Sounds like a bunch of socialist crap, Natural Capitalism. I bet if you do a search of the authors and the orgainzations they belong to, you will find some socialist in there. Get a copy of "Basic Economics" by Thomas Sowell from your school's library and start reading aroung pg 275 to counter this crap that the earth's natural resources are running out.
The free market doesn't need government intervention to bring about more efficient use of natural resources. If natural resources are running out the market will increase their price and force people to conserve them.
I hope having to go through this crap justifies, or pays off, spending your kid's and your sperm's and future generation's money and enslaving them to the government.
""It neglects to assign any value to the largest stocks of capital it employs—the natural resources and living systems, as well as the social and cultural systems that are the basis of human capital." pg 5 I thought natural resources like oil, wood, metals, and etc cost money.
"With nearly ten thousand new people arriving on earth every hour, a new and unfamiliar pattern of scarcity is now emerging" pg 8 How many people die each hour?
There are more trees in American than there were 100 years ago http://choicenews.wordpress.com/2011/02/28/more-trees-than-there-were-100-years-ago-its-true/ Probably not the best source and needs to be verified.
There are a ton of loose ends. The book has Utopian ideas but provides no real way of achieving any of it. In most cases, the the goals in the book could easily be achieved by the traditional free market.
Magnificent in its idiocy! But then, when it's a class that is not dealing wtih the hard sciences, they can say anything they want and get away with it.
Still using Malthusian theory in its economic analysis, this even as the US becomes a net oil exporting nation for the first time in decades(?) in spite of Obama's best efforts to keep that from happening? Did Malthusian economics go by the wayside in the 20th century some time?
Cars no longer powered by oil, because they're powered by massive coal generation electricity plants?
One could go on. It's only a class. Tell the teacher what he wants to hear.
I have definitely been biting my tongue in this class. The teacher was very lenient with my 3 weeks of Thailand training. So I don't want to piss her off.
My main problem with the book is that it provides no solutions. I think that most of the ideas could be accomplished via traditional capitalism.
The book also does not really take an objective look at the measures it wants to take place. For example, in the "service flow economy" section, it states that it would be more sustainable if manufacturers loaned out products like: air conditioning, cars, furnaces, etc. It thinks that the company's would make a more quality product so it doesn't break. It does not take in to account the fact that the consumer will treat a loaned product like shit. Why take care of it if a service man will just come and fix it?
The whole thing is silly. This is the constant shit that I have to deal with.
This green uptopian notion of some magical source of energy that doesn't pollute, is a joke.
I am a little apprehensive about the government regulating the very air we breath to the extent as recommended.
Look at the government wasting billions on solar energy companies.
Look at the 50$ energy efficient light bulbs http://hotair.com/archives/2012/03/12/doe-awards-philips-10-million-for-creating-a-50-green-light-bulb/
You can disagree with this crap and not be rude about it or piss off the teacher and still make your point. In class discussions, you have to make it appear like you are stuggling to find the answers. Ask questions that you already know the answers to in a way that makes it appears that you are struggling to find the answer. Ask questions in a way that will make the teacher make your point for you. And when they do, don't throw it in their face but make it seem like you are still searching for the answer and say that this will give you something to think about.
There was an article in The Oregonian (no link) this week that was arguing for more state funds for green projects, which I think unintentionally gave up the key facts of the Green scam: the article said (paraphrasing) "you are familiar with the vast wind farms covering Eastern Oregon, but did you know that Green Energy still only contributes 3% of the total energy needs of Oregon?"
there it is in a nutshell. Billions and billions of State taxpayer dollars devoted to Green Energy, and still...3% of our energy. The article threw that fact out there in an offhand way, like no big deal, what can we do to increase this?
It is like the crappy Government owned GM's electric car the volt. The government gives people 7500 dollars to buy the thing and they aren't selling enough of these crappy cars to point where they have to stop production.
The Green movment has nothing to do with the environment what so ever. After the fall of the Soviet Union communism had to transform and be spread using other means. It is a cleaver means of getting people that need to feel important to support communist or socialist ideals. Look at what one of the founders of the green movement stated Patrick Moore. If you are look at this issue through the prisim that people are trying to save the environment and the purpose of this stuff is to improve the environment, then you will bang your head trying to make sense of this stuff. It has nothing to do with this. It is about advancing politial agendas and anything to do with the environment. The sad thing is that there are enough people that want to feel important and have a sense of purpose in life to support this crap. Even after climate gate and all the facts that show what a scam the green movemnt is, the UN and the government won't back down from pushing the green agenda. Look at the UN agenda 21:
"Land… cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interest of society as a whole." http://www.theblaze.com/stories/is-the-soros-sponsored-agenda-21-a-hidden-plan-for-world-government-yes-only-it-is-not-hidden/
This what collectivism and communism has transformed itself into. Although this is not the sole means of advancing the new communism.
There is a need for government to regulate on the basis of the environment. Even Sowell agrees with this. There are some external costs that the free market and business accounting do not account for. This is one thing that the above reading is fairly correct on. The problem is that it, just like every gov't regulation, is a slippery slope and is used as a scapegoat.
You should read the "Creature From Jekyll Island" about the Federal Reserve.
The fact that governments do need to exist is not a justification for a socialist or communist one. Just because there an extermely limited need for the government to regulate the environment is not a justification for 99.99999999999999999999999999% of what the modern day Green movement stands for.
This is just another way to attack the free market and capitialism. The UN quote above says it all.
Sounds like a bunch of socialist crap, Natural Capitalism. I bet if you do a search of the authors and the orgainzations they belong to, you will find some socialist in there. Get a copy of "Basic Economics" by Thomas Sowell from your school's library and start reading aroung pg 275 to counter this crap that the earth's natural resources are running out.
