Koch Brothers - Libertarianism In Practice

[Nivsch]

7 hours ago, Girzo said:

@Nivsch That green future won't happen until you put money into researching it. So the Koch brothers are anything but right because they undermine the efforts.

This technology might not be available right now, but you know what? We have put people on the Moon. That technology wasn't there at the time too. I believe we can do it. I believe we can do it during our lifetimes. People are awesome.

But why the koch brothers are an obstacle to USA from embrace more green energy? Because they bring a lot of money and the government dont want give up that money and therefore don't have enough motivation to change it?

A green government would accepting loosing money in short term to turn to green energy? Is it possible to make such a change within few years?

"Right" i meant that their solution is maybe the most practical at that moment. Not that they are right at the essencse of the things.

I am asking as still newbie in economics and want to understand better.

Edited August 30, 2019 by Nivsch

[Odysseus]

12 hours ago, Andrew Rogers said:

It might be representative as a concept of a life cycle, i.e. after "green", instead of going to live in a turquoise eternal bliss, the society is taken over by red/blue barbarians, as it happened in Rome and is now happening the western Europe.

This is straight up bullshit neither Rome was ever taken over by barbarians nor western Europe is now. Rome just called other people 'barbarians' to degrade them even though their culture was as rich as the Roman culture. This narrative of we against the cultureless barbarians goes back to ancient greek tribes who spoke different languages and therefore called each other barbarians, because the other tribe couldn't speak their language. This is ignorance, arrogance and plain populism that is still alive today. 

[Andrew Rogers]

Quote

There has never been "Green socialism" before. It is evolving for the first time in human history. No country in the world is Green-centered. It will be more advanced than previous Blue socialism and Orange capitalism.

Sounds like a cult-thinking to me. It has been tried multiple times and always failed miserably, why do you think this time it might be any different?

Quote

Eventually, free capitalism would implode on itself.

It was predicted by Karl Marx - appeared to be bullshit.

Quote

As a simple exercise: imagine each cell in your body was self-centered.

You don't seem to understand how free market works - you can make a profit only by serving your fellow people. In your analogy, the cell is self-centered, but in order to get food for itself, it has to serve other cells. A farmer doesn't get up at 6 o'clock in the morning to milk his cows, so that you would have fresh milk. He is doing it to get money to feed his family, which he gets by serving you fresh milk.

So you propose that instead of people voting with their wallets on what good and services they need, should there be some anointed bureaucrat deciding?

 

[Andrew Rogers]

Quote

You have never been to Sweden, it is clear as daylight. Total bullshit. I will take Sweden's 8 terrorist attacks with 10 people dead over 10 years (!) over the US' mass shootings every day.

Sweden is overtaken neither by barbarians nor Islam.

Haven't been to Sweden, but have been to UK and Germany - major cities are filled with migrants. Less then half of people where are of a native origin. You might argue, that migrants are good people and truly most of them are, but they are not native, they don't see the host country as their homeland, they will not defend it. Moreover, there is an aggressive Islamist minority of migrants that seem to be almost unpunishable, for exmaple acid attacks in the UK, rape-gangs, etc.

[Andrew Rogers]

Quote

They are asylum seekers, they will get sent back when the war in Syria ends.

LOL ISIS was defeated like a year ago.

 

Quote

Do not confuse 20th century socialist revolutions with stage Green. They were not Green but Red and Blue in many cases, as in Soviet Russia or Maoist China.

 

[Andrew Rogers]

Quote

This is straight up bullshit neither Rome was ever taken over by barbarians nor western Europe is now.

Wishful thinking...

This is going on in UK, Germany, France... I am not saying that all migrants are bad people on personal level, but they are a part of very nasty ideology. Same if you would teleport to 1940s Germany and meet a Nazi officer in a bar, probably you might be able to talk to him and find him to be a normal human being, yet still he would be a part of a deadly ideology.

[remember]

@Andrew Rogers  a war ends when a war ends. there are different stages in a war ending.

by the way did the beardy guy say that? if you don`t know what the beardy guy said it`s not really truth if you quote him.

[Andrew Rogers]

Just now, remember said:

@Andrew Rogers  a war ends when a war ends. there are different stages in a war ending.

by the way did the beardy guy say that? if you don`t know what the beardy guy said it`s not really truth if you quote him.

Bearded guy - marx or the sharia promoter?

[remember]

or the one who`s growing a mustache?

[Andrew Rogers]

whom are we talking about?

[Nivsch]

40 minutes ago, Andrew Rogers said:

LOL ISIS was defeated like a year ago.

 

 

Marx is NOT stage green.

Social-Democrats are.

Edited August 30, 2019 by Nivsch

[Andrew Rogers]

Just now, Nivsch said:

Marx is NOT stage green.

Social-democrats are.

What is the difference between them?

[Nivsch]

1 minute ago, Andrew Rogers said:

What is the difference between them?

Social democracy is capitalism-socialism hybrid with spectrum between them. Vast majority of stage green people don't want hard core socialism.

[Andrew Rogers]

So basically they want to have an ability to vote for redistributing someone else' money to themselves?

[remember]

6 minutes ago, Andrew Rogers said:

So basically they want to have an ability to vote for redistributing someone else' money to themselves?

there is a difference between redistributing money to the democratic community or distributing all money to oneself.

[Andrew Rogers]

Just now, remember said:

there is a difference between redistributing money to the democratic community or distributing all money to oneself.

Could you be more specific? If one is a part of a certain community, for example, the unemployed, he will vote to redistribute money to his community, i.e. to himself.

[remember]

37 minutes ago, Andrew Rogers said:

Could you be more specific? If one is a part of a certain community, for example, the unemployed, he will vote to redistribute money to his community, i.e. to himself.

universally speaking yes exactly that was what i was refering to. there are unemployed people who basically sit on a huge amount of money, sometimes even more than a whole country owns. the more democratic per capita the better. even though i`m not saying that it`s unfair if people own money in general i`m talking about the proportionality.

Edited August 30, 2019 by remember

[Andrew Rogers]

I don't think that taking other people stuff is a good idea. even if you kinda 'legalize' it. better remove the minimal wage limitations and have the unemployed work.

[remember]

8 minutes ago, Andrew Rogers said:

I don't think that taking other people stuff is a good idea. even if you kinda 'legalize' it. better remove the minimal wage limitations and have the unemployed work.

we are still talking about taxing aren`t we? not taking taxes is also money distribution. if someone distributes money by letting people work at least the distribution should be fair, don`t you think? everything else reminds me a little bit of slavery. let`s stay proportional.

Edited August 30, 2019 by remember

[Andrew Rogers]

No, this is more of a bullshit excuse just to take someone's money. Like a mugger would think that since his victim would part with the the content of his wallet anyway by buying something, then how is it worst if the mugger takes it?

Quote

not taking taxes is also money distribution.

how so?

Quote

if someone distributes money by letting people work at least the distribution should be fair, don`t you think?

It is not distribution - it is engaging is wealth creation and it is fair, because both parties voluntarily agree on the conditions.

 

Edited August 30, 2019 by Andrew Rogers