NOAA: Past Decade Warmest on Record According to Scientists in 48 Countries

[Poptech]

Negative. Fail, sorry.

Yes I am well aware you will fail to accept any solution other than from government. That does not mean it fails, it instead demonstrates your inability to grasp economics.

 

[sandorski]

Yes I am well aware you will fail to accept any solution other than from government. That does not mean it fails, it instead demonstrates your inability to grasp economics.

This has nothing to do with Economics. This is why you keep Failing. The Market does not solve all issues. It simply does not.

 

[Poptech]

This has nothing to do with Economics. This is why you keep Failing. The Market does not solve all issues. It simply does not.

Actually it does.

 

[sandorski]

Actually it does.

There you go. Ideologue.

 

[Poptech]

Calling someone an ideologue does not make it true.

 

[sandorski]

Calling someone an ideologue does not make it true.

Someone claiming a simple solution based upon some all encompassing Ideology is in fact an Ideologue.

Can the Market make one a Good Parent?

 

[Poptech]

Can the Market make one a Good Parent?

No only government regulation can. How did anyone parent without the nanny state?

 

[Brigandier]

Someone claiming a simple solution based upon some all encompassing Ideology is in fact an Ideologue.

Can the Market make one a Good Parent?

If there were a market for good parents, the market would make good parents.

 

[sandorski]

No only government regulation can. How did anyone parent without the nanny state?

Nice Strawman. However, you agree then that the Market doesn't solve everything. Just like it can't solve GW/CC, especially where Avoidance is concerned. On it's own, the Market simply has no use or incentive to Avoid GW/CC. This is why the Externalities of CO2 and other GHGs need to be forced into the Equation(s) that motivate and alter the Market. Then the Market has the Capacity to address the issue in a timely manner.

 

[Poptech]

Your parent argument is a strawman and your constant misunderstanding of economics and externalities has been addressed.

 

[sandorski]

Your parent argument is a strawman and your constant misunderstanding of economics and externalities has been addressed.

No it's not.

 

[nonlnear]

I disagree, here are other papers on the same subject,

Environmentalism and Economic Freedom: The Case for Private Property Rights (PDF) (Walter Block, Ph.D. Professor of Economics)
Pollution Externalities: Social Cost and Strict Liability (PDF) (Peter Lewin, Ph.D. Professor of Economics)

Disagree all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that Simpson's paper is a steaming pile of dogshit. The entire argument about a large number of small polluters having no individual effect reeks of somebody who couldn't pass calculus. Zeno's paradoxes are so BC. Apparently Simpson missed the memo. Rest assured the one error I brought up earlier is not the biggest one in that Simpson makes in that paper.

 

[daishi5]

Fail. The paper deals with Externalities, True. However, it deals with them in a totally different sense than what this Issue deals with it. The Market has no Mechanism to Prevent CO2, that's where it fails in this case. We can't wait for Negative affects to occur and People to begin Suing or taking other such Legal Actions. That is simply not an option here and due to the lack of that option, the Price of CO2 needs to be front loaded.

Your Ideology does not work here, sorry.

This has nothing to do with Economics. This is why you keep Failing. The Market does not solve all issues. It simply does not.

You may wish to keep your arguments logically consistent. Externalities and price are economic phenomenons. Your solution is an economic solution through a tax with an oversight system to attempt to control the market to arrive at a predetermined destination. So, economics has a lot to do with it. You may wish to follow nonlnear's lead and point out the actual problems with his papers that he is linking, although he does appear to be trying to snow you with bullshit.

 

[Poptech]

I call for an anti-alien invasion tax on all broadcast transmissions as it is clear from my computer model that the amount and rate of broadcast transmissions are likely to attract an alien race that will invade the planet sometime in the next hundred years. The tax will be used to prepare earth base defenses to repel this invasion as the market will be unable to deal with this new threat.

 

[sandorski]

You may wish to keep your arguments logically consistent. Externalities and price are economic phenomenons. Your solution is an economic solution through a tax with an oversight system to attempt to control the market to arrive at a predetermined destination. So, economics has a lot to do with it. You may wish to follow nonlnear's lead and point out the actual problems with his papers that he is linking, although he does appear to be trying to snow you with bullshit.

Ya, I could have worded that better I agree.