Climate Change and the Perils of Inaction

[UNI88]

Climate Change and the Perils of Inaction - Steve Chapman

Read this in the Chicago Tribune this morning and it's pretty much spot on with my thinking.

http://townhall.com/columnists/stevecha ... n-n1801070" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A basic rule for assessing policy is to ask what bad things it makes likely or even possible. Conservatives are fond of citing the law of unintended consequences, which they know can produce negative effects dwarfing the envisioned benefits of a particular measure.
...
But the question conservatives ask is an important one: Even if those results are not certain, is the policy worth the risk?
...
But this cautious approach somehow goes out the window when it comes to an issue whose ramifications span the globe: climate change. People who normally exhibit an aversion to risk are willing to behave in a way that in other contexts they would deem reckless. They put great emphasis on the immediate costs of taking preventive or ameliorative action, while largely dismissing the long-term harm from inaction.
...
Maybe we can get away with doing nothing and wager that everything will be fine. But when the stakes are the fundamental health of the planet, we might want to hedge that bet.

The last sentence pretty much sums it up for me.

Thoughts & comments?

[GannonFan]

The idea is fine, where I take issue in the article is what is the action or actions we should take to address the problem. I don't see the value in a carbon tax - we can tax carbon that's generated here, but all that does is shift the carbon production to other areas and other countries. If we're going to treat this as a global issue, as the author says, then we need to think globally. Instituting a carbon tax here in the US will make columists like this guy happy that we've done something, but the reality is that doing that will do next to nothing globally to solve the issue. Doing something for the sake of doing something is rarely good policy.

And the reality is, the US has done a lot over the past 20 years in terms of addresing carbon reduction without things like a carbon tax. We keep lifting mileage standards, we find cleaner fuels (i.e. fracking for natural gas, nuclear power, etc) that offset and obsolete dirtier fuels (coal), and those are real, actual improvements. Air standards have been increased over the years and they too result in less total emissions.

But the other reality is, there are more and more people on this planet every day. And a lot of those people live in countries where they're more concerned about putting food on the table everyday than they are the amount of carbon that's in the air. Hunger and starvation hold greater sway than talk about polar vortexes and melting sea ice. People who like to talk about reducing carbon emissions are also often the same people who tout that we should eat organic food and we should restrict GMO foods, when often those GMO foods would go a long way to helping to feed the people who care more about not dying from hunger than what they put out into the air. And that's just one example.

But in the end, IMO, we're not going to stop climate change anytime soon, no matter what action we take. So we're going to need to learn how to live with it and adapt - it's already happening, and it's going to keep happening. Probably a real bummer for the columnist, I'm sure.

[kalm]

The idea is fine, where I take issue in the article is what is the action or actions we should take to address the problem. I don't see the value in a carbon tax - we can tax carbon that's generated here, but all that does is shift the carbon production to other areas and other countries. If we're going to treat this as a global issue, as the author says, then we need to think globally. Instituting a carbon tax here in the US will make columists like this guy happy that we've done something, but the reality is that doing that will do next to nothing globally to solve the issue. Doing something for the sake of doing something is rarely good policy.

And the reality is, the US has done a lot over the past 20 years in terms of addresing carbon reduction without things like a carbon tax. We keep lifting mileage standards, we find cleaner fuels (i.e. fracking for natural gas, nuclear power, etc) that offset and obsolete dirtier fuels (coal), and those are real, actual improvements. Air standards have been increased over the years and they too result in less total emissions. I
But the other reality is, there are more and more people on this planet every day. And a lot of those people live in countries where they're more concerned about putting food on the table everyday than they are the amount of carbon that's in the air. Hunger and starvation hold greater sway than talk about polar vortexes and melting sea ice. People who like to talk about reducing carbon emissions are also often the same people who tout that we should eat organic food and we should restrict GMO foods, when often those GMO foods would go a long way to helping to feed the people who care more about not dying from hunger than what they put out into the air. And that's just one example.

But in the end, IMO, we're not going to stop climate change anytime soon, no matter what action we take. So we're going to need to learn how to live with it and adapt - it's already happening, and it's going to keep happening. Probably a real bummer for the columnist, I'm sure.

Often times those foreign carbon emissions (not to mention other pollutants) come from factories providing cheap goods to the US while paying their workers barely subsistence wages. Congrats on your free trade.

[GannonFan]

The idea is fine, where I take issue in the article is what is the action or actions we should take to address the problem. I don't see the value in a carbon tax - we can tax carbon that's generated here, but all that does is shift the carbon production to other areas and other countries. If we're going to treat this as a global issue, as the author says, then we need to think globally. Instituting a carbon tax here in the US will make columists like this guy happy that we've done something, but the reality is that doing that will do next to nothing globally to solve the issue. Doing something for the sake of doing something is rarely good policy.

And the reality is, the US has done a lot over the past 20 years in terms of addresing carbon reduction without things like a carbon tax. We keep lifting mileage standards, we find cleaner fuels (i.e. fracking for natural gas, nuclear power, etc) that offset and obsolete dirtier fuels (coal), and those are real, actual improvements. Air standards have been increased over the years and they too result in less total emissions. I
But the other reality is, there are more and more people on this planet every day. And a lot of those people live in countries where they're more concerned about putting food on the table everyday than they are the amount of carbon that's in the air. Hunger and starvation hold greater sway than talk about polar vortexes and melting sea ice. People who like to talk about reducing carbon emissions are also often the same people who tout that we should eat organic food and we should restrict GMO foods, when often those GMO foods would go a long way to helping to feed the people who care more about not dying from hunger than what they put out into the air. And that's just one example.

But in the end, IMO, we're not going to stop climate change anytime soon, no matter what action we take. So we're going to need to learn how to live with it and adapt - it's already happening, and it's going to keep happening. Probably a real bummer for the columnist, I'm sure.

Often times those foreign carbon emissions (not to mention other pollutants) come from factories providing cheap goods to the US while paying their workers barely subsistence wages. Congrats on your free trade.

And without that free trade those workers making barely subsistence wages (mind you, barely substitence wages using our standard of what is subsistence, not the subsistence locally where they work) would be out of a job and be one of the billions trying to find enough food every day to stay alive.

Look what free trade has done for China - they were the destination of choice for decades because of the cheap labor. Evenutally, that cheap labor accumulated enough money that they could stop worrying about where the next meal was coming from and they could actually look around and see the crap that was the air pollution that they had and still have. Now that they don't worry about that next meal, they can and are pushing to clean up the environment around them. All because of free trade we now have a country of a billion plus people that can feed themselves and care about the environment.

I understand that runs counter to your "let's go back to the 1950's and hit the pause button" overriding philosophy, but the world does and will change and people do and will want to escape dire poverty and starvation. Bummer for you, I'm sure.

[kalm]

Often times those foreign carbon emissions (not to mention other pollutants) come from factories providing cheap goods to the US while paying their workers barely subsistence wages. Congrats on your free trade.

And without that free trade those workers making barely subsistence wages (mind you, barely substitence wages using our standard of what is subsistence, not the subsistence locally where they work) would be out of a job and be one of the billions trying to find enough food every day to stay alive.

Look what free trade has done for China - they were the destination of choice for decades because of the cheap labor. Evenutally, that cheap labor accumulated enough money that they could stop worrying about where the next meal was coming from and they could actually look around and see the crap that was the air pollution that they had and still have. Now that they don't worry about that next meal, they can and are pushing to clean up the environment around them. All because of free trade we now have a country of a billion plus people that can feed themselves and care about the environment.

I understand that runs counter to your "let's go back to the 1950's and hit the pause button" overriding philosophy, but the world does and will change and people do and will want to escape dire poverty and starvation. Bummer for you, I'm sure.

We externalized (your favorite word) pollution for the sake of corporate profits. We chose to do that without a gun being held to our head. And now, we can't do anything about pollution because too much of it occurs overseas...beyond our control...to provide us with cheap trinkets.

It's a values question. You value free trade and corporate profits over a healthy world wide environment. That's all.

Fucking progressive...

[GannonFan]

And without that free trade those workers making barely subsistence wages (mind you, barely substitence wages using our standard of what is subsistence, not the subsistence locally where they work) would be out of a job and be one of the billions trying to find enough food every day to stay alive.

Look what free trade has done for China - they were the destination of choice for decades because of the cheap labor. Evenutally, that cheap labor accumulated enough money that they could stop worrying about where the next meal was coming from and they could actually look around and see the crap that was the air pollution that they had and still have. Now that they don't worry about that next meal, they can and are pushing to clean up the environment around them. All because of free trade we now have a country of a billion plus people that can feed themselves and care about the environment.

I understand that runs counter to your "let's go back to the 1950's and hit the pause button" overriding philosophy, but the world does and will change and people do and will want to escape dire poverty and starvation. Bummer for you, I'm sure.

We externalized (your favorite word) pollution for the sake of corporate profits. We chose to do that without a gun being held to our head. And now, we can't do anything about pollution because too much of it occurs overseas...beyond our control...to provide us with cheap trinkets.

It's a values question. You value free trade and corporate profits over a healthy world wide environment. That's all.

Come on, that's just pure nonsense - you're much better than that. In your scenario, the only driver is the American economy and nothing exists without it. Again, while nominally true in the 1950's to some extent, the rest of the world was not going to sit around and do nothing, including not eat, just waiting for us to want to increase corporate profits.

The reality it, your warped view of the world doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Other people in the world want to do more than stay status quo were they were in the 1950's. They want to do something other than search for food all day just to stay alive, and then do the same thing the next day. Your myopia would have them doomed to a life of misery just so that you could enjoy the life you have while not having to worry about anyone else. Values indeed, I'm shocked you weren't struck by lightning when you penned that sentence.

Again, there's more concern now over a world-wide environment because more people have the luxury to actually care about the world-wide environment, and that is a good thing. A billion people in China caring about the smog and pollution in that country is far better than the same billion of people being shackled to a life of subsistence farming and drudgery. Think of all the creativity and ingenuity that's been released to other, more beneficial pursuits, because of the free trade that has lifted them out of that prior morass. People care more about the environment, and do more about keeping it clean, when they live each day on a full stomach.

You can try to trivalize and try to make the argument that everything should be US-centric, but the reality is we live in a world where most of the people don't live in the US. Thinking we can stop the clock and force the rest of the world to live menial lives to protect our own status in the world isn't a strategy, it's naivete on a grand scale. Don't be afraid of the rest of the world, kalm, it's okay that they look different than you. Once they get some money in their pockets, they start to worry about the same things we worry about, and that's a good thing.

Oh, and by the way, I challenge you to find even one post where I've used the word "externalize" - you're making stuff up, as usual.

[AZGrizFan]

Oh, and by the way, I challenge you to find even one post where I've used the word "externalize" - you're making stuff up, as usual.

Here's one.

[kalm]

We externalized (your favorite word) pollution for the sake of corporate profits. We chose to do that without a gun being held to our head. And now, we can't do anything about pollution because too much of it occurs overseas...beyond our control...to provide us with cheap trinkets.

It's a values question. You value free trade and corporate profits over a healthy world wide environment. That's all.

Come on, that's just pure nonsense - you're much better than that. In your scenario, the only driver is the American economy and nothing exists without it. Again, while nominally true in the 1950's to some extent, the rest of the world was not going to sit around and do nothing, including not eat, just waiting for us to want to increase corporate profits.

The reality it, your warped view of the world doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Other people in the world want to do more than stay status quo were they were in the 1950's. They want to do something other than search for food all day just to stay alive, and then do the same thing the next day. Your myopia would have them doomed to a life of misery just so that you could enjoy the life you have while not having to worry about anyone else. Values indeed, I'm shocked you weren't struck by lightning when you penned that sentence.

