Why don't we force wealthy people to give us more of their money?

[Remiel]

He pays more income tax in one year than most people pay in their lifetime.

He also consumes more infrastructure resources than most peoeple do in their entire lifetimes. Goods and services to not get to market themselves. They travel by road and by rail, and make use of dozens of publicly funded projects.

[bloodyminded]

Perhaps you're time would be better spent doing something productive

And how, exactly, are the stated opinions you've offered on MLW on a variety of subjects "productive"?

How is your criticism of the Palestinians, for example, "productive," in a way that other stated opinions are not?

Are the rich among us the one sacred subject?

[punked]

Because it's their money....it is taxed when earned, inherited, spent, or invested. Do you propose just taking it outright?

So you are a communist...wishing to plummet all to the lowest level of mediocrity for the sake of fairness. Good luck with that.

YEAH YOU COMMUNIST!!! Remember that Dirty Red Eisenhower had the top tax bracket at 91%. What a dirty dirty communist.

[Michael Hardner]

I believe that free trade and capital have lead to a global reduction in income disparties between societies even as the disparities within them increases. That is something that needs to be taken into account before declaring the system a failure.

This sounds encouraging. What is the basis of your belief ? Do you have a link ?

[Shady]

This sounds encouraging. What is the basis of your belief ? Do you have a link ?

One only has to compare China now to 30 years ago. Take a look at India now compared to 30 years ago. Or Brazil, or even Russia.

Also, what do you think would happen in Cuba if the trade embargo was lifted? Do you think their standard of living would rise or fall. Yep, it's pretty obvious.

Edited August 3, 2010 by Shady

[Remiel]

This sounds encouraging. What is the basis of your belief ? Do you have a link ?

I am skeptical as to exactly how encouraging it ought to be. Essentially it could ammount to little more than, " Free trade reduces the disparity between the rich people in rich countries and the rich people in poor countries. "

[WIP]

I would argue that we do. The Earth has abundant resources, many of which we have yet to tap, and unimaginable resources beyond that are available elsewhere.

Alarmist nonsense. While people are fretting about these issues, engineers and scientists will already have devised ways to keep our civilization prosperous and growing. We are not bacteria.

We make up .5% of the Earth's biomass (which is significant -- only thing greater is bacteria) and consume almost 25% of the planet's photosynthesis, including sunlight stored as carbon-based fuels -- and our voracious growth in population and energy use has come about in the last two centuries of our existence here on Earth. And yet so many who consider themselves rational realists can't seem to grasp that there are natural limits to our growth imposed by the constraints of the size and available resources of our environment. We are facing a near future of resource wars over oil, precious metals such as lithium, and available fresh water....and then things will start to get worse!

Greed means not only acquiring material goods, but other things that one may covet. Whether it is a fulfilling job, a stable marriage, a healthy child, it is the basis of how human functions. Being super rich may not increase happiness, but having enough money to achieve your goals in life, whatever they may be, can certainly contribute to happiness.

And this is where you need a deeper appreciation of philosophy if you are going to toss religion aside. Religious ethics may be clumsy and ill-fitting, but they do try to give people an appreciation that they need to strive for things other than their personal wants and desires. An average impulsive hedonist will never feel they have achieved enough materially to reach their goals in life, because we are always focusing on those just above us on the economic ladder. If you live in suburbia, there is always someone on the block with a bigger home and newer cars in the driveway; and then if you move to an older neighbourhood where people have less, then you may realize that you were working overtime for a lot of crap you didn't need anyway....and that's how a consumer-based economy becomes addicted to growth.

The article is already wrong. The US is not the world's richest nation. Many nations exceed the US on a per capita basis.

No, he was talking about the entire century; there were some nations that have risen and fallen, and a few outliers like tiny Persian Gulf states that are sitting on oil, but overall America has been the wealthiest nation up till now.

[maple_leafs182]

We are facing a near future of resource wars over oil, precious metals such as lithium, and available fresh water....and then things will start to get worse!

By near future do you mean now. Iraq war is over oil and the Afghanistan war is over Lithium,an estimated $1 trillion deposit of lithium was found in Afghanistan.

A new way of thinking, and a new way of economics has to come about before we doom future generations to extinction.

We do need a new form of an economy, have you looked into a resource based economy?

[Yesterday]

By near future do you mean now. Iraq war is over oil and the Afghanistan war is over Lithium,an estimated $1 trillion deposit of lithium was found in Afghanistan.

We do need a new form of an economy, have you looked into a resource based economy?

Hi ML, have you heard of 'Global Finality of Settlements'? It is a rather large template for a global gold exchange type of asset backed economy.

[Shady]

Iraq war is over oil

No.

the Afghanistan war is over Lithium

And no.

[punked]

IT IS ABOUT FREEDOOOOMMMMM AND NOT BUILDING ANY MOSQUE EVER IN NEW YORK CITY.

You tell em Shady you tell them.

[Bonam]

We make up .5% of the Earth's biomass (which is significant -- only thing greater is bacteria) and consume almost 25% of the planet's photosynthesis, including sunlight stored as carbon-based fuels -- and our voracious growth in population and energy use has come about in the last two centuries of our existence here on Earth. And yet so many who consider themselves rational realists can't seem to grasp that there are natural limits to our growth imposed by the constraints of the size and available resources of our environment. We are facing a near future of resource wars over oil, precious metals such as lithium, and available fresh water....and then things will start to get worse!

Oil is an energy source that will be play a smaller and smaller role over the coming decades as other technologies take its place, precious metals are available in vast abundance that we have not yet begun to tap both on Earth, on asteroids, and on other planes in our system. Water can be desalinated from the oceans using existing technology. Where you see problems and wars, the "rational realist" sees technical solutions.

And this is where you need a deeper appreciation of philosophy if you are going to toss religion aside. Religious ethics may be clumsy and ill-fitting, but they do try to give people an appreciation that they need to strive for things other than their personal wants and desires. An average impulsive hedonist will never feel they have achieved enough materially to reach their goals in life, because we are always focusing on those just above us on the economic ladder. If you live in suburbia, there is always someone on the block with a bigger home and newer cars in the driveway; and then if you move to an older neighbourhood where people have less, then you may realize that you were working overtime for a lot of crap you didn't need anyway....and that's how a consumer-based economy becomes addicted to growth.

I do have a "deeper appreciation of philosophy", just not the kind of philosophy you like. Someone who worries that their neighbour has a newer car is just silly and shallow. Few are the people who will actually consciously work harder and longer for that bigscreen TV, they'll just buy it if they can (or think they can) afford it.

No, he was talking about the entire century; there were some nations that have risen and fallen, and a few outliers like tiny Persian Gulf states that are sitting on oil, but overall America has been the wealthiest nation up till now.

So when China's economy grows to be bigger than the US it will be the "richest nation" even though per capita its people will still be poorer than Americans by several times? What matters to determine a nation's richness is a per capita measure not a total measure. The US is behind several nations, including a few from Europe:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita

[Remiel]

Oil is an energy source that will be play a smaller and smaller role over the coming decades as other technologies take its place, precious metals are available in vast abundance that we have not yet begun to tap both on Earth, on asteroids, and on other planes in our system. Water can be desalinated from the oceans using existing technology. Where you see problems and wars, the "rational realist" sees technical solutions.

One signigicant problem I see with having a technical solution for everything is that technical solutions often require a lot of energy to implement. The idea behind something like the Kardaschev scale is that civilizations use exponentially more energy as they advance, right? While there are some promising new technologies on the horizon for energy production, I am not sure if they can deal with exponential levels of demand...

Edited August 4, 2010 by Remiel

[Bonam]

One signigicant problem I see with having a technical solution for everything is that technical solutions often require a lot of energy to implement. The idea behind something like the Kardaschev scale is that civilizations use exponentially more energy as they advance, right? While there are some promising new technologies on the horizon for energy production, I am not sure if they can deal with exponential levels of demand...

Of course they can. The energy we are producing and using now is as nothing to the energy available. Consider just solar energy, the Earth alone is constantly exposed to ~170,000 TW of solar energy. All of human civilization, in comparison, uses just ~15 TW of energy. Then consider deep geothermal energy, the Earth's core and mantle contain vast and untapped reservoirs of heat. Then consider fusion energy, which is coming closer to technological fruition through projects such as ITER and NIF as well as hundreds of smaller labs. Then consider all the energy available from the Sun itself. The Sun produces 4x10²⁶ W, 13 orders of magnitude more energy than we utilize.

We are not in danger of running out of available energy sources.

I am glad you made the reference to the Kardaschev scale. I'd like to see us keep advancing on that scale, among others.

Edited August 4, 2010 by Bonam

[Sir Bandelot]

Of course they can. The energy we are producing and using now is as nothing to the energy available. Consider just solar energy, the Earth alone is constantly exposed to ~170,000 TW of solar energy. All of human civilization, in comparison, uses just ~15 TW of energy. Then consider deep geothermal energy, the Earth's core and mantle contain vast and untapped reservoirs of heat. Then consider fusion energy, which is coming closer to technological fruition through projects such as ITER and NIF as well as hundreds of smaller labs. Then consider all the energy available from the Sun itself. The Sun produces 4x10²⁶ W, 13 orders of magnitude more energy than we utilize.

Right. Plus, supernovas. If we could tap the nergy from supernovas, we'd have way more power than even if we drained the sun down like a giant nicad battery. All we need is for Spock to whip up a matter/ antimatter interface, and viola... limitless power...

[Bonam]

Right. Plus, supernovas. If we could tap the nergy from supernovas, we'd have way more power than even if we drained the sun down like a giant nicad battery. All we need is for Spock to whip up a matter/ antimatter interface, and viola... limitless power...

Supernovas are intermittent events that happen perhaps once every few hundred or every few thousand years in our galaxy and last for a matter of days. In addition, stars that candidates for future supernovas are spaced many thousands of light years apart, beyond our ability to access with present and foreseeable future term technology. Clearly, they do not represent a suitable continuous power source.

In contrast, the sources I mentioned are continuous, proximate, and exploitable with existing or foreseeable future technologies.

Additionally, matter/antimatter is an energy storage technology, not an energy source.

[punked]

Supernovas are intermittent events that happen perhaps once every few hundred or every few thousand years in our galaxy and last for a matter of days. In addition, stars that candidates for future supernovas are spaced many thousands of light years apart, beyond our ability to access with present and foreseeable future term technology. Clearly, they do not represent a suitable continuous power source.

In contrast, the sources I mentioned are continuous, proximate, and exploitable with existing or foreseeable future technologies.

Additionally, matter/antimatter is an energy storage technology, not an energy source.

I think he was having you on.

I tend to agree though. Plus Fusion power if they can ever do it.

[Bonam]

I think he was having you on.

I know. I was deliberately replying in a reasoned way to the obviously sarcastic remark, so as to contrast the ridiculousness of his comparison of supernovas to the other things I mentioned.

I tend to agree though. Plus Fusion power if they can ever do it.

Yep. Mentioned fusion too.

Edited August 4, 2010 by Bonam

[Sir Bandelot]

Actually most of the things you mentioned are still the realm of fantasy, in terms of providing serious energy at a cost effective price, without completely polluting the planet or creating a serious imbalance in a closed system.

But who am I to impose harsh reality on your child like faith in science fiction

[Bonam]

Actually most of the things you mentioned are still the realm of fantasy

One of the reasons I study what I study and work where I work, bringing fantasy technology to the realm of reality.

But who am I to impose harsh reality on your child like faith in science fiction

I dunno, who are you?

[Sir Bandelot]

One of the reasons I study what I study and work where I work, bringing fantasy technology to the realm of reality.

You work at Radio Shack?

[Bonam]

You work at Radio Shack?

No. I work in a plasma lab which researches advanced space propulsion systems and fusion systems.

[Sir Bandelot]

No. I work in a plasma lab which researches advanced space propulsion systems and fusion systems.

Really? I fixes particle accelerators.

[Bonam]

Really? I fixes particle accelerators.

I did that a while ago. I worked for 16 months at TRIUMF, before moving to my current position.

[Sir Bandelot]

I did that a while ago. I worked for 16 months at TRIUMF, before moving to my current position.

Give it a few decades, and you'll be as jaded as me.