Future Important Thread (Maybe)

[ScottieX]

using nuclear power like this is one of humanity's dumbest moves of all time. unpredictable events will always happen. events defined by we not being able to predict them. ergo as long as we use nuclear power, catastrophes will occur. ergo it has to go.

You seem to be suggesting a zero risk society.

But there is the "you have to invest to get return" point that elthrasher made (in this case you have to take some risk of danger to get benefit) It is a matter of how big the risks are compared to the alternatives and what the net effect is. the obvious example is the danger of crossing the road which is, I expect, considerably more dangerous than living near a nuclear plant albeit possibly more neccesary. Not that I am saying nuclear power is a good idea without evidence - just that it isnt as simple as you imply here... at the margins cheaper power saves lives.

I think that we have a tendancy to seek to reduce certain risks - this makes us suckers to insurance companies and medicince producers and other groups that want to game us. For example if we take drugs to prevent tiny chances of rare diseases or buy insurance for a large premium against events that we could afford to cover ourselves. This is also true for things like nuclear power. Again - maybe it is too dangerous - maybe in economic terms the government of japan is nationalizing the insurace costs that the power companies should have to cover and which might price their power out of hte market but it is somthing to be debated rationally.

[ScottieX]

So for comparison the three gourges damn is apparently vulnerable to a 6.5 or so earthquake at 17km which i think was the nearest point a the local fault. apparently that would cause significant cracking serious danger to many downstream. A 9.0 would probably smash it to pieces and kill hundreds of thousands. Ie a nuclear plant in the same place would probably be far less dangerous.

Similarly one has to wonder why the media spends so much time worrying about a nuclear disaster that has probably shortened the lives of 40 workers but directly killed noone when it was a side effect of a tsunami that directly killed 25000 or so.

[HydroDragon]

Statistically, more people have been killed as a result of fossil fuel power plants than nuclear power plants. Mainly because of pollution and mining accidents.

Coal is much more hazardous. In the UK there have been zero deaths as a result of nuclear power. Probably not in America either, unless you count accidents incurred developing nuclear weapons.

[elthrasher]

I liked this post. Probably the purest philosophical/spiritual positional post I've ever seen from you El-Thrasher. I might even agree except for the first sentence since corporations are composed of people, how could they make decisions & act w/o the moral agency of people? Of course, this brings me to my usual philosophical fare about the nature of man, etc.... In any case, this was really cool to see, seriously.

The whole point of a corporation is to shield the shareholders from responsibility. Where the actual responsibility for anything a corporation does is nothing but a shell game. The CEO's one and only responsibility is to enrich shareholders. Shareholders may direct the company, but they don't handle day-to-day operations. When a corporation releases harmful waste into the environment, causing needless deaths, you would be very hard-pressed indeed to find out who gave the order. It's unlikely anybody will go to jail. Most likely the corporation just pays restitution and goes back to making money. Who is responsible? The corporation is. Who made the decision? The corporation did.

That's very different from if you or I committed reckless homicide. We would go to jail for exactly the same crime.

[elthrasher]

Most cost-benefit analyses of nuclear power look at projected rates for power plant construction when they typically overran their projected budgets by a factor of three or more (http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.html). If you look at the actual costs, we haven't gotten a very good deal out of nuclear power, especially when you look at the risks. Fossil fuel plants carry risks, true, but they don't carry the risk of wiping out miles and miles of countryside.

Nuclear power plants require a massive investment, even if they are completed within the projected budget, and it is years before they even begin to pay off. We've had decades of nuclear power with, quite honestly, very middling results. It is time to invest in wind and solar energy. If that doesn't work, the atom will still be there waiting for us.

[HydroDragon]

Fossil fuel power plants may not carry the risk of devastating miles of land but the process of mining it certainly does, 100% of the time. Uranium is much less damaging in that respect just because it's much rarer and much less of it is needed.

But yeah, I totally agree with wind and solar energy being better. They're much more cost-effective and they're accessible to ordinary people. You'll typically make your money back in 10-20 years if you install solar panels, even without grants and whatnot. I did some work experience with a solar panel installer and he made it sound like a very attractive proposal (Well, he would wouldn't he ) and I'll definitely be getting them as soon as I can.

There are some serious proposals about offshore wind farms here in the UK and I think that's a great idea. There are lots of wind turbines on the hills where I live, I can see at least 10 if I look out of my window. I'd support any kind of wind investment really, some people think they're ugly and impact tourism but IDK, they're the outspoken minority really.

[elthrasher]

I'd support any kind of wind investment really, some people think they're ugly and impact tourism but IDK, they're the outspoken minority really.

That's utter nonsense, I can say on good authority: my own. I have been a frequent tourist in Europe and one of the things that is attractive about it to me is the mix of old and new - like wind turbines next to a 600-year-old pub or whatever.

[ScottieX]

like in nz . everyone loves wind power until its in their backyard.... then they hate it and prevent it being built.
Here they stop it because the locals think its ugly and noisey.

[ShowtekGER]

"Why Health Care Markets Can Never Work"

http://dissidentvoice.org/2011/03/wh...-never-work-2/

i don't fully support the opinion expressed in this article since i would be a lot more consequent in that prospect, but perhaps it generates some discussion.

[ShowtekGER]

You seem to be suggesting a zero risk society.

But there is the "you have to invest to get return" point that elthrasher made (in this case you have to take some risk of danger to get benefit) It is a matter of how big the risks are compared to the alternatives and what the net effect is. the obvious example is the danger of crossing the road which is, I expect, considerably more dangerous than living near a nuclear plant albeit possibly more neccesary. Not that I am saying nuclear power is a good idea without evidence - just that it isnt as simple as you imply here... at the margins cheaper power saves lives.

I think that we have a tendancy to seek to reduce certain risks - this makes us suckers to insurance companies and medicince producers and other groups that want to game us. For example if we take drugs to prevent tiny chances of rare diseases or buy insurance for a large premium against events that we could afford to cover ourselves. This is also true for things like nuclear power. Again - maybe it is too dangerous - maybe in economic terms the government of japan is nationalizing the insurace costs that the power companies should have to cover and which might price their power out of hte market but it is somthing to be debated rationally.

i do think it's simple and i don't think it has anything to do with this risk equation. we don't need nuclear power any more, we probably never needed it. but now that we know its dangers it's irrational to keep it. the same goes for fossil fuels. it seems quite clear to me that the primary reason for us keeping on to these methods it profit. which, of course, is only beneficial for the elite in control.

i know some people who live near the brunsbüttel nuclear power plant and they tell me that babies are regularly born with birth defects there. i have heard similar stories. such personal experiences, of course, also shape my opinion.

[Pedal2Metal]

On Democracy: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...cracy_inaction
On Oil Reserves: http://www.cnbc.com/id/42224813/Oil_..._50_Years_HSBC

I think energy generation & efficiency is a huge global issue for the human species/planet looking forward. I don't see any "silver bullets" myself as efficiency/density, in addition to cleanliness, risk, etc..., matters as it directly figures into cost. I'm no energy expert but I think most green energy sources need significant efficiency/density improvements before they can truly be considered as potential full replacements for current solutions (both fossil-fuel & nuclear). I'm glad that nuclear power will be getting increased scrutiny going forward but to say it shouldn't be part of the future solution path, I think is more idealism talking than pragmaticism. I don't see green technologies wholly supplanting other energy solutions in the near future due to simply physical/technology limitations, nevermind the political reasons.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[Pedal2Metal]

but now that we know its dangers

The dangers of nuclear radiation have been known since before either of us was born. It's a bit myopic & discrediting to previous generations to assert that we've just now learned of the dangers due to some earthquake off the coast of Japan. I think it's fair to say the recent crisis in Japan has awakened us out of our energy complacency (a good thing) but we've known about the dangers for several decades back to the mid-20th century, if not longer. Now I wonder what it will take to awaken us out of our spiritual complacency (assuming that's possible).

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[Pedal2Metal]

the locals think its ugly and noisey.

Yes, a common sentiment I imagine: everyone loves them until they have to look at them every day. Just imagine today's metal power lines with their truss towers in your backyard. They always decrease your property value. Similar effect for having a bunch of wind turbines in your backyard and/or view. Ultimately, there is no free lunch so it will naturally be decided by survival principles. In 50 years, alternatives to fossil fuel energy usage will have to exist in earnest or otherwise the "Fuel of War" video game will be brought to life for real, if not sooner.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[ShowtekGER]

On Democracy: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...cracy_inaction
On Oil Reserves: http://www.cnbc.com/id/42224813/Oil_..._50_Years_HSBC

I think energy generation & efficiency is a huge global issue for the human species/planet looking forward. I don't see any "silver bullets" myself as efficiency/density, in addition to cleanliness, risk, etc..., matters as it directly figures into cost. I'm no energy expert but I think most green energy sources need significant efficiency/density improvements before they can truly be considered as potential full replacements for current solutions (both fossil-fuel & nuclear). I'm glad that nuclear power will be getting increased scrutiny going forward but to say it shouldn't be part of the future solution path, I think is more idealism talking than pragmaticism. I don't see green technologies wholly supplanting other energy solutions in the near future due to simply physical/technology limitations, nevermind the political reasons.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

no one of us is an energy expert so these discussions largely take place on a speculative level. the same goes for most other topics. so i disagree. i can't calculate anything here, perhaps i could support my opinion with a few links, but i could probably do the same thing with the opposite opinion. what's left? well, a response made up by the rationales and emotional reactions i have accumulated over the course of my short life.

anyway, the reason for alternative technologies not being able to completely compensate hazardous energy sources like fossil-fuel and nuclear energy is, in my very subjective opinion, because not enough effort it used for developing such technologies. if this development was one of our top priorities and we would thus use our intellectual energy and resources on it instead of other stuff or not using it at all, we would have displaced it a long time ago. the same goes for technologies that could exploit and produce resources that could replace oil and all other crap foul to human health. we haven't done a thing to advance wave energy, solar energy, geothermal energy technologies.

why do we choose to operate like this? because such abundant energy sources would make scarce sources, like fossil-fuel and nuclear power, obsolete. i.e. you cannot make profit using abundant energy and profit is of greatest importance in our economical-value system, more important than, for example, human happiness. therefore, again, the same goes for oil and other dubious human necessities. can clean, alternative, and abundant energies fully replace old, hazardous energies? i absolutely think so. saying that this is unrealistic idealism is a just as speculative and subjective opinion as mine.

The dangers of nuclear radiation have been known since before either of us was born. It's a bit myopic & discrediting to previous generations to assert that we've just now learned of the dangers due to some earthquake off the coast of Japan. I think it's fair to say the recent crisis in Japan has awakened us out of our energy complacency (a good thing) but we've known about the dangers for several decades back to the mid-20th century, if not longer. Now I wonder what it will take to awaken us out of our spiritual complacency (assuming that's possible).

i wasn't referring to the disaster in japan but to the ever growing awareness of the faults of nuclear energy. if no minor and major nuclear catastrophes had ever happened, there wouldn't be much complaining about it now. but we have seen that it happened again and again and i find it very clear that it will continue forever until we abolish this sort of power forever. that's also the reason for the fact that nuclear energy draws more attention on itself than fossil-fuel energy even though the latter is more baneful for human health. the former is simply often involved in all kinds of little and large failings while fossil-fuels simply contributes to all kinds of anti-human events continuously and unnoticed.

[elthrasher]

In 50 years, alternatives to fossil fuel energy usage will have to exist in earnest or otherwise the "Fuel of War" video game will be brought to life for real, if not sooner.

Please go convince other conservatives of this!!!

[Pedal2Metal]

saying that this is unrealistic idealism is a just as speculative and subjective opinion as mine..

I hear you on the big picture stuff but I've read a few articles on green energy & it's current state & the validity of supplying all energy needs now & it's just not there. So for the near future it isn't merely subjective opinion. I do agree it could be done if we had wanted to. My position is that the USA should have made energy policy & getting off fossil fuels a priority under Jimmy Carter when gas prices & lines skyrocketed back then but that would have been gigantic leadership which is probably too much to ask of any politician frankly. However, if we had done that, we could have ended up with better leverage & explored other options in addition to military force in the 2000-2010 timeframe to influence Middle-East terrorism & certainly reduced our own self-funding of terrorism.

i wasn't referring to the disaster in japan but to the ever growing awareness of the faults of nuclear energy. if no minor and major nuclear catastrophes had ever happened, there wouldn't be much complaining about it now. but we have seen that it happened again and again and i find it very clear that it will continue forever until we abolish this sort of power forever. that's also the reason for the fact that nuclear energy draws more attention on itself than fossil-fuel energy even though the latter is more baneful for human health. the former is simply often involved in all kinds of little and large failings while fossil-fuels simply contributes to all kinds of anti-human events continuously and unnoticed.

Yes, complacency is an intrinsic cancer of the human soul. I've found no way to combat it reliably other than personal vigilance & reflective suffering. Most people still are complacent as they are neither vigilant nor reflective, even under duress.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[Pedal2Metal]

I think the solution to nuclear safety is actually pretty simple. Make every person in the EMT (Executive Management Team) who was involved in the nuclear plant from the genesis to present-day, serve on the nuclear plant response team & work the grounds if an accident ever occurs. This way they have skin in the game for their entire lives & they can weigh that reality against their ambition. I can virtually guarantee things would be done differently as a result. I find that when we have real & lasting "skin in the game", our decision tree is affected naturally in a resonsible way. I wish people would think about such things in a reflective manner beyond mere physical reality as well but that's up to them.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[Pedal2Metal]

Please go convince other conservatives of this!!!

Energy policy is long-term in nature & apolitical imo (at least in the technical/mathematical sense). Most humans, regardless of political affiliation, are short-term in orientation & thought-processes. Many people don't even consider their own mortality in earnest & don't even have a proper will/estate plan, much less diligently undertake any spiritual investigations beyond an occassional conversation or two during their lifetimes.
So I think the underlying issue is largely human nature, not political affiliation. No one from Carter to Obama (30+ years covering Democrats & Republicans) has done anything noteworthy regarding long-term strategic energy policy, despite evidence of the value & need for such a policy during that timeframe. Of course, the American people haven't made energy policy a priority so there is blame to go all around imo.

I consider energy/matter the most fundamental physical entity in existence & will dominate human survival concerns in the coming decades assuming we don't destroy ourselves earlier. Unfortunately, I consider substantive self-destruction a highly probable outcome in this same timeframe.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[Pedal2Metal]

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/as....death/?hpt=C2

simply heartbreaking...

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[Pedal2Metal]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...elativity.html

Wow!

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[ScottieX]

Democratic countries just dont have time frames longer than 1 or 2 terms. Quite often the time frame is "now until a few weeks before the next election". I'm not sure how we can fix that (other than china taking over) and of course not fixing it means stupid policy regarding things like energy.

It is even worse in places like the US where parties are hyper adversarial - but even if we fixed that problem you'd still be faced with the election term based time frame...

[elthrasher]

Energy policy is long-term in nature & apolitical imo (at least in the technical/mathematical sense). Most humans, regardless of political affiliation, are short-term in orientation & thought-processes. Many people don't even consider their own mortality in earnest & don't even have a proper will/estate plan, much less diligently undertake any spiritual investigations beyond an occassional conversation or two during their lifetimes.

I agree with you. I don't see anything inconsistent about opposing socialized health care and gay marriage (to randomly pick two liberal issues) yet wanting a forward-thinking energy policy. I don't think it should be seen as a liberal issue.

However, that is how it plays out in our society. Republicans in congress have no plans for alternative energy and don't want to invest any money in it at all. As if our deficit will matter when we hit actual peak oil and serious food shortages. This is an issue championed by Democrats and opposed by Republicans. It shouldn't be, but it is.

So I think the underlying issue is largely human nature, not political affiliation. No one from Carter to Obama (30+ years covering Democrats & Republicans) has done anything noteworthy regarding long-term strategic energy policy, despite evidence of the value & need for such a policy during that timeframe. Of course, the American people haven't made energy policy a priority so there is blame to go all around imo.

In fact Carter had put in place a plan to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil. He even put solar panels on the roof of the White House. But he lost in 1980 and Reagan came in and undid everything Carter had enacted. Look it up. Had we stuck with the Carter plan, we could tell those dicks in Saudi Arabia to stuff it.

Obama has talked a good game about energy independence, but hasn't done much yet, true. It's doubtful he could accomplish anything without winning back the house.

Clinton wasn't a great environmental president, relaxing regulations on industry and auto makers. I will give you that.

I consider energy/matter the most fundamental physical entity in existence & will dominate human survival concerns in the coming decades assuming we don't destroy ourselves earlier. Unfortunately, I consider substantive self-destruction a highly probable outcome in this same timeframe.

Sure, if nobody does anything about it. So we should do something about it!

[Pedal2Metal]

I agree with you. I don't see anything inconsistent about opposing socialized health care and gay marriage (to randomly pick two liberal issues) yet wanting a forward-thinking energy policy. I don't think it should be seen as a liberal issue.

However, that is how it plays out in our society. Republicans in congress have no plans for alternative energy and don't want to invest any money in it at all. As if our deficit will matter when we hit actual peak oil and serious food shortages. This is an issue championed by Democrats and opposed by Republicans. It shouldn't be, but it is.



In fact Carter had put in place a plan to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil. He even put solar panels on the roof of the White House. But he lost in 1980 and Reagan came in and undid everything Carter had enacted. Look it up. Had we stuck with the Carter plan, we could tell those dicks in Saudi Arabia to stuff it.

Obama has talked a good game about energy independence, but hasn't done much yet, true. It's doubtful he could accomplish anything without winning back the house.

Clinton wasn't a great environmental president, relaxing regulations on industry and auto makers. I will give you that.



Sure, if nobody does anything about it. So we should do something about it!

Your post (the Carter part in particular) reminded me another point which I think is relevant on the issue of energy-policy. Our system of government & the timetables involved undermine the idea of a long-term energy policy. What I'm getting at is that a President has 8 years max to work a policy & in the energy space, it's at least 20-30 years before you can make substantive headway in a socially observable sense. So in that regard, it's an even tougher nut to crack in our government form. Ironically, dictatorial forms of government are actually more able to make sweeping changes in strategic issues such as energy policy with considerably less counter-inertia and/or systemic impediments.
EDIT: I just read Scottie's comments after posting this. Redundant on my part.

On a separate note, I found this article on trying to address the savings/retirement issues for individuals. An interesting approach. It might just work in our narcissistically obsessed myopic society.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...758990104.html

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[ShowtekGER]

I agree with you. I don't see anything inconsistent about opposing socialized health care and gay marriage (to randomly pick two liberal issues) yet wanting a forward-thinking energy policy. I don't think it should be seen as a liberal issue.

well, do you see any connection between opinions that should be held about socialized health care and gay marriage respectively? i never understood why opinions opposing one of those often correlates with opposing the other. i think alternative energies are no exception here. opposing them correlates with the other two issues also even though they don't seem to share many characteristics. however, what they all have in common is that opposing them is opposing what would lead to at least perceived major change. i.e. they're all somewhat conservative.

[Pedal2Metal]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...592684626.html

At least someone is discussing the concepts of sensitivity analysis & the ramifications.
The proverbial "killing the golden goose".

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[ScottieX]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...592684626.html
At least someone is discussing the concepts of sensitivity analysis & the ramifications.
The proverbial "killing the golden goose".
best regards,
Pedal2Metal

would not decreasing tax on the rich actually make the problem worse by in the long run encouraging inequality? At the limitsof time and tax the tax would reduce everyones wealth to the same (communism) and your dependance on the rich would be very little and at the other limit the rich would would be so rich and the poor so poor that no matter how low the richs tax rate they would still pay almost all the tax.

I expect that with optimal policy equity may act like as a sort of resource that you can "spend" to get faster growth and that tax may be one of the most efficient ways to manage that throttle.

The lesson i think here is that one should be aware of cyclical factors when budgeting and take a long term view. So that means you dont spend to your budget limit in the good times - you instead run surpluses to carry your through the bad times. Well that is how it should work...

[elthrasher]

I expect that with optimal policy equity may act like as a sort of resource that you can "spend" to get faster growth and that tax may be one of the most efficient ways to manage that throttle.

This is exactly correct. Clinton increased the tax on the wealthy and we had growth. Bush decreased it and we slowed growth. There's a very simple cause and effect relationship here that people like the author of that article refuse to see.

As for why states like California have budget problems, it's laughable. California is in the toilet because the Governator ran on a no property tax platform. Property taxes are a major source of revenue for any state but all those gigantic mansions in Beverly Hills pay practically nothing. I'm sure all the people living there would move to Oklahoma if they had to pay property taxes. Would probably become a ghost town.

In fact, the reason for the economic crisis is because the wealthy (both people people and corporate "people") hardly pay a thing. For example, GE, the world's largest corporation, actually got money from taxpayers instead of the other way around.

[elthrasher]

well, do you see any connection between opinions that should be held about socialized health care and gay marriage respectively?

Of course. They are both equality issues.

[elthrasher]

Our system of government & the timetables involved undermine the idea of a long-term energy policy.

This is true in large part, but only because one of our two major parties has no interest in a sustainable energy policy.

Did you follow the Kerry-Graham-Lieberman bill last year? It was an attempt at an energy policy authored by a Democrat, a Republican and a traitor slimebag, just to cover all the bases (please forgive, or ignore if you cannot, the editorializing). Senator Graham authored this bill that was widely regarded to be fairly weak, but at least a step in the right direction, then wouldn't support it. The party must have gotten to him or something. Republicans hate sustainability.

So while I quite agree our system of government is imperfect, it isn't the only thing standing in the way. That's why I'm not kidding around when I ask you to convince other conservatives of the importance of sustainability. Write a letter to the editor of your local paper or something. Anybody can play a part.

[Pedal2Metal]

The lesson i think here is that one should be aware of cyclical factors when budgeting and take a long term view. So that means you dont spend to your budget limit in the good times - you instead run surpluses to carry your through the bad times. Well that is how it should work...

This is exactly what should be done. In EE (electrical engineering), it's called AC->DC rectification. It's essentially how you take an AC signal (the revenue stream) which varies over time from peak to valley & turn it into a constant signal (actually quasi-constant). Essentially, it's simply an engineering problem but again, lack of fiscal discipline leads to all kinds of idiotic reasoning & justifications.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[Pedal2Metal]

This is exactly correct. Clinton increased the tax on the wealthy and we had growth. Bush decreased it and we slowed growth. There's a very simple cause and effect relationship here that people like the author of that article refuse to see.

As for why states like California have budget problems, it's laughable. California is in the toilet because the Governator ran on a no property tax platform. Property taxes are a major source of revenue for any state but all those gigantic mansions in Beverly Hills pay practically nothing. I'm sure all the people living there would move to Oklahoma if they had to pay property taxes. Would probably become a ghost town.

In fact, the reason for the economic crisis is because the wealthy (both people people and corporate "people") hardly pay a thing. For example, GE, the world's largest corporation, actually got money from taxpayers instead of the other way around.

The article's point was not economic growth (a different topic altogether) but rather the unintended consequences (revenue volatility) of getting the lion's share of tax revenue from a very small revenue base which has the most volatile income behavior. This will naturally lead to tax revenue volatility which is an engineering/mathematical fact, not politics. I'm amazed at how people want to make money management & mathematical concepts political. I think Scottie covered the bases: both extremes aren't helpful in the limit. The conclusion? Again, as Scottie pointed out, you must save during times of surplus in order to smooth out volatility during times of shortfall. There's nothing sinister or political about that, it's simply mathematical fact & applied every day in engineering practice. Unfortunately, due to our thickheadedness, we fail to learn & apply this simple "joseph" lesson, which when applied properly allows one to weather economic storms more readily with less volatility, which is a good thing contrary to what one might interpret from your comments. This is precisely why cash is king in a down economy. It's the proverbial "bird in hand" & the lesson is that when the birds are out in force, make sure you keep a few alive in captivity & don't shoot them all for the time when they are hard to come by. Yes, I'm aware the analogy has pretty broad implications beyond economics, even more credibility for the point of the article imo.

In fact, I'll offer the idea that one of the primary reasons we've gotten to this state is this incessant American obsession with "growth" over "stability" which leads to completely different policies & behaviors at every level (international, national, state, local, family, inidvidual). This philosophical direction has been operational for over a century now. Anyhow, it's something to think about although I'm highly confident we will continue down this perilous path unabated as my earlier retirement article shows. That way we can be even less prepared for the next economic downturn. Whoopie!!!

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[elthrasher]

The article's point was not economic growth (a different topic altogether) but rather the unintended consequences (revenue volatility) of getting the lion's share of tax revenue from a very small revenue base which has the most volatile income behavior. This will naturally lead to tax revenue volatility which is an engineering/mathematical fact, not politics.

How do you not get the lion's share of revenue from the wealthy when the middle class is vanishing? We have this stupid situation where we're destroying middle-class jobs and concentrating more and more wealth in the top 1%. You can talk about volatility all you want but to do so without mentioning why we need to get so much tax revenue from the top 1%, it's useless and will only lead to worse solutions. The top 1% controls 42.7% of all financial wealth. The bottom 80% controls 7%.

So if you think we need a tax structure which depends less on that top 1%, then I suggest you go get yourself a bag of turnips and see how many of them will bleed for you and report back on the feasibility of this.

I'm amazed at how people want to make money management & mathematical concepts political.

How is deciding tax brackets not political? It's always going to be better for someone and not as good for someone else. That's political.

I think Scottie covered the bases: both extremes aren't helpful in the limit.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Did you know the top federal income tax rate hit 94% in the last years of WWII? What happened? We kicked Hitler's butt and had an age of prosperity that seemed unimaginable just 20 years prior. Got any success stories about a low top income tax rate?

[Pedal2Metal]

How do you not get the lion's share of revenue from the wealthy when the middle class is vanishing? We have this stupid situation where we're destroying middle-class jobs and concentrating more and more wealth in the top 1%. You can talk about volatility all you want but to do so without mentioning why we need to get so much tax revenue from the top 1%, it's useless and will only lead to worse solutions. The top 1% controls 42.7% of all financial wealth. The bottom 80% controls 7%.

So if you think we need a tax structure which depends less on that top 1%, then I suggest you go get yourself a bag of turnips and see how many of them will bleed for you and report back on the feasibility of this.



How is deciding tax brackets not political? It's always going to be better for someone and not as good for someone else. That's political.



I wouldn't be so sure about that. Did you know the top federal income tax rate hit 94% in the last years of WWII? What happened? We kicked Hitler's butt and had an age of prosperity that seemed unimaginable just 20 years prior. Got any success stories about a low top income tax rate?

You've made no technical argument that undermines the point of the article (volatility in lion's share of tax base == volatility in tax revenues unless preparations per Scottie's conclusion are made) or Scottie's limit analysis, merely political rambling/passion. Here is Scottie's limit analysis, exactly:

"At the limitsof time and tax the tax would reduce everyones wealth to the same (communism) and your dependance on the rich would be very little and at the other limit the rich would would be so rich and the poor so poor that no matter how low the richs tax rate they would still pay almost all the tax."

His analysis is correct. You've made the mistake that behavior at "close to the limit" (94%), is necessarily indicative to behavior "at the limit" (100%). Scottie got it right. In this case, it most definitely is not indicative (in the limit, the rich cease to exist).

Now with regards to justification, I can imagine many people (rich or otherwise) might consider WWII & the potential emminent end of life as we know it, valid justification for taxation in the 90%+ range to resist/prevent. However, short of that kind of context, I suspect it will be politically more difficult for obvious reasons. I doubt many would buy the idea that circumstances don't matter with regards to political will/risk to perform a given political task/endeavor. However, when we get to WWIII, I'm sure people of all sorts will be more willing to sacrifice for the greater good because their own skin is actually in the game & this fact will then be obvious. Until then, good luck with your 90%+ taxation policy, I'm sure everyone will get behind it.

Your underlying premise that disparity == evil isn't proven, merely assumed on your part. This is part of a larger philosophical framework that essentially holds to the belief that "inequality == evil" universally. Personally, I think this assertion's validity depends upon the context/circumstances & how that inequality came into existence (its genesis). Someone being rich doesn't make them necessarily evil in my mind just as being poor doesn't make someone necessarily virtuous & vice-versa. Such indications are more than merely a matter of net worth. I'm also not convinced that creating a society that is perfectly "equal" is necessarily better than the current one. You might want to read a Kurt Vonnegut short story called Harrison Bergeron. Here's a link for your convenience: http://www.tnellen.com/westside/harrison.pdf

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[Pedal2Metal]

Follow-up article: http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/201...r-being-raped/

Interesting response in the comments:
"Mr. Kristof, It is great that there is a journalist like you who covers small but not insignificant stories about crimes against women like this one. However, while the imam and all those involve are Muslim and a fatwa is made by a Muslim cleric, it is insulting to the religion and the large number of the Muslim community to say that this was in the "name of sharia." Sharia has gotten enough of a bad reputation as a term generally incorrectly thrown around by the Western (and particularly the American) media. The fatwa that this imam issued has nothing to do with actual sharia law - it has to do with with ignorance and a misogynistic view of women. Perhaps the way you wrote that sentence is not incorrect - for it certainly seems those involved believed that their actions were sanctioned by religion - but it is a bit irresponsible to associate these actions with sharia. This incident could be just one more talking points for those ill-versed in what sharia actually is to point to how the Muslim community as a whole oppresses and abuses women. Wouldn't it be interesting to look into the ways actual sharia empowers and gives women rights?"

Catherine
Cairo, Egypt
March 30th, 2011
3:49 pm

I agree with Catherine's question. It would be interesting & enlightening. Perspective (or perception) always has an element of choice involved.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[elthrasher]

Your underlying premise that disparity == evil isn't proven, merely assumed on your part.

This is why it's impossible to have a real conversation with you. I have never put forth such a premise. I might as well say you're wrong based on your assertion that the key to happiness is to have donkey balls growing from your forehead. Is that the kind of argument you like to see? Apparently it is.

I may come back at some of your points later just because that's how I am, but I will ask you for the umpteenth time to stop constructing these strawmen. There's not very much difference between that as a rhetorical style and simply trying to shout more loudly than I can (impossible on a forum and improbable in real life).

In other news, Obama is working on a new energy policy: http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...O1B_story.html

Pretty weak compared to what Carter wanted. Better than nothing? Probably. Good enough? Doubtful.

[Pedal2Metal]

This is why it's impossible to have a real conversation with you. I have never put forth such a premise. I might as well say you're wrong based on your assertion that the key to happiness is to have donkey balls growing from your forehead. Is that the kind of argument you like to see? Apparently it is..

Now hold on. Calm down, put on some good-faith, & step back a bit vs. making ridiculuous analogies. Here is a quote from your post:
"We have this stupid situation where we're destroying middle-class jobs and concentrating more and more wealth in the top 1%. You can talk about volatility all you want but to do so without mentioning why we need to get so much tax revenue from the top 1%, it's useless and will only lead to worse solutions. The top 1% controls 42.7% of all financial wealth. The bottom 80% controls 7%."

So I see 3 possible interpretations of these facts (let's just assume that, I don't have time for fact-checking everything you say) as motivations for why you stated them.
1. They are indicative of the direction we should continue & you are in favor.
2. They are indicative of the direction we should not continue & you are not in favor.
3. You see them merely as facts & really don't care one way or the other.

Given that the facts themselves are amoral & have no moral value, you must assign moral value yourself. Given that, you must define a system by which a moral value can be assigned within such a system. So which is it? Is the rich getting richer a positive moral value or a negative moral value or no moral value in your philosophical system? How did you derive this aspect of your philosophical system? Can you demonstrate, apart from your own philosophical system of definitions, that the above quotation of facts is intrinsically good or bad?
Anyhow, that's the context of my assertion. You've projected a philosophical belief in your statements which drives the interpretation of the facts & your resultant position. Your denial of such a clear & necessary condition for establishing a moral or political position on said facts is actually more indicative of why it's hard for you to have a conversation with me. You refuse to admit that philosophy drives interpretation of data, which it clearly does. For you, for me, for everyone.

Now if I've oversimplified a bit for brevity sake with my "inequality == evil", fine. But to say that you favor inequality would be an even more egregious error in philosophical assertion as that's clearly not true. So, in essence, you do believe inequality is evil/undesirable/etc... at some level & probably in greater intensity than I do, put whatever word(s) you like to it, the essence of my point is largely accurate. I'm puzzled as to why being transparent & direct about philosophical differences between liberals & conservatives is so enflaming to you. It's as if you have an overly sensitive skin & an almost fanatically obsessive aversion to the topic of philosophical differences & how that drives political leanings, which it most certainly does. I find that interesting but certainly not my problem.

I may come back at some of your points later just because that's how I am, but I will ask you for the umpteenth time to stop constructing these strawmen. There's not very much difference between that as a rhetorical style and simply trying to shout more loudly than I can (impossible on a forum and improbable in real life).

That's fine. No one is trying to build a "straw man" to attack you, merely try to get at the larger philosophical considerations as to why liberals & conservatives think differently. Ultimately, it comes down to philosophical beliefs, despite your protests to the contrary.

In other news, Obama is working on a new energy policy: http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...O1B_story.html

Pretty weak compared to what Carter wanted. Better than nothing? Probably. Good enough? Doubtful.

Yes, I saw that & generally agree. I don't think his Brazil 2B offer was too smart though. It's ok for the Brazilians to drill offshore but not the USA? Doesn't seem consistent to me. I think his current position is softening a bit as he's realizing that while we do need to press forward, we also need to have some local capacity as a tie-over in the meantime as this issue is not a 4yr issue. I think any energy policy must be pragmatic as well as forward-looking.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[Pedal2Metal]

I don't watch much TV (don't have cable or satellite) but my wife forwarded this to me. I agree with Glenn. I wonder if I'm the only one? http://www.foxnewsinsider.com/2011/0...srael/#respond

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[elthrasher]

I don't watch much TV (don't have cable or satellite) but my wife forwarded this to me. I agree with Glenn. I wonder if I'm the only one? http://www.foxnewsinsider.com/2011/0...srael/#respond

Oh look. It's another strawman. Nobody in America is against Israel. Glenn Beck doesn't even bother to try to show that anyone is against Israel. He just defends Israel...from nobody.

[elthrasher]

Now hold on. Calm down, put on some good-faith, & step back a bit vs. making ridiculuous analogies. Here is a quote from your post:
"We have this stupid situation where we're destroying middle-class jobs and concentrating more and more wealth in the top 1%. You can talk about volatility all you want but to do so without mentioning why we need to get so much tax revenue from the top 1%, it's useless and will only lead to worse solutions. The top 1% controls 42.7% of all financial wealth. The bottom 80% controls 7%."

So I see 3 possible interpretations of these facts (let's just assume that, I don't have time for fact-checking everything you say) as motivations for why you stated them.
1. They are indicative of the direction we should continue & you are in favor.
2. They are indicative of the direction we should not continue & you are not in favor.
3. You see them merely as facts & really don't care one way or the other.

I listed those facts because they supported my point that in fact depending on the top 1% of wage earners for the lion's share of revenue is the only possible choice.

Your problem is you can't see shades of anything. Yes, I think 1% having half the wealth is too much. That doesn't at all mean or imply that I think everyone should have exactly the same income, be exactly equally good at sports, have the same lifespan, vision problems, etc. I read that Vonnegut story long ago. I don't think it's one of his better ones. It is, again, just a strawman because THERE IS NOBODY WHO WANTS THAT KIND OF EQUALITY! There never has been. There never will be. When you construct this kind of argument, you aren't arguing with anybody.

For the record, I don't favor a 94% income tax rate. I was just pointing out that we had such a rate in living memory and had very positive results for it: We won the war. We were able to treat our heroes to a really nice GI bill that allowed many of them to go to college and achieve a comfortable middle class living. We did all this without amassing a mountain of debt. We had prosperity and growth that lasted well into the 1960s.

By the end of the Reagan years, the top rate had fallen to 28%. Clinton nudged it up to 39.6% and we had a boom. Bush dropped it to 35% and we had a recession. I think there's a number in there that will help balance the budget (50% of current shortfalls are caused by the Bush tax cuts) and get people working again. I don't know what that number is but I think it's higher than 35.

Earlier you made a point about how we have to make sacrifices to get the nation back on track. I agree with that, however the top 1% has yet to sacrifice anything and they are most able to.

[ScottieX]

in NZ if you are very rich (or even fairly rich) you pay a lower tax rate than those that are middle income - this is because it becomes feasible to earn your income as a company and flush it through various tax avoiding mechanisms.

We had a multi millionare in the news come out recently talking about how he thought it was odd that he paid no tax. On a personal experience note one of my millionare (hundreds of millions like the other guy) bosses also said that he paid no tax(not that no tax is normal). He was an american living here.
Is this not true in the USA? i would have thought it was even more so with your complex taxation system...