Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It?

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Oral Roberts who wrote (37022)	7/30/2008 5:01:29 PM
From: Geoff Altman	Read Replies (2) of 224750

Gees, I wish someone would do something about Soros and his billions, him financing every left wing nut site is really screwing our country up. Of course he and his minions are all over GW...hat tip to Tim: So, you think Al Gore inflates the threat... By TigerHawk at 7/29/2008 08:07:00 AM If you think that Al Gore has inflated the threat of anthropogenic global warming you are going to delight in this bit from the BBC: New and cautious calculations by the New Economics Foundation's (nef) climate change programme suggest that we may have as little as 100 months starting from August 2008 to avert uncontrollable global warming. Nothing short of the rapid and wide-scale re-engineering of the economy will be sufficient. Radical change, though, is needed anyway because of the credit and energy crises; the latter driven significantly by the imminent peak and decline of global oil production. No simple techno-fix exists that can reduce greenhouse gas emissions fast or far enough to solve the problem. The answers are going to be economic, political and behavioural. Many countries, not just the UK, are going to need to learn the art of rapid transition. Among the supposed remedies for climate change proposed in the article: * "a structural transformation of the regulation of the financial system" * "breaking up discredited financial institutions that have only survived through the injection of vast sums of public money" * "clamping down on tax havens and obfuscatory corporate financial reporting" [we are shocked that Sarbanes-Oxley did not stop global warming - ed.] * "to prevent inflation, we want to see much tighter regulation of the wider financial environment" * "establishment of an Oil Legacy Fund, similar to a highly successful Norwegian government initiative, paid for by a windfall tax on the profits of oil and gas companies" * "More realistic fossil fuel prices, raised to include their cost to the environment" * "make available the low-cost capital needed to fund the UK's green economic shift whilst having controls in place to prevent inflation" [Price controls? Seriously? - ed.] Proposals like these published in supposedly serious forums give credence to the concerns of the rest of us that climate change hysteria is just the latest justification for socialism. Many of us who love economic wealth and the post-industrial consumer economy are big believers in weaning the planet from fossil fuels for both environmental and geopolitical reasons, but we are loath to support a cause that attracts so many people who want to destroy capitalism. If the climate change activists are serious about winning the political battle in the United States they should propose solutions that maximize wealth and minimize the distribution of wealth and the regulation of the economy. Of course, most of those solutions will take longer than 100 months to implement. One suspects that is why the socialists are cranking up the hysteria -- only command and control "solutions" can even theoretically be implemented in 7 1/2 years. tigerhawk.blogspot.com

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next