User Tag List

First 5678 Last

Results 61 to 70 of 75

  1. #61
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jenaphor View Post
    Social status is an impersonal ranking of worth.
    Hmm... well, that's true. But it's more like an extremely impersonal version of Fe than impersonal Te, so it's easier to trick myself into thinking I'm still being reasonably nice (or at least conventional) about it.

  2. #62
    Senior Member ScorpioINTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    6-5
    Posts
    347

    Default

    No doubt that there will be ways to alleviate oil consumption but as of yet, there hasn't been one viable alternative. Or maybe that's the answer. Multiple alternatives with multiple infrastructures and while economies of scale aren't maximised, the potential impact to unemployment numbers might be worth the additional cost. And if these alternative energy sources end up competing, even better for the consumer for a minimal period of time.
    The existing cronies can manipulate prices to keep the new alternatives from taking hold and then when they fail jack the prices back up. High barriers to entry too.

    There is also a debate about the cost of building new infrastructure and say if/when electric cars started to become mainstream would make our current vehicles obsolete and significantly devalued if it happened too fast. There are most likely some negative effects of relying soley on electricity too (apart from battery waste, rising commodity prices, the impact on mechanics, auto parts companies). That might see our electric grid overloaded and prices skyrocketing if people migrated in masses.

    Ethanol was doomed from the get go, but it was subsidized through lobby efforts. A terrible waste of resources and spiked food costs. Electric cars are a more practical solution, but not a perfect solution..maybe just one of several alternatives though. Brazil is making due with sugar ethanol though, but I don't think that would be possible here. I guess I was also referring to alternative oil sources (canadian oil sands, drilling here, Alaska, east coast offshore etc. Everyone has competing lobby's and just when the gov. approved offshore drilling on the east coast, we had the BP disaster. Coincidence?

    The reality is we need to change behavior and make tough choices or suffer the consequences. I live in a place that I could ditch my car and rely on public transit or live without one or use a car share program. These are concepts we need to consider more globally. Of course, that has more to do with population density, city infrastructure planning and scarce parking. This is a big change from living in other places I've been, where you couldn't really live without a car, but it just made me realize that fuel prices affect some much more than others and their are alternatives.

    So then you get cities to be more urbanized with light rail etc. and you then obsolete the more suburban cities...someones got to lose though.

    Gas was probably artificially cheap for a long time, when you compare the cost vs. other liquids and inflation. That just allowed more consumption, and allowed for longer commutes and suburban sprawl. Its hard to tell which is being manipulated more..consumption or supply.

    But OPEC isn't a friend to the U.S. in any way. It's not just dollars and cents. And while the U.S. has its share of responsibility through foreign policy of the past and current, at this point, I'm not convinced that the gap is so easily repairable by reducing military might and presence. The middle east is one hotbed that doesn't take much to fan to flames.
    No one said they were our friends. Most certainly not. We should try to break them up or use our economic influence to bring the prices down. I'm quite sure we could do this, but it is probably not in the interest of the corporations like Exxon, Chevron and oil drillers. Higher prices mean more profits for them too. There are certain types of oil production that are just not economically viable if oil falls below $60-70/barrell. Everything comes down to economic incentive.
    If we are going to use our military to secure resources and be honest about it, then lets just invade Saui Arabia and take it and stop tip toeing around.

    Not certain if the U.S. is as technologically advanced in weaponry, as it was say 15 years ago. You can bet that China has far, far more than is evident. A cagey country with money and cheap labour to burn.
    I think we are light years ahead of anyone, beyond what anyone here knows. This is why I was calling BS about Invading Iraq before it ever came to a vote.
    But they convinced the sheeple that they were an immanent threat.
    China is an economic threat and yes they are cagey. Right now we are in a sort of currency war. They are not ever going to invade/attack us militarily IMO, rather they are more likely to use our education system and infiltrate jobs here to steal our technology and beat us at our own game. I just hope the greedy guys at the top are a step ahead of the chess game. We are selling debt and printing more money, which is one thing, but I don't think its going to save us.
    Type 6w5 sp/so/sx I think..I have not fully explored this and just discovered it.

  3. #63
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    I'm flabbergasted to see that I'm the first one to respond to this. I was hoping that someone else would take care of this first so I wouldn't have to.

    How about killing a few hundred military personnel?

    THat should free up the budget.
    What the hell?!:steam:

    My buddy is an intelligence officer on a destroyer in the Pacific...

    Do you think he should be killed?

    How dare you speak that way about people who are willing to risk their lives for you.

  4. #64
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Athenian200 View Post
    Well, it's just that valuing people based on social status seems more natural, because we already do it to some extent anyway. People just naturally tend to judge each other that way. The way that was proposed involved imposing a kind of logical framework onto everyone that didn't feel natural at all. Thus, it seemed more cruel (even though it might technically be more fair) because it isn't in tune with the way societies naturally tend to function and form hierarchies.
    Wow, reason seems cruel to you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Athenian200 View Post
    Hmm... well, that's true. But it's more like an extremely impersonal version of Fe than impersonal Te, so it's easier to trick myself into thinking I'm still being reasonably nice (or at least conventional) about it.
    You're definitely tricking yourself here.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  5. #65
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    Wow, reason seems cruel to you.

