Topic: What is the opposite of "Fuck you, got mine?" - page 3. (Read 13396 times)

Rudd-O, the king of content and substantive posts!

You're invited to read my post again, and if you are able, demonstrate comprehension of the points and terms presented. I really cannot fathom what point you're trying to make here, except some type of self imposed obligatory defense of your own ideals by rewording some snippets of what I said in a slightly different way, and then through some implied redefinition of words according to your own whims, hope that it sounds officious enough to stand in for a rebuttal.

That would be, "Come at me bro! And bring a lawyer."

Judging by this statement, we were a MUCH richer place when we burned wood for heat and used steam and horses for locomotion. I would tend to disagree.

I'm... not quite sure you're using the concepts correctly. Each individual specimen is possible wealth, and areas that contain a diversity of species in a sustainable manner are quite literally areas with abundant natural/biological resources, but I don't think "biodiversity" is specifically the word to use here. All it really means is variety of life. So, in my mind, vast untapped resources can potentially become wealth. Whether they are varied or not doesn't really matter.
Obtaining that wealth in a sustainable manner is another entirely different matter, and really doesn't depend on whether capitalism or something else is involved.

Libertarians would not have limited BP's liability to the small amount Obama has (mind you, I was for Obama this past election). Instead, they could continue to sue and demand money until BP put enough resources into the problem to get it fixed. If BP kept avoiding payment, libertarians would attack BP more directly, possibly at the sources, without there being a US military (paid by those living in the gulf I might add) around to protect BP's assets. BP would have to hire its own security, the expenses of which would be directly proportional to how much they've pissed the world off. BP would be made an example of, and other oil companies would see how much of a liability it is to drill in the Gulf; a liability that currently doesn't exist because spills result in a slap on the wrist, and the government doing the cleanup. More so, the fine that BP paid comes out of the company profits, which come directly out of shareholders' stocks. Most of those shareholders are just people with mutual funds in their retirement accounts who had nothing to do with what happened. Libertarians wouldn't go after the corporate entity, they would go after those responsible directly. Again, no socialist government to stop them. Other companies, seeing the liability of drilling in the gulf (and having to pay for their own protection instead of making us do it) would raise their gas prices, making people rely on things like bicycles, public transportation, and electric trains and vehicles much more. As a result, there will be fewer emissions and destructive urban sprawl, since living 45 minute's drive from your job would be considered too expensive. And the gulf would be left alone, or at least very carefully maintained.

TL;DR You know how the trailer trash right-wingers vote against their own self interests, such as universal healthcare and fair wages, by voting for the republican party? That weird disconnect exists within environmentalists socialists (not using socialist in a derogatory way mind you) by voting for government that provides oil companies with free military protections, shelters the CEOs with corporate liability protections, and pays to clean up their messes.

Boy, not clicking that "show" link really results in a saner thread, and a much more enjoyable reading experience.

What most of the people whom I'm no longer reading label "FYGM," is actually "got mine, go get your own," or "got mine, would you like to buy it?"


The standard parasite mantra goes something like this:

"You 'got yours' by exploiting others. You should give back, and share with those less fortunate. They need it, you have it, and not giving it to them freely is evil."

You have two healthy lungs, and this smoker has lung cancer. Give.

Hey I'll take it a wee bit further to highlight INNOVATION.

After the great gulf culling and the social conversion of the coast into a wasteland there would be more than a few collapsed markets for foodstuffs. The price of oysters and fish skyrocket, causing underground aquaponics farms without any form of regulation to spring up everywhere. As each is found out as a source of salmonella or other toxin, as all corners are cut to ensure highest returns, the operators are forced to move quickly under new names to ensure that their customers never know about their past. Small arms combat between private contractors securing diy bioreactor feed for large scale aquaponics farms become more and more common as there are less and less foods, which only happens in food-poor neighborhoods. People living in rich neighborhoods complain about the parasites that want protection from the cartels that slowly establish more permanent gulf-food alternative farms need to pick themselves up by their bootstraps and shovel manure into the fish vats for 14 hours a day instead of 10. The poor are tasked with finding organic matter, paid by the pound, to throw in the feed vats. Those that couldn't afford the endless tests necessary to ensure factory grown crops by financiers with no concern for quality are safe die without burial money. Another innovative idea is discovered.....

"Here, have some."

"Let me help you with that."

"Just keep it."

It is hard to have a meaningful discussion on this topic in a forum, due to severe cultural differences. Individualism is not universal.

So the people living there would first attempt to defraud anyone they could to take title of their land in effected areas as they got the hell out of there. Then the people who foolishly invested in the toxic assets would strip the assets there clean to recoup their losses, especially the trees. Low income people are offered free living in the abandonded areas if they work at the newly repurposed factory areas, now much cheaper to run with the complete collapse of the local economy creating a new 3rd world along the gulf. This increases pollution making the gulf catastrophe worse. The impoverished parasites there complain about their 35 year lifespan and the ocean continues getting worse because it was nobodies responsibility to fix it.

E: hey, in the ole USA we did all 3!

Libertarian societies are comprised of competing agents which aspire to pick the lowest hanging fruit until exhaustion. As the price of the fruit rises in price, the effort and technology applied to harvest said fruit increases, as it can be sold for more. This continues until exhaustion, at which, belatedly, efforts are made to harvest and utilize the next lowest hanging fruit. In each case, the world becomes a less richer place.

One life form contains x data, which can be studied at many levels, such as the genetic level, the microscopic level (internal structures), the macroscopic level (such as methods of locomotion), and the society level (how their society works). Benefits of studying such a life form leads to advancements in medicine, material science, engineering, computer science, urban planning, etc.

Multiply x data by 100,000, and we have 100,000 times the potential knowledge within these life forms. That's the benefit of variety. Biodiversity is variety. Biodiversity is untapped wealth.

Furthermore, and independent of all that untapped knowledge, biodiversity exists within rich ecosystems, where the life forms, dependent on each other, are components of a system which produces services, in this case, ecosystem services. The more biodiversity within an ecosystem, in general, means the greater productivity in ecosystem services. Humanity depends on those ecosystem services in many ways. Our well being, and wealth depend on the biodiversity within those ecosystem services. They are our foundation. Without them, we would not have wealth. Here are some key terms for you to help you along the way to better understand how everything relates: trophic cascades, ecosystem services, island biogeography.

Little word game, then:

So, the Gulf oil spill is still pretty terrible. The gulf has lost value to the life there, the people there, and the cities that are on it's border. It has cost the environment  and the doings of mankind. The cost to repair it would be, it appears, too great of a burden to bear. Where is the wealth growth in ignoring it and hoping it fixes itself?

Socialists might demand restrictions on oil well drilling at unsealable depths to prevent it from happening again and begin the long campaign of readjusting the human interactions along the gulf in order to mitigate the damage, at least in the human world. Oil production would scale back immediately as a result, throwing charts and graphs akimbo. Public transit would have to run more often (you can't raise fees as it's already paid for, likely) and in extremes new GPM requirements might be pushed through on vehicles to ensure the supply isn't strained to the point it causes further catastrophe. Scientists would likely be called in to create a rehabilitation plan and offered a large grant to see it through.

Communists would close up businesses in the gulf area to force the population to move elsewhere to mitigate the damage, run stories about how undesirable the area is, and mitigate human harm by forced relocation. Those that refused to relocate would be made responsible for cleaning it up, but as it isn't a state sponsored action would likely suffer heavy shortages of supplies. The deserted areas would make a great place for a new penal colony, and the locals could use the help.

Libertarians would ____________________________________________________________.

But, back to the OP topic, does anyone *coughPeter Ugslycough* have any issues with my list of FY,GM examples that seem to cross both socialist and capitalist economic sides, or has anything more to add to the topic? Like, maybe, why are libertarians lab led with the FY,GM label, when the FY portion suggests they would keep something from others, when all they ask for is a fair price?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. By wealth, I meant possession or access to different physical things and specific services. That wealth doesn't go up because we have more resources, it goes up because we invent new ways of using those resources in more economical and optimized ways. My whole point on this stupid wealth argument is that our brains, and the inventions we use them to come up with, are our biggest resource, and it's virtually unlimited. Thus the comparison between poor nations that rely mostly on their natural resources, and wealthy nations that have service-based economies. What did you mean?

Wealth can be comprised of resources. Biodiversity is a variety of life forms. Since I don't know what wealth there is in a concept of "variety," please enlighten me.

I did. The reason the “when to stop rule” doesn't seem like it applies is because whenever we seemingly reach the point where rising marginal cost equals declining marginal benefit, someone comes out with an invention that greatly increases marginal benefits again, and so we keep rising.
In trade, there is no real difference between a city, a nation, or a planet. So there's really no difference between capital being mobile within nations and capital being within planet earth. In deregulated international commerce, it's not nations that do the trade, it's individuals. A person in one place is selling their labor, time, skills, and at times health and the health of their surrounding environment, for the wealth of another person in another location. It doesn't matter if the other person is in China, France, or US.
And it's true that trade may not be voluntary, but the price you charge is. If it costs you more to avoid polluting your home, charge more for your product. If you can't avoid it, transition to another kind of specialization. Or move. Stop putting value in "place where I grew up," and put value in your own health, well being, and capabilities.

Incorrect. Resources are wealth. Now, please answer the question. What is the wealth that exists in biodiversity?

Did you not read my link to Herman Daly's article? http://capitalinstitute.org/blog/growth-and-free-trade-brain-dead-dogmas-still-kicking-hard

Furthermore, despite your nice post about refining crude, you failed to mention the costs beyond infrastructure and labor to harvest it, and the costs of burning it.

There is no wealth in biodiversity. It's an ecological and biological system, not a financial one. True, you can ruin it by recklessly pursuing financial wealth, and you can likewise ruin your wealth by not managing the biodiversity properly, but they are two separate systems, so don't conflate them.
(It's like asking, "Do you know what wealth exists in a waterfall?" It's a nonsensical question)