Announcing 2012-The Musical
The work will examine the destruction of the planet as seen through the eyes of a small group of time travelers who witness the future and return to the present day to demand change before it is too late.
The musical is silent (performed by mimes) and funded with a $50,000 grant from the federal government.
Since the average tax burden on an american family is $10,000, this performance is being brought to you by the total taxes levied on 5 american families.
My bet is that those five families (perhaps yours) could put that $10K to better use?
Another great idea:
$2 million project in the lunchroom of a San Antonio elementary school, where high-tech cameras installed in the cafeteria will begin photographing what foods children pile onto their trays — and later capture what they don't finish eating. Digital imaging analysis of the snapshots will then calculate how many calories each student scarfed down.
Quote from: Gaspar on May 12, 2011, 10:05:14 AM
Announcing 2012-The Musical
The work will examine the destruction of the planet as seen through the eyes of a small group of time travelers who witness the future and return to the present day to demand change before it is too late.
The musical is silent (performed by mimes) and funded with a $50,000 grant from the federal government.
Since the average tax burden on an american family is $10,000, this performance is being brought to you by the total taxes levied on 5 american families.
My bet is that those five families (perhaps yours) could put that $10K to better use?
If only the rich would pay their fair share. We could have even more mime musicals.
Quote from: guido911 on May 12, 2011, 10:26:43 AM
If only the rich would pay their fair share. We could have even more mime musicals.
We can only dream for a better world such as this. We can only dream.
Quote from: guido911 on May 12, 2011, 10:26:43 AM
If only the rich would pay their fair share. We could have even more mime musicals.
Hey Greedo, adopt a few mimes, would ya?
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/budget-cuts-army-plan-halt-abrams-tank-production/story?id=13582237 (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/budget-cuts-army-plan-halt-abrams-tank-production/story?id=13582237)
Army Plan to Halt US Tank Production Draws Fire in Congress
QuoteThe Army's M1 Abrams tank has careened across battlefields in U.S. combat operations since 1980.
But now the 75-ton, American-made icon is at the center of the federal budget debate, with the Pentagon calling for production to halt and Congress determined to say no.
The Army says taxpayers could save $1.3 billion in the defense spending bill for fiscal year 2012 if lawmakers agreed to temporarily shutter the nation's only tank production facility in Lima, Ohio, for at least three years, starting in 2013.
The closure would be the first cessation of U.S. tank production since World War II.
"We've got a very fit and complete fleet that we'll have at this time. And that's what has caused us to stop buying something that we no longer need," Lt. Gen. Robert Lennox, the Army's deputy chief of staff, told a Senate committee last month.
But a bipartisan group of lawmakers, under pressure from the tank's producer, General Dynamics Land Systems, says the military has it all wrong.
One hundred thirty-seven House members argued Friday in a letter to Army Secretary John McHugh that the proposal would dangerously harm the country's "industrial base," forcing highly-skilled workers to go elsewhere and adding unnecessary re-training and certification costs to the taxpayers' tab.
"Our industrial base cannot be turned on and off like a light switch," said Rep. Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland, who sits on the House Armed Services Committee and co-signed the letter.
"It's always more expensive than the initial estimates," said Daniel Goure, an analyst with the Lexington Institute, a defense industry think tank, of the Army's proposal.
"As for the workers, this is an extraordinarily experienced and specialized crew. You can't take 'Joe the Welder' out of the auto body shop and put him on the tank line in a day when they start back up," he said.
Company officials say 250 workers at the Lima plant and thousands of others at more than 500 businesses in the tank equipment supply chain would be forced to find other work.
"We simply cannot shut down this plant and expect them to wait around for it to start up again," said Rep. Michael Turner, whose district is adjacent to the Abrams plant.
But with U.S. defense spending expected to top $700 billion this year -- twice the amount spent 10 years ago -- critics say programs such as the Abrams tank line shouldn't be immune from cuts to help trim the federal deficit.
"At a time when the defense budget obviously needs to go south, not north, only a cynic would say it's predictable that Congress won't cancel a program the Department of Defense says it doesn't need," said Winslow Wheeler, director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Center for Defense Information, a think tank.
Lt. Gen. Lennox said because the military's fleet of tanks is an average of just four years old, the military won't need technical upgrades or new equipment until at least 2016, when the plant could reopen.
The Army estimated closing the plant and reopening it later would not cost more than $800 million, while keeping the plant running at a minimal level would cost roughly $2.1 billion.
"The amount that we've been given, that it would take to keep those plants open, is extraordinarily enough of or put our scarce resources against something else," Lennox said of the funds.
