|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:15 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
I've read all seven pages of this thread...and I yet have to see the justification for the massive pollution that would be caused by manufacturing electric cars on a grand scale. And not only manufacturing them, but repairing them or making new ones.
And that's just one thing. There will never be pollution at a 0% level...we'd literally have to go back to the Stone Age (and even then all those millions of campfires would emit pollution.) |
First off, manufacturing the electric cars would require no more energy than manufacturing the internal combustion polluting cars. It would save 100% of the emissions thereafter.
More importantly, however, the use of windmill and solar generated electricity to power the manufacturing would reduce the emissions from the energy used in manufacturing the cars to zero.
Thirdly, the technology to produce the metals needed to construct the windmills, solar panels and cars in a non-polluting clean and green manner has been available for hundreds of years, just as the windmills to generate electricity and the electric cars have been.
The only thing preventing all of this production from being carried out in a clean, non-polluting manner for hundreds of years has been the fact that the socialists legalized pollution. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Street Magic wrote: |
| RE: The Presidents thing-- I'm pretty sure no one answered you because it's an apparently irrelevant piece of trivia available to everyone with access to an internet search engine, whereas my issue wasn't meant to surprise people with a little known historical happenstance but rather was meant to clarify your stance on a weak central government. |
I'm pretty sure that the reason no one answered is that they have all swallowed the lie that George Washington was the first president and are unaware that seven presidents came before him under the Articles of Confederation.
The first President of the United States was John Hanson of Maryland.
| Street Magic wrote: |
| More specifically, wouldn't it be to everyone's immediate benefit to pay each other off or accept payment for the permission to pollute on each other's property, particularly given that I doubt your system would mandate that each individual can only own the area directly around where he or she lives, meaning one could easily fail to care about preserving a piece of property he or she owns which isn't located too close to where he or she lives? |
It would only be possible to "pay off" nearby property owners if your pollution could be contained within the local region.
There are many different kinds of air pollution. Some air pollution spreads over vast continental sized areas and in many cases, globally. Major polluters would be unable to pay off every property owner on the planet. They would have to stop polluting. There is very little that we produce today that cannot be produced by a clean method with zero emissions beyond its place of production.
To entertain Street Magic's example, I suppose it is possible to hypothesize that some form of emmission would be contained within the property from which it eminates and a limited number of neighbors. Perhaps only one neighbor. In this case, the pollution would begin and end within the properties involved. Outside these properties the pollution rate would be zero. By paying the neighbors, or aquiring the land the net pollution rate would become zero. Being air pollution in this hypothetical example, to be contained it would have to be eliminated and disappear within the affected area.
This would be no different than producing noxious gas within a container during production, within a structure, and then cleaning it up within another container within that structure. In the end there is no pollution. It has been cleaned. In Street Magic's hypothetical example, the neighbor has been paid an appropriate amount for his part in the production and the pollution is contained and cleaned up.
| Street Magic wrote: |
| Speaking of which, you mentioned the disparity between written law and law in practice as well as the disputes between minarchists and anarchists within the broader libertarian philosophy. Why wouldn't you support the active promotion of a tradition of anarchism in place of even a limited government system given your acknowledgment that even the Articles of Confederation could have been used to create an America like the one we have today? Do you feel as though you might realistically be supporting a lost cause? |
Both the minarchists and anarchists have a role to play in the overall movement for rational change. We have to abolish socialism first as it is the greatest evil ever seen by mankind. So, there is no need for the minarchists and anarchists to "resolve" their differences in the present. They need to work together.
It will never be possible to go from greater and greater socialism to a stateless or anarchist society in an immediate change. Such a jump is logically impossible. Socialism in all its forms from the democratic socialists to the fascists to the communists are all in the totalitarian and statist corner of the political map. Socialism is the opposite of Liberty. Socialism is the opposite of a stateless or minarchist society.
Anarchy is the opposite of all forms of socialism at the pinnacle of Liberty in the top of the Libertarian corner of the political map. We would have to move in steps from the fascist-socialist world we live in now to a free world in the future.
The many forms of statism, socialism, fascist-socialism and communist-socialism and other evil forms of government are the oldest forms of political organization on Earth. They have been repackaged under various names and leaders, but they remain the same.
The concepts of Liberty and especially Libertarianism are the newest forms of political organization. The idea of free markets was never discussed and does not appear at all until recent times. The world has been moving in a zigzag pattern toward liberty in many geographic areas for only a few hundred years, and the concept was not fully described until the last decades of the twentieth century. The principles of liberty have now become the Science of Liberty and is being taught at a handful of universities. So, far from being a lost cause, this concept is still in the early stages of being spread from the originators to the educated public. From there it has to spread to the masses through a generational process. It is too early to be discouraged. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
I've read all seven pages of this thread...and I yet have to see the justification for the massive pollution that would be caused by manufacturing electric cars on a grand scale. And not only manufacturing them, but repairing them or making new ones.
And that's just one thing. There will never be pollution at a 0% level...we'd literally have to go back to the Stone Age (and even then all those millions of campfires would emit pollution.) |
First off, manufacturing the electric cars would require no more energy than manufacturing the internal combustion polluting cars. It would save 100% of the emissions thereafter.
More importantly, however, the use of windmill and solar generated electricity to power the manufacturing would reduce the emissions from the energy used in manufacturing the cars to zero.
Thirdly, the technology to produce the metals needed to construct the windmills, solar panels and cars in a non-polluting clean and green manner has been available for hundreds of years, just as the windmills to generate electricity and the electric cars have been.
The only thing preventing all of this production from being carried out in a clean, non-polluting manner for hundreds of years has been the fact that the socialists legalized pollution. |
First off there are several problems with electric cars. Their range and speed is limited. This alone makes it unacceptable to many if not most firms who rely on "just-in-time" supply lines of service. While it may in time be possible to upgrade these cars, currently the technology does not exist (or it would be used). What do we do until then?
Also customer demand (apart from a handful of celebrities and "greeners" is virtually non_existent. Several lines that produced electric cars have gone defunct because of this very problem. So how do you change entrenched attitudes? And how do you get the big car companies to change their way?
Plus electric cars are just one example. To get to 0% pollution you'd have dismantle and rebuild the entire manufactoring system of America. That alone is a non-starter as it would be far too expensive.
Add to that many parts of America are not really suited to wind or solar technology due to their differing climates. If you have a number of cloudy or calm days in a row...what happens to your electricity?
These are not really stable sources. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 9:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Not that it's particularly feasible, but one solar power station the size of Manhattan in orbit could power the entire planet for the foreseeable future. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 9:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| Not that it's particularly feasible, but one solar power station the size of Manhattan in orbit could power the entire planet for the foreseeable future. |
That's true. Even land-bound solar power could power the entire planet fairly easily. Good luck going from stone-age technology to solar power plants without going through a phase of pollution-producing technology.
If some level of legal pollution is Socialism, then Socialism is at least in part responsible for the technology we have now. Ontheway can argue counterfactuals all he likes, but it's fairly easy to see that our technological advancement has required polluting means to advance itself to where it is now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 10:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| Not that it's particularly feasible, but one solar power station the size of Manhattan in orbit could power the entire planet for the foreseeable future. |
Which relates quite well overall to the points I was making. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 8:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
I've read all seven pages of this thread...and I yet have to see the justification for the massive pollution that would be caused by manufacturing electric cars on a grand scale. And not only manufacturing them, but repairing them or making new ones.
And that's just one thing. There will never be pollution at a 0% level...we'd literally have to go back to the Stone Age (and even then all those millions of campfires would emit pollution.) |
First off, manufacturing the electric cars would require no more energy than manufacturing the internal combustion polluting cars. It would save 100% of the emissions thereafter.
More importantly, however, the use of windmill and solar generated electricity to power the manufacturing would reduce the emissions from the energy used in manufacturing the cars to zero.
Thirdly, the technology to produce the metals needed to construct the windmills, solar panels and cars in a non-polluting clean and green manner has been available for hundreds of years, just as the windmills to generate electricity and the electric cars have been.
The only thing preventing all of this production from being carried out in a clean, non-polluting manner for hundreds of years has been the fact that the socialists legalized pollution. |
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
First off there are several problems with electric cars. Their range and speed is limited. This alone makes it unacceptable to many if not most firms who rely on "just-in-time" supply lines of service. While it may in time be possible to upgrade these cars, currently the technology does not exist (or it would be used). What do we do until then?
Also customer demand (apart from a handful of celebrities and "greeners" is virtually non_existent. Several lines that produced electric cars have gone defunct because of this very problem. So how do you change entrenched attitudes? And how do you get the big car companies to change their way? |
The lack of customer demand and the lack of success of electric cars since 1910 has to do with the effect of the socialists having allowed pollution. Since the gasoline powered vehicles were allowed to pollute the air, they were allowed to pass a portion of their real cost on to the general public in the form of pollution. This subsidy caused a shift in the supply curve whereby socialistically produced polluting cars appeared cheaper to produce than they were. So, manufacturers produced them and people bought them. The real price was much too low as there was no penalty for polluting.
The cost in a dirty environment, reduced crop yields, higher food prices, increased cancer rates, lung disease, heart disease, increase cleaning costs for everyone, reduced lifespans for structures - all these costs and more were forced on the unwitting public.
Socialism causes externalities which do not occur in a free market.
The total cost of gasoline powered cars is much higher than electric cars. Well designed cities would have obviated the need for up to 90% of our family cars in any case. But the socialist killed that possibility as well.
The cheaper subsidized price of internal combustion automobiles led to investment and improvements that were not made in the electric cars. So, the electric transprotation industry was stagnated by the socialistic subsidy to the polluters. The socialists killed electric cars and cleaner, more efficient mass transit.
Remember that in the beginning, electric cars were just as good and just as popular as the gasoline powered models. The gasoline polluters triumphed due to socialistic subsidizes. If pollution of another person's property had not been allowed, the polluting cars could not have been made. It would have required massive additional costs to produce gasoline powered cars that did not pollute, so the electric powered vehicles would have dominated.
There was also a massive shift in the demand curve for the polluting cars as the cost of operating the polluting vehicles was not paid by drivers.
Free roads along with free pollution along with rural electrification and other subsidies caused a massive malinvestment in infrastructure nationwide. The socialists caused every city, village and town to be built for the polluting cars. Mass transit and rational design were also crushed. Most trasportation could be handled by walking, elevators, people movers of various kinds and mass transit methods that are all more efficient and non polluting. But the socialists subsidize the polluting gas guzzling cars.
Had the socialists not provided free roads and highways and not allowed pollution, the electric car would have been improved all along and coupled with a completely redisigned infrastructure, would be much better than the polluting vehicles and overall transport disaster we have today.
The result of massive subsidies has caused the most catastrophic malinvestment imaginable. Every city, village and town, every business, school, housing and shopping decision has been corrupted by the socialists interventions. Massive pollution threatens our planet with climate change. Poverty, unemployment, the decline of the dollar - all because of the socialists.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Plus electric cars are just one example. To get to 0% pollution you'd have dismantle and rebuild the entire manufactoring system of America. That alone is a non-starter as it would be far too expensive. |
Yes, we will have to rebuild much of the entire manufacturing and transportation and energy system of the US today. The socialists have caused a major disaster that exceeds anything mankind has ever faced in our history. It never would have happened if we had followed a free market model. But, it still has to be done.
The socialists are continuing to make things worse every day. It will take a lot of transition steps to unwind the damage that the evil fascist-socialists have done to the people of Earth. But the sooner we begin the easier the process will be and the faster we will escape from their legacy of evil.
It will take many years to make the initial adjustments, just in terms of legal changes and transition periods and educating the public about what has happened and why and what has to be done about it. Then it will take decades to get rid of the damage the socialists have caused. We have still not completely unwound the damage caused by the evil of the socialist system of slavery. It will take more than a century after the death of socialism to recover substantially from the damage it has caused. We cannot just abandon the systems upon which we find ourselves dependent. But we have to create a system whereby the true costs are paid by every person who utilizes any resource so that rational decision making will replace the legacy of stupidity and disaster of the socialists.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
Add to that many parts of America are not really suited to wind or solar technology due to their differing climates. If you have a number of cloudy or calm days in a row...what happens to your electricity?
These are not really stable sources. |
Energy sources, availability of labor, the desirability of the climate, safety from dangers posed by nature and many other factors go into choosing where cities, towns, and villages are located and into which ones will grow and expand and which will decline or die.
People should not build in flood prone areas or where they are in danger of hurricane damage, but they do so all too often, in large part because of the foolish existence of socialistically provided flood insurance. The government pays people to build in the wrong places.
Likewise, we should not subsidize the energy availability factors that go into location choices. People should build where clean energy sources are available and cheapest.
Cities, villages and towns should be built in locations that have the possiblity of a reasonably assured supply of wind, solar, water or geothermal or other clean energy source. People and developers should stay away from flood prone, storm threatened areas. They should face all of their own risks and costs in a free market and not be allowed to impose the costs of their own bad decisions on others. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ontheway, I just want to thank you for all the time you have taken to lay all this out in a way comprehensible to the average non-economist. You have delineated things very neatly, and responded to peoples' refutations thoroughly. It makes me really want to get on with fixing the communofascist/socialist mess we find ourselves in today.
Ontheway for president! 
Speaking of presidents, I had to look them up, but my source said there were another seven presidents even before the seven you mentioned (although John Hancock was in both groups of seven). Can you name them? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 11:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
No, I can't name them all. So, I looked up the whole list:
Presidents of the Continental Congress as
The United Colonies of America
Peyton Randolph
September 5, 1774 to October 22, 1774
and May 20 to May 24, 1775
Henry Middleton
October 22, 1774 to October 26, 1774
John Hancock
October 27, 1775 to July 1, 1776
Presidents of the Continental Congress
United States of America
John Hancock
July 2, 1776 to October 29, 1777
Henry Laurens
November 1, 1777 to December 9, 1778
John Jay
December 10, 1778 to September 28, 1779
Samuel Huntington
September 28, 1779 to February 28, 1781
Presidents of the United States
In Congress Assembled
Samuel Huntington
March 1, 1781 to July 6, 1781
Thomas McKean
July 10, 1781 to November 5, 1781
Presidents of the United States
Following Ratification of the Articles of Confederation
John Hanson
November 5, 1781 to November 4, 1782
Elias Boudinot
November 4, 1782 to November 3, 1783
Thomas Mifflin
November 3, 1783 to June 3, 1784
Richard Henry Lee
November 30, 1784 to November 23, 1785
John Hancock
November 23, 1785 to June 6, 1786
Nathaniel Gorham
June 1786 - November 13, 1786
Arthur St. Clair
February 2, 1787 to October 29, 1787
Cyrus Griffin
January 22, 1788 to March 4, 1789
It's actually John Hanson plus 7 more (my mistake) before George Washington under the Articles of Confederation, including John Hancock who appears again and again on these lists. There are a lot of impressive men here.
Prior to the adoption of the Articles of Confederation, 7 men served as President, several more than once, but the colonies were not formally united into one union yet. So, few count these men as Presidents.
After the adoption of the Articles of Confederation, the US has continued in union so John Hanson should count as the first. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Street Magic
Joined: 23 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
| After the adoption of the Articles of Confederation, the US has continued in union so John Hanson should count as the first. |
Now that I've looked into this issue more, I disagree with the notion they should be considered "Presidents" of the US anymore than we should consider the Reconstruction era "Republicans" related to the Republicans of today (EDIT: actually, that's not a good analogy 'cause the President of Congress wasn't even a direct precursor to a qualitatively different President of the US so much as an entirely unrelated position with the same name) because:
1) George Washington was made Commander-in-Chief of the American Revolutionary forces as early as 1775
And
2) The "Presidents" of the Continental Congress were given less power than even the speakers in the lower houses of their assemblies
If you ignore the titles, it seems pretty clear to me that this time period's Commander-in-Chief was infinitely closer to more modern era Presidents than President of the Congress would be. It's just the happenstance of shared name that's tripped some people up into thinking history's been distorted. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 5:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Street Magic wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
| I have to say I disapprove of the title of the thread. If you replaced American with Korean it would set off a firestorm. There are better ways to phrase the issue. |
I guarantee you the title won't seem offensive if you actually watch the linked video in the OP, and I say this as someone who thinks "blaming the victim" as a means of creating a false sense of control by rationalizing vulnerability to random harm into a failure of personal responsibility is quite possibly the root of all social problems in existence either today or in any other time. |
But the title itself is a slam- implying that Americans are all fat or lazy.
While a majority of Americans are 'overweight' I wouldnt call them fat. And Americans are definitely not lazy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DWAEJIMORIGUKBAP
Joined: 28 May 2009
Location: Electron cloud
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Street Magic
Joined: 23 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 6:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Street Magic wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
| I have to say I disapprove of the title of the thread. If you replaced American with Korean it would set off a firestorm. There are better ways to phrase the issue. |
I guarantee you the title won't seem offensive if you actually watch the linked video in the OP, and I say this as someone who thinks "blaming the victim" as a means of creating a false sense of control by rationalizing vulnerability to random harm into a failure of personal responsibility is quite possibly the root of all social problems in existence either today or in any other time. |
But the title itself is a slam- implying that Americans are all fat or lazy.
While a majority of Americans are 'overweight' I wouldnt call them fat. And Americans are definitely not lazy. |
The title was meant to be a joke. That's why I told you to watch the video. I didn't want to make it lame by telling you the punchline, but it's about a newborn who weighs 20lbs or something like that who was denied health insurance for being too heavy, which is why the thread title was sarcasm and not anti-American or anti-fat people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| Ontheway, I just want to thank you for all the time you have taken to lay all this out in a way comprehensible to the average non-economist. You have delineated things very neatly, and responded to peoples' refutations thoroughly. |
Only he didn't.
I mentioned electric cars and the problems with their range and speed. He never mentioned how we should fix this, he said we should have never got into that situation in the first place (using gas-powered cars).
While that may or may not be true (that's for another thread) I was asking for solutions, not for a history lesson. It's no use saying that the socialists shouldn't have provided roads and "subsidized" the gas-powered vehicles. Maybe they shouldn't...but they did, so what do we do now?
Currently electric powered vehicles do not have the range or speed of gas-powered vehicles and they are still vastly unpopular with the general public (as opposed to gas-powered models. That is the problem which needs to be addressed.
Next I addressed a more general problem which was that we would have rebuild the manufacturing system of the U.S. He agreed and said that the transportation and energy systems would have to be rebuilt as well (which I also agree with). BUT and it's a big BUT, he never mentioned how this would come about, and how, (with America's economy depressed as it is, ) they would pay for it.
I then pointed out problems with the differing meteorological circumstances in America. He did partly address this, but it seems he would cram everybody into certain areas (no flood plains or hurricane-prone areas) and thus risk overcrowding and overuse of the resources in that area.
And as to not sound totally ungracious I do agree it was a very nicely delineated history lesson (I learned a couple of things from it)...but it wasn't what I asked for. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DWAEJIMORIGUKBAP
Joined: 28 May 2009
Location: Electron cloud
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The title was meant to be a joke. That's why I told you to watch the video. I didn't want to make it lame by telling you the punchline, but it's about a newborn who weighs 20lbs or something like that who was denied health insurance for being too heavy, which is why the thread title was sarcasm and not anti-American or anti-fat people. |
Yeah, I love it how it' got to 8 pages without anyone actually reffering to the subject of the article lol.
Only here, only here my friends....
We just need komerican now to jump in and claim that Korean babies are allowed to be racist to western babies because of Japan and I will literally jump for joy! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
