Sign out
Bimmerpost
Login
BMW E39 5-Series Forum | 5Post.com
BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read  
Go Back   BMW E39 5-Series Forum | 5Post.com > BIMMERPOST Universal Forums > Off-Topic Discussions Board > Politics/Religion

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      06-02-2019, 06:58 AM   #45
Grumpy Old Man
Lieutenant Colonel
Grumpy Old Man's Avatar
Canada
3192
Rep
1,952
Posts

 
Drives: Porsche 993, 2015 MB GLK
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Niagara on the Lake

iTrader: (0)

No. There's absolutely no uncertainty. Climate change is real and is caused by humans. The science proved this beyond any reasonable doubt back in the 1990s. Climatologists have pretty much moved on from making this point and are now spending their time feeling smug about being right (the current trends are matching 1980s-1990s models with high degree of precision) and figuring out when exactly we'll all be dead if we don't do anything.

I don't want to get into a debate with you on weather climate change is real or not of man made or not. I believe the climate changes, that's really obvious but I'm not convinced that it's man made, has man polluted and effected the environment, absolutely but your assertion that it's settled is a view of some but I don't believe all.

Appreciate 1
      06-02-2019, 02:07 PM   #46
CigarPundit
On the road to serfdom
CigarPundit's Avatar
United_States
1050
Rep
622
Posts

 
Drives: 2018 F80 M3 DCT, 2019 Raptor
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Los Angeles

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2018 F80 M3 DCT  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by ynguldyn View Post
Nash and Pareto basically put the final nails in the coffin of that idea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ynguldyn View Post
Free markets are Pareto efficient only on paper. In real life you need governments to deal with market failures. What is typically understood as a "small government" would not be sufficiently equipped to handle the larger scale failures. Two most obvious examples: infrastructure and climate change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ynguldyn View Post
Why are you talking about centralized planning here at all? No one is trying to establish a USSR-style system. The conversation is about the role of government in a free market economy. My (and pretty much any non-extremist economist's) objection is to the idea that the government has little to no useful function.
You seem to be a moving target. In response to my articulation of the general economic and political principles that guide me, you stated that (1) free markets are only efficient "on paper" and that something other than "small government," i.e., "big government" is necessary to deal with "market failures." Now you are setting up a a straw man by claiming that my position is that government has little to no useful function. Neither I nor any of the people I cited hold this belief.

Nothing you have stated challenges the principle I was advancing, i.e., that big government is harmful to both individual liberty and economic efficiency and productivity. Further, nothing you have stated demonstrates that free markets are inefficient without big government intervention.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ynguldyn View Post
Again, you seem to imply that the alternative to purely free markets is socialism. And again I have to point out that I wasn't talking about eliminating the free market system, and that no Western government, even in the countries with the governments much larger than ours, owns asphalt plants or dump trucks. The governments determine what roads are needed, source and allocate funds for design, construction, and maintenance, and choose private companies that do the work. Allowing free markets to manage the whole process will be obviously inefficient.
Your claim was that free markets are not efficient except "on paper." Again, I have yet to hear anything from you that supports this claim. Your other claim was that small government is insufficient because free markets will be inefficient without big government intervention. You pointed to infrastructure as an example. Frankly, I think this is a nonsequitur. The question of whether building and planning infrastructure is a proper role of government is separate from the question of whether the private or public sector would do so more efficiently. Central planning for an interstate highway system undoubtedly has some advantages--and I did not really challenge this, so I'm not sure what your point is here. Also, when did I mention socialism?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ynguldyn View Post
No. There's absolutely no uncertainty. Climate change is real and is caused by humans. The science proved this beyond any reasonable doubt back in the 1990s. Climatologists have pretty much moved on from making this point and are now spending their time feeling smug about being right (the current trends are matching 1980s-1990s models with high degree of precision) and figuring out when exactly we'll all be dead if we don't do anything.
I think this statement is revealing of an anti-scientific mind set. Science is about challenging models and hypotheses, not dogmatic adherence to them with pronouncements of "certainty."

Of course there is uncertainty. The notion that we have a complete understanding of the climate system is demonstrably false, and I would challenge you to point to any real climate scientist who makes this claim. The alarmist predictions and headlines that drive most of the debate is based upon computer models that fall far short of accounting for all of the factors and mechanisms in the real world climate system. These models have been consistently wrong, and use variables that are populated with values not grounded in actual data because the mechanisms are not understood. Hell, we don't even completely understand physics. There is no scientific discipline that we completely understand with certainty. This might be instructive:

[u2b]
[/u2b]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ynguldyn View Post
Climate change is a classic externality. Free markets are not Pareto efficient in the presence of externalities. Therefore, government intervention is beneficial.
I'm aware of the concept of externalities, as are the Nobel Prize winning economists I cited. I never made the claim that free markets produce a perfect theoretical model of efficiency. I merely stated that the more government intervention you have, the less efficient and productive the economy becomes. You seem to believe that big government produces higher efficiency. This is demonstrably untrue, notwithstanding the effects of externalities. Moreover, the notion that we should reorder our economy to replace fossil fuels with wind, solar, and other "green energy" boondoggles, or that a carbon tax will create a more efficient economy rests on the assumptions that (1) the planet is doomed if we keep using fossil fuels, (2) that a carbon tax will avoid this result, and (3) that free markets will not develop energy alternatives on their own when fossil fuels become sufficiently scarce or harmful. I am not convinced at all that any of these assumptions are true.
__________________
"God bless our troops...Especially our snipers.

Last edited by CigarPundit; 06-02-2019 at 07:00 PM..
Appreciate 3
arkie6317.50
MKSixer14489.50

      06-02-2019, 02:15 PM   #47
DF
Major
226
Rep
1,246
Posts

 
Drives: F23
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Sherman Oaks

iTrader: (0)

I dont generally vote for candidates. Living in California, every race is a forgone conclusion before it even begins. I do vote on props tho. Some are conservative, others not. I just vote what I think is right for me.
Appreciate 0
      06-02-2019, 04:32 PM   #48
1mm2
Lieutenant
277
Rep
445
Posts

 
Drives: M2
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Northern exposure

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Genieman View Post
Serious question here, if you identify strongly with either side, what would it take for you to SERIOUSLY consider either voting for the other Siders's candidate or even switching sides altogether?
I go where my capital is treated best first and foremost. If a particular candidate/party equals more money in my pocket then they get my vote. Everything else is secondary. Shallow and selfish I know but human nature is what it is.
Appreciate 0
      06-02-2019, 04:51 PM   #49
Genieman
First Lieutenant
192
Rep
303
Posts

 
Drives: 340i xDrive
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: United States

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by vocan View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Genieman View Post
Serious question here, if you identify strongly with either side, what would it take for you to SERIOUSLY consider either voting for the other Siders's candidate or even switching sides altogether?
I go where my capital is treated best first and foremost. If a particular candidate/party equals more money in my pocket then they get my vote. Everything else is secondary. Shallow and selfish I know but human nature is what it is.
This is normal, and everyone has their own specific hierarchy of needs. Most will vote with their wallets, some who feel oppressed because of a certain issue, sexism, racism etc. will rank those issues higher than even money.

The sad part is that Govt is a big PR machine. Republicans are supposedly "fiscal conservatives," but not really. Democrats are on the side of those who "feel" (but statistically aren't necessarily) oppressed, but they aren't.
Appreciate 2
MKSixer14489.50

      06-02-2019, 08:52 PM   #50
CigarPundit
On the road to serfdom
CigarPundit's Avatar
United_States
1050
Rep
622
Posts

 
Drives: 2018 F80 M3 DCT, 2019 Raptor
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Los Angeles

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2018 F80 M3 DCT  [0.00]
[u2b]
[/u2b]
__________________
"God bless our troops...Especially our snipers.
Appreciate 0
      06-03-2019, 10:00 AM   #51
Captain Blood
Pirate and thief, avast
Captain Blood's Avatar
United_States
7580
Rep
9,562
Posts

 
Drives: 135i DCT
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Tortuga

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2012 135  [5.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Genieman View Post
Serious question here, if you identify strongly with either side, what would it take for you to SERIOUSLY consider either voting for the other Siders's candidate or even switching sides altogether?

Just curious because all day people discuss their viewpoints on here but I don't think a single persons' perspective has ever been changed by someone with opposing perspextive. So debating is kinda purposeless. If you can't change someone's mind your only upside is "winning" a debate which is of little utility.
I plan on doing what I did in 2016: Vote for the democrat for president and vote GOP on the rest of the ticket. I had voted for 1 democrat previous to that, in 1986 for my local house rep. Hopefully the Dems won't have a bunch of voters be dumbasses like the GOP in 2016 when they nominated Trump. I still wonder: Why did anyone vote for Trump in the GOP primary? Did IQ's suddenly drop?

Though I can't say that voting for Sanders is an option. I just know that voting for Trump is off the table.
__________________
My next name will probably be RoboCop or Hektor
Appreciate 0
      06-03-2019, 12:57 PM   #52
TheWatchGuy
Major
TheWatchGuy's Avatar
1943
Rep
1,493
Posts

 
Drives: 335xi
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: CO

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwarzschild Radius View Post
I plan on doing what I did in 2016: Vote for the democrat for president and vote GOP on the rest of the ticket. I had voted for 1 democrat previous to that, in 1986 for my local house rep. Hopefully the Dems won't have a bunch of voters be dumbasses like the GOP in 2016 when they nominated Trump. I still wonder: Why did anyone vote for Trump in the GOP primary? Did IQ's suddenly drop?

Though I can't say that voting for Sanders is an option. I just know that voting for Trump is off the table.
Ive felt that if the party had decided after the 1st or 2nd round of voting to drop down to one candidate to oppose trump, he wouldnt have won. Cruz, Rubio and Kasich split way too many votes until it was too late.

However, I dont think any of those 3 would have beat Hillary. Trump got a lot of votes from those that were tired of politics as usual, and Trump represented a change to the career politician.

In the end, i believe the Party knew that, and so they were "backing" Trump. Can't say id be happier with Hillary as president, thats for sure, but i would have been happier with Kasich or Cruz.
__________________
@drunkcowatches on ig

Am I a watch guy, or do i watch guys?
Appreciate 2
MKSixer14489.50

      06-03-2019, 01:15 PM   #53
Captain Blood
Pirate and thief, avast
Captain Blood's Avatar
United_States
7580
Rep
9,562
Posts

 
Drives: 135i DCT
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Tortuga

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2012 135  [5.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWatchGuy View Post
Ive felt that if the party had decided after the 1st or 2nd round of voting to drop down to one candidate to oppose trump, he wouldnt have won. Cruz, Rubio and Kasich split way too many votes until it was too late.

However, I dont think any of those 3 would have beat Hillary. Trump got a lot of votes from those that were tired of politics as usual, and Trump represented a change to the career politician.

In the end, i believe the Party knew that, and so they were "backing" Trump. Can't say id be happier with Hillary as president, thats for sure, but i would have been happier with Kasich or Cruz.
Any Republican not named Trump (or Carson) would have beaten HRC not only in the electoral college, but also in the popular vote.
__________________
My next name will probably be RoboCop or Hektor
Appreciate 0
      06-03-2019, 06:19 PM   #54
Haywood
I know a thing or 2 about a thing or 2...
Haywood's Avatar
United_States
1850
Rep
2,710
Posts

 
Drives: E36 M3 Coupe, e39 M5
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: LI, NY

iTrader: (11)

Garage List
2003 BMW e39 M5  [0.00]
1997 BMW e36 M3  [0.00]
I actually liked the Clintons until dead bodies started showing up. At least Trump isn't responsible for any deaths...that we know of.
__________________
2003 Le Mans Blue e39 M5 Dinan S1
1997 Alpine White e36 M3 (the old gal)
2013 Mineral White e92 M3 (sold )
2014 Carbon Black 650i M-sport (sold)
Appreciate 0
      06-03-2019, 08:39 PM   #55
irishbimmer
Banned
1133
Rep
1,568
Posts

 
Drives: Silverstone M6 CP, Bulldozer,
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Orange County, CA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Haywood View Post
I actually liked the Clintons until dead bodies started showing up. At least Trump isn't responsible for any deaths...that we know of.
Like the children that were claiming political asylum that have died while transiting the political process at the border?

So, the Clinton's killed people to further their political aims? Is that what you are stating as a fact?
Appreciate 1
      06-03-2019, 11:09 PM   #56
UncleWede
Long Time Admirer, First Time Owner
UncleWede's Avatar
United_States
7753
Rep
7,326
Posts

 
Drives: E90 325i Arctic
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Oxnard, CA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by irishbimmer View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haywood View Post
I actually liked the Clintons until dead bodies started showing up. At least Trump isn't responsible for any deaths...that we know of.
Like the children that were claiming political asylum that have died while transiting the political process at the border?

So, the Clinton's killed people to further their political aims? Is that what you are stating as a fact?
Because none died prior to 2016 :

If there weren't so many walking 1000s of miles to seek "asylum" instead of staying in the first reasonable country that should provide it maybe they wouldn't be so sick when they got to Texas
Appreciate 1
MKSixer14489.50

      06-03-2019, 11:47 PM   #57
ScottyRyan2019
Licensed Professional Slacker
ScottyRyan2019's Avatar
United_States
514
Rep
402
Posts

 
Drives: BMW 340i xDrive and BMW X3 M40
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: St Paul, MN

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by UncleWede View Post
Because none died prior to 2016 :

If there weren't so many walking 1000s of miles to seek "asylum" instead of staying in the first reasonable country that should provide it maybe they wouldn't be so sick when they got to Texas
I really don't think that matters. Once they are in the custody of US officials, the US officials are responsible for their care and well-being.
Appreciate 0
      06-04-2019, 02:51 AM   #58
///M4ster Yoda
Brigadier General
///M4ster Yoda's Avatar
2859
Rep
3,434
Posts

 
Drives: '16 F82 M4
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Long Island, NY

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottyRyan2019 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by UncleWede View Post
Because none died prior to 2016 :

If there weren't so many walking 1000s of miles to seek "asylum" instead of staying in the first reasonable country that should provide it maybe they wouldn't be so sick when they got to Texas
I really don't think that matters. Once they are in the custody of US officials, the US officials are responsible for their care and well-being.
I think you should be responsible for their care and well being. Here is an idea. Open up your home (moms basement?) and take them in.

Put aside a quarter of your paycheck and do your part.

Ya I don't think any of you Faux Bleeding Hearts will do any of that.
__________________
'03 330 '04 325 '08 328 '11 335 '11 335is
'14 335 '16 340 '16 M4 (Retired)
4 ED's 1 PCD
Current Stable: '19 X3 (Wifey) '20 ZCP M4 (Mine)
Appreciate 3
Dave 90TT1563.50
SakhirM49400.00
MKSixer14489.50

      06-04-2019, 06:10 AM   #59
ScottyRyan2019
Licensed Professional Slacker
ScottyRyan2019's Avatar
United_States
514
Rep
402
Posts

 
Drives: BMW 340i xDrive and BMW X3 M40
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: St Paul, MN

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ///M4ster Yoda View Post
I think you should be responsible for their care and well being. Here is an idea. Open up your home (moms basement?) and take them in.

Put aside a quarter of your paycheck and do your part.

Ya I don't think any of you Faux Bleeding Hearts will do any of that.
Your reply was quite ignorant. The Constitution and laws based off of it direct the government to provide health care services to those in their custody.
Appreciate 0
      06-04-2019, 08:48 AM   #60
TheWatchGuy
Major
TheWatchGuy's Avatar
1943
Rep
1,493
Posts

 
Drives: 335xi
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: CO

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by irishbimmer View Post
Like the children that were claiming political asylum that have died while transiting the political process at the border?

So, the Clinton's killed people to further their political aims? Is that what you are stating as a fact?
So many deaths. Goddam Trump was killing them before he even got to office...

https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/07/07/...ion-detention#
__________________
@drunkcowatches on ig

Am I a watch guy, or do i watch guys?
Appreciate 1
SakhirM49400.00

      06-04-2019, 08:53 AM   #61
TheWatchGuy
Major
TheWatchGuy's Avatar
1943
Rep
1,493
Posts

 
Drives: 335xi
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: CO

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwarzschild Radius View Post
Any Republican not named Trump (or Carson) would have beaten HRC not only in the electoral college, but also in the popular vote.
i dont think that is accurate, but we will never know.

Based on my interactions with people during the primaries and leading up to the election, i think the independents would have had more votes. Trump, being a borderline republican, was able to get independents as well as republicans to vote for him.

edit: based on these polls, cruz wouldnt have but kasich maybe. but kasich was never going to get the GOP nomination. to progressive for them. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...nton-5162.html

granted, they show hillary beating trump by about the same amount as beating cruz, so who knows.
__________________
@drunkcowatches on ig

Am I a watch guy, or do i watch guys?
Appreciate 1
MKSixer14489.50

      06-04-2019, 08:54 AM   #62
Genieman
First Lieutenant
192
Rep
303
Posts

 
Drives: 340i xDrive
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: United States

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by irishbimmer View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haywood View Post
I actually liked the Clintons until dead bodies started showing up. At least Trump isn't responsible for any deaths...that we know of.
Like the children that were claiming political asylum that have died while transiting the political process at the border?

So, the Clinton's killed people to further their political aims? Is that what you are stating as a fact?
Your point is total BS. If you want to lay the blame for those deaths at hands of our govt you're gonna have to do more than just claim they were in Govt custody at the time of their death and therefore it's the govt's fault. You're gonna have to show and prove specific actions taken by the govt (or lack of action, negligence) that directly lead to the deaths. If I have cancer or aids and come to your house for dinner and died during the meal, it wouldn't be fair for people to claim that you killed me without clear cut evidence. If I was perfectly healthy, then without evidence there may be suspicion. The people who died, took a 1000 mile journey mostly by foot and hitchhiking. They were dehydrated and malnourished, and likely picked up a disease or two along the way. Given that, you're gonna have to do a lot better in assigning blame to the govt as the principle cause of death than just claiming it happened on their watch.
Appreciate 4
UncleWede7752.50
SakhirM49400.00
MKSixer14489.50

      06-04-2019, 11:19 AM   #63
UncleWede
Long Time Admirer, First Time Owner
UncleWede's Avatar
United_States
7753
Rep
7,326
Posts

 
Drives: E90 325i Arctic
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Oxnard, CA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottyRyan2019 View Post
I really don't think that matters. Once they are in the custody of US officials, the US officials are responsible for their care and well-being.
When LA has a major earthquake, and 1000s are trying to get into overstretched ERs, but there isn't enough room/Drs, that doesn't fall on the govt for not providing enough hospitals.
Appreciate 0
      06-04-2019, 02:11 PM   #64
ScottyRyan2019
Licensed Professional Slacker
ScottyRyan2019's Avatar
United_States
514
Rep
402
Posts

 
Drives: BMW 340i xDrive and BMW X3 M40
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: St Paul, MN

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by UncleWede View Post
When LA has a major earthquake, and 1000s are trying to get into overstretched ERs, but there isn't enough room/Drs, that doesn't fall on the govt for not providing enough hospitals.
Those people are not in the custody of the gov't. Once you are in the custody of a state of the federal gov't, you are in essence a ward of that gov't and they are required to provide you with certain necessities such as food and healthcare.
Appreciate 0
      06-04-2019, 02:49 PM   #65
///M4ster Yoda
Brigadier General
///M4ster Yoda's Avatar
2859
Rep
3,434
Posts

 
Drives: '16 F82 M4
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Long Island, NY

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottyRyan2019 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ///M4ster Yoda View Post
I think you should be responsible for their care and well being. Here is an idea. Open up your home (moms basement?) and take them in.

Put aside a quarter of your paycheck and do your part.

Ya I don't think any of you Faux Bleeding Hearts will do any of that.
Your reply was quite ignorant. The Constitution and laws based off of it direct the government to provide health care services to those in their custody.
And your mind is in fairytale land.

I know exactly what America's laws are regarding illegal and legal immigration.

THEY NEED TO BE CHANGED ASAP!

MAGA
__________________
'03 330 '04 325 '08 328 '11 335 '11 335is
'14 335 '16 340 '16 M4 (Retired)
4 ED's 1 PCD
Current Stable: '19 X3 (Wifey) '20 ZCP M4 (Mine)
Appreciate 0
      06-04-2019, 02:55 PM   #66
DETRoadster
Space Force - 4 Star General
DETRoadster's Avatar
5501
Rep
2,517
Posts

 
Drives: M2 MG 6MT / Moto Guzzi V7
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Seattle

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWatchGuy View Post
i dont think that is accurate, but we will never know.

Based on my interactions with people during the primaries and leading up to the election, i think the independents would have had more votes. Trump, being a borderline republican, was able to get independents as well as republicans to vote for him.

edit: based on these polls, cruz wouldnt have but kasich maybe. but kasich was never going to get the GOP nomination. to progressive for them. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...nton-5162.html

granted, they show hillary beating trump by about the same amount as beating cruz, so who knows.
I would have voted for Kasich over HRC in a freakin' heartbeat.
Appreciate 1
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:04 AM.




5post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST