Remember me
▼ Content

Ethical Depopulation Could Save the Planet



Page 3 of 3<123
18-12-2017 00:09
Wake
★★★★★
(2944)
monckton wrote:
Boy, what a game of cards that would be.
Which poses an ethical dilemma.
If you could travel back in time and play cards with Hitler and Stalin ... would you cheat?


Hitler would be friends with you because you're his kind of man. Joe Stalin would break your neck the third word out of your mouth.
18-12-2017 00:33
moncktonProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(233)
"All In..."
18-12-2017 11:49
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1002)
Robertgreene3 wrote:
He has a fear of what he refers to as 'overpopulation' destroying the resources of Earth. He simply has a vague 'solution' that something about 'overpopulation' must be done (but no specific solution, since all of those are ethically incorrect).


Let me ask you this. If you were a paid policy adviser, and you were asked to come up with solutions to deal with overpopulation, that are ethical, what solutions would you recommend?

I rather hear the difference of opinions on the solutions to overpopulation, than only debate on weather or not it exists. If you disagree with a wide-scale vasectomy method, what other ideas do you have, that could be ethical, and get meaningful results?

I want to see links, articles, ideas, and concepts, showing things that are actually being done to fight overpopulation in 2017.


How about demanding that the problems with this are actually spelled out?

There are no such problems. Just those who want all those can do types taken away so they don't feel so inadequate.
18-12-2017 15:57
Wake
★★★★★
(2944)
Tim the plumber wrote: How about demanding that the problems with this are actually spelled out?

There are no such problems. Just those who want all those can do types taken away so they don't feel so inadequate.


Those sorts of statements such as RichardGreen are little more than leftist fear that they won't have their own space. One would think that all that would be necessary would be to actually work for a living.
18-12-2017 16:16
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(832)
Robert is simply stuck in his liberal parasite mindset. To him, more population means more parasites and less "resources" for him.

What he doesn't realize is that a percentage of that higher population will come some great people, with great ingenuity, who will do great things. Another percentage of that new population will be highly industrious, creating and building the things that will make his life better. A higher population also has more needs. Needs are not problems, they are opportunities that need to be filled. It's called work. Work equates to wages. Wages created stability....and the more the government...ANY GOVERNMENT...stays out of this free market equation the better. (I will now resist the urge to swerve into a minimum wage stupidity rant)

I hate city living and will never be caught living in one again. However, billions CHOOSE to do so...and there's a good reason for it.
18-12-2017 19:26
litesong
★★★★★
(2160)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed:
litesong wrote: Increase wages securely to low & middle income workers who are the wealth builders of countries, such that they will be able to take care of themselves in old age. Birth rates will automatically come down.
Wages are set by price discovery...the free market.
Rich people discover they can price labor low, while freely keeping unearned wealth for themselves, when they build sky scrapers tall enough & pay the constables & dictators to run interference against worker bees.
Edited on 18-12-2017 19:27
18-12-2017 20:02
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4672)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Robert is simply stuck in his liberal parasite mindset. To him, more population means more parasites and less "resources" for him.

What he doesn't realize is that a percentage of that higher population will come some great people, with great ingenuity, who will do great things. Another percentage of that new population will be highly industrious, creating and building the things that will make his life better. A higher population also has more needs. Needs are not problems, they are opportunities that need to be filled. It's called work. Work equates to wages. Wages created stability....and the more the government...ANY GOVERNMENT...stays out of this free market equation the better. (I will now resist the urge to swerve into a minimum wage stupidity rant)

I hate city living and will never be caught living in one again. However, billions CHOOSE to do so...and there's a good reason for it.


Well put. You have an excellent picture of this. People are assets, not just liabilities.


The Parrot Killer
18-12-2017 20:09
moncktonProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(233)
GasGuzzler wrote:
I hate city living and will never be caught living in one again. However, billions CHOOSE to do so...and there's a good reason for it.


The simple life?




"Bring us your sick and tired, your educated ..."
18-12-2017 20:14
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4672)
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed:
litesong wrote: Increase wages securely to low & middle income workers who are the wealth builders of countries, such that they will be able to take care of themselves in old age. Birth rates will automatically come down.
Wages are set by price discovery...the free market.
Rich people discover they can price labor low, while freely keeping unearned wealth for themselves, when they build sky scrapers tall enough & pay the constables & dictators to run interference against worker bees.


Nope. The price of labor is the same as any other commodity on the free market. It's price is determined by price discover...a function of the free market.

There is a glut of unskilled labor. It's price is low. It always will be compared to other forms of labor because unskilled labor offers no special feature or skill.

You want to earn more? Gain some skill that people are willing to pay for. Your labor is just another commodity in the free market. You have to make your 'product' better than others out there competing with you.

Wealth is not unearned. People are wealthy because they can perform some service for others that they are willing to pay for. This is true even for Trump.


The Parrot Killer
18-12-2017 20:15
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(832)
monckton wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
I hate city living and will never be caught living in one again. However, billions CHOOSE to do so...and there's a good reason for it.


The simple life?



Those are some decent tents. Wonder how many of those people traded a vote for Hilary for a new tent.
18-12-2017 20:17
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4672)
monckton wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
I hate city living and will never be caught living in one again. However, billions CHOOSE to do so...and there's a good reason for it.


The simple life?



They have chosen to live this way. Now they're stuck in it. One can get out, but it's much more difficult than getting into this kind of living.


The Parrot Killer
18-12-2017 20:22
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(832)
Into the Night wrote:
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed:
litesong wrote: Increase wages securely to low & middle income workers who are the wealth builders of countries, such that they will be able to take care of themselves in old age. Birth rates will automatically come down.
Wages are set by price discovery...the free market.
Rich people discover they can price labor low, while freely keeping unearned wealth for themselves, when they build sky scrapers tall enough & pay the constables & dictators to run interference against worker bees.


Nope. The price of labor is the same as any other commodity on the free market. It's price is determined by price discover...a function of the free market.

There is a glut of unskilled labor. It's price is low. It always will be compared to other forms of labor because unskilled labor offers no special feature or skill.

You want to earn more? Gain some skill that people are willing to pay for. Your labor is just another commodity in the free market. You have to make your 'product' better than others out there competing with you.

Wealth is not unearned. People are wealthy because they can perform some service for others that they are willing to pay for. This is true even for Trump.


Well explained ITN.

Litebeer, If you can't comprehend what ITN said, then try this....

The higher you go up the ladder, the higher the wages are, right?
We could easily just lift you up to the top,
but if you didn't learn how to climb on your own,
you'd just fall off. Pretty simple.

Now, what is it you still don't understand?
Edited on 18-12-2017 20:23
18-12-2017 21:58
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1002)
monckton wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
I hate city living and will never be caught living in one again. However, billions CHOOSE to do so...and there's a good reason for it.


The simple life?



Better there than in the country side where there are no restaurants to hang around the back door of and get food for fre when you need it.
22-12-2017 16:12
Robertgreene3
☆☆☆☆☆
(19)
The vaccine solution should be considered a crime against humanity. When we refuse to have a public policy on overpopulation, the elite will use their own solutions, and keep it hidden from us. These chemical solutions not only reduce fertility in humans, they reduce the fertility in other animals as well. Even a compulsory vasectomy method is more ethical, than secret chemical solutions that are probably increasing the risk cancer and other side effects. Don't think the elite don't have the power to mess with the food and water supply. When we refuse to allow public conversations on overpopulation, we create a void, where the covert takes place. How do we force mainstream media, to cover the consequences of overpopulation?
22-12-2017 18:38
Wake
★★★★★
(2944)
Robertgreene3 wrote:
The vaccine solution should be considered a crime against humanity. When we refuse to have a public policy on overpopulation, the elite will use their own solutions, and keep it hidden from us. These chemical solutions not only reduce fertility in humans, they reduce the fertility in other animals as well. Even a compulsory vasectomy method is more ethical, than secret chemical solutions that are probably increasing the risk cancer and other side effects. Don't think the elite don't have the power to mess with the food and water supply. When we refuse to allow public conversations on overpopulation, we create a void, where the covert takes place. How do we force mainstream media, to cover the consequences of overpopulation?


My opinion is that you are a criminal in waiting.
22-12-2017 20:09
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4672)
Robertgreene3 wrote:
The vaccine solution should be considered a crime against humanity. When we refuse to have a public policy on overpopulation, the elite will use their own solutions, and keep it hidden from us. These chemical solutions not only reduce fertility in humans, they reduce the fertility in other animals as well. Even a compulsory vasectomy method is more ethical, than secret chemical solutions that are probably increasing the risk cancer and other side effects. Don't think the elite don't have the power to mess with the food and water supply. When we refuse to allow public conversations on overpopulation, we create a void, where the covert takes place. How do we force mainstream media, to cover the consequences of overpopulation?


You want to do something about overpopulation?

You first.


The Parrot Killer
22-12-2017 20:33
Wake
★★★★★
(2944)
Into the Night wrote: You want to do something about overpopulation?

