Humanity falls deeper into ecological debt: study

Sep 20, 2011 by Marlowe Hood
Humankind will slip next week into ecological debt, having gobbled up in less then nine months more natural resources than the planet can replenish in a year, researchers said Tuesday.

Humankind will slip next week into ecological debt, having gobbled up in less then nine months more natural resources than the planet can replenish in a year, researchers said Tuesday.

The most in Earth's history, in other words, is living beyond the planet's threshold of sustainability, trashing the house it lives in.

At its current pace of consumption humankind will need, by 2030, a second globe to satisfy its voracious appetites and absorb all its waste, the report calculated.

Earth's seven billion denizens -- nine billion by mid-century -- are using more water, cutting down more forests and eating more fish than Nature can replace, it said.

At the same time, we are disgorging more CO2, pollutants and than the atmosphere, soil and oceans can soak up without severely disrupting the that have made our planet such a comfortable place for homo sapiens to live.

Counting down from January 1, the date when human activity exceeds its budget -- dubbed "Earth Overshoot Day" -- had receded by about three days each year since 2001.

The tipping point into non-sustainability happened sometime in the 1970s, said the Oakland, California-based Global Footprint Network, which issued the report.

This year, researchers estimate that the equivalent of Earth's resource quota will be depleted on September 27.

"That's like spending your annual salary three months before the year is over, and eating into savings year after year," Global Footprint Network President Mathis Wackernagel said in a statement.

"Pretty soon, you run out of savings."

Even as Earth's capacity to host our ever-expanding species diminishes, the demands on "" -- the term scientists use to describe Nature's bounty -- continues to grow.

"From soaring to the crippling effects of climate change, our economies are now confronting the reality of years of spending beyond our means," Wackernagel said.

UN chief Ban Ki-moon earlier this month said sustainable development now tops the global agenda of issues demanding urgent action.

"Overshoot" is driven by three factors: how much we consume, the global population, and how much Nature can produce.

Technology has vastly boosted productivity of edible plants and animals, but that expansion has barely kept pace with the rate at which demand has increased, the report said.

As critical, it has not taken into account all the collateral damage inflicted on the environment.

The United States is the biggest ecological deficit spender, according to an earlier calculation by the same group.

If all people adopted the American lifestyle -- big house, two cars, huge per-capita energy consumption -- the world's population would need about five "Earths" to meet its needs.

By contrast, if everyone on Earth matched the average footprint of someone in India today, humanity would be using less than half the planet's biocapacity.

But as India, China and other emerging giants continue to grow their economies at breakneck pace -- fuelled in large part by the desire for a "Western" lifestyle -- that per-capita footprint will become much larger, scientists warn.

Already today, for example, China is the top emitter of greenhouse gases and the top producer of automobiles.

Explore further: How to avoid water wars between 'fracking' industry and residents

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Time to find a second Earth, WWF says

Oct 13, 2010

Carbon pollution and over-use of Earth's natural resources have become so critical that, on current trends, we will need a second planet to meet our needs by 2030, the WWF said on Wednesday.

China's ecological footprint continues to grow

Nov 15, 2010

The spread of consumerism among China's burgeoning middle class is behind the rapid growth of the Asian giant's environmental footprint, a conservation group said Monday.

Global emissions to leap 39 percent by 2030: US

May 27, 2009

Global carbon dioxide emissions are set to rise 39 percent by 2030 as energy consumption surges in the developing world, notably in Asian giants China and India, the United States warned on Wednesday.

Recommended for you

NASA image: Fires in the Primorsky Province of Russia

4 hours ago

One of the most influential ecological disturbances is fire. Fire can spread so rapidly and for such far distances that its impact on land is for the most part far greater than any other factor. Less than ...

User comments : 238

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

GSwift7
1.3 / 5 (13) Sep 20, 2011
So, if we are 25% overdrawn, and assume the same in coming years, we'll be completely out of natural resources in 4 years. ZOMGWTF!!
SincerelyTwo
5 / 5 (14) Sep 20, 2011
So, if we are 25% overdrawn, and assume the same in coming years, we'll be completely out of natural resources in 4 years. ZOMGWTF!!


You're doing it wrong. We didn't consume 25% of the resources on earth, we consumed 25% more than we can return per year. The total amount of available resources is unknown, we know what we're aware of, but at the same time we're still discovering more resources to mine/etc to this day. Because of that we can't actually say how long it will take before we've exploited all of the available resources, we can only say that we are in fact operating on a 'ecological debt' because we are consuming more than we are returning.
Shootist
1.6 / 5 (25) Sep 20, 2011
More nonsense from the, political and social axes to grind, crowd. This, from someone who remembers Malthus.

I am cheered by one thought; if something cannot go on forever, it will stop.
whannis
2.3 / 5 (16) Sep 20, 2011
Its the rich that are destroying the earth in their evil drive for more money, not the common person- we recycle, we conserve, we love this planet! This will just be an excuse to exterminate us!!!
emsquared
2.6 / 5 (11) Sep 20, 2011
The total amount of available resources is unknown... Because of that we can't actually say how long it will take before we've exploited all of the available resources

That's not what this article says...

It says, and I quote: "humankind will need, by 2030, a second globe to satisfy its voracious appetites"

While this article is a deplorable example of alarmism at it's worst, it is still true that mankind cannot (yet, anyway) live outside the laws of nature. Long before we "consumed every-last-thing on earth" there would be such massive scale famine and war that the population of mankind would be brought back to a more manageable level. I don't think anyone really wants it to get to that point though.

Would be nice if they proposed an actual plan to reverse this trend, but some anti-Western rhetoric will do nicely in it's stead.
gurloc
4.5 / 5 (15) Sep 20, 2011
Cheer up, its a self correcting problem. Humans don't have the ability to wipe out life on earth, the best they can hope for is to wipe out themselves and all the major macroscopic life forms. In 50 million years a new and interesting variety of life will have evolved to replace us. Intelligence won't be the first or last evolutionary dead end.
Moebius
3.2 / 5 (12) Sep 20, 2011
Said it before, this planet can't support a population of much more than one or two billion indefinitely. Keep in mind the fact that sooner or later everyone on the planet will have our lifestyle. It's those billions I mean and they will be born soon. Yes, technology will affect the amount of population the planet can support (without destroying every other non-essential species) but it can't support this many people now. I know some are going to say we are just barely going into debt with 6 billion but that debt is going up faster than the population is.
omatumr
1.2 / 5 (13) Sep 20, 2011
Humanity falls deeper into ecological debt


Is a legitimate concern, but . . . .

We need to address the fact that nations are falling deeper into financial debt and eventual enslavement.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://myprofile....anuelo09
omatumr
2.3 / 5 (17) Sep 20, 2011
Cheer up, its a self correcting problem. Humans don't have the ability to wipe out life on earth, the best they can hope for is to wipe out themselves and all the major macroscopic life forms. In 50 million years a new and interesting variety of life will have evolved to replace us. Intelligence won't be the first or last evolutionary dead end.


Yes, we do have an inflated view of self importance!

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
GSwift7
2.4 / 5 (11) Sep 20, 2011
You're doing it wrong. We didn't consume 25% of the resources on earth, we consumed 25% more than we can return per year. The total amount of available resources is unknown,


You're right, I was being sarcastic. That's not how the math works out. I know that. However, if the guy above can spew nonsense, then I can too. People have talked about this kind of stuff for a long time, and they've never been right before. If the predictions I read in National Geographic in the 80's had been correct, then we would already be running out of things like fish.

For example, an average population of fish is estimated to be able to regrow/rerpoduce about its own weight in one year. So, if you start with 100 lbs of fish in a tank, and there aren't any predators eating them, you should have around 200 lbs of fish next year, assuming food is available. Other things, like trees, re-grow more slowly than that.

If what this guy says is true, then we're in more trouble than what he's saying
Noumenon
3.9 / 5 (63) Sep 20, 2011
More anti-western, anti-capitalist socialist drivel, packaged in yet another "scientific" study. Don't be fooled by this. This IS propaganda by the socialist left. Look to history to learn how many millions have died to oppression, government control, and social engineering. Socialologist with power and statistics is to fear, not the western way of life.

Humans are a part of nature, not parasitic to it. Human desire of freedom and intrinsic instinct to better ones condition is purely natural, as much as the trees wanting light and rain. This is a powerful force, which has resulted in western civilization's high standard of living and incredible ability to create and adapt to new technologies. Innovation, capitalism and freedom, science and technology are positive solutions, while social engineering and regulatory control are negative solutions.

World population will reach an equilibrium somewhere on it's own.
Noumenon
4.1 / 5 (60) Sep 20, 2011
..as India, China and other emerging giants continue to grow their economies at breakneck pace -- fuelled in large part by the DESIRE FOR A "WESTERN" LIFESTYLE


How does one propose to stop THIS, ...a human desire to improve ones condition? The political left say control it, regulate it, dampen it, oppress it, punish it... all negative and across the grain. The more rational solution is 'full steam ahead' with such desires. Social engineers don't invent new technologies.
omatumr
2 / 5 (12) Sep 20, 2011
"Oddly, environmentalists who are so sensitive to the dangers of disturbing the intricate patterns of natural systems, have no qualms at all about crude interventions in the delicate and complex economic ecology. Its a strange but persistent form of blindness that severely restricts the ability of the green movement to get anything constructive accomplished."

"President Obamas much ballyhooed green jobs dont just move to China; they sometimes arent even green. The Chinese government has responded with violence as villagers protest against a polluting solar panel factory near Shanghai."

See: "Solar Power Pollution Causes Riots in China"

http://blogs.the-...n-china/
gunslingor1
2.8 / 5 (14) Sep 20, 2011
"Humans don't have the ability to wipe out life on earth"
-Really? 7 H-bombs evenly spaced around the globe would do it... The U.S. alone has more than 500 on standby (Keep that secrete, lol).

"We need to address the fact that nations are falling deeper into financial debt and eventual enslavement."
-global health is more important to me than the global economy is, maybe your priorities differ.

"if the guy above can spew nonsense, then I can too"
-And you claim scientists are corrupt liers, lol, 1 paragraph made you admit your lie...98% of scientists agree we are on the path to destruction.

"then we would already be running out of things like fish..."
-Ever been to Red Lobster lately? Order the Flownder and tell me its as good as it was 20 years ago... fish prices have skyrocketed for a reason.

"..and regulatory control are negative solutions"
-yeah, I like aspestos and lead paint in my house.

"India....How does one propose to stop THIS"
-Many solutions available
grosyhpgrosyhpgrosyhp
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 20, 2011
Hey, thats about fussion and space exploration?
aroc91
4 / 5 (5) Sep 20, 2011
"Humans don't have the ability to wipe out life on earth"
-Really? 7 H-bombs evenly spaced around the globe would do it...


[Citation Needed]

The U.S. alone has more than 500 on standby (Keep that secrete, lol).


The world's nuclear bomb reserves are and have been publicly known for a long time. Russia has more than 6000 nukes and the US has a little less than that.

emsquared
5 / 5 (5) Sep 20, 2011
[Citation Needed]

You're not going to be getting a citation, because he has no clue what he's talking about and just pulled that number out of his arse (or maybe from some cartoon he saw).

The 100% kill zone for the Tsar Bomb (which was 5OMT, most nuclear war heads max out at like 25MT) was 35 km, given that and the land surface area of earth being 150,000,000 km, it would take maybe something like 39,000 nuclear weapons (the size of the Tsar Bomb) to ensure total destruction, i.e. to cover every last inch of land. Densely populated area I suppose is much less, but... do with that info what you will.
Quarl
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 20, 2011
Humans are a part of nature, not parasitic to it. Human desire of freedom and intrinsic instinct to better ones condition is purely natural, as much as the trees wanting light and rain. This is a powerful force, which has resulted in western civilization's high standard of living and incredible ability to create and adapt to new technologies. Innovation, capitalism and freedom, science and technology are positive solutions, while social engineering and regulatory control are negative solutions.

World population will reach an equilibrium somewhere on it's own.


Parasites are part of Nature too. We humans are more like viruses: we infect areas, we bend them to our will, and when they can no longer support our progeny, we move to a new area. Sometimes there is a token attempt at renewal but most times there is simple abandonment. We need to expand beyond this one rock. It's either that or we'll kill ourselves.
Cave_Man
3.1 / 5 (15) Sep 20, 2011
Freaking "people", this isn't about politics or government or socialism or any other retarded term you want to use to justify you greedy pig like behavior.

This is about too many people working in an office doing a job that benefits ABSOLUTELY NOBODY in the long run (think about it, if you have to live in a shitty flat in the city so you can work a shitty job doing something shitty, ie banks, lawyers, insurance etc, then what good are you doing and why does you life mean anything except a shitload of paid rent checks and a huge mountain of trash and millions of tons of CO and CO2 and other cancerous hydrocarbons in our atmosphere).

Start a garden, a compost pile and for the fucking love of god don't buy unsustainable products, like almost everything from Asia. Turn off your TV, run your computer from solar panels or wind turbines and dont fucking work for Lehman Bro's/Fannie May/ANY CORPORATION WHATSOEVER!

Better yet, move to tibet and become a monk, they use practically nothing.
Noumenon
4.6 / 5 (52) Sep 20, 2011
Maybe if we returned to the cave-man way of life?
astro_optics
1.8 / 5 (6) Sep 20, 2011
Obviously, should China and India be stopped in their Westernisation? Or should the West stop being Easternised by consuming their products...hmmm!
OverweightAmerican
1.5 / 5 (15) Sep 20, 2011
I don't see anything wrong with this deforestation. These countries need to do it for the sake of their economy and we are so hyporytical because all western countries cleared a lot of their natural environment to become rich a couple of hundred years ago.

The best thing is TREES CAN GROW BACK! Now stop making such a fuss.
Vendicar_Decarian
1.9 / 5 (12) Sep 21, 2011
"So, if we are 25% overdrawn, and assume the same in coming years, we'll be completely out of natural resources in 4 years. ZOMGWTF!!" - GSwifTard

Didn't you learn how to divide in public school, Tard Boy?

From the article...

"Counting down from January 1, the date when human activity exceeds its budget -- dubbed "Earth Overshoot Day" -- had receded by about three days each year since 2001."

"This year, researchers estimate that the equivalent of Earth's resource quota will be depleted on September 27."

From Sept 27 to the end of the year there are 95 days. 95/3 = 31.7 years. Not 4 years.

Maybe 4 Tard years.

Vendicar_Decarian
2.5 / 5 (13) Sep 21, 2011
"I don't see anything wrong with this deforestation." = Stupid American

Loss of habitat, increased rates of desertification, loss of water sheads, increased rates of release of mercury and similar toxics from soils. Loss of biodiversity and natural habitats.

Many don't see anything wrong with a little mass American death. Can you imagine why?