ReplyDeleteThe free market doesn't need government intervention to bring about more efficient use of natural resources. If natural resources are running out the market will increase their price and force people to conserve them.
I hope having to go through this crap justifies, or pays off, spending your kid's and your sperm's and future generation's money and enslaving them to the government.
""It neglects to assign any value
to the largest stocks of capital it employs—the natural resources and
living systems, as well as the social and cultural systems that are the
basis of human capital." pg 5
I thought natural resources like oil, wood, metals, and etc cost money.
"With nearly ten thousand new people arriving on earth every hour,
a new and unfamiliar pattern of scarcity is now emerging" pg 8
How many people die each hour?
There are more trees in American than there were 100 years ago http://choicenews.wordpress.com/2011/02/28/more-trees-than-there-were-100-years-ago-its-true/
Probably not the best source and needs to be verified.
There are a ton of loose ends. The book has Utopian ideas but provides no real way of achieving any of it. In most cases, the the goals in the book could easily be achieved by the traditional free market.
ReplyDeleteMagnificent in its idiocy! But then, when it's a class that is not dealing wtih the hard sciences, they can say anything they want and get away with it.
ReplyDeleteStill using Malthusian theory in its economic analysis, this even as the US becomes a net oil exporting nation for the first time in decades(?) in spite of Obama's best efforts to keep that from happening? Did Malthusian economics go by the wayside in the 20th century some time?
Cars no longer powered by oil, because they're powered by massive coal generation electricity plants?
One could go on. It's only a class. Tell the teacher what he wants to hear.
I have definitely been biting my tongue in this class. The teacher was very lenient with my 3 weeks of Thailand training. So I don't want to piss her off.
ReplyDeleteMy main problem with the book is that it provides no solutions. I think that most of the ideas could be accomplished via traditional capitalism.
The book also does not really take an objective look at the measures it wants to take place. For example, in the "service flow economy" section, it states that it would be more sustainable if manufacturers loaned out products like: air conditioning, cars, furnaces, etc. It thinks that the company's would make a more quality product so it doesn't break. It does not take in to account the fact that the consumer will treat a loaned product like shit. Why take care of it if a service man will just come and fix it?
The whole thing is silly. This is the constant shit that I have to deal with.
This green uptopian notion of some magical source of energy that doesn't pollute, is a joke.
ReplyDeleteI am a little apprehensive about the government regulating the very air we breath to the extent as recommended.
Look at the government wasting billions on solar energy companies.
Look at the 50$ energy efficient light bulbs http://hotair.com/archives/2012/03/12/doe-awards-philips-10-million-for-creating-a-50-green-light-bulb/
You can disagree with this crap and not be rude about it or piss off the teacher and still make your point. In class discussions, you have to make it appear like you are stuggling to find the answers. Ask questions that you already know the answers to in a way that makes it appears that you are struggling to find the answer. Ask questions in a way that will make the teacher make your point for you. And when they do, don't throw it in their face but make it seem like you are still searching for the answer and say that this will give you something to think about.
There was an article in The Oregonian (no link) this week that was arguing for more state funds for green projects, which I think unintentionally gave up the key facts of the Green scam: the article said (paraphrasing) "you are familiar with the vast wind farms covering Eastern Oregon, but did you know that Green Energy still only contributes 3% of the total energy needs of Oregon?"
ReplyDeletethere it is in a nutshell. Billions and billions of State taxpayer dollars devoted to Green Energy, and still...3% of our energy. The article threw that fact out there in an offhand way, like no big deal, what can we do to increase this?
The mind boggles.
It is like the crappy Government owned GM's electric car the volt. The government gives people 7500 dollars to buy the thing and they aren't selling enough of these crappy cars to point where they have to stop production.
ReplyDeleteThe Green movment has nothing to do with the environment what so ever. After the fall of the Soviet Union communism had to transform and be spread using other means. It is a cleaver means of getting people that need to feel important to support communist or socialist ideals. Look at what one of the founders of the green movement stated Patrick Moore. If you are look at this issue through the prisim that people are trying to save the environment and the purpose of this stuff is to improve the environment, then you will bang your head trying to make sense of this stuff. It has nothing to do with this. It is about advancing politial agendas and anything to do with the environment. The sad thing is that there are enough people that want to feel important and have a sense of purpose in life to support this crap. Even after climate gate and all the facts that show what a scam the green movemnt is, the UN and the government won't back down from pushing the green agenda. Look at the UN agenda 21:
"Land… cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interest of society as a whole." http://www.theblaze.com/stories/is-the-soros-sponsored-agenda-21-a-hidden-plan-for-world-government-yes-only-it-is-not-hidden/
This what collectivism and communism has transformed itself into. Although this is not the sole means of advancing the new communism.
It's ok because your children will be learning about the constitutional FED Reserve Bank.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.zerohedge.com/news/fed-take-propaganda-schoolroom-will-teach-k-8-12-students-about-constitutionality-fed
There is a need for government to regulate on the basis of the environment. Even Sowell agrees with this. There are some external costs that the free market and business accounting do not account for. This is one thing that the above reading is fairly correct on. The problem is that it, just like every gov't regulation, is a slippery slope and is used as a scapegoat.
ReplyDeleteYou should read the "Creature From Jekyll Island" about the Federal Reserve.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that governments do need to exist is not a justification for a socialist or communist one. Just because there an extermely limited need for the government to regulate the environment is not a justification for 99.99999999999999999999999999% of what the modern day Green movement stands for.
This is just another way to attack the free market and capitialism. The UN quote above says it all.
Here is a brief example of the energy department with a mention of the EPA a couple minutes in.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsRz-Zoc1Ac&feature=youtu.be