Devon Northwood wrote:
I think you never met american libertarians. That absurd argument, that "government intervention and action is always bad", IS his position.
If they actually hold that extreme of a position then you're right, I've never met one :-).
I've met people who I thought were Libertarians. They thought the government assumed too much power and was fairly inefficient. But even they conceded that there were quite a few things that were best done by governments.
I was having a conversation with a neighbor a while back. It got the point where I presented a hypothetical:
A town of 50 people all votes and unanimously decides to engage in a governmental action. The whole population of the town agrees unanimously to the proposal.
He still didn't like it, because it was government. We weren't even being specific on what the proposal would be, it was just the fact that it was being done through government... he disliked it.
If the town had gotten together in the church basement and done the exact same thing as a church group... he had no issues.
pauljathome wrote: Quark Blast wrote: pauljathome wrote: QB...
But you are doing your cause a disservice by arguing for that position with obviously absurd arguments that government intervention and action is always bad, that we're inevitably DOOMED, that we should all just give up.
So take up the very reasonable challenge and name a federal level program on the scale of the 'green new deal' that's turned out well. That hasn't wasted $95M for every $100M spent.
In fact I'll lower the bar to just 50% waste.
I'm not an American so I'm certainly not going to try and name YOUR federal programs that aren't a waste. But I'd imagine the building of the highway systems, the defending of America in WW2, the building of Hoover Dam would all count.
For Canada, I'll just refer back to my list and cite Public Health Care and a Federal Elections System.
But I now remember how foolish it is to argue with you (even or especially when I partly or largely agree with you) and will again try hard to stop wasting my time with you. Good example with Hoover Dam. However to make it comparable to the 'green new deal' proposals we'd need to build around 200 Hoover Dams every year for the next two to three decades.
OR
About five to ten, complete from scratch, Federal Highway Systems.
OR
Prosecute the Second World War six or seven times over.
All the while maintaining current spending for all the other things our government does.
Now consider again my question posed to thejeff, a question he deflected with a snarky "dice roll" (because answering is too difficult for the corner he's painted himself into):
If you will recall, back a page or two on this thread, the latest IPCC report requires that we all do our perfect best to avoid a catastrophic year 2100.
Since when does everyone doing their best ever happen?
Now involve multiple national governments (like 100 to 200).
How do you think that^ will turn out?
Based on what facts?
.
You see now perhaps why I hold out some small hope for stable nuclear fusion at scale. As well as effective CC&S at scale. We'll need these to mitigate the failures of the past 20 years as well as the failures upcoming over the next 20 years.
Remind me again what the cost of the Green New Deal is going to be over the next 20 years? The only thing I keep finding is the Ernst "$93 Trillion" story that I'm pretty sure isn't an exact amount.
Quark Blast wrote: And you're flat out wrong about education regulation in Finland. Middle schoolers spend half the day in what amounts to recess there. I'm getting the impression that you don't know what "compulsory education" means.
Very simply... education is required for all children. You can't 'opt out' of educating your child, as many people did before governments introduced compulsory education.
Parents figured that their child didn't need to know math to work the same family farm or other job they had... but, of course, education allowed many of those children to improve procedures or go into other careers entirely. Another sensible long term government policy.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Mark Hoover 330 wrote: Remind me again what the cost of the Green New Deal is going to be over the next 20 years? The only thing I keep finding is the Ernst "$93 Trillion" story that I'm pretty sure isn't an exact amount. The problem is that the 'Green New Deal' is currently just a set of aspirations rather than a formal plan... like when Roosevelt was campaigning on the promise of the 'New Deal' it was named after (which, BTW is another example of an even larger government program which showed massive long term benefits).
Thus, people are free to pretend that it would include/exclude all kinds of things and make up any numbers they like for it.
You can read the actual text, but the basic idea is for the US government to fund a large jobs program to get to 100% clean energy.
The arguments against it basically come down to 'logic' like;
'Think of how many computer servers would be needed to support this internet thing! What would anyone even DO with it?'
'Nobody drives across half a dozen states at a time! Building an interstate highway system will be a colossal waste of money!'
'Building a so called sewer system for the city of Rome would surely bankrupt the empire... and for no benefit whatsoever!'
'Gug not think this fire stuff a good idea. Costs too many sticks!'
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Quark Blast wrote:
Now consider again my question posed to thejeff, a question he deflected with a snarky "dice roll" (because answering is too difficult for the corner he's painted himself into):
Will Save: 1d20 + 8 ⇒ (9) + 8 = 17
No, because I wasn't interested in badgering you yet again on the point you were deflecting from - your ridiculous claim that Finland's schools aren't government because the middle schools have long recess.
Mark Hoover 330 wrote: Remind me again what the cost of the Green New Deal is going to be over the next 20 years? The only thing I keep finding is the Ernst "$93 Trillion" story that I'm pretty sure isn't an exact amount. I was going with not even 10% of that amount as a floor just to make my point. Even with that fractional proportion I hold my argument to be unassailable given the lack of substantive engagement (I call it the Snark-meter. The more snark, the better my argument must be.).
:D
In this country, I'm going to guess, we'll aim for something like the $93 trillion initially but that will get derailed within a few years and who knows what we'll end up with. A mess of course! But how much $ is involved when it's all over is impossible to predict. Probably less than $93 in today's dollars though.
thejeff wrote: Quark Blast wrote:
Now consider again my question posed to thejeff, a question he deflected with a snarky "dice roll" (because answering is too difficult for the corner he's painted himself into):
[dice=Will Save]d20+8No, because I wasn't interested in badgering you yet again on the point you were deflecting from - your ridiculous claim that Finland's schools aren't government because the middle schools have long recess. OK, I'll call that bluff.
thejeff is 100% right about Finland's primary education.
Now, I repeat:
If you will recall, back a page or two on this thread, the latest IPCC report requires that we all do our perfect best to avoid a catastrophic year 2100.
Since when does everyone doing their best ever happen?
Now involve multiple national governments (like 100 to 200).
How do you think that^ will turn out?
Based on what facts?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Quark Blast wrote: thejeff wrote: Quark Blast wrote:
Now consider again my question posed to thejeff, a question he deflected with a snarky "dice roll" (because answering is too difficult for the corner he's painted himself into):
[dice=Will Save]d20+8No, because I wasn't interested in badgering you yet again on the point you were deflecting from - your ridiculous claim that Finland's schools aren't government because the middle schools have long recess. OK, I'll call that bluff.
thejeff is 100% right about Finland's primary education. Okay, so you're wrong and governments can do things well. Based on your own attempted counter example. Good.
thejeff wrote: Quark Blast wrote: thejeff wrote: Quark Blast wrote:
Now consider again my question posed to thejeff, a question he deflected with a snarky "dice roll" (because answering is too difficult for the corner he's painted himself into):
[dice=Will Save]d20+8No, because I wasn't interested in badgering you yet again on the point you were deflecting from - your ridiculous claim that Finland's schools aren't government because the middle schools have long recess. OK, I'll call that bluff.
thejeff is 100% right about Finland's primary education. Okay, so you're wrong and governments can do things well. Based on your own attempted counter example. Good. Cool! I'll count that as a successfully called bluff then.
Quark Blast wrote: thejeff wrote: Quark Blast wrote: thejeff wrote: Quark Blast wrote:
Now consider again my question posed to thejeff, a question he deflected with a snarky "dice roll" (because answering is too difficult for the corner he's painted himself into):
[dice=Will Save]d20+8No, because I wasn't interested in badgering you yet again on the point you were deflecting from - your ridiculous claim that Finland's schools aren't government because the middle schools have long recess. OK, I'll call that bluff.
thejeff is 100% right about Finland's primary education. Okay, so you're wrong and governments can do things well. Based on your own attempted counter example. Good. Cool! I'll count that as a successfully called bluff then. ????
thejeff wrote: Quark Blast wrote: thejeff wrote: Quark Blast wrote: thejeff wrote: Quark Blast wrote:
Now consider again my question posed to thejeff, a question he deflected with a snarky "dice roll" (because answering is too difficult for the corner he's painted himself into):
[dice=Will Save]d20+8No, because I wasn't interested in badgering you yet again on the point you were deflecting from - your ridiculous claim that Finland's schools aren't government because the middle schools have long recess. OK, I'll call that bluff.
thejeff is 100% right about Finland's primary education. Okay, so you're wrong and governments can do things well. Based on your own attempted counter example. Good. Cool! I'll count that as a successfully called bluff then. ???? Well, it also pegged my Snark-meter.
Or, you know, you could engage faithfully in proper dialog by engaging with my honest questions.
Namely:
If you will recall, back a page or two on this thread, the latest IPCC report requires that we all do our perfect best to avoid a catastrophic year 2100.
Since when does everyone doing their best ever happen?
Now involve multiple national governments (like 100 to 200).
How do you think that^ will turn out?
Based on what facts?
Quark Blast wrote: Or, you know, you could engage faithfully in proper dialog by engaging with my honest questions.
Namely:
If you will recall, back a page or two on this thread, the latest IPCC report requires that we all do our perfect best to avoid a catastrophic year 2100.
For the record, I'd assume that others have been ignoring this for the same reason I have... because you just made that up. No such text appears in the IPCC report.
Interviews of lead authors for the various working groups of the IPCC agree that the coordination and scale of effort are unprecedented in human history.
On the scale of what I posted in reply to Mark Hoover. To repeat:
To make the scale of effort of past government accomplishments comparable to the 'green new deal' proposals we'd need to build around 200 Hoover Dams every year for the next two to three decades.
OR
About five to ten, complete from scratch, Federal Highway Systems.
OR
Prosecute the Second World War six or seven times over.
All the while maintaining current spending for all the other things our government does.
Pledges by various groups don't get us down this CO2 mitigation road. Not even the first step. At best a sign showing which way to proceed.
.
Then there's science news like this popping up weekly:
Arctic Seafloor Methane Arising to an Unprecedented Degree
So we don't know what the Green New Deal would actually cost, if it converted into actual legislation. QB has also asserted that it will likely get watered down and possibly see portions of it defunded/underfunded, so again, there's no actual real numbers to point to. Yet, respectfully Quarkius Maximus, you state definitively that in order to assess the scale of the GND we'd have to build 200 Hoover Dams.
In short, you have no definitive, actual costs for the Green New Deal, but you've already decided what the scale of the deal will cost. Again, with all due respect Lord Quark of the Sacred Blast, it seems as if you've put the cart before the horse here.
That assessment, along with your commentary on the IPCC report clearly supports others' assertions that you've already decided that any effort to halt and potentially reverse the human effect on global climate change is doomed and there's literally nothing that can be done to stop this. If this is the case... why don't we move on to a more practical discussion?
If nothing can be done, we're all doomed and no amount of money or effort will stop this runaway train, do you know where to get a cheap group discount on placards and markers? "The End is Nigh" signs will need to be written.
Also, back to another one of my points upthread, anyone know where I might be able to find a "Jor-El" by any chance? I have a couple of daughters I'm hoping he can make an extra rocket for.
Ugh! No Mark Hoover. If you read my post with more care you'll understand that I grossly underestimated the cost of any version of the GND by about an order of magnitude.
That way people would have no reasonable basis for criticising my argument from scale.
So.... the Hoover Dam comparison is both hugely damning to any successful implementation of a GND proposal and unassailable as a reference to project scale.
Also, don't forget, if someone is older than 45 or 50 they won't be witness to the doom. No need for placards etc. Once it's permanent dirt nap time all worries fade to insignificance.
For the younger set, it'll be our hopes for retirement that have disappeared.
:D
Right. You grossly underestimated a made up number, conjured by a think tank from suggested initiatives that aren't yet legislature in a final bill. The CBO or other bodies haven't finalized a number, b/c they don't know what'll be in it.
So... I think the GND will cost about $8 trillion over the next 20 years. After congress gets it and guts it, I'm going to say, off the top of my head, that it'll actually run about 2.8 Trillion over the next 20 years.
I'm basing that purely on speculation, just like you are. Does that make me just as right?
Oh, and I say all the above with all due respect. I keep throwing that in b/c a buddy of mine IRL assures me that, if you say "all due respect" you can get away with as much sarcasm and snark as you want. At least, he tells me that while he pokes fun at my kids, so I'm hoping he's right...
Quark Blast wrote: Also, don't forget, if someone is older than 45 or 50 they won't be witness to the doom. No need for placards etc. Once it's permanent dirt nap time all worries fade to insignificance.
For the younger set, it'll be our hopes for retirement that have disappeared.
:D
I've got 2 daughters, both teens. The "younger set" is exactly my concern. I have sought fiscal conservatism in my own personal life and in state and federal policy specifically so that they have some kind of nest egg. However, I'd also like them to, y'know, continue to breathe and not live underground and such.
So I'm trying to educate myself about our climate and legislature that fixes it. I'm sorry Q (in the Bond sense, not the internet conspiracy sense), but I can't accept that there's nothing can be done to see that my kids' EOL and any kids they choose to have are utterly doomed to a future world destroyed by man made climate change.
I don't just believe that the children are the future. I know it. I'm living it every day. So while I've tried in every other way to be a good dad and keep my girls safe, I'm going to do it here too.
Stop eating meat and dairy.
Stop flying.
Spend about 10% of your gross income annually on well managed and thought out reforestation projects in developing countries.
Teach your kids the same.
.
As for the underestimate of GND cost. You still miss my point.
The USA managing to "build around 200 Hoover Dams every year for the next two to three decades.
OR
About five to ten, complete from scratch, Federal Highway Systems.
OR
Prosecute the Second World War six or seven times over."
are an illustration of the absurdity of the scale of GND projects.
Because the actual proposed projects are roughly 10x that big.
You see I can't imagine this country seeing through a project even 1/10th the size, while also maintaining funding and support for everything they already do and getting another 100+ countries to follow suit... AND... here's the real kicker, do this for twenty to thirty years straight.
Ain't gonna happen. You know?... humans.
Or, you can watch this short video and read his book and see that I'm just as wrong as the GND advocates; that we sit on opposite poles with the truth lying between us.
" Ten Global Trends functions as both a counter-argument to the doomsayers and a warning to the complacent."
Quark Blast wrote: Stop eating meat and dairy.
Stop flying.
Spend about 10% of your gross income annually on well managed and thought out reforestation projects in developing countries.
Teach your kids the same.
.
Why? What is that going to do?
Why is THAT doing anything, but the GND or other programs are useless?
Quark Blast wrote: The USA managing to "build around 200 Hoover Dams every year for the next two to three decades. [...]
Mark Hoover 330 has pointed out that you are comparing imaginary numbers with other imaginary numbers, so that's that. But I like to point out one other thing:
The Hoover Dam costs 675 million $ in todays money.
Jeff Basos makes 311 million $ a day, and owns about 178.000 million $.
The US military budget is ~700.000 million $ every year.
Quark Blast wrote: I'm not Libertarian So you are not a libertarian, you just talk like them and advocate the same positions.
Ok. If that makes you happy.
CBDunkerson wrote:
For the record, I'd assume that others have been ignoring this for the same reason I have... because you just made that up. No such text appears in the IPCC report.
You assume correctly.
Quark Blast wrote: Interviews of lead authors for the various working groups of the IPCC agree that the coordination and scale of effort are unprecedented in human history. Nonsense.
If this were true you could provide citations of all of the lead authors saying that. You can't... because it is yet another thing you just made up.
The scale of the effort required is large, but far from unprecedented.
Quark Blast wrote: Then there's science news like this popping up weekly:
Arctic Seafloor Methane Arising to an Unprecedented Degree
That's two scientists running their mouths without any data to back it up. No study. No paper. Just two guys stating opinions they can't support.
Opposing views
Arctic methane release could theoretically be a large problem, but the actual data shows that we aren't there yet... and we won't get there unless warming by 2100 is worse even than what you have been claiming.
So... no.
Quark Blast wrote: Stop eating meat and dairy.
Stop flying.
Spend about 10% of your gross income annually on well managed and thought out reforestation projects in developing countries.
Reforestation might help a little. The other two proposals would have fairly minimal long-term impact even if you could somehow get the entire human race to follow them.
Also 10% of everyone's gross income annually would dwarf the cost of the proposals he's claiming would ruin the economy. But it's okay if it's just individuals donating their money and making their own choices.
Any attempt at organizing the same thing on a government scale would be disastrous.
That's libertarian thinking.
thejeff wrote: Also 10% of everyone's gross income annually would dwarf the cost of the proposals he's claiming would ruin the economy. But it's okay if it's just individuals donating their money and making their own choices.
Any attempt at organizing the same thing on a government scale would be disastrous.
That's libertarian thinking.
Indeed, but QB has indicated that he is a US resident, and there is a particular strain of libertarian 'thought' (largely devolved from the ideas of Ayn Rand) which appears in many other groups within the US.
Thus, he could well be parroting libertarian talking points without realizing that is where they originated.
If you have the complete My Little Pony friendship is magic 8 season DVD collection and a shelf of toys collectors items you're a brony whether you balk at the term or not.
If you believe that the government isn't allowed or capable of doing anything without every individuals consent then you're a libertarian whether you join the not a party or not.
There is also no discernable difference between don't let the government do anything and don't do anything. Climate change is too big a problem for anyone but the government to tackle. You need to actively fight some of the richest corporations on the planet interested in keeping their source of power and income. No individual action has ever managed that without government help.
BigNorseWolf wrote: If you have the complete My Little Pony friendship is magic 8 season DVD collection and a shelf of toys collectors items you're a brony whether you balk at the term or not.
If you believe that the government isn't allowed or capable of doing anything without every individuals consent then you're a libertarian whether you join the not a party or not.
There is also no discernable difference between don't let the government do anything and don't do anything. Climate change is too big a problem for anyone but the government to tackle. You need to actively fight some of the richest corporations on the planet interested in keeping their source of power and income. No individual action has ever managed that without government help.
An extremely distant relative of mine waged a war against the Hanseatic League for two years as a pirate. He managed to win for about two years, getting them kicked out of cities and capturing a couple of extremely significant forts. They did of course kill him in the end though.
thejeff wrote: Also 10% of everyone's gross income annually would dwarf the cost of the proposals he's claiming would ruin the economy. But it's okay if it's just individuals donating their money and making their own choices.
Any attempt at organizing the same thing on a government scale would be disastrous.
That's libertarian thinking.
Mark Hoover implied he wants to pass on a better planet to his kids and potential grandkids. My answer to him was therefore a short list of what he can do to help that happen.
The fact that you and several others here are so quick to dismiss what you can do rather underscores nicely my long standing point that people are short-sighted selfish ####### and thus any good thing that depends on all of us is doomed to failure. "Let others do the hard thing if they want to." Ah yes, people!
:D
BTW - I use to also recommend people use public transportation but now that I've been out and about in the world I've realized that's more theoretical than practical. Our transportation infrastructure is built around everyone having their own auto with public transport tacked on as an afterthought in most areas. Thanks government for designing the transportation network!
:D
The government spending GND kind of money will piss away about 95% of it to no effect.
As I've said before, history shows us that the federal government is extremely inefficient in executing large scale projects, with the exception of blowing #### up.
I'm fine with the feds incentivizing energy efficiency (for example) but the GND proposals are boondoggles waiting to happen. The stupidity of most wind power installations will pale to insignificance in the wake of GND ideas.
Quark Blast wrote: thejeff wrote: Also 10% of everyone's gross income annually would dwarf the cost of the proposals he's claiming would ruin the economy. But it's okay if it's just individuals donating their money and making their own choices.
Any attempt at organizing the same thing on a government scale would be disastrous.
That's libertarian thinking.
Mark Hoover implied he wants to pass on a better planet to his kids and potential grandkids. My answer to him was therefore a short list of what he can do to help that happen.
The fact that you and several others here are so quick to dismiss what you can do rather underscores nicely my long standing point that people are short-sighted selfish ####### and thus any good thing that depends on all of us is doomed to failure. "Let others do the hard thing if they want to." Ah yes, people!
:D First of all, thanks for calling everyone who doesn't immediately agrees with you a "short-sighted selfish #######".
Secondly, you seem to not understand that "a 10% tax paid by everyone" and "everyone gives 10%" is functionally the same thing, in this case. The end result is that everyone gives 10% and the money is invested into solving the problem. Where is the difference between these two methods regarding the end result of "solving climate change"?
Finally, the question you are STILL unable to answer, both now and a few years ago in this very thread, is the one I asked you and that you have wisely ignored:
Why should Mark Hoover do anything, if CC cannot be stopped and the earth will go down the drain regardless? Either there is something we can all do - then CC can be stopped. Or there is nothing - then why are you giving useless tips like "eat vegan".
Quark Blast wrote: BTW - I use to also recommend people use public transportation but now that I've been out and about in the world I've realized that's more theoretical than practical. Our transportation infrastructure is built around everyone having their own auto with public transport tacked on as an afterthought in most areas. Thanks government for designing the transportation network!
:D
The government designed the transportation network exactly as people wanted it designed - for cars. Should the government ignore the wishes of the people? I am especially curious for your answer since you constantly talk about people doing things on their own (once again, totally not a libertarian idea), yet no one would design public transportation for themselves...
Quark Blast wrote: The government spending GND kind of money will piss away about 95% of it to no effect.
As I've said before, history shows us that the federal government is extremely inefficient in executing large scale projects, with the exception of blowing #### up.
I'm fine with the feds incentivizing energy efficiency (for example) but the GND proposals are boondoggles waiting to happen.
So once again it took you less than a few weeks to go from "the government cannot do sensible long term policies" to "the US government cannot do sensible long term policies" to "the us government can do sensible long term policies,it is just extremely financially inefficient" to "the us federal government can do sensible long term policies,it is just very financially inefficient, unless it is about financial incentives or blowing stuff up".
The difference between a 10% tax and a 10% donation is recognition. When you pay a tax to your local, state or federal government, you don't get a pat on the head or any press; there is no reward for this behavior. Rather you escape the consequence of legal action against you for NOT participating.
A person that optionally spends, donates, or otherwise ELECTS that 10% of their income go toward environmental causes then receives the accolades of their peers. They may ALSO receive tax incentives for their generosity. You see, by exercising a CHOICE over their redistribution of their income, these folks are propped up by US culture as someone good, special, deserving of special privileges in some cases, and so on.
I don't have a problem with this mentality, honestly, except for one thing: even if I'm controlling my spending, I have no say in how the money is eventually used. There have been a couple major charities in recent years which have been prosecuted as absolute frauds, so the money spent there didn't do what was intended.
Unfortunately QB has it right that while the government is, in theory, answerable to itself and the voters, money given in taxes rarely goes to the initiatives that gain the greatest mandate of the "popular" vote. Instead initiatives like the GND are shot down right out of the starting gate by, among other detractors, the fossil fuel industry lobbyists who act as liaisons to the house members to whose campaigns these companies donate.
Then there are corporations who, very rarely, make positive, wide-scale change with their money. Anything brought in besides standard profit is used to pad the bottom line and make companies more attractive on wall street; more desirable to shareholders. Name one corporation that has done as much to help poor US citizens as the fed has. I'm not JUST talking about job creation and wages paid; I'm lumping in federal programs that guarantee Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, food assistance, and so on. At best, major corporations and the fed break even when all is said and done.
So ironically, Q Tip is right - the US government, as it looks right at this moment, likely won't be a good agent for the environmental change we need to pull together over the next 20 years. But then, neither will private industry, charitable organizations, faith-based groups and so on.
No, we as a culture need to pick one or two of these groups, then WE need to put the necessary fight and pressure on them to CARRY OUT the will of the people whose money the group(s) is/are using.
In other words, I got NO problem spending more of my own income to the Fed to get the GND off the ground, despite ALL the very obvious challenges. However, then I need to get loud, along with half a billion of my fellow citizens and MAKE SURE that my house approves the spending, in the right way, for the next 20 years, to ensure that the initiatives I voted to fund actually get done.
But then, I'd have to do that work if I make changes in my own personal life for my girls; if I spent the money in a charity; if I gave that money to the church; if I went to a variety of companies to construct environmentally positive infrastructure.
I have to do the work. YOU have to do the work. Quarkatron has to do the work. We all have to do the WORK, ALONG with spending the money, in order to fix things.
Blasty Q, do I have that right?
And also, Dev's upthread had it right: I was actually trying to point out that we were comparing imaginary numbers with other imaginary numbers. So far I can't find any ACTUAL, CONCRETE numbers what the GND will cost b/c it isn't actual legislation yet.
… yet.
Devon Northwood wrote:
First of all, thanks for calling everyone who doesn't immediately agrees with you a "short-sighted selfish #######".
No, I didn't.
Devon Northwood wrote: Secondly, you seem to not understand that "a 10% tax paid by everyone" and "everyone gives 10%" is functionally the same thing, in this case. The end result is that everyone gives 10% and the money is invested into solving the problem. Where is the difference between these two methods regarding the end result of "solving climate change"? This will be a more charitable answer than this misrepresentation deserves.
You will note I said to Mark Hoover:
"Spend about 10% of your gross income annually on well managed and thought out reforestation projects in developing countries."
Whatever collage of verbs, adjectives and adverbs you choose to apply to government programs, "well managed and thought out" are not generally applicable you must admit.
Devon Northwood wrote: Finally, the question you are STILL unable to answer, both now and a few years ago in this very thread, is the one I asked you and that you have wisely ignored: Thanks!
:D
Devon Northwood wrote: Why should Mark Hoover do anything, if CC cannot be stopped and the earth will go down the drain regardless? Either there is something we can all do - then CC can be stopped. Or there is nothing - then why are you giving useless tips like "eat vegan". First, whatever the average global temperature is in the year 2100, it won't stop rising for centuries more. So there's that.
Mark Hoover should do what everyone should do. Others, even all others, totally being ####### says nothing about what you should do. Why would you want to let others' ####### actions dictate your actions?
Devon Northwood wrote: The government designed the transportation network exactly as people wanted it designed - for cars. Should the government ignore the wishes of the people? I am especially curious for your answer since you constantly talk about people doing things on their own (once again, totally not a libertarian idea), yet no one would design public transportation for themselves... Even if I grant, for the sake of furthering dialog, that our current transportation network is in fact what the citizens want, that doesn't even touch my contention that we have an acceptable ROI for the trillions expended.
Devon Northwood wrote: So once again it took you less than a few weeks to go from "the government cannot do sensible long term policies" to "the US government cannot do sensible long term policies" to "the us government can do sensible long term policies,it is just extremely financially inefficient" to "the us federal government can do sensible long term policies,it is just very financially inefficient, unless it is about financial incentives or blowing stuff up". No, I've always maintained that the federal government is incapable of pulling off anything like a GND. This jumble of words and ideas(?) bears scant resemblance to what I originally posted.
As I said upthread a page or two:
"When does the government ever do anything long-term and sensible?
Mark Hoover 330 wrote: A person that optionally spends, donates, or otherwise ELECTS that 10% of their income go toward environmental causes then receives the accolades of their peers. They may ALSO receive tax incentives for their generosity. You see, by exercising a CHOICE over their redistribution of their income, these folks are propped up by US culture as someone good, special, deserving of special privileges in some cases, and so on.....
Blasty Q, do I have that right?
Last first: mostly right I guess.
First part: Don't report your charitable giving and when you give, give anonymously.
Some charities are indeed run by ### ########, but then that's no excuse for supporting the many who aren't so ran.
Mark Hoover 330 wrote: ....And also, Dev's upthread had it right: I was actually trying to point out that we were comparing imaginary numbers with other imaginary numbers. So far I can't find any ACTUAL, CONCRETE numbers what the GND will cost b/c it isn't actual legislation yet.... Yeah, see you missed my point.
I was using numbers so low, compared to any of the GND proposals that one can't then sensibly defend any of them.
If I argue against a $93 trillion GND and you say, well it may only cost $54 trillion.... so what? I'm giving examples of government projects, that when 5x'd or 10x'd, still only add up to a fraction of any GND proposal.
Then, you have to imagine that this twenty to thirty year program is sustained on track AND all other government programs are somehow funded and continue this whole time. You also have to ignore the fact that any GND I've seen outlined will attract a metric ####storm of lawsuits....
Yeah, GND ain't happening. Except on paper.
Sorry, tis true.
Mark Hoover 330 wrote: The difference between a 10% tax and a 10% donation is recognition. When you pay a tax to your local, state or federal government, you don't get a pat on the head or any press; there is no reward for this behavior. Rather you escape the consequence of legal action against you for NOT participating.
A person that optionally spends, donates, or otherwise ELECTS that 10% of their income go toward environmental causes then receives the accolades of their peers. They may ALSO receive tax incentives for their generosity. You see, by exercising a CHOICE over their redistribution of their income, these folks are propped up by US culture as someone good, special, deserving of special privileges in some cases, and so on.
I don't have a problem with this mentality, honestly, except for one thing: even if I'm controlling my spending, I have no say in how the money is eventually used. There have been a couple major charities in recent years which have been prosecuted as absolute frauds, so the money spent there didn't do what was intended.
Unfortunately QB has it right that while the government is, in theory, answerable to itself and the voters, money given in taxes rarely goes to the initiatives that gain the greatest mandate of the "popular" vote. Instead initiatives like the GND are shot down right out of the starting gate by, among other detractors, the fossil fuel industry lobbyists who act as liaisons to the house members to whose campaigns these companies donate.
Then there are corporations who, very rarely, make positive, wide-scale change with their money. Anything brought in besides standard profit is used to pad the bottom line and make companies more attractive on wall street; more desirable to shareholders. Name one corporation that has done as much to help poor US citizens as the fed has. I'm not JUST talking about job creation and wages paid; I'm lumping in federal programs that guarantee Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, food assistance, and so on. At best, major corporations and the fed...
The other difference between a 10% donation and a 10% tax is that the 10% donation is voluntary and not likely to happen across the board. Especially at the top end, where all the money is. Despite some high profile rich philanthropists, working people donate a far larger percentage of their money to charities than the wealthy do (and don't get most of the tax benefits of doing so either). Those tax benefits, by the way, mean that, in the US, the federal government essentially subsidizes about a third of private donations from the upper middle class and above.
And despite QB's pseudo-Libertarian nonsense and despite government realities rarely living up to the initial proposals, there's nothing else that can even begin to operate on the scale we need. Other than some megacorps, but they're even less likely to do anything "long-term and sensible".
Private action on the scale of normal individuals is useful and it's good for all of us to do what we can, but it pales next to even moderate government action.
Or, as CB keeps pointing out, the long-term economic incentives. Since we're hitting the point where green alternatives make economic sense, even small pushes can the balance on things like whether a new coal or gas plant is worth investing in. And that will have long term consequences.
Mark Hoover 330 wrote: The difference between a 10% tax and a 10% donation is recognition. When you pay a tax to your local, state or federal government, you don't get a pat on the head or any press; there is no reward for this behavior. Rather you escape the consequence of legal action against you for NOT participating.
Your points are both correct and irrelevant. When we raise money for programs that stop and/or reverse climate change, those programs do not change. It is irrelevant for the sucess of these programs if the money comes from donations, from taxes, or from hunting licenses for posh german bankers.
So if you are in favor of stopping CC, and you believe that it can be stopped, than you should be in favor of both ways of raising money. You can argue that donations are better because they are given freely, and that is a good point. In fact, there are many good points for donation-based initiatives. But donations also have problems, starting with the fact that if you give people a choice how much they give, many will chose "0$". That is why we invented taxes in the first place, because we all agreed that some things have to be financed by all of us, but we also agreed that if we would all choose to finance them individually, we would all choose to give nothing. Economists call that "the tragedy of the commons", and taxes are a valuable answer to the problems.
Mark Hoover 330 wrote: Unfortunately QB has it right that while the government is, in theory, answerable to itself and the voters, money given in taxes rarely goes to the initiatives that gain the greatest mandate of the "popular" vote.(...) So ironically, Q Tip is right - the US government, as it looks right at this moment, likely won't be a good agent for the environmental change we need to pull together over the next 20 years. You are very naive about libertarians like QBlast. And I understand that, because I was also very, very naive about libertarians until I met them more closely. So let's look at what he has said about government, a sentence so important, he copied it several times:
"When does the government ever do anything long-term and sensible?"
Think about that sentence. He does not say "some governments" or "most governments". He means all governments. All the times. Forever.
We can have a jolly good time talking about how much government is the right amount. But if your answer is "none", that is insane, and as we have seen in this very thread, only ends with libertarians giving long and nonsensical speeches why the government programs they like are not "really" government programs.
Mark Hoover 330 wrote: Then there are corporations who, very rarely, make positive, wide-scale change with their money. Anything brought in besides standard profit is used to pad the bottom line and make companies more attractive on wall street; more desirable to shareholders. Name one corporation that has done as much to help poor US citizens as the fed has. As a (somewhat) capitalist, I do believe that corporations do good things. It is just not their job, so they only do good things as a side-effect. But we can make it lucrative for them to do the right thing, for example by implementing a carbon tax or cap-and-trade. Both could incentivise the market to reduce carbon emissions, and I am honestly not sure which is the better one. But as CBD has pointed out, thanks to more efficient green energy productions, the market may switch to green energy on its own in a reasonable timeframe.
Quark Blast wrote: This will be a more charitable answer than this misrepresentation deserves.
You will note I said to Mark Hoover:
"Spend about 10% of your gross income annually on well managed and thought out reforestation projects in developing countries."
Whatever collage of verbs, adjectives and adverbs you choose to apply to government programs, "well managed and thought out" are not generally applicable you must admit.
No, in fact I do not admit that, I strongly object to that. There are lots of well managed and thought out government programs. And even programs that have problems are still doing a lot of good things. Hell, my country of germany has a (partially) government operated healthcare program with a TON of problems, and I would choose it over american privatised healthcare every day of the week.
Quark Blast wrote: First, whatever the average global temperature is in the year 2100, it won't stop rising for centuries more. So there's that. I don't know how that is relevant, but yeah, sure.
Quark Blast wrote: Mark Hoover should do what everyone should do. Others, even all others, totally being ####### says nothing about what you should do. Why would you want to let others' ####### actions dictate your actions? Of course the actions of others should influence your behavior. If I am the only one to give money to save the rainforest, then the forest is doomed anyway and I might as well save myself the trouble. That is both logical and sensible. It is so logical, we have actually given the phenomenon a name: the tragedy of the commons. And there are ways to solve this problem: agree that the cause is necessary and then force everyone to give a share. We call that taxes. There ARE alternatives to the tax-based model, but "pretending the problem does not exist and then cussing people out when the obious thing obviously happens" is not one of them.
Quark Blast wrote: Even if I grant, for the sake of furthering dialog, that our current transportation network is in fact what the citizens want, that doesn't even touch my contention that we have an acceptable ROI for the trillions expended. "Our transportation infrastructure is built around everyone having their own auto with public transport tacked on as an afterthought in most areas."
That is what you said. Nothing about ROI (which is usually very good for infrastructure btw.).
You want the transportation infrastructure to do something it is not designed to do, while balking at the idea of the government spending money to change it, because "government bad".
Quark Blast wrote: I was using numbers so low, compared to any of the GND proposals that one can't then sensibly defend any of them. Compared to what proposals? That is the whole point: There are no proposals. So if you have them, show them so everyone is on the same page. As long as you don't do that, we are talking about imaginary numbers being bigger or smaller than other imaginary numbers. Because a number that is "very low" compared to another imaginary number is still an imaginary number.
For example, this New York Times article discusses the problem of puting a price-tag on a program that, while very costly, could also generate massive amounts of money.
Irontruth wrote: BigNorseWolf wrote: If you have the complete My Little Pony friendship is magic 8 season DVD collection and a shelf of toys collectors items you're a brony whether you balk at the term or not.
If you believe that the government isn't allowed or capable of doing anything without every individuals consent then you're a libertarian whether you join the not a party or not.
There is also no discernable difference between don't let the government do anything and don't do anything. Climate change is too big a problem for anyone but the government to tackle. You need to actively fight some of the richest corporations on the planet interested in keeping their source of power and income. No individual action has ever managed that without government help.
An extremely distant relative of mine waged a war against the Hanseatic League for two years as a pirate. He managed to win for about two years, getting them kicked out of cities and capturing a couple of extremely significant forts. They did of course kill him in the end though. If we are talking about the same man, than he at least managed to save his crew from the hangmans noose.
Devon Northwood wrote: No, in fact I do not admit that, I strongly object to that. There are lots of well managed and thought out government programs. And even programs that have problems are still doing a lot of good things. Hell, my country of germany has a (partially) government operated healthcare program with a TON of problems, and I would choose it over american privatised healthcare every day of the week. Says:
"There are lots of well managed and thought out government programs".
List of said programs:
NADA
:D
Oh the tears of mirth from reading your latest rant....
Devon Northwood wrote: Of course the actions of others should influence your behavior. If I am the only one to give money to save the rainforest, then the forest is doomed anyway and I might as well save myself the trouble. That is both logical and sensible. It is so logical, we have actually given the phenomenon a name: the tragedy of the . :D
Stop it! I'm dying here....can't.... catch..... my..... breath..
Oh, if only you had been paying attention upthread to what my usual detractors have to say about the Tragedy of the Commons.
:D
Whew! OK.... catching my breath here.
Devon Northwood wrote: And there are ways to solve this problem: agree that the cause is necessary and then force everyone to give a share. #### ####! You did not just say that!
:D
:D
:D
thejeff wrote: Or, as CB keeps pointing out, the long-term economic incentives. Since we're hitting the point where green alternatives make economic sense, even small pushes can the balance on things like whether a new coal or gas plant is worth investing in. And that will have long term consequences This. Just this. At least we agree (to some degree) on something.
How German was that previous proposed answer though?
:D
OMG, still smiling. Can't believe he said that without irony.... yeesh!
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Quark Blast wrote: Devon Northwood wrote: Of course the actions of others should influence your behavior. If I am the only one to give money to save the rainforest, then the forest is doomed anyway and I might as well save myself the trouble. That is both logical and sensible. It is so logical, we have actually given the phenomenon a name: the tragedy of the . :D
Stop it! I'm dying here....can't.... catch..... my..... breath..
Oh, if only you had been paying attention upthread to what my usual detractors have to say about the Tragedy of the Commons. Alright, the Tragedy of the Commons is something of a pet peeve of mine, so I'll assume this is a reference to me.
The basic theory of the tragedy of the commons is real. Given a limited resource and allowing individuals unlimited access to that resource, some will use up so much that they'll crowd others out and deplete the resource.
It's the use of the "Commons" as the prototypical example and the suggested solution that are so horribly wrong that it's hard not to assume that they were not designed that way on purpose. The issue with the Commons is that the Commons were not source of the problem, but a solution to it. One that in many cases had worked for centuries, but the new theory provided an excuse to disrupt it. That solution was communal control of the communal resource - essentially a government solution, if a local one. The prescribed solution of privatizing the land, so that someone would be responsible for any overuse and degradation simply led to control of the land being concentrated in fewer hands and thus to rentier profit.
Quark Blast wrote: Devon Northwood wrote: And there are ways to solve this problem: agree that the cause is necessary and then force everyone to give a share. #### ####! You did not just say that! Why not? Taxes seem like a reasonable solution. It's what we were talking about.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Quark Blast wrote: Says:
"There are lots of well managed and thought out government programs".
List of said programs:
NADA
Buddy, we have been there. I am not having another debate over finnlands TOTALLY NOT government-run education system.
Quark Blast wrote: Devon Northwood wrote: And there are ways to solve this problem: agree that the cause is necessary and then force everyone to give a share. #### ####! You did not just say that!
:D
:D
:D
Yes, what horribly fascist ideas am I going to come up with next:
Prison? Police? An actual LAW???
Oh the humanity...
thejeff wrote: Alright, the Tragedy of the Commons is something of a pet peeve of mine, so I'll assume this is a reference to me.
The basic theory of the tragedy of the commons is real. Given a limited resource and allowing individuals unlimited access to that resource, some will use up so much that they'll crowd others out and deplete the resource.
It's the use of the "Commons" as the prototypical example and the suggested solution that are so horribly wrong that it's hard not to assume that they were not designed that way on purpose. The issue with the Commons is that the Commons were not source of the problem, but a solution to it. One that in many cases had worked for centuries, but the new theory provided an excuse to disrupt it. That solution was communal control of the communal resource - essentially a government solution, if a local one. The prescribed solution of privatizing the land, so that someone would be responsible for any overuse and degradation simply led to control of the land being concentrated in fewer hands and thus to rentier profit.
I agree that the historic case is more complicated, as you have summarized. But the story of common land being overused has, much to your dismay I would guess, become an example that is pretty much devoid of it's historical context. And as you said, the basic theory holds, even when the original solutions are ... less then ideal.
thejeff wrote: Quark Blast wrote: #### ####! You did not just say that! Why not? Taxes seem like a reasonable solution. It's what we were talking about. But taxation is theft, maaan. Evil statists trying to take our stuff, maaaan.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
“Quark Blast” wrote: Stop it! I'm dying here....can't.... catch..... my..... breath What is the matter with you?
It was your use of THE CAUSE and then the word FORCE people. That kind of thinking is just what we do not want the government doing.
Or to flip my objection to the other side of the proverbial coin, taxes are good because, you know, rich people don't avoid them or anything. Like ever.
I'll also note you're keen on avoiding consideration of some of my arguments entirely. Like this whole paragraph here:
"Then, you have to imagine that this twenty to thirty year <GND> program is sustained on track AND all other government programs are somehow funded and continue this whole time. You also have to ignore the fact that any GND I've seen outlined will attract a metric ####storm of lawsuits...."
Then you repeat your error on this issue, he says:
"There are lots of well managed and thought out government programs"
List of issues:
"C'mon man!"
:D
So many issues!
And for the record, Finland's education program is miniscule compared to any GND. Like not even 1/10th of 1% miniscule.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Quark Blast wrote: It was your use of THE CAUSE and then the word FORCE people. That kind of thinking is just what we do not want the government doing. That is literally the only way we CAN have a government. If you have any other idea, I would be very interested in hearing them.
Quark Blast wrote: I'll also note you're keen on avoiding consideration of some of my arguments entirely. Like this whole paragraph here:
"Then, you have to imagine that this twenty to thirty year <GND> program is sustained on track AND all other government programs are somehow funded and continue this whole time.
So far, the only number you have produced for the costs is the "200 hoover dams" number, or 200×675 million dollars, which is a number the US government not only could pay for 20 to 30 years, it already does pay that much money towards other programs. And as other and myself have pointed out, that number is entirely speculation based on information you habe so far not provided. And even if the program would cost that much money, it would also generate quite a lot of money, as the NYT-article suggests. So the questions of costs is a lot more nuanced.
Quark Blast wrote: You also have to ignore the fact that any GND I've seen outlined will attract a metric ####storm of lawsuits...." As did the highway system or the hoover dam. They were both still build.
Quark Blast wrote: Then you repeat your error on this issue, he says:
"There are lots of well managed and thought out government programs"
There have been several examples given in this thread. The german healthcare program, the US highway system, canadian social security, government education in general.
So far, your objection to these examples has been that the US transportation system doesn't do something it was not designed to do, that the education system is worse than the one in finland, which is somehow not a government program because it is not mandatory (except it is), and an entirely unproven insistence that these programs are overpriced.
If you make absolute examples, you can be disproven by any, ANY example of the contrary. That what makes your examples so mindblowingly weird. When Mark Hoover 330 points out that the current US government is ill-equipped for the GND, or that government programs do not always perfectly reflect the will of the people, those are hard points to disprove, and talking about those and the pros and cons of government intervention in this crisis is interesting.
But when you state that the government NEVER does anything sensible and long term and ALWAYS runs 1900% over budget, EVERY TIME, then I simply need to point outside to the elementary school next door to disprove that. So maybe stop making absolute arguments and think in more grey tones.
Devon Northwood wrote: Quark Blast wrote: It was your use of THE CAUSE and then the word FORCE people. That kind of thinking is just what we do not want the government doing. That is literally the only way we CAN have a government. If you have any other idea, I would be very interested in hearing them. Really?
Well I prefer a government of the people, by the people, for the people. But you're welcome to all the force in government you can choke on, as long as it's not my country.
Devon Northwood wrote: Quark Blast wrote: I'll also note you're keen on avoiding consideration of some of my arguments entirely. Like this whole paragraph here:
"Then, you have to imagine that this twenty to thirty year <GND> program is sustained on track AND all other government programs are somehow funded and continue this whole time.
So far, the only number you have produced for the costs is the "200 hoover dams" number, or 200×675 million dollars, which is a number the US government not only could pay for 20 to 30 years, it already does pay that much money towards other programs. And as other and myself have pointed out, that number is entirely speculation based on information you habe so far not provided. And even if the program would cost that much money, it would also generate quite a lot of money, as the NYT-article suggests. So the questions of costs is a lot more nuanced.
Oh yeah, the GND is a veritable mint. Citizens of the world may never work again. Star Trek gives barely a hint of the wealth and leisure awaiting us with implementation of the GND.
Devon Northwood wrote: Quark Blast wrote: You also have to ignore the fact that any GND I've seen outlined will attract a metric ####storm of lawsuits...." As did the highway system or the hoover dam. They were both still build.
Yeah, and the cost of the lawsuits are not reflected in those numbers.
Remember also, about 100 other governments need to spend this kind of cash too, and continue to do so over the next thirty years.
China has recently made big promises but words are free. Meanwhile, they continue to build several hundred coal fired power plants.
Devon Northwood wrote: Quark Blast wrote: Then you repeat your error on this issue, he says:
"There are lots of well managed and thought out government programs"
There have been several examples given in this thread. The german healthcare program, the US highway system, canadian social security, government education in general.
Those are terrible examples and I'm glad to have you list them!
:D
Devon Northwood wrote: So far, your objection to these examples has been that the US transportation system doesn't do something it was not designed to do.... No. Full stop, no.
It does exactly what it was designed to do - #### over any sort of energy efficiency in moving things and last about 50 years.
Now is the time to modernize it. Only there's a #### ton of legacy in a program that large and so the inertia will carry forward just when we need it to least.
Devon Northwood wrote: ... When Mark Hoover 330 points out that the current US government is ill-equipped for the GND, or that government programs do not always perfectly reflect the will of the people, those are hard points to disprove, and talking about those and the pros and cons of government intervention in this crisis is interesting. Then get off the dead horse of failing to disprove my cogent arguments and engage with him!
How hard is that?
Devon Northwood wrote: But when you state that the government NEVER does anything sensible and long term and ALWAYS runs 1900% over budget, EVERY TIME, then I simply need to point outside to the elementary school next door to disprove that. So maybe stop making absolute arguments and think in more grey tones. That's NOT the federal government. Nor is the budget for my local elementary school even visible when set along side GND proposals.
Quark Blast wrote: Really?
Well I prefer a government of the people, by the people, for the people. But you're welcome to all the force in government you can choke on, as long as it's not my country.
Now it is my turn to laugh my ass off. Is this goverment "by the people" going to enforce its laws by asking everyone very nicely? Tickle them really hard?
Quark Blast wrote: Oh yeah, the GND is a veritable mint. Citizens of the world may never work again. Star Trek gives barely a hint of the wealth and leisure awaiting us with implementation of the GND. I take it you have no real answer, given that you provide nothing but lame snark.
Quark Blast wrote: Those are terrible examples and I'm glad to have you list them! Because ... why?
Quark Blast wrote: Devon Northwood wrote: So far, your objection to these examples has been that the US transportation system doesn't do something it was not designed to do.... No. Full stop, no.
It does exactly what it was designed to do - #### over any sort of energy efficiency in moving things and last about 50 years.
It does not do what it was designed to do, because it does what it was designed to do. Magnificent.
Quark Blast wrote: That's NOT the federal government. Quark Blast wrote: Since when have governments ever adopted "sensible long term policies"? (...)
Government blows #### up well but that's not generally a policy or something they do individually long-term. (...)
I'll grant that, in the abstract, having government involved long-term in these is sensible.
When does government ever do anything long-term and sensible? (...)
You could admit that or you could buck up and give an example of a sensible long-term government project. (...)
Government will build a $5M road for $100M every time. And when government doing nothing gets us the same result, I vote for doing nothing every time.
You did not say "federal US government". You said "government". Do you really want to continue this helpless mirage?
But ok, let the state governments spend the money, then. Since you JUST made the point that you were merely talking about the federal government, that should be ok.
Devon Northwood wrote: You did not say "federal US government". You said "government". Do you really want to continue this helpless mirage? GND proposals all come in at many trillions of dollars!
Of course I'm talking federal government.
That's some ####### ######## #### argumentation there!
And you call my posts laughable.
:D
Like I said last post:
"Then get off the dead horse of failing to disprove my cogent arguments and engage with him!
How hard is that?"
Too hard apparently.
:D
Srsly tho, talk to Mark Hoover, he'll step down to your pace to accommodate you I'm sure.
|
