General Right-Wing Fuckery. - Page 5 - Nubblies.net Forums

Mr. Blonde · 09-19-2010, 07:36 PM

Well, we weren't talking about undeveloped 3rd world countries, we were talking about America -- hence the EPA line of discussion we were on. Your tactic was basically based on scapegoating: "WE AREN'T POLLUTING NEARLY AS MUCH AS THOSE GODDAMN POOR PEOPLE IN THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES!!!"

Der Fuhrer · 09-19-2010, 09:47 PM

Why do you hate corporations so much? And how do you propose we get off fossil fuels?

My point is that the best way to fight pollution on a global scale is to fight poverty.

In the case of America, the EPA causes regulation and fines, which create inefficiencies. In a society so focused on going "green", firms already have an incentive to practice sustainability. This trend is only going to gain momentum in time. I believe firms that do not practice sustainability will be punished in the market. Perhaps that is not the current case, but the trend is coming along. Like it or not, we take much better care of our land than most countries, especially poor ones.

When it comes to fighting poverty, obviously I don't have all the answers. Just giving countries money does not work, as can be seen in the Harrod-Domar growth model. The result of this model shows that to increase econ growth, simply increase the amount of saving in an economy. Based on this result, America started giving money to undeveloped countries. This had no effect on growth, as hand outs rarely do. Econ growth is linked to technological change, which is linked to R&D, which is linked to human capital. I don't know how to change this in poor countries.

I do believe the amount of pollution and land degradation done in poor countries can be substantially mitigated. Two relatively simple policy changes in these types of countries would have a large impact. The first, and most important, is a full bundle of property rights. Property rights make people stewards of the land, and give them incentives to care of it. The second is the creation of free markets. China, for example, is becoming more industrialized and more prosperous, but the markets are still controlled and private property rights are not completely developed. Thus pollution is getting worse and worse.

For countries that already have both of these polices set in place, but are still poor, I don't know what to say. I guess they're fucked. I would argue that most likely there is corruption in the government, creating capital flight and keeping the country poor while few get rich.

The main point is that, given a full bundle of property rights, a wealthier country will pollute less than a poor one. Therefore the problem of pollution is an economic one. I strongly believe that individuals and firms respond to incentives much more than regulation (control). Therefore it's possible the EPA does more harm than good.

Mr. Blonde · 09-19-2010, 10:23 PM

Seriously, why not post like that more often? Why resort to calling people faggots and cocksuckers etc.? This is much more conducive to a good discussion and hashing out possible misconceptions on either side.

I don't hate the concept of corporations in themselves, I hate corporations who shrug off environmental and humanitarian duties, especially as they are in a position of power and the people they employ are generally in a position of weakness. I'm not talking about the "redistribution of wealth", but there is no reason to completely fuck over your employees for an insane amount of profit.

That being said, ^ this happens significantly less these days, and corporations are cutting far more corners with taking advantage of the environment, which is my main concern.

But I do feel like we need enforcing regulations like those the EPA provides, and I don't feel like market pressure will cause them to be environmentally "moral", and here's why:

1. Corporations can (and do) lie to the public about their business practices. It has happened many times, and all it takes is a decent amount of secrecy and a great P.R. campaign.

2. " In a society so focused on going "green", firms already have an incentive to practice sustainability. This trend is only going to gain momentum in time. I believe firms that do not practice sustainability will be punished in the market"

>This line of reasoning doesn't concern you? I mean, WHY is society going green? Not because of corporations encouraging them to, that's for sure. It's because of environmental activism and bringing fuckery to the public sphere of knowledge that people are beginning to become more conscientious about their impact on the world. Basically, movies like "An Inconvenient Truth" (which i've never seen ftr), that you seem to hate so much, are the things that are driving the market. And now you seem to be using them as a justification for dismantling organizations like the EPA.

In regard to your points on China and third world countries, I agree to an extent, but we unfortunately can't be the world police and no matter how we've been brought up to view certain countries around the world, almost every single one is concerned about their country's general well-being and prosperity as a whole, regardless of what method of government they are implementing (except like, North Korea). China was late on the country-wide industrialization front compared to the West, but they seem to be catching on to climate change a lot faster than us.

Regardless, I see what you're saying to an extent, that no corporation likes to be "controlled", and coming from a background almost entirely in social studies, i'm trying to understand the capitalist viewpoint better (in regard to why it seems to be one of the best and most realistic systems (any information to further educate me would be much appreciated.) But I just don't see their incentive to take care of the environment with a world so big that they can just keep moving to different areas, taking advantage of different third world populations in factories, and raping the land. The incentives that do exist just aren't strong enough.

Mr. Blonde · 09-19-2010, 10:33 PM

Forgot to address these.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Der Fuhrer

Why do you hate corporations so much? And how do you propose we get off fossil fuels?

Why do you think corporations can do no evil, and being concerned about climate change and pollution in itself is inherently bad? I think at the heart of most people, they want to do good, and fuck over as few people as possible and advance humanity. Is that too idealistic? If so, i'm not going to apologize.

I propose we get off fossil fuels by being much more proactive than we are about utilizing the best energy resource we have.

Solar power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

Covering 4% of the world's desert area with photovoltaics could supply all of the world's electricity. The Gobi Desert alone could supply almost all of the world's total energy demand

This would, of course, ruin the oil industry, at least in regard to using it as a fuel. And instead of adopting the new technology and popularizing solar power for the good of the planet, the (mainly republican) oil tycoons are pulling an RIAA.

Der Fuhrer · 09-19-2010, 11:24 PM

I'll try to have a reasonable discussion with you about this more at a later time, I'm kind of busy tonight with bullshit. Which is the main reason I resort to calling people faggots and cocksuckers, because it's easier and I'm lazy sometimes. Making that post took at least 1/2 hour for me to write.

Anyways, the solar power idea is really a wonderful idea, and I'm all for that, especially because the united states could create most of it's own electrical power. This still doesn't eliminate the need for gasoline for cars, although it would greatly reduce the amount of oil needed for power.

But how do you create a demand for the development of what appears to be a very extensive (and expensive) infrastructure? I'll cut the shit and just tell you. You have to consume the shit out of oil. Consume it like there is no tomorrow. Go out and buy the biggest goddamn SUV and guzzle that gasoline. The price of oil must get so ridiculously high that there is sufficient demand to fund such a large-scale development. This is true for any alternative energy source. Coal and oil are so abundant and cheap that there's no reason to switch to anything else. If you want alternative energy, get out there and burn some oil! (or coal)

thekremlin · 09-20-2010, 06:23 AM

This is almost gibberish. Are you suggesting that we force the price of oil high by artificially consuming a lot of it, so that it becomes more appealing to switch to fossil fuels? Couldn't we just skip that step and switch, which is by definition cheaper?

Mr. Blonde · 09-20-2010, 06:25 AM

switch from*

DDTempest · 09-20-2010, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thekremlin

This is almost gibberish. Are you suggesting that we force the price of oil high by artificially consuming a lot of it, so that it becomes more appealing to switch to fossil fuels? Couldn't we just skip that step and switch, which is by definition cheaper?

He's pointing out that as a people we can't plan ahead and will not pay more for something now regardless of much it would save us in the long run.

THEINCREDIBLEdork · 09-20-2010, 06:49 PM

I vote we re-implement the Prison. Put Blonde and Dur Fuhrer in there so they can argue about things they don't fully understand all day long.

Mr. Blonde · 10-07-2010, 11:27 AM

Every major contender for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination who isn’t currently holding office and isn’t named Mitt Romney is now a paid contributor to Fox News.

vaga1220 * · 10-07-2010, 11:40 AM

Well I admit Fox news leans slightly to the right.

Fruitacious B · 10-07-2010, 12:16 PM

I see what you did there.

Mr. Blonde · 12-17-2010, 05:45 PM

9/11 First Responders React to the Senate Filibuster - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 12/16/10 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

heurisdick · 12-17-2010, 09:53 PM

Are you gonna provide the money? I'm not. Because I don't have it. Neither does the government. Our country is in debt right now. It's real easy for democrats to promise money to everyone and look like the good guys. Yet they propose no cuts elsewhere to pay for it. It's sad it has to happen to these guys, but the republicans have said they're going to filibuster any further spending. That's what they're doing. If the dems proposed cutting the 7 billion from somewhere else (welfare maybe?), then I would be pissed about the filibuster. We simply don't have the money.

Mr. Blonde · 12-17-2010, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by heurisdick

If the dems proposed cutting the 7 billion from somewhere else (welfare maybe?), then I would be pissed about the filibuster. We simply don't have the money.

Lol. I don't know off the top of my head if any Dems are pushing for it (or Republicans beyond Ron Paul, for that matter), but I suggest we start with our most unnecessarily bloated cost.

heurisdick · 12-17-2010, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by heurisdick

Are you gonna provide the money? I'm not. Because I don't have it. Neither does the government.

My point there was that nobody would say shit to us about it, yet the government is expected to dole out money they don't have.

I would totally give to a charity for these guys, but I don't think the bill should be passed until the money's accounted for.

heurisdick · 12-17-2010, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

Lol. I don't know off the top of my head if any Dems are pushing for it (or Republicans beyond Ron Paul, for that matter), but I suggest we start with our most unnecessarily bloated cost.

I'd be ok with that. But get it from somewhere. I don't think the dems should be looking like the good guys here. But I notice the more I hear about Ron Paul, the more I like him.

heurisdick · 12-17-2010, 10:25 PM

2008 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The top in 2008 was Social Security. I say we cut the shit out of that. Too many people think its purpose is a fucking pension instead of insurance.

Mr. Blonde · 12-17-2010, 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by heurisdick

I'd be ok with that. But get it from somewhere. I don't think the dems should be looking like the good guys here. But I notice the more I hear about Ron Paul, the more I like him.

The more I hear about ANY party, the less loyal I get to America in general. How the fuck do things even happen? Do our votes mean anything?

heurisdick · 12-18-2010, 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

The more I hear about ANY party, the less loyal I get to America in general. How the fuck do things even happen? Do our votes mean anything?

More than any other country.

Mr. Blonde · 07-17-2011, 06:35 AM

This hurts my head so badly.

‪Fox & Friends' Jaw-Dropping Whitewash of News of the World Scandal‬&rlm; - YouTube

Mr. Blonde · 09-04-2011, 12:21 PM

The Republicans are now the anti-science party | Paul Krugman | Comment is free | The Observer

Mr. Blonde · 11-09-2011, 04:21 PM

Fox Wildly Inflates The Number Of Jobs Keystone XL Pipeline Might Create | Media Matters for America

Mr. Blonde · 11-28-2011, 04:10 PM

Bill O'Reilly calls Obama the "N" word live on air (open mic) - YouTube

Repugnant Abomination · 11-28-2011, 10:25 PM

09-19-2010, 07:36 PM	#101 (permalink)
Mr. Blonde Spice Master Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 17,969 Internets: 284106	Well, we weren't talking about undeveloped 3rd world countries, we were talking about America -- hence the EPA line of discussion we were on. Your tactic was basically based on scapegoating: "WE AREN'T POLLUTING NEARLY AS MUCH AS THOSE GODDAMN POOR PEOPLE IN THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES!!!"
	Psychedelics are illegal not because a loving government is concerned that you may jump out of a third story window. Psychedelics are illegal because they dissolve opinion structures and culturally laid down models of behavior and information processing. ― Terence McKenna

09-19-2010, 09:47 PM	#102 (permalink)
Der Fuhrer Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 549 Internets: 5464	Why do you hate corporations so much? And how do you propose we get off fossil fuels? My point is that the best way to fight pollution on a global scale is to fight poverty. In the case of America, the EPA causes regulation and fines, which create inefficiencies. In a society so focused on going "green", firms already have an incentive to practice sustainability. This trend is only going to gain momentum in time. I believe firms that do not practice sustainability will be punished in the market. Perhaps that is not the current case, but the trend is coming along. Like it or not, we take much better care of our land than most countries, especially poor ones. When it comes to fighting poverty, obviously I don't have all the answers. Just giving countries money does not work, as can be seen in the Harrod-Domar growth model. The result of this model shows that to increase econ growth, simply increase the amount of saving in an economy. Based on this result, America started giving money to undeveloped countries. This had no effect on growth, as hand outs rarely do. Econ growth is linked to technological change, which is linked to R&D, which is linked to human capital. I don't know how to change this in poor countries. I do believe the amount of pollution and land degradation done in poor countries can be substantially mitigated. Two relatively simple policy changes in these types of countries would have a large impact. The first, and most important, is a full bundle of property rights. Property rights make people stewards of the land, and give them incentives to care of it. The second is the creation of free markets. China, for example, is becoming more industrialized and more prosperous, but the markets are still controlled and private property rights are not completely developed. Thus pollution is getting worse and worse. For countries that already have both of these polices set in place, but are still poor, I don't know what to say. I guess they're fucked. I would argue that most likely there is corruption in the government, creating capital flight and keeping the country poor while few get rich. The main point is that, given a full bundle of property rights, a wealthier country will pollute less than a poor one. Therefore the problem of pollution is an economic one. I strongly believe that individuals and firms respond to incentives much more than regulation (control). Therefore it's possible the EPA does more harm than good.
	Last edited by Der Fuhrer; 09-19-2010 at 09:56 PM.

09-19-2010, 10:23 PM	#103 (permalink)
Mr. Blonde Spice Master Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 17,969 Internets: 284106	Seriously, why not post like that more often? Why resort to calling people faggots and cocksuckers etc.? This is much more conducive to a good discussion and hashing out possible misconceptions on either side. I don't hate the concept of corporations in themselves, I hate corporations who shrug off environmental and humanitarian duties, especially as they are in a position of power and the people they employ are generally in a position of weakness. I'm not talking about the "redistribution of wealth", but there is no reason to completely fuck over your employees for an insane amount of profit. That being said, ^ this happens significantly less these days, and corporations are cutting far more corners with taking advantage of the environment, which is my main concern. But I do feel like we need enforcing regulations like those the EPA provides, and I don't feel like market pressure will cause them to be environmentally "moral", and here's why: 1. Corporations can (and do) lie to the public about their business practices. It has happened many times, and all it takes is a decent amount of secrecy and a great P.R. campaign. 2. " In a society so focused on going "green", firms already have an incentive to practice sustainability. This trend is only going to gain momentum in time. I believe firms that do not practice sustainability will be punished in the market" >This line of reasoning doesn't concern you? I mean, WHY is society going green? Not because of corporations encouraging them to, that's for sure. It's because of environmental activism and bringing fuckery to the public sphere of knowledge that people are beginning to become more conscientious about their impact on the world. Basically, movies like "An Inconvenient Truth" (which i've never seen ftr), that you seem to hate so much, are the things that are driving the market. And now you seem to be using them as a justification for dismantling organizations like the EPA. In regard to your points on China and third world countries, I agree to an extent, but we unfortunately can't be the world police and no matter how we've been brought up to view certain countries around the world, almost every single one is concerned about their country's general well-being and prosperity as a whole, regardless of what method of government they are implementing (except like, North Korea). China was late on the country-wide industrialization front compared to the West, but they seem to be catching on to climate change a lot faster than us. Regardless, I see what you're saying to an extent, that no corporation likes to be "controlled", and coming from a background almost entirely in social studies, i'm trying to understand the capitalist viewpoint better (in regard to why it seems to be one of the best and most realistic systems (any information to further educate me would be much appreciated.) But I just don't see their incentive to take care of the environment with a world so big that they can just keep moving to different areas, taking advantage of different third world populations in factories, and raping the land. The incentives that do exist just aren't strong enough.
	Psychedelics are illegal not because a loving government is concerned that you may jump out of a third story window. Psychedelics are illegal because they dissolve opinion structures and culturally laid down models of behavior and information processing. ― Terence McKenna

09-20-2010, 06:25 AM	#107 (permalink)
Mr. Blonde Spice Master Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 17,969 Internets: 284106	switch from*
	Psychedelics are illegal not because a loving government is concerned that you may jump out of a third story window. Psychedelics are illegal because they dissolve opinion structures and culturally laid down models of behavior and information processing. ― Terence McKenna

09-20-2010, 06:49 PM	#109 (permalink)
THEINCREDIBLEdork Emperor Meow Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 9,352 Internets: 290966	I vote we re-implement the Prison. Put Blonde and Dur Fuhrer in there so they can argue about things they don't fully understand all day long.
	#YOLO

09-19-2010, 11:24 PM	#105 (permalink)
Der Fuhrer Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 549 Internets: 5464	I'll try to have a reasonable discussion with you about this more at a later time, I'm kind of busy tonight with bullshit. Which is the main reason I resort to calling people faggots and cocksuckers, because it's easier and I'm lazy sometimes. Making that post took at least 1/2 hour for me to write. Anyways, the solar power idea is really a wonderful idea, and I'm all for that, especially because the united states could create most of it's own electrical power. This still doesn't eliminate the need for gasoline for cars, although it would greatly reduce the amount of oil needed for power. But how do you create a demand for the development of what appears to be a very extensive (and expensive) infrastructure? I'll cut the shit and just tell you. You have to consume the shit out of oil. Consume it like there is no tomorrow. Go out and buy the biggest goddamn SUV and guzzle that gasoline. The price of oil must get so ridiculously high that there is sufficient demand to fund such a large-scale development. This is true for any alternative energy source. Coal and oil are so abundant and cheap that there's no reason to switch to anything else. If you want alternative energy, get out there and burn some oil! (or coal)

09-20-2010, 06:23 AM	#106 (permalink)
thekremlin Don't call me Shirley Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: London Posts: 3,271 Internets: 220249	This is almost gibberish. Are you suggesting that we force the price of oil high by artificially consuming a lot of it, so that it becomes more appealing to switch to fossil fuels? Couldn't we just skip that step and switch, which is by definition cheaper?

10-07-2010, 11:27 AM	#110 (permalink)
Mr. Blonde Spice Master Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 17,969 Internets: 284106	Every major contender for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination who isn’t currently holding office and isn’t named Mitt Romney is now a paid contributor to Fox News.
	Psychedelics are illegal not because a loving government is concerned that you may jump out of a third story window. Psychedelics are illegal because they dissolve opinion structures and culturally laid down models of behavior and information processing. ― Terence McKenna

10-07-2010, 11:40 AM	#111 (permalink)
vaga1220 * *Dislikes ham Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: HELL 666 Posts: 1,518 Internets: 60790	Well I admit Fox news leans slightly to the right.
	Putting the sensual in non-consensual.

10-07-2010, 12:16 PM	#112 (permalink)
Fruitacious B Bokononist Join Date: May 2003 Location: Indianapolis Posts: 2,595 Internets: 11801	I see what you did there.
	"Those who believe in telekinetics, raise my hand." \|vonnegut

12-17-2010, 05:45 PM	#113 (permalink)
Mr. Blonde Spice Master Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 17,969 Internets: 284106	9/11 First Responders React to the Senate Filibuster - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 12/16/10 - Video Clip \| Comedy Central
	Psychedelics are illegal not because a loving government is concerned that you may jump out of a third story window. Psychedelics are illegal because they dissolve opinion structures and culturally laid down models of behavior and information processing. ― Terence McKenna

12-17-2010, 09:53 PM	#114 (permalink)
heurisdick Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 267 Internets: 4908	Are you gonna provide the money? I'm not. Because I don't have it. Neither does the government. Our country is in debt right now. It's real easy for democrats to promise money to everyone and look like the good guys. Yet they propose no cuts elsewhere to pay for it. It's sad it has to happen to these guys, but the republicans have said they're going to filibuster any further spending. That's what they're doing. If the dems proposed cutting the 7 billion from somewhere else (welfare maybe?), then I would be pissed about the filibuster. We simply don't have the money.

12-17-2010, 10:25 PM	#118 (permalink)
heurisdick Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 267 Internets: 4908	2008 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The top in 2008 was Social Security. I say we cut the shit out of that. Too many people think its purpose is a fucking pension instead of insurance.

09-04-2011, 12:21 PM	#122 (permalink)
Mr. Blonde Spice Master Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 17,969 Internets: 284106	The Republicans are now the anti-science party \| Paul Krugman \| Comment is free \| The Observer

11-09-2011, 04:21 PM	#123 (permalink)
Mr. Blonde Spice Master Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 17,969 Internets: 284106	Fox Wildly Inflates The Number Of Jobs Keystone XL Pipeline Might Create \| Media Matters for America
	Psychedelics are illegal not because a loving government is concerned that you may jump out of a third story window. Psychedelics are illegal because they dissolve opinion structures and culturally laid down models of behavior and information processing. ― Terence McKenna

11-28-2011, 10:25 PM	#125 (permalink)
Repugnant Abomination Almost there... Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 5,979 Internets: 164547

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
The "Making the general public less fucking retarded" thread	Mr. Blonde	Rants	59	10-24-2005 05:46 PM
BDH makes 10,000 post in General Chat	Elegy	General Chat	3	02-18-2004 02:56 AM