State Guaranteed Supplementary Income

[boost]

Thanks.

[Renton]

I'm not really invested in this conversation, but I want to point out that amoral doesn't mean wrong/evil (ie: the opposite of right/good), it means existing without right and wrong.

That's an important distinction, as capitalism is often cited as immoral when it is in fact amoral.

[Renton]

Since the analogy is deemed fair game, I'm going to run with it: I'm essentially saying you're a bible thumper, who's picking and choosing which religious tenets he wishes to support, and discarding those which are inconvenient.

A couple of points. First, I don't see an inherent problem with not buying 100% of the minarchist package. Second, even if I did believe 100% of it, I don't see an inherent problem in trying to push the more palatable parts of that agenda in a conversation like this. It's an utter waste of breath to convince someone like you (that is, a liberal or left leaning person) of immorality of taxation, even if I believed in such a thing. It would get us absolutely nowhere because its too extreme a position for you to meet me in the middle of. Whether the first point or the second point applies to this debate is pretty irrelevant because the objective of debate is to find common ground and persuade the other to come toward your side if only just a little bit.

I do not act in any such way. Do I dream of a day in which we have moved past this whole climate change "debate?" Of course. But I don't know anyone I don't consider a quack who thinks the solution is to flip down the lever on all the fossil fuel burning energy producers.

I'm sorry I made the logical leap from "burning coal for power shouldn't happen" to "Jabu wants to kill the coal power switch worldwide." Still it's important to remember how dangerous it is economically to impede a source of cheap power responsible for 40% of all electricity in the world. Even imposing heavy sanctions on it would be devastating, because the point is that it is cheaper than alternatives which do exist. Making it just as expensive as one of those alternatives is exactly the same as prohibiting it outright.

So I assume you are in favor of subsidizing other sources while imposing minor disincentives on coal production. There are problems with this approach. First, you're doing it in the context of a government that is beholden to lobbyists, and truth be told there be more on one side than the other (Stringer Bell, the Wire, 2002). Second, you have a small group of people diverting massive amounts of resources based on their discretion, which in tandem with the first point, introduces the possibility of corruption and incompetence, or both. So the slimy coal-backed U.S. Senator who chairs the committee for alternative energy research allocates the funds to probably unoptimal uses and imposes penalties which seem to amazingly affect some players in the coal industry a bit harder than others. Before long you have a state-enabled coal monopoly and another Senator who retires to K Street. Meanwhile, there are market solutions to this. The technology for cheaper alternative fuel is being vied for by loads of private companies. The shift from fossil WILL happen, it just has to be economically viable.

I compare this with recycling. State-sponsored efforts to recycle are ridiculous and counterproductive. The whole concept of recycling has basically been debunked, as the embodied energy involved is greater than the gain from doing it. There are exceptions to this, however. Recycling aluminum and other metals is +ev. And, not surprisingly, it doesn't take a government forcing people to do it for people to do it. There's money in it and as a result a huge chunk of the metal we use gets recycled. I think about 40% of steel used in building construction in America is recycled steel. As soon as it makes economic sense to recycle paper and plastic, we'll start doing that too, and not before, despite the best efforts of governments or anyone really.

BP and Halliburton

State-enabled yo.

[wufwugy]

I'm unconvinced that fossil industries have done much to thwart renewable industry growth. That idea is thrown around a lot, but other forms of energy have been about as popular as they should be relative to their costs (solar tech) and public perception (nuclear).

I'm unsure of my position on the role of government. So far no academics have constructed a resounding theory on the matter. Two examples I think are worth discussing are (1) rockets and (2) highways. Lack of good enough rocket technology hurts our economy more than anybody comprehends, but one man, Elon Musk, is changing all of that. He may not succeed, but he is willing to lose like 200MM in the process. He's a rare breed, but if he didn't exist, then there would be nobody to pursue rocket technology other than possible others like him or government programs that use tax revenues but operate at a loss. The benefits to success in reusable rocket technology are enormous, and the future will owe a debt to Musk if SpaceX achieves its goal. People like him are exceedingly rare, but I'm surprised that many people who think that charity should be the model for good deeds don't use him as an example. I have a feeling it's because he probably disagrees with that model even if he is that model

About highways, so far they have all needed to be built by the government. It is possible that large investors could have gotten in the game in a similar way that the ISPs work, but I have a hard time seeing how this would work better. Highways are land intensive and conducive to oligopolies and price gouging. However, there would be a ton of benefit to a transportation system that was privately run if there were many competitive counters. This would enhance the infrastructure and service, and decrease costs of travel. But is that even possible for something so land intensive?

Government is important. I don't agree with either end of the spectrum that it either needs to be bigger or smaller. I think it needs to be as good as it can be, whatever that may be

[wufwugy]

I compare this with recycling. State-sponsored efforts to recycle are ridiculous and counterproductive. The whole concept of recycling has basically been debunked, as the embodied energy involved is greater than the gain from doing it.

I've tried to find out if this is true, but haven't come up with a better source than Penn and Teller, which isn't an adequate source. Do you have a better one?

[boost]

Renton, idk.. like, what can I say when your only concern is the economy when discussing renewable energy policy?

Do you believe climate scientist are being alarmist? Do you believe that just because we have dodged extinction so far, that we always will? Clearly crippling the economy is a last resort, but it's possible it's our only resort, if we are even afforded that, if we don't work to fix this now/soon/decades ago.

And "State-enabled yo." is your "Well, these are my beliefs, and they're valid since you can't prove there isn't a god." The premises of these "gotcha!" arguments spawn from will never be demonstrated, and so when they are reduced to their truest form, they are simple logical trickery. I mean, you can't be for real with that nonsense. A far left leaning individual could make the same argument when government is blamed, "private sector distortion and corruption of the state."

[boost]

I've tried to find out if this is true, but haven't come up with a better source than Penn and Teller, which isn't an adequate source. Do you have a better one?

Again, I'm pretty sure he's right on his point that recycling most materials thought to be recyclable, is too energy intensive to be profitable. But that's still just one question that needs to be asked. There are tons of hidden costs to industry, and not reusing material may be a catastrophically large hidden expense.

Another issue that comes up with a free market is liability, especially when we are talking about industries capable of climate/weather/economy altering/crippling actions. These risks are often beyond calculation, and so we have disaster relief funds, the FDIC, etc etc. In a completely free market, how do you handle the following: An honest company who's acting in it's best interest, makes a buttload of cash, pays it out to shareholders/executives/etc. then a huge disaster is caused by the company, a disaster whose cost exceeds the capital available to the company. The company can just fold, and now who's responsible?

[Renton]

Renton, idk.. like, what can I say when your only concern is the economy when discussing renewable energy policy?

It's not really that it's my only concern, its just that sweeping changes aren't going to occur until the economics agree. Progressives believe that governments should push us in that direction but (IMO) governments don't really have the power and efficacy to do it. Subsidies just suck, even if they are well-intentioned subsidies. Selectively taxing industries that pollute more just kills jobs and impoverishes people. Can you imagine if China (the by-far biggest coal consumer) imposed a harsh carbon tax? Millions of people would fall into abject poverty.

Do you believe climate scientist are being alarmist? Do you believe that just because we have dodged extinction so far, that we always will? Clearly crippling the economy is a last resort, but it's possible it's our only resort, if we are even afforded that, if we don't work to fix this now/soon/decades ago.

No I agree it is a very real problem, I just don't think governments have the power to do much about it. I don't think strangling the U.S. economy to set a positive example for the world (as if China or India would ever follow our lead) is a good idea. The answer most likely will be new technology, not a change of our habits. I don't accept climate change as a valid criticism of libertarianism because governments have not demonstrated an ability to make meaningful progress at solving the problem either.

And "State-enabled yo." is your "Well, these are my beliefs, and they're valid since you can't prove there isn't a god." The premises of these "gotcha!" arguments spawn from will never be demonstrated, and so when they are reduced to their truest form, they are simple logical trickery. I mean, you can't be for real with that nonsense. A far left leaning individual could make the same argument when government is blamed, "private sector distortion and corruption of the state."

I'm just saying that you can't use a corporation like Halliburton to criticise free enterprise. In a world where governments didn't have 100s of billions of dollars to wage wars for no reason, corporations like Halliburton wouldn't be capable of causing such harm. Private corporations are expected to operate out of self-interest, and easily corruptible governments with deep coffers that can be spent with virtually no discretion enable such corporations to have many new options to make money at any expense to others. It is a simpler solution to limit a government's ability to waste massive amounts of resources than it is to purge political corruption from the world.

[wufwugy]

Again, I'm pretty sure he's right on his point that recycling most materials thought to be recyclable, is too energy intensive to be profitable. But that's still just one question that needs to be asked. There are tons of hidden costs to industry, and not reusing material may be a catastrophically large hidden expense.

Another issue that comes up with a free market is liability, especially when we are talking about industries capable of climate/weather/economy altering/crippling actions. These risks are often beyond calculation, and so we have disaster relief funds, the FDIC, etc etc. In a completely free market, how do you handle the following: An honest company who's acting in it's best interest, makes a buttload of cash, pays it out to shareholders/executives/etc. then a huge disaster is caused by the company, a disaster whose cost exceeds the capital available to the company. The company can just fold, and now who's responsible?

Markets don't account for most externalities. Governments don't either even if they account for more. Attempts by governments to account for externalities are possibly important, but not without a host of unforeseen flaws. There is not a measure in existence that can adequately calculate the effects of most long run future costs. In the case you provide about the company, nobody has the right answer. Nobody. Our current answer involves a ton of legal work that can amount to a lot or a little.

Disaster relief funds are probably good. FDIC maybe isn't. The FDIC creates a moral hazard, the problems of which are to an extent I don't understand. Virtually all regulations are not without incentives created by them, most of which distort and create higher costs or unusual incentives.

If recycling uses more energy than it saves, it is very likely a waste of the very thing it's trying to save. For example, if you burn more oil recycling plastic than you do making plastic out of oil, you're using the plastics resources more quickly. Recycling is important if it saves energy or if it's of a limited resource. But if it's a limited resource, then recycling will be cheaper than primary extraction anyways, so the game plays itself out just fine.

Supply and demand is powerful stuff. I would quantify it as a sociological phenomenon

[Renton]

In a completely free market, how do you handle the following: An honest company who's acting in it's best interest, makes a buttload of cash, pays it out to shareholders/executives/etc. then a huge disaster is caused by the company, a disaster whose cost exceeds the capital available to the company. The company can just fold, and now who's responsible?

I'm not sure that the results would be any different than they are now. I guess it depends on the manner of the disaster. In real-world America, I'm pretty sure if a pharmaceutical company makes a bad batch of drugs that makes a lot of people sick, they just go bankrupt in a class action suit and thats the end of it. It isn't like there's extra remittance from the government to those sick people. In a pure anarchy, FEMA wouldn't exist so you've got me there. As far as the FDIC, in a pure anarchy any bank worth its salt would be privately insured, so that would be exactly the same as in the real world.

[Renton]

I've tried to find out if this is true, but haven't come up with a better source than Penn and Teller, which isn't an adequate source. Do you have a better one?

I don't have anything bookmarked but its prevailing sentiment, and intuitively obvious in cases like paper, which should obviously never be recycled. It's just too abundant and cheap and its biodegradable anyway. Plastic is not as obvious since its tough to quantify the negative value of the pollution it causes (since it doesn't degrade).

[wufwugy]

Do you believe climate scientist are being alarmist? Do you believe that just because we have dodged extinction so far, that we always will? Clearly crippling the economy is a last resort, but it's possible it's our only resort, if we are even afforded that, if we don't work to fix this now/soon/decades ago.

Every white majority country on the planet could sink into the sea and it would do little to halt rapid ecological destruction. This battle will only be won through technology. Sadly the world will be a different place by the time that happens. Humans trying to better their lives cannot be stopped, and those in Brazil, China, and India have no choice but to basically destroy the environment to get that. For example, poverty in Brazil is largely due to its shitty geography, where its only good agricultural lands are cut off from its natural transportation avenues. It has millions of abject poor, stuck in favelas, whose only hope for a better life is to move inland to the farm areas. But this is destroying the environment and using more fossil energy anyways. There is nothing America can do to stop it, nor is there anything America would do to stop it. I have a hard time seeing how this problem can be solved this century. The technology that can provide for millions of poor in tight places is currently unheard of

[TheLongGrind]

I don't need much , an internet connection , some mac and cheese and proper fapping materials. As long as the market provides me with these things at a reasonable price no fucks given. just my 2 faps

[spoonitnow]

Boost be like I have this idea for other people to give shit up and save the Earth out of the goods of their hearts, and Renton be like I want people to actually save the Earth because that fluffy feel-good shit isn't going to happen.

[wufwugy]

The thing about government is that it works great when people are smart about it, but it works terribly when people aren't. The ACA should have just been optional expansion of Medicare for all, and that's it. This would have created far fewer stupid regulations that the ACA did (like business incentives and website exchanges), while increasing competitiveness for everybody and insuring everybody at cheaper costs. But we can't have that because America is afraid of taxes. We have so many stupid fucking regulations because politicians can't be seen raising taxes, so they have to get revenues through convoluted means. In Washington state, for example, we have probably hundreds of different fees for most activities. These fees keep going up and they're organized through bureaucracies, which make them overall more expensive and are a boon to special interests. We have this because this stupid voters passed a stupid law that the legislature can't raise taxes with a majority vote. So now we pay more money in overall fees than if we simply let taxes be raised or lowered based on what the people/state want/need

People who want small government defeat their own efforts when they don't acknowledge that taxes aren't the devil. If we want small government, we need a highly efficient and sufficient tax code