Originally Posted by Bergermeister
I've asked this before and will do so again.
This is some really terrible reasoning and conclusions Berger.
If GW is wrong and we do nothing about it, no problem; we get to keep making lots of money and polluting our lives. More health problems.
Completely incorrect. The "pollutant" will never cause more health problems for humans. Never. The claims related to health problems are from alarmist chain reactions claiming the planet will change. If there is more CO2 in the air, then more plants grow and do so more quickly. Humans have nothing happen to them. However there could be per the law of unintended consequences, a very bad downside to addressing this and that is there is less energy, money and time to address actual pollutants. If addressing a false pollution means less energy, money and time to address sewage treatment, lead acid battery recycling and other major issues, then we do end up worse when we get no a negative return from our investment instead of merely no return.
If GW is wrong and we try to clean things up, we make a little less money, perhaps, but get cleaner beaches and parks. Fewer health problems.
Can you point me to the last time I needed a park or beach scrubbed of CO2?
If GW is right and we do something about it, then we might actually leave a place for our grandkids to live.
Our grandkids will live on this planet. I'd prefer they not start right out of the womb having to pay back 200-300% of the nations entire GDP as debt to fight a false problem with no real benefit from the solution.
If GW is right and we ignore it, some might get rich now, but what happens long term?
If GW is wrong and we ignore, will some people not get rich? Will the long term be guaranteed to be worse when trillions are owed, the entire economy is derailed, there is a lack of growth, jobs and monies to invest into the children instead of investing in back schemes that deliver little real benefit.
If the GOP is soooooooo worried about not leaving our kids in debt, then they should think about also leaving our kids a place to live and work so that they can continue living without debt. They are sooooo worried about defining life (Dakota now says heart beat)... when will they start caring about that life?
Or will the GOP continue to try to make life easier on the rich in the short term and totally screw everyone on the planet (yes, there are people beyond our borders) in the long term?
The Democrats have made it clear they have no real plan and no real budget. Their "solution" is to borrow and keep spending until utopia arrives. When it doesn't arrive you blame the opposition and rinse and repeat. We have borrowed $6 trillion dollars in Obama's first term. That is enough to GIVE every child in the United States $80,000 CASH. Instead they will be borrowing their monies for school from a federalized loan program while paying back this borrowed money, working at imaginary green jobs that never came to be.
When does it become appropriate to care about that instead of some imaginary utopia?
Originally Posted by muppetry
The topic of economics was not introduced into this thread by me - so why are you not criticizing MJ for talking about economics in post #2? Maybe you could have provided some examples of what you mean, rather than just flinging accusations. Can't you even be bothered to review a short 29 post thread before making demonstrably incorrect statements? My first post asked MJ why he thought economics was a science - a reasonable question, I thought, since he used that assertion in his response to the OP. Since he declined to answer, instead turning the question around as he often does, my second post directly answered his question as to why it isn't a science. My third post refuted a substantial, though very weak, straw man attack (that I was arguing that social sciences have no value). My fourth was a response to your criticism (that I was debating style rather than content and never stated a position - somewhat odd in the context of my second post), and my fifth another defense in the face of your continued criticism that completely ignored the content of my second and fifth posts. So where do you see passive-aggressive? My arguments and questions seemed pretty direct and to the point to me - perhaps you just don't know what passive-aggressive means. And are you now accusing me of arguing off-topic about economics rather than only ever criticizing posting style? I don't think you can have it both ways.
It still looks to me as if you are just frustrated that I don't hang any unsupported beliefs out for you to take pot shots at. Welcome to the world of rational argument - it must feel rather alien. And in case you are tempted to accuse me of being off-topic again, or of not addressing content - note that I am just responding to the substance (what little I can find) of your posts. I'm familiar with your posting history too and, since it is apparently open season for personal criticism rather than discussion, I'd have to characterize your posts, with a few lucid exceptions that always surprise me, as pseudo-intellectual drivel. Also very poor style - since I'm sure you were hoping for some pointers on that issue too. Of course until you made it clear in this thread that you wanted an open exchange of opinion on such things, I did not feel any need to point those failings out to you but, since you initiated it, now we both know where we stand. You can continue this discussion as you wish, but if all you want to do is continue to whine that I'm being mean to MJ then it will be a monologue. You probably won't notice the difference though.
You have worked very hard to prove my point for me so thank you. You note that you've spent the entire thread ignoring the topic and chasing a forum user around asking them rhetorical questions and demanding they alter their posts for your edits. The whole second paragraph documents the passive-aggressive tone I note you've adopted because no one cares about your edits or critiques. You've made my case in the clearest way possible so thank you.