tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post4134726855827344606..comments2008-05-10T10:08:43.741-07:00Victoria Tafthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15566635810544426855noreply@blogger.comBlogger59125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-58848261174311397472008-05-10T10:08:00.000-07:002008-05-10T10:08:00.000-07:00

Actually, the word itself implies that they're applicable to almost nothing but you're entitled to your opinion of which argument you like best. Whether that has any bearing on which argument is better is a wholly different question.Well, your experience is entirely natural, CX. Most people would find it somewhat odd that you bought something and had to rely on jury-rigging to transport it,

Keith Moorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02424025513314938150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-46942468581465268772008-05-10T08:38:00.000-07:002008-05-10T08:38:00.000-07:00

This means SUVs will cost a lot more, and fewer people will be able to afford them.^^ Three cheers for Eileen!You guys won't believe this, but yesterday afternoon I was treated like an out-of-the-loop individual at Home Depot because I deigned to purchase a ten foot ladder without a pickup truck or SUV to carry it off in.An employee had to actually take a moment from his busy

~Çχ Atlantic♡http://www.blogger.com/profile/02637770426310184298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-86753979323681385162008-05-10T08:19:00.000-07:002008-05-10T08:19:00.000-07:00

Am I the only one to notice how smoothly Eileen walks off with this argument here?Externalities are relevant to everything Keith, as long as you reside on planet earth.If you're a gaseous spirit, light years away, in another galaxy, you might get away with ignoring cause and effect... dunno.:)

~Çχ Atlantic♡http://www.blogger.com/profile/02637770426310184298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-2138874713343687892008-05-09T21:32:00.000-07:002008-05-09T21:32:00.000-07:00

They're not relevant because they have bearing on product valuation, not pollution or environmental effects (or lack thereof). They're quite well-accounted for in market models but their existence, nonexistence, effect on product value, and other ways in which they're relevant have no bearing on what we're discussing. Externalities are just a general term for those things that affect product

Keith Moorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02424025513314938150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-15925373469509968872008-05-09T20:33:00.000-07:002008-05-09T20:33:00.000-07:00

KeithWould you PLEASE STOP trying to claim that EXTERNALITIES are NOT relevant.They are VERY RELEVANT.They are the very thing, that the market was NOT (and still is not completely) handling.IF THEY DID NOT EXIST, there would NOT BE A PROBLEM.The Environmental damage, being blamed on Capitalism, is a form of negative EXTERNALITIES.Is that not the base of this discussion?They are the ONE THING that

Eileenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02090970905053451038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-82586056561912719582008-05-08T15:43:00.000-07:002008-05-08T15:43:00.000-07:00

Try to keep up, Eileen. In one sentence I list off some of the multitude of factors in a free market. In the next sentence, I explain that externalities have no relevance to the topic at hand. Surely you can't believe that listing off some of the things that generally affects markets is an admission that that thing is relevant to our current discussion.Since I've repeatedly pointed out the

Keith Moorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02424025513314938150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-2873819884460119702008-05-07T23:44:00.000-07:002008-05-07T23:44:00.000-07:00

so Keith,In one sentence you use the word "externalities" in a relevant fashion, and in the next claim it has no relevance.You lack logic.Again I have to ask myself why I am arguing the effect of capitalism on the environment, with someone who refuses to recognize the relevance of externalities (any more than joysticks).Of course I wish Cx luck despite her investments.I disagree with increasing

Eileenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02090970905053451038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-14643500601430161982008-05-06T23:46:00.000-07:002008-05-06T23:46:00.000-07:00

Regulations crowd out market mechanisms. An industry tied down with regulations is insulated from the normal market because supply, demand, externalities, scarcity, competition, etc don't affect it in the normal way.It can in this context because both joysticks and externalities are wholly unrelated to the topic of discussion. When a factor is irrelevant, you can rename the factor however you

Keith Moorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02424025513314938150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-5512168856667313072008-05-06T23:43:00.000-07:002008-05-06T23:43:00.000-07:00

Fair enough, CX. :) Enjoy and invest wisely so you have more zeros in your wallet than Bill Gates.Oh, for goodness sakes, Eileen. -_- You wish yer luck as long as her chosen investments meet your social standards?

Keith Moorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02424025513314938150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-9604530538280399392008-05-06T18:32:00.000-07:002008-05-06T18:32:00.000-07:00

I am with Cx, as long as these companies she invests in, and those that pay her, also pay the cost of the externalities/joysticks they create and/or use the best available technology to limit them.This means SUVs will cost a lot more, and fewer people will be able to afford them. Keith,Just how were market forces removed when regulations were put in place, as far as what the market could do, to

Eileenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02090970905053451038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-34496293547087093422008-05-06T16:43:00.000-07:002008-05-06T16:43:00.000-07:00

Keith wrote:"So in what way are you a capitalist, CX? Just so you know, I mean the question out of curiousity, not malice."^^ It's a fair question, Keith...I'm a Capitalist (imo) because I do not wish for anyone to limit my ability (or others' abilities) to have as many zeros on my paycheck/personal draw/commission as I wish; to be free to start any enterprise I might desire or imagine, and to

~Çχ Atlantic♡http://www.blogger.com/profile/02637770426310184298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-76934128928814823712008-04-29T16:01:00.000-07:002008-04-29T16:01:00.000-07:00

I appreciate you acknowledging that I'm not just belching forth pet theories. :)Well, actually, the market DID go away in the areas where government imposed its will. The government's regulations and interference replaced the market mechanism, not supplamented it. As to whether the market failed or not, it didn't. It simply didn't have an opportunity to respond to consumer discontent before the

Keith Moorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02424025513314938150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-81922585185672616582008-04-29T07:35:00.000-07:002008-04-29T07:35:00.000-07:00

Keith, you offered a list.I don't care of it is alphabetical.I was only interested in the failures related to the environment, for this discussion.At least you admit that there is no "proof" that the market would handle the situation better.So it is merely your opinion (which I realize you do share, with some economists).But what you seem to ignore, is the fact that the market did have a chance,

Eileenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02090970905053451038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-18071762259929813242008-04-28T12:28:00.000-07:002008-04-28T12:28:00.000-07:00

Out of "If you'd like me to compile an alphabetical list of the things the government has failed at (drawing a distinction between the things the government has failed to do itself and the things it's forced other entities to do at the point of a gun), I'd be glad to give it to you." you managed to isolate "at the point of a gun), I'd be glad to give it to you." and responded to just that

Keith Moorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02424025513314938150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-84174989027088820252008-04-28T12:20:00.000-07:002008-04-28T12:20:00.000-07:00

Clever way of sidestepping my offer of evidence but in answer to your question, the evidence you seek can't exist because of the government's seizure of the issue. We'll never know the ways in which the free market would have succeeded where the government failed because the government used its power to ensure that only its solution was put to the test. If a government uses its power to ensure

Keith Moorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02424025513314938150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-3851268393995011862008-04-28T08:53:00.000-07:002008-04-28T08:53:00.000-07:00

"at the point of a gun), I'd be glad to give it to you."And I'd be glad to give right back to you.Whatsa matter fishie? Can't talk to women in the real world, so you put them down on blogs? Harassing women on the internet makes you the lowest form of abuser on the planet. A bottom-feeder.I hope your mother sees your comments.Jack!

Rainbowhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15201419378996566597noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-1959934050486731362008-04-28T08:21:00.000-07:002008-04-28T08:21:00.000-07:00

Keith,How does history show that the free market lacks Governments long list of failures, where the environment is concerned?

Eileenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02090970905053451038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-55383535686966318652008-04-28T00:21:00.000-07:002008-04-28T00:21:00.000-07:00

Precisely! I'm arguing that the free market is the best vehicle because it has the virtue of lacking government's obscenely long list of failures. If you'd like me to compile an alphabetical list of the things the government has failed at (drawing a distinction between the things the government has failed to do itself and the things it's forced other entities to do at the point of a gun), I'd be

Keith Moorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02424025513314938150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-63595047760791753702008-04-28T00:11:00.000-07:002008-04-28T00:11:00.000-07:00

OK, so detailed distinction between arguments is somewhat above you. Fine and well... it simply means you're a normal person. I'm just saying that there's a difference between an argument about the interaction between general economics and the environment and an argument about how specific economic systems affects the environment.

Keith Moorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02424025513314938150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-13290078957466548162008-04-27T23:58:00.000-07:002008-04-27T23:58:00.000-07:00

Oh.... and yesterday I clearly stated that I'm a Capitalist. I'm repeating it here again for any retards who are too stupid to even be on here.

~Çχ Atlantic♡http://www.blogger.com/profile/02637770426310184298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-85971690641009822712008-04-27T23:53:00.000-07:002008-04-27T23:53:00.000-07:00

Keith:The question is, is the government the better vehicle for externality (er, I mean) joystick reduction or is the free market?They might be relevant to the topic of economics and the environment but they're not relevant to the topic of economic systems affecting the environment.^^ HUHHHH? Heh.

~Çχ Atlantic♡http://www.blogger.com/profile/02637770426310184298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-58502881214219427172008-04-27T22:40:00.000-07:002008-04-27T22:40:00.000-07:00

Keith:It is way easier to play hangman with klatu than to try to understand what you are saying right now.You just made even more contradictions.Klatu,I do kind of miss hangman.

Eileenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02090970905053451038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-88419644797212439732008-04-27T17:07:00.000-07:002008-04-27T17:07:00.000-07:00

`c.x.atlantic: Amigo? Your from south of the border say Cuba? Figures you hate Capitalism.

Klatuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03632035951246465376noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-89000002288154043972008-04-27T17:06:00.000-07:002008-04-27T17:06:00.000-07:00

No one here has made any reference as to who the "evil" corporations are. The are not only the officers on the various boards, but are also the stock-holders of these companies. People like us. If you own stock in any oil company or any automobile company or any major brewing company, you are part of the "evil" corporate America.I, of course, have no knowledge of Eileen"s or Atlantic's

Scottiebillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15554361011951413954noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-26004455639413171112008-04-27T08:31:00.000-07:002008-04-27T08:31:00.000-07:00

I'm still not sure why you believe they are relevant to this topic. They might be relevant to the topic of economics and the environment but they're not relevant to the topic of economic systems affecting the environment. You can go on and on and on about what they are, how they affect prices, why you labor under the impression that they're not paid for... but it's a tangent. The question is, is

Keith Moorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02424025513314938150noreply@blogger.com