robzo100 said:
| Final-Fan said: 1. Well, $100B would be almost as big as 1/3 of the current Canadian federal budget (an increase of 30%+), but fair enough. However, if this was the case, I have to wonder why you said earlier, "I don't see how countries whose GDP's are only a fraction of the US's would pay the same 100 Billion", when now you say you thought that was exactly what the agreement was saying. Please explain that to me.
Additionally, if you thought many countries would be paying $100B/yr. each, why did you say, "Source1 states 'richer countries, like the US, are supposed to send $100 billion a year in aid by 2020 to the poorer countries' misleading us to think this is specifically a US-goal." Please explain how that isn't directly contradicting what you are now saying, considering what you chose to put in bold, because to me it seems like these are mutually exclusive statements (I read your older statement as saying you thought only the US was called on to pay $100B/yr.).
5 & 6. I would agree conditionally that the market is the best system for allocating resources that are already close to market viable* because of how it does so organically and dynamically, without the need for central planning that simple cannot be all-knowing, whereas the free market lets individuals react en masse to their needs, on average working things out naturally—and the condition I place on this is that there are circumstances where the market of individuals and groups of non-state actors will begin to act in various ways detrimental to society and the people in such a way that the free market will not self-correct but rather bad things will happen, some examples being the market will succumb to the malign influence (e.g. monopolies), or a vicious cycle of some kind will be created (e.g. tragedy of the commons). Industrial pollution is another example where the market does not reliably stop bad things from happening. I am inclined to believe that you are correct that the potential downside to companies being caught engaging in such practices is both more likely to happen and likely to be more impactful as time goes on and technology democratizes the flow of information, but again I must strongly disagree that such mechanisms are strong enough to "take over" from state regulation and intervention.
* So, as you already said, things like space exploration and inventing the Internet are best handled by Al Gore governments that use collective political will to carry out such long-term investments that may not turn a profit soon or ever. (If it's the sort of development that anyone can take advantage of, it's not necessarily advantageous for a market actor to spend lots of resources developing something that competitors will be able to take advantage of almost as well as it can, no matter how much the society in general values such a thing and would buy it.) Then the market takes over and fills space the Internet with porn.
7. One interesting point I would like to make is the fact that market systems have a "boom and bust" phenomenon that is well documented and this phenomenon is definitely not attributable in general to state regulation or intervention (though I would not claim that it has never caused a boom or bust). These cycles can be extremely damaging to the individuals affected even if the market system in general bounces back in short order, which to my limited knowledge would be a very arguable claim. So state regulation here would be aimed at moderating the market to try to avoid or mitigate these boom and bust cycles. I suppose a different solution might be for a nation to not even try to moderate the cycle, but try to save up in good times and pay out welfare to the market "losers" in bad times, but that requires both foresight and the political willingness to implement such a welfare program (which would be much larger in the bad times).
|
(1)
The reason for my surprise (I don't see how...) was because of that legitimate journalistic confusion that stemmed from the grammatical error. Journalistically an auidence has to accept what the article is saying while still critiquing it. It could very well ahve been true despite what I knew about the US GDP, in fact it could have been one of the reasons people were bashing the Agreement for being unreasonable. It turns it, for some critics, it was unreasonable enough in other ways, but that could have logically been another reason while still being unreasonable.
-
(2)
Competition is great for innovation. It is halted by oversight and regulations stemming from collective institutions. They can't operate at the same time, we have to switch back and forth(like I said, I feel a "switch" has been long overdue from my interpretation of history[peacetime/domestic focus, etc.]). In other words, there will inevitably be negative side effects during these innovative periods that will be directly related to a lack of focus on things like safety concerns, etc.
That's why it's important we switch back. We need periods of deregulation that will eventually be followed up by regulation once again. But a constant chokehold helps no one just as much as a constant free-for-all will bring about mayhem that you allude to. Globalism(the biggest form of collectivism we can have at the moment), big International governments(US is the biggest), and other internation groups, have had a lot of unchecked power and support in this era. During that time the capacity for individuals to affect society positively has grown immensely but with no political outlet to express its potential. I look to people like Trump and Marie Le Pen(unfortunately gone), who abhor government, to open these floodgates.
Dropping out of this Agreement is a bold move that sets us in that direction(without taking much away imo). I've already heard about State-level politcians like NYC's Bill De Blasio, and wealthy individuals like Michael Bloomberg who are vowing to take on Climate Change repsonsibility, and it hasn't been that long since the agreement was left. It is my strong belief that society has in fact already taken a stronger interest in the subject matter as a direct result of this move regardless of whether people like or dislike it. I think discussions like these will actually become more commonplace as well, albeit different from face-to-face interactions(tend to be more emotional and unforgiving).
|
; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for 
, let me know!