The House Armed Services Committee, which is drafting the defense spending bill for 2012, has included $272 million to keep Abrams tank production going through Sept. 30, 2013. The bill still needs to pass the Senate and get signed into law by the president.
The funds would churn out roughly 60 tanks and keep thousands of workers on the job, supporters say.
"Politicians are so ineffectual that the only way they feel they can appeal to voters is by bringing home the pork," Wheeler said. "These tanks are eminently useful. I'm not against them. But we've got plenty, and many upgraded ones as well."
Isn't this a bunch of chutzpa:
"But a bipartisan group of lawmakers, under pressure from the tank's producer, General Dynamics Land Systems, says the military has it all wrong."
So the military says they don't need any new tanks, but the lobbyists er legislators say they don't know what they are talking about.
Wow! No wonder we have spent ourselves into oblivion.
Gaspar, you need to learn to focus on the important things. Rather than the half cent that went to mimes, you ought to be concerned with the tens of thousands you've spent in Iraq, or the tens of thousands you've spent on unconstiutuional wiretaps and everything else that is actually big money, not things that even in aggregate make up less than one percent of the federal budget.
Quote from: nathanm on May 12, 2011, 06:19:16 PM
Gaspar, you need to learn to focus on the important things. Rather than the half cent that went to mimes, you ought to be concerned with the tens of thousands you've spent in Iraq, or the tens of thousands you've spent on unconstiutuional wiretaps and everything else that is actually big money, not things that even in aggregate make up less than one percent of the federal budget.
You don't get it. It's that incremental "it's not that much" attitude of over-priced programs the government should not be spending money on in the first place. It's to illustrate how out-of-control our spending is and how much is being siphoned off with minimal oversight. People need to wake up and realize not only is a billion dollars a lot of money, so is a million when you add up a thousand worthless programs which provide few jobs or any real good for communities or our society.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 12, 2011, 06:37:47 PM
You don't get it. It's that incremental "it's not that much" attitude of over-priced programs the government should not be spending money on in the first place. It's to illustrate how out-of-control our spending is and how much is being siphoned off with minimal oversight. People need to wake up and realize not only is a billion dollars a lot of money, so is a million when you add up a thousand worthless programs which provide few jobs or any real good for communities or our society.
The entire non-defense discretionary budget is such a small part of the overall budget that looking for savings there is like breaking open your kid's piggy bank when you're trying to pay the mortgage on a McMansion. Sure, every little bit helps, but it doesn't make any real difference.
It's cutting off the electricity to save $40 a month instead of deciding not to gamble away the other $4000. No matter how many of these little expenditures you add up, you're not going to find the savings we need. Do we need to eliminate wasteful spending? Of course. Everyone agrees with that. It isn't
productive to even think about those things until we've tackled the bigger stuff. We're just treating the paper cut while ignoring the heart attack.
Quote from: nathanm on May 12, 2011, 10:50:45 PM
The entire non-defense discretionary budget is such a small part of the overall budget that looking for savings there is like breaking open your kid's piggy bank when you're trying to pay the mortgage on a McMansion. Sure, every little bit helps, but it doesn't make any real difference.
It's cutting off the electricity to save $40 a month instead of deciding not to gamble away the other $4000. No matter how many of these little expenditures you add up, you're not going to find the savings we need. Do we need to eliminate wasteful spending? Of course. Everyone agrees with that. It isn't productive to even think about those things until we've tackled the bigger stuff. We're just treating the paper cut while ignoring the heart attack.
Nickel and dime, nickel and dime.
Why not cut waste everywhere? Defense, social, and stupid.
The NEA has proven that it is a platform for funding arrests who's work cannot generate revenue through direct support by the public.
Art should
appeal to peoples senses, and illicit emotions or stimulate thought. When this
appeal is strong enough, it generates desire (demand). This is what gives art
value.
Art is without merit if it cannot generate interest in the market, no matter how passionate the artiest feels about his or her work, passion alone does not generate value, or merit support. In fact, support of passion alone is damaging.
Just like everything else, true artists are minimized in a market filled with subsidized work.
Quote from: nathanm on May 12, 2011, 10:50:45 PM
It's cutting off the electricity to save $40 a month instead of deciding not to gamble away the other $4000.
I see it more like fixing a leaky toilet inlet valve while we try to figure out how to pay for a more efficient dishwasher or laundry washing machine.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 13, 2011, 08:03:30 AM
I see it more like fixing a leaky toilet inlet valve while we try to figure out how to pay for a more efficient dishwasher or laundry washing machine.
+1
Quote from: nathanm on May 12, 2011, 10:50:45 PM
The entire non-defense discretionary budget is such a small part of the overall budget that looking for savings there is like breaking open your kid's piggy bank when you're trying to pay the mortgage on a McMansion. Sure, every little bit helps, but it doesn't make any real difference.
It's cutting off the electricity to save $40 a month instead of deciding not to gamble away the other $4000. No matter how many of these little expenditures you add up, you're not going to find the savings we need. Do we need to eliminate wasteful spending? Of course. Everyone agrees with that. It isn't productive to even think about those things until we've tackled the bigger stuff. We're just treating the paper cut while ignoring the heart attack.
Maybe I'm just too much of a perfectionist and cannot tolerate waste at any level. It's a "feh" attitude which has allowed this to go on even in the larger budget segments like social programs and military spending as well. In order to cut waste in those programs you have to go through with a scalpel as well, not a chainsaw.
It's all about cutting bits and pieces here and there. To simplify it, I've made the suggestion in the past that you could do cuts without prejudice by simply placing a flat percentage cut on all federal expenditures. 1 to 3% with a corresponding tax increase on every single American and American business would be a great place to start. It sounds like a nominal amount, but if you chose the 3% route, it's got a huge multiplicative effect.
I'm amazed more people don't seem to get up in arms about the literally millions of ridiculous ways the government is bilked out of money on an annual basis. The federal government is one of the dumbest consumers on the planet.
Now now, mimes need to eat too. A mime is a terrible thing to waste.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 13, 2011, 08:35:15 AM
I'm amazed more people don't seem to get up in arms about the literally millions of ridiculous ways the government is bilked out of money on an annual basis. The federal government is one of the dumbest consumers on the planet.
Define "bilked." That lunchroom study might actually produce actionable data that can drive more intelligent policy.
You assume that there's one good definition of consumer, when in fact the government is representing multiple interests when it spends its money. At any given time it's doing something for its citizens, its businesses, its military, other domestic interests, etc. So while you may not find the lunchroom study to be of value, it could very well be of value to others elsewhere.
I know you and others feel like there should be some sort of homespun, commonsense way to spend each and every one of our dollars, but I think we're way past simple solutions. Not that I believe we shouldn't evaluate our expenditures, but almost all of the things that are held up as boondoggles aren't necessarily. And things like the lunchroom study -- if you stop and think about it -- are logically useful in other contexts.
And of course, what nathan said: regardless of what it is, focusing on waste of $2mil is like trying to pick grains of sand off the ground and put them back in the bucket. And I don't mean that as hyperbole. Not that we shouldn't focus on waste, but there are much more productive ways to fight that battle rather than argue over the $50k an arts council somewhere provided a mime troop. Let's kill a $2billion fighter jet, or cut the $10s of billions in tax incentives for the oil industry.
Please see my tacit mimed response
Quote from: we vs us on May 13, 2011, 09:46:24 AM
or cut the $10s of billions in tax incentives for the oil industry.
I wonder how much that will raise the price of petroleum products.
Quote from: carltonplace on May 13, 2011, 09:53:58 AM
Please see my tacit mimed response
I got the audio (nothing :D) but saw no visual here at work. If there is a visual, it will have to wait until I get home.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 13, 2011, 09:55:21 AM
I wonder how much that will raise the price of petroleum products.
An excellent question. I actually heard an economist on the radio speculate that, since the price of petroleum is set on a global market, "local" (meaning national) industry tax incentives have a relatively small effect on the price of gas at the pump and instead go straight to the bottom line of the company.
I have to say that, it overall wouldn't be a bad thing for prices to go up and stay up. That's one of the quickest ways to make so many of the changes that our Forum values happen. I don't want it to be prohibitively expensive to have a car but I don't want to make each car trip more valuable.
Quote from: we vs us on May 13, 2011, 09:46:24 AM
Define "bilked." That lunchroom study might actually produce actionable data that can drive more intelligent policy.
Explain?
Would this data lead to an expansion or restriction of choice?
Man must have the right of choice, even to choose wrong, if he shall ever learn to choose right. – Josiah C. Wedgwood
Quote from: Gaspar on May 13, 2011, 10:14:32 AM
Explain?
Would this data lead to an expansion or restriction of choice?
Man must have the right of choice, even to choose wrong, if he shall ever learn to choose right. – Josiah C. Wedgwood
Better knowledge leads to better choice-making, wouldn't you agree? I would think that libertarians would be huge proponents of research and data crunching -- of knowledge and education in general -- so that we could all more intelligently take advantage of our freedoms.
Quote from: we vs us on May 13, 2011, 10:20:32 AM
Better knowledge leads to better choice-making, wouldn't you agree? I would think that libertarians would be huge proponents of research and data crunching -- of knowledge and education in general -- so that we could all more intelligently take advantage of our freedoms.
What you said is correct, and I agree with it. but let me sum it up. . . "knowledge is power!"
The problem is that you didn't answer my question (presumably because you know the answer).
Based on historical precedent. . .Would this data lead to an expansion or restriction of choice?
Quote from: Gaspar on May 13, 2011, 11:15:53 AM
What you said is correct, and I agree with it. but let me sum it up. . . "knowledge is power!"
The problem is that you didn't answer my question (presumably because you know the answer).
Based on historical precedent. . .Would this data lead to an expansion or restriction of choice?
It might in fact lead to a restriction of choice. But that's not an argument for ignorance.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 13, 2011, 09:55:21 AM
I wonder how much that will raise the price of petroleum products.
If we doubled their tax incentives you can damned well be sure it would not lower the price of petroleum products.
On paper and in theory, having every choice at your disposal should result in maximum freedom, but in reality, too many choices is its own form of tyranny. Your day and your life becomes about making choices and educating yourself about those choices, and it becomes less about living. Why not outsource some of the ridiculously easy ones? Ones like: do I want to have clean drinking water or not? Do I want my sewage automatically treated? Do I want this road paved?
In the case of the school cafeteria study, it might very well come up with an insight that is the key to the childhood obesity epidemic. It may conclusively find that kids are fat because each one of them individually choose to be fat. It may conclusively find that using lard in everything is making kids fat. Maybe it's the sugar, or maybe it's that one vengeful lunch lady who's putting drops of drain cleaner in everyone's vegetable soup. It may restrict the choice of the kids, but it also may inform the buying habits and preparation guidelines of the school.
We're not going to agree about the mix of freedom vs regulation in our government, but I guarantee your mix is 60%/40%, while mine is 40%/60%. We're not arguing Naziism vs Anarchism, we're arguing over 20% of freedom.
What good does the government gain by studying the caloric intake of school children and how would this information be used other than to restrict freedom of choice in our diets?
That's my libertarian view on it. And I will repeat to you what I did to Nathan. Budget cutting is done with a scalpel at all levels, not a chainsaw. There are no simple large scale solutions. You said it yourself, there's no simple way to go about it, however flat rate cuts across the board takes the politicizing out of it.
Quote from: we vs us on May 13, 2011, 12:00:36 PM
On paper and in theory, having every choice at your disposal should result in maximum freedom, but in reality, too many choices is its own form of tyranny. Your day and your life becomes about making choices and educating yourself about those choices, and it becomes less about living. Why not outsource some of the ridiculously easy ones? Ones like: do I want to have clean drinking water or not? Do I want my sewage automatically treated? Do I want this road paved?
In the case of the school cafeteria study, it might very well come up with an insight that is the key to the childhood obesity epidemic. It may conclusively find that kids are fat because each one of them individually choose to be fat. It may conclusively find that using lard in everything is making kids fat. Maybe it's the sugar, or maybe it's that one vengeful lunch lady who's putting drops of drain cleaner in everyone's vegetable soup. It may restrict the choice of the kids, but it also may inform the buying habits and preparation guidelines of the school.
We're not going to agree about the mix of freedom vs regulation in our government, but I guarantee your mix is 60%/40%, while mine is 40%/60%. We're not arguing Naziism vs Anarchism, we're arguing over 20% of freedom.
There's no mystery to the obesity problem: eat less and exercise more.
There's a childhood obesity problem because America has a general obesity problem. Kids parents don't take enough time to provide them with the proper nutrition or they don't have good role models at home when it comes to eating right.
I've finally figured out it takes about the same time or less time to make something far healthier at home, often for less money than I would driving to Panda Express or the nearest McDonald's.
I flatly disagree that a government should exist to protect stupid and lazy people from their own ignorance and apathy.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 13, 2011, 12:05:44 PM
I flatly disagree that a government should exist to protect stupid and lazy people from their own ignorance and apathy.
Have you seen the Oklahoma legislature?
http://www.oksenate.gov/Senators/Default.aspx?selectedtab=0 (http://www.oksenate.gov/Senators/Default.aspx?selectedtab=0)
http://www.okhouse.gov/Members/Default.aspx (http://www.okhouse.gov/Members/Default.aspx)
Was just listening to NPR and they were talking about how people in the US see expanding freedom vrs in Europe. Epanding freedom in the US tends to mean "freedom to", in Europe it tends to mean "freedom from". US "freedom to own a stash of weapons" Europe, join together to promote, "freedom from tyranny". US, "freedom to choose your own healthcare plan" Europe, "freedom from catastrophic healthcare bills". etc.
As per gas prices. Interesting to note that many EU countries pay double what we do in the US. Just saw that Germany has surged ahead in exports to become the second largest exporter in the world. Its exports have reached their highest levels since record keeping began. Not bad for a country that not long ago had to absorb its poor, eastern half.
As the world becomes flatter and Europe continues to get its act together after unifying and absorbing a lot of poorer countries... Gonna be interesting to see which model (car oriented vrs mass transit oriented) is more cost effective, which labor force will be able to be more competitive cost wise. The labor force that goes into a panic everytime the gas prices go up a bit, or the one where you can manage without having to pay for a car.
Quote from: Townsend on May 13, 2011, 12:18:41 PM
Have you seen the Oklahoma legislature?
http://www.oksenate.gov/Senators/Default.aspx?selectedtab=0 (http://www.oksenate.gov/Senators/Default.aspx?selectedtab=0)
http://www.okhouse.gov/Members/Default.aspx (http://www.okhouse.gov/Members/Default.aspx)
stupid and lazy or ignorant and apathetic?
Quote from: carltonplace on May 13, 2011, 01:29:26 PM
stupid and lazy or ignorant and apathetic?
Yes on three and apathetic on most things.
Anything having to do with the current federal administration seems to get them all riled up.
Appetite suppressant:
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-2OJonkmuKs4/TbpMx40bXBI/AAAAAAAASX4/Cg1irDsqZ3c/s1600/sally+kern+Stop+being+gay.jpg)
Quote from: we vs us on May 13, 2011, 11:33:28 AM
It might in fact lead to a restriction of choice. But that's not an argument for ignorance.
Thank you.
Quote from: TheArtist on May 13, 2011, 01:19:11 PM
Was just listening to NPR and they were talking about how people in the US see expanding freedom vrs in Europe. Epanding freedom in the US tends to mean "freedom to", in Europe it tends to mean "freedom from". US "freedom to own a stash of weapons" Europe, join together to promote, "freedom from tyranny". US, "freedom to choose your own healthcare plan" Europe, "freedom from catastrophic healthcare bills". etc.
As per gas prices. Interesting to note that many EU countries pay double what we do in the US. Just saw that Germany has surged ahead in exports to become the second largest exporter in the world. Its exports have reached their highest levels since record keeping began. Not bad for a country that not long ago had to absorb its poor, eastern half.
As the world becomes flatter and Europe continues to get its act together after unifying and absorbing a lot of poorer countries... Gonna be interesting to see which model (car oriented vrs mass transit oriented) is more cost effective, which labor force will be able to be more competitive cost wise. The labor force that goes into a panic everytime the gas prices go up a bit, or the one where you can manage without having to pay for a car.
Every country you mentioned relies on the economic engine of the United States for the existence of their economy, and the very social programs they value. The pendulum swings at a different pace in Europe and you are correct, they are in a phase of laying down more and more freedoms at the feet of government. This always evolves into abuse, then tynary, and ultimately collapse. We have a constitution that prevents us from moving this fast, but does not stop us.
Some argue that the cycle is necessary, but the framers of our constitution had the forethought to erect enough impediments as to freeze this development (or at least slow the decline).
Unfortunately most people are very myopic and unaware of the natural patterns. The "Wu Li" of government is that it will, much like a snowball rolling down hill, gain momentum and size in whatever direction you send it in.
Freedom from freedom is not freedom, it is surrender. A slave is still a slave, even if he adores his master.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, "Make us your slaves, but feed us." – Dosteovsky
What I have noticed is that a European will ask if the law allows something.
An American will ask if something is against the law.
Quote from: Gaspar on May 13, 2011, 03:21:14 PM
Every country you mentioned relies on the economic engine of the United States for the existence of their economy, and the very social programs they value.
You may not have noticed this, but the total EU economy is presently larger than that of the US. Luckily for us, at least if you believe we must be #1 in all metrics, their system is more like the articles of confederation, making it impossible for the weak central government to make the changes necessary to fix the problems in Greece and elsewhere. Not in the traditional sense of politically impossible, but in the "impossible under the current political system" sense.
This disgusting display of the entitlement mentality is just sickening:
These are rich!
The National Science Foundation will be publishing some important studies this year funded by your taxes.
The NSF is spending over a half-million dollars on a study to figure out whether or not online dating sites are racist?
and. . .$2 million to figure if people who often post pictures on the internet from the same location at the same time are usually friends.
and. . .$1 million for an analysis of how quickly parents respond to trendy baby names.
and. . .$315,000 study suggesting playing FarmVille on Facebook helps adults develop and maintain relationships.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 08, 2011, 07:31:09 AM
These are rich!
The National Science Foundation will be publishing some important studies this year funded by your taxes.
The NSF is spending over a half-million dollars on a study to figure out whether or not online dating sites are racist?
and. . .$2 million to figure if people who often post pictures on the internet from the same location at the same time are usually friends.
and. . .$1 million for an analysis of how quickly parents respond to trendy baby names.
and. . .$315,000 study suggesting playing FarmVille on Facebook helps adults develop and maintain relationships.
Linking the story might help change everyone's perception of you.
Quote from: Townsend on June 08, 2011, 10:01:50 AM
Linking the story might help change everyone's perception of you.
Not likely.
;D
Gaspar, do you think i'm stupid? Of course across the board cuts are political! The entirety of yor political views are founded on that single goal. It's utterly dishonest to claim that your proposed solution is apolitical.
I think i've mentioned before that there are many third world countries that provide dining examples of what you get with a weak government of the sort you propose we have in the US. I prefer tio have the universal rule of law and drinkable tap water among the many other things we get for our money.
Either Nathan is already enjoying rum drinks or he left his "nice" pills in Tulsa.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 08, 2011, 12:01:20 PM
Either Nathan is already enjoying rum drinks or he left his "nice" pills in Tulsa.
They make their rum in lead lined trash cans!
I love a good intoxicated post.
(http://vinearts.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/82644_512x288_generated__u2qd2wi7ee10s2ngen3lq.jpg)
Quote from: Gaspar on June 08, 2011, 12:24:10 PM
They make their rum in lead lined trash cans!
I love a good intoxicated post.
(http://vinearts.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/82644_512x288_generated__u2qd2wi7ee10s2ngen3lq.jpg)
That's pretty obvious coming from you.
:o
Come on Nate, make em pull the bus over for you!
Quote from: Gaspar on June 08, 2011, 01:42:13 PM
Come on Nate, make em pull the bus over for you!
No gracias, Gaspar...
Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced yesterday that it has awarded $17.4 million for pilot projects that will begin exploring how to sell Carbon Credits.
I thought ALGOR was already doing this?
Didn't the Catholic church do this back in the 1500s?
Quote from: Gaspar on June 10, 2011, 10:25:07 AM
Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced yesterday that it has awarded $17.4 million for pilot projects that will begin exploring how to sell Carbon Credits.
I thought ALGOR was already doing this?
Didn't the Catholic church do this back in the 1500s?
Is it just me or does any else think "carbon credits" are a sham and a way to create a tax credit for businesses?
Quote from: dbacks fan on June 10, 2011, 10:52:17 AM
Is it just me or does any else think "carbon credits" are a sham and a way to create a tax credit for businesses?
It's one of the more "acceptable" ways to encourage private business to voluntarily reduce their admissions. It's "acceptable" because it shoehorns what should be straight away regulation into a weird market driven environment. The problem with this is that when the carbon credit market takes on enough capital it will cease to be about actually reducing carbon and will become like any other capital market -- susceptible to bubbles and crashes and more about investment and making money on the peaks and valleys, rather than reducing carbon.
(This, by the way, is one of the main problems with our global economy, IMO: capital has found that it can make a better return on the peaks and valleys of assets and commodities than on actual investment in building things. This is one primary reason why corporations are fat right now; they're making more money speculating than they are on expanding their businesses.)
Quote from: Gaspar on June 08, 2011, 07:31:09 AM
These are rich!
The National Science Foundation will be publishing some important studies this year funded by your taxes.
The NSF is spending over a half-million dollars on a study to figure out whether or not online dating sites are racist?
and. . .$2 million to figure if people who often post pictures on the internet from the same location at the same time are usually friends.
and. . .$1 million for an analysis of how quickly parents respond to trendy baby names.
and. . .$315,000 study suggesting playing FarmVille on Facebook helps adults develop and maintain relationships.
From everyones favorite Tom Coburn:
"Examples of the more than $3 billion in waste and duplication outlined in the report include:
• $80,000 study on why the same teams always dominate March Madness;
• $315,000 study suggesting playing FarmVille on Facebook helps adults develop and maintain relationships;
• $1 million for an analysis of how quickly parents respond to trendy baby names;
• $50,000 to produce and publicize amateur songs about science, including a rap called "Money 4 Drugz," and a misleading song titled "Biogas is a Gas, Gas, Gas";
• $2 million to figure out that people who often post pictures on the internet from the same location at the same time are usually friends; and
• $581,000 on whether online dating site users are racist.
Additionally, the report details examples of mismanagement including:
• Hundreds of millions of dollars lost to ineffective contracting;
• $1.7 billion in unspent funds sitting in expired, undisbursed grant accounts;
• At least $3 million in excessive travel funds
• A lack of accountability or program metrics to evaluate expenditures.
• Inappropriate staff behavior including porn surfing and Jello wrestling and skinny-dipping at NSF-operated facilities in Antarctica. "
http://www.tulsatoday.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2608:dr-coburn-releases-exposes-waste-mismanagement-at-the-national-science-foundation&catid=61:national&Itemid=109 (http://www.tulsatoday.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2608:dr-coburn-releases-exposes-waste-mismanagement-at-the-national-science-foundation&catid=61:national&Itemid=109)
Quote from: we vs us on June 10, 2011, 11:27:47 AM
It's one of the more "acceptable" ways to encourage private business to voluntarily reduce their admissions. It's "acceptable" because it shoehorns what should be straight away regulation into a weird market driven environment. The problem with this is that when the carbon credit market takes on enough capital it will cease to be about actually reducing carbon and will become like any other capital market -- susceptible to bubbles and crashes and more about investment and making money on the peaks and valleys, rather than reducing carbon.
(This, by the way, is one of the main problems with our global economy, IMO: capital has found that it can make a better return on the peaks and valleys of assets and commodities than on actual investment in building things. This is one primary reason why corporations are fat right now; they're making more money speculating than they are on expanding their businesses.)
Thanks it makes more sense to me now.
Quote from: dbacks fan on June 10, 2011, 11:40:01 AM
Thanks it makes more sense to me now.
That may be a bit incomplete but that's how I understand it to work.
I don't like it personally. If we've decided that carbon cause climate change and we've decided that climate change is a threat, then we shouldn't pussyfoot around with solutions that may or may not work. We should just go ahead and regulate it.
The problem, IMO, is that there's a very active and influential political constituency that would not benefit by being further regulated, and they've tried to game the solution to the problem by turning it into what is essentially another investment vehicle.
Quote from: we vs us on June 10, 2011, 11:46:42 AM
That may be a bit incomplete but that's how I understand it to work.
I don't like it personally. If we've decided that carbon cause climate change and we've decided that climate change is a threat, then we shouldn't pussyfoot around with solutions that may or may not work. We should just go ahead and regulate it.
The problem, IMO, is that there's a very active and influential political constituency that would not benefit by being further regulated, and they've tried to game the solution to the problem by turning it into what is essentially another investment vehicle.
That's exactly right. Government abhors regulation, unless it produces a means if diverting revenue (to government, or through collusion to political donors).
Without Carbon Credits, regulation of carbon simply becomes environmental law, and there's no money it that.
Just like in the 1500s when the church realized that there was no money in regulating sin, unless it could somehow be purchased.
Thanks again for the alley-oop.
Quote from: we vs us on June 10, 2011, 11:27:47 AM
It's one of the more "acceptable" ways to encourage private business to voluntarily reduce their admissions. It's "acceptable" because it shoehorns what should be straight away regulation into a weird market driven environment. The problem with this is that when the carbon credit market takes on enough capital it will cease to be about actually reducing carbon and will become like any other capital market -- susceptible to bubbles and crashes and more about investment and making money on the peaks and valleys, rather than reducing carbon.
(This, by the way, is one of the main problems with our global economy, IMO: capital has found that it can make a better return on the peaks and valleys of assets and commodities than on actual investment in building things. This is one primary reason why corporations are fat right now; they're making more money speculating than they are on expanding their businesses.)
All we need to know about how this would wind up we can see from the derivative debacle.
Thanks guys. I guess after reading several things on it, it was begining to sound like something Kevin Trudeau would be selling in a infomercial. (My ex spent a few hundred dollars on his stuff and got nothing out of it) So it seems my being skeptical, especially with the alGore comment I was thinking the right way.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 10, 2011, 12:44:00 PM
That's exactly right. Government abhors regulation, unless it produces a means if diverting revenue (to government, or through collusion to political donors).
Without Carbon Credits, regulation of carbon simply becomes environmental law, and there's no money it that.
Just like in the 1500s when the church realized that there was no money in regulating sin, unless it could somehow be purchased.
Thanks again for the alley-oop.
You misunderstand. Let me clarify: "The problem, IMO, is that there's a very active and influential political constituency
made up of private corporations and institutional investors that would not benefit by being further regulated, and they've tried to game the solution to the problem by turning it into what is essentially another investment vehicle.
The carbon market is a weak-government solution, designed to pick off support from some of the more financially oriented members of the GOP. The primary beneficiaries of a market based solution are neither the government nor private citizens. It's the folks that stand to make a profit on the movement of the market that stand to benefit.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 10, 2011, 01:17:22 PM
All we need to know about how this would wind up we can see from the derivative debacle.
That's exactly how the strategies behind Generation Investment Management work. They are a derivative market system. Companies purchase credits to offset what they produce. Those credits can be leveraged to increase carbon output. Money from those credits is then invested in other companies that mitigate carbon output or offer carbon neutral investment strategies in technology or research (grants). As those industries grow or shrink, the value of the purchased derivative is affected.
A third variable introduced into the climate trading model (carbon offset market) is a derivative value based on estimated carbon emissions. This is where the fun is. Much of the money invested in research is in the form of grants. The value and ultimately award of such grants is dependent on the continuation of current climate philosophy.
Think about it.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 10, 2011, 01:46:55 PM
That's exactly how the strategies behind Generation Investment Management work. They are a derivative market system. Companies purchase credits to offset what they produce. Those credits can be leveraged to increase carbon output. Money from those credits is then invested in other companies that mitigate carbon output or offer carbon neutral investment strategies in technology or research (grants). As those industries grow or shrink, the value of the purchased derivative is affected.
A third variable introduced into the climate trading model (carbon offset market) is a derivative value based on estimated carbon emissions. This is where the fun is. Much of the money invested in research is in the form of grants. The value and ultimately award of such grants is dependent on the continuation of current climate philosophy.
Think about it.
That was my take away from some of the articles is they are buying carbon credits/offsets instead of making improvements or avoiding fines for the amount of carbon they produce.
This would then go into a general fund for R&D for solutions to the problems, and we all know how grant money can be used.
Nevada wanted to do something similar with a twist to increase state revenue. They want to sell a pass for $
50.0025.00 that will give you 24 hours of driving on the rural highways at
whatever speed you want 90mph, figuring that they have quite a bit of deselate highway people would flock to do this.
(edited by me)
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2010/09/nevada-politician-wants-drivers-to-speed-for-a-fee/1 (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2010/09/nevada-politician-wants-drivers-to-speed-for-a-fee/1)
Quote from: dbacks fan on June 10, 2011, 01:56:14 PM
That was my take away from some of the articles is they are buying carbon credits/offsets instead of making improvements or avoiding fines for the amount of carbon they produce.
This would then go into a general fund for R&D for solutions to the problems, and we all know how grant money can be used.
Nevada wanted to do something similar with a twist to increase state revenue. They want to sell a pass for $50.00 that will give you 24 hours of driving on the rural highways at whatever speed you want, figuring that they have quite a bit of deselate highway people would flock to do this.
It is exactly the same a selling indulgences. Algore wanted to be the first Pope of the new religion.
I'm curious who has been profiting off the option to buy carbon credits to ease your vacation guilt on Expedia. Are they even still doing that?
Quote from: Conan71 on June 10, 2011, 02:05:38 PM
I'm curious who has been profiting off the option to buy carbon credits to ease your vacation guilt on Expedia. Are they even still doing that?
TerraPass.
"TerraPass is a social enterprise that provides carbon offsetting products to individuals and businesses. Headquartered in San Francisco, California, TerraPass uses proceeds from member purchases to fund greenhouse gas reduction projects such as wind farms and methane digesters. TerraPass products include a Road TerraPass to offset car emissions, a Flight TerraPass to offset airplane emissions, a Home TerraPass for home energy use, a Business TerraPass for organizations, and a Wedding TerraPass for weddings and other events."
Wedding TerraPass? ???
http://www.terrapass.com/blog/posts/terrapass-launc (http://www.terrapass.com/blog/posts/terrapass-launc)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TerraPass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TerraPass)
Quote from: dbacks fan on June 10, 2011, 02:51:06 PM
TerraPass.
"TerraPass is a social enterprise that provides carbon offsetting products to individuals and businesses. Headquartered in San Francisco, California, TerraPass uses proceeds from member purchases to fund greenhouse gas reduction projects such as wind farms and methane digesters. TerraPass products include a Road TerraPass to offset car emissions, a Flight TerraPass to offset airplane emissions, a Home TerraPass for home energy use, a Business TerraPass for organizations, and a Wedding TerraPass for weddings and other events."
Wedding TerraPass? ???
http://www.terrapass.com/blog/posts/terrapass-launc (http://www.terrapass.com/blog/posts/terrapass-launc)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TerraPass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TerraPass)
Wow! They discuss FOX News, as the only carbon neutral news organization.
"When the number crunching was completed, News Corporation offset 110% of its FY 2010 unavoidable carbon footprint by investing in emissions reduction projects."
Our efficiency projects pay for themselves in less than two years, on average, and span from simple solutions like lighting retrofits and automatic PC shut-down to systemic changes like installing telepresence and videoconferencing technology to reduce the need for air travel.--Rupert MurdochShould make Heron happy. ;)