Chuck Norris Loves Babies

[VeniteAdoremus]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1936782' date='Jul 31 2009, 10:59 PM']You kidding me? Sounds great![/quote]

You're welcome to come and try (although the music in this parish is HORRID BEYOND BELIEF, and that with only voice and organ, so don't stay over Sunday).

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1936675' date='Jul 31 2009, 02:21 PM']In terms of energy, I'm of the opinion that it's based far more on economics than on research and development. When alternative forms make sense money wise, they'll be developed and/or used. We use fossil fuels because at the end of the day, they're most efficient.[/quote]

What isn't reflected, however, is the environmental cost, and that is very significant. I would say that destroying a mountain range along with communities and families is a significant cost, but you won't see it on your power bill. Just like the unborn, they live unseen because they're in West Virginia and we don't have to bother ourselves with them. But doesn't a catholic pro-life ethic regard [i]all[/i] life as deserving of the same dignity? And if renewable energy sources will restore communities, create good jobs, and save the environment, is the government wrong to assist private companies in pushing the technology towards profitability?

[VeniteAdoremus]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1939649' date='Aug 3 2009, 05:39 PM']What isn't reflected, however, is the environmental cost, and that is very significant. I would say that destroying a mountain range along with communities and families is a significant cost, but you won't see it on your power bill. Just like the unborn, they live unseen because they're in West Virginia and we don't have to bother ourselves with them. But doesn't a catholic pro-life ethic regard [i]all[/i] life as deserving of the same dignity? And if renewable energy sources will restore communities, create good jobs, and save the environment, is the government wrong to assist private companies in pushing the technology towards profitability?[/quote]



If we'd come up with a way to account for environmental costs within the normal economic system this entire discussion would be moot.

And this isn't just long-hair-leather-sandals talk: environmental quality has a price tag as much as everything else does (nobody likes to live in the middle of a strip mine or next to a poisoned river, so land prices fall, to name but the most obvious of many factors). IMO it was a lack of foresight during the industrial revolution. If we'd set up a system of [i]directly[/i] accounting for the costs, we would now think it the most normal thing in the world.

Not saying that such a system would be easy to form, just that its non-existence is a total and illogical oversight.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1939649' date='Aug 3 2009, 09:39 AM']What isn't reflected, however, is the environmental cost, and that is very significant. I would say that destroying a mountain range along with communities and families is a significant cost, but you won't see it on your power bill. And if renewable energy sources will restore communities, create good jobs, and save the environment, is the government wrong to assist private companies in pushing the technology towards profitability?[/quote]
That's not my point though. What I'm saying is that when the financial value is there, alternative energy sources will be developed and used regardless of government money. That's just pure free market economics.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1939794' date='Aug 3 2009, 02:43 PM']That's not my point though. What I'm saying is that when the financial value is there, alternative energy sources will be developed and used regardless of government money. That's just pure free market economics.[/quote]


We do not live in a free market.


Nor does a free market reward the most rational option necessairly.

[Era Might]

Who is Church Norris?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1939811' date='Aug 3 2009, 02:54 PM']We do not live in a free market.


Nor does a free market reward the most rational option necessairly.[/quote]
Our market is free enough that this will hold true.
As soon as alternative energies are economical to develop and use, they will be developed and used. Until then, fossil fuels are still the most viable option.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1939816' date='Aug 3 2009, 02:57 PM']Our market is free enough that this will hold true.
As soon as alternative energies are economical to develop and use, they will be developed and used. Until then, fossil fuels are still the most viable option.[/quote]


Unless, as has happened, car and energy companies use their vast wealth to buy up cheep, efficient electric public transportation systems in and then destroys them.


People act like the free market is some abstration which actually has causal powers. I don't understand this.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1939820' date='Aug 3 2009, 03:00 PM']Unless, as has happened, car and energy companies use their vast wealth to buy up cheep, efficient electric public transportation systems in and then destroys them.[/quote]
I don't understand what you're saying.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1939822' date='Aug 3 2009, 04:04 PM']I don't understand what you're saying.[/quote]

There have been instances where energy and car companies have used their wealth to purchase cheep, efficient, and environmentally friendly forms of transportation. They have then ceased to develop these technologies or, in the case of some mass transit systems, dismantled them (as they now own them). The "free market", whatever that really is, does not choose the most economically efficient option if it is not available. Which does happen. Most people are not deeply invested in such matters (normally). Energy and Car companies, however, are. They, at least the energy companies, are exorbitantly wealthy and have both the motive and resources to identify potential future competitors and use their resources to prevent such potential competitors from being developed or used on a large scale.

