carepov

Sure, that's reasonable. But lets say that there are scientists that work for the SETI program that believe that extraterrestrial intelligent life certainly exists. Now should these people be lumped in with others that believe that aliens have directly influenced past civilizations, and even that alien anal probes are a daily occurrence? IMO, this is what you are doing by stereotyping all religious people together. I somewhat agree but the your range is off by a factor of two. The ideas that "God exists", and other related religious beliefs, impact the lives of billions of people in ways that range from positively uplifting to down right evil, with a whole lot of insignificant in between. Absolutely, when the impacts are negative the beliefs must be challenged. What are some examples of today's organizations that you feel are "responsible for the problems"?

Why is that cruel? Or at least why is that any more cruel than life in nature?

Why do you think that modern western zoos are cruel?

Which one is it, is the belief in extraterrestrial intelligent life based on evidence or is there absolutely no evidence? There are all sorts of non-evidence based beliefs, some religious and some non-religious. Some are crazy/silly and some are reasonable, some are benign, some harmful and some are even beneficial. There are reasonable and good people that are religious and reasonable and good people that are not. Doesn't it make more sense to stop dividing the already limited numbers of reasonable, good people and instead direct criticism of harmful and dangerous beliefs?

There is as much evidence for the existence of intelligent life on other planets as there is for the existence of God.

Are you sure that it's not due to: -stock option benefits and other capital gains? -tax loopholes and/or tax avoidance tools?

The work of almost any group of people can accused of "spreading evil". Whether it is a religious organization, nation, NGO, political party, corporation, even Boy Scouts and sporting groups. The larger the group the more certain that it is not perfect. As long as the goals of the group are positive and the majority of the actions are positive I think that it is noble to be a part of and support that group - especially if you are working on improving that group.

hmmm.... What is the difference in "Having faith in the existence of aliens" (dangerous) and "Being confident that other life forms exist?" (not dangerous). Are you saying that the vastness of the universe is evidence of other life forms? Funny, some claim the same evidence for the existence of God. Both scientists and theologians "believe without evidence". Both construct models that explain the universe and both revise these models over time. Remember both are branches from the same tree and there is still some areas of overlap. Is there evidence for the existence of strings? Until recently when evidence was found, were the believers of the Higgs-Boson "dangerous"?

Yes he is saying that - and every rational humanist would agree. But there's more, he spefically said, even when religious people oppose the dangerous and disgusting ideas they are still part of the problem. Unless I'm mis-understanding his message, he is driving a wedge between secular humanists and religious humanists.

I am not advocating the elimination of dividend tax credits.

cyber, let me introduce you to our friend Mighty AC:

I agree. In Canada the best examples of this is the cut to the GST and the incomprehensible repeal of the HST in BC. However, pandering to the rich is also a poor way to structure tax policy. Well, if it is true, that is yet another negative consequence of excessive inequality. Quit her job and collect entitlements. Maybe start a small cash business? As I said, I agree, excessive spending is a problem.

Don't you think that it's a problem when the Buffetts/Romneys pay a lower net tax rate than their secretaries? I never said that there was no spending problem, it looks like a bit of both: If ever revenues get too high, increased revenues from the rich should be offset by the reduction of regressive taxes like the payroll tax. I also think that, in the long term, a reduction in poverty would would reduce entitlement spending.

I disagree, but even if you were right, what's worse than benign beliefs (religious or otherwise) is driving a wedge between religious humanists and secular humanists - which is exactly what you are doing. Is the belief/conviction of the existence of extraterrestrial life dangerous? If not, why is that different than the belief in the existence of God?

Are you disagreeing with the Oracle of Omaha? Key words in my post were "gradually and slowly"... By your logic, should we cut taxes for the rich even further? Well, it would help to eliminate the deficit. After that, it would be nice to pay down the debt and cut other taxes like the payroll tax.

No. I am saying that wealth concentration is not the "very worst thing that can happen" to an economy. IMO today's wealth concentration in the America's is excessive - it is not the most devastating issue, but it should addressed as it seems so easy to fix. I am in favour of closing tax loopholes and increasing the marginal tax rates for the upper income brackets. Taxes should be raised gradually and slowly to similar levels that were in place in recent history - not too high so as to encourage tax avoidance/evasion. I basically agree with Warren Buffet.

International agreements and WTO rules may not be perfect but surely you would agree that existing system, of international trade is the fairest (least unfair) system of trade that we have ever had, right? The biggest factors, by far, that determine the odds of success for a developing country are 1. luck of geography and 2. the countries own domestic policies. A theme that I see come up often in papers I've read is: -When a country has strong institutions and domestic policies, globalization (trade liberalization) will likely leverage the benefits and lead to faster, more equal development -When a country has weak institutions and domestic policies, globalization can amplify problems such as gross inequality.

Are you serious, or exaggerating? -worse than hyperinflation -worse than high long-term unemployment -prolonged stagflation -a run on the banks -a 2008 style credit crisis -worse than poverty -even in your own post you acknowledge that a lack of "faith in property rights" is worse than concentration of wealth No, IMO concentration of wealth is not even close to a serious problem. It's relatively easy to with taxation, especially inheritance taxes.

Again, I must disagree. I have heard arguments similar to jacee's before, her sugestion to "add-value locally" as much as possible instead of shipping out raw materials is very common and does have some merit. In my experience she is not being dishonest, it's a lack of understanding of the petro-chemical business realities.

Agreed, except that it's not only since 2012, many oil companies have been taking positive actions for many years. What is there to discuss? The market has spoken; generally it is not feasible to set up refining/manufacturing at extraction sites. If it was it would have been done a long time ago. There are many reasons for this such as: -There are no obvious advantages in terms of safety (you still need to transport the refined products) -Refineries need economies of scale and a large pool of labour -Often the by-product of one process is the input to another process If you disagree with the market then simply develop a business plan and start convincing potential investors to put up the capital...

jacee has specifically said that she wants oil sands companies to succeed. Again, I don't agree with your interpretation of her position. You, and others with similar positions, seem to be saying that people with environmental concerns want to "shut down business" or "ruin the economy". This is as false as others posters saying that you want to "ruin the environment". I am saying that both sides are being foolish: -The only way for business to succeed in the long term is to protect the evironment -The only way to protect the environment is with a strong economy

I disagree with your interpretation of jacee's position.

Nice rant. I get it and I agree. Successful companies get it too. In the long term the interests of all stakeholders converge. The only way to succeed in the long term is to balance the interests of all stakeholders. From my point of view, energy companies are actually leading the business world, not catching up as you claim. For example: http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/sustainability.html http://www.statoil.com/en/environmentsociety/pages/default.aspx http://www.suncor.com/en/responsible/302.aspx

That's just not true. Increasing inequality and ability to reduce poverty isn't mutually inclusive, there's no significant correlation. Sometimes there's increased inequality (ie: post-Communist countries), and sometimes there isn't. Well in China and India there seems to be a trade-off: It makes sense to me. In general, all else being equal, the greater the wealth available in a given population, the greater the chance that the wealth is unevenly distributed. Of course all else is not equal, there are good examples of decreasing poverty and decreasing/flat inequality that make good case studies for the study of new policies. Interesting paper, too bad it is from 2001, it would be very interesting to see the updated data. I love the topic but it does not make sense to discuss without data from the last 13 years. What do you think about the post-Washington Consensus?

What's the difference then between progression and regression?