Government external debt not too important. Look at Japan.
As above, not really a major issue. Measures such as debt/GDP ratios are only a nonsense really. They can have a psychological effect. But from a pure economics point of view, it is terrible to think of ratios like this. Debt is a stock variable. GDP is a flow variable. No real sense in that type of ratio.
People run corporations. The soul-less ones will go out of business. Unfortunately that will be hugely damaging for the areas where they once were. The plastic plant in Florida will also go out of business. If they decided to start investing more resources for the long-term and not in rent-seeking activities with State legislatures, it would be a good start. In countries where the plastic bag levy came in in Europe, many people at first were disgusted at the new tax. But we got used to it. And now when we are driving along a road, if we see a plastic bag on the street or in a ditch, we are disgusted. My main point is that we simply can't settle for big business dictating policy all the time.
Unfortunately, that is an extremly narrow, static view of the world. Standard of living and quality of life are now being measured by many more variables other than income. As people gain more income, they tend to have less satisfaction attached to more income and more to environmental quality and standard of living. Health is also intertwined with cleaner environments. Many studies now relate the possibility that growth in the future will be severely affected by environmental damage, loss of bio-diversity, etc. Take Germany as an example. They had an ambitious plan to have 30% of their energy produced by renewables by 2014. They wanted to follow Sweden in their move. Unfortunately, with the huge present cost of this and the Ukraine crisis, they are now burning more coal. Simple fact of this case is that it was a good idea but wrong timing and too ambitious of a change. Energy costs for business in Germany was 4 times greater than the US. However, over the long term it will be a benefit. It also highlights the need for stepped change in this regard. The problem with many countries, states and businesses is that they are worried about the short-term. Any business that fails to see the need for change in this regard will be wiped out in years to come. China is even coming to realise the need for greater controls due to health of its population. So this is not about innocent and good natured hearts...its about simple common sense and having an ability to think of intertemporal costs and benefits...
Domestic energy consumption...transport energy consumption...overviews of companies who specifically don't aim to have environment as a core objective in their production process...refusal to buy products from such companies...insistence on a stepped process to move into renewables...
The "what can I do about it" is just a defeatist attitude...
"It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change."
"Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current information. IPCC aims to reflect a range of views and expertise."
I think the most important part is the last line..."The work of the organization is therefore policy-relevant and yet policy-neutral, never policy-prescriptive."...they are independent from government and don't have an objective of being policy prescriptive.
They simply review and assess all the top scientific, technical, and socioeconomic data worldwide. This allows independence from the scientific research side too.
No, they just work of the information they are given...from thousands of scientists worldwide. This will include information which suggests that climate change is a natural occurrence.
All you need to understand climate change from the perspectives of science and economics...independent...and a look at the names involved will suggest people from both the left/right divide.
This has never been fully determined...the police officer said he was charging. I have read the police officer's statements. They are not believable.
Yes I am questioning that decision. Juries consist of people...People are not infallible.
This is also disputed...
Irrelevant. Just because someone is trained in a specific way doesn't mean they are never wrong.
These are the police officers words again...there is many illogical problems with his statements.
I would question whether Michael Brown tried to kill the police officer.
Question 1: When someone becomes a police officer, are they magically imbued with some kind of power whereby they always tell the truth and never do anything wrong?
Question 2: If they are not imbued with this power, why did the grand jury not realise the huge issues around his testimony?
Everyone's opinion is just an opinion at the end of the day...I have said I wouldn't comment on racial aspect as I dodn't know what it was like over there. I did say though that this is a wider and deeper societal issue in many societies.
Environment is more than just physical buildings...
That is bordering on condescending...
The question is "Was the police officer lawful in what happened?" That is the crux of this case. Further, why is their such a deep-rooted suspicion in many communities regarding the authorities?
That is condescending...
Again, this rests on what you believe? If a person believes the police officer, there is justification for what occurred. If you don't, questions need to be answered. I don't believe the police officer. On top of this, there remains the perception within communities of a lack of justice, in many areas of life. That still needs to be addressed.
My point was if people begin to understand the cause of the behaviour, then it will be possible to change it in the future.
I was alluding to the idea of Skinner's utopian society. I didn't say that refraining from violence and property destruction was utopian. I said that unless society begins to realise why this goes on, it will continue to go on.
They made their choices based on their environments. They felt they weren't been listened too. And they probably have a point... All opinions can carry weight, by the way. Can be good to listen to outside opinions...
This is the ideal situation but we don't live in an ideal world. We must also always try to understand the behaviour of others from their standpoint. Behaviour comes from the thinking process. So from this point of view, a person's behaviour is his own. This resembles John Locke's view of the person, who has his own inalienable rights and obligation. But the thinking process is strongly influenced by the environment. So while many will fail to see the causes for the problems now, this is mainly due to not equating the thought processes of the protesters with their environments. This follows B.F Skinners view point and his dream of a socially engineered utopian society...While I don't agree with the social engineered Utopian society, I think he makes a good point about looking at environments when we try to understand behaviours.
Respect is never something that is just given blindly. Many communities have no trust anymore in the authorities and therefore don't respect the authorities. People just don't decide to do this over night. There is usually a reason for it. When you and others in your position realise why there seems to be a lack of respect, then you might begin to understand their feelings. I am not having a go at you because you are a police officer. I respect police officers highly for what they do. I am just saying that there is a deep suspicion in many communities of the authorities these days. You have to ask yourself why that is?
This is the police officer's version of events. Police officer's lie all the time. Why, after just robbing a store, would these two not listen to a simple direction from a police officer? Surely, they would want to be keeping their heads down. The police officer's statement clearly has many inconsistencies of this type. It is unbelievable.
You say it is not a racial thing but then clearly bring up race here. This is deeper than just race and racial profiling. It is about deep inequalities in societies.
This is exactly getting at what I am asking. Even after such an occurrence, the friend was trying to self-preserve his freedom. Why on the night that a police officer asked them to get onto the footpath did they fail to do so? Surely the smart thing to do was say "Yes sir"...especially after robbing a store. Something is just not right with the police officers' statement.
Also the forensic evidence merely points out that Brown turned around and began to walk/run/stumble back again. It did not determine which of these specific things he done. The officer said he charged towards him. Others said the police officer shot him and then he began to walk/stumble towards the officer.
I am looking at the police officers account and questioning it really. If we assume that Brown did attack the officer and was in a fight of life and death, and really wanted to harm/kill the officer, why would he stop in the middle of this to hand his friend the cigars? This is simply not logical...it's not logical that he would attack the police officer in the first place. However, it is possible due to irrational behaviour. On attacking the police officer, why would he stop to hand his friend the cigars? Really makes no sense at all. Any of it.
Doesn't answer my question though. Even the most hardened criminal has a certain level of self-preservation and self-interest. The police officer supposedly pulled up and asked the two men to get onto the footpath. One supposedly said they were just home. The police officer said he asked again. At which point he said that Brown told him to f--k off....Why would he say this? Like I said...there is absolutely no logic to this.
That's really irrelevant to the questions I asked. However, by this account people should probably understand much of the frustration in the black community in certain areas. A prosecutor who hates black people.
Completely irrelevant to my questions.
It doesn't make sense. But cops are also bound by the law.
This kinda sums up my argument. It doesn't make sense. Why would a person who had just robbed a store act the way he did? If, as you imply, he acted this way because that's the way he is, then the next part of my questions don't make sense. Suppose we agree that Brown didn't care about the police officer and set out to harm or even kill him. Why would he then stop in the middle of a struggle with an armed police officer stop his assault, turn around and hand the stolen cigars to his friend. Then decide to continue his assault? This is the police officers account. Can you not see the problems with this account from a logical perspective? To me, it seems the police officer is either not telling the whole truth and is trying to hide something.
There was also testamonies that corroborated the other side of events too.
The forensic evidence also corroborates the other sides version of events.
And you will find that evidence was also presented that said he did have his arms raised.
Brown is still dead last time I checked... The question still remains about how he died. And this incident only acted as a touchstone for what we see now.
A couple of questions...
Why would an 18 year old who just robbed a store not abide by a police officer who asks him to use a footpath?
Brown is fighting and struggling with the officer in the car. A life and death struggle by the officers account. Brown stops and asks his friend to hold the cigars....this is not a question. Just a statement.
Why would a person charge a police officer who had already used his gun twice in the car? Surely if Brown had dared the officer to shoot the first time, he knew at that point that the officer would.
My apoligies if you felt it was a personal jab....I meant it as a fair question and observation. I think you will agree that you hold huge suspicion of the State and it functionings. That's a fair view to have. However, in this case you have just taken the police officer account as truth.
The main dispute around this issue was whether Wilson or Brown was the aggressor. Conflicting witness statements in this regard.
The dispute around this issue is that Brown was trying to get away. He was shot at. The cop/some witnesses say that Brown turned around and ran at him. Others say that Brown turned around with his hands raised. He was shot by the cop. He started to walk/stumble towards the cop when he was shot again multiple times, the last shot been the fatal one.
The argument here is that Brown was not going to commit a crime and did not strike the officer. The officer was the aggressor in the confrontation. Murder is also a felony in the state of Missouri.
Courts of law determine the sentence for people who commit crimes. Argument here is whether the police officer committed a crime. I am just wondering, do you usually just decide to change your beliefs and ideology when it suits you? You are usually on here arguing for less State apparatus and less State involvement in people's lives. Or is it just that these beliefs don't count when poorer, more marginalized people are involved...
Read "the Dark Night of the Soul" by St. John of the Cross or The Practice of the Presence of God by Brother Lawrence. Start with the second one first...
People like Kenneth Arrow sat on this panel. That will do me. William Nordhaus and Nicholas stern also agree on climate change. However, their solutions are where the problem exists at the minute. People have moved on from the nonsense "Is it happening or isn't it happening"...The debate at the highest levels now is "how to deal with it".....
Both are a major concern. SARS is transmitted much easier. Ebola has a greater fatality rate.(the rates of fatality are highly correlated with the level of medical expertise in different countries.) Both need to be monitored...the international community reacted a lot more slowly to the Ebola outbreak and that is a concern. But the level of fear was the main cause of a 100 billion-500 billion cost of SARS...not the disease itself. The level of fear around Ebola is worse. Calm heads are needed...close monitoring of how it is evolving is needed...need jerk reactions are what is not needed...
Both are a major concern. SARS is transmitted much easier. Ebola has a greater fatality rate.(the rates of fatality are highly correlated with the level of medical expertise in different countries.) Both need to be monitored...the international community reacted a lot more slowly to the Ebola outbreak and that is a concern. But the level of fear was the main cause of a 100 billion-500 billion cost of SARS...not the disease itself. The level of fear around Ebola is worse. Calm heads are needed...close monitoring of how it is evolving is needed...need jerk reactions are what is not needed...
Good old Niall Ferguson... The same fella who said the stimulus package in America would lead to disaster and inflation problems...who said the FED QE operations would lead to hyperinflation....who tries to win favour by not debating Keynes but by trying to reduce him to dirt using homophobic comments...the same fella who cam up with the six apps of prosperity... I don't even want to start on them. He should stick to history...
In 2002, the first SARS outbreak happened in China. It would result in bringing economic activity to a virtual standstill in many parts of Asia. In North America, parents in Toronto were recorded as keeping their children out of school due to this. There was a boycott of some Chinese restaurants, ports refused to unload certain boats, panic ensued. The cost of the crisis in 2003 dollars was estimated at between 100 billion dollars and half a trillion dollars. 8000 people were infected and 1000 died. A Nobel prize winner in medicine, commented: “People clearly have reacted to it with a level of fear that is incommensurate with the size of the problem". A complete irrational fear was spread...If we had to listen to the same people spreading their fears about Ebola, we would be on the way to shutting down airports and ports around the world...how much would this cost? The fear about Ebola has been magnified 100's of times above what the SARS outbreak ever was.....
gcy1980 Forum Posts (103)
RE: Russia is spiralling down into recession
China would collapseGovernment external debt not too important. Look at Japan.
As above, not really a major issue. Measures such as debt/GDP ratios are only a nonsense really. They can have a psychological effect. But from a pure economics point of view, it is terrible to think of ratios like this. Debt is a stock variable. GDP is a flow variable. No real sense in that type of ratio.