Vendicar_Decarian
2.2 / 5 (10) Sep 21, 2011
"should China and India be stopped in their Westernisation?" - Astro optics

The entire point of the article is that Nature will stop the over-consumption through die-off if man does not do it through rational decision.

China appears to have very rational leaders who have already realized that their current path is unsustainable, and are moving toward a sustainable economy.

Vendicar_Decarian
2.4 / 5 (14) Sep 21, 2011
"Maybe if we returned to the cave-man way of life?" - NoumenTard

The intellectually inferior are typically incapable of seeing things in more than black or white.

That is why they are ruled and controlled by others.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.4 / 5 (14) Sep 21, 2011
"Oddly, environmentalists who are so sensitive to the dangers of disturbing the intricate patterns of natural systems, have no qualms at all about crude interventions in the delicate and complex economic ecology." - OmaTard

I guess it is because sustainable existence trumps free market fundamentalism.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.4 / 5 (14) Sep 21, 2011
"More anti-western, anti-capitalist socialist drivel" - NumenTard

What the price of a barrel of oil these days Numen my little ignorant Tard.

"This IS propaganda by the socialist left." - NumenTard

The crime. Treason against Nature and man.
The sentence. Death.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.7 / 5 (18) Sep 21, 2011
"Humans are a part of nature, not parasitic to it." - NumenTard

Everything is part of nature in a strict scientific sense. Hence your statement is meaningless. As a Tard, you don't know that.

Also, as a Tard, you are incapable of appreciating that the the term "nature" isn't being used in a strict scientific sence, and in fact excludes man by definition.
pres68y
3 / 5 (2) Sep 21, 2011
how about using our massive military destruction machine to become constructive?
Like use our giant floating steel 'merchants of death' to re-seed the oceans -since they have been greatly responsible for its destruction.
Use the murdersome, destructive air force and army to reconstruct vegetation and more cleaner water ways.
Use aircraft to reseed and add to forests. Many blights could be mitigated thru nutritional spraying, etc.
I know it's a crazy idea to help the planet instead of continual destruction.
braindead
5 / 5 (3) Sep 21, 2011
You're doing it wrong. We didn't consume 25% of the resources on earth, we consumed 25% more than we can return per year. The total amount of available resources is unknown,


" ....then we would already be running out of things like fish."

We are aren't we? Some major fish stocks have collapsed beyond a recovery tipping point already.

gunslingor1
3 / 5 (6) Sep 21, 2011
My comment regard H-bombs (and there is a big difference between the H-bomb and an attomic bomb), he is correct I have no citation as it was told to me by a nuclear submarine captain while onboard. 7 H-bombs, theoretically, would be enough to cause nuclear winter.

Lets not forget that there are already plenty of energy sources that are non-poluting, more profitable, cheaper in the long run, and that have zero effect on public health and the planet.

The issue isn't "Oh my god what can we do, should we stop china and india from modernizing", that isn't the issue.

The issue is "When are oil company's going to stop being in denial and stop paying off our politicians to maintain these antiquated technologies just so they don't have to put in any capital investments". I mean for god sake, Ethanol was invented in the 1890s. We've had working electric cars for 60 years (true, batteries are much better now). A 300mpg car has been built. Solutions are there (period).
NANOBRAIN
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 21, 2011
soylent green is made out of people.
Jordian1
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 21, 2011
We're pretty fucked. Modern society has been on an unsustainable path for a very long time, it's only a matter of time before it catches up to us. Especially now that Asia is modernizing at a very rapid rate. This planet could barely sustain a small proportion of it's population living like the West. Imagine how fucked we will be when 1/2 of the population tries to live like Americans.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (16) Sep 21, 2011
Why don't all who believe this do humanity the service of committing suicide?
It's like Buffet complaining about not be taxed enough and then refusing to voluntarily send the US Treasury a check for billions of $.
'Progressives', show the world you have the courage of your convictions!
lengould100
not rated yet Sep 21, 2011
"Most analysts feel the Chinese car market is on track to cross 20 million units per year within a few years, possibly reaching as high as 40 million per year by the end of the current decade"

"The total at the end of 2009 was about 980 million, and with strong growth in emerging regions ... the number powered past the 1-billion mark sometime last summer."

"if China were to equal the U.S. ownership rate, it would hold 1 billion cars all by itself."

http://news.disco...818.html
GSwift7
2.8 / 5 (4) Sep 21, 2011
Vendicar:

So, if we are 25% overdrawn, and assume the same in coming years, we'll be completely out of natural resources in 4 years. ZOMGWTF!!" - GSwifTard

Didn't you learn how to divide in public school, Tard Boy?


If you'll take the time to read my next post after that, you'll see that the post you quoted was a joke. I thought that when I used the internet silly-slang "ZOMGWTF" it would be enough of a clue that everyone could figure out I was joking. I guess I should remember not to underestimate the power of stupidity.

And I see you are still a disgusting biggott in regard to Downs Syndrome. I hate it when you do that. Why don't you just use the N word in stead. That would be no worse. You are a loser. Go see a therapist and take the meds she prescribes.
emsquared
5 / 5 (2) Sep 21, 2011
My comment regard H-bombs (and there is a big difference between the H-bomb and an attomic bomb)

The Tsar Bomba which I used in my calculation was an H-bomb and was the biggest thermo-nuclear device ever made (at the time), and is still the biggest ever detonated.

The nuclear winter wiki sites a recent -disputed- study (2007) that says it would take 50 "Fat Man" sized nuclear weapon detonations from "each country" (no definition of each, though 10 countries are listed as nuclear armed) over urban areas (the multiple urban sites being an important factor) to produce a global scale nuclear winter. Even then nuclear winter would not completely wipe out humanity, as you stated. Though it'd do a good job of cutting back the human population.
When are oil company's going to stop being in denial and stop paying off our politicians to maintain these antiquated technologies just so they don't have to put in any capital investments

When you (and everyone) stop buying gasoline.
Joshua_Darlington
1.5 / 5 (2) Sep 21, 2011
The obvious solution is starting to terraform Mars, Venus and colonizing the Asteroid belt ASAP. THe money spent fighting over terrestrial warfare is backward and maladaptive. Cultured cells for protien (meat printing)and distributed hydroponic farming (an end to monoculture) can do a lot to take pressure off land use and reduce pesticide use. etc.
Pressure2
5 / 5 (3) Sep 21, 2011
Quote: "I don't see anything wrong with this deforestation."

You need to read up on the history of Easter Island. That just may be what whole earth faces in a few hundred years.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (11) Sep 21, 2011
Quote: "I don't see anything wrong with this deforestation."

You need to read up on the history of Easter Island. That just may be what whole earth faces in a few hundred years.

The entire earth will be a tourist attraction?

There is a difference between preservation and conservation. The most healthy forests are privately owned and managed to make a profit (horrors).
Of course the 'progressive' anti-growth socialists can't abide profit and instead resort to studies like these demanding more govt control.
gunslingor1
5 / 5 (3) Sep 21, 2011
"'Progressives', show the world you have the courage of your convictions!"
-We are not saying half the world should commit suicide, I am saying we need to do something about population growth, meaning limiting pregnancies or something similar but ethical and agreed upon. I mean, you do realize we can't uncontrollably replicate forever without consequences right?

"When you (and everyone) stop buying gasoline."
-HA! Give us the option and I guarantee we will. Asking all of America give up modern conveniences just isn't going to happen. You need fast transport to function in society, and I'm not proposing we live as cavemen, only that we change our fuel source to stop killing the public and the planet.

The obvious solution is starting to terraform Mars, Venus and colonizing the Asteroid belt ASAP.
-Although I agree this should be on our 1000 year agenda, immediately we should STOP terraforming earth. Half the people on here don't believe Terraforming is possible, as is evident
gunslingor1
4 / 5 (6) Sep 21, 2011
from their denial of GW.
"the 'progressive' anti-growth socialists"
-Funny how the right in this talk can't make a point backed by evidence, yet come up with names of intentional negative connotation. You don't see me call you a "Right wing corporate stooge who puts money over peoples health, who is anti-abortion yet pro-war, who thinks government should stay out of our lives but demands gays be treated as a subclass and would force women to carry a pregnancy to term, who complains about our debt yet supported Bush's wars, tax cuts and spending." Im not anti-growth, but I understand nothing can grow indefinitely.

-as for the H-bomb comment, I'll retract it, it is too vague to be true. It depends on size... 50 sounds about right for an averaged size bomb (fat man was 1950s tech I believe)... either way, humans certainly can have an effect on our environment, that's the only point I was trying to unsuccessfully make; need only look to LA for proof, was once a paradise as was once NY
Pressure2
5 / 5 (2) Sep 21, 2011
Quote: "I don't see anything wrong with this deforestation."

You need to read up on the history of Easter Island. That just may be what whole earth faces in a few hundred years.

The entire earth will be a tourist attraction?

There is a difference between preservation and conservation. The most healthy forests are privately owned and managed to make a profit (horrors).
Of course the 'progressive' anti-growth socialists can't abide profit and instead resort to studies like these demanding more govt control.

There were probably people on Easter Island that thought just the way you do, but it didn't work out the way they (you) envisioned it. How can you be so sure it will work out that way for the entire earth? Those that fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it.
emsquared
5 / 5 (1) Sep 21, 2011
-HA! Give us the option and I guarantee we will. Asking all of America give up modern conveniences just isn't going to happen. You need fast transport to function in society, and I'm not proposing we live as cavemen, only that we change our fuel source to stop killing the public and the planet.

My point was that you were pointing at the industry as the problem, when it is in fact our culture. Our disposable society. You expect no one to respond to such a vastly profitable market demand, you are pissing in the wind and ignoring reality. Reality being that change has to start with every single individual who has a choice on how they get around and what they consume, to choose the least impacting way, even if it is more inconvenient or costly.

Until you (and everyone who plays at caring) has done that: STFU, honestly.

Because you obviously don't actually care enough to change your own life, so why should others? Be the change you want to see.
rubberman
4 / 5 (4) Sep 21, 2011
I think Vendicar is the violently unstable neutron star at the core of this discussion.....and Oliver....stop it!

As for the actual topic of the article....anyone with a 3 digit IQ and eyes that work knows how screwed this planet is going to be within a hundred years. I still beleive it is a solvable problem......we just have to realize as a society that to solve it....no one will make a monetary profit....uh oh.....
emsquared
not rated yet Sep 21, 2011
Might I add that the above was not directed at you specifically, gunslingor. I don't know you, I'm not judging you. I just see it all the time in my everyday life and it's not hard to know that most people on the internet are all talk and no game. It was just a comment on society.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 21, 2011
how screwed this planet is going to be within a hundred years.

That was said by some over 100 years ago. Quite a bit of progress has been made since then.
Those that fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it.

Like the 'progressive' socialists? It is the public property that is exploited, not the private property. Tragedy of the commons.
limiting pregnancies or something similar but ethical and agreed upon

Will the majority, (50% 1 of the entire world, the USA, the UN...) decide what is ethical? How do you plan to ethically sterilize people to 'solve' a perceived problem?
You know China's policy has resulted in murdered baby girls and a higher percentage of males to females.
Romania had the opposite problem a few decades ago. They tried to force population growth and ended up with too many orphans to care for.
Sigh
5 / 5 (3) Sep 21, 2011
More anti-western, anti-capitalist socialist drivel, packaged in yet another "scientific" study. Don't be fooled by this. This IS propaganda by the socialist left.

And yet, the value that would motivate acting on this information is the same that is claimed by fiscal conservatives: don't saddle future generations with our debts. It is merely applied at a more fundamental level. Money is only an exchange medium for wealth. Ecosystem services are part of the basis for wealth. It seems odd to be conservative about the exchange medium, but not about the fundamentals.
Innovation, capitalism and freedom, science and technology are positive solutions, while social engineering and regulatory control are negative solutions.

I saw no call for social engineering or regulatory control in the article. Do you assume that is the only possible solution to this kind of problem? Just for the sake of argument, assume the article reports straight facts. What is your solution?
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 21, 2011
What is your solution?

Free markets and protection of private property rights.
DATA shows this is the only effective way of conserving and creating resources.
JD Rockefeller saved the sperm wales with production of cheaper kerosene for lanterns.
Elephants are being conserved when the locals 'own' the herd and can profit from keeping them healthy.
Sigh
5 / 5 (2) Sep 21, 2011
What is your solution?

Free markets and protection of private property rights.
DATA shows this is the only effective way of conserving and creating resources.

I also know of cases where that works. How general is the solution?

Elephants are being conserved when the locals 'own' the herd and can profit from keeping them healthy.

How do you deal with species that migrate through areas claimed by different owners, or none? For example tuna?

Again for the sake of argument, imagine global warming is fact. How do you deal with it through free markets and protection of private property?

I am not saying it can't be done. I hope it can. I want to know how. If claims of global warming really are a socialist conspiracy, the easiest way to spike that conspiracy is by proposing a viable non-socialist solution.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (10) Sep 21, 2011
Explain how socialism has preserved elephant herds or helped to maintain fishing stocks.
imagine global warming is fact.

Adapt. Billions of people making billions of independent, free choices will result in nearly infinitely better solutions than ONE decision made by central planners with extremely limited knowledge.
Howhot
3 / 5 (2) Sep 21, 2011
So bottom line is we have reached the tipping point and walked right over it. Say "Yeah R2" you won your mental battle at destroying a self-sustained environmental model. R2; "Yeah destruction of humanity!" POS.
Sigh
5 / 5 (8) Sep 22, 2011
Explain how socialism has preserved elephant herds or helped to maintain fishing stocks.

You misunderstand. I don't claim it has.

imagine global warming is fact.

Adapt.

Would you accept this as an answer if you complained about the economic cost of regulation?

I'm a biologist. I think overexploitation of ecosystem services is the most serious problem human civilisation faces this century. Even if my worry is premature, one planet has finite resources and can't support infinite growth of consumption. In the long term, we need different solutions than we have now. In years of reading this and other science sites, conservatives more often denied problems than proposed solutions. If you want to siphon off support for regulation, propose solutions without regulation. "Adapt" or "Deal with it", followed by a declaration of faith is no more a solution than "Tax the rich" or "The party is always right". Do you really want to keep company with that sort of dogma?
Sigh
5 / 5 (8) Sep 22, 2011
Explain how socialism has preserved elephant herds or helped to maintain fishing stocks.

One more thing: I didn't ask for a comparison of socialism vs free markets. You have to offer a viable solution before you can start comparing. I asked whether free market mechanisms and protection of property rights can protect resources such as tuna. Can they?

Soviet planners thought environmentalism was a capitalist conspiracy to sabotage socialism. Result was a disaster. Noumenon thinks it's a socialist conspiracy to sabotage capitalism. Result is another disaster. I think in both cases short term incentives give a motive to deny long term problems instead of solving them.

