One-child Policy is a success, says top Labour aide

[Pepsi]

CHINA'S one-child policy - which has led to forced abortions, infanticide and compulsory sterilisation - has had a 'positive impact' on the country's economic performance, one of Labour's leading advisers says today.

Lord Turner, head of the Financial Services Authority, claims the laws on family size were crucial in China's economic take-off and allowed the country to develop without 'severe political and social tensions'. But human rights campaigners criticised Lord Turner for appearing to support the draconian laws, claiming they had led to untold misery.

http://findarticles.com/p/news-articles/daily-mail-london-england-the/mi_8002/is_2009_Sept_22/child-china-success-labour-aide/ai_n38360907/

[jkr]

bite me "mr" turner

[Pepsi]

So when are they going to enact it here?

[chudrockz]

So when are they going to enact it here?

If they EVER enact such an EVIL and inhumane policy here, I swear to God I'll reverse my vasectomy and have at least one child per year for each of the next ten. (Or rather, ask my wife to have them. Ahem.)

[cheapseats]

CHINA'S one-child policy - which has led to forced abortions, infanticide and compulsory sterilisation - has had a 'positive impact' on the country's economic performance, one of Labour's leading advisers says today.

Lord Turner, head of the Financial Services Authority, claims the laws on family size were crucial in China's economic take-off and allowed the country to develop without 'severe political and social tensions'. But human rights campaigners criticised Lord Turner for appearing to support the draconian laws, claiming they had led to untold misery.

http://findarticles.com/p/news-articles/daily-mail-london-england-the/mi_8002/is_2009_Sept_22/child-china-success-labour-aide/ai_n38360907/

Bullshit.

In the time-honored fashion of patriarchal societies, it has produced an INCREDIBLE gender imbalance.

I have not been to China, I have no first-hand experience. But is was not so long ago that I read of poor country-sides positively BRIMMING with idle, frustrated, unattached men.

In the same article, one "expert" warned that packin' 'em off to WAR is the surest way to thin the ranks of idle, frustrated, unattached men.

Were it not so unfashionable to connect dots, I would suggest that if Gay Marriage is on, so should be polygamy and polyandry. Entrepreneurial of the 53 million Single American women might marry an entire FACTORY of Chinese men, or a whole baseball organization. I gotchyer Economic Stimulus right here: Batter UP. (http://mcpolitics.com/?p=161)

[revolutionisnow]

So when are they going to enact it here?

Here we do the opposite, we reward people who have kids with tax breaks and welfare payments.

[Mini-Me]

Bullshit.

In the time-honored fashion of patriarchal societies, it has produced an INCREDIBLE gender imbalance.

I have not been to China, I have no first-hand experience. But is was not so long ago that I read of poor country-sides positively BRIMMING with idle, frustrated, unattached men.

In the same article, one "expert" warned that packin' 'em off to WAR is the surest way to thin the ranks of idle, frustrated, unattached men.

Were it not so unfashionable to connect dots, I would suggest that if Gay Marriage is on, so should be polygamy and polyandry. Entrepreneurial of the 53 million Single American women might marry an entire FACTORY of Chinese men, or a whole baseball organization. I gotchyer Economic Stimulus right here: Batter UP. (http://mcpolitics.com/?p=161)

In that vein, I'm sure the war lobby would love for every country to have hordes of frustrated young men that governments are just itching to dispose of.

[ChaosControl]

Absolutely not. Abortion is a barbaric procedure that needs to be outlawed and heavily punished, not forced.

[Pepsi]

Communist Chinese delegates cite concept as key to saving the planet

The Chinese government delegation at the Copenhagen climate change conference has argued that the Communist dictatorship’s one child policy should “serve as a model for integrating population programs into the framework of climate change adaptation.”

Zhao Baige, vice-minister of National Population and Family Planning Commission of China (NPFPC) population program told other delegates at the summit that China “has made a great historic contribution to the well-being of society” by instituting population control.

“Dealing with climate change is not simply an issue of CO2 emission reduction but a comprehensive challenge involving political, economic, social, cultural and ecological issues, and the population concern fits right into the picture,” said Zhao.

The Chinese delegate also cited the UN’s own 2009 State of World Population report, which suggests that if the global population remains at 8 billion by the year 2050 instead of increasing to just over 9 billion, as projected, “it might result in 1 billion to 2 billion fewer tons of carbon emissions”.

As a result of the family planning policy, China has seen 400 million fewer births, which has resulted in 18 million fewer tons of CO2 emissions a year, Zhao bragged.

She also suggested that financing family planning is the most cost effective way of reducing climate change in comparison to clean technologies and reduced deforestation.

“Some 85 percent of the Chinese women in reproductive age use contraceptives, the highest rate in the world. This has been achieved largely through education and improvement of people’s lives,” Zhao said.

Not forced abortions, infanticide and compulsory sterilization then? No no no, just good old fashioned “education” has ensured success for China’s one child policy.

Of course, the fact that somewhere in the region of twenty-five million men in China are unable to find brides because so many girls are murdered shortly after birth was somewhat glossed over by the Chinese delegate:

“I’m not saying that what we have done is 100 percent right, but I’m sure we are going in the right direction and now 1.3 billion people have benefited,” she said.

The explosion in the illegal sex trade in Asia as a direct result of the shortage of women is also, presumably, another benefit, as is the fact that China now has a vastly imbalanced population in terms of age.

Suggestions that China’s population control should be integrated globally are insipid, patently ludicrous and downright insulting you may cry. However, not so according to our leaders, who seemingly adore the prospect.

Forced abortions, mass sterilization and a“Planetary Regime” with the power of life and death were all core concepts put forth by John P. Holdren, the man now in control of science policy in the United States, in his co-authored 1977 book, Ecoscience.

In fact, Holdren’s ideas pre-date the inception of China’s one child policy by two years.

In the United Kingdom, top government aides have lauded China’s method of population control, ignoring the fact that it has been the primary source of the most human rights abuses of any government policy on the planet.

Two days ago, a national newspaper in Canada implored the delegates at Copenhagen to implement a global program of population control in the guise of the Chinese.

It is no surprise that China’s population genocide is being tolerated at the UN led Copenhagen summit, given that The United Nations Population Fund directly supports the Communist State’s policy.

In 2002 Secretary of State Colin Powell stated in a letter to Congress:

“Regrettably, the People’s Republic of China has in place a regime of severe penalties on women who have unapproved births. This regime plainly operates to coerce pregnant women to have abortions in order to avoid the penalties and therefore amounts to a ‘program of coercive abortion.’ Regardless of the modest size of UNFPA’s budget in China or any benefits its programs provide, UNFPA’s support of, and involvement in, China’s population-planning activities allows the Chinese government to implement more effectively its program of coercive abortion.”

Yet The UNPFA seem to think this is a great thing:

“China has had the most successful family planning policy in the history of mankind in terms of quantity and with that, China has done mankind a favour,” United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) representative Sven Burmester said last week. —10/11/99 Agence France-Presse

Under the Reagan Administration legislation sponsored by then-Rep. Jack Kemp (NY) and then-Sen. Bob Kasten (WI) ensured funding to the UNPFA was cut off for these very reasons. Yet is was no surprise when In 1993, the Clinton Administration dramatically revised the official interpretation of the “Kemp-Kasten amendment” in order to facilitate U.S. funding of UNFPA, thus making available $14.5 million.

In May 2003, the House Committee on International Relations narrowly adopted an an amendment by Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-NY) revoking the ban on such participation with the UNPFA. The amendment earmarked $100 million for UNFPA over the next two years.

All this is being disturbingly tied in to the climate change debate by hijackers of the environmental movement who have spuriously associated fears over global warming with over-population, suggesting that the solution is to implement depopulation policies and punishments for those who flout them.

The connection is an appealing one to advocates of the anthropological global warming theory because, if you believe humans are to blame for dangerous alterations in the climate, eventually the conclusion of less humans = less warming is reached.

However, there is a fundamental flaw in associating climate change with overpopulation.

Populations in developed countries are declining and only in third world countries are they expanding dramatically. Industrialization itself levels out population trends and even despite this world population models routinely show that the earth’s population will level out at 9 billion in 2050 and slowly decline after that. “The population of the most developed countries will remain virtually unchanged at 1.2 billion until 2050,” states a United Nations report. The UN’s support for depopulation policies is in direct contradiction to their own findings.

Once a country industrializes there is an average of a 1.6 child rate per household, so the western world population is actually in decline. That trend has also been witnessed in areas of Asia like Japan and South Korea. The UN has stated that the population will peak at 9 billion and then begin declining.

In addition, as highlighted by the Economist recently, global fertility rates are falling.

Since radical environmentalists are pushing to de-industrialize the world in the face of the so called carbon threat, this will reverse the trend that naturally lowers the amount of children people have. If climate change fanatics are allowed to implement their policies, global population will continue to increase and overpopulation may become a real problem – another example of how the global warming hysterics are actually harming the long term environment of the earth by preventing overpopulated countries from developing and naturally lowering their birth levels.

Even if you play devils advocate and accept that humans do cause catastrophic warming and there are too many of us, and if you can skip past the Nazi eugenics connotations of population control and depopulation policies, those methods are fundamentally still not a valid solution to the perceived climate change threat.

The real solution would be to pour funds into increasing the standards of living of the cripplingly poor third world, allowing those countries to industrialize, and seeing the population figures naturally level out.

Instead, the third world has seen a doubling in food prices owing to climate change policies such as turning over huge areas of agricultural land to the growth of biofuels.

In addition, the leaked Copenhagen text that emerged earlier this week highlighted the fact that developed nations are planning to take on less of a burden than anticipated and that more would be demanded of poorer countries despite the fact that any further cuts in CO2 emissions will further cripple their flimsy economies and poverty-stricken people.

The draft agreement would allow people in developed countries to emit twice as much carbon per head than those in poorer countries, who have not caused the rise in emissions said to be threatening our existence on the planet. The revelations have led third world leaders to accuse the developed world of “climate colonialism”.

Another revelation from the summit reveals that under a plan tabled by Britain, money earmarked for education or health in poorer countries would be diverted into projects such as solar panels and wind farms, again diverting much needed aid away from efforts to increase the standard of living.

Linking environmental policy to depopulation agendas opens the door to eugenics and it is no surprise that through that door have come pouring hordes of elitist filth just begging to be on the front line of the extermination policy.

One example is UK-based public policy group The Optimum Population Trust (OPT), which has launched a new initiative urging wealthy members of the developed world to participate in carbon offsets that fund programs for curbing the population of developing nations.

In 2007, the group also published a report announcing that children are ‘bad for planet and ‘having large families should be frowned upon as an environmental misdemeanour in the same way as frequent long-haul flights, driving a big car and failing to reuse plastic bags.

The same talking point has been re-iterated again and again by public policy groups and environmentalists, as well as the most influential scientists in the US government.

While you may think ideas of sterilization and depopulation could never be accepted by the public, those very concepts are now being embraced and popularized by some as the way forward for humanity.

The reality is that the summit in Copenhagen and it’s attendees are providing a platform, and in some cases actively pushing for a policy enforced by a dictatorship that actively hunts down mothers who become pregnant with their second child, abducts them off the street and takes them to government controlled hospitals where they are drugged and their baby

http://www.prisonplanet.com/copenhagen-global-population-control-program-suggested-to-stop-climate-change.html

[nate895]

So when are they going to enact it here?

Over my dead body

[MelissaWV]

Interesting twisting of words... I'm shocked this board falls for it so easily.

There is a large difference between saying something "had positive impact" and actually thinking it's a good idea, or even declaring it a success. Did you know that Hitler's policies had a positive effect for awhile? After WWI, almost anything would help. Does saying that mean I think everything that followed his taking over was a good thing? Of course not.

I'm sure the barbaric policies taking place in China did have some positives to them. If they didn't, they wouldn't exist. There are far more negatives, though, even from a cold standpoint. Add in gut feelings, empathy, and human decency, and the scales tip way further.


One-child Policy is a success


CHINA'S one-child policy - which has led to forced abortions, infanticide and compulsory sterilisation - has had a 'positive impact'...

[Pepsi]

She also suggested that financing family planning is the most cost effective way of reducing climate change in comparison to clean technologies and reduced deforestation

I gues this is what the Tax Payer funded abortions in the Health Care bill are going to end up being about.

[cheapseats]

Absolutely not. Abortion is a barbaric procedure that needs to be outlawed and heavily punished, not forced.

Without resorting to the time-honored but tired and useless admonition that IF SHE DIDN'T WANT A BABY, SHE SHOULDN'T HAVE HAD SEX, are you suggesting that FORCING a woman to let another human grow inside of her against her will is NOT barbaric?

[PC Disclaimer: NOT intended to derail but these dots are NOT unconnected, Big Picture. Back to CHINA'S problem.]

[FrankRep]

China & Canada call for Worldwide One Child Policy to fight Global Warming

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=222315

[paulpwns]

Without resorting to the time-honored but tired and useless admonition that IF SHE DIDN'T WANT A BABY, SHE SHOULDN'T HAVE HAD SEX, are you suggesting that FORCING a woman to let another human grow inside of her against her will is NOT barbaric?

[PC Disclaimer: NOT intended to derail but these dots are NOT unconnected, Big Picture. Back to CHINA'S problem.]


Who the hell forced her to have a baby?

Seriously that's laughable.

Oh you mean

she made her decision and now faces responsibility for it, that no one should force her to keep the baby alive.

I am not even pro-life and I find your argument fallacious at best.

[talkingpointes]

That is -- NOT a baby in you! :mad:

[Pericles]

Bullshit.

In the time-honored fashion of patriarchal societies, it has produced an INCREDIBLE gender imbalance.

I have not been to China, I have no first-hand experience. But is was not so long ago that I read of poor country-sides positively BRIMMING with idle, frustrated, unattached men.

In the same article, one "expert" warned that packin' 'em off to WAR is the surest way to thin the ranks of idle, frustrated, unattached men.

Were it not so unfashionable to connect dots, I would suggest that if Gay Marriage is on, so should be polygamy and polyandry. Entrepreneurial of the 53 million Single American women might marry an entire FACTORY of Chinese men, or a whole baseball organization. I gotchyer Economic Stimulus right here: Batter UP. (http://mcpolitics.com/?p=161)

The imbalance is that there are 70 million more Chinese males than females. In a very paternalistic society, that is a problem.

In a sense, Islam has the same problem in that a male may have 4 wives. This tends to concentrate the female population toward the males who can afford to have wives, leaving a substantial percentage of the male population having to make do with other options - one of which may be a express trip to heaven in order to make up for what is lacking in this life.

[cheapseats]

Who the hell forced her to have a baby?

Seriously that's laughable.

Oh you mean

she made her decision and now faces responsibility for it, that no one should force her to keep the baby alive.

I am not even pro-life and I find your argument fallacious at best.

Baloney.

Forcing someone to host a growing being inside their body against their will is not only barbaric, it CLEARLY does not focus on the POTENTIAL being's WELL-being. Presumably YOU were wanted, and wouldn't know what FORCED MATERNITY really implies.

If it's about making decisions and facing responsibility, why aren't y'all in Washington DC, compelling its closure until such time as politicians quit bailing out Wall Street? 'Cuz it's not a Sanctity of Life issue?

Why aren't y'all in Washington DC, compelling its closure until such time as they END THE WARS, PLURAL?

[cheapseats]

The imbalance is that there are 70 million more Chinese males than females. In a very paternalistic society, that is a problem.

In a sense, Islam has the same problem in that a male may have 4 wives. This tends to concentrate the female population toward the males who can afford to have wives, leaving a substantial percentage of the male population having to make do with other options - one of which may be a express trip to heaven in order to make up for what is lacking in this life.

Celibacy, Stridency and Poverty or the Glory of Martyrdom and 72 Virgins . . . Celibacy, Stridency and Poverty or the Glory of Martyrdom and 72 Virgins . . .

THERE'S a Head Scratcher.

[Noob]

The way I see it, they chose a Two-child Policy for America since Obama was elected. He has two children, instead of a One-child Policy becuse Hilliary did not get it, and she only has one child.

[ChaosControl]

Without resorting to the time-honored but tired and useless admonition that IF SHE DIDN'T WANT A BABY, SHE SHOULDN'T HAVE HAD SEX, are you suggesting that FORCING a woman to let another human grow inside of her against her will is NOT barbaric?

[PC Disclaimer: NOT intended to derail but these dots are NOT unconnected, Big Picture. Back to CHINA'S problem.]

It is not barbaric to ensure life is protected, regardless what the parent's wishes may be. It is barbaric to allow that life to be destroyed for the sake of convenience.

[Naraku]

There is no need for the Western world to adopt a one-child policy. Most countries either already have a birth rate commensurate with it or actually have shrinking populations. It would actually be detrimental to our society.

However, people saying the one-child policy is detrimental to China should be aware of the fact that when someone is the only child he or she can have two children and if someone has a child but then divorces and gets with someone who hasn't had a child they can have a child. So really it is a one child per person policy rather than one child for every two people.

[Mini-Me]

There is no need for the Western world to adopt a one-child policy. Most countries either already have a birth rate commensurate with it or actually have shrinking populations. It would actually be detrimental to our society.

However, people saying the one-child policy is detrimental to China should be aware of the fact that when someone is the only child he or she can have two children and if someone has a child but then divorces and gets with someone who hasn't had a child they can have a child. So really it is a one child per person policy rather than one child for every two people.

LOL. I frankly don't care if the limit is 50 and only Osama bin Laden's family is affected. The entire idea of a government-imposed limit on children is antithetical to liberty.

Besides, of course China's policy has been detrimental to them: Their gender imbalance, a direct result of this policy, is causing huge problems. In addition, their workforce is having to support a growing proportion of elderly.

You're right about western population growth, though. Discounting immigration from developing countries that grow babies faster than Octomom, we're really only making babies at about a replacement rate, and this is the typical trend for countries as they become more economically developed.

[Naraku]

LOL. I frankly don't care if the limit is 50 and only Osama bin Laden's family is affected. The entire idea of a government-imposed limit on children is antithetical to liberty.

Obviously, but there is a rational argument to be made in favor of such a policy in some countries.


Besides, of course China's policy has been detrimental to them: Their gender imbalance, a direct result of this policy, is causing huge problems. In addition, their workforce is having to support a growing proportion of elderly.

Like I said this is not an accurate portrayal of the matter. Gender discrimination is illegal in this manner and measures to suppress this gender selection have shown fruit. The growing elderly population is also addressed by other provisions in the laws that I noted. There is a lot of leeway in national and local laws in China for more than one child.

[Mini-Me]

Obviously, but there is a rational argument to be made in favor of such a policy in some countries.
Sure, you can always make "rational arguments" for all kinds of tyrannical policies given some particular short-sighted goal, but I've yet to see a situation where I'm convinced any of these would actually yield a better solution than liberty. Unfortunately, policy-makers have a habit of ignoring that option and picking the obvious forceful solution...that is, the one with lots of negative side effects and backfiring.



Like I said this is not an accurate portrayal of the matter. Gender discrimination is illegal in this manner and measures to suppress this gender selection have shown fruit.
Well, thankfully, we can always rely on more use of coercion to curb people's natural and "unfavorable" reaction to prior coercion. ;) This is definitely the way to make people live in collective happiness.

The growing elderly population is also addressed by other provisions in the laws that I noted. There is a lot of leeway in national and local laws in China for more than one child.
Are you referring to another thread? I haven't seen your post addressing the growing elderly population. Anyway, and if all else fails, I'm sure the growing elderly population can be addressed by upping the usage of those execution vans...

[RM918]

Without resorting to the time-honored but tired and useless admonition that IF SHE DIDN'T WANT A BABY, SHE SHOULDN'T HAVE HAD SEX...

Why not?

Whenever you hear men bitch about having to pay child support, the overwhelming sentiment is, "You should've kept it in your pants!". Are women somehow exempt from all responsibility in the matter, even though it's women who are the ones that consent to it and choose how, where and when?

[Naraku]

Sure, you can always make "rational arguments" for all kinds of tyrannical policies given some particular short-sighted goal, but I've yet to see a situation where I'm convinced any of these would actually yield a better solution than liberty. Unfortunately, policy-makers have a habit of ignoring that option and picking the obvious forceful solution...that is, the one with lots of negative side effects and backfiring.

In truth there are circumstances where measures antithetical to liberty are necessary. The more dire the circumstances the greater the measures. Liberty is not going to stop overpopulation, it will only make it worse. Yes, economically developed nations have less children but you do not go from developing nation to developed nation overnight.

Compare China and India and you will see the point. While China has greatly limited its population growth India's population continues to explode.


Well, thankfully, we can always rely on more use of coercion to curb people's natural and "unfavorable" reaction to prior coercion. ;) This is definitely the way to make people live in collective happiness.

Gender selection is not a natural reaction. It is based in Chinese culture.


Are you referring to another thread? I haven't seen your post addressing the growing elderly population. Anyway, and if all else fails, I'm sure the growing elderly population can be addressed by upping the usage of those execution vans...

China is greatly reducing executions, not expanding them. Also they execute people for actual serious crimes. They're not going to randomly execute old people.

[Truth-Bringer]

I do believe that the earth is overpopulated. But do I want government using force to control people and kill unborn children? Absolutely not.

We should seek to curb overpopulation through education and voluntary means, but this present push is through the Bilderbergers/New World Order and all of their machinations lead to more control for them at the expense of freedom for everyone else.

[Truth-Bringer]

In truth there are circumstances where measures antithetical to liberty are necessary.

Give some examples.

[Pepsi]

We should try to start a grassroot evert to defet any attempts to enact it. Thow we shouldn't even have to do that in the first place.

[Naraku]

Give some examples.

Civil war comes to mind. I know some here want to put out some romantic notion of a nationwide armed resistance to the tyranny of the federal government, but the reality would be entirely different. We do not care for the liberties of people who are killed in wars because regardless of who is killed or why their loss is considered less important than insuring there is not a greater loss.

In a civil war one could not raise concerns about whether someone's rights are being violated. The Constitution specifically provides that certain protections can be suspended in the event of insurrection or invasion.

Should a natural catastrophe strike there needs to be food rationing and it needs to be enforced. Just letting the chips fall where they may means many people dying who would not have to die.

No free market approach can resolve the rapid consumption of natural resources without bringing about a catastrophic collapse.

[AutoDas]

^have any proof of that cause it sounds like your bullshitting

[nbruno322]

I am not a fan of Laura Ingraham or the O'Reilly Factor, but it was an interesting conversation with the author of the famous editorial today calling for a global one child policy as a solution to global problems

Video Here:

http://video.foxnews.com/12438430/the-one-thing-1211#/12439441/radical-idea/?category_id=9ccf127ad00c53ab8708e18e946bf50e83958 340


Article Here

http://www.infowars.com/strong-reaction-follows-editorial-calling-for-global-one-child-dictatorship/

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=2314438

[Kludge]

Don't care; American.

[Naraku]

^have any proof of that cause it sounds like your bullshitting

Proof of what specifically?

[AutoDas]

Proof of what specifically?

"No free market approach can resolve the rapid consumption of natural resources without bringing about a catastrophic collapse."

[Bman]

It is not barbaric to ensure life is protected, regardless what the parent's wishes may be. It is barbaric to allow that life to be destroyed for the sake of convenience.

But I don't support you stealing my money to throw a young woman in jail for having an abortion. So when you come to imprison me for not wanting to pay you for this act I would have to ask, now who is being barbaric.

You need to find an answer that doesn't involve Government or face the simply fact that abortion will always be legal. Let's face it. H.R. 2533 with only two co-sponsors. You're really dreaming.

[Naraku]

"No free market approach can resolve the rapid consumption of natural resources without bringing about a catastrophic collapse."

As long as gas prices were low people were buying gas guzzlers. Even environmental fears were not sufficient to get people to buy more fuel efficient vehicles. To avoid an oil shock one would have to implement solutions prior to a supply crunch. However, without the incentive high oil prices bring, people will not buy a fuel efficient vehicle because it is usually more expensive. So the market would continue to consume resources until a sudden spike crashes the economy.

The government needs to be involved in such measures because without it people will simply consume until there is nothing left to consume.

[Mini-Me]

As long as gas prices were low people were buying gas guzzlers. Even environmental fears were not sufficient to get people to buy more fuel efficient vehicles. To avoid an oil shock one would have to implement solutions prior to a supply crunch. However, without the incentive high oil prices bring, people will not buy a fuel efficient vehicle because it is usually more expensive. So the market would continue to consume resources until a sudden spike crashes the economy.


You're using terms like "oil shock," "sudden spike," "supply crunch," etc., but none of them really reflect the economic reality if we're looking at the peak oil situation. Short term supply fluctuations aside, you do realize that as oil wells "dry up," the supply drop-off and subsequent price increases will be gradual and push people to alternatives over a number of years, right? We're not going to wake up one day and all of a sudden realize, "Oh crap, the oil ran out! The price just shot up from $3.00/gal to $438324943.00/gal! My car is worthless! NOOOOOoooooooo!!" ;) (That said, if the dollar tanks due to hyperinflation, that's another story entirely, but we know who to blame for that...)

As prices gradually increase, fuel-efficient vehicles will become increasingly cheaper over their lifetime, relative to gas-guzzlers. Eventually, they'll reach the point where the long-term savings are significant enough to the average person to make the switch worth it, according to individual tolerances and priorities. Until that point, the price of gas clearly isn't high enough - and therefore the gas supply clearly isn't low enough - for everyone to see a benefit in fuel-efficient cars.

Besides, you're ignoring the fact that government itself has prevented more fuel-efficient vehicles from taking off: Regulations and Department of Energy policies naturally favor big oil in general and existing corporations in particular, and big oil also couldn't do their patent squatting trick without the full might of the government behind them. You're blaming our energy situation on people who weren't babysat enough by big government to do the smart thing, but the reality is quite the opposite: The babysitter has been tying everyone's hands behind their backs.



The government needs to be involved in such measures because without it people will simply consume until there is nothing left to consume.
In the general sense, I disagree that people merely "consume until there is nothing left to consume" without a benevolent babysitter to save them from themselves. :rolleyes: People both consume wealth and produce wealth. The free market pricing mechanism reflects how much people are producing and consuming - relative to each other - and provides incentives for people to do whatever needs to be done. In contrast, it's the government that consumes without end, without ever producing anything (except on rare occasions when NASA develops a new technology), while simultaneously screwing up free market incentives to consume less, produce more, produce differently, or what have you.

You say the government needs to be involved in such measures. Why? For the sake of argument, I'll give you your point when it comes to natural catastrophes, although I actually disagree there as well. Aside from unpredictable natural catastrophes, I see no real reason why the government could ever be competent or benevolent enough to help more than hurt, unless we're setting seriously warped goals with misplaced priorities. Do you really think the wise, far-sighted, and ever-conscientious politicians and bureaucrats of government - who can act only by brute force - can foretell and react to long-term supply shortages more gracefully than thousands (millions?) of entrepreneurs looking to take advantage of those same emerging situations (which has the natural function of alleviating said situations)?

[Naraku]

You're using terms like "oil shock," "sudden spike," "supply crunch," etc., but none of them really reflect the economic reality if we're looking at the peak oil situation. Short term supply fluctuations aside, you do realize that as oil wells "dry up," the supply drop-off and subsequent price increases will be gradual and push people to alternatives over a number of years, right? We're not going to wake up one day and all of a sudden realize, "Oh crap, the oil ran out! The price just shot up from $3.00/gal to $438324943.00/gal! My car is worthless! NOOOOOoooooooo!!" ;) (That said, if the dollar tanks due to hyperinflation, that's another story entirely, but we know who to blame for that...)

As prices gradually increase, fuel-efficient vehicles will become increasingly cheaper over their lifetime, relative to gas-guzzlers. Eventually, they'll reach the point where the long-term savings are significant enough to the average person to make the switch worth it, according to individual tolerances and priorities. Until that point, the price of gas clearly isn't high enough - and therefore the gas supply clearly isn't low enough - for everyone to see a benefit in fuel-efficient cars.

Besides, you're ignoring the fact that government itself has prevented more fuel-efficient vehicles from taking off: Regulations and Department of Energy policies naturally favor big oil in general and existing corporations in particular, and big oil also couldn't do their patent squatting trick without the full might of the government behind them. You're blaming our energy situation on people who weren't babysat enough by big government to do the smart thing, but the reality is quite the opposite: The babysitter has been tying everyone's hands behind their backs.


In the general sense, I disagree that people merely "consume until there is nothing left to consume" without a benevolent babysitter to save them from themselves. :rolleyes: People both consume wealth and produce wealth. The free market pricing mechanism reflects how much people are producing and consuming - relative to each other - and provides incentives for people to do whatever needs to be done. In contrast, it's the government that consumes without end, without ever producing anything (except on rare occasions when NASA develops a new technology), while simultaneously screwing up free market incentives to consume less, produce more, produce differently, or what have you.

You say the government needs to be involved in such measures. Why? For the sake of argument, I'll give you your point when it comes to natural catastrophes, although I actually disagree there as well. Aside from unpredictable natural catastrophes, I see no real reason why the government could ever be competent or benevolent enough to help more than hurt, unless we're setting seriously warped goals with misplaced priorities. Do you really think the wise, far-sighted, and ever-conscientious politicians and bureaucrats of government - who can act only by brute force - can foretell and react to long-term supply shortages more gracefully than thousands (millions?) of entrepreneurs looking to take advantage of those same emerging situations (which has the natural function of alleviating said situations)?

You have obviously been deluded by propaganda.

We saw prices going up gradually and it did not spur any major change. People are not going to go out and buy a brand new car when gas prices start going up. You can talk about how the big bad government can never do anything right and serves no benefit to anyone, but anyone with any sense or independent thought would know it is a load of garbage.

All these technologies to wean us off of oil are being funded or otherwise aided by government. The fact you think the market can deal with this indicates that you know little about the subject.

The market's reaction to $140 oil was the near bankruptcy of General Motors, Chrysler, and Ford. Had that occurred under such scenarios without government assistance of some sort they would have liquidated. That would take down suppliers, dealers, and countless other connected industries. We would definitely see oil consumption go down, because the economy would collapse. A collapsing economy does not bode well for innovation.

[Pepsi]

Carbon credits needed to have kids?

UK Group Proposes Using Carbon Offsets to Stop Poor From Breeding

http://www.corbettreport.com/articles/20091209_optimum_population.htm?utm_source=feedbur ner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+corbettreport_articles+%28Cor bett+Report+Articles%29

[Mini-Me]

You have obviously been deluded by propaganda.
Believe what you will about me, but I kind of feel the same about you. Perhaps we should stick to the issue. As it stands, you've merely dodged my question with an ad hominem attack.



We saw prices going up gradually and it did not spur any major change. People are not going to go out and buy a brand new car when gas prices start going up. You can talk about how the big bad government can never do anything right and serves no benefit to anyone, but anyone with any sense or independent thought would know it is a load of garbage.
Thanks for the second personal attack. By the way, I never said government serves no benefit to anyone; it certainly benefits some, but pretty much everything government does results in a net loss for society and for the dignity and happiness of individuals. I used to think otherwise of course, but precisely because I'm capable of independent thought, I gradually came to this very conclusion.

"We saw prices going up gradually and it did not spur any major change..." Has it ever crossed your mind that perhaps other freely thinking individuals disagree with you about when prices are high enough to make a change? As I said,

As prices gradually increase, fuel-efficient vehicles will become increasingly cheaper over their lifetime, relative to gas-guzzlers. Eventually, they'll reach the point where the long-term savings are significant enough to the average person to make the switch worth it, according to individual tolerances and priorities. Until that point, the price of gas clearly isn't high enough - and therefore the gas supply clearly isn't low enough - for everyone to see a benefit in fuel-efficient cars.
As it stands, the price of gas has obviously not risen high enough to make the switch worth it to enough people ("enough" meaning your own quota) given current economic realities. If you disagree and believe it is worth it to you, go out and buy a fuel-efficient car yourself, but it's silly and arrogant for you to assume that other people have the "wrong" priorities just because you have different ones. If you think the government should use force and coercion to make people do what you would (or to destroy their other options), well...perhaps you aren't such a big fan of independent thought after all? The very nature of government coercion is antithetical to independent thought, or at least independent choice, because force brooks no disagreement.

People WILL buy a new fuel-efficient car once gas prices go up high enough, because it will be in their best economic interests. As demand for such cars gradually increases and production scales along with it, the prices of such cars will come down - while gas prices simultaneously rise - until they become attractive to more and more people. Until that time, it's perfectly reasonable for people to feel that it isn't in their best economic interests unless they can reliably predict when such a time will come (and most people can't). Sure, I wouldn't go out and buy a gas-guzzling SUV right now, but I'm getting by just fine with the [relatively fuel-efficient] little Hyundai I already have. Once I actually need a new car, or once something comes out that gets enough extra mileage over what I have to justify the purchase economically, I will revisit the issue. I don't need the government's cash for clunkers program (for example), which has basically done little but take cheap cars off the market and screw over poorer people altogether (along with taxpayers and many car dealerships).



All these technologies to wean us off of oil are being funded or otherwise aided by government. The fact you think the market can deal with this indicates that you know little about the subject.
Is insulting other people's intelligence and knowledge [and baselessly claiming superiority by comparison] all you are capable of? It's irrelevant, demeaning, and self-congratulatory, and it appears far too often in your posts. Is it an ego thing, or a way of reassuring yourself, or what? Geez. The fact I think the market can deal with this is exactly the point of contention, is it not? If your argument actually has merit, I'm sure it can stand on its own without you making a baseless - and totally tired and generic - assertion that my position is borne of ignorance.

Yes, alternative technologies are being aided by the government NOW, at least in some capacity. However, you totally glossed over what I said about the Department of Energy, regulations, and patent squatting! Do you know how hard it is to get the permits for, say, a nuclear power plant? Do you know about all of the photovoltaic technology patents that big oil bought up to prevent solar power from taking hold decades ago? The only reason the market can't "deal" with this is because government has been tying its hands with these very things I'm mentioning and you're pretending don't exist. (...and yes, patent squatting is a problem with government rather than the market, since patents are government-granted exclusive privileges.) Sure, maybe the heavily regulated market can't deal with this, but the free market is an entirely different animal...or at least a healthy animal with all of its limbs intact.



The market's reaction to $140 oil was the near bankruptcy of General Motors, Chrysler, and Ford. Had that occurred under such scenarios without government assistance of some sort they would have liquidated. That would take down suppliers, dealers, and countless other connected industries. We would definitely see oil consumption go down, because the economy would collapse. A collapsing economy does not bode well for innovation.
General Motors, Chrysler, and Ford went nearly bankrupt because they couldn't compete against foreign car makers. This is a multilayered problem having to do with:
Poorer engineering and reliability, or at least the perception thereof amongst consumers
Poorer management (think micromanagement vs. kaizen)
A labor force made of increasingly expensive union workers, when the union has coercive power under the law
The fact that you think General Motors, Chrysler, and Ford's troubles stem from the price of gas is...baffling. It has much more to do with being totally outclassed by their competition, at least in the minds of consumers.

Also, you're talking about the collapse of three companies destroying suppliers, dealers, and connected industries, but again you're missing another crucial point. Why do you think there were only three major US auto makers in the first place? Do you think it's a market problem, or might the lack of any upstarts possibly have something to do with the cost of being Nader-approved (aside from complying with all other regulations :rolleyes: )?

This is what regulations do, after all: They increase market entry barriers, make it unreasonable to run smaller businesses, and destroy competition...which results in long-standing oligopolies. At some point, these oligopolies then become "too big to fail," because their failure would result in the sudden collapse of a large industry and a surge of unemployment. Big government sure works out well for them, doesn't it? Importantly, I believe this is the primary reason why neither major party allows genuine free market principles to enter political discourse: Megacorporations LIKE regulations up to a certain point, i.e. the point where such regulations ensure their industry dominance without cutting into profit margins excessively.

All of this also illustrates the following important point: If you think you're justified in using government coercion to achieve some goal and "improve" the economy, you'd better be damn sure you're right about it working, and you'd better be damn sure the side effects aren't worse than the problem you're fixing. Otherwise, you just used force (not persuasion, but force) against people for naught, and made things worse for them economically to boot. Considering this is what pretty much always happens, I think it takes a grotesque degree of arrogance to think <insert obvious and short-sighted regulatory idea here> will somehow be a wise use of coercion, let alone a just one.

You still haven't answered the question I asked you in my last post, by the way.