Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Does anyone oppose this? (Score 1) 91

by mattwarden (#47444603) Attached to: Fighting Climate Change With Trade

that is not the only effect. the other effect is that US producers will go out of business, because China is subsidizing the production of their PVs and windmills. the tariffs bring the cost of China's products closer to market price. if you take away the tariffs, you need to simultaneously remove the subsidies. yes, that includes the US's green energy subsidies as well.

Comment: Re:this is a good thing (Score 1) 187

by mattwarden (#47444593) Attached to: Geographic Segregation By Education

Good lord. You still don't understand why arable land is not finite? Incredible.

My point is that your point was bunk, and I did my best to show you why. I'm cool if you want to have a worldview that doesn't at all match reality, but you will only hurt yourself. Everyone makes decisions on a daily basis by looking through the lens of their world view, and if the way the world works doesn't match how you think it works, then you will make the wrong decisions. If your own stubbornness keeps you from fixing that, you are (probably) the only one who will be harmed

Comment: Re:Does anyone oppose this? (Score 1) 91

by mattwarden (#47444169) Attached to: Fighting Climate Change With Trade

No, that's exactly the point. It is not a completely different topic. Many tariffs are used by countries to counteract subsidies in the producing company. That is why we (the US) impose a tariff on Chinese PVs. China heavily subsidizes PV manufacturing. And if you just eliminate the tariff without handling the subsidy, then the problem gets worse, not better.

Comment: Re:this is a good thing (Score 1) 187

by mattwarden (#47444143) Attached to: Geographic Segregation By Education

> land is not a finite resource

Land is relatively finite, but that's not what you said. You said arable land, and you did that intentionally because you know that arable land is what is relevant for wealth. Arable land is not at all finite, as I explained. You are right that I did not offer citation, but I also did not think I needed to. Obviously natural factors change the amount of arable land all the time. Some sources of this are: deforestation, pest population changes, crop disease/fungus or competitive plant life, water sources changing course or becoming salinated or drying up, desertification, terracing, urban sprawl. Then technological advances in agriculture also changes the amount of arable land. Some sources of this: irrigation, aquaculture, indoor farming, genetic modification of crops, fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, etc.

> which is why it is effectively fixed for christs sake.

It has no relevance to the discussion of wealth stagnation or growth, and I am pretty sure you still don't understand that... or else you would have never brought it up.

Comment: Re:Corporations vs People (Score 1) 1326

Your comment is not internally consistent. You said it triggers once she is a W-2. But then you say as soon as the company is paying her, that's when it triggers. That means it would trigger when she's an employee of her own one-person and I am a customer of hers. If you meant "paying her wages", then it would trigger when she was an independent contractor being paid by 1099.

I think you have proven my point

Comment: Re:Does anyone oppose this? tsarkon reports (Score 2) 91

by mattwarden (#47443843) Attached to: Fighting Climate Change With Trade

> The point you seem to be missing is that the climate change we are experiencing now is happening MUCH faster than any in the past

Serious question: how could you possibly know this with any reasonable degree of reliability? Even in the last 70 years, our ability to measure global average temperatures has become orders of magnitude more precise, let alone O2 and CO2 levels. There is no way to determine whether tangential methods of measurement, like ice cores and tree rings, are accurate.

Comment: Re:Does anyone oppose this? (Score 1) 91

by mattwarden (#47443791) Attached to: Fighting Climate Change With Trade

It depends. Sometimes tariffs are NOT effectively subsidies and are used to counteract subsidies in the producing country. But since you acknowledge that these are very related subjects, then I assume we will agree that both tariffs and subsidies for green energy need to be eliminated, or else we're just manipulating the market with slightly different (but possibly equivalent) forces.

Comment: What about subsidies? (Score 2) 91

by mattwarden (#47443773) Attached to: Fighting Climate Change With Trade

The US uses tariffs to offset subsidies by China, for example, on PV panels. If you agree to eliminate the tariffs without addressing the subsidies, then it doesn't solve the problem, and it certainly doesn't "increase American exports" as the summary suggests. Of course, you'd have to eliminate the US's green subsidies, too.

I'm sure you're all in favor of that, right?

User hostile.

Working...