Professional economist here (hence, perceived as right wing) who began studying economics due to concern about climate change (hence, perceived as left wing).

[1] The classic statement of when markets 'work' is the 'first fundamental theorem of welfare economics'.

[2] 'work' in this sense means 'leads to a Pareto-optimal outcome', which means an outcome in which no one can be made better off without making someone worse off. This is a low standard: an outcome in which I have everything is Pareto-optimal.

[3] the conditions for the welfare theorems are generally not satisfied in practice. Here, as alluded to in the ad, carbon emissions are 'externalities': if an oil company sells you gas, which you then use, both of you are better off, because you're assumed to have taken into account the effects of your exchange, and decided to proceed; other parties have not, so may be worse off.

[4] in general, failure of the welfare theorem conditions isn't enough to make the case for government intervention: the outcome may still be 'constrained' efficient - meaning that, given the inherent constraints in the problem (e.g. asymmetric information), the market outcome is Pareto efficient.

[5] again, even if it is, you may not like the particular constrained efficient outcome the market yields (e.g. I get everything).

[6] in the case of externalities, the theory is pretty well established - if we want efficient outcomes, we need to align the private and social costs. There are two basic market-based tools for doing that: quantity tools (e.g. carbon permits) and price tools (e.g. carbon taxes). Which performs better depends on the sort of market imperfections.

[7] obviously, we will never have a perfect estimate of the efficient price or quantity of carbon to emit in a given year. Equally obviously, to me at least, this is a classic case of an externality with a well developed body of theory pointing in the direction of some level of controls.

[8] in my experience: people familiar with the economic theory tend not to be 'pro-market' or 'anti-market': they tend to want to understand how the market can be used to deliver societal objectives and, when it can't, how to correct its imperfections.

Just, the audacity. fuck.

let me be as clear and direct as I can be: I have no interest in the personal sexual lives or private decisions of people i'm not married to.

@bobknight33 Do you want the United States of America to make decisions about what gender an individual can be or has to be?

Let us say that a human being has XX Male Syndrome https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/condition/46xx-testicular-difference-of-sex-development/ where the person would present as male although have XX chromosomes, have a penis and testicals that are non functional sexually, and will NOT grow facial hair but WILL grow breasts.

Which bathroom should the person use? You want to answer don't you? See? that's the difference between you and me. I don't fucking care where this person takes a shit just as long as it's not on my front porch.


YOU, meanwhile, for someone tossing around accusations of "groomer" (grooming is defined how again? ohhh right you do things so that the child does what YOU want kind of like training a dog i imagine)
YOU seem to have a lot to say about what they do and dont do sexually. What they do or don't do with their genitals. What in the fuck kind of person spends their time dictating what children can do with their genitals or not and wants to tell them where to shit and what drinking fountain to use "HEYYY that's a water fountain for non-queers only!"


What
the
fuck

is your problem?


HOW in your mind can YOU be the one strongly opinionated on what these kids do or dont do and you go out of your way to advocate for that and support politicians who think alike

How can THAT be,, AND you are accusing the people who are disinterested in the insanely personal and private decisions of gender and sexuality, the people who don't care about that stuff and want to leave it to the individuals, but you

YOUUUU want to tell them what bathroom to use and which sports teams they cna play on and which hospitals they can get care at and if they can receive care as a person who is transgendered YOU (the one wanting to make decisions about kids genitals via your elected officials, YOU) YOU are calling someone else a groomer.


FUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK YOUUUUUUUUUUUUU


You groom animals because you want X behavior to happen, and you don't want Y behavior to happen.


YOU, are doing the thing, where you're doing stuff... that leads to the modification of behavior. Do you understand that?

"NASA's new rocket has been in development for over a decade, arguably it's a soft continuation from the Constellation program using the 5 segment boosters and Orion capsule that began development in 2005. It's been a slow, expensive ride with the contractors milking their cost plus contracts for their own benefit."
-Scott Manley

Makes it seem like NASA SLS is just providing jobs and not actually producing anything of value for each dollar spent. More telescopes, less rockets?

Nasa don't give them reasons to cut your budget or make politicians/public think you're less or unnecessary.

*promote the upcoming launch.

To be fair... he's invested most of his life to politics, probably under the assumption that he'd be able to make life better for those he represents. Then his choice of party took a hard right turn and developed a culture of "toe the line or you're out", and he chose the former, possibly with the best of intentions, or possibly just by default.

I don't know about Rep. Collins in particular, but I can imagine there are many stories like this. None of this excuses the damage they've done, including the fact that everyone who follows makes it harder for others to dissent, but I do hopethat this is the case, and that more and more of them see the impact of their decisions and speak out for what's actually right.

Yes…brilliant in fact…and moral to the extreme, and ethical beyond reproach, and a genuinely nice, thoughtful person too. None of those traits are positives to you though.
And let’s not forget, besides sea testing new nuclear submarines he was also “assisting in the design and development of nuclear propulsion plants for naval vessels.”…but only reached LT, not Captain.

Explain, specifically how was he poor as president?
Because he didn’t go to war in Iran (nor would he break the law and collude with them and sell them weapons like Reagan)?
Because he advocated for renewable energy that would have made us energy independent in the 80’s and oil free before 2000?
Exactly what?

Oh Bob. Always a laugh with you. The unintended self deprecation always brightens my day.

That's not going rogue... it's developed a conscient.

Sweet zombie Jesus, compared to the side effects of getting covid, the risk with vaccination is statistically zero.
Permanent heart, lung, blood vessel, kidney, eye, and/or brain damage, and death just for starters.

The occurrence rate of side effects is almost certainly orders of magnitude larger with the disease….but admittedly I can’t find trustworthy numbers for either.

Specifically for Myocarditis …. 37 “reported cases” after 82 million vaccinations, vs 450 cases per 1 million infections….
“Myocarditis (or pericarditis or myopericarditis) from primary COVID19 infection occurred at a rate as high as 450 per million in young males. Young males infected with the virus are up 6 times more likely to develop myocarditis as those who have received the vaccine”.- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34341797/

I hope this monument to opulence fails miserably and the developers lose their shirts.
There’s no way they won’t damage or destroy that reef.
The first big storm is going to destroy much of the sand island.
But, 10% are special protection zones! Won’t matter, they can’t survive if huge amounts of the non protected reef are destroyed.

Not to mention sea level rise will put it underwater quickly, it’s barely above current sea level in the plans.

Look at Mexico, dozens of comparatively tiny resorts not even on the reefs, but on land, and that reef is not 10% what it was in the mid 80’s. Building ON the reef is guaranteed to destroy it, as is tourism.

I hate when companies are allowed to build on natural wonders to exploit the beauty, they invariably destroy that beauty within decades. That entire reef/coastline should be off limits to construction so the two desert properties have an attraction. When the reefs die from sun tan lotion poisoning, bleaching, sand displacement, accidents with supply ships, the first major fuel spill, etc, that place will be a $5 billion waste, abandoned to the desert.

Remember the “islands of the world” project in Dubai? This sounds even less thought out than they were, more ecologically disastrous, needing more infrastructure to be built, requiring ships to bring fuel as there’s no nearby port to run pipelines from (guaranteeing oil spills). All for what? So billionaires can get off their yachts for a while in luxury?

Wiki-Significant changes in the maritime environment [of Dubai]. As a result of the dredging and redepositing of sand for the construction of the islands, the typically crystalline waters of the Persian Gulf at Dubai have become severely clouded with silt. Construction activity is damaging the marine habitat, burying coral reefs, oyster beds and subterranean fields of sea grass, threatening local marine species as well as other species dependent on them for food. Oyster beds have been covered in as much as two inches of sediment, while above the water, beaches are eroding with the disruption of natural currents.

That was a $12 billion project to exploit the pristine coast and beautiful waters that no longer exist, the islands themselves are sinking and eroding, most were evacuated or never used at all, the water is now mud colored, the reefs are gone. An unmitigated disaster. This sounds extremely similar.

Oppose this and similar projects.

@newtboy,

Per my very first sentence in thread, I also oppose gov using this as a wedge issue to rally their base.

Meaning, I 100% am in agreement that nobody(gov or otherwise) should be banning trans kids(and adults) from anything, competitive sports included.

I did point out a single biological fact:
-Whether a person is born with XX or XY chromosomes has a significant impact on development that impacts performance in sports.

You jump all over that observation though, like raising it is hateful, denying peoples right to exist, and on. It is not.

And your observation that the performance advantages aren’t 100% of the time favouring XY folks is the red herring. Of course there are areas were the difference is an advantage, others were it’s neutral, and yet others a disadvantage. In a large population you also always have the possibility of individuals overcoming those odds.

Pointing to those facts though like they mean specific advantages don’t exist is the red herring.

In addition to that one fact, I also proposed applying the same standards for fairness in competition equally to everyone.

And it’s on this point I am automatically decried as hateful, evil and maliciously acting against people’s right to exist….

If your only looking for a villain to demonize there’s no point attempting further discussion.

What’s he mean “young people”? I’m 50, I’ve felt that way since 1990 because I pay attention. We are addicts, addicts use until they die, they don’t quit because their health suffers.

At 3 degrees some developing countries won’t be able to feed their population!?! WTF?! That was the case before any climate changes, dummy. It’s bad now. It will be apocalyptic relatively soon…like decades, not centuries.

WILL cause trillions in damage!?….guess again, already happened. It WILL cause tens of trillions in damage per year, eventually outpacing global gdp.

What scientists are he counting when he says “most agree” we won’t see this kind of future? Certainly not climate scientists, they agree it’s happening, and none see it even slowing, much less getting better. From what I saw, they just went on strike because they’re sick of being ignored.

Leveled off, eh? Look at your own graph to see that China’s coal consumption went up by 5000 twh equivalents since 2010, and is insanely massive…it went up by more than the US used at its highest levels (in his timeline). But he calls that “leveled off”. Who is this guy? He’s insane or lying through his teeth.

Solar and wind have been better than coal economically for decades, but we haven’t switched over, have we?

Where does he get his statistics, because every time I see real numbers we’ve only slowed our increased emissions by 4%, we have not actually reduced them….like saying Obama reduced the military budget because he didn’t increase it as much as previous administrations. It’s asinine.

India isn’t building trillions in solar, they’re building fossil fuel power plants and hydro electric, also disastrous for the environment….and useless after their glaciers fail.

The CO2 in the atmosphere will be there for 300-1000 years, carbon capture is a ridiculous pipe dream that completely ignores the scope of the problem. Methalhydrate is already destabilized, and it’s 25 times as potent as CO2. The total global amount of methane carbon bound up in these hydrate deposits is in the order of 1000 to 5000 gigatonnes – i.e. about 100 to 500 times more carbon than is released annually into the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas). It’s melting now faster every day, and will surpass human carbon emissions.

None of his “requirements” are happening. What we need is less people….like 90% less.

Progress is being made, minor progress in small amounts on tiny scales…so are increases in emissions but on massive scales and unfathomable amounts….emissions that needed to be at zero decades ago to save civilization as we know it. Climate refugees exist today in huge numbers, think how difficult 1 million Syrians were for Europe to absorb, now multiply by 2000 or more when all equatorial nations become uninhabitable. Where will we grow food with refugees covering every bit of land? Get real.

He admits that stopping warming below 1.5 degrees is impossible, and 3 degrees before 2021 likely (many say by 2050). Did he forget that 1.5 degrees warming is where we lose control and feedback loops make our emissions moot?

Do you even science, dude?

He gave me zero hope, because I know most of his pie in the sky “hope” is utterly ridiculous and runs contrary to reality and human nature. I wanted some good news, I got pablum.
Booo Kurzgesagt. Try being honest and not ignoring the facts, please. BOOOOO!

Literally EVERY major developed economy has elevated inflation right now. Not just the US. It was not caused by Biden — and anyone who says otherwise is trying to manipulate you.

Literally EVERY major developed economy has elevated inflation right now. Not just the US. It was not caused by Biden — and anyone who says otherwise is trying to manipulate you.

A dollar has value if you can buy shit for a dollar.

Gold likewise has no exchange value if you cant exchange it for goods and services. Its rare and chemically stable and good for memorial coins, has many technical uses and looks cute, but otherwise it hardly matters what symbol for money you choose. There is 200 years of experience with fiat money and gold and silver standards and fiat money has been better, not just usually better or better in some scenario, universally better.

Symbolic money is practical and facilitates quicker turn around prevents deflation makes speculative runs on currency harder and smoothes the economic bumps in the road in general.

GDP is just a metric. Not a bad one but not the actual goal.

USofA is teh most developed. Should have used growing. Deflation in an economy that is growing kills growth.

Restarting countries not only get to ignore their debts, they immediatelly start borrowing again.

The only countries that dont borrow are countries no-one will lend to and countries so rich in some silly resource they can float high in the international currency system without borrowing. Borrowing is good for bussiness.

What is outrageous idiotic bullshit? Believing pegging the value of your paper note to some hoarded luxury makes it a better representation of the mean value of goods and services bought and sold? I could do without gold except for the jacks on my audio cables (just kidding). It does not matter what I exchange for food and gas, if it gets me food and gas, its good money.

Money is what you can pay taxes with. Do they take gold?

If you insist your dollar has the value of some weight of gold how does that influence the willingness of someone else to sell you shit? Unless they specifically intend to buy gold at a fixed price they dont care. They are going to use your dolar to buy some other shit from someone else. So if you take the actual currency out of the equation, when you decide on buying and selling shit you are intuitively comparing that decision with all the other decisions about buying and sellin that you know of. The currency is just a good way to count the measure of usefullness of a product or service and compare among many. Pebbles, bottletops, dollars, gold, pearls, all just a number.

A dollar could be backed by gold or it could not, this has zero impact on the transactions made. What matters is how many transactions are made, at what value, and how much money is available to the entire marketplace in a given period of time. Transactions quickly pass the ability of a gold standard to keep up. If you want a gold standard you have to slow transactions down because you dont have the money for them.

This is why markets need some regulation, otherwise someone might sell the universe twice and then default on one. But a gold standard, at least the type of gold standard I believe was talked about in this thread as a miracle cure, would be too limiting.

If the dollar has no actual value…you’re sunk from the start.

Improving gdp is the only way to add value today….much easier said than done, and possible to go backwards at light speed.

Are you calling the US a developing country? Deflation isn’t a concern for most. It’s pretty rare.

If you improve the economy artificially, the bill will come due someday inconvenient and likely cause depression, not just recession.

Restarting countries didn’t all borrow, some tried to take over the world and ignore all their debts. Just saying.

If you have gold backing your dollar, even if your dollar somehow collapsed you’ve still got all the gold. That’s just one reason it’s smart. If you don’t issue dollars for every ounce of gold in reserve, you can add dollars without the risk of inflation, then remove them when possible.

You keep saying it has no advantages, I’ve listed many.

Outrageous idiotic bullshit. Gold is a commodity universally valued. Bitcoin is worse than nothing, it costs money just by existing and has absolutely no value besides what idiots will pay, that’s like basing your economy on beanie babies and saying it’s the same as physical gold. WTF man?