You first.


Those that speak of depopulation consider themselves as part of and elite that is above those that should be "depopulated". They are the Nazi's of today and they are the world's new Supermen.
22-12-2017 21:45
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4672)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: You want to do something about overpopulation?

You first.


Those that speak of depopulation consider themselves as part of and elite that is above those that should be "depopulated". They are the Nazi's of today and they are the world's new Supermen.


My point exactly.


The Parrot Killer
31-12-2017 11:12
Robertgreene3
☆☆☆☆☆
(19)
You might not agree with my methods, that fine. It takes a while to figure out what solutions work best. It's good to see that Egypt is stepping up and taking aggressive measures to curb population growth.

http://gulfnews.com/news/mena/egypt/overpopulation-remains-egypt-s-top-threat-1.2068627
31-12-2017 11:15
Robertgreene3
☆☆☆☆☆
(19)
Perhaps we can have a public relations campaign about the need to curb population growth in North American Cities. At least increase population in underpopulated areas. In Canada, we could Get people out of Toronto, and move them to Saskatchewan. We should ban immigration to the cities, except for special circumstances.

For those who think I'm against human rights, I don't consider abortion a viable option to reduce population. As a conservative, I think abortion is murder
I'm totally ok with contraception and volunteered vasectomies.
Edited on 31-12-2017 11:18
31-12-2017 17:30
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(832)
Robertgreene3 wrote:
....we could Get people out of Toronto, and move them to Saskatchewan. We should ban immigration to the cities, except for special circumstances.


As a conservative, I stand personal freedom. That actually includes the right to choose where you live. You may be a fiscal conservative (I doubt it), but your social statements and beliefs are as left wing liberal as it gets.
Edited on 31-12-2017 17:31
01-01-2018 01:11
Wake
★★★★★
(2944)
Robertgreene3 wrote:
Perhaps we can have a public relations campaign about the need to curb population growth in North American Cities. At least increase population in underpopulated areas. In Canada, we could Get people out of Toronto, and move them to Saskatchewan. We should ban immigration to the cities, except for special circumstances.

For those who think I'm against human rights, I don't consider abortion a viable option to reduce population. As a conservative, I think abortion is murder
I'm totally ok with contraception and volunteered vasectomies.


Sorry Robert, not one single true conservative would say that forced relocation or forced limits on children would ever acceptable.

You do not understand that as countries grow richer they automatically have fewer children purely for economic reasons.

You are discussing limiting the development of underdeveloped countries because it could make your life less pleasant. I would like you to think about that.
01-01-2018 04:48
litesong
★★★★★
(2160)
Into the Night wrote:
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed:
litesong wrote: Increase wages securely to low & middle income workers who are the wealth builders of countries, such that they will be able to take care of themselves in old age. Birth rates will automatically come down.
Wages are set by price discovery...the free market.
Rich people discover they can price labor low, while freely keeping unearned wealth for themselves, when they build sky scrapers tall enough & pay the constables & dictators to run interference against worker bees.
Nope. There is a glut of unskilled labor. It's price is low. Wealth is not unearned. People are wealthy because they can perform.... This is true even for Trump.
Yes, yes, we all know how the rich think to make themselves richer. "Don'T rump" is ahead of many rich peeps, by not paying contracted workers for their labor & hiding behind court systems or running off to russia to launder money for russian mafia, братва or to putin, who uses old KGB tactics, to make itself one of the richest bugs in the world. We also know how "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" thinks.
03-01-2018 22:39
Wake
★★★★★
(2944)
Robertgreene3 wrote:
Perhaps we can have a public relations campaign about the need to curb population growth in North American Cities. At least increase population in underpopulated areas. In Canada, we could Get people out of Toronto, and move them to Saskatchewan. We should ban immigration to the cities, except for special circumstances.

For those who think I'm against human rights, I don't consider abortion a viable option to reduce population. As a conservative, I think abortion is murder
I'm totally ok with contraception and volunteered vasectomies.


Robert - are you aware that presently in North America that the White Anglo Saxon Protestant and the Irish Catholic/Celtic groups are already reproducing below replacement levels?

The large scale birth rates in the US are from Hispanics who keep large families and blacks who are reproducing because of the results of a poor lifestyle and drugs.
03-01-2018 23:17
L8112
★☆☆☆☆
(75)
.
Edited on 03-01-2018 23:39
04-01-2018 00:02
James_
★★★☆☆
(693)
Wake wrote:
Robertgreene3 wrote:
Perhaps we can have a public relations campaign about the need to curb population growth in North American Cities. At least increase population in underpopulated areas. In Canada, we could Get people out of Toronto, and move them to Saskatchewan. We should ban immigration to the cities, except for special circumstances.

For those who think I'm against human rights, I don't consider abortion a viable option to reduce population. As a conservative, I think abortion is murder
I'm totally ok with contraception and volunteered vasectomies.


Robert - are you aware that presently in North America that the White Anglo Saxon Protestant and the Irish Catholic/Celtic groups are already reproducing below replacement levels?

The large scale birth rates in the US are from Hispanics who keep large families and blacks who are reproducing because of the results of a poor lifestyle and drugs.


Wake,
Then what you're saying is improving the economy and making it more inclusive, right ? Even in Europe the population is dropping. The primary concern is that it shrinks wealth. Republicans love their money. It's like the new U.S. tax bill that passed. The Republicans are trying to repress the average American through economics. We could end up like Brazil if we're not careful.
Yet a healthy economy could be the best thing to happen to environmentalism. That's because more money would be available for research and investment in new, cleaner technology.

Edited on 04-01-2018 00:02
04-01-2018 08:47
Robertgreene3
☆☆☆☆☆
(19)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Robertgreene3 wrote:
....we could Get people out of Toronto, and move them to Saskatchewan. We should ban immigration to the cities, except for special circumstances.


As a conservative, I stand personal freedom. That actually includes the right to choose where you live. You may be a fiscal conservative (I doubt it), but your social statements and beliefs are as left wing liberal as it gets.


I'm what most people would call an extreme fiscal conservative. Extreme because I believe no government has the right to spend any money it doesn't have in times of peace. I think deficit financing is inter-generational theft. I believe the conventional practice of Keynesian economics has failed. I think we need a balance budget amendment to the constitution, plus requiring all forms of government, Federal, State, or Local, to pay off at least 1% of the outstanding debt per year.

I think if we continue to give the government the power to spend money it doesn't have than there's always going to be abuse. I also think the courts should have the power to veto all requests for unnecessary spending.

Governments should be required to cut all unnecessary spending until tax revenue exceed spending.

I think we need to redesign the social safety to improve access to jobs and pressure companies to hire the disabled, instead of overusing welfare checks.

I was a liberal until I realized Obama was running a Trillion dollar deficit. I got so angry, I started listening to conservatives, since they seemed to be the only ones realizing that money doesn't grow on trees. I'm still socially progressive on helping the poor and disabled, but I'm liberal in the sense, we should make sure companies follow the law, pay a decent wage for the work done, and provide safe working conditions. I believe in pragmatic liberalism that doesn't undermine our values, traditions, or undermine the integrity of economy.

Environmentalists believe in protecting the planet for future generations, and conservatives believe in protecting the treasury for future generations.

The government should have an elite accounting branch, that can help them recognize wasteful spending.

I believe when there is a problem, the court system should force us to redesign programs to work more efficiently, not increase the budget out of convince. You either eliminate wasteful programs or reform to be fiscally responsible.
Edited on 04-01-2018 08:50
04-01-2018 17:20
Wake
★★★★★
(2944)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
Robertgreene3 wrote:
Perhaps we can have a public relations campaign about the need to curb population growth in North American Cities. At least increase population in underpopulated areas. In Canada, we could Get people out of Toronto, and move them to Saskatchewan. We should ban immigration to the cities, except for special circumstances.

For those who think I'm against human rights, I don't consider abortion a viable option to reduce population. As a conservative, I think abortion is murder
I'm totally ok with contraception and volunteered vasectomies.


Robert - are you aware that presently in North America that the White Anglo Saxon Protestant and the Irish Catholic/Celtic groups are already reproducing below replacement levels?

The large scale birth rates in the US are from Hispanics who keep large families and blacks who are reproducing because of the results of a poor lifestyle and drugs.


Wake,
Then what you're saying is improving the economy and making it more inclusive, right ? Even in Europe the population is dropping. The primary concern is that it shrinks wealth. Republicans love their money. It's like the new U.S. tax bill that passed. The Republicans are trying to repress the average American through economics. We could end up like Brazil if we're not careful.
Yet a healthy economy could be the best thing to happen to environmentalism. That's because more money would be available for research and investment in new, cleaner technology.


I don't quite get why you would think that not having children in greater numbers would put less money in your pocket. And I'll bet you haven't read the new tax laws so making comments like that is out of line.

What do you think is a "cleaner technology"?
04-01-2018 21:16
James_
★★★☆☆
(693)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
Robertgreene3 wrote:
Perhaps we can have a public relations campaign about the need to curb population growth in North American Cities. At least increase population in underpopulated areas. In Canada, we could Get people out of Toronto, and move them to Saskatchewan. We should ban immigration to the cities, except for special circumstances.

For those who think I'm against human rights, I don't consider abortion a viable option to reduce population. As a conservative, I think abortion is murder
I'm totally ok with contraception and volunteered vasectomies.


Robert - are you aware that presently in North America that the White Anglo Saxon Protestant and the Irish Catholic/Celtic groups are already reproducing below replacement levels?

The large scale birth rates in the US are from Hispanics who keep large families and blacks who are reproducing because of the results of a poor lifestyle and drugs.


Wake,
Then what you're saying is improving the economy and making it more inclusive, right ? Even in Europe the population is dropping. The primary concern is that it shrinks wealth. Republicans love their money. It's like the new U.S. tax bill that passed. The Republicans are trying to repress the average American through economics. We could end up like Brazil if we're not careful.
Yet a healthy economy could be the best thing to happen to environmentalism. That's because more money would be available for research and investment in new, cleaner technology.


I don't quite get why you would think that not having children in greater numbers would put less money in your pocket. And I'll bet you haven't read the new tax laws so making comments like that is out of line.

What do you think is a "cleaner technology"?


I never said anything about putting money in my pocket. As for cleaner technology I have a few in mind but won't discuss them in here.
04-01-2018 21:16
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4672)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
Robertgreene3 wrote:
Perhaps we can have a public relations campaign about the need to curb population growth in North American Cities. At least increase population in underpopulated areas. In Canada, we could Get people out of Toronto, and move them to Saskatchewan. We should ban immigration to the cities, except for special circumstances.

For those who think I'm against human rights, I don't consider abortion a viable option to reduce population. As a conservative, I think abortion is murder
I'm totally ok with contraception and volunteered vasectomies.


Robert - are you aware that presently in North America that the White Anglo Saxon Protestant and the Irish Catholic/Celtic groups are already reproducing below replacement levels?

The large scale birth rates in the US are from Hispanics who keep large families and blacks who are reproducing because of the results of a poor lifestyle and drugs.


Wake,
Then what you're saying is improving the economy and making it more inclusive, right ? Even in Europe the population is dropping.

WRONG. The population in Europe is still growing. It grew by 0.08% last year.
James_ wrote:
The primary concern is that it shrinks wealth.

WRONG. Wealth is not fixed. People create wealth.
James_ wrote:
Republicans love their money.

I take it you hate money. Sucks to be you.
James_ wrote:
It's like the new U.S. tax bill that passed. The Republicans are trying to repress the average American through economics.

Have you even READ the tax bill?
James_ wrote:
We could end up like Brazil if we're not careful.

Actually Brazil's balance sheet looks better than the U.S. It's total economy is smaller, thanks to the smaller population. They decided not to inflate their currency like we did in the U.S.
James_ wrote:
Yet a healthy economy could be the best thing to happen to environmentalism.

True.
James_ wrote:
That's because more money would be available for research and investment in new, cleaner technology.


Exactly.

It seems that your arguments are at odds with each other.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 04-01-2018 21:17
04-01-2018 22:33
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4672)
Robertgreene3 wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Robertgreene3 wrote:
....we could Get people out of Toronto, and move them to Saskatchewan. We should ban immigration to the cities, except for special circumstances.


As a conservative, I stand personal freedom. That actually includes the right to choose where you live. You may be a fiscal conservative (I doubt it), but your social statements and beliefs are as left wing liberal as it gets.


I'm what most people would call an extreme fiscal conservative. Extreme because I believe no government has the right to spend any money it doesn't have in times of peace. I think deficit financing is inter-generational theft. I believe the conventional practice of Keynesian economics has failed.

A great observation. However, Keynesian economics is not about borrowing. It's about spending. The government prints the money to be spent. It doesn't just borrow it.

There used to be a time when the dollar was tied to a base commodity for its value. That commodity was gold or silver. The government still printed dollars, but their value was tied to a certain weight of gold or silver, which the government can't just print.
Robertgreene3 wrote:
I think we need a balance budget amendment to the constitution, plus requiring all forms of government, Federal, State, or Local, to pay off at least 1% of the outstanding debt per year.

Such a change would be rather lengthy, given the situations where the government should borrow money. In my opinion, if the government wants to borrow money, and someone is willing to lend it to them, that's their own doghouse to shit in.
Robertgreene3 wrote:
I think if we continue to give the government the power to spend money it doesn't have than there's always going to be abuse.

Abuse happens not because of borrowing, but because the government can now print dollars without any tie to any commodity whatsoever. It borrows money, then pays it back in worthless paper. Hence inflation.
Robertgreene3 wrote:
I also think the courts should have the power to veto all requests for unnecessary spending.

That would require a change in the Constitution. Define 'necessary spending'.
Robertgreene3 wrote:
Governments should be required to cut all unnecessary spending until tax revenue exceed spending.

Certainly one way to think. Be aware, though, that there are so many people dependent on government money that what you'll get is an instant revolt.
Robertgreene3 wrote:
I think we need to redesign the social safety to improve access to jobs and pressure companies to hire the disabled, instead of overusing welfare checks.

So as part of 'necessary' spending, you include the welfare system and social programs. Interesting, since most of these programs is beyond the authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to Congress.
Robertgreene3 wrote:
I was a liberal until I realized Obama was running a Trillion dollar deficit.

Good for you! Glad you are beginning to see the light!
Robertgreene3 wrote:
I got so angry, I started listening to conservatives, since they seemed to be the only ones realizing that money doesn't grow on trees.

Actually, it grows in fields. The paper used is primarily cotton and linen, both farmed plants.

According to the U.S. Constitution, the government sets the value of the dollar relative to gold or silver, whichever it prefers, much like it sets any other weight or measure. One ounce of gold is worth X amount of dollars (usually $20 per ounce). Gold was and still is a currency of international trade, which, through price discover, sets the price of anything in each nation and city. It's purity and weight are easily determined in even the simplest of transactions.
Robertgreene3 wrote:
I'm still socially progressive on helping the poor and disabled,

Nothing wrong with helping the poor and disabled, if they in fact want help to get out of their poverty. Many poor are there by choice. They LIKE living on the streets. Others are there because they are on drugs all the time. Others are mental cases released from the mental hospitals because of budget constraints.

There are many wonderful methods of helping out the poor. The government is the worst way. They are heartless, mean, arbitrary, and take most of the money you give them for themselves.

Remember that a government agency's first purpose is to justify itself and grow. It never solves a problem. It creates them so it can ride to the rescue and 'solve' the problem (without ever doing so).

Try your church, the Red Cross, the Salvation Army, Feed the Children, or any of the other really great charitable organizations out there.
Robertgreene3 wrote:
but I'm liberal in the sense, we should make sure companies follow the law, pay a decent wage for the work done,

Price controls never work. They always result in the same thing...shortages.

Minimum wage laws are a great example. If you install price controls on wages (say $15 hour minimum), that overrides the price discovery that is a natural part of any market. Thus, instead of employment at $6/hr or whatever, there is no employment at all. Wages for the untrained is never intended to be a living wage. It's enough for you to learn a work ethic, build a stake, and get time to develop a skill that someone will WANT to pay you for. Want a better wage? Make yourself more useful to someone! They'll PAY you for it!
Robertgreene3 wrote:
and provide safe working conditions.

Putting out guidelines for safe working conditions (like OSHA does) is Constitutional and useful. It is NOT Constitutional to force compliance.

Businesses in general have a vested interest in making safe working conditions. They don't want to get sued.

Robertgreene3 wrote:
I believe in pragmatic liberalism that doesn't undermine our values, traditions, or undermine the integrity of economy.

You have discovered a lot of things on the road to conservatism. Good for you! There are, however, a lot of things you still carry with you as baggage from the old days. Hopefully, in time, you will discard these as you learn more about economies and economic principles. May I suggest you study up on the school of thought known as Austrian economics? I think you'll like what you see.
Robertgreene3 wrote:
Environmentalists believe in protecting the planet for future generations, and conservatives believe in protecting the treasury for future generations.

This is simply not true. Conservatives DO want to protect the planet just as much as anybody else. Remember they live in it too.

As far as the U.S. treasury is concerned, there is nothing left to protect. The U.S. is broke.

Robertgreene3 wrote:
The government should have an elite accounting branch, that can help them recognize wasteful spending.

We already do. It's called the Office of Financial Management (the OFM). This office reports to Congress the budgets of the various departments and offices (including itself!).

It is up to Congress to take this grand mess and turn it into a fiscal budget bill.
Robertgreene3 wrote:
I believe when there is a problem, the court system should force us to redesign programs to work more efficiently, not increase the budget out of convince.

Currently Congress has this power, not the courts. As I said before though, the problem isn't borrowing, it's printing and spending.
Robertgreene3 wrote:
You either eliminate wasteful programs or reform to be fiscally responsible.


And here we come to the heart of the matter. It all centers around one agency, the Federal Reserve.

If there were no central bank (and one with the power to print money to boot!), borrowing and lending (including with the government) would still take place.

People would save. Those that save can put that money in a bank, which would lend it to others. In return, the bank pays you for the use of that money. That's what banks originally were.

When you withdrew your money, the bank would give you back your cash (in gold) and use someone else's money to keep the loan process alive. The amount they kept on hand for people like you vs the amount loaned out is called the 'lending margin' or the 'loan margin'. You'll see this term in real estate transactions for the same reason.

The more people save, the more money is available for loans. Interests rates (the price of money itself) goes down. Money is 'easy'. The less people save, the less money available for loans. The price of money (the interest rate) goes up. The money is 'tight'.

When money is easy, people are saving, not spending. NOW is the time for a business to borrow money to improve it's own productivity.

When money is tight, people are spending, not saving. NOW is the time for a business to concentrate on selling product, rather than improving productivity for future sales.

Money supply is self-governing. So is the price of money. When money is 'tight', people will tend to start saving again. When money is 'easy' people will tend to start spending again. And so the cycle continues.

The Federal Reserve performs two functions. First, it acts as a clearing house for banks, kind of like a bank for banks. It IS a bank though, and it has the same limitations in that regard, save one. It can print it's own money. That money has no value except for what commodity you can buy with it.

It's second function is to control the money supply. This is price controls again, but for the price of money itself. By arbitrarily just setting the price of money (the interest rate), money is 'easy' when people are actually spending. Businesses borrow the easy money, but because of the printed nature of the money, they find they can't complete the improvements they borrowed for because of inflation. They get the wrong signal and do the wrong thing.

By arbitrarily raising rates to 'slow down an overheated economy', this is like shutting the barn doors after the animals have all escaped. Now money is 'tight'. Business that borrowed at the wrong time are suddenly facing excess costs and little in sales. People are wanting to save. The result is inevitable. Businesses fail. People lose jobs. There is literally a shortage of money.

The usual Keynesian response is to arbitrarily make money 'easy' again. But there is a problem. There are fewer businesses to borrow it. The economy takes longer to ramp up again. If burdensome regulations further constrict business activity, the economy never really gets going again. It's too difficult to start new businesses.

In other words, the Federal Reserve's response is always late and after the fact. By placing price controls on money, they cause the very thing they were created to try to stop.

The Federal Reserve caused the boom.bust cycle. Money was set to 'easy'. The economy took a decade or so to get going, but it got going in spades. Speculation was rampant. It wasn't long before there was speculation on really dumb things, and the whole thing crashed. Turned out that companies with no more the 20 lines of script code as assets weren't worth anything. People threw money at these places like crazy. IPO and head to Mexico!

The 2008 housing crisis was also caused by the Federal Reserve. Obama deepened it into a depression by passing restrictive laws on businesses and ordering the Federal Reserve to print trillions to bale out the idiot banks making these loans. He thus prevented the bankruptcy that would have resulted in idiot bank managers getting fired and replaced with hopefully more competent ones, and instead just kept the incompetent ones at the helm with those trillions.

Feeling angry yet? Don't blame you.

Conservatives, unlike the liberals, tend to have a wide variety of ideas on how to prevent the government from getting itself in such a mess. As for me, I am a firm believer in the Austrian economic model. I suggest you read up on it. You are truly in a position to appreciate it's arguments.

This difference of opinions among conservatives is rather a big handicap politically. They often wind up fighting each other instead of policies like what Obama (and others) have done. You can see this today, with Trump trying to wrangle a Republican Congress to agree to his programs. You will find that not all Republicans are conservatives.

Again, welcome to economic conservatism! You have taken your first steps into a saner world. I applaud you for your courage.


The Parrot Killer
04-01-2018 23:41
Wake
★★★★★
(2944)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
Robertgreene3 wrote:
Perhaps we can have a public relations campaign about the need to curb population growth in North American Cities. At least increase population in underpopulated areas. In Canada, we could Get people out of Toronto, and move them to Saskatchewan. We should ban immigration to the cities, except for special circumstances.

For those who think I'm against human rights, I don't consider abortion a viable option to reduce population. As a conservative, I think abortion is murder
I'm totally ok with contraception and volunteered vasectomies.


Robert - are you aware that presently in North America that the White Anglo Saxon Protestant and the Irish Catholic/Celtic groups are already reproducing below replacement levels?

The large scale birth rates in the US are from Hispanics who keep large families and blacks who are reproducing because of the results of a poor lifestyle and drugs.


Wake,
Then what you're saying is improving the economy and making it more inclusive, right ? Even in Europe the population is dropping. The primary concern is that it shrinks wealth. Republicans love their money. It's like the new U.S. tax bill that passed. The Republicans are trying to repress the average American through economics. We could end up like Brazil if we're not careful.
Yet a healthy economy could be the best thing to happen to environmentalism. That's because more money would be available for research and investment in new, cleaner technology.


I don't quite get why you would think that not having children in greater numbers would put less money in your pocket. And I'll bet you haven't read the new tax laws so making comments like that is out of line.

What do you think is a "cleaner technology"?


I never said anything about putting money in my pocket. As for cleaner technology I have a few in mind but won't discuss them in here.


James, don't you think that half of the large companies in the world are working on safer, cleaner energy sources? I have some really good ideas but for major technology you couldn't get within a mile of the millions and millions of dollars that are invested in that sort of thing every year. Don't pretend that you can come up with a better idea. And in case you do, patenting it and selling it to Exxon would be the best move you could make. But believe me, it would be impossible. Take that University professor's idea to use oxygen and hydrogen to power cars - GEE, IT'S CLEAN AND ONLY MAKES WATER AS A BYPRODUCT. But it has a very low combustion heat meaning it makes very little power. And it takes a whole lot of energy to break the water into hydrogen and oxygen to begin with. In other words - it was a very bad idea.

Energy is generated the way it is today because it is the best way possible. In the 60's you could argue that the oil companies were polluting but the fact is that pollution is wasting energy and all systems today are being made as efficient as possible.
05-01-2018 01:06
litesong
★★★★★
(2160)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time (plus 1) wake-me-up" wiffed:....pollution is wasting energy and all systems today are being made as efficient as possible.
Ah, its nice to hear that european cities don't need to ban ICE vehicles from city streets to save the lives of inner-city children, living near "stop & not go" freeway traffic jams.....NOT!!
Edited on 05-01-2018 01:14
07-01-2018 19:27
Wake
★★★★★
(2944)
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time (plus 1) wake-me-up" wiffed:....pollution is wasting energy and all systems today are being made as efficient as possible.
Ah, its nice to hear that european cities don't need to ban ICE vehicles from city streets to save the lives of inner-city children, living near "stop & not go" freeway traffic jams.....NOT!!


Well, what are you waiting for litebrain - you live in Washington - the second or third most socialist state in this country - why don't you go and force them not to use ICE engines.

What are you going to use for force? The phony fear of climate change?
09-01-2018 14:40
litesong
★★★★★
(2160)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time (plus 1) threatener wake-me-up" wiffed: What are you going to use for force? The phony fear of climate change?
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" & re-pubic-lick-uns don't act when presented with increasing pollution-related child lung, heart & neurological diseases & deaths. Yes, re-pubic-lick-uns are the way to increase deaths to low & middle classes.
Edited on 09-01-2018 14:48
09-01-2018 17:05
Wake
★★★★★
(2944)
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time (plus 1) threatener wake-me-up" wiffed: What are you going to use for force? The phony fear of climate change?
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" & re-pubic-lick-uns don't act when presented with increasing pollution-related child lung, heart & neurological diseases & deaths. Yes, re-pubic-lick-uns are the way to increase deaths to low & middle classes.


So you're saying that Republicans control Washington State? You poor sick minded pretend Indian.
10-01-2018 06:14
litesong
★★★★★
(2160)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier LIAR whiner & many time (plus 1) threatener wake-me-up" wiffed:...pretend....
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier LIAR whiner & many time (plus 1) threatener wake-me-up" DOESN'T pretend to be an old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier LIAR whiner & many time (plus 1) threatener.
Page 3 of 3<123





Join the debate Ethical Depopulation Could Save the Planet:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Reaction: World Bank Steals Show at One Planet Summit by Phasing Out Upstream Oil and Gas Finance213-12-2017 03:44
Artificial Photosynthesis to Save the World?411-12-2017 23:13
How tax policies can save the planet!1921-12-2016 10:38
Planet earth is a spinning top10906-06-2016 08:15
When it comes to M2C2, is planet Earth really worth saving?522-10-2015 01:25
Articles
Barack Obama: Energy Independence and the Safety of Our Planet
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Will Arctic summers be ice-free in this century?

Yes

No

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact