Duderonomy

No, but why would we want to give you something nice? whats in it for us? Maybe Trump can build you a wall.

Truth is, nothing about a presidential run will hurt Trump, win or lose. No matter what happens, it'll add to his celebrity, which increases his business. The worst thing for him would actually be winning, because then he has to deal with all the headaches of the office (or just pay for someone to do it for him). Glad to see some relatively new faces at the debate though. The Democrat's primary will probably be a Hillaryfest.

Trump is his own man in the same way Bernie Madoff is his own man. Trump just figured out that all he has to do is set up a shell company, get investors, pay himself obscene amounts of money, and then run the shell company into the ground. He's made himself a celebrity so he can keep getting investors, and is smart enough to make sure that it's the shell company that gets the investment and goes bankrupt, while he just draws a ridiculous salary and benefits so he can charm the next set of investors.

For just a few months of work, you could have a lifetime of drinking on the beach. Or playing the vidja games.

true I blame the proliferation of HR departments doing the hiring. If you don't have the right keywords, they will bypass you even if you're a viable candidate. That's why it's always good to ask if you can talk to members of the team. If they're working over 50 hours a week and you semi-know what you're talking about, they will demand that HR hire you. Or you can search through your pro-social hobbies for both references and skill-sets. My marketing experience as a semi-indie writer has helped me fill out softer skills, while still letting me have fun at conventions. This is very true about HR departments The primary way to combat this is to list project experience rather than or as well as work experience, especially for professional jobs. There's a reason schools try to assign you four or five group projects in your academic career. Those projects are resume fodder that can provide you the keywords and experience to get hired. And always try to keep in contact with one or two of your project partners. Those will be excellent references who are not related to you and have first-hand knowledge of your work ethic, which is what employers really want to know from references. Businesses are project-oriented nowadays. They would rather know specific cases where you have used your skills, because that is more believable than generic phrases by a job title. Nice.

But, onbekende, the environment. It neeeeeeds yoooouuuu.

true I blame the proliferation of HR departments doing the hiring. If you don't have the right keywords, they will bypass you even if you're a viable candidate. That's why it's always good to ask if you can talk to members of the team. If they're working over 50 hours a week and you semi-know what you're talking about, they will demand that HR hire you. Or you can search through your pro-social hobbies for both references and skill-sets. My marketing experience as a semi-indie writer has helped me fill out softer skills, while still letting me have fun at conventions. Here's a paradox: Man 1: "I major in art history." Man 2: "There's a lot of people that do that. What do you plan to do?" Man 1: "Well, there's not a lot of actual jobs, but I think I'll continue into academia." Man 2: "So, you plan to get a job teaching others a field that only allows them to directly compete with you for limited tenure positions." Man 1: "Well, I'll have a phD and thousands of dollars in debt. That'll get me something" Man 2: "I have a bachelors, no debt, and own a house." Man 1: "Fuck you! I understand the overarching gestalt of post-impressionism." Man 2: "Oh, I got that book, too. It fits really well in my library and gives me something to talk about at my art-appreciation meetups." Man 1: "..." Man 2: "And you're the smart one getting the phD." Man 1: "I hate you."

Agreed, although the overriding goal of conserving resources is a good one. If you burn up oil or coal, there isn't a magical mechanism that creates more. Maybe we'd rather keep oil for petrochemicals and plastics rather than moving a meatsack to the corner store for some cigarettes. Coal can actually be turned into oil if needed, but if it's gone that option isn't there for us. And even carbondioxide can be turned into methane, which in turn can be scaled up to any poly-hydrocarbon. P.S. I can be your chemical engineer? Howmuch you paying? There's always the question of energy efficiency, but it's nice to know we can get it if we really have to. P.S. I'm more on the civil side of things, but if you've got the qualifications for chemical engineer, you either make far more money than I can dream of, or need to move to Texas where you can make more money than I can dream of. Now get some background in electrical and invent us a better battery! Not only will you get so much money that you can spend the rest of your days spamming, but you'll have overcome a major hurdle on the way to a greener tomorrow. I wouldn't mind financing someone's education, and possibly could for a state school, but I would need a financial or marital contract to do so, plus background assurances that they wouldn't run off to join the circus. I'm not in poverty by any means. However, I'm in no position to throw money around, either. A bad economic or career stretch could just as easily land me under the nearest overpass as a good stretch could land me in the C-suite. Only way I got to my current stability is through a lot of work (est. 60+ hours a week, about 10 hrs/week unpaid studying) and saving in my twenties. In about ten more years, I'll have a much better idea on where I land. Until then, ain't no rich sugar daddy around here.

Pfft, like you know where this magical land named "Belgium" is Isn't that next to Rivendell or something? How's it been since the elves moved out?

Agreed, although the overriding goal of conserving resources is a good one. If you burn up oil or coal, there isn't a magical mechanism that creates more. Maybe we'd rather keep oil for petrochemicals and plastics rather than moving a meatsack to the corner store for some cigarettes. Coal can actually be turned into oil if needed, but if it's gone that option isn't there for us. The main benefit of electric cars is it allows us to use more efficient means of energy generation. Small engines will always be less efficient than large generators because of the scale, and it will always be harder to mitigate the downsides of small engines. Unfortunately, everyone is so focused on developing the end product (the car) that they've completely forgotten the prerequisite technology (the batteries). Batteries also have a ton of extra functionality beyond just cars (such as industrial equipment and renewable generators). All of the money being flushed down the toilet by Tesla would be better focused on just battery research. Same with the money being given to solar companies that go bankrupt over and over again. Batteries may not be sexy, but without them NOTHING on the green side will ever work. Until they are cheap, durable, low-weight, and have a large capacity, green tech will not gain traction. If Al Gore really cared about the planet, he'd use his money to get a pHD in Chemical engineering and Electrical engineering to solve this problem or pay a student to do so. But it's far easier for him to bitch about the problem so people fund his mansions that way they feel like they did something. P.S. Sorry if I'm going overboard on this, but I really hate the evangelical mindset that both left and right-wingers use to bilk money out of their followers for no real result. It's all "this is such a problem" and "give money to this cause" rather than "here is how you can help" or "give money to this solution". It's the same reasoning that PETA uses to crush their competitors at community animal shelters in donations ("shut them down because they kill pets!") while still using the same methods at their own facilities (PETA has killed hundreds of animals at their headquarters alone). There are tons of poor kids who would love a chance at college and an academic career. Fund them and their research, instead, and you'll get far better dividends than Gore will ever give you.

It's the Non Grata theme song. Let's sing it together, kids! (NSFW song)

I'm with FF that there's little appreciable difference between or sense in the modern parties. Both pay lip service to their extremes and then whip back to the middle for the election. This is largely due to the first-past-the-post voting system and the archaic electorate system that doesn't even relate to its actual use today. There's a reason the founding fathers wanted the original senators to be chosen by the state LEGISLATURES rather than the people. They were supposed to balance the chaotic sway of public opinion. As for the topic title, pure socialists believe that people work the same no matter what stimulus you give them, or that they work better with negative stimulus rather than positive stimulus. There's a lot of jobs that just plain wouldn't get done if people weren't paid better to do them. The only people that want pure socialism are the ones that don't want to sacrifice for their own future. Sorry I didn't watch the interview. I really don't care about the DNC or news anchor bobble heads. Those shows are an anachronism when much better info is on the web. Most mainstream news programs don't even bother fact-checking anymore, At least I can fact-check for myself on the web rather than listening to hot air or filler stories. Socialism works in economic spaces when public resources are not taken into account or private ownership is not possible. Fishing is a prime example of an industry that requires government controls to keep companies from cheating humanity into culinary poverty because of their own self-interest. I hunt and happily abide by the laws and regulations for wildlife because it is a public resource that should be passed down and enjoyed for generations to come. Air pollution, water pollution, and transportation are all places where there just isn't enough stimulus (or too much risk) for private companies to function well. Regulated capitalism works in those parts of the economy where most private decision-making is beneficial to both companies and society as a whole. Government offers some services that companies shouldn't themselves (like enforcing contracts or worker treatment) or provides the necessary motivation for companies to act in society's best interest. Pure capitalism has never existed, except possibly in the drug trade or other black markets. Even those rely on government currency rather than barter, although those actors enforce their own contracts in their own special way. It's possible that North Korea is actually a capitalistic actor if you consider the entire country an independent company that disregards all international laws. I don't think anybody wants companies treating their workers like North Korea treats its citizens. And trust me, companies will do anything to make money if there's nothing that stops them. Never underestimate a the corporate citizen's disregard for common human decency. The Stanford Prison Experiment proved a long time ago that people will do immoral things for what they consider the group good, whether as prison guards or executives. Too many people forget that modern labor and safety laws were won by workers standing against Pinkerton guns hired by management. You would still have children losing arms in threshing machines today if it were not for those workers. A class environment is necessary to motivate the clever to work themselves up and the rich to maintain their status. If someone doesn't value their status, that's a perfectly sane way to live, but they should recognize that society is better off if innovators have a reward for their work. I think Northern European countries do it best by allowing the status differences, but making things more a little more even once you get past the stupid money level or if you're in the dirt poor level.

Here's the best way to help Greece pay off their debts. Finally, a program that helps the locals earn money. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-29/how-to-help-the-greek-economy-by-drinking

The weather changes every day, but the average as a whole has gone up. While there are a whole lot of mechanisms that aren't fully understood, it's hard to argue against resource conservation. Oil is just too useful for us to be burning it up day after day. Almost every product we buy has oil in one form or another. But I believe things will work themselves out due to the research that I've already mentioned. Yeah, sometimes you just gotta say "Well, we're gonna die, anyway, or we can take a chance and live". If you find your arm pinned between a boulder and a cliff for days without signs of another person, sometimes you just gotta cut that sucker off. Edit: Also, I'm cranky and don't feel up for the mental strain of an abortion debate right now. It's so values-based that it's nearly impossible to ever get anyone to budge.

I'm not going to go into abortion or warfare norms here, since it's a long discussion involving differing value systems. I have a hard enough time sticking on topic, and climate change is important enough to leave this thread alone. If you'd like to discuss it, feel free to make another thread. What you're talking about is a Value-Added-Tax, and it works pretty well for most of Europe. Many states (my home state being one of them) call it a sales tax. Its main attraction is that it is, as you said, a tax of choice, rather than one of necessity. It can discourage investment, but investment is not always good investment. Better to encourage use of labor through overtime laws and making healthcare public. Logic and thought exercises are some of the best ways we have to test and simulate policies. As onbekende said, this is extremely important to ensure the best consequences for ourselves. Hurricanes don't care that you spent all of your money on a vacation home, or worse that you chose to live in a flood-prone area. They just destroy your house because that is what they do. Same with a lot of basic human psychology. The universe gives no fucks. Careless people will have sex because sex feels good and there is a natural human drive to procreate. If a person already has problems controlling their emotions, I do not want them having kids. At best, the kid will find a mentor to actually raise him right or his parent will grow up and start making the right decisions. Most likely, she'll be just like her parent and be nothing but a societal sinkhole. Or, even worse, the parent will resent the kid, making him even more likely to develop mental problems that lead to criminal activities. Parenthood is not a magical thing that turns bad people into good parents. They usually turn into bad parents that yield bad kids. Again, abortion and birth control should always be optional, but we can encourage it by defraying the costs. Abortion and birth control are actually the best ways to control the climate, because fewer people require fewer resources.

Germany owns the EU. Didn't you follow the Greek crisis?

I've been trying to avoid this, but I can no longer sit on my hands and not talk about this. I need to ask the Dude about this. Who is this magical Santa Claus that will come down the chimney and pass out rubbers, rip babies from girls bellies, and go back out the way he came and not even ask for a tip? I'm not an anti-abortion zealot, and I have no problem with women making the choice to terminate a pregnancy in the first few months to avoid life changing conditions, but abortion is a serious medical procedure that no one will do for free. Someone has to pay for it, and the Catholics will absolutely lose their minds if anyone tries to use taxpayer money to kill babies. Calling them names, ignoring them, or attempting to discount their opinions will get you nowhere. People like me that are agnostic, but strongly believe that we are responsible for our own mistakes, will join them in making sure we don't support the irresponsible lifestyle of everyone else. If you give a heroin addict free dope to keep him from paying a dealer... please give him enough to plant him 6 feet under. If they don't care enough about their own life, you have to let them go. Their problem is not ours to carry. Also these women that abort their children must realize they are killing their child... pay for it... and accept it for what it is. This fantasy that it's "just a blob of cells" is a lie, and forcing that responisibility on others is just wrong. "Also, government should not subsidize low-income families" Do I take this that you are in favor of a "Flat Tax"... or like me the "Fair Tax"? Tax exemptions are government susidies, and if your going to have a vote, I believe you should pay taxes. People that don't pay taxes are voting to increase taxes on everyone else that does. That's easy when other people are the ones that have to pay those tax increases. Everyone should have skin in the game, and if you vote to raise taxes, you vote to raise your own taxes. It's called... "paying your fair share". For the record Dude... I think you are one of the finest minds on these boards. The bolded section is your greatest mistake. I would not say I'm particularly smart, just willing to explore different possibilities, no matter how bizarre or counter-cultural. That, combined with a willingness to be wrong and change when I am wrong, has gotten me a long way. It's not always pleasant, but it's better than allowing fantasies to dominate my existence. A lot of our current societal norms are dominated by mythological thinking (celebrity culture, materialism, etc). I'm not going to look up the statistics right now (we can continue that in PM or a different thread), but there are some sociological theories that the SCOTUS abortion decision in the 70s actually resulted in a massive decrease in crime. It'd take a long time to explain all the logic (again, we've derailed this thread a lot already, but I'm willing to go into it elsewhere). Basically, kids that would've had reluctant or unhappy parents were never born. That ensured that kids with "bad parents", who were more likely to turn into criminals, have not become a burden on society. If you consider the cost ratio of the justice system vs. condoms or an abortion, the justice system costs far more to administer. Every dozen condoms distributed is one less unwanted child to end up in prison. That's a societal investment well worth paying. Abortion itself is a long-winded topic that requires thought on consciousness, potential, and our treatment of non-human conciousness. I've also considered some extreme versions of it, like "Is infanticide wrong?" or "Do animals deserve the same protections?". It takes a while just to define personhood. Past humans considered anyone outside of their tribe/religion/etc. a non-person not deserving protections. We've gone past that, but how far should we continue? I'm largely willing to go with current societal definitions just because I do have to work for a living and can't spend enough time staring at my bellybutton. I'm not even going into using religious arguments for government decisions. In my opinion, government should stay as far away from religious thought as possible, since religious thought is fantastical by its very nature. Also, just because I think a position correct doesn't mean I think it will be implemented in my lifetime. I accept that there are a lot of viewpoints on issues and understand that, as a member of society, I have to live by the consensus view for the most part. I can still think differently and try to convince people so that change goes through normal channels. On taxes, flat taxes would hit a lot more rich people than you would think. If we were to have flat taxes, it needs to be truly flat. No tax breaks for industries or different sources of income (that capital gains, yo). No tax breaks for religious institutions or charities. And yes, no tax breaks for children or other dependents. If government wants to encourage something, then they actually need to make payments, rather than dress up Corporate Welfare as tax breaks. Republicans have given out far more money than Democrats, which is obvious when you take a look at the budget deficits when they are in power. By "subsidize", I mainly meant Welfare, but yes, tax breaks would have to go. There would be a lot of pain at first as sticky prices readjust to less money in the system. However, I do think government needs to start providing basic foodstuffs, medical care, public transportation, and housing to EVERYONE that applies for it, no matter their income status. It could be served under the "right to life" clause, and I've stated before that there will be a time within the next 30-40 years when no one can find regular work. Make it where any income you actual earn is just discretionary income. That doesn't provide a lot to rich people (who would rather eat in restaurants or have personal chefs), but would eliminate the primary budget breakers for poor families. They'd still be encouraged to work, because they couldn't afford entertainment and other luxuries without working. However, you'd see a lot fewer bankruptcies and less theft. The main issue is that we're rapidly approaching a post-scarcity society where capitalist mechanisms are no longer needed for the most basic goods, and aren't even in place for them, anyway. The hungry in America are generally hungry because they don't have access to food, not because the food they need doesn't exist. Most of our health problems, even in lower-income families, are related to having too many calories. Note I said post-scarcity, not post-consumerism. So there will still be pricing for many products. Most people have a problem separating luxuries (like any sort of cereal with sugar) from necessities (like oatmeal or bland cereal) thanks to overexposure to advertising and Hollywood norms.

Main problems with the electric car are these: 1. Length of trip 2. Speed of charge 3. Cost in materials and energy of batteries. One of the few cases where we are using some of the most efficient technology already, which is reflected in the market cost. We could save a lot in switching to natural gas, but it'd probably be better to hold off for electric. These problems could be eliminated by automated cars and car sharing. Only really far-ranging trips outside of populated areas would need fossil fuels at that point. Planting trees isn't the end-all solution. Not every habitat needs more trees, and the last thing we should be doing is watering & fertilizing forests that shouldn't be there. While we should be more careful with the trees we are using (if you see someone bragging about mahogany, please shit on them and their furniture immediately), most tree products are from fast-growth forests. Oh, and please use the rough, cheap toilet paper. Fluffy TP comes from old growth forest. The rough stuff is fast growth wood. Plastic is, unfortunately, the best "cheap" material we have. While there are a lot of uses that could be eliminated (grocery bags), it's an easy-to-sanitize material that makes durable goods. No getting around it for medical use or children/pet products. Same with electronics. There are ways to deal with it, but the most important thing is to not litter. Yes, I'm talking about you, you damn teenager throwing your crap in my yard. I will fucking beat you with a five-inch switch. I may be possibly becoming a bitter old man. So maybe we could focus education on littering, rather than useless recycling. Fewer kids are largely happening naturally, although government should stop funding any sexual education that is anti birth control. Europe, China, and Japan are already shrinking. The U.S. would be shrinking without immigration. Africa, South America, and the rest of Asia would follow if governments stopped using religious dogma for policy decisions. Also, government should not subsidize low-income families, except with food stamps. Distribute condoms and make abortions free. Arctic methane release is uncontrollable. We have to hope there's a natural mechanism to prevent it, or just deal with the consequences.

Yeah, like Al Gore. Them mansions and them plane flights around the world ain't carbon neutral. No matter how many fraudulent "credits" he buys. What I gave were a few examples where technology and policy can help. You're right in that there is no "single" fix, but at the same time, no one should call for a reversion to Stone Age tech, and we should be careful with limiting people's choice, since that almost always encourages antisocial behavior (look at the Drug War). Better to invest in technology or policies that encourage good behavior. I can't speak for the entire world, but the U.S. is NOT a purely free market system, nor should it be. There are massive subsidies for food, water, and energy that are a big cause for overdevelopment and environmental destruction. While I agree with subsidizing and accepting the environmental damages for electrical transmission and product pipelines, actual generators and petroleum producers get tons of money through industry-specific tax breaks. Make electricity and petroleum more costly, and people will treat it with greater care. Same with the ridiculously low rates for water. Diverting water works on a limited basis, but it's better long-term to limit an area's water use to its rainfall. That's best done by graduated pricing (aka your first 100 gallons of a month can be subsidized, but the next 100 should be priced correctly). Don't even get me started on farming. Sure, subsidize certain crops that are essential for human health, but the corn and grain subsidies get ridiculous, especially in areas with low rainfall. People make a big deal about GMO crops and corporate farms, but those are more energy efficient than family farms. I know there's a "wholesome" country mythos around the organic family farm, but we also romanticized horses and found them a necessity at one point in time. Didn't mean that we held onto them when something better came along. The trend towards city living will actually save a lot of environmental damage. Same with a focus on electronic entertainment.

I generally don't state the obvious. http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/photoshop/1/4/6/426146_v1.gif

If I wanted to be gouged for everything I buy, I'd play World of Warcraft.

Yeah, we can't go back. But there are inefficiencies that we can get rid of. First is, as always, the ridiculous Western diet of meat-at-every-meal. I don't see a lot of climatologists turning vegetarian like they should if they truly behaved like we were in trouble. I eat meat because it has nutritional value not available in veggies, but I go days without eating it. Most meat vitamins are fat soluble, which means your body can store them very well and doesn't need access to them as often. Easy solution? Cut subsidies to ranchers and dairy farmers. All subsidies, whether monetary, feed, or water. Let the market price the meat as it should be priced. That will force people to treat it as the rarity it always was and should be. Next is an increase in research on and laws built for truly automated cars and drones. This will allow mass transportation that is both individual and public. Most people will leave their inefficient egomobiles in the garage during daily travel. These mass cars can more easily be converted to natural gas & electric, cutting carbon emissions. Drones are even better. Instead of a vehicle lugging around a 200-lb meat sack everywhere to buy things, people can have goods shipped directly to themselves with only the weight of the goods themselves needing transport. Finally, allow mining of rare earths in California. China is a hotbed for solar technology because they're the only country that has legal access to rare earths used in solar panels. California has many of the same minerals, but refuses to let them be mined for environmental reason, which could easily be mitigated. P.S. Get rid of subsidized recycling. Aluminum and other metals are the only materials worth reusing. Paper, plastic, etc. takes more energy to recycle than it does to produce fresh. If you don't believe me, watch Penn & Teller's show "BullShit" and its episode on recycling.

I'm not a big destination vacation guy. I'd rather spend a week writing, working on the house, or learning to program something. That said, I am a big fan of conferences. Whether they be writing cons, dance seminars, or martial arts intensives, I'd rather spend a week learning something and meeting people than visiting some foreign country where I know no one. WorldCon, Lindyfest, and the Aikido Summer Clinic up in Oklahoma City were some of the best times I've ever had. Didn't see a single landmark at any of them, but met some of the coolest (and weirdest) people in my lifetime. Of the four, I picked Swiss Alps because it'd have the best views and require the most from me. I also recommend Big Bend or Big Bend Ranch State Park for anyone who really wants to get away. You can literally fire a gun (albeit illegally) and not have another soul hear it. Not that I know anyone who has done such a thing.

http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/photoshop/7/9/4/428794_v1.gif

FoxFire, there are actions you, individually, can take to ready yourself. First, change your diet. Meat once very two days. Focus on complex carbs and veggies as much as you can. That'll make your calorie consumption more carbon efficient and more in line with the historical norm. The entire world is growing obese on the amount and types of food we have available. We need to switch to a more Eastern diet developed to support intellectual activity, rather than the Western diet developed to support physical work. Next, of course, is to drop all other consumption as radically as you can. Change your identity from physical objects to intellectual ones. You've obviously already started. Spread this by encouraging and judging others on what they've done, rather than what they have. The more people that support intellectual values, the closer we'll get to the tipping point of everyone switching to more efficient ways of living. Then find out how to produce more yourself. And by that I mean PRODUCE not CONSUME. The education industry is built on trying to convince people that consumption is actually production. Look at the top ten jobs by salary. Find one that you are interested in and believe you can accomplish. If you don't like/can't do any of those, go down to the next ten. And the next until you find one you like and that has openings/educational opportunities in your area. Don't underestimate the power of student loans. If you keep your consumption low, student loans help more than hurt. People get in trouble because they do stupid shit like go to the bar every day or buy four-wheelers with their student loan money (yes, I know people that have done both of those things). Don't be afraid to do something you consider "undesirable". Garbagemen in my city make more than I did before I got a license, even though I had a degree. Also, don't be afraid to do something that you minimally like, but don't think you have talent for. Talent is mostly developed over time, not an innate trait. Enjoyment occurs when you perform activities you are good at, which changes over time. A good programmer can have just as much fun programming as a writer does writing. More people write because most of us have been writing since we were six. Therefore we are all better at it and enjoy it more. Programming doesn't start until much later, so you have to go through the 3-4 year grind before it becomes enjoyable. Finally, maintain your low levels of consumption while accumulating enough savings to ensure you can live in the future without working. The video Lysistrata commented on makes a strong argument that soon no one will be able to work because everything will be automated. When that happens, companies will be making all of the money. Make sure you're on their side by being a stockholder. Even if the government taxes them to expand the Welfare system, any money distributed will be barely above subsistence. The poor will be left in overlooked tenements with minimal entertainment and just enough food to live. Get on the producer wagon, or get left behind. Get on the intellectual wagon, or prepare for a dying world.