Gyroscopic Investing

doodle wrote: And regarding Kshartles roads comments...I actually couldn't agree more. The prevalence of cars in our society and the range of problems this creates from air pollution to suburban sprawl is definitely a product of government. Had it not been for a government created road system, the car industry never would have grown into what it is today.

I agree.  However, I can't imagine rail systems would develop in a stateless society with out some heavy monopoly activity.  I really just don't see it happening.  Rail seems to be most prevalent in close coordination/management of the state.  And the first railroad west in the U.S. is a good example.  In fact, I don't see how anyone can see the current dominance of Western civilization in North America as being a result of a combination of individual and state pressure and force as we conquered and "coerced" our way West.  It seems some want all the ups of their "anarchy" (government doesn't force them anymore) with none of the disadvantages (questioning the legitimacy of "your claim" on the property you "own.")

If theft is truly an offense that warrants individual enforcement (reclaiming property), I think we'd all have to take our current claims on property with a grain of salt.

Further, if we were to abandon the state, but still ask the government to sell our roads, the existence of that much infrastructure would probably result in roads continuing to be our mode of transportation, though how we deal with the monopolies claiming "lordship" over our only realistic mode of transportation would make things interesting.

Desert wrote:

doodle wrote: And regarding Kshartles roads comments...I actually couldn't agree more. The prevalence of cars in our society and the range of problems this creates from air pollution to suburban sprawl is definitely a product of government. Had it not been for a government created road system, the car industry never would have grown into what it is today.

Yes, I agree.  And I wish the government solution was more balanced, containing fewer roads and more rail and bike paths.  But that's an argument for replacing one government solution with a different one.  The concept I have a hard time with is trying to figure out what a free market would have produced.

Is there an example of a high-density private transportation system?  I simply can't picture one working.  I know that's my commie/statist/fascist mindset probably clouding my judgement, but I simply don't see that as a reasonable conclusion to a "free-market" transportation system.

Simonjester wrote:

Desert wrote:

moda0306 wrote:

Is there an example of a high-density private transportation system?  I simply can't picture one working.  I know that's my commie/statist/fascist mindset probably clouding my judgement, but I simply don't see that as a reasonable conclusion to a "free-market" transportation system.

I can't picture one working either, unless somehow a huge corporation obtained a level of power similar to that of the present U.S. government. 

i can see it coming about through free market methods, but given the development of transportation from horse and buggy to train and cars, i would be surprised if it looked much different than what we have. Cars and roads most places and some subway, train bus, transport in populated areas. i cant think of many free market driven reasons for anything but a mixed system...  maybe we would have better trains than am-trac and better subways/bus routes than the city's provide, but i wounder why libertarians would think they would be dominant.

What concerns me is that the more inter-dependent these systems may be, the less likely I can see competition and free-market forces working for overall harmony of civilization.  I think that "free societies" (if we're talking as pure as possible) would almost certainly have to be very small in nature.  Even if I acknowledge arbitrarily-declared property rights as being valid claims in what could be called a truly free society, I can't ever imagine one looking like Manhattan...

Maybe that's a good thing, but we have to realize the absolutely massive effect that "everyone just turning to freedom" would have on economic growth if we're basically limited to small village types of societies. 

This is where I just totally disagree with Pointed Stick asserting that we've "outgrown government."  Government isn't just a military force.  You have to some how be able to describe how an economic unit like Manhattan or Tokyo would function without government, or, if it does not, how it shrinks itself to a more "sustainable" size without completely undermining economic growth.

Simonjester wrote: it is certainly hard to invasion from a "this is what we have got" "this is what happened instead" perspective, and it is equally hard to pin down all the "what ifs" and "how would we's" but humans are creative and answers would arise as filling needs becomes economic opportunity. I disagree that it would necessitate being "small in nature". The same forces that cause some aspects of government, such as the need for wide coordination, the functionality of grouping things together at prime locations such as ports and rail junctions and the need for populations to live near those locations etc, would effect the bottom line in a free-market and drive those looking to make stuff work, to work together, (perfectly is doubtful but saying "it would likely be done better than government can, based on experience with the successes we see in the free-market" is not an unreasonable hypothesis) while i wouldn't say we have outgrown government, i would say we are in the process of doing so and that it seems a sound next step to move in that direction..

Transportation systems however are inherently monopolistic and therefore do require some sort of regulation. There is no competitive market when it comes to highways because how many of them do you need running side by side? Same with power, water, sewage, etc.

