If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for?

[DCG]

 

Trump called Obama the 'founder of Isis', and Hillary the co-founder.

 

 

 

 

"It says something that someone can scale a high-rise tower with only suction cups, and still be less of a lunatic than the man who owns it. " - James Martin

[jeffmori7]

As a Quebecois, I must admit I find unbelievable that trump even stand a chance of being elected president. And I find scary that as many as 40% could vote for him. It tells a lot about the level of education in the country...really, democracy is the lesser evil, but you have as good a democracy as the level of education in a country...

 

And from a personal point of view, as a scientist, I can't even understand why the GOP is so entrenched on its stand about climate change and science in general, that's is really really sad.

 

It's pretty simple - there's a lot of oil and coal money that supports the GOP that is at risk if we make a dramatic shift to renewables.

 

While it's pretty easy to dismiss people that disagree with you by smearing their motives, there is actually a reasoned, thoughtful argument against the prevailing leftist view of climate change.

 

It has absolutely nothing to do with left or right!

 

Just some reading Don Fanucci: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

What surprises me is the kind of opposition to clean energy from certain quarters. I can understand oil or coal companies cause it's their living. But what about the rest? Even leaving aside whether climate change is real or not. (I believe in science so I think it's real) Does anyone actually believe that the stuff that comes out from the coal plants' smoke stacks or the stuff that comes out of exhaust pipes is good for you?

 

To me it seems that getting rid of pollution is reason enough to switch to clean energy.

 

You would think any sane person would be supportive of clean energy. The only thing I can conclude is these people are insane,

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_coal

 

I was "attacked" once riding my bike back from work by one of these coal rollers. A blast of black soot in my face and I almost fell off my bike.

 

Haha, just because someone disagrees with you and you don't understand why doesn't make them insane. If you look at fossil fuels in the big picture, both the positives and negatives, and evaluate them against a standard of human flourishing, they are overwhelmingly a good thing that everyone should be using more of. There's more to fossil fuels than pollution, and an honest evaluation of them requires carefully looking at the negatives AND positives. This is actually a point Munger made regarding Coke at the BRK annual meeting this year. "We ought to have a law ... where these people shouldn't be allowed to cite the defects without citing the advantage. It's immature and stupid."

 

It is not because fossil fuels has been good overall that we need to pursue with it forever, now knowing of its pros and cons and now that we have alternative solution.

 

A good read on petrol, from the historic benefits to the dead end, read from p.12: https://fr.scribd.com/document/247135040/GMO-QtlyLetter-3Q14-Full

[DonFanucci]

I'm willing to listen and change my mind if the facts warrant it.

 

Tell me, what are the positives of a truck pulling in front of me while I am riding my bike and blasting black soot on me?

 

I can't think of any, but is that your justification for disliking fossil fuels in general? The guy sounds like a real jerk, but if someone kicks me with a shoe I don't generalize that shoes are bad. If someone dumps a can of Coke on my head I don't decry the evils of Coke.

 

It is not because fossil fuels has been good overall that we need to pursue with it forever, now knowing of its pros and cons and now that we have alternative solution.

 

A good read on petrol, from the historic benefits to the dead end, read from p.12: https://fr.scribd.com/document/247135040/GMO-QtlyLetter-3Q14-Full

 

This isn't just a historical question, I'm saying that fossil fuels are a massive net benefit right now and for the foreseeable future. There's often this claim put forth that we have "the solution", which I take to mean that we have other sources of energy which provide the same benefits of fossil fuels without the negatives. If that's really true, and you know the solution, then you are going to be a very wealthy man because you have the better mouse trap. The reality is that such solutions are not practicable, hence the campaign for government involvement. Why does one need to force a supposedly superior product on people? The folks who say we have the solutions should stop flapping their gums and build it. But actually it's worse than just flapping gums because there is a real campaign to destroy the industry that actually is providing us with the energy that alternatives cannot.

[jeffmori7]

I'm willing to listen and change my mind if the facts warrant it.

 

Tell me, what are the positives of a truck pulling in front of me while I am riding my bike and blasting black soot on me?

 

I can't think of any, but is that your justification for disliking fossil fuels in general? The guy sounds like a real jerk, but if someone kicks me with a shoe I don't generalize that shoes are bad. If someone dumps a can of Coke on my head I don't decry the evils of Coke.

 

It is not because fossil fuels has been good overall that we need to pursue with it forever, now knowing of its pros and cons and now that we have alternative solution.

 

A good read on petrol, from the historic benefits to the dead end, read from p.12: https://fr.scribd.com/document/247135040/GMO-QtlyLetter-3Q14-Full

 

This isn't just a historical question, I'm saying that fossil fuels are a massive net benefit right now and for the foreseeable future. There's often this claim put forth that we have "the solution", which I take to mean that we have other sources of energy which provide the same benefits of fossil fuels without the negatives. If that's really true, and you know the solution, then you are going to be a very wealthy man because you have the better mouse trap. The reality is that such solutions are not practicable, hence the campaign for government involvement. Why does one need to force a supposedly superior product on people? The folks who say we have the solutions should stop flapping their gums and build it.

 

Because the solutions are multiple, a cocktail of initiatives with their own pros and cons and a large part involve changing our habit derived from having too much fossil fuels. And because guys like you like energy sources that cause climate change, atmospheric pollution, that contribute to the Middle East eternal problems, that cost a lot in healthcare, that generate car dependency and all the problems that come with it, that destroy locally the environnement where they are extracted. Maybe we are stuck with fossil fuels for a long time, but I don't get why we wouldn't want to at least try to replace most of it the faster we can. I don't think you get the overwhelming cost of the inaction associated with the non-linearity of climate change...

[DonFanucci]

I'm willing to listen and change my mind if the facts warrant it.

 

Tell me, what are the positives of a truck pulling in front of me while I am riding my bike and blasting black soot on me?

 

I can't think of any, but is that your justification for disliking fossil fuels in general? The guy sounds like a real jerk, but if someone kicks me with a shoe I don't generalize that shoes are bad. If someone dumps a can of Coke on my head I don't decry the evils of Coke.

 

It is not because fossil fuels has been good overall that we need to pursue with it forever, now knowing of its pros and cons and now that we have alternative solution.

 

A good read on petrol, from the historic benefits to the dead end, read from p.12: https://fr.scribd.com/document/247135040/GMO-QtlyLetter-3Q14-Full

 

This isn't just a historical question, I'm saying that fossil fuels are a massive net benefit right now and for the foreseeable future. There's often this claim put forth that we have "the solution", which I take to mean that we have other sources of energy which provide the same benefits of fossil fuels without the negatives. If that's really true, and you know the solution, then you are going to be a very wealthy man because you have the better mouse trap. The reality is that such solutions are not practicable, hence the campaign for government involvement. Why does one need to force a supposedly superior product on people? The folks who say we have the solutions should stop flapping their gums and build it.

 

Because the solutions are multiple, a cocktail of initiatives with their own pros and cons and a large part involve changing our habit derived from having too much fossil fuels. And because guys like you like energy sources that cause climate change, atmospheric pollution, that contribute to the Middle East eternal problems, that cost a lot in healthcare, that generate car dependency and all the problems that come with it, that destroy locally the environnement where they are extracted. Maybe we are stuck with fossil fuels for a long time, but I don't get why we wouldn't want to at least try to replace most of it the faster we can. I don't think you get the overwhelming cost of the inaction associated with the non-linearity of climate change...

 

Your framework for thinking about the issue is backwards, imo. Why is there a maniacal focus on just the negatives of fossil fuels? It's so odd. What does it mean to say that fossil fuels generate "car dependency"? Fossil fuels allow people an unparalleled freedom of movement that they can't get elsewhere and this is a bad thing? You can see that there is an irrational push towards misrepresenting the overall context (positives and negatives) of fossil fuels. This is not the same framework you'd apply (I assume) to the evaluation of vaccines. Vaccines might cause fever, shivering, headache, joint pain etc. Would you advocate for stopping the use of vaccines? Do vaccines generate "doctor dependency"? If someone was in favor of vaccines, would you call them a vaccine side effect denier?

 

The benefits of energy are simply enormous. Energy is a fundamental value. It's the ability to do work, and the more work we can do with machines the more we can improve our life and environment. This is why industrialized countries with high amounts of fossil fuels use have the best human environments in the history of the world. Fossil fuels are a massive net benefit. The more we use the more net benefit we get, it's really that simple. If someone invents a new energy source with less downside (nuclear in some contexts), the more power to them (hah)! If someone invents a new vaccine without the downsides, that's great! But does it really make sense to organize a movement around moving away from vaccines as if they are bad for us?

