Okay, I’m not saying it is common or anything, but how many of you really think that there isn’t some unscrupulous business person out there who would kill you if it meant a difference of millions in his or her pocket or the success or failure of his or her company?
How come liberals are always the ones that are considered naive?
Do you really think the only thing greed spawns is good things?
[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
IagoMB wrote:
Yes, people are using alternative fuels. But you can’t seriously consider that these are a viable alternative to petrochemicals, or will be any time soon. Your last sentence shows how little thought you are putting into this. Obviously, an alternative to petrochemicals would be an alternative energy source. It is equally obvious that not all alternatives are viable replacements. I contend that currently, none are viable replacements, except nuclear power and thus electric energy storage (that is, if more nuclear plants were built, hydrogen fuel cells would be viable as well).
[/quote]
I’ll need this clarified. If solar energy is currently supplying all the power needed to run a home, how is it not a viable replacement to petrochemicals? If hybrid cars are currently on the road, how are they not a viable replacement to petrochemicals? I am putting a great deal of thought into this and I believe you are as well.
One way to avoid having someone win an election with a low number of votes is to reduce the list of candidates until a clear winner with over X% of the votes can be determined.
It’s not hard to solve most of the initial complaints concerning multi-party systems. Other places in the world (yes, they are out there… and no, they aren’t all fucked up) do exist.
[quote]IagoMB wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
IagoMB wrote:
Yes, people are using alternative fuels. But you can’t seriously consider that these are a viable alternative to petrochemicals, or will be any time soon. Your last sentence shows how little thought you are putting into this. Obviously, an alternative to petrochemicals would be an alternative energy source. It is equally obvious that not all alternatives are viable replacements. I contend that currently, none are viable replacements, except nuclear power and thus electric energy storage (that is, if more nuclear plants were built, hydrogen fuel cells would be viable as well).
I’ll need this clarified. If solar energy is currently supplying all the power needed to run a home, how is it not a viable replacement to petrochemicals? If hybrid cars are currently on the road, how are they not a viable replacement to petrochemicals? I am putting a great deal of thought into this and I believe you are as well. [/quote]
It is rare to get a home completely powered with solar, but it is possible. Geothermal can help too. Homes can be constructed to be much more efficient, but it is terribly expensive. The payback is often not there.
Hybrid cars use gasoline. They use the gasoline engine and energy normally wasted during braking to charge batteries. These batteries are used to power the electric motor that is used during low speed driving.
They are more efficient than traditional gasoline engines but still use the same energy source. They are also more expensive in initial purchase price as well as have more components to maintain. I don’t know if the payback justifies the added cost of hybrids, but if gas keeps going up they may make economic sense.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Okay, I’m not saying it is common or anything, but how many of you really think that there isn’t some unscrupulous business person out there who would kill you if it meant a difference of millions in his or her pocket or the success or failure of his or her company?
How come liberals are always the ones that are considered naive?
Do you really think the only thing greed spawns is good things?[/quote]
Ethics my man, ethics. Someone could kill me because they want my sneakers (wouldn’t know why since I run in them a lot and they’re worn down). Sure there could be a business person that does this, but there could also be a business person that realizes the potiental of a new product and adapts to the market. Not saying it doesn’t happen, just saying it’s a product of the unethical.
For fuck sakes, are you trying to tell me everyone is ethical? I’m not trying to say that ethics don’t exist, but you are in la-la land if you think everyone on the planet or in business is ethical.
The point of my post was to answer a question a while back about why someone would be killed for an invention. I’m not saying it happens all the time either, but it is certainly easy to figure out why it might.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Ethics my man, ethics. Someone could kill me because they want my sneakers (wouldn’t know why since I run in them a lot and they’re worn down). Sure there could be a business person that does this, but there could also be a business person that realizes the potiental of a new product and adapts to the market. Not saying it doesn’t happen, just saying it’s a product of the unethical.
For fuck sakes, are you trying to tell me everyone is ethical? I’m not trying to say that ethics don’t exist, but you are in la-la land if you think everyone on the planet or in business is ethical.
The point of my post was to answer a question a while back about why someone would be killed for an invention. I’m not saying it happens all the time either, but it is certainly easy to figure out why it might.[/quote]
I really failed in communicating my ideas. My post was to agree with you!
The short-sighted unethical business person could do what you suggest. The ethical visionary would more likely do what I suggested.
