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.

Once again I must agree with your logic.

It's always harder to win if you're not satisfied with the low hanging fruit.

https://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/false/

When it comes to lies, the worst lies are when you lie to yourself. Then you become your own worst enemy and may not realize it.

I'm pretty sure the stupidest war ever was the War of Jenkins' Ear, which not only was dumb in it's own merit but also spawned two additional wars that killed close to 2 million people.

Basically Britain and a trading company decided that a little war would help to spur trade, so they seized on an 8 year old incident involving the Spanish boarding a ship and cutting off the captain's ear to fan the flames of conflict.

While the casualties of this little conflict were only around 30k dead or wounded, and a paltry 500 ships, it nicely helped kick off the War of Austrian Succession. That fun conflict led to around half a million dead.

Not satisfied, the powers of Europe stewed over the previous two incidents and then decided to really get down and dirty. The Seven Years war was the first really 'global' war, involving every European great power of the time and spanning five continents. Roughly 1.25 million people got to shuffle their mortal coil off the world thanks, in part, to a little trade war over an ear.

If it is an absolutely true fact, one would think you could provide supporting evidence, but you never do when asked. Unsupported claims are unverified argument, not accepted fact. I've never claimed you're wrong, but you've failed to prove you're correct repeatedly.

The judge used the sentencing guidelines for murder 2, which was part of the plea agreement, so the results were exactly the same. He may be in federal prison, which IS a much nicer place than the state pen. Is that how it falls short, or is your issue the specific charge no matter the sentence? Would it be better if he was convicted of murder 2 but was only sentenced to 5 years?

Avoid getting caught on camera, totally agree, but don't plead guilty?...he was facing life in State prison with a pretty hostile jury pool on top of up to decades in club fed for civil rights violations.. I think he made a good choice.

Thanks for the answer though...which I gather was "no, this does not satisfy".

Eccelesiastes 1

1 The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem.

2 “Vanity of vanities,” says the Preacher;
“Vanity of vanities, all is vanity.”

3 What profit has a man from all his labor
In which he toils under the sun?

4 One generation passes away, and another generation comes;
But the earth abides forever.

5 The sun also rises, and the sun goes down,
And hastens to the place where it arose.

6 The wind goes toward the south,
And turns around to the north;
The wind whirls about continually,
And comes again on its circuit.

7 All the rivers run into the sea,
Yet the sea is not full;
To the place from which the rivers come,
There they return again.

8 All things are full of labor;
Man cannot express it.
The eye is not satisfied with seeing,
Nor the ear filled with hearing.

9 That which has been is what will be,
That which is done is what will be done,
And there is nothing new under the sun.

10 Is there anything of which it may be said,
“See, this is new”?
It has already been in ancient times before us.

11 There is no remembrance of former things,
Nor will there be any remembrance of things that are to come
By those who will come after.

He's a billionaire. Traditionally speaking society at large accepts that people with incredible wealth are powerful.

If he's elected then by definition no force is needed and he doesn't need to try and seize the reigns. He's the president. He has a lot of parliamentary power. The reigns are handed to him on a silver platter. That said, he's still got congress to deal with, and if it's a hostile congress then he could be pushing shit up a hill.

Thank you for your fascism elucidation. I disagree that system will happen if he is elected. It's almost fanciful.

I don't believe Clinton has been charged or convicted. That's why I said she's "innocent until proven guilty".

No, not satisfied. I'd need to see links to court outcomes. But I'm not that interested so don't bother on my behalf.

As per the Oxford Dictionary the common use of naive is: showing a lack of experience, wisdom, or judgement. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/naive

Dictionary.com doesn't cut it for me

@shinyblurry

In the beginning, God created Adam and Eve … to maintain order in His kingdom.

I can't tell if you're disagreeing or off topic. I'll state again what I think I have heard you say or suggest: God gave us humans free will. He loves us, and knew what would be the best way for us to live, so, out of love, he gave us a set of laws to follow for our own good. In order to encourage us to follow those laws, he established hell as punishment for choosing to violate those laws: the worst possible eternal torture.

Have I made any mistakes in there?

