Wind turbines

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by aerohead

Still channeling that Julian Simon/ Bjorn Lomberg/ Michael Economides religion I see.

I only recognize Bjorn, and have a high opinion of his ability to reason. What specifically do you disagree with Bjorn on, and why?

[freebeard]

...and who are the two others?

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by aerohead

Still channeling that Julian Simon/ Bjorn Lomberg/ Michael Economides religion I see.

Originally Posted by freebeard

...and who are the two others?

Simon died when I was 16.

Simon focused on lasting economic benefits from continuous population growth, even despite limited or finite physical resources, empowered primarily by human ingenuity which would create substitutes, and technological progress.[citation needed]

He is also known for the famous Simon–Ehrlich wager, a bet he made with ecologist Paul R. Ehrlich. Ehrlich bet that the prices for five metals would increase over a decade, while Simon took the opposite stance. Simon won the bet, as the prices for the metals sharply declined during that decade.

I found a Forbes article from 2012 by Economides explaining how Europe could reduce energy dependence on Russia with a southern gas corridor.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I only recognize Bjorn, and have a high opinion of his ability to reason. What specifically do you disagree with Bjorn on, and why?

If you're with Lomberg, then by default, your with Simon, as Lomberg is a devotee of Simon's freshwater economics.
The late Michael Economides fed at the same trough, and apparently met an early death as a consequence of all the 'good life' he advocated for, and was obviously intimate with.
They're all very intelligent, although no smarts that I could ever discern, and certainly no alphas either in my opinion.
They seem to be completely devoid of perspicacity. Unable to connect the type of dots which might ultimately save them. They'd be the first to perish in tough times. They obviously cannot recognize actual risks and danger.
What might have informed their life choices would be lost on me.
My speculations would not be tolerated here.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by aerohead

If you're with Lomberg, then by default, your with Simon, as Lomberg is a devotee of Simon's freshwater economics.

I had to google that term too.

freshwater economics-

in the US, the idea that the economy should be based on free market forces with few government controls:

That's not a fringe idea, that's the vast majority opinion in the US and is keeping with the foundational principle of liberty.

Liberty recognizes the sovereignty of the individual and takes a default stance that all choices are permissible except the few explicitly defined, as necessary. It maximizes agency and autonomy, which is fundamental to a flourishing market.

Those opposed to free markets should give the disclaimer to others that they are also opposed to an efficient market that creates abundance. There's an argument to be made for an inefficient market that deprives people of abundance, it's just not a popular message.

They seem to be completely devoid of perspicacity. Unable to connect the type of dots which might ultimately save them. They'd be the first to perish in tough times. They obviously cannot recognize actual risks and danger.
What might have informed their life choices would be lost on me.
My speculations would not be tolerated here.

Tough times are largely caused by market inefficiencies. You think they are unaware of this, or do you imagine tough times being largely caused by something else?

I don't just tolerate unconventional speculation, I cherish it. I'm a progressive by nature and enjoy thinking at the boundary.

[freebeard]

If you're with Lomberg, then by default, your with Simon, as Lomberg is a devotee of Simon's freshwater economics.

This isn't even guilt by association, it's guilt by assertion.

All these guys sound like light-weights compare with Richard Buckminster Fuller.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by freebeard

All these guys sound like light-weights compare with Richard Buckminster Fuller.

...and only 1 is still alive.

[freebeard]

I got to see Fuller at the UofO student union shortly before the end.

A question from the audience was 'What are you doing lately' and I groaned inwardly. Sure enough, he started over at 1928.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I had to google that term too.

freshwater economics-

That's not a fringe idea, that's the vast majority opinion in the US and is keeping with the foundational principle of liberty.

Liberty recognizes the sovereignty of the individual and takes a default stance that all choices are permissible except the few explicitly defined, as necessary. It maximizes agency and autonomy, which is fundamental to a flourishing market.

Those opposed to free markets should give the disclaimer to others that they are also opposed to an efficient market that creates abundance. There's an argument to be made for an inefficient market that deprives people of abundance, it's just not a popular message.



Tough times are largely caused by market inefficiencies. You think they are unaware of this, or do you imagine tough times being largely caused by something else?

I don't just tolerate unconventional speculation, I cherish it. I'm a progressive by nature and enjoy thinking at the boundary.

Your quoting directly out of the ---------- Party manifesto.
I reviewed my economics workbooks, and came to the conclusion that we'd never have the freedom to discuss any of this at an adult level, and with the type of language which would have the specificity to accurately communicate.
I'm pretty certain that you've never read any of the foundational literature on economics, like Adam Smith, David Hume, ect., or libertarian philosophy, as with Ayn Rand .
And to cut to the chase, the only concession I could make towards L--------- ideology is that, I agree that we should rely completely on renewable energy, just as John Galt allowed for.

[oil pan 4]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Cg1ISl...ature=youtu.be