This is a discussion on EPA’s New CO2 Rules: Bad News For Blacks within the United States Politics Forum forums, part of the United States category; C.O.R.E., The National Black Chamber of Commerce and other minority groups, including the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference. essentially brand ...
Accidental Poet
C.O.R.E., The National Black Chamber of Commerce and other minority groups, including the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference. essentially brand the EPA as racist.
EPA’s New CO2 Rules: Bad News For Blacks - HUMAN EVENTS
Yes, Human Events is a conservative publication but you can hardly brand the minority groups who are complaining as 'conservative'.
I wonder why the things that should be so simple, so natural... like loving someone and letting them see into your heart... should require so much courage?
El Diablo Tejano
I think that Obama has already thought this through.....and blacks and hispanics are going to be fine. He'll use the taxes collected from businesses and the affluent to fund additional giveaways. They'll have higher electric bills, but their medical care, food, housing, and child care will all be heavily subsidised. It's all part of the redistribution scheme. Question is, how long until so many people jump into the wagon that there's nobody left to pull it?
"That's a man.....That's a stand tall, walk straight, put God's share in the collection plate, Man"- Jack Ingram
The Fascist
Oh! So they only want white, wealthy people to pay for Greenhouse cuts?
Chancellor
But of course, something typical of liberals/socialists the world over; they want all the benefits without any of the associated costs!Originally Posted by DC
"High taxes don't redistribute wealth; they redistribute taxpayers" -- Arthur Laffer
World goin one way, people another
Midas your continued blaming of socialism/liberalism for all of society's problems is starting to grate. Especially when it comes to the global financal crisis and climate change legislation, considering the freemarket capitalist model is responsible for BOTH.
Democracy is the recurrent suspicion that more than half of the people are right more than half of the time.
E. B. White
"To be honest, you think a/c jump the fence, I say the whole college jump the fence"
The wonder that is Angelcountry
"If we're going to have a police state, at least orgainise it properly!"
Guy Outside the Chilcott Enquiry as he was led away by police for causing a 'disturbance' (thanks to LA I now know his name is Michael Culver)
The Fascist
The GFC was caused by poor (non-existent) regulation of banks in the US, so non financial corporations and businesses were as much victims as anybody else of Banker greed and Government failure. What's more large scale industry, which employs millions of the working class who benefit from the welfare state and socialism is what's causing Global Warming, if it even exists. You can't blame free market Capitalism for that, as in doing so you imply that those millions of people must lose their jobs in order to save the planet.
World goin one way, people another
You see I have this thing. Its called a bull**** detector. I read your above post to it and it ****ing exploded.
Yeah, and what does have to do with what I said? Soft touch regulation, or complete lack of regulation is the mantra of choice of the freemarket capitalist. Thanks for reiterating my point. Look at the US administration that presided over this calamity, what is their ideology? What about all the people who lost money in Fanny Mae, Freddy Mac, Enron, Lehmen Brothers, shall I go on? What was the ideology governing those corporations? Cuz it wasn't socialism...
Huh? How do employed people benefit from the welfare state?! And its called "Climate Change". Not global warming, which is a made-up phrase. Socialism causes global warming?! Please explain that one. I will rebuild my bull**** detector in anticipation...What's more large scale industry, which employs millions of the working class who benefit from the welfare state and socialism is what's causing Global Warming, if it even exists.
What?You can't blame free market Capitalism for that, as in doing so you imply that those millions of people must lose their jobs in order to save the planet.
Democracy is the recurrent suspicion that more than half of the people are right more than half of the time.
E. B. White
"To be honest, you think a/c jump the fence, I say the whole college jump the fence"
The wonder that is Angelcountry
"If we're going to have a police state, at least orgainise it properly!"
Guy Outside the Chilcott Enquiry as he was led away by police for causing a 'disturbance' (thanks to LA I now know his name is Michael Culver)
The Fascist
Yes, the financial sector. You can't say capitalism caused this, because 'capitalism' includes every other major (or indeed minor) private business. A major advertising corporation is as much to blame for the financial crisis as a mum and pop fish n' chip store.
I didn't say socialism did. And the people I'm referring to do benefit from the welfare state. As the many factory labourers, construction site workers, etc benefit from tax payer funded aid because they fall into a particular income bracket. they make use of public health, public schools and receive various other entitlements and so called 'means tested' aid. All of which falls under the bracket of socialism. My point is is that if you were to say "Capitalism caused Global warming" which you did, then the logical conclusion is that socialism wouldn't cause global warming, at which point all these millions of people would be unemployed. So my point is that you can criticise capitalism for polluting, as long as you accept that if it did not pollute from all those factories, millions would be unemployed. Like blaming a man for harming the environment because he cut down a tree that was leaning dangerously over a house.Huh? How do employed people benefit from the welfare state?! And its called "Climate Change". Not global warming, which is a made-up phrase. Socialism causes global warming?! Please explain that one. I will rebuild my bull**** detector in anticipation...
Banned
I thought it had something to do with Clinton Forcing Banking institutions to offer mortgages to people who couldnt afford them in order to Increase the number of Minorities owning homes.These easy to get loans causing an increase in home purchases led to an upward trend in house prices causing more people to overstretch their budgets in order to own a decent home.But go ahead Blame capitalism, it helps you to avoid facing up to the dangers of Government interference........
Senior MP
Well you can blame free market capitalism for that, regardless of the implications. Capitalism drives the development, development drives output, out causes pollution. The only hope is that perhaps capitalism can find a way to deal with it based on high tech low emissions type stuff.
Yes because capitalism and socialism are obviously the only two systems advocated for economic organization.the logical conclusion is that socialism wouldn't cause global warming,
So unproductive has conservatism been in producing a general conception of how a social order is maintained that its modern votaries, in trying to construct a theoretical foundation, invariably find themselves appealing almost exclusively to authors who regarded themselves as liberal. - F.A. Hayek
Economic Left/Right: 4.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.74
Chancellor
I think DC is talking about exactly that same thing Pauli. I can't recall the name of the legislation offhand - maybe Don or Tantal will know - but basically it involved the government relaxing financial rules on mortgages to allow many poor people in predominantly Black and Hispanic areas to own their own homes in an attempt to catch votes.
The banks and other financial institutions involved knew there was an increased bad debt risk involved in doing this, and to allow them to sell on part of this risk, the rules governing derivatives trading were also relaxed by the government, allowing banks and other financial institutions to create and sell completely new investment packages to raise cash. When it eventually emerged that there was a far higher default rate on these mortgages than expected (or should I say than the government expected), there were tens or hundreds of billions of dollars worth of investments containing the bad debts spread round the world.
It was pretty obvious to many what was going to happen, but governments internationally, including here in the UK, turned a blind eye and didn't act either fast enough or specifically enough to prevent the collapse - Gordon Brown has recently admitted to this. There'll always be plenty of people on the left who'll choose to ignore all this and still blame the free markets rather than laying the blame for both the start of the financial crisis and for not controlling derivatives trading where it should be laid, as you say, with government. Yes, there were some companies who took the opportunities the relaxation in regulation afforded to the extreme, and in hindsight it's easy to see the temptations to do so, but the prime cause of everything still comes back to that one thing, government interference for political ends and incorrectly targeted and enforced government regulation.
"High taxes don't redistribute wealth; they redistribute taxpayers" -- Arthur Laffer
The Fascist
I fail to see how, as in all liklihood any other major economic system, like socialism or Communism, would probably achieve the same outcome. I would say that global warming was inevitable, if we are to also assume that human beings were to expand into a high tech, industrialised species.
With the exception of a low tech cottage based economic system, then to my knowledge these are the only two large scale systems.Yes because capitalism and socialism are obviously the only two systems advocated for economic organization.
El Diablo Tejano
It's called the Community Reinvestment Act. It was started under Carter, bolstered under Clinton, and was allowed to continue under G.W. Bush for fear of offending the minority voting bloc. Mrs. Tantal and I had friends that lost their houses. Personally, I don't care. They earned less, yet lived in a house almost twice the size of ours that they never should've bought in the first place. Why should my tax dollars be used to 'bail out' someone who makes such poor choices? I live within my means (below my means, actually), so why shouldn't everyone else?
Anytime you see a headline in the paper like "Minorities Hit Hardest by Mortgage Crisis", translate that to "Minorities Bought Houses They Couldn't Afford on Adjustable Rate Mortgages with 100% Financing Assuming That the Value of Their Homes Would Increase Exponentially, But Were Wrong."
"That's a man.....That's a stand tall, walk straight, put God's share in the collection plate, Man"- Jack Ingram
Senior MP
I didn't say it wasn't inevitable, but regardless free market capitalism has driven development and industrialisation and therefore environmental degradation.
Try looking into the Green movement.With the exception of a low tech cottage based economic system, then to my knowledge these are the only two large scale systems.
So unproductive has conservatism been in producing a general conception of how a social order is maintained that its modern votaries, in trying to construct a theoretical foundation, invariably find themselves appealing almost exclusively to authors who regarded themselves as liberal. - F.A. Hayek
Economic Left/Right: 4.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.74
The Fascist
So your blaming capitalism for the inevitable? That doesn't seem very fair.
Apart from saving trees and stealing people's money for 'climate change', I'm unaware of any actual large scale economic proposals from the Green movement.Try looking into the Green movement.
Senior MP
It's inevitable if we are going to drive towards a high tech industrialised economy,which is the 'fault' of capitalism.
Evidently.Apart from saving trees and stealing people's money for 'climate change', I'm unaware of any actual large scale economic proposals from the Green movement.
So unproductive has conservatism been in producing a general conception of how a social order is maintained that its modern votaries, in trying to construct a theoretical foundation, invariably find themselves appealing almost exclusively to authors who regarded themselves as liberal. - F.A. Hayek
Economic Left/Right: 4.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.74
Banned
Free market capitalism Drove Stalins 5 year plans?
Were stalins forcible indusrialisations not the most polluting industies in the world?
Wasnt communist Russia the biggets polluter and the least efficient user of fuels?
Communisn drove that economy and it was a huge polluter.
Senior MP
So now Stalin is responsible for global warming too? hahahahahahaha.
The vast majority of polluting industries in the world have been created by capitalist development pauli.
So unproductive has conservatism been in producing a general conception of how a social order is maintained that its modern votaries, in trying to construct a theoretical foundation, invariably find themselves appealing almost exclusively to authors who regarded themselves as liberal. - F.A. Hayek
Economic Left/Right: 4.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.74
Banned
This is evidence of excessive over regulation of the banks, if they were unregulated the loans would never have been offered and the collapse wouldnt have hapened, the bankers are blamed but it was government policy and regulation that drove the economic collapse.
Last edited by Midas; 29-04-2010 at 11:08 AM. Reason: Fixed tags
Banned
So soviet russia never polluted anything?Even today russian industies using dated technology are a cause of many emmissions.Communist China is one of the biggest polluters.
Pollutants are not results of political ideals they are the result of innefficient methods in industry, capitalist nations are the ones driving the 'Green' indutry, capitalism is therfore green, given chinas lack of work to the environment, communism causes pollution, your argument is badly formed and is nothing more than a straw man argument, best you can do?You do get a bit pissy when you hear your hero being criticised dont you?
5 year plans Jaques were they or were they not industrialisation?
Senior MP
Later on you mention straw man arguments. how ironic.
If you look further down the page you will actually notice my acknowledgement of the potential for capitalism to find more energy efficient methods of production, but the fact remains that without the primarily capitalist driven development which the world has seen over the last century the environment would not be anything like as degradedas it is today.Pollutants are not results of political ideals they are the result of innefficient methods in industry, capitalist nations are the ones driving the 'Green' indutry, capitalism is therfore green,
Communist china? That's hilarious, chinas development is export driven, providing goods to the capitalist developed world. Furthermore vast swathes of chinese industry are privately owned.given chinas lack of work to the environment, communism causes pollution, your argument is badly formed and is nothing more than a straw man argument, best you can do?
Yes pauli i'm a big stalinist collectivism socialist, who somehow also advocates market deregulation and a reduced role for the state in the economy in the long term. Ironically Pauli you are probably the person on this forum to whom my views are most closely aligned.You do get a bit pissy when you hear your hero being criticised dont you?
oh sorry did you say something about straw men again?5 year plans Jaques were they or were they not industrialisation?
So unproductive has conservatism been in producing a general conception of how a social order is maintained that its modern votaries, in trying to construct a theoretical foundation, invariably find themselves appealing almost exclusively to authors who regarded themselves as liberal. - F.A. Hayek
Economic Left/Right: 4.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.74
Chancellor
I agree Pauli, the whole issue of government regulation is a complex one, and over-regulation, as well as either under-regulation or incorrectly targeted and slow-to-respond (in a time of rapidly changing market conditions) regulation can all play their part in making one unholy mess irrespective of the industry concerned.
Yes, there were a very few greedy bankers, a tiny fraction of one percent, but the vast majority of the financial industry simply responded to what the government was allowing it to do.
"High taxes don't redistribute wealth; they redistribute taxpayers" -- Arthur Laffer
The Fascist
Unless you're in support of speciel stagnation, I do not see an alternative.
Do please enlighten us on the wonders of a Green economic system.Evidently.
Senior MP
I don't remember saying there was a viable alternative.
There's nothing wonderful about it, I was just saying.Do please enlighten us on the wonders of a Green economic system.
Green politics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So unproductive has conservatism been in producing a general conception of how a social order is maintained that its modern votaries, in trying to construct a theoretical foundation, invariably find themselves appealing almost exclusively to authors who regarded themselves as liberal. - F.A. Hayek
Economic Left/Right: 4.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.74
The Fascist
I'm merely pointing out that you can't blame capitalism for Global warming, as it wasn't capitalism, it was merely Human advancement.
My mistake, I assumed that you were implying there was some wonder economic system that somehow advanced the human race and did not pollute. Environmentalism is nice, but not very realistic.There's nothing wonderful about it, I was just saying.
Green politics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Senior MP
Human advancement driven by capitalism..
It depends on your concept of advancement I imagine.My mistake, I assumed that you were implying there was some wonder economic system that somehow advanced the human race and did not pollute. Environmentalism is nice, but not very realistic.
So unproductive has conservatism been in producing a general conception of how a social order is maintained that its modern votaries, in trying to construct a theoretical foundation, invariably find themselves appealing almost exclusively to authors who regarded themselves as liberal. - F.A. Hayek
Economic Left/Right: 4.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.74
The Fascist
Human advancement driven by any system would reach the same outcome.
Eco-socialism or eco-capitalism are essentially both slowed down versions of their respective namesakes, and considering we didn't know about climate change till recently, the outcome would have still been the same.It depends on your concept of advancement I imagine.
Senior MP
Irrelevant.
See above.Eco-socialism or eco-capitalism are essentially both slowed down versions of their respective namesakes, and considering we didn't know about climate change till recently, the outcome would have still been the same.
So unproductive has conservatism been in producing a general conception of how a social order is maintained that its modern votaries, in trying to construct a theoretical foundation, invariably find themselves appealing almost exclusively to authors who regarded themselves as liberal. - F.A. Hayek
Economic Left/Right: 4.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.74
The Fascist
I just don't believe you can blame capitalism for something which is simply not its fault.
Senior MP
Because it has been driven by capitalism. I don't understand how you don't understand that.
So unproductive has conservatism been in producing a general conception of how a social order is maintained that its modern votaries, in trying to construct a theoretical foundation, invariably find themselves appealing almost exclusively to authors who regarded themselves as liberal. - F.A. Hayek
Economic Left/Right: 4.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.74
The Fascist
But it would have been driven by any other economic system.
Senior MP
But it wasn't.
So unproductive has conservatism been in producing a general conception of how a social order is maintained that its modern votaries, in trying to construct a theoretical foundation, invariably find themselves appealing almost exclusively to authors who regarded themselves as liberal. - F.A. Hayek
Economic Left/Right: 4.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.74
Banned
It was in soviet Russia, it was driven by communist imperialist ambition resulting in an industrialised eastern europe under soviet controll(or were the history books wrong)!!!Of course the communist system failed because it is a flawed system and is unworkable!!
Senior MP
Sovete Russia not being the majority of the world..
So unproductive has conservatism been in producing a general conception of how a social order is maintained that its modern votaries, in trying to construct a theoretical foundation, invariably find themselves appealing almost exclusively to authors who regarded themselves as liberal. - F.A. Hayek
Economic Left/Right: 4.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.74
Banned
Neither is the USA or the EU.........
we are talking about Industrialised nations, right??Or are developing nations now in the mix?
As DC has stated industrialisation would happen under any type of government, it cannot be blamed on a single political ideology, as I have also clearly pointed out(you claim that this is a straw man argument but it is not, car for car and factory for factory soviet russia created far greater amounts of pollution from their industries than any other developed nation, this is not to say that it was soley to blame for pollution(as you claimed I said before, in your straw man argument) but neither is capitalism, accept it like a man, grow a pair, grow up, suck it up and shut up!!!
Or not, the choice is yours!!!!
The Fascist
But it isn't the fault of Capitalism, you can't blame Capitalism for something outside it's control, it was the outcome of an advancing society. Blaming capitalism implies that another system would not have brought about the same outcome, which is simply not true.
Senior MP
Of course we are including developing countries, their development is driven by capitalism too in the vast majority of cases.
So unproductive has conservatism been in producing a general conception of how a social order is maintained that its modern votaries, in trying to construct a theoretical foundation, invariably find themselves appealing almost exclusively to authors who regarded themselves as liberal. - F.A. Hayek
Economic Left/Right: 4.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.74
Senior MP
Again it depends on what you consider to be advancement. A green economic system, or some kind of primitive hunter-gatherer tribal society would not have brought about environmental degradation. We can blame it on 'human advancement' if this would make it less difficult for you to understand, but this advancement in the vast majority of cases was driven by capitalism.
So unproductive has conservatism been in producing a general conception of how a social order is maintained that its modern votaries, in trying to construct a theoretical foundation, invariably find themselves appealing almost exclusively to authors who regarded themselves as liberal. - F.A. Hayek
Economic Left/Right: 4.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.74
Banned
Way to sidestep the main thrust of my post Jaques, you still insist than capitalism and only capitalism drives industrialisation despite the evidence showing otherwise?
Offer some real argument not just your usual strawman arguments, I have already ridiculed your silly claims trying to twist what I have said, stick to precisely what I have said and answer it, otherwise it can be assumed that I am correct and you are out of your depth On this subject.
Banned
A system such as the one Favoured by POL POT is what you are advocating? His was a green system was it not?
Senior MP
Ahem.
I don't remember advocating anything.
I didn't say it was solely capitalism which drives industrialisation, I said it was the primary driver of development.
So unproductive has conservatism been in producing a general conception of how a social order is maintained that its modern votaries, in trying to construct a theoretical foundation, invariably find themselves appealing almost exclusively to authors who regarded themselves as liberal. - F.A. Hayek
Economic Left/Right: 4.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.74
Banned
Yet you twisted everything that I said when I said that it was not capitalism alone, you claimed that I said that pollution was the fault of Stalin alone(which I didnt, I said Stalins five year plans were a form of Industrialisation and were in no way capitalist).So now as you back down from your past position and admit that you were wrong, I will head off and debate another subject!!!!
Senior MP
I appreciate what you are saying now, apologies.
(bet you weren't expecting that?)
So unproductive has conservatism been in producing a general conception of how a social order is maintained that its modern votaries, in trying to construct a theoretical foundation, invariably find themselves appealing almost exclusively to authors who regarded themselves as liberal. - F.A. Hayek
Economic Left/Right: 4.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.74
Banned
Well bugger me!! I wasnt expectin that!!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
4Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks