biggest Earth heat sink going, has risen 1 degree. This is measurable. Coral reefs are dying from the increase in temp. From Florida to the great barrier reef, all are at hazard. This is the bottom of the worlds food chain with issues. One cannot look at year to year fluxuations, its the longer spans of time that show trends.
500 years from now, Earth's crude oil will be depleted. Oil is the basis for so many modern day materials that to burn it in cars is insane behavior. As oil disappears all things will cost more, food and materials alike. Rudolph Diesel invented the diesel combustion engine to run on peanut oil, PEANUT OIL! Cannot get anymore renewable than that. Yet...................... Rudolph Diesel boarded a boat, I forget to where, he never got off that boat, he disappeared while on the water, never to be seen again.
Henry Fords wife drove an electric car. Imagine where battery tech would be now if we did not discover crude oil or had it forced on us by the few who reap the profits.
Now mistakes happen, we learn, we grow, we progress, hopefully. But once the obvious has been pointed out, those mistakes should not be allowed to perpetuate further. Whats the definition of insanity...............doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result..............
Right now our culture is about making billionaires, not everyone can be a billionaire. Why do peeps need more money than there are people on the planet?
Why do we consistently allow the ships captain to guzzle moonshine, whilest at the helm, at low tide, in reef infested waters?
Its beyond me.
Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today...
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
:cry
-
Unfortunately, the scientific community is not objective as they should be. Know who paid for a study, know who is paying a scientists paycheck and you can make an educated guess on which way the conclusions will fall out.
One big telltale about the increase in our planets mean temp is the fact that the oceans mean temp, the biggest Earth heat sink going, has risen 1 degree. This is measurable. Coral reefs are dying from the increase in temp. From Florida to the great barrier reef, all are at hazard. This is the bottom of the worlds food chain with issues. One cannot look at year to year fluxuations, its the longer spans of time that show trends.
500 years from now, Earth's crude oil will be depleted. Oil is the basis for so many modern day materials that to burn it in cars is insane behavior. As oil disappears all things will cost more, food and materials alike. Rudolph Diesel invented the diesel combustion engine to run on peanut oil, PEANUT OIL! Cannot get anymore renewable than that. Yet...................... Rudolph Diesel boarded a boat, I forget to where, he never got off that boat, he disappeared while on the water, never to be seen again.
Henry Fords wife drove an electric car. Imagine where battery tech would be now if we did not discover crude oil or had it forced on us by the few who reap the profits.
Now mistakes happen, we learn, we grow, we progress, hopefully. But once the obvious has been pointed out, those mistakes should not be allowed to perpetuate further. Whats the definition of insanity...............doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result..............
Right now our culture is about making billionaires, not everyone can be a billionaire. Why do peeps need more money than there are people on the planet?
Why do we consistently allow the ships captain to guzzle moonshine, whilest at the helm, at low tide, in reef infested waters?
Its beyond me.
Sweet crude is done in 60 years
-
I was thinking the other day about energy and I had a thought, what would the world look like today if nuclear power had been discovered in the 19th century,(I don't mean the bomb.) The nuclear power advocates say it is green power and I was wondering if we would all be driving electric cars and the legacy of oil/coal's downside wouldn't exist and how bad the radioactive waste etc. would be by comparison. Better? Worse? The same?
-
I was thinking the other day about energy and I had a thought, what would the world look like today if nuclear power had been discovered in the 19th century,(I don't mean the bomb.) The nuclear power advocates say it is green power and I was wondering if we would all be driving electric cars and the legacy of oil/coal's downside wouldn't exist and how bad the radioactive waste etc. would be by comparison. Better? Worse? The same?
Until nuclear power becomes portable (SSBN's notwithstanding) you won't be able to measure it's affect.
-
I was thinking with regard to portability that battery technology would have had much more of an impetus. It's counter factual history day dreaming anyway.
-
Nuclear power has the potential to be an excellent power source (safe, non-polluting, abundant). Unfortunately, for a lot of reasons (non-standard reactor designs, bureaucracy-induced ossification, etc. and public opposition), it never achieved that potential.
I started out in high school as being anti fission. I went into plasma physics and fusion reactor design thinking that the world needed fusion. But in nuclear engineering where I was (BSE in nuclear engineering from the University of Michigan), even when you are studying fusion, you thoroughly learned about fission reactors as well. I went from being anti fission to pro fission as a result of the knowledge gained.
-
I can't see why anyone would be anti-fusion.
Some of the best times I've ever had have involved some form of fusion or another.
:banana:
-
Weather forecasting is the easiest job in the world. :old:
You can be wrong half the time and never get fired as long as you look good. ;)
There's a chance the world may get warmer, there's also a chance it will get colder. :D
I predict there is a 50% chance of rain where you live. :bolt:
-
Nuclear power has the potential to be an excellent power source (safe, non-polluting, abundant). Unfortunately, for a lot of reasons (non-standard reactor designs, bureaucracy-induced ossification, etc. and public opposition), it never achieved that potential.
Little things like earthquakes...
Hydrogen,
-
Little things like earthquakes...
Hydrogen,
Those things are not difficult to deal with using appropriate designs.
Little things, like knowing a lot about nuclear reactor design, tell me that. ;)
-
Brooke,
Why do you say that nuclear fission plants are clean power?
The fuel rod leftovers are far from safe. The primary heat transfer coolant is far from safe. Both these items have a radioactive half life of thousands of years. We currently stockpile them in underground bunkers that will always be there full of radioactivity. Its currently far from a clean power supply.
I did see recently that radioactive thorium is being tested as a replacement for uranium, its preliminary testing shows great promise but it is years away.
Solar and wind are currently the only true clean power, yet our current industry leaders insist on centrally located power generation facilities that can meter out electricity for profit. The northeast power blackouts of late have shown the folly of centrally located power distribution. Our power grid is flawed, old and drastically behind the times. The recent catastrophe in Japan should have been a wake up call. Stupid planning and greed do not mix with nuclear power generation. We have yet to see the consequences of Japans idiocy, those plants are leaking radioactivity directly into the ocean as I type.
I'm not against nuclear power by any means, I am just against how we currently go about it. Again, no one alive today will pay the price. Those in the future will bear the brunt.
-
I say that nuclear is clean in that there are ways to do it that result in no air pollution and no CO2 production and such that the waste produced is handled without any threat to people or using up any useful land.
Radioactive half life is irrelevant. Just about everything has a half life. You have a radioactive half life. The longer the half life, the less radioactive it is, generally speaking. The world naturally has lots of radioactive stuff in it already, and we don't fret all that much about it. The best way to have waste is for everything that is harmful to be in the smallest physical space, then put it somewhere where you don't have to worry about it. That is how nuclear can be as opposed to, say, fossil fuels that release a zillion tons of stuff into the air, water, and soil that people don't generally fret that much about (other than CO2, which shouldn't be a major concern in my opinion, but that's another discussion), including releasing more radioactivity into the environment than from nuclear power except for egregious accidents that are easy to eliminate if the world weren't so stupid about how it does nuclear power.
Wind is almost useless as a main power source -- just not enough of it to matter in a big way. Solar eventually will be the world's power source, but it has to be cheaper still to be that. Also, if you are thinking of solar as semiconductor-based photovoltaics, think about what waste is created in making those wafers. It is not insignificant in hazard or volume.
"Those in the future will bear the brunt" [of nuclear power.] I don't think that there will be a brunt to pay (and that is despite some nations having handled nuclear power in about the stupidest way possible). If the world did nuclear power in a more rational way (ways that are technically and economically feasible since the 1970-80's if not earlier), there would be few or no problems at all.
-
except for egregious accidents that are easy to eliminate if the world weren't so stupid about how it does nuclear power.
There's your problem in a nutshell, but that's the way of things isn't it? My daydreaming was really thinking of comparative screw ups, 150 years of nuclear oops vs 150 years of things like slurry pond oops, permanent fire oops, oil spill oops and carbon oops.
-
Nuclear fusion is the future. And it always will be.
-
Sweet crude is done in 60 years
lol, it was supposed to be done in the '90's. They weren't write then.
It was supposed to be done in the 2000's.... not right again.
These ultra melons making these predictions are fools.
-
These ultra melons making these predictions are fools.
