Population Explosion and How to Fix It

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

Max wrote: The market is a process made up of the infinite combinations of wishes and desires of individuals. As soon as the consumer quits benfiting from a particular market it will disappear. Think of the horse drawn carriage market: it is all but gone – left to a few Romatics who like to tour Manhattan. And no the market is incapable of longterm planning, however, human beings can.

Think cigarettes and high-fructose corn syrup. These products used exactly as intended, kill the consumer. No one wonders if there is a causal connection, that is beyond debate. The products also causes immediate problems with no real gains aside from a false sense of imediate wellbeing from satisfying the needs of the addiction.

122

[quote]pwrlifter198 wrote:
Max wrote: The market is a process made up of the infinite combinations of wishes and desires of individuals. As soon as the consumer quits benfiting from a particular market it will disappear. Think of the horse drawn carriage market: it is all but gone – left to a few Romatics who like to tour Manhattan. And no the market is incapable of longterm planning, however, human beings can.

Think cigarettes and high-fructose corn syrup. These products used exactly as intended, kill the consumer. No one wonders if there is a causal connection, that is beyond debate. The products also causes immediate problems with no real gains aside from a false sense of imediate wellbeing from satisfying the needs of the addiction.[/quote]

Only the individual participants of a market transaction can asses the benefit to self. For instance, I think you buying powerlifting equipment is bad for you and the sport. You obviously consider it a benefit to yourself, or you wouldn’t do it. Trying to asses individual desire is an attempt in futility. It’s also one of the prime reasons artificial manipulation of markets is morally wrong and leads to disaster.

123

[quote]pwrlifter198 wrote:
Think cigarettes and high-fructose corn syrup. These products used exactly as intended, kill the consumer. No one wonders if there is a causal connection, that is beyond debate. The products also causes immediate problems with no real gains aside from a false sense of imediate wellbeing from satisfying the needs of the addiction.[/quote]

Not all consumers die from smoking and eating corn syrup – and even still – so what if some do?! You act as if pleasure is not a marketable end…? People like pleasure even when they know they could die from it.

You are attempting to assign your personal values to the behavior of others and what they do to their own bodies and offer it as proof that the “market fails”. It affects your logical thought processes negatively. All you have succeeding in doing is telling the members of this forum you think cigarette smoking and corn syrup is “icky”. Again, I ask, so what?!

124

Max wrote: Not all consumers die from smoking and eating corn syrup – and even still – so what if some do?! You act as if pleasure is not a marketable end…? People like pleasure even when they know they could die from it.

You are attempting to assign your personal values to the behavior of others and what they do to their own bodies and offer it as proof that the “market fails”. It affects your logical thought processes negatively. All you have succeeding in doing is telling the members of this forum you think cigarette smoking and corn syrup is “icky”. Again, I ask, so what?!

I wrote my reply in response to your statement “As soon as the consumer quits benfiting from a particular market it will disappear.” Your above statement distiguishes between perceived benefit and actual benefit. I don’t advocate criminalizing either product by the way, I just pointed to them as examples of market failures. I am not interested in smoking “speak-easys” or underground corn syrup distilleries. I actually advocate keeping them above ground, so that tort lawyers can make a ton of cash in product liability law-suits and so the products can be properly regulated.

I also take exception to your use of the word “choice.” People choose to smoke their first cigarette, they almost never choose to smoke their last. As for me, I don’t smoke or take in corn syrup if I can avoid it so I am advantaged by their place in the market. Smoking, corn syrup ingesting powerlifters don’t stand a chance against me and I get to take home lots of pretty trophies. You see, I am so enlightened I argue against my own self-interest for the benefit of the poor saps who are incapable of making good decisions.

125

[quote]pwrlifter198 wrote:
People choose to smoke their first cigarette, they almost never choose to smoke their last.[/quote]

LOL. There are chemical explanations for the results of every action made by man. If you hold this belief then you have to believe that, based on the background of my education and upbringing, I have no choice but to call you an idiot. And you cannot hold me responsible for the personal insinuation, because I have no choice in the matter.

126

[quote]pwrlifter198 wrote:
Max wrote: Not all consumers die from smoking and eating corn syrup – and even still – so what if some do?! You act as if pleasure is not a marketable end…? People like pleasure even when they know they could die from it.

You are attempting to assign your personal values to the behavior of others and what they do to their own bodies and offer it as proof that the “market fails”. It affects your logical thought processes negatively. All you have succeeding in doing is telling the members of this forum you think cigarette smoking and corn syrup is “icky”. Again, I ask, so what?!

I wrote my reply in response to your statement “As soon as the consumer quits benfiting from a particular market it will disappear.” Your above statement distiguishes between perceived benefit and actual benefit. I don’t advocate criminalizing either product by the way, I just pointed to them as examples of market failures. I am not interested in smoking “speak-easys” or underground corn syrup distilleries. I actually advocate keeping them above ground, so that tort lawyers can make a ton of cash in product liability law-suits and so the products can be properly regulated.

I also take exception to your use of the word “choice.” People choose to smoke their first cigarette, they almost never choose to smoke their last. As for me, I don’t smoke or take in corn syrup if I can avoid it so I am advantaged by their place in the market. Smoking, corn syrup ingesting powerlifters don’t stand a chance against me and I get to take home lots of pretty trophies. You see, I am so enlightened I argue against my own self-interest for the benefit of the poor saps who are incapable of making good decisions.[/quote]

pleasure is a benefit!!!

As soon as the consumer quits getting pleasure from tobacco the market for tobacco will disappear.

You need to understand that values are completely subjective and you cannot analyze economic reality through your rose-tinted lenses. Economic analysis should remain value free.

127

Max wrote: pleasure is a benefit!!!

So is annoying the hell out of you. Thanks for helping quel the duldrum of my workday. Peace, and I’ll see you, DD, and Trib tomorrow. Power to the people!

BTW DD that was just mean. You really hurt my feelings. For that I have to say you silly in your Chuck T’s and that I bench a lot more than you, so there.

128

You realize Paul wrote this to the church in Corinth, right? Not the government? Peter also wrote that “if you don’t work, you don’t eat.”

The New Testament wasn’t addressed to government officials, unless you’re now expecting them to administer the sacraments, write sermons, and fulfill the office of elder. I can just see Pelosi holding up the bread and wine and repeating, “and on the night in which he was betrayed, he took bread…”

129

[quote]pwrlifter198 wrote:
Max wrote: pleasure is a benefit!!!

So is annoying the hell out of you. Thanks for helping quel the duldrum of my workday. Peace, and I’ll see you, DD, and Trib tomorrow. Power to the people!

BTW DD that was just mean. You really hurt my feelings. For that I have to say you silly in your Chuck T’s and that I bench a lot more than you, so there.[/quote]

You can only brag about lifts if yours are public knowledge.

130

[quote]pwrlifter198 wrote:
Power to the [/quote]peaceful!

There, I corrected that for you.

131

[quote]John S. wrote:
You want to fix it, end the welfare state. With this gone we won’t have to worry about people having more kids then they can afford, because we wont be here to bail them out.[/quote]

This is rather ignorant. The welfare state, as you refer to it, is the western nations I assume; These countries in particularly have some of the birth rates closest to the carrying capacity growth rate (~2.2 children per household).

Effectively the welfare state has little to do with the population problem.

Rampant third world country birth rates do. Countries where the value of life is marginalized by globalization, thus creating a desire to have more children to aid as money supplies for families.

132

[quote]dantheman wrote:
John S. wrote:
You want to fix it, end the welfare state. With this gone we won’t have to worry about people having more kids then they can afford, because we wont be here to bail them out.

This is rather ignorant. The welfare state, as you refer to it, is the western nations I assume; These countries in particularly have some of the birth rates closest to the carrying capacity growth rate (~2.2 children per household).

Effectively the welfare state has little to do with the population problem.

Rampant third world country birth rates do. Countries where the value of life is marginalized by globalization, thus creating a desire to have more children to aid as money supplies for families.[/quote]

Nothing ignorant about what I said. You can not reward failure and expect it to stop. The welfare state has everything to do with the problem. The more we “give” these 3rd world countries the more children they have. Making the problem much worse.

All it takes is the ability to look farther then 30 minutes into the future to realize that the more you reward failure the more failure you will get.

133

[quote]Dustin wrote:
John S. wrote:
Dustin wrote:
John S. wrote:
Dustin wrote:
John S. wrote:
The liberals Utopian dream?

Nah, a statist’s utopian dream.

Not sure how you got statist out of that, Perhaps we should have a look at the liberals dream leader.

“Liberals” want to murder millions of people? How the heck is a murderous dictator their leader? Some of you need to quit listening to the Glenn Becks and Michael Savages of the world. They don’t know what they are talking about.

And what makes an individual a liberal?

It’s amusing to see people throw that term at others in an attempt to describe them without even knowing what it means.

A liberal is someone who thinks taking from others is ok, see tax the rich to pay for health care. They have this desire to put everyone into classes as sort of a collectives attitude. As history has shown this attitude sets up guys like Mao, also see Hitler and Stalin.

I don’t dispute this, at least with the modern notion of what a liberal is, but “conservatives” have been taking part in wealth redistribution for some time now as well. So to say it’s just those “darn liberals” messing up everything is categorically false.

They say insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results, so one could make the argument liberals are insane.

And conservatives (Republicans) are sitting right next to them in the loony-bin.

The system is FUBAR and it is due to idiots on both sides of aisle.

[/quote]

I see Republicans and Democrats as 2 heads to the same body. I am a Ron Paul supporter myself. The only reason I stay in the GOP is because of him.

134

[quote]dantheman wrote:
John S. wrote:
You want to fix it, end the welfare state. With this gone we won’t have to worry about people having more kids then they can afford, because we wont be here to bail them out.

This is rather ignorant. The welfare state, as you refer to it, is the western nations I assume; These countries in particularly have some of the birth rates closest to the carrying capacity growth rate (~2.2 children per household).

Effectively the welfare state has little to do with the population problem.
[/quote]
Birthrates for 3rd world immigrants to welfare states are dramatically higher.

[quote]
Rampant third world country birth rates do. Countries where the value of life is marginalized by globalization, thus creating a desire to have more children to aid as money supplies for families.[/quote]

Nonsense. Without us they’d be back in the Stone Age. I’m sure they’d be real happy there. Not only that, we directly help these people. We are paying for their kids. We are being cuckolded into child support for 3rd worlders.

135

[quote]valiant knight wrote:
dantheman wrote:
John S. wrote:
You want to fix it, end the welfare state. With this gone we won’t have to worry about people having more kids then they can afford, because we wont be here to bail them out.

This is rather ignorant. The welfare state, as you refer to it, is the western nations I assume; These countries in particularly have some of the birth rates closest to the carrying capacity growth rate (~2.2 children per household).

Effectively the welfare state has little to do with the population problem.

Birthrates for 3rd world immigrants to welfare states are dramatically higher.

Rampant third world country birth rates do. Countries where the value of life is marginalized by globalization, thus creating a desire to have more children to aid as money supplies for families.

Nonsense. Without us they’d be back in the Stone Age. I’m sure they’d be real happy there. Not only that, we directly help these people. We are paying for their kids. We are being cuckolded into child support for 3rd worlders.[/quote]

You are forgetting about the collective security argument. The sub-saharan Africa region, one of the poorest places on earth, is also a breeding ground for terrorism. Failed states all over the world cost everyone money because of how transient populations have become. So unless some of you Treckies out there can come up with a way to erect a giant force-field over our country, we have a collective interest. This doesn’t just apply internationally either. Timothy McVeigh was a homegrown crazy with a sub par education, very little money, and an ax to grind. As a rule, and of course there are exceptions, people with adequate means to satisfy basic survival requirements, don’t leave their middle income jobs to blow things up. Stop thinking “reward bad behavior” and think instead “head off really really bad behavior.” Policymakers, and I don’t agree with much of what they do, not because of moral issues, but because of a sheer lack of imagination, are usually forced to choose between the lesser of two evils.

There are 192 state actors on the planet, 21 of which qualify as “industrialized.” All of these industrialized nations share in the distiction of having some form of social safety net. They also share in the distinction of being the ONLY place modern innovations and technology are born. They are the home of the most affluent people on earth, have the lowest OVERALL population increases and the highest OVERALL standards of living. There is a very simple reason for this. For all you trumpeters of the “free market” here it is: The free market, in order to really thrive, requires security. Name me one country with a weak central government and a lack of security that you would want to start a company in. Even multi-national corporations that were moving to poorer nations in order to garner cheaper labor are finding that there net incomes are only marginally increased when they account for shrinkage and transportation costs, which incidentally have risen due to civil unrest in staple economies.

136

[quote]pwrlifter198 wrote:
valiant knight wrote:
dantheman wrote:
John S. wrote:
You want to fix it, end the welfare state. With this gone we won’t have to worry about people having more kids then they can afford, because we wont be here to bail them out.

This is rather ignorant. The welfare state, as you refer to it, is the western nations I assume; These countries in particularly have some of the birth rates closest to the carrying capacity growth rate (~2.2 children per household).

Effectively the welfare state has little to do with the population problem.

Birthrates for 3rd world immigrants to welfare states are dramatically higher.

Rampant third world country birth rates do. Countries where the value of life is marginalized by globalization, thus creating a desire to have more children to aid as money supplies for families.

Nonsense. Without us they’d be back in the Stone Age. I’m sure they’d be real happy there. Not only that, we directly help these people. We are paying for their kids. We are being cuckolded into child support for 3rd worlders.

You are forgetting about the collective security argument. The sub-saharan Africa region, one of the poorest places on earth, is also a breeding ground for terrorism. Failed states all over the world cost everyone money because of how transient populations have become. So unless some of you Treckies out there can come up with a way to erect a giant force-field over our country, we have a collective interest. This doesn’t just apply internationally either. Timothy McVeigh was a homegrown crazy with a sub par education, very little money, and an ax to grind. As a rule, and of course there are exceptions, people with adequate means to satisfy basic survival requirements, don’t leave their middle income jobs to blow things up. Stop thinking “reward bad behavior” and think instead “head off really really bad behavior.” Policymakers, and I don’t agree with much of what they do, not because of moral issues, but because of a sheer lack of imagination, are usually forced to choose between the lesser of two evils.

There are 192 state actors on the planet, 21 of which qualify as “industrialized.” All of these industrialized nations share in the distiction of having some form of social safety net. They also share in the distinction of being the ONLY place modern innovations and technology are born. They are the home of the most affluent people on earth, have the lowest OVERALL population increases and the highest OVERALL standards of living. There is a very simple reason for this. For all you trumpeters of the “free market” here it is: The free market, in order to really thrive, requires security. Name me one country with a weak central government and a lack of security that you would want to start a company in. Even multi-national corporations that were moving to poorer nations in order to garner cheaper labor are finding that there net incomes are only marginally increased when they account for shrinkage and transportation costs, which incidentally have risen due to civil unrest in staple economies.
[/quote]

Russia and Mao China had very strong central governments.

Security comes from the people not the government. The government only screws things up or fixes and regulates things it was involved in and now we have no choice.

137

@ Gregus Russia and Mao China had very strong central governments.

Security comes from the people not the government. The government only screws things up or fixes and regulates things it was involved in and now we have no choice.

Russia and Mao China both had very weak central governments before their respective revolutions. Strong central governments are a result of a cooperative relationship between the citizenry and elected officials. There is nothing wrong with government that transparency and accountability to an informed electorate cannot fix.

138

[quote]pwrlifter198 wrote:
There is nothing wrong with government that transparencY[/quote] LOL[quote]
and accountability[/quote] LOL[quote] to an informed[/quote] LOL[quote] electorate cannot fix.[/quote]

Were you really talking about a government? I mean I agree, it’s just impossible. It’s like saying anarchy would be great, as long as all people acted morally.

139

[quote]pwrlifter198 wrote:
@ Gregus Russia and Mao China had very strong central governments.

Security comes from the people not the government. The government only screws things up or fixes and regulates things it was involved in and now we have no choice.

Russia and Mao China both had very weak central governments before their respective revolutions. Strong central governments are a result of a cooperative relationship between the citizenry and elected officials. There is nothing wrong with government that transparency and accountability to an informed electorate cannot fix.[/quote]

Yes before. It can be said to have been weak. Point being that “they” as in the time frame im referring to, had strong central governments. They did not have a willingly cooperative citizenry and when they did it was through fear or complacency.

140

[quote]Gregus wrote:
pwrlifter198 wrote:
@ Gregus Russia and Mao China had very strong central governments.

Security comes from the people not the government. The government only screws things up or fixes and regulates things it was involved in and now we have no choice.

Russia and Mao China both had very weak central governments before their respective revolutions. Strong central governments are a result of a cooperative relationship between the citizenry and elected officials. There is nothing wrong with government that transparency and accountability to an informed electorate cannot fix.

Yes before. It can be said to have been weak. Point being that “they” as in the time frame im referring to, had strong central governments. They did not have a willingly cooperative citizenry and when they did it was through fear or complacency.

[/quote]

You still have not named one present day country with a weak central government that you would want to start a company in, much less live in.

Winston Churchill:

Democracy is the worst form of government,except for all the others.