OT: Trump: "China thinks we are dumb SOBs"

Indeed. It's not that we're spending socially on things that demonstrably cause positive social harm, it's that we aren't spending nearly enough. No zeroth-order program ever fails, they're simply underfunded, or sabotaged by the diabolical work of evil geniuses.

Envy, and blame--formulaic, but potent.

-- Cheers, James Arthur

g s

..

Some things about the US mindset really puzzle me.

For instance, spending billions of dollars on the war in iraq to save the poor iraqis, but not wanting to spend any money on your own poor countrymen.

No one wants to have a country full of bludgers living on government handouts, a better society is one where everyone is encouraged to contribute. The question is where to draw the line between hand outs and help outs. I think the US needs to work out what kind of minimum standard of living it would like all its citizens to have, and then work up from there.

Anyway, I am biased, but I think our Australian way of doing things is working quite well:

- A minimum wage that is enough for two people to support a family

- An employment benefits system whereby you receive training to get a job, and if you can't get one you have to work for the government (and still keep training)

- A free for all public hospital system

- An incremental tax system with a top rate of 47%

Now why should someone have to pay so much tax when they earn a lot... My opinion is that if someone is making a lot of money from society then they have an obligation to pay some of that money to keep the society functioning. They are not in a bubble. The framework for success is built and maintained by the government bureaucracy and taxes are required for government. Some things governments do make economic sense. For example, a country will be more productive if every child has access to a good education and if every worker has access to good health care (less sick days).

T...

That's simply completely wrong, not true in any detail. - As cited above, we spend 4x the amount on the poor needed to raise each and every one out of poverty. - The total spent on the Iraq war is a pittance by comparison.

My complaint is not merely the spending, but that it's positively devastating to those who receive it. It traps them in poverty and dependence, robbing them of their dignity, pride and ambition.

How many do you have on public assistance, and how much do they get?

We have that. Naysayers notwithstanding, I've always lived comfortably myself, spending less than minimum wage. And, nothing stops someone earning minimum wage from working extra--few people ever consider that. I started on my own with two full-time minimum-wage(*) jobs, saved up for college, and bought a used Porsche. I was 17.

(*) one paid slightly over.

Obviously, from your statement below, such a prosperous, double- earning lucky fellow as I was should pay a much higher tax rate...or, would that policy possibly keep up-and-coming people down, discourage them from trying harder? Just some food for thought.

We pay people to refrain from work, and pay them considerably more to have children, especially if they stay single and don't get married. (That's part of President Johnson's War on Poverty.) That is, we pay to split families, to destroy social support for young kids.

(note: these numbers are 15 years old. Scale upward, appropriately)

The effect has been to create a dependent class optimized to receive public benefits. You know, Katrina people. You saw them on TV.

Both Medicaid, plus anyone who goes to an emergency room, make sure everyone gets care whether they can afford it or not.

The problem is creating a system that discourages people, and a mindset that people deserve the same rewards no matter how much or little they work. Most I ever worked in a week? 7x22 =3D 154 hours, no kidding. Deadline? Met. Did society 'give' me that? No.

Right now we exalt loafers as victims, and vilify achievement. That's unsustainable, for everyone.

-- Cheers, James Arthur

My thoughts were mostly technical, about the legal ability of the US to implement such tariffs... not the advisability of it. (Though I think, if the important bulk of Europe would agree as well, it would probably be advisable in the long term.) I was speculating, from that testimony I read, that it was well-argued to be within existing treaties and the US could indeed enact such tariffs if it had the political will to do so. My comments really had little to do with whether or not linnux's comments about just placing tariffs on Chinese goods were a good idea -- I think that was about an entirely different subject than a carbon tariff might be. But tm brought up an interesting segue and I pursued it.

Regarding these new comments, I can shift gears a little.

...

Yes, but also keep in mind that three years back China became the largest emitter of CO2, as well. Global climate change doesn't respond to per capita rates, but magnitude per annum. The US is #2, now. But _causing_ some of the new #1 by buying so much from them, as well. So in that sense, again yes.

Continuing with the changed subject and focusing upon carbon tariffs as a far more free market approach to mitigation of global warming sources, I think at least the US and Europe must cooperate here in order to get the muscle required to sufficiently encourage China and India, long term anyway, and others who must also be part of the solution to jump into the pond, too. Maybe that isn't enough. But I think it would be, if engaged seriously.

But all this is another topic, really. I was mostly just wagging on about the legal elbow-room available and that in this narrow area, there is already a 'white paper' from the WTO on the topic, pretty much stating they don't see a problem with it and the testimony I provided above that goes further on this topic. It's doable, given the will.

Jon

emissions..

Spehro Pefhany is SO right. Which is common, and only occasionally annoying :-)

Here's the typical Chinese SUV bringing 4 kids home from school:

The whole album is here:

Also, just as much Chinese manufacturing is outsourced North American manufacturing, much Chinese pollution is outsourced North American pollution. Chinese manufacturers can move to cleaner processes, but it's not clear right now where North American consumers will find the money for that. Ultimately the customer pays for everything.

Mel.

And I can just imagine the whining when it is discovered that China is "cheating" by building 200 nuclear reactors in less than 3 years.

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show

One coal fired power plant every 4 days is certainly a problem in the making right now.

Jon

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show

Interesting article here:

"China has begun requiring power companies to retire an older, more polluting power plant for each new one they build".

India is currently building about half the number of coal fired plants that China is, but the Indian economy is probably a decade or more behind China's. Their population is expected to exceed that of China's in the future, so they'll have to come up with a lot of energy fairly quickly. Hard to see how that won't result in much more pollution, much more CO2 in particular, and MUCH higher oil and gas prices.

My point was that certain individuals don't care about the long-term reputation (or health) of the company they are running. They sometimes have a personal short-term interest. Having faith in a company is then misplaced.

Yes, but if there are laws in place, which they are breaking, then they're criminals (which might deter some) and there's a chance the others can be discovered and stopped. If there are no laws ...

I'm not saying there aren't plenty of stupid laws and regulations around. Just that an extreme "let the market decide" isn't always going to work.

Anything where certain people decide how money, which isn't actually their own, is spent is open to, errm, abuse...

I don't distrust all my fellow men. Just those who are willing to do

*anything and everything necessary* to get to the top. I most particularly distrust politicians ? but occasionally they do the right thing, by accident. :-)

Even you don't believe that BS.

I recall some discussion made public, with China, regarding ITR and LFTR style plants: the Integral Fast Reactor (IFR), developed at Argonne National Laboratory and built and tested at the Idaho National Laboratory; and the Liquid-Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR), some development taking place at Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

Both the IFR and LFTR operate at low pressure and high temperatures and don't have some of the future problems other systems may have. Both probably a decade out, though. (South Korea has a sizeable research program going on in these areas.)

China wanted a transfer of rights and technology to use IFR or LTFR, though. They did NOT want to just "buy" such power plants without getting the rest in the deal. So far, the US hasn't wanted to open that door.

Jon

I thought the Chinese were big on pebble bed reactors.

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show

That depends on which kids you're talking about.

--
Lead free solder is Belgium's version of 'Hold my beer and watch this!'

I was discussing a technology that cannot be fielded for a decade, yet. If all goes well.

Jon

Thanks.

All coal is bad. We have centuries of it left. And we cannot afford to burn any significant part of that what remains, clean or otherwise, unless emissions are thoroughly sequestered.

Yes, I gathered India is on track to proceed beyond China's population in 20 years? (I also seem to recall that almost all of the Chinese population sits in less than half of its land mass, too -- the eastern side. Not much geography knowledge to go on, I admit.)

Jon

message

for my

environmental

is=20

10000 points from Kirwan house for insanity and absolutism.

This is 10 years old:

We need a new one.

=46or some real enlightenment compare it with all of the following:

rld_map.PNG and noticeably useful

All coal is not bad if we use it wisely and do so without releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere and oceans.

The pictures are indeed pretty.

Point you are explicitly not making, being?

Jon