Climate talk shifts from curbing CO2 to adapting

Jun 16, 2013 by Seth Borenstein
This May 10, 2013 file photo shows view of the Manhattan Bridge, left, and Brooklyn Bridge as seen from the 105th floor of One World Trade Center, in New York. Seven months after Superstorm Sandy swamped New York, Mayor Michael Bloomberg proposed a nearly $20 billion plan Tuesday, June 11, 2013, to protect the city from the effects of global warming and storms. (AP photo/Mark Lennihan, File)

Efforts to curb global warming have quietly shifted as greenhouse gases inexorably rise. The conversation is no longer solely about how to save the planet by cutting carbon emissions. It's becoming more about how to save ourselves from the warming planet's wild weather.

It was Mayor 's announcement last week of an ambitious plan to stave off New York City's rising seas with flood gates, and more that brought this transition into full focus.

After years of losing the fight against rising of heat-trapping gases, governments around the world are emphasizing what a U.N. Foundation scientific report calls "managing the unavoidable."

It's called adaptation and it's about as sexy but as necessary as insurance, experts say.

It's also a message that once was taboo among climate activists such as former U.S. Vice President .

In his 1992 book "Earth in the Balance," Gore compared talk of adapting to climate change to laziness that would distract from necessary efforts.

But in his 2013 book "The Future," Gore writes bluntly: "I was wrong." He talks about how coping with rising seas and temperatures is just as important as trying to prevent by cutting emissions.

Like Gore, government officials across the globe aren't saying everyone should just give up on efforts to reduce pollution. They're saying that as they work on curbing , they also have to deal with a reality that's already here.

In March, President 's science advisers sent him a list of recommendations on climate change. No. 1 on the list: "Focus on national preparedness for climate change."

"Whether you believe climate change is real or not is beside the point," Bloomberg said in announcing his $20 billion adaptation plans. "The bottom line is: We can't run the risk."

On Monday, more than three dozen other municipal officials from across the U.S. will go public with a nationwide effort to make their cities more resilient to natural disasters and the effects of man-made global warming.

"It's an insurance policy, which is investing in the future," Mayor Kevin Johnson of Sacramento, California, who is chairing the mayors' efforts, said in an interview Friday. "This is public safety. It's the long-term hazards that could impact a community."

This undated artist rendering provided by the NYC Mayor's Office shows the proposed "Seaport City" neighborhood to be built just south of the Brooklyn Bridge that could act as a buffer against flooding in lower Manhattan. It was part of a sweeping blueprint unveiled by Mayor Michael Bloomberg for protecting New York from rising seas, storms and other extreme weather and climate threats. (AP Photo/NYC Mayor's Office)

Discussions about global warming are happening more often in mayors' offices than in Congress. The Obama administration and local governments are coming up with thousands of eye-glazing pages of climate change adaptation plans and talking about zoning, elevation, water system infrastructure, and most of all, risk.

"They can sit up there and not make any policies or changes, but we know we have to," Broward County, Florida, Mayor Kristin Jacobs said. "We know that we're going to be that first line of defense."

University of Michigan professor Rosina Bierbaum is a presidential science adviser who headed the adaptation section of the administration's new National Climate Assessment. "It's quite striking how much is going on at the municipal level," Bierbaum said. "Communities have to operate in real time. Everybody is struggling with a climate that is no longer the climate of the past."

Still, Bierbaum said, "Many of the other developed countries have gone way ahead of us in preparing for climate change. In many ways, the U.S. may be playing catch-up."

Hurricanes, smaller storms and floods have been a harsh teacher for South Florida, Jacobs said.

This undated artist rendering provided by the NYC Mayor's Office shows the proposed levee that would be installed at South Beach on the eastern shore of Staten Island as part of a sweeping blueprint unveiled by Mayor Michael Bloomberg for protecting New York from rising seas, storms and other extreme weather and climate threats. (AP Photo/NYC Mayor's Office)

"Each time you get walloped, you stop and scratch your head ... and learn from it and make change," she said. "It helps if you've been walloped once or twice. I think it's easier to take action when everybody sees" the effect of climate change and are willing to talk about being prepared.

What Bloomberg announced for New York is reasonable for a wealthy city with lots of people and lots of expensive property and infrastructure to protect, said S. Jeffress Williams, a University of Hawaii geophysicist who used to be the expert on sea level rise for the U.S. Geological Survey. But for other coastal cities in the United States and especially elsewhere in the poorer world, he said, "it's not so easy to adapt."

Rich nations have pledged, but not yet provided, $100 billion a year to help poor nations adapt to global warming and cut their emissions. But the $20 billion cost for New York City's efforts shows the money won't go far in helping poorer cities adapt, said Brandon Wu of the nonprofit ActionAid.

This undated artist rendering provided by the NYC Mayor's Office shows the proposed levee that would be installed at South Beach on the eastern shore of Staten Island as part of a sweeping blueprint unveiled by Mayor Michael Bloomberg for protecting New York from rising seas, storms and other extreme weather and climate threats. (AP Photo/NYC Mayor's Office)

At U.N. climate talks in Germany this past week, Ronald Jumeau, a delegate from the Seychelles, said developing countries have noted the more than $50 billion in relief that U.S. states in the Northeast got for Superstorm Sandy.

That's a large amount "for one storm in three states. At the same time, the Philippines was hit by its 15th storm in the same year," Jumeau said. "It puts things in context."

For poorer cities in the U.S., what makes sense is to buy out property owners, relocate homes and businesses and convert vulnerable sea shores to parks so that when storms hit "it's not a big deal," Williams said. "I think we'll see more and more communities make that decision largely because of the cost involved in trying to adapt to what's coming."

Jacobs, the mayor from South Florida, says that either people will move "or they will rehab their homes so that they can have a higher elevation. Already, in the Keys, you see houses that are up on stilts. So is that where we're going? At some point, we're going to have to start looking at real changes."

It's not just rising seas.

Sacramento has to deal with devastating droughts as well as the threat of flooding. It has a levee system so delicate that only New Orleans has it worse, said Johnson, the California capital's mayor.

In this Tuesday, June 11, 2013, photo, lower Manhattan is visible from the Staten Island Ferry, in New York's Upper Bay. Giant removable floodwalls would be erected around lower Manhattan, and levees, gates and other defenses could be built elsewhere around the city under a nearly $20 billion plan proposed Tuesday by Mayor Michael Bloomberg to protect New York from storms and the effects of global warming. (AP Photo/Richard Drew)

The temperature in Sacramento was 110 degrees Fahrenheit (43 degrees Celsius) this past week. After previous heat waves, cities such as Chicago, Philadelphia and Washington, D.C., have come up with cooling centers and green roofs that reduce the urban heat island affect.

Jacobs said cities from Miami to Virginia Beach, Virginia, are coping with mundane efforts: changes in zoning and building codes, raising the elevation of roads and airport runways, moving and hardening infrastructure. None of it grabs headlines, but "the sexiness is ... in the results," she said.

For decades, scientists referenced average temperatures when they talked about global warming. Only recently have they focused intensely on extreme and costly weather, encouraged by the insurance industry which has suffered high losses, Bierbaum said.

In 2012, weather disasters—not necessarily all tied to climate change—caused $110 billion in damage to the United States, which was the second highest total since 1980, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said last week.

Now officials are merging efforts by emergency managers to prepare for natural disasters with those of officials focused on climate change. That greatly lessens the political debate about human-caused global warming, said University of Colorado science and disaster policy professor Roger Pielke Jr.

It also makes the issue more local than national or international.

"If you keep the discussion focused on impacts ... I think it's pretty easy to get people from all political persuasions," said Pielke, who often has clashed with environmentalists over global warming. "It's insurance. The good news is that we know insurance is going to pay off again."

Describing these measures as resiliency and changing the way people talk about it make it more palatable than calling it , said Hadi Dowlatabadi, a University of British Columbia climate scientist.

"It's called a no-regrets strategy," Dowlatabadi said. "It's all branding."

All that, experts say, is essentially taking some of the heat out of the global warming debate.

Explore further: Tropical storm batters southern Mexico coast, kills six

4.4 /5 (11 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Mayor to discuss prepping NYC for warming world

Jun 11, 2013

(AP)—The projections paint an unsettling picture of New York's future: a city where by the 2050s, 800,000 people could be living in a flood zone that would cover a quarter of the land, with temperatures ...

UN climate talks marred by decision-making spat

Jun 14, 2013

U.N. climate talks have hit a stumbling block that some delegates say poses a serious challenge to their already slow-moving attempt to craft a global response to climate change.

Dire outlook despite global warming 'pause': study

May 19, 2013

A global warming "pause" over the past decade may invalidate the harshest climate change predictions for the next 50 to 100 years, a study said Sunday—though levels remain in the danger zone.

Is UN negotiating an unattainable climate goal?

Jun 13, 2013

As UN negotiators roll up their sleeves for the last push towards a universal climate deal, many fear their end-goal of halting global warming at two degrees Celsius is moving out of reach.

Report: Fourth of NYC could be flood zone by 2050s (Update)

Jun 10, 2013

By the 2050s, more than 800,000 New York City residents could be living in a flood zone that would cover a quarter of the city's land and New Yorkers could sweat out as many 90-degree (32-Celsiu) days as is now normal for ...

Recommended for you

Major breakthrough could help detoxify pollutants

12 hours ago

Scientists at The University of Manchester hope a major breakthrough could lead to more effective methods for detoxifying dangerous pollutants like PCBs and dioxins. The result is a culmination of 15 years of research and ...

Heavy rains leave 22 dead in Nicaragua

19 hours ago

Days of torrential rains in Nicaragua left 22 people dead and left homeless more than 32,000 others, according to an official report Saturday.

Plastic nanoparticles also harm freshwater organisms

Oct 18, 2014

Organisms can be negatively affected by plastic nanoparticles, not just in the seas and oceans but in freshwater bodies too. These particles slow the growth of algae, cause deformities in water fleas and impede communication ...

User comments : 123

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Mayday
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 16, 2013
Can you hear me applauding? This is excellent and welcome news. It is so good to see some moving beyond the flap-jawed punditry, zealotry, and name calling to begin doing something positive and productive to adapt to increased climate swings and changes. The fact is that climate is always changing, always fluid, and in flux. We've lived merrily through a period of relative calm; now perhaps we can work together toward a time of when the climate shows us a more mercurial side. Along the way, the seriousness of the efforts may also help convince many that maybe they should change their behavior and be kinder to our environment. And that can only be a good thing.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (22) Jun 16, 2013
Did someone finally discover Icarus?
Sinister1811
2.9 / 5 (21) Jun 16, 2013
Can you hear me applauding? This is excellent and welcome news. It is so good to see some moving beyond the flap-jawed punditry, zealotry, and name calling to begin doing something positive and productive to adapt to increased climate swings and changes.


Preventing future climatic fluctuations and curbing greenhouse gases would've been the ideal solution. The problem is getting everyone to agree. But facts and logic don't always persuade people.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (45) Jun 16, 2013
Can you hear me applauding? This is excellent and welcome news. It is so good to see some moving beyond the flap-jawed punditry, zealotry, and name calling to begin doing something positive and productive to adapt to increased climate swings and changes.


Preventing future climatic fluctuations and curbing greenhouse gases would've been the ideal solution. The problem is getting everyone to agree. But facts and logic don't always persuade people.


You're right, not enough cataclysmic-AGW true believers drive electric cars and voluntarily and consciously curb their energy use.

-------------

How can one believe the AGW alarmist projections if the people making those speculations were not smart enough to even predict that people will be egoistically driven as a matter of natural instinct and will not voluntarily give up what they see as in their immediate best interest?

Perhaps they did know this and now admit faiure in their adgenda of global socialist gov.
Sinister1811
3 / 5 (23) Jun 16, 2013
How can one believe the AGW alarmist projections if the people making those speculations were not smart enough to even predict that people will be egoistically driven as a matter of natural instinct and will not voluntarily give up what they see as in their immediate best interest?


That's not true. The only reason that people struggle to believe in AGW is because it conflicts with their own selfish desires to consume, and their personal political ideologies. And also because of all of the propaganda out there and the repeated usage of the terms "alarmist" and "predictions" thrown around by cranks spreading that propaganda, in order to "prove" that there's something to argue.
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (26) Jun 16, 2013
How can one believe the AGW alarmist projections if the people making those speculations were not smart enough to even predict that people will be egoistically driven as a matter of natural instinct and will not voluntarily give up what they see as in their immediate best interest?


That's not true. The only reason that people struggle to believe in AGW is because it conflicts with their own selfish desires to consume, and their personal political ideologies. And also because of all of the propaganda out there and the repeated usage of the terms "alarmist" and "predictions" thrown around by cranks spreading that propaganda, in order to "prove" that there's something to argue.

AGW alarmists are at the top of the climate 'science' food chain. James Hansen is one.
People are opposed to the socialist solutions AGWites proposed. One was the carbon credit market that has collapsed with Al Gore profiting.
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (26) Jun 16, 2013
"Hansen is a key figure in the global warming movement, for it was his 1988 with testimony to a US Senate committee chaired by Al Gore that really got the ball rolling for the elite in their mission to hijack the environmental movement and promote apocalyptic fears of climate change as a means of seizing absolute power over humanity."
"Farnish echoes similar talking points to those featured in White House science czar John Holdren's Ecoscience textbook, which called for a "planetary regime" to carry out forced abortions and mandatory sterilization procedures, as well as drugging the water supply, in an effort to cull the human surplus."
http://www.prison...ide.html
Maybe this is what people don't like, being threatened by a totalitarian AGWite state.
And before Hansen there was/is Paul Ehrlich who supports human culling to 'save the planet'.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (42) Jun 16, 2013
The only reason that people struggle to believe in AGW is because it conflicts with their own selfish desires to consume


That is not selfishness, that it is instinct; egoism is a natural evolved necessity, and consumption is vital to economies.

...and their personal political ideologies.


Of course, if their ideologies are supportve of free market capitalism and personal liberty, they would be inclined to reject solutions counter to those principals. Where they go wrong is in rejecting AGW itself on that account only, as you correctly point out.

Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (43) Jun 16, 2013
And also because of all of the propaganda out there and the repeated usage of the terms "alarmist" and "predictions" thrown around by cranks spreading that propaganda, in order to "prove" that there's something to argue.


"Alarmist" is entirely appropriate in characterizing some over the top propaganda from AGWists, as it quantifies the severity of the supposed immediate threat to humanity.

As demonstration of that appropriateness, there is not even a consenus among general scientists that AGW is a crisis to humanity, much less the general public.

One can believe in climate change, that tossing tons of co2 into the air will have an effect, AND at the same time reject Alarmist doomsday projections and calls for immediate gov control of the masses and redistribution of wealth.
axemaster
4.1 / 5 (14) Jun 16, 2013
Sweet. It's great to know that our leaders and corporations have decided it's cheaper to just adapt to climate change, rather than actually fix it. Meanwhile, my generation is completely forgotten, thrown under the bus.

You know, if one country did this to another, it would be considered an act of war.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (43) Jun 16, 2013
-"The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order." - Mikhail Gorbachev, in use of 'climate alarmism'

- "We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse. Isn't it our responsibility to bring this about?" - Maurice Strong, U.N. Earth Climate Summit.

-"Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy." - U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO) at UN

- "…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world's wealth…" - IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer 2010
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (41) Jun 16, 2013
"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, on the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people, we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that, we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of the doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest" - Stephen Schneider IPCC report author.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (25) Jun 16, 2013
rather than actually fix it.

'Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action' -- Goethe
How do you fix it? How do you know the 'fix' will work?

And like most people, we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change.

So where is the urgency to stop the next asteroid impact?

"The desire to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it" -- H L Mencken

"The growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement" -- Karl Popper

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
djr
4.1 / 5 (18) Jun 16, 2013
Noumenon: "Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest"

The more complete quote: This "double ethical bind" we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."

Oh what a difference a little honesty makes - can't expect that from ideologues like Noumenon and Ryggy - sickening.

A full explanation of the schneider quote - and Noumenon's dishonesty - http://climatesig...r-quote/
djr
3.9 / 5 (18) Jun 16, 2013
'Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action' -- Goethe

How true - shame Ryggy never looks in the mirror.
runrig
4.5 / 5 (15) Jun 16, 2013
How can one believe the AGW alarmist projections if the people making those speculations were not smart enough to even predict that people will be egoistically driven as a matter of natural instinct and will not voluntarily give up what they see as in their immediate best interest?

Perhaps they did know this and now admit faiure in their adgenda of global socialist gov.


You manage to disprove your point while also making it.

You dislike socialism and yet you say that people left to their own devices will not do the correct thing. You haven't made a startling point there - it is just obvious human nature.

Therefore a concerted world-wide action is required to tackle AGW. Which is of course not socialism at all, merely the sensible way that people can get together sometimes and solve a problem by concerted action. You know? as in society, a group of people with a common cause. I repeat - NOT socialism.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (41) Jun 16, 2013
The more complete quote: This "double ethical bind" we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."

Oh what a difference a little honesty makes - can't expect that from ideologues like Noumenon and Ryggy - sickening.


I could not provide the entire quote, but included "we'd like to see the world a better place", so no dishonesty was intended nor posted. My quote didn't leave off anything of substance, nor did your post change anything wrt the point presented. Whatever the justification for him stating,....

"So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of the doubts we might have."

..... he's clearing is advocating "alarmism" in leu of either honesty or silence.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Jun 16, 2013

'Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action' -- Goethe


You said it ( or Goethe did ) ... and for once you're correct.
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (40) Jun 16, 2013
You manage to disprove your point while also making it.

How so?!

You dislike socialism and yet you say that people left to their own devices will not do the correct thing.


The 'correct thing' is for them to pursue their own personal interests and act according to their nature, not to give up their freedoms to gov control.

Therefore a concerted world-wide action is required to tackle AGW. Which is of course not socialism at all, merely the sensible way that people can get together sometimes and solve a problem by concerted action. You know? as in society, a group of people with a common cause. I repeat - NOT socialism.


A 'concerted world-wide action' de facto means government control of energy use and would require social engineering, regulation of behavior, social planning, redistribution of wealth, regulation of capitalism.... whenever government controls such essential aspects of society,... it is socialism.

It is not necessary nor workable
djr
4.3 / 5 (16) Jun 16, 2013
"so no dishonesty was intended "

Of course it was - Noumenon left of the critical phrase "hopefully that means being both" - making it look like schneider was advocating being dishonest - of course it was Noumenon who was being dishonest - but science requires honesty - not political ideology.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (21) Jun 16, 2013
rather than actually fix it.


How do you 'fix' climate?

"Global cooling as significant as global warming, research shows"
http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (41) Jun 16, 2013
"so no dishonesty was intended "

Of course it was - Noumenon left of the critical phrase "hopefully that means being both" - making it look like schneider was advocating being dishonest - of course it was Noumenon who was being dishonest - but science requires honesty - not political ideology.


That was no more of "critical phrase" than the phrase I DID include - "we'd like to see the world a better place". So therefore, if my motive was to be dishonest, I would have left that quote off also.

The fact is he said... "So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of the doubts we might have", and in so doing, he advocated alarmist propaganda. He is a 'Fredo Corleone' of climate researchers, and ran his mouth too much.

The guy about to rob a bank, "hopes" he won't have to shoot anyone, but.....
djr
4.3 / 5 (16) Jun 16, 2013
and in so doing, he advocated alarmist propaganda.

Read the link I provided. He was bemoaning the state of the media - not advocating propoganda - you guys just decided to take his quote out of context for your own gain - you were distorting his meaning - and you have been busted - despicable.
djr
4.3 / 5 (16) Jun 16, 2013
Here is a nice quote from the link.

So what should we learn from the sad story of the Schneider quote?

Whenever you see something particularly outrageous-sounding, don't just accept it as fact. Find the original source, the original interview. Email the guy if you have to. Figure out what they really meant.

Of course - it is much easier to just cut and paste - without digging any deeper - I dug deeper - and showed you up for the propogandist you are!
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (41) Jun 16, 2013
The fact is he said...

"So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of the doubts we might have"

,... and there is nothing in your link nor your responses that unties that knot. No matter how many times you attempt a vague impression to the contrary, he was advocating alarmist propaganda.
deepsand
3 / 5 (23) Jun 16, 2013
The only reason that people struggle to believe in AGW is because it conflicts with their own selfish desires to consume


That is not selfishness, that it is instinct; egoism is a natural evolved necessity, and consumption is vital to economies.

Gross over-consumption is neither instinctual nor necessary for a functional society.
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (41) Jun 17, 2013
The only reason that people struggle to believe in AGW is because it conflicts with their own selfish desires to consume


That is not selfishness, that it is instinct; egoism is a natural evolved necessity, and consumption is vital to economies.

Gross over-consumption is neither instinctual nor necessary for a functional society.


Who decides what "Gross over-consumption" is, Al Gore? Subjective meaninglessness in a free society.
djr
4.4 / 5 (13) Jun 17, 2013
and there is nothing in your link nor your responses that unties that knot. No matter how many times you attempt a vague impression to the contrary, he was advocating alarmist propaganda.

Because he is bemoaning the state of the media - and how it forces scientists to explain themselves in sound bites - as opposed to being given the time to fully explain their position. Your quote is a deliberate attempt to mischaracterize the whole interview. You guys are ideologically driven - and will stoop to fox new nonsense - rather than be interested in adult conversation.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (16) Jun 17, 2013
Adapting is a necessity -simply because we have no way of curbing CO2 emissions fast enough to stop its effects right this instant.

But one must realize that adaptation without fighting the root causes of the problem just leads to a cocaine-effect...where increasing adaptation becomes increasingly expensive (Exponentially so. Just compare the price of setting up levees 10m high and 20m high).

At some point that economic drain will be too much for us to handle. So while adaptation is all good and proper - if we lose the ultimate goal of stabilizing the global temperature out of sight over that then we're sunk. Literally.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (39) Jun 17, 2013
and there is nothing in your link nor your responses that unties that knot. No matter how many times you attempt a vague impression to the contrary, he was advocating alarmist propaganda.


Because he is bemoaning the state of the media - and how it forces scientists to explain themselves in sound bites - as opposed to being given the time to fully explain their position. Your quote is a deliberate attempt to mischaracterize the whole interview. You guys are ideologically driven - and will stoop to fox new nonsense - rather than be interested in adult conversation.


I don't believe that "So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of the doubts we might have" and "a balance between effectiveness and honesty" represent "sound bits" forced into. There is a word for it, ...propaganda.

Please learn how to use quotes; [ q ] quoted text here [ / q ]
except with no spaces.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (39) Jun 17, 2013
Seven months after Superstorm Sandy swamped New York, Mayor Michael Bloomberg proposed a nearly $20 billion plan Tuesday, June 11, 2013, to protect the city from the effects of global warming and storms


On the one hand some say that the prior 15 years of global temperature plateau is too short of a time span to negatively effect AGW predictions, ...but yet some how we are to adapt to specific AGW caused weather events?
DavidW
1.3 / 5 (16) Jun 17, 2013
If all Americans did not eat meat for seven days a week it would be just the same as removing all of the cars in the USA off the roads.

If all Americans did not eat meat for six days a week it would lead to the same carbon savings as eliminating the total electricity use of all households in the United States.

If all Americans did not eat meat for five days a week it would result in carbon savings equivalent to planting 13 billion trees in your garden and letting them grow for ten years. That is 43 trees per American!

If all Americans did not eat meat for four days a week it would result in carbon savings equivalent to halving the domestic use of all electricity, gas, oil, petroleum and kerosene in the United States.

deepsand
2.9 / 5 (16) Jun 18, 2013
The only reason that people struggle to believe in AGW is because it conflicts with their own selfish desires to consume


That is not selfishness, that it is instinct; egoism is a natural evolved necessity, and consumption is vital to economies.

Gross over-consumption is neither instinctual nor necessary for a functional society.


Who decides what "Gross over-consumption" is, Al Gore? Subjective meaninglessness in a free society.

Who decides what is instinctual or necessary? You?
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (35) Jun 18, 2013
The only reason that people struggle to believe in AGW is because it conflicts with their own selfish desires to consume


That is not selfishness, that it is instinct; egoism is a natural evolved necessity, and consumption is vital to economies.

Gross over-consumption is neither instinctual nor necessary for a functional society.


Who decides what "Gross over-consumption" is, Al Gore? Subjective meaninglessness in a free society.

Who decides what is instinctual or necessary? You?

Individuals, Einstein.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (14) Jun 18, 2013
If all Americans did not eat meat for seven days a week it would be just the same as removing all of the cars in the USA off the roads.

If all Americans did not eat meat for six days a week it would lead to the same carbon savings as eliminating the total electricity use of all households in the United States.

If all Americans did not eat meat for five days a week it would result in carbon savings equivalent to planting 13 billion trees in your garden and letting them grow for ten years. That is 43 trees per American!

If all Americans did not eat meat for four days a week it would result in carbon savings equivalent to halving the domestic use of all electricity, gas, oil, petroleum and kerosene in the United States.


The Catholic Church created fish on Fridays to motivate the purchase of fish. The Church had received a fish company from a parishioner. This was centuries ago.
deepsand
2.9 / 5 (16) Jun 19, 2013
The only reason that people struggle to believe in AGW is because it conflicts with their own selfish desires to consume

That is not selfishness, that it is instinct; egoism is a natural evolved necessity, and consumption is vital to economies.

Gross over-consumption is neither instinctual nor necessary for a functional society.

Who decides what "Gross over-consumption" is, Al Gore? Subjective meaninglessness in a free society.

Who decides what is instinctual or necessary? You?

Individuals, Einstein.

Exceedingly few individuals are capable determining either.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (34) Jun 19, 2013
The only reason that people struggle to believe in AGW is because it conflicts with their own selfish desires to consume

That is not selfishness, that it is instinct; egoism is a natural evolved necessity, and consumption is vital to economies.

Gross over-consumption is neither instinctual nor necessary for a functional society.

Who decides what "Gross over-consumption" is, Al Gore? Subjective meaninglessness in a free society.

Who decides what is instinctual or necessary? You?

Individuals, Einstein.

Exceedingly few individuals are capable [of] determining either.


So according to you such decisions must be made for them, by an oppressive and coercive gov. Big Gov social planning and oppression has been tried before, doesn't work. Try reading history.

It is counter to human nature to have such basic instincts dictated by gov. and will not be acceptable to free people. Free market knows best, not gov.
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (36) Jun 19, 2013
It is why far left liberal dingbats like you are useless wrt actually solving any problems, realistically. You propose the impossible; expecting free people to voluntarily give up their basic instinctive egoism of pursuing what is in their own personal interest in consumption, and expect them to hand that freedom over to be regulated and limits defined by a gov that has proven itself fiscally incompentent and absurdly inefficient over and over again.

Liberals are just too emotionally driven to think clearly and logically and be of use, but when faced with Reality....

"greatest force for economic progress in human history" - Obama

"....if the message is somehow we're going to ignore jobs and growth simply to address climate change, I don't think anybody is going to go for that. I won't go for that" - Obama
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (36) Jun 19, 2013
Even he if forced to understands (or give impression) that economies have to be strong to make the transition to alternatives, and you are not going to achive that with regulating the free market.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (36) Jun 19, 2013
Who decides what is instinctual or necessary? You? - deepsand

Individuals, Einstein. - Noumenon


IOW, it's apparent you don't know what 'instinctual' means.

--------------

Correcting the above quote,...

"The free market is the greatest force for economic progress in human history" - Obama
axemaster
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 19, 2013
I like how Noumenon has this delusion that the USA has ever had a free market. The US government has always been fiercely protectionist of all the markets that matter to our economy, right from the very moment we declared our independence from the British. Economists argued for free markets back then and said that we should exploit our competitive advantages - since the UK dominated in finished goods, that meant the production of raw materials. Instead we adopted very extreme protectionist policies including tariffs, and as a result our economy was able to develop.

Of course, the belief in the power of the free market is exactly that - a belief. The USA and the World Bank (controlled by the USA) make a policy of coercing 3rd world countries to open their economies to the free market, saying it will do wonders. In reality this amounts to kicking away the ladder. In the end the host government is dominated by American corporate interests and the country is prevented from developing.
axemaster
4.6 / 5 (10) Jun 19, 2013
To conclude, Noumenon, what I'm saying is that you've essentially fallen victim to the USA propaganda that the free market is a wonderful thing. The USA has been trumpeting this falsehood for decades now, primarily because it benefits us if people in other countries believe it since it allows us to exploit them for our own gain.

Another facet of this strategy is visible in the primary metric used to justify the tactic (alongside the extremely naive economic theory) - the GDP. The interesting thing about GDP is that it doesn't measure the wealth accumulated by the population of a country. This means that if an American company starts producing a product using native labor, pays the laborers virtually nothing, then ships the product back to the USA for sale, the GDP will still go up! Even though there was no accumulation of wealth in the country in question.

And of course, the United States bases its evaluation of economic "health" on GDP. Who does this benefit, I wonder?...
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (16) Jun 19, 2013
USA propaganda that the free market is a wonderful thing.

Free markets are best.
If the US and others restrict markets and don't practice what they preach, it's to their economic detriment as we are now experiencing and was experienced in the late 1920s.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (14) Jun 19, 2013
USA propaganda that the free market is a wonderful thing.

Free markets are best.
If the US and others restrict markets and don't practice what they preach, it's to their economic detriment as we are now experiencing and was experienced in the late 1920s.
Free markets are self-destructive and thus never last. They feed the economic cycles which inevitably sour and top out. Collusion and corruption set in. The people inevitably suffer.

Name one free market system which has ever lasted for any length of time before devouring itself from the inside out. I know what youre going to say: 'socialists ruin it every time'. You misconstrue cause and effect.

Unbounded markets will inevitably begin to victimize workers and consumers, who in turn will demand govt protection and regulation of markets.

Human nature ruins it every time.

Name one enduring free market ryggy. They are a myth.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (16) Jun 19, 2013
Collusion and corruption set in.

You said it.
socialists ruin it every time'

In a free market, collusion and corruption can't persist unless protected by the state.
axemaster
5 / 5 (7) Jun 19, 2013
USA propaganda that the free market is a wonderful thing.

Free markets are best.
If the US and others restrict markets and don't practice what they preach, it's to their economic detriment as we are now experiencing and was experienced in the late 1920s.

Why bother arguing about it when we have a case example right in front of us? China has been enacting very protectionist economic policies for many years now, and their economy is growing at an extraordinary rate.

Of course, China is able to do this because the USA isn't able to attack them. Most other countries have to accept free market capitalism because if they don't, they are subjected to sanctions or military intervention from the USA. Central and South American countries in particular have born the brunt of some really brutal military coups backed by the USA for economic/political reasons, mostly under the umbrella of the mythical "creeping communism", which served as the excuse during the Cold War.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (13) Jun 19, 2013
Collusion and corruption set in.

You said it.
socialists ruin it every time'

In a free market, collusion and corruption can't persist unless protected by the state.
You mean the state of sicily?

Name one successful self-sustaining free market.
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (36) Jun 19, 2013
an American company starts producing a product using native labor, pays the laborers virtually nothing, then ships the product back to the USA for sale, the GDP will still go up! Even though there was no accumulation of wealth in the country in question.


You're speaking out of your a$$. Assembly cost is a small percent of total labour cost of a business. Also, investors buy stocks for increase of a companies Value. Wealth is generated in the USA despite that company assembling their stuff in foreign countries.

Wrt "The Free Market", when I use that phrase, I of course don't mean the ideal of Laissez-faire capitalism,... but simply limited government involvement in the market. Obama uses that phrase as everyone does irrespective of the ideal not being meet.

What 'free market capitalism' has brought humanity, as expressed even by Obama, is clear and inarguable. The west's wealth that it created, has helped 3rd world countries economies, simple by existing in our wake.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (35) Jun 19, 2013
what I'm saying is that you've essentially fallen victim to the USA propaganda that the free market is a wonderful thing. The USA has been trumpeting this falsehood for decades now, primarily because it benefits us if people in other countries believe it since it allows us to exploit them for our own gain.


What are you taking about, you don't make any rational sense. The evidence for free market capitalism and what it has done for humanity is as clear as anything can be. Even Obama understands this.

How are we exploiting people in foreign countries?! Do you not understand that our consumption of products is providing jobs for them? If is wasn't for Apple those in China would be picking rice! Every country has to go through economic development phases. Emerging economies offer to the market what they have in terms of Value, which is labour. Eventually they enter a competing phase where they have more value to offer the market. Countries are at different levels.
axemaster
5 / 5 (8) Jun 19, 2013
Wealth is generated in the USA despite that company assembling their stuff in foreign countries.

That's exactly my point though. It's the reason why the USA coerces other countries into dropping trade barriers. Doing that destroys indigenous businesses since they obviously can't compete with giant American companies. As a result, the local economy is prevented from growing and the population is turned into cheap labor for American companies.

The west's wealth that it created, has helped 3rd world countries economies, simple by existing in our wake.

If you actually studied the deplorable conditions the West's economic strategies create in 3rd world countries, I guarantee you'd reverse that opinion in a heartbeat. Obama either doesn't comprehend the situation (perfectly possible), or is simply too weak politically and morally to do anything about it. I suspect the latter given his policies with regard to the Arab Spring.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (34) Jun 19, 2013
Sorry you're not making sense to me. Why would foreign countries accept that condition from the west if they did not benefit from it? As I said each economy has to grow out of economic immaturity , so it is meaningless nonsense to compare one economic state to another and then proceed to wet your pants.
axemaster
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 19, 2013
<...>Countries are at different levels.

You simply aren't understanding the strategies involved. Let me put it very simply for you:

Every country seeks to exploit every other country for personal gain. More explicitly, the power elites of a country seek to use the common folk as a weapon to extract wealth from the people of other countries.

The basic strategy is simple - get whatever power you can, and try to prevent others from doing the same. In other words, once you've climbed the ladder of success, you have to kick it away.

In real world terms this means suppressing the development of weak countries and exploiting them to generate wealth. This is what the USA was doing with the Monroe Doctrine, which essentially stated that South America belonged to the US. Similarly, the Cold War was used as an excuse to invade and smash up numerous countries that were bucking American domination. The USA didn't even bother disguising this after the USSR collapsed.
axemaster
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 19, 2013
Sorry you're not making sense to me. Why would foreign countries accept that condition from the west if they did not benefit from it? As I said each economy has to grow out of economic immaturity , so it is meaningless nonsense to compare one economic state to another and then proceed to wet your pants.

They accept it because the alternative is (pick any/all from the list):

- crippling economic sanctions (many, many places and occasions)
- assassination of their leaders (Cuba is a good example)
- USA backed military coups / state terrorism (numerous countries in South America)
- actual direct military invasion (Iraq, after Saddam disobeyed/misunderstood orders from Bush Sr. and invaded Kuwait)

And I'm sure there's others I'm forgetting.

And of course the American public is propagandized quite heavily by the media. You'll notice that all news stories start and end with the assumption that "we went in with the best of intentions", which is patently absurd.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (15) Jun 19, 2013
Name one successful self-sustaining free market.

Name one market that can escape a socialist state.

Conversely, OPEC is a group of nation-states that try to collude to set the price of oil.
"OPEC rarely if ever influences the oil production rate in its member states. Further, OPEC has almost no lasting impact on world prices, except under rare conditions. "
http://www.prince...lgan.pdf

Cartels and collusion, even when engaged by state actors, fail.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (14) Jun 19, 2013
(Iraq, after Saddam disobeyed/misunderstood orders from Bush Sr. and invaded Kuwait)

Assuming what axe says is true, does he advocate MORE socialism?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (13) Jun 19, 2013
Name one successful self-sustaining free market.

Name one market that can escape a socialist state.

Conversely, OPEC is a group of nation-states that try to collude to set the price of oil.
"OPEC rarely if ever influences the oil production rate in its member states. Further, OPEC has almost no lasting impact on world prices, except under rare conditions. "
http://www.prince...lgan.pdf

Cartels and collusion, even when engaged by state actors, fail.
So in other words, you cant. Because such a utopia has never existed and can never exist.

All you need to accept now is the fact that free markets are an illusion of the 'prosperity' phase of economic cycles. Competition reigns because no one has much to lose.

But as capitalism begins to overheat and overgrowth causes inflation and shrinking markets, capitalism begins to implode.

This is inevitable, which is why it can be Planned for and Exploited for Constructive Purposes.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (14) Jun 19, 2013
"Why are there no libertarian countries?"
"libertarianism exists everywhere state power ain't."
"every country has tried it and every country practices it to one extent or another. This is the reason we experience progress, enjoy wealth, and have access to things like longer lives, food to eat, cities, smartphones, financial markets, useful websites, shoes, clothes, and the like. It's why we can mostly say what we want, fall in love and act on that, and do what we want in a general way provided we don't hurt others. These conditions all flow from human volition using private property (including property in ourselves) that is exercised whenever and wherever it is permitted by the authorities. Government doesn't create anything. It just takes stuff, overrides our preferences, and threatens us if we fail to comply. It has the same relationship to human liberty that a tick has to a dog. "
http://www.fee.or...W0dpbBY5
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (15) Jun 19, 2013
overgrowth causes inflation

Inflation is a market effect of govts creating more money out of thin air. Inflation has nothing to do with a growing economy.
Rome shaved gold off of coins to create more coins from the same quantity of gold but the face value of the coin did not change.
Coins today have serrated edges to show if a coin has been shaved. But that was when coins were made of Ag or Au.
Now the govt banks just create more money with a the push of a computer button.
axemaster
4.4 / 5 (9) Jun 19, 2013
Assuming what axe says is true, does he advocate MORE socialism?

You're free to verify the veracity of what I've said. Unfortunately it's a pretty laborious task though.

In terms of what I want... Well, the current system is very beneficial to me, so I'd actually like it to stay the way it is. I'm planning to found a potentially major corporation in the very near future based on technology I'm developing, so all the current corruption, exploitation and so on is actually very much in my favor.

So I'm not actually advocating that anything be changed. I simply noticed that Noumenon said some pretty silly stuff, and felt a desire to correct him.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (14) Jun 19, 2013
"Might it be there are no libertarian "countries" because people like E. J. Dionne (who apologize for central power) and people like Lindsey Graham (who crave central power) and people like Jeffrey Immelt (who benefit financially from central power) belong to a parasitic nexus that feeds on the fears and hard work of average citizens? This nexus forms through processes generally referred to as "public choice economics." James Buchanan (a libertarian) won a Nobel Prize for explaining how and why this process happens, and libertarians understand these dynamics better than anyone. Understanding why power corrupts doesn't make us long to have power. It makes us long for a way to dissipate it.

Read more: http://www.fee.or...WhtT9a8K
You're free to verify the veracity of what I've said. Unfortunately it's a pretty laborious task though

How does one verify fiction?
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (15) Jun 19, 2013
Well, the current system is very beneficial to me, so I'd actually like it to stay the way it is.

So your happy with socialist tyranny.
Just remember, a govt that is big enough to give you anything is big enough to take it away.
In what socialist paradise do you pan to incorporate?
axemaster
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 19, 2013
You're free to verify the veracity of what I've said. Unfortunately it's a pretty laborious task though

How does one verify fiction?

Wow, I can't believe I wrote "verify the veracity". That's just horrible.

At any rate, you can certainly look up all the wars in the history of the USA. The reason it's a laborious task is that the history is always presented in a very pro-USA light, so it takes a LOT of time and effort to figure out what actually goes on.

Fortunately, one of the scholars here at MIT has spent much of his life analyzing this stuff. I suggest looking up Noam Chomsky on youtube, he has given some excellent talks on the subject. No matter what you think of him, that guy knows his s***.
axemaster
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 19, 2013
Just remember, a govt that is big enough to give you anything is big enough to take it away.

If they "take it away" I'll just wash my hands of the matter and move to another country. As a physicist it's easy to get admittance and citizenship pretty much anywhere.

In what socialist paradise do you pan to incorporate?

Honestly I haven't thought about it much yet. I'm focused on getting my tech/inventions operational (actually they already are, currently I'm optimizing) and securing funding.
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (33) Jun 19, 2013
That "Every country seeks to exploit every other country for personal gain" and that each country naturally exercises it's power to protect and influence on account of it's interests, and that they manipulate their currency, or defend their resource supply, whatever etc etc,... are only various hierarchical examples of the core of what capitalism is about, competition and survival of the fittest.

The same thing occurs between corporations, each trying to limit the others influence, etc, and the same thing occurs between individuals who are in such a position. The totality is free market capitalism when the competition is for wealth.

The bottom line is value. If a country only has cheap labour to offer as value it does not mean that their clients are exploiting them with evil intent. It means that they have acquired jobs which grows their own economy. They're just at different economic evolutionary points or their particular culture had put them at a disadvantage.
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (33) Jun 19, 2013
Why would foreign countries accept that condition from the west if they did not benefit from it? As I said each economy has to grow out of economic immaturity , so it is meaningless nonsense to compare one economic state to another and then proceed to wet your pants.

They accept it because the alternative is (pick any/all from the list):

- crippling economic sanctions (many, many places and occasions)
- assassination of their leaders (Cuba is a good example)
- USA backed military coups / state terrorism (numerous countries in South America)
- actual direct military invasion (Iraq, after Saddam disobeyed/misunderstood orders from Bush Sr. and invaded Kuwait)

[...]

And of course the American public is propagandized quite heavily by the media. You'll notice that all news stories start and end with the assumption that "we went in with the best of intentions", which is patently absurd.


Conspiracy Jibberish. Which option would be in store for China?
axemaster
4.3 / 5 (9) Jun 19, 2013
Conspiracy Jibberish. Which option would be in store for China?

It's not gibberish, it's just history, if you look past all the self-congratulatory BS. And I don't think it even qualifies as a conspiracy theory in my case - it isn't directed at me, and I intend to take full advantage of it.

And as I said earlier, China is excluded from retaliation because it's too big and powerful to push around. That should be sort of obvious.

If a country only has cheap labour to offer as value it does not mean that their clients are exploiting them with evil intent.

You're still not understanding. The USA is deliberately preventing those countries from growing any independent economy of their own. That's why they have nothing but cheap labor to export. It has nothing to do with the "natural evolution" of their cultures. The USA controls the political and economic systems of these countries to deny their citizens any chance for independence or prosperity.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (34) Jun 19, 2013
China has been enacting very protectionist economic policies for many years now, and their economy is growing at an extraordinary rate.

Of course, China is able to do this because the USA isn't able to attack them. Most other countries have to accept free market capitalism because if they don't, they are subjected to sanctions or military intervention from the USA.


This is gibberish artificial conspiracy masquerading as world understanding. China participates in capitalism despite being communist because that is the global economic reality before them, not because they're manipulated to do so, or would have been forced to do so any way. The same goes for other countries that interact with the global market. The idea that the USA or the west forces capitalism upon the world is absurd.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (34) Jun 19, 2013
The USA controls the political and economic systems of these countries to deny their citizens any chance for independence or prosperity.


Yes, I've heard this consiracy theory. It is of course pure BS tin-hat nonsense. The USA is not in a position to deny them anything they are able to achieve.

Many countries are simply chaotic on their own due to self inflicted religious backwardness, or had chosen the wrong political system in their history and so proved stunted when capitalism became the dominate global system, or have cultures not immediately amendable to free choice, much less capitalism,... or are sitting on a pool of oil and had become complacent.

The free market manifested as something natural and inevitable globally, given the power of value and egoism, not as something coerced upon it by the evil western civilization.

That the USA makes it's influence felt does not really mean anything beyond just that.
axemaster
5 / 5 (7) Jun 19, 2013
China participates because, as a big and powerful country like the USA they have much to gain by using the same tactics as us, i.e. exploiting other countries. Capitalism is only a positive thing for the people in charge, everyone else gets crushed underfoot.

You might ask, why did China have a communist revolution in the first place? Well, a big part of it was pushing out Japan, who had been exploiting and massacring them. As a weak victim country, the choice of communism was a rational one. They got away with it because the USA was preoccupied fighting Japan. Many other countries throughout the world have tried to do the same, but they were weak and easily crushed by the USA for the purposes of securing cheap labor.

You might find this article interesting.
http://www.chomsk...0126.htm
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (15) Jun 19, 2013
The USA is deliberately preventing those countries from growing any independent economy of their own.

Wow, the USA has that much power?

The USA controls the political and economic systems of these countries to deny their citizens any chance for independence or prosperity.


How does the USA do this?
The idea that the USA or the west forces capitalism upon the world is absurd.

I wish it were so.
But there is no need as the world has noticed that free markets mean more liberty and prosperity, and unfortunately, power for the govts.

"The benefit of economic liberalization is best illustrated by Rwanda's coffee sector,

Only two decades ago this sector was tightly regulated and controlled by the government; it was the key source of revenue. Farmers were forced to devote at least a quarter of their land to growing coffee, which a government agency bought at a below-market price.

Read more: http://www.fee.or...ee-marke
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (16) Jun 19, 2013
hey got away with it because the USA was preoccupied fighting Japan

The war with Japan was over.
Now I understand your confusion, you listen to Chomsky a socialist linguistics professor.
Chinese communism is not to difficult to understand when one considers their imperial history.
But when provided the opportunity, the Chinese people embraced capitalism and have prospered quite well around the world and in Taiwan, Macau and Hong Kong.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (35) Jun 19, 2013
I guess if we hadn't taken out Saddam and oppressed him and his people , we would be buying Iraqi made cars by now.

The convoluted monstrosity of conspiracy that the far left are forced to construct in order to maintain their failed world view is laughable.

I call it conspiracy because there is simpler and more natural causes,... that capitalism is more in line with instinctual human nature and freedom, so it inevitably evolved as the dominant system where it was free to play out. If anything the USA has helped other countries by virtue of its example of democray and obvious success economically.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (35) Jun 19, 2013
The USA controls the political and economic systems of these countries to deny their citizens any chance for independence or prosperity.


How does the USA do this?


By inventing capitalistic prosperity in the first place and demonstrating it's realization, the USA has contrasted failed dictorial political systems, failed left wing economic systems, and stunted theocracies, that's how, and yes it was done on purpose.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (35) Jun 20, 2013
they were weak and easily crushed by the USA for the purposes of securing cheap labor.


Your professors really did a number on you. Sad. No wonder todays x gen is utterly useless; if it was your mentality that dominated during the late 19th century, the industrial revolution would never had taken off.

I gave the various reasons other nations are at varying levels of economic developement above. It is not as simple as being a conspiracy of the USA. That is a cartoon, not raw reality. Each nation had their individual chance of developing an economy that was compatitble with international economics. Many choose the wrong path, dictatorial, communism, or theocracy, too far left, and as a result they were stunted when the best economic system emerged from that competition. Does the USA protect that system around the world? Of course, but not as coerced into place, but by global economic realities that evolved as the dominate and natural system.
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (34) Jun 20, 2013
The 'progressive' far left are ideologically invested in the notion of 'planned society', a coerced and engineered society, with redistribution of wealth, and social justice for inequalities; because in their minds the masses must be controlled. They therefore cannot allow that a social and economic system had emerged purely naturally on account of a-priori egoistic tendicies of all mankind, if those instincts are not oppressed by a form of gov listed above. Since this is counter to the far left's ideology they must invent ways for it to have been engineered into place,... the evil USA oppressing and using others, as an excuse to why their system is such a failure while free market capitalism is such a resounding success.

I'm focused on getting my tech/inventions operational (actually they already are, currently I'm optimizing) and securing funding.


I hope, like Algore, you become sucessful and reap the benefits of capitalism and become wealthy,...
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (35) Jun 20, 2013
,.. and then use that wealth to better your condition as is your instinct to do so, and buy many shiny things glady designed and assembled by others so they to can seek to better their relative condition as well.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (16) Jun 20, 2013
"But trusts can't be all bad. After all, Chomsky, with a net worth north of US$2-million, decided to create one for himself. A few years back he went to Boston's venerable white-shoe law firm, Palmer and Dodge, and, with the help of a tax attorney specializing in "income-tax planning," set up an irrevocable trust to protect his assets from Uncle Sam. He named his tax attorney (every socialist radical needs one!) and a daughter as trustees. "
"Chomsky favours massive income redistribution — just not the redistribution of his income. No reason to let radical politics get in the way of sound estate planning."
http://www.outsid...pocrite/

If he retired or retires from MIT, that income is derived almost entirely from royalties from MIT spinoffs businesses that compete in the marketplace.
deepsand
3.5 / 5 (19) Jun 21, 2013
If libertarianism is so superior, how to explain the dearth of libertarian states?
deepsand
3.5 / 5 (19) Jun 21, 2013
Gross over-consumption is neither instinctual nor necessary for a functional society.

Who decides what "Gross over-consumption" is, Al Gore? Subjective meaninglessness in a free society.

Who decides what is instinctual or necessary? You?

Individuals, Einstein.

Exceedingly few individuals are capable of determining either

So according to you such decisions must be made for them, by an oppressive and coercive gov.
Does that gross misrepresentation of my words owe to a deliberate effort or simple stupidity?

It is counter to human nature to have such basic instincts dictated by gov. and will not be acceptable to free people.

ROTFLMAO.

Were that true we'd have no organized religions.

Free market knows best, not gov.

Free markets are a utopian myth. Left unchecked, they inevitably lead to monopolies and/or oligopolies.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (17) Jun 21, 2013
Free markets are a utopian myth. Left unchecked,

Free markets are NEVER unchecked by customers and competion.
ONLY when some govt force steps in and restricts markets can monopolies begin.

If libertarianism is so superior, how to explain the dearth of libertarian states?

A libertarian state only benefits the individuals in these states. They do not benefit those seeking the power to control others.
When the state squeezes too hard and economic prosperity declines, they look towards liberty and free markets to prop up the economy. Sweden had to eliminate its wealth tax so wealthy Swedes would return.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (15) Jun 21, 2013
If libertarianism is so superior, how to explain the dearth of libertarian states?

Is socialism is so great, why do socialist states collapse in tyranny murdering millions or muddle along resorting to capitalism to stay in business?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (12) Jun 21, 2013
Name one successful self-sustaining free market.


Name one market that can escape a socialist state.
So if free marketeering is such a superior economic system, why is it so fragile? Why is it so easy to adulterate? If it is better it should prevail, yes? Answer - prosperity has ALWAYS led to overpopulation. Majority rules, and when the people begin to suffer they will look to the state for assistance, or they will overthrow it.

Perhaps free markets would do better in a fascist state. Ask i g farben.
Inflation is a market effect of govts creating more money out of thin air. Inflation has nothing to do with a growing economy
I didnt say growing economy I said growing populations. Prosperity enables overgrowth. Too many consumers and not enough goods causes inflation.

This is obvious.

What good is a pile of money if there is nothing to buy with it?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (12) Jun 21, 2013
Is socialism is so great, why do socialist states collapse in tyranny murdering millions or muddle along resorting to capitalism to stay in business?
You are describing conditions at the end of a paricularly severe economic cycle. Overgrowth led to disparity. The govt (Weimar) was powerless to compensate, and so it was replaced by one that could.

But much evidence indicates that that whole affair was Engineered to produce unlikely postwar conditions which benefited civilization as a whole. And so it is hard to make sense of it if you assume that what developed was somehow natural or spontaneous.

What is clear however is that industrialization-fueled overgrowth was the fundamental reason for everything that happened from 1850 to 1950. Had there been no hitler, no stalin, no hirohito, and no mao, there would still have been widespread collapse, revolution, war, and the death of roughly the same number of people.

The demographic results would have been different however.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (16) Jun 21, 2013
So if free marketeering is such a superior economic system, why is it so fragile?

It is not fragile.
Cocaine, heroine, etc. are illegal in most places around the world yet, if you wanted to buy some you could quickly find someone who would sell it to you.
Imagine how much more efficient such markets would be if the govts didn't interfere?
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (14) Jun 21, 2013
Free markets are not fragile.
People are 'fragile'. Some people are envious of others and can't tolerate anyone prospering more than they.
These 'liberals' are so intolerant they gang up an beat down those who do better.
The Japanese have this syndrome, as do the Nordic, Jante's Law.
Other cultures have found ways to celebrate success instead of pushing it.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (12) Jun 21, 2013
It is not fragile.
Cocaine, heroine, etc. are illegal in most places around the world yet, if you wanted to buy some you could quickly find someone who would sell it to you.
Imagine how much more efficient such markets would be if the govts didn't interfere
Ahaahaaa yeah, drug markets are self-regulated.

"The mangled and unidentified corpses of a man, right, and a woman, left, hang from a pedestrian bridge in in the Mexican city of Nuevo Laredo, across the border from Texas in 2012. The yellow sign above them reads: "This is going to happen to all of those posting funny things on the Internet. You better f-----g pay attention. I'm about to get you."

-Heehee sometimes you are entertaining.
People are 'fragile'. Some people are envious of others and can't tolerate anyone prospering more than they
Raul Hernández Lechuga, leader of the Zetas drug cartel, once said something like this very thing. So did Osman Ali Atto, somali warlord, if I am not mistaken. As did madoff yes?
Claudius
2 / 5 (16) Jun 21, 2013
Raul Hernández Lechuga, leader of the Zetas drug cartel, once said something like this very thing. So did Osman Ali Atto, somali warlord, if I am not mistaken. As did


Al Capone and his ilk were the same way. We got rid of the rum runners with the repeal of prohibition. If you don't like the drug crime, end prohibition.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (16) Jun 21, 2013
Auto, what evidence do you have markets are fragile?
Madoff? Madoff operated in a very regulated market. When the regulators refused to investigate, the govt gave Madoff's victims tacit approval he was legit.
Same with illegal drug trade or illegal immigration. When the state refuses to enforce its laws, it gives approval for that behavior.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (16) Jun 21, 2013
"Every single economic crisis of the past 100 years was predictable (and sometimes predicted) and caused by government intervention in the economy.

In fact, it seems some people in 2013 have started realizing it. Dr. Emanuele Canegrati, senior economist for the Italian Parliament, even went on to say that Ludwig Von Mises, late Austrian-born U.S. economist, and his Austrian School of economics were right with their theories on economic cycles and inflation."
http://www.policy...-of-them
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (12) Jun 21, 2013
Auto, what evidence do you have markets are fragile?
YOU SAID SO. They are unable to defend themselves from pinkos.
Madoff operated in a very regulated market. When the regulators refused to investigate, the govt gave Madoff's victims tacit approval he was legit
I see. So you're saying that we need govts to protect us from free marketeers? You're saying that the govt PREVENTED competition from exposing madoff?? Either way he was better than anyone else at generating profit and the people would have flocked to him in either case.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Jun 21, 2013
So you're saying that we need govts to protect us from free marketeers

Madoff was not operating in a free market. It was, and is, a highly regulated market. As such, Madoff's victims trusted the govt regulators that failed to protect his victims.
It was Madoff's competitors that tried to get the govt to act.

ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Jun 21, 2013
"The three-judge panel said SEC employees are shielded by what's known as the Discretionary Function Exception, which protects the government from certain lawsuits even if a private employer could be held liable under similar circumstances."
"The judges said they have "sympathy" for the plaintiffs, and they called the SEC's failure to uncover Madoff's scheme "regrettable." However, the judge said, "Congress's intent to shield regulatory agencies' discretionary use of specific investigative powers… is fatal to the plaintiffs' claims.""
""The SEC completely failed. They failed to collect the facts. They failed to properly investigate. They broke down and should be held accountable."

The SEC declined to comment on the decision."
http://abcnews.go...f-court/
Note that the private sector could be sued but not the govt.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Jun 21, 2013
If markets are so fragile or evil why so many 'progressives' want to create artificial markets for their agendas?
They created pollution markets, carbon markets ... to try and implement their pet projects.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (10) Jun 22, 2013
Madoff was not operating in a free market
So, hypothetically, without all that regulation investors would have had only madoff and his spectacular track record. They would have trusted him anyway.

Without regulation madoff would be the norm. Every cycle generates sheisters and a new crop of people falls for them every time. Luckily, regulators make their job very difficult.
If markets are so fragile or evil
If your free markets are so intrinsically robust, why do they not ever survive the decline phase of economic cycles?

Answer - because it is a CYCLE. Free markets are not suited for the sort of atmosphere they themselves create in a recession. Marketeers have no way of coping with recession but by colluding with competitors and bribing officials.

Being honest and letting hungrier and crookeder competitors drive your business into the ground is simply NOT an option. Your family will starve. Guido has an answer you cannot refuse. The ones who survive are ALL crooked.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (14) Jun 22, 2013
ypothetically, without all that regulation investors would have had only madoff and his spectacular track record.


You forget his competitors.
why do they not ever survive the decline phase of economic cycles?

What doesn't survive? Markets continue to function and freer markets respond much faster.
"Left to the market, interest rates are determined by the supply of credit (a mirror of the savings rate) and the willingness to takes risks in the market (a mirror of the return on capital). What throws this out of whack is manipulation by the central bank.

When the Fed feeds artificial credit into the economy by lowering interest rates, it spurs investments in projects that don't eventually pan out. In this economic boom, the high-tech and dot com manias resulted from a decade of sustained money growth via lower interest rates. When the Fed stepped on the brakes to prevent prices from rising, it prompted a sell-off, and hence a downturn. "
http://mises.org/daily/606
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (14) Jun 22, 2013
"There are ways to make recessions easier to endure. Cutting taxes is one of them. Getting rid of regulations that hinder enterprise is another. The purpose of such efforts is not to stimulate demand (as Bush's advisers seem to think) but to unshackle entrepreneurship and permit the consuming public more freedom of choice.

But this theory is at once too sophisticated and too clear for most business reporters to grasp. They aren't interested in reading a dusty old treatise on monetary theory. Neither, I'm afraid, are Bush's economic advisers. But at least Bush's intuitions are on track. A big, immediate tax cut won't stop the slide, but it will help provide the American people a cushion to land on, as well as a foundation for the future. "
http://mises.org/daily/606
Guido has an answer you cannot refuse.

Really? Organized crime can only exist when protected by some govt. Guido can stop by and face my Pinkertons. Violence is not good for profits.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (10) Jun 22, 2013
Like in Somalia? Oh and pinkertons and brownshirts are illegal. Our govt says so. Luckily you never see these outlaws during the growth phase as there is no need for them. Only when economies top out and people begin to suffer, will order break down.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (10) Jun 22, 2013
What's the difference between a madoff with regulations and a madoff without them? Without regulations, Madoffs abound. There are nothing but madoffs. With regulations you have perhaps a few.

Without regulations, madoff would have had competition.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (14) Jun 22, 2013
Pinkerton's are illegal?
By whom?
Because the govt is not required to protect its citizens, citizens must protect themselves or hire private security, like Pinkertons, to protect them.
http://www.pgs-usa.com/
http://www.pinker...approach
Even the US gov hires private security to protect their staff.
http://www.triplecanopy.com/
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Jun 22, 2013
"It's common practice for companies to analyze their competitors. So when Frank Casey, then the Vice President of Marketing for Rampart Investments, began to wonder what financier Bernard Madoff was doing that yielded such attractive returns for his investors, he
decided to look into it. But what began as a study of the competition uncovered a
fraud scheme that — ten years later —left the investment world reeling."
"In their analysis of Madoff's numbers,
Casey and his colleagues Harry Markopolos
and Neil Chelo knew almost immediately
that something was amiss. It wasn't only
that Madoff's returns didn't correlate to
the market. "Within four hours, we had
mathematical proof that it must be a
fraud," he said."
http://www4.uwm.e...e3-2.pdf
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (14) Jun 22, 2013
"Due to the lack of government intervention and regulation with respect to hedge funds, consumers demanded some sort of policing of hedge funds in order to protect investors who lack the knowledge or resources to properly investigate the funds in which they plan to entrust their money. The free market responded to the consumer demand and so-called "due-diligence firms" emerged. Individuals seeking to invest in a hedge fund frequently pay one of these due-diligence firms for their opinion about specific hedge funds. "
"One such firm is Aksia LLC. After painstakingly investigating the operations of Madoff's operation, they found several red flags. A brief summary of some of the red flags uncovered by Aksia can be found here. Shockingly, Aksia even uncovered a letter to the SEC dating from 2005 which claimed that Madoff was running a Ponzi scheme. As a result of its investigation, Aksia advised all of its clients not to invest their money in Madoff's hedge fund."
http://mises.org/daily/3
deepsand
3.4 / 5 (15) Jun 23, 2013
Free markets are a utopian myth. Left unchecked,

Free markets are NEVER unchecked by customers and competion.
ONLY when some govt force steps in and restricts markets can monopolies begin.

Anyone who who really believes that BS is deluded.

A "free market" is easily subverted by any person or persons with sufficient power.
deepsand
3.2 / 5 (14) Jun 23, 2013
If libertarianism is so superior, how to explain the dearth of libertarian states?

Is socialism is so great, why do socialist states collapse in tyranny murdering millions or muddle along resorting to capitalism to stay in business?

When cornered, Rygg evades by misdirection.

You are an intellectual fraud.
deepsand
3.3 / 5 (15) Jun 23, 2013
Free markets are not fragile.
People are 'fragile'. Some people are envious of others and can't tolerate anyone prospering more than they.

And some people are so wanting of all that they can grasp that they exploit others without care for the harms that they cause.

GREED destroys free markets.
deepsand
3.4 / 5 (14) Jun 23, 2013
If libertarianism is so superior, how to explain the dearth of libertarian states?

A libertarian state only benefits the individuals in these states. They do not benefit those seeking the power to control others
And therein lies the seed of libertarianism's demise.

Lacking the means for defending against the base nature of men, it is easily subverted to the vices of those with sufficient power, who need not be those in formal positions of governmental power, such that that it cannot in the long run sustain itself.

Libertarianism exists only as a theoretical ideal.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Jun 23, 2013
The peasants are revolting:
"The New York Times reported that Brazil's leftist ruling Workers Party — full of 1960s-era guerrillas, community organizers, academics and radicals — "finds itself perplexed by the revolt in its midst."

After all, hadn't they been good socialists, shoveling pork to the poor, protecting local industries from foreign "predators," employing bureaucrats and taxing "the rich"? Yes, they did, and the result is a nation awash in corruption, angry at special interests, poorer from protectionism and beset by high taxes.

Now the people are marching. And the Workers' Party (PT) philosophy of rule by special interests is at least one reason why.

Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.inves...X2Tu77mj
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Jun 23, 2013
A "free market" is easily subverted by any person or persons with sufficient power.

Define 'easily'.
The results of such diversions are being seen now in Brazil and have been seen in every subverted market, like housing.
GREED destroys free markets.

If so, how do you stop it?
It looks like greed destroys socialism. Socialism's inherent violation of natural laws, always leads to corruption. Someone must make the decision whose property should be taken by the state and redistributed, with no immediate consequence.
In a libertarian society, attempts at wealth redistribution have immediate consequence to the greedy. They may pay with their lives.
BTW, the nation-states in the world have no govt and exist in anarchy.
Libertarianism exists only as a theoretical ideal.

And every govt that is MORE libertarian has more prosperous and independent individuals Every govt that is more socialist has more dependent and poorer individuals.
Which is better?
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Jun 23, 2013
Free markets in medical are being subverted the Medicare, Medicaid and Obamacare.
The inevitable 'greedy' response of some physicians is to opt out and charge cash.
The inevitable state response will be to punish any medical provider that accepts cash only forcing the medical professional to either quit or be a state slave.
Who is being greedy here? Socialists. Socialist's insatiable greed is for power, at any cost.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Jun 23, 2013
Lacking the means for defending against the base nature of men,

Back up your assertion libertarians lack the means to defend against the base nature of men?

"In fact, it is impossible for me to separate the word fraternity from the word voluntary. I cannot possibly understand how fraternity can be legally enforced without liberty being legally destroyed, and thus justice being legally trampled underfoot

Legal plunder has two roots: One of them, as I have said before, is in human greed; the other is in false philanthropy. "
"While mankind tends toward evil, the legislators yearn for good; while mankind advances toward darkness, the legislators aspire for enlightenment; while mankind is drawn toward vice, the legislators are attracted toward virtue. Since they have decided that this is the true state of affairs, they then demand the use of force in order to substitute their own inclinations for those of the human race. "
http://bastiat.or...ION_G059
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Jun 23, 2013
"It must be admitted that the tendency of the human race toward liberty is largely thwarted, especially in France. This is greatly due to a fatal desire — learned from the teachings of antiquity — that our writers on public affairs have in common: They desire to set themselves above mankind in order to arrange, organize, and regulate it according to their fancy. "
"Note that Robespierre's request for dictatorship is not made merely for the purpose of repelling a foreign invasion or putting down the opposing groups. Rather he wants a dictatorship in order that he may use terror to force upon the country his own principles of morality. He says that this act is only to be a temporary measure preceding a new constitution. But in reality, he desires nothing short of using terror to extinguish from France selfishness, honor, customs, manners, fashion, vanity, love of money, good companionship, intrigue, wit, sensuousness, and poverty. "
The Law, Bastiat
The greed of the socialist.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Jun 23, 2013
"Robespierre's request for dictatorship is not made merely for the purpose of repelling a foreign invasion or putting down the opposing groups. Rather he wants a dictatorship in order that he may use terror to force upon the country his own principles of morality."

Sounds like Pol Pot, or Obama and the 'progressive'.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Jun 23, 2013
Lacking the means for defending against the base nature of men, it is easily subverted to the vices of those with sufficient power,


" Chicago's real crisis is a crisis of virtue and there's nothing the city government in Chicago can do to make men and women more virtuous people. "
"The crisis in Chicago is not a call for government solutions because governments cannot teach men how to love their children and seek the good of the city. This is a call for the city government in Chicago to do what is necessary to get out of the way and let mediating institutions, like the church, help save the city. Only they can solve the problem because the most powerful weapon against the current pathologies in Chicago are morally formed, virtuous men and women."
http://blog.acton...ago.html

How do anti-libertarian policies by the govt or the individual help?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (9) Jun 23, 2013
Pinkerton's are illegal?
Govts giveth unto private armies:

"the DOJ contracted out the services to the Pinkerton National Detective Agency."

-And taketh them away:

"However, since passage of the Anti-Pinkerton Act in 1893, federal law has stated that an "individual employed by the Pinkerton Detective Agency, or similar organization, may not be employed by the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia"
Legal plunder has two roots: One of them, as I have said before, is in human greed; the other is in false philanthropy. "
Greed only exacerbates the extremes in economic cycles. But as it is a very predictable and dependable phenomenon, it can be used to TIME and CONTROL cycles.

Greed fueled the enormous toxic debt of the last crash, but specific laws were passed to enable it to happen in the first place. In this Manner it was global and not regional; Constructive and not destructive, in nature,
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (9) Jun 23, 2013
The peasants are revolting
-This is what they say about you.
"It must be admitted that the tendency of the human race toward liberty is largely thwarted, especially in France"
Overpopulation necessarily limits freedom. It is the single greatest threat to freedom. It was the REASON for the french revolution and the napoleonic wars. At their climax, napoleon led a vast mob of excess young males out into the depths of the russian winter to DISPOSE of them.

Alexander had done the exact same thing. When he could force them to fight and kill no more, he led his forces back from india through the arabian desert where 90% of them died.

More recently we saw this at work in the gulf war. Hussein positioned his army in nice neat lines in the desert where they were carpet-bombed and bulldozed into mush.

"My army was getting to be a problem" he said.

The exact same strategy was used in northern afghanistan against the taliban. Obviously both sides cooperated to make this happen.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (9) Jun 23, 2013
"Robespierre's request for dictatorship is not made merely for the purpose of repelling a foreign invasion or putting down the opposing groups. Rather he wants a dictatorship in order that he may use terror to force upon the country his own principles of morality."

Sounds like Pol Pot, or HITLER the 'progressive'.
Indeed. As populations swell and the people begin to suffer they will invariably blame whoever is in power no matter how benevolent they may be. The response of govt is necessarily to deal with miscreants with increasing harshness, or to be replaced by despots with more freedom to act more decisively and conclusively as conditions merit.

The solution is always the same however; to reduce populations one way or the other; either by stressing the populace and reducing the birthrate and letting attrition take its course, or by more immediate and draconian means.

The only enduring Solution however is to destroy the cultures in the Process which create the problem.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Jun 23, 2013
swell and the people begin to suffer they will invariably blame whoever is in power no matter how benevolent they may be.


Pol Pot was benevolent?
The only enduring Solution however is to destroy

That's the socialist way, destroy.
Greed fueled the enormous toxic debt of the last crash,

Yes. The greed of 'progressives' for power, AND wealth. Govt sponsered 'enterprises' are monopolies set up by the state to reward fellow 'progressives'.
Create a false scenario of racism and force banks to lend to 'underprivileged' areas to allow the banks to grow.
Market risks can't be wished away. So the govt had to change laws to allow mortgages to be bundled and sold as securities hiding the risky mortgages with less risky ones. Credit default swaps were created to mitigate the risk.
Then the whole thing grew and was promoted by Wachovia in 1997 asserting mortgage backed security were guaranteed by the US.
Same thing happened with the S&Ls in the 80s, on a smaller scale.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (14) Jun 23, 2013
Of course the other part of the picture is the trust placed on computer models:

"Any mathematical model of reality relies on simplifications and assumptions. The Black-Scholes equation was based on arbitrage pricing theory, in which both drift and volatility are constant. This assumption is common in financial theory, but it is often false for real markets. The equation also assumes that there are no transaction costs, no limits on short-selling and that money can always be lent and borrowed at a known, fixed, risk-free interest rate. Again, reality is often very different."
http://www.guardi...t-crunch

AGW has the same problem, trust in computer models.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (9) Jun 23, 2013
Pol Pot was benevolent?
No he was able to replace a benevolent govt which was unable to cope with the conditions created by religion-fueled overpopulation.
That's the socialist way, destroy.
You religionists create the conditions which result in destruction, every time.
Yes. The greed of 'progressives' for power, AND wealth
Capitalist greed stems primarily from the dread of ending up destitute like their victims.
Govt sponsered 'enterprises' are monopolies set up by the state to reward fellow 'progressives'.
Create a false scenario of racism and force banks to lend to 'underprivileged' areas to allow the banks to grow
Racism is one expression of tribalism. Societies under the stress of overpopulation retract into groups divided by race, class, religion, and ethnicity which begin to prey upon one another.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (9) Jun 23, 2013
"Any mathematical model of reality relies on simplifications and assumptions.
Models are worthless when we assume that, as these cycles are Inevitable, economic and political systems have been Configured to Engineer them and Choreograph them so that they may be used to strengthen civilization rather than imperil it.

Your models do serve a Purpose similar to classical philosophy. They give markets an air of credibility and authority. They give investors confidence by reinforcing the illusion that markets are natural phenomena subject to predictable forces.

But theyre not. Ever notice how newscasters always very quick to give a reason for market movements whether or not there is an obvious reason?

This again is the difference between evolution and domestication. Shepherds do not need to wait for more compliant sheep to emerge. They select more compliant sheep out of the flock and breed them. Markets select for compliance.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (12) Jun 23, 2013
"The ability of the media to ignore all of the massive government interference that exists today and to characterize our present economic system as one of laissez-faire and economic freedom marks it as, if not profoundly dishonest, then as nothing less than delusional."
""Capitalism should not be condemned, since we haven't had capitalism… Capitalism cherishes voluntary contracts and interest rates that are determined by savings… It's not capitalism when the system is plagued with incomprehensible rules regarding mergers, acquisitions, and stock sales, along with wage controls, price controls, protectionism, corporate subsidies, international management of trade, complex and punishing corporate taxes, privileged government contracts to the military-industrial complex, and a foreign policy controlled by corporate interests… Add to this centralized federal mismanagement of farming, education, medicine, insurance, banking and welfare. This is not capitalism!"
http://russlamberti.com/?p=1
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (12) Jun 23, 2013
That's a Ron Paul quote yes? Capitalism, like free markets, cannot exist in pure form. It quickly begins to oxidize (rust).

Aristotle told us that it is only one step above despotism. Capitalism is very delicate as well. It cannot tolerate stress. Hitler made fun of it in a famous speech, pointing out how Weimar Germany had 30-some political parties.

He too was able to grab power because the benevolent govt in charge could not cope with overpopulation which was making everybody suffer. And we know what that led to.
deepsand
3.2 / 5 (14) Jun 23, 2013
A "free market" is easily subverted by any person or persons with sufficient power.

Define 'easily'.

The words "sufficient power" suffice.
GREED destroys free markets.

If so, how do you stop it?

You don't. You can only try to constrain it.
Libertarianism exists only as a theoretical ideal.

And every govt that is MORE libertarian has more prosperous and independent individuals Every govt that is more socialist has more dependent and poorer individuals.

Assumes facts not in evidence.
Which is better?

Fallacy of the excluded middle.
VendicarE
5 / 5 (6) Jun 24, 2013
"The ability of the media to ignore all of the massive government interference " - RyggTard

One Libertarian Nutjob quoting from another Libertarian NutJob.

RyggTard loves eating Libertarian Dung. He can't get enough of it.