Letters to the Editor
-
Brightstar
Is a Salon-reading Alex Jones wannabe, with apparently no scientific credentials.
This disclaimer should be taken into account before reading his posts.
-
Again, Business ONLY Responds To Government. Consumers (Especially In the Earely 1900's!) Had No Influence
Not quite correct. True, businesses fought against the idea of unions and child labor laws. Yet they were feeling the pinch on their pocketbook and would have inevitably given into the pressure or gone bankrupt. Simply put, the consumers who wanted this told their government this is what they wanted in order to expedite the procedure. It was inevitable the businesses would have capitulated as they are in the business to make money and you can't make money if people refuse to buy from you for your business practises.
That is ignorant of history.
Back when there were NO labor laws of any kind (and monopolies were perfectly legal) consumers had no influence.
Why?
The main reason was there was no where else to go if you didn't like a company. Don't like the absuive labor practices of Company A? Too bad. Company B, C, D all the way through Z all engaged in indentical labor practices.
So how was a laborer or a consumer going to boycott a company and go somewhere else if they all engaged in union busting?
Also, the idea that there was a "middle class" in the early 1900's is ridiculous (a quick look at Wikipedia will straighten you out on that point).
There was no disposable income wherein large groups of consumers could "pick" where they were going to go with all their extra cash.
PLUS -- there were no laws that required companies to inform consumers of what they did. There was no way to know anything about a company unless they told you -- and prior to government laws being inacted these companies could LIE to consumers without any consequence.
So this theory that between 1890-1930 workers and consumers were putting "pressure" on Corporate America is just bullshit.
It was government and government alone.
-
re: That's Like Saying, "It Makes More Sense To Use Slaves Until Something Cheaper Comes Along...."
Anonymous,
"No matter how you slice it oil and coal are destructive to the environment. Mining for coal is simply harmful to the environment. There just isn't getting around that. But you're arguement is that we should just keep doing that until renewables are exactly the same price as coal or oil is. Well, the "cost" or coal mining and oil drilling isn't really reflected accurately."
Ah but it was YOU who said that we should look at the point of alternatives verus current resources rather than the environment. However, I believe what I said was that we need to make them more economically feasible...NOT that it has to have a cost equivalent to oil or coal.
"The government subsidizes both a lot -- and the environmental factors are not factored into the cost."
As it would also subsidize the alternative resource.
"Why keep pouring money into coal when you could pour the exact same amount of money into renewables for the same output of energy?"
Because you would have more energy production from the coal and oil at this point...now if that changes, then we should revisit this possibility.
"What is the true cost of mountaintop coal removal versus building a geo-thermal power plant?"
THAT is what I am advocating...a cost-benefit analysis of the various types of resources to determine which would be best suited for our funds.
"This idea that coal and oil are basically harmless and cheap is wildly inaccuate. The idea that renewables are somehow "too expensive" is also wildly inaccurate."
I wouldn't know about the idea that alternative resources are too expensive. I have not seen the cost-benefit analysis anywhere to justify that. Further I did not say that oil and coal were basically harmless...I said there were cleaner than they ever been, due to the EPA regulations currently on the books.
"The arguement that we should just keep strip mining for coal for the next 100 years and tearing up 100 miles of Alaska looking for oil opposed to using the exact same money to invest in renewables seems like a giant step backwards for America."
I was under the impression strip mining was illegal now due to EPA regulations.
"We want to be better than China. Not as backward as."
We also don't want China to overpower the US as a major economic power in the world, which would give them greater influence all over the world.
-
Two other points
Granted it is good that this stuff is being thought about today, in only the 21st century.
1. Future technological wonders and increased amounts of more detailed data and better, more accurate natural models will all yield much more effective. pinpoint solutions than what is being proposed today.
2. Personally, I see the vast majority of humanity as sheeple, easily swayed chumps played with cheap sentiment. I see the elites as severely overpowerful, soulless, unaccountable profit mongers milking the chumps for EVEN MORE power and control over the sheeple's lives while presenting it as something else altogether.
Too bad, so sad that I feel this way. But a lifetime of dealing with people I come across has proven to me most people are incapable of truly independent thought or of comprehending the influences constantly buffeting them.
Oh, and they also have massive egos that prevent them from humbly sitting back and seeing things truly for what they are. Beyond that, too many sheeple are too invested in the system or too bought and paid for to be honest with themselves or with others.
I personally work hard to remain as independent as possible for just this reason, I HATE being lied to. BY ANYONE.
-
Brightstar65
SINGLE PLANETWIDE WORLD GOVERNMENT
Oh, ok. You're that brand of crazy. You also believe there are secret messages on the back of road signs to direct the black helecopters?
I know it won't make any difference at this point to try and point anything out to you, but no-one is arguing for a one-world government. The only reason this has any political side at all is becuase 1) the conservatives deny it is happening so they don't have to make expensive modifications to the way they do business and 2) because as a world-wide problem all the governements of the world need to work together to solve it. This does NOT mean they're going to become one government, it means they'd ideally work in concert to achieve a single technological goal and on everything else, they'll probably continue squabbling the way they always do.
And just to plumb the depths of your delusion a little, why would a single world governemnt be a fascist one? What's wrong with a democratic one? The main reason people who oppose a worldwide government tend to oppose it is because they don't want all those "other races" telling them what to do.