The Global Warming Deception

[pamarella]

I have such a problem with the title of the damn propaganda piece. To call it "inconvenient" is simply not true. This global warming scare is the most convenient thing that could have ever happened to them. Now they can do whatever they want and it's all for the cause of global warming. It's quite perfect for them as a matter of fact.

HAHAHAHAHAH!!!! OMG! Bob George, you have the nerve to talk about having a problem with the "TITLE" of something . "DAMN PROPAGANDA PIECE". YOU????????????????.:rofl:

 

[Bob George]

HAHAHAHAHAH!!!! OMG! Bob George, you have the nerve to talk about having a problem with the "TITLE" of something . "DAMN PROPAGANDA PIECE". YOU????????????????.:rofl:

You don't agree global warming has been convenient for the globalist agenda? Do you really think global warming has been "inconvenient" for Al Gore? Come on. Even you have to admit politicians do bullshit. Having an excuse to tax people more, to reduce the population, to push through every bit of legislation they've ever wanted, is not only convenient but absolutely perfect for them.

 

[pamarella]

You don't agree global warming has been convenient for the globalist agenda? Do you really think global warming has been "inconvenient" for Al Gore? Come on. Even you have to admit politicians do bullshit. Having an excuse to tax people more, to reduce the population, to push through every bit of legislation they've ever wanted, is not only convenient but absolutely perfect for them.

Well I do believe that it is convenient for the Globalist because the evidence is showing that they have a legitimate concern when it comes to global warming. And I believe the politicians that are opposed to the belief of global warming are the real bullshiters.

And maybe with Obama, Americans will pay taxes on real issues that will better America. Maybe we will have legislation that will pass bills that can help the betterment of America. I do hope Obama's feet is held to the fire on what he is proposing. But I don't want the oppositions to be opposing just for the sake of opposing and that is what the Republicans who oppose Obama are doing. They don't have any solutions. It's all BULLSHIT with them.:cheeky:

 

[Sifa_Dias]

You don't agree global warming has been convenient for the globalist agenda? Do you really think global warming has been "inconvenient" for Al Gore? Come on. Even you have to admit politicians do bullshit. Having an excuse to tax people more, to reduce the population, to push through every bit of legislation they've ever wanted, is not only convenient but absolutely perfect for them.

You are right, politicians do do bullshit, as a matter of fact, that's almost all they seem to do, it's what keeps them going. This however, happens all the time, with everything, it's not specific to global warming. Politicians could be totally honest, and global warming would still exist. So I think you might wanna rename your plight to The political deception, or in your examples, more specifically, the co2 deception maybe. Global warming is as much a fact as gravity. You get what I mean?

 

[blueocean]

You don't agree global warming has been convenient for the globalist agenda? Do you really think global warming has been "inconvenient" for Al Gore? Come on. Even you have to admit politicians do bullshit. Having an excuse to tax people more, to reduce the population, to push through every bit of legislation they've ever wanted, is not only convenient but absolutely perfect for them.

What do you think thats causing the glaciers to melt? what is your answer? you cant deny that the glaciers are not melting, cause it is happening.

 

[pamarella]

@Bob George,
And explain how different images taken of the same spot or point on Earth shows evidence of global warming. I gave you an example of the State of Louisiana's coastline. The coastline is eroding and different satellite images can see that it's eroding.

 

[pamarella]

AND!!!!!!!!!!!!! What about the Ozone layers in the Atmosphere?

 

[Bob George]

First, let's get the terminology straight. Global Warming refers to the belief that man is causing significant climate change beyond the normal, natural climate cycles. More specifically, man is emitting more CO2 in the atmosphere causing unnatural climate change. So that's what I'm arguing. I'm not arguing that glaciers aren't melting and shorelines aren't eroding. I'm arguing that we humans, through capitalising on the world's resources and providing a better quality of life for ourselves, caused it. There's evidence to suggest we play a part. But how much we contribute it completely overblown and is still being argued by scientists.

And global warming is not as much a scientific fact as gravity. It's nothing more than a theory and I've never heard it being claimed as anything more than a theory.

 

[Sifa_Dias]

First, let's get the terminology straight. Global Warming refers to the belief that man is causing significant climate change beyond the normal, natural climate cycles. More specifically, man is emitting more CO2 in the atmosphere causing unnatural climate change. So that's what I'm arguing. I'm not arguing that glaciers aren't melting and shorelines aren't eroding. I'm arguing that we humans, through capitalising on the world's resources and providing a better quality of life for ourselves, caused it. There's evidence to suggest we play a part. But how much we contribute it completely overblown and is still being argued by scientists.

And global warming is not as much a scientific fact as gravity. It's nothing more than a theory and I've never heard it being claimed as anything more than a theory.

Yes, please let's get the terminology straight. The term Global Warming means the increase in average temperature in the Earth's near-surface air and oceans. This can be man made or not, either way. C02 is just part of it, but global warming doesn't neccesarily mean co2. It's not a belief, it's the name for a process. A PART of global warming is man-made.

However you twist it, glaciers melting and climate changing is caused by global warming, both man-made and not. This IS a fact, whether you believe it or not doesn't change it. Some people don't believe in gravity, some people believe the earth is flat, some people believe a lot of things, that doesn't change that it's a measurable fact.

 

[raz2911]

I think people need to start taking Global Warming seriously....

Yes, we are not likely to see the catastrophic effects of global warming in our lifetime, but does that mean we shouldnt care about it. If we dont change our ways our childrens childrens generation that will have to pay for our wronge doing, like that child said in the beggining of heal the world we need to make the world a better place for our children and our childrens children, so they know its a better world for them !!

 

[pamarella]

First, let's get the terminology straight. Global Warming refers to the belief that man is causing significant climate change beyond the normal, natural climate cycles. More specifically, man is emitting more CO2 in the atmosphere causing unnatural climate change. So that's what I'm arguing. I'm not arguing that glaciers aren't melting and shorelines aren't eroding. I'm arguing that we humans, through capitalising on the world's resources and providing a better quality of life for ourselves, caused it. There's evidence to suggest we play a part. But how much we contribute it completely overblown and is still being argued by scientists.

And global warming is not as much a scientific fact as gravity. It's nothing more than a theory and I've never heard it being claimed as anything more than a theory.

Who gives a damn about the terminology? Call it GLOBAL COOLING, whatever, all those things that you've mentioned are being caused by the actions of Man. How we deal with those actions are POLICTICAL.

I don't know about you, but I on the side of the people who are taken GLOBAL WARMING/COOLING/MELTING/ERODING seriously.

If the type of hairspray that I'm using is somehow causing the ice caps to melt, then I say let's pull that crap off the shelves.

 

[movingcoolcat]

I could not resist to read up on this debate- and I am very happy to see that there is a good discussion going on.

I think that that global warming issue is just one part of a big discussion on how we are going to live on earth, how we are going about planning cities, how we use the resources that are available to benefit us-but not to pollute or abuse the earth, and cause harm to other species.
At this time, we as humans still seem to belive that we have every right to do whatever we want. We seem to behave both selfish, and in a very short sighted way.
And we seem to care only about us- not about the future generations, or about the animals we share this world with.

I remember reading about an old man who owned a lot of forest. And he complained about how things had changed. In his generation, they planned not only for their lifetime, but for the future generations. What they planted, could not be harvested by them- but they did it for their grandchildren.
I think we need to take this perspective in debating how we deal with environmental issues.
We need to think beyond our self, beyond our own lifetime.

And we do need to realice that with freedom, comes responsebility.

Bob George; can you define what freedom is?
Because even if you say that you do not agree that the end justify the means- do that not relate also to your point of view?

Today, there are 27 million people that are enslaved.
And in many ways our freedom is bought by others being unfree.

There are many ways to solve the problems, but in order to do that one has to define and recognice the problems. Without that, there will be no common ground to start from.

I do not see this as politics- this is far bigger then that. And its not just about CO2, or wether this is man made or not. This is about moral, ethics and how we define what is our rights, and what is our duty towards ourself, the people around us, the other living creatures on this earth and
the future of this planet.

As you say, there has been so many great inventions, and human kind is a innovative creature.
We have all the means to solve the problems. But we have to define the desired end that we work towards. Because you and I may live lifes that are fairly comfortable, due to inovations in technology and systems. But in so many areas of the world people are not free, and living life in deep poverty. Is our freedom then not based upon an unfair distribution of wealth and resources? And is our freedom then true?

I am not trying to attack your opinions, because I do think you have some valid points. But I also think you should expand your horizon.
And you may start with an attempt on defining what "freedom and liberty" is.
Come on; it might be interesting:cheeky:

PS!
The oil companies is not embracing the "green side" out of idealism.
They are doing this because they know that in order to survive and earn money they have to come up with alternatives. We are reaching the end of the "oil age", and the search for an alternative is happening all over the world. Innovation in terms of "green" alternatives are driven not by idealism, but by nessesity.
Remember- I come from a country who has built their fortune on oil. We are now in the situation where we need to find alternatives. In this process there will be people that look differently on how to solve the problems. But the problems are there. And we are no longer debating them- just the solutions.

 

[Bob George]

Good post cool cat. Now we are having a real conversation.

And we do need to realice that with freedom, comes responsebility.

I actually agree totally with this statement. It should be the responsibility of individuals and business to become more "green", not the requirement. If individuals and business choose to be environmentally responsible then that's fine. But I don't this they should be required to do so.

We have all the means to solve the problems. But we have to define the desired end that we work towards. Because you and I may live lifes that are fairly comfortable, due to inovations in technology and systems. But in so many areas of the world people are not free, and living life in deep poverty. Is our freedom then not based upon an unfair distribution of wealth and resources? And is our freedom then true?

This is precisely why curbing capitalism and punishing economic growth and prosperity for the global warming cause is a bad idea. Our capitalist system has not only improved the lives of people living in the western world but also people living in third world countries to whom we've engaged in free trade with. Through free trade people living in poverty are given the opportunity to work and improve their lives. Granted, the working conditions in those countries are poor but it's a lot better than their living conditions before we started trading with them.

I am not trying to attack your opinions, because I do think you have some valid points. But I also think you should expand your horizon.
And you may start with an attempt on defining what "freedom and liberty" is.
Come on; it might be interesting

Basically, freedom is being the main authority in your own life. Any other form of authority telling you what to do is not true freedom. But it makes society a lot more civil if there is some sort of governing body with the authority to restrict and regulate certain acts and behaviours that cause harm to members of the community. So being a member of society and also being the main authority in your life is perhaps unreasonable. But the more free you can be in that society the better. The more the governing body takes a back seat and allows you to be the main authority in your life the better.

But it's impossible for a member of society to be truly free. That's why freedom is just a goal. It's something to work towards. We can always strive to gain more freedom than we already have. But we may never achieve true freedom. And that's OK. But society as a whole can always strive to become more free and it's my opinion that a free society doesn't restrict or regulate any act of behaviour that does not directly harm another member of society.

Now, you could say polluting the air is harming another member of society and I'd agree with you in part. For example, you may live on a river-side or something and your neighbour dumps his waste in the river and it flows downstream to where you live. The government can regulate that. Your neighbour may be emitting toxic fumes into the air and you being so close to his property may be at a high risk of being exposed to those dangerous fumes. The government can regulate that. But regulating the emission of CO2 because some scientific studies have drawn a correlation between CO2 levels and the Earth's temperature is going too far IMO.

I also believe the freer the market, the freer the people. That's why I don't like the idea of government interfering in the market and trying to manipulate it. The government can't manipulate the market to become more green. If the government wants to help it can start by eliminating some of the codes and practices that actually prevent business who want to manufacture greener, cleaner products from doing so. Take the auto industry for examples. There are so many restrictions placed on the manufacturing of cars that unless the government allows them to, car-makers cannot stray too far away from the same gas-guzzling vehicles that are apparently warming (or is it cooling now?) the Earth. Before car manufactures can put electric cars, or cars that run on alternative fuels on the road, the government has to approve it. We've all heard about how the electric car has actually been around for possibly 20+ years but government red tape has kept it off the roads. It's the same for other industries. They can't change their ways because they way they are doing things now is the only way the government has approved of for now.

So environmentalists, if you want a cleaner Earth, then why are so obsessed with punishing business and restricting capitalism? It's the free market that will provide us with a new greener way of life if only they could cut through the red tape. Before we can afford a greener way of life we need more wealth to do so. So taking more money away from individuals and business is only going to be counter-productive to creating a wealthy enough economy that can actually afford to progress to a greener way of life. I think environmentalists are fighting the wrong enemy. There is a market for greener technologies but the government has to open it up.

 

[Superstition]

Eh, most of the businesses being pressured to "go green" are those companies that have more than enough money to do so, and its not as if there aren't huge tax credits for them across the board that likely will almost make doing so a wash. Not sure about this red tape you speak of, given that many companies are being pressured even by the government to lessen waste.

 

[Bob George]

Here's an interesting clip to watch.

US Congress questions Al Gore on global warming

 

[movingcoolcat]

Good post cool cat. Now we are having a real conversation.

Good!


I actually agree totally with this statement. It should be the responsibility of individuals and business to become more "green", not the requirement. If individuals and business choose to be environmentally responsible then that's fine. But I don't this they should be required to do so.


This is precisely why curbing capitalism and punishing economic growth and prosperity for the global warming cause is a bad idea. Our capitalist system has not only improved the lives of people living in the western world but also people living in third world countries to whom we've engaged in free trade with. Through free trade people living in poverty are given the opportunity to work and improve their lives. Granted, the working conditions in those countries are poor but it's a lot better than their living conditions before we started trading with them.

I think this needs to be debated further: defining the quality of life that was before industrialisation as worse then today is very easy, but not nessecarily true. Its far more complex then that. For one thing the picture is colored by not living under their conditions, and not having enough knowledge about how the situation was before industrialisation.
This might be stretching it a bit, but research has shown that in a hunter gatherer society people worked 3- 4 hours to sustain themself in terms of food and shelter. Today the situation is worling long hours to make money to buy stuff that not nessesarily improve our life...........( to put it to extreme: we work to buy stuff that makes other people rich).
Given that peoples lives are improved by the develoment of health care, security and general living conditions the development of a modern society has improved peoples lives, and we have created a better world, but for most of this worlds inhabitants that is not the case.
Go to india and see the living conditions of the people producing the goods we buy. They are working and living under conditions we would consider untolerable.