    The way societies function is always changing, and what brings social status today will be laughed at tomorrow (unless you're someone like Einstein).
    Well, reason may be cruel, but I can admit that sometimes it's necessary. In a situation with extremely limited resources, it might become necessary to implement the kind of system Jenaphor described for valuing people. It would make more sense in that situation, because the social order would have already started to break down.

    That's generally how I view Te... a necessary evil, usually done by people with stronger stomachs than my own. Most of the solutions to the problems we face today will probably require a dose of cruelty in order to solve. With such solutions, things might get better in a few decades, but everyone will be miserable in the meantime.

  6. #66
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Athenian200 View Post
    Well, reason may be cruel, but I can admit that sometimes it's necessary. In a situation with extremely limited resources, it might become necessary to implement the kind of system Jenaphor described for valuing people. It would make more sense in that situation, because the social order would have already started to break down.

    That's generally how I view Te... a necessary evil, usually done by people with stronger stomachs than my own. Most of the solutions to the problems we face today will probably require a dose of cruelty in order to solve. With such solutions, things might get better in a few decades, but everyone will be miserable in the meantime.
    I think you need to look at social status in a broader scope. Look at what purpose it serves in other species, then look at how it has changed with humans as society has evolved and we have developed, technologically.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  7. #67
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    To get back on topic...

    We need to increase the amount of inter-service cooperation that goes into asset maintenance.

    For instance, the army has had quite a difficult time finding the industrial capacity to up armor humvees. Specifically, they lack the capacity to bend sheet metal at the thickness required to suffice as small arms armor.

    The Navy, on the other hand, has massive industrial capabilities where sheet metal manufacturing is concerned. This, of course, comes from the Navy's ship building capacities. Specifically it's capacity to bend metal for ship hulls.

    If the navy and army would have cooperated in pursuance of maintaining and updating the humvee fleet, we would probably have a few more soldiers alive today, and would have saved millions that the army ended up spending in outsourcing armor production to the private sector.

  8. #68
    nee andante bechimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,025

    Default

    The existing cronies can manipulate prices to keep the new alternatives from taking hold and then when they fail jack the prices back up. High barriers to entry too.
    True but if there's sufficient government intervention by way of grants and subsidies for alternative sources, there are substantial opportunites for the entire alternative source industry which includes building the infrastructure.

    There is also a debate about the cost of building new infrastructure and say if/when electric cars started to become mainstream would make our current vehicles obsolete and significantly devalued if it happened too fast. There are most likely some negative effects of relying soley on electricity too (apart from battery waste, rising commodity prices, the impact on mechanics, auto parts companies). That might see our electric grid overloaded and prices skyrocketing if people migrated in masses.
    That's why there has to be a lengthy and incremental conversion period and also adds to the plus side of having more than one form of alternative energy. Add in that with multiples, each type wouldn't have the major clout that oil companies currently enjoy.
    Ethanol was doomed from the get go, but it was subsidized through lobby efforts. A terrible waste of resources and spiked food costs. Electric cars are a more practical solution, but not a perfect solution..maybe just one of several alternatives though. Brazil is making due with sugar ethanol though, but I don't think that would be possible here. I guess I was also referring to alternative oil sources (canadian oil sands, drilling here, Alaska, east coast offshore etc. Everyone has competing lobby's and just when the gov. approved offshore drilling on the east coast, we had the BP disaster. Coincidence?
    I agree that ethanol isn't a viable single alternative. But it could be one of them.

    As far as additional drilling, I'm not seeing the cost/benefit when the ecological damage is factored in and that it's a short-term solution. Oil has to go considering it's non-renewable nature and subsequent damage to the environment including the quality of air. Actually, have you heard of what the oil companies (Exxon Mobile?) are looking into about creating a type of DNA bonded quasi-live oil? Can't recall the exact technical terms to describe this but it sounds feasible.

    The reality is we need to change behavior and make tough choices or suffer the consequences. I live in a place that I could ditch my car and rely on public transit or live without one or use a car share program. These are concepts we need to consider more globally. Of course, that has more to do with population density, city infrastructure planning and scarce parking. This is a big change from living in other places I've been, where you couldn't really live without a car, but it just made me realize that fuel prices affect some much more than others and their are alternatives.

    So then you get cities to be more urbanized with light rail etc. and you then obsolete the more suburban cities...someones got to lose though.

    Gas was probably artificially cheap for a long time, when you compare the cost vs. other liquids and inflation. That just allowed more consumption, and allowed for longer commutes and suburban sprawl. Its hard to tell which is being manipulated more..consumption or supply.
    No doubt those who can, should be conserving if only for their personal cost/benefit analysis of public transit vs. car. But it does inconvenience individuals and for women, taking public transit at night, isn't the safest way to travel.

    No one said they were our friends. Most certainly not. We should try to break them up or use our economic influence to bring the prices down. I'm quite sure we could do this, but it is probably not in the interest of the corporations like Exxon, Chevron and oil drillers. Higher prices mean more profits for them too. There are certain types of oil production that are just not economically viable if oil falls below $60-70/barrell. Everything comes down to economic incentive.
    If we are going to use our military to secure resources and be honest about it, then lets just invade Saui Arabia and take it and stop tip toeing around.
    The economic viability of $60/$70 per barrel cut off point isn't anything that the majority of oil pumped from the Middle East experiences. You're talking oil sands, et al.

    But there's a line in the sand that the international community is willing to put up with. If the U.S. invaded for the express purpose of taking oil, the community would rise up against it, including and especially China and Russia.


    I think we are light years ahead of anyone, beyond what anyone here knows. This is why I was calling BS about Invading Iraq before it ever came to a vote.
    But they convinced the sheeple that they were an immanent threat.
    Looks like we have to agree to disagree on status of technology as compared to other countries. But I too threw down the BS flag over the Invasion of Iraq and so did most of the international community. Even Canada refused to back the U.S. and the two countries are near one.
    China is an economic threat and yes they are cagey. Right now we are in a sort of currency war. They are not ever going to invade/attack us militarily IMO, rather they are more likely to use our education system and infiltrate jobs here to steal our technology and beat us at our own game. I just hope the greedy guys at the top are a step ahead of the chess game. We are selling debt and printing more money, which is one thing, but I don't think its going to save us.
    The battle over being the world's reserve currency. You can't argue that without China, the economic global crisis would have been worse.

    As far as technological espionage, pretty standard between competing companies countries.

    Interesting discussion. Plenty of good points.

  9. #69
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    More than anything mentioned so far... the US needs to rethink the role it's military plays on the world stage.

    One of the greatest contributors to the growth of military spending in the long term are ongoing military alliances with other nations.

    The reason US military spending is so much greater than that of other nations, is that the US has entangled itself in treaties that require it to protect other nations in the event of attack, and also to supplement these country's military capacities. Often this supplementation occurs in the form of foreign military bases, or the selling of US military hardware.

    In earlier days, when there was less international competition, we were entirely capable of funding a military large enough to secure American interests abroad, and act as the world's security guard.

    The world has changed. Those countries one didn't have to worry about yesterday, are the burgeoning economic superpowers of today. And we aren't keeping up any more.

    In order to reestablish our global military preeminence while reforming military spending, we must decrease the general level of military involvement in international affairs.

    We are currently fighting two wars abroad, while managing to ignore the most pressing threat to US security. This threat being the eruption of full scale drug wars on our southern border and in Mexico.

    What have we accomplished by doing for other countries what their militaries should have been doing for them all along? We have done these countries a disservice by disincentivizing foreign investment in military R&D (which in turn leads to leads to less global technological development). These countries, with out US support, would not be able to fight a war against an advanced opponent like China. While this does free up more funds in other countries for infrastructure development, when the need arises to defend themselves (and the US is too busy with it's own commitments), they will not be able to do so.

    These entangling international treaties do an even greater disservice to our domestic military capacity. Through our engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan we have become dangerously (some would say untenably) over extended. Should a legitimate threat arise (i.e. not the paper tiger of terrorism or some other boogieman) we currently cannot meet it, without significant disengagement abroad.

    Thus in pursuing a "world police" international policy we have eviscerated our ability to deal with domestic threats like the drug cartels on our southern border, eliminated our ability to deal with emerging international threats (like China), destroyed the military capabilities of our military allies, and most importantly wasted our taxpayers money.

  10. #70
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    What have we accomplished by doing for other countries what their militaries should have been doing for them all along? We have done these countries a disservice by disincentivizing foreign investment in military R&D (which in turn leads to leads to less global technological development). These countries, with out US support, would not be able to fight a war against an advanced opponent like China. While this does free up more funds in other countries for infrastructure development, when the need arises to defend themselves (and the US is too busy with it's own commitments), they will not be able to do so.
    None of the countries surrounding China (except for Russia for perhaps another decade or two, if one disregards their nuclear arsenal) would be able to take China on militarily in any event, and in the case of South Korea their military capabilities have only improved under our collective security pact. The only country in the region I can think of where the above scenario applies is in Japan, which is (by our design) Constitutionally prohibited from having a military force that reflects its capabilities. Some of our military committments may lack sufficient strategic value to justify the expense, but our Pacific alliances do not. I also think that keeping the straights of Malacca and Hormuz open is vitally important, as is maintaining NATO alliances (though large cuts to our presence in Western Europe seems both appropriate and doable).

Similar Threads

  1. I'm sure we can find other places to cut spending
    By ygolo in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 04-26-2011, 08:56 AM
  2. We must cut entitlement spending
    By DiscoBiscuit in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 03-11-2011, 07:27 PM
  3. Hi, cut the grass here
    By disregard in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: 04-26-2007, 11:29 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO