Comments do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs.
Obscene, abusive, silly, or annoying remarks may be deleted, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their views by Little Green Footballs.
Posts that contain phone numbers, street addresses, email addresses or other personal information will also be deleted, as will posts that consist only of a variation on the word, "First!"
Comments that advocate violence will be cause for immediate banning with no appeal.
Disagreement and debate are welcome, but insults and abuse are not, and may cause your account to be blocked.
REMEMBER: posting comments at LGF is a privilege, not a right. Abuse that privilege, and your account will be blocked.
And then he [Ron Paul] reverses again crediting Obama for restoring, however unintentionally, Republican principles.
“Republicans now are conservatives again” since the election, he says. “They are more consistent in voting against all these spending [measures]. And I kid them, I say, ‘are you guys voting with me now or am I voting with you?’
“Of course, they would always complain when I voted against Republican spending.“
hmmm.
I don't agree w/ Ron Paul on many issues, but I do when it comes to voting against all of this massive spending.
As for soon-to-be departing Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, Paul dismisses her supporters as "more establishment, conventional Country-Club type of Republicans.”
I thought it was the backwoods moose killing Republicans? What a moran.
Strange - I saw little in the article that backs up the strongly worded title. The closest it came was the quote "Republican House members are finally voting with him on spending measures." Not exactly a standing ovation for Paul from the GOP.
The Campaign for Liberty, the grass-roots organization that grew out of Paul's presidential campaign, has raised over $3 million since last June, attracting some 200,000 members.
As for soon-to-be departing Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, Paul dismisses her supporters as "more establishment, conventional Country-Club type of Republicans.”
I hear the Wasilla Open is scheduled for next month.
Yikes. As I posted earlier, I am fearful of over correcting from the current administration - who would be the perfect candidate for that? Ron Paul. You know, he ran as a Republican to get elected - he is really a libertarian. Can't the RNC get up enough cojones to take the "R" away and make him stand -or fall - as an "L"?
Strange - I saw little in the article that backs up the strongly worded title. The closest it came was the quote "Republican House members are finally voting with him on spending measures." Not exactly a standing ovation for Paul from the GOP.
Nor is there any mention of the REAL Enemy...the one БХО asked to Unclench their Fists.
And to think I encouraged libertarians to work for change within the Repub party and not waste votes on third party. I did not know they would take my advice and then actually take over - led by this fool.
My computer is having issues with LGF, I am off to investigate. It is loading slow, updating slow, just refreshhed the page, it is still not showing ratings, up/down ding etc.. Everything else on the computer is running fine! Just my favorite website is fucked! Damn it.
Outstanding. This is the kind of report that actually marginalizes the GOP, or what's left of it, precisely because there happens to be some overlap between fiscally responsible GOPers (who have finally realized that fiscal responsibility is truly necessary to get us out of this financial mess, and not the out of control spending we're seeing from the Democrats) and the Paulians and their "let's get back to the gold standard and oh, cut spending while we're at it" platitudes.
Auditing the Federal Reserve may make some sense to see where all the TARP monies are going and to see just how effective the government monetary policies are, but the rest of it is a pipedream.
The media will instead use this to paint the GOP as out of touch.
Instead of realizing that Paul and his crowd of sycophants are pursing an agenda that is on the far right fringe of the GOP that happens to have some overlap with fiscal conservatives and responsibility that comes along with having a fiduciary duty to taxpayers, he is being painted as being on the vanguard? Funny, but I've been calling for fiscal responsibility for longer than Paul. There are other GOPers, but none have the kind of profile that Paul built up with his ground game. Lovely.
If Ron Paul has an idea, that does not necessarily make the idea wrong.
That guy on the subway who "Must get this cheese to Washington!" at least gets off on the right stop now and then...
You're right that just because he has a good idea doesn't mean he's wrong. He's the wrong messenger, and he's also not exactly the first to call for fiscal responsibility either. He's just getting characterized as such, and this Politico report is suggesting that he's leading this charge.
How Ironic: We are supposed to accept a socialized health care plan from Ted Kennedy, when his health-care plan for Mary Jo Kopechne was "Let her Drown..."
As for another presidential run in 2012, “I don’t think that’s likely,” Paul says.
Excuse my asking, but what's his "Campaign for Liberty" for again? Is he propping up his son who if I remember correctly is or will be running for Congress?
Whatever Paul's beliefs, the discussion on LGFB might be better advanced by avoiding the ad hominem attacks. How about making a case against him rather than just calling him crazy, a loon and a nut job?
How Ironic: We are supposed to accept a socialized health care plan from Ted Kennedy, when his health-care plan for Mary Jo Kopechne was "Let her Drown..."
Has anybody even read the health care "plan"? Hillary's plan made it illegal for a doctor to charge you as a private patient. I bet they still don't know what's in the cap and trade bill.
I would not be surprised if tucked in someplace was a substantial outlay for research dollars devoted to finding ways to surgically remake Waxman's face and body so he does not so strikingly resemble a snarling rodent.
As for soon-to-be departing Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, Paul dismisses her supporters as "more establishment, conventional Country-Club type of Republicans.”
Unless that country club is a rifle range and/or hunting camp where the foxtrot did Uncle Ron pull that statement out of? And you only need one guess.
As for soon-to-be departing Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, Paul dismisses her supporters as "more establishment, conventional Country-Club type of Republicans.”
Among the remaining candidates who have filed financial disclosure reports, those reporting assets into the millions including Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kansas, Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Connecticut, Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-California, and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a Democrat.
I might have mentioned something about Ron Paul's increasing influence in the GOP -- was it yesterday?
Yikes! Forget 2012. With the opposition going down crazy-road, what are Zero's chances of getting the Twenty-second Amendment repealed in time for 2016? Not to worry, though, Republican trend-setters can still make money from health care supplements; maybe more so as Zero's policies destroy the actual health care industry.
Yikes! Forget 2012. With the opposition going down crazy-road, what are Zero's chances of getting the Twenty-second Amendment repealed in time for 2016? Not to worry, though, Republican trend-setters can still make money from health care supplements; maybe more so as Zero's policies destroy the actual health care industry.
Remember O's been in office 6 months and his policies have exacerbated the situation. By 2016 Bush will look good again. He looks good to me right now.
I don't know why everybody here is down on Ron Paul...he's just doing his job, trying to get his message out...plus, those little oven things he hawks on TV are pretty cool...as was the Pocket Fisherman he invented.
No sooner does the representative from Texas’ 14th Congressional District, nicknamed “Dr. No” by his detractors, find himself embraced by mainstream Republicans (and even some Democrats) on domestic policy issues, then he pivots his focus to foreign affairs.
I don't know why everybody here is down on Ron Paul...he's just doing his job, trying to get his message out...plus, those little oven things he hawks on TV are pretty cool...as was the Pocket Fisherman he invented.
Fuck that was funny...A month or so ago i was coming home from work and right in front of me was a pickup truck with 2 huge Ron Paul Stickers on the tail gate...I mean huge! I thought to myself.. Yup.Moved to Indiana...Hello Hoosiers...Ron Paul...OMG
I don't know why everybody here is down on Ron Paul...he's just doing his job, trying to get his message out...plus, those little oven things he hawks on TV are pretty cool...as was the Pocket Fisherman he invented.
I agree. The Pocket Isolationists is great. I have one in the glove compartment of my car.
The only possible good news to this is that there is no way that RP could win a general election. The silver lining is that if the GOP goes down this path, or the Huckabee path, it will make it possible to have an intelligent conservative party in America once again. The GOP will destroy itself completely - and out of the ashes of what is left of American conservatism, we might actually see the rise of a party that could be an intelligent counterweight to the Dems.
It is unfortunate that the GOP has decided to give the Dems carte blanche to another eight or twelve years in power before deciding to be sane, but apparently, nothing less than turning their party into a joke while singing an ignominious swan song will do.
Of course this is the best case scenario.
The worst case scenario is that we get a one - two - three knockout punch, where Obama sinks the economy and our military (after Bush and and the GOP accelerated the collapse) and in despair and frustration, Americans vote for someone psychotic like RP - that way with the economy in tatters, the republic can go next. This is of course how fascists take power.
The GOP leadership knows that their old politics as usual has become a laughing stock for the average American. Love him or hate him, W. and those perceived to be in his mold, are a joke to all but a dedicated few. Fair or not, they are in the common parlance a watchword for stupidity, save Cheny, who is generally perceived as evil rather than stupid.
When you look at their policy ideas, yes they oppose welfare for poor people, but not corporate welfare. The economics of spend and spend while lowering taxes, is no more sound than tax and spend. Of course, all of those high faluting, economists in the GOP, who are supposed to be the fiscally responsible ones, never quite figured that out. Given the dismal failure of the GOP while controlling the presidency and both houses, any sens of Republican financial savvy has become a joke.
In response to this, the GOP seems bent on something new - putting up people who are frightening jokes even to other conservatives. I think that some are actually hoping for that collapse so that they can be ushered in on a "make the trains run on time" platform.
Let's be clear, when you have people who want to push ID down your throat, or rewrite educational and historical standards to exclude figures that do not fit with one's politics, we are not talking about people who understand the notion of freedom. Intellectual freedom to them means their own freedom to tell you and others how to think. They are no different in thought process than any other totalitarian ideologue.
If the economy goes tits up, and the GOP successfully runs one of those, America as we know it, will cease to exist.
...several congressmen, including Rep. Barney Frank, Rep. José Serrano Rep. Howard Berman, and Sen. Harry Reid {moonbats all-SK}, have introduced legislation to repeal the Twenty-second Amendment, but each resolution died before making it out of its respective committee.
Just because Paul and the GOP agree on opposing massive spending contained in bills no one has read just means both Paul and the GOP oppose massive spending contained in bills no one has read.
The article linked is lacking much substance. It does mention voting against spending.
If that were the "influence" the GOP is taking from Ron Paul, then I'd be fine with that.
Ron Paul is loony, but to advocate against the handful of good ideas that he incidentally supports (personal liberties, spending cuts, etc.), would be loony too.
I suggest that any non-lib billionaires out there start putting their money into companies like SpaceX and Bigelow Aerospace. We might need a rebel moon colony sooner than you realize.
Did a little tweaking on my avatar. Minor difference but it has come to mean a lot to me.
Support of the little 'satan'. /
Other than that I am fine. How are you doing my friend?
I saw that when it originally aired. Once was enough. I wish more Tea Party folks and idiots in Congress playing footsies with him would remember this shit.
Whatever Paul's beliefs, the discussion on LGFB might be better advanced by avoiding the ad hominem attacks. How about making a case against him rather than just calling him crazy, a loon and a nut job?
The case has been made here over and over and over again with facts, links, data, etc. We are tired of it already.
Did a little tweaking on my avatar. Minor difference but it has come to mean a lot to me.
Support of the little 'satan'. /
Other than that I am fine. How are you doing my friend?
just kicking...Watching a good movie..Playing with my dog...He is ate up..
Hope today finds you well
The case has been made here over and over and over again with facts, links, data, etc. We are tired of it already.
Agreed. The consensus here has already emerged. I'll use facts and logic to try to ween people away from Luap Nor in real life, but here its enough to just mock him. He's a dangerous buffoon, unworthy of respect.