Basically, freedom is being the main authority in your own life. Any other form of authority telling you what to do is not true freedom. But it makes society a lot more civil if there is some sort of governing body with the authority to restrict and regulate certain acts and behaviours that cause harm to members of the community. So being a member of society and also being the main authority in your life is perhaps unreasonable. But the more free you can be in that society the better. The more the governing body takes a back seat and allows you to be the main authority in your life the better.

But it's impossible for a member of society to be truly free. That's why freedom is just a goal. It's something to work towards. We can always strive to gain more freedom than we already have. But we may never achieve true freedom. And that's OK. But society as a whole can always strive to become more free and it's my opinion that a free society doesn't restrict or regulate any act of behaviour that does not directly harm another member of society.

Now, you could say polluting the air is harming another member of society and I'd agree with you in part. For example, you may live on a river-side or something and your neighbour dumps his waste in the river and it flows downstream to where you live. The government can regulate that. Your neighbour may be emitting toxic fumes into the air and you being so close to his property may be at a high risk of being exposed to those dangerous fumes. The government can regulate that. But regulating the emission of CO2 because some scientific studies have drawn a correlation between CO2 levels and the Earth's temperature is going too far IMO.

This shows me that you have a mutch more nuanced understanding of the topic, and is a very good starting point of a discussion on what freedom is in relation to environmental issues.
I would like to add that the problem is that individual freedom versus accepting the boundaries that is set by living in a community with people that has differing interests is the problem with democracy.

I also believe the freer the market, the freer the people. That's why I don't like the idea of government interfering in the market and trying to manipulate it. The government can't manipulate the market to become more green. If the government wants to help it can start by eliminating some of the codes and practices that actually prevent business who want to manufacture greener, cleaner products from doing so. Take the auto industry for examples. There are so many restrictions placed on the manufacturing of cars that unless the government allows them to, car-makers cannot stray too far away from the same gas-guzzling vehicles that are apparently warming (or is it cooling now?) the Earth. Before car manufactures can put electric cars, or cars that run on alternative fuels on the road, the government has to approve it. We've all heard about how the electric car has actually been around for possibly 20+ years but government red tape has kept it off the roads. It's the same for other industries. They can't change their ways because they way they are doing things now is the only way the government has approved of for now.

So environmentalists, if you want a cleaner Earth, then why are so obsessed with punishing business and restricting capitalism? It's the free market that will provide us with a new greener way of life if only they could cut through the red tape. Before we can afford a greener way of life we need more wealth to do so. So taking more money away from individuals and business is only going to be counter-productive to creating a wealthy enough economy that can actually afford to progress to a greener way of life. I think environmentalists are fighting the wrong enemy. There is a market for greener technologies but the government has to open it up.

I do think that setting a capitalist system as the ultimate way of creating freedom, and a good way of changing the way we produce goods, or organice society is simplifying the issue.
In a perfect world, with perfect people it might work. But as i see it, people have- on an individual level- a focus that may be a bit too short sighted to be able to make choices that are not profitable in short terms.
Turbo capitalism has had a tendency to focus solely on short term success, at the cost of humans and of the environment.
Capitalism is in its nature growth oriented, its about capitalising on what you do. Its not enough to have a small scale growth, or a turn even goal, in order to be in a capitalist system your business needs to grow, and make profit.
Now, that this is a good thing may be taken for granted, but if you look at how we handle our resources today, it seems to me that we are moving towards the edge faster and faster because of this ideal of continuous growth. The view on capitalism as a system is also very habitual. And I think its far better to stop putting this labels on things ( capitalist, socialist etc.) and start to define the goal instead, and then assess the tools that might get us there.

If we are to look at nature as a teacher on sustainability, we see that most actions and systems, and organisms in nature are giving back to nature what they take. That is in essence what sustainability is about.
Its not a system of "cradle to grave" as most of our industrial production systems behave, but a "cradle to cradle" system. New life is born of the resources that are brought back to nature.

This way of looking at things does not nessesarly oppose a capitalist system, but the way of organising it is different. In order to do this we need a change of looking at things.
And that is why it does not matter that mutch to me if the scientist are right or wrong about our contrubution to global warming. Its already too many alarming signs about how our way of living is harming our very own foundation of existence, not to mention that changing the way we work, live and cooperate on a global level actually will provide more fun, more excitement and more possebilities for personal freedom. That is what I see when I look at the opportunities we face- not just the focus on problems.
There are so many brilliant and fun ways of creating a more sustainable world, witch also would lead to a difference in how we treat etchother.
You might call me a naive optimist, but despite all the focus on negativity I am very optimistic.

 

[movingcoolcat]

For further reading and inspiration on this topics:

http://www.amazon.com/Bubble-Designing-Complex-World/dp/0262201577

This is a very interesting and very new way of looking at our systems.
Of course my perspective is influenced by my background in product design and development, but as this is putting me right in the middle of the discussion about technology, business develoment, limtations set by politics, and a lot of information about waste management, resource use, and the focus on environmental issues and sustainability I can not help but feeling that I have to deal with this issues on an everyday basis.

I did an assigment with focus on waste managment, and that was a real eye opener. In my part of the world, we have a fairly good system. But this also shows all the problems we are facing due to our production systems, our way of using and abusing resources, and how complex and difficult it is to create a sustainable develoment.
Its a lot harder to take all this in to consideration when designing a product, then to just look at the business side of things. And there is a lot of risk involved in changing business practice. Its also a matter of changing habit, witch everyone knows is a challenge.

 

[Bob George]

I do think that setting a capitalist system as the ultimate way of creating freedom, and a good way of changing the way we produce goods, or organice society is simplifying the issue.

A capitalist system may not be the ultimate way of life but it's the best system we've got. Every time socialism/communism has been tried it's failed catastrophically. Some modern countries have turned to a system of government sometimes called a "social democracy" that implement aspects of socialism and of capitalism. But they only survive because of their capitalist aspects. Capitalism creates wealth, wealth creates happiness. Socialised systems are unsustainable and ultimately lead to a failed state.

In a perfect world, with perfect people it might work. But as i see it, people have- on an individual level- a focus that may be a bit too short sighted to be able to make choices that are not profitable in short terms.

Turbo capitalism has had a tendency to focus solely on short term success, at the cost of humans and of the environment.

A smart businessman knows to think about the long terms goals of his business ventures and what effect a short term decision will have on his long term goals. A stupid businessman doesn't look past the next quarter and makes decisions based on what's going to benefit him now in the short term. The smart businessman is going to succeed in a free market system and the stupid business man is not. So anyone else that wants to succeed in the free market system is obviously going to follow the example of the smart businessman. The free market system encourages good business principles.

A government incorporated style of capitalism encourages bad business principles because bad businessman can rely on bad politicians to help them out and work for them rather than the people. Get government out of business and business out of government and you've no longer got the problems we have today with this so called capitalism system we're under. The problem isn't that we have a capitalist system, it's that we don't. We have a corporatocracy. A crony-capitalist system we're corrupt businessman and corrupt politicians work together to consolidate power. I call it Government Inc.

Capitalism is in its nature growth oriented, its about capitalising on what you do. Its not enough to have a small scale growth, or a turn even goal, in order to be in a capitalist system your business needs to grow, and make profit.