Also the huge investment of infrastructure and the need for continuous tracts of connected land in order to build such systems makes it extremely difficult for a private entity to accomplish. You could argue that if the private sector doesn't do it then the people don't really want it...that is true. But to say the private sector would be able to accomplish a more  efficient network of roads than we have today is a stretch.

If you look at third world countries with weak central governments you don't find areas of thriving economic activity. Why hasn't the free market risen up in these places and tackled even the most basic necessities like simple sanitation and clean running water?

Jacob just posted this over at ERE. I thought it was relevant to our discussion:

Economics can be defined as the distribution of resources between people. An economy can be divided into three sectors: The for-profit or private sector, the government or public sector, and the non-profit sector. These can roughly be described as follows

The private sector strives to maximize profits to owners. This is done by increasing revenue and reducing costs. The operational model for this sector is the (free) market, where money generally flows to the most productive. Hence, management is chosen by the market in the sense that non-performing managers eventually go bankrupt or are fired by the owners, that is, shareholders for publicly traded companies and owners for privately held companies.

The public sector derives its income from taxation of the private sector and provides public services (for everybody) such as policing, infrastructure, firefighting, and military protection, which the private sector apparently can not supply at a profit.

The operational model for this sector is representative democracy. Here managers try to persuade consumers that their management model is superior to that of their competitors and thus they should go out and vote. These advertising campaigns that are repeated every four years.

The non-profit sector derives its income from grants and donations from the public sector and the private sector. The non-profit sector provides services that are not provided by the private sector or the public sector, that is, services that are not profitable and/or mainly focuses on serving a minority of the public, like the poor, and thus do not fall under public services. Here managers compete for money by writing proposals and asking for donations/begging.

It is apparent that many political opinions can be classified on the emphasis or desired reliance that is placed on these three sectors of the economy. Sometimes political opinion follows personal inclinations. Strongly individualistic persons focus on the private, the for-profit companies, as it allows them the greatest benefits to thrive. Social or group-oriented persons focus on the public, the city, and national values. And the non-profit sector dealing with universally human values like education, religion, and health.

From this perspective, it becomes fairly clear, at least to me, that any economic system that concentrates on just one sector is bound to make some people unhappy and thus unproductive. A viable system would thus have all three sectors represented. We do in fact see that the countries that focus exclusively on one system whether it be for-profit or public (I am not aware of any countries that operate based on a dominant non-profit sectors) tend to score low when considering a wide band of indicators.

doodle wrote: Transportation systems however are inherently monopolistic and therefore do require some sort of regulation. There is no competitive market when it comes to highways because how many of them do you need running side by side? Same with power, water, sewage, etc.

Actually, If I take off my libertarian hat and agree with you that roads are inherently monopolistic, there's actually no reason why a government that owned roads couldn't foster a competitive market in power, water, and sewage services simply by putting down multiple pipes and wire lines below the roads, or even putting down large tunnels that could flexibly be used for future infrastructure or even subterranean transportation. These tunnels, pipes, and wires could then be rented out to aspiring utility companies at a profit to the government, providing benefits for everyone. Consumers would get competitive markets in utility services and more local jobs at the additional utility corporations; governments would become enriched from the revenue stream from rentals as well as the tax revenue from the additional utility companies, lowering sales and personal income tax pressures and making the incumbent administration more popular and more resistant to complaints about taxation; the utility companies would generate profits for their owners.

Of course, as Jacob points out, governments generate their revenue by taxation rather then profit, reducing or eliminating their incentive to do this. That's why I'm optimistic about the prospect of private sector road companies to institute such a system and pessimistic about any government coming to its senses and doing it themselves despite the clear financial benefits to themselves were they to do it.

doodle wrote: If you look at third world countries with weak central governments you don't find areas of thriving economic activity. Why hasn't the free market risen up in these places and tackled even the most basic necessities like simple sanitation and clean running water?

That's because third world countries are generally full of backwards people. I think it's actually correct that government "civilizes" people to a certain extent, as long as we keep in mind that civilization is highly non-compatible with the natural state of humanity and is actually a very young social model (< 10,000 years). If we define freedom as a state where we are free from coercion, I think it's pretty clear that this state is only practically achievable through civilization and unattainable in a state of nature where we are constantly coerced by animals stronger than us, among other factors. In this case, freedom requires civilization, which, historically speaking, requires government at least some point in the process to habituate people to a civilizational way of looking at things. I think we're on the cusp of people not needing it anymore in the more advanced countries.

I think we're on the cusp of people not needing it anymore in the more advanced countries.

I somewhat agree with you. Not in the sense that we don't need it anymore, but rather streamlining and reducing its role somewhat. Of course, I think this present opportunity for reducing government will be relatively short lived because I happen to be of the opinion that the capitalistic economic model  is breaking down and that large segments of the present labor force will be obsolete in the not too distant future. Unfortunately for libertarian minded folks, I think that the only solution to this present problem is to have the government step in an redistribute societal wealth in order to maintain harmony and order. Absent this I think you could have social upheaval as the gap between the haves and have nots widens. And complete societal upheaval is a lot more damaging to productivity and wealth creation than a meddling government.

We are dealing with imperfect social systems where the individual variables (humans) are not endowed with the same characteristics and abilities and whose behavior is neither rational nor predictable.

doodle wrote: I think that the only solution to this present problem is to have the government step in an redistribute societal wealth in order to maintain harmony and order.

"in order to maintain harmony and order". 


And the only solution to models predicting the earth will get warmer is--surprise things the left wishes to do anyway.

When you have a hammer the whole world looks like a nail. 

Benko wrote:

doodle wrote: I think that the only solution to this present problem is to have the government step in an redistribute societal wealth in order to maintain harmony and order.

"in order to maintain harmony and order". 


And the only solution to models predicting the earth will get warmer is--surprise things the left wishes to do anyway.

When you have a hammer the whole world looks like a nail.

The "left" wants to tax carbon emissions or start a credit-trading system... Along with dealing with considering more efficient transportation and residential models.

How is this what the left wishes to do anyways?  Maybe (gasp) they actually want to do these things to solve or mitigate an ecological disaster.

doodle wrote:

I think we're on the cusp of people not needing it anymore in the more advanced countries.

I somewhat agree with you. Not in the sense that we don't need it anymore, but rather streamlining and reducing its role somewhat. Of course, I think this present opportunity for reducing government will be relatively short lived because I happen to be of the opinion that the capitalistic economic model  is breaking down and that large segments of the present labor force will be obsolete in the not too distant future. Unfortunately for libertarian minded folks, I think that the only solution to this present problem is to have the government step in an redistribute societal wealth in order to maintain harmony and order. Absent this I think you could have social upheaval as the gap between the haves and have nots widens. And complete societal upheaval is a lot more damaging to productivity and wealth creation than a meddling government.

We are dealing with imperfect social systems where the individual variables (humans) are not endowed with the same characteristics and abilities and whose behavior is neither rational nor predictable.

I basically agree with most of that. Realistically, I think the automation problem comes down to the continued moral development of humanity. If we obsolete most labor but don't also become more compassionate, there's the large possibility that we as a society will just keep shrugging our shoulders and saying, "well, you're all on your own," then the result will indeed be predictable and tragic if we don't invent some kind of cornucopia technology ASAP.

This is where I think working-class type conservatives are vital. These people are generally the most willing to donate their time and money compassionately, as opposed to coldly having blind faith in markets making everything better (rich conservatives and libertarians) making a political statement and feeling good about themselves but not actually helping anyone (rich liberals), or convincing themselves that their tax payments and political advocacy are sufficient (poor liberals).

Without these types of conservatives, I think that society will indeed become more atomized, more stratified, and a government solution will be more necessary to hold everything together to prevent class violence and the mass exodus of the rich and productive classes.


Of course, cornucopia technology would solve the problem too. A lot of sci-fis--even dystopian sci-fis like Transmetropolitan--have Star Trekian replicators that will provide basic food, clothing, and medicine for free as a sort of public service so the poor don't go without so much that they revolt.

moda0306 wrote:

Benko wrote:

doodle wrote: I think that the only solution to this present problem is to have the government step in an redistribute societal wealth in order to maintain harmony and order.

"in order to maintain harmony and order". 


And the only solution to models predicting the earth will get warmer is--surprise things the left wishes to do anyway.

When you have a hammer the whole world looks like a nail.

The "left" wants to tax carbon emissions or start a credit-trading system... Along with dealing with considering more efficient transportation and residential models.

How is this what the left wishes to do anyways?  Maybe (gasp) they actually want to do these things to solve or mitigate an ecological disaster.

May I respectfully suggest if the left really wishes to solve or mitigate, they should consider presenting their ideas in a way that the masses will actually want what is being sold rather than perceiving it is being pushed down their throat.  I can't speak for everyone, but it sure seems to me the left is operating without solid science on their side and with the appearance of wanting power and control.  If this is not the case, perhaps the left could do a much better marketing job.  In other words, why do I think the left is, on the whole, just a bunch of corrupt self congratulatory narsisistic egomaniacs that will not look outside of their elitist circle of friends for input?  Convince those of us who see the left that way that is not the case ... what I see when people make statements like I just did is the left trying to deny, divert or otherwise make the oposition look foolish.  Come on people of the left, get us on board with you!

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer wrote:

moda0306 wrote:

Benko wrote: "in order to maintain harmony and order". 


And the only solution to models predicting the earth will get warmer is--surprise things the left wishes to do anyway.

When you have a hammer the whole world looks like a nail.

The "left" wants to tax carbon emissions or start a credit-trading system... Along with dealing with considering more efficient transportation and residential models.

How is this what the left wishes to do anyways?  Maybe (gasp) they actually want to do these things to solve or mitigate an ecological disaster.

May I respectfully suggest if the left really wishes to solve or mitigate, they should consider presenting their ideas in a way that the masses will actually want what is being sold rather than perceiving it is being pushed down their throat.  I can't speak for everyone, but it sure seems to me the left is operating without solid science on their side and with the appearance of wanting power and control.  If this is not the case, perhaps the left could do a much better marketing job.  In other words, why do I think the left is, on the whole, just a bunch of corrupt self congratulatory narsisistic egomaniacs that will not look outside of their elitist circle of friends for input?  Convince those of us who see the left that way that is not the case ... what I see when people make statements like I just did is the left trying to deny, divert or otherwise make the oposition look foolish.  Come on people of the left, get us on board with you!

... Mountaineer

What level of consensus in the scientific community would you like to see before you're convinced of man-made climate change?  Are you stating that the scientists arguing for climate change are doing a poor job, or are not enough in numbers?

There's no likely solution that isn't going to feel like it's being "pushed down the throats" of masses who really don't want to pay a higher utility bill or drive a smaller car or less miles.

We can either suggest something that works, or something that sounds nice... Or, put a nice guise on something that works. A lot of "selling" might have to happen, but if "the left" is the only side trying to come up with a solution, I want them to figure out "what works" first, and worry about the masses and their 2,500 sf homes and SUV gas bills later. Frankly, if climate change is a risk worth taking seriously, government ignoring it is essentially theft from those who don't pollute and a subsidy to those that do. I respectfully suggest to "the masses" to acknowledge that if you want government to recognize your assets (most people advocate for government in this role), then properly accounting for un-captured liabilities is the other side of that coin.

I don't mind the debate, and skeptical attitudes towards new ideas, but this straw-man attack towards "the left" is a bit much.  But one if the core issues here is risk-based property recognition. This is one huge point people make against advocates of the Non-aggression Principle.  There's no proper accounting for risk. You can say your property is yours til your blue in the face, but if you're polluting, you are aggressing against others. If you're polluting in ways we don't 100% understand, one could very reasonably assert that the risk of loss being created by activity is aggression of well.  Any attempt to avoid being held accountable for those costs is "pushing pollution down the throat" of others.

Very few of the masses are interested in anything close to the truth. About investing, economics, risk, pollution, religion, and the list goes on. They're more interested in making their lives as comfortable as possible in the short-term, and appealing to that may be politically necessary, but by no means is it something I enjoy (or will enjoy) listening to as part of the overall discussion. They've made up their mind based on convenience... A lot of nauseating polishing of difficult decisions is going to need to be done before action is palatable to "the masses." 

Simonjester wrote:

Mountaineer wrote:

moda0306 wrote:

The "left" wants to tax carbon emissions or start a credit-trading system... Along with dealing with considering more efficient transportation and residential models.

How is this what the left wishes to do anyways?  Maybe (gasp) they actually want to do these things to solve or mitigate an ecological disaster.

May I respectfully suggest if the left really wishes to solve or mitigate, they should consider presenting their ideas in a way that the masses will actually want what is being sold rather than perceiving it is being pushed down their throat.  I can't speak for everyone, but it sure seems to me the left is operating without solid science on their side and with the appearance of wanting power and control.  If this is not the case, perhaps the left could do a much better marketing job.  In other words, why do I think the left is, on the whole, just a bunch of corrupt self congratulatory narsisistic egomaniacs that will not look outside of their elitist circle of friends for input?  Convince those of us who see the left that way that is not the case ... what I see when people make statements like I just did is the left trying to deny, divert or otherwise make the oposition look foolish.  Come on people of the left, get us on board with you!

... Mountaineer

the left also has a absolutely horrific record of well meaning sounding ideas that when confronted with reality, become epic disasters of unintended consequences, which without a hint of irony or understanding the "left" immediately suggests more of the same exact sort of solutions as the ones causing the new problems, to solve those.

it doesn't exactly breed confidence..  (but neither do those on the right when they do the same)

What are some of those epic disasters?

Simonjester wrote: education reforms, guaranteeing home loans for those that cant afford them (housing bubble) global warming regulation (soon to be) war on poverty, gun control etc etc... don't get me wrong this is not by any stretch all at the feet of the left, the right has its share of blame, especially legislatively. but the ideology of "great" social engineering seems to be well claimed and dominated by the left..



did i forget to mention healthcare reform? (unraveling as fast as it is being put together) and will you or anyone be surprised if the solution to the problems it is having, is more of the government control that is causing them?

I've always loved this quote from Calvin Coolidge....

"If you see ten troubles coming down the road, you can be sure that nine will run into the ditch before they reach you."

Pretty much sums up the way I feel about AGW. I don't doubt the science but I take the disastrous predictions with a grain of salt. If I lived up north this year, which I'm glad I don't, could you blame me for looking out my window at all the snow and dropping it a little lower on the list of things I need to worry about?

Simonjester wrote:

moda0306 wrote:
What are some of those epic disasters?

education reforms, guaranteeing home loans for those that cant afford them (housing bubble) global warming regulation (soon to be) war on poverty, gun control etc etc...  don't get me wrong this is not by any stretch all at the feet of the left, the right has its share of blame, especially legislatively. but the ideology of  "great" social engineering seems to be well claimed and dominated by the left.. 



did i forget to mention healthcare reform? (unraveling as fast as it is being put together) and will you or anyone be surprised if the solution to the problems it is having, is more of the government control that is causing them?

What's your definition of poverty?  If we're talking about "safety hammocks," can we really say poverty has not been reduced?

I think the push for homeownership is a partially fruitless effort, but do you really think the housing crisis was about helping poor people buy a house?  If so, how did $2.5 million dollar homes sell for $3.5 million?  Do you think maybe there was something much more comprehensive going on?

Regarding education and healthcare, countries with far more centralized education and healthcare systems are seeing far better results with far less.  The most comprehensive attempt to move that direction which has had  time to be analyzed is Medicare. Do you consider that an epic disaster?

Simonjester wrote: you are almost making the point i was trying to get across, all of these "5 year plan" style social engineering projects come with a steep and uncounted price, sure poverty is "less" if you count far more people being dependent on money taken from somebody else as OK, and don't worry about the food and toilet paper shortages that come when this type of thing runs into its inevitable conclusion. the housing bubble was "in part" caused by loan rules, a ton of other economic factors also went into it, but the poor poor who bought houses because the rules changed got hurt.. so much for the great ideal of forcing change to help them.. i don't know what good comparisons with smaller country's exactly proves just because my uncle can grow record size heirloom tomatoes on a 1/2 acre of prime farm land doesn't mean that we, he, or anybody can grow them in two hundred thousand acres of desert or that he will be able to grow them there forever if he is using methods that deplete the soil, eventually those methods will catch up with him and with those smaller country's you sight as example ..

we are dumbing down our kids with government education at an alarming rate, the possible repercussions for that are to large to calculate

so back on topic, do we really have reason to trust the good intentions or the "more government to solve problems" and "more government to solve the resulting government caused problems", when we are talking about climate change? you obviously have more faith than i do, but even if my point was exaggerated, the idea that these kind of plans don't work / work poorly / cause unforeseen trouble / and tend end badly when used to their limits, seems a reasonable one.

Wikipedia is obviously an interesting source on almost anything, but they do an especially great job of breaking down different analyses of the housing crisis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_ ... ing_bubble

moda0306 wrote:
What level of consensus in the scientific community would you like to see before you're convinced of man-made climate change? 

