Climate change science resources

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by Bowerbird, Jan 3, 2021.

  1. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That is a false equivalence fallacy, not equivocation. Equivocation is using the same word in two different senses, and pretending they are the same sense. The classic example of equivocation is: a ham sandwich is better than perfect happiness because nothing is better than perfect happiness, and a ham sandwich is better than nothing. (The word, "nothing" is being used in two different senses.)
    Right. The majority of talk about "the rich" resorts to false equivalence by defining "rich" by reference to income rather than wealth. You know someone is lying when they claim people with high incomes are the rich, or vice versa.
    I've never seen anyone claim wealth is cash. Wealth is defined by either assets or net worth, never by liquidity.
    His cash position is completely irrelevant to his wealth.
    Uh-oh...
    The market value of an asset is determined by two specific other people: the two who want the item most and second most. Market value is what the former would have to pay to buy the item from the latter.
    Whether you have the money in cash is completely irrelevant.
    No, it's not just "people saying." It's the people who are willing and able to pay the most for the item who determine its market value.
    He could start by advocating taxation of his government-issued and -enforced patent and copyright monopolies, which reduce the supply and increase the consumer cost of Microsoft products, instead of advocating taxation of robots that increase the supply and thus reduce the consumer cost of manufactured goods.
    Silliness.
    Sure it is, and he does not need the SEC's permission to sell stock on the open market (he does have to report such sales).
    AFAIK Gates owns common shares. I don't think you know what preferred shares are.
    The opposite of what happens when corporations buy back their stock.
    You have a strange idea of what a wealth tax would look like in practice.
     
  2. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,364
    Likes Received:
    17,357
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Pride goeth before a fall.
    The landscape is littered with the rusting remnants of failed models and representations.
    I suggest a little modesty would be in order.
     
  3. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,364
    Likes Received:
    17,357
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't think so. If there is ever another civil war, I think you'll see the difference.

    [​IMG]
     
  4. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And with the gleaming towers of genuine understanding the scientific method has enabled us to build.
    Huh?? There is a difference between claiming understanding and claiming to know what understanding is.
     
  5. Mircea

    Mircea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    4,075
    Likes Received:
    1,212
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is an equivocation, because the intent to is mislead people into believing that wealth, income and cash are all the same thing, when they are not.

    The claim is based on their equivocation.

    Not according to Oxfam and their ilk.

    They mislead people into believing that Gates has $95 Billion in cash to readily distribute to The Poor® so you can feel better about yourself.

    You catch on quick.

    Still, you miss the point entirely.

    I buy stock at $0.68/share and 20 years later it's $111.22/share and I'm the bad guy?

    How?

    It is relevant, because assets are not money until they are converted into money.

    Assuming a wealth tax would be constitutional, it would be manifestly unfair.

    An high school acquaintance and her siblings each received 100 acres of land from her grandfather's farm in accordance with the terms of his Will.

    At that time, the land was valued by other people at $200/acre, giving her an asset with a value of $20,000 and not $20,000 in cash.

    That land is now valued by other people at $26,000/acre, giving her an asset with a value of $2.6 Million and not $2.6 Million in cash.

    You wanna tax her on that?

    She doesn't work. She's a stay-at-home mom and housewife.

    Where is she gonna get the money to pay your wealth tax so you'll feel better about yourself?
     
  6. Mircea

    Mircea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    4,075
    Likes Received:
    1,212
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Exactly. If our Liberal dominated schools spent more time teaching financial literacy and shopping skills instead of explaining why Tommy's daddy always has his hands down his other daddy's pants and why Cathy has two mommies, they wouldn't be poor.

    I get that not everybody can be a freaking Wall Street Wizard™ but some common sense would go along way.

    Same here. I been semi-retired since about 2008. I do maybe 2-3 contracts a year. Never been interested in acquiring mass amounts of anything, other than guitar strings (I break them a lot). As long as I can do what I want, I don't care.

    Yup. I can go into anyone's home and automatically save them $200/month or more no matter what their financial condition is.

    People just don't understand that "disposable" and "convenient" are not free. They cost lots of money just like laziness costs money.

    People are paying $8,99/lb for chicken tenderloins and $7.99/lb for boneless chicken breasts.

    I buy 4 whole fryers on sale for $0.99/lb (sometimes $0.89/lb), take them home and 4 minutes later I got 8 wings, 8 drumsticks, 4 bone-in thighs, 4 boneless thighs, 2 bone-in breasts, 6 boneless breasts and 6 tenderloins and I boil the carcasses down into 2 gallons of chicken stock (instead of paying extra for it).