OT, and pissed off. I just got back from Wally World where they are not only out of ammunition in nearly every useful caliber (depends on whether you consider 45gr .223s to be useful, which I don't), but I have learned that they don't even stock 100W lightbulbs. Do they still make such an apparently rare creature? I do not know.
Courtesy of the eco-loving Democrats, I have no doubt.
Mother Gaia demands your presence in JoyCamp immediately!
"Can someone tell me how this "go back to the Gold Standard" idea would work and if implemented would look like?"
Going on the gold standard would make it impossible for congress to tax via inflation, because try as they might, congress cannot legislate the physical quantity of gold.
I truly do not know when the gold standard became an example of looniness in so many people's minds. It's the other way around: believing that politicians should literally legislate the value of money, and that no problems will arise from that, is loony.
Abandoning the gold standard was the work of men who wanted to divorce Washington's spending power from reality.
I say all this as an advocate of the gold standard for about 22 years now, which is about 20 years longer than I ever heard of Ron Paul.
I down-dinged you because there are several years of posts here proving Paul's association with 9/11 Truthers and Neo-Nazis. Some of Paul's libertarian ideas are acceptable, but only if you separate them from Paul himself.
In other words, Paul himself, ecce hominem, is the problem. And when ecce hominem is the problem, ad hominem is appropriate.
This might actually turn out to be good news though, since it can be used fire up socons behind opposition to ObamaCare and thus put pressure on Democrat congresscritters who say they are pro-life.
And there were moves to repeal the amendment so that Reagan could have a third term also. Whether or not term limits are a good idea, when either party has someone who they think might make it to three terms, they like the idea of removing the amendment, just as much as the opposite party hates it.
OT
Ummm, Is it just me? I am getting sick of Sotomayor's mug in the premium ads. I believe that we are being slowly driven to a minor breakdown on purpose.
/rant off
"Can someone tell me how this "go back to the Gold Standard" idea would work and if implemented would look like?"
Going on the gold standard would make it impossible for congress to tax via inflation, because try as they might, congress cannot legislate the physical quantity of gold.
I truly do not know when the gold standard became an example of looniness in so many people's minds. It's the other way around: believing that politicians should literally legislate the value of money, and that no problems will arise from that, is loony.
Abandoning the gold standard was the work of men who wanted to divorce Washington's spending power from reality.
I say all this as an advocate of the gold standard for about 22 years now, which is about 20 years longer than I ever heard of Ron Paul.
Apparently you are also incapable of doing simple mathematics and are under the impression that reverting to an industrial economy from a post-industrial one is somehow a good idea. The Gold Standard is completely unworkable in the modern world, despite the problems with fiat currency, the gold standard is not, and cannot be a solution... look elsewhere... think outside the box, its not 1789 anymore.
OT, and pissed off. I just got back from Wally World where they are not only out of ammunition in nearly every useful caliber (depends on whether you consider 45gr .223s to be useful, which I don't), but I have learned that they don't even stock 100W lightbulbs. Do they still make such an apparently rare creature? I do not know.
Courtesy of the eco-loving Democrats, I have no doubt.
Have you considered the twisty non incandescent bulbs, which are brighter, last much longer (and therefore cost less over their lifetime) and use much less power than 100 watts (which also costs you less)?
Is your measure of a bulb's utility how bright it is, or how much power it draws? Why not get a 25 watt bulb that is brighter than a 100 watt incandescent?
Well folks, I have been through the computer and I can't find where to clear the browser cache, nor can I find a reload for LGF, I have refresh not reload. I may as well be on dial up as slow as LGF is running. BTW, this is the only place I'm having issues. If I can't resolve this, the next 8-10 weeks are gonna suck ass.
Do such things even exist anymore? I thought that the Democrats had run all the pro-lifers out of the Party. It is difficult to think of any reason people seriously committed to the concept could stay in the Party.
Many Dems in the last two cycles ran saying they were pro-life, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania being one the most visible. Casey is an empty suit who'll vote as he's told, but some other Dems have been decidedly queasy about voting to have their constituent's dollars fund abortions. We could also use this issue to gain some Latino votes. Most Hispanics belong to churches that are firmly pro-life, thus giving us a way to counter any enthusiasm they might have for ObamaCare.
Have you considered the twisty non incandescent bulbs, which are brighter, last much longer (and therefore cost less over their lifetime) and use much less power than 100 watts (which also costs you less)?
Is your measure of a bulb's utility how bright it is, or how much power it draws? Why not get a 25 watt bulb that is brighter than a 100 watt incandescent?
For one thing, if you break one, you are SUPPOSED to have it cleaned up haz-mat style. They are made with mercury. Strange thats ok, when mercury in anything else is a big emergency.
There's nothing magic about gold. In 15th and 16th century Spain, its influx caused massive inflation and abandonment of productive enterprises.
[Link: www.fleckensteincapital.com...]
"Prior to the arrival of copious amounts of gold and silver in the early sixteenth century, silver was reserved for large payments and taxes, while most transactions were done using barter and coins made of base metals. Gold was reserved almost exclusively to transact much larger purchases between the nobles. When the torrent of precious metal arrived, a slow and pervasive inflation took hold of Spain. While the poor suffered, the wealthy, who financed the overseas ventures, had massive profits and felt significantly better off. They were largely indifferent to slightly higher prices—especially because the wealthy chose to buy most everyday goods from the French using their incredibly strong gold currency. In France, the inflation took much longer to take hold and French manufacturing grew up all along the Spanish border. The French in turn were able to purchase most raw materials, including labor, at much-reduced prices from areas even further removed from Spain’s gold induced inflation. In this way, a creeping inflation slowly spread out over all of Europe, eventually even penetrating the eastern portions of Europe by the seventeenth century. We now export our inflation to the rest of the world as a result of our Federal Reserve printing too much money. It took over a decade, but inflation is now showing up in far- flung corners of the globe where it shouldn’t be expected.
Surprisingly, no one was concerned about the gradual hollowing out of Spanish production. No one worried that the poor were increasingly unable to afford the necessities of life. No one was concerned about the massive current account deficits that Spain was running with the rest of the world. No one cared that these deficits were financing the military buildup of Spain’s enemies. No one even seemed to notice the debt that Spain increasingly was building up. The prevailing view amongst all sectors of society was that the answer to all problems was adventuring to the New World and seizing precious metals. As the above ground stocks were rapidly depleted, the Spanish used Indian labor to mine very high grade veins near the surface. For the Spanish, the New World became the equivalent of the Federal Reserve’s printing press—the solution to all problems. However, things began to slowly turn for the Spanish. Precious metal shipments peaked in mid-century and by the late sixteenth century, the annual gold shipments began to decline—only to disappear almost all together by 1610. By 1630, even silver shipments went into a tailspin. As the ready source of purchasing power fell off, Spanish citizens refused to change their ways. To finance their lifestyle, they borrowed from abroad. At this time, the monarchy held considerable sway in all business affairs. It is estimated that around half of all economic activity was conducted for the account of the king. No one borrowed more from abroad than Charles V and his son Philip II."
"Uhhh... maybe you should look into that. Try google."
You mean, I could use google to find out when and why so many people became unaware of the virtues of the gold standard?
Uhhh... thanks KT of the many elipses, I'm actually already quite familiar with the history of the gold standard and the motives and theories behind its abolition. I meant: I don't know when in recent history so many began to associate it with bizarre ideas like so many of Ron Paul's. I suppose it comes from a fundamental ignorance about the topic, and an uncritical association between it and Ron Paul.
Ironic that folks would reflexively reject an idea that properly belongs to the Founding Fathers, in exchange for an idea advanced by FDR and Keynes, just because of an incidental association with a nut like Ron Paul.
For one thing, if you break one, you are SUPPOSED to have it cleaned up haz-mat style. They are made with mercury. Strange thats ok, when mercury in anything else is a big emergency.
The amount of mercury you need to ingest to be toxic is vastly higher than the amount you would get if you licked the shards.
About the strongest argument you could make is don't let your pregnant wife clean up broken shards. Someone here who is a chemist, back me up on this please.
The Gold Standard is just a ploy. Ron Paul really wants to go back to the
Huge-Rocks-With-The-Hole-In-The-Middle Standard.
The size of the stones varies; some are as small as a few inches in diameter and weigh a couple of pounds, while others may reach a diameter of 12 feet and weigh thousands of pounds. A hole is carved into the middle of each stone so that it may be carried, either by coconut rope strung through the smaller pieces, or by wooden poles inserted into the larger stones. These great stones require the combined effort of many men to lift. Expeditions to acquire new stones were authorized by a chief who would retain all of the larger stones and two-fifths of the smaller ones, reportedly a fairly common distribution of production that served as a tax on the Yapese. In effect, the Yap chiefs acted as the island’s central bankers; they controlled the quantity of stones in circulation. …
A commodity is worth what people will pay for it. It's called a "market". Gold speculators want to drive demand by instilling fear. Without fear, there's limited demand for gold.
Great find, QJ! Another side-effect of Spain's influx of gold and silver was piracy. English pirates and privateers often raided Spanish treasure ships and silver ports. The famous "Golden Age of Piracy" started when a Spanish Treasure fleet was wrecked in a hurricane and English sea-wolves raided the Spanish salvage camp to steal its silver.
OT, and pissed off. I just got back from Wally World where they are not only out of ammunition in nearly every useful caliber (depends on whether you consider 45gr .223s to be useful, which I don't), but I have learned that they don't even stock 100W lightbulbs. Do they still make such an apparently rare creature? I do not know.
Courtesy of the eco-loving Democrats, I have no doubt.
What is Wally World?
I can buy 100W bulbs - WalMart, Lowe's, Home Depot ...
First off, the twisty flourecents aren'tas bright as the incandecents. But be that as it may, there are serious health concerns about the twisty flourecents. I have to put this light in using a fifteen foot long pole, and screw it in while standing directly under it. I wear glasses while doing it, which is fine for incandecents, but I don't want to get a face full of toxic chemicals and broken glass if the damned thing breaks.
Is that a good enough reason, Mr. Comissar of Illumination?
So what do you propose? People who vote we stay with the current system essentially are saying to continue to allow Congress to legislate the worth of your bank account. I can't believe anyone ever thought that was a good idea, but people in general were much less informed 70-100 years ago (when our current taxation and monetary systems were put in place). What we have is bad, and returning to the gold standard is unworkable (I agree on that).
So what do you propose? I hear a huge vacuum on that issue from all sides.
I have no solution, yet. I will definitely admit that and have said so most times this subject comes up. I don't have a PhD in economics or anything. I do know that outdated ideas that can be shot down with 2nd grade math are definitely not the solution though. The quickest solution I can think of which would just be a band aid would be to force the Fed into a gold-price rule where the currency is not backed by gold, but their adjustment of interest rates is dependent on price movements of Gold. That may not even be a good idea either but it will control inflation if they stick to it, and it wont require us to roll back the clock and turn into an industrial economy again. It will also not require us to wish into existence 60% more Gold than has even been mined in all of history to cover the size of our economy.
This is my only idea at the moment, and I'm sure there 100 holes in it. Someone who knows this stuff inside and out, is not a Paulian gold-bug, and is not a shill for the current Fed system needs to work on this.
re: #139 pbird
No idea, ran a buncha searches to find the browser cache, apparently this HP computer running Bill Gates crap has never heard of a browser cache!
