Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:The simple fact that we can't talk about this.. (Score 1) 206

by Karmashock (#48017275) Attached to: Study Links Pacific Coastal Warming To Changing Winds

The difference is that in science, unlike this discussion, there should not be axes to grind or political riviarlies. Rather it should be a detached search for the truth with no stake or interest in what the eventual outcome could be.

While I might be impartial, I am at least appologetic about it and trying to avoid my biases. While you are outright defending biases which render your claim to scientific superiority laughable.

Look, my point in posting in this thread was to point out that the politicization of the issue has rendered it non-scientific. You have "heard" my argument and I can't force you to agree if you do not, will not, or cannot agree for any reason.

I have made a good faith effort to make myself understood and beyond that I really don't see what else I can do here.

Good day.

Comment: Re:The simple fact that we can't talk about this.. (Score 1) 206

by Karmashock (#48017063) Attached to: Study Links Pacific Coastal Warming To Changing Winds

the distinction between an educated guess and a probability is zero.

In any case, you can't call your position science unless you're willing to put down the activism and just be coldly detracted about the whole thing.

That is what science demands. Detachment. You either have it or you don't.

The instant you get sucked into a cause... that goes out of the window.

Comment: Re:Boeing bought more politicians. (Score 3, Insightful) 125

I'd love to see that too. The companies tend to argue that sans some sort of contract down the line it isn't cost effective to invest in a system when they might not ever see a return from it.

There is some validity in that especially if no company takes you offer which might be the case.

That said... I too would like it to work as you describe. On a launch by launch basis. As to cost being the primary critiera... I agree it should be a very important or even primary one. I only worry about safety etc. Yeah, the insurance costs could help manage things but the insurance industry can't predict failure rates without statistics and that requires a significant amount of data that would not exist. To that end, you would have to audit the safety and reliability of each design as best you could. Yes, they could be corrupt and say designs are bad when they're not. But the alternative is to just let everything be determined statistically which would require a significant number of failures to give you some baselines on each design.

Anyway, generally favorable... just think you'd have to be careful about it. People tend to be very intolerant to failures in this industry. Remember NASA crashed a few probes into Mars under its "better, faster, cheaper" model... and then retired that policy with the result that now they do everything very slowly and quite expensively to make sure everything is perfect. If you have too many crashes people are going to insist the damn things be better built and that will change the model back to what we have now. So... just keep that in mind.

Comment: Re:Corporate taxes (Score 1) 405

The difference is that I have precedence on my side where as you have nothing but speculation on yours.

We have gone through serious disruptions in labor before. Again, at one point the vast majority of our labor was in agriculture. Today, less then 2 percent. That means somewhere around 60-80 percent of the labor force lost their jobs.

And yet they got jobs again.

And then the same thing happened in the factories and they got jobs again.

And as you can see in many parts of the world people are getting jobs and working despite automation.

A better question is "who" is not getting jobs and "why".

You have no interest in examining this question and because of that you will never even attempt to understand what is going on. You have a simplistic theory that is backed by nothing and an unwillingness to think dynamically about a very complex problem. This renders you incompetent to have this discussion and it is a waste of my time to try to discuss the issue with you.

I do not say this to be insulting. But it is not fair to me or anyone else actually attempting to understand the issue to be subjected to your stubborn, closed minded, and frankly lazy thought process.

The slums you are afraid of are in many cases caused by the social programs you love so dearly. They generate the slums by subsidizing them. Had you not provided the money, those people would have moved somewhere else. There are many parts of the country with job growth and affordable costs in living. The areas with the slums have neither. yet you pay people to live in parts of the country with uneconomical living conditions and poor job prospects. It is stupid. You are perpetuating the problem and making it worse.

As to your fear of the future... that merely makes me sad for you. The future holds promise. But only if it is allowed to become. Standing in the way of it will only render the US a primitive has been power that dedicates an nearly all its effort to preserving a population of zombies. Living dead. People that breath and walk around but who gave up on living long ago.

We have nothing profitable to share with each other and continuing to bother me with responses is at best an irritation.

Good day.

