by Patrick ➕follow (61) 💰tip ignore
« First « Previous Comments 84,520 - 84,559 of 117,730 Next » Last » Search these comments
You want people to pay higher taxes on energy so you can live in a flood prone part of the world that needs AC a big chunk of the year.
No. I want the true cost of any good or service, including electricity, to be paid for by the users of that good or service instead of subsidized by stealing from others. This means, by definition, that the cost of producing electricity is not shifted from consumers to non-consumers of that electricity by letting the producers pollute.
Again, why do you hate free markets? Let people decide if the electricity is worth buying and how much to buy. Stop stealing from some people to subsidize others. That's socialism. In fact, it's the worst kind of socialism, counter-productive socialism that creates financial incentives for waste without providing any economies of scale.
Deniers have to deny.
Self reinforcing feedback loops or in patnet language, "You started something you can't stop,ASSHOLES!"
How does the use of air conditioning prevent the U.S. from implementing a carbon tax or other pollution tax?
So your solution is by moving some numbers on a screen from one account to another will save the planet? That's interesting.
So your solution is by moving some numbers on a screen from one account to another will save the planet? That's interesting.
That's how free markets work. You change the price of things, and people change how much they buy. It's like magic.
In any case, using a pollution tax to clean up pollution is more than simply moving some numbers on a screen. If the pollution is cleaned up, then it is no longer a problem.
Again, why do you people hate the free market so much? Why do you hate efficient allocation of resources? Why do you insist on government picking winners and losers by letting some people steal from others? Why do you only like the absolute worst kind of socialism, the socializing of costs while privatizing profits?
Global Warming has become the Mother Of All Guilt Trips, inclusive of any number of subsidiary guilt trips.
Of course, libs like nothing more than a guilt trip and run at it holding their dresses over their heads with their panties around their knees.
like nothing more than a guilt trip and run at it holding their dresses over their heads with their panties around their knees.
It isn't only "libs," and in fact it isn't even real liberals, but it is part of human nature:
No solutions allowed, only insistence on self-flagellation and mandatory shared sacrifice:
Global Warming has become the Mother Of All Guilt Trips,
Yeah, I'm pretty sure the assholes creating methylmercury poisoning of the food supply aren't feeling guilty. And I don't care. Just like with rapists, I don't give a damn if they feel guilty or not, just that they are made to stop, at gunpoint if necessary.
This is an opinion article, and it's wrong. Predicting apocalypse is so farfetched, liberal gullibility is laughable.
That's how free markets work. You change the price of things, and people change how much they buy. It's like magic.
Huh? Who is "you"? A government bureaucrat or academic who has never even run an ice-cream stand?
Huh? Who is "you"? A government bureaucrat or academic who has never even run an ice-cream stand?
I'm not sure I can dumb this down to a level you'll understand, but I'll try.
Porky Pig owns a restaurant. Every day he steals eggs from Daisy Duck and uses them to cook breakfast for the other animals. He charges $5 for a plate of eggs. Since he steals the eggs he uses, producing a plate of egg costs only $3 leaving Porky with $2 in profit.
Governor Disney finds out that Porky has been stealing eggs and puts a stop to it. Now Porky has to pay Daisy for all the eggs he takes. It now costs Porky $8 to produce a plate of eggs. Porky must now charge $8 to break even and $10 to get the same profit margin. Whatever Porky decides to charge, his customers can decide whether or not the new price is worth it or if they would be better off eating at Goofy's Flapjack House.
Before Disney stopped Porky from stealing, Daisy was in effect forced against her will to subsidize Porky's business. This helped Porky a lot, and maybe his customers a little, but at the cost of a far greater expense to both Daisy and Goofy and the society as a whole. This is not free markets. This is socializing the costs of Porky's business while privatizing the profits. It distorts the market and causes misallocation of resources.
It is only after Governor Disney prevented Porky from stealing that we find out the true costs of Porky's product and what is the best allocation of Porky's eggs versus Goofy's flapjacks. If Porky goes out of business, that is the free market saying that Porky should never have been in business in the first place and his business was extremely wasteful, impoverishing society on the whole. If Porky stays in business, it will be at a lesser volume whereas Goofy will get more business. More importantly, the society as a whole will be wealthier.
Polluting is nothing less than the theft of public wealth, specifically the wealth contained in a well-functioning and productive environment. To shift the costs of production of anything from the producers of the product to society at large is theft, no different from what Porky did.
When the government, Disney in our story, stops the theft that does mean the government is setting prices or picking winners and losers. The free market sets the prices but only after the government stops the theft. If the government policy allow and even encourages the theft, then the government is picking winners and losers. By allowing corporations to pollute, our government is undermining the free market by stealing from us all to subsidize businesses that the free hand of the market says are losers.
Is this simple enough for you to understand, or do I need to draw pictures?
I wonder when the 4% down days will stop...
Need a dividend hike announcement soon...
Oh shit, another iceberg just broke free.. God damn it, hurry up and move those numbers on the screen and maybe it will refreeze and stick back together.
Quick question. If the whole world reduces CO2 output to say 10% of current levels tomorrow and going forward. So a 90% global reduction in CO2 output and it never increases moving forward, even with an increasing population. Does that even stop this? Are we just delaying the inevitable?
I'm not a denier FYI. I'm sking a serious question.
OK, so the bottom line is that I won't have to move to Florida when I retire, right?
You often site short-term weather in your faulty attempts to discredit global warming.
This is BS unless many links are provided.
Rew does have a point that repeated record breaking does indicate climatic changes.
... but record-braking snow levels were dismissed as "weather ergo irrelevant".
today was brutal for our little coal miner...anyone know what's going on? I saw NO news
2014.08.28 (August 28, 2014)
My long term outlook remains the same and I expect the market to make new all time highs in 2015. This is a short term gamble.
I am not going short but may buy some puts if I see prices I like.
[Around 10 days later, markets went into a 5% correction and recovered within 60 days. They went on to set new all time highs in 2015, as predicted.]
2015.12.22 (December 22, 2015)
Long term rates will resemble Japan and sink further.
***
We're near the peak of the recovery.
***
All that being said I finally took some money and went back into an energy partnership. ARLP, which I've recommended before and sold in 2014 with everything else, is a coal energy stock that has no business being at $14.
[As of now, 2017.06.21, that trade has returned +50% in less than two years.]
2014.10.16 (October 16, 2014)
In less than two years since then:
NXC has returned +14%;
NAC has returned +7%.
You often site short-term weather in your faulty attempts to discredit global warming.
This is BS unless many links are provided.
... but record-braking snow levels were dismissed as "weather ergo irrelevant".
I only stated the fact that the very same people who dismissed record snow as "weather" accepted a heat wave as something very relevant to GW. So your reply in the vein of "snow is relevant to GW too" is kinda irrelevant to my argument. Can't comment on whether it was effortless - you're the one to judge the amount of effort it took you.
I see. It's OK to cite a weather event as a proof of climate change and not be considered an idiot if it lasts at least 2 weeks. What about last year's unusually cold and snowy weather in March and April in (Eastern) Europe? Does it count? That anomaly lasted more than 2 weeks for sure.
Al Gore was wrong!
Yeah, take that guy's nobel prize back. I was freezing putting the garbage cans out last night in August.
+1
When kids refuse to go into pool in August because it's too cold an I'm forced to fire up that heater, we have a problem, Al.
By the way, it's the long-term global temperature trends, not the regional ones. A few broken records in local areas is not evidence of a long-term climate trend. Many repeated years of breaking records across the globe is evidence of a long-term climate trend. And climate change includes more severe weather, not just overall a hotter Earth, although that is a crucial part of the picture particularly related to rising sea levels and the spread of malaria.
It's the Polish buzzard.
"A white eagle is Poland's official crest, and most known symbol, meaning victory, patriotism and" strength.
Made you work. Good.
PS. Jeebus, apparently the TV dorks who need sarcasm alert do have their prototype IRL. :rolleye:
Rotate the picture so that the bird faces up.
Include another picture showing the whole thing. Include something in this picture that we can use as a size reference (I like to use a ruler, but coins are also often used for this purpose).
Information on where obtained is sometimes helpful. For example, if from an estate, information about the deceased might be helpful.
Post all of this here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/history
Someone there will probably know.
A few other subreddits might know as well.
I tend to agree with curious2's first post here.
Made you work. Good.
Made you look like a fool by taking two minutes. Better.
Also made you admit you are a trolling and lying. This destroys your credibility. Also better.
Democrats pissed off rich conservatives by raising their capital gains taxes to pay for poorer peoples' health insurance subsidies.
This could not be allowed to stand, it's the camel's nose of big-S "Robin Hood" Socialism.
I will say that it saddens me marginally to hear the attacks on AHCA being it cutting taxes on rich people, when in reality it's more of a return to the status quo ante, removing what was imposed in 2013 or whenever.
I hope the GOP passes the meanest bill they dare. Let the electorate feel -- 'good and hard' as the man said -- what the difference is between the center-right Dems and currently far-right GOP.
Despite it being a favorite GOP talking point, it's a total lie. Obamacare didn't pass in a non-partisan way, but it was done in full daylight and exposure to the process.
There is only one reason the current ACHA bill hides in darkness now: it's going to be harmful to people and the GOP is ashamed of it. Trump called the last go 'round "mean". You think this is going to be any gentler? Absolutely not.
the representatives blatant expression of disinterest in the electorate
Appears they will do something horrific and then turn around and skewer Trump as a mends, when the time is right.
Appears they will do something horrific and then turn around and skewer Trump as a mends, when the time is right.
Irrelevant. The full text was made available for ACA. No such thing has happened for the 'Wealthcare' bill.
Appears they will do something horrific and then turn around and skewer Trump as a mends, when the time is right.
Irrelevant. The full text was made available for ACA. No such thing has happened for the 'Wealthcare' bill.
I did not write the words that you attributed to me. If you are going to try to quote me, try using the words I wrote. If you want to argue with yourself, leave me out of it.
Meanwhile, you still haven't answered any of my questions here and here.
My investments always go up & never go down.
Notice that no one ever mentions losing money.
I was also thinking Prussian, but really can't say why. Germany didn't exist as a country, so the bird could possibly be the emblem of any city or state from any German speaking place.
My pick in the oil drillers has gone south. But otherwise I am out , parked it in bonds for a bit-lets see.
« First « Previous Comments 84,520 - 84,559 of 117,730 Next » Last » Search these comments
patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,250,802 comments by 14,916 users - brazil66, FarmersWon, Misc, Patrick, The_Deplorable online now