Riverwind Posted December 16, 2009 Report Posted December 16, 2009 (edited) Only because of the temerity of the idea to wealthy people. Having more or less equal expectations in life probably comes naturally to people, except to those who think people should know their stations.So you are saying you reject the capitalist system and wish to replace it with a communist one? Unequal distribution of wealth is a fundemental piller of the capitalist system because that is what provides the incentive to work and succeed. Communism failed because no one had any incentive to work.If you accept the capitalist system as the best economic model then you must also accept that richer people will consume more and pollute more. Edited December 16, 2009 by Riverwind Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
robert_viera Posted December 16, 2009 Report Posted December 16, 2009 Wealthier people get more food, better healthcare, better houses, better education, etc. All of these things consume resources and produce pollution. It is mathematically impossible to require that richer people pollute no more than average without requiring that they also earn no more than the average. IOW, insisting that every country have the same per capita emissions is the same as insisting that everyone have the same per capita wealth. I realize that some people think this equal wealh distribution is a wonderful economic philosohphy but the overwhelming majority of Canadians would reject it. Why can't we make all those nice things we have in Canada using clean energy sources? I have no idea what clean energy vs. dirty energy has to do with socialism vs. capitalism. We've got plenty of clean energy sources in Canada. Quote THE BROWN RETORT | Photos of householders and ten-percenters
robert_viera Posted December 16, 2009 Report Posted December 16, 2009 (edited) You're typing on a computer made from "dirty energy". Why don't you go buy one of those new computers with the circuit boards that are made of hemp or wind energy? We have an abundance of oil and coal. Please tell me what other "clean" energy sources we have that can supply our energy needs. You're probably correct that the plastics in my computer come from petroleum, but I don't know how you can say what type of energy was used in it's manufacture. Are nations like Brazil being forced to pay money to Africa because they're cutting down rainforests? I don't see how we are being forced to pay money to Africa. If we decide not to help out 3rd-world nations, that's our choice, but you have to live with the consequences. Edited December 16, 2009 by robert_viera Quote THE BROWN RETORT | Photos of householders and ten-percenters
Riverwind Posted December 16, 2009 Report Posted December 16, 2009 (edited) Why can't we make all those nice things we have in Canada using clean energy sources? I have no idea what clean energy vs. dirty energy has to do with socialism vs. capitalism. We've got plenty of clean energy sources in Canada.1) The Oil Sands is one of those things we make and it brings in the money that allows us to purchase all of the niffy stuff from elsewhere. Saying we should just sell something else is like saying the Japanese should stop selling electronics and sell something else (i.e. easy to say but very tough to do).2) "Clean" energy sources cost a lot more. If you pay more for energy your standard of living goes down. If you are business you close your doors and move to a place where energy is cheaper. This would reduce CO2 emissions by making everyone poorer. 3) You are the one who brought the communist argument into the discussion by claiming that Canada's higher per capitita emissions obligies Canada to do more than other countries. Edited December 16, 2009 by Riverwind Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
eyeball Posted December 16, 2009 Report Posted December 16, 2009 So you are saying you reject the capitalist system and wish to replace it with a communist one? Nope. Unequal distribution of wealth is a fundemental piller of the capitalist system because that is what provides the incentive to work and succeed. No, I think unequal distribution of wealth is a result of unequal distribution of political power. Communism failed because no one had any incentive to work. Communism failed because only a few people had most of the power and I suspect capitalism will fail for precisely the same reason. The money is really just a thing, its what people do with it that matters. If you accept the capitalist system as the best economic model then you must also accept that richer people will consume more and pollute more. I'd have to disregard the injustice of this to accept it and I can't. Sorry. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Riverwind Posted December 16, 2009 Report Posted December 16, 2009 (edited) No, I think unequal distribution of wealth is a result of unequal distribution of political power.In other words, you want to ditch the capitalist system and replace it with the communist one. If you disgree then please answer the question:Why would anyone risk their capital to start a business if they had no chance of ending up with a bigger share of the wealth than others? I curious why you resist admitting the fact that your prefer a communist system. Edited December 16, 2009 by Riverwind Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
eyeball Posted December 16, 2009 Report Posted December 16, 2009 In other words, you want to ditch the capitalist system and replace it with the communist one. If you disgree then please answer the question: Perhaps I should rephrase what I said; I think unequal distribution of opportunity is a result of unequal distribution of political power. Consider what you're asking in light of my numerous posts on increasing democracy and voting and my clear disdain and disgust for dictatorships etc. You do realize that in a communist system I would have long since been rounded up and executed or put in a labour camp for my views don't you? Why would anyone risk their capital to start a business if they had no chance of ending up with a bigger share of the wealth than others? I just don't see people looking at or framing their motivations to invest in things simply or strictly around a mentality that basically says; "oh boy I can hardly wait until I have a bigger piece than everyone else". If they are they probably have more money than ethics. I curious why you resist admitting the fact that your prefer a communist system. I'm not curious in the least why you insist on believing or portraying this is a fact no matter how much it isn't. The worms of alarmism have clearly feasted deeply on your brain. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
robert_viera Posted December 16, 2009 Report Posted December 16, 2009 (edited) 1) The Oil Sands is one of those things we make and it brings in the money that allows us to purchase all of the niffy stuff from elsewhere. Saying we should just sell something else is like saying the Japanese should stop selling electronics and sell something else (i.e. easy to say but very tough to do). Almost all of Canada's oil exports go to one country, the United States. Why couldn't we start phasing out oil exports and export more electricity from clean sources as Americans start to buy more electric cars? 2) "Clean" energy sources cost a lot more. If you pay more for energy your standard of living goes down. If you are business you close your doors and move to a place where energy is cheaper. This would reduce CO2 emissions by making everyone poorer. Only because dirty energy gets subsidies and passes the cost of cleaning up their messes to the taxpayer. 3) You are the one who brought the communist argument into the discussion by claiming that Canada's higher per capitita emissions obligies Canada to do more than other countries. When did fairness been a communist argument? Edited December 16, 2009 by robert_viera Quote THE BROWN RETORT | Photos of householders and ten-percenters
Riverwind Posted December 16, 2009 Report Posted December 16, 2009 (edited) Perhaps I should rephrase what I said; I think unequal distribution of opportunity is a result of unequal distribution of political power.Ok. I also think every should have an equal opportunity to succeed but that has nothing to do with the fact that capitalism, by its nature, produces unequal outcomes.You do realize that in a communist system I would have long since been rounded up and executed or put in a labour camp for my views don't you?You do realize that communism is a economic model and not a political system? One could, in theory, have a multi-party democratic state based on a communist economic model.So if we go back to my original point: wealthier people produce and consume more than poorer people and that means they will pollute more. For that reason one cannot have a system where wealthier people are allowed to produce and consume more yet pollute no more than the average. It is mathematical impossibility. The only way to resolve that contradiction is to move to a system where there are no wealthy people (i.e. communism). Is that the system you want to see? Edited December 16, 2009 by Riverwind Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
Riverwind Posted December 16, 2009 Report Posted December 16, 2009 (edited) Almost all of Canada's oil exports go to one country, the United States. Why couldn't we start phasing out oil exports and export more electricity from clean sources as Americans start to buy more electric cars?We are already exporting as much electricity as we can. We don't have hydro developments that we did not bother to exploit because we were too busy digging up the oil sands. The bottom line is the oil sands brings in the wealth we use to purchase products from other countries. There is no industry waiting on the sidelines that can replace it. Getting rid of it means we would be poorer.Only because dirty energy gets subsidies and passes the cost of cleaning up their messes to the taxpayer."clean" energy is expensive because it is diffuse and unreliable. This means it requires a large infrastructure to exploit and this infrastructure makes it hugely expensive. These basic laws of physics are not going to change becuase of government subsidies.When did fairness been a communist argument?Is it fair that some people make more than others? Edited December 16, 2009 by Riverwind Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
ToadBrother Posted December 16, 2009 Report Posted December 16, 2009 There are no other options which are techinally and economically feasible. That might change in the future but until then we need the hydrocarbons. Isn't that the excuse the steel makers used for vomiting sulphur dioxide. "Well, we need the steel..." There might be a wee bit more innovation if some balls were against the wall. Quote
segnosaur Posted December 16, 2009 Report Posted December 16, 2009 Almost all of Canada's oil exports go to one country, the United States. Why couldn't we start phasing out oil exports and export more electricity from clean sources as Americans start to buy more electric cars? Well, for one, it will probably take decades for a significant portion of the U.S. to adopt electric cars. Secondly, you're assuming that there are enough "clean sources" around. What do you suggest? - Hydro-electric? We've already taped most of the available sources - Wind/Solar/Geothermal? They may be viable in the future, but at least in the next decade or so they won't be able to compete with fossil fuel sources - Nuclear? Well, actually, Nuclear makes a lot of sense. I think we should be building more nuclear plants. Unfortunately, its not exactly a very popular decision from a political sense. Only because dirty energy gets subsidies and passes the cost of cleaning up their messes to the taxpayer. Actually, most forms of energy probably get some sort of subsidy somewhere along the line, including sources like wind and solar. Here's a study showing that the actual cost of generating electricity (including plant construction, maintenance, and fuel) is much cheaper for nuclear (including decommissioning the reactor!) and fossil fuel than it is for wind/wave power. http://www.raeng.org.uk/news/publications/list/reports/Cost_Generation_Commentary.pdf Quote
Riverwind Posted December 16, 2009 Report Posted December 16, 2009 (edited) There might be a wee bit more innovation if some balls were against the wall.You assume that companies would have no choice but to comply. That would be false. The shareholders can move operations elsewhere or even shut down, sell the assets and take the money overseas. The bottom line is eliminating CO2 emissions is a technically impossible task for many industries no matter how much you may wish and no amount of government regulation will make it happen. The only question is whether solving the alleged CO2 problem is worth the loss of income and jobs. Edited December 16, 2009 by Riverwind Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
eyeball Posted December 16, 2009 Report Posted December 16, 2009 Ok. I also think every should have an equal opportunity to succeed but that has nothing to do with the fact that capitalism, by its nature, produces unequal outcomes. Does this mean we should cheer, celebrate and promote inequality though? You do realize that communism is a economic model and not a political system? One could, in theory, have a multi-party democratic state based on a communist economic model. Everything is political, probably because of the inequalities that are an inherent feature of the world. Like I said though we need not celebrate or helplessly throw up our hands in the face of it. So if we go back to my original point: wealthier people produce and consume more than poorer people and that means they will pollute more. For that reason one cannot have a system where wealthier people are allowed to produce and consume more yet pollute no more than the average. It is mathematical impossibility. The only way to resolve that contradiction is to move to a system where there are no wealthy people (i.e. communism). You're still positing all this as if people have no choices when they clearly do as you seem to recognize in the theoretical multi-party state you describe above. Is that the system you want to see? The one you just described sounds like it might be worth a shot. I'd like to see more direct democracy, citizen's assemblies, referenda etc, you know, the sort of things dictators would probably shoot people for even suggesting. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
ToadBrother Posted December 16, 2009 Report Posted December 16, 2009 You assume that companies would have no choice but to comply. That would be false. The shareholders can move operations elsewhere or even shut down, sell the assets and take the money overseas. That would have the effect of assuring that parts of Alberta didn't turn into poisoned wastelands. These companies don't have a watchdog in the Alberta or Federal Governments, they have fellow pigs at the trough, but I wonder how many people will be cheering the profits and royalties at the end of the day. I'm not so much advocating ending the oil sands for extraction, I'm talking about a regime that makes sure the region doesn't end up looking like the surface of Titan by the end of the century. Surely there is more to life than profits, no? The bottom line is eliminating CO2 emissions is a technically impossible task for many industries no matter how much you may wish and no amount of government regulation will make it happen. Even discarding CO2 emissions (though I think minimizing ought to be a goal), the environmental impact of the oil sands is much more than that. To my mind, CO2 emissions is the least of the oil sand problems. Quote
ToadBrother Posted December 16, 2009 Report Posted December 16, 2009 - Nuclear? Well, actually, Nuclear makes a lot of sense. I think we should be building more nuclear plants. Unfortunately, its not exactly a very popular decision from a political sense. The objections are starting to drop off. The biggest problem, in the long term, is fuel, but I think nuclear power, as a bridging source of energy, makes an extraordinary amount of sense. Quote
ToadBrother Posted December 16, 2009 Report Posted December 16, 2009 The one you just described sounds like it might be worth a shot. I'd like to see more direct democracy, citizen's assemblies, referenda etc, you know, the sort of things dictators would probably shoot people for even suggesting. Napoleon used to have all sorts of referendums. It didn't make him any less a dictator. It just made the press releases more palatable. Quote
Riverwind Posted December 16, 2009 Report Posted December 16, 2009 (edited) Does this mean we should cheer, celebrate and promote inequality though?It means that inequality of outcome is not a problem that needs 'fixing'. You're still positing all this as if people have no choices when they clearly do as you seem to recognize in the theoretical multi-party state you describe above.If Person A has 4x the wealth of Person B then Person A will consume 4x the amount of Person B. That means that Person A will pollute 4x as much as Person B. The only options are 1) taking the wealth away from Person A or 2) stopping Person A from spending the wealth on consumption. Neither approach is compatible with a capitalist system.Note that policies that reduce pollution from consumption would affect both Person A and Person B so the total pollution would go down but not the ratio between them. That is why total pollution matters but per capita pollution does not. Edited December 16, 2009 by Riverwind Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
segnosaur Posted December 16, 2009 Report Posted December 16, 2009 - Nuclear? Well, actually, Nuclear makes a lot of sense. I think we should be building more nuclear plants. Unfortunately, its not exactly a very popular decision from a political sense. The objections are starting to drop off. True. The U.S. hadn't started any new plants in the U.S. in the decades following 3 Mile Island. But they're now looking at constructing several reactors. (Should be noted that other countries, did continue to build new plants in that time period.) The biggest problem, in the long term, is fuel... You're right.... probably only about 200 years supply. (Of course, that's not including unconventional extraction techniques, such uranium from sea water, which might be feasible in a few decades.) Quote
Mr.Canada Posted December 16, 2009 Report Posted December 16, 2009 The objections are starting to drop off. The biggest problem, in the long term, is fuel, but I think nuclear power, as a bridging source of energy, makes an extraordinary amount of sense. Lol, I suggested more nuclear power plants on this site three years ago and all the socialists were all over me. Now they've finally come around. Good for you. Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
Riverwind Posted December 16, 2009 Report Posted December 16, 2009 You're right.... probably only about 200 years supply. (Of course, that's not including unconventional extraction techniques, such uranium from sea water, which might be feasible in a few decades.)Lots of thorium around. Trickier to work with but ultimately safer it will be the backbone of our future energy system.http://www.power-technology.com/features/feature1141/ Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
ToadBrother Posted December 16, 2009 Report Posted December 16, 2009 Lol, I suggested more nuclear power plants on this site three years ago and all the socialists were all over me. Now they've finally come around. Good for you. I'm not a socialist. Quote
Mr.Canada Posted December 16, 2009 Report Posted December 16, 2009 (edited) I'm not a socialist. I didn't mention you in my post. I said "the" socialists not "this" socialist...heh....geez as soon as I post anything everyone loves to jump all over me for no reason at all. Even when I post something normal. Edited December 16, 2009 by Mr.Canada Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
eyeball Posted December 16, 2009 Report Posted December 16, 2009 It means that inequality of outcome is not a problem that needs 'fixing'. Sometimes it is. Why is everything so continually black and white with you? If Person A has 4x the wealth of Person B then Person A will consume 4x the amount of Person B. That means that Person A will pollute 4x as much as Person B. The only options are 1) taking the wealth away from Person A or 2) stopping Person A from spending the wealth on consumption. Neither approach is compatible with a capitalist system. This is just an opinion, its not a physical law of nature its a matter of choice. In either case your options are certainly more compatible with a fairer more just system. Note that policies that reduce pollution from consumption would affect both Person A and Person B so the total pollution would go down but not the ratio between them. That is why total pollution matters but per capita pollution does not. It all matters. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Riverwind Posted December 16, 2009 Report Posted December 16, 2009 (edited) This is just an opinion, its not a physical law of nature its a matter of choice. In either case your options are certainly more compatible with a fairer more just system.So you re now saying that under a fair and just system Canadians would have no more wealth than the average person in the world? What are you willing sacrifice to achieve that outcome? Edited December 17, 2009 by Riverwind Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.