What happened to Global Warming?

By on June 20, 2013 9:54:31 AM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

ZombiesRus5

Join Date 02/2009
+321

What happened to Global Warming?

When I put my first above ground pool in around the late 90's we were able to open it in April and start swimming in May.

Now my pool is just opened and still not warm enough to swim in

 

I'd like some global warming back...

 

2913 Replies +1
Search this post
Subscription Options


Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 9, 2013 8:50:04 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting Frogboy,
That society is known as communism. Seriously. You just defined communism.

.... Define Communism for me please. 

Also elaborate how the wealthy in our current world is entitled to their riches. From my perspective the important people in society are vastly underpaid in governments today, while psychopathic capitalists are rewarded on their behalf, on no other reason than "Capitalism" rules. And hell, if someone else says contrary.. they are "FUCKING COMMIES!!!!!" so we can ignore them right?

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 9, 2013 8:52:39 PM from WinCustomize Forums WinCustomize Forums

Quoting Frogboy,
The cost is in the battery. They add the other gadgets to try to make people feel better about spending tens of thousands of dollars on what's roughly 450ah of battery.

Yes, of course I know where the cost is.  It's a sad indictment on the whole car industry that it seems to need to 'make people feel better'... and at added cost.

When the global automobile industry has seen 'better days' in general...and the US one is at best in receivership it's probably time to rethink the whole industry dynamics....whether petrol-powered or electric...

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 9, 2013 8:54:30 PM from Stardock Forums Stardock Forums

Quoting Frogboy,
That society is known as communism. Seriously. You just defined communism.

As somebody is already pointing out, no.  Just no.  I'll quote wikipedia again:

"Communism (from Latin communis – common, universal) is a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless,[1][2] and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a socialpoliticaland economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order."

The government subsidizing electric cars because it wants to encourage them doesn't even approach that.

At best, its a kind of leftist form of government.  You really are paranoid about some stuff - yelling about full blown communism because the government might want to encourage a behavior that might be positive for society (not that I'm necessarily advocating huge subsidies for electric cars).

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 9, 2013 8:55:46 PM from Stardock Forums Stardock Forums

Quoting Frogboy,


Quoting Borg999, reply 546

It's a catch 22. Without sufficient volume, prices (upfront cost) can't be reduced, but demand for electric cars won't increase until the price goes down. 

So, if we believe as a society that electric cars are necessary, then the production and/or purchase price of electric cars should be subsidized in some way by the gov't. And if we don't, then we won't.

 

That society is known as communism. Seriously. You just defined communism.  That is, society decides what is needed and therefore wealth is taken from those based on their ability to those based on their need.

There's another way we, as  a society, can demonstrate that electric cars are necessary: We can buy them.

 

No, it's not Communism. Our taxes are currently used on a variety of gov't programs that are deemed necessary for the public good. (e.g. bridges and roads), as well as the tax incentives given to a variety of industries, and entitlement programs. It's only communism if it's something you disagree with.

And we do decide things collectively through our elected officials. And our gov't is a Republic, not Communist.

As far as taking wealth, I never suggested anyone's after tax income should be divided up and directly redistributed to others based on need. If you're suggesting that we shouldn't have to pay taxes, then I don't know how the gov't would be able to operate.

As to you last point, the majority of people can't afford to purchase an electric car. That is the primary reason why the demand is low. 

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 9, 2013 8:56:45 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

To be fair, communism as practiced in the Soviet Union is nowhere near the real definition of Communism either. But hey, it works for Republicans to get more votes right? Socialism = Communism, Win/Win more votes. (OBAMACARE = COMMUNISM, LETS KILL GOVERNMENT!)

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 9, 2013 9:01:13 PM from WinCustomize Forums WinCustomize Forums

The maths of viability is simple enough.

Number of available charge cycles X mileage covered per charge X cost of charge + cost of battery

vs

Number of miles covered / MPG X cost per gallon.

It gets a little trickier when you also factor in energy-source production/distribution/storage method.

Needless to say it's at least HOPED the electric option is the better....commercially AND environmentally...

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 9, 2013 9:01:55 PM from Little Tiny Frogs Forums Little Tiny Frogs Forums

Quoting sjaminei,


Quoting Frogboy, reply 548That society is known as communism. Seriously. You just defined communism.

.... Define Communism for me please. 

Ok.

A society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.



Also elaborate how the wealthy in our current world is entitled to their riches.

Because theft is immoral? Evil? Wrong?

From my perspective the important people in society are vastly underpaid in governments today, while psychopathic capitalists are rewarded on their behalf, on no other reason than "Capitalism" rules. And hell, if someone else says contrary.. they are "FUCKING COMMIES!!!!!" so we can ignore them right?

Well, I'm not the one suggesting that some people are more "important" than others.  

But yet, I tend to ignore people who believe they have a personal inside track on who is "important" and thinks that people should justify why they should be able to keep what they produce.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 9, 2013 9:05:19 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

That's a flawed argument using a political definition born of a particular movement.  The government subsidizing electric cars isn't big c Communism.  It's what communists do when they can't pull off their revolution.

 

When the socialists started losing their revolutions, they gave up on the whole idea and just started adding things to what the government was supposed to tax people for.  You end up in the same place, it just happens peace meal.  Most of the supposedly capitalist societies are more socialist than not at this point.

 

First Brad has to pay for food stamps and welfare checks, then he gets to pay for the extra cost of everyone's electric car so they don't have to buy a gas guzzler.  It's all the same thing, economic redistribution.  Eventually, they either get a revolt or the progressive tax system is so crippling that the economy fails just like it does under communism and you get a reset.  I expect I'll get to live through it.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 9, 2013 9:06:16 PM from Little Tiny Frogs Forums Little Tiny Frogs Forums

Quoting Krazikarl,


Quoting Frogboy, reply 548That society is known as communism. Seriously. You just defined communism.

As somebody is already pointing out, no.  Just no.  I'll quote wikipedia again:

"Communism (from Latin communis – common, universal) is a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless,[1][2] and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, politicaland economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order."

The government subsidizing electric cars because it wants to encourage them doesn't even approach that.

At best, its a kind of leftist form of government.  You really are paranoid about some stuff - yelling about full blown communism because the government might want to encourage a behavior that might be positive for society (not that I'm necessarily advocating huge subsidies for electric cars).

You took out the key part of his quote.

He said if we, as a society, decide we need electric cars then we need the government to subsidize it so that everyone can have one.

In short: 

A society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.

Money is taken from one person to give to another because society decides it NEEDS it.

I'm not griping about the concept of welfare.  But yea, the idea of voters deciding that we all *need* something and therefore other people should pay for that is pretty clear cut.  Can you name any other products that are subsidized based on NEED?  Even food isn't. We have welfare but that's not the same here. That's enforced charity based on means testing.  

We're not talking about food, water, or even shelter. We're talking about electric cars.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 9, 2013 9:10:10 PM from WinCustomize Forums WinCustomize Forums

Quoting sjaminei,
To be fair, communism as practiced in the Soviet Union is nowhere near the real definition of Communism either. But hey, it works for Republicans to get more votes right? Socialism = Communism, Win/Win more votes. (OBAMACARE = COMMUNISM, LETS KILL GOVERNMENT!)

Politics is a prohibited topic in this section of the forums.

So far the debate has remained apolitical.  Let's keep it that way...

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 9, 2013 9:13:16 PM from Stardock Forums Stardock Forums

Quoting Frogboy,
How often do you hear about proposals to build CO2 scrubbers?  Or if global warming is the problem, why not solutions that involve releasing something else into the atmosphere to counter it? Where are those proposals from the AGW alarmists? Why does every problem - EVERY - problem always have the same solution - taking more money from other people to give to themselves?

This isn't about wealth distribution.  Its about some math that people have actually done in serious economic studies.

I think you really haven't been paying attention because there has been a lot of discussion of those things.

CO2 scrubbers are REALLY expensive and not that effective, but they have been looked into.  This is a reasonable summary of them:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=scrubbing-carbon-dioxide-air-too-expensive

Worth keeping in mind, but you can probably see why most people are looking mostly at other options.

Releasing stuff like aerosols into the atmosphere to counter global warming is also sometimes discussed, but that is really tricky.  It mean, it kind of brings to mind the old "we have a rat problem, so we released a bunch of snakes to eat the rats, but now we have a snake problem" adage.  After all, you are complaining that we can't adequately model greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, but now you expect us to be absolutely certain about what will happen if we toss billions of tons of stuff like aerosols into the atmosphere?

Its not impossible, and people actually do try and model that stuff.  But its really, really tricky, and it wouldn't be cheap.  After all, we need an entire global industry to create that much greenhouse gas, so creating enough stuff to counter the greenhouse gas is also not cheap.

I mean, I've heard of other proposals where you launch stuff like dust into space to block out sunlight, but that ain't cheap either.  The economic analyses all say that its just cheaper to cut down on emission.  You can find these analyses with google searches usually.

So yeah, its really the economics thats saying that its easiest to cut down on emissions rather than some kind of other global engineering scheme.  Instead of paranoid complaining about wealth distribution, I suggest that you spend some time with google and look up some of the economic studies - they really are out there.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 9, 2013 9:20:19 PM from Little Tiny Frogs Forums Little Tiny Frogs Forums

Quoting Jafo,


Quoting sjaminei, reply 555To be fair, communism as practiced in the Soviet Union is nowhere near the real definition of Communism either. But hey, it works for Republicans to get more votes right? Socialism = Communism, Win/Win more votes. (OBAMACARE = COMMUNISM, LETS KILL GOVERNMENT!)

Politics is a prohibited topic in this section of the forums.

So far the debate has remained apolitical.  Let's keep it that way...

Well to be fair, we're discussing how we might end up with potential solutions to AGW. 

And someone suggested that if society decides it needs electric cars then the government should take money from people and redistribute it so we can have it.

Now we have people who don't think that's communism. Maybe they're right. Maybe it's just a little bit of communism? I mean, what's the big deal? Just a car. In fact, maybe we should just make the cars free. After all, we need them and it's for our own good.  Anyone who has a problem with that is just being paranoid...

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 9, 2013 9:25:30 PM from Stardock Forums Stardock Forums

Quoting Frogboy,

Money is taken from one person to give to another because society decides it NEEDS it.

I'm not griping about the concept of welfare.  But yea, the idea of voters deciding that we all *need* something and therefore other people should pay for that is pretty clear cut.  Can you name any other products that are subsidized based on NEED?  Even food isn't. We have welfare but that's not the same here. That's enforced charity based on means testing.  

We're not talking about food, water, or even shelter. We're talking about electric cars.

Yes, thats how taxes work.  Just because we have taxes and sometimes spend them on things other than defense doesn't mean that we are in a communist society.  Sorry.

 

There are lots of things that are subsidized based on need.  I'm not quite sure why you are drawing a line between welfare and subsidies based on need, but:

Plenty of educations is subsidized for the poor on the theory that the poor need an opportunity to be educated too.

Heating - in many colder areas, you can get subsidies to obtain heating in the winter.

Food stamps and school lunch cost reductions are generally considered subsidies on food.

"The projects" is subsidized housing in the US:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_the_United_States

Anyway, we already federally subsidize lots of fossil fuel stuff, so I'm not too broken up about some of these subsidies.  I actually wouldn't mind throwing out a lot of these federal subsidies, but it would start with things like fossil fuel subsidies for sure.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 9, 2013 9:26:40 PM from Little Tiny Frogs Forums Little Tiny Frogs Forums

Quoting Krazikarl,


Quoting Frogboy, reply 541How often do you hear about proposals to build CO2 scrubbers?  Or if global warming is the problem, why not solutions that involve releasing something else into the atmosphere to counter it? Where are those proposals from the AGW alarmists? Why does every problem - EVERY - problem always have the same solution - taking more money from other people to give to themselves?

This isn't about wealth distribution.  Its about some math that people have actually done in serious economic studies.

I am sure there is some serious math and serious studies and serious theories all ready to be put into a paper right this very second. I absolutely concede that. 



I think you really haven't been paying attention because there has been a lot of discussion of those things.

Yes. For decades there have been a lot of discussions, debates, meetings, consultations, proposals and other important, serious, academic endeavors.



CO2 scrubbers are REALLY expensive and not that effective, but they have been looked into.  

This is a reasonable summary of them:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=scrubbing-carbon-dioxide-air-too-expensive

I remember reading this at the time.  However, they are expensive compared to...what? 

Would you like, in your own words, right here, give a ball park figure on what it would cost to bring worldwide Co2 production back to say 1991 levels? And if we did that, what would be, in your own words, right here, the projected environmental impact based on the consensus in the IPCC report?




Releasing stuff like aerosols into the atmosphere to counter global warming is also sometimes discussed, but that is really tricky.  It mean, it kind of brings to mind the old "we have a rat problem, so we released a bunch of snakes to eat the rats, but now we have a snake problem" adage.  After all, you are complaining that we can't adequately model greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, but now you expect us to be absolutely certain about what will happen if we toss billions of tons of stuff like aerosols into the atmosphere?

I agree. And I don't mean to imply that I favor releasing coal dust into the air or building giant CO2 scrubbers across the world.  My point is that even those who contributed to the IPCC reports over the years have conceded that to actually do anything measurable about world CO2 production (ignoring the many other things we're doing such as deforestation, methane production, etc.) would require immense economic sacrifice worldwide and IF we did that, we would only have a marginal affect -- according to them.  


So yeah, its really the economics thats saying that its easiest to cut down on emissions rather than some kind of other global engineering scheme.  Instead of paranoid complaining about wealth distribution, I suggest that you spend some time with google and look up some of the economic studies - they really are out there.

So let's get down the brass tacks on the economics. Since you are familiar with the serious economic studies, how much would it cost to bring worldwide CO2 production down to 1991 levels and what would the impact be?

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 9, 2013 9:33:54 PM from WinCustomize Forums WinCustomize Forums

Quoting Frogboy,
Well to be fair, we're discussing how we might end up with potential solutions to AGW.

When I see the keywords eg. 'Republican' 'Obama' 'Demoocrat' I deduce 'Politics'.

Colour me paranoid....but that's how it starts....and ends with hissy-fits of global proportions...

[Don't blame me...I vas just following orderz]...

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 9, 2013 9:34:57 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

For fucks sake, I just went over this...

 

The US does not subsidize fossil fuels.  Period.  It's political bullshit.  It's like saying they subsidize your office supplies because your business expenses are deducted from your revenue before you pay taxes on your profit.

 

They write a tax code to specifically screw oil companies, and then let them use a slightly less screwed depreciation schedule when the wells turn less of a profit than the bleeding taxes eat up.  There's no subsidy, it's not even a tax break.  They pay the exact same amount of taxes they would have paid were it worth the bother of keeping the rig operating without the accelerated depreciation schedule.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 9, 2013 9:36:46 PM from Little Tiny Frogs Forums Little Tiny Frogs Forums

Quoting Krazikarl,


Yes, thats how taxes work.  Just because we have taxes and sometimes spend them on things other than defense doesn't mean that we are in a communist society.  Sorry.

So you can name other specific consumer products that we subsidize based on means testing? Can you name, say one?
 


There are lots of things that are subsidized based on need.  

CONSUMER products? Something like a CAR? Such as...?

I'm not quite sure why you are drawing a line between welfare and subsidies based on need, but:

Because we are talking about what communism is. And it boils down to: From each according to their ability to each according to their need. 

To use an analogy, someone shoplifting from a store is an evil act. But that, in itself, does not necessarily make the person evil. But there is some threshold, some debateable threshold, of how many acts it would take before someone might ascribe the word evil to someone based on the preponderance of their actions.

By the same token: Subsidizing electric cars because society has decided it NEEDS them so that everyone can afford them (means testing) IS communism. That doesn't mean that the society, as a whole, has suddenly become a Communist (big C) society. But that policy is, by definition, an act of communism. Just because you're comfortable with a little communism in our public policy doesn't make your view correct and mine wrong.


Plenty of educations is subsidized for the poor on the theory that the poor need an opportunity to be educated too.

Education is a consumer good?  But that aside, yes, that is communism. That doesn't make the entire society a communist society. But that policy is a policy from the ideology of communism. You are taking money, by force, from one person to give it to another based on need.


Heating - in many colder areas, you can get subsidies to obtain heating in the winter.

Which again, is not a consumer good and is generally considered welfare.



Food stamps and school lunch cost reductions are generally considered subsidies on food.


"The projects" is subsidized housing in the US:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_the_United_States

Anyway, we already federally subsidize lots of fossil fuel stuff, so I'm not too broken up about some of these subsidies.  I actually wouldn't mind throwing out a lot of these federal subsidies, but it would start with things like fossil fuel subsidies for sure.

Yes, we have a number of welfare projects and other policies that come from the ideology of communism.

It's a shame that the word communism has been twisted into meaning something huge.  My household is run on the principle of communism.  I suspect most households are.  Where communism becomes a problem (IMO) is when it makes that transition from little c to big-C Communism.  Each new government law that forces one person to forcibly pay for something for another is a step in that direction.

A society that decides that we "need" electric cars and therefore can justify confiscating money from people to ensure everyone can have an electric car is not one I'd want to live in.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 9, 2013 9:38:32 PM from Stardock Forums Stardock Forums

Quoting Frogboy,



And someone suggested that if society decides it needs electric cars then the government should take money from people and redistribute it so we can have it.

Now we have people who don't think that's communism. Maybe they're right. Maybe it's just a little bit of communism? I mean, what's the big deal? Just a car. In fact, maybe we should just make the cars free. After all, we need them and it's for our own good.  Anyone who has a problem with that is just being paranoid...

 

 

What is it about electric cars you don't like? The gov't takes money away from people (taxes) and uses it for all sorts of things.

Is that communism? Then why is it communism to use some of the taxes collected to subsidize electric cars?

The gov't uses tax dollars to subsidize a variety of industries. So, why is subsidizing an electric car manufacturer so different from your perspective?

And I never said we should give electric cars away for free. How you extrapolated that from my post, is beyond me. 

Giving a budding industry some breathing room until it can ramp up and operate profitably on it's own can potentially lead to more jobs, higher wages and contribute positively to the economy. Short term pain for long term gain.

And it's a win-win situation if it helps both the shareholders and the environment.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 9, 2013 9:40:48 PM from Stardock Forums Stardock Forums

Ok, I just read your last post. You have an issue subsidizing consumer products.

Fair enough. I agree.

But I would say that if you live outside a city, a car is a necessity.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 9, 2013 9:46:35 PM from Little Tiny Frogs Forums Little Tiny Frogs Forums

Quoting Borg999,


Quoting Frogboy, reply 562


And someone suggested that if society decides it needs electric cars then the government should take money from people and redistribute it so we can have it.

Now we have people who don't think that's communism. Maybe they're right. Maybe it's just a little bit of communism? I mean, what's the big deal? Just a car. In fact, maybe we should just make the cars free. After all, we need them and it's for our own good.  Anyone who has a problem with that is just being paranoid...

 
What is it about electric cars you don't like? The gov't takes money away from people (taxes) and uses it for all sorts of things.

For crying out loud. I HAVE AN ELECTRIC CAR. I obviously like electric cars.

What I don't like is the idea of people becoming comfortable with (to quote) "If society decides it needs electric cars then the government should subsidize them."

That is what set off this particular tangent.  Such a casual, hand wave at what amounts to "if the majority of americans decide they want something, anything really, then the government should just procure it for them by taking money from other people and giving it to them."

It's the casualness that comes from the kind of people who would say "And why should rich people get to keep their money?"  It's horrifying (to me anyway).


Is that communism? Then why is it communism to use some of the taxes collected to subsidize electric cars?

Sure it's communism.  People act like this is some sort of tradition. It's baffling. The idea of the government taking stuff from one person to give to another based on ability and need is a modern - post Marx - thing.

I'm not suggesting we bring back Work Houses or eliminate welfare. It just shocks me to see how quickly we've come from giving surplus food to the poor to casually discussing giving people electric cars.



The gov't uses tax dollars to subsidize a variety of industries. So, why is subsidizing an electric car manufacturer so different from your perspective?

And I never said we should give electric cars away for free. How you extrapolated that from my post, is beyond me. 

So by subsidziing you just mean a little communism but not a LOT of communism? I mean, why stop with just a little? Why not go the whole way and just have everything that society decides it "needs" to simply be provided.

Giving a budding industry some breathing room until it can ramp up and operate profitably on it's own can potentially lead to more jobs, higher wages and contribute positively to the economy. Short term pain for long term gain.

And it's a win-win situation if it helps both the shareholders and the environment.

That statement you give is very similar to one given in Atlas Shrugged.  We should call it the anti-dog-eat-dog law.

After we pass that law, we should go around breaking windows to create more economic activity.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 9, 2013 9:47:30 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting Borg999,

Ok, I just read your last post. You have an issue subsidizing consumer products.

Fair enough. I agree.

But I would say that if you live outside a city, a car is a necessity.

I disagree.  But even if I agreed a "car" is a long way from a modern electric car.  The cost is quite different.

We could buy you a car to get around for $10k.  The electric car is several times that.  

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 9, 2013 9:49:40 PM from Stardock Forums Stardock Forums

Quoting Frogboy,
However, they are expensive compared to...what? 

"However, in a paper published earlier this month in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, researchers found that trying to scrub the air is much more expensive than keeping it from getting dirty in the first place."

Quoting Frogboy,
Since you are familiar with the serious economic studies, how much would it cost to bring worldwide CO2 production down to 1991 levels and what would the impact be?

I'm certainly not familiar with all the studies, and I am not familiar with any study that makes a serious effort to arrive at that number.  There would also be a hell of a lot of uncertainty in the number.

Quoting Frogboy,
My point is that even those who contributed to the IPCC reports over the years have conceded that to actually do anything measurable about world CO2 production (ignoring the many other things we're doing such as deforestation, methane production, etc.) would require immense economic sacrifice worldwide and IF we did that, we would only have a marginal affect -- according to them.  

Hrm, this is a major issue that I haven't gotten into, but this might be the appropriate time.

The claims of doom and gloom for the economy are almost certainly overstated.

Certainly switching to a greener economy will cause great economic change.  And every time you see great economic change, you see the old guard whining to high hell about how the economy will suffer.  I mean, when computers come around, look at all the people who complained about how many people would be put out of work.  You can go back to so many major inventions and see the same thing.

Switching to a greener economy creates a lot of jobs too.  Now, I'm not saying that it will completely offset the economic hurdles that will come about.  By no means am I saying that at all.  But a lot of the doomsayers just concentrate on the negatives, while not adding on some of the entire new industries that appear in the process.

Anyway, the price has to be paid sometime, and the earlier you start paying, the lower the price.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 9, 2013 9:50:20 PM from Little Tiny Frogs Forums Little Tiny Frogs Forums

Quoting Borg999,

Ok, I just read your last post. You have an issue subsidizing consumer products.

Fair enough. I agree.

But I would say that if you live outside a city, a car is a necessity.

Sure. But where do you want to draw the line?

I think the Windows Start button is a necessity. The government should subsidize (i.e. give money to people) to buy Start8. 

And really, quality of life demands a fun strategy game.  As a society, we should decide that we NEED Fallen Enchantress. Therefore, the government should subsidize the cost of getting.  Think of all the jobs I could create if all those rich people were forced to give people a little of their money so that everyone could afford Fallen Enchantress. 

I propose government subsidies for all our products. Not because I'm greedy. But because I'm a hero.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 9, 2013 9:52:06 PM from Little Tiny Frogs Forums Little Tiny Frogs Forums

Quoting Krazikarl,

thane production, etc.) would require immense economic sacrifice worldwide and IF we did that, we would only have a marginal affect -- according to them.  

Hrm, this is a major issue that I haven't gotten into, but this might be the appropriate time.

The claims of doom and gloom for the economy are almost certainly overstated.

Certainly switching to a greener economy will cause great economic change.  And every time you see great economic change, you see the old guard whining to high hell about how the economy will suffer.  I mean, when computers come around, look at all the people who complained about how many people would be put out of work.  You can go back to so many major inventions and see the same thing.

Switching to a greener economy creates a lot of jobs too.  Now, I'm not saying that it will completely offset the economic hurdles that will come about.  By no means am I saying that at all.  But a lot of the doomsayers just concentrate on the negatives, while not adding on some of the entire new industries that appear in the process.

Anyway, the price has to be paid sometime, and the earlier you start paying, the lower the price.

So what is that price? I mean that seriously. You have alluded to various studies on the matter. Ok. What is the cost? What is the benefit? Specifically. No links to 1200 page studies. Dumb it down for us yokels.  Bottom line it.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 9, 2013 9:57:31 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting Borg999,

What is it about electric cars you don't like? The gov't takes money away from people (taxes) and uses it for all sorts of things.

The problem is do-gooderism never runs out of uses for other people's money.  That's Brad's whole point.  The solutions to these problems ALWAYS revolve around taking money from people and using it for all sorts of things.  

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Stardock Forums v1.0.0.0    #108432  walnut2   Server Load Time: 00:00:00.0004032   Page Render Time:
Facebook Twitter YouTube Google+