npts2020

Whether or not your energy source is domestic is only important if you hope to control costs and where the money goes.

If businesses had a "code of ethics" of any sort that they were required to follow in order to do business in America, I might have as much faith as you do in the "free market". Unfortunately, even the few rules (laws) that exist concerning corporate activities only peripherally address any ethical considerations in doing business and most of those are fairly easily ignored or gotten around. Malthus didn't (probably couldn't have) take all of the factors into account but he was basically correct about running up against resource limits at some point. What I see the "free market" doing today is destroying the planet for the rest of us in the name of accumulating wealth for some. If even only a few of the studies I have read about deforestation, coral reef die-offs, fishery depletion, pollution of groundwater sources, global warming, etc. are true, there is a debt being built that will make the current financial market debt look like peanuts. Personally I kind of like the idea of a central czar making sure supply keeps up with demand, if I can see transcripts of his business activivties and vote them out of office if I don't like what he is doing (some would call that democracy), a situation that does not exist with the Treasury Secretary and the current bailout. The part I highlighted seems a pretty fair description of our situation today, so is it democracy, the market, or what that is not working? You kind of skirted the issue of standard of living for 6.6 billion humans but I would be interested in anyones opinion of what specific standard of living that many could realistically expect? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Thanks for proving my point about Google being atypical of corporate America (somehwere in there they talk about the corporation being like no other in America). Whether the corporation claims or even lives by this and how many of their users actually know or care are completely unrelated.

I believe you and that is a big part of the reason I use them as well. I am skeptical as to whether the majority of their users could even articulate that "doing no evil" was part of Google's corporate philosophy, however.

Why has this never been observed? You also state that radioactive decay of uranium changes with gravity, where has this ever been observed? I am not sure what kind of forum you are used to but it seems to me that you are a very fortunate person to have gotten the answers you did.

At least it is big enough that you shouldn't get seasick. I know that the Nimitz needed 8-10 foot swells just to notice you were at sea.

I think what swansont is trying to point out, is that direction is uniform as well as speed and you have to account for it. e.g. planets do not follow the curvature of space but have uniform (relatively) motion.

Would I be out of line saying that energy is a national security issue and should be addressed by the federal government? IMO The production of energy causes more strife in the world politically, ecologically, and economically than any other activity of the "market". It seems to me to be a no-brainer which method does the most to solve those problems, but then I guess the "market" is handling this energy thing pretty well on its own, eh?

ecoli; Explain to me how in a putative democracy, a government is any more corruptable than a corporation? Altruism is only part of capitalism insofar as it increases the bottom line (or certain entrepreneurs buck the tenets of capitalism). It seems to me that most people do business with Google because it is free, more than having anything to do with the philosophy of its founders. While it is true that there are successful companies that have followed business models similar to Google, I would assert with some confidence that these are not the majority of corporations (especially large ones) out there. Most of your problem with government spending it seems to me relates to how to make government accountable for what it spends, a concern of mine as well. My problem with the so-called "free" market is similar, in how to not allow greed to supercede all other considerations. The problem with the market is that there are so few rules that, in general, nobody is accountable to anyone for anything other than making money. I do agree that the current stimulus package is largely a waste and is probably being stolen even as we type. jackson33; It seems to me that your problem with government spending is similar to ecoli. I completely agree that the bailout is not transparent and will not work (I believe I have stated that in this forum since we first posted about it, before the legislation was passed). The problem of misdirected government spending should not be taken lightly but the reality is that there are some things that government does and into the forseeable future will continue to spend money on. The trick is to get some actual "value" for the money spent, something the American government in particular has been inept at for a long time now (possibly having something to do with where most of it is spent). In order to keep the current diatribe from becoming exponential in size, allow me to leave a proposition and ask a question about it. Proposition: The planet can already support 6.6 billion people. Question: At what standard of living do you wish to support them?

The aliens probably will tell us "so long and thanks for all the fish". Seriously though, anyone here would probably like to see any reliable evidence of what you are claiming. Hollywood has thousands of pictures and films of aliens and their craft, too.

I was not thinking of any time constrictions, but I have seen first hand that zinc anodes rust in heat exchanger intake and discharges on board ship, even when the only waters they have been in are barely above freezing. You are right, of course, about noticing little change over the course of a few hours since those zinc anodes only require replacement on an annual or longer basis.

What you are aking to be defined is an oxymoron. Temperature by definition has to include substance.