[me:]What’s wrong with robots? You said elsewhere it’s because god wouldn’t want robots. How can he want anything? He’s perfect. Does his own existence not satisfy him? Is he lacking something? Was he bored and lonely? Are we his pets?

[you:]God created not out of need, but out of the abundance of His love.

I said and I meant "want" (not "need"). You've said many times that God wanted/desired us to exist and behave in certain ways, and you used words like "(un)satisfactory" to describe God's opinion of us/robots, and so forth. Any understanding of those words necessarily implies a lack of something. You cannot want/desire/be unsatisfied unless that thing addresses your lack of something that would make you better off in some way. Every single human action can be attributed to a lack or want (or need). But a perfect all-powerful God would have none of these. He would be at Nirvana, a persistent state of satisfaction with nothing but the self. So "want" and "perfect" make a contradiction. Can you address either my founding statements or my logic?

[me:]You didn’t answer my questions. I know the stated purpose of sending Jesus. My question is why the situation required exactly that. Surely God, at some point, decided, "Well, they’re bad, and I want to get closer, and the exact thing required is for me to have a son, for that son to be a perfect human, for him to preach for three years and then get executed by the other humans, and then we can be closer." God decided something like that. It’s a direct implication of saying that God created everything and that this was necessary.

[you:]Jesus was the lamb slain before the foundation of the world.

Rev 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Again, you didn't answer. Why did it have to be Jesus? God is all-powerful, so he could have sent a puppy or a bamboo plant or a paramecium to bear our sins and be killed. Or he could have decided it required 40 children of his to be sacrificed. Why just one man?

Before the world began, God knew that He would need to send His Son.

Because being in the image of God isn't about what God looks like, it is about being imbued with His personal attributes. We resemble Him in our better nature, not our appearance.

Cool. Is there Biblical reason to assert that this is the correct interpretation of "in his image"?

[me:]What I’m getting at is the arbitrariness of the consequences … forever, and they lost paradise. For one sin?

[you:]I understand what you're saying. You're not going to see the picture before you connect all of the dots. I'll keep supplying you the dots as I am able. I think I explained this particular question to you in more specific detail this time around, as to why the separation occurred.

I'm asking you all this to see if there's ever going to be an end or a logic to the trail of dots without having to presuppose the conclusion that gave rise to the dots in the first place. Every dot seems to give rise to another dot. Like you say about secular morality, it's a recursive chain of dots off to infinity, each dot raising more questions than it answers. Such a system would, by literal definition, not be rational: if it goes on to infinity, then it can never be rationalized.

He knew before He created that His creation would rebel at some point, and He took the necessary steps to reconcile it back to Himself at the end of time. He didn't screw up, but He did create beings capable of screwing up. To allow for the real possibility of good, He also had to allow for the real possibility of evil.

Are humans satisfying to God in whatever capacity we were created?

When scripture says "the law" what it is reffering to is the Mosaic law that was given at Mt Sinai … What we had in the beginning was not a law, but simply a choice.

So humanity had no laws from God for all that time (hundreds or thousands of years) until Mt. Sinai? We were allowed to do anything at all we wanted without fear of any punishment from God?

By your rhetorical suggestion: God created us with free will, then he created laws for us because following them is good for us and he loves us, then he said there would be consequences for not following those laws to encourage us to follow them because he loves us, then he determined that the consequences would be the worst possible thing that could happen, far worse than the real-life consequences for breaking the rules… because he loves us? It doesn’t add up. Don't give me some reductionist "let all rapists go free" argument. There's no way to explain the extreme severity of the consequences for breaking the law if the law itself was created so we would be better off. See?

In the beginning, God created Adam and Eve to be completely dependent on Him for everything. They relied upon God to make their decisions for them, and tell them what good and evil was. However, because He wanted His creatures to be free to love Him, ie just not just forced to obey Him, He gave them one command. That command was not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He told them that in the day they ate of it they would surely die.

