EPA to reject Obama fuel efficiency standards early next week

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Old Tele man

Gooberment = Institutionalized greed?

I just finished listening to an Independence Day podcast that had Jordan Peterson as a guest. I'm still processing an observation he made; that the left says look out for big business, and the right says to look out for big government, and the commonality is big.

Greed is an inescapable part of humanity. Richard Dawkins wrote a book (which I should read) titled The Selfish Gene. Because the universe is a dangerous and difficult place to live, organisms must be programmed to be selfish to advance into the future, if not at an individual level, at least collectively.

My point is that it's no surprise that governments and corporations are self-interested, greedy, and flawed, as they are comprised of people. It happens that capitalism has so far been the best idea we have for exploiting the greedy nature of humans to maximize wealth for all.

Perhaps we would be better served if governments and corporations were broken into smaller units, with the larger units having as little power as possible.

I've always argued that the United States of America should be just that; mostly independent states interfered by federal government as little as possible. The proper role of the federal government is protect "self-evident" individual rights, provide a common defense, and little else.

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I still have all the money I inherited from my dad's estate and doubled it.
My sister took her half and was broke 8 months later.
Poor people are poor for a reason.

The rich will live as though they were poor, and the poor will live as though they were rich.

I'd be the most boring game show contestant, because after winning the $1,000,000 grand-prize and being asked what I would do with the money, my response would be to turn it into $2,000,000. Money isn't just a reward; it's an obligation to good stewardship. Same with power, time, authority, ownership...the proper response to any blessing is duty.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Old Tele man

When was the first/last time we had ANY "poor/poverty" congressional representatives-- EVER?

Honestly, would you vote for a person who wasn't capable of making a decent living?

Originally Posted by Xist

Perhaps a poor person with a billion-dollar idea might be less inclined to keep the newfound riches to him or herself.

Do a search on the term "Microsoft millionaire" - somewhere around 10,000 of them. Or the Gates Foundation. Repeat that for just about any successful startup. The person with the idea may get a billion, but lots of other people make money off it, too.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I just finished listening to an Independence Day podcast that had Jordan Peterson as a guest. I'm still processing an observation he made; that the left says look out for big business, and the right says to look out for big government, and the commonality is big.

Greed is an inescapable part of humanity. Richard Dawkins wrote a book (which I should read) titled The Selfish Gene. Because the universe is a dangerous and difficult place to live, organisms must be programmed to be selfish to advance into the future, if not at an individual level, at least collectively.

My point is that it's no surprise that governments and corporations are self-interested, greedy, and flawed, as they are comprised of people. It happens that capitalism has so far been the best idea we have for exploiting the greedy nature of humans to maximize wealth for all.

Perhaps we would be better served if governments and corporations were broken into smaller units, with the larger units having as little power as possible.

I've always argued that the United States of America should be just that; mostly independent states interfered by federal government as little as possible. The proper role of the federal government is protect "self-evident" individual rights, provide a common defense, and little else.



The rich will live as though they were poor, and the poor will live as though they were rich.

I'd be the most boring game show contestant, because after winning the $1,000,000 grand-prize and being asked what I would do with the money, my response would be to turn it into $2,000,000. Money isn't just a reward; it's an obligation to good stewardship. Same with power, time, authority, ownership...the proper response to any blessing is duty.

Parable of the Talents!

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I agree with your overall argument that our system of picking representatives is flawed and results in poor outcomes. However, it would be unlikely to find a brilliant and responsible mind in a person who is living in poverty. Impoverished people rarely prefer to be in poverty, and responsible, sound-minded, and intelligent people don't find themselves in poverty very often.

Heck, Stephen Hawking could literally do nothing for himself, and yet still managed to not only avoid poverty, but enjoy an upper class lifestyle.

The arbitrary categories we group people in are not important when considering the fitness of a political representative. What is most important is that they leverage reason to the full extent possible to serve the interests of those they represent.

There should be no such thing as career politician. We should have not only term limits, but also limits to the cumulative amount of time serving in any political position. Representatives should come from the community, and they should return to the community, thereby reducing the temptation to appeal to special interests to maintain political office. Being a politician should actually be a sacrifice to serve the people, not an opportunity to be richly rewarded in politics.

A few years ago,the top US neurosurgeon,was a former illegal alien,Mexican national,migrant farm worker,who had plied his early talents in California's central agricultural region.
He would be an exceptional exception,but it does illustrate that it's hard to know where real talent and aptitude will originate.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps,candidates should have served in combat and also possess s P.hD. in public administration.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FCC and SEC could require that all candidates,regardless of financial ability,have equal time on television,radio,and print media,as a condition of federal broadcast license,or corporate charter.Any network or corporation which allowed unequal access to the airwaves,or other media, by default,would void their broadcast license,or face revocation of their corporate charter.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Candidates who would actually represent their constituents might have equal access to office.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Super PACs would be superflous,as no amount of political war chest dollar value would have any advantage,as it would be structurally impossible to purchase asymmetric influence during campaigns,or re-election campaigns.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public education would be a good idea.We presently don't have any.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meritocacy might be reflected in the length of service.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those exiting public service might be banned from entering those private enterprises which stood to benefit from knowledge gained during taxpayer-financed service.

[freebeard]

The topic is drifting but I'll address the last point:

Those exiting public service might be banned from entering those private enterprises which stood to benefit from knowledge gained during taxpayer-financed service.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=trump+admi...st&t=h_&ia=web

It's happening! [Ron Paul jazz hands]

Anyways, I used this story to kick the can down the road in the Warming Consensus thread, but it also applies here:

www.weeklystandard.com/tony-mecia/u-s-greenhouse-gas-emissions-falling-under-trump-european-emissions-rising?

Environmental data for 2017 are pouring in, and the results might not be what you’d expect.

In the United States, where President Trump has promised to unshackle the coal industry and to abandon an international climate change treaty, greenhouse-gas emissions fell last year and are expected to continue falling.

In Europe, where political leaders consider climate change an urgent priority, emissions rose last year.

In the United States, a report released last week by the Rhodium Group says that even though Trump “continues to unravel Obama-era climate and clean energy policies,” falling costs of renewable energy and natural gas are “keeping U.S. greenhouse gas emissions on the downswing.”

The latest government data show emissions have fallen 12 percent from 2005 to 2016. The Rhodium Group report estimates that by 2020, emissions will have fallen between 15 percent and 17 percent compared with 2005 levels.

....

In contrast, emissions are rising in Europe and much of the rest of the world. According to the BP data, Europe’s carbon dioxide emissions rose 92 million tons, or 2.5 percent. That includes increases in France (2 percent), Germany (0.1 percent), and Spain (7 percent). Carbon emissions rose in a majority of European countries last year, according to European Union data.

Other countries had increases, too, including China, the world’s biggest polluter, with an increase of 119 million tons, or 1.6 percent. Canada’s rose 3.4 percent.

More than anything, the new emissions data show that government policy is but one factor in determining emissions. Larger economic trends—such as the emergence of low-cost sources of energy such as shale natural gas—can play a much bigger role than, say, Washington regulations cracking down on coal.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I just finished listening to an Independence Day podcast that had Jordan Peterson as a guest. I'm still processing an observation he made; that the left says look out for big business, and the right says to look out for big government, and the commonality is big.

Greed is an inescapable part of humanity. Richard Dawkins wrote a book (which I should read) titled The Selfish Gene. Because the universe is a dangerous and difficult place to live, organisms must be programmed to be selfish to advance into the future, if not at an individual level, at least collectively.

My point is that it's no surprise that governments and corporations are self-interested, greedy, and flawed, as they are comprised of people. It happens that capitalism has so far been the best idea we have for exploiting the greedy nature of humans to maximize wealth for all.

Perhaps we would be better served if governments and corporations were broken into smaller units, with the larger units having as little power as possible.

I've always argued that the United States of America should be just that; mostly independent states interfered by federal government as little as possible. The proper role of the federal government is protect "self-evident" individual rights, provide a common defense, and little else.



The rich will live as though they were poor, and the poor will live as though they were rich.

I'd be the most boring game show contestant, because after winning the $1,000,000 grand-prize and being asked what I would do with the money, my response would be to turn it into $2,000,000. Money isn't just a reward; it's an obligation to good stewardship. Same with power, time, authority, ownership...the proper response to any blessing is duty.

*Some would suggest,that without a 'left',the 'right' would have to create one.And visa versa.
*China's beginning of statecraft was the military.
*No one was to know military planning,down the entire chain of command,including the Emperor.
*Merchants became as important as the army,providing agricultural surplus's,wealth (which incentivized innovation and technology).
*Surplus population could be conscripted,while the 'economy' could just roll along.
*Today's corporations are literally the second face of government and visa versa.They've coexisted since before the written word.Janus.
*Bigness isn't necessarily 'bad',it's just what it is.Structurally,a complete monopoly would be the most efficient efficient.There would be no duplication of effort.No redundancy.Minimal waste.
*In a competitive market in which return on investment is prized over any other metric,there are rewards for 'success' and punishment for 'failure.'
*In some markets,there is actually a legal mandate (fiduciary) which drives a corporation towards the highest profit for the investor.
*Government intrusion into the pursuit of happiness for some citizens and corporations has no doubt come from protests from those who petitioned the government to protect them from real or perceived harm due to individual or corporate behavior (example: National/ISO Building,Electrical,Plumbing Codes,Superfund,Arthur Andersen,ENRON,General Aniline & Film (gaf))
*Since some of the 'We The People' have been abused by individual states,the US Supreme Court has had to rule to limit states' rights in order to protect them.
*Richard Dawkins is worth the read!

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Honestly, would you vote for a person who wasn't capable of making a decent living?



Do a search on the term "Microsoft millionaire" - somewhere around 10,000 of them. Or the Gates Foundation. Repeat that for just about any successful startup. The person with the idea may get a billion, but lots of other people make money off it, too.

I felt compelled to mention that the Obama era 2025 CAFE standards were a reactionary response to the environmental devastation delivered by the behavior of millions of Americans with 'decent' livings.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by aerohead

...the environmental devastation delivered by the behavior of millions of Americans with 'decent' livings.

Yet we don't have to look far - sub-Saharan Africa, for instance - to find environmental devastation delivered by the behavior of very poor people.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Yet we don't have to look far - sub-Saharan Africa, for instance - to find environmental devastation delivered by the behavior of very poor people.

What troubles me is the forest fire equivalent the Western world creates each year, equal to 1.7X the entire surface area of Earth.(oceans included)

[freebeard]

For certain values of 'decent living' and 'poor people'. Remember Fuller's Design Science Revolution? The only one to not tear down a ruling class?

*Some would suggest,that without a 'left',the 'right' would have to create one.And visa versa.

That's a divide and conquer strategy. Where we go one, we go all.

It also ignores the anarcho-libertarian/authoritarian cross axis.

And Quantum Gravity Theory. I'm still trying to wrap my head around retro-causality, and that's with prior exposure to Eric Dollard's AC electrical theories.