The profit incentive is what drives innovation. It's what forces business to provide consumers with better quality products for lower costs. An excellent example is computers. People complain that they buy a new computer and by the time they take it home it's outdated. But people forget they're paying a very low price for something that cost a fortune not too long ago. So what if you need to replace a computer every few years? It's still cheaper than 20-30 years ago.

And it shows at least that technology is advancing at a very fast rate. Why is it advancing? Because when Apple brings out a new operating system, Microsoft is forced to bring out a new one to keep up so PC users don't switch over to Macs and they can keep their monopoly on computer software. When a company brings out a new MP3 player that offers more than the iPod for a lower price, Apple is forced to bring out better, cheaper iPods to keep their monopoly on the handheld devices market.

Now, that this is a good thing may be taken for granted, but if you look at how we handle our resources today, it seems to me that we are moving towards the edge faster and faster because of this ideal of continuous growth. The view on capitalism as a system is also very habitual. And I think its far better to stop putting this labels on things ( capitalist, socialist etc.) and start to define the goal instead, and then assess the tools that might get us there.

The market will naturally turn to alternative energy when they need to. When oil, coal and the sources of energy we use today become to scarce to be able to sell at a price people will accept and still turn a profit, energy companies will move to other resources. But oil companies can still afford to make a profit and petrol prices are still affordable. So they aren't worried about running out of oil. When it becomes a scarcity they'll be forced to turn to other resources because it wont be cost effective anymore to use oil. The market will take care of itself.

As for labels, I think they help. You say we should define our goals instead. But it's much easier to say "I think we should strive for a free-market capitalist system" than "I think we should strive for a system were individuals run their own lives, their own businesses, and spend their money however they please. The government should stay out of business and business out of government so the consolidation of power from individuals to the government and privileged private corporations is no longer possible. The market is a self-sustaining thing with its own natural laws, just like the laws of psychics, and requires no government intervention. The separation of government and corporations is as important as the separation of church and state in a civilised society". See how it makes it all much easier to communicate what you mean when you can some up all that in a term that most people understand such as "free-market capitalism".

And that is why it does not matter that mutch to me if the scientist are right or wrong about our contrubution to global warming. Its already too many alarming signs about how our way of living is harming our very own foundation of existence, not to mention that changing the way we work, live and cooperate on a global level actually will provide more fun, more excitement and more possebilities for personal freedom. That is what I see when I look at the opportunities we face- not just the focus on problems.
There are so many brilliant and fun ways of creating a more sustainable world, witch also would lead to a difference in how we treat etchother.
You might call me a naive optimist, but despite all the focus on negativity I am very optimistic.

Trust me, it wont be fun. It'll be anything but fun. Any sort of force is not fun. If the world governments were to force us all into a more sustainable planet, then I don't envision fun times. I envisions a lot of people not willingly going along with the global plan and than having the government have to put stricter controls and punishments on us all to make us go along with their global plan. It just doesn't put a smile on my face the way it seems to for you.

But when I learn about new private market initiatives. When I read about what individuals in the private sector are working on now to make our lives better in the future, that puts a big smile on my face and fills my heart with optimism. I don't want to be forced into a better, cleaner world. I want to voluntarily and willingly pay for it. I want to be presented with something so innovative and exciting that I can't want to pay for it. I'm not a religious person. I don't have faith in much. But I have faith in people to voluntarily and willingly make this world a better place.

So many people today seem to have a one track mind. To them, government is the only way. And it does seem intuitive to see a problem and expect government to solve. But government's not always the only solution. In fact, it's rarely the best solution. We need to start considering alternative solutions. Alternative solutions for alternative energy. People are so quick to jump on the idea of government doing everything. And I know that seems reasonable and the most obvious solution. But it's not the most logical.

Look at how much government spends on education, yet how bad it is. Look at how much government spends on health care, yet how poor it is. The incentives that exist in the private market are not there in government. So government never does as good a job as private enterprise. We should be looking at private sector solutions first. That's the most logical way to go about it. I think if you want to solve what you think is a problem, global warming, then it's going to be more effective to write to a board member of a big energy company rather than your local representative for government.

People have a very negative view of people making a profit off of something that's seen as essential. Like health for example. People think it's somehow evil that people are making money off people getting sick. When you get sick, doctors and hospitals get paid. That seems evil. But if you do get better, what's it matter if someone made a dollar in the process? How do you think they paid for the equipment and medicine that got you better? And isn't there an incentive to get you better? If you die or get sicker, that reflects poorly on the doctors and institutions that treated you.

Profits not an evil thing. Not if you look at it as an incentive that forces businesses to compete and turn out a better quality product or services than their competitors so they turn out a bigger profit in the end. So I don't have a problem with people profiteering on energy, health, education, even water, electricity, roads. It should just about all be privatised as far as I'm concerned. That way I'm more confident I will get a better product and/or service. I'd be more confident that we'll see more advancement and innovations. And we'd all be able to afford it because we'd pay less taxes. The government wouldn't need revenue if they didn't provide as many services. And the poor wouldn't exactly be left behind. People with money would also have more of it to be able to give to those who they see as truly "needy". So I think it works out better more everyone if we had a free-market, capitalist system with a limited government that only exists to protect our liberties.

 

[movingcoolcat]

Very thorough reply^^
I actually like to discuss this with you, because in some ways I agree with you while I disagree with your faith in a "true" capitalist system.
Discussing things on this level is also a chance to test your own beliefs, because you have to try to make a solid argument.
I will be back with a reply, but I am a bit busy today.

I just wanted to say that if one takes away the "labels" it makes you define what you percieve the label contains. A lot of times people do not understand eatchother simply due to different understanding of terms like socialist, marxist, conservative, liberal, capitalist etc....
So I do think its good to establish a common ground of understanding the different terms.

I have grown up in a society influenced by socialist politics. And I find that many of the influences from that political side has created a society in wich I think most people have a fair chance of having a good life.
There are also quite a lot that I am not that happy with, but in general its a pretty safe, stable and secure society.
One of the very good things is that our natural resources is regarded as something that should benefit all people. So all of the money earned by oil and gas is put in a fund, and its established as a rule that we can not use more then 4% of this eatch year. The rest is saved for future generations.
If this fortune had been privatised we could potentially be in the same situation as a lot of african countries, with a lot of natural resources that only benefit a few.
This is just one example of politics as a tool, and the difference it makes.
Politics for me is about both the practical consequenses for the people, and about ideology. But being a practical person, I tend to look at what may be achieved by implementing different types of ideology.
In comparison with a different political systems, I prefer the mix of capitalist and socialist systems. Because then you have two forces keeping eatchother in check. In some ways you are right when you say that the social democratic systems need capitalism. But defining capitalism as the system where people earn money by performing services or producing goods may be to simple. In all societies there has always been people that has made profit by their work, but the society they have done this in has not nessecarily been defined as capitalistic. It might bee good to remember that this ideas and systems are very new in human history, and should not ( in my opinion) be defined as something static or self evident in any way. The idustrialised modern way of organicing society tend to be seen as the only real option, and are taken for granted. This is what I mean by "habitual thinking". We tend to take todays situation for granted, while if we look at history it teach us that things change, sometimes drastically in just a few generations.

Leaving the power to a free market, or to the government solely is in my opinion a bad idea. I also have a different view on restrictions or " limits". I think its the frustration of having limits, and the constant "battle" of forces that leads to innovation and new ways of thinking. Complete freedom is not a desirable state, because we are as social beings dependent on others. This dependency means that we will never bee completely "free" to do whatever we want. The goal of complete individual freedom is also a fairly new ideal. I am not saying its a bad thing- just that in a historical view its new.

In regards to capitalist thinking leading to innovation this might not be true. If we leave the political world and terms for a while and go into social science and research on creativity and innovation, new research shows that the incentive rarely is based on monetary rewards. In fact- the tendency to use bonuses as a way to encourage people to be innovative tends to lead people in to the short sighted, and "safe" or proven path. This comes from research done by Theresa Amabile, who have followed a large number of people 12 years, and concluded that there are many myths about innovation that needs to be adressed.


I will be back with more ( warning!!).
But I realy recommend people to read about different types of research, and get information about different views.
I have a very annoying friend who always reads all the info he can get on things he disagree with, and gets people totally confused because he knows more about "their" opinion.
He say its also his way of question himself, and keep his mind awake and "fresh".
I do think its time to leave the "old" terms, and instead start to look at things form a different and new perspective. Thats what I mean with fun:yes:
Its the right time to start to do it, because the old systems have failed.
The results from communist countries, and from the current financial crisis shows that we need new ideas, and new thougths. But then we also need to leave the security of lables and old systems.

 

[Bob George]

I just wanted to say that if one takes away the "labels" it makes you define what you percieve the label contains. A lot of times people do not understand eatchother simply due to different understanding of terms like socialist, marxist, conservative, liberal, capitalist etc....
So I do think its good to establish a common ground of understanding the different terms.

You have got a point there. Many of the terms you listed have come to mean different things to different people. I call myself a liberal. That may seem strange if you're American since I am totally against government intervention, social programs, centralised government etc. All the things that modern American liberals are for. But I'm a liberal the way Thomas Jefferson was a liberal. I'm a classical liberal. But if an American were to judge me on my economic values they may call me a conservative. Another word that's been twisted over time. It's got to the point were someone like George W Bush calls himself a conservative. So I can see where labels get in the way. I just think they help. But you shouldn't define yourself by a label. Which many people do. Many people shape their beliefs so they can more accurately call themselves liberals or conservatives. Someone who agrees with the Democrats on 75% of issues may change their beliefs on the other 25% to become more in line with their party. I don't like that. There's no reason why you can't be liberal on some issues, conservative on others.

I have grown up in a society influenced by socialist politics. And I find that many of the influences from that political side has created a society in wich I think most people have a fair chance of having a good life.
There are also quite a lot that I am not that happy with, but in general its a pretty safe, stable and secure society.

It depends on what makes you tick. If you are content with being safe, stable and secure then you could very well be happy living in a country heavily influenced by socialism. But I have just have different values. For me I value freedom and liberty above almost everything. I'm a romantic in that sense. I read the founding fathers of America and I want what they wanted.

I too live in a country that has been influenced in part by socialism and has a history of being very socialist. The Australian government used to own a lot and provide a lot of services but in the last 30 years a lot of what the government owned has been privatised. We still have public health, a welfare system, state schools etc. And yes, I'm content. But that's not enough. Not when I know how much better things could be if we did some things differently. Just because I'm doing OK in a system where government if big and does a lot for the people doesn't mean I don't hunger for a system where government is small and lets people do their own thing.

One of the very good things is that our natural resources is regarded as something that should benefit all people. So all of the money earned by oil and gas is put in a fund, and its established as a rule that we can not use more then 4% of this eatch year. The rest is saved for future generations.
If this fortune had been privatised we could potentially be in the same situation as a lot of african countries, with a lot of natural resources that only benefit a few.

If a private entity owns supplies of a natural resources, and at a consumer level everyone has an equal opportunity to use and consume their product, then how does that not benefit all people? If an oil companies drills for oil, refines it and converts into fuel for our cars, then that benefits so many people in ways most people don't even think of. It doesn't only benefit the shareholders of the oil company who make a profit. It benefits the consumer who buys the petrol and can now drive his or her car, the gas station attendants, the workers at the oil refinery, the government who charges a tax on the import and export of oil. Everyone has an opportunity in some way to benefit from that. The can get a job working for the oil company, the refinery, the gas station, or they can simply benefit by purchasing the final product. Everyone already benefits, even the government.

In comparison with a different political systems, I prefer the mix of capitalist and socialist systems. Because then you have two forces keeping eatchother in check.

Or they could be two forces that work together to consolidate power. The government nationalises an industry then consolidates to private entities. That's essentially what's happening in the US now. It happens all over the world in fact. It's a horrible practice. And the reason it's possible is because of the implementation of socialism and capitalism. You have big corporations who want power, mixed with a big government that has the power. Deadly mix if you ask me. If you take away power from the government and give it to the individual, corporations are forced to gain power lawfully and through good business practises that end up benefiting consumers and shareholders as well. So it's all good.

In some ways you are right when you say that the social democratic systems need capitalism. But defining capitalism as the system where people earn money by performing services or producing goods may be to simple.

Why can't you define capitalism as that? Because systems that are apparently capitalism aren't that anymore? Maybe that's because those systems have implemented socialist policies too much and now the government is powerful enough to consolidate power to private entities. Just as I was explaining before. In a free-market capitalist system, people earn money by providing good and services to others. Just like you said. By definition that's exactly what it means.

In all societies there has always been people that has made profit by their work, but the society they have done this in has not nessecarily been defined as capitalistic. It might bee good to remember that this ideas and systems are very new in human history, and should not ( in my opinion) be defined as something static or self evident in any way.

Well the reward system has always been around. The barter system has always been around. It just hasn't always been the exchange on money for goods and services. Way back when, it used to be the exchange of goods and services for goods and services. True trade. As long as man had a brain developed enough to understand the concept of giving someone something in exchange for something else, the free-market system has always been around.

Leaving the power to a free market, or to the government solely is in my opinion a bad idea. I also have a different view on restrictions or " limits". I think its the frustration of having limits, and the constant "battle" of forces that leads to innovation and new ways of thinking. Complete freedom is not a desirable state, because we are as social beings dependent on others. This dependency means that we will never bee completely "free" to do whatever we want. The goal of complete individual freedom is also a fairly new ideal. I am not saying its a bad thing- just that in a historical view its new.

The idea that limits create innovation is interesting. It definitely is true that if you take away the ability to do things the way they've always been done, people are forced to try new ways of doing things. You can't argue with that. But sometimes, often times, limits get in the way of innovation. Yes limits force change, but only the change that those who enforce the limits want to see. If the government wants solar and wind power, the can enforce limits on the industry to invent ways of utilising wind and solar power in a way that's cost effective and provides just as much power as oil and coal. But when if someone thought of something even better than wind and solar. Maybe geothermal or something like that. The limits would also restrict that because they'd be set up in a way that forces people towards wind and solar and away from everything else. So yes, limits can force some change but they can also prevent other kinds of change and I just plain take issue with the government using force to do anything. Especially when it doesn't have to.

In regards to capitalist thinking leading to innovation this might not be true. If we leave the political world and terms for a while and go into social science and research on creativity and innovation, new research shows that the incentive rarely is based on monetary rewards. In fact- the tendency to use bonuses as a way to encourage people to be innovative tends to lead people in to the short sighted, and "safe" or proven path. This comes from research done by Theresa Amabile, who have followed a large number of people 12 years, and concluded that there are many myths about innovation that needs to be adressed.

Well Theresa Amabile is quite right. I'd say most people with new, exciting ideas are rarely looking for a monetary reward. Most of them are just passionate about something. Say it be computers and they want to invent a new, innovative way of computing. Some people desire the place in history they will get if the invent something totally new and revolutionary. Fame and recognition are incentives to a lot of people. Money is usually the last thing they think about. That usually comes at about the stage when they've invented something and now they want to get it out there to the public. To do that they usually have to sell it to a big company that has the influence to popularise the product. Now the profit incentive comes in to play.

First of all, the company isn't going to be interested in something that they think wont be profitable for them. So they're thinking about profit. But now the inventor is thinking about profit too. He or she never really thought about it until now. But now that they're actually trying to sell their invention, they're not going to give it up for free. I really do doubt that anyone would give up something they put a lot of time and effort into for free. So the profit incentive comes in to play for them as well. If they aren't going to get anything rewarding for their invention, maybe they'll just hang on to it and we'll never see it. That's exactly how the profit incentive brings us new and innovative ideas. Initially, profit doesn't influence innovation. But without a profit incentive we don't ever see that innovation and it becomes useless. So the profit incentive is very important for innovation.

I will be back with more ( warning!!).
But I realy recommend people to read about different types of research, and get information about different views.
I have a very annoying friend who always reads all the info he can get on things he disagree with, and gets people totally confused because he knows more about "their" opinion.
He say its also his way of question himself, and keep his mind awake and "fresh".
I do think its time to leave the "old" terms, and instead start to look at things form a different and new perspective. Thats what I mean with fun:yes:
Its the right time to start to do it, because the old systems have failed.
The results from communist countries, and from the current financial crisis shows that we need new ideas, and new thougths. But then we also need to leave the security of lables and old systems.

Well I look forward to you next reply because I really am enjoying this discussion. It's been very educational. I like being introduced to new ideas and do agree there are some old ideas that need to be forgotten and people need to move on to move on to new ideas. It just happens that for me there is an old, long-standing ideal that I believe will work best and that's the ideology of free-market capitalism. Maybe it wont work best. Maybe it'll fail like communism. But at least no where in the world today do we see free-market capitalism. There are rare examples of it being tried through-out history but nothing that gives us an idea of it it works in the long term.

People are reluctant to try the idea of giving individuals the power. Especially those in power. Those who have the power to change things wont because they want to hang on to their power. Not only that, they want more of it. So big governments and the private entities that work with them behind closed doors will never go for a free-market because it'd make it impossible for them to consolidate power unless they do it lawfully and morally, which they don't want to do.

 

[movingcoolcat]

This kind of sums up most of my view on this.
Maybe we can take the discussion from there?

Just one comment:

I find that having your basic needs covered, is the foundation for freedom and liberty. Without that, there is no room or energy for pursuit of happiness, for reaching for the stars. I think that most of us, who live in societies where these needs are covered have time and energy to feel that "there has to be more to life then this". And we seek and find different answaers to that longing.
But I think that taking one step back, and considering your blessings also can make us realise how fragile this situation is.
I find the saying that; do your duty, demand your rights should come in that order. We need to realise that our blessings are not "given". They need to be earned, and not just in money. We need to start to care. Because unless we understand that what we do everyday matter, we do not understand the value of life. I am but a grain of sand seen in the view of time, but my actions matter for those around me, and for the future.
Being free is an ideal, but so is belonging, being needed, being part of something bigger then yourself. I think that as mutch as we crave freedom, we also crave to belong as we are social creatures.
And that is where we in some ways have failed; we have made systems so big where the feeling of belonging and being needed is not felt. We have made systems where the individual person fel that he has no power of influence. In that respect i very mutch agree with you that we need to focus on local communities, that have enough power.

One of the reasons why I think that the future may be better, is that there are many small movements towards a different way of living, a different way of thinking about what matters in life. And this may seem like I am going back to the "happy hippie days"; but I do think that money, and focus on kapitalistic growth is not the answear for happiness.
I live in one of the richest contries in the world, but we do not score high on happiness. After basic needs are covered its different things that realy matter to make people happy: love, family, ability to enjoy life, having some interests that go beyond yourself, being content with your work, having friends, feeling that there is meaning and sense in life, health.......

You could argue that money is needed to achieve this, hence the need to focus on economic growth. But this argument does not consider that the distribution of wealth is higly disproportonate, and not according to the distribution of natural resources in countries or population. This is a system flaw, and while some might put me in the "communist" camp; I do think that this unfair distribution of wealth needs to be adressed. But I do not know how................Any suggestions?

 

[dancemasterman]

If I'm sick and my doctor who is an expert in medical science obviously, thus he's called a doctor, tells me something I'm not going to arrogantly assume I know better than him.

If an economists have a certain belief pertaining to economics I'm not going to arrogantly assume I know better than them.

If Intelligence agencies put out a number about the number of recruits Alquida obtained last month, again I'm not going to arrogantly assume I know better than them.

If genetecists tell us that a certain disease is genetic, I'm not going to arrogantly assume I know better than them.

and if metereologists tell us that global warming is real, than how stupid can a person be to arrogantly assume they know better than all the world's leading climate scientists?

Jesus crimany. This is worse than the whole "Obama is a muslim terrorist."

 

[movingcoolcat]

For arguments sake:
Doctors can be wrong.
Scientists work within the limits of knowledge attained at this time and most of them are aware that they work in a field that always has some uncertainty in it.
Economists...well; financial crisis- remember? ( and yes there were a few warning voices but most of what is said is people trying to save face).

Point is: this is humans we are talking about. We are prone to deny, discuss, be arrogant, question theories, we are lazy, unwilling to change, shortsighted, and some times able to do wonderful things. We are anything but "easy".

And maybe its not about being arrogant, but about being concerned about other issues as well.

Its not hard to talk "smart", or to put other peoples opinions down.
The hard thing is to try to understand eatchother. Especially when you disagree. That is the real test. Because unless we understand eatchother, or at least are willing to try; how are we going to work together?

 

[dancemasterman]

A capitalist system may not be the ultimate way of life but it's the best system we've got. Every time socialism/communism has been tried it's failed catastrophically.

What about the WPA put into effect by Roosevelt? that hasn't failed. It's still going strong, and without it we would be economically devestated. It helped get us out of the great depression. Instead of leaving raods up to private investors to charge you a toll every time you drive out of your drive way, the streets and roads are publicly owned. that is socialism. It is completely socialism in every definition of the word.

What about socialised education? What about NASA? Fire departments? Postal service?

None of those systems failed at all.

Some modern countries have turned to a system of government sometimes called a "social democracy" that implement aspects of socialism and of capitalism.

But they only survive because of their capitalist aspects. Capitalism creates wealth, wealth creates happiness. Socialised systems are unsustainable and ultimately lead to a failed state.

To say your opposed to socialism or capitalism is a strong lack of objectivity. It's like asking a person if they agree with the law. Well, what law? Be more specific. It doesn't matter what it's called. What matter is what kind of result it is going to produce.

Capitalism has motivated investors to come up with HD widescreen tvs, PS3, Off the Wall, Thriller, Bad, Dangerous, History, Blood on the Dance Floor, Invincible and the 02 concerts. It has also led to economic collapse, worker extortion, massive pollution, and oil dependancy on middle eastern countries which has corrupted our foreign policy.

Sometimes capitalism works. Sometimes heavy government regulation works. And sometimes socialism works. In Iran the oil supply is publickly owned. All profit and revenue off it goes to the government saving the Iranian taxpayers a lot of money while contributing to welfare programs. In that situation socialism is the best choice, and it's working.

In America for a very long time we have used socialized education. Not everybody could afford to pay a teacher to teach their kids obviously. So we have public education. Publicly owned education. We all pay into it, and we all have equal access to it. And it's working. without it many kids would be denied the oppotunity to get an education.

In Europe thay have successfuly had universal health care for a very long time. And it's working.

Capitalism policies led to the current economic crisis, and the bail out which is socialism, prevented an economic depression according to economists.

Now china which is a communist country is also one of the world's leading economies. doesn't that prove right there that it is possible for a country to simultaneously be socialist and economically strong at the same time?

NASA is another example of publicly owned means of production and services, and it's the best space program in the world. No free market capitalist space venture ever has or ever will come even close to it.

Like I said a government run program or agency can be good or bad. It all depends on whether or not the plan they put in place is a good plan or a bad plan. To be universally opposed to socialism would be just as wrong as universally opposing capitalism. Right now capitalism is necessary. It helps our system move forward. but it can't do it alone. The government has to step in and intervene as it does or we would all be extorted to extreme poverty.

Look at alternative energy. does anybody think the free market has done a good job there? Obviously government intervention is absolutely necessary.

But they only survive because of their capitalist aspects.

true, and vice versa, they ALSO only survive because of their socialism aspects as well. You can't take away either one without destroying the country. Under today's current technology and current economic situation Market Socialism is the best system. market socialism is a combination of socialism and capitalism which is what the U.S. has had for a very long time, and we've gotten economically stronger as we moved further in the direction of socialism.

 

[Sifa_Dias]

So is this thread now about the different social/economic systems, instead of global warming? It's a little confusing. In any case, if it is about the system, then dancemasterman is spot on. It's a combination of things that works best. Depending on the problem, you apply a certain solution. Pure socialism fails, pure capitalism fails too.

 

[Bob George]

What about the WPA put into effect by Roosevelt? that hasn't failed. It's still going strong, and without it we would be economically devestated. It helped get us out of the great depression. Instead of leaving raods up to private investors to charge you a toll every time you drive out of your drive way, the streets and roads are publicly owned. that is socialism. It is completely socialism in every definition of the word.

What about socialised education? What about NASA? Fire departments? Postal service?

None of those systems failed at all.

WPA definitely had it's critics. But even if you were to concede that it does work and is worth the federal dollars, some social programs offered by the government does not equal a socialist system. I'm a free-market capitalist but I don't oppose some social programs. Although I can object to some of the things you mentioned. Especially education. But I'll get to that later as you bring up education and NASA further on in your post.

But I'll take on the postal service now because that's an easy one to tackle. You've never delivered something through a private postal service? Much more efficient. Pretty obvious really to anyone who's had experience with posting privately as opposed to using the public system. Across the board the private sector generally handles things better than the public sector. Because there are incentives that exist in the private sector that just aren't there in government. Although there are some things that I think are better off being publicly run and paid for with tax dollars such as emergency services (you mentioned the fire department). So I'll concede that.

It has also led to economic collapse, worker extortion, massive pollution, and oil dependancy on middle eastern countries which has corrupted our foreign policy.

That's simplifying it. In every case government has had something to do with it. The economic collapse is a fault of the government. Just ask Ron Paul or Peter Schiff or any of these guys who predicted it before it happened as opposed to clowns who said everything was fine leading up to the collapse and then when the collapse happened blamed it on not enough regulation and not enough government. Oil dependency is also a construct of government regulation. Oil companies are pretty much only allowed to do what the government tells them to do. They can't drill locally for oil. And as I explained before, the government has to open up avenues to alternative energies like nuclear or whatever. An energy company can't just build a nuclear power plant and switch everyone over to nuclear power. I wish they could. But it's not that easy. Close the department of energy and just watch how quickly the US switches over to alternative energy.

In America for a very long time we have used socialized education. Not everybody could afford to pay a teacher to teach their kids obviously. So we have public education. Publicly owned education. We all pay into it, and we all have equal access to it. And it's working. without it many kids would be denied the oppotunity to get an education.

Public education is a flawed system with no incentive to improve or compete. Figures differ from country to country, but to sustain most public school system, the government spends thousands of dollars sometimes per student. It's a very costly system. Yet in most cases children still get a better education at a private school than a public one. Even though public schools cost more to run. Look up how much the US government spends per child on education. The tell me if it's working.

In Europe thay have successfuly had universal health care for a very long time. And it's working.

And they rely on the US health industry for new technologies, new procedures, new drugs etc. You need private companies in the health industry to make medical advancements. It also costs a lot of money to run a public health system. Many countries who have single-payer of universal health care struggle to pay for it. It's driving them bankrupt, along with the welfare system, education and everything else that costs more money than it's worth.

Capitalism policies led to the current economic crisis, and the bail out which is socialism, prevented an economic depression according to economists.

Which capitalist policies? Central banking is actually a part of the communist manifesto. And that's had a lot to do with the economic crisis we're in according to those who predicted it before it happened and tried to warn us. Corporatism has nothing to do with capitalism. It's a fascist ideology. Government buddies up with private corporations and you want to blame that on free-market principles? Some economist do that though. And those same economists say the bank bailout bill prevented a depression, which you pointed out. But what credibility do they have? They couldn't even see this coming. Those who did see this coming and warned us about it, still don't say it's over and still warn us that it could get worse. Obama's just fighting fire with fire. To fix a crisis cause by market manipulation, he's manipulating the market.

Now china which is a communist country is also one of the world's leading economies. doesn't that prove right there that it is possible for a country to simultaneously be socialist and economically strong at the same time?

China has relied on capitalism to stay economically strong. But aside from that, China may be doing great and are economically and militarily strong, but how many Chinese people are truly happy? They are some of the most controlled people in the world. That's my major beef with socialism/communism. The more the government does to provide equality between the classes, the more they have to restrict people so they can't earn more than the government says they can, so they can't accumulate personal fortune. It's not a desirable system for the individual. The ability to be free to do what you want and live on your own terms matters more to me than how economically strong a country is.

NASA is another example of publicly owned means of production and services, and it's the best space program in the world. No free market capitalist space venture ever has or ever will come even close to it.

In it's prime NASA did a lot to further our understanding of space. But that was then. Now they continually make mistakes such as proceeding with a launch when people on the ground advised against it, resulting in people on board dying. Research into these types of accidents shows that the fault lies in the bureaucratic process (i.e. who can authorise a shuttle for take-off, who can pull the plug on a lift-off etc). NASA just isn't what it used to be. Private companies are leading the way now. Richard Branson has been exploring new space initiatives for years. I'm sure you've heard about it. Virgin Galactic. He plans to offer space flights to the public. Just incredible. The private sector is moving forward while the public sector is falling behind and even investing money in private ventures such as Virgin Galactic. There are also other private companies who wish to compete with Virgin Galactic, which is excellent because it will create another modern-day space race which will advance space technology like the USA-USSR space race did.

Like I said a government run program or agency can be good or bad. It all depends on whether or not the plan they put in place is a good plan or a bad plan. To be universally opposed to socialism would be just as wrong as universally opposing capitalism. Right now capitalism is necessary. It helps our system move forward. but it can't do it alone. The government has to step in and intervene as it does or we would all be extorted to extreme poverty.

The government doesn't have to step in. Everything time it does step in the results are disastrous. This current economic crisis, case in point. The market doesn't need intervention. I really encourage you to read a little about the Austrian school of economics. The Keynesian theory is really all people hear about and it's a shame because if you really study it, the Keynesian way of thinking is exactly what got us into this mess.

Look at alternative energy. does anybody think the free market has done a good job there? Obviously government intervention is absolutely necessary.

Alternative energy is not possible with DEregulation. The government has to DEregulate the energy industry to allow companies to explore alternative energy. As far as energy goes, nothing can be done in a major way with the government letting it happen. But in a small way, the free market has done a lot for alternative energy. Solar is a great example. You can buy solar panels through a private company. You can get them to come in and install it. One of my neighbours got it installed yesterday. You can run your house on solar electricity, courtesy of the private sector. So I don't know what all these environmentalist are complaining about. They have access to alternative energy. Quite whining and just make the switch.

true, and vice versa, they ALSO only survive because of their socialism aspects as well. You can't take away either one without destroying the country. Under today's current technology and current economic situation Market Socialism is the best system. market socialism is a combination of socialism and capitalism which is what the U.S. has had for a very long time, and we've gotten economically stronger as we moved further in the direction of socialism.

Capitalism + Socialism = Corporatism. You can't give government the power to nationalise or socialise industries because they'll just consolidate that power to private corporations.

 

[Bob George]

If I'm sick and my doctor who is an expert in medical science obviously, thus he's called a doctor, tells me something I'm not going to arrogantly assume I know better than him.

Doctors can be wrong. That's why if I'm prescribed for major medication, or advise to undergo a major procedure, I'd be sure to get a second or even third opinion. Everyone knows that.

If an economists have a certain belief pertaining to economics I'm not going to arrogantly assume I know better than them.

Economists can be wrong. A lot of economists were wrong about this current economic crisis. Some weren't and they predicted it so I obviously listen to them. I don't assume I know more than the economists who got it wrong. But I obviously assume the economists who got it right know more than the economists who got it wrong. So even if the economists who got it wrong make up 60% of economists, I'm still going to listen to those who got it right. The majority is not always right.

If Intelligence agencies put out a number about the number of recruits Alquida obtained last month, again I'm not going to arrogantly assume I know better than them.

Intelligence agencies are often wrong. That's the nature of intelligence agencies. It's all guess-work. That's what they do. So a lot of what they say will be wrong. That doesn't mean you don't listen to them. But you don't blindly follow them into Iraq to retrieve WMDs that aren't there.

If genetecists tell us that a certain disease is genetic, I'm not going to arrogantly assume I know better than them.

Well yes obviously if most say it's genetic you're going to listen. True, I wouldn't assume to know more than them.

and if metereologists tell us that global warming is real, than how stupid can a person be to arrogantly assume they know better than all the world's leading climate scientists?

And just ignore those climate scientists who aren't as alarmists as others are about global warming and man's effect on it? That seems stupid to me. The political community is far more alarmist about global warming than the scientific community. That's why I don't trust them. Environmental groups are leading the cause. And environmentalists have been wrong a hundred times before about something that could potentially destroy the Earth. So forgive me if I don't want to throw in the towel and blindly go along with them when there are still many loud voices saying "wait a minute".

"Obama is a muslim terrorist."

If Muslim terrorist means he terrorises Muslims, then yes. lol

 

[movingcoolcat]

So is this thread now about the different social/economic systems, instead of global warming? It's a little confusing. In any case, if it is about the system, then dancemasterman is spot on. It's a combination of things that works best. Depending on the problem, you apply a certain solution. Pure socialism fails, pure capitalism fails too.

This discussion is a very good example of how the situation is; people are disagreeing both about how serious the situation is, about wether its real, and do we have any influence on this.
And its also about what action is right- and that leads to the discussion about politics. Whenever people disagree, its always about finding the true reason of the disagreement. In my opinion, discussing things this way we have a chance of understanding eatchother instead of throwing the same old arguments at eatchother. Witch does not lead anywhere.

In this discussion i have learned a lot more about what Bob George realy means, what his ideals are, and why this leads tho the concerns he has about government regulation. And I can understand it, and agree in some points. Dancemasterman has also given a very good argumentation.
And I see this problem from my point of view, with the information and knowledge I have. And if I open my ears and eyes and listen to differing views, and see different perspectives i have a chance to learn, or to consolidate my original opinion when I test my argumentation agains others.
Point is: open minded discussions are much more interesting then just assuming that people who disagree with you is either ignorant or bad, and treating discussions as a way of showing off or trying to "win".

I am very happy that this discussion is going the way it does:yes:.
Because this kind of opposing views is one of the reasons why its so difficult to reach agreements about what actions we should take.
In a small scale, this is what its all about.

 

[Bob George]

Agreed, movingcoolcat. Conversations in real life lead from one topic to another. So it's not a surprise we've gone from global warming, to government intervention, to corporate control to economics. It's all related.

But anyway, I'll bring the discussion back to global warming specifically.

The reason I started this thread was the same reason I started the Obama thread. Because I wanted to play devil's advocate and give a different side to the story that's not usually heard. It's so frustrating to me that so many treat global warming as a closed issue with no room or no time for debate. According to the global warming activist, global warming is happening, it's man-made and government enforced caps and taxes of CO2 emissions is the one and only way to prevent it. No other solution is valid, no other argument is valid, everyone who disagrees is wrong.

You should be worried anytime the government and government funded organisations like the IPCC call for drastic action now, not time for questions, no place for dissent. I would simply like to slow down a bit and evaluate the situation. Ask questions and make sure that before anything drastic is done, that man-made global warming is without a doubt happening and will be disastrous and government and only government has the solution.

So to get the debate rolling again, here is a YouTube clip of John Stossel reporting on global warming. It's short but very interesting.



I'd like people to watch this video and respond. What say you about what Stossel says about Al Gore's own chart showing that the rise in temperature comes before increased CO2 levels, and the two factors are up two hundreds of years apart? What say you to the group of scientists who disagree with the IPCC on global warming? There are many things brought up in this video. I'd like to hear rebuttals from those who believe the global warming hype more than I do.

 

[MJsBollywoodGirl7]

Sorry Bob but that whole video is a hoax not global warming. Because global warming is real whether you want to believe it or not. The proof is all around us because the glaciers are melting. The ancient snow on Mt. Kilamajaro is melting and in about 20 to 30 years from now there will be no more snow on Mt. Kilamajaro. Island nations are at risk because the sea levels are rising. The permafrost in Alaska is melting releasing dangerous methane gas. And the one thing I like for you to explain is why is Antartica a lot smaller now than it was 30 years ago.
And if the polar bears are doing so good now how come they are the first species to become endangered because of global warming.

Like I said global warming is real.