Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Newer Archives > Other Topics > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 11-20-2007, 03:04 PM
xorbie xorbie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: far and away better
Posts: 15,690
Default Re: Weather Channel Founder says\"Global Warming is Biggest Scam in His

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

This is interesting. How often is it necessary to allocate resources ineffeciently to acheive suitable levels of education, health, lack of violence, freedom, and/or cultrual acheivments. Could you give me an example?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's difficult to say because resource allocation is far easier to quantify than these other aspects. I'm not sure what sort of example you want (practical or theoretical), but I would support subsidizing education, subsidizing public health, subsidizing the poor, etc

[/ QUOTE ]

Your making the claim apparently that sometimes resources have to be allocated ineffeciently to acheive suitable levels of education among other things. If that's the case I would think that you could provide some reasoning behind that. Give me a hypothetical.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we may be speaking past one another. The reallocation of resources is always inefficient because you pay people to do things that create no wealth (manage the allocation). I believe this reallocation is necessary. Do you disagree or not?
Reply With Quote
  #152  
Old 11-20-2007, 04:50 PM
PLOlover PLOlover is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,465
Default Re: Weather Channel Founder says\"Global Warming is Biggest Scam in His

[ QUOTE ]
This is interesting. How often is it necessary to allocate resources ineffeciently to acheive suitable levels of education, health, lack of violence, freedom, and/or cultrual acheivments. Could you give me an example?

[/ QUOTE ]

affirmative action.
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 11-20-2007, 04:56 PM
Mark1808 Mark1808 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 590
Default Re: Weather Channel Founder says\"Global Warming is Biggest Scam in His

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Third of all we don't know that government resources were allocated in the most effecient manner in developing this technology. It may not have even been close to the most effecient allocation of resources.

[/ QUOTE ]

the whole point is that if carbon is man making global warming then we need a solution *right now*, damn the costs, to save the earth!

that's the socialist argujment anyway about why we're gonna hjave to pay more taxes and lower our standard of living.

I'm just flipping it and saying if costs are not an issue , then why aren't we trying to solve the problem?

[/ QUOTE ]

Who will decide what risks are worth the investment and how much? George Bush thought Iraq was a risk and could cost us as much as $2 trillion. What about the risk of a meteor hitting us? There are lots of risks, probabilities and costs. You act like global warming is 100% risk (the earth has warmed before and humans adapted) and we have unlimited resources that will 100% solve the problem. The real world does not work this way.
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old 11-20-2007, 05:09 PM
xorbie xorbie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: far and away better
Posts: 15,690
Default Re: Weather Channel Founder says\"Global Warming is Biggest Scam in His

Mark,

I ask the same to you. Who will decide?
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old 11-20-2007, 05:13 PM
Mark1808 Mark1808 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 590
Default Re: Weather Channel Founder says\"Global Warming is Biggest Scam in His

[ QUOTE ]
Mark,

I ask the same to you. Who will decide?

[/ QUOTE ]

The collective wisdom of the masses - THE MARKET.
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old 11-20-2007, 05:17 PM
xorbie xorbie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: far and away better
Posts: 15,690
Default Re: Weather Channel Founder says\"Global Warming is Biggest Scam in His

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Mark,

I ask the same to you. Who will decide?

[/ QUOTE ]

The collective wisdom of the masses - THE MARKET.

[/ QUOTE ]

The collective wisdom of the masses is worthless and has failed us miserably in the past. I would recommend Jared Diaomond's <u>Collapse</u>. Interesting read.
Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old 11-20-2007, 06:04 PM
Mark1808 Mark1808 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 590
Default Re: Weather Channel Founder says\"Global Warming is Biggest Scam in His

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Mark,

I ask the same to you. Who will decide?

[/ QUOTE ]

The collective wisdom of the masses - THE MARKET.

[/ QUOTE ]

The collective wisdom of the masses is worthless and has failed us miserably in the past. I would recommend Jared Diaomond's <u>Collapse</u>. Interesting read.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps my phrasing was bad as the masses are usually worong at key turning points. I feel the allocation of resources should be left to competitive bidding and not the direction of a dictator.
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old 11-20-2007, 06:19 PM
xorbie xorbie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: far and away better
Posts: 15,690
Default Re: Weather Channel Founder says\"Global Warming is Biggest Scam in His

Who said anything about a dictator? I think decisions like this should be left in the hand of competent decision makers, proven leaders and the scientific experts of their respective fields.
Reply With Quote
  #159  
Old 11-20-2007, 06:21 PM
adios adios is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,132
Default Re: Weather Channel Founder says\"Global Warming is Biggest Scam in His

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

This is interesting. How often is it necessary to allocate resources ineffeciently to acheive suitable levels of education, health, lack of violence, freedom, and/or cultrual acheivments. Could you give me an example?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's difficult to say because resource allocation is far easier to quantify than these other aspects. I'm not sure what sort of example you want (practical or theoretical), but I would support subsidizing education, subsidizing public health, subsidizing the poor, etc

[/ QUOTE ]

Your making the claim apparently that sometimes resources have to be allocated ineffeciently to acheive suitable levels of education among other things. If that's the case I would think that you could provide some reasoning behind that. Give me a hypothetical.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we may be speaking past one another. The reallocation of resources is always inefficient because you pay people to do things that create no wealth (manage the allocation). I believe this reallocation is necessary. Do you disagree or not?

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa, whoa I'm trying to understand the basis of this statment you made:

[ QUOTE ]
There seems to me to be an implicit assumption that efficiency is very important. Clearly it is important, but only one of many factors that is used to take the measure of society. Even if government funded research is less efficient somehow, that isn't necessarily the be all and end all of the situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is stating that a less effecient allocation is at least sometimes desirable to a more effecient one because other factors are more important than effeciency:

I responded with:

[ QUOTE ]
Out of curiosity, what are the other factors?

[/ QUOTE ]

To which you responded:

[ QUOTE ]
Levels of education, levels of health, lack of violence, freedom, cultural acheivements.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're asserting here that these factors can at least sometimes be more readily acheived by choosing a less effecient solution over a more effecient one.

To which I responded:

[ QUOTE ]
This is interesting. How often is it necessary to allocate resources ineffeciently to acheive suitable levels of education, health, lack of violence, freedom, and/or cultrual acheivments. Could you give me an example?


[/ QUOTE ]

Ok since you make this assertion I assume you have at least an example that you can provide about how deciding to be less effecient is preferable to acheiving the things that you mentioned.

[ QUOTE ]
That's difficult to say because resource allocation is far easier to quantify than these other aspects. I'm not sure what sort of example you want (practical or theoretical), but I would support subsidizing education, subsidizing public health, subsidizing the poor, etc

[/ QUOTE ]

Going back to your original claim, you're asserting that ineffecient allocation can be more desirable to acheive something like suitable levels of education. But that's all you've done is make the claim. You haven't backed it up in the least. I thought you had something specific in mind. So I responded:

[ QUOTE ]
Your making the claim apparently that sometimes resources have to be allocated ineffeciently to acheive suitable levels of education among other things. If that's the case I would think that you could provide some reasoning behind that. Give me a hypothetical.

[/ QUOTE ]

No reasoning at this point, just making a claim.

[ QUOTE ]
I think we may be speaking past one another. The reallocation of resources is always inefficient because you pay people to do things that create no wealth (manage the allocation). I believe this reallocation is necessary. Do you disagree or not?

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you've changed the subject. Your original assertion was that at least sometimes a less sufficient allocation was preferable to more effecient allocation acheiving certain desirable outcomes. Your last post doesn't address that.

I understand now that it's just an opinion you hold and not something that you've thought about all that much.
Reply With Quote
  #160  
Old 11-20-2007, 06:29 PM
PLOlover PLOlover is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,465
Default Re: Weather Channel Founder says\"Global Warming is Biggest Scam in His

[ QUOTE ]
Who will decide what risks are worth the investment and how much? George Bush thought Iraq was a risk and could cost us as much as $2 trillion. What about the risk of a meteor hitting us? There are lots of risks, probabilities and costs. You act like global warming is 100% risk (the earth has warmed before and humans adapted) and we have unlimited resources that will 100% solve the problem. The real world does not work this way.

[/ QUOTE ]

your missing the point. they already are discussing shifting resources via taxation and regulation because of so called man made global warming. but their solution is not to solve the problem, but to get the masses to pay higher taxes and to have a lower standard of living.

basically, it's like if a city has a water treatment plant that is getting old and doesn't work well enough so the citys solution is to raise taxes and pass laws to regulate water usage that will result in even higher prices, and then claim the problem is solved as long as everyone keeps using less and less water. and then if anyone says, hey, why not build a new water treatment plant, everyone tells him he's crazy, it's inefficient use of resources, government can't do anything, etc.

actually the analogy is that the water treatment plant is fine but the city claims it's on the brink of failure and so they must raise taxes ...
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.