Wouldn't it be something if the guys making those predictions had anything to do with the guys wrecking our ecosystems with their blasted wind farms?
-
lol, it was supposed to be done in the '90's. They weren't write then.
It was supposed to be done in the 2000's.... not right again.
These ultra melons making these predictions are fools.
bodhi I clearly remember back in the 70's reading that oil was gonna be gone in a 100 years. the only time they said the 70's was in terminator or the road warrior.
semp
-
There's your problem in a nutshell, but that's the way of things isn't it? My daydreaming was really thinking of comparative screw ups, 150 years of nuclear oops vs 150 years of things like slurry pond oops, permanent fire oops, oil spill oops and carbon oops.
You can always totally misuse something good, but then it is incorrect to conclude that it is bad. It is bad when it is misused and good when it isn't misused. Many things, nuclear power included, are like that. Some current implementations were horribly bad.
Your point of how it compares, though, is a good one. There have been a couple of bad nuclear accidents, but there have also been a large number of fossil-fuel problems that, over time, are as bad or worse.
The issue isn't that we have a choice of perfection vs. nuclear, or perfection vs. fossil fuels. The world needs power production to survive and thrive, so using nothing or wind or only solar isn't an option that will be chosen.
-
lol, it was supposed to be done in the '90's. They weren't write then.
It was supposed to be done in the 2000's.... not right again.
These ultra melons making these predictions are fools.
WADR,
You have no idea what you're talking about. Sweet crude vs sour crude. The available reserves of sweet are well documented and well explored and they only exist in 4 places in the world. Do your homework...
Sour crude? Different story
-
I don't think that we'll have any problems with fossil-fuel supplies for a long, long time.
-
I don't think that we'll have any problems with fossil-fuel supplies for a long, long time.
It's the first time what I do for a living has ever come up on these boards, lmao!
In supply terms, no. In cost terms yes.
Why do you suppose there was a price inversion for gasoline and diesel fuel in 1999 and why it will never go away?
Cost problem one:
85% of the worlds oil supply is sour crude.
85% of the worlds refineries are designed to refine sweet crude.
Only one US company had the foresight to setup sour crude refining.....Valero.
Cost problem two:
Over 2/3 of the worlds overall crude oil supply is under the control of OPEC and Venezuela
The US foreign oil policy is to use (import) everyone else's oil before we use our own. Outlook has changed but as you can see at the pump and per-quart-of-motor oil, we're paying for that difference.
Cost problem three:
US companies turn producing wells OFF when market prices are below their profit models. Capitalism.
Capitalism drives our oil imports until supply wains enough to increase domestic production.
Cost problem four:
Shale oil (fracking) is an extremely costly way to turn shale oil rock into sour crude.
Expensive to produce, expensive to refine, end refined product is a base stock that is of much less quality than sweet crude.
Results:
OEMs will continue to have difficulty engineering engines that run on continually poor quality fuels. The Tier 4 engines, with all of their emissions control equipment are already costing OEMs hundreds of millions in warranty work.
Refining costs will quadruple over the next 15 years as refineries begin to transition from sweet to sour crude capability. That cost will be passed along to you.
Affordable transportation, without alternative fuels, will become a thing of the past over the next 60 years due to the costs associated with, and the opportunistic supply models currently in place.
So, if you can't afford it...it's total supply is meaningless. It might as well not exist at all.
-
You can always totally misuse something good, but then it is incorrect to conclude that it is bad. It is bad when it is misused and good when it isn't misused. Many things, nuclear power included, are like that. Some current implementations were horribly bad.
My point wasn't that nuclear power is bad in the abstract but that the problem, as with many things, is that there is a tendency to implement things in a way that is suboptimal. You can blame bureaucracy or stupidity but it happens so regularly that I think it is best to consider it a permanent challenge. I assume that with any energy source there are negative consequences, just as there are with our lifestyles.
It's an imperfect world.
-
Philippines is getting hit hard over next hours,
http://m.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/super-typhoon-haiyan-a-serious/19561621r typhoon Haiyan just broke all scientific intensity scales
Writing for Quartz, meteorologist Eric Holthaus says that the super typhoon Haiyan about to hit the Philippines is the worst storm he has ever seen. With sustained winds of 190mph (305km/h) and staggering gusts of 230mph (370km/h), its "intensity has actually ticked slightly above the maximum to 8.1 on an 8.0 scale."
Holthaus says that Yolanda—its Filipino name—beats "Wilma (2005) in intensity by 5mph—that was the strongest storm ever in the Atlantic," which makes it a member of the select club of Worst Storms Ever in the Planet. Only three other storms since 1969 have reached this intensity.
http://sploid.gizmodo.com/super-typhon-h...socialflow
-
Sustained winds of 190 mph? I don't think I can even imagine what that is like.
-
My point wasn't that nuclear power is bad in the abstract but that the problem, as with many things, is that there is a tendency to implement things in a way that is suboptimal. You can blame bureaucracy or stupidity but it happens so regularly that I think it is best to consider it a permanent challenge. I assume that with any energy source there are negative consequences, just as there are with our lifestyles.
It's an imperfect world.
True, it is an imperfect world, but there are easy designs to make inherently safe nuclear reactors. We should do that rather than what we have been doing.
Also problems with nuclear power are not common or regular. There have been a couple of horrible blunders, but 100 times more examples over many decades of fine operation.
Consider the fossil-fuel side. There have been bad tanker spills and bad oil-well spills. So, we start moving to double-walled tankers and things like safety valves on wells. They aren't perfect, but they are an improvement over doing nothing. We should do improvements in nuclear power.
-
It's the first time what I do for a living has ever come up on these boards, lmao!
In supply terms, no. In cost terms yes.
Unless the government continues to interfere in a way that greatly hampers the market, I believe that we will have fossil fuel for a long time without oil being the source of economic disaster. I don't dispute that it might not be at $2/gallon of gasoline, but affordable enough to be our major power source for a long time to come. I think that, as prices stay high, other means of dealing with fossil fuels (natural gas applications, more-expensive but still viable ways of drilling and refining, building more refineries that work with this or that source, etc.) and other non-fossil-fuel sources will help fill a portion of our needs.
-
True, it is an imperfect world, but there are easy designs to make inherently safe nuclear reactors. We should do that rather than what we have been doing.
Also problems with nuclear power are not common or regular. There have been a couple of horrible blunders, but 100 times more examples over many decades of fine operation.
Consider the fossil-fuel side. There have been bad tanker spills and bad oil-well spills. So, we start moving to double-walled tankers and things like safety valves on wells. They aren't perfect, but they are an improvement over doing nothing. We should do improvements in nuclear power.
You won't get an argument from me on improvements. I think the challenge of keeping technology safe is always a human problem though, or more accurately you can't always predict what the bald monkeys will do. I think you do your best but somebody is always going to make a lousy cost benefit analysis or forget to take the masking tape off the static ports.
I think safety culture is very important but is also very fragile. It gets a lot of lip service but being an advocate for it is probably not the way to garner power in any organization.
-
Unless the government continues to interfere in a way that greatly hampers the market, I believe that we will have fossil fuel for a long time without oil being the source of economic disaster. I don't dispute that it might not be at $2/gallon of gasoline, but affordable enough to be our major power source for a long time to come. I think that, as prices stay high, other means of dealing with fossil fuels (natural gas applications, more-expensive but still viable ways of drilling and refining, building more refineries that work with this or that source, etc.) and other non-fossil-fuel sources will help fill a portion of our needs.
Its not entirely the government intervention...its the oil markets. Remember, to make fuel, you must have crude. Four years ago, US traders had limits put on their overseas contracts. Here's how the manipulation went:
Bombay buys millions........London buy hundreds of millions...........NY buys hundreds of millions.........Japan buys hundreds of millions....Bombay sells at an enormous profit because their co-workers bought contracts all day long and drove the price up. And then they move backwards with sell orders on contracts that never get executed...just sold for even money or a little loss. Its all from the same firms so the money stays in house for a net win. That drives the spot price up and to hold it there, the initial contract buyer gets back in with profit...zero exposure except to us at the pumps.
By limiting their buys, they can't manipulate it. No one got fined because it wasn't against the law.
-
We orbit a giant nuclear reactor that produces more power than we could ever use.
-
We orbit a giant nuclear reactor that produces more power than we could ever use.
We need a bigger extension cord
-
We orbit a giant nuclear reactor that produces more power than we could ever use.
Fusion.
-
We orbit a giant nuclear reactor that produces more power than we could ever use.
We're alive because we're far enough from it to not get evaporated.
-
We're alive because we're far enough from it to not get evaporated.
Solar energy is part of America's future. Concentrating solar power technology uses thermal energy to power conventional power plants. Low maintence cost combined with 24 hour power generation make CSP a viable option. Not to mention it's cheaper and safer than nuclear power. The Sonoran desert is big. The main advantage of a CSP plant is they use a much smaller plot of land. We could build hundreds of these plants in Arizona with a relatively low impact on the environment.
-
let me guess. 1KW for 1 gallon of water?
I think we can get more power from hydro as well. Build some lakes and fill them with salmon. mmm, salmon.
-
Its not entirely the government intervention...its the oil markets.
True -- a market establishes market pricing.
What I mean more precisely by "Unless the government continues to interfere in a way that greatly hampers the market" is that the US government currently does things like refusing pipelines, making it hard to drill for oil, and not granting export permits, which hampers markets. If you hamper a market enough, you screw up pricing and supply (like the US government so foolishly did in the 1970's). Yes, there was the oil embargo that caused some disruption, but the vast majority of the disruption was not the oil embargo but the foolish federal rationing regulations.
A market establishes a price relative to other goods and services. When a government does things highly contrary to sound economics, it causes problems with that market and results in things like either significantly higher prices or significantly less supply. Best is not to wreck a market through either stupidity or on purpose to create more-expensive oil, in my opinion.
-
Its not entirely the government intervention...its the oil markets. Remember, to make fuel, you must have crude. Four years ago, US traders had limits put on their overseas contracts. Here's how the manipulation went:
Bombay buys millions........London buy hundreds of millions...........NY buys hundreds of millions.........Japan buys hundreds of millions....Bombay sells at an enormous profit because their co-workers bought contracts all day long and drove the price up. And then they move backwards with sell orders on contracts that never get executed...just sold for even money or a little loss. Its all from the same firms so the money stays in house for a net win. That drives the spot price up and to hold it there, the initial contract buyer gets back in with profit...zero exposure except to us at the pumps.
By limiting their buys, they can't manipulate it. No one got fined because it wasn't against the law.
This :aok
And for others, don't forget that Oil is traded internationally so even if production increases in the US (which it has), if World demand grows at a faster pace, well guess what, oil prices will continue to go up. Just imagine the oil demands of China & India when it is developed similar to the West (but unlike the west, home to almost half of the worlds population!!!).
-
Concentrating solar power technology
There have been several pilot plants, none of which have been all that successful and many of which have gone out of business. It seems like that could be a good power source, though, so maybe it was just due to days of very low oil prices and will be viable going forward. I'm not an expert on the economics of it.
There is a great book on energy sources for the world "Sustainable Energy – without the hot air", by David MacKay, who is a professor of engineering at Cambridge and a science advisor to the UK Department of Energy. He and I were in the same research group in graduate school, so I know firsthand that he is a very smart guy. The main conclusion is that, if the world wants to reduce use of fossil fuels, it needs a lot more solar, nuclear, or both.
-
There have been several pilot plants, none of which have been all that successful and many of which have gone out of business. It seems like that could be a good power source, though, so maybe it was just due to days of very low oil prices and will be viable going forward. I'm not an expert on the economics of it.
There is a great book on energy sources for the world "Sustainable Energy – without the hot air", by David MacKay, who is a professor of engineering at Cambridge and a science advisor to the UK Department of Energy. He and I were in the same research group in graduate school, so I know firsthand that he is a very smart guy. The main conclusion is that, if the world wants to reduce use of fossil fuels, it needs a lot more solar, nuclear, or both.
Today as it stands... Solar and Wind cannot provide baseload power. But where it can REDUCE fossil fuel consumption is meeting peek or non-baseload power needs. Nat gas, while a fossil fuel, burns much cleaner than other options and we have plenty of it, thus for the time being, it looks as if the combination of Ngas and renewable is the way to go until better technology is developed making some of the less traditional models more economically feasible.
-
This :aok
And for others, don't forget that Oil is traded internationally so even if production increases in the US (which it has), if World demand grows at a faster pace, well guess what, oil prices will continue to go up. Just imagine the oil demands of China & India when it is developed similar to the West (but unlike the west, home to almost half of the worlds population!!!).
Yes, demand increasing more than supply will result in increased prices. However, regardless of what the demand is, if there is more supply, prices will be lower than if there is less supply.
The US has vast oil and gas still. If you hamper production of that, you affect world-wide oil prices. Government preclusion of natural gas export, for example, has a significant effect on natural gas pricing and world-wide markets.
What I said was "Unless the government continues to interfere in a way that greatly hampers the market, I believe that we will have fossil fuel for a long time without oil being the source of economic disaster." I do believe that. I do not believe that we will run out of oil anytime soon or that we will have some severe economic problems because of shortage of oil or gas -- unless our government creates the shortage intentionally or through blunders.
-
Today as it stands... Solar and Wind cannot provide baseload power. But where it can REDUCE fossil fuel consumption is meeting peek or non-baseload power needs. Nat gas, while a fossil fuel, burns much cleaner than other options and we have plenty of it, thus for the time being, it looks as if the combination of Ngas and renewable is the way to go until better technology is developed making some of the less traditional models more economically feasible.
That's how I think of it, too.
-
The ultimate answer is not the dependence on only 1 method.
There are several types of solar options. Photovoltaic as well as using focused light to add heat energy to a liquid.
There is the wind option. Many places have huge wind alotments. The antarctic, south end of South America............
There is the nuclear option. Radioactive Thorium which is more plentiful and has way less dangerous waste product than uranium. New science.
There is the bio-fuel option. Peanut Oil. As well as others.
Water power generation. I believe low impact water generators are possible. Is it truly necessary to make huge dams? Tidal affects can be harnessed.
People power. Many peeps are health nuts. Why cannot people use static bicycles to generate power, get exercise at the same time. Very limited.
Fuel Cells. Hydrogen, the most abundant element in the universe.
Did not Tesla have a method for harnessing the inheirant electricity of the planet? He got us the 1st water generation plant, Niagra Falls.
All of these could be used in a de-centralized power grid. That would allow fossil fuels to used for materials and emergency power generation.
Merely a matter of refusing the few to get rich at the worlds expense. I have no problem with peeps making money, its just at what cost.
Most modern wars are about oil, WW3 will make it all moot. None will survive a WW3 but the roaches.
-
There is the aspect of scale. Wind, people power, biofuels, etc. aren't going to do much. The main things are fossil, nuclear, and solar.
-
There is the aspect of scale. Wind, people power, biofuels, etc. aren't going to do much. The main things are fossil, nuclear, and solar.
Yes but if you can create a de-centralized approach, a low voltage power grid would allow for increased low voltage products. A centralized power grid requires hi-voltage output to fill the grid. Cell phones should be required to have solar cells to help recharging.
Its all a matter of profits. Plenty of ways to get rich. Electricity has become as important as air and water, our society would break down with out it. We place ourselves at risk with the current methods.
-
I don't think decentralization vs. centralization is all that important. There are ways to transmit power over grids without huge loss, and decentralization has its own inefficiencies, too.
Some power sources (photovoltaic cells, solar heating of water) are well suited to decentralization and are (and will increasingly be) used that way. Others are better suited to centralization (generally fossil, nuclear, and some types of solar power generation, such as concentrators or solar generation in desert areas transmitted then to non-desert areas).
-
Brooke,
This has been a nice convo, tanx for not getting smarmy with a lesser brained mortal.
Changeup,
The Earth's magnetic field is what keeps us alive and safe from being saturated by radiation. The distance is certainly important but not the only factor. he he
In fact you can make the argument that a little dose of radiation is what mutated our predecessors DNA to form us, as well as other environmental factors.
S
-
Keep in mind energy conversion technology is only in it's infancy. You will be able to charge your cellphone using properual motion. That technology already exist, who knows where we'll be 20 years from now. Energy efficiency will be at a premium in the future.
-
Brooke,
This has been a nice convo, tanx for not getting smarmy with a lesser brained mortal.
Thanks for the conversation from you, too; and I don't at all doubt that you know a lot more than I do about a great many things, so thank you for not getting smarmy with me! :aok
-
One of the singularly, most successful technologies is GTL (gas to liquids). Taking Natural gas, converting it to liquid base stocks and then refining to fuels. Clean, plentiful, creates tons of employment and cheap. The S Africans pioneered it and Shell perfected it. There is a 4B plant being built in LA right now with the support of the LA state government.
Look for this option. If this goes wide market, crude dependency will be reduced by 88% worldwide by 2030. This does include jet fuels and is one of the single, finest options because it does two things:
1. Reduces oil demand which will reduce prices
2. Increases supply stocks which will keep natural gas prices down.
It will not hurt the major oil companies because they would be gaining a solid revenue stream from a plentiful raw material that has little demand. This extends fossil fuels for 300 years based on current natural gas exploratory compositions.
-
I heard about that from a friend of mine that worked for Shell in Holland. Back 2008 he was on about Shell re-pressurising North Sea oil fields converting to gas.
At the time I didn't think much about it.
-
Oil is also solar power. The human race is just burning up the stored energy at a much faster rate than it was deposited therefore it is not sustainable.
The question is can the human race exploit this burst of energy and industry sensibly and redesign its abstract economy to co-operate globally to distribute resources and find a new sustainable energy paradigm before it makes its own biosphere uninhabitable for itself.
-
I just saw a little diddy where a German Company has developed electric airplanes. Elektro One. 5 hrs flight time on a single charge, charged by solar photovoltaic.
Another Euro company is using wind and solar, solely, to provide power for an entire island community. A 100% decentralized grid approach.
Some nations who do not have access to oil as we do, are moving forward with 100% clean renewable power sources. Granted these are smaller area places, with less power demands in general but.........................m ake a concerted effort and it can be accomplished. Will it be EZ, no. Will it require effort and expense, yes.
The greatest nation on the planet is being held back by corporate lobbiests, corrupt politicians, money. Billionaires that want to be Trillionaires.
As long as the American citizens continue to allow the perpetuation of super wealth to the super wealthy we will be in this dilemma.
Call me socialist, call me communist, call me anything you want. Its up to us to do something about it. If we allow ourselves to be told that things are not possible reqarding power generation and transportation, that there is only one way to do it, by those who profit the most, then our great country will fall to foreign interests and off shore corporations.
Make no mistake, the congressman and women, Democrat and Republican, we currently send to Washington are not representing us , the American citizen. They instead are enriching themselves out this nations expense.
I will name it for what it is treason.
So now flame away. I wish I was wrong.
-
Liquified natural gas is an excellent fuel for many applications, including trucking and perhaps even automobiles. One problem today is that the US government is heavily restricting US companies from exporting LNG. This is a shame, as it would bring money into the US, provide the financial incentive for US companies to provide and promote natural gas (as opposed to do nothing much with it because the prices are so cheap it's not worth it), and help the world start using more natural gas in more applications.
-
The greatest nation on the planet is being held back by corporate lobbiests, corrupt politicians, money. Billionaires that want to be Trillionaires.
As long as the American citizens continue to allow the perpetuation of super wealth to the super wealthy we will be in this dilemma.
We are being help back by politicians/government, not corporations. Corporations sell you what you want to buy, and competition among corporations dives prices down and supply up over time. If you want things to be cheaper and more plentiful, companies are not your enemy, government overregulation is.
Call me socialist, call me communist, call me anything you want.
Socialism and communism are highly effective at destroying the process that makes goods and services cheaper and more plentiful. This has been proven clearly and without any doubt by a multitude of historical examples. Given what you seem to be advocating, you should be an anti-socialist and an anti-communist and in favor of capitalism and free markets. Capitalism and free markets have lifted human beings and nations out of grinding poverty.
Its up to us to do something about it.
Yes. People should start by reading "Basic Economics", by Sowell or "Economics in One Lesson", by Hazlitt. That gives any reader a solid foundation in economics. If more Americans did that, they would be less likely to put in place politicians who do exactly the opposite of the right thing for the nation economically and thereby work to ruin our nation. It's a few hours investment from all the hours in your life to read Hazlitt's book, for example. Not a very high price.
-
Liquified natural gas is an excellent fuel for many applications, including trucking and perhaps even automobiles. One problem today is that the US government is heavily restricting US companies from exporting LNG. This is a shame, as it would bring money into the US, provide the financial incentive for US companies to provide and promote natural gas (as opposed to do nothing much with it because the prices are so cheap it's not worth it), and help the world start using more natural gas in more applications.
It isn't so much the exportation as its the lack of domestic infrastructure to support it. The City of Norman, OK has converted all of their municipal fleet (1700 vehicles) to CNG but they had to build a 6M fueling depot to do it. With that investment it will take them 17 years to recover the initial investment because of the cost of transitioning their existing fleet to CNG. Total cost: 12M. Sounds cheap...except its a city that is supported by a small tax base. The University of Oklahoma doesn't pay taxes sooo...but uses the services.
-
We are being help back by politicians/government, not corporations.
wrong about this one. it's all about money and somebody is paying somebody to stop something. only ones with enough money to ante are corporations.
semp
-
Liquified natural gas is an excellent fuel for many applications, including trucking and perhaps even automobiles. One problem today is that the US government is heavily restricting US companies from exporting LNG. This is a shame, as it would bring money into the US, provide the financial incentive for US companies to provide and promote natural gas (as opposed to do nothing much with it because the prices are so cheap it's not worth it), and help the world start using more natural gas in more applications.
Brooke I agree. Problem is since fuel is big business the energy companies would raise the price to US consumers because of lower availability if we export it.
One thing I've learned in the many years in management is that......greed....yup the company has to make money. Fuel exporters would benefit financially in two ways.
Selling to foreign customers, and squeezing the American Public. Always has been that way and I assume it will continue. Have to make the shareholders' happy first.
Alas.....that will be the downfall of mankind in the end. What's in it for me is the ultimate question, not how many will benefit.
-
George Carlin On Global Warming Scam:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGOBm2J4tn0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGOBm2J4tn0)
-
It isn't so much the exportation as its the lack of domestic infrastructure to support it.
I think that exportation has a major impact. Investment happens only if there is enough profit in it. Without the ability to export natural gas, natural gas prices in the US are enormously depressed to the point where there isn't nearly as much financial incentive to invest in increased distribution, use, production, storage, etc.
It is expensive to build the distribution infrastructure. However, such infrastructure can be staged, first being deployed for a particular companyies' local truck fleets, for example (with cost of build shouldered by the company, not a government) then more fleets, then increasingly for cars. Also, the cost of infrastructure might not be best estimated by a government project. Government projects often (I would bet almost always) are many times what it costs private industry to do the same, and so some things that are quite affordable end up looking to be totally unaffordable.
Some examples include just about every transportation I've ever looked at. Here's one example (among many). In Seattle, they are building a replacement for the 520 bridge over Lake Washington. It (and buildout of surrounding expressways) was built in 1968 for a cost in 2012 dollars of $161M. Seattle is building a replacement for $4B ($2B for surrounding expressway buildout and $2B for the bridge itself). Yes, it is 6 lanes vs. 4, but the new project is 25 times more expensive than the one it replaces. Even if you discount all of the new expressway buildout, the new bridge just alone is 12 times the cost of the old bridge plus all of its buildout. The new bridge costs $268,000 per foot -- $268,000 for every single foot of length of the new bridge.
So, when folks talk about what a city or state or federal government pays for some infrastructure item, I suspect that real cost if it were done not by a government is probably 1/10th that and might take half the time.
-
The University of Oklahoma doesn't pay taxes sooo...but uses the services.
The lesson, as always... OU is evil.
:neener:
-
I think that exportation has a major impact. Investment happens only if there is enough profit in it. Without the ability to export natural gas, natural gas prices in the US are enormously depressed to the point where there isn't nearly as much financial incentive to invest in increased distribution, use, production, storage, etc.
It is expensive to build the distribution infrastructure. However, such infrastructure can be staged, first being deployed for a particular companyies' local truck fleets, for example (with cost of build shouldered by the company, not a government) then more fleets, then increasingly for cars. Also, the cost of infrastructure might not be best estimated by a government project. Government projects often (I would bet almost always) are many times what it costs private industry to do the same, and so some things that are quite affordable end up looking to be totally unaffordable.
Some examples include just about every transportation I've ever looked at. Here's one example (among many). In Seattle, they are building a replacement for the 520 bridge over Lake Washington. It (and buildout of surrounding expressways) was built in 1968 for a cost in 2012 dollars of $161M. Seattle is building a replacement for $4B ($2B for surrounding expressway buildout and $2B for the bridge itself). Yes, it is 6 lanes vs. 4, but the new project is 25 times more expensive than the one it replaces. Even if you discount all of the new expressway buildout, the new bridge just alone is 12 times the cost of the old bridge plus all of its buildout. The new bridge costs $268,000 per foot -- $268,000 for every single foot of length of the new bridge.
So, when folks talk about what a city or state or federal government pays for some infrastructure item, I suspect that real cost if it were done not by a government is probably 1/10th that and might take half the time.
Here's why it's not as impactful:
Refineries control pump prices by controlling production. Period. All exportation opportunity losses are mitigated by slowing production of fossil fuels of all kinds. If export restrictions cost X$, refineries will simply slow productivity in order to shrink supply. They control price by controlling supply. Their economy of scale controls costs (which virtually no other industry can do), revenue and supply simultaneously.
LNG revenue is obtained...just not in a traditional revenue model because we're all paying for LNG whether we use it or not.
-
Here's why it's not as impactful:
Refineries control pump prices by controlling production. Period. All exportation opportunity losses are mitigated by slowing production of fossil fuels of all kinds. If export restrictions cost X$, refineries will simply slow productivity in order to shrink supply. They control price by controlling supply. Their economy of scale controls costs (which virtually no other industry can do), revenue and supply simultaneously.
LNG revenue is obtained...just not in a traditional revenue model because we're all paying for LNG whether we use it or not.
That's why exportation does have an impact. Supply and demand always matter. Reduce demand, and supply gets adjusted, just as you point out. Adjusting demand or supply or both by government regulation has a large impact on economics of an industry, its products, its investment choices, and prices and availability to you as a consumer.
-
Does anybody know how much energy it takes to liquify and transport natural gas? Is it on par with extracting oil from tar sands or what?
-
Does anybody know how much energy it takes to liquify and transport natural gas? Is it on par with extracting oil from tar sands or what?
It depends on how far it's moved down a pipeline and how long the pipeline is. Compressor stations are inline and constantly keep it moving.
-
wrong about this one. it's all about money and somebody is paying somebody to stop something.
semp
I don't think so. Because your and my beliefs of how economics work are so completely different, I would love to have you read Hazlitt's book and then be able to discuss it with you. Would you be willing to read it and chat if I sent you a copy? If you're up for it, PM me your physical mail address, and I'll send you a copy. I'd be willing to reciprocate by reading some book of your choice.
Here's how I see it. Companies work to make money. In a free-market system, they can do that only one way: by making products that people want to buy. If people don't want to buy those products, the company doesn't make money and goes out of business. That dynamic means that companies do their best to figure out what you want and to give it to you at a price that is worth it to you. This dynamic working over generations is what has lifted mankind out of poverty and serfdom into what we have today (at least in the countries that have availed themselves of it).
Now, it is possible that a country sets up its government with the power to regulate companies out of business and to take one group's money and give it out to favored others. In that environment, companies can make money in a way additional to making products that people want to buy: they can appeal to government to get money and appeal to government to pass regulation that harms competitors. This is not a free market; it distorts the free market; it is the source of much corruption; and it can result in harming the process of products and services becoming ever cheaper and more plentiful.
Fortunately in the US, crony capitalism and corruption haven't overtaken all businesses or, for some affected by it, the entire business. It is far from optimal, and I hope to see it reduced in the future instead of increasing (which is what it seems to be doing currently), but we at least still do not have the same problems that the Soviet Union, Argentina, North Korea, China prior to market reforms, India prior to market reforms, Venezuela, and numerous other countries throughout history have had with respect to the function of their economies and businesses.
only ones with enough money to ante are corporations.
The US government has vastly more money, power, and resources than any corporation. That's why some companies have lobbyists -- to appeal to the government in an effort to get some of that power and resource applied in their favor.
-
Brooke I agree. Problem is since fuel is big business the energy companies would raise the price to US consumers because of lower availability if we export it.
One thing I've learned in the many years in management is that......greed....yup the company has to make money. Fuel exporters would benefit financially in two ways.
Selling to foreign customers, and squeezing the American Public. Always has been that way and I assume it will continue. Have to make the shareholders' happy first.
Alas.....that will be the downfall of mankind in the end. What's in it for me is the ultimate question, not how many will benefit.
Howdy, Hajo! <S>
I think that aspect of the free market has resulted in enormous positive results for mankind, not its downfall.
What you aren't counting when you describe selling to foreign customers is that those foreign customers are paying money for the product. That money goes to the people in the company, its shareholders, to the companies that sell things to that company, into the nation's economy, and is an addition to the nation's GDP and its financial well being.
Exports are good for a nation, not bad. It is especially good for the US, as we as a nation are in debt. The only way to get out of that debt is to increase exports. Countries that grow economically export a lot: the US post WWII, China now, Germany, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore (countries that went from ruin post WWII to prosperity in a generation), etc.
In the particular case of natural gas, exporting it would indeed increase US prices for natural gas. But only as part of a process whereby lots of money is coming into the US from other countries who are buying the natural gas. This adds profit into the US. Also, since natural gas is then more valuable, US companies have incentive to invest in activities related to it, which is not a great incentive right now.
Consider computers. What if at some earlier point in US history government regulation meant that computers could not be priced at anything other than 5 cents. Do you think that would be better or worse for you as a consumer of computers? At a first level, it sounds great. But what really would happen is that there would have been almost no computer industry, no investment into it in the US, no supply of good computer systems, etc. compared to what really happened.
Also, whenever thinking that selling restrictions are good, consider it applied to one's own profession. What if there was a regulation that a manager could be paid at most $20,000 per year. That might seem like it would be great for anyone who hires managers or for the population overall (as they wouldn't be paying as part of product prices anything more for managers). But in reality, what would happen is that the management job would end up turning into a job that is worth $20k per year, as most people who could do the job at a proficiency worth more than $20k per year would go to a job that pays them more than $20k per year. Capping manager salary at $20k per year would result in an inefficiency and decrease compared to a free market for manager salaries.
All of these sorts of things are covered very well in Sowell's and Hazlitt's books on economics. They really are great. I think that they are two of the best and most-important books in the world and highly recommend that anyone read them. "Basic Economics," by Sowell is longer, and "Economics in One Lesson," by Hazlitt is best if you want the briefest book possible.
There have been societies based on the principle not of free markets but on how many will benefit. That is one of the tenants of communism. There are a lot of reasons communism didn't work, but one of them definitely is that "to each according to need, from each according to ability" doesn't promote efficiency or hard work; and another is that deciding how many will benefit is not an easy thing to figure out. Central planners can't figure that out, and there are problems with who is deciding what "benefit" means and who should get it. But a free market is very, very good at figuring that out -- that's one of its main functions.
-
George Carlin On Global Warming Scam:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGOBm2J4tn0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGOBm2J4tn0)
"It could be the answer to our age old philosophical questions.
People: Why are we here?
Earth: Plastic. amazinhunks."
:rofl
-
Killed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSS1ZMdt3FQ
Arrested
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSiShiu9Sgs&feature=youtu.be
Gone
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrxfMz2eDME
Don't mess with Big Oil,
:uhoh :noid
-
I don't think so. Because your and my beliefs of how economics work are so completely different, I would love to have you read Hazlitt's book and then be able to discuss it with you. Would you be willing to read it and chat if I sent you a copy? If you're up for it, PM me your physical mail address, and I'll send you a copy. I'd be willing to reciprocate by reading some book of your choice.
