|
|
|
|
#1
11-20-2007, 07:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Weather Channel Founder says\"Global Warming is Biggest Scam in His
[ QUOTE ]
People who are concerned about generating greenhouse gases are talking steps to reduce. If enough people think it is a problem green house gases will be reduced. [/ QUOTE ] Do you at least accept the fact that there might be bad results? Unlike the market, the laws of nature don't really respond to individidual preferences. 
|
|
#2
11-20-2007, 08:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Weather Channel Founder says\"Global Warming is Biggest Scam in His
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] People who are concerned about generating greenhouse gases are talking steps to reduce. If enough people think it is a problem green house gases will be reduced. [/ QUOTE ] Do you at least accept the fact that there might be bad results? Unlike the market, the laws of nature don't really respond to individidual preferences. [/ QUOTE ] Decisons in life are not made with certainty by anything or anyone. There are probabilities and estimates of costs and benefits. Nature and humans are in a constant state of adjustment to maximize utility. To have one person or a small group decide for the good of all when it comes to allocating resources does not seem to be as good as a market based solution. With a market based solution adjustments are constantly made to new information.
|
|
#3
11-20-2007, 08:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Weather Channel Founder says\"Global Warming is Biggest Scam in His
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] People who are concerned about generating greenhouse gases are talking steps to reduce. If enough people think it is a problem green house gases will be reduced. [/ QUOTE ] Do you at least accept the fact that there might be bad results? Unlike the market, the laws of nature don't really respond to individidual preferences. [/ QUOTE ] Decisons in life are not made with certainty by anything or anyone. There are probabilities and estimates of costs and benefits. Nature and humans are in a constant state of adjustment to maximize utility. To have one person or a small group decide for the good of all when it comes to allocating resources does not seem to be as good as a market based solution. With a market based solution adjustments are constantly made to new information. [/ QUOTE ] You keep repeating this. Do you accept that some people know these probabilities and risks better than others? Do you accept that allowing the masses (who are uninformed, short sighted and greedy) to make decsions that affect everyone (including those who are more informed, doing the "right" thing) is a bit "unfair"? You say that the market responds to new information, but there is always a large lag. In the case of environmental damage, this lag may be sufficient to move things into the "too late" case. Your faith in the market borders on religious faith.
|
|
#4
11-20-2007, 10:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Weather Channel Founder says\"Global Warming is Biggest Scam in His
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] People who are concerned about generating greenhouse gases are talking steps to reduce. If enough people think it is a problem green house gases will be reduced. [/ QUOTE ] Do you at least accept the fact that there might be bad results? Unlike the market, the laws of nature don't really respond to individidual preferences. [/ QUOTE ] Decisons in life are not made with certainty by anything or anyone. There are probabilities and estimates of costs and benefits. Nature and humans are in a constant state of adjustment to maximize utility. To have one person or a small group decide for the good of all when it comes to allocating resources does not seem to be as good as a market based solution. With a market based solution adjustments are constantly made to new information. [/ QUOTE ] You keep repeating this. Do you accept that some people know these probabilities and risks better than others? Do you accept that allowing the masses (who are uninformed, short sighted and greedy) to make decsions that affect everyone (including those who are more informed, doing the "right" thing) is a bit "unfair"? You say that the market responds to new information, but there is always a large lag. In the case of environmental damage, this lag may be sufficient to move things into the "too late" case. Your faith in the market borders on religious faith. [/ QUOTE ] Did you know that within minutes of the 1980's Space Shuttle explosion the company's stock (Morton Thiokol) who made the O ring that caused the explosion sold off about as much as the NPV of the company's actual loss? The market is an amazing mechanisim. When you go to a grocery store do you count all the items of everyone in front of you and the speed of each cashier to choose your line? Probably not, but believe it or not there would not likely be any gain because the decsions of the people before you have created an effecient system where each line has the same expectation of time. The Soviet Union had a planned economy where experts decided what was to produced and at what price with disaterous results. Do you ever marvel at the sheer number of goods and services you can purchase 24 / 7 in this country. Why is there usually always plenty available of what you want? Who gave the orders? Who figured it out? The market is not perfect but it is an effeciency seeking mechanism far more powerfiul than any group of experts. Small adjustments are constantly made based on price and new information that constantly moves to a more effecient allocation of resources. Know one knows for sure what energy source can replace oil, I know solar is not competitive yet. Through the profit motive solutions will be found to this problem. To those who say the solution is too capital intensive we need government I ask how capital intinsive is the auto industry? Did it not solve a great transportation problem? Was government needed to supply the capital? How about electricity? How about telephones? Government doesn't create capital it takes it by force from the most productive members of society to spend in a way that usually is a complete waste. Education? War on drugs? War on poverty? Postal Service? Welfare?
|
|
#5
11-20-2007, 10:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Weather Channel Founder says\"Global Warming is Biggest Scam in His
You're not even adressing my argument at all. I'm not saying the government should control everything, I'm not saying the market is useless. Information simply does not always spread as readily and quickly as you seem to imply. I'm talking about a very specific issue and you keep praising the market in a pointlessly general sense.
People do know, roughly speaking, what energy sources can replace oil. With some concerted social efforts, this country could easily be less dependent on oil than it is now. Might this reduce the standard of living to some degree? Quite possibly. It might not be the "most efficient" energy source. But the long term costs (even short term, see Iraq War) of oil dependence are simply ignored because unlike space shuttle explosions, the facts aren't slapping people in the face.
|
|
#6
11-20-2007, 11:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Weather Channel Founder says\"Global Warming is Biggest Scam in His
As long as it's voluntary, and not "we are taking your resources for your own damn good", that is perfectly fine. In fact it's more than fine, I would probably be in support of something like that if given the choice. But the implication of what a lot of posters are saying seems to be that someone has to force people to adopt "government research", or else magical stuff like computers and the internet and solar power aren't possible. That is untrue and immoral for several reasons.
|
|
#7
11-20-2007, 11:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Weather Channel Founder says\"Global Warming is Biggest Scam in His
[ QUOTE ]
You're not even adressing my argument at all. I'm not saying the government should control everything, I'm not saying the market is useless. Information simply does not always spread as readily and quickly as you seem to imply. I'm talking about a very specific issue and you keep praising the market in a pointlessly general sense. People do know, roughly speaking, what energy sources can replace oil. With some concerted social efforts, this country could easily be less dependent on oil than it is now. Might this reduce the standard of living to some degree? Quite possibly. It might not be the "most efficient" energy source. But the long term costs (even short term, see Iraq War) of oil dependence are simply ignored because unlike space shuttle explosions, the facts aren't slapping people in the face. [/ QUOTE ] You want the same government that will spend $2 trillion to keep us safe from Iraq to solve our energy problem? You are assuming too much of what those in power can decide what the solutions are to our problems and how to solve them. When oil is expensive enough alternatives will appear, in the meantime its a cheap supply of energy.
|
|
#9
11-21-2007, 12:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Weather Channel Founder says\"Global Warming is Biggest Scam in His
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] People who are concerned about generating greenhouse gases are talking steps to reduce. If enough people think it is a problem green house gases will be reduced. [/ QUOTE ] Do you at least accept the fact that there might be bad results? Unlike the market, the laws of nature don't really respond to individidual preferences. [/ QUOTE ] Decisons in life are not made with certainty by anything or anyone. There are probabilities and estimates of costs and benefits. Nature and humans are in a constant state of adjustment to maximize utility. To have one person or a small group decide for the good of all when it comes to allocating resources does not seem to be as good as a market based solution. With a market based solution adjustments are constantly made to new information. [/ QUOTE ] You keep repeating this. Do you accept that some people know these probabilities and risks better than others? Do you accept that allowing the masses (who are uninformed, short sighted and greedy) to make decsions that affect everyone (including those who are more informed, doing the "right" thing) is a bit "unfair"? You say that the market responds to new information, but there is always a large lag. In the case of environmental damage, this lag may be sufficient to move things into the "too late" case. Your faith in the market borders on religious faith. [/ QUOTE ] How are you coming up with the "right" response faster than the market? For every case of "environmental damage" there may be a "correct" response, but there may also be several incorrect responses (from "experts" no less) that will actually make the situation worse. How is your selection process going to weed these out better than the market does and do so faster?
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
