Lawyers delegitimize what they can't refute

[hotfudgemoney]

The description of this video sounds exactly like what Liberals do, since we're pointing fingers.

[tubaboy71]

They were major mistakes made to project a very bad image. 4% of forrests are left? LOL WTF. 50% of our tax dollars go to the military? WTF is that before or after entitlements? LOL.

[j0hnwi11iams]

None of that changes the theme and I think correcting those mistakes would not change the theme at all.

[tubaboy71]

Just shows the liberal victim, if you lived in other parts of the world and you REALLY had it bad your thinking would be different. It frames the whole hippy argument and is false. Also I would like to point out lawyers are the force driving the Liberals health care plan.

[j0hnwi11iams]

So where is this bottomless pit full of Oil? Where is this bottomless landfill that will never fill up with trash? What the fuck do hippies have to do with any of this?

[tubaboy71]

Where is the endless supply of lead for the dangerous batteries needed for wind and solar? Who is going to process lead and lithium? Did you know that processing those are VERY dangerous? Even recycling and disposal of them is. Man creates endless matter to overflow the planet? Hippies are fucking stupid! Does the sun always shine? Does the wind always blow?

[j0hnwi11iams]

Batteries are far easier to recycle. There are also technologies such as deep ocean turbines that sit in constant streams that do not require any storage. I don't know why you're bringing hippies into this except that it is a stupid stereotype that apparently solves a lot of the problems with YOUR argument.

[tubaboy71]

LOL your reply is laughable at best . It would be far toooooo expensive to recycle batteries here and far too dangerous. Most of the lead is processed in China and a large portion of batteries are made in China as well.

[j0hnwi11iams]

Google Battery Recycle.

[tubaboy71]

I don't have too google battery recycle I know how it works. Also when you keep recycling the poisionous lead it becomes low quality.

[4q1]

this was classic Dobs misinfo. She did not say we have 4% of our forests left, she said we have 4% of our original forests left. Huge difference. Old Growth is much better at sequestering co2 for example. the 20% figures is wrong as well. Even without factoring in the externalizes, anyone who studies the budget agrees about a third of our tax dollars go to the military. It's not that hard to look up. The main thrust is correct - we are living unsustainably and we need to be aware of that.

[hotfudgemoney]

@4q1 It doesn't matter if "the main thrust" is correct. It's propaganda that should not be paraded to children like a fun cartoon.

[JohananRaatz]

I can refute the central theme of the movie. The central theme of the movie is that our mode of growth is not sustainable forever.

This theme is partly correct but misses the main point. Simply put it is GOOD that our civilization is not in equilibrium and that our mode of growth is unsustainable. Translated all this means is that we have not yet maximized our potential. When we do, market forces will curb our growth anyway. We can't grow civilization forever, but we can maximize it.

[FranklinParkIL]

John, The film should be taken out of grade schools and high schools. This is "the sky is falling" approach to educating kids? Is that how we educate?

Think about this. Everything you purchase in your lifetime will end up in a dump. That's been true since the beginning of man. As long as people want things and stuff this will continue. It's not the end of the world. The answer lies in the carrying capacity of the environment. And we don't know where that limit is.

What is your solution?

[Guevaristas]

'Lawyers delegitimize what they can't refute'

what is meant by this broad, vague, and banal assertion presented as the conclusive truth?

[nsaneforevr]

wow, it takes a genius to know our economy is phony. the central theme goes says we are consuming too much. of course we are. we have to save and produce. to say that planet earth is turning into a garbage dump is silly. with recycling getting much more efficient and cheaper. 90% of steel is recycled and wood can be regrown. im sorry but that stupid video laid out no solutions and no reasons why we are in a mess. sir you need to learn to plan a more concise argument.

[j0hnwi11iams]

The solutions I want would demand more public awareness as the only alternative to coercion. We need to stop buying packaging that we only throw away. Whoever said capitalism is the most efficient does not consider how much is wasted on marketing and packaging. Most people have been pummeled to death with the conventional wisdom. They need more exposure to ideas that portray the earth as a closed system materially. That is my argument.

[HowTheWorldWorks]

Yes, I can refute the central theme. The only thing that is sustainable is Capitalism.

Read Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics, 3rd edition.

[j0hnwi11iams]

I think you skipped a few steps.

[franzpolak]

thank you, great master, for giving us this great, brief, yet informative lecture on the economy.

all hail howtheworldworks! all hail the grandmaster for he has shared his wisdom with the peasants and the mindless liberal scum!

[j0hnwi11iams]

I would have more faith in consumers if they were not under the constant barrage of misinformation and conventional wisdom from tabloid media like Fox News. Sowell is a standard free market conservative, nothing new to see there.

[jtoon200]

You're right, it is unsustainable. But there's no way to fix it immediately without breaking the economy or completely shattering what's left of the Constitution. But, we're growing more efficient every passing day. As well as raising the living standard of poor countries. Over time our environmental impact will be negligible. Liberals always say that "If we don't do something RIGHT NOW we're all going to die". But the market will always correct itself well before that happens. (continued)

[jtoon200]

As something becomes a bigger issue, the public becomes more and more concerned so the market adapts. Go to a grocery store and there are tons of new Green products because of the climate change fiasco. Now there are more alternative vehicles on the road today. Just yesterday I saw a fully electric car (although it did look something out of science fiction). Point, no one wants to live in a dump and the market knows that so it will cater to that need when the time is right.

[j0hnwi11iams]

After all you've seen you still have faith in the market? Has it ever occurred to you that by the time some issues reach crisis it is already too late?

[jtoon200]

I don't believe that the environment is one of those crises. The environment can always be restored, short of bringing back an extinct species.

But, I don't think the market is some sort of omniscient being. Mistakes can be made just like anything else.

[j0hnwi11iams]

You think the environment can be restored? You mean like putting the oil back in the ground? Consider the arrow of time and entropy.

[Stevo2444]

The current economic crisis nly strengthened my Libertarianism, my belief in free market capitalism. I really got into politics and economics 3 years ago, and ever since I have read Fountainhead, atlas Shrugged, creature from Jekyl Island, and Crash Proof.I was convinced our fiat monetary system and central banking would inevitably lead to a financial collapse.Which it did.The federal reserve created cheap money which created subprime derivatives markets which spread risk throughout the economy

[j0hnwi11iams]

Typical monetary policy. In your case it is being right for the wrong reasons.

[Stevo2444]

The Financial crisis show the failure of Government Central Planning and Corporate Socialism.

[j0hnwi11iams]

That is just plain wrong. The government doesn't engage in central planning. We don''t have that kind of socialism in this country. You are barking up the wrong tree. The financial crisis is greed gone amok without rules or regulations to keep participants from sabotaging the economy.

[Stevo2444]

You are just ignorant of the facts and the Political system and central planning. The State and Banking interests conspired through the quasi private federal Reserve(Central Bank) to lower interest rates to near zero so Banking Institution could borrow the money cheaply and leverage it through the economy to create subprime markets in credit cards, car loans, mortgages etc. They created these subprime derivatives out of artificial set monetary conditions and packaged the crap as triple A paper

[j0hnwi11iams]

You say "They created these subprime derivatives out of artificial set monetary conditions and packaged the crap as triple A paper". That was firms on Wall Street that did that, not a central planning committee. In fact, the worst part about it was that they made the processes so convoluted no one had any idea of what they were holding on to. Everything became toxic. That was NOT central planning that did that.

[Stevo2444]

What you are talking about is the effects of the Monetary policy set by the Federal Reserve(The Central Bank, the Central Planner), which is the cause. Those subprime derivatives markets and the unqualified borrowers getting loans never would have existed had the federal reserve never existed to supply the cheap money.

[franzpolak]

the market does not have a brain so it doesn't know anything. to claim that the free market fosters green ideas is not only factually incorrect (since free trade unambiguously supports higher profits, and not enviromental solutions), but only furthers the detriment of ideas such as "the economy will correct itself on its own, you just wait and see".

your constitution has been destroyed by corporate interest and bush's nationalization of private companies, nothing else.

[jtoon200]

I never did claim that it had Green ideas. Technology is constantly advancing, and therefore becoming cleaner and more efficient.

And has the market always corrected itself? Yes it has.

[franzpolak]

"Technology is constantly advancing, and therefore becoming cleaner and more efficient."

not true. just because technology is advancing doesn't mean it's safer for the environment. for instance, nuclear energy has been around for more than 50 years, and it's clean and efficient, but is it widely used as an energy resource? no.

did the free market correct itself during this financial crisis? did it correct itself during the great deppresion? blanket statements have no bearing on reality.

[jtoon200]

Nuclear energy is not in widespread use because environmentalists protest the use of nuclear power in America. They want wind and solar farms but that's not going to happen.

It's not a crisis, it's a recession. Big auto couldn't sustain itself and is still bound to go out of business. The sub-prime mortgage "crisis" was started by pressure from special interests and government to give out loans. The problem is that people feel the need to muck with the market to get to their political goals.

[franzpolak]

the general consenzus among scientists and environmental acitvists is that nuclear energy is the safest and cheapest way to go when it comes to energy policy.

the things you describe is exactly what i've been arguing - corporate interest has taken over the "free" market due to deregulation and tax cuts supplied by the decision maker george bush. the "mucking" happened due to low regulation - when there's nobody to call a foul, people will take advantage of that situation, like they did.

[j0hnwi11iams]

If they figured out a way to make nuclear energy work in the desert away from population centers then I would be more inclined to support it. Unfortunately it costs more to build and operate a Nuke in the desert so don't think the market will solve that one for you. The owners will externalize the risk to the environment if allowed to.

[franzpolak]

i wasn't arguing that the market will "figure out this for me". the market is a brainless entity, it doesn't "figure".

the reason nuclear energy is viewed as dangerous for the environment is because no new power plants have been built since the 70s, and waste is hard to manage - that equipment is still okay, but technology has gone a long way since then. i would suspect that building a nuclear power plant is a lot cheaper today and the waste can be handled more properly than in the 70s.

[jtoon200]

The depression was due to under-regulation. There's a fine line between not enough regulation and too much. But the economy would've stabilized if big government decided not to put it's claws into everything. The biggest problem was the introduction of fiat currency so government could just print more money devaluing the currency even further. Sorry there wasn't enough room in one comment.

[franzpolak]

yeah, the comment section restriction is bullshit.

i have to disagree - the bailouts were unfair to the american people, but unfortunately, due to corporate interest and the monopoly of some larger companies on the market, they were necessary because, if the government didn't bail them out, they would have pulled the economy down with them. but there were no regulations attached to the bailouts, so this might happen again, because nobody is insuring all that money.

[jtoon200]

If they pulled the economy down with them, it would come back in another form. We're an industrious people, it would probably come back as an explosion of small business. The only way big auto will survive is if they can somehow make a seriously inexpensive and reliable vehicle. Normal people don't buy the hybrids the government is trying to peddle. Apparently now owning a hybrid is a better sign of affluence than a PhD.

[franzpolak]

are you willing to suffer through a major financial breakdown and getting literally millions of people lose their jobs in the process?

the bailouts were, in my opinion, necessary, and are entirely unfair, but that's hardcore capitalism.

the problem is that the whole system is fixed, and until corporate interest is somewhat marginalized when it comes to market control and government lobbying, things don't seem to bright.

hybrids are inefficient, but are at least a step in the right direction.

[jtoon200]

We already have millions of people losing their jobs. But what we did is worse than those companies failing. They now know that they are practically insured by the government to stay in business.

It's not just the corporate interest that needs to be marginalized. The special interests, unions, and lawyers also play a big part in the corruption. Oh, Rush Limbaugh was on Jay Leno the other night and said that the new electric vehicles are pretty decent.

[mmsayre]

the market has 6 billion brains.

[franzpolak]

no, i'm pretty sure it doesn't. and your point is?

[mmsayre]

I am only counting the brains of people that use money. Each person is a component of the market, they use their brain to make financial decisions. Their collective actions constitute the market. So I am pretty sure the market does have roughly 6 billion brains.

My point is the market does make intelligent corrections because people make intelligent corrections. When oil reaches 100 per barrel a whole lot of green tech starts making sense, and the trees will swing and the birds will sing

[j0hnwi11iams]

Any neuroscientist can tell it is not the number of brain cells that matter as much as the number of connections between them, and the manner in which they specialize function. Capitalism hinges on price as being the one and only signal anyone needs to make a decision. WRONG.

[mmsayre]

There are many more "signals" or parameters than price which influence purchases or investments. How does capitalism hinge on price being the only parameter to base financial decisions on?

I was not saying the market is a brain, but that it is comprised of humans which have brains. I thought it was wrong to characterize it as some machine-like entity incapable of intelligent responses.

People are the market. What is true of the market is true of humanity.

[j0hnwi11iams]

Yes, and most of those signals are drowned out with marketing. VERY low signal to noise ratio.

[mmsayre]

I couldn't disagree that marketing is often ridiculous and excessive. I wouldn't propose to restrict or regulate it though, beyond punishing false claims.

I would never argue that any human system is flawless, but I would argue that attempts of elites and academics to plan economic activity is a worse state of affairs.

At least with a decentralized system, mistakes can be isolated. With central planning we get problems like promotion of biofuels, which drove up the price of food worldwide.

[j0hnwi11iams]

Biofuel only became viable when we hit high gas prices. The market produced the economic opportunity for biofuel when it became more profitable.

[tubaboy71]

Most biofuels do 2 times the ammount of harm as gas.