Pornography of compassion

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Comments

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

Compassion is a fine principle, but
one doesn't want to stop being rich.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

Some of us would be prepared to be ever-so-slightly poorer if it actually helped.

And Christians, following the word of Christ, should take the cloak from their back to assuage the sufferings of the poor. Except they never do.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

Oops misremembered...if they sue you for your shirt, give them your cloak...the poor actually don't matter, obvs.

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

I imagine the problem of poverty, as well as the problem of climate change, would require more then a slight impoverishing of our middle and upper classes. It might well require a radical lifestyle change. So, nobody should hold their breath.

[garote]

Well actually that might help... >:)

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

Not necessarily. Henry George noted in 1879 that most poverty was created by the progress of civilization. As an area gets built up, the first residents and those who can take cheap possession of property simply wait for that property to appreciate in value, then sell or rent for huge unearned profits.

When one taxes rents, poverty is greatly reduced. That was proven at the turn of the last century.

Rich people spent a lot of bucks attacking George, giving money to alternative economic theories (many without a shred of empirical evidence to support them), to the point where his excellent ideas have been almost forgotten.

So, under a land tax scheme aimed at eradicating poverty, the only class which would really "suffer" is the über rich, and they would only be less rich.

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

I don't know, dude. I'm not an economist, but that sounds about as credible as the Jesus story with the two fishes and the two loaves of bread.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

While I'm with you in the bafflement category, George was a fan of the Jesus dude himself, so maybe there's something to both of those mythos.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

All I hear is a temper tantrum of a spoiled child, saying he wants his toys back and he wants them now.

Class warfare is ongoing, and has been for a long time.

It's time to flip the script on who has been winning as of late.

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

Maybe you should check your hearing.

As for flipping the script, well, considering what's going on in the primaries, it does sound kind of good for some real liberal change. The Republicans look like they are imploding, though there is a lot of time for them to correct their course.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

My hearing is fine, thanks. You have a habit of discussing things as if you are a temporarily embarrassed millionaire.

I hear 1 person in the entire field really talking about class warfare in a significant way.

He doesn't use those words, mind you, but that's what he is getting at.

The rest of em sound like routine, run of the mill, PLEASE VOTE FOR ME!, style politicians.

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

Maybe it's reading comprehension. I'm not advocating for the status quo, but merely observing its power, as well as arguing that the problems of global poverty and climate change are deep enough that it will take more than higher taxes. The general lifestyle of the advanced nations is unsustainable, I think. That kind of change is not easy; it's not just about shaking some wealth from the one-percenters.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

I dunno man. I think the sun provides enough energy that we can probably sustain our lifestyle, just need different tech to use different energy to provide that lifestyle.

Once we go all electric, and focus on solar, I think we can provide plenty of power, which is the real issue for global warming no? Burning coal or oil is cheaper, in the short run. In the long run, everyone dead.

[garote]

No, there is a basic need for efficiency that is sorely lacking in our current "lifestyle". The change in tech required to correct for this would effectively dictate a different lifestyle for the vast majority of people.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

Not so much, sadly, at least on the energy front. Not enough raw materials in the crust of the earth to build the batteries to make the machines go go go as much as we make them go go go on petroleum.

While tech can provide an emergency bridge, nothing we can do in the short term can completely obviate the need for fossil fuels. Lifestyle change is critical to long-term survival.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Forgive me, but battery tech is changing. Your grand-daddy's batteries are not todays batteries and I rather expect in 30 years, they will be even better yet.

Do you have some source on the raw materials for batteries vs their maximum (current) capacities?

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

Your grand-daddy's batteries are not todays batteries and I rather expect in 30 years, they will be even better yet.

Not fast enough. The present day batteries are only improvements on chemistries that have been known for decades. They are only getting built today because there is now a demand.

There are exceptions, of course. Lead acid gel cels and pastes are new; but the chemistry is over a century old. And Nickle Metal Hydride (NiMH) is a tweak on the old nickle iron batteries Edison developed. The only difference is in the "hydride": inventor Stanley Ovshinski (sp?) added mainly cobalt to the iron to reduce internal resistance. Lithium? Old hat with new brims.

There is one bright spot: Donald Sadoway's molten electrolyte batteries (http://www.ted.com/talks/donald_sadoway_the_missing_link_to_renewable_energy?language=en). These are new and quite promising. The downside? They won't work in mobile applications. Stand-alone grid capacity only.

Bottom line: even if someone discovered a new chemistry that worked well with cars (unlikely) and had cheap and available chemistries (even less likely), changing the entire mobile fleet over to electric would strain the grid and drain every last bit of manufacturing capacity, to the point where no one would be able to afford to drive.

Electric vehicles—and remember, I am speaking as someone who built one and bought another—have great advantages, but enough disadvantages that even the best of them will not be replacing gas overnight, perhaps ever. They can be a buffer technology, helping to weather the dips in petroleum supply we can expect. That will help, sure, but it won't replace.

Nothing will. We either go back to less automobile-centric living or perish in the attempt to not do so. The only question is how well we make the transition.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

Your ability to deflate "pie-in-sky fancies" with facts never ceases to amaze me.*
Sometimes I can even understand what you write ;)

*(Even when I think your extrapolations go too far)

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

I am The Deflator! Pies belong not in the sky, but sliced into wedges and presented in front of me! Hot and with ice cream!

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

No one is immune. Glad to hear you're okay, the news was sketchy a couple of weeks ago....

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

Ah. That news. I am happy to say I haven't driven those things in 11 years.

If you want my take on the whole hot mess, we can friend each other and you can get an almost-first hand look. Well, you can get my opinions. Which is just as good, right?

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

And this is the sort of thinking that lead to the French beheading their rich leaders a few hundred years ago.

When the rich give nothing, the poor are left with no choice.

Sir, the peasants are revolting!

They certainly are.


He who dies rich, dies disgraced.

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

One more time, the Beatles:

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

Er....so it's better to die bankrupting the tradesmen whose debts you are too poor to honour?

That used to be the way for the upper classes.

[hurleyman.livejournal.com]

Unlike the French, our poor are also well armed!

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

Madame Guillotine, meet Mr. AR-15.