[Nihil Obstat]

The thing is that fossil fuels are just going to get more and more scarce and expensive as time goes on. We all know that for all intents and purposes, it is a non-renewable resource. That means eventually the energy and car companies that have a vested interest in fossil fuels will gradually lose that clout.

Just so you're aware, Energy Companies are not some giant international syndicate. The industry as a whole has some very large companies, and an enormous amount of small ones. You can't lump them all together as exploitive oil barons. Those in the industry tend to find it rather offensive, especially when you say things like "they are exorbiantly wealthy". Some individuals are, and many are just regular guys that work for a living, like my dad.

Edited August 3, 2009 by Nihil Obstat

[Hassan]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1939835' date='Aug 3 2009, 04:15 PM']The thing is that fossil fuels are just going to get more and more scarce and expensive as time goes on. We all know that for all intents and purposes, it is a non-renewable resource. That means eventually the energy and car companies that have a vested interest in fossil fuels will gradually lose that clout.

Just so you're aware, Energy Companies are not some giant international syndicate. The industry as a whole has some very large companies, and an enormous amount of small ones. You can't lump them all together as exploitive oil barons. Those in the industry tend to find it rather offensive, especially when you say things like "they are exorbiantly wealthy". Some individuals are, and many are just regular guys that work for a living, like my dad.[/quote]


I am referring to large scale energy companies, which are wealthy and do have extensive resources (And I never said anything about the wealth of individual working within the energy companies at all). I never said they formed any sort of syndicate. It's no different from major tire companies buying up the rights to extraordinarily efficient tires and then not developing the technology.

I'm happy to amend what I am saying to "some energy companies" but, regarding the activities of some energy and car companies, they do happen and have occurred.

Edited August 3, 2009 by Hassan

[Nihil Obstat]

You missed my larger point, that these some large energy and car companies will lose this giant influence as fossil fuels become a more scarce commodity.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1939846' date='Aug 3 2009, 04:27 PM']You missed my larger point, that these some large energy and car companies will lose this giant influence as fossil fuels become a more scarce commodity.[/quote]


And how long will that be?

[Hassan]

And my larger point is that to pretend that fossil fuel companies are operating in a market system which will somehow will by fiat that the most efficient and economically viable energy resources ignores reality. More importantly unless you know something the rest of us don't we really cannot environmentally afford to allow the fossil fuel industry to simply "loose clout" naturally.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1939848' date='Aug 3 2009, 03:28 PM']And how long will that be?[/quote]
That depends on whether you're talking to an environmental alarmist or someone a little more level headed.
I'd be out of my league if I tried to give you a decent answer on that one.
If I remember what I've heard correctly, most balanced estimates will give a few hundred years as fossil fuels become increasingly uneconomical to obtain and refine, but again, that's way beyond my knowledge level.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1939853' date='Aug 3 2009, 03:33 PM']And my larger point is that to pretend that fossil fuel companies are operating in a market system which will somehow will by fiat that the most efficient and economically viable energy resources ignores reality. More importantly unless you know something the rest of us don't we really cannot environmentally afford to allow the fossil fuel industry to simply "loose clout" naturally.[/quote]
The existing energy companies won't just make a switch to alternative energy. New industries will be created. There will be a market for it, there just isn't a very profitable one yet.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='VeniteAdoremus' post='1939687' date='Aug 3 2009, 12:53 PM']

If we'd come up with a way to account for environmental costs within the normal economic system this entire discussion would be moot.

And this isn't just long-hair-leather-sandals talk: environmental quality has a price tag as much as everything else does (nobody likes to live in the middle of a strip mine or next to a poisoned river, so land prices fall, to name but the most obvious of many factors). IMO it was a lack of foresight during the industrial revolution. If we'd set up a system of [i]directly[/i] accounting for the costs, we would now think it the most normal thing in the world.

Not saying that such a system would be easy to form, just that its non-existence is a total and illogical oversight.[/quote]

Such a system is impossible to form. Capitalism works because it's simply the interaction of millions of people in different roles being selfish Central planning simply doesn't work. Often the government intervenes with good intentions, but ends up making problems worse. There are many examples of good intervention, usually in cases where government allows the capitalist process to get a job done instead of trying make it a government entity. The US Postal Service delivers mail reliably and much cheaper than competing companies could do it, due to the massive amount of labor and infrastructure needed. The Internet started out as a government project. Interstate highways were centrally planned (with very bad consequences in urban areas, but good for the country overall).

What hasn't been mentioned is the relationship between fossil fuels and diplomatic concerns. Promoting renewable energy saves the environment and communities in our own country and weans us off foreign oil and all the risks of terrorism and economic hostage (being at the mercy of a cartel) that go along with it.

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1939794' date='Aug 3 2009, 04:43 PM']That's not my point though. What I'm saying is that when the financial value is there, alternative energy sources will be developed and used regardless of government money. That's just pure free market economics.[/quote]

I understand that. Government intervention is good when it helps private enterprise promote the common good when normal economic forces aren't there yet.

Edited August 4, 2009 by LouisvilleFan

[Socrates]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1935667' date='Jul 30 2009, 02:30 PM']Yeah, I saw that about 20 times during the election. Very little of it is objective and much could be argued irrelevant, such as living the "formative" years of his life in America... Obama moved back to Hawaii with his mother at age 10, and before that he was educated for a time at a Catholic grade school in Indonesia. Some of the stuff mentioned I wholeheartedly disagree with ol' Lou about, such as destroying the Appalachians in order to harvest its coal reserves and holding up the "Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Reillys and Becks" as people any self-respecting individual wishes to be allied with (the same holes true for media figures on the left... I have more respect for used car salesmen).

So ya'll can have your American conservative Republicanism... I'll stick with Catholicism.[/quote]


[quote name='XIX' post='1935852' date='Jul 30 2009, 05:35 PM']I'll take both.

eh.

I'll have an a la carte helping of the former. And then I'll just gorge myself on the latter.[/quote]
Ditto.

I'm getting sick of these insinuations that anyone who's politically conservative or not on board with Obama's socialism is somehow not really Catholic.

There's plenty about Obama and his policies to be scared about.

And Republican politicians are certainly not without their sins, but being too conservative is definitely not one of them.
Elephants and Donkeys alike have done their part to increase government size, scope and control of the economy, with disastrous results, yet Obama takes big government to extremes of socialism previously unseen in America.

And whatever your opinion is about the "Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Reillys and Becks," the federal government attempting to regulate public speech based on its political content a la the "Fairness Doctrine" should be worrisome to any freedom-loving American.

Edited August 4, 2009 by Socrates

[Socrates]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1940229' date='Aug 4 2009, 12:02 AM']Such a system is impossible to form. Capitalism works because it's simply the interaction of millions of people in different roles being selfish Central planning simply doesn't work. Often the government intervenes with good intentions, but ends up making problems worse. There are many examples of good intervention, usually in cases where government allows the capitalist process to get a job done instead of trying make it a government entity. The US Postal Service delivers mail reliably and much cheaper than competing companies could do it, due to the massive amount of labor and infrastructure needed. The Internet started out as a government project. Interstate highways were centrally planned (with very bad consequences in urban areas, but good for the country overall).[/quote]
The USPS is broke (and will require a raise in taxes to maintain its cheap services).

Federal government (particularly the Federal Reserve) is responsible for our current recession by artificially manipulating the market by forcing artificially low interest rates, which create artificial booms and resulting severe busts, rather than allowing the market to be determined by actual supply and demand (in which case the boom-bust cycle is avoided).
(I highly recommend anyone even remotely interested in the causes of our economic mess read [url="http://www.amazon.com/Meltdown-Free-Market-Collapsed-Government-Bailouts/dp/1596985879/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249360283&sr=1-1"][i]Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse[/i], by Thomas E. Woods Jr.[/url])

[quote]What hasn't been mentioned is the relationship between fossil fuels and diplomatic concerns. Promoting renewable energy saves the environment and communities in our own country and weans us off foreign oil and all the risks of terrorism and economic hostage (being at the mercy of a cartel) that go along with it.



I understand that. Government intervention is good when it helps private enterprise promote the common good when normal economic forces aren't there yet.[/quote]
Government intervention actually has a horrible track record of actually helping private enterprise (much of our economic disaster was caused, and will be perpetuated by, government subsidization of banks and businesses with unsound practices, which would have been forced to reform or fail, rather than be bailed-out, in a true free market).

If a truly feasible alternative to fossil fuels is found, it will prevail in the free market. Government intervention in the form of grants and subsidies are often wasted in politically-driven debacles which give huge amounts of tax-subsidized money to prop-up inefficient and ineffective enterprises, rather than going towards projects that actually work (such as the whole "bio-fuels" boondoggle, which now even most enviros admit is wasteful, and benefits nobody but the corn farming industry).

Edited August 4, 2009 by Socrates