[sdduuuude]

davelj – you remind me ALOT of my brother.

[sdduuuude]

davelj – you remind me ALOT of my brother.

[sdduuuude]

davelj – you remind me ALOT of my brother.

[sdduuuude]

davelj – you remind me ALOT of my brother.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=justme]>> == sdduuuude

>>Staying out of debt is a peaceful and honest activity. Nobody has the right to force them away from it, in my opinion.

Using your own type of argument, I could and will argue that wasting oil now imposes an energy debt on the public in the future. So how come that is ok while monetary debt is not? I want that we all stay out of energy debt, through democratic political means. Using your own words, are you gong to force me away from it because of your “inalienable right”?

>>So, note – taking on public debt and mandating MPG requirements both force people away from actions that are peaceful and honest.

That depends completely on some arbitrary choice that you make as to what constitutes “peaceful and honest”.

And by the way, is it “peaceful an honest to waste oil when the US military wastes hundreds of thousands of lives and, by the way, also incurs trillions in public debt dollars to support it?

>>Because, justme, I have very rigorous, objective definition of what is and what isn’t a right. I follow the series of actions all the way through and identify which actions force other people away from any peaceful and honest activity.

I’m not so sure that your definitions are very rigorous nor objective. And therein lies the problem of your stated method.
If you ask me, your whole argument that creating public monetary debt is somehow fundamentally different than wasting oil (creating public energy debt) does not hold up.

I don’t expect to be able to convince you, but there may be others that gain some insight from this discussion.

>>Lets be clear – I don’t want to waste oil.

I am pleased to hear that, and there is absolutely no sarcasm intended by me in saying so. Thank you.[/quote]

The choice of what is peaceful and honest is not arbitrary. It is clearly defined. Not worth going into now.

“So how come that (wasting oil) is ok while monetary debt is not?”

The difference is – when I buy oil and use (waste?) it, I am wasting oil that is my own. I make a decision about my own oil (gas). When the government takes on debt, someone else makes a decision about my money. So – wasing oil = I make a decision about my stuff. Public debt = someone else makes decisions about my stuff.

I think we agree on public debt. However, I infer from your comments that you feel that we and our children have the right to the oil that exists in the world today. I don’t believe that.

(I don’t own any oil. Thus, I don’t have the right to it. I do own my money, thus I have the right to keep it and not be forced to pay back money that someone else chose to borrow.)

Right now, in today’s world, in reality – that oil belongs to someone else. Not me. Not you. Not our children. As soon as you say that our children have the right to that oil, you violate the rights of the actual owners of the oil. You are stuck – a person with children and no oil. You have no right to leave them oil that you do not own.

As far as “externalities” go, there are plenty. At the root of the externality discussion would be – how has the existing ownership of oil been determined? Probably not a pretty story. But, I am quite sure that neither I nor you are entitled to any of it unless we purchase it.

Thank you for sticking w/ the discussion. I continued it because you seem reasonable and asked fair questions.

Rights discussions are always important.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=justme]>> == sdduuuude

>>Staying out of debt is a peaceful and honest activity. Nobody has the right to force them away from it, in my opinion.

Using your own type of argument, I could and will argue that wasting oil now imposes an energy debt on the public in the future. So how come that is ok while monetary debt is not? I want that we all stay out of energy debt, through democratic political means. Using your own words, are you gong to force me away from it because of your “inalienable right”?

>>So, note – taking on public debt and mandating MPG requirements both force people away from actions that are peaceful and honest.

That depends completely on some arbitrary choice that you make as to what constitutes “peaceful and honest”.

And by the way, is it “peaceful an honest to waste oil when the US military wastes hundreds of thousands of lives and, by the way, also incurs trillions in public debt dollars to support it?

>>Because, justme, I have very rigorous, objective definition of what is and what isn’t a right. I follow the series of actions all the way through and identify which actions force other people away from any peaceful and honest activity.

I’m not so sure that your definitions are very rigorous nor objective. And therein lies the problem of your stated method.
If you ask me, your whole argument that creating public monetary debt is somehow fundamentally different than wasting oil (creating public energy debt) does not hold up.

I don’t expect to be able to convince you, but there may be others that gain some insight from this discussion.

>>Lets be clear – I don’t want to waste oil.

I am pleased to hear that, and there is absolutely no sarcasm intended by me in saying so. Thank you.[/quote]

The choice of what is peaceful and honest is not arbitrary. It is clearly defined. Not worth going into now.

“So how come that (wasting oil) is ok while monetary debt is not?”

The difference is – when I buy oil and use (waste?) it, I am wasting oil that is my own. I make a decision about my own oil (gas). When the government takes on debt, someone else makes a decision about my money. So – wasing oil = I make a decision about my stuff. Public debt = someone else makes decisions about my stuff.

I think we agree on public debt. However, I infer from your comments that you feel that we and our children have the right to the oil that exists in the world today. I don’t believe that.

(I don’t own any oil. Thus, I don’t have the right to it. I do own my money, thus I have the right to keep it and not be forced to pay back money that someone else chose to borrow.)

Right now, in today’s world, in reality – that oil belongs to someone else. Not me. Not you. Not our children. As soon as you say that our children have the right to that oil, you violate the rights of the actual owners of the oil. You are stuck – a person with children and no oil. You have no right to leave them oil that you do not own.

As far as “externalities” go, there are plenty. At the root of the externality discussion would be – how has the existing ownership of oil been determined? Probably not a pretty story. But, I am quite sure that neither I nor you are entitled to any of it unless we purchase it.

Thank you for sticking w/ the discussion. I continued it because you seem reasonable and asked fair questions.

Rights discussions are always important.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=justme]>> == sdduuuude

>>Staying out of debt is a peaceful and honest activity. Nobody has the right to force them away from it, in my opinion.

Using your own type of argument, I could and will argue that wasting oil now imposes an energy debt on the public in the future. So how come that is ok while monetary debt is not? I want that we all stay out of energy debt, through democratic political means. Using your own words, are you gong to force me away from it because of your “inalienable right”?

>>So, note – taking on public debt and mandating MPG requirements both force people away from actions that are peaceful and honest.

That depends completely on some arbitrary choice that you make as to what constitutes “peaceful and honest”.

And by the way, is it “peaceful an honest to waste oil when the US military wastes hundreds of thousands of lives and, by the way, also incurs trillions in public debt dollars to support it?

>>Because, justme, I have very rigorous, objective definition of what is and what isn’t a right. I follow the series of actions all the way through and identify which actions force other people away from any peaceful and honest activity.

I’m not so sure that your definitions are very rigorous nor objective. And therein lies the problem of your stated method.
If you ask me, your whole argument that creating public monetary debt is somehow fundamentally different than wasting oil (creating public energy debt) does not hold up.

I don’t expect to be able to convince you, but there may be others that gain some insight from this discussion.

>>Lets be clear – I don’t want to waste oil.

I am pleased to hear that, and there is absolutely no sarcasm intended by me in saying so. Thank you.[/quote]

The choice of what is peaceful and honest is not arbitrary. It is clearly defined. Not worth going into now.

“So how come that (wasting oil) is ok while monetary debt is not?”

The difference is – when I buy oil and use (waste?) it, I am wasting oil that is my own. I make a decision about my own oil (gas). When the government takes on debt, someone else makes a decision about my money. So – wasing oil = I make a decision about my stuff. Public debt = someone else makes decisions about my stuff.

I think we agree on public debt. However, I infer from your comments that you feel that we and our children have the right to the oil that exists in the world today. I don’t believe that.

(I don’t own any oil. Thus, I don’t have the right to it. I do own my money, thus I have the right to keep it and not be forced to pay back money that someone else chose to borrow.)

Right now, in today’s world, in reality – that oil belongs to someone else. Not me. Not you. Not our children. As soon as you say that our children have the right to that oil, you violate the rights of the actual owners of the oil. You are stuck – a person with children and no oil. You have no right to leave them oil that you do not own.

As far as “externalities” go, there are plenty. At the root of the externality discussion would be – how has the existing ownership of oil been determined? Probably not a pretty story. But, I am quite sure that neither I nor you are entitled to any of it unless we purchase it.

Thank you for sticking w/ the discussion. I continued it because you seem reasonable and asked fair questions.

Rights discussions are always important.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=justme]>> == sdduuuude

>>Staying out of debt is a peaceful and honest activity. Nobody has the right to force them away from it, in my opinion.

Using your own type of argument, I could and will argue that wasting oil now imposes an energy debt on the public in the future. So how come that is ok while monetary debt is not? I want that we all stay out of energy debt, through democratic political means. Using your own words, are you gong to force me away from it because of your “inalienable right”?

>>So, note – taking on public debt and mandating MPG requirements both force people away from actions that are peaceful and honest.

That depends completely on some arbitrary choice that you make as to what constitutes “peaceful and honest”.

And by the way, is it “peaceful an honest to waste oil when the US military wastes hundreds of thousands of lives and, by the way, also incurs trillions in public debt dollars to support it?

>>Because, justme, I have very rigorous, objective definition of what is and what isn’t a right. I follow the series of actions all the way through and identify which actions force other people away from any peaceful and honest activity.

I’m not so sure that your definitions are very rigorous nor objective. And therein lies the problem of your stated method.
If you ask me, your whole argument that creating public monetary debt is somehow fundamentally different than wasting oil (creating public energy debt) does not hold up.

I don’t expect to be able to convince you, but there may be others that gain some insight from this discussion.

>>Lets be clear – I don’t want to waste oil.

I am pleased to hear that, and there is absolutely no sarcasm intended by me in saying so. Thank you.[/quote]

The choice of what is peaceful and honest is not arbitrary. It is clearly defined. Not worth going into now.

“So how come that (wasting oil) is ok while monetary debt is not?”

The difference is – when I buy oil and use (waste?) it, I am wasting oil that is my own. I make a decision about my own oil (gas). When the government takes on debt, someone else makes a decision about my money. So – wasing oil = I make a decision about my stuff. Public debt = someone else makes decisions about my stuff.

I think we agree on public debt. However, I infer from your comments that you feel that we and our children have the right to the oil that exists in the world today. I don’t believe that.

(I don’t own any oil. Thus, I don’t have the right to it. I do own my money, thus I have the right to keep it and not be forced to pay back money that someone else chose to borrow.)

Right now, in today’s world, in reality – that oil belongs to someone else. Not me. Not you. Not our children. As soon as you say that our children have the right to that oil, you violate the rights of the actual owners of the oil. You are stuck – a person with children and no oil. You have no right to leave them oil that you do not own.

As far as “externalities” go, there are plenty. At the root of the externality discussion would be – how has the existing ownership of oil been determined? Probably not a pretty story. But, I am quite sure that neither I nor you are entitled to any of it unless we purchase it.

Thank you for sticking w/ the discussion. I continued it because you seem reasonable and asked fair questions.

Rights discussions are always important.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=justme]>> == sdduuuude

>>Staying out of debt is a peaceful and honest activity. Nobody has the right to force them away from it, in my opinion.

Using your own type of argument, I could and will argue that wasting oil now imposes an energy debt on the public in the future. So how come that is ok while monetary debt is not? I want that we all stay out of energy debt, through democratic political means. Using your own words, are you gong to force me away from it because of your “inalienable right”?

>>So, note – taking on public debt and mandating MPG requirements both force people away from actions that are peaceful and honest.

That depends completely on some arbitrary choice that you make as to what constitutes “peaceful and honest”.

And by the way, is it “peaceful an honest to waste oil when the US military wastes hundreds of thousands of lives and, by the way, also incurs trillions in public debt dollars to support it?

>>Because, justme, I have very rigorous, objective definition of what is and what isn’t a right. I follow the series of actions all the way through and identify which actions force other people away from any peaceful and honest activity.

I’m not so sure that your definitions are very rigorous nor objective. And therein lies the problem of your stated method.
If you ask me, your whole argument that creating public monetary debt is somehow fundamentally different than wasting oil (creating public energy debt) does not hold up.

I don’t expect to be able to convince you, but there may be others that gain some insight from this discussion.

>>Lets be clear – I don’t want to waste oil.

I am pleased to hear that, and there is absolutely no sarcasm intended by me in saying so. Thank you.[/quote]

The choice of what is peaceful and honest is not arbitrary. It is clearly defined. Not worth going into now.

“So how come that (wasting oil) is ok while monetary debt is not?”

The difference is – when I buy oil and use (waste?) it, I am wasting oil that is my own. I make a decision about my own oil (gas). When the government takes on debt, someone else makes a decision about my money. So – wasing oil = I make a decision about my stuff. Public debt = someone else makes decisions about my stuff.

I think we agree on public debt. However, I infer from your comments that you feel that we and our children have the right to the oil that exists in the world today. I don’t believe that.

(I don’t own any oil. Thus, I don’t have the right to it. I do own my money, thus I have the right to keep it and not be forced to pay back money that someone else chose to borrow.)

Right now, in today’s world, in reality – that oil belongs to someone else. Not me. Not you. Not our children. As soon as you say that our children have the right to that oil, you violate the rights of the actual owners of the oil. You are stuck – a person with children and no oil. You have no right to leave them oil that you do not own.

As far as “externalities” go, there are plenty. At the root of the externality discussion would be – how has the existing ownership of oil been determined? Probably not a pretty story. But, I am quite sure that neither I nor you are entitled to any of it unless we purchase it.

Thank you for sticking w/ the discussion. I continued it because you seem reasonable and asked fair questions.

Rights discussions are always important.

[sdduuuude]

I agree – I am violating their right to clean air, water, etc.

Note the words “low-smog” in my post. Lets make that “no smog” then.

This is why I made a distinction between low-MPG regulations and low-pollution regulations earlier.

I don’t consider anything an externality. Everything matters. Double-standards are not allowed. Usually, practicality makes real-life different from the theory, but the theory acts as a prett good guide.

When you argue with me, don’t argue with the Libertatian viewpoint. Argue with my viewpoint. The more I hear what people think Libertarians are, the less I think I am one.

[sdduuuude]

I agree – I am violating their right to clean air, water, etc.

Note the words “low-smog” in my post. Lets make that “no smog” then.

This is why I made a distinction between low-MPG regulations and low-pollution regulations earlier.

I don’t consider anything an externality. Everything matters. Double-standards are not allowed. Usually, practicality makes real-life different from the theory, but the theory acts as a prett good guide.

When you argue with me, don’t argue with the Libertatian viewpoint. Argue with my viewpoint. The more I hear what people think Libertarians are, the less I think I am one.

[sdduuuude]

I agree – I am violating their right to clean air, water, etc.

Note the words “low-smog” in my post. Lets make that “no smog” then.

This is why I made a distinction between low-MPG regulations and low-pollution regulations earlier.

I don’t consider anything an externality. Everything matters. Double-standards are not allowed. Usually, practicality makes real-life different from the theory, but the theory acts as a prett good guide.

When you argue with me, don’t argue with the Libertatian viewpoint. Argue with my viewpoint. The more I hear what people think Libertarians are, the less I think I am one.

[sdduuuude]

I agree – I am violating their right to clean air, water, etc.

Note the words “low-smog” in my post. Lets make that “no smog” then.

This is why I made a distinction between low-MPG regulations and low-pollution regulations earlier.

I don’t consider anything an externality. Everything matters. Double-standards are not allowed. Usually, practicality makes real-life different from the theory, but the theory acts as a prett good guide.

When you argue with me, don’t argue with the Libertatian viewpoint. Argue with my viewpoint. The more I hear what people think Libertarians are, the less I think I am one.

[sdduuuude]

I agree – I am violating their right to clean air, water, etc.

Note the words “low-smog” in my post. Lets make that “no smog” then.

This is why I made a distinction between low-MPG regulations and low-pollution regulations earlier.

I don’t consider anything an externality. Everything matters. Double-standards are not allowed. Usually, practicality makes real-life different from the theory, but the theory acts as a prett good guide.

When you argue with me, don’t argue with the Libertatian viewpoint. Argue with my viewpoint. The more I hear what people think Libertarians are, the less I think I am one.

[sdduuuude]

(This was in the early 70’s, methinks.)

I think a common peak value was 4 or 5 billion but it varies alot, depending on the inputs, which affect how different variables relate to each other. The peak-to-steady-state value also fluctuated.

The remarkable thing about the model was not the peak value, but the fact that the shape was always the same. It rose to a peak, and a drop always came before the steady state.

[Author]

Posts