Here's how I see it. Companies work to make money. In a free-market system, they can do that only one way: by making products that people want to buy. If people don't want to buy those products, the company doesn't make money and goes out of business. That dynamic means that companies do their best to figure out what you want and to give it to you at a price that is worth it to you. This dynamic working over generations is what has lifted mankind out of poverty and serfdom into what we have today (at least in the countries that have availed themselves of it).
Now, it is possible that a country sets up its government with the power to regulate companies out of business and to take one group's money and give it out to favored others. In that environment, companies can make money in a way additional to making products that people want to buy: they can appeal to government to get money and appeal to government to pass regulation that harms competitors. This is not a free market; it distorts the free market; it is the source of much corruption; and it can result in harming the process of products and services becoming ever cheaper and more plentiful.
Fortunately in the US, crony capitalism and corruption haven't overtaken all businesses or, for some affected by it, the entire business. It is far from optimal, and I hope to see it reduced in the future instead of increasing (which is what it seems to be doing currently), but we at least still do not have the same problems that the Soviet Union, Argentina, North Korea, China prior to market reforms, India prior to market reforms, Venezuela, and numerous other countries throughout history have had with respect to the function of their economies and businesses.
The US government has vastly more money, power, and resources than any corporation. That's why some companies have lobbyists -- to appeal to the government in an effort to get some of that power and resource applied in their favor.
Agreed completely. However, the most regulated industries or industries that have shown a propensity to corrupt and deserve some regulation (pharmaceutical, oil, financial) are the ones that have, need and deploy lobbyists more regularly. There are hundreds of thousands of good businesses that operate in the periphery of those industries.
-
Agreed completely. However, the most regulated industries or industries that have shown a propensity to corrupt and deserve some regulation (pharmaceutical, oil, financial) are the ones that have, need and deploy lobbyists more regularly. There are hundreds of thousands of good businesses that operate in the periphery of those industries.
It can also be that lobbying and corruption are because of regulation. A government that has the power to regulate you or your competitors out of business and that has the power to gift you with a lot of money is going to be the target of great efforts at influence by any means. Take away government's power to wreck businesses and to give away money, and much lobbying and corruption would be completely eliminated.
The same dynamic was true in the times of the Greeks and after them the Romans (the dynamic of people working to influence or to control government because of its power to regulate, tax, and reallocate vast amounts of money). That was one of the main things that caused the downfall of both civilizations.
Today, we do not have national debates about the affordability or availability of microwave ovens, computers, carpeting, paint, window glass, building supplies, Big Macs, chicken, beef, air conditioners, heating units, cars, clothes, shoes, plastic knick knacks, silverware, couches, chairs, bread, beer, car tires, books, telephones, answering machines, home generators, hair dryers, light bulbs, and so on. All of them are produced by unregulated or lightly regulated businesses subject mostly just to a free market, where companies are incentivized by one thing: selling me what I want to buy at a price I'm willing to pay.
In contrast, healthcare is one of the most-regulated business areas in the nation, and it is not very affordable.
I feel that, if we significantly cut the regulatory burden in healthcare and opened it up more to the free market, in 20 years, the level of healthcare that is best in the nation right now would be so cheap and so available that we would have about as much national debate about affordability and availability of healthcare as we do about affordability and availability of Big Macs, pizza, microwaves, carpeting, air conditioners, Xboxes, etc.
-
It can also be that lobbying and corruption are because of regulation. A government that has the power to regulate you or your competitors out of business and that has the power to gift you with a lot of money is going to be the target of great efforts at influence by any means. Take away government's power to wreck businesses and to give away money, and much lobbying and corruption would be completely eliminated.
The same dynamic was true in the times of the Greeks and after them the Romans (the dynamic of people working to influence or to control government because of its power to regulate, tax, and reallocate vast amounts of money). That was one of the main things that caused the downfall of both civilizations.
Today, we do not have national debates about the affordability or availability of microwave ovens, computers, carpeting, paint, window glass, building supplies, Big Macs, chicken, beef, air conditioners, heating units, cars, clothes, shoes, plastic knick knacks, silverware, couches, chairs, bread, beer, car tires, books, telephones, answering machines, home generators, hair dryers, light bulbs, and so on. All of them are produced by unregulated or lightly regulated businesses subject mostly just to a free market, where companies are incentivized by one thing: selling me what I want to buy at a price I'm willing to pay.
In contrast, healthcare is one of the most-regulated business areas in the nation, and it is not very affordable.
I feel that, if we significantly cut the regulatory burden in healthcare and opened it up more to the free market, in 20 years, the level of healthcare that is best in the nation right now would be so cheap and so available that we would have about as much national debate about affordability and availability of healthcare as we do about affordability and availability of Big Macs, pizza, microwaves, carpeting, air conditioners, Xboxes, etc.
What would a good economist think about health insurance and its effects on the cost of heath care?
-
It can also be that lobbying and corruption are because of regulation. A government that has the power to regulate you or your competitors out of business and that has the power to gift you with a lot of money is going to be the target of great efforts at influence by any means. Take away government's power to wreck businesses and to give away money, and much lobbying and corruption would be completely eliminated.
The same dynamic was true in the times of the Greeks and after them the Romans (the dynamic of people working to influence or to control government because of its power to regulate, tax, and reallocate vast amounts of money). That was one of the main things that caused the downfall of both civilizations.
Today, we do not have national debates about the affordability or availability of microwave ovens, computers, carpeting, paint, window glass, building supplies, Big Macs, chicken, beef, air conditioners, heating units, cars, clothes, shoes, plastic knick knacks, silverware, couches, chairs, bread, beer, car tires, books, telephones, answering machines, home generators, hair dryers, light bulbs, and so on. All of them are produced by unregulated or lightly regulated businesses subject mostly just to a free market, where companies are incentivized by one thing: selling me what I want to buy at a price I'm willing to pay.
In contrast, healthcare is one of the most-regulated business areas in the nation, and it is not very affordable.
I feel that, if we significantly cut the regulatory burden in healthcare and opened it up more to the free market, in 20 years, the level of healthcare that is best in the nation right now would be so cheap and so available that we would have about as much national debate about affordability and availability of healthcare as we do about affordability and availability of Big Macs, pizza, microwaves, carpeting, air conditioners, Xboxes, etc.
I cannot think of 1 regulation that was designed to cripple a legitimate business. Please give examples along with their intent and strategy.
I'm fairly certain that when regulation is examined, you'll find that it's very much causal.. Look no further than:
Dot.com bubble
Housing derivatives bubble
Big pharma spending billions on Drs to prescribe medication that on the whole isn't particularly necessary
Commodities exclusion from Hedge funds
Currency trading limitations
Regulation 99% of the time does not come before notorious violations but I am willing to hear your examples and the strategies those regulators employed.
-
The best way to stay updated and informed about science is to ignore every single word that's printed or spoken in the media about science.
-
I cannot think of 1 regulation that was designed to cripple a legitimate business. Please give examples along with their intent and strategy.
I'm fairly certain that when regulation is examined, you'll find that it's very much causal.. Look no further than:
Dot.com bubble
Housing derivatives bubble
Big pharma spending billions on Drs to prescribe medication that on the whole isn't particularly necessary
Commodities exclusion from Hedge funds
Currency trading limitations
Regulation 99% of the time does not come before notorious violations but I am willing to hear your examples and the strategies those regulators employed.
This :aok
In almost all cases, regulation or (even deregulation), the government is the tail of the dog. Always, its the last to change and usually in response to actions/behaviors of industry. Just as industry tries to capture the market (sometimes by less-than-honest means and hence the need for smart regulation), politicians want to capture votes knowing that inaction on wildly publicized misbehavior of industry may jeopardize their job. The only exceptions I can think of are related to war. I would go as far to say that the current brand of corruption is only plausible because mainstream media is too busy pumping out 'stories' with the intent of providing people 'political cognitive affirmation' instead of reporting on facts and exposing whats going on.
-
What would a good economist think about health insurance and its effects on the cost of heath care?
Some that I think are good.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/08/28/risky_business_115225.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2013/09/05/how-thomas-sowell-long-ago-predicted-obamacares-looming-failure/
http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/yes-mr-president-free-market-can-fix-health-care
In our country, we have car insurance, house insurance, life insurance, etc. that people are mostly happy with and that don't seem to greatly distort the price of cars, houses, etc. Those industries are not hugely hampered by regulation.
-
Some that I think are good.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/08/28/risky_business_115225.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2013/09/05/how-thomas-sowell-long-ago-predicted-obamacares-looming-failure/
http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/yes-mr-president-free-market-can-fix-health-care
In our country, we have car insurance, house insurance, life insurance, etc. that people are mostly happy with and that don't seem to greatly distort the price of cars, houses, etc. Those industries are not hugely hampered by regulation.
Looking at the tables for these markets of insurance...one thing stands out.
COMPETITION...........about 150%-300% more than most industries, certainly more than the 8 major oil players and the 37 major pharma's. Competition keeps prices down and markets in balance. The insurance companies are bookies. You're betting you crash and they're betting you don't. Vegas wasn't built on winners...neither was the insurance markets. BTW, these markets were created, for the most part, BY LAW. Insurance, back in the day, used to be optional. If you wanted the risk, you could take it.
Someone or something forced people to buy homeowner and car insurance right? I'd call that regulation by proxy...but in this case, as most, it was GOOD for the industry, not bad.
-
I cannot think of 1 regulation that was designed to cripple a legitimate business. Please give examples along with their intent and strategy.
Your demand for exact specifics is a lot of work on my part. I know of many (oil/power industry, steel, financial, farming, semiconductor, health industry -- a lot are of the form of regulation that helps a very large business to keep out smaller competitors or new upstarts) but not in the detail that you will likely demand, so I'll have to look some things up. In the meantime, here are a few off the top of my head in enough detail or enough prominence that they are easily looked up.
National Labor Relations Board working to preclude Boeing from opening a factory in South Carolina. Intent and strategy: to stop Boeing from going into a right-to-work state in order for administration to favor unions that supported its election.
FDA's regulations and agenda to eliminate CLIA's oversight of laboratory-developed tests. This has and will continue to drive CLIA labs out of business. Intent and strategy: FDA does not like CLIA labs outside the FDA's realm of control, so the FDA has been working over a long period of time to erode that. (This is my field of business that I have direct experience in, including discussions on this very topic with the FDA.)
Government putting online poker out of business. Intent and strategy: obvious.
New Hampshire government exercising eminent domain against a person's home to give the property to a private developer to build a hotel. Intent and strategy: obvious.
I'm fairly certain that when regulation is examined, you'll find that it's very much causal..
Certainly a lot of regulation is a reaction to something, maybe a poor choice, but definitely a reaction. A lot of regulation is because of someone's good intent, again maybe a poor choice, but definitely good intent. I suspect that the majority of regulation is because of reaction or some good intention -- so we are probably in agreement on that part.
But there definitely is regulation designed primarily to benefit a group that is lobbying for it, and cover reasons (that are not the main intent) are thought up for why it is a good bit of regulation. I have some experience there.
Look no further than:
Dot.com bubble
Housing derivatives bubble
Big pharma spending billions on Drs to prescribe medication that on the whole isn't particularly necessary
Commodities exclusion from Hedge funds
Currency trading limitations
Indeed. Also, consider the regulations that helped bring about those fiascos. You can then consider those prior assisting regulations as either a counter example, or you could say that they, in turn, were the reaction to some previous condition, which is also a valid way to look at it. That's not the main point I'm trying to make, though.
Just because a regulation is a reaction to something does not mean that it is immune to manipulation for a particular business's or industry's benefit at the detriment to other businesses or industries. That is the soul of lobbying -- getting the powerful government to give you a favor that helps you, not your competitors.
My point is that a government powerful enough to pass regulation that helps or harms you and powerful enough to take your money or to give you other people's money is a government that *will* be lobbied or (in the case of Greece and Rome and numerous examples between now and then) will be desirable to take control of for one's own benefit even at the detriment of other citizens.
Regulation 99% of the time does not come before notorious violations.
Says you! ;)
-
In our country, we have car insurance, house insurance, life insurance, etc. that people are mostly happy with and that don't seem to greatly distort the price of cars, houses, etc. Those industries are not hugely hampered by regulation.
Insurance is heavily regulated though. That's why swaps are called swaps and not insurance. What distorted the price of houses last time was the existence of lightly to un regulated derivatives. I imagine car insurance might distort the price of autobody repair. Come to think of it, you could say that house insurance distorts the price of houses as no one would lend you money to buy a house without it. Imagine if we had to pay cash. I think the problem with health care is that for prices to go down somebody's ox is going to have to get gored. The real market incentive for health care I would argue is quality of outcomes and that along with price is pretty hard to find out ahead of time.
I personally think the whole free market mantra is a little overblown. The free market is a startlingly powerful phenomena for organizing and motivating people,(that's why you have to weld manhole covers down when the price of scrap soars,) but the notion that it is a solution for all that ails us or that if we just let it be and utopia will follow I find as dubious as a young communist's enthusiasms for revolution.
I think this thread has strayed.
-
Looking at the tables for these markets of insurance...one thing stands out.
COMPETITION...........
[etc.]
I completely agree. Competition is a *vital* part of a free market. Without it, it isn't a free market, and it doesn't work. If I had the ability to change policy, I'd greatly reduce regulation (not increase it, which is exactly the *wrong* way to go, in my opinion) and allow insurance companies to offer whatever insurance products they wanted wherever they wanted to offer them (i.e., no state monopolies). People would buy the ones they want and not buy the ones they don't like (just like with car insurance and house insurance).
-
The insurance companies are bookies. You're betting you crash and they're betting you don't. Vegas wasn't built on winners...neither was the insurance markets.
Another thing about casualty insurance is that the money isn't made off of a differential between claims and premiums, it is made on the use of the money that is available because of the difference in time between when a premiums are paid in and claims are paid out. When the investment climate is bad you will see the gate come down with lines yanked and stupid premiums, if the outlook is good its the reverse. You won't see this in auto insurance too much but more in business insurances and such.
-
Insurance is heavily regulated though.
Yes, that's what needs to get fixed if we want things to work.
What distorted the price of houses last time was the existence of lightly to un regulated derivatives.
No, they were only once contributing factor among many. There were interest rates going to zero (and when interest rates go to zero, the price of property tends to infinity -- the Fed can bear some blame there) and there were government regulations and strong arming of lenders to make way too many subprime loans. There were other factors, too, but those two are huge.
I imagine car insurance might distort the price of autobody repair.
No one is saying that autobody repair is a national crisis, unaffordable, unavailable, etc. So, no, it's not a problem.
Come to think of it, you could say that house insurance distorts the price of houses as no one would lend you money to buy a house without it.
I'm saying that I believe highly regulated health insurance and health industry is a disaster that can be saved only by less regulation and more free market. I'm not saying that insurance has no effect on pricing or other factors. Every good and service has an effect on something.
Imagine if we had to pay cash.
Yes, that would affect things a lot.
I think the problem with health care is that for prices to go down somebody's ox is going to have to get gored.
That's the result of every single thing done economically. If good A costs more, someone benefits, someone does not. If good A costs less, someone benefits and someone does not. That's true of healthcare and also of microwave ovens, carpeting, Bic Macs, shoes, children's toys, luxury yachts, etc. A free market figures out what a good price is for something given alternative uses of those resources. That's what it's great at that central planning is not great at (as the Soviets, among others, proved).
The real market incentive for health care I would argue is quality of outcomes and that along with price is pretty hard to find out ahead of time.
I disagree. If you need a house-repair job done, you can get an estimate. If you need a medical procedure, you can get an estimate (although because the system has been moved so far from free market, that is not as easy as in home repair, but you can still definitely do it -- I have done it on many occasions).
I personally think the whole free market mantra is a little overblown.
Well, look at things subject to free market (microwaves, lumber, computers, air conditioners, car repair, singing lessons, pizzas, etc.) compared to things not subject to free market (especially health care) and see which ones go from expensive and unavailable to cheap and plentiful compared to things that go from expensive and unavailable to more expensive and more unavailable. Look a which nations have embraced at least some aspect of free markets (US, Germany, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, China's current moves, India's current moves) vs. those that use high-regulated markets and central planning (Soviet Union, Venezuela, North Korea, Argentina, from time to time portions of Latin America and Africa).