    People disingenuously whine about the high cost of raising children.

    Yeah, well, stop using disposable diapers. Over 20 Billion people grew up without disposable diapers and they turned out just fine. Is it more work? Yeah, a little more.

    But the money saved will pay for a nice 2 week vacation (and that would be an appropriate time to use disposable diapers).

    Then they complain they ain't got $400 to buy a laptop for their kid. Well, if they hadn't wasted that money they'd have that money and more.

    And they have the nerve to complain that other generations had it easier.

    Other generations did not have perpetual car payments and perpetual full-coverage insurance payments.

    Other generations paid off their car in 12-24 months then used the cost-savings of that and the full-coverage insurance over 7-10 years to pay for another car and pay for many other things.

    And, they're too damn stupid to realize that "0%" financing is a scam.

    It's like 35%, not 0%.

    Take Toyota. The base price is $12,000, Toyota tacks on $6,000 then says you're getting a deal for an $18,000 car with 0% financing for 60 months.

    Then, 3 years later, they're underwater on the car note and instead of sucking it up, they run out and get another car and then they can't figure out why they ain't got no money and I'm supposed to save them from their stupidity.

    I wish Congress would either ban auto-makers from financing their own vehicles or re-write the banking laws so that finance companies have to be completely independent of auto-makers.

    The price of cars would drop 20% to 50% over-night.
     
    gfm7175 likes this.
  7. Mircea

    Mircea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    4,075
    Likes Received:
    1,212
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Those assets are not cash lying around to be readily distributed to the lazy, which is what Oxfam wants you to believe.

    It is a lie, because wages have not been stagnant and you can offer no evidence to prove your claim.

    That is a patently false statement.

    According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the average CEO salary is $234,690 per year.

    Publicly-traded corporations are 3% of all US businesses and employ only 5.6% of the work-force.

    Thus, publicly-traded corporations constitute roughly 690,000 out of the 23+ Million businesses in the US.

    Out of that ~690,000 you cherry-pick in Göbbels-fashion 500 companies, or 0.0725% of the total and then claim that CEO wages are increasing.

    And, then, in Göbbels-style, you further distort the Truth by equivocating CEO salary with total CEO compensation.

    For example, the :Liberal Media was fond of reporting that the CEO of Anthem Blue Cross/Blue Shield was $23 Million.

    What the Liberal Media forgot to tell people was that he received $7 Million in cash compensation and $16 Million in non-cash compensation for a total of $23 Million.

    The Liberal Media falsely reported that in order to get the knee-jerk reaction they wanted.

    Salaries and wages are determined by the Supply & Demand of a particular skill-set in a given labor market.

    Take Krogers.

    Initially, the labor market for CEOs was a State and so Kroger recruited only from within Ohio.

    But as the competition got fierce, Krogers was forced to expand the labor market to the Midwest, and then the entire US and then North America, meaning Canada, the US and Mexico in their search for CEOs.

    Krogers is not a global company, but global companies have been forced to expand the labor market in their search for CEOs to Earth.

    Yes, many CEOs of US publicly-traded companies are not US citizens.

    It requires a certain amount of skill, education and experience to manage a global enterprise, and obviously you ain't got it.

    Seeing how no god-things appointed you Arbiter of How Much Money People Should Make, you should spend more time worrying about what you're making and less time worrying about what other people are making.
     
  8. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,364
    Likes Received:
    17,357
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    “If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?”
    ― Albert Einstein
     
  9. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As I already explained to you, that's called false equivalence, not equivocation.
    Which they did not commit.
    Quote? Of course not.
    Quote? Of course not.
    No, that is just an absurd, childish, despicable, and completely groundless personal speculation on your part. Why are you trying to change the subject from wealth, inequality and taxation to me personally?
    Wish I could say the same....
    No, your "point" is just irrelevant nonsense.
    Do you think only "bad guys" should be asked to pay taxes??
    No, that is a non sequitur fallacy because whether they are money or not is completely irrelevant.
    But a lot fairer than income tax, sales tax, and most other taxes.
    Of course. The community has given her a $2.58M increase in her assets in return for a small fraction of that sum in property taxes. People should be taxed on what they take from the community, not what they contribute to the community through their labor.
    Why would she? Thanks to the community, she's a millionaire!
    How could that be relevant?
    Sell enough of the land to pay it.
    Why even bother with such childish and despicable ad hominem filth?
     
  10. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree that "on the brink" is an overstatement; but it is a lot closer now than it was four years ago, and a lot closer four years ago than 15 years ago. That is a worrying trend.
     
  11. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Bingo. Our liberal dominated schooling system is complete and utter garbage. If I ever had a kid, I would not send my kid to one of those mind manipulation institutions... I would either find a good private school or teach my kid at home.

    Indeed it would. We all have different aptitudes; it's up to us whether or not we make use of them, further develop them, and increase our worth to others.

    Bingo. I have no desire for mass amounts of money; I just wish to be able to comfortably get by... Other things matter more to me than money and wealth. I play guitar myself (although much less often over the past several years than during my teens and early 20s...

    Bingo. Same here. I came up with $65/mo for myself just on one single item... I could add at least another $20/month by reducing my phone plan. If I'd go on and on, I'd come up with over $200/month savings for myself...

    Plenty of people are currently overweight slobs... They could easily cut out a couple hundred dollars each month SOLELY by cutting their cable and not unnecessarily and constantly shoving food down their face.

    Bingo. I pretty much always buy "whatever is on sale" (at a good price, not an "increased 50% to save 50%" sort of "sale"). I am pretty frugal in that sort of manner too.

    Bingo. And all of the new toys that they unnecessarily buy for their children, and a plethora of other examples. There are cheaper ways to go about it, but people simply choose not to (for convenience or otherwise).

    Bingo.

    I can tell from this short exchange that you are fairly intelligent. :)
     
  12. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,364
    Likes Received:
    17,357
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    We disagree.
     
  13. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But those assets DO represent resources.... and a gross misallocation of resources at that, in the face of widespread poverty.

    I see bringiton has already pointed this out to you; the fact your free market, neoliberal monetarist ideology prevents you from seeing it augurs badly for the US body politic....

    (link)

    For most Americans, real wages have barely budged for decades | Pew Research Center

    "But in real, inflation-adjusted terms, the median has barely budged over that period: That $232 in 1979 had the same purchasing power as $840 in today’s dollars."

    Hence: real median wages growth in the US has been flat since Friedman's evil supply-side neoliberal economics has been the dominant economic paradigm.

    (link)

    CEOs see pay grow 1,000%, and now make 278 times the average worker (cnbc.com)

    No "cherry picking" involved.

    Whereas continuing entrenched poverty and high REAL unemployment (U6 + those who have given up looking) IS continuing ......even before the pandemic.

    ah.. more paranoid "sovereignty of the individual" nonsense; government by 'voluntary agreement' is NOT possible among naturally self-interested individuals, regardless of which style of government is adopted.

    Meanwhile, your private sector free market system itself is about to implode, as tens of trillions of dollars of fossil assets in the US alone become stranded (just to bring us back to the OP for a moment...)

    Nonsense. The "LM" are simply noting the gross misallocation of resources which that 'extra' $16 million represents....

    Yeh....and Obama should stripped all bonuses, and thrown at least a dozen CEO banksters into prison during the GFC....so much for 'supply and demand' in 'free' markets.....

    I told you I'm not interested in micro economics.

    But I am interested in how Biden intends to fund his climate plans.

    Note: only the BIS has the capacity to create the necessary funds to buy out (compensate, close down, and redeploy workers) in the entire global fossil industry.

    That's macro-economics,...in respect of which your neoliberal free markets, with 'supply and demand' driven by the "invisible hand", are now shown to be obsolete and soon to be swept away as we enter a new age of global co-operation, in order to save the planet itself.
    [And I only want clean air, (after banning ICE vehicles), not wanting to be bogged down in the CO2 debate...].

    Globalisation IS problematic without a properly instituted WTO dedicated to enabling prosperous development in ALL countries

    But is seems more than strange that an American company cannot find an American CEO to run it....

    Correct....but I DO know that many 'global enterprises' should be closed down and the CEOs sacked....

    I'm quite comfortable; but my mission is to expose the evil of your neoliberal. private- bankster funded, monetary system.
     
  14. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And I can tell you are about as intelligent as him....(sorry, couldn't resist).
     
    bringiton likes this.
  15. Mircea

    Mircea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    4,075
    Likes Received:
    1,212
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Equivocation is the illegitimate switching of the meaning of a term during the reasoning

    Take a course in formal logic and get back to us.

    Oxfam’s report shows how the rigged economic system is enabling a super-rich elite to amass wealth in the middle of the worst recession since the Great Depression while billions of people are struggling to make ends meet.

    https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-rele...ord-time-yet-billions-will-live-poverty-least

    Oxfam just equivocated wealth with income and cash.

    Why don't give us your recipe for Stock Certificate Stew?

    Do you braise the stock certificates or brown them before you add them to the stew?

    You cannot eat stock certificates any more than you can eat land or buildings or bearer bonds or non-bearer bonds or a paining by Edvard Munch or a Ming Dynasty Vase.

    Because very obviously it's all about you.

    You flounced.

    You evaded and dodged the question.

    How am I the bad guy because other people say the stocks I bought increased from $0.68/share to $111.22/share 20 years later?

    You got no answer.

    And, contrary to your misguided beliefs, I will pay taxes when I covert those non-cash assets to cash.

    It's called a Capital Gains Tax so quit acting like I ain't payin' no taxes.

    It is relevant, because land is not cash or income.

    Buildings are not cash or income.

    Stock certificates are not cash or income.

    A Ming Dynasty Vase is not cash or income.

    A $1.4 Million Monet painting is not cash or income.

    Like Oxfam, you seem to be totally unable to distinguish between cash and non-cash assets.

    It is neither fair nor constitutional.

    Wrong. The community didn't give her jack squat, her grandfather did.

    She took nothing from the community and the community would be too damn stupid to know what to do with the land if they had it.

    That's why Communist Property Theory fails: Because the people-at-large lack the knowledge and expertise to utilize assets to the best advantage.

    Since she doesn't work and cannot be compelled to work, the only way to pay the tax would be sell the land until the point where she has no land left to sell. No judge in the US would ever make that happen, since it violates the Constitution many times over.

    I guess you didn't see how silly your claims really are.
     
  16. Mircea

    Mircea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    4,075
    Likes Received:
    1,212
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not all assets are resources. Most are, but not all.

    A Ming Dynasty Vase would not be a resource.

    Okay, so that 162-unit apartment building should be demolished because it's a "gross misallocation of resources."

    Who cares that the 162 families have been displaced and are now homeless, so long as you feel better about yourself.

    As everyone knows, I am an ultra-Conservative and Constructivist.

    Very obviously you read someone's blog and don't understand the meaning of "Neo-Liberal" or the blogger either doesn't understand the term or co-opted it for his/her own devious purposes.

    Realists were the originals and characterized the international system as anarchic. There is no authority above the State, which is sovereign. Each State looks out for its own interests. Realists are very much concerned with polarity (or the lack of polarity). Realists would consider NATO vs Warsaw Pact and a good thing and the absence of a Warsaw Pact or something to replace it as a bad thing. Realists are split into two groups, the defensive and the offensive. Offensive Realists seek to push hegemony in order to ensure safety.

    Conservatives evolved out of the Realists after the failure of the League of Nations and also the failure of the whole "Balance of Power" nonsense. They believe some State actors are bad (and they are) and that States and not collective security arrangements are the key to keeping bad Actors from getting worse and that States will need to act with or without the existence of a "Balance of Power."

    Liberals arose in the post-WW II Era and assume that all actors communicate and consent to common rules and institutions and recognize common interests. Liberals prefer collective security organizations, such as NATO, SEATO, ANZUS, Warsaw Pact et al. Note that many senior staff officers and non-coms in the military hold the Liberal view, in part, because it works (even though they may be politically Conservative).

    Radicals came to be in the 1960s and they explain the structure of the system in terms of economic stratification (basically a Marxian view). Stratification has created the "haves" and the "have-nots." Since this structure creates economic disparities, many States are constrained in their actions.

    Neo-Conservatism came about in 1974 when Irving Kristol -- the god-father of Neo-Conservatism -- was giving an interview with a New York Times reporter who coined the phrase "Neo-Conservative."

    Kristol was the head of the Young People's Socialist League which merged with the Social Democrat Party which then became the SDP-YPSL. Kristol co-opted the leadership and took over the party which then became the Social Democrats.

    Which candidates ran on the Social Democrat ticket?

    None, because Kristrol understood that real power is vested in the Bureaucracy and not in Congress. It is the Bureaucracy that makes the rules and the polices, and to carry out their agenda, the Social Democrats seeded people into the Bureaucracy like the State Department, DOJ, CIA, DIA and the other intelligence agencies. A Bureaucrat has more power than some Congress-critter from some dink district in Iowa or Michigan.

    Neo-Cons hold the same general view as Conservatives but insert Israel into the equation (because Kristol and Bell and rest of them are Jews) and they're willing to act unilaterally.

    Constructivists split off from the Radials in the mid-1980s We accept as 100% true the Marxians view of history. We also accept as true Marx's axiom that any government -- all governments of any kind -- is nothing more than a platform for the bourgeoisie to carry out their agenda. We reject the Class-based approach, because it has no application at the global level with respect to foreign policy, and Class-structure rarely (if ever) impacts how a State conducts its foreign policy. So a State consists of numerous structural elements, which must be must identified and understood.

    In the early 1990s, there were many Liberals that view the State-system as both anarchic and archaic. Those Liberals not only support collective security organizations, but also intervention by multi-national corporations and non-government organizations. Such Liberals are referred to as Neo-Libs, short for Neo-Liberal Institutionalism, and in case you don't get it, the non-governmental organizations and multi-national corporations are the institutions in "Institutionalism."

    Even though Bush predates the rise of Neo-Liberalism, his Administration was clearly Neo-Liberal, just as Clinton, Bush and Obama were. Trump was not. It remains to be seen what Biden is.

    Glad we got that straightened out.

    Fail. Had you read the graph, you would have noticed "Seasonally Adjusted."

    Do you seasonally adjust your blood pressure? Why not?

    When your blood pressure is 132/74 does your doctor seasonally adjust it to 180/128 and then tell you to take blood pressure meds?

    Do we seasonally adjust battlefield casualties?

    12 soldiers were killed in Afghanistan but the DOD seasonally adjusts it to 18 soldiers and that's what the Media reports. Or, we could seasonally adjust it to 4 soldiers KIA.

    Your labor reports are like that. The Current Population Survey (CPS) says there were 160,000 new hires and then your government uses an arbitrary weighting scheme to seasonally adjust it to 230,000 new hires.

    Those 70,000 seasonally adjust workers that were added don't actually exist and don't pay taxes.

    Sometimes, the government will arbitrarily weight it to say there were only 120,000 new hires, even though there were 160,000.

    Yeah, a lot of people are anal retentive and get upset when graphs don't look pretty.

    And, why adjust for Inflation?

    It isn't necessary to adjust for Inflation, unless your intent is to skew the results.

    Which Inflation are they adjusting?

    Monetary Inflation is a money supply issue. The solution is for Congress to cut spending and/or raise taxes and/or the Federal Reserve to reduce the money supply and/or the Federal Reserve to increase interest rates.

    Wage Inflation is caused by a shortage of labor for certain skill-sets. The solution is a Price Freeze, and not a Wage & Price Freeze like FDR and Nixon levied on everyone.

    Cost-Inflation is the people electing other people who increase costs through regulations and taxes.

    Demand-pull Inflation is caused by Demand exceeding both Supply and the Rate of Increase of Supply. There are three solutions:

    1) Stop consuming
    2) Seek substitutes
    3) Increase Supply to meet Demand

    Yes, Demand-pull Inflation is caused by Consumers.

    Do you not see how silly it is to give people more money to consume more to cause prices to rise even higher?

    Demand-pull Inflation is one of the inviolable Laws of Economics and its purpose is to prevent the over-consumption, over-use or depletion of goods, services and resources.

    What would be the point of encouraging further over-consumption, over-use or depletion of goods, services and resources?

    And why does PEW report only wages and not wages and benefits?

    It's very Göbbelistic to report total CEO compensation of cash and non-cash benefits and then for workers report only cash benefits.

    Ignoring non-cash benefits, real wages have increase about 40% since 1979 If what PEW claims is true, then it wouldn't be possible for personal consumption to increase and personal consumption has increased by over 70% over the period PEW claims.

    I noticed PEW forgot to mention that the cost of housing has not changed.

    It's deceptive to claim that housing prices have increased based on sticker price.

    A truthful measure would be price per square foot.

    The price per square foot of home in the US is literally a couple dollars more than in 1979.

    The sticker price is higher because the size of the houses are 2-3x larger than the 1970s.

    $112/square foot * 1,400 square feet = $156,000

    $112/square foot * 4,400 square feet = $492,800

    Get it?

    Take everything that comes standard on a 2018 model car and put it on a 1978 model car.

    How much would that car cost you?

    A 21" TV in 1978 was $498 and you couldn't hang it on a wall; it took up a lot of space; it wasn't cable-ready, didn't have remote control and the picture quality and sound quality was poor compared today.

    I paid $226 for a 32" TV that I could put anywhere, even hang it on a wall, it takes up very little space, it's cable ready, DVD and video game ready, has remote control, superior picture and sound quality, and it is programmable.

    Figure it out yet?

    Yes, cherry picking.

    Your article cites 350 CEOs.

    That's 0.0507% of all publicly traded corporations.

    You just cannot refute the reality that the average CEO earns ~$230,000/year and not $23 Million/year.

    And yet you posted a propaganda article on "wage stagnation."

    Um, the US is just 5% of the global population.

    Looking for a CEO in the US would be like looking for a needle in a haystack of needles.

    Telling someone they can't be a CEO because they weren't born here is about as stupid as telling someone you can't play futball because you were born here.

    We already addressed the fact that you don't have a clue what a Neoliberal is.
     
  17. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Just as I said, and you have incorrectly denied. It's switching the meaning of a term, not treating different terms as being the same.
    <yawn> I have taken -- and passed -- senior-level courses in formal logic at an internationally respected university. You have not.
    Where?
    Have you been drinking?
    Another miracle of irrelevancy....
    No. What is very obvious is that you know it isn't all about me, but you are trying to make it all about me.
    I beg your pardon? Is that just another word you don't know the meaning of, like equivocation?
    That is just another bald falsehood from you, as readers are invited to confirm for themselves.
    Because I never claimed it made you the bad guy. That was just another bald fabrication on your part.
    But not if you don't, and neither will your heirs if you pass them on to them.
    Capital gains get preferential tax treatment, and I never claimed you were paying no taxes. You simply made that up, like almost everything else you say.
    No, that is a non sequitur. The fact that land is not cash, income or stew is completely irrelevant to the fact that it is an asset with a market value, and is thus wealth.
    Or stew, or England, or origami. Too bad you can't think of anything relevant to say.
    As above. Your irrelevancies remain irrelevant no matter how many different ways you state them.
    No, I just choose not to lie that non-cash assets are not wealth. Were you aware that anyone who claims non-cash assets are not wealth is lying?
    It is much fairer than commonly used taxes like income tax and sales tax, and its constitutionality is irrelevant.
    No, her grandfather simply gave her a (community-issued) land title that the community then increased in value for her, giving her additional asset value of $2.58M. She is simply a greedy, thieving parasite.
    That is merely another bald falsehood from you. She self-evidently and indisputably took the land from the community, forcibly depriving everyone else of their liberty to use it; and its value proves that others in the community are not too damn stupid to know what to do with it if they had it. So that was just another bald fabrication on your part.
    It doesn't take any knowledge or expertise to accept the high bid from prospective users -- hell, even landowners can do that.
    So you agree she is a parasite. Good.
    No, that is just another bald falsehood from you. She can pay the tax by letting the high bidder use the land and remitting the rent income to the public treasury. You also seem to be unaware that the less land she owns, the less tax she would owe, and she would thus never have no land left at all.
    No it doesn't. Judges vacate land titles for back taxes all the time.

    I guess you didn't see how silly your claims really are.
     
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2021
    Sunsettommy likes this.
  18. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So what? The fact is there are sufficient resources in the US (and most nations) for the sovereign currency-issuing government to offer above poverty jobs to everyone who is unemployed (post pandemic).

    The current barrier is Friedman's evil neoliberal supply-side orthodoxy which bans governments from creating and spending their own currency, a privilege currently reserved for private banksters (who create money when they write interest-bearing loans for credit-worthy customers).

    Btw, that Ming Dynasty vase could no doubt fetch $ several millions, if the owner decided to sell, so it is a potential resource.....

    No, not necessarily. But the grog, sugary beverage, junk food and the associated transport, retailing and MASSIVE despised advertising industry ARE gross misallocation of resources, resulting in crime, ill health, and ineffective poverty, medical and "correctional industries which further drain the nations resources.

    Addressed above. I'm disappointed in your powers of analysis, that you ran with that worthless example.

    You bet, and my mission is to blow your paranoid 'sovereignty of the individual' world view sky high.

    I'm patient. Neoliberal refers to Friedman's Chicago school, which led to a new economic orthodoxy designed to deal with the stagflation of the 70's, (when Keynesian fiscal policies no longer seemed to work), and adopted by Reagan and Thatcher.

    (From a quick google search):

    Neoliberalism is contemporarily used to refer to market-oriented reform policies such as "eliminating price controls, deregulating capital markets, lowering trade barriers" and reducing, especially through privatization and austerity, state influence in the economy."

    But Friedman misunderstood the causes of the 70's stagflation....and inequality has been spiralling ever since, with no reduction in entrenched poverty.

    Note: after 4 decades of neoliberalism, Trump could STILL observe (in 2016, when he was chasing votes): "You are living in poverty, your neighbourhoods are like war zones, your schools and hospitals are broken".

    Here we go, with your paranoid, self-interested "sovereignty of the individual' meme transferred to your obsolete 'national sovereignty' meme ......even though you despise half your own countrymen..... so you can retain the 'right' to go to war against another nation, half of whom have your world view....

    ...."Realists" reserve the 'right' to drop bombs on children and non-combatants; they are murderers to the core of their being. (Fortunately for them, ignorance of reality is a mitigating factor in their crimes against humanity).

    ...implicating 'Conservatives' in the same murder.

    In respect of which: after the untold murder, mayhem and destruction of WW2, former supreme court judge of Australia 'Doc' Evatt valiantly resisted the forced adoption of the veto by the new UNSC, but the 'might is right' filth of Conservatives won the day.

    The "common interests" of mankind are expressed in the UNUDHR. The UNSC veto rendered the UNSC incapable of defending those common interests.

    Yes well - after the collapse of the USSR, all such security arrangements are obsolete, and there remains no excuse for the paranoid "individual sovereignty' world view to continue to hold sway. The days of 'might is right' - of empire - are over.

    The Marxian view is :"FROM each according to his ability" .....but the 'reward' phrase in the complete sentence egregiously discounted self-interest and competitive greed of individuals (ie human nature) who demand incentive and reward for exceptional effort. The Chinese have recognised this fact, which is the reason for the amazing rate of development of their "Marxist" economy, since allowing private enterprise to exist.

    The Neoliberal view is "TO each according to his ability".....without concern for the fact that individuals have widely differing competitive abilities, which in a free market will manifest in extremely negative fashion (eg entrenched poverty).

    ????? Such is the analysis from a conservative, free market, 'sovereignty of the individual' ideologue. There would be no "have nots" if an above poverty wage was the foundation of an economy...perfectly do-able, because the RESOURCES exist to implement it.

    Well, before you launch your following narrative, Conservatism - neo or otherwise - has existed since before ancient Rome; it's aka "he who has the gold makes the rules"

    Re that last sentence: you and I agree on that, but for different reasons. Congress is tied by the current monetarist orthodoxy that forbids government from directing central bank FISCAL policy; it's known as 'central bank independence' which is a ruse to prevent elected governments having direct control of fiscal policy.

    ...and the bourgeoisie today is Friedman's sycophants ...


    Well if you guarantee above poverty employment for all, class is not important, because you would be happy to invite anyone into your home regardless of class (though other qualities might determine the issue).

    And as for globalization, a properly instituted WTO to oversee prosperous development in all nations is required. Trump's unilateralist approach is a failure (whether for pandemic control, climate change policy, or solving problems re refugees fleeing poverty and war)

    I get that your narrative is hopelessly lost, in its attempt to distance itself from Marx's 'class' concept.

    'Anarchism' (the philosophy) posits the delusional concept of 'voluntary agreement' ...which will of course result in anarchy....

    Not so fast, to repeat...

    Neoliberalism is contemporarily used to refer to market-oriented reform policies such as "eliminating price controls, deregulating capital markets, lowering trade barriers" and reducing, especially through privatization and austerity, state influence in the economy."

    That is...... following Friedman's erroneous supply side economics.

    How is 'seasonally adjusted' relevant to the inexorable 4-decade increase in inequality and flat-lining working class wages in REAL terms; whereas the inflation adjusted figure IS the significant factor.

    {I deleted more your extremely poor analogies ...this time on 'seasonal adjustment'}

    You're not kidding.


    ...er, because a $10 purchase 40 years ago would require $100 today....

    Oh dear me........your first sentence is ironic; ever heard of purchasing power?

    so wages for the special "skill set" can sky-rocket....

    So how do you propose to fund government?

    And specifically, Biden's $2trillion covid rescue package (which btw Trump also appeared to be in favour of, against the delusional deficit hawks mainly on the Repub side?



    MMT proposes allowing the sovereign currency-issuing government to fund social programs like education and public infrastructure via its own treasury and reserve bank, as well as implementing a Job Guarantee. Inflation would be headed off by means-tested sales taxes (doable in this IT age).

    Adressed above. But the nation's productive capacity is rarely fully-utilized in profit seeking free markets ALONE.

    None at all.

    Benefits would skew the growth in inequality even more, since benefits mostly is an issue for CEOs.

    Gosh, do you actually enjoy arguing your opponent's case? Non-cash benefits include stock options.....

    Addressed above.

    Addressed above, you continue, simple-mindedly, to ignore the effect of inflation on REAL purchasing power. So the PEW figures stand.


    MEDIAN wage stagflation, not CEOs wages....who now earn 278 times that of the former, adjusted for inflation, (acknowledging change in purchasing power of a dollar over the last 4 decades.

    To repeat,

    Neoliberalism is contemporarily used to refer to market-oriented reform policies such as "eliminating price controls, deregulating capital markets, lowering trade barriers" and reducing, especially through privatization and austerity, state influence in the economy."
     
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2021
  19. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,364
    Likes Received:
    17,357
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Over 400 Scientific Papers Published In 2020 Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm
    By Kenneth Richard on 29. January 2021

    Share this...


    [​IMG]

    In 2020, more than 400 scientific papers were published that cast doubt on the position that anthropogenic CO2 emissions function as the climate’s fundamental control knob…or that otherwise serve to question the efficacy of climate models or the related “consensus” positions commonly endorsed by policymakers and mainstream media sources.
    Over 400 scientific papers published in 2020 affirm the position that there are significant limitations and uncertainties inherent in our understanding of climate and climate changes, emphasizing that climate science is not settled.

    More specifically, the papers in this compilation support these four main skeptical positions — categorized here as N(1) – N(4) — which question the climate alarm popularized in today’s headlines. . . .
     
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2021
    Sunsettommy and bringiton like this.
  20. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    For my part, I am sympathetic to questioning the "mainstream media sources", since they are responsible for maintaining the terrible grip of Milton Friedman's horrific (classical economics-based, neoliberal, neo-Keynesian) supply-side economics, on politicians and nations around the world (except possibly China).

    [Fact:
    1. There are enough resources and productive capacity to employ everyone at above- poverty level (at a miminum).
    2. Sovereign currency-issuing governments with their own treasury and central bank cannot "go broke".
    3. Government debt can be cancelled without effect on the private sector.
    4. Government debt need NOT be a burden on future generations, in fact future generations will benefit from productive investment in the present (eg education, research, infrastructure upgrades, etc).
    4. The inflation bogeyman is just that - a bogeyman. The issue is ensuring resource demand doesn't exceed resource availability. There is more than one way to skin a cat (fight inflation) , other than inducing higher unemployment to reduce demand (as per the neoliberal NAIRU dogma).

    Back to climate change: yes, the mainstream media IS increasingly pushing the CO2 emissions story, despite scientific disagreement.

    However, I want CLEAN AIR in my heavily congested urban area.

    GM, like many other manufacturers, has got into the picture at last; they intend to phase out ICE vehicles by 2035 (irc), to eliminate the human health-destroying s*** currently coming out of vehicle exhausts.

    Now how do we pay for a transition to a green economy?

    That's why I began this post with a comment on the false mainstream neoliberal orthodoxy.

    In fact, since a transition to green (whether to achieve clean air everywhere, or a stable climate) is a global necessity, the BIS - central bank of national central banks, could be authorized to create the necessary funds 'ex nihilo'.

    The free market will never achieve it in a timely fashion, because the stranded fossil assets would bankrupt the global economy (according to private-bankster funded private enterprise as per neoliberal orthodoxy), and vested financial interests will fight tooth and nail to preserve the fossil industry.

    ...are you an example of said "vested interests"? I already explained how the BIS can offer you fair compensation....
     
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2021
  21. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,364
    Likes Received:
    17,357
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The transition to a green economy would be a feckless waste, subtracting resources from more important and useful pursuits. "Green" is a wannabe solution in search of a problem.
     
    Sunsettommy and bringiton like this.
  22. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ah....just as I suspected, a post from another free market ideologue.

    What are these "more important and useful" resource uses?

    And what 'price' do you put on clean air in congested cities?
     
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2021
  23. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,364
    Likes Received:
    17,357
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The air in our cities is the cleanest it has ever been.
    Billions of people don't have access to electricity or clean water, for a start.
     
  24. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    (link below)

    Coronavirus: Air in most polluted countries cleaner since lockdown restrictions (9news.com.au)

    "Major cities that suffer from the world's worst air pollution have seen reductions of deadly particulate matter by up to 60 per cent from the previous year, during a three-week lockdowns period.

    Researchers from IQAir - a global air quality information and tech company - studied 10 major cities around the world which have relatively high numbers of coronavirus cases and COVID-19 lockdown measures.

    ......Elsewhere, other major cities experienced cleaner air. Los Angeles saw its longest stretch of clean air on record, over 18 days from March 7 to 28".

    Correct, and given the above link (directly refuting your false claims re "clean air"), the fossil fuel industry sure won't be able to supply it to them.
     
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2021
  25. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,364
    Likes Received:
    17,357
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nonetheless, air pollution has been on a steady downward trend for over a century. That will continue. Fossil fuels helped make that happen.

    The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels by Alex Epstein - Goodreads
    www.goodreads.com › book › show › 20821049-the-...

    Conventional wisdom says fossil fuels are an unsustainable form of energy that is destroying our planet. But Alex Epstein shows that if we look at the big picture, ...
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2021

Share This Page