Saryctos

Thiere was a study I found from Stanford is comparing how different regions attain economic growth. In the middle of the report, they mention that lowering population growth is a contributing factor to increasing standard of living.

I'm surprised by this assertion, as in my own experience I have heard this causal relationship spoken of in the reverse. The link below is a good watch, that while not really digging into the details of why, visually shows how expected economic growth might impact the slowing of population growth.

Even though lightly populated areas do experience economic growth with population growth, eventually a large population becomes a burden that is too difficult to feed, house and employ, and educate as we are beginning to learn in this country.

Again I am a little weary of this, as I have seen trends pointing towards a movement in the population towards ever higher concentrations. The human population as a whole is concentrating into cities faster than it is populating the rural areas. Again, an interesting watch on the topic from TED:

What do you think? Are things worse than ever before?

Is this just another version of something that has always occurred?

Is this just the way things are going to be given the hyperconnected world where we exist and can self-select our sources of information?

 

Is there a way to make things better? Should we bother trying?

I'd like to leave an interesting TED talk video here for your enjoyment on what might be a leading contributor to this polarization. Online "filter bubbles", just as your first quote touches on, really are separating the masses into camps autonomously.

http://www.ted.com/talks/view/lang/en//id/1091

I think things are a bit worse than they were before. Going back to when people read newspapers regularly, they would read the articles that resonated with them and skip those that didn't. The difference I think, is that they would at least see the opinions of others that disagreed with them on those same pages. Even if you didn't fully comprehend or even respect the opinions of those with whom you didn't agree, you at least had a higher level of exposure to them. It's much harder to feel absolute in your opinion when you see a plethora of dissenting opinions to the contrary. When the internet browsing public hunkers down in their RSS feed holes, they only get what they signed up for. Granted, some people go out of their way to seek moderate, or even opposite opinions, but this seems far and away to be the minority.

I'm not sure how easy it could be to "fix" this sort of problem. Perhaps some form of voluntary ratings system that catalogs what articles/videos you've read and calculates your "information bias" rating. You could have a community rating system that categorizes content based on political leaning, as well as the extreme nature of the source.

As a hypothetical example: If you find a user that has a moderate conservative rating and his sources are generally mixed on the conservative scale, but only extreme on the liberal side, you might be able to better understand that this user probably isn't getting a balanced understanding of the liberal opinions out there. The users themselves can also look at this rating and realize that maybe they should change their reading habits as a way of bolstering their credibility. As shallow as that sounds, this is precisely the behavior that one would hope to achieve from such a system.

What do you think?

Been a while, so go a little easy on me

http://www.dblinvestors.com/documents/DBL_energy_subsidies_paper.pdf

From the Paper,

"It almost goes without saying, of course, that the

transportation network created by the railroads

would never have been possible without the same

kind of federal land grants that so benefitted the

timber industry. Any proper accounting of early

government support for the coal industry must

factor in these grants, which served to promote an

exponential increase in coal consumption nationwide."

What is solar's rail system? Where is the driving force behind the need for a solar production market? The paper looks to paint these industry's life cycles as similar so as to draw a contrast to their unequal subsidies. The numbers presented certainly show just such a disparity (although I always take numbers presented in an opinion piece with a grain of salt). However, the problem with solar isn't one of production capacity. Coal was the answer to the problem of the increasing cost and diminishing supply in timber, as was petroleum the answer to the combustion engine. Solar in it's current incarnation needs more research funding to bring down cost/Watt than it does an increase in supply capacity from production subsidies. I disagree with the assessment of the circumstances surrounding these energy sources.

The graph on page 10 shows the timely rises in consumption that coincide with technological advances that created large demands for such energy sources. Coal to railway expansion, petroleum to automobiles. These subsidies provided primarily for the production of coal and oil with the aims of supplying these markets with abundant fuel, thus helping the industries which made use of them as an energy source. The pressure on coal and oil were created by the need for supply, which was subsidized in order to fill such demands and aid the industries which fed off that supply.

What industry is creating a demand for solar generated power that can be paralleled to the rail system expansion of the 1800s or the introduction and mass production of the automobile?

Because we're giving an established industry $4 billion which could just as easily be directed and focused toward sustainable energy sources. It's ultimately $4 billion not going to solar and wind.

 

I think you're making the wrong point by showing it as a small percentage of overall taxes paid by oil companies. The point is that they're being given an advantage their competitors are not receiving, and it's tilting the markets away from achieving a sustainable future more quickly.

These companies also have to put up with regulations which limit their ability to operate efficiently. Opening a new solar panel factory? Sure why not. Open a new refinery? Hold the phone champ, isn't your county already at the maximum allowable*(not sure if this exact limitation exists)? From what I understand, many companies would be willing to update their defunct factory equipment that has been grandfathered in (ex: wooden pipes) in exchange for letting go of some of those subsidies.

I know that it is infra dig to ask about forum members who have ceased posting - but what the hell ... what happened to Pangloss? He seemed to be an ever present in the politics forum and quick on coming down on bad posting.

A good number of politics posters have faded off the radar in recent years. Some come back in cycles, but it's hard to tell really.

Right now some of the big guys are saying our economy will never return to what it was. Some are saying the problem is the masses don't have enough education, and for our economy to improve they must return to college and make themselves more job ready for our economy. Others are saying we must stop sending our jobs over seas, and need take steps to encourage our industry to stay in the states.

 

There are some high tech. jobs that require a degree a physics or biology, but really how many of these jobs are in your neighborhood?

In South-East Michigan there are many jobs available to an educated population, so many that there is an influx of foreign skilled workers to fill the gap in US educated employees. The unemployment problems are mostly an education problem. You have thousands of line workers looking for employment with no educational background that are driving up the unemployment numbers, and then you have companies still unable to fill their openings in engineering and computer skills related jobs.

While I have no idea how much unemployment fraud actually occurs, it is rather easy in many states to get away with it. They just ask you where you applied and that's it. You are given a warning that lying on the form is punishable to x extent by the law. I don't know what percentage of these are actually checked.

 

Drivers licenses have numbers and barcodes. Why not have a computerized system that's harder to defraud? Instead of asking where they applied, have their drivers license(or state ID) linked into the system such that it can be scanned upon application? Many applications already ask for the number for background check purposes. This would be easy to implement as most places of employment have scanners, a computer, and/or online applications.

 

Businesses and employees are assigned numbers for the system.

 

Online applications could ask for the number(many already do) and put the number into the system. The number assigned to the business is then added to the person's file in the new unemployment system.

 

Upon finishing an application in-store or delivering a finished application to the store, a drivers license or state ID could be scanned or the number entered manually. The number assigned to the employer and the employee are then added to the person's file in the unemployment system. For stores that somehow have no internet access, there could be a paper form to be filled out with the application that is then mailed to the unemployment agency with the name and signature of the employee and the applicant.

The long and the short of it is that these loopholes are seen as benefits of the system to a great many people. You would be seen as attacking the "everyday" citizen if you imposed such an "invasive" fraud protection system (although to be honest, the idea of having all of your applications traceable in a gov't d-base isn't exactly appealing). With much of the unemployment system you'll find a great deal of equivocating and downright lying going on by seemingly upright people. The fraudulent atmosphere is pervasive throughout, and is the standard rather than the exception. This is the way it's worked for some time, and even though it is broken, the notion of fixing it would most certainly be met with hostility.

Beyond the political ramifications, you'll also be looking at creating a new, digital system. This means rules, regulations, new forms, privacy protection, etc.. In addition to the system to handle the incoming information you'll also need to create a standard method of acquiring this information. This means a new set of rules and ensuring the means for all the businesses out there to be able to collect it. If the government isn't supplying these means, then it's just another burden on the business world. Sure the big players can handle it, but this would need to be implemented by every mom&pop operation as well.

Unfortunately, you can't legislate against ignorance.

There is one thing I really do not like about the handling of the Libyan excursion, and that is the passive aggressive stance that the coalition forces appear to be taking. The US plans to hand off the operations "in a few days". As if it to say, they're done, they won't be involved anymore. If someone walked up and punched me in the face, there's no way I would just let them walk away with no ill will. The attacking forces say they want to prevent Gaddafi from attacking civilians, so they established a no fly zone. Yet at the same time they are attacking command and control centers and even military targets not actively engaged in attacking civilians.

If they're going to throw this much weight in the ring against gaddafi and still say that they're only doing it preventing civilian deaths instead of outright backing the rebels, then these leaders are kidding themselves. The boldness of their two-faced political agenda is so blatant that it's insulting.

This is quite unethical on the part of these Doctors. IIRC there is supposed to be a very high mark for ethical practices in maintaining one's license to practice medicine. The reason a Doctor's note is accepted is because of this expected responsibility on part of the issuing party. Abusing the system afforded to workers to avoid the misfortunes of working while sick is an attack on the very acceptance of such allowances.

Sure.

Work is not a right. But a proper reward for work is a right.

Slaves have work... But only free people get a proper reward for the work they do.

I dare say that through the freedom of association that being allowed to voluntarily enter into a labor agreement should be considered a right.

If you want to enable child labor - or at least lower the age limits - in a country with a few percent unemployment, then you basically just want to have different people to do existing jobs for less money. Instead of employing some unemployed guy, you employ a child. That means you lose (one bit at a time) the right to a proper reward for labor. The value of that particular job goes down, and so does the reward for it.

I want people to have less restrictions on the ability to make their own choices. You basically just want to restrict the labor force to keep wages inflated by choking out potential competition.(Sure is easy to state someone's opinion for them isn't it?)

I'm afraid we'll just have to disagree on the second part there. A proper reward for labor isn't set in stone, 'nor is there reason to suggest that wages for a position should be arbitrarily sticky to previous amounts. This is something I hear a lot of from the local unions (SE Michigan), and it never seems to be justified by anything other than personal conviction. Is your position on this particular issue the same when it comes to reduced wages due to increased automation instead of children laborers?

In principle, the unemployed people can take up the jobs that 14-16-year-olds would do. I mean, youngsters have no diplomas, and anyone can do the simplest jobs. But older unemployed people are simply too expensive, and that's why people wouldn't mind to employ kids.

Not all unemployed folks have diplomas either. The age of an employee does not grant them an age adjusted wage(age discrimination laws aside), these kids would be just like any other employee. They may think they're entitled to a "living wage" because they have a family, and might be more willing to negotiate a higher pay, but there is no universal pay increase just because you've been around the sun a few more times.

The demand for child labor would instantly evaporate if the minimum wage for kids would be identical to the minimum wage of a 50-year-old.

Explain this one for me, as I would strongly disagree the assertion that 50-year-olds are more likely to be hired than 16-year-olds for the same wages.

Debt is good. If you are profitable, you want as much debt as you can get. Buy widgets on credit, sell widgets for a profit, pay interest with a portion of widget sales, net profit. In a way, debt is like inflation. You want some, but not too much as to screw you.

Problems crop up the moment you start thinking that operations will always be profitable and you stop being concerned about the interest payments if you don't make your projected sales.

Back to the OP: if people are devoting income to paying off debt and interest, doesn't that prevent that income from being spent/invested in growing the economy? Couldn't you even say that the best way to slow/stop a growth economy would be to slowly replace its cash flows with flows of deficit-spending, since that would give the creditors a means to reign in the economy?

Credit expands spending power. The "loss" to the economy of payments towards debt are offset by the purchases allowed by the credit extended to those businesses, much like the widget example above. The best way to slow the economy is to allocate more funds to paying down your debts, as you won't be spending it on revenue generating operations.

In other words: we need some rules to make sure that the population doesn't get screwed or bullied... and that's what we call civilization.

 

I completely agree.

 

We gained all those rights in great moments. Revolutions that we still celebrate. Leaders whose statues decorate central squares in capital cities. We got the rights, because it was a matter of principle...

And now, motivated by practical concerns or just fear, we give up those rights again.

 

Fear from a bad economy (give up labor rights) and fear from terrorism (give up other rights)... We give away our civilization bit by bit...

History taught us that we will keep doing this, until some new great leader comes along, who gives it all back. And that will then be celebrated for the next couple of generations.

 

It's all the same thing. History tends to repeat itself.

Would you be willing to connect how regaining the right to work relates to losing one's rights?

According to Zeitgeist 2011, GDP increases due to inefficiency because efficiency reduces need and peoples need increases GDP. In other words the economy suffers when everything runs smoothly.

 

Zeitgeist has a bad track record with accuracy, exaggeration, seeing links where there are none etc..., but braudly speaking I think it gets things right.

 

Do we think this assertion about GDP by the Zeitgeist is correct?

It's important to understand that GDP is only one method of measuring "the economy". As a general measure of production it serves a purpose for quick comparisons, but fails to delivery any meaningful insight on the specifics. If anything, this is a primary example of the failings inherent in using GDP as a measurement of economic prosperity.

The same principle holds true in smaller things as well.

 

Some years ago the Aust gov wanted to change the frequency used by CB radios here. This would have led to a marked reduction in range and performance. The laws were ready to pass and the fines for not getting a new radio were gazetted.

 

And very quietly, without a ripple in the MSM, many thousands of people said "No. We will not change and we will not pay your fines. You can send us to jail."

 

Simple, passive resistance made the laws unenforcable and they were quietly dropped.

Well, things like this happen in the states. Certain laws just aren't enforced, sometimes on a nearly universal level. However, laws rarely get repealed or dropped here. Even when a law is largely unenforced, it is still wielded as a method of tacking on extra penalties to those who violate more regularly enforced laws.

Not trying to shoot your theory down John, just trying to see where it fits into the existing scheme of things. As I stated earlier, since Cain and Abel; homicide is as incidental as brushing your teeth. We train ourselves to do something right for weeks, months or even years and then one day we fail to do the very thing we've worked on our entire life. Does it matter? Only if we develope a cavity because of our negligence. In other words, everyone should have a toothbrush, toothpaste and even dental floss. But, will we brush every day? Even a "nut", regardless of intellect; brush their teeth. A sows ear is a sows ear, but never a silk purse.

I must say, we've come a long way from the 25% homicide rate in the days of Cain and Abel

IIRC there are flexible solar films out there. One might be able to rig up some form of flexible shoulder cover (like a patch for the tops of the shoulders on a sweater) solar charger with phone connections coming from the pocket or down the sides to connect to a hip holster.

If you did manage to mount solar panels on the backside of the phone, a front pocket or chest (upper pectorals) mounted holster would probably enable a decent charge without getting too much in the way. This would be in a similar position to a shoulder strap mounted 2-way radio.

How would you know what Osama bin Laden thinks, when there is almost no news about him, and even the CIA and the US Army cannot find him?

 

Imho, this is exactly the problem with the world at the moment (and has always been the problem): We seem to know exactly what the other people think, and what they want, and nobody considers that highly unlikely.

 

These people live on the other side of the world, and have different cultures and languages. Everything we know about them is at best second hand information.

Osama is highly critical of Saudi Arabia, his former homeland. There is no illusion as to their friendly attitude towards the U.S., 'nor to Osama's anger towards this relationship. Properly planned terrorism (coordinated) is all about PR and getting what you want. Osama wants the Saudi government to be held accountable for their buddying up to the west. The "faithful" come from all over the globe, so you can pick and choose the best candidates for accomplishing the most damage, both physically and politically.

You also seem to imply that physical distance is somehow relevant towards being able to understand other people. This just isn't true in the modern era. Telephones, the Internet, global news, etc. makes someone thousands of miles away seem just as close as your neighbors (in some cases more so).

Now, I do understand the point you're getting at. It is accurate to say that on a general level there is a problem of assumption when discussing foreign cultures and peoples. However, for a high profile character such as Osama, it doesn't hold true that the only information we have available comes from news organization and 2nd hand conversations.

One thing to consider is how a change in the presidential term would affect the election timing of congressmen and senators.

Incidentally, some people may consider it important that none of the 9/11 hijackers was from Afghanistan. Most were Saudi.

Some people, like Osama bin Laden, most certainly considered it important.

I would think a large amount of this economic fear comes from how dependent people are on someone else having a job for them. I would attribute this mostly to the education system. The plan is to get an education, get a job, start a family, and eventually retire. I think people primarily seek college degrees as a method of employment, not an educational opportunity. The structure of the education system is one of learning how to work, not how to make a living. IIRC immigrants have a tendency to be more entrepreneurial than the native population. Relying more on their own devices and less on the established employment channels. While being self employed can be more stressful and complicated, the know-how required to do so will make it much easier to find new income channels if/when the current one dries up. Americans have relied on the principles of working for one's self for quite a long time. It is the land of opportunity which drew immigrants to come here and work, for themselves or for others.

For this, I would recommend a thorough review of the education system and its intended mission. The people lack the knowledge to work for themselves, beyond this, most don't even know of their deficiency. By educating people on how to work for themselves at least in some capacity, this can relieve at least a small amount of stress caused by not knowing what to do if they find themselves without steady work.

I was quite surprised to read the following news article (from which the text below is a quote).

 

 

I wanted to know if, especially according to Americans, there is any fundamental difference between:

1. Taxing everyone, then using the money for everyone's benefit

2. Forcing everyone to spend money on something that will benefit everyone

 

To me, the 2nd point sounds just like the 1st, with the only exception that they took out the middle man (the government's tax office in this case).

 

How about this one:

 

 

In summary: I think that it's just a flawed argument to make people think that this is somehow fundamentally different from other things paid with tax money.

 

Can someone explain me the outrage?

One major distinction is in the participation. When you are taxed, you are giving money to the government. The government then pays that out as decided on by the elected officials. There is a distinct disconnect between your willingness to pay for the services, and the services being provided by tax money.

When you are forced to purchase something, you yourself must acquire these things. Some people may be morally, or just plain against the acquisition of the forced purchase. If the government taxed citizens to provide everyone with a firearm, those people can refuse to accept the item. If the government forces you to purchase a gun, you are obligated to purchase one, or face the consequences of noncompliance. The difference being that in the former you save the government money by opting out, in the latter, you benefit only yourself by opting out. Although in an economic sense, taxing and paying is similar to forced payment, it is the subtle difference in the positioning of who benefits/loses from performance that makes one less desirable to the people.

Peace lost under Bush.

 

Bush started that ridiculous war on terrorism, and it's not likely to end soon... because of him, and those other war hawks, every politician worldwide now starts to hyperventilate at the word "terrorist", whereas it used to be a relatively irrelevant matter, take care of by the police.

 

And that's not because the terrorists really stepped it up.

So the attacks across Europe post 2003 wouldn't constitute a "step up" in terrorist activity in your mind?

This is a tough question to be specific about, and I'm sure I'm going to see a flood of nitpicking responses about how the Republicans never really had a supermajority and the Democrats did, but primarily I'm referring to the recent years of almost total Republican control of the country (2000-2006) vs the recent Democratic supermajority (2008-2010). The timeframes are larger so yes it's harder to judge, but I hope you have the ability to look past that and make a pragmatic decision.

 

Who accomplished more, the Republicans in 2000-2006, or the Democrats in 2008-2010? Who affected better changes to this country? Who was generally moving things in the right direction? Specific examples of things you see as progress would be nice.

 

I see the Stimulus and the healthcare bill passed under the Democrats in 2008-2010 as some great progress, and I think the Stimulus has had generally positive results and we are better off than if no stimulus had been passed.

 

I look to the Republican side and don't really see any legislation they passed which I would consider beneficial to the country, and an immense amount of things that I think simply wouldn't happen under a Democratic government I would consider deleterious (e.g. unsustainable tax cuts, PATRIOT Act, DHS/TSA, war in Iraq, Medicare Modernization Act)

 

(dear mods: I was trying to attach a simple yes/no poll to this thread but it didn't take)

Not everyone wants change or "progress". In terms of accomplishments, what doesn't pass during a republican legislation can be considered a victory for some. I consider the delay of such an overreaching health bill a victory, and it's passage a defeat. I'm not in a good place to go into a lengthy analysis of the two congresses atm, however I would like to at least note that not all victories/accomplishments involve the passage of legislation, especially for conservatives.

Yes, but there is also the moral concept of fairness. The government provides services, some of which by necessity benefit everyone. These services cost money, and someone needs to pay for it. Because of our greed, we can't count on the people who benefit from these services paying for them if they have the choice. As you said, this is a failure of group cooperation.

The concept that incidental enrichment requires compensation is always a tough sell for me. Just because someone benefits from a service should not entitled the provider to compensation. If I drink great tasting(personal benefit) coffee in the morning to reduce my drowsiness(personal benefit) and increase my productivity(benefit to employer), does my employer implicitly owe me a portion of the cost of that coffee? When someone else benefits from a service I purchased for my own benefit, that's just collateral enjoyment. I paid a cost knowing that I would benefit from it. If however, a service is provided at no benefit to those paying the cost, then I'll take issue with those benefiting not paying for it.