What lay in the fruit of that tree for Adam and Eve was their own autonomy. The fruit represented an independence from God to decide on their own what is good and evil. Rather than sitting at Gods feet and learning from Him, they would become a law onto themselves through their own judgment. What eating this fruit did was destroy their innocence forever. It ruined the perfect relationship and fellowship they had with God by turning them into rebels who would make choices apart from God.

So, rather than the law being given for the reasons you are saying, it was given to offer them a choice between obedience to God and personal autonomy. The consequences of breaking that law not only changed their nature but brought sin and death into the world. God draws the line at His standard for goodness, which is perfection. It is a zero tolerance policy for rebellion, not only for moral guidance, but to maintain order in His kingdom.

What’s wrong with robots? You said elsewhere it’s because god wouldn’t want robots. How can he want anything? He’s perfect. Does his own existence not satisfy him? Is he lacking something? Was he bored and lonely? Are we his pets?

God created not out of need, but out of the abundance of His love. He regards us as His offspring, not His pets.

Act 17:22-31

Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.

For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.

God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;

Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;

And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:

For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

But he forgave us all our sins through the sacrifice of his son. Was that a compromise of his integrity? It seems he does choose to forgive us, at least once every 4000 years or so.

No, because He laid all of our sin on His Son, who bore the punishment we deserve. It is not a compromise of His integrity so long as the sin has been paid for.

Romans 4:25

He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification

You didn’t answer my questions. I know the stated purpose of sending Jesus. My question is why the situation required exactly that. Surely God, at some point, decided, "Well, they’re bad, and I want to get closer, and the exact thing required is for me to have a son, for that son to be a perfect human, for him to preach for three years and then get executed by the other humans, and then we can be closer." God decided something like that. It’s a direct implication of saying that God created everything and that this was necessary.

Jesus was the lamb slain before the foundation of the world.

Rev 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Before the world began, God knew that He would need to send His Son.

If you want to know more about what it means in the image of God, read this:

http://www.gotquestions.org/image-of-God.html

It told me almost nothing. It says that the definition of "the image of God" is everything that makes us different from other animals, and everything intangible about us, as if that’s what God looks like. It compared naming pets and enjoying music to being God. Weird.

Because being in the image of God isn't about what God looks like, it is about being imbued with His personal attributes. We resemble Him in our better nature, not our appearance.

What I’m getting at is the arbitrariness of the consequences and why God would have created such random consequences. Look at them with a critical eye, if you can: Adam and Eve committed one sin, and for that their nature was changed forever, and that of their descendents forever, and they lost paradise. For one sin? You believe that God created such a heavy consequence for the first offence ever committed by innocent people – and people without "knowledge" mind you, because they hadn’t eaten the fruit yet. I cannot.

I understand what you're saying. You're not going to see the picture before you connect all of the dots. I'll keep supplying you the dots as I am able. I think I explained this particular question to you in more specific detail this time around, as to why the separation occurred.

God got to enjoy his creation for about 45 minutes before it screwed itself up, and from then on we’ve been a disappointment to him. Yet, as you’ve stated elsewhere, God created us for his pleasure. He knew what would happen, so he screwed up. He couldn’t even create himself a pleasing race of pets. Dogs have free will, understand good and bad, and are extremely pleasing as companions. Why couldn’t God create as good for himself as he did for humans? The whole story doesn’t hold water.

He knew before He created that His creation would rebel at some point, and He took the necessary steps to reconcile it back to Himself at the end of time. He didn't screw up, but He did create beings capable of screwing up. To allow for the real possibility of good, He also had to allow for the real possibility of evil.

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

That's a defence mechanism against whatever the opposite of apologia is. Reason, maybe.

Or it's absolutely true.

The only consistent model is that God himself created sin and evil by creating the laws, because if he hadn't created the laws, there would be no sin or evil in the world. This understanding is consistent with your statement A and in spirit with C, if you understand C to mean, "We created evil by breaking his law".

Sorry, I should have clarified this a lot more. When scripture says "the law" what it is reffering to is the Mosaic law that was given at Mt Sinai. This law was given because of sin, and sin was already in the world at that time. This really goes back to the beginning with what I described earlier. What we had in the beginning was not a law, but simply a choice. It was given not to keep us from evil but to give us freedom to choose to obey Gods will. You can't freely obey someone if you don't have a choice not to do it. You can't love someone without the choice not to love. The law came into play after all of this, and that is a whole other discussion.

>> ^messenger:

stuff

So why did it occur on Mars and not Earth? Not satisfied.

@shinyblurry

If you ask why God gave us the concept of right and wrong, could it be that He knew which behaviors were good for us and which were bad? If you ask why God gave us consequences, could it be that God wanted to discourage us from bad behavior?

By your rhetorical suggestion: God created us with free will, then he created laws for us because following them is good for us and he loves us, then he said there would be consequences for not following those laws to encourage us to follow them because he loves us, then he determined that the consequences would be the worst possible thing that could happen, far worse than the real-life consequences for breaking the rules… because he loves us? It doesn’t add up. Don't give me some reductionist "let all rapists go free" argument. There's no way to explain the extreme severity of the consequences for breaking the law if the law itself was created so we would be better off. See?

He gave them an honest choice and it was their choice that created sin. What God allowed is the condition to exist where sin was possible.

He created us and our conditions such that 100% of us (or 100% minus two, I suppose) would break those rules. It’s in our nature to break God’s rules. God made both our nature and his rules. God’s fault.

Why did God allow us to sin? Because if He didn't, we would be nothing more than robots.

What’s wrong with robots? You said elsewhere it’s because god wouldn’t want robots. How can he want anything? He’s perfect. Does his own existence not satisfy him? Is he lacking something? Was he bored and lonely? Are we his pets?

He must punish all sin...God cannot compromise His integrity to forgive us…

But he forgave us all our sins through the sacrifice of his son. Was that a compromise of his integrity? It seems he does choose to forgive us, at least once every 4000 years or so.

[me:]Why? Surely God decided that a sinless person would be required to act as a bridge? Why didn't God just make us closer to begin with? Or why didn't he just come on over himself? Couldn't he? Why did he determine that to disobey his commands would create distance?

[you:]God sent His Son over on His behalf, remember? Fellowship with God is a privilege, and to the extent that we abuse it, that is the extent to which He will remove Himself from it.

You didn’t answer my questions. I know the stated purpose of sending Jesus. My question is why the situation required exactly that. Surely God, at some point, decided, "Well, they’re bad, and I want to get closer, and the exact thing required is for me to have a son, for that son to be a perfect human, for him to preach for three years and then get executed by the other humans, and then we can be closer." God decided something like that. It’s a direct implication of saying that God created everything and that this was necessary.

If you want to know more about what it means in the image of God, read this:
http://www.gotquestions.org/image-of-God.html

It told me almost nothing. It says that the definition of "the image of God" is everything that makes us different from other animals, and everything intangible about us, as if that’s what God looks like. It compared naming pets and enjoying music to being God. Weird.

Why why why why why why? First, read some of the things I've said and connect the dots.

Because because because because because because your dots don’t connect. When I ask about a connection between two dots, you cite another totally new dot from scripture. When I ask about how to connect that dot, you assert another one with a rhetorical question. When I ask about that dot, you get frustrated and tell me to go study theology. Except within the same comment before you’ve had a chance to answer, I don’t believe I’m asking you the same question again and again. I’m asking you to justify the new information you’re giving me. If it’s frustrating for you, imagine how hard it is for me to accept it.

[me:]And why did they become corrupt? That must have been one of God's rules, that when you sin the first time, you corrupt your DNA (or whatever) for all generations to follow. He created that consequence as much as he created the physical rules of the universe. Why?

[you:]They lost their innocence when they disobeyed God and ate of the fruit. Their nature fundamentally changed as a consequence. Also, death came into the world. The human experience went from paradise to paradise lost, and humans had to fend for themselves. The corruption was a confluence of all of these different factors.

You missed the question. What I’m getting at is the arbitrariness of the consequences and why God would have created such random consequences. Look at them with a critical eye, if you can: Adam and Eve committed one sin, and for that their nature was changed forever, and that of their descendents forever, and they lost paradise. For one sin? You believe that God created such a heavy consequence for the first offence ever committed by innocent people – and people without "knowledge" mind you, because they hadn’t eaten the fruit yet. I cannot.

God got to enjoy his creation for about 45 minutes before it screwed itself up, and from then on we’ve been a disappointment to him. Yet, as you’ve stated elsewhere, God created us for his pleasure. He knew what would happen, so he screwed up. He couldn’t even create himself a pleasing race of pets. Dogs have free will, understand good and bad, and are extremely pleasing as companions. Why couldn’t God create as good for himself as he did for humans? The whole story doesn’t hold water.

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

That's a defence mechanism against whatever the opposite of apologia is. Reason, maybe.

I think you're forgetting the second greatest commandment, which is to love your neighbor as yourself. On the contrary to what you said, God wants you to love everyone in the entire world. He wants you to love your wife like Christ loved the church. God asks you to do more and be more than anything this world asks you to do. Your children are a blessing:

Behold, children are a heritage from the LORD, the fruit of the womb a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children of one’s youth. Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them! He shall not be put to shame when he speaks with his enemies in the gate.
(Psalms 127:3-5 ESV)

You misunderstand what that verse about the world means. It means do not value the material things of this world over the things of God. Look at the next verse:

"For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions—is not from the Father but is from the world."

Yes, God wants you to put Him first, because through Him all other things come. To want to do it without Him is like preferring to push your car up a hill instead of driving it down the freeway.

>> ^Ryjkyj:
>> ^shinyblurry:
We will never be satisfied with what is in the world, because it is all perishing:
All things are full of weariness; a man cannot utter it; the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing.
God told us not to love the world or anything in the world, and if we do, the love of God is not in us.
>> ^Doc_M:
I just can't live with no hope. Immortality is essential for human life, IMO.


And there you go Doc, the reason I choose the bleakness of my own unanswered curiosity over this:
"Nothing will ever satisfy you in your whole life, not the birth of your child, the love of another person, not your grandmother's cookies. In fact, I literally am asking you not to love anything or anyone but Me. And if you do love anything else, I will not love you. Also, please fear Me and die."
Thanks,
-the Lord

>> ^shinyblurry:

We will never be satisfied with what is in the world, because it is all perishing:
All things are full of weariness; a man cannot utter it; the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing.
God told us not to love the world or anything in the world, and if we do, the love of God is not in us.
>> ^Doc_M:
I just can't live with no hope. Immortality is essential for human life, IMO.



And there you go Doc, the reason I choose the bleakness of my own unanswered curiosity over this:

"Nothing will ever satisfy you in your whole life, not the birth of your child, the love of another person, not your grandmother's cookies. In fact, I literally am asking you not to love anything or anyone but Me. And if you do love anything else, I will not love you. Also, please fear Me and die."

Thanks,
-the Lord

"He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men"

God put eternity into our hearts. We will never be satisfied with what is in the world, because it is all perishing:

All things are full of weariness; a man cannot utter it; the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing.

God told us not to love the world or anything in the world, and if we do, the love of God is not in us. He said this because:

And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever.

He also said where ever your treasure is, there your heart will also be. Which is why He said:

but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal.

Jesus is the treasure we all seek, the way to eternal life. If we set our hearts on worldly things, we will perish along with it. Jesus tasted death for all men, and took the punishment for our sins so that we could be forgiven.. The wages of sin is death, and we are dead in our sins, but through Jesus Christ, our sins are forgiven and we are given a new heart and new spirit, and sealed for eternal life.

>> ^Doc_M:
I just can't live with no hope. Immortality is essential for human life, IMO.

Actually, 20 people voted they are not satisfied with the current diamond... /nitpicking

>> ^siftbot:

Voting for this poll ended with the majority of users voting Nothing, Diamonds are forever.

At least it's woman-proof.

>> ^laura:

My favorite part is when they say that if I'm not satisfied that it works exactly like I've seen in this commercial, I can just put it back in the box and send it back. I'm glad they said that, because I'm sure that as soon as I realized I still couldn't play golf or lift a handweight, I probably would have just stuck a stamp to it and put it in the mailbox.