Skepticism about Climate Change

[Alan Klein]

Except it's not free.  Oil and coal have so much political support that it's not a level playing field for other options.

How is the government stopping investments in alternative fuels?  I think the opposite is happening as there are many government subsidies for people to buy electric cars and install solar panels.  Let the free markets work.  As alternative fuels become less costly, (if they do), then competition would push them into the forefront of what people buy.  What's holding them back now is higher cost.

[Otto Phocus]

Let the free markets work. 

But has the free market thing ever actually worked?  Has any nation been successful in a free market environment devoid of government action?

The closest the US came was in parts of the 19th century where we had minimal government action on the free market.  The 19th century was not exactly a good time.  Awesome if you were one of the few rich; pretty bad.. like really bad if you weren't... and most people weren't. 

If free market means going back to how things were in the 19th century, no thank you.

But really, when has a completely  "free market economy" ever worked?  I think that is an economic fantasy that the reality just does not support.

[Tim Lookingbill]

As for free market forces I have seen time and time again not only in my local town but throughout history whenever you have small groups of people controlling any particular business sector for buying/selling any number of product or service, there's always some form of pay to play behind the scenes that gives the false impression of competitive free market forces in play when it's actually an attempt to exclude others who are undesirable based on nothing that has to do with being the best at what they provide in the market.

Groups like the Chamber of Commerce, Knights of Columbus, Kiwanis and Rotary Club and any member of these groups who may have a distant or close family member on city council can really put the screws to any benefit derived from free market forces.

And to see how bad it can get with "groups" read what happened to Native Americans when oil was discovered on their reservation in the early 1920's...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osage_Indian_murders

I just heard about this story on CBS Sunday Morning last Sunday.

[Alan Klein]

As for free market forces I have seen time and time again not only in my local town but throughout history whenever you have small groups of people controlling any particular business sector for buying/selling any number of product or service, there's always some form of pay to play behind the scenes that gives the false impression of competitive free market forces in play when it's actually an attempt to exclude others who are undesirable based on nothing that has to do with being the best at what they provide in the market.

Groups like the Chamber of Commerce, Knights of Columbus, Kiwanis and Rotary Club and any member of these groups who may have a distant or close family member on city council can really put the screws to any benefit derived from free market forces.

And to see how bad it can get with "groups" read what happened to Native Americans when oil was discovered on their reservation in the early 1920's...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osage_Indian_murders

I just heard about this story on CBS Sunday Morning last Sunday.

So you're arguing my point.  That because government gets involved through crony capitalism and by passing rules and regulations that protect established businesses, the free markets are hurt and thusly the economy suffers.  Les competition and higher prices for consumers.  So the answer isn't to have more government involvement, but less. 

[Alan Klein]

But has the free market thing ever actually worked?  Has any nation been successful in a free market environment devoid of government action?

The closest the US came was in parts of the 19th century where we had minimal government action on the free market.  The 19th century was not exactly a good time.  Awesome if you were one of the few rich; pretty bad.. like really bad if you weren't... and most people weren't. 

If free market means going back to how things were in the 19th century, no thank you.

But really, when has a completely  "free market economy" ever worked?  I think that is an economic fantasy that the reality just does not support.

Free markets have worked not because of but in spite of government involvement.  Fortunately in America, as opposed to let's say Venezuela, government involvement is relatively mild so the forces of competition and the free market continue to work.  Trump says he wants to get rid of crony capitalism and the political/business crony swamp.  Well, we'll see.  If he does, the economy will get even better. 

In Venezuela, an oil rich country, government involvement is so imposing that there's a 25%+  unemployment rate and people are literally starving.  Because of government involvement in their economy, they have also lost much of the personal and political freedoms.  You saw that in Soviet Union, Cuba, etc. 

[Tim Lookingbill]

So you're arguing my point.  That because government gets involved through crony capitalism and by passing rules and regulations that protect established businesses, the free markets are hurt and thusly the economy suffers.  Les competition and higher prices for consumers.  So the answer isn't to have more government involvement, but less.

No, you read that wrong. I was pointing out that self interest groups are only out for them self at all cost. My mentioning city council which is where I'm assuming you cherry picked what I said to turn into to government intrusion tells me you're way too biased to reason with.

[Farmer]

How is the government stopping investments in alternative fuels?  I think the opposite is happening as there are many government subsidies for people to buy electric cars and install solar panels.  Let the free markets work.  As alternative fuels become less costly, (if they do), then competition would push them into the forefront of what people buy.  What's holding them back now is higher cost.

That only works if you're not currently supporting oil and coal, which you are.

[Alan Klein]

Tim and Phil, I don't understand either of your points.   Could you expand?

[LesPalenik]

Unseasonably cold and a heavy rain in southern Ontario, causing some local flooding. Next week temperatures and amount of precipations will make it feel like January weather in Ireland. 

[Robert Roaldi]

Tim and Phil, I don't understand either of your points.   Could you expand?

I am not answering for them, but in general, there has never been an unfettered free market, other than in the criminal underground (and even then). Fundamentally, it's because the people running the various commercial enterprises are the same people who vote or run for office, so good luck keeping them separate. But in general, so-called free marketers should go re-read Adam Smith (and the dozens of other thinkers on the subject), only this time don't just cherry pick the two or three paragraphs that make you feel warm and fuzzy about the purity of the free hand. Read the other 10,000 pages too.

But even more fundamentally than that, we need to come to a basic understanding of the purpose of a culture. Are we really all here as a support system for commerce, which some people seem to believe. Or is commerce just one of the ways that we have invented to provide goods and services to each other. I more or less believe in the latter. Holding up commerce as the holy grail end-point is setting the bar pretty low. "Competition", where it actually exists that is, does provide goods at fair prices a lot of the time, just look at the electronics we surround ourselves with. But to hold that up as the basic engine through which we do everything in life is silly. And anyway, is it working?

We don't have to look very far. We have historically low taxes (despite what some people choose to believe), but not many think that we're better off than we were in the 1950s-1960s, at least so far as social mobility goes. In those days, people thought that they had a chance to climb the ladder and many did. Nowadays, fewer believe that. The very wealthy, of course, are perfectly happy with the current status quo, but I fail to see why making them happy is a measure of anything. In the 1980s, we fell for the idea that if we just let all those rich guys keep more of their money, then they would then invest in society more (i.e., "create" jobs), Well, they have a good chunk of change now, don't they, despite the supposed high taxes they have to pay, so the system isn't holding them back THAT much, is it? Ok, so now would be a good time for them to invest that money. In something real, I mean, not wall street paper chases.

[Ray]

We don't have to look very far. We have historically low taxes (despite what some people choose to believe), but not many think that we're better off than we were in the 1950s-1960s, at least so far as social mobility goes. In those days, people thought that they had a chance to climb the ladder and many did. Nowadays, fewer believe that. The very wealthy, of course, are perfectly happy with the current status quo, but I fail to see why making them happy is a measure of anything. In the 1980s, we fell for the idea that if we just let all those rich guys keep more of their money, then they would then invest in society more (i.e., "create" jobs), Well, they have a good chunk of change now, don't they, despite the supposed high taxes they have to pay, so the system isn't holding them back THAT much, is it? Ok, so now would be a good time for them to invest that money. In something real, I mean, not wall street paper chases.

I can't understand why there should be a problem with the wealthy if the wealthy live responsibly and don't waste resources.

The problem is always wastage and inefficiency, whether one is rich or poor.

If a multi-billionaire builds a large house on 50 acres and employs a few people to maintain the house and an elaborate garden so he can visit the place for just a few days every year, and employs a chauffeur and mechanic on standby to take care of a Rolls Royce that sits in the garage unused for 11 months of the year, and maintains a private jet which is used just a few times a year, and so on, then that's a waste of resources. That's the problem.

[Robert Roaldi]

I can't understand why there should be a problem with the wealthy if the wealthy live responsibly and don't waste resources.

The problem is always wastage and inefficiency, whether one is rich or poor.

If a multi-billionaire builds a large house on 50 acres and employs a few people to maintain the house and an elaborate garden so he can visit the place for just a few days every year, and employs a chauffeur and mechanic on standby to take care of a Rolls Royce that sits in the garage unused for 11 months of the year, and maintains a private jet which is used just a few times a year, and so on, then that's a waste of resources. That's the problem.

I was not criticizing wealthy people, you missed my point.

[Ray]

Yes, I've read it and also had the opportunity to meet him several years ago.  I'm not in agreement with everything he writes as he does skip over some stuff.  The difficulty as we seen on this forum is that confirmation bias is difficult to overcome.

What stuff does he skip over, Alan? Confirmation bias exists on both sides. However, as I've mentioned before, I used to accept the alarm about human-induced global warming, and used to argue with friends and associates, 'Why aren't we taking more positive and effective action to reduce CO2 levels?'

It was only after I began to do my own research and inquiries about aspects which were never mentioned or explained by the pro-AGW activists and scientists in the media, that I began to change my mind, and gradually realized how dodgy the science is, partly because it's basically a 'soft'science, and how exaggerated were the degrees of certainty expressed.

[Ray]

I was not criticizing wealthy people, you missed my point.

Nor am I criticizing the wealthy, provided they use their wealth sensibly and efficiently, rather than squandering their resources foolishly to boost their ego.

[Alan Klein]

Nor am I criticizing the wealthy, provided they use their wealth sensibly and efficiently, rather than squandering their resources foolishly to boost their ego.

Everyone has ego including some poor guy who's walking around with a $600 iPhone.  Anyway i don't think we should morally judge what others do with their money.   It's none of our business.     

In any case,   unless the wealthy or any one else for that matter keep their money under their pillow,  that wealth is working for to grow the economy and make others more wealthy.  If the have it to a bank which loans it to others to spend or buys stuff for himself like a fancy house on the shore,  workers are hired to build and support his purchases. Ask those workers whose jobs and families rely on those purchasers whether they feel his purchases have no value.

[Chairman Bill]

I thought this might be of some interest. Of course, those who deny that the climate is changing, will be immune from the effects of the climate not changing and permafrost not melting etc. Which is nice.

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170504-there-are-diseases-hidden-in-ice-and-they-are-waking-up?ocid=fbert


Edit: added missing url

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...those who deny that the climate is changing...

Nobody denies that.

[Ray]

Everyone has ego including some poor guy who's walking around with a $600 iPhone.  Anyway i don't think we should morally judge what others do with their money.   It's none of our business.     

In any case,   unless the wealthy or any one else for that matter keep their money under their pillow,  that wealth is working for to grow the economy and make others more wealthy.  If the have it to a bank which loans it to others to spend or buys stuff for himself like a fancy house on the shore,  workers are hired to build and support his purchases. Ask those workers whose jobs and families rely on those purchasers whether they feel his purchases have no value.

The point I was making is that the wealth and prosperity of people in general depends on the availability and cost of resources, particularly energy supplies, and the uses to which we put those resources..

Spending, say, 50 million dollars on a magnificent mansion on a large-acreage property with a private golf course, just so one can occasionally spend a few days there each year, or invite a few friends to play golf now and again, does provide a certain amount of work to build the place and maintain the garden and house, but not nearly as much work and/or as much benefit to the community as a farm or factory or mine on the same amount of property.

The same applies to the poor man who spends $600 on an iPhone. He'd be better off if he were to spend just $200 on a less sophisticated  phone and the other $400 on building  garden beds, buying some horse manure, and growing his own fruit and vegetables, assuming he has a garden of course.

It's not quite true that it's none of our business what others do with their money. It's illegal to literally burn it, for example. It's also illegal to exchange it for prohibited goods.

[Tim Lookingbill]

Tim and Phil, I don't understand either of your points.   Could you expand?

I'll make it short.

Going by a long history of bad behavior sourced from their own self interests and greed, humans need to be heavily regulated. Letting free market dynamics change their behavior for the good is a pipe dream.

Remember we're the most dangerous creatures on the planet.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Going by a long history of bad behavior sourced from their own self interests and greed, humans need to be heavily regulated...

By whom?

AI, robots, extraterrestrials, or...other humans, pure and clean of any bad behavior, liberated from greed and having no self-interest? Organized into communist cells and led by a central committee and a dear leader?