Unfortunately scientific truth is not determined by vote or by opinion poll.  I prefer to look at the hard evidence that supports each side of the argument then make my own decision. 

If you polled a 100 Certified Financial Planners and asked them if the Permanent Portfolio is a good investment strategy, I bet 95+% would say it's a bad idea for a variety of reasons.  Therefore  should we accept the consensus of the acknowledged experts in the investing field and dump the PP? 

If you polled 50 of the leading health organizations (AHA, ADA, NIH, etc) you'd find all of them support the Lipid hypothesis that cholesterol causes heart disease.  If you have followed any of the health threads here (or any of Gumby's posts) you probably question that idea now.  See http://www.wikidoc.org/index.php/Lipid_hypothesis

All the leading diabetes and diet and nutrition organization support a high carb diet for diabetics.  Yet, I do the opposite along with any person who is actually controlling the disease/ 

In each case I have rejected the unanimous opinion of the acknowledged experts to such a degree that I have literally bet my health and money on my own personal assessment.  I view manmade climate change as an interesting theory but nothing more at this stage.     

moda0306 wrote: Wikipedia is obviously an interesting source on almost anything, but they do an especially great job of breaking down different analyses of the housing crisis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_ ... ing_bubble

Now that we're way off topic what I really want to know is why you have chosen that clown for your avatar? I remember seeing him on talk shows year ago selling his book about how to get things for free from the government.

ns3 wrote:

moda0306 wrote: Wikipedia is obviously an interesting source on almost anything, but they do an especially great job of breaking down different analyses of the housing crisis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_ ... ing_bubble

Now that we're way off topic what I really want to know is why you have chosen that clown for your avatar? I remember seeing him on talk shows year ago selling his book about how to get things for free from the government.

When discussing how to get through tax loopholes with my friends, one mentioned I should dress up like this guy and give tax scheming advice to people.  It was top of mind when I made my avatar.

moda0306 wrote:

ns3 wrote:

moda0306 wrote: Wikipedia is obviously an interesting source on almost anything, but they do an especially great job of breaking down different analyses of the housing crisis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_ ... ing_bubble

Now that we're way off topic what I really want to know is why you have chosen that clown for your avatar? I remember seeing him on talk shows year ago selling his book about how to get things for free from the government.

When discussing how to get through tax loopholes with my friends, one mentioned I should dress up like this guy and give tax scheming advice to people.  It was top of mind when I made my avatar.

Fair enough. Haven't seen that guy around for a while. He was very entertaining on the talk shows.

ns3 wrote:

moda0306 wrote: Wikipedia is obviously an interesting source on almost anything, but they do an especially great job of breaking down different analyses of the housing crisis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_ ... ing_bubble

Now that we're way off topic what I really want to know is why you have chosen that clown for your avatar? I remember seeing him on talk shows year ago selling his book about how to get things for free from the government.

I don't think we're thaaaat far off topic.  Of particular relevance to many people who would advocate the government do nothing about climate change is the fact that government actions often cause huge negative side effects. I think it's worth pointing out that some of these claims are exaggerated.

moda0306 wrote:

ns3 wrote:

moda0306 wrote: Wikipedia is obviously an interesting source on almost anything, but they do an especially great job of breaking down different analyses of the housing crisis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_ ... ing_bubble

Now that we're way off topic what I really want to know is why you have chosen that clown for your avatar? I remember seeing him on talk shows year ago selling his book about how to get things for free from the government.

I don't think we're thaaaat far off topic.  Of particular relevance to many people who would advocate the government do nothing about climate change is the fact that government actions often cause huge negative side effects. I think it's worth pointing out that some of these claims are exaggerated.

I have read that the saying "good enough for government work" once denoted high quality but it has the opposite meaning today. Interesting to ponder when and how that changed.

I trust "government" in some ways.  I don't trust "the masses" and their pollution any more than government, so I guess I'll default to risk management mode and say that I'm more worried about ecological disaster than carbon taxes messing with my lifestyle.

But that's just me. I'm only one vote. And for me, it's more about preparing myself, cuz I can't control what governments do.

moda0306 wrote:

Mountaineer wrote:

moda0306 wrote: The "left" wants to tax carbon emissions or start a credit-trading system... Along with dealing with considering more efficient transportation and residential models.

How is this what the left wishes to do anyways?  Maybe (gasp) they actually want to do these things to solve or mitigate an ecological disaster.

May I respectfully suggest if the left really wishes to solve or mitigate, they should consider presenting their ideas in a way that the masses will actually want what is being sold rather than perceiving it is being pushed down their throat.  I can't speak for everyone, but it sure seems to me the left is operating without solid science on their side and with the appearance of wanting power and control.  If this is not the case, perhaps the left could do a much better marketing job.  In other words, why do I think the left is, on the whole, just a bunch of corrupt self congratulatory narsisistic egomaniacs that will not look outside of their elitist circle of friends for input?  Convince those of us who see the left that way that is not the case ... what I see when people make statements like I just did is the left trying to deny, divert or otherwise make the oposition look foolish.  Come on people of the left, get us on board with you!

... Mountaineer

What level of consensus in the scientific community would you like to see before you're convinced of man-made climate change?  Are you stating that the scientists arguing for climate change are doing a poor job, or are not enough in numbers?

There's no likely solution that isn't going to feel like it's being "pushed down the throats" of masses who really don't want to pay a higher utility bill or drive a smaller car or less miles.

We can either suggest something that works, or something that sounds nice... Or, put a nice guise on something that works. A lot of "selling" might have to happen, but if "the left" is the only side trying to come up with a solution, I want them to figure out "what works" first, and worry about the masses and their 2,500 sf homes and SUV gas bills later. Frankly, if climate change is a risk worth taking seriously, government ignoring it is essentially theft from those who don't pollute and a subsidy to those that do. I respectfully suggest to "the masses" to acknowledge that if you want government to recognize your assets (most people advocate for government in this role), then properly accounting for un-captured liabilities is the other side of that coin.

I don't mind the debate, and skeptical attitudes towards new ideas, but this straw-man attack towards "the left" is a bit much.  But one if the core issues here is risk-based property recognition. This is one huge point people make against advocates of the Non-aggression Principle.  There's no proper accounting for risk. You can say your property is yours til your blue in the face, but if you're polluting, you are aggressing against others. If you're polluting in ways we don't 100% understand, one could very reasonably assert that the risk of loss being created by activity is aggression of well.  Any attempt to avoid being held accountable for those costs is "pushing pollution down the throat" of others.

Very few of the masses are interested in anything close to the truth. About investing, economics, risk, pollution, religion, and the list goes on. They're more interested in making their lives as comfortable as possible in the short-term, and appealing to that may be politically necessary, but by no means is it something I enjoy (or will enjoy) listening to as part of the overall discussion. They've made up their mind based on convenience... A lot of nauseating polishing of difficult decisions is going to need to be done before action is palatable to "the masses."

I perceive your response is what I sterotypically expect from the left:  "You are all to dumb to manage your own destiny so we smart people will have to do it for you".  A very elitist view of humanity.  "Global warming" or climate change or whatever the latest buzzwords are, is merely a symptom of a much broader problem as the epic disaster list points out.  Needless to say I am extremely skeptical when it comes to one more program where big government (and its often well paid for scientific minions - grants etc.) is going to save us from ourselves.

... Mountaineer

Simonjester wrote: you are almost making the point i was trying to get across, all of these "5 year plan" style social engineering projects come with a steep and uncounted price, sure poverty is "less" if you count far more people being dependent on money taken from somebody else as OK, and don't worry about the food and toilet paper shortages that come when this type of thing runs into its inevitable conclusion. the housing bubble was "in part" caused by loan rules, a ton of other economic factors also went into it, but the poor poor who bought houses because the rules changed got hurt.. so much for the great ideal of forcing change to help them..

I am living right now in a house whose previous owners were a poor family of five (two parents and three kids) who bought the house with a super-generous loan from HUD. According to our new neighbors, the parents were morbidly obese alcoholics. After 12 years, the parents lost their jobs due to their alcoholism and couldn't make their mortgage payments, at which point they literally began destroying the house. Thankfully, they were pretty bad at that too. Nonetheless, as a result of the damage, I got the house for a lot less than its pre-bubble sale price 12 years ago. So the result of this "compassionate" government policy was that a fundamentally unfit couple lived in a house above their means to afford for more than a decade then walked away with nothing after intentionally damaging it, simultaneously reducing the house's value and blighting the neighborhood.

It's nothing more than one single anecdotal example, but it's mine and I'm sticking with it. It's awfully hard to take anything more than an extremely dim view of the government policy that caused this mess when I am literally living in its result.