Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: neolib who wrote (23185)	10/27/2008 7:26:11 PM
From: Maurice Winn	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36923

Neo, it's amusing that you think there was and is a free market system in money. In case you hadn't heard, the Federal Reserve owns the money supply and makes central planning decisions on interest rates, $700 billion pixelations of more of the stuff and sets all sorts of rules which are anything but free market and are NOT simply to punish and prevent fraud, theft, larceny, embezzlement. I am planning a free market system in money, called Qi, and my prototype is looking good. You'll be using it one of these days and you'll come to realize it is MUCH better than going to the local commissariat for supplies. I'm a registered Libertarian [in libertarianz.org.nz ] but I'm not anti-science or anti-government protecting the commons. I WANT the commons protected and was irate that lead was allowed in petrol for so long when it was obvious that it was poisoning our brains. I was irate that the harbour was killed. I do not like noise pollution = there goes a helicopter right now, polluting me with noise and no doubt for no good reason. It's a socialist one, run by the government to police people. Unfortunately, much of policing is chasing people who wish to poison themselves with plant toxins. The need for police helicopters would disappear if the socialist state would stop nearly all of what it does [such as robbing producers to give money to bludgers]. 24 years ago I suggested to Nelson Cull [my BP Oil manager] that the government should introduce a carbon tax if CO2 emissions were a problem and cut other taxes by the same amount. The government did not take up such a sensible idea and we now have a rushed and ridiculous emissions trading scheme which is law in NZ. Absurd. But bureaucratic kleptocrats just love stuff like that. But I remain unconvinced that CO2 emissions are actually a problem. I do NOT want the atmosphere harmed. Protecting air quality is a very basic and valid function of government because we breathe the stuff and it's everywhere. It's much more important to protect the atmosphere than the Manukau Harbour. But if we impose huge costs on ourselves to stop CO2 emissions when said emissions seem to be a good thing rather than a bad thing, we do harm to ourselves including actual deaths. Opportunity cost is a big deal. Such costs are hidden, but very real. We incur the actual costs as well as forgo the benefits of increased CO2 such as increased plant productivity and avoidance of glaciation. We also forgo the returns from investments which would otherwise be made if the money was wisely directed. The socialist bureaucratic kleptocrats are delighted that "the market" has failed [though it hasn't] and that regulation of the financial world is back in the clutches of politicians in a big way. They will of course do immense harm from their mangled misguided attempts to save the world. Already, one of the first things the dopey government here said was that they would protect depositor funds. People very quickly understood that the correct response is to take the riskiest investments available at the highest interest rates and if it's a win, great, but if it's a loss, the government would pay. After a short time, the bureaucrats started trying to plug the holes in their silly idea. Yes, depositor insurance is a reasonable idea, but it needs to be done on an economic basis with the insurance costs recognized properly and allocated to the users of the insurance. A free market is the way to do that. I did NOT put my cash into any of the high interest investment companies who regularly put fliers in our letter box. I didn't even bother evaluating their financial status as I didn't trust them. Hordes of people in NZ lost $billions as they fell over in droves, broke. My money sat safe and boring in a regular bank. I don't see why I should subsidize risky behaviour by a government guarantee. Of course if there's a free guarantee, I too will have to find the riskiest investment possible. So the government would counter-productively INCREASE risk and financial disaster rather than reducing it. Such are socialist bureaucratic kleptocrats. Mqurice

To: neolib who wrote (23185)	10/29/2008 8:05:47 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36923

once again neolib is a creationism zealot. The laws of Science well define, and quantify how matter interacts with electromagnetic energies of the spectrum and the thermal energy of interacting with other elements. CO2 does not have any properties that a change in one part in 10,000 can have any more effect than 1 part in a million, or maybe in ten to a hundred million. That is defined by science and understood by the science literate. It has nothing to do with Libertarians. It is not a political issue, it is a science reality. To stupid to even comprehend how a simple greenhouse is heated and still babbling on.