Same here, except possibly through the (wrong) idea that everything is reducible to money, and getting more money is all that matters.arbiteroftruth wrote:It is not even remotely clear to me how you see that sentiment implied by that quote.
Jose
Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates
Same here, except possibly through the (wrong) idea that everything is reducible to money, and getting more money is all that matters.arbiteroftruth wrote:It is not even remotely clear to me how you see that sentiment implied by that quote.
ucim wrote:Well, we did do the nose. But nowhere did I use that to extrapolate to the entire year. You cherrypicked, I cherrypicked.Tyndmyr wrote:You've selected a point on a curve visualizing the highest quarter in the highest year for the Obama administration. Using that, you are attempting to claim you can see no difference between the Obama administration and the Trump administration.
What I did do was look at the shape of the curve for ten years, and its (visual) average. There was no significant change in the last two years.
ucim wrote:What does "worse" mean for you? I like breathing. I like freedom. I like science. And I like living among people who value these things above money, organized superstition, political power, and stupidity.Tyndmyr wrote:However, if the rate of growth for those investments [(clean air, clean water, good health, privacy, and freedom from despots)] is lower, then you will see an exponentially worse future.
eran_rathan wrote:Tyndmyr wrote:All investment is prioritizing the future over the present. Investing in the environment, a bridge, or a company is not different in that respect.
Prima facie evidence for libertarianism being the idea of "I've got mine, so fuck you."
"I can afford to live in suburbs and commute to my high-paying job, why don't you poor people just work harder like I did?" - asks the middle income white man.
froghero wrote:So, when should the country invest in anything besides the economy? In ten years, a hundred? When do we get to use that economic investment to buy quality of life? After quality of life declines? How much damage has to be done before preventative care makes sense?
Tyndmyr wrote:It is not a curve for ten years. It's an erratic up-down bounce.
Soupspoon wrote:Tyndmyr wrote:It is not a curve for ten years. It's an erratic up-down bounce.
That statement, alone, leads me to believe that you aren't using the same language about graphs as just about anybody else is.
Add to that some of your other descriptions of the graph I think you're describing and I'm doubting we can even have a sensible conversation about this, with terms reference so dissimilar.
Tyndmyr wrote:All things, at some point, become an economic investment. The environment, human health, infrastructure. All of these have some financial value.
The point is mostly to do those things when they are the best remaining economic investment, instead of putting off economic investments because "we prioritize health above money" or some such. If you focus on economic improvement, you'll get quality of life increases. Wealth is highly correlated with quality of life.
Quercus wrote:Tyndmyr wrote:All things, at some point, become an economic investment. The environment, human health, infrastructure. All of these have some financial value.
The point is mostly to do those things when they are the best remaining economic investment, instead of putting off economic investments because "we prioritize health above money" or some such. If you focus on economic improvement, you'll get quality of life increases. Wealth is highly correlated with quality of life.
Are you sure that tackling climate change and anthropic mass extinction will become the best remaining economic investment *before* the planet is in an unstoppable slide towards human uninhabitability?
Quercus wrote:Also, as an aside, regardless of how effectively you think they do it our economic systems only ever value *human* quality of life. As someone who places great value in the more-than-human world such systems are resulting in what, to me, is a moral crime of unspeakable magnitude. This may go some way to explaining why our views on such systems are so different.
Tyndmyr wrote:Quercus wrote:Are you sure that tackling climate change and anthropic mass extinction will become the best remaining economic investment *before* the planet is in an unstoppable slide towards human uninhabitability?
Weirdly enough, the US has actually made enough progress towards the Paris goals after Trump's pull out speach to improve our estimated date of compliance*. Trump isn't going to any lengths to pursue progress on global warming directly, it's all a side effect of pursuing cheap energy.
So, yes.
*https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2018/06/01/trump-withdrew-from-the-paris-climate-plan-a-year-ago-heres-what-has-changed/?utm_term=.7e5cc141e42a
Dauric wrote:... Ehhh, no.
If you read that article carefully you might notice the point that Trump's policies haven't actually been enacted yet, and the U.S. can't actually withdraw from the accords until 2020.
Tyndmyr wrote:Dauric wrote:... Ehhh, no.
If you read that article carefully you might notice the point that Trump's policies haven't actually been enacted yet, and the U.S. can't actually withdraw from the accords until 2020.
Correct. That's why Trump himself gets no particular credit. He hasn't actually done *anything* to promote dealing with climate change. Nor is he at all likely to do so.
This is largely the result of the energy market, not Trump himself. In particular, US natural gas production has been super helpful. This is not the sort of policy that has been pushed by those who advocate an environment first strategy. They generally advocate against the "drill everything" approach. However, increasing natural gas production is pushing out dirtier energy methods, while also, thanks to lower energy costs, increasing our ability to handle other needs.
It's evidence in favor of economic approach, but that's entirely different from giving Trump credit. His big speech stuff is symbolic, and has pretty much no effect either way.
That's a kind of curve. It's the (smoothed) derivative of the GDP itself; the thing to look at is its general "altitude". Quarter to quarter changes are mostly noise, including cyclical variation. If you take a look at the US GDP per capita chart (there's a list on the right) over ten years, it's a pretty steady upward trend since 2009. That trend is just continuing. Ditto the GNP chart (bottom of the list).Tyndmyr wrote:It is not a curve for ten years. It's an erratic up-down bounce.
Quite true. I would not expect these things from impoverished nations. But the United States is not impoverished by a long shot. We are probably the wealthiest nation on the planet. We can spend a little to get a healthy environment. And it's not even about the spending (though that's part of it) - it's the attitude that these things aren't important that is so destructive. And what does he want to do with all this money? Build more bombs, destabilize the world, and create a Space Force, all while preaching that the earth is flat.Tyndmyr wrote:Poverty doesn't bring freedom. It doesn't bring a healthy environment. It doesn't bring scientific discovery.
I was waiting for you to say that. While a few rich men fly private planes, most private pilots are not rich by any means. General aviation ("private planes") are what give us traffic reports, medivac flights, crop dusting, pipeline patrol, photogrammetry, and many other things, in addition to air taxi operations and business executive travel. General aviation provides jobs for many people who are not at all rich, and those businesses provide jobs for the next layer of not-so-rich people.Tyndmyr wrote:Private planes are a rich man's hobby.
No. Just.... no.Tyndmyr wrote:All things, at some point, become an economic investment. The environment, human health, infrastructure. All of these have some financial value.
The point is mostly to do those things when they are the best remaining economic investment...
ucim wrote:That's a kind of curve. It's the (smoothed) derivative of the GDP itself; the thing to look at is its general "altitude". Quarter to quarter changes are mostly noise, including cyclical variation. If you take a look at the US GDP per capita chart (there's a list on the right) over ten years, it's a pretty steady upward trend since 2009. That trend is just continuing. Ditto the GNP chart (bottom of the list).Tyndmyr wrote:It is not a curve for ten years. It's an erratic up-down bounce.
There is no evidence in the charts that Trump is doing anything. The trend was in place since 2009.
]Quite true. I would not expect these things from impoverished nations. But the United States is not impoverished by a long shot. We are probably the wealthiest nation on the planet. We can spend a little to get a healthy environment.
And it's not even about the spending (though that's part of it) - it's the attitude that these things aren't important that is so destructive. And what does he want to do with all this money? Build more bombs, destabilize the world, and create a Space Force
I was waiting for you to say that. While a few rich men fly private planes, most private pilots are not rich by any means. General aviation ("private planes") are what give us traffic reports, medivac flights, crop dusting, pipeline patrol, photogrammetry, and many other things, in addition to air taxi operations and business executive travel. General aviation provides jobs for many people who are not at all rich, and those businesses provide jobs for the next layer of not-so-rich people.
In any case, that's a red herring, and I doubt Trump gives two toots about it.
Tyndmyr wrote:Things have an economic cost. You do things because there is a return. Often that return is not economic. You don't come home early to see your son's baseball game in the hopes that it will increase your bank account some time in the future. You do it because you love your son and it will make him happy. You don't plant flowers in your garden because it increases your property values; you do it because they are pretty and it makes you smile when you come home.
The same thing is true of a nation. We don't clean the air in order to make a profit, we clean the air because breathing is a Good Thing, and lung pain is a Bad Thing. We don't assist with the defense of our allies in order to send them a bill; we do it because peace and freedom are a Good Things, and because war and dictatorships are Bad Things.
Government is not a fiscal entity. It is an entity that happens to use money (which it gets from its constituents), it's an entity that creates money (the means of exchange, and the platform of exchange) in order to accomplish its goals, but the purpose of government is not itself fiscal. Government isn't a business. It should not be run as one.Tyndmyr wrote:...but a government is a fiscal entity in a manner somewhat different from a...
I think we're done here. There is no common ground.Tyndmyr wrote:Clean air has value. Straight, dollars and cents value that can be quantified, where the joy at seeing your child is not the same kind of thing.
Tyndmyr wrote:Quercus wrote:Also, as an aside, regardless of how effectively you think they do it our economic systems only ever value *human* quality of life. As someone who places great value in the more-than-human world such systems are resulting in what, to me, is a moral crime of unspeakable magnitude. This may go some way to explaining why our views on such systems are so different.
Eh, I think we can and do put value on other life as well. Well, some other life.
Malaria-carrying mosquitoes going extinct would probably be a net win for us, if not for the mosquitoes themselves. I would indeed be okay with that, and consider the resulting food chain tweaks to be a relatively modest cost in return for the quality of life gain. How would you value the extinction of a not particularly well liked type of bug? Or how should we assign value to it?
Mutex wrote:Can tell Trump will be here in a couple of days, multiple literal black helicopters hovering over London.
SecondTalon wrote:If you post an opinion or fact, post a link you're using as evidence or that shaped your opinion.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.
Sableagle wrote:You say it's all economic decisions, but you don't specify over what term.
ucim wrote:Government is not a fiscal entity. It is an entity that happens to use money (which it gets from its constituents), it's an entity that creates money (the means of exchange, and the platform of exchange) in order to accomplish its goals, but the purpose of government is not itself fiscal. Government isn't a business. It should not be run as one.Tyndmyr wrote:...but a government is a fiscal entity in a manner somewhat different from a...
ucim wrote:I think we're done here. There is no common ground.Tyndmyr wrote:Clean air has value. Straight, dollars and cents value that can be quantified, where the joy at seeing your child is not the same kind of thing.
Quercus wrote:Spoilered for off-topic (sorry mods! I seem to be making a habit of this - I promise if it goes on much longer I'll move into a more appropriate thread)Spoiler:
Ok. Please define "fiscal entity" for me, so we can at least be on the same page.Tyndmyr wrote:It isn't a business, but it's definitely a fiscal entity. These definitions are not the same.
Leadership is not about making the leader happy. And in any case, your statement was: "Clean air has value. Straight, dollars and cents value that can be quantified, where the joy at seeing your child is not the same kind of thing." I could quite easily state that the joy of seeing your child has straight dollars and cents value that can be quantified. I can even come up with a method of quantifying it. "How much would you pay to see your child again?" But perhaps that's not fair, and the question should be "How much would you pay to allow Fred to see his child again?"Tyndmyr wrote:If a father makes a decision to see his kid's baseball game because doing so makes him happy, no further justification is required.
If Trump makes a decision to have the government do a thing because doing so makes him happy, further justification is definitely required.
Make sense?
ucim wrote:Ok. Please define "fiscal entity" for me, so we can at least be on the same page.Tyndmyr wrote:It isn't a business, but it's definitely a fiscal entity. These definitions are not the same.
Leadership is not about making the leader happy. And in any case, your statement was: "Clean air has value. Straight, dollars and cents value that can be quantified, where the joy at seeing your child is not the same kind of thing." I could quite easily state that the joy of seeing your child has straight dollars and cents value that can be quantified. I can even come up with a method of quantifying it. "How much would you pay to see your child again?" But perhaps that's not fair, and the question should be "How much would you pay to allow Fred to see his child again?"Tyndmyr wrote:If a father makes a decision to see his kid's baseball game because doing so makes him happy, no further justification is required.
If Trump makes a decision to have the government do a thing because doing so makes him happy, further justification is definitely required.
Make sense?
I suppose we could put the two together. "How much would you pay to see Fred's child struggle to breathe polluted air? The more you pay, the less (or more!) polluted the air becomes!" We could even solve the immigration problem this way, and boost GDP at the same time.
I suspect even you would have some reservations about this though.
Clean air has value, but it's not "straight dollars and cents value that can be quantified". Clean air has a cost however, which is quantifiable.
gmalivuk wrote:That you can assign specific costs to dirty air doesn't imply that you can assign a dollar value to clean air.
Unless you do something like the potential-energy convention, where clean air has a value of $0 and dirty air has a value of whatever its health and environmental consequences cost.
I agree. Neither governments nor corporations are people, although letally they have some of the rights associated with that status.Tyndmyr wrote:If you're being formal about it, the term would be accounting entity, but the point here is that a government isn't a person.
No. They organize for the same reason a tribe organizes for the hunt. Cooperation makes it easier to achieve one's goals, and allows for bigger goals to be reached. Money is not the reason, except insofar as money is one of the most flexible tools we have.Tyndmyr wrote:Businesses, governments, charities are all usually organizations for financial reasons, not because they are a natural entity.
They would become objective, hard cash valuations if you put the scheme into practice. Clean air, likewise, has a very subjective valuation. Anything that makes people happy or miserable does. This goes for music, theater, weather, freedom, and purple mountain's majesty.Tyndmyr wrote:Unfortunately, those are very subjective valuations, and they're derived from little more than opinions.
That's the wrong way to value clean air. It ignores all the actual benefits of breathing.Tyndmyr wrote:The delta between clean and dirty air consists of the costs imposed by the latter.
gmalivuk wrote:I can't speak for SecondTalon, but I suspect that when he talked about citations it was more for claims like "the value of clean air can be measured in USD" than "Republicans have more babies".
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.
Tyndmyr wrote:If you're being formal about it, the term would be accounting entity, but the point here is that a government isn't a person. It's *like* a person in some respects, but...it's akin to the whole "a corporation is not a person". For some purposes, it is convenient to treat them as one. But not the sort of purpose in which a person feels joy at seeing their child do things.
ucim wrote:I agree. Neither governments nor corporations are people, although letally they have some of the rights associated with that status.Tyndmyr wrote:If you're being formal about it, the term would be accounting entity, but the point here is that a government isn't a person.
The phrase "fiscal entity" however specifically implies a monetary orientation. Corporations fill the bill; they are designed to make a profit. That is their purpose. However, it is most assuredly not the purpose of government to "make a profit". Government's basic purpose is to... well, govern. That is, to control (to some extent) its constituents, protect them from one another, and protect them all from the outside. In addition, it exists to fostesr the general welfare of its constituents. That's kind of the additive inverse of protection from evil - they go hand in hand. Appropriate limits on what we should expect from government are a matter of reasonable disagreement, but "making a profit" is clearly outside of this scope.
Government is different from corporations, just like corporations are different from people.
No. They organize for the same reason a tribe organizes for the hunt. Cooperation makes it easier to achieve one's goals, and allows for bigger goals to be reached. Money is not the reason, except insofar as money is one of the most flexible tools we have.Tyndmyr wrote:Businesses, governments, charities are all usually organizations for financial reasons, not because they are a natural entity.
That's the wrong way to value clean air. It ignores all the actual benefits of breathing.Tyndmyr wrote:The delta between clean and dirty air consists of the costs imposed by the latter.
Thought experiment for you - suppose I proposed to give you a dose of Xarthian. It causes join pain, burning in the eyes, and difficulty breathing. Because of this, you would have a harder time at work leading to lower salary, would have to pay doctor bills, and {lots of other financial stuff}. But I worked all that out, and will pay you, in installments, for all of those costs. On my panopticon, I show you the two futures, and you are convinced that financially, they are identical.
Why wouldn't you let me inject you with this drug?
Could it be that there is more than cold, hard, money involved?
gmalivuk wrote:My point was that Tyndmyr also cited the baby thing already, even though it's the sort of thing most of us would have already assumed, but not the "clean air has a dollar value" thing.
Many businesses do organize to make money, because that's their goal.Tyndmyr wrote:I've never gotten a job because I had a deep and abiding need to join the Best Buy tribe. I've gotten jobs because I want a paycheck.No. They organize for the same reason a tribe organizes for the hunt. Cooperation makes it easier to achieve one's goals, and allows for bigger goals to be reached. Money is not the reason, except insofar as money is one of the most flexible tools we have.Tyndmyr wrote:Businesses, governments, charities are all usually organizations for financial reasons, not because they are a natural entity.
Billions of additional dollars are being spent by NATO countries since my visit last year, at my request, but it isn’t nearly enough. U.S. spends too much. Europe’s borders are BAD! Pipeline dollars to Russia are not acceptable!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 guests