My point is that I would like to see some intellectual effort going into generating solutions instead of denying problems and attacking the other side.
gunslingor1
5 / 5 (2) Sep 22, 2011
"My point was that you were pointing at the industry as the problem, when it is in fact our culture."
-I agree, yet disagree. If the consumer is given the option, they will and do switch, and this isn't based on environ concern, its usually just based on common sense. Hybrids are simply better for the common family, they use energy 3 times more effectively than a gas car. Electrics would do the same.
-I do not beleive society is at fault, as there thoughts and feelings regarding the matter are being directed by those with the power and control to do it. Most people think a nuclear power plant can explode like a nucleaer bomb, cancer is never part of the debate when it comes to fossil fuels, oil company's currently own the most patents for new battery tech yet intend to produce nothing. I honestly beleive this "culture" is antiquated and that it would naturally fade if allowed too, these people are putting in great effort to maintain the status quo, and they have the money to do it.
gunslingor1
5 / 5 (2) Sep 22, 2011
"Will the majority, (50% 1 of the entire world, the USA, the UN...) decide what is ethical? How do you plan to ethically sterilize people to 'solve' a perceived problem?"
-Lol, that's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying here is how it should be done or that it should even be done, I'm saying if it isnt done we are all screwed... Do you disagree?

"My point is that I would like to see some intellectual effort going into generating solutions instead of denying problems and attacking the other side."
-My point is that we have had solutions for 50 years... but those solutions inherently are decentralized which implies the US oil empire would fail... this is the only thing that has prevented the change, nothing more is standing in our way, the tech is old, it causes far more cancer than smoking, asbestos and radiation. You fear nuclear power, yet apparently don't mind random chemical byproducts flooting in the air you breath 24/7, and the water you drink.
gunslingor1
5 / 5 (2) Sep 22, 2011
Not directed at you, just the tendancies I've seen of the far right science deniers and villifiers. I mean even GW Bush admited GW is a valid science, of course he still did nothing about it.

I work in power, I build coal, nuke and hydro for a living. I know a lot about these subjects, and the debate is being manipulated by false truths, blatant propaganda and control over media. And its not scientists, I'm puzzled how someone could even perceive scientists have the will and resources to accomplish it, it is one group, oil and coal producers.

You remember Fukushima, you remember the days of broadcasts concerning a couple workers who received minor radiation burners on there feet. Where is the same coverage when 3 coal works are covered under a smoking pile of ash, or when workers die from exposer to ammonia... far more people DIRECTLY are killed from coal than nuclear, and INDIRECTLY... HA!... Love that LA air! Love that high cancer rate!
Javinator
5 / 5 (7) Sep 22, 2011
My point is that I would like to see some intellectual effort going into generating solutions instead of denying problems and attacking the other side.


You'll remain nothing but depressed if you keep in discussion with ryggesogn2. All you'll get from him is rhetorical questions, logical fallacies, or quotes from blogs followed by one of the aforementioned questions/fallacies in response.
emsquared
not rated yet Sep 22, 2011
people are putting in great effort to maintain the status quo

I can recognize the truth in this, but there's two things that accompany this: First, if a market is clearly changing or undeniably has to change (like how fossil fuels are finite), any business involved in that market is going to want to be at the lead of that, they may try to hang on to the old as long as possible (big oil), but they are not going to ignore a future market. Second, related to the first, if there is a new market emerging and the old market ignores it someone is going to fill that spot. In either case, the market will not emerge or mature until it is economically viable, it is not viable until there is a proven demand. It's up to the consumer to make the choice to spend a little more on an emerging product, if that's their priority. Right now, cost effectiveness is most peoples priority, but still there are things people can do that don't involve their consumer choice. Those choices involve effort.
emsquared
not rated yet Sep 22, 2011
I won't deny industry has a role to play, but I would say it is not their /responsibility/. Their responsibility is to their employees and stock holders and the almighty $. That's what a business is. If a person believes in something it is /their/ responsibility to act on that. No one is going to act on their beliefs for them. And if someone won't act on their beliefs then it's not really their belief, it's something they just say to make themselves feel good.

The next question could be, what is the governments responsibility to the People and country, and how should they act on that responsibility?
gunslingor1
5 / 5 (1) Sep 22, 2011
Emsquare, I do agree somewhat. My concern is that capitalism in the US has become contrived. To give an example: In the late 1940s early 50s, a method of diamond product was developed.. Gem quality in some cases. Variations of the designs have been patented, hundreds of machines of varying design are possible today. Debears has bought all patents and kept it quiet, they're business would disintegrate if people realized diamonds could be manufactured for 10% the cost they currently sell for. On occation, a startup emerges that starts manufacturing gem quality diamonds and without fail, no matter what the cost, Debears buys them out. Capitalism has no hope of putting debears out of business, as should have occured 50 years ago. Eventually, maybe a hundred years or so, the components necessary to make diamonds may be so cheap that people can do it in their garage and yes, Debears will fall. But thats 100 years of people getting ripped off and subpar lasers for science and such.
gunslingor1
5 / 5 (1) Sep 22, 2011
Society is suffering because the certain businesses insist on maintaining the status quo for the sake of profit over progress. I'm 100% fine with this, this is what business is supposed to do... play by the rules and make money anyway possible. Hence the importance of government and effective regulation/rules.

Let make one thing clear, capitalism does not function without a functioning government. Right now, our government is non-functional primarily as the result of the "evil" businesses paying off both DEMs and REPs to either make the regulations ineffective or non-existant. It still puzzles me to this day why REPs who aren't being paid off, average Joes, still support them. I mean, they actual trust these large BPs, Exxons, ENRONS, and Monsantos to ignore profit and act ethically? Or they trust that all of a sudden people will come together and boycot these companies, putting there livelyhood on the line since you really don't have competition, if they act unethically?
emsquared
1 / 5 (1) Sep 22, 2011
To give an example: In the late 1940s early 50s, a method of diamond product was developed.. Gem quality in some cases.

I think of the great diamond scam as a perfect example of how society needs to change. Absolutely DeBeers very skillfully crafted their market and single-handedly created the societal stigma that you HAVE to get a diamond. But that's their job. That's what businesses do - whatever they can to get someone to buy their product.

But it is still just a construct, if people cared to inform themselves or stood up for the value that they believe in (that a diamond isn't necessary to show your love), the diamond industry wouldn't be the false thing it is. DeBeers cant make you buy a diamond, society can. People who care have to act.

My fiance and I have had quite a bit of fun going around to jewelers being like "What do you have in not-diamond?" The quizzical looks and stammered responses of "Any particular reason? There's a lot of misinformation out there..." Tasty.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Sep 22, 2011
I asked whether free market mechanisms and protection of property rights can protect resources such as tuna. Can they?

Yes.

My point is that I would like to see some intellectual effort going into generating solutions instead of denying problems and attacking the other side.

I would like to see socialists stop magnifying problems to try and seize more control.
gunslingor1
5 / 5 (1) Sep 22, 2011
Welllll... I'm fine with people thinking diamonds are important in a marriage, though I disgree with it. But, with current Tech, it need not be a $10,000 expenditure. If things were allowed to progress naturally back in the 50s, I would be able to get my wife a 15 carot diamond for, maybe, 100 bucks. That is precisely the biggest rule missing in modern capitalism, companies absolutely should not be allowed to stiffle progress for the sake of profit... it needs to be a new rule... who decides when a company should be stopped? The supreme court I would imagine. The point is that progress, or growth in quality not quantity, is always hindered for the sake of growth. I beleive we have reach the point where growth in quality is far more important and desireable among the public than growth in quantity, or we are getting close to it; nothing can grow in quantity for ever, quality can always be improved, its far more stable than quantity, and provides a longer term basis for capitalism.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 22, 2011
companies absolutely should not be allowed to stiffle progress for the sake of profit.

They can't, with out help from some government.
DeBeers tried to buy all the world's diamonds to control the market. They failed. This tactic always fails, unless a govt steps in and creates a monopoly.
emsquared
not rated yet Sep 22, 2011
who decides when a company should be stopped? The supreme court I would imagine.

The Supreme Court is a check and balance for our governmental system, they have no business in economy except as that relates to arbitrating legal cases. If someone can demonstrate DeBeers broke the law while "inhibiting progress", then something can be done by the courts.
Hence the importance of government and effective regulation/rules.

Let make one thing clear, capitalism does not function without a functioning government.

I would agree to the extent that the government should foster a competitive market. Preventing things like DeBeers, i.e. monopolies and out of control corporatism.

For this to happen though (for gov't to check corporatism), capitalism cannot be allowed into the government. Which the supreme court has boned us there, by ensuring lobbies have a permanent place in campaign finance. It's really really hard to undo "bench legislation", unfortunately.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 22, 2011
"Why don't all who believe this do humanity the service of committing suicide?" - RyggTard

Death and destruction appears to be the only thing Libertarians are capable of understanding.
gunslingor1
5 / 5 (2) Sep 22, 2011
Ryg, consider both sides of the coin for just a moment and you'll understand how one sided and moronic your statements sound.

"They can't, with out help from some government."
-Okay, I agree government can be an enabler, helping companies to due unethical things like cutting costs for more profit at the expense of safety or public health. YES government can help them do this, true, but they generally are getting something out of the deal like campaign contributions.
-Now the other side of the coin brother; your saying if there were no government, then they couldn't act as an enabler, true.... but that by no means implies the company wouldn't do it anyway.

Think more marjon.

Also, you should really just come out and admit your an anarchist, not a capitalist and certainly not a republican in the traditional sense. Your arguements would be understandable then; whether right or wrong they make no sense without this assumption.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (2) Sep 22, 2011
"The Supreme Court is a check and balance for our governmental system, they have no business in economy except as that relates to arbitrating legal cases." - EmSquard

Since all trade is ultimately based on contract and since contract is a legal construct, it follows that the court presides over all economic activity.
gunslingor1
5 / 5 (1) Sep 22, 2011
"If someone can demonstrate DeBeers broke the law while "inhibiting progress", then something can be done by the courts."
-Read my post more carefully, that's why the rule is needed in the first place.
-As for the rest of that post, I agree, except I draw your attention to the fact that the economy would not exist without a signal currancy which cannot and never will be under the control of a purely profit making entity... people would never stand for it..
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 22, 2011
"They can't, with out help from some government." - RyggTard

Get Lost Liar.

Just 4 days ago you claimed that the U.S. government had created 24,000 laws over the last year, when in fact the REFERENCE YOU OFFERED TO BACK UP YOUR ASSERTION showed that only around 1,500 had been created.

I have never encountered a Libertarian who wasn't a congenital and perpetual liar.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 22, 2011
"They can't, with out help from some government." - RyggTard

Get Lost Liar.

Just 4 days ago you claimed that the U.S. government had created 24,000 laws over the last year, when in fact the REFERENCE YOU OFFERED TO BACK UP YOUR ASSERTION showed that only around 1,500 had been created.

You were dishonestly misrepresenting announcements of meetings and times tables and the like as new "laws".

And that isn't the first lie you have been caught telling over the last several weeks. There have been at least a half dozen others.

I have never encountered a Libertarian who wasn't a congenital and perpetual liar.

Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (4) Sep 22, 2011
Ya, just like you will get with every other Filthy, Dung for Brains, Lying Libertarian Traitor in existence.

"You'll remain nothing but depressed if you keep in discussion with ryggesogn2. All you'll get from him is rhetorical questions, logical fallacies, or quotes from blogs followed by one of the aforementioned questions/fallacies in response." -
Javinator
gunslingor1
5 / 5 (2) Sep 22, 2011
True, he does blatantly lie.. I think I've known him for like 2 years now.... refuses to admit a mistake, most likely because the mistake was intentional.

He's probably being paid to spew garbage propaganda for uneducated people in general.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 22, 2011
"Free markets and protection of private property rights." - RyggTard

Both of which must be controlled and limited by government (Society) for there to be net material and social progress.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (4) Sep 22, 2011
"If you'll take the time to read my next post after that, you'll see that the post you quoted was a joke." - GSwift

I read and respond in sequence... Tis the price to be paid by your posing choice.

I often respond from last to first in order to trap such problems.
emsquared
not rated yet Sep 22, 2011
Since all trade is ultimately based on contract and since contract is a legal construct, it follows that the court presides over all economic activity.

That's pretty much what I said. But the courts only preside over the agreements made between the parties in the contract. The gov't and the People are not any party to those parties (usually). And I've already agreed that the government has failed to effectively regulate industry to prevent corporatism so what can be done from here with the two (gov't and industry) so incestuously intertwined? Aside from trying to elect people who aren't corrupt, I guess... to me that leaves it to the People and societal movement.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 22, 2011
Explain how socialism has preserved elephant herds or helped to maintain fishing stocks." - RyggTard

You mean the fish stocks and elephant herds that have been brought to the brink of extinction by Capitalism?

Poor Clueless Libertarian/Randite Tard.
gunslingor1
5 / 5 (1) Sep 22, 2011
I fear you are correct Emsquare, but if this be true, at this point, when things have gotten so curropt and off any noble path (whether DEM or REP), I fear the only solution would be a revolution. I hope something happens before it comes to that, but when the cancer rate reaches 50% (currently at 38%, increasing steadily by 2% a decade) I think the public will start a revolution. I really think that will be the tipping point, but I also think it will be entirely too late by then... especially from an environmental perspective.
Sigh
5 / 5 (4) Sep 22, 2011
I asked whether free market mechanisms and protection of property rights can protect resources such as tuna. Can they?

Yes.

How?

I would like to see socialists stop magnifying problems to try and seize more control.

Then why don't you make it pointless by offering an alternative to those who think the problems are not magnified? You just failed with me. I have read of successful non-regulatory approaches and liked them. I want to know whether the approach can be extended. You only made me more skeptical that it can. If one of the most vocal proponents of free markets can't tell me how they are supposed to work for non-local problems, it becomes less likely that free markets offer a solution for that kind of problem. You are a pretty good recruiter for socialism. If that is your goal, carry on as you are.

Do you agree or dispute that a finite planet has finite resources and can't support infinite consumption?
emsquared
not rated yet Sep 22, 2011
when things have gotten so curropt and off any noble path (whether DEM or REP), I fear the only solution would be a revolution.

It is hard to envision a realistic outcome that doesn't involve large scale tragedy, I agree. Though the tipping point may come even sooner if people start having problems feeding their families, especially as they watch wall street reap ever higher profits...
gunslingor1
5 / 5 (2) Sep 22, 2011
Agreed EM, I think people are really starting to get pissed companies like GE are making bank, yet pay no taxes yet, still, are sending the jobs overseas. Funny thing is, even if the tax rate were zero, its still 10 times more profitable to manufacture in china... unless you were to automate everything and build it in the US... but then there are no jobs!

"Do you agree or dispute that a finite planet has finite resources and can't support infinite consumption?"
That is precisely the kind of question he will ignore, and counter with something unrelated or diversionary. I love how he claims our discussion are exagerating problems.... then exagerates pretty much every word he spews... really, this guy is a wako.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 22, 2011
Do you agree or dispute that a finite planet has finite resources and can't support infinite consumption?

What is infinite consumption?
Water is recycled, carbon is recycled...
Until we build a Dyson sphere around the sun, where is the limit to growth in the solar system?
I have read of successful non-regulatory approaches and liked them.

Good for you. I am tired of providing sources for 'progressives' to ignore. If you want to know, you will do your own research.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 22, 2011
off any noble path

What's the noble path?
For this to happen though (for gov't to check corporatism), capitalism cannot be allowed into the government.

Then you must shred constitutional rights. But that is the objective of the 'progressive'.
emsquared
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 22, 2011
Then you must shred constitutional rights.

Nope. Political campaigns become public financed. People or corporations or even PACs can still say whatever they want, spend however much they want to say it, or can even donate to the public campaign finance fund (which goes toward both parties). Just can't give money or any contribution to a specific political party or politician, as it is bribery, a crime. ;)
Sigh
5 / 5 (4) Sep 22, 2011
What is infinite consumption?

Fair point. I'll rephrase. If resources are limited, you can't afford an economic model that depends on exponential growth continuing indefinitely.

Water is recycled, carbon is recycled...

At a finite rate?

Until we build a Dyson sphere around the sun, where is the limit to growth in the solar system?

We have no resource extraction off planet, never mind a Dyson sphere. Therefore practically applicable limits are a lot lower. For example the amount of sunlight available for biological processes can't be more than what hits Earth. Recycling water and carbon are ecosystem services. Their capacity is limited. Or do you want to claim unlimited capacity? If you do, then as a biologist I have a professional interest and would like to know more.

If you want to know, you will do your own research.

I have, and found nothing for non-local resources like tuna. I have no evidence that your previous assertion is true.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Sep 22, 2011
If resources are limited,

What are the limits to resources?
For example the amount of sunlight available for biological processes can't be more than what hits Earth.

Is every photon from the sun captured?
The earth receives ~1300 J/s/m^2 from the sun.

In addition, nuclear power can generate electricity that can power lamps that can be used for plants.

But, do you think a handful of central planners have all the knowledge needed to explore all options?
How many vertical gardens are raising food in cities?
Or do you want to claim unlimited capacity? If you do, then as a biologist I have a professional interest and would like to know more.

The only limit is ingenuity and energy. How do you define 'unlimited'? Why can't the earth support 10 billion or 100 billion people?
You do realize that the entire human population can comfortably fit into the land mass of Australia?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Sep 22, 2011
As for tuna, I don't care for it. But I do know that catfish farms are quite plentiful in the southern USA, Norway is farming salmon, Philippines are farming tilapia and bangus. Many other countries are raising tilapia as well.
"IF EVER there were a graphic illustration of the tragedy of the commons, it is the plummeting of the worlds stocks of bluefin tuna. Because they live in the high seas, these fish belong to everyone, and are thus no ones responsibility. The result is that the bluefin has been doomed to decades of poor management. "
http://www.econom...12502783
So govts have failed to manage tuna.
"In principle, the problem of overfishing could be easily solved if "chunks" of ocean were transferred into private property. Rather than having a meeting of 48 governments to determine "the" quota, the owner(s) of each chunk of ocean could set an individual policy for that chunk."
http://mises.org/daily/4879
The key is protecting private property rights.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Sep 22, 2011
"Although bioeconomic theory suggests that assigning secure rights to fishermen may align incentives and lead to significantly enhanced biological and economic performance, evidence to date has been only case- or region-specific. By examining 11,135 global fisheries, we found a strong link: By 2003, the fraction of ITQ-managed fisheries that were collapsed was about half that of non-ITQ fisheries. This result probably underestimates ITQ benefits, because most ITQ fisheries are young."
http://blogs.wort...in-fish/
"government officials who are in charge of "protecting endangered species" do not take nearly as good care of them as would private owners, who would personally reap the gains from increasing the market value of the resource."
http://mises.org/daily/4879
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Sep 22, 2011
And here is an article that compares and contrasts the results of the failure of the state to protect property rights:
http://prfamerica...ica.html
And Zimbabewe's socialism has led to human starvation as well.
Pressure2
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 22, 2011
Yes ryggesogn2, that it is a shame that so many people in the world are starving today. You see limited resources is a relative phrase.

The one thing your source fails to mention is that it was the extreme form of capitalism in Zimbabwe's past that created the extremism on the left in recent years.

That is the one thing extremist never seem to learn, they are their own worst enemy.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 22, 2011
it was the extreme form of capitalism in Zimbabwe's past

No, it was not.
They just practiced a different form of statism.
Pressure2
5 / 5 (3) Sep 23, 2011
it was the extreme form of capitalism in Zimbabwe's past

No, it was not.
They just practiced a different form of statism.

You are right about that, it bordered on slavery. Don't forget the Whites originally stole the land from the Blacks. Yes, that is a perverted form of capitalism by today's standards but it is the original form of capitalism, survial of the fittest. The Whites then stacked all the rules and laws against them to keep them from ever being able to govern themselves. Then when the Blacks reached sufficent numbers and knowledge of what was going on and tried to take what was rightly theirs the International Monetary Fund cut off their access the capital they needed to even set up a sustainable form of government.

Geez, the same thing is going on in this country with the recent Supreme Court ruling that corporations have citizen's rights.

gunslingor1
5 / 5 (2) Sep 23, 2011
ryg said "So govts have failed to manage tuna."

Of course, he fails to recognize that businesses failed tuna just as much, no, actually far more than government. I mean, its not our senitors out there overfishing, its not the EPA or the department of health. It certainly isn't small family owned fishing companies, there largely non-existence. The fishing boats these companies use now are brutal to the sea, miles and miles of net indescriminatly dragging on the ocean floor and capturing every thing possible. Of course, as soon as someone proposes government step in to save the Tuna a guy like you comes along and calls us socialists. You claim business can do better... well.... business never disappeared, regulations are lax or non-existant now..... why are our ocean still skrinking in biomass?

You propose outlandish magical technology of the future will solve our problem,like a dyson sphere, while simultaniously claiming there is no problem. Scientists don't work by magic.
Talented Chimp
1 / 5 (3) Sep 23, 2011
"Humankind will slip next week into ecological debt, having gobbled up in less then ..."

Stopped reading at that point. If the spelling isn't even correct, it doesn't inspire confidence in the rest of the article.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Sep 23, 2011
Yes, that is a perverted form of capitalism by today's standards but it is the original form of capitalism, survial of the fittest.

No, this is a form of socialism, state control of property, not captialism.

The fishing boats these companies use now are brutal to the sea, miles and miles of net indescriminatly dragging on the ocean floor and capturing every thing possible.

Why shouldn't they? They don't own the ocean.
How can 'progressive' socailists defend private property rights whey they don't respect private property rights?
The only method that has been demonstrated to be effective in protecting resources is property rights, and their defense.
Somali fishermen resorted to piracy when Chinese fishing ships invaded their waters.
I have said hundreds of times, the function of the govt is to protect private property rights.
Who owns the tuna gunny? Now it is the first person to catch it.
Pressure2
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 23, 2011

Who owns the tuna gunny? Now it is the first person to catch it.

Now that is a perfect setup for the extinction of a species. Nice going Rygg2.
Pressure2
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 23, 2011
Yes, that is a perverted form of capitalism by today's standards but it is the original form of capitalism, survial of the fittest.

No, this is a form of socialism, state control of property, not captialism.

- - - - - - - -

Yes today it is a form of socialism but under the White's rule it was a perverted form of raw capitalism. I thought that was the kind you liked with no rules and regulations.

Extemism begets extemism, extemist are their own worst enemy.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Sep 23, 2011
Now that is a perfect setup for the extinction of a species. Nice going Rygg2.
Why?
Current govt plans don't change this.
Create an incentive, a profit motive, for fisherman and their customers to keep stocks sustainable.
Now it's called tragedy of the commons. End the commons, end the tragedy.

Capitalism is always regulated by customers and competitors, unless a govt prevents it.
gunslingor1
5 / 5 (5) Sep 23, 2011
"How can 'progressive' socailists defend private property rights when they don't respect private property rights?
-First, I'm telling you flat out, that I am not a socialist. If you keep calling me such, I'll just have to start calling you a Turd Burgler.
-The oceans are not private property. Anyone or any country that thinks they can own something like an ocean is diluted. You think America owns the moon just because we were their first?
-As for your private property rights, this country was founded on the blood of the natives. Government allowed businesses to steal everything from the natives, and they were more than willing to. Ethical business & gov is needed, currently we have neither. Abolitioning either would only make matters worse

The only method that has been demonstrated to be effective in protecting resources is property rights"
-Perhaps this is where you and I differ, you look at Earth as a resource to be exploited by the few with the power to do it; I call it home
Pressure2
5 / 5 (3) Sep 23, 2011
Now that is a perfect setup for the extinction of a species. Nice going Rygg2.
Why?
Current govt plans don't change this.
Create an incentive, a profit motive, for fisherman and their customers to keep stocks sustainable.
Now it's called tragedy of the commons. End the commons, end the tragedy.

Capitalism is always regulated by customers and competitors, unless a govt prevents it.

You didn't do your home work Rygg2. You didn't find out what happened on Easter Island. Your answer did not work out there, period!
emsquared
3 / 5 (2) Sep 23, 2011
Rygg, from your complete disregard of my response I take that to mean you concede that I am right. I accept your concession. Thanks for playing.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 23, 2011
Nope. Political campaigns become public financed.

Yep. That violates the US First Amendment.
Why should my money be taken to support socialist candidates?

What happened on Easter Island is an example of the tragedy of the commons.

Property rights have protected elephant herds.

Property rights are protecting fishing stocks now in the Gulf of Mexico and in Scotland.

So gunny thinks the earth is his home and he does not consider himself a socialist?
Property rights provide the incentive for people to protect their property. If you rent, why do you care about the resale value of the property? If you farm, do you want to farm for 30 years and pass it on to your children or sell productive land? Who will buy a farm that can't produce crops?
Fisherman want to keep fishing and need to have some incentive to maintain stocks.
Hunters pay people and states to keep stocks of deer, ducks, geese, turkeys, pheasants, etc to hunt.
gunslingor1
5 / 5 (3) Sep 23, 2011
Yeah, he does that. You make a good point, he diverges the conversation. You both agree to disagree, he still refuses to come up with compromises. He's like an anti-socialist monarch using the promises of ideal capitalism to fool his minyans into doing his, and only his, will.

He's the same guy that thinks currancy should be open to the free market, meaning government shouldn't print money, rather, every company and their mother would be the printers.

He's the guy who claims fish stocks are as plentiful as they have always been, then claims the government has failed to protect the fish.

The same guy who screens about protecting private property, yet doesn't recognize the indian's claim to this country.

The same type of people who scream Socialism anytime someone proposes we do something together, as a country, yet accepts when cities build business men giant stadiums or gives subsidies to oil companies.

The same guy who strungs of the BP spill saying "fish can swim away"
defunctdiety
5 / 5 (6) Sep 23, 2011
Yep. That violates the US First Amendment.
Why should my money be taken to support socialist candidates?

LOL!! Way to limp in there. Wasn't even typed like you believed that crap.

Everyone's taxes go to all kinds of things that they don't personally endorse. Anyway, you wouldn't be financing socialists, you'd be financing a functional electoral process. I know, that's not what you want, but that is what's best for society.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 23, 2011
He's the same guy that thinks currancy should be open to the free market, meaning government shouldn't print money, rather, every company and their mother would be the printers.


Govt is doing such a wonderful job?
Free market money has been documented to be more stable.

accepts when cities build business men giant stadiums

I don't accept that.

that is what's best for society.

So YOU say.
That IS the socialist way, what is best for 'society' or 'humantity'. Not what is best for the individual.
If you restrict free speach rights and force coerced funding for campaigns you must also restrict freedom of assembly. You will have to limit the number of volunteers a candidate can have to work the campaign.
What tangled web you weave...
gunslingor1
5 / 5 (3) Sep 23, 2011
"Free market money has been documented to be more stable."
-Oh really? The dollar still exists 200 years later... so where is this supposed stable corporate currancy? I hope your not refering to the shanty towns of 1920s, that was one of the primary causes of the great depression. When people realized company A's dollars aren't worth the paper they are printed on to company B, no company paper was accepted by any company other than the company that printed it. Dude, seriously, why such faith in business? I mean, I understand the faith in the consumer part, but businesses!? You do realize that, at best, your proposing solutions that would be reactionary and not preventative right? If a company does wrong by the consumer and the consumer stops buy from them, you do realize the damage is already done right?

Let's see where you stand, if you were president and all of congress were your supports, what would you do to make this world better?

emsquared
5 / 5 (3) Sep 23, 2011
That IS the socialist way, what is best for 'society' or 'humantity'. Not what is best for the individual.

So... you don't want there to be a society? You want your children to breed with each other, and for every man to be an island? Sorry, that's not what humans are. We are social animals, our success as a species is because of this. The future of the world is not individuals, it is as a social group (society).
If you restrict free speach rights and force coerced funding for campaigns you must also restrict freedom of assembly. You will have to limit the number of volunteers a candidate can have to work the campaign.

No restrictions on speech, point them out? No coercion, just normal civic obligations of financing a functioning societal structure so that we can succeed as a culture. Campaigns will look very different, as in people who are not millionaires will be able to run. But volunteering is fine. No tangled web, that's what we already have.
gunslingor1
5 / 5 (2) Sep 23, 2011
Rygg, only people who have great quantities of capital think that our political leaders should be selected based on who has the most capital. 98% of the wealth in this country rests with only .2% of the population, and I don't want .2% of the public making decisions for us, I want 51% or more to make the calls. Money shouldn't be factor at all when it comes to campaigns, as I am sure you would agree since you don't beleive in common currencies.

Why did you say "easter island was an example of the tragedy of the commmons"? Are you recognizing that finite resources were in fact exploited beyond repair and that this could in fact happen to earth? Good, glad to see your finally admitting your errors, perhaps we can have a conversation now.

I honeestly don't think you beleive what you are saying, you've been proved wrong so many times on so many boards. You've blatantly lied time after time, not for the purposes of making a point, but to try and control people's perception.
Pressure2
5 / 5 (3) Sep 23, 2011
Poor rygg2 he doesn't even realize where "property rights" come. In a democracy they were created for the general benefit of all that inhabit a given area. Yes, by rules and regulations and for the benefit of ALL, my god socialism.
gunslingor1
5 / 5 (2) Sep 23, 2011
I really, honestly, think he's being paid by Wall Street or Big Oil or something. I haven't even met a Tea Partier with such extreme ideas and he's been at this for years. He makes a good point on a rare occasion, but its always drowned out by his inaccurate verbal abuse and his inability to recognize that, yes, the coin does in fact have another side. Yes Rygg, we do live in a three dimensional world, not a two dimensional one.

Hell, it doesn't matter. There will always be two types of people, those that exploit others for personal gain and those that recognize the strength in standing together under common goals.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 23, 2011
The dollar still exists 200 years later

What is it worth?

In order for the 'general benefit' to be obtained, one must respect and defend the rights of EVERY individual.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Sep 23, 2011
Well I can see this place hasn't changed. Randroid Marjon going on and on about some mysterious oppression and magical free market solutions to everything.

Back to arstechnica.
emsquared
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 23, 2011
Again, rygg, I accept your silent concession. Or are you still sitting there wringing your hands trying to figure out how you can twist conservative rhetoric to say government isn't necessary for a successful society?
gunslingor1
5 / 5 (4) Sep 23, 2011
Skeptic my brotha!!! What is up!

Ryg,

What is it worth?
-far more than any corporate currancies ever were, as is evident from your lake of examples.

In order for the 'general benefit' to be obtained, one must respect and defend the rights of EVERY individual.
-See, you made a good point without calling us names, now your learning to debate!! So, how am I trying to take away peoples rights? I feel I'm simply trying to restore them:
-right to decide children (your kind hates abortion)
-right to life (your kind is okay with companies lieing to us selling products that will kill us, claiming 'once your dead you'll know not to buy from that company any more and puff, problem solved!)
-right to assembly (SOCIALIST!!!)
-right to privacy (your kind loves the patriot act)
-right to hold property (if anyone owns coastal waters, its the US as a whole, yet your ok with BP destroying it to cut costs, at the expense of our joinly owned private property)
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 23, 2011
"What is it worth?" - RyggTard

Given the increase in the U.S. population much less per greenback since those greenbacks must be distributed among 200 times as many people if not more.

Does the necessary devaluation of paper money upset you RyggTard?

Perhaps like other Libertarian Tards you insist that you should have the right to print your own money.

gunslingor1
5 / 5 (2) Sep 23, 2011
according to Pew research (2008) - http://pewresearc...ublicans - 36% of registered voters identify as Democrats, 36% as independent, and 27% identify as republican.

Wouldn't it be funny if marjon/ryg was right and we were all socialists. That's a dead minimum of 36% of the population, eh, now what? Put them all in concentration camps so marjon's kind can go on screwing each other over for each others worthless paper. I mean capitalism is great, but let's not forget it is an economy based on selling a product for more then its worth, hence the existnce of profit. See marjon, two sides to ever coin, the middle is where it (we) come together. Get unstuck from the right hand side!!! Please don't be as incomprehensible as to respond by calling me a socialist, I'm in the middle.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 23, 2011
"In order for the 'general benefit' to be obtained, one must respect and defend the rights of EVERY individual." - RyggTard

In light of that statement can you explain why Libertarians/Randites were generally in favor of torturing prisoners at Guantanimo?

Vendicar_Decarian
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 23, 2011
The driving motivation for all Capitalists is to provide the consumer with the worst possible product at the highest possible price.

Isn't that right RyggTard....
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (4) Sep 23, 2011
'Free market money has been documented to be more stable." - RyggTard

Such statements just illustrate the depth of RyggTard's Libertarian/Randite delusion.

There is no such thing, and there never has been any such thing as "free market money."

It's pure Randite Idiocy.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Sep 23, 2011
"In a time when the belief in socialism is dying around the world, it is time to realize that government monopoly of money is nothing less than monetary central planning It, too, has been a failure. And it is time to "privatize" money for the same reasons that are being proposed to privatize the production and marketing of goods and services in the communist East and the democratic West Only private enterprise, operating in a free market can eliminate political abuse in the disposal of resources and can guarantee efficient use of those resources for the satisfying of consumer demands.

Contrary to government-created myth, money is not the creation of the State."
http://www.fff.or...290b.asp

Regardless of who prints money, in the final analysis, it IS the market that determines its value. We saw that with the housing bubble.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Sep 23, 2011
" $25.80 in the year 2010 has the same "purchase power" as $1 in the year 1776."
http://www.measur...sult.php
And this is because the US govt inflates the value of the money, by 'printing' more dollars.
Statists love inflation as it is a tax on us all.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Sep 23, 2011
http://fee.org/wp...oney.jpg
Hayek on free market money, from 1977.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 23, 2011
Govt money is not doing very well:
"World leaders were warned last night that they have just six weeks to save the euro from collapse.

Read more: http://www.dailym...Yp17VzV5
"
kaasinees
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 23, 2011
Same old story in here...I wonder why govt money is not doing so well.. Maybe because current govt paid and run by wall street, IMF, not to mention goldman sachs who took Greece into the EU by lying about its debt, and taking billions of $ advantage of collapsing housing market which they probably created by themselves... Companies firing people because they made less profit than last year (yes they still made profit) to please stock holders... Govt's bailing out/buying out to please stock holders in currencies...

Do i need to go on about capitalism? Seriously... UP YOURS.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Sep 23, 2011
What capitalism? Govt created the money and sets its value.
Banks are heavily regulated by all govts.
Govt bears no responsibility? Govt is the victim?
kaasinees
3 / 5 (4) Sep 23, 2011
What capitalism? Govt created the money and sets its value.
Banks are heavily regulated by all govts.
Govt bears no responsibility? Govt is the victim?

You are delusional, ignorant, stupid or a liar. I think all of them. How did the govt create money? It is the banking system that created money way before any govt existed, or even religion. Actually religion thrived on the idea of money to create a fair number of wealth, Karl's capitalist pyramid is a great example. Socialism is the mere response of the oppression of capitalism. Its obvious you want all of us to be slaves to bankers and church, currency in the form of flesh. There is a reason that poverty has been rising the last few years, and it is the reason from capitalists, nothing more nothing less.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Sep 23, 2011
"Most of today's macroeconomists see surprisingly little wrong with the present system of fully elastic money. This is surprising for two reasons: First, there is the universally dismal historical record of paper money systems. Second, paper money systems are inherently incompatible with capitalism. In a state paper money system, the banking system is de-facto cartelized and the banks' funding conditions and certain interest rates are determined administratively by a state agencythe central bank. The constant expansion of bank reserves constitutes an ongoing subsidy to the banks, which encourages further money creation through fractional-reserve banking. Credit growth in such an economy is no longer driven by the extent of saving in the economy but the result of central bank policy and the banks' willingness to expand their balance sheets. "
http://online.wsj...news_wsj
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Sep 23, 2011
It is the banking system that created money way before any govt existed,


What bank existed before govts?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Sep 23, 2011
"But 400 years ago, banking wasn't so big. In fact, bankers were practically outcasts."
"Since Christians could not legally charge interest to other Christians, money lending fell mostly to Jews.. Confined to ghettos, they conducted their business on benches, or banques (the root of the word bank). If you can imagine it today, the price of banking in the early 1600s was ostracism.

How did we go from ghettos to Goldman? The great innovation in modern banking occurred in Florence, Niall Ferguson writes in his book The Ascent of Money. Giovanni di Medici, father of the great Cosimi di Medici, saw that while charging interest was a sin, nothing prevented a trader from making money on taking a commission for converting currencies. If converted currencies were advanced for longer periods of time, the commission would grow as well. By diversifying his investments across traders, depositors and different currencies, Giovanni created a truly booming, stable and legally acceptable bank."
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Sep 23, 2011
"But if money has changed from wheat in a field to numbers on a traders' screen, its definition stayed the same: trust. Trusting money to be worth its promise is the beating heart of the global economy. Debt is a promise: I will pay you back -- break that promise, and you have default. Fiat currency is a promise: Your money will be worth something -- break that promise, and you have revolution. "
http://www.theatl...y/72153/

Bonus:
"President Barack Obama will raise money in early October with a Missouri businessman whose company benefited from a $107 million federal tax credit to develop a wind power facility in his state.

Read more: http://www.politi...YpJCR8v3
kaasinees
4 / 5 (4) Sep 23, 2011
"But 400 years ago, banking wasn't so big. In fact, bankers were practically outcasts."


So doing some research because you know nothing about the subject? You are way off keep digging.
kaasinees
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 23, 2011
Bonus:


How about the companies that went bankrupt and took off with "Obama's stimilus package"? Your quotes mean nothing.

But if money has changed from wheat in a field to numbers on a traders' screen, its definition stayed the same: trust. Trusting money to be worth its promise is the beating heart of the global economy

How can you trust money when it keeps changing value? How can you trust money when some ppls in tite suits define its value? You cant.

Debt is a promise: I will pay you back -- break that promise, and you have default.

Debt is a promise: I will use it as an excuse for war while you live in poverty.

fixed it for you.
kaasinees
5 / 5 (2) Sep 23, 2011
"But 400 years ago, banking wasn't so big. In fact, bankers were practically outcasts."


Okay because i cannot resist. 400 years ago bankers were common in the Netherlands and England/Scotland. Actually one of the things we were known about, most likely because we were great ship builders, we could transfer a large number of wealth around he globe. We had a fine banking system, we still use most of the part.
IF you want to know more:
http://en.wikiped...Republic

Giovanni created a truly booming, stable and legally acceptable bank."

http://en.wikiped...di_Siena
The oldest SURVIVING bank. Its not the firs EVER bank. Which is 600 years ago not 400, again debunking your stupidity quotes.
kaasinees
5 / 5 (2) Sep 23, 2011
Not to mention middle eastern bankers 2000 years ago, which sadly i cannot find any source on.
If we take a look at the Quran it is very evident that they got their taxation ideas from the banking system and this is 600 CE.
kaasinees
5 / 5 (3) Sep 23, 2011
So ryg, how does it feel that your ideal capitalist ideology has created the taxation system which you hate so much?

Stop being a hypocrite and get off this website, nobody believes your lies. And stop selling your soul to evil that is fighting against humanity.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 23, 2011
"But if money has changed from wheat in a field to numbers on a traders' screen, its definition stayed the same: trust. " - RyggTard

Sorry Tard Boy... But the definition of money isn't trust.

While trust might be needed in the exchange of money, trust is also needed in many things.

I trust that a step will not collapse when I step on it. I trust that a door will not fall off it's hinges when I open it. I trust that fire is hot. I trust many things, and virtually none of them are related to money.

You assertive definition is nothing but Libertarian/Randite Nonsense.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Sep 23, 2011
If we take a look at the Quran it is very evident that they got their taxation ideas from the banking system and this is 600 CE.


"The Roman Republic rose to dominate the ancient world because of low taxes and tax justice. Ironically, it fell because it debased the currency and oppressed the poor through taxes."
{Rome was dominate before the Koran was written.}
"America rose to the most powerful nation on earth because until the mid 20th century, we were a relatively low taxed nation. He reminds us of how our government started freely spending and it was because of graduated tax rates and witholding."
http://senseinpol...xes.html

"Arbitrary taxation, in despotisms to supply the wants of the ruler, in aristocracies and in oligarchies to supply the state, is perhaps still more destructive to providence than even war"
http://www.fff.or...394g.asp
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (4) Sep 23, 2011
"Debt is a promise" - RyggTard

Wrong again Tard Boy. Debt a debt is an obligation, legal or otherwise to "return" something of value. One need not make any promise in order to be indebted.

Motiations can be legal, moral, ethical, or a sense of self worth. Even love can be a motivation for assumed debt.

But Libertarians know nothing of love, ethics, morals or self worth. Hence their fixation on money.

Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (4) Sep 23, 2011
"The Roman Republic rose to dominate the ancient world because of low taxes and tax justice." - Matt

RyggTard is so desperate for quack Libertarian/RandTard material that he is quoting from a home schooled blogger.

"I am single and in my mid twenties. I was home educated since first grade and though I didn't actually enroll in college." - matt
boobyenthusiast
1 / 5 (2) Sep 23, 2011
Its the rich that are destroying the earth in their evil drive for more money, not the common person- we recycle, we conserve, we love this planet! This will just be an excuse to exterminate us!!!


This is wrong. The common man is a less-than-intelligent person who litters (how else do you explain the fact that litter is EVERYWHERE you go) and since there are 7 billion of them, the result is human waste of megalithic proportions. If we exterminated everyone with an IQ under 120, we could recuperate.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Sep 23, 2011
"TreasuryDirect is the only financial services website that lets you buy and redeem securities directly from the U.S. Department of the Treasury in electronic form backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government."
http://www.public...eas.gov/
Those who lend money to the US are doing so on trust alone.

If you know Buffet or anyone else who what to pay more taxes:
"write a check payable to the Bureau of the Public Debt, and in the memo section, notate that it's a Gift to reduce the Debt Held by the Public. Mail your check to:

Attn Dept G
Bureau of the Public Debt
P. O. Box 2188
Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188

http://www.treasu...tFinance
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Sep 23, 2011
If the USA decides not to repay its debts, how will the creditors sue?

Many nations nationalized (stole) property and defaulted on debt. Who was their to sue?
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (4) Sep 23, 2011
"Govt created the money and sets its value." - RyggTard

But Tard Boy... You just finished defining money as trust.

Please tell us how government creates trust? Certainly there are few governments as untrustworthy as yours. But that isn't why your nation is bankrupt.

Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (4) Sep 23, 2011
"If the USA decides not to repay its debts, how will the creditors sue?" - RyggTard

The only people who were calling for the U.S. to default on it's loans have been your Libertarian Brothers.

Can you explain that Tard Boy?

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Sep 23, 2011
VD: "Debt a debt is an obligation, legal or otherwise to "return" something of value. One need not make any promise in order to be indebted."
Again, the USA has made promises and people have trusted those promises.
Govt's always make promises they can't keep. How will those who lent money to Greece get their money back? Or those who own bonds from govts that defaulted?
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 23, 2011
"And this is because the US govt inflates the value of the money, by 'printing' more dollars." - RyggTard

You can't even get the basics of economics right. By putting more money into circulation, the value of each dollar deflates, not inflates as you claim.

You are also ignorant of the fact that the deflation of the value of the dollar is necessary component of rational monetary policy in a growing nation.

Without increasing the money supply there would be fewer and fewer dollars to be had by a growing population. If the population grows by a factor of 30, then the money supply had also better inflate by a similar amount or else people will find it difficult to find dollars for exchange.

And of course if the inflation necessarily means the value of each dollar is lowered. But lowered only relative to it's position in a growing economy.

Like virtually All Libertarian/Randites, you know virtually nothing about economics even though you use it as the basis of your sick ideology.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 23, 2011
"Again, the USA has made promises and people have trusted those promises. " - RyggTard

And again I ask why it has been primarily Libertarian/Randites who have been calling on the government to default on it's obligations.

You don't seem capable of answering any question put to you.

How typically Libertarian.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Sep 23, 2011
"California is ranked as No. 10 of the Top 10 default candidates among sovereign debtors, right behind Greece. No. 1 and 2 are Argentina and Venezuela, whose bonds should be rated M for mierda."
"But these debtor governments can't inflate away their debt burdens. So, their bonds have not-insignificant default risk. Given that, gold's rise may be seen as demand for an asset not subject to the vagaries of government borrowings."
http://online.bar...483.html
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 23, 2011
"In a time when the belief in socialism is dying around the world..." - RyggTard

Sorry Tard Boy.. The only thing that is dying is Capitalist America. Dying from the very free market poison that you are peddling here.

The rest of the world is doing fine. Particularly Socialist Asia.

And as to Europe, the failure has been to follow the path of American Capitalism.
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (4) Sep 23, 2011
"California is ranked as No. 10 of the Top 10 default candidates among sovereign debtors" - RyggTard

Quite impossible since California isn't a sovereign nation.

And California's problems stem from several sources. Principle of which is the inability to raise taxes due to Republican intransigence.

Second has been the loss of silicon valley to the Asia Pacific nations due in large part to the Libertarian Free Trade policies pushed through the government by Republican Operatives who were looking to maximize corporate profits at the expense of the American Public.


ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Sep 24, 2011
"The California State Legislature currently has a Democratic majority, with the Senate consisting of 25 Democrats and 15 Republicans and the Assembly consisting of 52 Democrats and 28 Republicans. Except for the period from 1995 to 1996, the Assembly has been in Democratic hands since the 1970 election (even while the governor's office has gone back and forth between Republicans and Democrats). The Senate has been in Democratic hands continuously since 1970."
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Sep 24, 2011
"China is on a treadmill of unsustainable development which it knows not how to get off without damaging growth and thereby provoking political and social instability. Residential and commercial property development in China is such a big component of overall growth that anything that damages the property market threatens to upset the entire apple cart. "
"hina is trying to run before she has properly learned to walk. Rampant corruption, cronyism and poor governance only add to concern over the sustainability of the present economic and social model. "
http://www.telegr...ils.html
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Sep 24, 2011
"All businesses do, financial services included, is offer their wares. When we transact, it is because doing so appears beneficial and thus we have little legitimate grievance with their gains. Unless you are the one paying, whether as a shareholder or customer, Wall Streets exorbitant bonuses really arent your concern. Covetousness does not generate good policy.

To make markets more equitable, its the state that must be constrained. Government should be an impartial referee charged with protecting against fraud and theft, not from incompetence and complacency. It must never pick winners. Wall Street can force nothing upon anyone without the states authority. Government commands the monopoly on legalized coercion."
http://www.forbes...uence/3/
Pkunk_
1 / 5 (2) Sep 24, 2011
"should China and India be stopped in their Westernisation?" - Astro optics

The entire point of the article is that Nature will stop the over-consumption through die-off if man does not do it through rational decision.

China appears to have very rational leaders who have already realized that their current path is unsustainable, and are moving toward a sustainable economy.



Yes , killing and jailing anyone protesting one party rule is sustainable . After all you can let the poor peasants get any power in a Communist state.

Also , it isn't sustainable to have a free press, free speech and any other basic human rights. Think about the ideas the plebs would get. Why , they'd revolt and overthrow one party rule. How much of a carbon footprint do revolutions have ?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Sep 24, 2011
killing and jailing anyone protesting one party rule is sustainable .

Define sustainable.
DPRK can only be sustained with aid from China and others.
How long did East Germany last?
Sigh
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 24, 2011
Is every photon from the sun captured?

Irrelevant to my point.
In addition, nuclear power can generate electricity that can power lamps that can be used for plants.

See http://www.physor...rgy.html
If I had no character limit, I'd explain other shortcomings in your schemes. But you think "do your own research" is an acceptable answer, so that is fine.

You try to argue that no limit is absolute, but all you have offered to back that up are wildly speculative schemes. You offered a Dyson sphere as solution, and the rest is not much better. Basically, "Something will turn up!"

But, do you think a handful of central planners have all the knowledge needed to explore all options?

Why are you so obsessed with central planning? It is not relevant to anything I wrote. Why do you keep bringing it up? Do you understand that it looks like a desperate distraction by someone who has nothing constructive to offer? Stick to the point.
omatumr
1 / 5 (5) Sep 24, 2011
Reality is a merciless taskmaster - even of world leaders.

The danger is that world leaders and leaders of science have aligned themselves with two scientific falsehoods for four decades:

a.) Anthropogenic climate change, and the
b.) Bilderberg model of the Sun as a stable H-fusion reactor.

Having failed to whitewash Climategate, their only escape is to:

c.) Admit deceit and risk retaliation, or
d.) Ban open discussion of Climategate.

Statesmanship is needed to resolve the situation and restore:

e.) Integrity to government science.
f.) Citizen control over government.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel

"Deep roots of Climategate" (2011)
http://dl.dropbox...oots.pdf
gimpypoet
1 / 5 (1) Sep 24, 2011
gov't is a business, and has big paydays for the members who control it. big oil co's and big business have lobbiests that get paid to "swing" the laes to their "bosses" favor.
My car uses gas, i drive it and the gas is used, iput in more, it uses that also.my car uses less gas if a)i drive it less. b)I drive it slower c)i walk or ride with some one else.
If my car had only the horsepower to drive @ 70 tops, the engine would weigh less, the other cars had the same, the body, if it was made out of lightweight composites, would weigh less, needing less fuel to go 70 mph. the desparit need of joe next door to go faster than me and to have a better looking car than me so he can get a prettier mate than me makes him spend more money to get a more powerful car, that may get him the prettier girl. who saved more? greed is killing us all. competition is the variable that enables greed. jesus supposedly threw the money changers off the banques despised greed? just saying, not taking sides.
gimpypoet
1 / 5 (1) Sep 24, 2011
i love America, but the government feeds itself, from the sweat off our backs.The polititians would not do what little they do if they made minimum wages. they are part of the .02%.when the gov't doesn't work for the people who is it working for? Stop paying for bad employees (tax money), and you go to jail. talk about their firing and risk treason. why? because we allowed them to have the power tomake laws without a vote. that is where "trust" got us. we need someone to make laws, but also some one who can live by them. when you take from a system, it looses energy if it is not put back by refueling it. If you overfill it, by mining asteroids of harvesting solar energy in space for use on earth, another kind of disaster will unfold, like spilled gas on the ground burns until it hits the gas tank of the car being refilled. the solution is here already. we must modify our consumption/expansion, recycling and conserving what we have, smarter. if not,extinction will follow.
gimpypoet
1 / 5 (1) Sep 24, 2011
if we could build a dysonsphere we could travel in space, which means we could terraform mars and relocate people there,mine other planets and asteriods.we would need no sphere for years after that,and could clean up our mess on earth,no need to build sphere,we have one called biosphere where all known life exists today!but unless some business, like branson sees a way to make a buck off it we will never leave,even though it is the ultimate solution.make our gov't speed up the process,by forcing change,not allowing it to force us to change.sure, it sounds nuts,but, are we gonna sit back until our kids starve because we sat back and let our gov't make big bucks?are we gonna let them eat steak while we choke on their bbq pits fumes?so far it looks like it,and thats too bad for all of us.we are/were the world leaders,lets lead into space before its to late.make the gov't do it sooner than later, while we still can,cause china owns the ISS already if you don't know it,by default.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Sep 24, 2011
gov't is a business,

No, it is not. It is force.
All govt is force and must be limited.
Why are you so obsessed with central planning?

Why are you? Especially since it fails to produce the results intended.
You try to argue that no limit is absolute,

Prove there is an absolute limit to the growth of humans.
See http://www.physor...rgy.html
Sounds like excuses to me. But if you are a biologist, I can see why you don't understand nuclear engineering.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Sep 24, 2011
"B.Sc (HONS), Ph.D, CEng, CPhys, FInstP, F-IEEE
Professor
Director of the Centre for Biomedical Engineering "
A biomedical engineer is an expert on the design of nuclear reactors, or material science or geology?
Like many other articles here, his anti-nuclear power article has an ulterior motive, I suspect.

tigger
not rated yet Sep 25, 2011
It's quite obvious that "human nature" is to consume without concern for those that come after us, sure we might have some degree of concern for relatives, our children.... but we quite simply do not think in terms of thousands of years.

Are we able to curb our "human nature"? I'm not so sure, I think we're cursed with the fate of being aware enough to understand it's happening... yet we can't change what we are... and as frightening as it may seem to many, free will is very much an illusion which is highlighted by this apparent madness... an apparently "intelligent" race destroying itself while knowing that it's destroying itself.

Fun times ahead! :P
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Sep 25, 2011
. but we quite simply do not think in terms of thousands of years.

Why should 'we'?
Why not use our 'greedy' human nature to best advantage? That is what capitalism does. As Adam Smith noted, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest"
When govt protects private property rights, individuals have an incentive keep their property productive for either resale or inheritance.
But we now have 'progressive' laws that tax inheritance and do not protect property rights.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Sep 25, 2011
by forcing change,

The battle cry of the socialist.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Sep 25, 2011
"Marx's theory of human nature, like Kim Jong Il's theory of pine needle tea, is a biological fantasy, and we have the corpses to prove it. Which may drive us to wonder: if communism is deadly because it is contrary to human nature, does that imply that capitalism, which is contrary to communism, is distinctively compatible with human nature? "
"It is easy to see a kind of in vitro capitalism in the evolved human propensity to recognize property rights, specialize in productive endeavors, and engage in fairly complex forms of social exchange."
"The human mind comprises many distinct, specialized functions, and is not an all-purpose learning machine that can be reformatted at will to realize political dreams. The shape of society is constrained by our evolved nature. Remaking humanity through politics is a biological impossibility on the order of curing cancer with pine needle tea. "
http://www.cato.o...201.html
semmsterr
not rated yet Sep 25, 2011
I'm sorry I have children. As a species, we deserve what were working toward.
Nanobanano
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 25, 2011
Humankind will slip next week into ecological debt, having gobbled up in less then nine months more natural resources than the planet can replenish in a year, researchers said Tuesday


Impossible.

Material, elemental resources are not depleted, excluding nuclear reactors and a few space probes.

Our energy consumption is only about 1/10,000th of the solar input, making human energy consumption nearly insignificant.

The problem is in consumption or organisms as food, shelter, and clothing.

Some of our existing fisheries truly are ridiculous and are depleting ocean life at an alarming rate, but this could be fixed by more farming on land and changes in diet.

The actual elemental materials on earth have changed very little in it's history, and if you count daily meteor strikes, metals and nutrients probably increase.

The real issue is that about 70% of jobs are paperwork jobs that don't actually "make" anything...continued...
Nanobanano
1 / 5 (2) Sep 25, 2011
So around 70% of people drive their automobile to law enforcement or paperwork jobs where they don't actually make anything at all.

Population increase is one of the biggest drivers or resource consumption, and the U.S. would probably be net negative if not for the ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.

Meanwhile, In parts of Africa and the MIddle East, they are still having 4 and 5 children per woman, mostly due to complete ignorance or misguided interpretations of religion.

Unfortunately, the end result of this is civil unrest, which we have been seeing world wide for several years now, as people who can't make enough money to live a decent lifestyle become enraged at their multi-billionaire and multi-millionaire government and corporate leaders who consume thousands of times the resources they produce.

If not for the insanely wealthy hoarding wealth, everyone else would have what they need, and total consumption would be much less...
MorituriMax
1 / 5 (1) Sep 25, 2011
Yet if you look at the slice of the planet we live on, it's barely a hair's width compared to the entirety of the planet.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Sep 25, 2011
If not for the insanely wealthy hoarding wealth, everyone else would have what they need, and total consumption would be much less...

And you were doing quite well until you get to this.
Data supports increasing standard of living reduces population growth. The solution is then to raise the world's standard of living. Free markets, private property rights and limited govt have been the only proven way to raise the individual's standard of living.
The challenge for 'progressives' is learn central planning and more govt restrictions will not 'save the planet'. But then that is not the objective of the 'progressive' socialist is it? Power and control is.
Nanobanano
3.8 / 5 (4) Sep 25, 2011
rygg:

The U.S. government is currently so weak, and divided, that it has basically become a useless entity.

And you, don't tell me, you figure we should just go about business as usual, and ignore the ecology of the planet?

Typical capitalistic mentality: Destroy the planet, and whatever dies, dies, whatever lives lives, eh?

How is it that so many fiscal and religous conservatives are so eager to see the planet destroyed? Well, just so long as they don't "personally" experience any losses...

Why do conservatives actually WANT the false rapture theory and the apocalypse to happen? Personally, I hope to God the book of Revelation is a false book, because if it came true, it would be a shame.

But I think the two issues are related, eh?

Destroying the world is a good thing, so long as you're one of the ones left alive, right, rygg?

Poverty is a good thing, just so long as YOU are unaffected personally. Isn't that right, rygg?
Nanobanano
3.8 / 5 (4) Sep 25, 2011
Free markets, private property rights and limited govt have been the only proven way to raise the individual's standard of living.


Actually, since the tax cuts under Reagan, income in America has risen only 1/4th as fast as cost of living under the previous tax codes.

One cannot increase standard of living when the insanely wealthy hoard 90% of all wealth, rygg.

In the past, that was controlled for by the government having as much as a 90% tax rate on the rich, and so the lower and middle class prospered, relative to the technology level and cost of living anyway.

Instead, what we have today with the existing tax codes of the past 30 years, is record poverty levels in America which have only been slightly offset by the explosion in technology, thanks in large part to education and social programs put in place BEFORE Reagan ever took office.

Prices have quadrupled in my memory, while wages are mostly the same, except bare minimum, which roughly doubled....
Nanobanano
3.8 / 5 (4) Sep 25, 2011
So you can see, rygg, that your beliefs are severely flawed.

the average worker in this country is far more productive than ever before, yet inflation adjusted, makes about 1/2 as much or less compared to 30 years ago...

YET the wealthy people who are always complaining about cost of wages, they somehow managed to make more money, as a proportion of their income vs average income, than in any previous generation, scores of times more in fact.

"Reaganomics", which we are still largely under to this day, does not produce equal opportunity, fairness, nor prosperity. It produces a Caste system the status quo is largely maintained, excepting a few deviations, and the rich and their children get richer while normal people and their children get poorer.

