Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: ozone@primenet.com (John Moore)
Date: 12 Nov 1996 23:42:06 -0700
On Tue, 12 Nov 1996 19:25:20 GMT, brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold
Brashears) wrote:
>jbh@ILP.Physik.Uni-Essen.DE (Joshua B. Halpern) wrote for all to see:
>
>>Harold Brashears (brshears@whale.st.usm.edu) wrote:
>
>[deleted]
>
>>: The two parties share the
>>: responsibility for the budget deficits, and the consequent increase in
>>: the public debt.
>>
>>Your basic horseshit. Defense spending increased. Domestic
>>spending not associated with entitlement programs (Social Security,
>>Medicare, etc. ) decreased or stayed constant.
>
>Sorry Joshua, but I think you are wrong. If you wish, I will go to
>the library and retrieve some of the figures for you, but I think they
>are available, even in Germany.
He is right as a proportion of GDP. However, he fails to point out
that defense spending was not really increasing in any historic sense,
it was recovering from a major force reduction under Carter. Overall,
defense spending as a fraction of GDP basically only halted a long
slide for a while. The amount of defense spending under Reagan, as a
GDP percentage, was vastly lower than under Kennedy, for example!
The interesting thing about defense spending history in the US is that
it normally tapers downwards until an unexpected war starts, and then
rapidly increases, because rebuilding the defense infrastructure is a
lot more expensive than maintaining and adequate force level in the
first place.
Today our defense spending is the lowest (GDP%) since before WW-I. Our
readiness is very poor, leaving us unable to even refight the Gulf
War.
>
>Defense spend did go up under Reagan, as I said before, but so did
>social spending, even outside of "entitlements" like Medicare and
>Social Security.
>
>Incidently, what would be your rationale for excluding "entitlement"
>programs, anyway? DO you not consider that to be social spending? I
>certainly do.
>
>[deleted]
>
>Regards, Harold
>----
>"If environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring
>human populations back to sanity, it would probably be
>something like AIDS."
> - Earth First newsletter, December 1989,
> Vol. 17, No. 4, Access to Energy.
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: ozone@primenet.com (John Moore)
Date: 13 Nov 1996 00:09:08 -0700
On Tue, 12 Nov 1996 12:34:22 -0700, mfriesel@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>Moore says:
>>
>> Gee, I don't remember ever not paying taxes on interest, but you might
>> be right. So? I thought you socialists dudes wanted to tax everything
>> in sight :-)
>
>I reply:
>
>There had been no tax on savings interest. What you remember doesn't
>concern me. By the way, if you want to start playing with labels, I
>can do it, too.
>
Gettin a little testy, are we? Actually, you're right, I don't know if
you are a socialist... I only know you are anti-capitalist, which
makes socialist the most likely result.
And by the way, you complained about my minor attacks, but once again
you are saying you don't care what I remember, which is clearly and ad
hominem attack.
And finally, I posted what I remember, with a disclaimer.
I think you are starting to get less civil. Can't you even take a very
minor jab like the one you objected to above?
>JM says:
>
>>
>> Duh
>
>I note:
>
>More than a single simple concept at a time and JM's brain stops.
All right, that does it. I have tried to be very civil with you, and
for a while you reciprocated. The discussion was quite interesting.
But you are being snide, which is unfortunate.
I think your tactics are appalling, since you constantly attack my
suggestions but refuse, even when requested, to reveal your
alternatives.
If you can't put up, maybe you should shut up and stop these dishonest
tactics.
>> Have you ever wondered why almost every other first world country has
>> ZERO capital gains tax rate?
>
>I reply:
>
>No.
Indicating you really don't care about this issue, but are rather just
throwing barbs for the sheer hell of it.
>> Furthermore, why would you want to raise the tax rate on savings
>> (capital gains taxes are taxes on savings for most people)? It is
>> alreadly over 50% for the average personr, who leaves money in capital
>> investments for a long time, because of the failure to index for
>> inflation. Fortunately for the economy, most person don't realize
>> this, or they would invest everything in tax free bonds or some such.
>>
>> So why do you want to penalize capital? It is employed to do
>> productive things.
>
>I reply:
>
>Well, there are three reasons:
> a) the same people who taxed my S&L;
>savings interest want to reduce capital gains, so to hell with them.
I don't think that is true - it is different people, but your
personalizing of the issue is pathetic.
>You said the tax rate dropped. The conclusion above is obvious.
It may be obvious to you, but it is wrong, as you would realize if you
looked at the numbers. Tax collections from capital gains increased as
the rate was decrease. Some people who are more willing to give
thought to the issue than yourself, and have a better understanding of
human behavior, know why that happened, and even predicted it.
>
>JM says:
>
>>
>> But frankly, I think it should. As one gets more skilled and higher
>> paid, one's taxes paid go up exponentially (with the exception of a
>> social security pedestal). This is fair???
>
>I reply:
>
>Skill and pay, taken in the general sense, are not correlated. Your
>assertion is a myth.
And you are seriously wrong. Skill and pay are in fact highly
correlated, more so now than at any time in US history.
>
>JM says:
>
>>
>> I think taxes ought to be a government fee... the same per person.
>>
>> But for the less radical, maybe a person consumes more government
>> resources if they have a higher income (not true, but let's pretend),
>> then maybe they should pay a flat rate rather than a flat fee.
>>
>> What the heck is wrong with that?
>
>I reply:
>
>I think it's essential to prevent the runaway concentration of wealth.
Thank you. Your idea of fairness is at basic disagreement with mine. I
think you should keep what people are willing to give you. You believe
that the government, through its ultimate threat of violence, should
prevent this.
I am sure we will never agree on this.
>An economy limiting the distribution of wealth to a sigmoidal curve
>seems like a good solution, where steps are taken to ensure that the
>wealthier members of society are those who contribute the most to it.
The free market, imperfect as it is, is the best system yet tried for
making that determination. It is relatively democratic, since people
are compensated roughly proportionally to what people are willing to
trade them for their contribution.
But maybe you have a brilliant idea of how "steps... ensure that the
wealthier members of society are those who contribute the most to it."
Please enlighten us on how you would achieve this.
>The maximum accumulatable wealth can be tied to the median wealth, and
>there can still be a minimum achievable by anyone for the asking.
This sounds like a tyranny to me.
>
>The difficulty in implementing such a system comes from the wealthy
>themselves, and other unfortunate results of our current system which
>will take more time to explain than I have right now, even to someone
>who's brain does not slip a cog like yours did above.
Nice, very nice.
>
>JM says:
>>
>> I think you simply want to punish the rich for being rich, regardless
>> of the iimpact on everyone else.
>
>I reply:
>
>Punish? Hardly, since this seems to imply a form of negative
>reinforcement intended to induce a behavioral change. I'm just
>looking for a constructive outlet for my violent tendencies, and the
>policies implemented by the wealthy have attracted my attention.
>Pretty simple, really.
Fine, I'm glad you admitted that.
I am more interested in fairness. If you want an outlet for your
violent tendencies, join the military.
>I reply:
>
>Hardly. But you seem unable to understand even simple arguments, so
>most of what I say goes completely over your head. The impression
>you're left with is no more than you're capable of understanding. You
>seem to forget the inconsistencies in your position about what
>capitalism is, what the free market is, and your defense of monopolies
>and inheritance, among others.
I see. Well, affirmative action should be given to dummies like me,
don't you think? And I guess those people who compensate me very well
for my intellect are also idiots.
>> >Ross Perot obtained $3B from the state of California and $1B from the
>> >state of Nevada. I may be able to find my source, but it's been
>> >awhile so you can disagree with me all you want with relative
>> >impunity.
>>
>> That means his company received the fees, which is far different than
>> Ross personally ending up with all the money.
>
>I reply:
>
>No, what I said was that Ross Perot obtained the money. How much they
>paid to the company is anyone's guess, but the statement I made can be
>checked.
I don't believe that statement, so I would appreciate a cite. Ross
simply does not have that much money. Ross certainly make a lot of
money off his efforts, but not $4B.
>> Ross had all sorts of
>> costs, after all. He was a tough businessman, and maybe he shaved some
>> edges here or there, but I haven't seen that in this discussion. So
>> please explain, again, what is wrong with Ross Perot's company, or any
>> other company, getting a bunch of money from the government for doing
>> something that, at the time, NO ONE ELSE including the government,
>> could do?
>
>I reply:
>
>You're making a number of errors above. First, you interpreted my
>statement regarding Perot's money as assuming it went to the business
>rather than to his personal forture
If you can prove that some government simply gave that money to HRP
not for services rendered, you can make a lot of money writing about
it. Again, I simply do not believe you. When I worked for Ross his
fortunre was under $2B and that was long after the time you talk
about.
> second, you seem to think shaving
>edges was an essential element of the discussion we've had which it is
>not;
Alright, my poor low intellect does not understand what you, o master,
meant by that. Please enlighten me by using more, shorter words.
> third, you think no one else could do the same job Perot did for
>less;
I know that for a fact. The history of EDS is public. At the time, no
one else was able, which is how EDS, a small company at the time (and
Ross was not rich) could get those huge contracts.
Apparently you haven't really studied EDS history. I have. I read a
book on it, I worked for the company, and I know some high level old
timers in the company.
>Fourth, you think the government has the right to make an
>indiviual wealthy using public funds.
Do you think companies doing government work should be allowed to make
any profit?
Do you think the profit should be proportional to the amount of work?
If the company is owned by an individual, do you think that individual
has a right to take part of those profits?
>
>JM continues...
>>
>> Medixxx was a mandate on the states that did not give them time to set
>> up the capability to administer it. Ross, through very skilled
>> management, very hard work, and some luck, was able to do it. For
>> this, he is being attacked?
>
>I reply:
>
>I wasn't attacking Perot in particular. I was attacking incompetent
>administration that permits businessmen to become exceptionally
>wealthy through entitlement programs at the expense of the general
>public.
See above.
> I was attacking your fabricated characterization of welfare
>queens.
What? I didn't see that in this message.
>free-markets on the one hand, while defending the characteristics
>these lead to in practice of piracy, abuse of the system, and the
>incompetence which allows it in practically the same breath.
You have yet to prove any piracy. Please fine piracy, and then show a
dictionary cite to back it up.
What abuse?
What incompetence? By whom?
>I have no reason to dislike Perot, except that he is not a responsible
>member of my society.
Do you think setting up EDS hurt society? If so, please explain.
I think he is irresponsible in his political actions, which may be
what you are referring to.
>> I never said they mismanaged in favor of the poor.
>
>Do I need to dredge up your comments about people taking advantage of
>welfare, or do you remember now?
I remember, but I fail to see how it ties into this part of this
thread.
> And the
>> profits were for work from MANY state governments, and other
>> businesses, and the billionaireness came from a stock market which
>> valued his company quite highly. It seems to me that you are just
>> slinging mud, without the information necessary to justify it.
>
>I reply:
>
>Quite the contrary, you are wholly unwilling to accept any information
>which threatens your opinion.
No, I find it hard to accept information from a suspect source when I
have contradictionary information from a number of reliable sources,
some whom I know personally.
You have yet to provide backup for this claim.
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: masonc@ix.netcom.com (Mason A. Clark)
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 19:57:35 GMT
On 12 Nov 1996 20:37:15 GMT, dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) wrote:
> masonc@ix.netcom.com (Mason A. Clark) wrote:
>
> >4. The acidity of the "no limits" posters is not buffered by
> > the fact that the worriers may have some points and may, by
> > their anti-Pollyanna program be a major factor in postponing
> > the time of reckoning.
>
> Mason,
>
> This is perfectly plausible, but is not in fact true. Us acid tongued
> ones are the people who are in fact creating useful and usable
> mechanisms or reckoning -- cost benefit analysis, international
> treaties, arrests on the high seas, etc. etc. There is of course more
> to be done, and we're doing it.
>
> The people you quite conservatively call Pollyannas are doing nothing
> useful; if anything they harm the cause they claim to support,
> bringing legislation, regulation, and negotiation into disrepute by
> demanding laws and rules which are harmful and impotent. The
> Environmental Protection Agency in its first flush of ukases is an
> example of such laws and rules, and it is only now, 20 years later,
> that the agency is becoming practical enough to do more good than
> harm.
>
> -dlj.
It appears that I mislead David and perhaps everyone with a kind of
negative-positive: "anti-Pollyanna".
The Pollyannas are the ones believing all is well, nothing can go wrong,
unlimited growth is possible at least for the farthest forseeable future.
By this definition, McCarthy would qualify (and that is NOT an insult).
The anti-pollyannas to which I referred are the Jay Hansons and Ehrlichs
who fear something will go wrong, in fact are terrified.
With that understood, I repeat my plea for buffering of the acid:
> >4. The acidity of the "no limits" posters is not buffered by
> > the fact that the worriers may have some points and may, by
> > their anti-Pollyanna program be a major factor in postponing
> > the time of reckoning.
May I add, I would be terrified by a world of Pollyannas. But please
don't tell my Quimby - New Thought friends.
---------------------------------------
Mason A Clark masonc@ix.netcom.com
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3210
or: www.netcom.com/~masonc (maybe)
Political-Economics, Comets, Weather
The Healing Wisdom of Dr. P.P.Quimby
---------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy)
Date: 13 Nov 1996 08:19:26 GMT
In article <3288d4b4.6423368@nntp.ix.netcom.com> masonc@ix.netcom.com (Mason A. Clark) writes:
>
> On 12 Nov 1996 20:37:15 GMT, dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) wrote:
>
> > masonc@ix.netcom.com (Mason A. Clark) wrote:
> >
> > >4. The acidity of the "no limits" posters is not buffered by
> > > the fact that the worriers may have some points and may, by
> > > their anti-Pollyanna program be a major factor in postponing
> > > the time of reckoning.
> >
> > Mason,
> >
> > This is perfectly plausible, but is not in fact true. Us acid tongued
> > ones are the people who are in fact creating useful and usable
> > mechanisms or reckoning -- cost benefit analysis, international
> > treaties, arrests on the high seas, etc. etc. There is of course more
> > to be done, and we're doing it.
> >
> > The people you quite conservatively call Pollyannas are doing nothing
> > useful; if anything they harm the cause they claim to support,
> > bringing legislation, regulation, and negotiation into disrepute by
> > demanding laws and rules which are harmful and impotent. The
> > Environmental Protection Agency in its first flush of ukases is an
> > example of such laws and rules, and it is only now, 20 years later,
> > that the agency is becoming practical enough to do more good than
> > harm.
> >
> > -dlj.
>
> It appears that I mislead David and perhaps everyone with a kind of
> negative-positive: "anti-Pollyanna".
>
> The Pollyannas are the ones believing all is well, nothing can go wrong,
> unlimited growth is possible at least for the farthest forseeable future.
> By this definition, McCarthy would qualify (and that is NOT an insult).
> The anti-pollyannas to which I referred are the Jay Hansons and Ehrlichs
> who fear something will go wrong, in fact are terrified.
>
> With that understood, I repeat my plea for buffering of the acid:
>
> > >4. The acidity of the "no limits" posters is not buffered by
> > > the fact that the worriers may have some points and may, by
> > > their anti-Pollyanna program be a major factor in postponing
> > > the time of reckoning.
>
> May I add, I would be terrified by a world of Pollyannas. But please
> don't tell my Quimby - New Thought friends.
It is not my position that "unlimited growth is possible at least for
the farthest forseeable future." I argue in my Web site
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
that 15 billion can be supported at the U.S. level of material
consumption.
I also do not claim that "nothing can go wrong". My ideas of what the
dangers are differs considerably from that of the political environmentalists.
However, I have discussed the *possibility* that global warming will
occur *and* turn out to be harmful and have discussed ways of mitigating
the danger - again not the same ways as those advocated by the
ideological environmentalists. A position that it is appropriate to
wait is not a position that nothing can go wrong.
(I do not regard Mason Clark's misreading of my position as an insult).
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
During the last years of the Second Millenium, the Earthmen complained
a lot.
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: Steinn Sigurdsson
Date: 13 Nov 1996 09:59:01 +0000
ssusin@emily11.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Susin) writes:
> Steinn Sigurdsson (steinn@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
> : ssusin@emily11.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Susin) writes:
>
> : > These figures are from the Consumer Price Index, so it's the price
> : > of fish in supermarkets in US metro areas. It's a weighted average
> : > of all types of fish, and includes products like canned tuna.
>
> : > Also, I could have been clearer about how I calculated these figures.
> : > From 1970-1995, overall inflation was 393%, while the price of fish
> : > rose 548%. I quoted 548/393 = 1.4, or a 40% higher relative price.
>
> : Those will then include a different bunch of fish
> : in the initial and final figures. Eg in the 80's significant
> : amount fresh fish was airlifted to restaurants on the East
> : Coast, at a considerable premium, a practise that would
> : have been unthinkable in 1970.
>
> The fact that the basket of fish changes implies that the
> price change is _understated_. If people hadn't compensated
> for the price increase by switching to cheaper fish,
> the index would have increased by more than 40%.
Ah, no. There other reasons people make choices as
to what they eat than the price. eg if fish is perceived
at some point as healthy, or even fashionable, people will
accept a premium price for it.
> Also, the index I quoted doesn't include restaurant food
> (that's why I described it as "the price of fish in
> supermarkets").
It was an instance of changing practises that can increase
the retail price. If there is a demand for "freshness"
it pays to fly in the same fillet of fish, which leads to
a higher retail price for the same commodity, even if the
wholesale price was fixed.
> : Penetration of ocean fish to markets in the central US
> : increased, as did market penetration of prepared fish,
> : both practises involve higher cost retail in exchange
> : for consumer convenience.
> I doubt that this effects the CPI. I think you're
> confusing the price level with price changes.
It wouldn't affect the CPI much, unless fish prices
were strongly weighed in evaluating the CPI. What it does
do is affect the retail price relative to the CPI.
ie it makes the retail price higher, not because of an
intrinsic rise in wholesale price but because of a change
in preparation or marketing.
> : A number of different species of fish were introduced to
> : US markets in that interval, some "exotics" that again
> : commanded a premium price.
> You misunderstand how new goods are introduced into the CPI.
> Expensive new varieties of fish won't increase the index,
> unless they are also _increasing_ in price rapidly.
Expensive new varieties of fish will increase the
mean price paid for "fish" if the fish index is
calculated with uniform weight. How else do you allow
for the introduction of new products in a category
when calculating a mean index of cost?
> : Finally, exchange rates fluctuated in the interval,
> : and a fair chunk of US consumption is imported.
> This is totally irrelevant. The CPI people check out
> the price of fish in retail establishments, and
> don't make any distinction between domestic and
> imported.
Its not irrelevant! If some fraction of the fish is
imported and becomes more expensive retail because the
dollar reduced in value then this does not reflect
an intrinsic supply-demand response but a forcing due
to completely extraneous factors
If the index of fish prices changes because a currency
trader is worried about Sadam Hussein's temper, this
can not be argued to be representative of some supply
and demand problem with fish itself.