Obama drops plan to limit global warming gases

Nov 04, 2010 By DINA CAPPIELLO , Associated Press
President Barack Obama answers questions during a news conference in the East Room of the White House in Washington, Wednesday, Nov. 3, 2010. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivias)

(AP) -- Environmental groups and industry seem headed for another battle over regulation of greenhouse gases, as President Barack Obama said he will look for ways to control global warming pollution other than Congress placing a ceiling on it.

"Cap-and-trade was just one way of skinning the cat; it was not the only way," Obama said at a news conference Wednesday, a day after Democrats lost control of the House. "I'm going to be looking for other means to address this problem."

Legislation putting a limit on heat-trapping greenhouse gases and then allowing companies to buy and sell permits under that ceiling narrowly passed the House in 2009 as a centerpiece of Obama's domestic agenda, but it stalled in the Senate.

Republicans dubbed the bill "cap-and-tax" because it would raise energy prices. They then used it as a club in the midterm elections against Democrats who voted for it. Thirty of the bill's supporters were among some 50 House Democrats whom voters turned out of office Tuesday.

"It's doubtful that you could get the votes to pass that through the House this year or next year or the year after," Obama said Wednesday.

The new battle over in Congress will target the , which is poised to regulate for the first time, after the Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that it could treat heat-trapping gases as pollutants.

John Engler, a former Michigan governor who leads the National Association of Manufacturers, said he expects a Republican-controlled House to take a "fresh look that will get at a lot of questions" dealing with the EPA's role in regulating .

Environmentalists, meanwhile, urged Obama to hold his ground.

"While there will be attacks on (EPA's) authority, it is important that there not be any surrender on EPA's ability to do the job," said Trip Van Noppen, president of Earthjustice.

The Senate in June rejected by a 53-47 vote a challenge brought by Alaska Republican Lisa Murkowski that would have denied the EPA the authority to move ahead with the rules. Six Democrats voted with Republicans to advance the "resolution of disapproval," which the White House had threatened to veto. A similar resolution has broad support in the House, with 140 co-sponsors.

Engler said efforts to block the EPA will only be strengthened by Tuesday's election results.

Obama, when asked about the EPA's authority Wednesday, said that while a court order gave the EPA jurisdiction, the agency still wants help from Congress.

"I don't think ... the desire is to somehow be protective of their powers here," Obama said.

"One of the things that's very important for me is not to have us ignore the science, but rather to find ways that we can solve these problems that don't hurt the economy, that encourage the development of clean energy in this country, that, in fact, may give us opportunities to create entire new industries and create jobs."

Explore further: Increase in reported flooding a result of higher exposure

4.3 /5 (7 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Obama's greenhouse gas rules survive Senate vote

Jun 11, 2010

(AP) -- In a boost for the president on global warming, the Senate on Thursday rejected a challenge to Obama administration rules aimed at cutting greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and other big ...

EPA moves to regulate smokestack greenhouse gases

Oct 01, 2009

(AP) -- Proposed regulations would require power plants, factories and refineries to reduce greenhouse gases by installing the best available technology and improving energy efficiency whenever a facility ...

Republicans top Democrats with Facebook fans

Oct 31, 2010

Republicans will have to wait until Tuesday to find out if they make the big gains many expect in the US Congress but they have already beaten the Democrats in another arena -- Facebook.

EPA finds greenhouse gases pose a danger to health

Apr 17, 2009

(AP) -- The Environmental Protection Agency concluded Friday that greenhouse gases linked to climate change "endanger public health and welfare," setting the stage for regulating them under federal clean air laws.

EPA says greenhouse gases endanger human health

Dec 07, 2009

(AP) -- The Environmental Protection Agency took a major step Monday toward regulating greenhouses gases, concluding that climate changing pollution threatens the public health and the environment.

Recommended for you

NASA image: Signs of deforestation in Brazil

7 hours ago

Multiple fires are visible in in this image of the Para and Mato Grosso states of Brazil. Many of these were most likely intentionally set in order to deforest the land. Deforestation is the removal of a ...

Sunblock poses potential hazard to sea life

8 hours ago

The sweet and salty aroma of sunscreen and seawater signals a relaxing trip to the shore. But scientists are now reporting that the idyllic beach vacation comes with an environmental hitch. When certain sunblock ...

Is falling recycling rate due to 'green fatigue'?

8 hours ago

It's been suggested that a recent fall in recycling rates is due to green fatigue, caused by the confusing number of recycling bins presented to householders for different materials. Recycling rates woul ...

Study to inform Maryland decision on "fracking"

11 hours ago

The Maryland Department of Environment and Department of Health and Mental Hygiene released on August 18, 2014, a report by the University of Maryland School of Public Health, which assesses the potential ...

User comments : 166

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

GSwift7
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 04, 2010
"that, in fact, may give us opportunities to create entire new industries and create jobs"

correction: 'that, he hopes, will create enough American jobs to replace the ones lost in the industries he is seeking to drive out of business.'

His job is not to protect the environment. He needs to go back and look at the oath he took, and do his @#$% job. The voters he is supposed to represent have made it clear that we do not support his methods in this matter. There are many better ways to skin a cat, indeed. There are plenty of ways to promote green technology that don't involve new taxes or fines on American businesses and citizens.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.6 / 5 (12) Nov 04, 2010
His job is not to protect the environment.
Actually, yes it is. It's his job to control abuses to the environment that would potentially affect the health and well being of the citizens of the country.

How exactly is it his job to have any handle in the economic health and well being of the country?
frajo
3.8 / 5 (10) Nov 04, 2010
For people who don't live in the US it is quite interesting to watch where the American Way will lead. Because they know that every year the US doesn't invest in the development of "green" industries will be advantageous for foreign economies.

There is no possibility to avoid regulating environmental issues. The only choice is between now or later. Later means save now and let your children pay later.
Royale
4.3 / 5 (12) Nov 04, 2010
As a person who lives in the United States, I think it's really sad to see how easily people are duped into being idiots. A whole party sat there voting down everything that needed more than 50% of the votes, then they turn around and say "Obama got nothing done" and people eat it up... Like, uhm, really? Are people really that dumb? How, exactly, will giving more tax breaks to the top richest 2% of the population help anyone other than those people? And don't use the equally idiotic 'trickle-down' theory.
Modernmystic
4.6 / 5 (10) Nov 04, 2010
His job is not to protect the environment.
Actually, yes it is. It's his job to control abuses to the environment that would potentially affect the health and well being of the citizens of the country.

How exactly is it his job to have any handle in the economic health and well being of the country?


I actually have to agree with SH here. If indeed something in the environment can be SHOWN to be harmful to citizens to a high degree of certainty then yes it certainly is the responsibility of the government to constrain the polluters.
marjon
1.4 / 5 (11) Nov 04, 2010
How, exactly, will giving more tax breaks to the top richest 2% of the population help anyone other than those people? And don't use the equally idiotic 'trickle-down' theory.

How dumb can you be on economics?
Even many of the socialist countries around the world understand that to attract business, who hire people, who pay taxes and increase wealth and prosperity, tax rates must be cut.
Even NYC is afraid to raise their taxes on the rich because they will move away.
ereneon
1.4 / 5 (7) Nov 04, 2010
It shouldn't be up to Obama to tell us how to protect the environment. It is up to us. Our choices (what kind of car, what kind of food, what kind of house etc.) have a huge impact when taken together. At MOST the federal government should pass labeling laws so that all products say the levels of common pollutants produced during a typical lifespan of the product.
marjon
1.7 / 5 (11) Nov 04, 2010
It shouldn't be up to Obama to tell us how to protect the environment. It is up to us. Our choices (what kind of car, what kind of food, what kind of house etc.) have a huge impact when taken together. At MOST the federal government should pass labeling laws so that all products say the levels of common pollutants produced during a typical lifespan of the product.

But the 'liberals' beleive 'the People' are too stupid and must be led by those anointed by some prestigious university to be most intelligent.
Userless_Id
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 04, 2010
"President Barack Obama said he will look for ways to control global warming pollution other than Congress placing a ceiling on it."

That's not called, 'dropping the plans for global-warming...". It is called, 'announcing to use EPA to by-pass Congress in order to enact agenda not at all popular with americans'. Btw, what global warming?
Skepticus_Rex
4 / 5 (3) Nov 04, 2010
I actually have to agree with SH here. If indeed something in the environment can be SHOWN to be harmful to citizens to a high degree of certainty then yes it certainly is the responsibility of the government to constrain the polluters.


This is why government must ban all solar and related technology now. Current solar technology makes use of the most toxic of substances on earth and makes use of the most potent GHGs (over 23,000 times and over 32,000 times respectively more potent than CO2, molecule for molecule, and with half-lives of thousands of years more!) on the planet.

The technology must be dropped in favor of solar technology that does not make use of such substances that are introduced into the atmosphere and water table during the manufacturing and transportation phases thereof.

SF6 and NF3 before CO2...while we still have time.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (5) Nov 05, 2010
How, exactly, will giving more tax breaks to the top richest 2% of the population help anyone other than those people? And don't use the equally idiotic 'trickle-down' theory.

How dumb can you be on economics?
Apparently he isn't as dumb as you are.

Even many of the socialist countries around the world understand that to attract business, who hire people, who pay taxes and increase wealth and prosperity, tax rates must be cut.
Even NYC is afraid to raise their taxes on the rich because they will move away.

Because NYC is dependent on it due to a lack of a middle class. It's called an economic tipping point.

Socialist countries don't tax their rich because their rich are the ones making all the rules, you dolt.

If you do not appropriately tax the rich, the majority will simply take their money out of general circulation. You have evidence within all countries of this happening far and above the amount that is reinvested.
GSwift7
1 / 5 (9) Nov 05, 2010
I'm just glad that Pelosi is finally gone, and that now Obama/Gore's cap and trade scheme is dead forever. There's no way Obama is gonna get reelected and there's no way he can force cap and trade in the next two years. Sorry Al, you're not getting rich on carbon trading, but it was a good try. As it turns out, you really do need to listen to what the people tell you to do. lol.
frajo
3.5 / 5 (10) Nov 05, 2010
I'm just glad that Pelosi is finally gone, and that now Obama/Gore's cap and trade scheme is dead forever. There's no way Obama is gonna get reelected and there's no way he can force cap and trade in the next two years. Sorry Al, you're not getting rich on carbon trading, but it was a good try. As it turns out, you really do need to listen to what the people tell you to do. lol.
This impressive lack of anticipation reminds one of all those glorious empires in human history which miraculously turned into a pile of rubble.
ChiRaven
1.7 / 5 (11) Nov 05, 2010
OK Royale. Here's what you're not getting. That top 2% includes the owners of virtually every successful sole proprietor small and mid-sized business in America. Virtually ALL the small ones are such, and a sizable percent of the mid-sized ones as well. By raising their taxes, you curtail their ability to invest more money in production facilities, inventory, and PAYROLLS, which means fewer jobs for everybody else. Those businesses are where a good chunk of the growth in jobs in this country comes from. And you want to cut it off? NOT TOO BRIGHT!
Skepticus_Rex
4.5 / 5 (2) Nov 05, 2010
Because NYC is dependent on it due to a lack of a middle class.


In Manhattan, maybe. Real Estate is nasty there and costs are really high to go with it. That still is not the case in the rest of the boroughs, however. Of course, if costs keep rising there that demographic likely will change in future. Reports of the demise of the middle class in New York are based on outflow reports while ignoring inflow reports. That is problematic statistical methodology at best.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (6) Nov 05, 2010
It's counter intuitive but it works. You never tax the rich in a recession...it's just plain f****** stupid.

It isn't the government that produces wealth, it's the government that (ostensibly) sets up conditions conducive to wealth production. If you take away the means to produce wealth (you have to spend money to make it) and give it to those who don't then, unsurprisingly, everyone loses. The rich get poorer and so to the poor.
Jimee
4.2 / 5 (6) Nov 05, 2010
Now we have to wait for the corporations to crap on the rest of our environment to satisfy the ignoramus tools who care for nothing but their own greed. Good news for the population crunch. In 50 years most of the earth will be dying, so the pressure will be off.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (5) Nov 05, 2010
Now we have to wait for the corporations to crap on the rest of our environment to satisfy the ignoramus tools who care for nothing but their own greed. Good news for the population crunch. In 50 years most of the earth will be dying, so the pressure will be off.


Or we could all march lockstep back into the jungle and die before we're 25 from some curable disease or starvation.

Tool...

Oh and "you've" been saying we're all gonna die in a few decades now for...well decades...

Well?
Jimee
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 05, 2010
Geez, I guess that extra $10,000 out of 10 million would stop the greedy rich from investing in jobs. OOPS, their not investing in jobs anyway, except to take them overseas. They are; however, cutting back on every available service and position in order to help the corporate overlords make more profit to give to the other robber barons. What luck for the working people of America; the rich can be rich enough to poison us all in pursuit of more obscene wealth. Let them eat cake!
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (5) Nov 05, 2010
Geez, I guess that extra $10,000 out of 10 million would stop the greedy rich from investing in jobs. OOPS, their not investing in jobs anyway, except to take them overseas. They are; however, cutting back on every available service and position in order to help the corporate overlords make more profit to give to the other robber barons. What luck for the working people of America; the rich can be rich enough to poison us all in pursuit of more obscene wealth. Let them eat cake!


Why Jimee let's turn over production to the government then and see how well that works out for us...oh wait I guess it didn't work out too well for the Soviets, or the Cubans, or the North Koreans....

People like this (Jimee) are a joke, it's like the past 50 years never happened and they've not read a book on economics since Marx published his bullshit screed.

Psssst....the sky really is blue Jimmuh.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (5) Nov 05, 2010
OK Royale. Here's what you're not getting. That top 2% includes the owners of virtually every successful sole proprietor small and mid-sized business in America.
Absolutely false. If you said top 25% you might be closer to reality, but the top 2% are those who personally earning more than 10 million a year. That excludes what you would classify as a small or medium business.
By raising their taxes, you curtail their ability to invest more money in production facilities, inventory, and PAYROLLS, which means fewer jobs for everybody else.
This is also false. The best way to make more money is to take a smaller individual payscale and invest within the company, at which point in time it is no longer a taxable income item. It becomes a deductible business expense.
Those businesses are where a good chunk of the growth in jobs in this country comes from.
False again. The majority of growth comes based upon sector, not size of company. All FOX, no facts, try again.
Skepticus_Rex
2.2 / 5 (5) Nov 05, 2010
...
Good news for the population crunch. In 50 years most of the earth will be dying, so the pressure will be off.


Ahhhh...won't that be nice. Dead-end devolution will be stopped and evolution will take its course again--and earth will renew itself once again like it always has. Is that a bad thing? :-)
omatumr
1 / 5 (5) Nov 05, 2010
Earth's climate is largely controlled by the Sun and by natural, cyclic changes in solar inertial motion (SIM).

Differing planetary masses and distances from the center-of-mass of the solar system (the barycenter) cause the barycenter to change position relative to the center of the Sun; just as differences in the masses and positions of wet laundry from the center of a spinning washing machine, cause it to be "out-of-balance'" by differing amounts.

Thus SIM stirs the Sun's interior, which affects its energy output - output that greatly influences Earth's climate balance.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
omatumr
1 / 5 (5) Nov 05, 2010
This short video explains natural variations in Earth's heat source:
www.youtube.com/w...e_Qk-q7M
ekim
5 / 5 (3) Nov 06, 2010
Earth's climate is largely controlled by the Sun and by natural, cyclic changes in solar inertial motion (SIM).

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo

That may be true,however.
The earth has an atmosphere.
The atmosphere acts as a blanket.
The atmosphere contains oxygen.
Oxygen has two atoms.
Burning hydrocarbons destroys oxygen.
Burning hydrocarbons creates carbon dioxide and water.
Carbon dioxide and water each have three molecules.
Three is bigger than two.
A bigger more dense atmosphere is a warmer blanket.
The earth grows warmer as we burn hydrocarbons.
Where is the flaw in that logic?
mklnk
4 / 5 (5) Nov 06, 2010
It isn't the government that produces wealth, it's the government that (ostensibly) sets up conditions conducive to wealth production.


Paper Currency isn't wealth, it's paper. Wealth comes from the value of that paper. Printing an endless supply of dollars does not create wealth.

Wealth is derived from the value of the paper currency which is determined by market forces heavily and primarily influenced by the state of economy.

It is well within the governments right, in creating an environment conducive to wealth, to print currency, cut or hike taxes,encourge the growth of novel industry and discourage investment into destructive or soon-to-be obsolete industry.
marjon
1 / 5 (5) Nov 06, 2010
Burning hydrocarbons destroys oxygen.

That is a false statement.
A bigger more dense atmosphere is a warmer blanket.

This is not true.
ekim
5 / 5 (5) Nov 06, 2010
Burning hydrocarbons destroys oxygen.

That is a false statement.

True atomic oxygen is not destroyed. Molecular oxygen is destroyed. The molecule with two oxygen atoms is destroyed and a molecule with three atoms is created.
ekim
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 06, 2010

A bigger more dense atmosphere is a warmer blanket.

This is not true.

There are many atmospheres in this solar system. It is a verifiable theory.
marjon
1 / 5 (5) Nov 06, 2010

A bigger more dense atmosphere is a warmer blanket.

This is not true.

There are many atmospheres in this solar system. It is a verifiable theory.

How? The gas giants are rather cold.

Burning hydrocarbons destroys oxygen.

That is a false statement.

True atomic oxygen is not destroyed. Molecular oxygen is destroyed. The molecule with two oxygen atoms is destroyed and a molecule with three atoms is created.


So what? The number of atoms is not changed.
BTW, plants 'inahle' CO2 and 'exhale' O2.
gwargh
5 / 5 (5) Nov 06, 2010
How? The gas giants are rather cold.

And also very distant from the sun. I could just as easily point to Venus and say: denser atmosphere and higher temperature, but that's not a valid comparison.
So what? The number of atoms is not changed.
BTW, plants 'inahle' CO2 and 'exhale' O2.

The number of molecules is. That's the point. More molecules = denser atmosphere

And how does photosynthesis relate to the argument at all?
marjon
1 / 5 (6) Nov 06, 2010
but that's not a valid comparison.

If the thickness of the atm was the driver of heat, then the arctic and the equator would be the same temperature.
The number of molecules is. That's the point. More molecules = denser atmosphere

Atoms, molecules, what the difference if the mass is the same?
And how does photosynthesis relate to the argument at all?

It was stated molecular O was destroyed by combustion. So what, plants take the CO2 and return O2.
gwargh
5 / 5 (3) Nov 06, 2010
Wow, you are a complete imbecile.
I was going to actually try and respond to your post, but, really, you just have to be kidding. The problem is, I know you're not, and that's just troubling.
1) A thick atmosphere does not homogenize temperatures, it simply retains more heat from leaving the planet
2) To dumb it down for you, it's the difference between putting a rock into a sheet and calling it a blanket, and filling it with an equivalent mass of feathers. Guess which one retains heat better.
3) But plants do so at a slower rate than CO2 is being pumped into atmosphere. Again, this is a red herring and has no relation to anything at hand.
otto1932
3 / 5 (2) Nov 06, 2010
I'm just glad that Pelosi is finally gone, and that now Obama/Gore's cap and trade scheme is dead forever. There's no way Obama is gonna get reelected and there's no way he can force cap and trade in the next two years. Sorry Al, you're not getting rich on carbon trading, but it was a good try. As it turns out, you really do need to listen to what the people tell you to do. lol.
This impressive lack of anticipation reminds one of all those glorious empires in human history which miraculously turned into a pile of rubble.
No it didn't. It only moved to a new location in keeping with the Strategy for world conquest. No miracles, only the results of careful Planning.
Thrasymachus
2.5 / 5 (15) Nov 06, 2010
Businesses do not hire more workers or expand production capacity because they have more money. They hire more workers and expand production capacity when they have more customers. That's the fundamental problem in the American economy today. The vast majority of customers are out of savings, out of credit, and have lost a great deal of income. You can stimulate business all you want, through either tax cuts or subsidies, it won't create a single new customer, and it won't create a single new job. But if the customers are there, it doesn't matter what the tax rate is (so long as it's not 100%) someone will set up shop to serve those customers. The American people need a new source of income.
ekim
5 / 5 (2) Nov 07, 2010
If the thickness of the atm was the driver of heat, then the arctic and the equator would be the same temperature.

The equator absorbs more heat than the arctic. That heat does travel via convection currents towards the arctic ,however that is not a valid reason to assume that the entire globe will reach an equilibrium.
Atoms, molecules, what the difference if the mass is the same?

The mass is not the same. The mass of carbon and hydrogen are added to the atmosphere. Prior to drilling and combustion ,the mass of the hydrocarbons was stored underground.
It was stated molecular O was destroyed by combustion. So what, plants take the CO2 and return O2.

True. But the mass absorbed by plants is less than the mass produced by combustion. The net result is an increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
marjon
1 / 5 (4) Nov 07, 2010
The net result is an increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere

So? How much?

The American people need a new source of income.

No, the govt needs to get out of the way to people can create WEALTH. The ONLY way to generate income to create wealth. Stealing more money (taxes) or printing more money does not create wealth.
A thick atmosphere does not homogenize temperatures, it simply retains more heat from leaving the planet

Depends. How much IR does N2 absorb? An atm of pure N2 would 'trap' little heat.
Skepticus_Rex
1.8 / 5 (4) Nov 07, 2010
Folks, some of us at least know that oxygen is not destroyed during combustion. It is recombined with hydrocarbons to form CO2 and H2O. Bonds are not destroyed, they are broken.

The oxygen still exists, albeit not in molecular form, but is locked up in bonds with the carbon and hydrogen, which bonds the plants, algae and planktons can and will break over time.

There is no danger of mankind combusting away all the oxygen. CO2 forms no more than between 0.03 and 0.04 percent of the atmosphere at present. I don't think mankind could bring atmospheric CO2 to levels of 1% if we burned every ounce of fossil fuels we extracted.

By the way, dihydrogen oxide (H2O) will not remain in the atmosphere for very long to add to atmospheric density because it precipitates out frequently. In addition, any addition to atmospheric density from combustion is not as high as some seem to think.
ekim
5 / 5 (4) Nov 07, 2010
So? How much?

The measurements collected at Mauna Loa show a steady increase in mean atmospheric CO2 concentration from about 315 parts per million by volume (ppmv) in 1958 to 385 ppmv as of June 2008.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (5) Nov 07, 2010
but that's not a valid comparison.

If the thickness of the atm was the driver of heat, then the arctic and the equator would be the same temperature.
No, certainly not. The troposphere is 12-16km thick at the equator and about 6km thick at the poles.
Atoms, molecules, what the difference if the mass is the same?
You need to go back to science class before you start talking about AGW again.
And how does photosynthesis relate to the argument at all?

It was stated molecular O was destroyed by combustion. So what, plants take the CO2 and return O2.
Who said that?

When the atmosphere is heavily enriched with CO2 some plants grow larger leaves however, they grow smaller pores on those leaves which slows photosynthesis and the uptake of CO2. There's an optimum balance for most plant species in the low 300's, some plants do better at far higher concentrations, some don't.
ekim
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 07, 2010
Bonds are not destroyed, they are broken.

Definition of DESTROY
1: to ruin the structure, organic existence, or condition of. merriam-webster.com
...planktons can and will break over time.

Only phytoplankton can photosynthesize.
There is no danger of mankind combusting away all the oxygen.

This is not a major concern.
By the way, dihydrogen oxide (H2O) will not remain in the atmosphere for very long to add to atmospheric density because it precipitates out frequently.

This is not a major concern.
In addition, any addition to atmospheric density from combustion is not as high as some seem to think.

True , one third of the carbon dioxide produced buy humans is absorbed by the oceans. This carbon does not contribute to the density of the atmosphere ,however it leads to ocean acidification.
marjon
1 / 5 (5) Nov 07, 2010
one third of the carbon dioxide produced buy humans is absorbed by the oceans.

67% of 3% = 2% of human contributed CO2 remains in atm.
Not much.
ekim
5 / 5 (6) Nov 07, 2010
one third of the carbon dioxide produced buy humans is absorbed by the oceans.

67% of 3% = 2% of human contributed CO2 remains in atm.
Not much.

Your logic is flawed. Would you consider a 2% increase in your taxes to be not much?
marjon
1 / 5 (6) Nov 07, 2010
one third of the carbon dioxide produced buy humans is absorbed by the oceans.

67% of 3% = 2% of human contributed CO2 remains in atm.
Not much.

Your logic is flawed. Would you consider a 2% increase in your taxes to be not much?

Percentages are deceiving. The absolute total of of CO2 in the at is ~500ppm. That is 0.05% of the total atm.
2% of 0.05% is 0.001%

That would be an increase of $1.00 per $100,000 income.
ekim
5 / 5 (5) Nov 07, 2010
Percentages are deceiving. The absolute total of of CO2 in the at is ~500ppm. That is 0.05% of the total atm.
2% of 0.05% is 0.001%

That would be an increase of $1.00 per $100,000 income.

Your logic is still flawed.
Nowadays, the total number of particles in the universe has been variously estimated at numbers from 10^72 up to 10^87. The total number of atoms in your body is about 10^28. If the universe were packed solid with neutrons, there would still be only 10^128 particles, a number larger than a googol but much smaller than a googolplex. http://ajy.storml...ife.html

Q:How many dollars are in a google?
A:All of them.
marjon
1 / 5 (4) Nov 07, 2010
Your logic is still flawed.

Facts are facts.
marjon
1 / 5 (4) Nov 07, 2010
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) preind: 288,000 ppb, natural additions: 68,520 ppb; manmade: 11,880 ppb; total (OCT 2000): 368,400 ppb.
http://www.geocra...ata.html
Total CO2 in atm = 368,400/10^9 = 0.0003684 (.03%)
Total man made CO2 = 11,800/10^9 = 0.0000118 (.00118%)
% of man made CO2 of total CO2: 11800/368400 = 0.0320 (3.2%)
How do you want to spin this?
ekim
5 / 5 (4) Nov 07, 2010
How do you want to spin this?


% of man made CO2 of total CO2: 11800/368400 = 0.0320 (3.2%)
So if taxes were raised 3.2% to offset any consequences linked to global warming it wouldn't be a large increase?
marjon
1 / 5 (4) Nov 07, 2010
How do you want to spin this?


% of man made CO2 of total CO2: 11800/368400 = 0.0320 (3.2%)
So if taxes were raised 3.2% to offset any consequences linked to global warming it wouldn't be a large increase?

What consequences? Who get the money? What is the cost benefit? If you are wrong and the real culprit is the sun, will you refund the taxes?
You speak rather cavalierly about OPM, but that is the socialist way.
If 3.2% is no big deal, then raise FICA by 3.2% or your state sales taxes. No big deal?
ekim
5 / 5 (3) Nov 07, 2010
How about a reduction in production of 3.2%?
An ocean experiences 3.2% increase in carbon dioxide corresponding to a 3.2% increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. That increase causes a change in PH. Micro-organisms experience a 3.2% drop leading to a 3.2% drop in fish. Leading to a 3.2% loss in production for fishermen. Should they get stuck paying for the loss? If not who would be liable for their losses?
My apologies for the drastic oversimplification.
marjon
1 / 5 (5) Nov 07, 2010
How about a reduction in production of 3.2%?
An ocean experiences 3.2% increase in carbon dioxide corresponding to a 3.2% increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. That increase causes a change in PH. Micro-organisms experience a 3.2% drop leading to a 3.2% drop in fish. Leading to a 3.2% loss in production for fishermen. Should they get stuck paying for the loss? If not who would be liable for their losses?
My apologies for the drastic oversimplification.

What if a large asteroid hits the earth? No system has been developed to prevent such a well documented potential disaster.
Where the data, with risk analysis, to support your fantasies?
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (3) Nov 07, 2010
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) preind: 288,000 ppb, natural additions: 68,520 ppb; manmade: 11,880 ppb; total (OCT 2000): 368,400 ppb.
http://www.geocra...ata.html

As you know, the small piece of the pie on the Wikipedia page contains the active gases (and those are not Ne, H2, Kr). So, why are you spinning this?
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (3) Nov 07, 2010
marjon: (continued) I submitted a longer comment but the web site ate it. So, I will try again. Consider this continued from my comment above (which is incomplete). The Wikipedia page I was commenting on is:

http://en.wikiped...of_Earth

As you well know, N2, O2, and Ar are not significantly IR active. Neither are Ne, H2, Kr or He. H2O is, but it is a condensible gas (as you well know) and is controlled by temperature on a local scale. So, you have to remove all of the inactive gases to assess the importance of CO2. You are perpetuating the lie that CO2 can't be important because it is a small portion if the total atmosphere. It is a large portion of the IR active components and that is what is important. Your view is pure spin.
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (2) Nov 07, 2010
Your Mirriam-Webster definition of "destroy" does not apply when speaking of things related to Chemistry and to chemical reactions. Quote me some actual chemistry texts using it this way. Nice try--but fail.

Only phytoplankton can photosynthesize.


"Planktons" is a generic term. There are many species.

True , one third of the carbon dioxide produced buy humans is absorbed by the oceans. ...it leads to ocean acidification.


Nearly fifty percent of all anthropogenic CO2 emissions are absorbed by all carbon sinks in the environment every 15 years.

Ocean acidification is a debatable topic at the current state of the science. Have you ever looked at the proxies for ocean acidity in the South China Sea? Take a good look at the proxies and note where the biggest drop in oceanic pH occurred. It happened hundreds of years before man started burning fossil fuels.

And, there is something else to note. As of 2009 the pH of the South China Sea was rising.
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (2) Nov 07, 2010
Ozone can be 'destroyed' but it still is a reorganization of chemical bonds of oxygen atoms in recombination with other catalysts. Oh, and before you try to use a source relating to biochemistry and physiology, be sure to examine the context very closely. :-)
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (2) Nov 07, 2010
Whoops! One thing that did not get mentioned is how important phytoplanktons are to earth. They emit somewhere between 75% and 81% of oxygen in the atmosphere.

By the way, if you want to get technical about terminology, animal plankton are referred to as zooplankton. When the generic term 'plankton' is used it also includes a wide array of life forms besides zooplanktons and phytoplanktons, such as archaea and bacteria--also photosynthetic.

We need to keep them 'happy' by not dumping toxic substances into the ocean, which should be our primary concern rather than worrying about what the ocean does with CO2 at the present time. CO2 in the ocean is converted into bicarbonates and used by various forms of life in the sea, as well as fish who secrete pellets of calcium carbonate in their feces (which tends to neutralizing substantial amounts of acidity if the fish are kept 'happy' by not dumping toxics into their water).
marjon
1 / 5 (5) Nov 07, 2010
You are perpetuating the lie that CO2 can't be important because it is a small portion if the total atmosphere. It is a large portion of the IR active components

Not compare to H2O.
How many photons are absorbed by the minuscule amount of CO2 in the atm? There are only two significant CO2 IR bands.
It it were that significant, deserts would be warming at night.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (3) Nov 07, 2010
marjon: As usual, you are trying to spin what you said. Specifically, you said: "Total man made CO2 = 11,800/10^9 = 0.0000118 (.00118%)
% of man made CO2 of total CO2: 11800/368400 = 0.0320 (3.2%)"

That explicitly says you are comparing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to the total atmosphere instead of the proportion of CO2 to H2O. Those are your words, not mine. Are you changing your own argument to fit the circumstances? Isn't that spin?

As for the comparison of CO2 interaction to H2O, can you explain the technical term "minuscule" that you used? What is the scientific meaning of that term?

As for your argument about deserts warming at night, that is just another attempt to change the subject. Just admit you were wrong and move on (or spin the argument).
marjon
1 / 5 (4) Nov 07, 2010
As for the comparison of CO2 interaction to H2O,

I am still waiting to see lab data, with CO2 in a pressure chamber calorimeter, rigged with spectrometers to measure the 'forcing fudge factor'.
The numbers posted above are not wrong as of the date of the DoE data. The total man made CO2 is .00118% of the atm.
H2O is the main green house gas and has the most IR absorption bands.
marjon
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 07, 2010
"Climate scientists plan campaign against global warming skeptics"
http://www.latime...56.story
Will AGU report the number of members they will loose?
Have they polled their membership on this issue?
The issue has been politicized and the media, like pysorg.com, have been in the bag since Al Gore was a senator. What more can be added?
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (4) Nov 08, 2010
Marjon: I am astounded. You have actually posted a couple of good items in this blog. The story in the LA Times is great news.

http://www.latime...56.story

Of course you don't recognize it as good - but then why would you?

I hope AGU does post the small number they lose.

I love the way you consider all of the major media outlets (except, of course, FoxNews) as "in the bag." if you consider Physorg to be in the bag, why do you bother reading it?

thermodynamics
5 / 5 (4) Nov 08, 2010
marjon:

You said: "I am still waiting to see lab data, with CO2 in a pressure chamber calorimeter, rigged with spectrometers to measure the 'forcing fudge factor'"

Are you just unable to read a book on radiant heat transfer? Every one of them will have graphs and charts of absorption of both CO2 and H2O. They are both important for heat transfer because they are the major components of fossil fuel combustion products. The measurements have been made since the early 1900s. They have been included in texts and are necessary for all combustion heat transfer calculations. Does this mean you have never read a book on radiant heat transfer? Or can you give me the title of a book on radiant heat transfer that does not include measured data on both H2O and CO2.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (4) Nov 08, 2010
marjon:

You said: "The numbers posted above are not wrong as of the date of the DoE data. The total man made CO2 is .00118% of the atm."

Of course you did not read the post I had above that stated: "That explicitly says you are comparing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to the total atmosphere instead of the proportion of CO2 to H2O."

Yes, that is the portion of CO2 in the total atmosphere. That is exactly what I said because you are, apparently, not bright enough to know that N2, O2, Ar, Ne, H2, and Kr are not IR absorbers.

And yes, H2O is the major greenhouse gas (as everyone agrees) but it is a condensible and controlled by local conditions. You just continue to spin and avoid the science.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Nov 08, 2010
one third of the carbon dioxide produced buy humans is absorbed by the oceans.

67% of 3% = 2% of human contributed CO2 remains in atm.
Not much.
Then you won't mind if we increase your taxes by 2%. Thanks for the go ahead. After all, it is "not much".
Your logic is still flawed.

Facts are facts.

Yes, and your logic being flawed is a fact.
marjon
1 / 5 (4) Nov 08, 2010
Then you won't mind if we increase your taxes by 2%. Thanks for the go ahead. After all, it is "not much".

Depends upon the absolute value of that 2%.
Lets raise FICA by 2%. Its not much.
marjon
2 / 5 (4) Nov 08, 2010
Of course you don't recognize it as good - but then why would you?

Of course it is good news. It shows the desperation of AGWites.
It is bad news for any real scientist who chooses to get into the political muck. How can their judgment ever be considered objective? Same for AGU. They will loose any objectivity they may have had.
The measurements have been made since the early 1900s.

Where are the experiments? Why are 'forcing factors' based upon satellite data and not lab calorimeter data? The data you provided in the past dealt with H20 as superheated steam at high pressure. Do you assume the same responses at STP?
measured data on both H2O and CO2.

The IR handbook as all the IR absorption curves for major atm gasses.
GSwift7
1 / 5 (2) Nov 08, 2010
Blah, Blah and Blah. Cap and trade is the wrong solution at any time, and an especially bad one in this place at this time. Universal health care is almost as bad, but it'll get repealed before it's too late. You guys can keep arguing over well-disputed climate theories till your fingers wear down to nubs and your keyboards lock up. That still doesn't change the FACT that the American people are tired of the Obama/Pelosi/Reid agenda and it's coming to a well deserved end at the hands of the moderate majority who finally got off their backsides and voted for a change. It's finally come to the point where the quiet majority is sick and tired of the extremists and special interests on both sides of the fence whining over their pet projects at the expense of real issues like jobs, housing, education and taxes.
GSwift7
1 / 5 (3) Nov 08, 2010
If Obama continues to try to force America to into carbon control at the expense of the tax payers then he has a little lesson to learn about cats getting skinned. By the way, I love kittens. Why does he want to kill kittens? He needs to seek help, and someone needs to save the First Dog from him before it's too late!!
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Nov 08, 2010
Paper Currency isn't wealth, it's paper. Wealth comes from the value of that paper. Printing an endless supply of dollars does not create wealth.


Preaching to the choir so far.

Wealth is derived from the value of the paper currency which is determined by market forces heavily and primarily influenced by the state of economy.


A bit more iffy, but basically still spot on.

It is well within the governments right, in creating an environment conducive to wealth, to print currency,


Thereby destroying it's value (and hence "wealth") via inflation.

cut or hike taxes


Which produces no wealth, merely transfers it, or refrains from transference.

encourge the growth of novel industry


Which usually destroys said industry, or other industries at said industry's expense. That's called crony capitalism or fascism with a little "f".

and discourage investment into destructive or soon-to-be obsolete industry.


Same as above.

Now what was your point?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Nov 08, 2010
Thereby destroying it's value (and hence "wealth") via inflation.
Printing currency doesn't destroy wealth, it changes the value of the currency.
Which produces no wealth, merely transfers it, or refrains from transference.
Cutting or hiking taxes changes the economic landscape and can promote or detract from the machines of wealth creation.
Which usually destroys said industry, or other industries at said industry's expense. That's called crony capitalism or fascism with a little "f".
That's a rather extreme jump you're making.
Same as above.

Now what was your point?
His point was rather cleary that the government has the right to do these things, which appears to be opposed to your statements that allude to the government "not having this right".
GSwift7
1 / 5 (2) Nov 08, 2010
"That's called crony capitalism or fascism "

That might be a little unfair. Depending on what exactly you are talking about, and your point of view, it could be called many things, such as progressivism, social engineering or even narcissism. This "more than one way to skin a cat" comment sure does sound a bit narcissistic to me, but my opinion only counts for one vote among many at the poles. Whether he's "doing the right thing" or acting "in our best interest" is a matter of opinion. In 2012 we'll find out what people think. As for my own opinion, I think there are far too many people who are supposed to be representing the citizens who are actually more interested in campaign donations and party dominance. I have very little faith that Obama's desire to limit carbon has anything to do with the environment, based on his investments in the Chicago Carbon Exchange. I wonder how his investment portfolio is looking in regard to industries affected by the bailouts and stimulus funds?
GSwift7
1 / 5 (2) Nov 08, 2010
As much as I hate the job Bush Jr did as President, at least he had the decency to freeze his investment portfolio while he was in office, just like all the other recent Presidents have done. Obama keeping his investments active is a rather peculiar divergence from custom, unless you just like the guy so much that you won't question anything he does. I wonder if Obama has any investments in the healthcare or insurance industry; if only there was a way to find out.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Nov 08, 2010
Printing currency doesn't destroy wealth, it changes the value of the currency.

And encourages people to spend it as soon as they can and to buy on credit to pay back with cheaper dollars.
Carter tried that a few years ago and so has Zimbabwe and Germany after WW1.
Modernmystic
2.2 / 5 (5) Nov 08, 2010
Printing currency doesn't destroy wealth, it changes the value of the currency.


If you count your money as wealth it does. It could buy more before they printed more now it buys less. Pretty simple concept honestly.

Cutting or hiking taxes changes the economic landscape and can promote or detract from the machines of wealth creation.


I said as much, but it PRODUCES no wealth. Again, what's your point?

That's a rather extreme jump you're making.


Uh OK...

His point was rather cleary that the government has the right to do these things, which appears to be opposed to your statements that allude to the government "not having this right".


Is there anything, in your opinion SH, the government DOESN'T have the right to do? Is there anything it DOES have the right to do that it should refrain from doing because doing it is STUPID?
GSwift7
1 / 5 (2) Nov 08, 2010
"Is there anything, in your opinion SH, the government DOESN'T have the right to do? Is there anything it DOES have the right to do that it should refrain from doing because doing it is STUPID?"

That may depend on what kind of logo you see on your paycheck. lol. If government is an industry, then bidness is boomin' these days, and printing money is a stroke of genius. It lets you write checks and make deals that cost you less when you actually have to pay for them, kinda. If inflation can outrun the bond rates, then the government can actually MAKE money on bonds! Isn't that great?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Nov 08, 2010
If you count your money as wealth it does. It could buy more before they printed more now it buys less. Pretty simple concept honestly.
But we've already established that wealth and currency are not the same thing. If the currency supply is inflated, your outstanding debt is also devalued. You're not holding any wealth if all you're holding is paper currency. You're obsessed with dollars, and dollars are not equal to wealth.
I said as much, but it PRODUCES no wealth. Again, what's your point?
Production of wealth cannot occur without a regulatory body. The body may not create wealth in and of itself directly, but it creates the environment in which wealth can be produced.
Is there anything, in your opinion SH, the government DOESN'T have the right to do?
Make regulations for or against social conventions, like religion, family values, social norms, marriage, etc. As for your other question, how about the electoral college.
frajo
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 08, 2010
Is there anything, in your opinion SH, the government DOESN'T have the right to do? Is there anything it DOES have the right to do that it should refrain from doing because doing it is STUPID?
I'm not Skeptic_Heretic, but here's one answer:
Don't kill innocent people.
Don't kill unarmed people.
Don't torture people.
Don't wage war against countries which did not attack you.

But I'm afraid _that_ is none of your concerns when you ask what a government should be allowed to do.
GSwift7
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 08, 2010
@ Frajo:

If you are talking about the United States of America, then you are VERY confused about who kills, maims and tortures innocent people around the world. Ask someone from Bogota Colombia what they think about the United States Army. That's where my girlfriend and her family are from. Her mother and sister still live there. My girlfriend is a doctor and became an officer in the US Army when she got her US citizenship. She is more proud of being a US Army officer than she is of being a doctor, if that tells you anything. She even wears her uniform when she goes home, despite the danger that represents for her, and people there, strangers, will shake her hand and introduce themselves. That's what you get when governments do the things they SHOULD do. People like you make me mad. You are disgusting eurotrash. I hate name-calling, and I'm sure SH is going to nail me for that one.
marjon
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 08, 2010
Production of wealth cannot occur without a regulatory body

BS.
People created wealth for thousands of years before there were any regulatory bodies.
As for your other question, how about the electoral college.

If you are concerned about minority rights, then the electoral college is a good thing. Repeal of the 17 amendment would be a good thing, too.
I am sure SH would appreciate NH being controlled by NY.
otto1932
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 08, 2010
I'm not Skeptic_Heretic, but here's one answer:
Don't kill innocent people.
Don't kill unarmed people.
Don't torture people.
Don't wage war against countries which did not attack you.
Define innocent.
Define unarmed.
Define torture in light of how overpopulation starves people into attacking their neighbors.
Define attack.

-The most insidious aggression is not done with weapons. Religions designed to force reproduction are legitimate enemies and must be destroyed, for their Purpose is to destroy.

This is what Teddy Roosevelt called 'warfare of the cradle', waged to outgrow the competition, to turn minorities into majorities, and to conquer land like Kashmir.

Unfortunately the earth can no longer afford the traditional 'response in kind' and the perpetual warfare which has always resulted.
GSwift7
2.5 / 5 (4) Nov 08, 2010
"If you are concerned about minority rights, then the electoral college is a good thing. Repeal of the 17 amendment would be a good thing, too.
I am sure SH would appreciate NH being controlled by NY."

Now that's an interresting hypothetical to ponder. Would you end up with a new state called New England? Would you see state borders gerrymander like we see districts doing now? Speaking of which, I wonder if people really understand the impact of all the state level elections last week, in terms of the district boundaries, and what that will mean in 2012? I'll bet most people don't even understand the concept.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (5) Nov 08, 2010
Production of wealth cannot occur without a regulatory body

BS.
People created wealth for thousands of years before there were any regulatory bodies.
No, the alpha, or chief, or matron made the decisions, everyone else obeyed. Tribalism, then feudalism, both of which were regulatory.
As for your other question, how about the electoral college.
If you are concerned about minority rights, then the electoral college is a good thing. Repeal of the 17 amendment would be a good thing, too.
I am sure SH would appreciate NH being controlled by NY.
Except it wouldn't be because the electoral college doesn't consist of state dignitaries any longer.

Every heard of a super delegate? Of course you haven't. It's one of the least politicized positions within the federal government. It's an unelected delegate who gets to cast votes in the convention college. That's unconstitutional. Typically, they vote along party lines, but you wouldn't know that.
frajo
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 08, 2010
If you are talking about the United States of America, then
What if not?
Why didn't you consider what I wrote and considered only your projections upon me instead?
frajo
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 08, 2010
I'm not Skeptic_Heretic, but here's one answer:
Don't kill innocent people.
Don't kill unarmed people.
Don't torture people.
Don't wage war against countries which did not attack you.
Define innocent.
Define unarmed.
Define torture in light of how overpopulation starves people into attacking their neighbors.
Define attack.
Why? You understand these words.
Religions designed to force reproduction are legitimate enemies and must be destroyed, for their Purpose is to destroy.
Do you propose to kill all believers?
otto1932
3 / 5 (2) Nov 08, 2010
Why? You understand these words.
Apparently you do not. Innocent- just following orders of the imam or rabbi or vicar? Unarmed- reproduction without limit, to ruin ecologies and compel others to fight? Attack- population pressure causes borders to burst and floods of refugees fleeing misery? These things dont fit the convenient images you fell for in gradeschool?
Do you propose to kill all believers?
I PROPOSE that their ruinous way of life be ENDED. Only an ideologue like yourself would think one meant the other.
Why didn't you consider what I wrote and considered only your projections upon me instead?
Probably because you often denigrate the US specifically?
marjon
1 / 5 (4) Nov 08, 2010
Except it wouldn't be because the electoral college doesn't consist of state dignitaries any longer.

I'm not sure I would call state party hacks 'dignitaries'.
It's an unelected delegate who gets to cast votes in the convention college.

How? Super delegates are a party thing during nominations. What is a 'convention college'?
otto1932
5 / 5 (2) Nov 08, 2010
I PROPOSE that their ruinous way of life be ENDED.
Maybe this alone is a good enough reason to fight?:
"Farzana's story is about desperation and the extremes that in-laws often inflict on their son's wives. United Nations statistics indicate that at least 45 percent of Afghan women marry before they are 18; a large percentage before they are 16. Many girls are still given as payment for debts, which sentences them to a life of servitude and, almost always, abuse."
http://www.nytime...urn.html

-Afghanistan has one of the highest culturally-mandated reproduction rates in the world:
http://en.wikiped...ity_rate

-This is accomplished culturally by allowing women to do little else but bear and raise children. They exist only to do it, and they usually die from it. And they usually die if they refuse to do it.
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 08, 2010
I PROPOSE that their ruinous way of life be ENDED. Only an ideologue like yourself would think one meant the other.


And the people who's way of live you propose to end...they're not ideologues? How EXACTLY do you propose to end it?

I'd like to end theocratic rule around the world too, but let's be clear on means and ends...
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Nov 08, 2010
But we've already established that wealth and currency are not the same thing. If the currency supply is inflated, your outstanding debt is also devalued.


Currency is a claim on wealth, so while yes they are conceptually different there is practically no difference.

The body may not create wealth in and of itself directly, but it creates the environment in which wealth can be produced.


Pretty please can we repeat this point one more pointless time? With sugar and a cherry on top?

Make regulations for or against social conventions, like religion, family values, social norms, marriage, etc. As for your other question, how about the electoral college.


So then we DO understand each other...
otto1932
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 08, 2010
And the people who's way of live you propose to end...they're not ideologues?
Of course they are.
How EXACTLY do you propose to end it?
I would of course defer to Experts. Religions are in the process of being ended right now, most likely. Like tigers chasing their tails around a tree until they turn into butter. Including yours. Only the butter is red. Remember, god wishes the destruction of all heretical religions. But which one is the only true one? 'Ah, kill them all- I will sort them out'- says 'god'.
I'd like to end theocratic rule around the world too, but let's be clear on means and ends...
You are so full of crap... End all except for rule by YOURS, the only GOOD one, eh?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Nov 08, 2010
Currency is a claim on wealth, so while yes they are conceptually different there is practically no difference.
That's false. Currency is a fractional representative of a country's wealth. It is not directly related to the quantity of wealth.
Pretty please can we repeat this point one more pointless time? With sugar and a cherry on top?
Do we have to keep reminding you of the actual definition?
So then we DO understand each other...
Economics has virtually nothing to do with social regulation.

@marjon
How? Super delegates are a party thing during nominations. What is a 'convention college'?
And this is why you should probably refrain from making commentary on topics which you don't understand.
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 08, 2010
You are so full of crap... End all except for rule by YOURS, the only GOOD one, eh?


I'm the one full of crap? You're the one talking about killing people to end their way of life and hiding behind thinly veiled blather.

And FTR, no I don't want a theocratic government. Hell I BARELY want government at all...
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Nov 08, 2010
That's false. Currency is a fractional representative of a country's wealth. It is not directly related to the quantity of wealth.


If it's used to trade for material wealth then there is literally no difference between the two but an exchange of "hands". Sorry you're just trying to stretch the point...again....

Do we have to keep reminding you of the actual definition?


Remind ME? Look up-thread and see who's been reminding who on this issue...

Economics has virtually nothing to do with social regulation.


Quite the contrary the two are inextricably linked. Where does legalization of pot fall for instance...
otto1932
3 / 5 (4) Nov 08, 2010
I'm the one full of crap? You're the one talking about killing people to end their way of life and hiding behind thinly veiled blather.
No I'm not. You read into my posts what you want to read.

I'm SAYING, that religionists are in the process of killing each other, and causing themselves to be killed, by inciting violence and threatening insurrection ala al Qaeda. As they have ALWAYS done. My pointing this out does not make me the bad guy. Only the honest one.

Responsibility for this violence is shared by ALL religionists who continue to support the lies of god and the afterlife. Your indulgence perpetuates the illusions which enable others to wreak their destruction in the name of it.
otto1932
3 / 5 (4) Nov 08, 2010
And FTR, no I don't want a theocratic government. Hell I BARELY want government at all...
You don't follow your thoughts to their logical conclusion, which is typical. You believe in god, yes you do. You believe he is the source of all morality. You don't believe that govt can exist without a sense of morality, ie what is right and what is wrong. As only god, in your mind, is the source of these things then it is god, in your mind, which must be the basis of govt.

Am I right so far? Of course I am. It is only a very short amount of time before you're agreeing that the 10 commandments, including the bullshit about god uber alles, is posted in the courthouse lobby. Ergo, you're full of crap.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Nov 08, 2010
If it's used to trade for material wealth then there is literally no difference between the two but an exchange of "hands". Sorry you're just trying to stretch the point...again....
No, my exasperation with your inability to grasp the concept doesn't change the actual concept. The dollar is a fractional representation of the total wealth of the US government. If 1 dollar is worth 1 unit of wealth, to use an old example 1 ounce of gold, creating more dollars without creating more wealth reduces the value of the dollar, but doesn't affect the value of gold. Get it? If I have 100 ounces of gold and print 100 notes of currency then each note is worth 1 ounce. If I double the number of notes, but don't get any more gold, each note is worth 1/2 ounce. This is how commodity markets work.
Quite the contrary the two are inextricably linked. Where does legalization of pot fall for instance...
Economics issue. The social impact issue is a red herring, but you already knew that.
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (4) Nov 08, 2010
SH,

So do my wages double when the government prints more money? Does my bank account? No? Then they're destroying my wealth when they print more.

As to the "red herring", well I know a lot of activists that would disagree with you on that one. However it's easy enough to change the conditions to where it becomes obvious to someone like you.

What if the government said I couldn't purchase any book which included any ideas on communism? What about the Kama Sutra? Is it a political or economic issue then?
frajo
3 / 5 (3) Nov 09, 2010
I'm SAYING, that religionists are in the process of killing each other,
Some of them, not all of them. As are some of the non-believers, but not all of them.
and causing themselves to be killed, by inciting violence and threatening insurrection ala al Qaeda.
You are trying to generalize where generalization is incorrect.
As they have ALWAYS done.
You are wrong and you know that.
My pointing this out does not make me the bad guy. Only the honest one.
Your "pointing out" equals lying by wrong generalization. If you know that your generalizations are wrong then you are dishonest. If you don't know you need some kind of help you won't find in this forum.
frajo
3 / 5 (2) Nov 09, 2010
And the people who's way of live you propose to end...they're not ideologues?
Of course they are.
How EXACTLY do you propose to end it?
I would of course defer to Experts.
Experts like Eichmann/Heydrich/Freisler?
Religions are in the process of being ended right now, most likely.
The same assumption had Ulyanov/Jughashvili/Bronstein a century ago.
Thrasymachus
2.4 / 5 (14) Nov 09, 2010
All other things being equal, inflation usually leads to an increase in wages. That's why the stagflation of the 70's and today is so perplexing to classical economists. In their minds, it shouldn't happen. Neither inflation nor deflation, however, alter the amount of wealth a country possesses. Money is simply a measure of wealth. If I have a rod of a certain length, and use an English ruler to measure it in inches, then use a metric ruler to measure it in centimeters, I get a bigger number using the latter than the former, but the length of the rod hasn't changed. Floating currencies work the same way.
frajo
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 09, 2010
You don't believe that govt can exist without a sense of morality, ie what is right and what is wrong.
Do you believe differently? Then you are mistaken.
As only god, in your mind, is the source of these things
Too simple an assumption. You don't know (and would not understand) the kind of assumptions a believer develops about the possible sources of morality in non-believers. Because you are unable and unwilling to think scientifically/logically.
then it is god, in your mind, which must be the basis of govt.
Symptomatic for your treating other human beings is your apodicticity.
Am I right so far? Of course I am.
You don't ever doubt, do you?
Mentem sanam non video.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Nov 09, 2010
So do my wages double when the government prints more money? Does my bank account? No? Then they're destroying my wealth when they print more.
No, as I said, if you only have notes and no commodities, you have zero wealth. If you own a house, and the money supply doubles, your house is now worth double in notes what it was prior. Inflation works thusly.

As to the "red herring", well I know a lot of activists that would disagree with you on that one.
And I care what they think why?
However it's easy enough to change the conditions to where it becomes obvious to someone like you.
Explain "someone like you".

What if the government said I couldn't purchase any book which included any ideas on communism? What about the Kama Sutra? Is it a political or economic issue then?
Restriction of freedom of speech and ideology is a social issue. The government should have no hand in it. Your hypothetical supports my argument.
GSwift7
1 / 5 (1) Nov 09, 2010
@Thrasymachus:

That was a very good post. However, the current 'apparent' stagflation we see now isn't really much of a mystery. It's a result of how the government makes their cost of living calculation, mainly. The cost of home ownership (I forget the actual term they use, but that's what it means) is 40% of the cost of living calculation. Because of falling home values and interest rates, it skews the cost of living numbers unfairly low, even though everything else has gotten much more expensive. The state of the stock market right now is another curious thing, since it's nearly recovered to pre-crash levels, but other factors like jobs remain bad. In the next six to nine months we should find out if the stock market is too high, or if the rest of the economy will catch up with it. Investment experts seem to be split on which way it will go, as I understand it.

To SH and Thermo: inflation just devalues currency and any investments you made with that currency.
GSwift7
3 / 5 (2) Nov 09, 2010
The big question right now I guess, is whether QE2 will work or not. It's a pretty big gamble. I hope it works, despite the apparent lack of expected results from QE1. Who knows, maybe things would be worse if not for QE1, or maybe not. The lack of jobs and the recent commodity value explosion don't bode well for stability in the near future. If I had to make a guess, and I actually do have to make a guess because I have to decide how to manage my investments, I'm betting stocks will take a turn back down as the mortgage industry gets into the second big wave of foreclosures, and banks are going to stop loaning money again because of bond rates and inflation (oversimplification of course but space is limited here).
otto1932
5 / 5 (1) Nov 09, 2010
Frajo confronts the demon. Now we might both learn something.
You are trying to generalize where generalization is incorrect.
In that specific case I was not generalizing. Religionists are doing these things- I did not say ALL. But I do believe most all of them share common traits which make them all potentially dangerous.
You are wrong and you know that.
There are legitimate implications in my posts. For instance I am implying here that all the major state-sponsored religions have exhibited or encouraged violence to protect themselves and spread their influence. I cannot think of one that hasn't. Anabaptists? They were thrown out of England for their role in the revolution.

All these religions have the propensity designed into them. That is one reason they have survived. My generalizing here does not negate my arguments.
marjon
1 / 5 (4) Nov 09, 2010
leads to an increase in wages.

But not an increase in buying power.
Research has been done showing the best indicator of inflation is the cost of a man's suit.
A nice little book called "What Ever Happened to Penny Candy" is helpful.
Inflation is another way for the govt to steal wealth.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Nov 09, 2010
To SH and Thermo: inflation just devalues currency and any investments you made with that currency.
Incorrect.

Inflation devalues currency is correct.
Inflation does not devalue investments. For example, let's say I have about 80 oz of gold in 2000, value of $24,000. Today it is worth $95,000. I haven't created more wealth, I have the same amount of wealth. The note value has gone up for gold, but I haven't created more gold, the value of the note when compared to wealth goes down.

Inflation doesn't affect wealth, it affects the amount of currency you hold. Currency is not wealth, currency based investments are not wealth. Commodities are the only form of wealth.
marjon
1 / 5 (4) Nov 09, 2010
@marjon

How? Super delegates are a party thing during nominations. What is a 'convention college'?

And this is why you should probably refrain from making commentary on topics which you don't understand.

SH: Go ahead and fabricate words but don't expect anyone to understand.
Super delegates appear in party nominating conventions, not the electoral college.
Inflation doesn't affect wealth, it affects the amount of currency you hold. Currency is not wealth.

Currency is not wealth, agree. So this is how the govt plans to force companies to spend the cash they are sitting on.
Spend dollars as fast as you can before they loose more value. That's why CDs were paying 16% in '79 and mortgage rates were 21%.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Nov 09, 2010
SH: Go ahead and fabricate words but don't expect anyone to understand.
Super delegates appear in party nominating conventions, not the electoral college.
And what has the greatest effect on the content of the electoral college? You can't vote for someone who isn't allowed to run by their party.

Again, if you don't know what you're talking about, educate yourself before you attempt to solicit your commentary as authoritative. If you want to speak of your opinion, please do continue, but do not attempt to confuse the two.
marjon
1 / 5 (4) Nov 09, 2010
And what has the greatest effect on the content of the electoral college? You can't vote for someone who isn't allowed to run by their party.

Parties can nominate however they choose. You don't like the democrats super delegates, don't be a democrat and vote them out of office.
Where are the super delegates in the electoral college?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Nov 09, 2010
Parties can nominate however they choose.
And that's the problem. Our government wasn't built on political parties. That'd be the vestiges of the UK, not provided for within our Constitution. You do want to get back to the Constitution, don't you?
otto1932
5 / 5 (2) Nov 09, 2010
But Frajos generalizing does negate his/her argument:
Experts like Eichmann/Heydrich/Freisler?
Jesus. Nazis again. Frajo implies 1) That anyone who would want to see religions end is a nazi, and 2) that otto is a Nazi. Nazis got their authority from god. This has been pointed out many times. 'Gott MIT Uns' on das Heer belt buckles, 'biss in den Tot, so wahr Mir Gott helfe' at the end of the SS oath. Plus umpteen million hitler references in his speeches, writings, etc. Why do you assist in perpetuating this marjonism?

And AGAIN, the fact that I perceive the kind of Order and Planning in world events that finds unsavory, does not make otto a demon.
otto1932
5 / 5 (1) Nov 09, 2010
Do you believe differently? Then you are mistaken.
'Morality' in secular govt is established as the rule of law, under common agreement. Gods morality is ALWAYS prefaced by the law that says 'believe in god or the following laws won't work.' religionist morality has no place in secular govt. Right?
Too simple an assumption. You don't know (and would not understand) the kind of assumptions a believer develops
This is not 'a believer' this is MM the stealthy and deceptive religionist. And otto understands the motivations of blinded, deluded religionists far better than they do I think, yes? Most reasonable people can make out their self-deception. Forensic psychiatry not needed.
otto1932
5 / 5 (1) Nov 09, 2010
Symptomatic for your treating other human beings is your apodicticity.
For this mutant Greek word otto must check wiki...
"("capable of demonstration") is an adjectival expression from Aristotelean logic that refers to propositions that are demonstrable, that are necessarily or self-evidently the case or that, conversely, are impossible"

-Still makes no sense, or the kind of sense which is unnecessary. Because it is a philo term, yes?
The same assumption had Ulyanov/Jughashvili/Bronstein a century ago.
These sorts of things take time, generations, as they took gens to Create. As they absolutely need to be done, and there is no enduring authority which we can see that has the power or endurance to do these things, and yet we can discern that they are, in fact, being done; then we can assume that such an Authority does indeed exist.
You don't ever doubt, do you?
Lighthearted bombast is part of the otto persona. Give him something to doubt and he will consider it.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) Nov 09, 2010
No, as I said, if you only have notes and no commodities, you have zero wealth.


Funny then when I go to the store I can exchange zero wealth for wealth...

Tell me oh wise economist...what do you think would happen to the economy if the government printed an extra 100 trillion dollars by next week?

And I care what they think why?


Because they might know something you don't? But then again how could they, you know it all right?

Explain "someone like you".


A leftist idiolouge, with some caveats.

Restriction of freedom of speech and ideology is a social issue. The government should have no hand in it. Your hypothetical supports my argument.


So restricting purchaces of products can be a social issue. Your answer destroys your own argument.
GSwift7
1 / 5 (1) Nov 09, 2010
to SH:

"Incorrect.

Inflation devalues currency is correct.
Inflation does not devalue investments. "

If I loan you a dollar (assuming your credit is good enough), and you are to repay me with 5% interest in a year (assuming you make the payment on time or I'll have to foreclose on that value menue burger you bought with my dollar), but inflation increases by 5% over that same time span, then how much money did I make from my investment of loaning you a dollar? In that case, inflation has devalued my investment. Let's say in stead that the terms on your $1 loan are two years in stead of one. If I need to monetize your promisory note to repay my stock holders, because that's where I got the dollar, then I have to sell your note to someone like Thermo. Since inflation has already made the loan a break-even investment, I either have to sell the note for less than face value, or Thermo has to take a chance that inflation will come back down before your note is due.
GSwift7
1 / 5 (1) Nov 09, 2010
It's true that your burger's value didn't change on the international burger market, but as an investment it is now worth less than it was before the inflation because someone has to "eat" the 5% interest that was lost. If it came to me having to foreclose on the burger, then I'd have to write off that 5%, which I was obligated to pay out to my stock holders (or I could ask the taxpayers to bail me out). So my stock holders still got their 5% unless I default on my loan from them, but there's no way I can sell the burger for the aprox US $1.10 I'd need in order to make my expected 5% gain. The value of an investment is in it's ROI, which is destroyed by inflation.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Nov 09, 2010
If I loan you a dollar and you are to repay me with 5% interest in a year, but inflation increases by 5% over that same time span, then how much money did I make from my investment of loaning you a dollar?
Nothing. The value of the note in proportion to the interest (charge in notes) never changed. Your investment still yields 1.05 dollars as it would before. The problem is all your dollars are worth less than they were because you don't have a commodity attached to them. Loans of currency are not investments, this is why banks won't just loan you a million without knowing what you're going to do with the million.

Let's say you loan me 200,000 for a house with 5% flat interest (to make the math simple). So I buy a house worth 200,000. Inflation strikes hard. It now costs 300,000 to buy a house. Your vested interest is that I default on the house so you can take it and resell it. That's how a bank makes an investment. Either they make more dollars, or they get product.
Thrasymachus
2.2 / 5 (13) Nov 09, 2010
We're mixing up financial terms a bit here. An investment is something you purchase, once you've made an investment, you own whatever it is you've invested in. Inflation doesn't change the value of an investment, because the price you can resell your investment for goes up with inflation.

When you make a loan, the only thing you've purchased is a promissory note that entitles you to the return of the principle plus interest. You've basically just exchanged cash now for somewhat more cash later, with the hope that the rate of interest stays higher than the rate of inflation. As inflation goes up, so do interest rates. I think it's also important to note that interest is the primary driver of inflation, since more money has to be printed to cover the additional money needed to pay for the interest, regardless of whether the loan was successful in creating new wealth.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 09, 2010
Funny then when I go to the store I can exchange zero wealth for wealth...
No, you can exchange a representative unit of wealth for actual wealth. When inflation happens, what happens to the price of those products?
if the government printed an extra 100 trillion dollars by next week?
No one would be underwater on their mortgage any longer.
Because they might know something you don't? But then again how could they, you know it all right?
If they know something I don't, then it doesn't matter what they think, it matters what they can explain. Big difference.
A leftist idiolouge, with some caveats.
Sorry, not a leftist, and it is "ideologue". Trying to generalize me won't help your arguments.
So restricting purchaces of products can be a social issue. Your answer destroys your own argument.
How exactly does my answer destroy my argument? Restricting purchases of products can be a social issue. Government should have no hand in those product sales.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Nov 09, 2010
No one would be underwater on their mortgage any longer.
Just to clarify this snarky statement on mine...

What would happen if we had hyperinflation would be market upheaval and a mass shutdown of the banking industry. Banks depend on low, consistent inflation. Hyper inflation would devalue all the debts owed to the bank, in turn the banks wouldn't be able to function and would stop loaning money. Once the banks all fold, industry folds, and the trade of goods (on large scales) ends.

So when you say "inflation destroys wealth", I say, "you don't know what wealth actually is". Wealth is the total amount of resources available. If you have all the resources, you have all the wealth, and currency, like the dollar, becomes useless. The dollar is used to facilitate trade, mostly because transferring thousands of bars of gold for resources isn't efficient any longer, nevermind the piracy aspects. Your coin and paper money is a note, based on a commodity count. It is not wealth.
Thrasymachus
2.4 / 5 (14) Nov 09, 2010
Our basic economic picture right now involves a very moderate amount of inflation, combined with unprecedented cash reserves or investments in cash by major corporations and the very wealthy. Rather than spending or lending that cash, they're hoarding it in anticipation of deflation. They anticipate deflation because while they've got tons of cash, most of their consumers don't, their savings is gone, credit dried up, and income is dwindling, so the prices on the things they buy has to come down (deflation) or the standard of living has to drop. Ramping up inflation is a way to get those who are hoarding cash to spend it, stimulating economic activity. (cont.)
Thrasymachus
2.2 / 5 (13) Nov 09, 2010
That said, how you inflate the currency matters a great deal. If the wealthiest 5% of the country has 90% of the cash reserves, printing trillions of dollars and then giving it to the very wealthy by buying back the bonds they hold won't cause any inflation at all. The reason for this is simple. Inflation is caused by competition between consumers. Having more money means the consumer is willing to pay more than before. The very wealthy, however, aren't primarily consumers, but investors. If you want to cause inflation to stimulate spending and devalue debt, the extra money has to go to those who are primarily consumers, so they can raise prices and pay down their debt. Giving it to those who are primarily investors just perpetuates stagnation, because since an investment in cash has led to greater cash holdings due to the inflationary strategies of the Fed, there's no reason to stop hoarding cash.
marjon
1 / 5 (4) Nov 09, 2010
Parties can nominate however they choose.
And that's the problem. Our government wasn't built on political parties. That'd be the vestiges of the UK, not provided for within our Constitution. You do want to get back to the Constitution, don't you?

The Constitution has limited authority. People have the right to assemble. The tea parties were quite successful. It is the states that control who gets on ballots. Which is in line with the Constitution's separation of powers. The 'people's' representative in Congress was supposed to be in the House with the senator elected by state legislatures.
How does a super delegate affect the electoral college again?
Thrasymachus
2 / 5 (12) Nov 09, 2010
I would also like to point out that in our current economic situation, it is absolute insanity to cut taxes on those who are hoarding cash and cash investments. If anything, the taxes on cash investments need to be increased, to incentivize investments in real commodities and the actual expenditure of money. The idea that decreasing taxes always stimulates the economy is grounded on the presumption of two falsehoods; first, that taxes always represent a burden to spending/investment (they don't) and second, that government spending is worse than private spending as a stimulus (it's not).
marjon
1 / 5 (5) Nov 09, 2010
government spending is worse than private spending as a stimulus (it's not).

The US economy should be booming and the USSR should still exist.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Nov 09, 2010
government spending is worse than private spending as a stimulus (it's not).

The US economy should be booming and the USSR should still exist.
The US commodities economy is very strong, and if you think the USSR doesn't exist as an economic or political force any longer, it is you who is dreaming.
Thrasymachus
2.3 / 5 (12) Nov 09, 2010
You must really love scarecrows, marjon, because you build strawmen at every available opportunity. Halloween is over, troll, get thee back under your government subsidized bridge.
marjon
1 / 5 (5) Nov 09, 2010
You must really love scarecrows, marjon, because you build strawmen at every available opportunity. Halloween is over, troll, get thee back under your government subsidized bridge.

When statists can't defend their socialist fantasies, they start insulting.
The only money the govt has is what it can TAKE from individuals who EARN it. At least organized crime provides a product or service. Then again, without the govt, organized crime could not exist because their would be no need for a black market for drugs, gambling or prostitution.
government subsidized bridge

All roads and bridges are paid by user fees. Users pay their share.
It is interesting that in major cities around the world, major highway projects are privately funded and the companies charge tolls to recover their costs. After a certain period of time, the road is turned over to the state. This is done to end the corruption involved in most construction projects.
marjon
1 / 5 (4) Nov 09, 2010
Govt is failing:
"With Michigan battling economic and financial woes, state legislators introduced a bill to authorize public-private partnerships for transportation projects in order to address Michigan's deteriorating roads. "
"The Michigan Department of Transportation has already concluded two agreements with private construction contractors; under these agreements, the contractors put up the money for projects themselves, and the state repays them with interest over time. "
http://www.mackinac.org/11575
Thrasymachus
2.3 / 5 (12) Nov 09, 2010
Without government, there wouldn't be any money for it to "steal." Governments are the ones that print the money or create it digitally that allow all these wonderful economic transactions to take place so easily and freely. And of course you get all high and mighty interpreting someone calling out another bad argument of yours as being insulting. The only insult here, marjon, is your insulting everybody's intelligence by inserting your market fantasies and ridiculous hyperbole into an otherwise intelligent discussion.
marjon
1 / 5 (4) Nov 09, 2010
Without government, there wouldn't be any money for it to "steal."

Yes there would. People now use free market 'money' when govt fail.
"Detroit businesses print own local currency to address economic crisis" (google the link)
"BerkShares are a local currency for the Berkshire region of Massachusetts. Dubbed a "great economic experiment" by the New York Times, BerkShares are a tool for community empowerment, enabling merchants and consumers to plant the seeds for an alternative economic future for their communities."
http://www.berksh...htm#faqs
Check out a site called 'e-gold'.
"it is not government edicts that create money but instead the marketplace. "
http://mises.org/daily/3993
"Global controversy mounted over the Federal Reserve's decision to pump billions of dollars into the U.S. economy, "
http://online.wsj...pStories
The market WILL determine the value of the dollar.
marjon
1 / 5 (4) Nov 09, 2010
is your insulting everybody's intelligence by inserting your market fantasies and ridiculous hyperbole into an otherwise intelligent discussion.

Demonstrate your statist theories are creating liberty and prosperity. Science requires data. I provide theory and data to support free markets and limited govt.
I understand you may not want to explain how the govt has screwed up the economy lately or how Venezuela is collapsing from socialism or that Greece and CA are bankrupt due to too much govt spending.
Or that Cuba has had to cut the size of its govt.
Or the failed govt regulation of the CA power industry that resulted in rolling blackouts a few years ago. I know the list is quite long so you may just want to insult instead of defend.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2010
It is interesting that in major cities around the world, major highway projects are privately funded and the companies charge tolls to recover their costs. After a certain period of time, the road is turned over to the state. This is done to end the corruption involved in most construction projects.
No, this was done by TR to break the backs of the trade unions.
Yes there would. People now use free market 'money' when govt fail.
Just like free markets, free market money doesn't exist.
The market WILL determine the value of the dollar.
This is akin to saying "I will urinate if I drink a lot of water."
I know the list is quite long so you may just want to insult instead of defend.
But none of your examples compare to flammable rivers created by "free markets" and their lack of environmental controls or care for the health of their workforce.
danman5000
5 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2010
People now use free market 'money' when govt fail.
"Detroit businesses print own local currency to address economic crisis" (google the link)
"BerkShares are a local currency for the Berkshire region of Massachusetts. Dubbed a "great economic experiment" by the New York Times,

So what happens when someone from Detroit goes to Berkshire? What's the exchange rate between DetroitDollars and BerkShares? Do you realize how much of a nightmare it would be to have to exchange currencies every time you visit a new city? That's why they introduced the Euro.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2010
That's why they introduced the Euro.

How has that been doing lately?
But none of your examples compare to flammable rivers created by "free markets" and their lack of environmental controls or care for the health of their workforce.

Note I also stated the govt is supposed to protect private property. If someone damages your property with pollution, sue them. Trouble is many polluters are approved by the govt.
Hooker chemical had approval to store their toxic waste on private property in Love Canal. Then, the govt forced Hooker to sell the property so the city could build a school and houses.

danman5000
5 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2010
How has that been doing lately?

So you'd really rather have completely different currencies for every city you visit? Ignoring the massive inconvenience, how would exchange rates be set with no government administration?
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2010
how would exchange rates be set with no government administration?

Like they are now, by free market trading.
All govts do with currency is control its supply. Markets determine its value.
The only potentially valuable role a govt can have in the money supply is to verify the content of the gold or silver (weights and measures) or quality of the paper to prevent counterfeiting.
Of course private enterprise can provide these function as well. There are many private printing companies that print money for other countries and traveler's checks are another example.
With computers today, currency conversion is no big deal, but it does become cumbersome to handle and sort all the various paper and coin. Debit/credit cards would be best. Conversions are already handled quite readily.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Nov 10, 2010
So you'd really rather have completely different currencies for every city you visit? Ignoring the massive inconvenience, how would exchange rates be set with no government administration?


The same way prices are "set" without government administration...
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2010
The same way prices are "set" without government administration...
Hardly. Name an item that you think is free of government pricing influence. Many people think the government doesn't perform any measure of price fixing, but they're wrong.
If someone damages your property with pollution, sue them.

So how do you intent to limit or control the size of government if you're advocating a greater amount of legal activity? A big court system is merely a less efficient and larger government system.

Welcome to marjon's prison planet.
Like they are now, by free market trading.
What a joke. Currency exchange is controlled by government activity.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2010
SH sometimes you just argue to argue. Did you even read what I SAID?

Prices are set without government administration, I never said there wasn't INFLUENCE.

I'm not going to nit pick with you all fing day over this. HOWEVER you wanna say prices are set now, THAT'S how currency exchange rates would or could be set...

FFS...
marjon
1 / 5 (4) Nov 10, 2010
A big court system is merely a less efficient and larger government system.

Not compared to a bloated bureaucratic regulatory system.
Free market courts, like Judge Judy, or arbitrators would work very well. I just obtained satisfaction from HSBC on a fraudulent MasterCard activity. I complained to the BBB and my money was refunded. No courts needed.
Name an item that you think is free of government pricing influence.

The govt can try to set the value of the dollar, but ultimately, the market decides, as is happening now.
How do govt try to set the value of their currency? By supply and demand. Certainly govt's can peg the value but all products to be purchased will adjust their prices to reflect the peg or, as happens in socialist countries, products disappear from the market if price fixing is attempted.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2010
A big court system is merely a less efficient and larger government system.

Not compared to a bloated bureaucratic regulatory system.
Are you even paying attention to what you're saying?
Free market courts, like Judge Judy,
Question withdrawn. I can't believe you think Judge Judy is anything other than entertainment. Next you'll tell me that Jersey Shore is an excellent educational tool for teaching manners.
How do govt try to set the value of their currency? By supply and demand. Certainly govt's can peg the value but all products to be purchased will adjust their prices to reflect the peg or, as happens in socialist countries, products disappear from the market if price fixing is attempted.
Don't know about you but I keep seeing, bread, gasoline, corn, etc available. Seeing as they are federally regulated pricewise I wonder why they don't just "disappear from the market if price fixing is attempted."
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Nov 10, 2010
SH sometimes you just argue to argue. Did you even read what I SAID?
I did. Did you understand what you actually wrote?
Prices are set without government administration, I never said there wasn't INFLUENCE.
The government administration sets the initial pricing for almost every product you buy through control of domestic natural resource pricing. The base price is set by the administration through the harvest permit system. Production then yields products that are priced proportionally to the harvest permit system resulting in variance in product end user costs.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2010
Question withdrawn. I can't believe you think Judge Judy is anything other than entertainment.

Sure it is entertainment, but her verdict is the same as binding arbitration.

How products become scarce due to govt price fixing:
"Industry sources said the flour shortage was a direct result of the order by the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) forcing flour millers to cut their price by as much as P160 per bag."
http://theliberty...ippines/
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Nov 10, 2010
SH sometimes you just argue to argue. Did you even read what I SAID?
I did. Did you understand what you actually wrote?
Prices are set without government administration, I never said there wasn't INFLUENCE.
The government administration sets the initial pricing for almost every product you buy through control of domestic natural resource pricing. The base price is set by the administration through the harvest permit system. Production then yields products that are priced proportionally to the harvest permit system resulting in variance in product end user costs.


For that matter the friggin WEATHER can influence prices. You still haven't addressed the initial point, which isn't surprising because you rarely do.
GSwift7
1 / 5 (2) Nov 10, 2010
"For that matter the friggin WEATHER can influence prices. You still haven't addressed the initial point"

I think I'll coin a new term, though you guys are in such a foul mood you'll probably try to argue with me over what my term means. The word I was thinking of is Regulaucracy, which is what Obama seems to think is the answer for everything. People don't have health care; fine them for it. Congress won't pass cap and trade; impose a fine in stead. Car companies won't make wind-up toy cars; fine them. Oil company spills oil; fines. Companies and States don't want stimulus money; fine them too!!! Muahahahahhaaaa!!!! The power!!!

I'm not sure what you guys are talking about, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't have much to do with Obama creating a whole new structure of fines and a new regulatory body to preside over it. I read all your posts and all I can figure is that Skeptic doesn't want you talking about the original article.
GSwift7
1 / 5 (1) Nov 10, 2010
HEY, on the bright side, this expansion of the EPA will create more jobs! I can't resist this: But those jobs won't create wealth, and that's a FACT.
marjon
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2010
Regulaucracy, which is what Obama seems to think is the answer for everything.

As do many others here. They believe the world would collapse without govt regulations.
marjon
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2010
The benefits of regulation:
"The regulatory environment has turned dreams of good lives into nightmares for many who are leaving in hordes, taking much of the state's tax base with them. About 2.14 million people fled to other states between 2005 and 2007, while only 1.44 million moved in. Meanwhile, the state's debt rises at a rate of about $25 million per day. Some 2.3 million Californians (12.5%) are without employment, and factory jobs plummeted from 1.87 million to 1.23 million (34% of the industrial base) since 2001. California, with 12% of the U.S. population, has nearly a one-third of the nation's welfare recipients--15.3% of all Californians live in poverty. Its budget gap for 2009 to 2010 ($45 billion) equaled 53% of total state spending. This occurred despite having the nation's highest state sales tax and third-highest income tax."
http://www.forbes...l_2.html
GSwift7
2 / 5 (2) Nov 10, 2010
well, the country certainly would fall apart without ANY regulation, but there's a difference between Calipornia and South Carolina, thank God.

The EPA is a good example of a good idea being executed in a poor way, and then being used as a social engineering weapon by every special interest group on the planet.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2010
well, the country certainly would fall apart without ANY regulation

Why? It was built without regulation.
Skepticus_Rex
5 / 5 (1) Nov 10, 2010
well, the country certainly would fall apart without ANY regulation

Why? It was built without regulation.


People don't know the meaning of "My word is my bond" and like phrases. People cannot be trusted in the same way as they were at the time of the founding fathers. True, there were scaliwags then as now, but when people gave their word, in more cases it meant something. Regulations keep such kinds of people who cannot keep promises in some degree of check.

In addition, the founders of the government knew that their government was not perfect and that there would be additional laws and regulations over time. The version of government they created was somewhat novel and it was unclear as to where it would go.

I admit that over-regulation causes more problems than it solves but at least some regulation is required for the masses due to the nature of our current moral situation.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2010
Regulations keep such kinds of people who cannot keep promises in some degree of check.

How?
There are only two ways. One is to file suit in a court for breech of contract or shun such individuals.
A regulation already exists stating thou shall not lie.
Skepticus_Rex
5 / 5 (1) Nov 10, 2010
A regulation already exists stating thou shall not lie.


That would be a religious 'regulation' and not a secular one. We don't live in a theocracy and too many people don't live their religions to make them of any value to them to cause them to keep promises and so forth. Some of the most crooked people on earth are religionists. Some of the others aren't.

Either way, certain kinds of regulations make failure to keep a promise to some degree painful to the persons involved in the breach and others are intended to stem abuses.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2010
Contracts are not regulations. They are an agreement. If the terms of contract are followed, the parties have the rights defined in the contract.
Thrasymachus
2.1 / 5 (11) Nov 10, 2010
I thought conservatives had a problem with activist courts. So marjon wants to replace proactive regulation with reactive litigation? All you have to do is convince a jury of 12 anonymous citizens that you've been harmed and let them set the compensation? I'd almost agree to that except 1.) I'm not willing to give up environmental protection for a big fat check, not when my and my children's health are on the line. 2.) Serving as a jury member would quickly become a full-time job for many people. You'd have to increase the compensation, thus increasing taxes, which I'm sure you'd love. and 3.) I know you don't mean it, conservatives are always bitching about exorbitant punitive awards, especially in the medical field.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Nov 10, 2010
I thought conservatives had a problem with activist courts. So marjon wants to replace proactive regulation with reactive litigation?

How is that an activist court?
As for costs, elimination of most govt regulators and agencies would more that pay for the courts.
But I suspect, cases would be settled quickly and as judgments are issued and defendants pay up, they will quickly enact risk mitigation polices to limit further damages.
This has already been done with fire risks. Insurance companies started UL to test electrical appliances to reduce risks of fire.
All drivers are supposed to carry liability insurance, at their expense.
Thrasymachus, if you could pull your head out, you may be able so see the possibilities. But so far, you are can't seem to understand the world without the powerful state. Your brain has been well washed. For an example of stateless justice in Somalia, google 'stateless justice in somalia'.
Thrasymachus
2.1 / 5 (11) Nov 10, 2010
Drivers are supposed to carry insurance, but they often don't. That's why it's a law, otherwise known as a regulation. If it weren't there, people who didn't have or make a lot of money wouldn't carry any insurance. The courts can't get blood from a stone, and won't try. And what you suspect is thoroughly wrong. What would happen is businesses would fight virtually every case, drive up court filing costs, and tie up the court's time hoping to outlast those suing them in spending money on court costs. Further, litigation is entirely reactive. It wouldn't clean up any rivers or reduce any smog. It doesn't save any lives or keep anybody from getting sick. It gives all the power to those with all the money, and it's no less than I expect from your idiocy that you think anything about Somalia supports your position.
Skepticus_Rex
5 / 5 (3) Nov 11, 2010
Contracts are not regulations. They are an agreement. If the terms of contract are followed, the parties have the rights defined in the contract.


Regulations define what happens in the event of breach of contract or in the event of one overstepping onto the rights of others.
frajo
5 / 5 (2) Nov 11, 2010
well, the country certainly would fall apart without ANY regulation
Why? It was built without regulation.
That's true. Genocide and slavery instead.

There are only two ways. One is to file suit in a court for breech of contract or shun such individuals.
This way obviously was blocked for native people and slaves.
A regulation already exists stating thou shall not lie.
No similar regulation concerning slavery exists. Does this imply that slavery is acceptable for you?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Nov 11, 2010
Question withdrawn. I can't believe you think Judge Judy is anything other than entertainment.

Sure it is entertainment, but her verdict is the same as binding arbitration.
Marjon, Judge Judy is fake, like Springer. I just can't believe how dumb you are.
I read all your posts and all I can figure is that Skeptic doesn't want you talking about the original article.
GSwift, I'd prefer if we could actually stick to the original article so that'd be an incorrect assumption.
You still haven't addressed the initial point, which isn't surprising because you rarely do.
MM, Your initial point about what?
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Nov 11, 2010
Marjon, Judge Judy is fake, like Springer. I just can't believe how dumb you are.

You don't read the fine print. I said earlier, the participants sign contracts agreeing to her decision. It is called arbitration.
GSwift7
1 / 5 (1) Nov 11, 2010
It was a joke Skeptic. I figured I would attack the most innocent one commenting here, purely for comedic effect. You're right that it was wrong, but more in the moral sense of right and wrong than factually. :)

I'm actually surprised that more people aren't awake to the things going on with the EPA right now. They just got permission to regulate cigarettes, and I hear they want more warnings on the packs. I've heard that they want pictures of black lungs and maybe even dead bodies. I'm not making that up. I doubt it will happen, but that's what they are talking about. I wonder how many people the EPA added in order to cover cigarettes? As they expand into CO2 regulation, they have virtually unlimited room for expansion. They could become the largest government agency before anyone realizes, and they are self-funded aren't they? That's a little frightening I think. That agency has entirely too much power without any checks and balances.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Nov 11, 2010
MM, Your initial point about what?


EXACTLY....

Read up-thread if you've forgotten what it was, or try to be more attentive to the conversation. Not my job to keep you on task.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Nov 12, 2010
EXACTLY....

Read up-thread if you've forgotten what it was, or try to be more attentive to the conversation. Not my job to keep you on task.
I did, you haven't made a point, you agreed with mine.