It is essentially slavery, except the constitution now forbids the "masters" from usng that term. Besides, they figured out slaves are more productive if they don't know they are slaves.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Sep 25, 2011
he insanely wealthy hoard 90% of all wealth

How do they 'hoard' wealth?
I recall when Perot ran for president, his billions were invested in US treasuries. Same for Gates.
The wealthy invest their wealth. They don't bury it in a hole or put in a mattress. Their wealth is put to work.
But when govt creates uncertainty with taxes and regulations, investment is slowed, growth slows.
Coolidge cut govt spending and taxes and the economy boomed. JFK lowered tax rates and the economy grew. Same for Reagan.
Reduce the drag of the Regulatory State and wealth creation will once again proceed.

Well, Nano, until you pull your head out of the govt's a$$, you will never understand the problems you want corrected are caused by the increasing govt control of the economy.
Nanobanano
5 / 5 (4) Sep 25, 2011
Oh, it's not the plantations of the 1800's, that much is obvious; everyone has enough freedom to disquise their bondage a bit, maybe, but at the end of the day, everyone is a commodity traded on the market just like any other product, an expendable commodity even.

There's 450,000 people in this country who make a million or more per year, so that means on average, the lower 1/3rd of wage earners equates out to about 220 slaves per "million per year" earner.

These people make an average of 300 times the national mean income, yet conservatives want to talk about taxation being tyranny? I think not.

Corporations? People making 300 times the mean income per year? Ten percent controlling 90% of accumulated wealth? THAT, rygg, is TYRANNY.

It's not tyranny from the government, but rather from corporations and other businesses who control everything, make more income than ever before, and pay their workers less, inflation adjusted, than ever for at least the past 30 years.
Nanobanano
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 25, 2011
Well, Nano, until you pull your head out of the govt's a$$, you will never understand the problems you want corrected are caused by the increasing govt control of the economy.


The government ("of the people" anyway) doesn't have enough control of the economy, you moron.

That's why the stock markets and financial institutions were so corrupt and created the bubbles in the first place: There was not enough regulation, not enough transparency, and not enough prosecution of corrupt business practises.

Multi-national financials bilked billions from the citizens on both ends of all transactions, falsified their records to show losses "on paper", and then leveraged their lobbyists in Washingtong to screw everyone over AGAIN, through the wealthy politicians, to give said corporations even more of the people's money through bailouts for the people who were already RICH.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Sep 25, 2011
The Swedish govt repealed its tax on wealth so more wealthy Swedes would choose to live in Sweden.
Multi-national financials

Which are heavily regulated by multiple govts.
There was not enough regulation,

Some are just too far gone.

taxation being tyranny

49% don't pay any federal income tax.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Sep 25, 2011
"Federal environmental,
safety and health, and economic regulations
cost hundreds of billionsperhaps trillions
of dollars every year over and above
the costs of the official federal outlays that
now dominate the policy debate."
"Regulatory costs now comfortably exceed the
cost of individual income taxes, and those
costs vastly exceed revenue from corporate
taxes."
{And you wonder why prices are rising?}
http://cei.org/si...2011.pdf
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Sep 25, 2011
"Michael Munie of St. Louis has a federal license for his moving business to operate across state lines, but when he tried to expand his business to operate throughout Missouri he discovered that state law requires him to somehow prove in advance that there is a public need for his business outside St. Louis."
"Who, Sandefur wonders, could have proved 20 years ago that Americans would support a nationwide chain of coffee shops called Starbucks? And in 1985, experts at Coca-Cola thought they knew the public wanted New Coke.

CON laws began with early-20th-century progressives who, like their ideological descendants today, thought that resources should be allocated not by markets but by clever, disinterested experts themselves. "
http://www.washin...ory.html
Pressure2
4 / 5 (4) Sep 25, 2011
Ryyg2, you forgot to mention that Bush cut taxes and the economy went to hell while doubling our national debt.

he insanely wealthy hoard 90% of all wealth

How do they 'hoard' wealth?
I recall when Perot ran for president, his billions were invested in US treasuries. Same for Gates.
The wealthy invest their wealth. They don't bury it in a hole or put in a mattress. Their wealth is put to work.
But when govt creates uncertainty with taxes and regulations, investment is slowed, growth slows.
Coolidge cut govt spending and taxes and the economy boomed. JFK lowered tax rates and the economy grew. Same for Reagan.
Reduce the drag of the Regulatory State and wealth creation will once again proceed.

Well, Nano, until you pull your head out of the govt's a$$, you will never understand the problems you want corrected are caused by the increasing govt control of the economy.[/q
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Sep 25, 2011
Obama thought the Bush tax cuts were a good idea last year.

"In a display of compromise rarely seen during his time in office, President Obama has signed into law a $858 billion tax cut bill despite the misgivings of members of both parties. "
"The bill, which was largely worked out earlier this month between the White House and Congressional Republicans, extends the Bush-era tax cuts for all Americans for two years, "
http://www.cbsnew...544.html
Pressure2
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 25, 2011
Rygg2 you need to read this article and it should open your eyes as to why this country is in such a mess. Free traders in both political parties are to blame!

http://www.ohio.c...1.236793

Lower taxes are not the answer! Obama BIG mistake was NOT letting the Bush tax cuts expire.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Sep 25, 2011
Cutting govt spending is not the answer?
Letting people keep THEIR money is not a good idea?
What we see today is the result of over 100 years of 'progressive' policies: income taxes, Federal Reserve, Social Security, Medicare, Community Reinvestment Act, Government Sponsored 'Enterprises', ...
What 'free traders' in both parties? There are so few.

I would suggest reading 'The Law' by Bastiat, 'Socialism' by Mises, 'The Road to Serfdom' by Hayek, and Ricardo's "Essay on the Influence of a Low Price of Corn on the Profits of Stock" (aka comparative advantage).http://www.econli...rdo.html
http://www.econli...age.html

I the policies in your article were followed, with reciprocity, why would Japanese, German, or Korean companies build cars in the USA?

Your socialist policies against trade is another example of 'the fatal conceit' of central planners.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Sep 25, 2011
"When asked by mathematician Stanislaw Ulam whether he could name an idea in economics that was both universally true and not obvious, economist Paul Samuelsons example was the principle of comparative advantage. That principle was derived by David Ricardo in his 1817 book, Principles of Political Economy and Taxation. Ricardos result, which still holds up today, is that what matters is not absolute production ability but ability in producing one good relative to another."
"But study of this principle does make clear that foreigners are willing to export only because they want to import. It is the desire for profitable exchange of goods and services that motivates all specialization and exchange."
http://www.econli...age.html
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Sep 25, 2011
"Is it true that the policy of protectionism, which admittedly makes you pay higher prices for everything and in that respect harms you, also brings about a proportional increase in your wages? "
"One of your fellow workers has put it very neatly: When two workers run after one employer, wages fall; they rise when two employers run after one worker. "
"Wage rates depend upon the supply of and the demand for labor.

Now, what does the supply of workers depend on?

On the number that there are on the market; and protectionism has no control over this.

What does the demand for labor depend on?

On the amount of domestic capital available for investment. But does the amount of capital increase because the law says: "People shall no longer get such and such a product from abroad; they shall make it at home"? Not in the least. It may force capital out of one branch of production and into another, but it does not add a centime to the total capital available.
Bastiat, Economic Sophisms.
Pressure2
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 25, 2011
By your answers I doubt you even read the article.
You are correct in stating prices would be higher on some items. But what you are not considering is that because we are running a huge trade deficit about 10 million jobs were sent overseas to make those imported products. So take your pick pay higher prices or pay the unemployed to sit on their rear ends.

I chose higher prices and giving 10 million more Americans a job and the dignity that goes with having one. Oh, by the way some nice side benefits are smaller federal and state deficits and more surpluses extending the solvency of Social Security.
Pressure2
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 25, 2011
No, it is not good to let the rich keep more of their money when we are running deficits. They need to pay higher taxes because all tax cuts do for the very rich is to create a bigger federal deficit and then we turn around and stupidly have to borrow the money back from them.

By the way the rich also send some of this money overseas where they can earn up 5% short term interest, it is 0% in the US. Maybe this could open your eyes as to why corporations are parking nearly $2 trillion of their profits overseas.

In short, the Bush and Reagan tax cuts and our trade deficits have just about ruin the USA.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (6) Sep 26, 2011
One would think you guys would have recognized that ryggesogn2's knowledge has no understanding of the actual fields discussed. You're fighting an individual who merely relays internet myth. Every time you put forth a concise and nuanced response, he's just going to take 3 seconds to make up more crap. Ignore him and he'll eventually go away.
westelca21
1 / 5 (6) Sep 26, 2011
Brought to you by the same crooks that dreamed up the global warming ponzy scheme!

Notice in all these reports, it's only America that is over consuming, only America is bad?

When you have Ban Ki-moon a muslim, heading a muslim dominated, corrupt, lying u.n., does it surprise anyone that we are being continually bombarded with lies?

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Sep 26, 2011
So take your pick pay higher prices or pay the unemployed to sit on their rear ends.


Cut govt spending, cut coporate and personal taxes, encourage entreprneurs, put people back to work.
Even the Swedes eliminated their wealth tax to encourage the 'rich' to return home and spend/invest some of their money in Sweden.

it is 0% in the US.

Why? Because the US govt screwed up trying to control the economy.
Pressure2
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 26, 2011
Rygg2, I notice that Sweden's average tax rate is 57.77%. If you want to follow their tax rates, go ahead. Our budget deficit would disappear over night.

Sweden personal Income Tax
Individuals pay both national income tax and municipal income tax. In 2010, individual income tax rates in Sweden change between 54% and 61%, 57.77% being the average tax rate.

http://www.taxrat...tes.html

By the way you have got the reason for our economic problems screwed up also. It was a lack of controls that screwed up our housing market.
lengould100
not rated yet Sep 26, 2011
Emsquared says
In either case, the market will not emerge or mature until it is economically viable
. You've skipped one condition. "And the market incumbents loose the capability to control the market." In the case of this debate, until the petroleum and coal industries run out of the funds they need to capture and manipulate the right-wing politicians and the dumb right-wingers who vote for them. Unfortunately that will be too late for this planet at any reasonable level of population and comfort.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Sep 26, 2011
Brought to you by the same crooks that dreamed up the global warming ponzy scheme!

Notice in all these reports, it's only America that is over consuming, only America is bad?

When you have Ban Ki-moon a muslim, heading a muslim dominated, corrupt, lying u.n., does it surprise anyone that we are being continually bombarded with lies?

The crazy is strong with this one.
Pressure2
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 26, 2011
Rygg2, our 0% short term interest rates are based on the capitalist law of "supply and demand". The demand for loans is low because of our high unemployment rate while the supply of money to lend is high because of our low tax rates on the wealthy.

And that is why we have accumulated a $14 billion plus national debt, nearly all of it since Reagan started the tax cutting craze of "supply side economics", a classical FAILURE.
lengould100
5 / 5 (3) Sep 26, 2011
One would think you guys would have recognized that ryggesogn2's knowledge has no understanding of the actual fields discussed. You're fighting an individual who merely relays internet myth. Every time you put forth a concise and nuanced response, he's just going to take 3 seconds to make up more crap. Ignore him and he'll eventually go away.

I wonder if Exxon or the Cato Institute actually have to pay him to embarass himself so badly, or is he dumb enough to do it for free?
emsquared
not rated yet Sep 26, 2011
You've skipped one condition. "And the market incumbents loose the capability to control the market." In the case of this debate, until the petroleum and coal industries run out of the funds ...

Petroleum, sure. Big auto and big oil have both been fighting electric for a long time, with the help of politicians.

However, the coal industry is a bad example. Coal is pure economics. They dominate the market because coal is just inexpensive ($-wise, not enviro-wise), and all of our infrastructure is already set up for it. Frankly, with proper emissions controls installed, to not use it until it is gone would be foolish, IMO - that's reality/economics. Like it or not, we NEED the power. Due to that fact, anything that wanted to replace coal as the US utility workhorse has tremendous economics, not politics, to overcome, on both sides -extraction and production- just due to us having used it for so long and now we HAVE to have it if we are to continue to function.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Sep 26, 2011
'Fighting electric' what a joke.
If the technology was ready, and the price was right, customers would choose the best deal.
Electric cars are not ready for prime time.

short term interest rates are based on the capitalist law of "supply and demand". T

The Federal Reserve controls interest rates. What supply and demand?

As for Sweden, its high taxes and labor restrictions rank them 22, USA is 9, Hong Kong is 1.

"Hong Kongs effective tax rates are among the lowest in the world. Individuals are taxed either progressively, between 2 percent and 17 percent on income adjusted by deductions and allowances, or at a flat 15 percent of gross income, depending on which liability is lower. The top corporate income tax rate is 16.5 percent. Unincorporated businesses enjoy a lower rate of 15 percent. Excise duties on beer and wine were removed in 2008. In the most recent year, overall tax revenue as a percentage of GDP was 13 percent."
http://www.herita...HongKong
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 26, 2011
As for low interest rates, market forces are at work, but they are not free market forces.
" U.S. regulators have asked some banks to take more deposits from large investors even if its unprofitable, and lenders in return are seeking relief on insurance premiums and leverage ratios, according to six people with knowledge of the talks.

Deposits are flooding into the biggest U.S. banks as customers seek shelter from Europes debt crisis and falling stock prices. That forces lenders to raise capital for a growing balance sheet and saddles them with the higher deposit insurance payments. With short-term interest rates so low, its hard for financial firms to reinvest the new money profitably.

At least one firm, Bank of New York Mellon Corp., tried to recoup some of the costs by charging depositors 13 basis points, or 0.13 percent, for holding unusually high balances."
http://www.cato-a...eposits/
Pressure2
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 26, 2011
Oh geez how the right right wing likes to distort and twist things. There income taxes may be lower but WOW the property taxes they have to pay would have Americans in a third tea party.

Housing cost in Hong Kong are approaching $1000 a square foot.

Property Tax
Property Tax is charged on the owner of any land or buildings in Hong Kong at the standard rate of 15% on the net assessable value of such land or buildings.
http://www.klakog...overview
Pressure2
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 26, 2011
"With short-term interest rates so low, its hard for financial firms to reinvest the new money profitably."

Rygg2, now you got me crying for those Wall Street banksters. They need to earn their money the old fashion way by working for it.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Sep 26, 2011
"With short-term interest rates so low, its hard for financial firms to reinvest the new money profitably."

Rygg2, now you got me crying for those Wall Street banksters. They need to earn their money the old fashion way by working for it.

Then let them.
Abolish the Federal Reserve cartel. Let the real free market reign.
But the 'progressive' is trapped into the fatal conceit he can control the economy.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Sep 26, 2011
"Japan's monetary policy was to aggressively lower rates to .5 percent between 1991 and 1995 and has operated a zero-interest policy virtually ever since.

Between 1992 and 1995, the Japanese government tried six stimulus plans totaling 65.5 trillion yen and they even cut tax rates in 1994. They tried cutting taxes again in 1998, but government spending was never cut. Also in 1998, another stimulus package of 16.7 trillion yen was rolled out nearly half of which was for public-works projects. Later in the same year, another stimulus package was announced, totaling 23.9 trillion yen. The very next year an ¥18 trillion stimulus was tried, and, in October of 2000, another stimulus for 11 trillion was announced. As economist Ben Powell points out, "Overall during the 1990s, Japan tried 10 fiscal stimulus packages totaling more than 100 trillion yen, and each failed to cure the recession," with Japan's nominal GDP growth rate below zero for most of the five years after 1997."
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Sep 26, 2011
"And why don't those low interest rates get things moving? "With distressed banks, reflation fails to induce another bank credit expansion," Professor Jeffrey Herbener wrote in the Asian Wall Street Journal. "Keynesians have mistaken the impotency of the Bank of Japan to restart credit expansion in the 1990s as a liquidity trap. But the problem is not that interest rates are so low everyone expects them to rise and therefore hoards cash. Banks refuse to lend because of the overhang of bad debt. Any cash infusion is held as reserve against it. Businesses refuse to borrow because of their debt burden, built up to expand capacity during the boom, and their over-capacity resulting from their malinvestments.""
"prosperity can't be printed. Government edicts won't magically make us better off. Their fatal conceit will only lead us to disaster."
http://mises.org/daily/4059
Why is the USA following the failed Japanese economy?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Sep 26, 2011
"These examples show that a policy of suppressing long-term interest rates may signal that central banks, trying to cover up the damage done to the economies by the chronic increase in fiat money through a relentless expansion of bank-circulation credit, are about to turn to a policy of very high inflation.

The ensuing debasement of the currency is the economically devastating outcome of central banks' unlimited power to suppress the interest rate. This, in turn, is the result of the government taking full control over money production."
http://mises.org/daily/4573
Govt controls the money and the banks. What free market?
Pressure2
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 27, 2011
Rygg2, you and Ron Paul are still living in the fantasy land of the 1890's. If private banks can do a better job of creating a stable currency, why isn't done anymore? The answer is simple, people trust a governmental institutions more and rightly so because they have close to a monopoly on power.
Pressure2
5 / 5 (2) Sep 27, 2011
You rightly point out the problems that Japan faces. Their problems originate from speculation in the late 1980's. Their stock market index reach over 39,000, today 22 years later it is below 9,000.

Japan's problem was that too much speculation in the late 1980's created too much debt. To prevent massive bank failures much of this debt in the years since has been backed up by the government. This has put there federal government steeply in debt even more than our government.
- - - continued - - -
Pressure2
5 / 5 (2) Sep 27, 2011
In essences the Japan economic miracle of the 70's and 80's was create by a growth in debt and tax rates that were too low. Our economic good times starting with Reagan and ending 2008 were also the result of a massive growth in debt and tax rates that were too low. Japan is still paying the price for their sky high debts and low tax rates. And the USA has followed the same path as Japan, too much debt and tax rates that have been too low.

When you live beyond your means for years it requires living below your means for years.
Man, who likes doing that, that is boring.
lengould100
not rated yet Sep 27, 2011
To prevent massive bank failures
That's the whole story right there. Banks have been allowed to worm themselves into positions where they can claim to be too important to fail, then use the resulting taxpayer's credit to take all sorts of stupid risks they never would if they might have to fold on a screw-up.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Sep 27, 2011
If private banks can do a better job of creating a stable currency, why isn't done anymore? The answer is simple, people trust a governmental institutions more and rightly so because they have close to a monopoly on power

Not anymore, thanks to 'prgressives'.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Sep 27, 2011
Banks have been allowed to worm themselves into positions where they can claim to be too important to fail,

Review the history of how the Federal Reserve was created to benefit a few banks. And it was a 'progressive' govt that supported this.
Pressure2
1 / 5 (1) Sep 27, 2011
If private banks can do a better job of creating a stable currency, why isn't done anymore? The answer is simple, people trust a governmental institutions more and rightly so because they have close to a monopoly on power

Not anymore, thanks to 'prgressives'.

I am at a lost as to what this has to do with Progressives. Please explaing?
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 27, 2011
"The Progressive movement swept America from roughly the early 1890s through the early 1920s, producing a broad popular consensus that government should be the primary agent of social change. "
"Woodrow Wilson, whose Progressive presidential legacy includes the Federal Reserve System, a federal loan program for farmers, and an eight-hour workday for railroad employees, segregated the federal bureaucracy in Washington, D.C. I have recently spent several days in Washington, the black leader Booker T. Washington wrote during Wilsons first term, and I have never seen the colored people so discouraged and bitter as they are at the present time."
http://reason.com...ormers/1

And take a look at the gory details here:
http://mises.org/daily/3823
Pressure2
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 27, 2011
Rygg2, your first link is to a book that is pure rubbish. I cannot believe how people can twist facts the way this book does.

And your second link about the origin of the Federal Reserve is more garbage. There is one thing you Regressives cannot seem get into your heads, ALL progressive ideas are thought up and finally instituted to solve problems created by the laissez-faire excesses of unregulated capitalism.

Don't you Regressives ever learn from history. You need not go back any further than the Bush administration. He had regulations he didn't use that could have prevented the housing bubble. Now not to blame republicans only, Clinton lower the capitol gains tax and had a hand in creating the housing bubble AND the Internet stock bubble in the Nasdaq in the late 90's.
Pressure2
1 / 5 (1) Sep 27, 2011
What do you Regressives think about giving women the right to vote? What about the very form of government we have, a democracy? Or free education for all children? Or even go back further in time, The Ten Commandments? And many, many more.

All of these were in there time period VERY progressive ideas.

gunslingor1
5 / 5 (1) Sep 28, 2011
"Down with the corrupt scientists!! Cut off their heads!! Time for the real people who care about humanity to do the science, BP, Marlboro, ENRON, Myrel Lynch, Massey Energy... these are the only organizations with the capacity to study things ethically and lead the nation without byass because consumers can stop buying from them anytime. I disregard the fact that citizens can vote out politicians, and only accept as truth what the free markets determine is profitable"

-Combined comments from Ryg and Steven Colbert.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Sep 28, 2011
What about the very form of government we have, a democracy?

It seems democrats don't think much of democaracy.
"Why we need less democracy." http://www.tnr.co...E2NjE2Nj
"
Perdue jokes about suspending Congressional elections for two years

Read more: http://projects.n...Fi15qob"

But the USA is not a democracy, it is a republic.

'Free' education? In NJ the cost is over $10k per student with poor results. If you really want effective 'free' education you must support vouchers, which use market forces. Sweden has school vouchers.
Conservatives have been calling for the end of GSE's for dedades. Socialists from both parties keep them in business.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Sep 28, 2011
a book that is pure rubbish

I am not surprised you believe so. Why not back up your opinions with facts?
Pressure2
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 28, 2011
a book that is pure rubbish

I am not surprised you believe so. Why not back up your opinions with facts?

Facts? The fact is ALL the advances to grant equal color blind improvements for minorities, including gays, in this country are the work and efforts of Progressives. You Regressives have fought all efforts tooth and nail. And you know that is a fact. To suggest that regressives did more for blacks than progressives is ludicrous.

We are a democratic republic. You regressives like to leave out the word democratic. As for voting rights, tell me which party is trying to make it more difficult to vote?

I still wonder what your opinion is on the radical liberal, for its time, The Ten Commandments is?

Of course you Regressives will never understand this but vouchers will only increase the division between the different people in this country. This will create the potential for more violence in this country in the long run.
Pressure2
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 28, 2011
Continued:
Vouchers will, over decades, create an elite moneyed ruling class similar to the Feudal land owner system during the Middle Ages. The elite ruling class will have to retreat into enclaves for security. They will have to travel in caravans of armored Hummers dodging road side bombs. After 5 decades it will truly be HELL on earth, Afghanistan right over here in USA.

Do you Regressives really call that progress?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Sep 28, 2011
Vouchers will, over decades, create an elite moneyed ruling class similar to the Feudal land owner system during the Middle Ages

Data?
The current govt run school system produces dependents of the state. Which is the intent.
The voucher system is working quite well in Sweden.
Pressure2
5 / 5 (2) Sep 28, 2011
Sweden is a homogenous society, we are already a country with great divisions by race, religion and wealth. So it would take Sweden 50 years of a divisive voucher program just to get to where USA is today.

The proof is in your head, it is something you already know. People tend to withdraw from differences and associate with people like themselves. This tends to increase intolerance which only increases the differences. It is vicious cycle that ends badly.

When the differences become too great, a society soon comes to war with itself and can only be held together with increasing force and repression. Nearly every country in the Middle East is an example of this.

Now there is little wrong with this in a homogenous society like Sweden but over time it will still increase the differences and be divisive in Sweden for the same reasons given above.

It is just common sense, something sorely lacking USA today.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Sep 28, 2011
Sweden is a homogenous society,

Not anymore. BTW, are you a racist?

Vouchers are demanded by those stuck crime ridden inner city schools. These students are homogeneous, too, poor and minority.
""the program significantly improved students chances of graduating from high school.

Supporters of the voucher program say that they offer low-income families a way to provide a better education for their children in a city with long troubled public schools."
http://voices.was...nce.html
"Before the voucher system was enacted in 1992, the Social Democrats - then the opposition party - opposed it. But when they were swept back to power in 1994, the voucher program was so successful and popular that they did not repeal it. In fact they expanded it, "
http://www.washin...page=all
Pressure2
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 28, 2011
No, I am not a racist but I believe a majority of Regressives are racist. But I do believe when a nation becomes too different, it will face internal strife. England is an example of this just a few months ago.

The main goals of the voucher programs are to (1) subsidize religious schools, (2) go back to the "separate but equal" schools of the past, and (3) to break the teachers union's monopoly.

Now (3) has some merit. But it is not necessary when local school district vote on levies to support their own schools.

Number (1) and (2) are divisive and therefore will damage the cohesiveness of a nation over time.

continued
Pressure2
4 / 5 (4) Sep 28, 2011
It has almost nothing to do with giving black children a better education in Washington D.C. or anywhere else in America. It is not even about giving white children a better education.

It is about subsidizing differences and reducing cost through competition. Competition is good but reducing cost by competition will result in even lower teaching standards in the future. This in itself will create a whole new bureaucracy to make sure all these voucher school are really giving kids a quality education.

This has already happen where I live. Teachers in charter (voucher) schools don't have to have the meet same standards as public school teachers. (Don't ask me why because I don't know the answer to that question.) When the average charter school's students in our area did worst then the public school students and failed to meet state standard our governor changed the rules to exempt these voucher schools if they admitted public school drop outs. What a scam!

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Sep 28, 2011
The main goals of the voucher programs are to (1) subsidize religious schools, (2) go back to the "separate but equal" schools of the past, and (3) to break the teachers union's monopoly.

1 and 2 are rubbish.

Now you are anti NEA? What's wrong with teacher's unions?
Howhot
5 / 5 (2) Sep 29, 2011
The main goals of the voucher programs are to (1) subsidize religious schools, (2) go back to the "separate but equal" schools of the past, and (3) to break the teachers union's monopoly.

1, 2, 3 are sadly the truth. It's the truth about American Politics today. R2 says "Rubbish". You must live in a dream world created by a Liberty University brain wash. Actually, R2, you probably have been brain washed; Look it up in Wikipedia.
Howhot
5 / 5 (2) Sep 29, 2011
"The main goals of the voucher programs are to (1) subsidize religious schools, (2) go back to the "separate but equal" schools of the past"

R2 says "1 and 2 are rubbish."

Conclusion, R2 is full of rubbish.
gunslingor1
5 / 5 (2) Sep 29, 2011
"Now you are anti NEA? What's wrong with teacher's unions?"
-What marjon? Now your all of a sudden defending unions? SOCIALIST!!! You Dam SOCIALIST!!!
-You are so incredially dishonest and hubristic person.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Sep 29, 2011
1, 2, 3 are sadly the truth.

According to whom?
omatumr
1 / 5 (5) Sep 29, 2011
Humanity falls deeper into ecological debt


Seems to be part of the same auto-centric "scientific" babble as the AGW story of Al Gore and the UN's IPCC.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel

"Political roadblocks to scientific progress" (1971-2011)
http://dl.dropbox...oots.pdf

"Video summary of research career" (1961- 2011)
http://dl.dropbox...reer.pdf
Cave_Man
2 / 5 (4) Oct 03, 2011
Cave man had it better than we do today:

No dress code, you could walk around naked, shakin your snake at the ladies.
Nature provides plentiful food if managed properly, foraging and hunting are considered recreational activities in our "modern" society, funny.
It's not like we have to give up our knowledge, I'm sure wind and solar power are enough for all but the biggest most wasteful experiments (CERN *COUGH*).
We don't need concrete bunkers or jet fighters, they just invented a plane that can stay in the air indefinitely because its solar powered.
Plus with advancements in the understanding of crop planting we could all be eating gourmet food ALL THE TIME we just grow it ourselves in a greenhouse or open bed and save quite a bit of money on transportation costs.

Life as a cave man may seem "hard" to us, but those people had to be in shape, they had to be healthy mentally as well as physically.you have to admit if we keep heading down our current line of socio-evolution the CONT..
Cave_Man
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 03, 2011
the result will be that the greediest and nastiest people on earth will increasingly become the dominant ones with an underclass of unethical and physically deprived sciencey types justifying their overlords disgusting decisions.

I for one would rather live as a cave man, maybe on the moon though, that would def. be interesting.
I could finally learn to play an instrument without worrying someone will hear the horrible learning phase.

It would beat living in fear induced by the inequalities of the world. I for one cannot stand some rich people, they are so stingey with they over adequate funds. And they think in terms of profitable vs non-profitable not enriching vs zombifying.
Howhot
5 / 5 (1) Oct 04, 2011
You know what Cave, I agree with you. This is what happens when you argue with a class of brain wash zombie trolls who have a rightwing ideology so deeply embedded that there is not any possible method to influence thought in an argument.

The result, you get Omar and R2.

I'm sorry but these two muffins are soooo out of step with main stream America, they should be laughed out of this forum and relegated to watching a glacial ICE melt forum on Yahoo. But then the glaciers might be gone before some since of the scope of the disaster the is AGW finally pounds them with the CLUE stick!
Moebius
1 / 5 (1) Oct 27, 2011
World population will reach an equilibrium somewhere on it's own.


Yes, but will that equilibrium be heaven or will it be hell? I don't see heaven waiting.

More news stories

Classifying sequence variants in human disease

Sequencing an entire human genome is faster and cheaper than ever before, leading to an explosion of studies comparing the genomes of people with and without a given disease. Often clinicians and researchers studying genetic ...