Yeats1980 Forum Posts (218)

RE: Coal miners believe NMP Trump is their savior

Unfortunately, the cost structures favour oil and natural gas over coal...especially in an economy like the US where free markets are ingrained in the way of doing things...Manipulation of markets like the Saudi's done with oil just won't wash in the US...if oil makes 1 cent over the competitive equilibrium in the US, it will be extracted.

Now the US could change policy and do what the Saudi's done and try to manipulate the market. They simply restrict oil and had supply and subsidise coal. But if we have learned anything from the Saudi's, it is that this doesn't work. All it has done over time for the Saudi's is created an environment where technology advances in fracking and renewable resources...They just transferred their competitive advantages in energy to other countries. I'm not sure how people will view Trump in 20 years id they realise that he has merely given up the US's leadership at the technological frontier in these areas to a country like China or India in return for short term profits...

RE: Coal miners believe NMP Trump is their savior

Yes...but the increase in price will also act as a signal for supply, which should shift and bring price down again...I suppose it's all about where we believe the 30 year equilibrium average price will be...that does seem to be the time range for investments in this area.

The regulation repeals definitely help coal but not by enough to lead to huge increases in employment though..my view is that it merely slows transition somewhat and doesn't work enough to create new investments in mines or electric plants which run on coal...

RE: Let's Talk About God

Just back to the original post you wrote. It's actually quite interesting.

John Stuart Mill actually argued along the same lines regarding the nature of God. Bertrand Russell did also. However, Russell would have stated that you can or cannot prove the existence of a God, unlike the leap you make by concluding God is a myth based on the same thought process. For Russell, the universe just is...like you say when you place the world as just is.

There was another idea (can't remember the name) that God created the world ten thousand years but also created age in the world...So the world seems to have a history but is really only 10000 years old. Russell, who had an extremely negative view on religion, actually stated that there is actually no logical problem with even saying that the universe was only created 5 minutes ago yet with an aged memory built in again...You can see why he was agnostic...

Also Occams Razor implicitly highlights difficulties for science...it just puts a value on simplicity though...it does not really extend truth though...
Let's have a closer look at this...So we have a thoery (theory 1) which uses two assumptions to prove why the world exists. Now we have another theory (theory 2) which has three assumptions to prove why the world exists, one of these related to some omnipotent being, we will call him God. Oceans Razor states we should value theory number 1 more. But this does not mean we have rejected theory 2...if anything we have just shifted the burden of proof. It definitely does not prove that the assumption that a God exists is false....

RE: Coal miners believe NMP Trump is their savior

Coal in the US faces one huge economic problem - cheap natural gas. This, above any regulation, is the major cause for coal mine closures. A cap in oil prices of about $60 a barrel doesn't help either.

Coal mind closures will slow and production may increase a bit; renewable energy expansion will still increase, not a fast though....but the repeal if the regulation will not really matter for coal industry employment expansion...
Unless, Trump decided to pass regulations that increase costs of renewables someway or introduced huge subsidies for coal production ...it's all about cost of substitutes here...

RE: Let's Talk About God

Where did I say anything about a rejection of the value of science? I did quote Feyereband though, who does agree that science in the middle ages was a liberating factor. However, he says that it has become just what 15th century religion had become...an extremely repressing factor which actually inhibits scientific revolution. He based this on his beliefs around scientific method today and a culture which places science in a pedestal whereby everything is rejected in its ability to enhance knowledge.

Not sure where you get me rejecting the value of science from that...I mustn't have went to the same university as you though...

RE: Let's Talk About God

Have you read Paul Feyerbend and his views on the philosophy of science. He makes an extremely good point that science should not be placed above other systems when attempting to enhance knowledge. He points out real issues in scientific method and highlights that in the beginning science was a liberating factor, it brought down the repressing structures of religion, etc. However, he now sees science as becoming the same overbearing, repressing factor as religion before it. He states that science should be separated from State just like Religion and no belief structures should be placed on pedestals...

I remember reading a small book by a scientist called Pierre Duhem a few years ago called Saving the Phenomena. It was an interesting book that looked at the Ptolemaic view of Earth been at the centre of the Solar System. Ptolemy used science and certain geometric equations to prove this point. If you used Ptolemys system today, you could navigate a ship from Europe to the US and get within 50 yards of where you want to be. But we now know(maybe) that this theory is false...This raises huge questions on realism and anti-realist forms of science and also today's scientific method. Today, a new scientific theory is given more weight if it relates someway to previous theory...we see the issue this would create with Ptolemy's system...Feyerabend would state that scientific revolution can't occur with such structures where science proceeds such ways...

Science is limited. ..it's method is not perfect, rejecting culture and myth can have negative outcomes for scientific revolution...

The Quine-Duhem hyphothesis is somewsy related...Can't remember how though...I'm not a philosopher or scientist...

RE: Trump loses a powerful ally, Billionaire Koch brothers

OK, so I don't want to fill the forum with Trump threads again so I'll post this question here.

Is Paul Ryan playing Trump? It looks that way to me. Ryan's healthcare bill has suddenly become Trump's "signiture healthcare bill"...the only thing I see that resembles Trumps healthcare promise us the repeal of Obamscare. None of the replace side adds up to what Trump said he would deliver. Also over the last week, Ryan has blown up Trump as "the closer" and the ultimate dealmaker. This occurred when the likelihood of failure in the House was pretty big.

The dealmaker has been played for me...

RE: Should Ireland follow the UK and leave the EU.

Ireland has never really invested in its fisheries, whether in the EU or outside the EU.




This is a myth...the idea that agriculture is a big part of the Irish economy. It simply isn't.



US companies are here for many reasons, one of the biggest is ease of access to EU markets. You leave the EU, they go...



Tourism is even a smaller part of the Irish economy than Agriculture.

RE: Extreme Vetting for Refugees

People, especially Americans, can be a bunch of contradictions sometimes.

Just thinking about economics and capitalism highlights this really well. For Americans(and quite alot of other peoples) Adam Smith is a God in economics. He is the person who coined the phrase laisse faire (he didn't actually, but that was a main part of his idea). To them he was the champion of self interest(true) and the capitalist system. He wasn't actually, he basically despised capitalists and was the champion of the consumer.

On the other hand, they hate Keynes. They think Keynes was the champion of consumption and spending; but he wasn't. Keynes just explained how it happened. Keynes was the champion of understanding disequilibrium and was the champion of both the employers and workers. He was a pure capitalist and saved the capitalist system.

So basically Americans, the biggest consumers in the world love Smith(the champion of consumers) because they think he loved capitalists...they hate Keynes(the saviour of capitalism) because they think he was the champion of consumers and spending...

Now that's quite a contradiction...

RE: Extreme Vetting for Refugees

That's true alright...many American presidents throughout history have banned people from different countries.

Followers of Obama don't really want to admit this fact; not do they want to admit that Obama actually deported more people from America than any other American president. Trump will do really well to match his figures... Funny enough, Trump supporters also don't want to admit this about Obama...To them Obama is the "open-door" guy....

RE: Extreme Vetting for Refugees

Ah no, I thought I was been nice...If I wasn't been nice, I would have said that "she couldn't understand because she was too stupid to understand" or "because the Slovenian education system was just sh-t." I put it down to the language barrier... I am a pretty nice person most of the time.

RE: Extreme Vetting for Refugees

You're not coming across as being a very good signal (Remember Akerlof from earlier) for the Slovenian education system..I'll be nice, I'll put it down to the language barrier...

RE: Extreme Vetting for Refugees

Oh my, there I was, thinking I was making progress but it seems we are just back to square one..I don't think St. Jude would do any better here...

RE: Extreme Vetting for Refugees

You see...now it seems to be coming clearer to you. Ask for evidence. Well done.

By the way, don't call into the trap of "putting words in other people's mouths." That too is a fallacy. These fallacies all have wonderful Latin names. Check them out.

But, I can't be too mad...it is an improvement, I suppose...

RE: Extreme Vetting for Refugees

You still fall to comprehend what I was saying. I stated that the person who demanded the source had a right to demand the source of the claim from the person making the claim. I'll give a quick, simple example for you. Let's pretend myself and you are having a debate. I make a claim:

Yeats: Donald Trump was chosen by God to be president and on the 30th May 2018, Jesus will come down from heaven and crown him the ruler of the world.

Capricorn: I don't believe that. Have you any evidence that backs up that claim?

Yeats: Why should I show you evidence? You show me evidence that it's not true, otherwise accept it as true.

So that's my example. Can you see problems with this form of debate. Fundamentally, by Western standards, I have committed a fallacy in argumentation and unless I correct this, my claim cannot be taken seriously.
So I made a claim. Now the person, you in the example, can refute this automatically if you'd like with evidence. However, that evidence would be very hard to come by in the example. So you refuse to except the onus of proof to prove/disprove or accept/reject my claim unless you see evidence. Simply, I have not done enough to shift the onus of proof.

So that was my point. Not anything about refugees, not anything about "your lot", or anything like that. And it also had absolutely nothing to do with whether your statement was a comment or an argument. It had to do with the process of how argumentation occurs and whether fallacies are been made; fallacies that negate claims, etc.

My other point was I would expect Professors to understand this...

In the language part, I realised I was wrong, stated that and withdrew the comment. I hope this helps you to understand my point a little bit more. If not, I'm afraid I can't help you...

RE: Extreme Vetting for Refugees

Again, the point still seems to have gone completely over your head...

At this stage, I'm thinking you must be the teacher and not the professor...

RE: Extreme Vetting for Refugees

Absolutely, common sense is usually the missing ingredient. An education title is only a signal...Akerlof talks about signalling pretty clearly.
By the way, on whether old systems are equal to new systems, I think that is irrelevant. I actually believe that there are differences in standards within the same systems...however, I would expect someone who highlights intelligence and their "Professor" position to understand basic fallacies of argumentation, regardless of system really.

Seems we are back to square one and my points on that remain.

RE: Extreme Vetting for Refugees

I'm not bashing you. I'm bashing your post and saying someone who tells us they are a teacher/professor should have a better understanding of argumentation in a debate.

I don't care about "the lot" you refer to. I don't care about the "open-door" people, as you call them. I didn't even bring up Lindseys initial statistic on refugees. I did bring up your nonsense argumentation style and told you how it doesn't cut it in the Western World. I also brought up my surprise that you actually are a teacher/professor and argue like this.

My original surprise still stands as now it seems you can't even understand what I was saying or the point I was making.

RE: Extreme Vetting for Refugees

My comment on the English language was in frustration...I shouldn't have said it, it just gets frustrating when you have to point the same thing out to people 2 or 3 times...

I usually like reading your threads by the way...they are interesting...

RE: Extreme Vetting for Refugees

You still don't get the point...I said nothing about refugees...I did point out to Capricorn the basic idea that if someone makes a claim they must back it up in evidence. This can then be refuted...

It was pointed at Capricorn and her comment...It had nothing to do with my belief or position on the make-up of refugees coming into Europe or on your assertion that only 10 out of 100 people coming into Europe was a real refugee. I did not respond to you in any way regarding that claim.

I don't see what is the difficulty in understanding that...I really can't point that out any simpler...I am actually beginning to believe that you may have an issue with the English language...

RE: Extreme Vetting for Refugees

The only danger of a revolutionary war in the US is between yourselves...

RE: Extreme Vetting for Refugees

You are still misinterpreting...You mustn't have read it again yet...I said nothing about refugees. My point was on poor argumentation. And not from you but from Capricorn...

RE: Extreme Vetting for Refugees

I'm not a fan of TPPA or the Europe version either. Fundamentally, they are left wing positions though...it just took a "supposed right-winger" to dump them. Chomsky, that "deluded" left wing nut, write a book on the need to dump these many years ago...before NAFTA if I recall(I might be wrong there),but it was long ago. I find Trump doing so to be strange. Dumping TPPA gives China a huge opportunity in the Pacific.

The Paris agreement goes ahead. With or without the US. Europe and funnily enough China take the lead. Short term gains for the US here simply means long term losses...We need to change our energy systems...To get the pace of this right is important. Unfortunately, the US's pace will now probably be too slow, from an economic perspective that is. Which is kinda funny again, because Trump assumes it will be better from an economic perspective.And my position can assume, climate change is not overly dangerous if you like...



The wall doesn't bother me either. US sovereignty over their borders is up to themselves.



China manipulated its currency for years. But it has began to liberilize it. The last few years, it wouldn't be a currency manipulator. And over the short-term at least, it needs a strengthening currency. As the US turns inward, China will begin to liberalize it even more. It will be the only option. To become the strongest economy in the world, its currency will have to be respected...Again,Trump's policy could hasten that point.

Going to war with China in the South China Sea is a last resort...It might need to happen, but it will be tough to win and it will mean lots and lots of dead Americans, Japanese (if they get involved), Australians (if they get involved) and Chinese...I don't think anyone can really win...

RE: Extreme Vetting for Refugees

Whoops, I see you are still misinterpreting my original post. Where did I say "that all migrants that arrived in Europe for the last 24 months are all refugees?" Where, in fact, have I said anything about refugees or Europe or refugees arriving in Europe...

Again, go back to read...I'm not that funny...

RE: Extreme Vetting for Refugees

Google what exactly? Believe what who wants to believe? I think you have misinterpreted my post. Go back to read over...

RE: Extreme Vetting for Refugees

That's a good thing...the power of democracy to bring forward a peoples will. However, the argument of whether this is the right/wrong way to go about it or whether in the long term, this is a good thing for America is still open to question...And there is powerful arguments on both sides...

I see Trump's first week as just play acting really...Unfortunately, Mexico and the Muslim countries are just a side show in Trump's bigger fight...his fight against China. He won't back down against Mexico so there is a trade war going to start there. As for Mexican cooperation on security, that goes out the window. The temporary Muslim ban is simply a means to a similar end. He is fairly quite on China at the moment...that's the "big deal", unfortunately, he is not dealing with Mexico in this case, it could get ugly...

So what will Trump want in his deal with China...less tariffs on American exports...that seems reasonable, less restriction on American companies and investments, again reasonable...a 45% tariff (won't work), and a commitment by China to allow its currency to strengthen(or he will label them a currency manipulator). I don't actually understand the last one because the Chinese are burning through foreign reserves and would love their currency to strengthen at the moment. Trump and America fear the rise of China. Unfortunately,most of their policies will more than likely strengthen China's position in the world...from an economic perspective anyway...

RE: Extreme Vetting for Refugees

Apologies, my mistake...you are a teacher/professor with a Bachelors degree...

Doesn't negate the substance of my post...you are a teacher/professor...act like one.... I really hope its the teacher though and not the professor....

RE: Extreme Vetting for Refugees

By the way, judging by your profile, you are a teacher/professor and are PhD...For Christ sake, act like one...

RE: Extreme Vetting for Refugees

No no no...Lindsey has made the claim, she must back it up...then it is up to others to refute that evidence. Making a claim and saying to people they have to disprove it or prove an alternative true is poor argumentation...In the Western world anyway(Well, maybe the Western World except Slovenia... )

RE: Extreme Vetting for Refugees

You are one of the lucky ones who emigrated to the US before a Trump presidency...the odds of you getting in there now or for the next 10 years would be pretty slim...