liveonearth | The Forever Recession

Ultimately, it all means that we're going to have to live *lower*, we're going to have to work longer hours under less pleasant conditions, we're going to have to eat lower on the food chain, drive less or not at all, live in smaller homes that are less well heated/cooled, recieve less medical care... And die younger. No one I know is likely to be happy about any of that, but it's the reality.

One of the central issues of our times is the realization that those "land, air and water quality" regulations don't make industry less profitable, they make it happen elsewhere. The choice isn't between having 2000 factories dirty, and 1900 factories operating cleanly, it's between having 2000 factories operating dirty here, and 2000 factories operating dirty in China. In the process, the rich will get richer, because they are who has the money to build factories in China. The poor will get poorer, because the jobs they used to work at will be in China. Our deficits will swell, because we have taken on the care of the poor at the governmental level. And in short, all the bad things will happen.

As for Obama being "anti-business", this article sums up my thought process pretty well.
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/15/opinion/main5089982.shtml
It's not all-inclusive, but it gets the point across.

Then there is his rather profligate taxation.
http://www.atr.org/comprehensive-list-obama-tax-hikes-a6433
(not entirely fond of the format on that one, but the facts are factual)

Then there's his outright violation of court orders in pursuit of anti-business. For instance, the offshore drilling ban is still in force, costing the US economy billions of dollars that will never be made up. At the same time, he is giving loans to brazil for... offshore drilling. Loans that have no history of being paid back, incidentally. In what world does that make sense?

In fact, the US government is now officially in contempt of court.
www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-03/u-s-administration-in-contempt-over-gulf-drill-ban-judge-rules.html

Although the moratorium is lifted now.

I could go on. It is quite brutal being a small-business-person under this administration. The uncertainty and regulatory compliance burdens that he is imposing are quite unpleasant. Just for one example, in the PPACA, the "1099 requirement" would have been catastrophic for small business, having to send a 1099 to *every* company with which they did business would be ruinous. That got repealed, thankfully, but that was a year of uncertainty for every small business looking at that looming deadline that would push many small businesses out of the game.

I want you to just tell me what you think, not redirect me to someone else's article. Oh well.

I find your assessment of the outcomes of environmental regulation to be simplistic. Yes, that is part of the truth, but certainly not the whole truth.

The outcome of leaner living could conceivably be increased life expectancy. Considering that America is dying of obesity and sedentary lifestyle.

Next time I will, it's just that when saying these things to someone that I know is rather a fan, I find it sometimes helpful to have "credible" documentation, rather than me just saying "everything he says and everything he does" or somesuch. I will remember for next time though.

Yes, I was oversimplifying somewhat on the regs. There's more to it, but, I didn't feel like typing up a giant wall-o-text on the intricacies of international trade.

It's true that we could use a little "toughening up" in terms of the diet and exercise. I do doubt that we'll get a longer life epectancy out of it, because in general, life expectancy and wealth are correlated nationally. Could conceivably be, but probably won't.

My basis for the assertion about increasing life expectancy comes out of some unexpected public health findings about the Great Depression. People actually got healthier, contrary to the global correlation of wealth with longevity. Correlation equals not causality, of course.

One could posit a possible "optimum wealth level". Where most people don't have money for prepared high-fat foods, but *do* have money for decent nutrition. Below that, life expectancy decreases because they're not getting adequate nutrition, above it, life expectancy decreases due to unhealthy levels of fat and the attendant heart disease etcetera. But then there's the complicating factor of healthcare, which partially offsets the reductions due to wealth.

And we are not designed, as mammals, to live in the world that we have created with our neocortices and fossil fuel. Humans "forced" to live in mammalian tribes by poverty may find themselves fulfilled in ways we cannot imagine from our separate bedrooms and cars. Give them adequate nutrition and keep the tigers and cops at bay, and they might outlive all "successful" people in our culture. Just a theory.

In general I am interested in your synthesis take on things more really than I am in the nuts and bolts of how you came to that understanding. We can get to nuts and bolts if we need to. I respect your thinking process enough to be interested in what you actually think is going on.

Fair enough. As I said, I will remember next time :)

FWIW, I have enjoyed our disagreements. Your thought process is not without interest either. Although I do occasionally wonder if I'm a case study :P

You are interpreting the data you take in independently. This is the same thing that I do. We take in different info, and have different ways of interpreting it. We both fail to fall into step with anyone else's viewpoint, and have reasons. That is enough to make a case study for sure. =-]

The Forever Recession

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject