| Kasz216 said: Also, as for Global Warming... i'd actually like to see someone's solution. |
It's slightly off-topic, but I thought I'd respond to this, before commenting on the main theme of the thread.
My solution to Global Warming is funding scientific research of various sorts. The sort of research that needs to be done isn't economically more efficient, so it's not going to be done by businesses. It needs to be funded by governments. And it needs massively larger funding than what is currently available. Oh, and it needs to not be subject to patents - that is, discoveries made need to be public domain, so that the entire world can benefit.
Some of the research will be into technologies (or technological improvements to reduce, for instance, power consumption), while others will be into more "natural" questions, like the effects of planting trees, etc - with the benefit in this case potentially being things like "optimal placement of trees to maximise stabilisation of the climate.
The funny thing is, such funding can be highly productive towards stimulation of the economy. Scientific research requires technology - great for the companies that produce such technology. Scientific research requires engineers, technicians, educators, administrators, etc. They're going to spend their wages on buying things. Etc, etc, etc. You get my point, I think.
There is value in trying to bring down industry's emissions through other methods. But it would work best if designed in such a way as to reward those who are actively reducing their emissions, rather than just punishing the heavier emitters more. A simplistic (in terms of incomplete and lacking nuance - a more detailed solution is necessary) method would be to, for instance, set a baseline for a company in terms of the industry they're in, and deviation from the baseline results in money from those emitting more going to those who emit less, relative to production.
For instance, suppose we're talking about coal mining (not coal burning) - determine the amount of coal being mined per year, and the total emissions by the coal mining industry. Work out the ratio of emissions to coal. Those companies for which their ratio is below the industry-wide ratio would be given money (call this a negative tax), while those above it would be taxed. The net tax on the industry would be zero, but each and every company would be given a financial impetus to reduce their emissions relative to amount of coal mined, in order to increase their after-tax profits. As the ones at with the worst emissions bring down their emissions, the industry-wide ratio lowers naturally, maintaining the revenue-neutral nature of the approach, and continuing to drive innovation within companies to reduce their emissions even more.
Anyway, back to the actual topic. I think the unfortunate suggestion by Hedges that it's a conspiracy by those in power to keep the system the way it is, fundamentally, is the main letdown of the argument.
There is nothing about the situation that requires a conspiracy. I don't recall who it's attributed to, but there's a classic saying along the lines of "never assume malice where stupidity can adequately explain behaviour". I don't think Dodd or Franks, for instance, thought that their solution was going to do the opposite of what was intended. I don't think that Republicans are actually trying to destroy the government. I think that they're all just too stupid to realise what they're doing. Unfortunately, this is what happens when government is run by the popular, rather than by the competent. Rhetoric takes priority over results. Pragmatism gets lost in the shuffle. Both sides of politics convince themselves that going over the "Fiscal Cliff" will be beneficial to their side, and that once the other side "loses", they'll be able to implement whatever they want to "fix" the country. They're both wrong, of course.
When they implement measures that curb freedoms, or that try to reduce dissent rather than the cause of dissent, it's not because they're really trying to screw you over, it's because they honestly don't see the problem. When Republicans try to suppress voting rights to those who are more likely to vote Democratic, it's because they honestly believe that they'll do a better job for those people in the long run, but those people are too stupid to realise it (ironically enough). When Democrats try to impose burdensome and unnecessary regulations on businesses, it's not because they hate business, it's because they honestly believe that those regulations will be better for the businesses in the long run.
Mind you, over there in America, there are definitely some forms of conspiracy going on. Democrats and Republicans definitely work together to keep third parties from gaining any traction. Neither side is willing to implement any improvement to how government runs, at the risk that it will play against them if they should end up in opposition... or, when in opposition, they will vote against changes that will make the government look good, because it will be harder to get back into government. This is, sadly, a side-effect of the system of government based on party politics - as evident in many commonwealth countries (who use the Westminster System), in America, and in many other countries.
The biggest failing of the Occupy movement is a lack of true direction. There's no real alternatives being proposed, and no effort to truly engage politically. That's why it faded once the bulk of the protests ended. What they're doing since then is nice, such as the purchase and forgiving of debts, but it's not going to get anywhere meaningful. And therein lies the problem.