I think the confusion stems from including statements like this when you agree that it is easy to understand why someone might be killed for impacting someone elses business profits…
[quote]vroom wrote:
The ethical visionary would more likely do what I suggested.
I think the confusion stems from including statements like this when you agree that it is easy to understand why someone might be killed for impacting someone elses business profits…[/quote]
Not if in my example, the business man sees greater benefits in adapting to the market place, than doing anything to maintain the status quo. In my example, business profits would be greatly impacted if the business structure did not change. Am I making it clearer?
Iago,
Get off your soapbox. 
I know you love to talk about ethics and business and so on, and it is a good topic that needs more adherents, but I just think you are stretching to include it in your points…
[quote]IagoMB wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
IagoMB wrote:
Yes, people are using alternative fuels. But you can’t seriously consider that these are a viable alternative to petrochemicals, or will be any time soon. Your last sentence shows how little thought you are putting into this. Obviously, an alternative to petrochemicals would be an alternative energy source. It is equally obvious that not all alternatives are viable replacements. I contend that currently, none are viable replacements, except nuclear power and thus electric energy storage (that is, if more nuclear plants were built, hydrogen fuel cells would be viable as well).
I’ll need this clarified. If solar energy is currently supplying all the power needed to run a home, how is it not a viable replacement to petrochemicals? If hybrid cars are currently on the road, how are they not a viable replacement to petrochemicals? I am putting a great deal of thought into this and I believe you are as well. [/quote]
In addition to what Zap said, living off the grid is illegal in some places. It also tends to be fairly expensive. But even if your home could run off the grid entirely (which most people in urban centers can’t ever hope to do), you would still be eating food grown using petrochemical pesticides, harvested by petrochemical-using combines, transported by petrochemical-using trucks, sold in stores heated with either oil or propane furnaces, or electric energy (most of which comes from gas-fired plants).
When I say there is no alternative to petrochemicals, I mean on the societal level, not the household level. There’s a lot more to it than just putting up some solar panels.
Now personally, I believe a major societal restructuring could result in alternative energy replacing petrochemicals, but it would be costly and difficult, and no one is going to want to tear down the suburbs (which have been called the single biggest misallocation of resources in huan history). I suppose until people understand the idea of “sunk costs”, things will stay just as they are.
In response to what Vroom said, I will make a correction. Oftentimes, we are talking about billions, not millions. Who here can say for certain they wouldn’t do unethical things over BILLIONS of dollars? Hell, I know guys who’d kill over $100…
Back to my original point (since the energy thing has hypothetical), the concept of built in obsolescence is very real, and widely used. Goods are deliberately designed so they will break/wear out, and when they do, you will not be able to repair them and will instead have to replace them. From lightbulbs to cars, everything is designed to have a limited useful life, so that there will always be consumers.
Keep in mind, the company that produced the Livermore lightbulb (which has been on for over 100 years now) went out of business long ago.
[quote]IagoMB wrote:
vroom wrote:
The ethical visionary would more likely do what I suggested.
I think the confusion stems from including statements like this when you agree that it is easy to understand why someone might be killed for impacting someone elses business profits…
Not if in my example, the business man sees greater benefits in adapting to the market place, than doing anything to maintain the status quo. In my example, business profits would be greatly impacted if the business structure did not change. Am I making it clearer?[/quote]
Some innovations are not profitable, period. Others are not only unprofitable, but they hurt other businesses. The more powerful the business being hurt, the less likely it is that the technology will be implemented. Talking about ethics is great, but I suspect you’d sing a different tune if it was YOUR billions that were on the line. Those are the rules of capitalism, you can’t get mad at someone for playing.
Not to hijack the thread, but this reminded me of a show I saw on History or Discovery on who Jesus, the actual person (as opposed to Biblical deity), was.
It basically concluded that Jesus WAS very political when examining his teachings outside of a religious context. He was considered a political agitator who’s ideas flew in the face of much of Roman society and its leadership. So much so that they tried and executed him.
Just an interesting point of view…
[quote]lucasa wrote:
More parties means the less popular parties get a greater chance of winning. Most will say that it shouldn’t be about popularity, and as we all know, what is popular is not always right, and what is right is not always popular. The caveat is, the masses don’t burn popular people at the stake. Not to say that this will happen, just that your theory was a little biased to the “happily ever after” end of the spectrum.
[/quote]
You didn’t read my original post. I said there could be a run-off vote (between the two most popular)to ensure that the vote does come down to majority. And in fact if I knew that I had two votes I would pick the one I really want to see in office the first time and save the “lesser-of-two-evils” vote for the second round. NO in the end it isn’t always happily ever after, just that in the end the trend will make more moderate candidates.
BTW George Bush never tailored himself to the middle.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Iago,
Get off your soapbox.
I know you love to talk about ethics and business and so on, and it is a good topic that needs more adherents, but I just think you are stretching to include it in your points…
[/quote]
Fine. I don’t think I’m stretching it a bit. And if I get off my soapbox, then I’d want everyone to get off their as well. Then this site would be shut down for lack of activity. 
[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
In addition to what Zap said, living off the grid is illegal in some places. It also tends to be fairly expensive. But even if your home could run off the grid entirely (which most people in urban centers can’t ever hope to do), you would still be eating food grown using petrochemical pesticides, harvested by petrochemical-using combines, transported by petrochemical-using trucks, sold in stores heated with either oil or propane furnaces, or electric energy (most of which comes from gas-fired plants).
When I say there is no alternative to petrochemicals, I mean on the societal level, not the household level. There’s a lot more to it than just putting up some solar panels.[/quote]
Why can’t it start at the household level? Why can’t change begin from within? If more people demanded solar energy wouldn’t it grow into a social demand? And I thought Zap was fairly good at supporting my points; being it’s here today and can be effective. The bottom line does not need to be money. It could be happiness, or satisfaction that you’re doing good. (Where is fancy bread? Or the heart or in the head?)
[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
Now personally, I believe a major societal restructuring could result in alternative energy replacing petrochemicals, but it would be costly and difficult, and no one is going to want to tear down the suburbs (which have been called the single biggest misallocation of resources in huan history). I suppose until people understand the idea of “sunk costs”, things will stay just as they are.
[/quote]
Why do you need to tear down the suburbs?
[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
Goods are deliberately designed so they will break/wear out, and when they do, you will not be able to repair them and will instead have to replace them. From lightbulbs to cars, everything is designed to have a limited useful life, so that there will always be consumers.
[/quote]
I think deliberately designed to break down is a bit of stretch. Two examples, I have one friend with a 67 Thunderbird in mint condition and another with a 2001 Honda over 150k miles. Both have never had a problem other then brakes and tires. There is deliberate and there is natural.
[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
Some innovations are not profitable, period. Others are not only unprofitable, but they hurt other businesses. The more powerful the business being hurt, the less likely it is that the technology will be implemented.[/quote]
Sorry, I don’t follow what you’re saying here.
[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
Talking about ethics is great, but I suspect you’d sing a different tune if it was YOUR billions that were on the line. Those are the rules of capitalism, you can’t get mad at someone for playing.[/quote]
How would my billions be on the line? Why wouldn’t I adapt with the market and grow? Most likely, that’s how would have earned the billions in the first place.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Tongue in cheek? Not hardly! Suppose we had such a multi-party system. You could theoretically get 20 candidates running for office. Of those 20 several could very well be far left or far right. If one of them can garner even 10% he could very well win!
Think about it.
[/quote]
Democracy doesn’t mean one needs a greater than 50% majority to win. Someone with 10% majority would then be forced to work with Congress and come more to the middle to be accepted by the rest of the country. The way it is now GW has a greater than 50% base (if the rest of the country hasn’t been alienated yet) and it pretty much makes him think that he has the right to ignore the rest ofthe country–which is pretty much 50% against him.
Lift, didn’t you know this was a democracy. The majority is always right and can do anything it wants… that’s what a democracy is, remember?
This concept of being concerned about the wants and desires of others must be some liberal bleeding heart bullshit fed to you by the media.
[quote]IagoMB wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
Some innovations are not profitable, period. Others are not only unprofitable, but they hurt other businesses. The more powerful the business being hurt, the less likely it is that the technology will be implemented.
Sorry, I don’t follow what you’re saying here.
Aleksandr wrote:
Talking about ethics is great, but I suspect you’d sing a different tune if it was YOUR billions that were on the line. Those are the rules of capitalism, you can’t get mad at someone for playing.
How would my billions be on the line? Why wouldn’t I adapt with the market and grow? Most likely, that’s how would have earned the billions in the first place.[/quote]
If you have billions invested in oil companies, and someone comes up with a viable alternative to petrochemical energy (cheap, abundant, renewable, clean), the stock price is going to fall, and you are going to lose money. You can adapt all you want, but the money that you lost when the stock fell is gone. It really doesn’t matter HOW you earned the money, because when it’s gone, it’s gone.