Wally World is Walmart. I heard a commercial the other day saying Walmart supports health care reform. Union heads explode everywhere. Walmart and us on the same side of a political issue? EKKK!
Then he'd be coming back in a box. Iron Fist is smart, well armed and well prepared. Someone coming for him would briefly regret doing so, and then never feel anything thereafter.
/not advocating anything, just saying that IF is capable of taking care of himself.
The amount of mercury you need to ingest to be toxic is vastly higher than the amount you would get if you licked the shards.
About the strongest argument you could make is don't let your pregnant wife clean up broken shards. Someone here who is a chemist, back me up on this please.
From energystar.gov:
Do CFLs contain mercury?
CFLs contain a very small amount of mercury sealed within the glass tubing – an average of 4 milligrams. By comparison, older thermometers contain about 500 milligrams of mercury – an amount equal to the mercury in 125 CFLs. Mercury is an essential part of CFLs; it allows the bulb to be an efficient light source. No mercury is released when the bulbs are intact (not broken) or in use.
Most makers of light bulbs have reduced mercury in their fluorescent lighting products. Thanks to technology advances and a commitment from members of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, the average mercury content in CFLs has dropped at least 20 percent in the past year. Some manufacturers have even made further reductions, dropping mercury content to 1.4 – 2.5 milligrams per light bulb.
What are mercury emissions caused by humans?
EPA estimates the U.S. is responsible for the release of 104 metric tons of mercury emissions each year. Most of these emissions come from coal-fired electrical power. Mercury released into the air is the main way that mercury
gets into water and bio-accumulates in fish. (Eating fish contaminated with mercury is the main way for humans to be exposed.)
Most mercury vapor inside fluorescent light bulbs becomes bound to the inside of the light bulb as it is used. EPA estimates that the rest of the mercury within a CFL – about 14 percent – is released into air or water when it is
sent to a landfill, assuming the light bulb is broken. Therefore, if all 290 million CFLs sold in 2007 were sent to a landfill (versus recycled, as a worst case) – they would add 0.16 metric tons, or 0.16 percent, to U.S. mercury emissions caused by humans.
How do CFLs result in less mercury in the environment compared to traditional light bulbs?
Electricity use is the main source of mercury emissions in the U.S. CFLs use less electricity than incandescent lights, meaning CFLs reduce the amount of mercury into the environment. As shown in the table below, a 13-watt,
8,000-rated-hour-life CFL (60-watt equivalent; a common light bulb type) will save 376 kWh over its lifetime, thus avoiding 4.5 mg of mercury. If the bulb goes to a landfill, overall emissions savings would drop a little, to 4.0 mg.
EPA recommends that CFLs are recycled where possible, to maximize mercury savings.
"Apparently you are also incapable of doing simple mathematics and are under the impression that reverting to an industrial economy from a post-industrial one is somehow a good idea."
Thank you Archangel, for your thoughtful reply. I had not recently considered the possibility that everybody who advocated the gold standard was incapable of simple mathematics.
(Of course there is the possibility that changes in wealth production, relative to changes in gold supply, would be reflected in a change in the price of goods. That, too, is an example of simple mathematics.)
"...The Gold Standard is completely unworkable in the modern world, ... the gold standard is not, and cannot be a solution..."
Wally World would be Wal Mart. They don't stock 100W anymore. 90W is as high as it goes in the tiny section where you have the incandecents. I remember some noise about phasing out incandecents a few years ago, but I didn't pay much attention to it. This is what happens when you ignore government on even matters of seemingly trivial importance.
First off, the twisty flourecents aren'tas bright as the incandecents. But be that as it may, there are serious health concerns about the twisty flourecents. I have to put this light in using a fifteen foot long pole, and screw it in while standing directly under it. I wear glasses while doing it, which is fine for incandecents, but I don't want to get a face full of toxic chemicals and broken glass if the damned thing breaks.
Is that a good enough reason, Mr. Comissar of Illumination?
Whoa there, I'm not trying to pick a fight. And I am not trying to be a commissar of anything.
However, your health concerns about one of these things breaking are somewhat curious to me. Only the most moonbat ecofreak - who thinks that the word chemical always = bad would be scared of them. The linings of most incandescent bulbs are much more toxic than mercury. If you are scared of a broken bulb coming down on your head, you actually may have more to be frightened of from a toxicity point of view from the incandescent.
Of course, all toxic things are questions of dose.
As to the argument of being brighter, you are wrong. Just wrong.
My 13 watt bulb, in this room, produces 800 lumens compared to the 760 lumens produced by a 60 watt incandescent bulb. Further it has an 8,000 hour lifetime in comparison to a 1000 hour lifetime. Therefore, if you are really afraid of breaking bulbs in your garage when you install them, get one of these and you will have to risk your life changing lightbulbs less often.
Wally World would be Wal Mart. They don't stock 100W anymore. 90W is as high as it goes in the tiny section where you have the incandecents. I remember some noise about phasing out incandecents a few years ago, but I didn't pay much attention to it. This is what happens when you ignore government on even matters of seemingly trivial importance.
Never heard it called wally world. Where the hell have I been?
I use the odd twisty-looking ones in fixtures where I don't need enough to light to read. Otherwise, it's 100W bulbs. Can't read comfortably in the light from those twisty ones.
The entire supply of gold in the whole world will fill two Olympic-sized swimming pools. Assuming you want a "stable" currency, rather than a deflating one, you want a currency that can be expanded as the economy grows, and contracted as the economy contracts. If you tie the value your currency to a finite commodity like gold, you can't expand the money supply. In inflationary times that may sound like a good idea, but if you have the finite commodity as the economic measure of the value of expanding goods and services, you've created a perverse effect: the purchasing value of the currency increases (deflation), rather than remains stable.
Institutional deflation is a recipe for economic ruin over time.
Never heard it called wally world. Where the hell have I been?
I use the odd twisty-looking ones in fixtures where I don't need enough to light to read. Otherwise, it's 100W bulbs. Can't read comfortably in the light from those twisty ones.
How about using halogen spot-lamps for reading they use up a lot yet they are bright as sunshine. Perfect reading light IMO.
Ironic that folks would reflexively reject an idea that properly belongs to the Founding Fathers, in exchange for an idea advanced by FDR and Keynes, just because of an incidental association with a nut like Ron Paul.
Perhaps because in the time of our founding fathers, it was an OK idea that worked, and now it's not. For a multitude of reasons. Regardless of reason why it would destroy our economy, there's this nasty "non-starter" issue that gold standard fetishists are either incapable of grasping, or are purposely ignoring.
Large numbers of Chinese workers have been poisoned by mercury, which forms part of the compact fluorescent lightbulbs. A surge in foreign demand, set off by a European Union directive making these bulbs compulsory within three years, has also led to the reopening of mercury mines that have ruined the environment.
Doctors, regulators, lawyers and courts in China - which supplies two thirds of the compact fluorescent bulbs sold in Britain - are increasingly alert to the potential impacts on public health of an industry that promotes itself as a friend of the earth but depends on highly toxic mercury.
Making the bulbs requires workers to handle mercury in either solid or liquid form because a small amount of the metal is put into each bulb to start the chemical reaction that creates light...
Tests on hundreds of employees have found dangerously high levels of mercury in their bodies and many have required hospital treatment, according to interviews with workers, doctors and local health officials in the cities of Foshan and Guangzhou.
Dozens of workers who were interviewed on condition of anonymity described living with the fear of mercury poisoning. They gave detailed accounts of medical tests that found numerous workers had dangerous levels of the toxin in their urine.
“In tests, the mercury content in my blood and urine exceeded the standard but I was not sent to hospital because the managers said I was strong and the mercury would be decontaminated by my immune system,” said one young female employee, who provided her identity card.
“Two of my friends were sent to hospital for one month,” she added, giving their names also.
“If they asked me to work inside the mercury workshop I wouldn’t do it, no matter how much they paid,” said another young male worker.
Doctors at two regional health centres said they had received patients in the past from the Foshan factory of Osram, a big manufacturer serving the British market.
However, the company said in a statement that the latest tests on its staff had found nobody with elevated mercury levels. It added that local authorities had provided documents in 2007 and 2008 to certify the factory met the required environmental standards.
They're giving 'em away in NJ. I find that the cfls are actually easier on the eyes depending on where they fall on the light spectrum. Some are harsher than others, while newer lights have more natural lights.
I've got some PAR style CFLs that might save on electricity, but they don't have great lights, while some of my twisty bulbs do quite nicely.
not one thing is trivial to these control freak environmental head cases
they will end up measuring your pee, your feces, and toe nail clippings
Woe unto the over use of waste disposal facilities.
Best guess a "excessive pee/feces" luxury tax of say 70% or so of income.
I KNOW someday they will control not only WHAT you eat, but also how much. I used to think that sounded like freaky future fiction, but not anymore. Someone is working on this. Obviously some of us need to be stopped!!!
Hmmm... two Olympic sized swimming pools? Gee, where's Auric Goldfinger when you need him to break into Fort Knox? /pussy galore (get your minds out of the gutter, that's the name of the character!)
Tell you what. You break one of the damned things open and cut you a big line of what is inside them if you want. I don't want to get a face full of it if I break one. With regular flourecents you can change them out without standing directly under it. There is a reason for that.
IF-
Wasn't trying to pick a fight. Just posting some data. I use them for a very simple reason. I don't like throwing my money down the toilet for no good reason.
"Thanks for trying, but I am still at a loss here. What would day to day dealing look like if this was implemented?"
Thanks Mrbaracuda.
Day-to-day finances under the gold standard would likely look practically identical to current day-to-day. Most money circulates as credit or stand-in to actual currency. For example at lunch today, I used a debit card. under a gold standard, I would use my debit card, which would deduct from my bank balance. My bank balance would also likely be in the form of some sort of stand-in (like it is now), e.e., electronic, etc. But at some point, the actual money representing my money would be actual gold (or silver or platinum or whatever). Most day-to-day transactions would look identical to the present system, except that somewhere, eventually, the currency would actually *be* something other than a politician's wish.
Despite the recent comments you've seen, the "quanity" of gold is irrelevant, because if the total welath it represented increased, the same quantity of gold -- whether a pound or a million tons -- would buy that wealth, via a change in price. (This is what happens anyways wealth increases relative to the moeny supply.)
An upside to this is that a polotician could not simply declare a dollar bill to be 2 dollar bills, thereby devaluing everybody's dollar by half. It's taxation, but without the politically inconvenient act of actually collecting taxes.
Ironic that folks would reflexively reject an idea that properly belongs to the Founding Fathers, in exchange for an idea advanced by FDR and Keynes, just because of an incidental association with a nut like Ron Paul.
My husband studied at Grove City under Sennholz and has a degree in economics from GC. Ron Paul was influenced by Sennholtz. RP is crazier than loon on subjects other than economic theory. Maybe those without any background on the subject should step back a bit.
And I know that I'll be dissed for saying that. :)
I KNOW someday they will control not only WHAT you eat, but also how much. I used to think that sounded like freaky future fiction, but not anymore. Someone is working on this. Obviously some of us need to be stopped!!!
Didn't FCBBHO chastize Americans during the campaign for eating what they want?
I broke one of those curly-Q light bulbs a while back. As directed by Mother Gaia, I called out the Haz-Mat team. They evacuated every living thing within 6 kilometers, except my lawn and my roses (which were contaminated). Then they encased the house in impermeable plastic sheeting, and buried it and all their contaminated gear (even their blackberries) under a 100 meter mountain of reinforced concrete and slapped me with a trillion dollar fine.
You quote Hayek; Do you know what Friedman had to say on this topic? I ordered his "Free to Choose" lately, which has not arrived here in Germany from the U.S. yet.
Wasn't trying to pick a fight. Just posting some data. I use them for a very simple reason. I don't like throwing my money down the toilet for no good reason.
Don't throw your money down the toilet for *any* reason--these new Democrat potties won't take it down!
speaking of, what is everyone having for dinner this evening? I need some inspiration using boneless chicken breast.
I'm a lousey cook. I would probably pan sear them in butter, garlic and pepper and call it good. Trow some mirin on them and let them finish on low heat for a while.
this Austin Blue is a true believer of all that is Al Gore
he says he is the only one in Austin Tx to sign up for the
3 times higher electric rate of the Green Energy from the
wind mills Austin Tx is pushing out in West Texas.
Dude, please. We signed up for Green Choice in 2000. We locked in at 2.85 cents per kilowatt hour for a decade. We are paying *less* than the average customer. Here's the chart:
So then, either the value of Gold goes up when the countries wealth increases... seriously, please tell me you don't believe this... or the gold standard creates massive deflationary spirals. Sounds like a great idea.
You also seem to not grasp that if you don't have balanced trade (which is something that no post-industrial economy *can* have) then all your gold goes BYE-BYE really fast to the countries that with industrial economies.
speaking of, what is everyone having for dinner this evening? I need some inspiration using boneless chicken breast.
Hi, AW: My favorite chicken breast quickie is Baked Parmesan Chicken.
Dip breasts in garlic butter, roll them in mixture of 2/3 bread crumbs, 1/3 parmesan, with a heavy dose of thyme (optional). Bake at 375 degrees in heavily greased platter until golden brown. Somewhere around 45 minutes, depending on your oven.
I broke one of those curly-Q light bulbs a while back. As directed by Mother Gaia, I called out the Haz-Mat team. They evacuated every living thing within 6 kilometers, except my lawn and my roses (which were contaminated). Then they encased the house in impermeable plastic sheeting, and buried it and all their contaminated gear (even their blackberries) under a 100 meter mountain of reinforced concrete and slapped me with a trillion dollar fine.
Ok, I made up part of that.
Yeah. Having government employess part with their Blackberries was a bridge too far.
That is the joke about low flush toilets. By the time you've flushed them enough to get business done, you've spent more water than the equivalent old-style toilet. They really don't work as well (which should be the criteria such things are measured by), but god government knows better than you what you need in your life.
We have those in our office building now. Takes several flushes regardless. Such nonsense.
That is the joke about low flush toilets. By the time you've flushed them enough to get business done, you've spent more water than the equivalent old-style toilet. They really don't work as well (which should be the criteria such things are measured by), but god government knows better than you what you need in your life.
I wonder if you could get a plumber to install an old toilet in a new house.
speaking of, what is everyone having for dinner this evening? I need some inspiration using boneless chicken breast.
I slapped some turkey hen which I first marinated with oil and some curry onto an e-grill and had some peeled, boiled potatoes with yoghurt which I mixed with some garam masala and curry and a Thai sweet chili sauce. :)
What if the government starts mandating ALL water-using appliances be low-flow?
They'll hafta' take my TELEDYNE WATER PIK shower head out of my dead, cold hands.
The Shower Massage shower heads from Water Pik is already low flow. (As long as you don't remove the flow regulator, a small, usually orange, device that is often placed in the coupler that attaches to the shower spout that comes out of the wall.)
I installed a shower cutoff valve on both showers in my home. I made a promise to myself when I got out of the Navy, I would never limit myself to a 5 minute shower again.
I don't think the article in Politico provides much support for its headline. In addition to that Federal Reserve audit bill (supported by a lot of Democrats as well) the only other evidence advanced in support of that headline is this:
Republican House members are finally voting with him on spending measures.
Seems like a pretty weak argument to me. The proposals that have been considered in this session of Congress are leading to record deficits, and they are coming from a President of the opposite party. Why wouldn't Republicans vote against them?
"A commodity is worth what people will pay for it. It's called a "market". Gold speculators want to drive demand by instilling fear. Without fear, there's limited demand for gold."
If, by "limited demand", you mean its been hoarded, coveted, mined, desired, and collected since the dawn of human history, then I agree.
The Shower Massage shower heads from Water Pik is already low flow. (As long as you don't remove the flow regulator, a small, usually orange, device that is often placed in the coupler that attaches to the shower spout that comes out of the wall.)
I installed a shower cutoff valve on both showers in my home. I made a promise to myself when I got out of the Navy, I would never limit myself to a 5 minute shower again.
My shower head puts out a blast of water that would take the hide off of an elephant.
If you push this lot, they will go just about any way or say any thing to defend the Green Way.
push a bit and see
Not me, bub. I hate low-flow toilets. If I ever get the money, I'll replace mine and pay to have its replacement imported. I'd actually save money, since I'd be flushing less.
Hi, AW: My favorite chicken breast quickie is Baked Parmesan Chicken.
Dip breasts in garlic butter, roll them in mixture of 2/3 bread crumbs, 1/3 parmesan, with a heavy dose of thyme (optional). Bake at 375 degrees in heavily greased platter until golden brown. Somewhere around 45 minutes, depending on your oven.
That sounds good.
Mind if I grab that for Vol 2 cookbook?
Not me, bub. I hate low-flow toilets. If I ever get the money, I'll replace mine and pay to have its replacement imported. I'd actually save money, since I'd be flushing less.
Around here you can drive up to Canada and get a real toilet and install it yourself and get away with it. In a new house I suppose you would have to wait until after the inspections.
"The quickest solution I can think of which would just be a band aid would be to force the Fed into a gold-price rule where the currency is not backed by gold, but their adjustment of interest rates is dependent on price movements of Gold."
All this is, is a gold standard, without the step of taking actual physical possession of gold. You're essentially backing a gold standard here.
Sure. You could get one at an antique shop or salvage shop and get it installed in an existing home. I'm not sure about new construction, though. I don't know if they check that when they are doing the new home inspection (I had a friend who got in trouble over the width of a window in a house he had built) or not.
I'm not surprised. Just look at what those fucking, Commie bastards did to people who will have to spend a lot of money to retrofit their houses in order to sell them.
"The quickest solution I can think of which would just be a band aid would be to force the Fed into a gold-price rule where the currency is not backed by gold, but their adjustment of interest rates is dependent on price movements of Gold."
All this is, is a gold standard, without the step of taking actual physical possession of gold. You're essentially backing a gold standard here.
There's no backing with a limited and finite resource, no wishing more gold into existence, no crazy deflationary spirals, no problem with trade imbalances that will wreck the economy... no it's not The Gold Standard. It's simply a set of criteria for when the Fed lowers or raises interest rates on fiat currency. That said, I'm sure there are problems with this I cannot see at the moment and would not advocate such a step unless someone with some credentials outside of kooksville did as well.
We might be able to do that. The chances of that bill making it through the Senate are not that good. It won't even be considered until after the August recess. My guess is that it fails for want of votes. Party discipline is not nearly as tight in the Senate.
I have no solution, yet. I will definitely admit that and have said so most times this subject comes up. I don't have a PhD in economics or anything. I do know that outdated ideas that can be shot down with 2nd grade math are definitely not the solution though. The quickest solution I can think of which would just be a band aid would be to force the Fed into a gold-price rule where the currency is not backed by gold, but their adjustment of interest rates is dependent on price movements of Gold. That may not even be a good idea either but it will control inflation if they stick to it, and it wont require us to roll back the clock and turn into an industrial economy again. It will also not require us to wish into existence 60% more Gold than has even been mined in all of history to cover the size of our economy.
This is my only idea at the moment, and I'm sure there 100 holes in it. Someone who knows this stuff inside and out, is not a Paulian gold-bug, and is not a shill for the current Fed system needs to work on this.
Here's one person's idea...
theres a very easy way that can be achieved at the stroke of a legislative pen. Simply leave the current status quo as it is, but remove the legal restrictions on the use and free trading of gold bullion by and between anyone who wants to.
Then sit back and watch as 2 things happen.
1. Many people will start using gold as the basis for contracting and future debt settlement, ( not necessarily in actual ounces of bullion - it might be ...payment to be made 2 years hence, the USD/GBP/EUR equivalent of 20 ounces of fine gold at the ruling market price on that day),... freely negotiated between the parties according to their own wishes, and
2. Over time, the fiat currencies that persist will all land up effectively indexed to gold at a range of floating discounts proportionate to their home territory's government propensity to debasement, or inflation.
voila - a de facto gold standard that will have emerged naturally from ordinary economic activity between people doing what seems most sensible to them .
Come to think of it, theres no reason why a range of commodities wouldn't emerge as effective parallell currency standards - platinum for instance - indexed against one another AND against the fiat currencies.
The only amazing thing about this right now is that I thought that the GOP meltdown would have hit the bottom a few months ago. I guess I really had no idea how far down the bottom is.
At least now you know where the bottom is! But relax, there is little in support of the "embrace" in the article. It all hinges on other members of Congress supporting the audit bill Paul introduced.
This discussion of a Gold Standard was brought up in an earlier thread (most likely because it would be impossible to have brought it up in a future thread), so I went to Wikipedia. The article on Gold Standards has several entries needing verification, so take heed. It is true that FDR took America off the gold standard in his first administration. The Bretton Woods system replaced it, which is somewhat like what AM posted above. Nixon abolished the BWS in 1971.
Of some note regarding environmental head case rule as in California.
If say conservatives in say Kansas had Kansas broke on its ass via ledg. and mis use of the system, the msm would be living in the Gov. office, and 1,000 of them would be pouring over the books and accounts.
California fell off the cliff into bankruptcy, "crickets"
Lefties protect each other. We conservatives have find other ways to get our story out.
"A commodity is worth what people will pay for it. It's called a "market". Gold speculators want to drive demand by instilling fear. Without fear, there's limited demand for gold."
If, by "limited demand", you mean its been hoarded, coveted, mined, desired, and collected since the dawn of human history, then I agree.
Will a hunk of gold be worth more or less during the likely inflation headed our way?
"... in the time of our founding fathers, it was an OK idea that worked, and now it's not. For a multitude of reasons. Regardless of reason why it would destroy our economy, there's this nasty "non-starter" issue that gold standard fetishists are either incapable of grasping, or are purposely ignoring."
I'm not sure which issue is the "non-starter". I'll assume you mean the the supply of gold is finite and, at today's prices, less than the totla of our current economy.
I've responded to this. The quantity of gold is irrelevant to its use as an objective store of value as a currency. Differences in the relative quantity of gold vs. wealth are simply reflected in prices. (Just as they already are anyway).
And regarding Hayek's references to "trade imblances", that issue has been respnded to many times and by most more eloquently than I am motivated to here; suffice to say, my position is that the issue of "trade imbalances" is 100% irrelevant to the merits of a gold standard.
I haven't read anything from Friedman on it. I only quoted Hayek because he was saying it wont work anymore and he was of the Austrian school that advocates a Gold Standard. If any of the Von Mises crowd says that a gold standard probably wont work... well there you have it.
