Why doesn't truth matter & middle ground

[Ten oz]

30 minutes ago, tar said:

So it comes down to, in my estimation, everybody doing their best to not foul the Earth up, for other people.  But there is a certain unrealistic economic component to lobbying for more expensive, cleaner energy.  That problem is, that most of the world can not afford it, and the people that can afford it, wind up paying for the excesses of others, while denying their own pleasure.

Those who can afford to do what is right should. As for the price the more alternatives are used better technologies and processes will be discovered and prices will fall. When flight was first developed only the wealthy could afford it. Same goes for everything from home computers to home A/C units. There was a time when only wealthy people could afford glass windows. Price points change rapidly. Lying about the downside to various technologies and processes is not useful to anyone. It doesn't help that billions of dollars have been invested to purposely confuse people. Those are billions of dollars which could have been invested in R&D or used to offset some of the extra cost so many fear are associated with alternative energy. 

You have worked with electronics and power distribution; as have I. We both know, I think, that enormous amounts of power is wasted. It is an aspect of this topic which is often overlooked. So often people get stuck debating the best ways to produce ever increasing amounts of energy to the exclusion of best practices for using energy. Which way a windows face in house or whether or not there are trees in a yard creating shade can make a big difference in how much heating or cooling a home needs. Location of windows and the types of surfaces in a home can greatly impact how much lighting is needed. There are many dimensions that can be discussed regarding the best way to use our resources while managing our economy. 

[Strange]

1 hour ago, tar said:

That problem is, that most of the world can not afford it, and the people that can afford it, wind up paying for the excesses of others, while denying their own pleasure.

That seems fair. The richer countries are the ones who have consumed (and wasted) to excess in the past. It is only fair that they should pay extra now. (And I don't believe it is paying for the "excesses" of others; it is helping everyone reach the same level of CO2 reduction).

[tar]

Ten Oz,

Agreed.

There are things we need to do, education we need to acquire and better ways to do a lot of things we do.  But there is also economic realities, as Trump pointed out in the clip above.  Solar panels take 26 years to pay themselves off, and at the same time only last 10 years before they destroy their usefulness.  This is not a wise investment.  And consider, as I suggested before, that it takes energy to produce the solar panels in the first place.

And Ten Oz, I have an electrical question for you, concerning solar energy.  A cell produces DC voltage differential and can be aligned in series or parallel to produce any required voltage or current capability, but I noticed solar fields built on major roads, close to the factory or business or housing group they were built to power, and this takes up valuable real estate.  And looks crappy to boot.  I was wondering if the losses due to the resistance of long lengths of wire, is significant for DC, making it required that the field of panels be close, and not off in some clearing in the woods or some remote, unused area.

Regards, TAR

[Ten oz]

57 minutes ago, tar said:

Trump, in that clip did not deny global warming,  he downplayed its importance as the number one issue facing the U.S. and suggested that the people making it a number one issue stood to make a lot of money.

Trump clearly says that temperature will go up and will go down as it has done for millions of years;" it is called weather". The remark is totally dismissive of man made climate change. There is also the tweet where Trump says China created it and there are Trump's own Press Sec unwilling to clarify. You are dishonestly playing with Trump own words. This is the sort of behavior this thread is about. You can't even admit Trump says what he in fact says. That is the state of politics today. You want me to accept your personal understand of what Trump meant to say rather than what Trump clearly says. It is a nonstarter. Trump knowingly denies, casts doubts, or ignores (Trump seldom answers the same question the same way twice) climate change  so not to burden the economic side of his argument. 

57 minutes ago, tar said:

The whole thing started when Trump joked that he hoped Russia had hacked Hilary's unprotected private server, so we could see what was in the 33,000 emails she deleted. 

Is that when Mueller is investing, a joke? Paul Manafort wasn't indicted for a joke. Papadopolous isn't indicted for a joke. Don Trump Jr wasn't communicating with wikileaks about a joke and didn't meet with Russians to discuss a joke. Jared Kushner didn't exclude a joke from his security clearance application and exclude a joke from the emails he turned over to the senate intelligence committee. A joke isn't why the Attorney General recused himself from investigations relating to Russia. 

[tar]

Strange,

Fairness I don't think is something that should be legislated and imposed on people.

I have worked all my life to get into a situation where I don't need to work every day to feed myself and keep warm.   It is unfair to me, to suggest I am responsible for someone else's child in another country, when I had no say in how many children that family chose to have.

Over population has been an issue since I was young, when the population of the Earth was more like 3 billion than the current 7 plus.   I was taught to have only replacement numbers of children, as in 2.  And that is what I have had, as evidenced by my profile picture.   It is my responsibility to make their lives safe and comfortable and to prepare them to take care of themselves and their children.  It is not "fair" to saddle me with the additional responsibility for other people's children.  Especially when others have not kept their families to replacement numbers.

My quality of life is partially caused by my decisions and delayed gratification decisions I have made.   I can not make decisions for others, in terms of their freedom and happiness, and others should not legislate my morality.

Regards, TAR 

[Ten oz]

8 minutes ago, tar said:

And Ten Oz, I have an electrical question for you, concerning solar energy.  A cell produces DC voltage differential and can be aligned in series or parallel to produce any required voltage or current capability, but I noticed solar fields built on major roads, close to the factory or business or housing group they were built to power, and this takes up valuable real estate.  And looks crappy to boot.  I was wondering if the losses due to the resistance of long lengths of wire, is significant for DC, making it required that the field of panels be close, and not off in some clearing in the woods or some remote, unused area.

Regards, TAR

My understanding (I do not work with solar) is that the intensity of light and duration of exposure are calculated. Some locations receive more direct light in the morning vs the afternoon and etc. Ideally panels should be located where light at its most powerful during the day is maximized. Solar panels are located where they will get the highest intensity for the longest duration of time and not merely where they will get light in general for the longest duration of time. 

Ultimately I think developing better storage is required. Using solar in real time isn't practical as using it via a battery.  

[John Cuthber]

1 minute ago, tar said:

I was taught to have only replacement numbers of children, as in 2.  And that is what I have had, as evidenced by my profile picture.  

Which is nice. It's one of the things you can do if you have a state that ensures either a viable pension or enforcement of rules that the people who promised to pay your pension actually do so.

If you live an a less developed part of the world where the only people who will look after you in old age are your children then just having two would be almost suicidally stupid.

Now the interesting point; resources are finite; if you have lost then that's because someone else has fewer. In many cases that's because you were in teh lucky position of being able to get them while "the other guy" wasn't so lucky.

 

Once you realise that your "success" is not due to 

5 minutes ago, tar said:

I have worked all my life to get into a situation where I don't need to work every day to feed myself and keep warm.

but largely to luck then you might see why some might

8 minutes ago, tar said:

suggest I am responsible for someone else's child in another country, when I had no say in how many children that family chose to have.

 

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, tar said:

Fairness I don't think is something that should be legislated and imposed on people.

Really? So you don't think there should be laws protecting people from being exploited by people more powerful than them? You don't believe that people who earn more should pay more tax? 

7 minutes ago, tar said:

It is unfair to me, to suggest I am responsible for someone else's child in another country, when I had no say in how many children that family chose to have.

Is anyone suggesting that? It seems to be a bizarre straw man argument.

8 minutes ago, tar said:

Over population has been an issue since I was young, when the population of the Earth was more like 3 billion than the current 7 plus.

And the best way to ensure that the birth rate keeps falling is to ensure good standards of education, health care and good government in the countries with high birth rates. But presumably you object to spending money on that. You would prefer to keep your money and let the world population grow unconstrained?

11 minutes ago, tar said:

My quality of life is partially caused by my decisions and delayed gratification decisions I have made.   I can not make decisions for others, in terms of their freedom and happiness, and others should not legislate my morality.

I cannot legislate your morality. But you will excuse me if I judge you for it.

[tar]

Ten Oz,

If you have not noticed, there is a deep state operating in the U.S. where political power is wielded inappropriately by federal employees even after the power has officially switched into other hands.  The peaceful transition of power is a hallmark of our democracy.   Yet the people elected to govern us, are acting like the current president is illegitimate and are marking time, until his removal from power.  This is bu(*cr(*.   He is our president.  Senators should govern and make the laws that will serve us all.

I agree with Trump, that the weather changes and the Earth goes in cycles.  Small things that we do, can cause self reinforcing moves, like it gets a little warmer, some ice melts, and less sunlight is reflected back into space and more is absorbed.   So yes, we did it to the planet, but we all did it.  It is not a political issue, it is the current state of the planet.  

Regards, TAR

[Strange]

1 minute ago, tar said:

It is not a political issue, it is the current state of the planet.  

It shouldn't be a political issue but anti-science types like your president make it one.

2 minutes ago, tar said:

I agree with Trump, that the weather changes and the Earth goes in cycles.

Is that a euphemistic way of denying that raining CO2 levels due to industrialisation has caused climate change? It is certainly what Trump means by it.

[Ten oz]

3 minutes ago, tar said:

Ten Oz,

If you have not noticed, there is a deep state operating in the U.S. where political power is wielded inappropriately by federal employees even after the power has officially switched into other hands.  The peaceful transition of power is a hallmark of our democracy.   Yet the people elected to govern us, are acting like the current president is illegitimate and are marking time, until his removal from power.  This is bu(*cr(*.   He is our president.  Senators should govern and make the laws that will serve us all.

 

Negative 1, you are citing a conspiracy for which you have no evidence. More over the Senate, Republican (Trump's party) controlled Senate, voted 98-2 to sanction Russia for their actions against us during the 2016 Election. This isn't even a partisan issue. As for the transfer of power Republicans controlled the house and Senate during the Obama administration and currently control every branch. 

 

 

[John Cuthber]

3 minutes ago, tar said:

If you have not noticed, there is a deep state operating in the U.S. where political power is wielded inappropriately by federal employees even after the power has officially switched into other hands.

Is it?

I thought political power was wielded by those with money and power. Granted the woman down at the driving licensing place can be a bit bitchy, I don't think she's in the same league as the Bush or Trump dynasty (or, if you like, the Clintons) when it comes to abuse of power.

 

6 minutes ago, tar said:

Yet the people elected to govern us, are acting like the current president is illegitimate and are marking time, until his removal from power.  This is bu(*cr(*.   He is our president.

How corrupt would an election need to be before you recognise that the president wasn't legitimate?

Here's a related notion- just to get away from stuff that affects you personally. Here in the UK we recently had a referendum on the decision to leave the EU.

One major factor in that was the "pro leave" campaigners saying we could stop giving £350 million to the EU each week and spend it on healthcare instead.

The vote was very close. The "leave" campaign won 52% vs 48%

And early in the morning, as the results were announced, the leader of UKIP- the major (in fact, only)  pro-leave party was challenged on the truth of that £350 million figure and he said "Well, yes, you are right, we shouldn't have said that".

So, once the vote was won, they admitted they had deliberately mislead the voters.

 

Was the outcome legitimate?

 

Similarly, imagine that it turns out that Russian involvement in the US election was significant to the point where  it could be shown that , without the Russians helping trump, he would have lost.

I'm not saying that happened- the sentence started with the word "imagine".

If it turned out that the only reason Trump was in power was not due to the will of the US people, but to the actions of a foreign government, would he be- as you put it "illegitimate"?

 

[tar]

Strange,

Yes I think it unfair to ask rich people to pay more taxes, now after graduated income tax is already established, and all the arguments for having graduated income tax already are spent.

You can not ask for more from the rich every time you need more money to spend.  It is a denial of some basic facts of existence.  Most people work for someone or some company that provides a good or service to people.   The people and companies that do this the best get the most business.  It is not luck.  If you make your company or your employer pay more taxes, that is less money potentially to put in your paycheck.  Or if you have a 401 K and this money is invested in companies, then the more taxes the companies you own through your 401K pay, the less money they can pay your account in dividends.  Rich people are not our enemies, they are the holders of the means of production.

And again, what does it matter whether dire predictions raise the levels of the oceans 2 feet or 8 feet by 2000.  What matters is whether we come up with the strategies to sequester carbon and find renewable sources of energy and adjust our life styles to take better care of our resource.  Not forced to do it, but to do it, because its better to do it than not.

It would be better for the planet if we did not fly and drive around or live in climates where we need heating or cooling.  We actually don't have many places to live where we do not have to protect ourselves from the elements, so we are destined to stress the place.   It is not realistic to ask people to stop living, to save the planet for someone else.

Regards, TAR

Ten Oz,

 

Neg 1 to you, for no particular reason.

And I will use your vote as a reason to take another restbit from political discussions.  I hate neg reps, and don't deserve them.

 

Regards, TAR

[Ten oz]

14 minutes ago, tar said:

Strange,

Yes I think it unfair to ask rich people to pay more taxes, now after graduated income tax is already established, and all the arguments for having graduated income tax already are spent.

You can not ask for more from the rich every time you need more money to spend.  It is a denial of some basic facts of existence.  Most people work for someone or some company that provides a good or service to people.   The people and companies that do this the best get the most business.  It is not luck.  If you make your company or your employer pay more taxes, that is less money potentially to put in your paycheck.  Or if you have a 401 K and this money is invested in companies, then the more taxes the companies you own through your 401K pay, the less money they can pay your account in dividends.  Rich people are not our enemies, they are the holders of the means of production.

And again, what does it matter whether dire predictions raise the levels of the oceans 2 feet or 8 feet by 2000.  What matters is whether we come up with the strategies to sequester carbon and find renewable sources of energy and adjust our life styles to take better care of our resource.  Not forced to do it, but to do it, because its better to do it than not.

It would be better for the planet if we did not fly and drive around or live in climates where we need heating or cooling.  We actually don't have many places to live where we do not have to protect ourselves from the elements, so we are destined to stress the place.   It is not realistic to ask people to stop living, to save the planet for someone else.

Regards, TAR

Ten Oz,

 

Neg 1 to you, for no particular reason.

And I will use your vote as a reason to take another restbit from political discussions.  I hate neg reps, and don't deserve them.

 

Regards, TAR

Tar, you are in this thread posting about unsupported conspiracies. I have linked supporting info to every thing I have state. Start you own deep state thread. This isn't the place for it. 

[Strange]

21 minutes ago, tar said:

Strange,

Yes I think it unfair to ask rich people to pay more taxes, now after graduated income tax is already established, and all the arguments for having graduated income tax already are spent.

So a billionaire should pay, say, $1,000 per year and so should someone on minimum wage? So one person doesn't even notice the minute tax burden and the other person is forced to starve. Great idea. 

Edited November 19, 2017 by Strange

[StringJunky]

30 minutes ago, Strange said:

So a billionaire should pay, say, $1,000 per year and so should someone on minimum wage? So one person doesn't even notice the minute tax burden and the other person is forced to starve. Great idea. 

Ignoring the fact that said billionaires have offshore tax evasion avoidance advisers and not paying what they do owe. There are trillions of taxable  American dollars hidden from the IRS.

[Strange]

Just now, StringJunky said:

Ignoring the fact that said billionaires have offshore tax evasion avoidance advisers and not paying what they do owe. There are trillions of taxable  American dollars hidden from the IRS.

But apparently that is "fair".

[John Cuthber]

1 hour ago, tar said:

It is not luck

It often is; it certainly is if they got where they are by inheriting a company, or by getting away with sharp practice, or they happened to choose VHS rather than betamax, or they took over an existing company, or they were in the position of having a powerful friend  block a competitor.

1 hour ago, tar said:

you make your company or your employer pay more taxes, that is less money potentially to put in your paycheck.  Or if you have a 401 K and this money is invested in companies, then the more taxes the companies you own through your 401K pay, the less money they can pay your account in dividends.  Rich people are not our enemies, they are the holders of the means of production.

You say "You make the company, or the employer  pay more taxes...."
And then you forget the important bit.

Why is that? Is it that you don't want to acknowledge it?

Anyway- since you won't  look at the real world, I willpoint it out for you.

You make them pay more tax and then you (as the state) use that money to do things like build roads (which practically no employer can afford)  which allow the business to distribute the goods it makes.
And you use it to build and run schools- so that the business can benefit from having a better educated , better trained workforce.

And you use it to provide healthcare so that the business benefits from a healthier workforce- they work better , worry less and have better attendance.

And so on.

Now it's true that a big employer could, in principle, do any of those things. But big employers like that are rare. A government gets all the benefits of ensuring that nobody shirks their share and they also get economies of scale which no other mechanism would allow.
So, there are lots of benefits that you simply ignored.

 

You say 

"Rich people are not our enemies, they are the holders of the means of production."

The two clauses are unrelated to eachother They often hold the means of production for no good reason except luck. 

When they club together and ensure that they get all the money and leave the rest in poverty then yes, they absolutely are the enemy. (and they have).
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/12/hope-despair-inequality/421806/

1 hour ago, tar said:

all the arguments for having graduated income tax already are spent.

I doubt that, but let's look at the alternative- the usual system that people consider is the "flat tax" rather than a  progressive tax rate.
It's not hard t show why it's bad for everyone.

Imagine a group of people- it could be a country but it's easiest to show the reasoning with a small group- say a small town. They decide that they want a "thing" again, it doesn't matter what the thing is- a school, a park, a hospital, a statue to the town's founder- whatever.

The distribution of salaries in most places is fairly similar. A few people earning a lot, many earning in the middle and a few earning very little. For simplicity there are 100 people in town. 3 earn a million a year,  5 earn just 10,000 and the rest earn 20,000.  The cost of living is 9000 a year.

So, let's see what happens with a flat tax. Clearly you can't set it higher than 1000 a year, because that would kill the poorest families.

So, the tax income for the town can't exceed 100,000. Sadly, the Thing the town want costs 200,000.

OK, let's consider a progressive tax of 5%

The poorest families are still alive- which is a good thing. In fact, they are better off- they pay 500 rather than 1000 as they would under the flat tax system. They contribute 1500 between them.  The "middle class" each pay 1000 and there are 98 of them, and that's another 98000 in the town's kitty, and the rich pay 50,000 each so that's 150,000 to add in.
So the overall tax collected is 249500.

Because they recognised the problem with flat tax they can buy the Thing and live happily ever after.

(and, in case you are wondering, yes, sure, one of the 3 rich guys could simply have paid for the Thing, but it would have cost him 200,000 and this way he gets it for 50,000)

 

Please do not ever try to tell us that progressive tax is a bad thing. (unless, of  course, you think truth doesn't matter)

Edited November 19, 2017 by John Cuthber

[iNow]

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

But apparently that is "fair".

Yes, of course. Poor people struggling to feed dinner to their kids have the same freedom to pay high priced tax attorneys to hide the tiny sums of money they have as do people who inherited insane wealth through no hard work of their own. Duh. 

[dimreepr]

It never stops to amaze me how a, so-called, social animal can be so antisocial at the same time as being, so called, intelligent; if we're so intelligent how come we can't understand the benefit of sharing?

Edited November 19, 2017 by dimreepr

[John Cuthber]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

It never stops to amaze me how a so-called, a social animal can be so antisocial at the same time as being, so called, intelligent; if we're so intelligent how come we can't understand the benefit of sharing?

Indeed,

Especially, given that, as individuals we aren't really all that good. It's only by cooperation that we achieve truly great things.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, tar said:

I hate neg reps, and don't deserve them.

You didn't until I read all the great replies to your post. Have another one!

[John Cuthber]

1 hour ago, tar said:

I hate neg reps,

Diddums.

1 hour ago, tar said:

...and don't deserve them.

Says who?

 

[Phi for All]

42 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

It never stops to amaze me how a, so-called, social animal can be so antisocial at the same time as being, so called, intelligent; if we're so intelligent how come we can't understand the benefit of sharing?

We are social. We are intelligent. Just enough of each to make us susceptible to a concerted effort to keep us at odds with one another long enough to distract while the dark deeds we'll find out about later can happen. The gloves seem to be off now, the lies are bigger than ever, the global dialogue is focused on extremes like never before. And still I feel it's all to cover up a much larger middle ground of tolerance and cooperation than anyone suspects is there. I think people worldwide are tired of being lied to, but truths seem hollow and untrustworthy and scarce.

[dimreepr]

12 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

And still I feel it's all to cover up a much larger middle ground of tolerance

1

Surely the middle ground is tolerance?