[jeffmori7]

I'm willing to listen and change my mind if the facts warrant it.

 

Tell me, what are the positives of a truck pulling in front of me while I am riding my bike and blasting black soot on me?

 

I can't think of any, but is that your justification for disliking fossil fuels in general? The guy sounds like a real jerk, but if someone kicks me with a shoe I don't generalize that shoes are bad. If someone dumps a can of Coke on my head I don't decry the evils of Coke.

 

It is not because fossil fuels has been good overall that we need to pursue with it forever, now knowing of its pros and cons and now that we have alternative solution.

 

A good read on petrol, from the historic benefits to the dead end, read from p.12: https://fr.scribd.com/document/247135040/GMO-QtlyLetter-3Q14-Full

 

This isn't just a historical question, I'm saying that fossil fuels are a massive net benefit right now and for the foreseeable future. There's often this claim put forth that we have "the solution", which I take to mean that we have other sources of energy which provide the same benefits of fossil fuels without the negatives. If that's really true, and you know the solution, then you are going to be a very wealthy man because you have the better mouse trap. The reality is that such solutions are not practicable, hence the campaign for government involvement. Why does one need to force a supposedly superior product on people? The folks who say we have the solutions should stop flapping their gums and build it.

 

Because the solutions are multiple, a cocktail of initiatives with their own pros and cons and a large part involve changing our habit derived from having too much fossil fuels. And because guys like you like energy sources that cause climate change, atmospheric pollution, that contribute to the Middle East eternal problems, that cost a lot in healthcare, that generate car dependency and all the problems that come with it, that destroy locally the environnement where they are extracted. Maybe we are stuck with fossil fuels for a long time, but I don't get why we wouldn't want to at least try to replace most of it the faster we can. I don't think you get the overwhelming cost of the inaction associated with the non-linearity of climate change...

 

Your framework for thinking about the issue is backwards, imo. Why is there a maniacal focus on just the negatives of fossil fuels? It's so odd. What does it mean to say that fossil fuels generate "car dependency"? Fossil fuels allow people an unparalleled freedom of movement that they can't get elsewhere and this is a bad thing? You can see that there is an irrational push towards misrepresenting the overall context (positives and negatives) of fossil fuels. This is not the same framework you'd apply (I assume) to the evaluation of vaccines. Vaccines might cause fever, shivering, headache, joint pain etc. Would you advocate for stopping the use of vaccines? Do vaccines generate "doctor dependency"? If someone was in favor of vaccines, would you call them a vaccine side effect denier?

 

The benefits of energy are simply enormous. Energy is a fundamental value. It's the ability to do work, and the more work we can do with machines the more we can improve our life and environment. This is why industrialized countries with high amounts of fossil fuels use have the best human environments in the history of the world. Fossil fuels are a massive net benefit. The more we use the more net benefit we get, it's really that simple. If someone invents a new energy source with less downside (nuclear in some contexts), the more power to them (hah)! If someone invents a new vaccine without the downsides, that's great! But does it really make sense to organize a movement around moving away from vaccines as if they are bad for us?

 

I'll leave it there, but the downsides of vaccines doesn't compare at all with the benefits, and the downside of oil and gas are largely increasing. I know you won't change your idea and I won't change mine, so this discussion will go nowhere from now on. Maybe you will deserve your Trump after all!

[Jurgis]

OT. The issue with reducing fossil fuel consumption is that a lot of solutions have high costs and/or NIMBY issues. E.g. building fast rail infrastructure (costs + some NIMBY), nuclear (costs and NIMBY), etc. They might be good long term in terms of costs. They might be very good if climate change risks are really nonlinear and catastrophic. Unfortunately, it is very hard to convince people that climate change risks are nonlinear and catastrophic. Even people who agree that climate change is happening and is going to cause issues are not very likely to support large very costly projects.

 

OTOH, the "feel good" solutions mostly have very limited impact and/or don't solve the problems. E.g. more efficient cars drop the fuel consumption few percent (that gets immediately reversed by China/India/etc. energy consumption growth). Issues with solar/wind are necessity to maintain the gas/coal generation for peak usage (or develop very-large-scale energy storage that is not there yet even with Tesla's powerpacks) and new costly/NIMBY transmission lines. Not saying we shouldn't do this, but these will unlikely reduce emissions to prevent the climate change.

 

I've just finished watching one of Vaclav Smil's lectures (

) and even though I find him a bit too pessimistic about technological solutions, he has a lot of good arguments why change is tough and will be slow even if people supported it (which they mostly don't - and mostly for cost reasons). But this probably should be split into another thread for any detailed discussions.

[jeffmori7]

Oh, and did I mention acidification of the oceans and everything else it implies Don Fanucci? OK, I'l really leave there now.

[jeffmori7]

I'm willing to listen and change my mind if the facts warrant it.

 

Tell me, what are the positives of a truck pulling in front of me while I am riding my bike and blasting black soot on me?

 

I can't think of any, but is that your justification for disliking fossil fuels in general? The guy sounds like a real jerk, but if someone kicks me with a shoe I don't generalize that shoes are bad. If someone dumps a can of Coke on my head I don't decry the evils of Coke.

 

It is not because fossil fuels has been good overall that we need to pursue with it forever, now knowing of its pros and cons and now that we have alternative solution.

 

A good read on petrol, from the historic benefits to the dead end, read from p.12: https://fr.scribd.com/document/247135040/GMO-QtlyLetter-3Q14-Full

 

This isn't just a historical question, I'm saying that fossil fuels are a massive net benefit right now and for the foreseeable future. There's often this claim put forth that we have "the solution", which I take to mean that we have other sources of energy which provide the same benefits of fossil fuels without the negatives. If that's really true, and you know the solution, then you are going to be a very wealthy man because you have the better mouse trap. The reality is that such solutions are not practicable, hence the campaign for government involvement. Why does one need to force a supposedly superior product on people? The folks who say we have the solutions should stop flapping their gums and build it.

 

Because the solutions are multiple, a cocktail of initiatives with their own pros and cons and a large part involve changing our habit derived from having too much fossil fuels. And because guys like you like energy sources that cause climate change, atmospheric pollution, that contribute to the Middle East eternal problems, that cost a lot in healthcare, that generate car dependency and all the problems that come with it, that destroy locally the environnement where they are extracted. Maybe we are stuck with fossil fuels for a long time, but I don't get why we wouldn't want to at least try to replace most of it the faster we can. I don't think you get the overwhelming cost of the inaction associated with the non-linearity of climate change...

 

Your framework for thinking about the issue is backwards, imo. Why is there a maniacal focus on just the negatives of fossil fuels? It's so odd. What does it mean to say that fossil fuels generate "car dependency"? Fossil fuels allow people an unparalleled freedom of movement that they can't get elsewhere and this is a bad thing? You can see that there is an irrational push towards misrepresenting the overall context (positives and negatives) of fossil fuels. This is not the same framework you'd apply (I assume) to the evaluation of vaccines. Vaccines might cause fever, shivering, headache, joint pain etc. Would you advocate for stopping the use of vaccines? Do vaccines generate "doctor dependency"? If someone was in favor of vaccines, would you call them a vaccine side effect denier?

 

The benefits of energy are simply enormous. Energy is a fundamental value. It's the ability to do work, and the more work we can do with machines the more we can improve our life and environment. This is why industrialized countries with high amounts of fossil fuels use have the best human environments in the history of the world. Fossil fuels are a massive net benefit. The more we use the more net benefit we get, it's really that simple. If someone invents a new energy source with less downside (nuclear in some contexts), the more power to them (hah)! If someone invents a new vaccine without the downsides, that's great! But does it really make sense to organize a movement around moving away from vaccines as if they are bad for us?

 

About vaccines and Trump..it tells you about the guy: http://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/heres-a-list-of-all-the-science-that-donald-trump-denies/

[RichardGibbons]

The benefits of energy are simply enormous. Energy is a fundamental value. It's the ability to do work, and the more work we can do with machines the more we can improve our life and environment. This is why industrialized countries with high amounts of fossil fuels use have the best human environments in the history of the world. Fossil fuels are a massive net benefit. The more we use the more net benefit we get, it's really that simple.

 

You don't see a problem with saying "The more we use, the more net benefit we get"?

 

Horses can pull heavy stuff, and are a huge net benefit over life without horses.  So, the more horses we have the more net benefit.  It's really that simple.

 

In the winter, having a wood stove is a huge net benefit over having no heating at all.  Therefore, we should burn down our houses to maximize our heating.  It's really that simple.

 

Eating food has a huge net benefit over not eating food.  Therefore, we should eat and eat and eat, and never stop eating. It's really that simple.

 

Using explosions to clear away rock has a huge benefit compared to pickaxes.  Therefore, we should use 100 megaton nukes to clear away rocks.  It's really that simple.

 

 

[EliG]

Ronald Reagan's daughter Patti Davis:

 

To Donald Trump: I am the daughter of a man who was shot by someone who got his inspiration from a movie, someone who believed if he killed the President the actress from that movie would notice him. Your glib and horrifying comment about "Second Amendment people" was heard around the world. It was heard by sane and decent people who shudder at your fondness for verbal violence. It was heard by your supporters, many of whom gleefully and angrily yell, "Lock her up!" at your rallies. It was heard by the person sitting alone in a room, locked in his own dark fantasies, who sees unbridled violence as a way to make his mark in the world, and is just looking for ideas. Yes, Mr. Trump, words matter. But then you know that, which makes this all even more horrifying.

 

https://www.facebook.com/BooksByPattiDavis/posts/488450031279847

 

[DonFanucci]

The benefits of energy are simply enormous. Energy is a fundamental value. It's the ability to do work, and the more work we can do with machines the more we can improve our life and environment. This is why industrialized countries with high amounts of fossil fuels use have the best human environments in the history of the world. Fossil fuels are a massive net benefit. The more we use the more net benefit we get, it's really that simple.

 

You don't see a problem with saying "The more we use, the more net benefit we get"?

 

Horses can pull heavy stuff, and are a huge net benefit over life without horses.  So, the more horses we have the more net benefit.  It's really that simple.

 

In the winter, having a wood stove is a huge net benefit over having no heating at all.  Therefore, we should burn down our houses to maximize our heating.  It's really that simple.

 

Eating food has a huge net benefit over not eating food.  Therefore, we should eat and eat and eat, and never stop eating. It's really that simple.

 

Using explosions to clear away rock has a huge benefit compared to pickaxes.  Therefore, we should use 100 megaton nukes to clear away rocks.  It's really that simple.

 

Energy is a fundamental resource, and the more we have, the more we can improve our environment. That doesn't mean that it's a good thing if terrorists have access to unlimited energy. It doesn't mean it's a good thing if our energy source is so abundant that there's nowhere else for humans to stand on planet earth. I think we should be as clear as possible about what our reasoning is, but the problem with your post is that you've not made any explicit argument. What you've done is shown that it's illogical to treat a single idea or statement out of context, like an absolute floating in space that must be true for all imaginable situations.

 

Each one of your examples is about a situation where the value in question has reached a point where its now a disvalue. What is your evidence that fossil fuels have reached the point that they are a net disvalue to humans? This gets back to making a clear, honest appraisal of the benefits and downsides of fossil fuels. But you haven't said anything about fossil fuels, you've only made the point that it's theoretically possible to have too many. Well, I agree. I could think up some scenario like that which doesn't reflect reality.

 

The world is starving to death and I say, food is a massive net benefit. The more we use the more net benefit we get. It's really that simple. Then Richard comes along to make the point that this is illogical because you can overeat.  :o  Well you've got me there.

[muscleman]

I suggest focusing on the big picture, rather than basing your votes on one or two matters. This is no different from investing.

 

[RichardGibbons]

The world is starving to death and I say, food is a massive net benefit. The more we use the more net benefit we get. It's really that simple. Then Richard comes along to make the point that this is illogical because you can overeat.  :o  Well you've got me there.

 

Well, I was going to use a more sophisticated argument, but based on your reasoning thus far, I figured you wouldn't understand it.

 

Economics means that we produce as much energy as is efficient to use.  We produce where the supply curve intersect with the demand curve, and if we produce anywhere where these curves don't intersect, we are producing non-economically.

 

However, there are huge negative externalities in oil production, such as the destruction of farmland, acidification of the oceans, extinction of organisms that can't handle the environmental changes, and death of people through wars and famine resulting from global warming.  Thus, while the benefits are taken into account in the supply and demand curves, the negative externalities aren't.

 

Thus, the reason people often focus on the bad things (i.e. negative externalities), rather than the good things is that the good things are already in the price of the commodity.  If there were more good things that could be done efficiently by burning more oil, they would already be done.  This fact means your argument makes no sense.

 

Or, to put it another way to be more comprehensible to you: Eating is good, but overeating adds no extra value--it actually adds negative value.  It's really that simple.

