The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by litesong

Even when "don'T rump" ISN'T re-elected, I've already made my moves. I made my moves, even before "don'T rump" was first elected. Altho america was always in the mud, "don'T rump" has made sure america is even DEEPER in the mud. "don'T rump" lost by 3 million votes (would have been more, but southern re-pubic-lick-uns were taking votes away from minorities). Some people said they were fooled by the lies of "don'T rump". Since the lies of "don'T rump" are now widely known, the re-election of "don'T rump" would mean the majority of people(even church people) have fallen to "don'T rump" moral low. As in life, america can NOT cleanse itself of mud, while staying in the mud.

Af far as I can tell the illegals are flooding to already dark blue cities. So white privileged Joe Biden can get 20 million more votes and the Don will still win by around 100 electoral votes again.

[redpoint5]

The government operates everything at a loss, as they have no means of income. Their income is 12 out of every 40 hours of your labor.

People don't have the right to live in the most expensive parts of the most expensive cities; they have the right to live where they can afford. Rent control causes housing prices to increase since builders won't build more housing if they can't collect the rent necessary to justify the investment. New housing halts and prices skyrocket.

The government has absolutely no business dictating who I will do business with (I'll make a cake or not for whomever I choose), dictating what wage I negotiate with others (minimum wage), or what I can charge for something I own (rent control). All of these laws presuppose that we don't own our labor, actions, or possessions. If that's the case, then I'm not responsible for anything I do at all, because I either have responsibility for things I own (actions, possessions, labor, relationships, body...), or government owns those things and it's on them. I'm sure if someone refused to abide by any of these unconstitutional laws, the higher courts would rule in their favor; and if not, the courts should be overturned and replaced with reasonable people seeking justice.

Boils my blood that we allow non-sequitur laws that are diametrically opposed to each other to exist.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

All of these laws presuppose that we don't own our labor, actions, or possessions.

Labor has no leverage. Owners of production hold all of the power. Rentiers win. Renters lose. The free market is warped toward out of control wealth accumulation at the top. There is no such thing as a functional Laisez Faire free market. There are already levers and controls all over the market. And more new levers must be installed to instill an adequate dispersal of social surplus in the new global economic system. Which is not happening now.
.
We must also begin to transition to a steady state economy that uses resources no faster than they can be replaced. Which must be administrated on a world level so that no one region that attempts to comply gets left at a competitive disadvantage in the market. Herman Daly built on Georgescu- Roegen's work from 1970 and also added the requirement of a steady state population whereby 2 children per family would receive subsidies and no more. if you had more than two you would have to pay for all healthcare, education, ect yourself.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by sendler

Labor has no leverage. Owners of production hold all of the power. Rentiers win. Renters lose. The free market is warped toward out of control wealth accumulation at the top. There is no such thing as a functional Laisez Faire free market. There are already levers and controls all over the market. And more new levers must be installed to instill an adequate dispersal of social surplus in the new global economic system. Which is not happening now.
.
We must also begin to transition to a steady state economy that uses resources no faster than they can be replaced. Which must be administrated on a world level so that no one region that attempts to comply gets left at a competitive disadvantage in the market. Herman Daly built on Georgescu- Roegen's work from 1970 and also added the requirement of a steady state population whereby 2 children per family would receive subsidies and no more. if you had more than two you would have to pay for all healthcare, education, ect yourself.

You've never been a landlord, have you? They certainly get the short end of the stick. When you give a tenant 2 extra weeks to make any part of their rent, they fail to do so, eviction papers are served, and they take a hammer to the walls, do you think the tenant ends up paying the damages? The judge won't even find them at fault if they say it wasn't them. The law states that landlords can't discriminate for certain arbitrary reasons, even though exercising discrimination is absolutely fundamental to every decision we make. I've had the best roommates because I discriminated against those most likely to be dirtbags.

Marx had a distorted view of the world and reality. The bourgeoisie generally take initiative and risk, and are rarely but sometimes rewarded (what percent of startups exist 5 years later?). The proletariat (myself included) are mostly there by choice. Most of us are followers, and few are leaders. Employers can't pay whatever amount they want, they must pay what the labor market demands. You think I can open a law firm and then pay my lawyers minimum wage?

The unfairness of life was there in the beginning. It's baked into every facet of the universe and of being itself. Blame the initiator of the beginning if you must.

I'm not a Libertarian, so you won't see me arguing for a pure Laissez Faire economy. Tragedy of the Commons is a real problem; one that is not sufficiently addressed by individuals seeking their self-interest. It seems to be a problem when a certain amount of wealth is accumulated at the top, but at what point it represents a problem I couldn't say. The wealthy don't Scrooge McDuck in their money; they invest and spend it.

70% of wealthy families have lost the fortune by the 2nd generation, and 90% by the 3rd. The wealthy aren't certain families, but an ever changing mix of humanity.

There is no such thing as social surplus because that's a subjective evaluation based on relativity. To a caveman, 99.9% of stuff in the world is surplus. We could all sit in a vat of goo like in the Matrix, hooked up to VR and fed intravenous nutrients. That would be some sort of minimum "footprint", with everything else being "surplus".

I agree that something more sustainable is required, but I don't know how to achieve that. "...Which must be administrated on a world level so that no one region that attempts to comply gets left at a competitive disadvantage in the market ". This is a surefire recipe to tyranny. We're not smart or good enough to set up such a system of control. It's certainly orders of magnitude worse than what currently exists.

[freebeard]

Fuller said humankind will cede decision-making to computers, or, in today's terms, AI.

To live in a geodesic dome, I rented a duplex and sublet the old house half in front. The landlady and I traded picking tenants. It was interesting how they would move out, leaving the maximum financial damage behind. It was on me to pay their back power bill to get power turned on in the shop building. One instance cost me $1000, the landlady ate three times that much in structural damage (dry rot they hadn't reported).

I heard about a 'CNN Climate Debate' and wondered why I hadn't heard about it here. Then I found out it was a debate among Presidential candidates.

[redpoint5]

I'd be overjoyed to charge less than the market rate (and I do charge much less than market rate) for tenets that are respectful of property, of others space, and responsible to pay the rent on time. I charge between zero and perhaps 80% of market rate to have well-intentioned people living in my dwellings.

I would happily sleep in a tent on the lawn to make room for someone dedicated to getting themselves on their feet. We don't have a lack of opportunity; we have a lack of meaning and value.

[sendler]

Guardian has decided to stick it's neck out and publish for change.
.
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...IfqDBzujfPFpv4

[freebeard]

"Anyway the superwealthy won't have to worry about it because they will be eaten."

They're up to date with the latest talking points. In the 1960s 'Eat the rich' was a joke, or so I thought at the time.

The cartoon is an ad for Extinction Rebellion and the article is an ad for the Guardian itself.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by freebeard

"Anyway the superwealthy won't have to worry about it because they will be eaten."

It will be quite a long wait for them to run out of bullets.

[freebeard]

You know, I haven't listened to Keiser Report for some time but I just watched Episode 1432 (Food Vouchers for Peasants). Stacey Herbert suggests a theory that we are going through something like the French Revolution on a global scale (using confiscated property to back currency led to the Reign of Terror, if I've got that right).

We're in the end game from 2008. The central banks have run out of Greater Fools.