I work in healthcare-related industries. My opinion is that the free market would work as well there as for any other good or service. There is nothing magical about the words "health care." It is technology and business, made up of people working and executing tasks, chemicals, electronics, mechanical parts, etc. -- just like lots and lots of other industries.
The free market is a startlingly powerful phenomena for organizing and motivating people,(that's why you have to weld manhole covers down when the price of scrap soars,) but the notion that it is a solution for all that ails us or that if we just let it be and utopia will follow I find as dubious as a young communist's enthusiasms for revolution.
Why dubious?
I think this thread has strayed.
A little bit, eh? ;)
-
No, they were only once contributing factor among many. There were interest rates going to zero (and when interest rates go to zero, the price of property tends to infinity -- the Fed can bear some blame there) and there were government regulations and strong arming of lenders to make way too many subprime loans. There were other factors, too, but those two are huge.
Why dubious?
Well you can say no, and I can say no so I don't think there is any likely hood that we will convince each other otherwise. I would only say that the Magnetar style trades provided the last couple years of on the face of it stunningly stupid lending. Lending which in fact was quite crafty and profitable in default. But you believe what you want and I'll believe what I want we both have the truth on our side.
Dubious is probably another thread that probably make people mad and slop over into politics and get locked. Suffice it to say that I'm pretty agnostic on most things.
-
Well you can say no, and I can say no so I don't think there is any likely hood that we will convince each other otherwise.
I say "no" or "yes" based on reasons that usually involve aspects from reading about economics and history and that I love to discuss with folks who likewise like the discussion also for its own sake, whether or not they agree with me. Whether or not we convince each other is only one part of things and not the whole benefit. :aok
-
In an honest society where everyone is behaving with good intention regulation is not needed.
No such society exists.
Man has proven, it can not be trusted with power.
Corporations, Politicians and Judges (both sides of the isle) have weakened us little peoples ability to influence our elected politicians.
Regulation gives us, albeit an illusion at best, a sense of trust, where there otherwise would be none.
No society can exist without the sense of trust.
EDIT: Don't want regulation, don't be an A-hole and convince everyone in your industry that as well... good luck!
-
In an honest society where everyone is behaving with good intention regulation is not needed.
No such society exists.
I agree completely. That is why communism doesn't work.
It is also why some regulation is needed -- I agree.
But if the federal government has too much regulatory power and too much ability to redistribute money, then it is a magnet for great corruption. It is the imperfection of man that is precisely the reason we can't have too much regulation and redistribution.
Corporations, Politicians and Judges (both sides of the isle) have weakened us little peoples ability to influence our elected politicians.
We did it to ourselves by creating a system that fosters corruption. If people better understood economics and history, they wouldn't vote for laws and politicians that contribute to the problem.
Regulation gives us, albeit an illusion at best, a sense of trust, where there otherwise would be none.
No society can exist without the sense of trust.
Some fairy tales are harmful when they work contrary to the correct solution. People in the Soviet Union, China, Venezuela, and Argentina felt that socialism was the power of the people, and socialism gave them trust in government until a harsh reality made itself known. That illusion and initial sense of trust cost them dearly.
We have been shown very clearly through the field of economics and through many historical precedents and lessons -- many -- that light regulation, free markets, and capitalism work very, very well and have lifted millions of people out of grinding poverty and serfdom. Why can't people have a sense of trust in that marvelous reality?
-
Because Ardy wont fly when he tells people he will, that's why
-
Because Ardy wont fly when he tells people he will, that's why
:rofl :rofl
-
Some fairy tales are harmful when they work contrary to the correct solution. People in the Soviet Union, China, Venezuela, and Argentina felt that socialism was the power of the people, and socialism gave them trust in government until a harsh reality made itself known. That illusion and initial sense of trust cost them dearly.
Communism has nothing to do with regulation and Socialism != Communism, ask Sweden, Norway, Germany, Austria, etc...
Blind faith in any organization, Gov or not is stupid.
This is why we should have a free press and elected officials and we should aggressively go after anything that inhibits it. We have failed to do the latter. Something that people with money and agendas have loved in the past 30 years (I'm looking at you Citizen's United and the 10k+ other 'biz friendly' regulations passed).
-
We have been shown very clearly through the field of economics and through many historical precedents and lessons -- many -- that light regulation, free markets, and capitalism work very, very well and have lifted millions of people out of grinding poverty and serfdom. Why can't people have a sense of trust in that marvelous reality?
There are many negative aspects to capitalism which are already announcing which you fail to mention or are unaware of / disagree with. If we look to the future (and how far into the future is an interesting topic) there will undoubtedly come a point where its usefulness will be outweighed by the damage it causes to both the environment and to human development. There must be regulation to keep the present system in check because business will and must inevitably tend towards the unethical and to its own (pure and abstract) pursuit at the expense of all else. It has no conscience and was not designed with foresight nor intelligence and is intolerant of other systems.
It is an inevitable phase of development and so is its end and subsequent replacement.
-
There are many negative aspects to capitalism which are already announcing which you fail to mention or are unaware of / disagree with. If we look to the future (and how far into the future is an interesting topic) there will undoubtedly come a point where its usefulness will be outweighed by the damage it causes to both the environment and to human development. There must be regulation to keep the present system in check because business will and must inevitably tend towards the unethical and to its own (pure and abstract) pursuit at the expense of all else. It has no conscience and was not designed with foresight nor intelligence and is intolerant of other systems.
It is an inevitable phase of development and so is its end and subsequent replacement.
you see, The problem is not the corporation, the problem is man. This is why nothing will work short of freedom combined with compassion and love. Please, :cry excuse me, carry on :salute
-
you see, The problem is not the corporation, the problem is man. This is why nothing will work short of freedom combined with compassion and love. Please, :cry excuse me, carry on :salute
There are, or rather have been until recently, cultures which have never historically experienced the system of capitalism which are not dominated by the traits to which you are eluding. We must surely separate the 'man' from the environment he has adapted to?
-
There are, or rather have been until recently, cultures which have never historically experienced the system of capitalism which are not dominated by the traits to which you are eluding. We must surely separate the 'man' from the environment he has adapted to?
But we must take great care to not go backwards in time...progress is about making positive change, forward. One could interpret you as meaning, "Taliban-esque".
BTW....fuels should be regulated by output and price will settle. The forward integration that oil companies have facilitated control the supplies of all the raw materials necessary for production which allows them the one liberty that 99% of all other manufacturers do not have: Supply side price controls.
One could make the case that this violates UC 1 for unfair competition as a matter of conducting normal business....for one reason alone. One oil company's price benefit from supply side economics benefits the entire industry in the form of price increases.
No where else will you find a shut-the -well-off, drive the price up except under normal market conditions....oranges, pork bellies, etc.
Think about it...
-
But we must take great care to not go backwards in time...progress is about making positive change, forward. One could interpret you as meaning, "Taliban-esque".
I more meant the isolated communities who have bypassed the industrialized world entirely. They'll be gone soon.
I agree Changeup, that's why I suggest capitalism is a phase. Undoubtedly progress but just a finite stage of it. I think it obstructs human development in as many ways as it helps.
-
I more meant the isolated communities who have bypassed the industrialized world entirely. They'll be gone soon.
I agree Changeup, that's why I suggest capitalism is a phase. Undoubtedly progress but just a finite stage of it. I think it obstructs human development in as many ways as it helps.
I agree however...
As far as human cultural economic systems go, capitalism provides opportunities and rewards that cannot be found in any other form of mercantilism. I believe the adjustments can be made over time to perfect it without damaging the model nor rewarding the wicked. In order for this to happen, it must be prioritized at the University level, the business level and the government level. The country's brightest could be brought to bear on our system to make it better but we do not. It's an accepted patch-work quilt of operability with government regs operating on the periphery to make changes. We currently walk over dollars to save pennies and that does not benefit the people. Economists know this but have little or no influence over changing the system. Think of them as financial climatologists...their models are questioned by layman, their words are twisted and contorted, and their evidence is in theories that take many years to unfold. That is the unfortunate truth. It will be capitalism's demise...a slow, horrible, painful death that morphs into a system of even more people with less.
The capitalist economy of our great country simply needs attention. Satan resides soundly in the burden of managing the minutia.
-
This has turned into a political discussion which is in violation of forum posting rule #14.