On Dec 18, 2008, at 2:54 AM, David Cake wrote: > At 4:58 PM -0500 17/12/08, Charles Bennett wrote: >> >> Example. If you want to actually stop whatever global warming you >> believe in, you had better believe that it will take countless >> dollars >> produced by and invested by companies that actually do something to >> earn them. > > It will take countless dollars from somebody. Why only > private investors money I am less convinced by. > >> Governments do not actually "produce" anything. They are >> parasitic to those that work and invest. > > Bullshit. > Its obviously classic pure capitalist bullshit that could be > said, equally spuriously, about any economy activity whatsoever, but > to make it relevant to the claimate change -- so, equally why would > the research done by a government scientist employed by NOAA > constitute nothing of value, and only worthless parasitism ?
I didn't say it was worthless. It *is* parasitism though. When you say research done "by the Govenment" just exactly where did the money come from to pay the NOAA scientist? My point is that without someone actually producing something that someone else is willing to buy. There is no funding for the NOAA. Period. Beyond that, the value of his research will not be of any practical use, no matter how valuable, unless someone has to money to implement the changes implied by his research. The government may 'mandate' a change, but the company that must implement the change can only do so if they can stay in business after the change. If not, it is their duty to their stockholders to dissolve the company now and distribute the assets. The government cannot mandate that any company stay in business. To translate the "we need to emit less C02" into reality takes profitable companies not government entities. > > > >> All the "ecstatic compulsion to evolve" in the world will not do >> squat to ACTUALLY fund and do the heavy lifting required to make the >> changes needed. It will take men risking their fortunes and their >> companies to make it happen. Anything else is delusional. > > Being a damn hippy is an ideological bias that will cause you > to value the wrong sorts of efforts towards solving the problem, I > take to be your point. Sure. > But being a one eyed capitalist fanatic is another > ideological bias that will cause you to value the wrong sorts of > efforts towards solving the problem. Less gratuitously so, but in the > long run probably just as damaging. I see your point too. Capitalism does not always find the optimal SUSTAINABLE solution. Especially when we are talking about exploiting a natural resource that can take hundreds of years to deplete. It is just too tempting to pass the problem on the the next generation. I do think that Government has a role in that area, encouraging alternates. =c= _______________________________________________ OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected] http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters List hosted at http://cat5.org/