Quite concur, except that Obama and his merry band would never allow that. They'd tie everything up in a web of red tape.
/assholes
Quite concur, but, Wall-Mart would be one of the biggest things cheering that red tape on.
We will never have sensible - as in scientifically based - legislation on environmental issues as long as it is dictated by who has the most money, or the most popular ideology.
For the record, AGW is solvable with technologies that we have available - or in the very near term - and Cap and Trade does not do it. The thing that is most frustrating to me as a scientist when it comes to AGW and eco issues is that I have to talk politics all the time rather than science.
There are three simple things we could do.
1. Build safe fission reactors, about 200 of them. It is possible to build ceramic fuel pellets that make it physically impossible for a reactor to melt down. Have them run the way the Navy does it, not by an MBA who thinks that if half his customers die, he can double prices, and is therefore willing to cut corners and take risks.
2. Invest in better batteries. Right now, the biggest block to making electric cars, and solar or wind energy really practical is energy storage. We need about twice the energy density to really make the numbers add up. A recent battery was just developed at Argonne national labs that exceeds this requirement. If we put money into making this and other new battery designs practical for mass production we could completely remove our dependence on foreign oil.
3. Give massive tax incentives to companies, large malls, and private homes to install solar panels. With the new battery designs, you need something to store energy when the sun isn't shining, a homeowner or business could reduce costs from things like lighting and air-conditioning by a huge amount.
4. Invest in things like developing algae triangles. This is a device that uses industrial smoke and algae to trap carbon - and produce feed for animals at the same time.
By then using the harvest algae, we could reduce the carbon footprint tremendously, because you essentially get to burn carbon twice.
5. Stop confusing your hatred of Obama and Al Gore with AGW and then assuming that the science can't be true. I wish it weren't so, but the science is real and there is a serious threat. It is a solvable threat however. Unfortunately though, the politicians rarely get it. On one side we have the GOP and conservative types who think the best answer is to put their heads in the sand, pretend it isn't true and smugly yell at those who know it is.
On the other hand, we have left leaning types who believe that their ideological and political solutions are somehow better than scientific and technological ones.
Both sets will cause future generations to suffer because they are both stupid and arrogant enough to think that their pompous political wind-blowing and back room dealing can trump the laws of physics. They are wrong and we will pay for the fact we let them be wrong.
What is most agitating is that it does not have to be this way. All of those solutions listed could have been done for a fraction of the bailout and created thousands of American jobs, while staunching the flow of dollars to other often hostile governments.
BUt, when I talk to Dem types I hear how Obama knows best, and when I talk to GOP types I hear how there isn't a problem.
A pox on both of you. You are both working together to destroy the life we now enjoy.
How can you say the issue is irrelevant when ArchangelMichael has just explained that the Gold Standard would see our nation's wealth shipped overseas?
When Friedman's name didn't come to mind I thought of Mises first. Then I remembered watching a panel discussion with Ron Paul debating Charles Partee, member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors at the Mises Institute. It was a little strange, that's pretty much all I remember from it, heh. They got a youtube channel, in case you are interested (click the previous link and go from there).
We will never have sensible - as in scientifically based - legislation on environmental issues as long as it is dictated by who has the most money, or the most popular ideology.
Then we will never have sensible legislation, because legislation will always be about money and ideology.
Well I guess I get the pox from not agreeing that there's a problem. There is no conclusive incontrovertible evidence that correlates Man with Global Warming. By the way, world temperatures have been dropping in the last few years.
/Would you like your pox in a cup or on a cone?
Well I have no fucking idea why my fiendish device suddenly doesn't like LGF. Have tried everything I can think of. It did this once before, then chilled out. Goddamn Bill Gates and his geeky minnions!///
"In other words, you're admitting that the "gold standard" is deflationary."
Any commodity standard will be *price inflationary* or *price deflationary*, depending on how much welath is created vs. how much money exists, *just like currently*.
But I don't remotely care about *price* inflation or deflation; I care about monetery inflation or deflation. The former is what we see every day in our lives with every price of every good and service out there; it is only the latter, monetary inflation or deflation, that has the power to encroach into our already-saved supply of wealth.
If Doritos go up in price, I decide whether I want Doritos at this new price, and may even consider the factors which caused Frito-Lay to change the price. But I get to decide. But if the government controls the value of my money, and Obama decides he's got to print another trillion to bail out Frito Lay, then my saved money is now worth X% less, without my having any say in it.
The difference between price inflation, and monetary inflation, is crucial here. See Ludwig von Mises for elaboration.
I despair that you are likely correct. If you are correct, then when the climate change gets bad - and it will in 50-100 years - it will be too late.
Mr. Gore, is that you?
Seriously, are you less than 45 years old? If so, you may not have read the newsweek article in the 70s that predicted a global Ice Age if Man did not stop polluting. I could send it to you if you like.
Quite concur, but, Wall-Mart would be one of the biggest things cheering that red tape on.
We will never have sensible - as in scientifically based - legislation on environmental issues as long as it is dictated by who has the most money, or the most popular ideology.
For the record, AGW is solvable with technologies that we have available - or in the very near term - and Cap and Trade does not do it. The thing that is most frustrating to me as a scientist when it comes to AGW and eco issues is that I have to talk politics all the time rather than science.
There are three simple things we could do.
1. Build safe fission reactors, about 200 of them. It is possible to build ceramic fuel pellets that make it physically impossible for a reactor to melt down. Have them run the way the Navy does it, not by an MBA who thinks that if half his customers die, he can double prices, and is therefore willing to cut corners and take risks.
2. Invest in better batteries. Right now, the biggest block to making electric cars, and solar or wind energy really practical is energy storage. We need about twice the energy density to really make the numbers add up. A recent battery was just developed at Argonne national labs that exceeds this requirement. If we put money into making this and other new battery designs practical for mass production we could completely remove our dependence on foreign oil.
3. Give massive tax incentives to companies, large malls, and private homes to install solar panels. With the new battery designs, you need something to store energy when the sun isn't shining, a homeowner or business could reduce costs from things like lighting and air-conditioning by a huge amount.
4. Invest in things like developing algae triangles. This is a device that uses industrial smoke and algae to trap carbon - and produce feed for animals at the same time.
By then using the harvest algae, we could reduce the carbon footprint tremendously, because you essentially get to burn carbon twice.
5. Stop confusing your hatred of Obama and Al Gore with AGW and then assuming that the science can't be true. I wish it weren't so, but the science is real and there is a serious threat. It is a solvable threat however. Unfortunately though, the politicians rarely get it. On one side we have the GOP and conservative types who think the best answer is to put their heads in the sand, pretend it isn't true and smugly yell at those who know it is.
On the other hand, we have left leaning types who believe that their ideological and political solutions are somehow better than scientific and technological ones.
Both sets will cause future generations to suffer because they are both stupid and arrogant enough to think that their pompous political wind-blowing and back room dealing can trump the laws of physics. They are wrong and we will pay for the fact we let them be wrong.
What is most agitating is that it does not have to be this way. All of those solutions listed could have been done for a fraction of the bailout and created thousands of American jobs, while staunching the flow of dollars to other often hostile governments.
BUt, when I talk to Dem types I hear how Obama knows best, and when I talk to GOP types I hear how there isn't a problem.
A pox on both of you. You are both working together to destroy the life we now enjoy.
Great post! I regret that I have only one upding to give you.
Most people know The Wizard of Oz as one of the most popular films ever made. What is little known, however, is that the book was based on an economic and political commentary surrounding the debate over “sound money” that occurred in the late 1800s.
Indeed, L. Frank Baum’s book was penned in 1900 following unrest in the agriculture arena (read: farmers) due to the debate between gold, silver, and the dollar standard. The book, therefore, is supposedly an allegory of these historical events making the information easier to understand. In said book, Dorothy represents traditional American values. The Scarecrow portrays the American farmer, while the Tin Man represents the workers, and the Cowardly Lion depicts William Jennings Bryan. Recall that at the time Mr. Bryan was the official standard bearer for the “silver movement,” as well as the unsuccessful Democratic presidential candidate of 1896. Interestingly, in the original story Dorothy’s slippers were made of silver, not ruby, implying that silver was the Populists’ solution to the nation’s economic woes. Meanwhile, the Yellow Brick Road was the gold standard, and Toto (Dorothy’s faithful dog) represented the Prohibitionists, who were an important part of the silverite coalition. The Wicked Witch of the West symbolizes President William McKinley and the Wizard is Mark Hanna, who was the chairman of the Republican Party and made promises that he could not keep. Obviously “Oz” is an abbreviation for “ounce.”
Heh...
I can see several trailer trucks pulling up to Al Gore's office (and those of other greedy Cap & Fraud types) full of the useless currency and the looks on their faces.
"... in the time of our founding fathers, it was an OK idea that worked, and now it's not. For a multitude of reasons. Regardless of reason why it would destroy our economy, there's this nasty "non-starter" issue that gold standard fetishists are either incapable of grasping, or are purposely ignoring."
I'm not sure which issue is the "non-starter". I'll assume you mean the the supply of gold is finite and, at today's prices, less than the totla of our current economy.
I've responded to this. The quantity of gold is irrelevant to its use as an objective store of value as a currency. Differences in the relative quantity of gold vs. wealth are simply reflected in prices. (Just as they already are anyway).
And regarding Hayek's references to "trade imblances", that issue has been respnded to many times and by most more eloquently than I am motivated to here; suffice to say, my position is that the issue of "trade imbalances" is 100% irrelevant to the merits of a gold standard.
I'm not going to argue with you anymore if you think that all of our gold being shipped to China because we don't manufacture goods anymore is somehow 100% irrelevant to the discussion of the merits of the Gold Standard. There's a reason Paulians bitch about how "we don't *make* anything here anymore!" It's because their precious gold standard will ruin an economy like ours. They want us all to be working in factories making physical things that can be shipped to other countries. Apparently services and intellectual property are somehow "bad" since we cant have Gold-backed currency with that type of economy. They live in the 1800s still on both economics and foreign policy.
The quantity of Gold is very relevant, especially when talking about switching to the Gold Standard from Fiat Currency. If the values are not reasonably close it will be a fucking catastrophe. While already on a Gold Standard, the quantity is less important if you think massive deflation is OK.
The reasons why countries went off the Gold Standard in the first place (the Real reason, not the kook conspiracy theory reason) is that the industrial revolution increased the growth of the world economy in ways that outpaced the increase of the physical gold supply by percentages never before seen in human history. By the time the US was screwing around with dumping it, re adopting it, dumping it again, etc... the writing was already on the wall.
Quite concur, but, Wall-Mart would be one of the biggest things cheering that red tape on.
We will never have sensible - as in scientifically based - legislation on environmental issues as long as it is dictated by who has the most money, or the most popular ideology.
For the record, AGW is solvable with technologies that we have available - or in the very near term - and Cap and Trade does not do it. The thing that is most frustrating to me as a scientist when it comes to AGW and eco issues is that I have to talk politics all the time rather than science.
There are three simple things we could do.
1. Build safe fission reactors, about 200 of them. It is possible to build ceramic fuel pellets that make it physically impossible for a reactor to melt down. Have them run the way the Navy does it, not by an MBA who thinks that if half his customers die, he can double prices, and is therefore willing to cut corners and take risks.
2. Invest in better batteries. Right now, the biggest block to making electric cars, and solar or wind energy really practical is energy storage. We need about twice the energy density to really make the numbers add up. A recent battery was just developed at Argonne national labs that exceeds this requirement. If we put money into making this and other new battery designs practical for mass production we could completely remove our dependence on foreign oil.
3. Give massive tax incentives to companies, large malls, and private homes to install solar panels. With the new battery designs, you need something to store energy when the sun isn't shining, a homeowner or business could reduce costs from things like lighting and air-conditioning by a huge amount.
4. Invest in things like developing algae triangles. This is a device that uses industrial smoke and algae to trap carbon - and produce feed for animals at the same time.
By then using the harvest algae, we could reduce the carbon footprint tremendously, because you essentially get to burn carbon twice.
5. Stop confusing your hatred of Obama and Al Gore with AGW and then assuming that the science can't be true. I wish it weren't so, but the science is real and there is a serious threat. It is a solvable threat however. Unfortunately though, the politicians rarely get it. On one side we have the GOP and conservative types who think the best answer is to put their heads in the sand, pretend it isn't true and smugly yell at those who know it is.
On the other hand, we have left leaning types who believe that their ideological and political solutions are somehow better than scientific and technological ones.
Both sets will cause future generations to suffer because they are both stupid and arrogant enough to think that their pompous political wind-blowing and back room dealing can trump the laws of physics. They are wrong and we will pay for the fact we let them be wrong.
What is most agitating is that it does not have to be this way. All of those solutions listed could have been done for a fraction of the bailout and created thousands of American jobs, while staunching the flow of dollars to other often hostile governments.
BUt, when I talk to Dem types I hear how Obama knows best, and when I talk to GOP types I hear how there isn't a problem.
Ludwig: Wow. Beautiful, beautiful post. I've hearted it for my file.
Well I guess I get the pox from not agreeing that there's a problem. There is no conclusive incontrovertible evidence that correlates Man with Global Warming. By the way, world temperatures have been dropping in the last few years.
/Would you like your pox in a cup or on a cone?
Nels you are an idiot.
Global temperatures are not dropping compared to the overall trends. That is just false.
Actually read the graphs. Seriously, don't respond until you look at and digest this data from NASA. Yes we are a little lower now than the last few years, - but still much higher than we were before that.
As to conclusive evidence, I get insanely tired of arguing with the anti AGW true believers. It is like arguing with the anti evolution people.
Look at, read and understand the following from Princeton Geophysical Fluids Dynamics labs. Understand it, actually understand what the curves mean and what they would look like without human forcing.
The only reason a modified 'gold standard' makes any sense is because money creation is out of control. When you devalue currencies to zero (where many paper currencies have gone), you cannot function effectively in a modern market. If you took all the U.S. dollars domestic and foreign, you'd have something like $30,000 paper to any ounce of gold. This is one of the reasons why some (not me) people have advocated a change to an all digital currency. If the dollar ceases to be the world reserve currency by constant money printing, then a basket of currencies including the US dollar might take its place. The US dollar is holding up because foreign governments hold so much of it as part of their reserves. China in particular. Nobody really wants to rock the boat, but the Chinese have been diversifying by purchasing energy companies throughout the world as a way of offloading dollars. Hmm. I seem to have lost the thread here, but Russia, China, South Korea and many other countries have stated they are adding to their gold holdings over the past couple of years. It's insurance against wild currency fluctuations.
re: #287 ArchangelMichael
The reasons why countries went off the Gold Standard in the first place (the Real reason, not the kook conspiracy theory reason) is that the industrial revolution increased the growth of the world economy in ways that outpaced the increase of the physical gold supply by percentages never before seen in human history. By the time the US was screwing around with dumping it, re adopting it, dumping it again, etc... the writing was already on the wall.
Industrial Revolution: late 1800s
Countries abandoned Gold Standard: 1930s
After WW1, Germany had to pay war reparations. America was loaning money to Europe. Germany went off the Gold Standard to print paper money to repay war debt, resulting in hyperinflation. The rest is history.
Gold is perceived to be a hedge against inflation. Dave Ramsey does not believe that individuals should own gold in case of emergencies, because trade of services and useful items will suffice.
Mr. Gore, is that you?
Seriously, are you less than 45 years old? If so, you may not have read the newsweek article in the 70s that predicted a global Ice Age if Man did not stop polluting. I could send it to you if you like.
Nels: Except for one thing. The Newsweek article was an article. By a trio of iconoclast scientists, as I recall.
Global warming is treated in thousands of articles by thousands of scientists. Not comparable at all. This misperception has been pointed out again and again in articles Charles has linked here. But it will not die, for some reason.
"RP is crazier than loon on subjects other than economic theory. Maybe those without any background on the subject should step back a bit."
Thanks Rightymouse for those words of sanity.
I get the impression that folks have literally *equated* Ron Paul with Austrian School and Classical Liberal theory, and thrown out the latter!
It's like what was saying a few weeks ago: "One racist can ruin your whole rally." When most people see a kook, they tend back away from them and anything the kook advocates. Even if the kook doesn't really stand for the values of the school, the fact that he is associated with the school can discredit the school.
Your Paulian detector is seriously flawed then. I have never discussed Paul here, nor anywhere, without including criticisms from mundane to profound. I am deeply critical of Ron Paul, and have referred to him here as a kook, a loon, a nut, and probably a dozen other things. I've written at length elsewhere about why I oppose Ron Paul. I have never voted for him. I've never voted Libertarian. I regarded him as worse than then other two main candidates in the last election, and that's a mouthful.
Your Paulian detector, obviously, is worthless in that context.
In another context, though, it's quite illuminating: it further proves my earlier assertion that many folks are unable to conceptually separate the concepts of classical liberal economics, and their personal dislike of Ron Paul. A pity for the prospect of classical liberal values.
Too bad voting against Obama's wildfire spending policies has to be wrapped up in crazy for the Republicans. Seems to be a trend, though. They're getting weirder by the day.
The Dems have to be rubbing their hands together like flies, waiting for the Republicans to spin entirely out of orbit. Ron Paul at the helm will only help speed up the process.
The school not taking into account the reality of modern times and pining for a return to a utopian past that never really existed (almost sound like commies in this way) does not help their credibility either.
1. Please do not resort to namecalling. It is, well, rather juvenile.
2. Please do not tell me what to do. It is, well, rather fascistic.
3. You referred to a "climate model". That is a computer model created by humans using algorithms based on...what? There is not yet a climate model that can predict rainfall on the Earth next year, so how can we trust a model predicting the climate 50-100 years hence?
Seriously, folks were predicting a new Ice Age in the 70s that would result in significant climate differences by... the early 1990s.
4. I will suggest (instead of demand) that you read some more.
I just upgraded to IE8 today and only had one problem, but it was the same under IE6. Open windows suddenly freeze up for no apparent reason.
Hmm, I don't know the solution, just sharing my own experience so maybe someone else can figure it out. I never had a problem with IE6.
The problems with LGF (very slow to load, or not loading completely on first try) started after I went to IE7. It may have also been during a time when Charles was adding a lot of new bells and whistles to the site, but then again, when isn't he adding new features?
Now those problems have completely disappeared since going to IE8. Maybe IE8 caught up somewhat with LGF's new features, where IE7 couldn't handle them.
Alan Greenspan's early views on gold are quite interesting. His closing remarks:
In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves.
This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists' antagonism toward the gold standard.
45 to 50 to 100 years, just long enough to make sure most every one alive now it dead and gone when the truth is dead "cold" true.
Tell you what, If the scientific community is wrong and you do what we are proposing, you will only make for less smog, prettier cities, millions of American jobs and no energy dependence on brutal regimes that hate us.
If however, we are right, and people like you get their way, as the world warms and food gets scarce, we will have pumped even more of our resources that we could have used to address the issues into the governments of those who want to kill us. Of course, that really won't matter because many of our coastal cities will be flooded, so we would need less oil anyway.
Nels: Except for one thing. The Newsweek article was an article. By a trio of iconoclast scientists, as I recall.
Global warming is treated in thousands of articles by thousands of scientists. Not comparable at all. This misperception has been pointed out again and again in articles Charles has linked here. But it will not die, for some reason.
"Thousands of" represents a Consensus, not a Scientific Law. I can prove Gravity exists. There is no debate about gravity. There is plenty of debate about GW, shucks, even here. So, it is not a settled matter.
Beer?
I don't have concerns about the Gold Standard or isolationist foreign policy because of Ron Paul, it's the other way around. RP embraces a lot of kookiness and outdated bullshit. It's easier for me to use the term "Paulian" to describe these people than to make some long winded euphemism regarding those who subscribe to aspects of western classical liberal economic theory that are flawed or outdated.
"Thousands of" represents a Consensus, not a Scientific Law. I can prove Gravity exists. There is no debate about gravity. There is plenty of debate about GW, shucks, even here. So, it is not a settled matter.
Beer?
No thanks, but I will take a Diet Pepsi if you have one.
Ironic, the subject of gold standard is exceedingly boring to me. I jumped in because I wanted to advocate for the idea apart from its association (apparently on LGF) with Ron Paul.
I refer those interested in the topic to the writing of Ludwig von Mises.
(I do *not* recommend an organization called the "Ludwig von Mises Institute".)
All of the arguments I have seen offered here, are more eloquently answered by him, than I could ever hope or find motivation to.
Also recommended: books my Richard Salsman: "Breaking the Banks", and "Gold and Liberty". I know these works have been in and out of print, and have seen various incarnations intextbooks, etc., so I can't speak for their availability in the format mentioned. If anybody's interested, I have them and happily loan them.
I'm off. Good day and thanks for all the polite and thoughtful responses.
"Thousands of" represents a Consensus, not a Scientific Law. I can prove Gravity exists. There is no debate about gravity. There is plenty of debate about GW, shucks, even here. So, it is not a settled matter.
Beer?
Law trumps consensus. Consensus trumps a single wacky article. Deal?
While not agreeing with many of your conclusions, I thank you and apologize if I slipped into some rudeness. I'm just getting a little bit tired of fighting the same battles over and over again.
No thanks, but I will take a Diet Pepsi if you have one.
Darn it, DF, I'm trying to buy off S Ed and LudwigVQ here! If I'm lucky, we'll all end up on the porch swing talking about the upcoming college basketball season!
1. Please do not resort to namecalling. It is, well, rather juvenile.
2. Please do not tell me what to do. It is, well, rather fascistic.
3. You referred to a "climate model". That is a computer model created by humans using algorithms based on...what? There is not yet a climate model that can predict rainfall on the Earth next year, so how can we trust a model predicting the climate 50-100 years hence?
Seriously, folks were predicting a new Ice Age in the 70s that would result in significant climate differences by... the early 1990s.
4. I will suggest (instead of demand) that you read some more.
Don't pull a mock wounded tone with me.
1. Your two replies were less than polite. I am not whining about it, neither should you.
2. Since you can not read graphs - notice how the data I brought you destroys you argument about there being no warming - do not presume to debate me about what constitutes a good model.
To address your flawed argument about rainfall, there is a difference between predicting an individual storm and predicting an overall trend.
Consider smoking. If you get 100 smokers in a room, we do not have the science to predict that this specific one vs. that one will get cancer. However, we can say with great certainty that many more of them will get cancer than non-smokers.
The salient point is that we do not need to predict exactly who will get cancer and when to be able to conclusively say that smoking is bad for you.
The same applies to the science of AGW.
Since you do not get this, there is no point in arguing with a true believer. If you have something substantive about the models I will gladly share some of my actual scientific expertise with you. However, you really didn't look because the models follow the observed data - that should bug you, but then again you can't read graphs.
There is no point in arguing with a true believer.
And yes, I get to demand that you actually have a clue about this before you debate.
Darn it, DF, I'm trying to buy off S Ed and LudwigVQ here! If I'm lucky, we'll all end up on the porch swing talking about the upcoming college basketball season!
While not agreeing with many of your conclusions, I thank you and apologize if I slipped into some rudeness. I'm just getting a little bit tired of fighting the same battles over and over again.
Has there really been that much fighting over the gold standard? I thought the conversation over the last couple of days has been great, but I'm still trying to study up on this stuff and understand the various points of view. Maybe this is deja vu vu vu vu for you.
The Republicans are taking an ugly turn and squandering an opportunity here. They're trying to imitate the Dem losses in 2004 maybe? We have an opportunity to redo the "contract with America" and the Republicans are fighting over who can bring the craziest paleocon to the table. Just bad. Who knows, maybe they'll energize enough Paulians so I can stay home and not vote next time. Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right...
The Republicans are taking an ugly turn and squandering an opportunity here. They're trying to imitate the Dem losses in 2004 maybe? We have an opportunity to redo the "contract with America" and the Republicans are fighting over who can bring the craziest paleocon to the table. Just bad. Who knows, maybe they'll energize enough Paulians so I can stay home and not vote next time. Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right...
It seems to me that no one is in charge.
When you have the moderates contending that the cons are disenfranchising them and the cons are contending the same about the moderates that sort of indicates a problem to me.
Darn it, DF, I'm trying to buy off S Ed and LudwigVQ here! If I'm lucky, we'll all end up on the porch swing talking about the upcoming college basketball season!
No way. College basketball is a loony hoax. It's all Photoshop and animation.
Only NCAA football is real. I have this on good authority.
Well, I guess you're too smart for me! I never realized that I could not read a graph. How insightful of you to point that out to me. You are, in fact, only too kind to demand I align myself to your way of thinking. You are, after all, too smart for me.
/s
PS no beer for you!
Well, I guess you're too smart for me! I never realized that I could not read a graph. How insightful of you to point that out to me. You are, in fact, only too kind to demand I align myself to your way of thinking. You are, after all, too smart for me.
/s
PS no beer for you!
Sorry, I have to downding that one. That wasn't nice, Nels.
Deja Vuvuvuvu for me. The subject comes up like once a month or so here. Since the "Audit the Fed" bill, it's come up far more often. I think this is the first time its been 2 days in a row though.
I used to agree with gnargtharst on this issue. I used to be a full blown libertarian who supported almost everything that Ron Paul does (I was never into isolationist foreign policy though) and thought that Von Mises was nearly a diety. I voted libertarian in elections. I knew who Ron Paul was in the early 90s. Most people probably never heard of him back then. Among these beliefs was being a proponent of the Gold Standard. It's something I believed in for a long time. I also used to believe in a whole range of kooky conspiracy theories thanks to drinking libertarian Kool-Aid that I'm not proud of.
It's been about a decade long journey for me walking away from most of these beliefs, and it's not something I did without a lot of research and reflection. Forcing yourself to play devil's advocate against yourself on many of your own deeply held beliefs tend to be an eye opener.
I really don't know about the validity of either side's argument. Both the pros and cons have become so politicized that I distrust all the info. Most concerning to me is that those who believe in man made global warming in government have been cynically using it to either get rich, or take money from those that they consider wealthy for redistribution.
The Nobel committee did wrong too in giving the Goracle a political award. I always felt if the science was there, why not a prize in that field?
When you have the moderates contending that the cons are disenfranchising them and the cons are contending the same about the moderates that sort of indicates a problem to me.
I'm not such a moderate. Buchanan and Paul aint no Reagans. You are right though, the party is adrift and rudderless right now. Shame. Like I said, wasted opportunity.
Well, I guess you're too smart for me! I never realized that I could not read a graph. How insightful of you to point that out to me. You are, in fact, only too kind to demand I align myself to your way of thinking. You are, after all, too smart for me.
/s
PS no beer for you!
NO, I am too smart to play sophomoric games with people who can't be reasoned with.
You claimed that there is no trend in warming because of a local downturn in the average. I showed you data that completely destroys your argument. That is not a model. That is the actual data.
Since you can not concede the reality of the evidence, either you are too stupid or too arrogant to read the graph and process what it means.
That is not how science works. And you have proven that you do not care for data you do not like.
You then went on to lecture us about scientific consensus not being a law. Exactly what scientific law was ever established without the consensus of the community?
You have just proven that you do not get how science works in general, let alone in the specific case of AGW.
Since the first thing you said about models - was that models must be bad - with no reason why, and you neglected the plot of the models over actual observed data, you also reinforce that you know nothing about AGW in specific.
So again, enough with the mock wounded tone. It is not about me being smarter than you. It is that I am bringing actual science and you are bringing unsubstantiated bluster and an inability to reason.
This is a dangerous conceit that I am simply tired of.
Your opinions on thoracic surgery don't matter either. Would you debate with a surgeon about how to crack a chest if you hadn't gone to medical school? Simply spouting bad science and faulty reasoning to a scientist is the same type on conceit.
I really don't know about the validity of either side's argument. Both the pros and cons have become so politicized that I distrust all the info. Most concerning to me is that those who believe in man made global warming in government have been cynically using it to either get rich, or take money from those that they consider wealthy for redistribution.
The Nobel committee did wrong too in giving the Goracle a political award. I always felt if the science was there, why not a prize in that field?
Well one mark of the difference between a true believer and a scientist is if the person goes and shows actual data from credible sources and makes logical arguments.
It is much like the "debates" on evolution. I am not saying you must agree with me, because I am the great LVQ, I am saying look at the data and follow the reasoning. I am not referring to any dogma.
You are absolutely correct that the issue is over-politicized. That in of itself is part of the problem. It obscures the data and the reality.
Deja Vuvuvuvu for me. The subject comes up like once a month or so here. Since the "Audit the Fed" bill, it's come up far more often. I think this is the first time its been 2 days in a row though.
I used to agree with gnargtharst on this issue. I used to be a full blown libertarian who supported almost everything that Ron Paul does (I was never into isolationist foreign policy though) and thought that Von Mises was nearly a diety. I voted libertarian in elections. I knew who Ron Paul was in the early 90s. Most people probably never heard of him back then. Among these beliefs was being a proponent of the Gold Standard. It's something I believed in for a long time. I also used to believe in a whole range of kooky conspiracy theories thanks to drinking libertarian Kool-Aid that I'm not proud of.
It's been about a decade long journey for me walking away from most of these beliefs, and it's not something I did without a lot of research and reflection. Forcing yourself to play devil's advocate against yourself on many of your own deeply held beliefs tend to be an eye opener.
Thanks for sharing that. It gives me further appreciation of your insights. I've only recently developed an interest in learning about this stuff (monetary policy, economic theory) - since the meltdown started last year.
My motivation for wanting to understand other points of view is that it seems that the Fed's monetary policy (possibly over years) was not a benign factor in the whole crisis yet it's still the sort of mystery to me who's making decisions and to what effect, etc. The gold standard (as I believe I also opined last night) may have worked in its time, but I'm not sure how one would ever put the toothpaste back in that tube.
Of more immediate interest to me is the legislation giving more authority to the Fed in the banking/financial sector. Given that I'm not convinced that their track record is so great in recent years, I have questions about how well this will work. That, in turn, is what fed (no pun intended) my interest in the "Audit the Fed" legislation and so on and so forth into some discussions over the last few days. At the risk of drawing "Paulian" fire, I can't say that some sort of oversight, accountability etc. wouldn't make me feel a little more comfortable about what seems to be even more authority going the Fed's way.
Well one mark of the difference between a true believer and a scientist is if the person goes and shows actual data from credible sources and makes logical arguments.
It is much like the "debates" on evolution. I am not saying you must agree with me, because I am the great LVQ, I am saying look at the data and follow the reasoning. I am not referring to any dogma.
You are absolutely correct that the issue is over-politicized. That in of itself is part of the problem. It obscures the data and the reality.
See now when I look at the data, I think we've gotten warmer since 1880, but I don't know why. I don't know if that really means anything either in terms of the age of the earth, or if factors besides carbon are at play. In truth, I tend to think that there are other factors that impact climate more than man does, but I also do listen to reason. We should not politicize these things, because it clouds everyone's judgment. I wish I could do my own studies.
As someone who doesn't even really like sports outside of Hockey, there's still nothing like American Football. I think it's one of the few unifying forces left in the US, so even though I'm not all that into it, I follow it. I watch games every Sunday. I go to the parties.
Besides Association Football (Soccer) is for anti-American socialists.
As someone who doesn't even really like sports outside of Hockey, there's still nothing like American Football. I think it's one of the few unifying forces left in the US, so even though I'm not all that into it, I follow it. I watch games every Sunday. I go to the parties.
Besides Association Football (Soccer) is for anti-American socialists.
We'll talk more soon about this I hope!
Sorry must run, good friend has a problem. Apologies to all==Cheers, ice
See now when I look at the data, I think we've gotten warmer since 1880, but I don't know why. I don't know if that really means anything either in terms of the age of the earth, or if factors besides carbon are at play. In truth, I tend to think that there are other factors that impact climate more than man does, but I also do listen to reason. We should not politicize these things, because it clouds everyone's judgment. I wish I could do my own studies.
Well, then do your own studies.
Please, let me politely suggest a few places to start.
1. Look at Quantum MEchanics and the absorption spectra of CO2 and other GHGs. You will find that as a matter of fact, when these molecules get hit by the right types of light, they vibrate and get hot.
2. Look at the solar emission spectrum. You will find that the sun gives off a significant fraction of it's energy in bands that can excite these molecules.
3. Putting 1 and 2 together - with a little scattering theory, and you will see that a planet in this system with a sufficiently high concentration of these gasses will cause a greenhouse effect. A great example of what a runaway greenhouse effect can look like is to be found on the planet Venus, which has a mostly CO2 atmosphere, and as a result, is actually hotter than Mercury.
4. Look at Kheeling curves and other direct measurements of CO2 concentrations in the Earth's atmosphere - couple that with data on how much carbon we actually put out due to our industry. You will see a direct correlation.
5. Also consider deforestation and the death of ocean plant life due to pollution, the things that would scrub the CO2 are being reduced drastically. Therefore, the more we pump into the atmosphere is a double whammy, because there is less of a sink to eat it.
6. Consider feedback loops. Two examples: As we melt places like the Siberian bog, huge amounts of Methane, another GHG get released. As the caps shrink, less sunlight is reflected back to space, and the water it hits instead of ice, warms up even more.
If you are honestly interested in this, this is the basic science.
There is not discussion of the mathematical complexities of modeling here to get lost in. The models attempt to predict how quickly things will get bad, and how bad they might become following the current trends. However, you do not need them to be concerned. If someone gets the first 5 points, then they get that there is a problem.
I dare say that neither you nor any other human being knows what the earth will be like in 50-100 years.
See my 354.
I dare say that there are predictions and there are predictions. I know exactly where the moon will be in it's orbit 50, 100, 10,000 years from now. Well, I could calculate it, and know I was right at least.
You are saying that you hope that all the scientific community is wrong. It is historically dangerous to bet against us.
That sounds good.
Mind if I grab that for Vol 2 cookbook?
Reine: Here's the actual recipe. Thanks for asking. Let me know if you have questions or comments...
ShanghaiEd’s Baked Parmesan Chicken
4 boneless chicken breasts
2/3 cup butter
2 cloves garlic, crushed
1-2/3 cups bread crumbs
2/3 cup canned Parmesan cheese
1 tsp. thyme (or to taste)
1/3 cup chopped fresh parsley
Salt and black pepper to taste
Paprika (optional)
1. Saute garlic very lightly in butter, dip breasts in it.
2. Combine bread crumbs, Parmesan, thyme, salt and pepper. (This is the only recipe I have where canned Parmesan is actually preferable to fresh. The fresh tends to scorch a bit before the chicken is cooked through. Your mileage may vary.)
3. Roll buttered breasts in crumb mixture.
4. Arrange, skin up, in heavily oiled 9”x13” baking dish.
5. Sprinkle breasts with leftover crumb mixture, drizzle with leftover garlic butter (optional).
6. Bake at 375 degrees for 40 minutes or until fork tender and golden brown. Top with parsley and serve. Sprinkle with paprika for a dab of extra color.
(A good use for leftovers is to slice thinly and add to a salad the next day.)
I think lurking at the back of some people's minds is the complaint"Are you trying to say God has not adequately provided for us? I remember him telling us to go forth and multiply, and to make use of the planet's resources as we see fit, nothing about cutting our consumption". I'm sure there are people who feel that AGW is an inherently godless concept.
I think lurking at the back of some people's minds is the complaint"Are you trying to say God has not adequately provided for us? I remember him telling us to go forth and multiply, and to make use of the planet's resources as we see fit, nothing about cutting our consumption". I'm sure there are people who feel that AGW is an inherently godless concept.
I think you are right to a greater or lesser extent.
To those who think that way, I would remind them that God created a garden and us to be a gardener.
My computer is having issues with LGF, I am off to investigate. It is loading slow, updating slow, just refreshhed the page, it is still not showing ratings, up/down ding etc.. Everything else on the computer is running fine! Just my favorite website is fucked! Damn it.
You're out of memory. The browsers try to paint the whole page in memory, not just what you see. An LGF page with hundreds of comments takes up a huge amount of memory as an image. If you can't get more memory right away try 16 bit color instead of 24 bit. Use taskmgr.exe (or top on real computers) to make sure you're not running any other memory hogs. Good luck.
I dare say that there are predictions and there are predictions. I know exactly where the moon will be in it's orbit 50, 100, 10,000 years from now. Well, I could calculate it, and know I was right at least.
You are saying that you hope that all the scientific community is wrong. It is historically dangerous to bet against us.
You're putting words in my mouth. You, however, are implying that the computer models on which you base your predictions, and the assumptions they rely on to predict the future, are so accurate and complete that they will not be invalidated by any events or discoveries occurring in the next 50 to 100 years.
You're out of memory. The browsers try to paint the whole page in memory, not just what you see. An LGF page with hundreds of comments takes up a huge amount of memory as an image. If you can't get more memory right away try 16 bit color instead of 24 bit. Use taskmgr.exe (or top on real computers) to make sure you're not running any other memory hogs. Good luck.
bobbuck: You've raised a question I've long wondered about. When I go into taskmgr.exe to clean out the memory hogs, is there anything I can permanently screw up by unchecking the wrong hog? Or is it all fixable?
You're putting words in my mouth. You, however, are implying that the computer models on which you base your predictions, and the assumptions they rely on to predict the future, are so accurate and complete that they will not be invalidated by any events or discoveries occurring in the next 50 to 100 years.
Imagine living in 1909.
I apologize if you feel that I am putting words into your mouth. I am saying that we have very good calculations to predict that things will reach a point that most people would consider intolerable by then.
I hope to be surprised and find that we avoided it.
Please note that even if the models are way off and that the point of being intolerable happens 150 years from now instead, due to the six real facts that I listed before, that point of intolerability must exist and we are heading absolutely towards it.
I wonder if there is such animosity on the left against Dennis Kucinich? I highly doubt it.
No, there isn't. Unfortunately, we're so scared of what the left will say about us, we'd rather adopt their positions than work in opposition for a return to fiscal conservatism.
I think lurking at the back of some people's minds is the complaint"Are you trying to say God has not adequately provided for us? I remember him telling us to go forth and multiply, and to make use of the planet's resources as we see fit, nothing about cutting our consumption". I'm sure there are people who feel that AGW is an inherently godless concept.
Jimmah: I think you make an important, and overlooked, point.
For every person who's familiar with the phrase "Dominionist Theology" (dominion being the operative word), there are thousands of people who don't necessarily consider themselves religious but are vaguely troubled by the prospect that (a) God won't infinitely provide for us, or (b) there are even theoretical limits on American exceptionalism.
No, there isn't. Unfortunately, we're so scared of what the left will say about us, we'd rather adopt their positions than work in opposition for a return to fiscal conservatism.
Wendya & Lion: Oddly enough, during last year's primaries there was an online poll called "choose your candidate," where you could select, "blindly," from dozens of issues/positions and see which candidate most closely suited your values. Kucinich shut out all the other Dems, by far.
Most of his positions are very reasonable. Thanks to the media, he's gotten the label of a kook and an outlier because he's short of stature, kind of odd-looking, and unfortunately mentioned UFOs in an interview.
Goldwater believed in UFOs, and it never seemed to work against him. :)
The price of gold depends on demand. If enough idiots can be persuaded by those with large holdings of gold to buy it as an inflation hedge, then its price will increase with inflation.
The problem is that the price of gold never will exceed that of inflation, all other things being equal, so it's a break-even proposition as an inflation hedge at best. (I made a killing in gold at the time of the First Iraq War, because Middle Eastern investors began panic-buying. I sold close to the peak in that market. That sort of panic is pure speculation, however.)
Buying gold does nothing to stimulate the economy, and your investment never will exceed the rate of inflation. Ideally, you want to invest in a company or commodity that's growing faster than the rate of inflation.
Jimmah: I think you make an important, and overlooked, point.
For every person who's familiar with the phrase "Dominionist Theology" (dominion being the operative word), there are thousands of people who don't necessarily consider themselves religious but are vaguely troubled by the prospect that (a) God won't infinitely provide for us, or (b) there are even theoretical limits on American exceptionalism.
See I see things differently. In my opinion G-d created man with an ability to eventually overcome these things. If man made global warming exists, or if there is another cause and mankind is jeopardized then we have the ability to figure out how to stop it.
I do feel there is a tendency however on the other side that says, there is no G-d and that men are gods in their own right and that everything that occurs is the result of man, and can be started and stopped by man. I see this not only in the gw debate, but even in the foreign policy of the left.
See I see things differently. In my opinion G-d created man with an ability to eventually overcome these things. If man made global warming exists, or if there is another cause and mankind is jeopardized then we have the ability to figure out how to stop it.
I do feel there is a tendency however on the other side that says, there is no G-d and that men are gods in their own right and that everything that occurs is the result of man, and can be started and stopped by man. I see this not only in the gw debate, but even in the foreign policy of the left.
Very interesting note, Jayzee.
In fact, I see things exactly as you do, in your first paragraph. Exactly.
Your second paragraph, I have problems with.
1. I don't know what you mean by "the other side" or by a "tendency" to say or believe something. I either say and believe something, or I don't. "Tendency" doesn't come into play.
2. "Some say there is no God." I know a handful of atheists, but I don't see how atheism makes someone more prone to accept AGW.
3. "Men are gods in their own right, and everything that occurs is the result of man." I don't know anybody who believes this, and have never read those words except on Religious Right websites. Can you give me a link that shows this is a popular belief? Otherwise, I have to assume it's a straw man.
4. "Everything that occurs can be started or stopped by man." I certainly don't know anybody who's this arrogant. The arguments I've seen for AGW all assume that once this thing gets past a certain point, it can't be stopped by man. Do you have a link otherwise?
5. "I see this not only in the GW debate, but in the foreign policy of the left." Again, I welcome a link showing any of these arguments used by "the left" in a foreign policy framework.
Disclaimer: I realize, that with 5 or 6 billion people in the world, and the miracle of the Internet to connect us, it's possible to find somebody who says anything. But saying that a handful of freakish ideas is the viewpoint of the "other side" is both disingenuous and dangerous, IMO. I look forward to your reply.
bobbuck: You've raised a question I've long wondered about. When I go into taskmgr.exe to clean out the memory hogs, is there anything I can permanently screw up by unchecking the wrong hog? Or is it all fixable?
You said uncheck. Do you mean taskmgr or msconfig? I'm not expert enough on all the Windows components to be sure that it's completely safe to start unchecking startup applications in msconfig, but having said that, I've done it quite a few times on machines lacking sufficient memory. The unchecked lines do not disappear if that's what you're thinking of. Killing unused stuff from startup will make more difference in boot time than browsing performance because they'll get pushed out on the swap file if they stay idle. It's probably better to just uninstall those applications. Reduce colors, reduce font size if you can stand it, and make sure your graphics drivers are up to date. LGF pages are just freaking huge. If you still can't get enough memory you can defrag and then fix the swap file size (i.e. make min = max = ~1Gb ) so that the swap file is contiguous when the swapping starts.
Lucky for me, I can divest my brain of the recent gold standard arguments, for I have found an online resource with which I fully agree; it will henceforth represent what I have to say on the issue, leaving my mind free to contemplate pizza, Steve Vai, and Halle Berry.
George Reisman's "Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics" is available online in PDF format. In chapter 19, Reisman addresses gold and inflation; in part C (starting on page 951), he specifically addresses the issue of whether economic growth higher than gold quantity growth will result in deflation. Also, the issue of whether gold money would attract or repel foreign investment and/or spending is addressed (note: I heard the original lectures on which this section is based, and recall a more thorough discussion than what I found in this book; I would bet that this topic is covered in more detail elsewhere there, but having only just re-scanned the book briefly -- I haven't read it fully in years --, I can't point to it directly.)
(Note: I have some minor disagreements with Mr. Reisman, but as none of them bear directly on this topic, I'll offer only that my referral is almost, but not entirely, unqualified.)
You said uncheck. Do you mean taskmgr or msconfig? I'm not expert enough on all the Windows components to be sure that it's completely safe to start unchecking startup applications in msconfig, but having said that, I've done it quite a few times on machines lacking sufficient memory. The unchecked lines do not disappear if that's what you're thinking of. Killing unused stuff from startup will make more difference in boot time than browsing performance because they'll get pushed out on the swap file if they stay idle. It's probably better to just uninstall those applications. Reduce colors, reduce font size if you can stand it, and make sure your graphics drivers are up to date. LGF pages are just freaking huge. If you still can't get enough memory you can defrag and then fix the swap file size (i.e. make min = max = ~1Gb ) so that the swap file is contiguous when the swapping starts.
I wrote a song about dental floss but did anyone's teeth get cleaner? -- In response to Tipper Gore's allegations that music incites people towards deviant behavior, or influences their behavior in general.
Frank says: