Solar cell companies are really starting to take off, and there's a lot of venture capital tied up in further development of this tech.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Printable View
Solar cell companies are really starting to take off, and there's a lot of venture capital tied up in further development of this tech.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
If those are to be the main indicators of effectiveness, what metrics are being used?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I have not made such a claim about elections - you need to stop making the same flawed assumption that because I am to the left on most issues, I therefor hold every stereotypical left wing opinion.Quote:
You really need to stop making the same flawed assumption about the strength of advocacy groups as you do about elections; money helps, but it's mostly an indicator of underlying strength/support, not a dominant factor in producing results. The reason most money is spent by corporations is because *drum roll* money is the main resource possessed by corporations. It's how they try to make up for their other weaknesses.
"Brought legislation" was the charge made in the OP. This was a charge you initially chose to rebut by saying that, it's ok because, really, though, aren't we all in an interest group of one kind or another, and really isn't the human heart the most powerful lobbying firm of them all? I merely pointed out that this rebuttal was... fucking stupid. If that has now changed to 'actually, everything the OP said is more or less horse shit' then that's a different matter altogether.Quote:
You also have a warped idea of the political process if you think anyone "buys" legislation. Interest groups A) help elect people who share their interests, and B) give money to keep those people in office. The reason those people vote in a manner conductive to the interest groups is mainly because they share their interests and/or constituencies, not because of the money per se. And the reason some legislation is a thinly plagiarized product given to legislators by interest groups is because the latter don't have the expertise or resources to write good legislation on most issue areas, and they take a short-cut by copying the proposed legislation by groups they A) already agree with, B) know have the required expertise and resources.
Regarding brought legislation, what I think is... if the start of the process is that a private interest gives some money to a politician and the end result is that a piece of law is made which would not have been made into law if it wasn't for that original payment (the tricky bit), then the legislation is brought. The intervening process doesn't matter at all. I didn't well imagine that sinister corporate executives gave bags of gold to mercantile senators, who then immediately stood up in the House and said "I move that all poor people should be made to give half their pay to theRich People'sJob Creator's Yacht Fund". But if the Cause is a donation and the Result is legislation, then I think it is problematic for democracy - and may actually be outright corruption depending on the particulars. It is hard to imagine that things like the SOPA were not a product of such a process. Where is the "common constituency" or shared interest between the senators and the media companies who would have benefit from it?
I have too much recently about what goes on out of sight in the political world to be sure that cash for honours, or cash for access, or overly cosy relationship with media moguls, is as far as it goes.
Pardon me if I'm not exactly optimistic as to the ultimate success of solar cells. Granted, it's a nice idea, but there are still several large obstacles to overcome.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraith
Biggest one would be a reliable mass energy storage system. Failing that, we'd need a finely grained while at the same time honkin' huge energy distribution net. Optimally, both in conjunction.
I hope someone doesn't propose orbital stations. I'd have to kill some kittens, otherwise.
See this sack of kittens? That goes right in the river. Unless you abstain from mentioning any solution which is more than 20 km above ground.
You don't want to have a bunch of kittens on your conscience, right? Good.
There is a revolution going on right now with energy production in the US when it comes to extracting natural gas. The estimated quantity of extractable natural gas underground in North America is turning out to be quite large.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
And, as mentioned before, I'm a bit proponent of nuclear power for electrical generation.
Two new nuclear plants were approved in the US just last month: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb...clear-20120210Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
The economics aren't that hard to make work if the regulatory environment is crafted appropriately.
Uranium isn't bursting out of the mountains, but it's definitely available in significant quantities. And it's a far more efficient system than, say, coal. Which we have plenty of, but isn't quite as efficient.
But I wasn't talking about the environment. It seemed pretty clear (at least to me) that Nessus was talking about democracy/capitalism adapting to energy scarcity.
I was being serious. I know you aren't often serious, but I was being serious because you asked for a serious response.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
"Revolution"? Please. Neither is natural gas a revolution nor is nuclear. And both are limited resources - even if they both are not scarce yet.
But the writing's on the wall.
Everything on earth is "limited". The amount of photons we could capture from the sun is "limited" over the course of the next few billion years.
The point I'm trying to make is there are a variety of energy technologies. This point is not particularly new or original, but it seems like people often don't remember it.
If you're serious, you would not have put air quotes around the limitation of photons. That's exactly what energy scarcity means, and I suppose is exactly what ya-hoos like you can't comprehend.
Saying that stuff is scarce is sort of a truism, isn't it? I mean, seriously, was your post to question the point of living knowing that the sun will die in 5 billion years? Everything is scarce given a long-enough time horizon.
But I think we can reasonably discuss electrical energy generation over the next few decades/centuries. I just honestly can't tell if that's what you were talking about.
There is nothing for us to talk here, Eric :) Don't worry.
By saying scarce, I mean in the upcoming decades/100 years. Because we'll never really run out of oil either, we'll just run out of oil that is cost effective to pump up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Efficiency, well, that depends on what kind of efficiency you are referring to. It's definitely not an efficient power plant, for that matter, coal fired plants are far more efficient in terms of energy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Two new power plants, that is good news (if only to test new designs in practice). But keep in mind that the costs are only estimated so far, they get government help, and there's no telling what kind of massive upgrades they might need in one or more decades. Not trying to sound negative, but that's what has happened to nuclear power plants in the past. As technology progresses, more is learned about safety, and power plants are upgraded. And the biggest problem is waste. Nuclear waste with a half life of millions of years is simply not possible to store safely, since we don't know how the world will be in that timespan. Our society isn't that old, FFS. And it's possible to transform it into other elements that decay within a century or so, but that's really fucking expensive. So as it stands, nuclear waste has no real plans, and for now is mostly stored by the government, at taxpayer expense. I thought you were against that kind of thing?
I'm also sorry for straying into the environment in my previous post, but capitalism which according to you will fix the problem, probably will, but environment was only one of the issues I have with that. It also doesn't come with a time schedule, and doesn't mean we won't have a severe energy/economic crisis, or a couple of wars about energy. If you hold off too long for alternatives, you may find energy prices soar with god knows what kind of consequences.
Orbital stations are a great idea. We can just transmit the power wirelessly into batteries, which would really help me out, 'cause I have a bunch of spent Duracell batteries around that I'd like to avoid throwing out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
It's really not fair to complain about that, given how often I've offered to take that off the government's hands, completely free of charge.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
Nessus, I know you think you know things about me, and I know why you think you do. Yet you don't. Just ask Being.
But it's pretty rich for you to complain about people not being intellectually honest, then decline to respond to people and say "there's nothing to discuss here" in the thread you created.
You never engage anyone about anything. You avoid discussing things so you can be smug and arrogant. It actually makes you one of the more intellectually dishonest people here. It also gives you no credibility when you make posts like this.
and you resort to this in every thread that you two post together in. and its totally relevant to the discussion on hand and whole heartily belongs in D&D
And you provide color commentary in nearly every substantive thread you post in.
I don't recall being a part of this conversation. But what the hell, why should Nessus ask me?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Never is a pretty long time. Or so I've been told.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
It isn't arrogance if it is justified. It is not worth my time to wade through the platitudes you have to offer. That is not about being smug, it's about whether you can help me understand things. You cannot, you have demonstrated this through your own actions. There are people here who can help. It's their input that engages me. It certainly isn't my fault what happens to lie between your ears, now is it?
Oh good lord people, just kiss and make up already.
You have as much to learn from me as I from you. If you think you have nothing to learn from me, it's simply because you're close-minded, lazy and unwilling to entertain realistic worldviews that are outside your ideological spectrum. These are traits I do not share (relatively speaking).Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
And, if you feel so strongly that you have nothing to learn from me, I have nothing to learn from you. You're dense in the skull and petrified of engaging with anyone who takes a different perspective on something. Even if that something is an issue many of us can speak intelligently about, such as long-term energy production and consumption.
Once again, you refuse to go into any depth to describe anything or stick your neck out for any particular idea. Probably because you worry about looking less intelligent than you like projecting yourself to be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
I really don't want to derail the OP much further, but a quick point here:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Yes, the US has recently approved a few nuclear power plants. Unfortunately, they are generally only being considered in the heavily regulated electricity markets of the southeast. Even there, cost have been spiraling out of control. The Economist had a nice special report on this a short while ago, and it was pretty bleak on the fate of nuclear power in the West, almost entirely due to cost considerations. The US has a fairly significant chunk of installed nuclear power, but it's unlikely we'll ever come close to significantly increasing our capacity.
That being said, I'm not sure that a centrally managed transition is always the best way to run things, either. My biggest complaint with such systems (even when done indirectly through subsidies) is that it presupposes that the government knows which future technology is the best one to develop as an alternative to a current (buggy) one. Unfortunately, this is rarely the case; they may have a solution, but it's almost certainly not the solution. I think a much better way to deal with this problem is to change the market so that different energy prices accurately reflect the true costs - environmental, social, political - of using it. What we're dealing with here is fundamentally a question of externalities, and I have confidence that appropriately priced externalities could easily change market behavior in a good way without imposing a top-down solution.
This may lead me to a tangential take on the thread topic itself. I don't want to get mired in questions of ALEC or lobbying groups - there are issues there, no doubt, but teasing them out is not my area of expertise. But I would like to reiterate what I've said to Nessie before. I don't have some belief in a magical invisible hand of the market which will always result in the best outcome for society (in that I don't believe that economic definitions of 'efficiency' are remotely applicable to broader society). But I do think that markets are a very powerful tool to change human behavior. Accurate pricing is absolutely critical, of course, which is why I favor regulators trying to eliminate externalities as much as possible. In general, though, both scarcity and unintended side-effects of a given product should drive up prices, resulting in a market-driven search for better and overall cheaper alternatives. A whole lot of ideas will get tried out and discarded, but the best ones will become the new gold standard. That's how the world gets to be a better place.
I don't think that one needs to be a Malthusian to be concerned with the issue of scarcity - energy or otherwise - in today's world. It's clear that we will face unprecedented challenges in the next century as the global population peaks in the 9-10 billion range, and as our global per capita consumption dramatically increases through development. I don't want to be a starry-eyed optimist and assume that all problems will magically disappear with a technological panacea, or that dealing with these problems might not get messy. But I think that to assume we'd descend into the depths of genocide or a global resource war is unnecessarily pessimistic. Our world has gotten so much better for those living in it, even as our demands on food, energy, and resources has reached unprecedented peaks. I think we can muddle through, though it won't always be pretty.
When I hear criticisms of 'democracy' as being too short-sighted to adequately deal with complex problems, what I really hear is a criticism of freedom - free choice/self determination, free markets, etc. I'm not trying to say that's a bad thing (or use it as a debate tactic to paint you as anti-freedom) - lots of societies (including our own) recognize that too much freedom can sometimes be a bad thing. In fact, one might argue that anarchy or a libertarian ideal might be a better representation of freedom than modern democracies (though I'd disagree). But on the balance, I generally think that the free actions of millions of people can, in aggregate, result in an improvement over a totalitarian solution imposed from above. Yes, some of those individuals will make bad decisions. Yet people are incredibly creative, and if we give them an opportunity to solve a problem on their own (by making it their problem in the first place), they will come up with a plethora of solutions that will in aggregate be far more effective than one or two implemented by a planning committee. The role of government, then, is not to foresee every problem and fix it - because frankly that won't work for most democracies with rapid turnover of elected officials. No, the role of government is to appropriately guide the market through regulation and pricing to come up with its own solutions.
Agreed, a big problem is that the government doesn't know best either.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
Yeah, I do believe we'll end up with the world as a better place, it's the process towards it that worries me. I'm not as pessimistic to expect a global resource war or anything, but I don't think it's impossible either. As absolutely critical as energy is to our current society means that things can get really ugly when it's getting scarcer.Quote:
This may lead me to a tangential take on the thread topic itself. I don't want to get mired in questions of ALEC or lobbying groups - there are issues there, no doubt, but teasing them out is not my area of expertise. But I would like to reiterate what I've said to Nessie before. I don't have some belief in a magical invisible hand of the market which will always result in the best outcome for society (in that I don't believe that economic definitions of 'efficiency' are remotely applicable to broader society). But I do think that markets are a very powerful tool to change human behavior. Accurate pricing is absolutely critical, of course, which is why I favor regulators trying to eliminate externalities as much as possible. In general, though, both scarcity and unintended side-effects of a given product should drive up prices, resulting in a market-driven search for better and overall cheaper alternatives. A whole lot of ideas will get tried out and discarded, but the best ones will become the new gold standard. That's how the world gets to be a better place.
I don't think that one needs to be a Malthusian to be concerned with the issue of scarcity - energy or otherwise - in today's world. It's clear that we will face unprecedented challenges in the next century as the global population peaks in the 9-10 billion range, and as our global per capita consumption dramatically increases through development. I don't want to be a starry-eyed optimist and assume that all problems will magically disappear with a technological panacea, or that dealing with these problems might not get messy. But I think that to assume we'd descend into the depths of genocide or a global resource war is unnecessarily pessimistic. Our world has gotten so much better for those living in it, even as our demands on food, energy, and resources has reached unprecedented peaks. I think we can muddle through, though it won't always be pretty.
I think a main problem is that free choice/self determination requires, like the free market, good information. And to be honest, when I see politicians speak (especially in the USA, but it happens here, too), they seem to have no problems whatsoever with telling blatantly untrue things if it suits them. And from the press to institutions like the courts, everything is being politicized so that it can be dismissed by politicians. The press says I was wrong? Oh, everybody knows that the press is a leftwing conspiracy. I think that is a greater threat to democracy, and is also a cause of shortsightedness.Quote:
When I hear criticisms of 'democracy' as being too short-sighted to adequately deal with complex problems, what I really hear is a criticism of freedom - free choice/self determination, free markets, etc. I'm not trying to say that's a bad thing (or use it as a debate tactic to paint you as anti-freedom) - lots of societies (including our own) recognize that too much freedom can sometimes be a bad thing. In fact, one might argue that anarchy or a libertarian ideal might be a better representation of freedom than modern democracies (though I'd disagree). But on the balance, I generally think that the free actions of millions of people can, in aggregate, result in an improvement over a totalitarian solution imposed from above. Yes, some of those individuals will make bad decisions. Yet people are incredibly creative, and if we give them an opportunity to solve a problem on their own (by making it their problem in the first place), they will come up with a plethora of solutions that will in aggregate be far more effective than one or two implemented by a planning committee. The role of government, then, is not to foresee every problem and fix it - because frankly that won't work for most democracies with rapid turnover of elected officials. No, the role of government is to appropriately guide the market through regulation and pricing to come up with its own solutions.
This post seems somewhat contradictory in that you're saying I'm an insecure and obstructionist jerk-hole, all the while maintaining a rather bizarre idea of egalite, fraternite and liberte. Nowhere does it say I have as much to learn from you as I do from other people (or you from me for that matter, although I have become rather convinced you are incapable of "learning" anything from me).Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
I would argue that I am not afraid; I truly enjoy the occasional talk with Loki where his insecurities I manage to lower, I am pretty sure wiggin disagrees with me on a host of issues, and before he went absolutely crazy Kain also seemed worth-while. Hell, I am chuffed to bits Enoch posts here, and I'm not sure it is physically possible to be any more diametrically opposed to what I think politically. (Anarcho-capitalists and other fringe people, maybe?)
I'm not saying this to fellate them, or to insult you. My point is that IMO it is an empirically found fact that what you have to bring to the table is expressed both more clearly and more amusingly in political satire and criticism. This isn't some tit for that, I do apologize if using your first name offended you, but since you used Being as a negative example, you must be on some level capable of seeing that some people don't generate anything that resonates, or anything that breaks previous resonances. The only things I see you advocate and argue are both so weak and misinformed that it's unreasonable to expect me to climb that hill. It will not net me anything but wasted time, and another empirical observation is that tilting against windmills does not encourage the people whose posts I miss to begin posting again.
One last thing, and this in particular makes me so sad you did not choose to take this to PM: I know it sucks to be called dumb. I know you know it, since you're casually referring to my potential stupidity in this very post. I tried, albeit badly, to get you to back off somewhat politely. You chose to make an issue of this, which suggests to my socially not so well adjusted mind you wanted to have this conversation out in the open. I have no issue, none at all, with that. I do not need to ask anyone else what to think of myself anymore. I have been told, both point blank and through behaviour, that people whose intellect I have the highest, utmost respect for, think very highly of my mind. These people I have asked, they've answered, and for the short term that is enough. I do not need for you, or any of the other people you forced me to name in this post, to think anything of my intelligence. That I think highly of theirs they can take or leave, it doesn't really matter to me personally, it's just what I consider an empirical observation.
That I am not willing to go "in-depth" into anything with you is something that I choose because of what I have observed of you, not out of general policy. I really am sorry you brought this to this point, and I feel emotionally drained and sad that I had to say these things. But I will not apologize for things that I do not feel were my fault, or my wrong-doing. I am not responsible for how you behave.
Do as you wish. I have no apology and no regret to offer. I stand by this reasoning until its wrongness is to me demonstrated.
I'm sorry that my response will be terse, I truly think you brought good points to the table, but I am...Drained.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
I don't think centrally run economies, planned economies or anything like that can produce as much economical well-being as free markets. This is an ill-informed and therefore useless bigoted opinion, but I mention it only to voice my somewhat lukewarm agreement with some of this.
The problem that I tried to high-light, and that which I also found from Paul's writing, is that the "other side" isn't playing fair anymore. The market becomes less and less free as the number of choices that need be made from situations of incomplete information increase. And once the other players begin reducing information availability intentionally and maliciously, I think something ought be done. This isn't to say I believe in some golden age of free markets where information was made completely available. But when the producers begin messing with legislation, I worry.
I also would like to try and explain that I am not criticizing democracy as a system (I don't know if you thought I were), I think it's a great and worthwhile system because Kekkonen has convinced me thereof. I am criticizing the breaking down of that system from both sides of the fence; the legislative and judicial bodies have lost interest in the people, and the people have lost interest in exercising their thoughts and desires over their own destinies. Once democracy breaks down through whatever mechanism, I believe totalitarianism will rise again. And we know what that will mean.
I can't bring you numbers to show how my Malthusian pessimism is more justified. At the moment, anyway. I still plan to try, at some stage. Obviously I disagree with you on the possibilities and therefore the risk assessment. If it is even slightly possible we will recreate the genocides and oppressions of centuries past, and even more worryingly risk destroying significant segments of the biosphere (or the totality), I kind of stop worrying about the minuteness of the risk and begin focusing on the extent of the supreme danger. I know that makes me a chicken little dumb dumb, to Serious People, but I also think the Serious People are very much to blame for what is transpiring. Insufficient data! Rar.
I'm not sure a plethora of solutions is possible :) But that is pure pessimism. And my worries and complaints were about the growing lack of freedom, not an excess of it (even though the word means different things to me than to libertarians). That this growing lack seems appealing to so many is horrifying. Even if they too are functioning out of woefully inadequate data.
Again, I apologize for how insubstantial this was. I will try better in the near future, if not in this thread then the next.
Oh, just for shit and giggles, when would you say that was? (That I went absolutely crazy, I mean.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
Well, but that's the problem, isn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
You don't seem to go in-depth on anything when the other poster is substantially in disagreement with you and entrenched in that position. Not that I disagree with that approach or do any differently myself these days (why bother, right?), but at the same time you're choosing to avoid substantial discussion with anyone who really disagrees with you, you're complaining about the lack of substantial discussion around here... pardon me for saying "well, duh." And for pointing out that a large part of your complaint can be summed up as "not enough of the other kids agree with me."
Well, the fundamental problem with that line of thinking is that legislation is necessarily a restriction on market freedom. The markets may or may not become less free with increasing information uncertainty, but they definitely become less free when congress dumps 10,000 pages of rules on them. And of course, it's a two way street. The more the government becomes intertwined with the market, the more influence that industry is able (and motivated) to exert over government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
Nessie, I think you'd be surprised to learn how many people share your worry (and pessimism) about everything you mentioned, and see the potential dangers. It's seen all over the world in protests, uprisings, "Occupy" movements, wikileaks, citizen journalists using cell phone cameras and social networks. It's also seen in Ten Year wars being fought by a tiny percent of our population, with multiple deployments that end as PTSD or suicide or broken families, coming home to high unemployment. All the while legislators don't dare officially Declare War (because they'd have to vote on it), but are quite willing to cut taxes at the same time. Anything to appease the voting public, manipulate information, control their little spheres of power to the detriment of the whole nation. Then they turn around and blame the voting public for their Dumb self-interests. Then politicians use it as an ideological wedge to blame one party-or-the-other for failed policies (as if one side is better than the other :rolleyes: ) That's how we ended up with the Tea Party, and Christian Conservatives politicking from the pulpit.
No wonder so many people have apathy for the voting process. If that's not enough, there are efforts underway to limit voter registration, and voting in general. That's just concentrating power to smaller numbers, repeating a vicious cycle, and fostering a severe disconnect between People and politicians.
"I am criticizing the breaking down of that system from both sides of the fence; the legislative and judicial bodies have lost interest in the people, and the people have lost interest in exercising their thoughts and desires over their own destinies. Once democracy breaks down through whatever mechanism, I believe totalitarianism will rise again. And we know what that will mean."
Totally agreed. I see Institutional break-down in every important area that keeps democracy working: great education and healthcare, economic opportunity and social mobility for all, a sense of national connectedNess....and trust in our authority figures and People of Power.
:(
If healthcare is what keeps a Democracy working, then it's a wonder the Republic has lasted as long as it has.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
Nessus, the person who claims to be the smartest person in the room usually is not the smartest person in the room. Your emotional problems and arrogance puts blinders on your brain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
For example, Wiggin's feelings on these issues of energy usage are very similar to my feelings on the matter. Albeit he addressed the democracy angle that I didn't want to jump into. And Wiggin made his point with more depth, because he's better at that than I am. But Wiggin and I have views on this which are more similar than dissimilar.
Yet you fail to recognize this, dismiss my post and fawn over his post. This is because your inveterate hatred of me blinds you in a lot of ways. It's also because you need to feel superior to someone in the room, even when that person (me) is saying a lot of the same things as another person in the room (Wiggin).
Stating that you think you're smart and so do your friends is just pathetic. No one here cares. And no one believes you. That you feel the need to make this into a "ur dumb, lol" conversation only solidifies the sense that you're an intellectual paper tiger who just likes to crap on things because you have emotional issues.*
* Which you've been open about, and that takes courage. But it only makes your behavior more obvious.
Is anybody going to object to me starting to move the meta-discussion to the other meta-discussion thread so this thread can avoid derailment?
You really think it'll make a difference?
Nessie's going to respond to this and that, but not the other, or respond to different posters differently, and before I can say "told ya so," we're right back to the "meta-discussion" in this thread.
(Not that I object, it just seems like you'll end up going through the horrors of putting forth effort for absolutely no pay-off.)
But I didn't say (or even suggest) that healthcare is the thing that keeps a democracy working. What I did say is we have Institutional break-down in every area that's important to a working democracy, including (but not limited to) healthcare.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Not to derail this too much, but the US is spending ~15% of GDP on healthcare, more per capita than any other first world nation, with some 50 million uninsured, people denied coverage or bankrupted by medical costs, over-stretched public programs with a shrinking tax base, slow growth and high unemployment, with costs of care sky-rocketing. Sick and ailing people who can't get basic care end up at the ER or wait too long to use the ER (and get sicker), knowing others get top-notch A-1 treatment for everything under the sun. That's a recipe for disaster, no matter who's to "blame", because it leads to social unrest, and politicking that's just as polarizing. It becomes "us vs them" or "haves and have-nots" in so many ways without really finding solutions.
Like it or not, public perceptions affect realities, and our democratic republic shouldn't ignore when the public is fed up with business as usual.
Business as usual is government intervention in healthcare. I don't see why you think more government intervention will be the ticket out.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
For me it is because only government intervention can evenhandedly force the entire population into a social agreement. Think FDR.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Oh, right. So, more like regulating the amount of wheat a farmer can grow on his or her own land, (especially if they are growing the wheat for the great capitalistic evil of personal consumption!) in order to make all wheat more expensive, all the while waiting patiently for the fees we charge violators, and the very visible, (yet gentle and caring) hand of government guide us and get us out of our recession.Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
God, let the good FDR times roll...
I thought agreements usually were conducted without forced coercion. My mistake.Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
It doesn't look like that derailment is going to go anywhere worthwhile, but if you feel like trying to clean up this thread that's fine by me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraith
He also ignores the fact that the "government" is not a sentient entity that has its own interests and morality. It's composed of individuals who have their own interests and depend on various constituencies. To expect these individuals to come together and create policy "for the common good" is deluded, not only because it's not in most of those individuals' self-interest, but because there's no objective method for deciding what is in the common good.Quote:
Originally Posted by coinich
Funny how you put that. Did you mean to say that "government" today is not as sensative to the needs of the nation as "government" was 80 years ago? It worked in FDR's time and I believe you support the concept of social security.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
On the one hand, I see where you're going. There are plenty of perversions of the democratic process, and in general corruption is a vicious cancer for any free society. But I'm just not sure that much of the current crop of complaints has to do with actual corruption; it's something far more insubstantial. I don't doubt it still has the potential to be quite harmful, but I'm unconvinced it's as disastrous as we might presuppose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
For example: I find it very frustrating when large segments of our elected officials - albeit in line with the general populace - are clearly ignorant or outright wrong about fairly fundamental scientific principles. Evolution is a big example in the US but hardly the only one. I think it's damaging to our educational system and our societal advancement, and it pains me to see when such clearly wrong-headed rhetoric gets in the way. Yet at the same time, when I hear people like Dawkins speak, I'm frustrated with his obstinate nature as well. I listened to a TED talk of his where he tried to claim (on the basis of very flimsy evidence) that the people best suited to run the country (i.e. the smartest people) were overwhelmingly atheists/nontheists and as such were effectively ineligible for election to public office in the US, unless they were willing to lie. His methodology was seriously flawed, though, notably in assuming that academics in natural sciences are best suited to run the country.
What I'm trying to get at is even if democratically elected leaders may sometimes drive me crazy, there is a feedback mechanism in place, and many of them are actually decent at governance. Serious distortions of information that result in adverse events will get corrected in time, though it's certainly possible that some amount of damage will already have been done. And at the end of the day, our legislature and judiciary do care about people at the end of the day. Even the members of Congress who espouse a worldview with which I am completely opposed probably care very deeply for their constituents. When I look at people who disagree with me, I don't see them as the stooge of powerful lobbies, but as people who have been convinced that their course of action is the best for their voters. I don't doubt there's plenty of pork-barrel politicking, back-room compromises, etc. involved, but at the end of the day I do think most of our government thinks it's doing the right thing.
Our job is not to suggest the system is broken, but to advocate for our positions both with the general electorate and our elected officials. On issues about which I feel strongly, I will often send a letter to my representatives and discuss it with my peers. Hell, I myself have revisited some of my positions when someone I respect has voiced a surprising opinion on an issue. I'm sure most of this is irrelevant and at most gets put into some simple polling data, but that's not the point. The aggregate of everyone's discussions and arguments and donations and advocacy is what we call democracy.
We live in a world of unprecedented information density and access, where every citizen in the developed world has instant access to nearly everything necessary to make a decent decision. Yes, things are very politicized, but there are always people ready and willing to call bullshit on a claim, and it happens frequently. I don't deny that some people live in echo chambers, but overall we have a far richer and complex public discourse than ever before. I am optimistic that we can overcome any hiccups in the process to arrive at a reasonably satisfactory conclusion.
This is really an aside, but I just want to acknowledge that I'm not one of those people who feel that genocide or world war are impossible in our bright new era. My family's history is far too depressing on that subject for me to believe that the darkness at the heart of human society has been expunged. Much as I would like to believe that these evils are the actions of a few, Christopher Browning has unfortunately convinced me that is wrong. I just feel that our current path doesn't make it likely as long as there are right minded, reasonable people who stand up for what is right. The depths to which we've sunk in this century are truly horrifying, from Turkey to Auschwitz to Stalin to Mao to Pol Pot to Rwanda... the list goes on and on. Yet the world does get better, and I think the darkness of this century has been a warning for us. We have established unprecedented institutions that have helped to reduce the number and severity of armed conflicts around the globe, and we're getting better at providing basic food and medical care to those who would die from other causes. It's a long way from a finished project, but I think that the underlying cosmopolitanism of our current society is an encouraging trend.Quote:
I can't bring you numbers to show how my Malthusian pessimism is more justified. At the moment, anyway. I still plan to try, at some stage. Obviously I disagree with you on the possibilities and therefore the risk assessment. If it is even slightly possible we will recreate the genocides and oppressions of centuries past, and even more worryingly risk destroying significant segments of the biosphere (or the totality), I kind of stop worrying about the minuteness of the risk and begin focusing on the extent of the supreme danger. I know that makes me a chicken little dumb dumb, to Serious People, but I also think the Serious People are very much to blame for what is transpiring. Insufficient data! Rar.
...I think I may have lost my chain of thought somewhere in there. I'm sorry it's a bit muddled. Perhaps I'll have a go at it again later.
I suppose that starts with how we define private monopolies, and the role government plays? Even Freeee Market enterprise needs rules and rule-makers to function well. Didn't the latest financial crisis prove the flaws in laissez-faire, libertarian, "self-regulation" and "self-interest" theories? Even the guru of libertarian free market theories found the flaws (Greenspan). He was shocked, shocked I tell you!Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
I heard a great sports analogy the other day: playing Football using Rugby rules. Some think of Football as Soccer, so now we've got three sports using one set of Rules (and referees). That doesn't work. Free Enterprise and Free Markets need rules/regulations to work, too. Otherwise it's just a chaotic Free-For-All.
One problem we face is how politicians/legislators now have a lobbyist/interest group fused to their hip. They're trying to referee Football, while the playing field is full of Rugby players. Add in the team owners, franchise reps, player unions, concession contracts, public-use roadways and utilities, marketing firms, product endorsements, televised rights and black-outs....and the fans become low on the totem pole, even though fans are the main driver of everything.
If you get my gist. ;)
...Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
You are familiar with what laissez-faire means, aren't you? I'm beginning to get the distinct impression that you are not. To claim that the choices and environment that led to the financial crisis were completely free from government intervention, regulation, and taxation is beyond my comprehension. Were Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac children of the free market or government intervention? Do you think banks would have have been so cavalier with credit if there wasn't an implicit guarantee from government that they were too big to fail? What is a HUD loan, GGT, and what do you think that kind of loan does to a market? What role do you think the Federal Reserve played in the financial crisis? I will be the first to admit that crony capitalism is a problem, arguably the problem, but it's a problem that will increase proportionally to the amount of influence and power that can be traded, brokered, and bartered from the government. Increasing the role government plays will not fix the problem, it will create a whole host of new ones. This is what I've been trying to get you to see, and what you've even admitted, yet you still don't recognize this very fundamental truth. The more power is centralized, the greater the role that government plays in our life, the greater reward there is in corrupting and subverting that influence.
You don't have crony capitalism, you can not have crony capitalism, without first having a corruptible government with the necessary influence. Instead of banking on, and hoping for a government free from corruption, let's do what history tells us and realize that any institution made by man will be forever susceptible to not only his virtues, but his vices as well.
I know you like to post as an outsider, but you the irony is that you are not, GGT. It isn't that you object to the status quo, you simply want to tweak it, to modify it until it suits you, and then send it on its merry way. The status quo has been tried, it has been tested, and it has failed. Let's try something new.
Finally, to hear you say that you think the former Chairman of the Federal Reserve is somehow the plenary authority on what constitutes libertarian free-market thought is showing a rather telling lack of understanding of the varieties and complexities of libertarian thought.
Ghost, we probably agree on more things than you care to admit. We can agree that "government intervention" has often led to more problems than solutions. We can agree that "gummint intervention" can BE the problem. We can agree that something "new" should be tried, since business-as-usual is nothing more than bubbles and busts, reactionary policies, and politicians making empty promises.
Where we disagree boils down to this: you've become so distrustful of "government" that you point to every failed policy as a failure of government itself. You'd prefer to whittle it down to an empty shell. I've become so distrustful of "politicians" that every failed policy looks like a failure of people IN the government, but not government itself.
You don't need to pepper your post with suggestions that I just don't understand certain concepts, thank you very much. I'm keenly aware of the conflicts and hypocrisies in our political parties, elected legislators, and their policies. Voters exhibit the same contradictory behavior---Tea Party senior citizens protesting against taxes, but hands off their SS and Medicare benefits. It's become a dog and pony show, a circus, a spectator sport, and a joke. Those who whine about SSSocialism or central planning also use SS/Medicare and central banking to their political advantage. It's a bipartisan cluster fuck.
We can do better than that, without resorting to a government in absentia, or a Wild West mentality. Government can serve its necessary purpose without being seen as some Evil Entity.