Part of the instability in the economy is the instability of energy prices. By converting to constant sources (wind, solar, tide etc.) this instability should be greatly ameliorated. Knowing your approximate energy costs five years hence would be a boon to planners.

The Chinese may be sorry they ever let "Tricky Dick" come to their country. On the other hand they will soon "own" America.

ecoli; So I can take from what you have written that the sole activities you believe government should be involved in are legislating and enforcing laws and maintaining an armed forces? I guess we will have to disagree about whether or not expanding corporate freedoms infringes on societal and individual freedoms but I can't think of any cases off hand where they do not. By your description of a free market, it seems to me that without advocating corporate anarchy, all markets are free since anyone who can meet the requirements of a particular market is free to compete in that market. I would not disagree that capitalism has been the best system for production of wealth but completely disagree with the implied premise that accumulation of wealth is the sole measure of a society or individual. If this premise were true, why would anyone post on this forum instead of doing some other activity more likely to increase their bottom line? For that matter, how many scientists have you ever met who are doing their job primarily because of the amount of money it pays relative to something else they could be doing? While there are things like philanthropy, altruism, and corporate environmentalism, they are not part of capitalism and run directly counter to what capitalism is all about. The social improvements you refer to IMO are more due to people who are not capitalists, using the capitalist system to do so. I am not so sure that your choice of living in medieval Europe or working in a sweat shop producing goods for Wal-Mart is really arguing in favor of your case, as neither seem to be an attractive option in comparison to what is possible. ParanoiA; I agree 100% that large multinational corporations are more of an impediment to progress and competition than a benefit. The problem is in deciding exactly how big is too big. IMO needing a government bailout is certainly a good indicator of being too big. jackson33; just two main points. Firstly, I do not disagree at all that state and local governments should be better than the federal government at determining the needs of their citizens. What I fail to understand about your argument is why the economy would make any distinction, whatsoever, between the levels of government doing spending on a given project? Secondly, I think most people would see a big difference between having acid rain caused by Mt. Pinatubo and acid rain caused by a power plant upwind from where they live. The difference being that one is very preventable. The debate about who gets to set limits is rather contentious, but it seems to me that allowing industries to set their own limits is a prescription for disaster, since many companies don't even live within the relatively few limits that exist now.

Blue Man Group. All I can say is they are very different.

ecoli; I am missing something in your argument. You seem to say on the one hand that strong (but appropriate) regulation is necessary to avoid the negative consequences of unfettered capitalism, yet say there is too much regulation of the market? If the market is "free" there can be no such thing as illegal behavior only immoral or unethical behavior. The problem with allowing the market to control behavior, is that it is assumed that consumers have some way of finding out how a given corporation conducts business and have the wherewithal and alternatives to act on that information. IMO you are not going to weed out corruption and cronyism simply by making the market "free". It seems to me, the real argument is about degree and areas of regulation and not whether the market should be free or not. Having said that, I would be very interested in hearing what you or others arguing that the market isn't free enough would consider to be appropriate regulation and if there is any economic activity the government should be involved in. I would argue that the fact most people in America ever improved their economic situation had more to do with fighting capitalists tooth and nail than any consequence of the way capitalism works. Also, last time I checked we still had capitalism in the U.S. yet there has been little economic improvement for those in the middle or lower classes, but a vast improvement of accumulated wealth by the richest among us. If capitalism is so good for the majority, why has this situation occurred? Even Warren Buffet has said "there is class warfare going on, and my class is winning", what do you suppose he meant by that? Expecting the political system, as is, to fix the problem is a little like giving hundreds of billions of dollars to a group of people who lost many times that amount and expecting them to now invest it wisely and pay it back. While it is possible for corporate bad actors to be convicted of crimes, it seems to be an extremely rare occurance and happens only in the most egregious of cases. ps I appreciate the constructive tone of this thread thus far as many of the topics being discussed are among the most controversial in economics.

Apparently I am not smart enough to follow a "chain of reasoning", recognize "genius", or add 1+1. I-AM-A-GENIUS, you need to check out my signature, words spoken by a true genius when it comes to using language.

I always wondered how you come up with the odds of any process occurring without fairly fully understanding that process to begin with.

Well American style socialism anyway.

ecoli; If the prices of telephone service went down because of privatization, I missed it somehow. What is it that profits incentvize? Near as I can tell it incentivizes making money (especially short term) to the exclusion of all other considerations. While the profit motive may be good for innovation, it also encourages cutting corners, creative bookkeeping, and collusion among other things. I guess I would agree capitalism works better for the citizens if only capitalists are considered to be citizens. You assume there is no way to incentivise the government to cut costs (and with the dumb-asses who vote in elections here it may well be true but that is a whole other matter) but I would argue that if executives and/or workers are given reason (proportional bonuses or some other mechanism) to do so it will happen. Good luck with the "market" keeping the worst of corporate abuse in check, you can't even get your food labelled with what is in it. Last time I can think of this being tried we had conditions like those described by Upton Sinclair in "The Jungle" and more than a few of those trying to change things murdered or beaten into submission. I am not sure what you mean by giving corporations freedoms at the expense of individual and societal freedoms being a fase dichotomy. Maybe you can give me an example or two of where we have expanded corporate freedom and not impinged on individual and collective rights. Assuming you are right that low wages and maximum employment is a good thing, why should we have a standard length of workweek, laws against children working, or allow retirement? In fact, we can go back to the good ole days of "Why hire a man for a dollar when you can hire a kid for a dime?". While I would generally agree most corporations don't need big brother watching them 24/7, there is no codified manner in which they are supposed to act. Is it really ok that the only consideration is the next quarter's bottom line? Maybe profit driven innovation only happens in a free market, but I would submit that innovation will happen regardless of the economic system. Would you claim that no innovations came from the Soviet Union or come from China, neither of which is claimed to be a capitalist country AFAIK? The corporate anarchy I am referring to is what pretty much exists today and you and some others seemingly want to expand. A good example of what I am referring to is the Enron debacle. How many people have served jail time or paid fines for that (hint all of the convictions of those still alive are under appeal)? and Enron filed for bankruptcy over 7 years ago! How long do you think it will be before Bernie Madoff (what a great name for a con man) pays any fines or goes to jail? Do you think anyone will see the inside of a courtroom over the current financial crisis where more than a few executives knew exactly what would happen eventually and didn't care so long as they weren't the ones left holding the bag? jackson33; So far as the discussion goes on this thread, it seems to me to be irrelevant whether it is the federal, state, or some other government spending money, the economic effects will be the same. For some crazy reason I believe it is my right to be able to breathe clean air and not be subject to acid rain, yet the government has told power companies it is ok to pollute the air and cause acid rain. explain to me how my rights have not been subjugated to corporations in this instance? So far as losing rights to the government and not corporate interests IMO there is very little difference between the two. For as long as I can remember (at least back to the 60's) corporations have been bribing (promising cushy jobs, donating massive amounts of campaign money, etc.) public officials to do their bidding. This has led to increase of corporate rights and decrease of personal and societal rights, the freedom to do the things you mention are all predicated on having money to do them. A person who has to worry about whether they are going to eat, pay rent, or buy their diabetes medicine this month is likely only going to be concerned about the lowest price of things and not even consider any negative aspects of the way they are purchasing something. If cheap goods is the ultimate goal, why not just go back to the days of robber barons?

Maybe, but who could say for sure? Any beings that knew enough to be able to figure out interstellar travel would likely be pretty far advanced as well in other fields I imagine.

I fail to see how changing control from an entity whose main regard in running an enterprise is the betterment of its citizens (in theory anyway), to one whose only goal is to make a profit will benefit the majority of us. Maybe someone can explain to me exactly how that works. Well, it seems to me the more "freedoms" corporations enjoy, the fewer most of the rest of us have. How is it to anyone's (other than those making money from it) benefit to allow enterprises to cause oil spills in the oceans, dump toxic chemicals into rivers and lakes, or cause acid rain? How is it to the majorities advantage to allow wages to be depressed to the point where the lowest paid workers in the world become the standard? By the standard you have stated above, the last couple of decades of the 19th century should have been among the most innovative in history, is this true (hint, try to think of major corporate advances from that time)? One of the problems with allowing corporate anarchy (or "freedom" if you prefer), is that all of the rights, privileges, and responsibilities I have ever read about in any of our republic's founding documents apply to individuals not corporations. In fact, there is nothing in them that I have ever seen that even gives a corporation a legal right to exist much less any specific rights or priveleges.

The only thing missing from that definition is the organisms.

Are you asking about memes?

Baby Astronaut; If you don't already know the answers to those questions, you do not already know everything about that dog. The point being, why ask questions of a being who you are likely to know more about than they do of themselves?