Opporturnity

[Lost User]

Ka?l wrote:

Let's go back to reality!

If the banks dont start lending again there isn't going to be any reality of any kind.

Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription

[R Giskard Reventlov]

Whether or not that is the right thing to do, now is most certainly not the time. First we have to correct the monumental fuckups of the banking industry and reset the first-world economies or there will be no money to pay for all those green initaitives. It's all very well for someone like Stern to preach about changing fundamentals but, as someone deeply entrenched in world banking, why the fuck would anyone take him seriously?

me, me, me

[hairy_hats]

But you won't see any bankers begging on the street.

[John Carson]

digital man wrote:

It's all very well for someone like Stern to preach about changing fundamentals but, as someone deeply entrenched in world banking, why the f*** would anyone take him seriously?

The world bank is an international development organisation. It makes loans, but to suggest that the former head of it is "entrenched in world banking" is a serious misunderstanding (though it is equally misguided to think that people unfamiliar with the principles of banking are the ones best placed to advise on the financial crisis) http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTABOUTUS/0,,pagePK:50004410~piPK:36602~theSitePK:29708,00.html[^]

John Carson

[KaRl]

digital man wrote:

First we have to correct the monumental fuckups of the banking industry

You know how it will be corrected: with taxpayers money. And to compensate this we have to create 'real' value massively. Switching to a green economy is a way to do such a thing.

digital man wrote:

It's all very well for someone like Stern to preach about changing fundamentals but, as someone deeply entrenched in world banking

How is the World Bank responsible for the current debacle?

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread Fold with us! ¤ flickr

[R Giskard Reventlov]

John Carson wrote:

but to suggest that the former head of it is "entrenched in world banking" is a serious misunderstanding

I heartily disagree: to make this organistaion work requires contact and contacts both within government and the banking world: the world bank cannot operate isolated from the rest of the banking world and to believe that Stern knows nothing of banking or has played no part (he was an economic adviser to the Britsh govt) in world economics is to be a little naive.

me, me, me

[R Giskard Reventlov]

Ka?l wrote:

Switching to a green economy is a way to do such a thing.

Tell me how I'd be better off.

Ka?l wrote:

How is the World Bank responsible for the current debacle?

That's not what I said: see above.

me, me, me

[Oakman]

Ka?l wrote:

Instead of basing our economies on financial gambles and artificial bubbles, what about creating real values by investing in 'environmental-friendly' technologies? Let's go back to reality!

This is a great idea! We could end our economic woes quite Swiftly. The downward pressure on the economy of doing things like creating a CO2 cap would be felt most by the economic engines that are most likely to pull the globe out of this recession and end up creating a depression. Production of things like foodstuffs would drop drastically as we stopped using chemical fertilizers and converted even more grain production towards fuel. This would lower the carbon footprint of humanity by causing widespread starvation. Mass movement of starving peole across national borders would probably spark wars between the haves and the have-nots and, ultimately, it would end the unemployment problem in much the same way that WWII did. Brilliant!

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Oakman]

digital man wrote:

he was an economic adviser to the Britsh govt

Isn't this a reason to ignore anything he says about the economy?

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[John Carson]

digital man wrote:

I heartily disagree: to make this organistaion work requires contact and contacts both within government and the banking world: the world bank cannot operate isolated from the rest of the banking world and to believe that Stern knows nothing of banking or has played no part (he was an economic adviser to the Britsh govt) in world economics is to be a little naive.

This is a ludicrous argument. I never claimed that he "knows nothing" about the banking world and it is absurd to think that you should be seeking advice on financial matters from someone who knows nothing about the banking world.

John Carson

[wolfbinary]

Oakman wrote:

converted even more grain production towards fuel

There are other environmentally friendly technologies that don't use our food sources. Take electric cars for example. When they first got started they couldn't make it very far. As the technology and money has been made available to further it, it has progressed considerably. While there are still problems to solve, its not as though they're insurmountable. We'll get there. I don't know how you feel about space exploration, etc, but these sorts of technology would also apply by making us aware that we only have what we take. I could see the high efficiencies of this technology applying to lengthen fuel usage, or any number of other types of systems. Some people complain about the space program's cost until I either remind them or inform them that tephlon and microwave ovens came from research done with those dollars. Research results sometimes have very far reaching and unforeseen benefits as well as consequences.

Oakman wrote:

Ka?l wrote: Instead of basing our economies on financial gambles and artificial bubbles, what about creating real values

I agree with this, don't you John? If you set aside the environmental part it's not completely a bad idea.

Oakman wrote:

chemical fertilizers

My plants certainly can't tell the difference. :) My tomatoes love Ebson Salt (magnesium sulfate) and 10,10,10 fertilizer.

[Oakman]

wolfbinary wrote:

There are other environmentally friendly technologies that don't use our food sources.

Of course there are - Diego has pointed out that Brazil uses the husks of sugar canes to produce ethanol. But, in terms of my Modest Proposal, they don't take us where we need to go.

wolfbinary wrote:

While there are still problems to solve, its not as though they're insurmountable

Not unless we solve our immediate problems. Ka and Stern are proposing near-term starvation as a Swift way out of the mess. Thwey know what's important.

wolfbinary wrote:

I don't know how you feel about space exploration, etc, but these sorts of technology would also apply by making us aware that we only have what we take.

I feel angry, frustrated and ripped off. Who would have guessed in 1965 that we wouldn't have had a Mars Colony by now? And you're right, Space Exploration - which I have no doubt has contributed greatly to G.L.O.B.A.L. W.A.R.M.I.N.G. :omg: - has given us economic and technological boosts without number. But, not since the 1940's has it actually helped decrease the population of the world. Reagan has the right idea with SDI, but the Russians defaulted before anything helpful could occur.

wolfbinary wrote:

My tomatoes love Ebson Salt (magnesium sulfate) and 10,10,10 fertilizer.

I never knew tomatoes had bruises and strains. I'll have to try that. ;) Growing season around here starts next month.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Lost User]

Ka?l wrote:

And to compensate this we have to create 'real' value massively

'real value' = meaningless liberalist day dreaming verbage. where did you pick this up from karl.

Ka?l wrote:

green economy

how is this fundamentally different tothe current economy in view of the current crisis?

Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription

[Lost User]

5 People like Karl have thier heads in the clouds and dont understand the simple reality of the current crisis.

Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription

[Rob Graham]

wolfbinary wrote:

Take electric cars for example. When they first got started they couldn't make it very far. As the technology and money has been made available to further it, it has progressed considerably. While there are still problems to solve, its not as though they're insurmountable. We'll get there.

A commonly held misconception. Electric cars actually cause more pollution[^] and environmental damage than those they replace. It is less efficient to burn coal (or natural gas) to make electricity, transmit it with 50% line loss to change a battery (with additional losses in the charging process) in order to run the car than it would to power the car directly with gasoline. It astounds me that people actually think electric cars solve ANY problems. Hastily dumping a bunch of money into technologies whose impact is not well understood because of some emotional bias that leads us to beleive it is "better" than what we are replacing will have huge unintended consequences that we will only regret. We have already driven up the price of corn by subsidizing ethanol production to be "green", a foolish move that is almost impossible to undo because of the farming lobby.

[KaRl]

No one is deafer than he who doesn’t want to listen. Just two examples: - The car industry is falling. Let help them to build cars based on new technologies - by imposing some conditions when giving subsisdies, by helping R&D. - The house industry is falling. Let help them by subsidizing the renovation of houses so they become more energy-efficient.

When they kick at your front door How you gonna come? With your hands on your head Or on the trigger of your gun?

Fold with us! ¤ flickr

[KaRl]

It's so good to see someone so superior that he is able to understand the simple reality of the current crisis? May I wash you feet?

How do you own disorder? Fold with us! ¤ flickr

[KaRl]

fat_boy wrote:

'real value' = meaningless liberalist day dreaming verbage. where did you pick this up from karl.

When you build something and sell it, you create value. When you make money with speculation, you don't.

fat_boy wrote:

how is this fundamentally different tothe current economy in view of the current crisis?

The way to go out this crisis will be by injecting enormous quantities of taxpayers money. Instead of giving this money without any control, let use it with thinking a step ahead.

Change of fashion is the tax levied by the industry of the poor on the vanity of the rich Fold with us! ¤ flickr

[Lost User]

Karl, the current crisis has nothing to do with CO2 or 'green' living. Basing an ecobnomy on environmental reasons wont have any effct on it. Like I wrote, but without response from you, if the banks dont start lending again there isnt going to be an economy at all, let alone one that could be considered green.

Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription

[KaRl]

Rob Graham wrote:

Electric cars actually cause more pollution[^]

The Prius is not an electric car but an hybrid. Anyway, This study has been completely contradicted by studies from MIT, Argonne National Labs and Carnegie Mellon’s Lifecycle Assessment Group. The reality is hybrids can significantly cut global warming pollution, reduce energy use, and save drivers thousands at the pump[^]

Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first Fold with us! ¤ flickr