The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[sendler]

Why me? -12F, -24C this morning. Russia has some sort of sub-sonic speaker array pushing the polar vortex over onto me.
.
.

.
.

[NeilBlanchard]

The polar vortex is weakening, because the Arctic ice is melting.

[sendler]

Time to move from NY.

[oil pan 4]

Yes polar ice caps that were going to be melted in 2010 are still melting.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by sendler

So the northern hemisphere is impacted more than the southern?

Time to move to Australia.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by sendler

We must start thinking about a totally new economic system which will tollerate de-growth of GDP without obliterating the poor. We have about 35 years of affordable crude oil left to come up with a totally different way.

I doubt a decline in GDP is necessary, but that said, things are becoming more efficient all the time. We'll all be able to replace huge TVs with tiny VR headsets in the near future. Frontload washers consume less water and make drying more efficient. Electronics get more efficient. The self driving taxis of the future will reduce the number of vehicles sold, while the "sharing" economy continues to pioneer new efficient ways to increase utilization of under-utilized resources.

Sure, it looks gloomy to look at where we are today and realize where we need to be in the future, but that's because it ignores all of the incremental improvements/adjustments that will be made tomorrow and every day thereafter on our way to the future.

To update my side-rant about taking personal responsibility for community rather than delegating to the government; I loaned $2k to the guy with financial hardship with no expectation of receiving it back. He's not one of those perpetually poor smokers and drinkers, so there is a good chance he will pay me back one day.

This sounds awful to most people, and is even difficult for me to suggest considering my high value of freedom, but people who are bad with money should have trusted custodians who set budgets and distribute cash for them. My dumb cousin will get a windfall of $100k waste it in 3 months. Surely he would be more happy to have someone make financial decisions for him to prolong his enjoyment of the money, but he is free to blow it as he wishes, and also free to live on the streets if he so chooses.

[rmay635703]

Historically large declines in population that were not caused by war always elevated the very poorest people after they stopped.

Whether it be the plague or the flu around the turn of the century always the poorest benefitted and those with power did not.

I do not fear the economy going down hill because of population decrease,
I fear we won’t have the motivation or will to take care of each other and become more social while it goes on.
I fear what those with influence will do when their influence becomes irrelevant.

[freebeard]

This sounds awful to most people, and is even difficult for me to suggest considering my high value of freedom, but people who are bad with money should have trusted custodians who set budgets and distribute cash for them.

I value personal sovereignty as well, but I humbly accept the Social Security check. It's all I have to show for all that effort. If I was any good with money I would have swapped my Symantec options for Apple stock and rode that for ten years. Then roll that into Bitcoin in 1012. I can't even afford to be unhappy about having not done.

I fear what those with influence will do when their influence becomes irrelevant.

It depends on how that happens. Don't fear the smoke and mirrors. It's a different world since the Winter Solstice.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by freebeard

I value personal sovereignty as well, but I humbly accept the Social Security check. It's all I have to show for all that effort. If I was any good with money I would have swapped my Symantec options for Apple stock and rode that for ten years. Then roll that into Bitcoin in 1012. I can't even afford to be unhappy about having not done.

Eh, if we had hindsight for foresight, we'd all be billionaires. The legitimate professional money managers, on average, return average profits to their clients (minus their fee for all their genius). The way to make it big in financial markets is insider trading, or some other unfair advantage that isn't illegal yet like monitoring trading activity and placing orders on faster communication lines. The wisest way is probably to invest in no-load index funds and cut out the investment "guru" middlemen.

I've got low regard for the fortunes made by winning a bet, and high regard for those who have worked hard to provide something of value in the market. Better to make a fortune than to win a fortune.

I don't know what to think of Social Security at the moment. It does fit in with my idea that a custodian be responsible for some people's financial decisions, but I don't like that it's obligatory. Perhaps SS should be voluntary. I'd happily forfeit my SS contribution so far in exchange for not having to pay into it anymore. I would be miles ahead at retirement, and be able to say that I made a positive contribution at keeping SS solvent.

[freebeard]

It offends my sense of Voluntarism as well, but since no-one had told me how brutal and rapacious working for others would turn out to be, I'd have probably declined at age 16. But I concur with the foundational document, in that it's Okay to "institute [new] Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Thoughtful proposals here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social..._and_proposals

The shameful tale of Ronald Ray-gun and his successors here:
https://www.fedsmith.com/2013/10/11/...ecurity-heist/

Reagan’s scare tactics worked. Congress passed the Social Security Amendments of 1983, which included a hefty increase in the payroll tax rate. The tax increase was designed to generate large Social Security surpluses for the next 30 years. The public was led to believe that the surplus money would be saved and invested in marketable U.S. Treasury Bonds, which could later be resold to raise cash with which to pay benefits to the boomers. But that didn’t happen. The money was all deposited directly into the general fund and used for non-Social Security purposes. Reagan spent every dime of the surplus Social Security revenue, which came in during his presidency, on general government operations. His successor, George H.W. Bush, used the surplus money as a giant slush fund, and both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush looted and spent all of the Social Security surplus revenue that flowed in during their presidencies. So we can’t blame the whole problem on Reagan. Reagan was the one who figured out a way to use Social Security money as general revenue, and his successors just followed his example.

The $2.7 trillion, which is alleged to be in the trust fund, was all spent for wars, tax cuts for the rich, and other government programs. If the money is repaid at some point in the future, we could say is was just “borrowed.” But no arrangements have been made to repay the money, and nobody in government is suggesting that the money should be repaid. So, if it is never repaid, the money will definitely have been stolen.