Comment: Re:Corporate taxes (Score 1) 405

1. Yes, all sorts of human labor has been made obsolete since the dawn of the industrial revolution. So what... Do you know that prior to the mechanization of farms over 60 percent of all human labor was devoted to the production of food. 60 percent of everything we did was just to feed ourselves.

What portion of human labor in the first world goes to agriculture? It is between 1.5 and 2 percent in the US and we are net food exporters.

The problem with this whole "the robots are stealing our jobs" line is that people just get other jobs. When machines and improved agricultural practices made subsistence farmers obsolete those people got factory jobs.

Once the factories started automating or building better machines... which they've been doing for about 100 years at least... we had jobs go to clerical work, office jobs, accounting, management, calculation, etc.

Computers are reducing the labor required in ALL segments of the economy. Farming is becoming more efficient... we can use drone harvesters, automatic soil tillers, automatic watering systems, etc. Same thing in factories... robotic arms, etc. Same thing in clerical work with computers just automating huge portions of the business.

But humans still have value. Things they can do. And before you tell me they can't, I'll point out that in asia they are having no trouble finding uses for people.

The problem in the US is not a lack of demand for labor but rather that the cost of living is so high that it is very hard to find jobs that pay enough to support that cost of living.

However, that cost of living is artificially high because of problems in our urban and social planning. If you spread the population out a bit more and didn't cluster people into the densest population areas possible which drives up real estate prices then you could cut the cost of living for many people dramatically. Add to that there is an enormous amount of waste with your subsidies. Giving away all that money to people raises taxes which raises the cost of living which makes it more important to have subsidies which raises the taxes further... its a feed back loop.

You stop the feed back loop by reducing what is causing it and it can just outright stop leaving you with a reasonable income and standard of living without massive subsidies being required to prop everything up.

2. As to it not mattering why people can't afford to pay their bills, this is just lazy. It absolutely always matters and refusing to analyze why is unforgivable. I literally can't have this discussion with you if you're going to refuse to even look into any of your own premises.

Good day, sir.

Comment: Re: All federal parks should be turned into state. (Score 1) 299

by Karmashock (#48007899) Attached to: Forest Service Wants To Require Permits For Photography

Explain these draconian laws? Because another point I'd lay out there is that the enforcement and policing of federal parks is so poor that drug cartels are growing marijuana in them. That either isn't happening or is happening much less in state parks. Which is another argument in favor of giving them to state institutions where the state should at least police the land for people growing drug plantations.

Comment: Re:Corporate taxes (Score 1) 405

1. Labor isn't obsolete and shall never be obsolete until robots are in all ways superior to the average person. That is unlikely to happen at any point in the near future. What is more, if that does happen... we all get personal robot slaves and we'll probably devolve into an incredibly decadent society... before being slaughtered by rebelling robots that will surplant us as a species and carry on until they realize that the stupid humans they killed had some essential quality the needed... too bad they're all dead... and the robots power down or rust or whatever.

2. Much of the cost of living problems are the result of rising COSTS not the falling value of the labor itself. Compare the cost of living in Chicago for example with the cost of living in Anchorage Alaska. Now on simple logical grounds you'd think that the cost of living in Alaska should be higher because after all everything has to get literally shipped into an often ice locked port. There are no trains or reliable roads up there. You bring everything in by boat or plane. And yet... it is cheaper to live there... to feed yourself... to get access to basic services such as water, power, phone service, medical care... then in fucking chicago. Now is the quality of some of those services higher in chicago? Sure... mostly their hospitals are a good deal better but lets not pretend that is a deal breaker. The point is that the fact you're finding it harder and harder to subsidize housing, food, etc for people living in densly populated major cities is not because the value of their labor has fallen. It is rather because the cost of living in those cities has gone up while the wages earned by most people in those cities has stagnated or fallen. The obvious solution is to depopulated the cities of excess labor. This is already happening. We are seeing a major population shift away from those cities and that is good. The more it falls the more prices in those cities should fall as demand falls. And that should at some point in the future bring the whole system back into equilibrium. However, it is continually destabilized by the government which insists on paying people effectively to live in these cities. They're given free housing, free food, free medical care, free education... etc. When really they should be encouraged to move somewhere else they can afford to actually support themselves.

In effect, the problem you're describing was caused by bad social programs in the first place. And the more money you shovel at this problem the worse it is going to get. Its like trying to cure a fat man by feeding him larger and larger blocks of cheese. It is not helping. Do I need to go through the long list of cities that were pretty much outright destroyed by social programs? The worst case was Detroit... ground zero for the "great society" program. The city has not recovered from that since and likely will not in my life time... and I am not old.

As to what people would do without these programs... well, you are quite correct that people are now addicted to the programs but addictions are not justifications for giving people all the cocaine they can snort either. Clearly they need help. And understand... I want to help them. I really do. My end goal however is for them to be cured of it. The dependency these social welfare programs create is not a solution. It is a syndrome. What I would like to do is rehabilitate as many people as possible, reduce the dependency of those that can't be fully self sufficient as much as possible, and for those that really can't live on their own... I will support keeping them comfortable. However, the last category cannot exceed 10 percent of the population. Ideally it must be as small as possible. If it exceeds 10 percent... which is an arbitrary number take it as a rough guideline... then I will look very hard for solutions to reduce the number below that point. I will also be open to drastic and hopefully creative solutions to arrive at that point.

Please understand... I do not want to hurt people. I do not want people to suffer. I do not want people to feel bad. I do not want them to have a negative experience or be unhappy. At the same time... I am not their slave. IF there are so many of these people that a significant portion of the viable working population much dedicate their lives merely to make a swelling population of non-viable workers comfortable... I will not accept that. I would sooner leave the country then let the government give away all my life's work to keep another group of people on welfare for another generation. It is too dystopian. I can't bare it.

For the needy... My heart is open. But unless the country gets nuked or something you can't tell me that there is a hundred million people in the US in need of these programs.

Would my correction here involve some getting used to?... Sure... all change does. But I am not asking anything that is not owed or expecting anything that is not due.

I want my country to be successful and for my people to be happy. I don't see that happening with these social programs. I see failure and misery in our future if it doesn't stop. And the poor people we would both like to protect won't be better off if the system itself collapses. And if this doesn't stop it will collapse sooner then you'd think. The stress fractures are already there for those with eyes to see.

Comment: Re:All federal parks should be turned into state.. (Score 1) 299

by Karmashock (#48003013) Attached to: Forest Service Wants To Require Permits For Photography

Wrong. This is ANOTHER stupid law and ANOTHER sign that the parks are being mismanaged. My solution to this ONGOING problem is to turn the parks over to the states where they will likely be better taken care of and problems at the federal level will not effect the parks at that point.

That was my point... which YOU missed.

Good day, sir.

Comment: Re:Corporate taxes (Score 1) 405

I don't accept that the last word was in 1776... however you must concede that without that word there would be no federal government. In fact, practically every expansion of federal power was triggered by an external threat. Absent those threats the federal government would either not exist at all or would be a much more limited organization.

It is only recently that social programs have been used to expand federal power. And really, though you might feel this is cynical... I think the only reason that has happened is because some corrupt politicians have figured out that they can buy votes from poor people by giving away money from other people.

Point blank.

As to your claim that democracy is flawed... of course it is... we've always known it was flawed. The problem is that no one knows of anything that is less prone to corruption. What would your alternative be? A technocracy where some elite group of thinkers made choices for everyone? The problem with that is that there is no way to ensure those people don't just act for their own interests rather then anyone else's or society's. Effectively it would just be an oligarchy... a new age nobility with barons, counts, and dukes by new names.

Yes, democracy has problems. However, we know what most of those problems are and this ability for politicians to buy votes with other people's money is one of the known flaws in the system. In fact, it is a flaw that was discussed at the founding of the country. Sadly, constitutional laws were not laid down at the time to make the practice illegal as it obviously should have been all along.

Due to this hole in our system... we are slowly killing ourselves with out of control entitlement spending. The entitlement budget grows every year at a greater rate then the economy grows... all cuts in other programs simply mean the entitlement spending grows even faster.

Its cancer. And it is probably terminal. Your call for more social programs frankly is absurd in this context. The solution to cancer is not more cancer.

Comment: Re:All federal parks should be turned into state.. (Score 1) 299

by Karmashock (#48002619) Attached to: Forest Service Wants To Require Permits For Photography

Two points.

1. We have state parks that are as well run as anything the feds manage.

2. I referenced the fed managed land to point out that just because the feds are running something doesn't mean they're doing it well.

Look, I generally hold that people that live in an area tend to care more about that area then people that live thousands of miles away and have never been there before.

Do you disagree? Do you think that people that live in a place care less about it then people that have never been there? Yes or no?

Kay... so given that you have to conclude that the locals care more why would you put people that do not live there and may not have ever seen the place with their own eyes more control over it then the people that actually happen to reside there in the first place?

And before you say something about locals turning national parks into strip mines or something equally goofy... I will again remind you of the state parks where for some reason that doesn't happen... so why this fixation on federal control of something that could very easily be state run? Just tell me why you care? Because I have been upfront with my interests here. I think the feds mismanage these properties because they don't really matter to them as much. The closure of federal parks during the budget crisis was a good example of that. The feds did that as a political power play. They did not do it to save money as they claimed because closing the parks actually COST them more money then leaving them open. They had to put rangers on guard duty keeping people out of parks. They had to put them on overtime. They spent MORE money keeping people out then they would have simply running the parks as usual. And yet they tried to keep them out to put pressure on political rivals to relax budget controls.

This is just one of the many things you expose our park system to by leaving it in federal control. Every time there is a budget dispute you could see a sitting president play games with the parks. I believe a park ranger pulled a gun on a tour bus of senior citizens during this last altercation. I'd just assume avoid this situation in the future. Give the parks to the states.

The feds can save whatever they're spending on parks for whatever they want to spend money on elsewhere. The states would be very happy to take up stewardship of the parks and should run them as well or better then the feds.

I really don't see the argument for not doing this yesterday.

Comment: Re:The simple fact that we can't talk about this.. (Score 1) 206

by Karmashock (#48000455) Attached to: Study Links Pacific Coastal Warming To Changing Winds

As to 1-3, we appear to agree. This will have implications for 4.

As to "all we can determine." that is again fine. However, in taking that short cut you lose the ability to say you are backed by science. You are rather backed by your opinions and guesses ABOUT science.

Now those opinions might be reasonable and the guesses could be educated... but they are not science. What this means is that if you DO take these shortcuts whether you had a choice or not you must show a bit of humility in stating your case.

Science as per 1-3 doesn't care if you had a hard time figuring something out or if it was impossible to get good information. Science isn't about what is and is not convenient. It is a process. You follow the process or you did not follow the process. Either/or. And if you didn't follow the process you're going to have be upfront about that, honest with yourself, and try to work with people and peers in a manner that reflects the common understanding that shortcuts were made.

Beyond this we both reserve the right to listen to whom we choose. However, if you aspire to cooperation from the public at large it is not in your interest to browbeat people for merely pointing out that you have overstated your reasonable degree of confidence on issues for political gain. This has been done repeatedly which is why many of the IPCC reports have come under such savage criticism and several of them have been sent back for massive reediting.

Beyond that, let us get to the real heart of the issue here. It is not the science and it is not whether or not the planet is warming. The heart of the issue is what some propose to do about it. It is THAT which is ultimately causing most of the controversy. Not the science but rather the political solution to the science. If you admit that point then we can talk about what we might be able to do to bring about a meeting of minds. The conceit of many that the opposition is stupid is in error. Neither side is stupid. They merely disagree on some things and have mutually enough power to prevent the other from acting without their consent. Regardless of what you think in this matter you must admit to that political reality. Which means if you care about the environment... you must either successfully suppress hundreds of millions of people in a democracy... good luck there... Or you must sit down and talk about solutions we can all find palatable. This compromise is possible. The politicians don't like it because they find factional rivalries to be better for getting voters to show up on election day. But if you care about the issue and not whether the blue team or the red team wins... you'll talk.

Comment: Re:Corporate taxes (Score 1) 405

As to social programs being the main point of the government... really? So in 1776... it was all about socialized medical care?

Oh wait... it was about repelling british control... which was foreign aggression to the colonists... and since then the primary justification for federal power has always been protecting people from foreign aggression.... not social programs.

So... you're wrong.

As to paying to import goods into the US... neither Mexico nor canada pays them so why would a former US state pay them? Obviously they wouldn't. So... wrong again... unless you just want to punish states for excising that self determination you have no problem with... which I suspect is all this little point is really about.

As to people that need the programs not being able to pay for them, that is fine... but do you not see the problem with those same people VOTING on whether the programs are created in the first place? When you vote on OTHER people's money it isn't really very fair is it? By all means... let everyone vote on things that we all must support. However, if you are on subsistance from the government, I think that should have some cost to you... the first and most reasonable cost is a limitation of your voting rights such that you are unable to vote yourself additional subsidies. This will also reduce the value of such people to politicians because they will be less able to buy votes with other people's money.

Absent that change, the politicians can just buy elections with other people's money which is in large part what many subsidies are entirely about. They are often not even helping people. It just gets a politician some extra numbers in some communities because they get free stuff.

As to only raising taxes on the rich. Done. Do that. Cut taxes on the middle class and "TRY" to tax the hell of the super rich. I won't stop you. You'll fail and get less money but from my perspective it will all work out.

The reason the middle class is targeted for taxes is because they can't escape them. The rich can. They have the lawyers, the accountants, the loopholes, the off shore accounts, etc. They often are not even breaking the law. They're just so practiced at it that they will avoid your taxes without breaking the rules. Warren buffet is probably the best at it from what I've seen. He has structured his whole enterprise around NOT paying taxes. With the result that his tax burden is about 10 percent what it would be otherwise. You could tax men like that at a rate of 100 percent and they'd probably still ACTUALLY pay less then you and me. Which is why the government likes to go after the middle class and the small business people. They have enough money that you can take it but lack the sophistication and resources to protect themselves from you.

But you say you'd leave them alone? Fine. Do it then. You never have in the past. These businesses are dying in the US right now. You need to cut taxes on the small businesses TODAY if you actually believe what you said there. And as to going after the rich and powerful... go for it. It has never succeeded before but maybe this time it will be different.

Comment: Re:Corporate taxes (Score 1) 405

As to the Danish cousins, the point was that the VAT is suppressing their demand for goods. They are buying LESS because the tax is high. Follow the logic of that through and see that buying less will have an impact on the economy and will have an impact on multiple points of taxation. Consider further that the pent up demand was so extreme that it made economic sense for them to bring EMPTY luggage on a plane flight from Denmark to the US, fill it up with stuff at our stores, and then fly it back home. That is an extreme differential. If the price difference were small they wouldn't go to those extremes. They went to those extremes because the price difference was very large and impacted their buying choices profoundly.

That is hardly the only example of that. The danish also like to buy things in Germany and other neighboring countries, pack it into luggage, and then take it home with them often by ferry boat. That is a clear sign of an over taxed market place. You can see similar examples in the US. The tax rate for cigarettes was increased in NYC which has lead to a black market in cigarettes flowing into new york from New Hampshire of all places. What is more, smoking has actually INCREASED since the taxes were put in place. I am not sure if they are making more money. I suspect they are at best treading water. But they've managed to fund organized crime with another black market good and have apparently failed to curb smoking for some reason. These heavy handed taxation policies piss people off, encourage fraud, encourage black markets, undermine government authority, and ultimately undermine the legitimate economy itself.

As to which taxes... you used an unacceptable dodge when you said "a stable economy".
By definition, any economy that crosses over the laffer curve is not going to be stable. That is like asking for an example of an economy with a collapsing currency that also has a stable economy. You're not going to find the two in the same place at the same time in the same sense.

So unless you're willing to accept unstable economies it is impossible to cite an example of an economy crossing over the laffer curve.

The logic that last point should be self evident.

"In matters of principle, stand like a rock; in matters of taste, swim with the current." -- Thomas Jefferson

Working...