Topic: Politics does not matter. Only power. (Read 3052 times)

Perfect.  They make excellent all-natural fertilizer. 
*Honest?  EPA's pointing guns at people?  I always thought they were tree-huggin' wusses.  Go EPA

The EPA is not the only environmental incentive and not the most effective either. But it is the one that goes around pointing guns at non-violent people and threatening them with imprisonment, stealing their property and money.   

I see what you mean there.  The market responded by creating gob'ments, which, in turn, created agencies like EPA.  All a part of the natural and glorious fabric of life  

That is a good thing more efficient methods of production lowers cost and increases availability. What you are complaining about is the market doing its job... finding better methods and innovation is what we want. The real complaint is the rape of the natural world right?

over harvesting, C02 emissions?  

There are examples of over harvesting... but that did lead to wildlife conservation projects, seed planting initiatives, save the whales, seals, dolphins and every other animal on the planet. That is a market response to a change in demand. Which has included many completely voluntary efforts by private industries to use and promote sustainable practices.. The truth is that industry has the most at stake when it comes to the sustainability of it's market and that is what regulates markets... It is self regulated. If they over harvest price will fall and they will be incentivized to harvest less if demand exceeds supply they will be incentivized to find methods to increase production if those methods are unsustainable they will be incentivized to find methods that are sustainable if they can not they will be incentivized to find alternative products.
  
  

Do you understand how rising prices encourages more efficient, more effective, and technologically superior harvesting methods, and encourages new harvesters to enter the market?

oil

why dont you give an example where the supply /demand curve has not behaved the way that Dumbfriut has described.. Lets hear this vast list of natural resources that under go irreversible transformation upon consumption, there must be volumes filled with all of the resources man has squandered into oblivion..      

Liberal arts school, left wing, naturalist who happens to hate the largest part of nature.. Mankind, believes that governments are necessary and that force must be used to maintain order?

 

I see you're bringing up copper as well. Why?

Copper has nothing to do with my statement regarding how the supply and demand curve doesn't effectively describe certain markets. Absolute fail, even when I repeated my original post.

You have been hitting the nail on the head with every post. FirstAscent has been blowing my mind with his flawed logic, but it doesnt surprise me. All of the world has been conditioned to believe markets and profit motives are evil and are at the root of social injustice and inequality. The very thing that is merit based and allocates scare resources to the people who people who will make the best use them for the common good is demonized. Freedom, free markets , the rejection of force as a means to manipulate people, voluntarism, honest money, that is what is needed.

FirstAsent was undoubtedly educated at a liberal arts college. I love his personal attacks in regards to your understanding of economics, when he cant see why copper would have anything to do with an example of the market adapting and changing to supply conditions..
Some tree huger who believes that man is a vile creature who will destroy his own existence if not for EPA.



    natural resources which undergo irreversible transformation upon consumption----he gave an example of this- oil.

To get back on topic.


It is these types of statements that are used to centralize power to the point that you have to put up with the whims of those who gain that power based upon such premises.

Bitcoin will be able to put a stop to most of these economical centralizations but when it comes to military power and force there are larger hurdles to overcome.

Let's go back to my original and concise post, where I have bolded the already obvious components of it:

Sorry, Elwar, that was a response to DumbFruit, and his learned opinion on peak copper.

Haha... Sorry Elwar... And thanks Anon136.

I'll leave I at that.
rofl

Whatever dude...

I was very clear and concise in my first post. One merely needs to stop being an idiot for the minute in which it is read. In fact, I even counted on non-idiocy while one reads it, so the conversation could proceed efficiently from there. I expected too much.

Copper resources?

From now on all of my new threads in Politics will be self moderated.

When you're right, you're right. 
All that hysteria about world's copper resources being depleted by 2014 was just a bunch of weak-kneed liberal hooey. 
The Great Copper Crisis of 2003 was just a fiendish ploy perpetrated by communist agents and their cronies -- the brainwashed dupes of mainstream media.
That's where all the copper was going:  Child Pronz!

trying to have a discussion with that person is infuriating.

all he knows how to do is herring and strawman but hes REALLY REALLY good at it. he will make a herring argument that is related in some ways and not in others, and he will subtly steer the conversation in the direction of the non relevant aspects of his herring argument, taking careful action to insure that the focus of the conversation is changed often enough to ensure that no one claim is ever proved. he then proceeds to correctly point out that you never provided enough evidence to prove any particular claim, and claim that he won because of this. he will show the claims that he did prove, which arnt ever relevant to what was supposed to be the focus of the discussion. if you try to point out that the things that he proved dont refute what they were supposed to have refuted, than you just go back to the beginning and run through another loop of what i just described in this paragraph.

it is possible to debate against this but you have to be VERY careful not to allow him to sideline the conversation. you have to be extremely diligent to stay on track reminding with every post what it is that he is supposed to be proving. he will bring up irrelevant things and you have to prove that they are irreverent but you cant allow the conversation to branch out again, he will try to use the discussion of the relevance to redefine the thesis, then bring up something else irrelevant to this new thesis that you have to prove is irrelevant and he will redefine the thesis again.

personally i just recommend ignoring him unless you think there is value in practicing at debating against people who are really good at using dishonest tactics to "win" what they see as a competition.

This couldn't be anymore cut and dry. You wanted examples where the free market handled scarce resources without using them to exhaustion. I gave you two examples, and you pretend it's not relevant to the discussion.

You're either trolling me, stupid, or you're not very good at English. Take your pick.

I'm being serious. Try reading what I've been saying. Otherwise, you're just wasting your time and mine arguing with what you think I've been saying. Ridiculous.

Are you being serious right now?

Does anyone else think my response wasn't appropriate to what he was asking?

With Power comes everything else, money, politics, prestige, anything you can name.