Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us

[zimv20]

link (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html)


· Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war
· Britain will be 'Siberian' in less than 20 years
· Threat to the world is greater than terrorism

Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters..

A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.

The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.


The findings will prove humiliating to the Bush administration, which has repeatedly denied that climate change even exists. Experts said that they will also make unsettling reading for a President who has insisted national defence is a priority.

The report was commissioned by influential Pentagon defence adviser Andrew Marshall, who has held considerable sway on US military thinking over the past three decades. He was the man behind a sweeping recent review aimed at transforming the American military under Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Climate change 'should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern', say the authors, Peter Schwartz, CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network.

An imminent scenario of catastrophic climate change is 'plausible and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately', they conclude. As early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions.


Bob Watson, chief scientist for the World Bank and former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, added that the Pentagon's dire warnings could no longer be ignored.

'Can Bush ignore the Pentagon? It's going be hard to blow off this sort of document. Its hugely embarrassing. After all, Bush's single highest priority is national defence. The Pentagon is no wacko, liberal group, generally speaking it is conservative. If climate change is a threat to national security and the economy, then he has to act. There are two groups the Bush Administration tend to listen to, the oil lobby and the Pentagon,' added Watson.

'You've got a President who says global warming is a hoax, and across the Potomac river you've got a Pentagon preparing for climate wars. It's pretty scary when Bush starts to ignore his own government on this issue,' said Rob Gueterbock of Greenpeace.

[Desertrat]

I've been somewhat convinced that Globular Worming is real, although I'm not convinced that Homo Sap hisownself is THE cause. A bit of hubris, seems to me. However, given the changes in some migration patterns and in the timing of "greenup" in the spring of the year in some locales, things seem to be changing for the warmer.

This Pentagon report apparently gives credence to the idea that the Gulf Stream might change its path of flow due to colder waters in the far north from icemelt in the Arctic. And, if that happens, their prognostication could indeed come about as regards Britain and northern Europe. That would have far more effect that merely a rise in average temperatures on the land.

So: "As early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions."

I'm a bit dubious as to the timing. There's a tremendous amount of inertia in very-large systems, whether economic, social or physical. I'm not sure this change will occur anywhere near that soon, although I agree it could indeed occur.

That said, I have no doubt as to the report's dire conclusions...

'Rat

[Thomas Veil]

Very interesting, zimv...especially as this (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/19/scientists.bush.ap/index.html) story is coming out at the same time.
President Bush's administration distorts scientific findings and seeks to manipulate experts' advice to avoid information that runs counter to its political beliefs, a private organization of scientists asserted on Wednesday.

The Union of Concerned Scientists contended in a report that "the scope and scale of the manipulation, suppression and misrepresentation of science by the Bush administration is unprecedented."
Sounds like George has some 'splaining to do.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Desertrat
I've been somewhat convinced that Globular Worming is real, although I'm not convinced that Homo Sap hisownself is THE cause.

that's where the debate seems to be going. in my mind, it's irrelevant, 'cuz human activity certainly isn't doing anything to improve the situation, regardless of what the 'main' cause is.

if this is a natural cycle, it doesn't mean that it's good for humans. wouldn't it be crazy if humans could sufficiently alter their activities to actually effect a positive change?

[Mav451]

Scientists have known this for years...isn't it better to be "safe than sorry"? We're gonna be very sorry if we don't try to do SOMETHING. Bush's outright dismissal of Kyoto was rather horrifying and outrageous in its own right.

[Desertrat]

Were the primary effect of the warming just the rise in average temperatures, it would have the beneficial effect of increasing the crop yields in Canada, Russia and the northern US. Maybeso China as well. (Remember that it's hypothesized that the daily highs won't be all that much greater; a degree or two. The nighttime lows won't drop as much as at present, which is where the main increase in the average temperature would come from.

This change in the Gulf Stream is a fairly recent conclusion from the folks at Woods Hole.

Mav451, the problem with the Kyoto accords--primarily--is that it wouldn't reduce the CO2 output in developing countries. One of the main reasons many of the European nations would suffer less than the U.S. is that they have a far higher percentage of their electricity from nuke plants, and are less reliant on fossil fuels. Further, their much smaller countries require less gasoline for the average citizen's travels than in the U.S., with the resultant smaller amount of CO2 releases.

'Rat

[Neserk]

Originally posted by Mav451
Bush's outright dismissal of Kyoto was rather horrifying and outrageous in its own right.

But not at all surprising. He lives life in the moment, Damn the consequences.

[diamond geezer]

Originally posted by Desertrat
Further, their much smaller countries require less gasoline for the average citizen's travels than in the U.S., with the resultant smaller amount of CO2 releases.

'Rat

I think the majority of driving is done around-town rather than across country, so size of vehicle/engine has more effect than size of country.

Dump those guzzling V8s

[SPG]

Tabloid prose notwithstanding, however, the report is real. But it's not particularly secret: It was given to Fortune magazine last month by the Pentagon bureaucrat who commissioned it -- Andrew Marshall, aka "Yoda." Marshall is the legendary head of the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment, a kind of in-house think tank on strategic issues. He is, to use the fashionable word, the Defense Department's resident "futurist."
When I saw Marshall's name drift into the picture, my skepticism increased fourfold. As this American Prospect article from back in 2001 explained, Marshall track record as an oracle is pretty mixed, despite his nickname.
One could look at the scenario and see another exercise in made-to-order threat mongering. What better way to justify a high and rising defense budget than projecting a world of perpetual crisis, in which, to borrow the report's phrase, "warfare defines human life"?
On the other hand, one could also see the report as an example of how rapidly the climate issue is being mainstreamed by the weight of the scientific evidence -- to the point where even Pentagon bureaucrats and oil industry consultants are being forced to think the unthinkable.
I'd like to think it's the latter. Either way, though, the threat of catastrophic climate change does appear to be real. To paraphrase Tom Friedman, some things are true even if the Pentagon believes them.

Read the whole thing...
http://billmon.org/archives/001089.html#more

[Desertrat]

dg, I dunno about this "around town". When you run across articles claiming daily commutes are averaging close to 100 miles per day, you're almost cross-country in Europe. And I very recently drove I-10 from Tallahassee to San Antonio; I was rarely alone on the highway. :) License plates from all manner of out-of-state places. And if you want "just real busy", try I-75 from Lake City, FL, to Cincinnati, OH--it's wall to wall traffic all the way.

Long before people started harumphing against SUVs, I'd already decided that generally they were bad investments. They're better than the old-time stations wagons, but so are mini-vans.

Trouble is, if you do any sort of hauling or trailer-pulling, you're not gonna find much worthwhile outside the 15 to 20 mpg critters.

I dunno why folks get so upset over SUVs. Seems to me the geriatrics in their RVs are a larger problem, both in terms of fuel and in terms of energy used in production.

Me? I mostly "recycle" cars. I did buy my '85 Toy 4WD pickemup new, but it has some 280,000 on it, now. Just think of the energy not used for the trucks I didn't buy!

:), 'Rat

[Neserk]

I hate SUVs. I can't see around the damn things and the people around here who drive them are crazy. And the only people I've seen who are better drivers are those who live in Northern Michigan. The East Coast is loaded with nutty drivers.

[diamond geezer]

Originally posted by SPG
Read the whole thing...
http://billmon.org/archives/001089.html#more

I checked out your link and then followed it to the life after the oil crash link.

Sobering reading.

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

[Desertrat]

Neserk, it's not just SUVs. Looks to me like alot of folks operate with the motto, "Stab it and steer. Hell ain't half full." You watch some sweet young thing in her Honda Accord, mirror turned down while she sucks on her lipstick at 85 mph, and you gotta wonder is anybody home.

I've built 150mph street machinery, and driven 200mph race cars. I'm just really, really glad that I'm old and retired and don't have to be out there at commuter time! My attitude is that there are a lot of incompetent "rolling road blocks" usurping "MY" highway. :)

It's not SUVs. It's too many people and too many people who won't either stay home or at their office. :) It's some 40 miles across Houston on I-10, and it's wall-to-wall most anytime of day except that at rush hour it's worse. It's little cars and little trucks and semis as well as full-size sedans and delivery trucks and SUVs.

The SUV thing is just a symbol for people who are bent out of shape from being over crowded. A lot like the Psych Dept experiments with crowding rats. We've done it to ourselves...

'Rat

[2jaded2care]

Well, the Lincoln Navigator gets about 14 mpg, vs. my Honda, about 30 mpg.

People in the US are free to drive what they choose (within certain restrictions), but I can't see driving a living room around and wasting that much money on gas, myself. (At least the RV'ers only hit the road a few times a year.)

The SUV mfrs have done a superb job of marketing, gotta hand them that. And folks are more than eager to fork their hard-earned over for a high profit-margin vehicle to buy into the myth and convince themselves they're important or successful or whatever.

My next vehicle will hopefully be a hybrid. I don't like where most of my gas money goes anyway.

I wish Congress would repeal the SUV tax break. Why am I paying more taxes so people can buy these things? Is it anything but a subsidy to GM and Ford?

And gov'ts are negligent in not fixing this idling traffic waste. Time the signals. Fix the interchanges. Arrest those who refuse to move movable accident vehicles off the road.

Instead, we sit, and we and our cars fume...

I ask my fellow Republicans, whatever happened to "waste not, want not"?

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by 2jaded2care
I ask my fellow Republicans, whatever happened to "waste not, want not"?

I'm not one of your fellow Republicans, but I hope you don't mind if I venture an answer this question: It got replaced with "conspicuous consumption."

Seriously, my operating theory of American consumerism today is that people don't think they're really living unless they're consuming more stuff and taking up more space then the next guy. It's a race towards large, in everything from soft drinks to bathrooms.

[2jaded2care]

Don't get me wrong, I haven't taken an oath of poverty, but I try not to "buy" into hype. If something's worth the money, and will improve my life enough to justify the cost, and its method of production is not objectionable to me, then I will try to buy it. I'm not going to buy something just because some commercial or trendy magazine says you're a loser if you don't. Kinda outgrew that line of thinking by age 10...

I don't know if I buy global warming yet, but why should I waste gas? Does it not cost money? Likewise, why should I not recycle? Is it truly cheaper to bury stuff in the long run? Shouldn't somebody worry about the long run? Why should resources be wasted?

[SPG]

Ah the old SUV rants...
I read not too long ago where they were comparing perceived safety versus actual safety and the results were pretty interesting. The Cadillac escalade had a 35% chance of a serious leg, chest, or head injury in a 35mph crash whereas the Ford Windstar (comparable interior dimensions) had a 1-3% chance of those same injuries in the same crash. The Cadilac rated much higher in the percieved safety however, and so people who wanted the "safe" car were more likely to choose the Cadilac.

My answer to the SUV overpopulation in urban areas? Go to the parking garages with low ceilings and raise the warning signs, and then go to the high ceiling garages and lower the warning signs down to sub SUV height.:D

[Desertrat]

Folks been griping about "consumerism" for several decades. "Keeping up with the Joneses" isn't exactly a newly-coined phrase.

So how do you wean people away from multitudes of duplicates around the house? How do you persuade people to save instead of spend? How do you convince folks that they ought to read the various consumer reports about actual safety vs. perceived--whether cars or anything else?

One question I've been mumbling to myself about for a long time is that of a future wherein people do start making wiser economic choices, and what it would mean to the overall economy. That is, we're some 2/3 "consumerism" and under 30% actual production--as in making things. Tie that to such things as the Kyoto accords, and what happoens to voting patterns as unemployment spreads? 'Cause, folks, it sure will spread. Energy use = jobs and money, and I really don't think wind-generators are the answer.

Environmentalists are fond of the saying, "Everything is tied to everything else." Yeah, true. But the environment is also inextricably tied to economics as well...

'Rat

[3rdpath]

first off, to diminish consumerism...stop watching t.v. viewing hours are directly related to spending habits. ( read " Affluenza"...a book based on the pbs series)

and as far as the lost jobs due to lower consumption...the happy medium is for people to work less hours, make proportionately less money but have more time for themselves and their families.

somehow consumption turned into an olympic sport.

[2jaded2care]

Another thing gov't should be doing is enforcing the speed limit (gasp!). That would cut down on gasoline use, and hopefully the increase in traffic fine revenue would help the coffers. Also, more taxpayers live longer.

Gov't could also do more to encourage personal savings. I don't think it really wants to, however, since lots of cash flying around is better for manufacturers and gov't tax revenues. Plus, if people spend now and don't save for retirement, that only helps gov't grow to fill that need.

Hopefully technology will step in and help cut energy demands (much to the utility companies' horror). LED traffic signals today, superconducting electrical wires tomorrow... Boy, they'll hate that.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Desertrat
Folks been griping about "consumerism" for several decades. "Keeping up with the Joneses" isn't exactly a newly-coined phrase.
Yes, you're right, consumerism has been with us for a long time, and will probably be with us well into the future. But what I'm reporting is a new kind of consumerism that notches up "keeping up with the Joneses" to another level of absurdity: "taking up more space and using more resources than the Joneses." This seems like a new phenomenon to me. When did deliberate wastefulness turn into a virtue?

[2jaded2care]

It isn't just individuals, gov'ts get in on the act too. Right now Georgia is fighting Alabama and Florida over water "rights". Not enough water, too many consumers. Everyone thinks their area has the right to keep growing, who cares about the other areas? Same with landfills, the cities send it out to the rural areas, which don't have the political power to fight it. No one cares about what's right or fair, only politics and money matter.

[mactastic]

When I go looking at trucks at the dealers, I feel like I'm going to hear "Can I super-size that for only $10,000 for you?" from the salespeople.

[2jaded2care]

That's right, we need super-sized trucks for our super-sized bodies. Bigger is always better, right?

[Desertrat]

Re: 2jaded's "It isn't just individuals, gov'ts get in on the act too. Right now Georgia is fighting Alabama and Florida over water "rights". Not enough water, too many consumers. Everyone thinks their area has the right to keep growing, who cares about the other areas?"

It's not that there's any notion of a right to grow. It's people of a growing population moving into an area for either jobs or retirement. I mentioned in another thread that a problem with some eight milion or more illegal immigrants that it meant stressing the resource base--which includes water. The water war to which you refer comes about due to the growth of Chattanooga and Birmingham, as well as Atlanta and it environs.

For all that the early developers of the LA Basin were far-sghted as to future needs, the fact remains that they lobbied Congress and essentially stole that Colorado River water on which they depend. The later developers were a large part of the lobbying force which led to the California Aqueduct bringing Feather River water through the Central Valley and on into LA. The SF Bay area has done its share of depriving more eastern residents of water, as well.

And there's Phoenix and Tucson and the CAP. Nothing like federal subsidies...

New Mexico gloms on to more than its adjudicated share of the Rio Grande, and then northern Mexico "steals" from the lower Rio Grande Valley--and folks on both sides of the river suffer.

Too many people, too many demands.

"Same with landfills, the cities send it out to the rural areas, which don't have the political power to fight it. No one cares about what's right or fair, only politics and money matter."

It seems that the money offered by cities is an adequate inducement for landfills in rural areas. The landowners are rather well paid. And, what's the alternative? Take high-value land in a city off the tax rolls, for a landfill? Which is better to cover, land worth some $250,000 to $500,000 an acre, or land worth $3,000 to $5,000 an acre?

'Rat

[2jaded2care]

I realize we need landfills, given current economics and technology. I just have a suspicion that burying waste under cheap property is not a permanent or necessarily good solution in the long term. For example, when gov'ts and landfill owners talk costs, do they anticipate costs associated with cleaning up leaky landfills? I don't know.

The other problem is that these "outlying areas" are often gobbled up as cities spread. So you end up with suburban schools built between 2 landfills (a situation here in the Atlanta suburbs), with parents wondering if the school's as safe as gov't officials would have you believe.

Gov'ts should do more to encourage recycling to cut down on landfill waste, with fees vs. fee cuts.

And more off-subject, when I get new tires, why do I pay (in GA) a $1 disposal fee per tire, instead of having to pay a $5 per tire disposal fee deposit at the time of purchase, of which $4 per tire is refunded when I need to dispose of the old tires? Seems like the first method actually discourages people from properly disposing of tires, whereas the second method, while requiring more record-keeping, would encourage proper disposal. Just a thought.

[Desertrat]

Uh, 2jaded, your "The other problem is that these "outlying areas" are often gobbled up as cities spread. So you end up with suburban schools built between 2 landfills (a situation here in the Atlanta suburbs), with parents wondering if the school's as safe as gov't officials would have you believe.

Gov'ts should do more to encourage recycling to cut down on landfill waste, with fees vs. fee cuts." has a bit of a dichotomy.

School boards are part of government. They decide where schools will be built. Other parts of local government decide where landfills will be put.

Connect the dots.

The problem with recycling of many household trash items is that there is less demand than there is supply. Alpine, Texas, is roughly 5,000 people. There has been an active recycling group working there. Their problem is storage of materials--cardboard, glass, e.g.--because nobody is buying. (Or even taking for free, SFAIK.) Imagine the problem for really large cities...

I don't quite follow your point about tire disposal. Few people actually dispose of their old tires, themselves. Most folks just go in, get tires, pay, and leave. After that it's up to the tire shop and "the system". (Some folks out here in the desert have used old tires for walls on their houses. A double-row, filled with dirt, is seriously insulated walls. :) Labor intensive, but certainly low cost.)

'Rat

[2jaded2care]

If I understand your point, I agree that government's choice to build a school between two landfills was perhaps not the brightest, regardless of whether it was the cheapest route, or even if it is somehow perfectly safe. I would argue that in this day of people worrying about holding their cell phones to their heads, or living next to hi-tension power lines, it's worth it to just avoid the controversy(and potential threats of legal action) if possible. I'm not naive enough to expect gov't to do what seems best, wisest, etc. to me.

In the Atlanta area, numerous recycling facilities exist. I assume they are able to meet some demand, as they do not seem to go out of business, nor do they appear to be in the permanent storage business. I understand that glass is probably not very economical to recycle (AFAIK, it comes from sand, and you still have to melt it down whether it's sand or recycled glass), but cans and newspapers seem to justify recycling around here. Of course, the incentive to recycle disappears when the county sanitation service is observed throwing everything together in the back of the same garbage truck...

My point about tires is, I often see abandoned tires on the freeways. People can't be bothered to load that dirty flat into the trunk, plus they're charged to dispose of it properly. If they're so inclined, they just leave it as a road hazard. I guess $4 wouldn't get many of these picked up, but some sort of return deposit might work. (Of course, people would gripe about paying a deposit -- it's outrageous! -- and then they would gripe about it's not worth $4 to collect it...)

[zimv20]

Originally posted by 2jaded2care
I often see abandoned tires on the freeways. People can't be bothered to load that dirty flat into the trunk

???

wouldn't that mean people were dumping their wheels, too?

[2jaded2care]

I guess so, judging from the deep grooves in the highways around here...

I'm usually too busy trying to avoid the tires to notice whether it's still on the wheel rim. Or maybe it's just the tire sellers flinging collected old tires out the back of the truck (?).

[Frohickey]

Spending vs saving... when there is no incentive to save, why should there be saving? Right now, the interest rates on savings accounts are a whopping 2%! Plus, you are taxed on your interest income by various municipalities.

There was language in GWBush's latest State of the Union speech about more ways to save. I'd welcome a tax-free savings account, or an increase in tax-free retirement accounts limits.

IIRC, 401K limits is up to $13K right now, its been growing at $1K per year for a while? Why not just say its unlimited. If I am frugal enough and can live off of Top Ramen and Macaroni-n-cheese day in and day out, why shouldn't I be able to save 90% of my income into a savings account? Seems that its not just the private citizen that is addicted to consuming, its government as well. :mad:

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Spending vs saving... when there is no incentive to save, why should there be saving? Right now, the interest rates on savings accounts are a whopping 2%! Plus, you are taxed on your interest income by various municipalities.

There was language in GWBush's latest State of the Union speech about more ways to save. I'd welcome a tax-free savings account, or an increase in tax-free retirement accounts limits.

IIRC, 401K limits is up to $13K right now, its been growing at $1K per year for a while? Why not just say its unlimited. If I am frugal enough and can live off of Top Ramen and Macaroni-n-cheese day in and day out, why shouldn't I be able to save 90% of my income into a savings account? Seems that its not just the private citizen that is addicted to consuming, its government as well. :mad:

dude -- i agree

is an IRA still limited to $2k/year? that's ridiculous!

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by zimv20
dude -- i agree

is an IRA still limited to $2k/year? that's ridiculous!

Hmm... you agree? Did someone spike your Wheaties? :p

So, if you agree that its a good thing to encourage saving and to do so we need to cut government spending...

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Hmm... you agree? Did someone spike your Wheaties? :p


no, but my orange juice tasted a little funny this morning.

i'm a big fan of fiscal conservatism, especially when it comes to individuals. if people want to save, i don't think they should be discouraged.


So, if you agree that its a good thing to encourage saving and to do so we need to cut government spending...

yes to the first, the second is subjective. government waste, yes, but spending cuts don't always mean the greater good has been served.

i'm in favor of spending money, intelligently, in places that imo will pay back bigger dividends. two examples: education, health care

[2jaded2care]

Gov't won't cut its spending. Or rather, the constituency they represent (the "majority") for the most part won't let them. We can't even hold spending the same, even adjusting for inflation. Plus, we all demand tax cuts for ourselves, so, what's left but deficit spending?

[2jaded2care]

Plus, many gov't departments are encouraged to spend. If you don't spend your budget this year, it gets cut next year. This has never made sense to me.

Same sort of thing with personal savings. Seems like you almost come out ahead spending now instead of saving.

Kind of like, it's cheaper to buy a new xxxx (toaster, inkjet, copier, etc.) than fix the old one, unless you can do it yourself. I understand why it is, but I don't have to like it.

Sorry to start with the rambling rants. Just ignore me, I do this sometimes.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by 2jaded2care

Same sort of thing with personal savings. Seems like you almost come out ahead spending now instead of saving.

Kind of like, it's cheaper to buy a new xxxx (toaster, inkjet, copier, etc.) than fix the old one,


your example isn't saving vs. spending, it's spending vs. spending.

i'm interested to know how spending instead of saving gets one ahead. (investments are somethign different)

[2jaded2care]

As Frohickey pointed out, the savings interest rate is paltry. If inflation is running close to it, you are not getting ahead. Kind of like, if you get no cost-of-living raise, yet inflation is taking place, that amounts to a pay cut, or at least your purchasing power has decreased. Plus, you are taxed when you earn money, taxed when you save it, taxed when you spend it. And taxes tend to go up, so if taxes later will exceed taxes now, sometimes it seems better to spend now.

Admittedly I'm not an economist or CPA (understatement of the year). But then, I get conflicting information from economists, too...

[mactastic]

But doesn't the market determine the interest rate on your savings account? And the market is always right, right?

[2jaded2care]

Originally posted by mactastic
And the market is always right, right?

I assume you are joking...

[mactastic]

Originally posted by 2jaded2care
I assume you are joking...

No, there are posters who have made that assertion with the utmost sincerity. Personally I don't buy it, but others do.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by zimv20
i'm in favor of spending money, intelligently, in places that imo will pay back bigger dividends. two examples: education, health care

But spending money intelligently is best done individually. No amount of central planning can be sensitive and flexible enough than individuals spending based on their individual needs and wants.

You might argue that some individuals are not intelligent in the way they spend, but the harm is theirs to bear. You could show them the error of their ways and persuade them to change their spending habits, but you would do worse if you took their freedom to spend as they choose away in the quest for (one person's version of) intelligent spending.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by zimv20
your example isn't saving vs. spending, it's spending vs. spending.

i'm interested to know how spending instead of saving gets one ahead. (investments are somethign different)

When the interest income gained from saving is lower than the rate of inflation, its best to spend the money now while it can buy more than save it and buy something later when it can buy less.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
But doesn't the market determine the interest rate on your savings account? And the market is always right, right?

Yes. The market is always correct.

With interest rates so low, you have low saving rates. To have higher savings rates, you would need to have higher interest rates. But with high interest rates, government spending would need to be curtailed because less would be available for spending, and more would be used for interest paid via the bonds/etc.

Is there a wish for more savings rates? Yes, the desire is there.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey

You might argue that some individuals are not intelligent in the way they spend, but the harm is theirs to bear.

i disagree. it often becomes society's problem. e.g. homelessness, the uninsured, the mentally ill are all society's problems.

if relatively small investments in education and universal health care (sticking w/ those two examples) can keep some number of people contributing to society, then not only have we saved money, but society itself is improved.

that last point is a bit nebulous, i'll try to explain and will probably only end up mucking it up more...

society, clearly, is made of people. but, imo the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. efforts made to increase the well-being of the whole will, imo, directly benefit its members, who will then give back to the whole. a little touch-feely, perhaps, and impossible to prove conclusively, but it's what i've observed and believed.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey
When the interest income gained from saving is lower than the rate of inflation, its best to spend the money now while it can buy more than save it and buy something later when it can buy less.

yes, but...

two factors are not being taken into account. and when i say two, i mean three:

1. the interest rate of a personal savings account is not the only interest rate available. over the long term, the stock market, for example, outpaces inflation

2. the exponential effect of reinvesting dividends, even in a 2% savings account, increases the yield > 2%

3. the goods and services one is buying isn't perfectly fluid. i.e. it's not possible to buy today everything that one needs tomorrow. e.g. perishable goods and future medical care

4. your point is much better made in a situation of runaway inflation, which isn't the case now

okay, four.

[Ugg]

Originally posted by Frohickey
But spending money intelligently is best done individually. No amount of central planning can be sensitive and flexible enough than individuals spending based on their individual needs and wants.

You might argue that some individuals are not intelligent in the way they spend, but the harm is theirs to bear. You could show them the error of their ways and persuade them to change their spending habits, but you would do worse if you took their freedom to spend as they choose away in the quest for (one person's version of) intelligent spending.

Whoa, dude, you've in one fell stroke eliminated all the schools, highways, ports, airports, military etc. It's not that easy.

Outside of the need for public expenditures, there is also the matter of cultural influences on spending habits. Humans are not some universal unit outlined by Hobbes, Keynes, Freud, etc. Our culture of spending vs a culture of saving like in Germany or Japan has been pretty constant for the last 200 + years. If anything it has accelerated since WWII. Should gw be encouraging such profligate spending or should he be encouraging fiscal conservatism? If the latter then he has set a piss poor example....

[2jaded2care]

Interesting points, Ugg. Japan, for example, has been in economic doldrums for years in large part because the citizens won't spend their money, stifling the economy. I would argue that some middle ground between that and what I see as the other extreme (US consumers) would be desirable, because lots of people here get in the habit of always spending, then have a hard time adjusting when things slow down. Plus, slower constant growth for some reason intuitively seems more sustainable than constant rapid growth.

Probably arguing semantics, but I think one could say the market is right over time . I think it should be pretty evident that the market was wrong during the tech boom (otherwise, why the bust?). I think it was wrong when it didn't prevent the Enron/Global Crossing situations from occurring. I think to some degree it's probably off now, since I suspect there's still lots of fraud being committed, and not enough incentive to find it.

US consumers have fallen into the thinking that if I just buy X, whatever X is, I will then be happy. Then, when they get X, they think hey, now I just need Y to be really happy... Madison Avenue at work.

[Desertrat]

Backin' up some, I imagine most of the tires seen along highways are those which have come off the rim when the tire went flat. I see a lot of trailers being pulled, and a tire is "plumb gone". You'll see more of that in summer than in winter...

As far as interest rates, Greenspan kept the discount low during the 1990s to keep the boom times going and create that federal surplus. This deferred the minor bust that should have come about in the middle to late 1990s, and exacerbated the 2000 bust and its $8 trillion in stockmarket losses. It also has reduced the interest component on the federal debt, which is no insignificant part of the annual federal spending.

The consumer advantage, of course, is that for a given amount of $/mo, you can buy more house than if the interest rates were four or five percent higher--and that's the main "why" of the present housing boom. Those with floating mortgage interest rates are gonna get burned, someday...

And the reason your credit card interest rates are so high is that there are a lot of default folks going bankrupt. VISA, et al, are writing off just beaucoup bad debts. In fact, there's an expansion in employment: Companies have started up, buying these debts for a few cents on the dollar, and hounding the folks who did all that charging. They hire guys who are 6'-4", 250 pounds, and ugly. :)

The biggest problem in our 2/3 consumer economy is that if we started a Japan-style of saving, there would be a full-bore Depression. Helluva note, doing bad by doing good--assuming saving for the future is good.

'Rat

[2jaded2care]

Originally posted by Desertrat
They hire guys who are 6'-4", 250 pounds, and ugly. :)


I can do the "ugly" part...

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by zimv20
i disagree. it often becomes society's problem. e.g. homelessness, the uninsured, the mentally ill are all society's problems.

if relatively small investments in education and universal health care (sticking w/ those two examples) can keep some number of people contributing to society, then not only have we saved money, but society itself is improved.

society, clearly, is made of people. but, imo the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. efforts made to increase the well-being of the whole will, imo, directly benefit its members, who will then give back to the whole. a little touch-feely, perhaps, and impossible to prove conclusively, but it's what i've observed and believed.

I disagree. I think that maximizing freedom and expecting responsibility would do more for society. Its really two facets. One is freedom, the other is what free people do with that freedom. You can simultaneously say that people should be free to do with their property as they please, AND at the same time say that responsible people have the ethical and moral duty to help out their fellow citizen. I can't subscribe to the belief that freedom should be curtailed in order to satisfy an ethical/moral question.

If society is more important than the individual, then you can argue that if 99.9% of society requires of it, society can forfeit the lives of the other 0.1% of society. That is just not right. (I think sometime around the 19th century, a country went to war over this issue.)

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey

If society is more important than the individual, then you can argue that if 99.9% of society requires of it, society can forfeit the lives of the other 0.1% of society.

if 'forfeit' means imprison, then yes.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by zimv20
yes, but...

two factors are not being taken into account. and when i say two, i mean three:

1. the interest rate of a personal savings account is not the only interest rate available. over the long term, the stock market, for example, outpaces inflation

2. the exponential effect of reinvesting dividends, even in a 2% savings account, increases the yield > 2%

3. the goods and services one is buying isn't perfectly fluid. i.e. it's not possible to buy today everything that one needs tomorrow. e.g. perishable goods and future medical care

4. your point is much better made in a situation of runaway inflation, which isn't the case now

okay, four.

1) Granted, the return on the stock market, long-term, outpaces inflation. But, that return is NOT guaranteed. You could lose your entire investment. That is not savings, its investment. Investments can decrease, stagnate or increase. The rate of return factors in the risk.

2) Reinvestment increases the rate to more than 2%, but how is this rate related to inflation?

3) Agreed. But future medical care expenses can be mitigated by the use of medical insurance premiums. There is still an incentive to not save, and to spend instead.

4) Runaway inflation makes things even worse. There have been a few countries that had runaway inflation in recent history, and there are lessons to be learned from them. Argentina, and Russia, IIRC.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by 2jaded2care
US consumers have fallen into the thinking that if I just buy X, whatever X is, I will then be happy. Then, when they get X, they think hey, now I just need Y to be really happy... Madison Avenue at work.

Happiness is not having what you want... happiness is wanting what you have.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by zimv20
if 'forfeit' means imprison, then yes.

A society that would forfeit the life of one of its members because the majority of the society felt it, how long do you think that society will last? Would you stick around in that society if at any moment, you could be the one whose life would be forfeit?

(When I say forfeit the life of one of its members, I mean this to be a member in good standing, and not to mean a criminal or asocial member that society has deemed necessary to separate from the rest.)

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
A society that would forfeit the life of one of its members because the majority of the society felt it, how long do you think that society will last? Would you stick around in that society if at any moment, you could be the one whose life would be forfeit?

(When I say forfeit the life of one of its members, I mean this to be a member in good standing, and not to mean a criminal or asocial member that society has deemed necessary to separate from the rest.)

How about a society that would forfeit the life of one of it's members because that member couldn't afford to survive?

(I can hear the response already.... 'Oh but that's different! Now you're talking about STEALING FROM MY POCKET!')

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
How about a society that would forfeit the life of one of it's members because that member couldn't afford to survive?

(I can hear the response already.... 'Oh but that's different! Now you're talking about STEALING FROM MY POCKET!')

Society isn't taking anything away from the member that couldn't afford to survive. In your scenario, society should take from its members in order to help the member that couldn't afford to survive. A bum deal for some, a great deal for others. If you are part of this society, and you are getting a bum deal, how long are you going to stick around? If you are part of this society, and you are getting a great deal, how long are you going to stick around.

Plus, sure doesn't sound like a fair and equal society, where some are "more equal" than others.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
I can't subscribe to the belief that freedom should be curtailed in order to satisfy an ethical/moral question.


Does that mean you should be free to own slaves? There's that pesky ethical/moral question over whether that's an ok thing to do...

Should you be free to acquire a monopoly through shrewd business manuvers?

How about your freedom to con the guillable?

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Society isn't taking anything away from the member that couldn't afford to survive. In your scenario, society should take from its members in order to help the member that couldn't afford to survive. A bum deal for some, a great deal for others. If you are part of this society, and you are getting a bum deal, how long are you going to stick around? If you are part of this society, and you are getting a great deal, how long are you going to stick around.

Beautiful. So we should let the poor die so the rich don't walk away. Nice.

I say it's a great deal for everyone when people aren't starving to death.

Such things are the true measure of a civilisation.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey

(When I say forfeit the life of one of its members, I mean this to be a member in good standing, and not to mean a criminal or asocial member that society has deemed necessary to separate from the rest.)

didn't know you mean in good standing. that's different. every life must be respected, which, imo, is in the interest of society.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
Does that mean you should be free to own slaves? There's that pesky ethical/moral question over whether that's an ok thing to do...

Should you be free to acquire a monopoly through shrewd business manuvers?

How about your freedom to con the guillable?

My contention is that there would be NO slaves. Maximize freedom, and expect responsibility. How can you maximize freedom if there is slavery? The ethical/moral question is what to do with the freedom you have? Help another person out because they are down on their luck? Help another person out because they choose to live the way they live.

Free to acquire a monopoly through shrewd business manuevers, if its shrewd but legal, then its legal.

How about your freedom to con the guillible into giving up their freedom in order to get 'free goodies' from the 'rich'?

I say its a great deal for everyone if people are free and responsible.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by zimv20
didn't know you mean in good standing. that's different. every life must be respected, which, imo, is in the interest of society.

But if every life must be respected, doesn't that mean that the individual is paramount? How does this sync up with the earlier post?

society, clearly, is made of people. but, imo the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. efforts made to increase the well-being of the whole will, imo, directly benefit its members, who will then give back to the whole.

How does saying society (the whole) is greater than the individuals (the sum of its parts) further the argument that every life must be respected?

I think that if every individual is respected, then society, which is composed of multiple individuals gets better. You can't say that robbing Peter to pay Paul makes things better. Sure, its good for Paul, but its bad for Peter.

Now, if you leave Peter alone, and he is convinced to give to Paul WILLINGLY, then Paul gets better, Peter feels better, and society gets better, twice!

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
I say its a great deal for everyone if people are free and responsible.

Ah the libertairian dream world... where responsibility has a causal relationship with freedom.

Do you really think if there were no laws against monopolies that the consumer would be better off?

Do you think if there were no laws against murder, that it would cause the murder rate to go down?

If there were no laws against dumping hazardous waste anywhere you wanted do you think there would be people who would simply drive to the nearest river/stream/ocean and dump it in? Or with their freedom to do as they wish, do you suppose they would voluntarily pay more money than their competitor to dispose of waste materials properly?

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey
But if every life must be respected, doesn't that mean that the individual is paramount? How does this sync up with the earlier post?


it doesn't if everything is drawn in black and white.

take, for example, a family. the individuals are, of course, very important, but much of the effort made by its members, especially the parents, are for the good of the whole.

conversely, if one child is being neglected (starved of love, attention, education, food, whatever), i submit that hurts the family as a whole.

the only difference between the family and the society is that society has too many members for everyone to know each other. unfortunately, to many people, that makes it okay if some people are truly hurting (e.g. homeless). imo, the negative effects on society are still present.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by zimv20
it doesn't if everything is drawn in black and white.

take, for example, a family. the individuals are, of course, very important, but much of the effort made by its members, especially the parents, are for the good of the whole.

conversely, if one child is being neglected (starved of love, attention, education, food, whatever), i submit that hurts the family as a whole.

the only difference between the family and the society is that society has too many members for everyone to know each other. unfortunately, to many people, that makes it okay if some people are truly hurting (e.g. homeless). imo, the negative effects on society are still present.

I think that children are like mini-individuals, not fully developed and require the mentoring of a responsible individual (parent). It may sound crass, but if a child is abused, the main person being harmed is the parent, as their lineage is harmed. Yes, its bad to have a child be abused, but the 'badness' comes about because we want to have a disincentive for members of society to abuse their children. A society that abuses their children, lets say that the abuse runs all the way to starvation/death, is not a society that has a future.

What is good for the individual (nurturing their children) is good for society (viable society).

[wwworry]

I know this is your gospel but libertarianism has never been known to work, just like communism has not worked. Your belief that self-interest will lead to public good is just as plausible as the workers paradice where collective interest leads to collective good.

Here is an example from that movie with Russel Crowe where he plays the nutty nobel winning scientist in economics based on a true story. If 5 guys in a room all go after the beautiful blond that walks in they have less of a chance of scoring than if they work together, some or all ignoring the blond and going after the less attractive woman. This can be explained better but the result has some bearing on your libertarian paradice.

Also for most of our 50,000 year history as homosapien collective societies have been the norm. Ann Rand and Robert Heinlien is just dubious fiction.

[Desertrat]

Trouble is, wwworry, everything we call "progress" has been brought about by the people glorified in Rand's and Heinlein's "dubious fiction". It's a mindset and attitude thing.

Independence and personal sovereignty do not require selfishness. "Standing on your own hind legs" and minimizing your debts to others doesn't require that one be completely self-centered.

What is more selfish, more self-centered than to believe that because one is upright and breathing, a government check is merely something one deserves? That one is under no obligation to work to earn one's income?

We all have a certain amount of obligation to the society in which we live, but that doesn't mean we must yield our own independence to that society.

It might only be an ideal that's no longer in favor for way too many, but part of the idea of this U.S. of A. is that one strives to improve one's lot in life. If one can't make it for oneself, one works to make it better for his kids and grandkids--those "future generations" which are impacted by today's actions. I note that this seems stronger in the Asian community than in others...

:), Rat

[pseudobrit]

What is more selfish, more self-centered than to believe that because one is upright and breathing, a government check is merely something one deserves? That one is under no obligation to work to earn one's income?

Straw man. Where in America is this policy in effect? Who proposes indefinite, unqualified government assistance?

[Desertrat]

Straw man. Where in America is this policy in effect? Who proposes indefinite, unqualified government assistance?

I didn't even imply it's policy. I'm talking about behavior, and that particular desire has been shown on the good old TV news more than once. There are people who "work the system" who are physically and mentally able to be self-supporting in the traditional sense. After two or three generations of this, the government check is seen as a right.

'Rat

[pseudobrit]

I didn't even imply it's policy. I'm talking about behavior, and that particular desire has been shown on the good old TV news more than once. There are people who "work the system" who are physically and mentally able to be self-supporting in the traditional sense. After two or three generations of this, the government check is seen as a right.

'Rat

Who are these people? I don't know any. I've sure heard about them enough though.