Again, there's more concern now over a world-wide environment because more people have the luxury to actually care about the world-wide environment, and that is a good thing. A billion people in China caring about the smog and pollution in that country is far better than the same billion of people being shackled to a life of subsistence farming and drudgery. Think of all the creativity and ingenuity that's been released to other, more beneficial pursuits, because of the free trade that has lifted them out of that prior morass. People care more about the environment, and do more about keeping it clean, when they live each day on a full stomach.

You can try to trivalize and try to make the argument that everything should be US-centric, but the reality is we live in a world where most of the people don't live in the US. Thinking we can stop the clock and force the rest of the world to live menial lives to protect our own status in the world isn't a strategy, it's naivete on a grand scale. Don't be afraid of the rest of the world, kalm, it's okay that they look different than you. Once they get some money in their pockets, they start to worry about the same things we worry about, and that's a good thing.

Oh, and by the way, I challenge you to find even one post where I've used the word "externalize" - you're making stuff up, as usual.

The 1950's thing is your creation.

Real free trade is good and of course I want countries like China to grow a middle class and develop higher environmental standards. But we chose to not leverage our markets against abuses that we decried here at home. We did this for the sake of corporate profits. We are all complicit in this and a person with solid values should recognize that and perhaps even feel a certain sense of self loathing ( don't worry Cluck, I do not expect this out of you ) I do and would like to think you do as well. That's probably why you're projecting...

But go on cheerleading for "free trade", it provides for good debate.

[AZGrizFan]

Real free trade is good and of course I want countries like China to grow a middle class and develop higher environmental standards. But we chose to not leverage our markets against abuses that we decried here at home.

Are you implying that those two events are somehow connected?

[Ibanez]

Cow farts.

[kalm]

Real free trade is good and of course I want countries like China to grow a middle class and develop higher environmental standards. But we chose to not leverage our markets against abuses that we decried here at home.

Are you implying that those two events are somehow connected?

Gannon is. It's certainly a conundrum which will take decades to sort out...if we have decades as '88's article questions. At least China can learn from some if our industrial mistakes if they chose to. A stronger middle class will push for this.

[Ibanez]

[AZGrizFan]

Are you implying that those two events are somehow connected?

Gannon is. It's certainly a conundrum which will take decades to sort out...if we have decades as '88's article questions. At least China can learn from some if our industrial mistakes if they chose to. A stronger middle class will push for this.

It sounds like you are, too.

[Pwns]

A lot of pants-pooping over this and not a lot of realistic solutions. Why do the greens keep touting wind and solar as the solution? If this is something that needs to be solved within the next 50 years, they are basically useless. We'll be lucky if they are producing 2% of the world's energy by 2050.

All the same people screaming that we're going to die without renewable energy are the same folks that caused us to lose 3 decades where we could've been developing nuclear infrastructure (including safe disposal sites), and are causing us to lose even more time. By now it might be too costly to do this.

Also, what do you do with developing countries? They don't have the technology and expertise for most forms of non-carbon energy. Are you going to tell them they have to knock their standard of living down?

Honestly, I think more people just want peace of mind that something is being done and don't really care if what's being done will make any difference. Pretty typical when it comes to environmentalism.

[CID1990]

This debate is moot.

Until we come around to the idea that nuclear power is the only way forward, we will NEVER get off the hydrocarbons.

Admiral Rickover's Navy perfected miniaturized, inherently safe nuclear power in the 1960s, and yet because we are so afraid of boogeymen getting their hands on our uranium and plutonium, we will only allow for HUGE respositories of the fissionable materials. So, we get gigantic nuclear plants that are 1) impossible to make safe from natural disasters, 2) huge risks to the environment because of their scale and 3) very inviting targets for terrorists given the amount of radiation that can be released from just simply cracking them open.

We could power a small city the size of Charleston, SC with just 3-4 navy reactors, and their tiny size would make them easy to super harden. We could literally have enough power to crack enough water to have every single car and truck in the US running on hydrogen fuel cells within 30 years.

But instead, we dicker around with solar and wind that will NEVER make up the gap. They are both hugely inefficient, and do not address one of the largest sources of atmospheric carbon coming from the US.

I have always been a "leave the campsite the way you found it" guy. I have always wondered whether or not we can afford to be wrong on AGW (although I do believe that the people who call it settled science and ridicule real science that refutes AGW are as ignorant as the people who say global warming cannot possibly be anthropogenic- like Rush Limbaugh).

I don't think the question is whether or not we can afford to be wrong- the question is- if global warming is truly anthropogenic and has the potential to make the planet at least less inhabitable to us... then how can we be pragmatic about it? How do we remove the profiteers from the solutions? They will exist in "renewable energy" as much as they do in fossil fuels. In fact, they are already much more dependent on the government tit per kilojoule than oil ever was. I am afraid the cure we come up with will be worse than the disease because it will do nothing to actually combat the climate problem. We'll wreck developed economies for politically correct "cute" solutions without going with less politically savory solutions that will absolutely solve the problem, like nuclear.

I'm totally with Chizz on this. Regardless of where the actual environmental point of no return is, we will never be able to respond to it, and wringing our hands over it is a useless exercise.

[YoUDeeMan]

Damn, kalm, you are like a minor league sensation that goes 0-20 when he gets to the big leagues against the likes of Gannonfan.

Speaking of overpopulation and such, and future attempts to mitigate diseases and birth rates:

"'We've known for a generation that paternal age has an effect on babies," said Dr. Harry Fisch, a urologist at New York-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center. "For example, dwarfism is more common in children with older fathers."

But it's only been in recent years that researchers have started to look for a paternal age effect on some serious psychiatric disorders, such as schizophrenia, Fisch said.

"I consider this to be a public health concern," he added. "We're always trying to blame external forces for problems in our children. Now we're realizing that the longer we wait to have a baby, the higher the chance of having one with genetic problems."

With all the focus on women's age related decline in fertility the public isn't used to thinking about issues in men.

"What used to be thought of as a women's problem we now know is also a men's problem," Fisch said. "It's a parental age effect.'"


http://www.nbcnews.com/health/mens-heal ... ays-n39516" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

With doctors stating that they consider older people having children a "PUBLIC health concern," how long will it be until we start having governmental agencies deciding who can have babies?

[GannonFan]

Come on, that's just pure nonsense - you're much better than that. In your scenario, the only driver is the American economy and nothing exists without it. Again, while nominally true in the 1950's to some extent, the rest of the world was not going to sit around and do nothing, including not eat, just waiting for us to want to increase corporate profits.

The reality it, your warped view of the world doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Other people in the world want to do more than stay status quo were they were in the 1950's. They want to do something other than search for food all day just to stay alive, and then do the same thing the next day. Your myopia would have them doomed to a life of misery just so that you could enjoy the life you have while not having to worry about anyone else. Values indeed, I'm shocked you weren't struck by lightning when you penned that sentence.

Again, there's more concern now over a world-wide environment because more people have the luxury to actually care about the world-wide environment, and that is a good thing. A billion people in China caring about the smog and pollution in that country is far better than the same billion of people being shackled to a life of subsistence farming and drudgery. Think of all the creativity and ingenuity that's been released to other, more beneficial pursuits, because of the free trade that has lifted them out of that prior morass. People care more about the environment, and do more about keeping it clean, when they live each day on a full stomach.

You can try to trivalize and try to make the argument that everything should be US-centric, but the reality is we live in a world where most of the people don't live in the US. Thinking we can stop the clock and force the rest of the world to live menial lives to protect our own status in the world isn't a strategy, it's naivete on a grand scale. Don't be afraid of the rest of the world, kalm, it's okay that they look different than you. Once they get some money in their pockets, they start to worry about the same things we worry about, and that's a good thing.

Oh, and by the way, I challenge you to find even one post where I've used the word "externalize" - you're making stuff up, as usual.

The 1950's thing is your creation.

Real free trade is good and of course I want countries like China to grow a middle class and develop higher environmental standards. But we chose to not leverage our markets against abuses that we decried here at home. We did this for the sake of corporate profits. We are all complicit in this and a person with solid values should recognize that and perhaps even feel a certain sense of self loathing ( don't worry Cluck, I do not expect this out of you ) I do and would like to think you do as well. That's probably why you're projecting...

But go on cheerleading for "free trade", it provides for good debate.

Sorry, I'm not with you on the self-loathing thing. If that makes you feel better, hey, self-loathe all you want.

You're idea about how much we can leverage our markets has always been a hallmark of your's, but it just doesn't work. We can't decide the direction and fate of the world simply on the strength of the US market. Again, there does exist a whole world out there that would still exist even if the US market closed its doors and ignored the rest of the world, as you seem to think we should do. And even if we closed our doors, the rest of the world would still try to better themselves and to rise above subsistence living, and we'd be in the same pickle we are today. The Chinese didn't decide to stop living meal to meal and start manufacturing things simply because the US market would buy those things. They did it because they didn't want to live meal to meal anymore.

The irony over the debate of free trade or no free trade is that it isn't a choice - it will happen, eventually, no matter what you choose. It's like a Nash game theory exercise - you're always going to end up there in the end. Pretending it's a choice and pretending that we can turn it on or off at our whim is just pure fancy.

[GannonFan]

This debate is moot.

Until we come around to the idea that nuclear power is the only way forward, we will NEVER get off the hydrocarbons.

Admiral Rickover's Navy perfected miniaturized, inherently safe nuclear power in the 1960s, and yet because we are so afraid of boogeymen getting their hands on our uranium and plutonium, we will only allow for HUGE respositories of the fissionable materials. So, we get gigantic nuclear plants that are 1) impossible to make safe from natural disasters, 2) huge risks to the environment because of their scale and 3) very inviting targets for terrorists given the amount of radiation that can be released from just simply cracking them open.

We could power a small city the size of Charleston, SC with just 3-4 navy reactors, and their tiny size would make them easy to super harden. We could literally have enough power to crack enough water to have every single car and truck in the US running on hydrogen fuel cells within 30 years.

But instead, we dicker around with solar and wind that will NEVER make up the gap. They are both hugely inefficient, and do not address one of the largest sources of atmospheric carbon coming from the US.

I have always been a "leave the campsite the way you found it" guy. I have always wondered whether or not we can afford to be wrong on AGW (although I do believe that the people who call it settled science and ridicule real science that refutes AGW are as ignorant as the people who say global warming cannot possibly be anthropogenic- like Rush Limbaugh).

I don't think the question is whether or not we can afford to be wrong- the question is- if global warming is truly anthropogenic and has the potential to make the planet at least less inhabitable to us... then how can we be pragmatic about it? How do we remove the profiteers from the solutions? They will exist in "renewable energy" as much as they do in fossil fuels. In fact, they are already much more dependent on the government tit per kilojoule than oil ever was. I am afraid the cure we come up with will be worse than the disease because it will do nothing to actually combat the climate problem. We'll wreck developed economies for politically correct "cute" solutions without going with less politically savory solutions that will absolutely solve the problem, like nuclear.

I'm totally with Chizz on this. Regardless of where the actual environmental point of no return is, we will never be able to respond to it, and wringing our hands over it is a useless exercise.

I agree with this - we should've gone nuclear decades ago. The irony of some anti-nuke environmentalists now decrying the lack of clean power is startling to say the least.

[kalm]

Damn, kalm, you are like a minor league sensation that goes 0-20 when he gets to the big leagues against the likes of Gannonfan.

Speaking of overpopulation and such, and future attempts to mitigate diseases and birth rates:

"'We've known for a generation that paternal age has an effect on babies," said Dr. Harry Fisch, a urologist at New York-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center. "For example, dwarfism is more common in children with older fathers."

But it's only been in recent years that researchers have started to look for a paternal age effect on some serious psychiatric disorders, such as schizophrenia, Fisch said.

"I consider this to be a public health concern," he added. "We're always trying to blame external forces for problems in our children. Now we're realizing that the longer we wait to have a baby, the higher the chance of having one with genetic problems."

With all the focus on women's age related decline in fertility the public isn't used to thinking about issues in men.

"What used to be thought of as a women's problem we now know is also a men's problem," Fisch said. "It's a parental age effect.'"


http://www.nbcnews.com/health/mens-heal ... ays-n39516" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

With doctors stating that they consider older people having children a "PUBLIC health concern," how long will it be until we start having governmental agencies deciding who can have babies?

So you believe in the wonders of free trade too!

[GannonFan]

Are you implying that those two events are somehow connected?

Gannon is. It's certainly a conundrum which will take decades to sort out...if we have decades as '88's article questions. At least China can learn from some if our industrial mistakes if they chose to. A stronger middle class will push for this.

I certainly stand by that notion. Poor people who are so poor they don't know where the next meal is coming from don't care as much about the environment as does the Starbucks sipping middle class person while their taking a lunch break in the middle of their day wondering if they left the filet mignon out to defrost when they left their house in the morning. The more we lift people out of poverty, the more time and energy they'll have to worry about the environment.

[kalm]

The 1950's thing is your creation.

Real free trade is good and of course I want countries like China to grow a middle class and develop higher environmental standards. But we chose to not leverage our markets against abuses that we decried here at home. We did this for the sake of corporate profits. We are all complicit in this and a person with solid values should recognize that and perhaps even feel a certain sense of self loathing ( don't worry Cluck, I do not expect this out of you ) I do and would like to think you do as well. That's probably why you're projecting...

But go on cheerleading for "free trade", it provides for good debate.

Sorry, I'm not with you on the self-loathing thing. If that makes you feel better, hey, self-loathe all you want.

You're idea about how much we can leverage our markets has always been a hallmark of your's, but it just doesn't work. We can't decide the direction and fate of the world simply on the strength of the US market. Again, there does exist a whole world out there that would still exist even if the US market closed its doors and ignored the rest of the world, as you seem to think we should do. And even if we closed our doors, the rest of the world would still try to better themselves and to rise above subsistence living, and we'd be in the same pickle we are today. The Chinese didn't decide to stop living meal to meal and start manufacturing things simply because the US market would buy those things. They did it because they didn't want to live meal to meal anymore.

The irony over the debate of free trade or no free trade is that it isn't a choice - it will happen, eventually, no matter what you choose. It's like a Nash game theory exercise - you're always going to end up there in the end. Pretending it's a choice and pretending that we can turn it on or off at our whim is just pure fancy.

Again, putting words in my mouth.

Funny that me...the progressive is arguing that nations operate from rational self interest here. Kind of like Adam Smith...you know...the grand uncle of capitalism suggested. Again..I think American values of resource management and environmental stewardship are positives that shod be exported abroad. You and the corporations that benefit from deregulation do not. Why do you hate America?

[Ivytalk]

I went to college with Steve Chapman. He was Republican Club president his senior year, and his politics then were much more conservative than they are now. Now he's morphed into UNI88.

[kalm]

I went to college with Steve Chapman. He was Republican Club president his senior year, and his politics then were much more conservative than they are now. Now he's morphed into UNI88.

Smart man. 88 thinks shit through.

[Ivytalk]

I went to college with Steve Chapman. He was Republican Club president his senior year, and his politics then were much more conservative than they are now. Now he's morphed into UNI88.

Smart man. 88 thinks **** through.

Steve chased his share of college Republican women back in the day.

[Grizalltheway]

Smart man. 88 thinks **** through.

Steve chased his share of college Republican women back in the day.

So he got houndawg's sloppy seconds?