Living Car Free - "We can't afford a green economy..."

What do you guys/gals think about the following?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY

True. The only really end that would be worthwhile is true self-ownership, where nobody is beholden to another, and nobody... no matter how nice their office or how many votes they were able to cajole, buy, or otherwise gain... could force you to do anything without your permission.
Communism, or any other 'ism, can only work if the ENTIRE populace agreed and willingly participated. Hell, there hasn't been a truly Capitalist nation on the planet either. The U.S. is, at best, a heavily regulated merchantilist system. The more heavily regulated business gets, the higher the cost of admission, which is *exactly* what control-freak CEOs like to see, as it locks out those pesky individuals who might want to compete with 'em. Folks like DeLorean and Tucker may be good examples, though I can't tell you everything about their situations.

I tend to fall on the more optimistic side, as I believe that if people were truly free to make their own decisions, they would tend to do a better job than a bunch of power-mad bureaucrats and their corporate lapdogs (or vice-versa... I think it works both ways, myself).

Laissez-fair capitalism failed, get over it.

Laissez-fair capitalism failed, get over it.

Get over what? I wasn't being nasty at all, and as of yet, it's been tried about as well as pure communism, or pure anything for that matter.
Are you angry that I hold a different view?

But, you may be right. We may only be able to do the "right" thing with a gun to our heads, after all.
Maybe we should obey without question those who aspire to political power... ;)

Get over what? I wasn't being nasty at all, and as of yet, it's been tried about as well as pure communism, or pure anything for that matter.
Are you angry that I hold a different view?

But, you may be right. We may only be able to do the "right" thing with a gun to our heads, after all.
Maybe we should obey without question those who aspire to political power... ;)

If you think over-regulation is the problem, I doubt if you've watched a news program in the past 12 months. To start with, the US probably has the least regulated economy in the history of the developed world. Reasonable controls and oversight might have stopped some of the rapacious gambling that set off the current downturn. When you allow people to have free rein, and hope that their consciences will control them, those without consciences will be the only winners. Like Bernie Madoff and Countrywide Mortgage.

(And before you get all huffy, I'm not angry. I'm just espousing a POV that's different from your own, and I think the same could be saiod of Tabor.)

If you think over-regulation is the problem, I doubt if you've watched a news program in the past 12 months. To start with, the US probably has the least regulated economy in the history of the developed world. Reasonable controls and oversight might have stopped some of the rapacious gambling that set off the current downturn. When you allow people to have free rein, and hope that their consciences will control them, those without consciences will be the only winners. Like Bernie Madoff and Countrywide Mortgage.

Something that isn't mentioned in the news is that the regulatory agencies under Bush refused or didn't have the funding to enforce existing regulations. I saw this up close and personal when I reported an employer to the Department of Labor for federal violations and their response was "Yes, you're right they're clearly violating the law, we're not going to enforce the law. If you want to hire attorney's and go after them go ahead but we refuse to help." So the Bush administration de-regulated business, not by changing law but by not enforcing it. One thing that has been reported is how people tried to turn Madoff in and the SEC didn't do anything- exactly like my experience with the Department of Labor. Sometimes the failure to enforce is inconsequential like when the DC cops ignore me when I ride through a stop sign without coming to a complete stop and putting both feet flat on the ground, but failure to enforce the labor and securities violations had consequences.

Ah, yeah. I don't watch a lot of TV. I just live in the business world. Darn, I guess I need to watch more of the idiot box to be qualified to say anything.
I can't speak for the merchantilists who are running things now, but private business is under some extremely heavy regulation, and we have to deal with it every day. I guess some politically connected corporations have it a lot easier, but those guys have pretty much become bureaucrats themselves.

The recent credit trouble may have been at least somewhat exacerbated by lending institutions being forced to extend credit to people and businesses who were otherwise not creditworthy (otherwise known as NINJA loans).

In the end, I'd say that most of us who are posting don't know any more than we either directly experience or read/hear/see-on-TV, and can only give opinions. You have mine, I have yours.
I'm going for a bike ride, and I hope it's a good one.

Have a nice day.

(oh, and I haven't ridden a Huffy in years. Didn't like it much)

Something that isn't mentioned in the news is that the regulatory agencies under Bush refused or didn't have the funding to enforce existing regulations. I saw this up close and personal when I reported an employer to the Department of Labor for federal violations and their response was "Yes, you're right they're clearly violating the law, we're not going to enforce the law. If you want to hire attorney's and go after them go ahead but we refuse to help." So the Bush administration de-regulated business, not by changing law but by not enforcing it. One thing that has been reported is how people tried to turn Madoff in and the SEC didn't do anything- exactly like my experience with the Department of Labor. Sometimes the failure to enforce is inconsequential like when the DC cops ignore me when I ride through a stop sign without coming to a complete stop and putting both feet flat on the ground, but failure to enforce the labor and securities violations had consequences.

As American history progresses (?) it becomes ever clearer that Democrats are better at running the economy than Republicans. If you want to invade countries and stop gays from marrying, vote Republican. If you want to save money for your retirement, vote Democratic.

As American history progresses (?) it becomes ever clearer that Democrats are better at running the economy than Republicans. If you want to invade countries and stop gays from marrying, vote Republican. If you want to save money for your retirement, vote Democratic.

Yay, Team!

The only political advice I feel I can give with any real confidence is: Beware those who claim to have all the answers.

...and with that, I'll end my political chat on this forum. I'm here for bicycle talk, and let myself get sucked into this. My bad.
Politics and religion... bad juju.

Cheers.

Get over what? I wasn't being nasty at all, and as of yet, it's been tried about as well as pure communism, or pure anything for that matter.
Are you angry that I hold a different view?

I am not angry, but I find it very hard to believe anybody still thinks laissez-fair policies work. Not only do we have real world examples of children working 72 hour weeks in dangerous environments and corporations dumping harmful chemicals into the ground water and the air at the publics expense, even the theory is flawed. Take the recent real estate bubble. Laissez-fair capitalist theory tells us that everyone will act in their own self interest. The problem is, in a bubble, it is in your own self interest to continue that bubble. The mortgage broker, the real estate agent, and the developer all have a vested interest in keeping the bubble going (and further inflating it). Now, that is good for those three people, but it certainly isn't good for the economy as a whole. YMMV, I welcome any intelligent discourse on the matter.

I am not angry, but I find it very hard to believe anybody still thinks laissez-fair policies work. Not only do we have real world examples of children working 72 hour weeks in dangerous environments and corporations dumping harmful chemicals into the ground water and the air at the publics expense, even the theory is flawed. Take the recent real estate bubble. Laissez-fair capitalist theory tells us that everyone will act in their own self interest. The problem is, in a bubble, it is in your own self interest to continue that bubble. The mortgage broker, the real estate agent, and the developer all have a vested interest in keeping the bubble going (and further inflating it). Now, that is good for those three people, but it certainly isn't good for the economy as a whole. YMMV, I welcome any intelligent discourse on the matter.

I've heard a few interviews with mortgage brokers who were pressured to make predatory loans during the housing bubble. The few who thought this was wrong were fired. Of course they would have lost the job anyway, when the housing bubble burst and their companies laid everybody off.

What do you guys/gals think about the following?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY

Runaway population growth terrifies me. And when I see that otherwise progressive European governments actually pay people to have more babies, I am stunned.

Runaway population growth terrifies me. And when I see that otherwise progressive European governments actually pay people to have more babies, I am stunned.

My impression is that they want more babies to grow up to support the aging population. Is there a better solution to a population age distribution skewed toward retired workers? We geezers can volunteer to be ground up as feed rather than spend our golden years biking around and drinking beer. They could encourage young people from Africa to abandon their parents and come to Europe to be taxed to care for European retirees.

My impression is that they want more babies to grow up to support the aging population. Is there a better solution to a population age distribution skewed toward retired workers? We geezers can volunteer to be ground up as feed rather than spend our golden years biking around and drinking beer. They could encourage young people from Africa to abandon their parents and come to Europe to be taxed to care for European retirees.

The birth rate in many European countries, particularly Spain and Italy, is now so low that these populations will fall into severe decline unless there is either a hike in the birthrate or massive immigration. Even northern European countries aren't in that great shape. Of all the First World countries, the US seems to have the highest birthrate and exactly why that is puzzles many experts.

In general, however, it is well know that the better educated a population is, the lower the birthrate and in many developing countries the answer to population control is generally found in providing better education for the citizens.. particularly the women.

My impression is that they want more babies to grow up to support the aging population. Is there a better solution to a population age distribution skewed toward retired workers? We geezers can volunteer to be ground up as feed rather than spend our golden years biking around and drinking beer. They could encourage young people from Africa to abandon their parents and come to Europe to be taxed to care for European retirees.

That's why I'd vote to tear down the wall (between Mexico and the US). It seems shortsighted to exclude all of those hard-working young people from south of the border.

My impression is that they want more babies to grow up to support the aging population. Is there a better solution to a population age distribution skewed toward retired workers? We geezers can volunteer to be ground up as feed rather than spend our golden years biking around and drinking beer. They could encourage young people from Africa to abandon their parents and come to Europe to be taxed to care for European retirees.

They hardly need to encourage Africans to come to Europe. They're dying (literally) to get here.

As American history progresses (?) it becomes ever clearer that Democrats are better at running the economy than Republicans. If you want to invade countries and stop gays from marrying, vote Republican. If you want to save money for your retirement, vote Democratic.

The latest Republican run in power was a disgusting display of venality, hate, unforgivable incompetence, and overly partisan power plays, which resulted in failures in any number of areas. They failed miserably at governing. However, as a life-long Democrat, I'm not confident that the Dems will do much better. They're just as subject to the temptations of lobbyist as anyone else, and some of their leadership is totally inadequate; IMHO, Nancy Pelosi is probably a complete idiot. I'm particularly concerned that they will not have the balls to ram their agenda down the throats of the few remaining dogmatic Republicans left in Congress. If the tables were turned, you can bet their Republican counterparts would not hesitate to go for the jugular. I'm all for reaching across the aisle, as long as you don't forget your agenda (bringing the troops home, universal health care, alternative energy, stimulating employment, protecting the environment, etc).

We couldn't afford to lose 4,000 people and over 100,000 Iraqis.

100,000 Iraqis... and people wonder why the United States has a bad reputation in some parts of the globe. :(


Runaway population growth terrifies me. And when I see that otherwise progressive European governments actually pay people to have more babies, I am stunned.

I suspect that any country that pays people to have babies and also rejects a significant number of immigrants from other countries is doing it for racist reasons. Of course, they'll tell you "it's to preserve our national identity and culture"...

On another note...

What got the USA out of the great depression was extravagant deficit spending by the government. Specifically, the government directly employed a good portion of the people who were interested in being employed, and this put money in the hands of people who would spend it. (And this spending often puts the money in the hands of someone else who will spend it). Much of this money was spent building things that were actually useful.

Kind of like how, just maybe, this year our government will pay people to make things that lower our country's eco-footprint, like energy sources that don't involve foreign oil, dirty coal, or so-called "clean coal". Just think, we could became part of a select club of first-world countries that produce as much fossil-fuel-free electricity as they use! (I think there's only one so far.)