 

 

[boilermaker75]

The world is starving to death and I say, food is a massive net benefit. The more we use the more net benefit we get. It's really that simple. Then Richard comes along to make the point that this is illogical because you can overeat.  :o  Well you've got me there.

 

Well, I was going to use a more sophisticated argument, but based on your reasoning thus far, I figured you wouldn't understand it.

 

Economics means that we produce as much energy as is efficient to use.  We produce where the supply curve intersect with the demand curve, and if we produce anywhere where these curves don't intersect, we are producing non-economically.

 

However, there are huge negative externalities in oil production, such as the destruction of farmland, acidification of the oceans, extinction of organisms that can't handle the environmental changes, and death of people through wars and famine resulting from global warming.  Thus, while the benefits are taken into account in the supply and demand curves, the negative externalities aren't.

 

Thus, the reason people often focus on the bad things (i.e. negative externalities), rather than the good things is that the good things are already in the price of the commodity.  If there were more good things that could be done efficiently by burning more oil, they would already be done.  This fact means your argument makes no sense.

 

Or, to put it another way to be more comprehensible to you: Eating is good, but overeating adds no extra value--it actually adds negative value.  It's really that simple.

 

+1

[DonFanucci]

The world is starving to death and I say, food is a massive net benefit. The more we use the more net benefit we get. It's really that simple. Then Richard comes along to make the point that this is illogical because you can overeat.  :o  Well you've got me there.

 

Well, I was going to use a more sophisticated argument, but based on your reasoning thus far, I figured you wouldn't understand it.

 

Economics means that we produce as much energy as is efficient to use.  We produce where the supply curve intersect with the demand curve, and if we produce anywhere where these curves don't intersect, we are producing non-economically.

 

However, there are huge negative externalities in oil production, such as the destruction of farmland, acidification of the oceans, extinction of organisms that can't handle the environmental changes, and death of people through wars and famine resulting from global warming.  Thus, while the benefits are taken into account in the supply and demand curves, the negative externalities aren't.

 

Thus, the reason people often focus on the bad things (i.e. negative externalities), rather than the good things is that the good things are already in the price of the commodity.  If there were more good things that could be done efficiently by burning more oil, they would already be done.  This fact means your argument makes no sense.

 

Or, to put it another way to be more comprehensible to you: Eating is good, but overeating adds no extra value--it actually adds negative value.  It's really that simple.

 

It's simply not true that "the good things are already in the price" of any good. If you purchase a plane ticket so you can see the birth of your grandson, the value is far in excess of the $200 paid. If you drive your daughter to the hospital to give birth, does the $4 you paid for gas price in "all the good things"? Not even close. Actually the whole point of paying a price for something is that you expect to get value in excess of the price.

 

Second of all, it's also not true that if there were more good things that could be done efficiently by burning more oil, they would already be done. There will be people burning fossil fuels tomorrow and the next day. They didn't burn it all today? The cheaper it is for them, the more energy they can use, the higher their standard of living. I'm confused as to how this invalidates anything being said or really even if I understand what you're saying.

 

Thirdly, if you're going to talk about negative externalities, then in the spirit of objectivity you'd have to also consider the positive externalities- benefits received but not paid for. Just as a back of the envelope calculation, how do you think the negative externalities compare to the benefits you don't pay for which arise from everyone in a free society having access to cheap plentiful reliable energy? It's not even close in magnitude. Just the extension of life expectancy and the ability of other people to stay alive through industrial fossil fuel powered agriculture has created more benefits for you that you didn't pay for than any negative externality I can think of. Someone who really wants to be right on this issue should be a little disturbed by the fact that the negative externality argument is constantly put forth with no discussion of positive externalities, nor a discussion of how the value received exceeds purchase price. The negatives are often exaggerated to a Hollywood-apolocypse degree, and you see a real drive to invent problems (see "car dependency" above). At the least this should indicate that something is going wrong here.

 

Once you understand the right way to think about this issue, you just see a million variants of the same wrong way of thinking. As in the case of JeffMori above, enumerating the problems with fossil fuels is not a valid argument against them. It's one piece of an argument. I hope we can at least agree that the framework I talked about is the right framework for thinking about the issue: name your standard of evaluation (human flourishing), and look at the full context (positives and negatives) evaluated against the standard. Fossil fuels have downsides, but big picture they are fantastic for us. Hopefully poorer nations can start to use and benefit from more fossil fuels too.

[muscleman]

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2016/03/crack-dealer-freed-early-under-obama-plan-murders-woman-2-kids/

 

The Dem party is willing to do anything to get a vote. Let's stop discussing fossil fuels and environmental problems, guys. These social problems are far more serious than that. If you breath polluted air, your life span may be shortened by 10 years. If your neighborhood is filled with people like this, you may die tomorrow.

 

 

[jeffmori7]

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2016/03/crack-dealer-freed-early-under-obama-plan-murders-woman-2-kids/

 

The Dem party is willing to do anything to get a vote. Let's stop discussing fossil fuels and environmental problems, guys. These social problems are far more serious than that. If you breath polluted air, your life span may be shortened by 10 years. If your neighborhood is filled with people like this, you may die tomorrow.

 

Stop looking at anectodal events, the big picture is different: https://mises.org/blog/fbi-us-homicide-rate-51-year-low

 

Environment and education are the priorities, if you don't have them, you don't have anything.

[muscleman]

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2016/03/crack-dealer-freed-early-under-obama-plan-murders-woman-2-kids/

 

The Dem party is willing to do anything to get a vote. Let's stop discussing fossil fuels and environmental problems, guys. These social problems are far more serious than that. If you breath polluted air, your life span may be shortened by 10 years. If your neighborhood is filled with people like this, you may die tomorrow.

 

Stop looking at anectodal events, the big picture is different: https://mises.org/blog/fbi-us-homicide-rate-51-year-low

 

Environment and education are the priorities, if you don't have them, you don't have anything.

 

Well, there are many factors contributing to this result. Just because the homicide rate is lower does not mean Obama should release the drug dealers so they can kill more.

The logic is like, well the overall homicide rate is much lower now, so it is ok to release a few drug dealers to kill people. That does not sound logical to me.

On the other hand, tax payers spend money to help these guys find jobs. Then there is the not enough resource for education for normal people.

 

[jeffmori7]

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2016/03/crack-dealer-freed-early-under-obama-plan-murders-woman-2-kids/

 

The Dem party is willing to do anything to get a vote. Let's stop discussing fossil fuels and environmental problems, guys. These social problems are far more serious than that. If you breath polluted air, your life span may be shortened by 10 years. If your neighborhood is filled with people like this, you may die tomorrow.

 

Stop looking at anectodal events, the big picture is different: https://mises.org/blog/fbi-us-homicide-rate-51-year-low

 

Environment and education are the priorities, if you don't have them, you don't have anything.

 

Well, there are many factors contributing to this result. Just because the homicide rate is lower does not mean Obama should release the drug dealers so they can kill more.

The logic is like, well the overall homicide rate is much lower now, so it is ok to release a few drug dealers to kill people. That does not sound logical to me.

On the other hand, tax payers spend money to help these guys find jobs. Then there is the not enough resource for education for normal people.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rate

 

Maybe there will be errors, but incarceration is really high in the US vs the rest of the world. You should at least ask yourself sometimes why the US are so strange from many point point of view even being a rich and educated country. Trump will probably fix all of this, with his really great expertise in all field.

[ERICOPOLY]

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2016/03/crack-dealer-freed-early-under-obama-plan-murders-woman-2-kids/

 

The Dem party is willing to do anything to get a vote. Let's stop discussing fossil fuels and environmental problems, guys. These social problems are far more serious than that. If you breath polluted air, your life span may be shortened by 10 years. If your neighborhood is filled with people like this, you may die tomorrow.

 

Stop looking at anectodal events, the big picture is different: https://mises.org/blog/fbi-us-homicide-rate-51-year-low

 

Environment and education are the priorities, if you don't have them, you don't have anything.

 

Well, there are many factors contributing to this result. Just because the homicide rate is lower does not mean Obama should release the drug dealers so they can kill more.

The logic is like, well the overall homicide rate is much lower now, so it is ok to release a few drug dealers to kill people. That does not sound logical to me.

On the other hand, tax payers spend money to help these guys find jobs. Then there is the not enough resource for education for normal people.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rate

 

Maybe there will be errors, but incarceration is really high in the US vs the rest of the world. You should at least ask yourself sometimes why the US are so strange from many point point of view even being a rich and educated country. Trump will probably fix all of this, with his really great expertise in all field.

 

 

There is a huge black market economy in the US.  The courts will not enforce the contracts because of the underlying illegal activity.  Therefore, the businessmen are required to enforce the contracts themselves.  We call that "street violence".

 

It's basically no more complicated than that.

[ERICOPOLY]

The drug dealers in jail are probably no more violent than the people who step up to take their place (the large underground economy needs suppliers, and when you lock one up another one fills the "job opening").

 

Violence is a requisite for the job due to the lack of support from the courts.

 

You'll never lock up the last drug dealer -- it's whack-a-mole.

 

Need a more intelligent approach.

[JayGatsby]

The drug dealers in jail are probably no more violent than the people who step up to take their place (the large underground economy needs suppliers, and when you lock one up another one fills the "job opening").

 

Violence is a requisite for the job due to the lack of support from the courts.

 

You'll never lock up the last drug dealer -- it's whack-a-mole.

 

Need a more intelligent approach.

I'll use that as my shameless introduction of Gary Johnson to this two party discussion. Only candidate who recognizes the war on drugs doesn't work. I like him mainly because of economic track record. He started a construction company in NM, grew it to 1000 employees, sold it, and became Republican governor of New Mexico (a mainly blue state).  As governor he used the veto ~750 times, cut taxes 14 times and left office with a budget surplus. His running mate, Governor Bill Weld of Massachusetts, has a similar track record. They've promised a balanced budget within 100 days and are the only candidates willing to discuss entitlements (they suggest raising the social security age and having a means test). They want to eliminate all income taxes (corp and personal) and replace them with a sales tax, with the main benefit being it would make the US a much more competitive place to have a global company. They recognize that small businesses are really what drives job growth (especially as small businesses become big businesses) and want to make it as easy as possible to start a company. Also the only candidates who support free trade. Main concern with them so far has been that they "can't win" but with the two main candidates as polarizing and scandal-ridden as they are, it seems a bit early to make that call. Anyways, that's the end of my plug. Here's Patrick Byrne (Overstock CEO) with the rest:

[muscleman]

The drug dealers in jail are probably no more violent than the people who step up to take their place (the large underground economy needs suppliers, and when you lock one up another one fills the "job opening").

 

Violence is a requisite for the job due to the lack of support from the courts.

 

You'll never lock up the last drug dealer -- it's whack-a-mole.

 

Need a more intelligent approach.

I'll use that as my shameless introduction of Gary Johnson to this two party discussion. Only candidate who recognizes the war on drugs doesn't work. I like him mainly because of economic track record. He started a construction company in NM, grew it to 1000 employees, sold it, and became Republican governor of New Mexico (a mainly blue state).  As governor he used the veto ~750 times, cut taxes 14 times and left office with a budget surplus. His running mate, Governor Bill Weld of Massachusetts, has a similar track record. They've promised a balanced budget within 100 days and are the only candidates willing to discuss entitlements (they suggest raising the social security age and having a means test). They want to eliminate all income taxes (corp and personal) and replace them with a sales tax, with the main benefit being it would make the US a much more competitive place to have a global company. They recognize that small businesses are really what drives job growth (especially as small businesses become big businesses) and want to make it as easy as possible to start a company. Also the only candidates who support free trade. Main concern with them so far has been that they "can't win" but with the two main candidates as polarizing and scandal-ridden as they are, it seems a bit early to make that call. Anyways, that's the end of my plug. Here's Patrick Byrne (Overstock CEO) with the rest:

 

 

Well, if this is true, I think Gary Johnson is solid. Does he believe in separation of power or does he think a president can do whatever he wanted to do, like Obama/Hillary? He used veto 750 times so I am worried if he is more like Obama who believes he can do whatever he wanted to do.

 

 

 

 

[JayGatsby]

Well, if this is true, I think Gary Johnson is solid. Does he believe in separation of power or does he think a president can do whatever he wanted to do, like Obama/Hillary? He used veto 750 times so I am worried if he is more like Obama who believes he can do whatever he wanted to do.

There was an interview the other day where the talking head asked him about his economic / tax plan (after Clinton / Trump had given theirs). He started his answer by clarifying that he's running for president not king so he has to work within the confines of congress. When he talked about a balanced budget he said he'd submit one to congress. He's very critical of Obama's foreign policy that doesn't get a formal declarations of war from congress. He compared the idea that "it's not war, it's just bombs" to the bombing of Pearl Harbor. A lot of policy (education for example) he wants nothing to do with and thinks it should be completely in the state's hands.