"BEST" temperature record study surprises skeptics

By: Angela Fritz , 3:38 PM GMT on November 03, 2011

Share this Blog
19
+

Last month, a team of scientists from Berkeley called the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) group released results from research they did on the Earth surface temperature record. Though there have been numerous studies and time series created on surface temperature, they wanted to take an independent look at the data and create a new temperature record. What they found was surprising to some in the "skeptic" community, though not surprising to most climate scientists.

Dr. Richard Muller is the founder and scientific director of the BEST group, which is made up of physicists, statisticians, and climatologists. Though Dr. Muller has been described as a climate change "skeptic" and "denialist," he has an impressive and extensive curriculum vitae in physics, including being a consultant for the U.S. Department of Defense, and a MacArther Foundation Fellow, and the recipient of the National Science Foundation Alan T. Altman Award. His skepticism is evidenced most frequently in the press by his funding from the Koch brothers, who have made billions of dollars in the oil industry. The BEST project also accepted funding from Koch, among many other organizations, though the funders had no influence over methodology or results, which is almost always the case in peer reviewed science. The BEST group also includes Dr. Judith Curry, the chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, who has recently been vocal about the need for a more transparent scientific process, and more eyes on the data, especially when it comes to research on man-made global warming and the temperature record.

The BEST team was open with their hypothesis: they expected to find that, when using temperature stations that other organizations failed to include, the warming trend wouldn't be present, or at least not as dramatic. Their objectives are listed on their website (which also includes access to data and submitted papers), which include:

-- Merging land surface data into a raw dataset that's in a common format and easy to use
-- Developing new and potentially better ways of processing, average, and merging the data
-- Creating a new global temperature record
-- To provide not only the raw data and the resulting record, but also the code and tools used to get there, making the process as transparent as possible



Figure 1. Locations of the the 39,028 temperature stations in the Berkeley Earth data set (blue). Stations classified as rural are plotted on top in black.

The BEST project collaborators combined data from 15 sources that, wherever possible, did not include the tried and true data that the "big three" (NASA, NOAA, or HadCRU) used in their analyses, mainly the GHCN Monthly dataset, which is widely used because of its requirements that the each station in the data set have plenty of observations, no gaps, and no erroneous data. However, the BEST project was born to create a new global surface temperature record, and to "see what you get" if you use observations that other institutions have weeded out. BEST looked at data from 39,028 different temperature measurement stations from around the globe (Figure 1), and developed an averaging process to merge the stations into one record, which you see below in comparison to previous records that have been constructed.



Figure 2. Temperature time series from the big three: NASA Goddard Institute for Space Science (NASA GISS, blue), NOAA (green), and the Hadley Centre and Climate Research Unit of East Anglia (HadCRU, red) along with the results from the BEST project (black).

The result was a new land surface temperature series to be added to the well-cited records of NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU, in addition to some truly independent, amateur compilations. The new temperature record agrees with the records from "the big three," and agrees with them on a warming of 1°C since 1950. BEST also addressed concerns raised by the skeptic community about station bias and urban heat island effect. They conclude that the urban heat island effect does not contribute significantly to the land temperature rise, given that urban area is only 1% of the land area in the record. Also, they looked at the stations that Anthony Watts has reported as "poor" quality, and have found that they also showed the same warming as the stations that were reported as "OK." This helps to show that temperature stations were not "cherry picked" in previous studies for warming trends, but for honest station quality.

The addition of another (eventually) peer-reviewed temperature series is good, and more eyes looking at the data is good, but the result is not surprising. However, it might have changed the minds of some skeptics who have been wanting to see an analysis from scientists that they find trustworthy. I think Dr. Muller sums their results up nicely in his Wall Street Journal opinion article:

When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn't know what we'd find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that.


The BEST project has four papers out for review in various journals. Having released the results to the public eye before undergoing the scrutiny of peer review, they've also made some updates to the analysis since these papers were submitted, thanks to a peer review process of its own: the internet.

Links and references:

  • Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature

  • BEST FAQ

  • BEST Press Release


  • Angela

    Reader Comments

    Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

    Post Your Comments

    Please sign in to post comments.

    or Join

    Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

    Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

    Viewing: 658 - 608

    Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14Blog Index

    658. Some1Has2BtheRookie
    9:37 PM GMT on November 21, 2011
    Quoting paratomic:
    There're a couple ways to increase the standard of living and to effectively have a safety net:

    1) Enforce it through government
    .. This is where you tax your people or force them to fund a safety net for the poorest and unemployed.
    2) Improve your technology and planning
    .. This is where the COST of living goes down in response to things like better policy, better understanding of behavior and better technology. Even our poorest and most desperate people are still better off than many of our ancestors, whom had to work hard for the bare minimum of what we now enjoy today.

    I prefer option (2). But we have to be careful that we don't invest too much in technology and planning. For example, if my new heating system saves the company $400/month then I must decide whether to reinvest that in further research/development, my employees (their wages), my income (my pocket) and so on. If I ignore my employees, their wages will go down as the efficiency of the business goes up. The predictable result is the employees will either protest or they'll just simply be layed off as efficiency improvements make them obsolete. If I put that money in my own pocket, I risk losing efficiency and/or angering my employees. The question is what ratio should go into technology and planning?

    So how do we improve our technology and planning?

    Well, we need an economy and government that can facilitate these things.

    The role of government is to protect the commons (the people, principally) and to pool the wisdom of its citizens into usable form for this purpose. This ensures that we can live on our planet and use its resources without breaching the rights of others. As we all know, we share atoms and air and water and the space around us in a dynamic chaos of equilibrium. Nothing we do is in isolation and, one way or another, impacts the lives of others. This is why our government, composed of the people, must preside over it (lawfully). Only by having everyone together in a peaceable assembly can we grasp at the combined wisdom and strike a balance for freedom and fairness, acceptable to all.

    The role of economy is to move services and goods effectively here and there so that the society can function. If I have a skill or a talent then I need a method to market it. If I want a skill or a talent then I need a method to get access to it. And so on. All of these energies are spinning everywhere and roads and highways must be there to guide them.

    How the government and economy combine with each other is probably something way above my head. But one thing is sure: if you don't win the people's hearts and minds, then it's game over and you won't get better technology or planning.

    These ramblings are subject to my own unique ignorance. Forgive me.

    PS: I know this isn't entirely on-topic, but many members have brought up topics that're related to this. And in a small way, my post does relate to this whole AGW thing because government is a big factor in it. For example, AGW is government thing because it deals with the commons. We all share this climate, see? Climate is part of the commons. The actions of people impact the climate, as is argued. And the climate impacts people. So the government does what it has always done: attempts to protect the commons (to protect the people), assuming that those who have assembled can agree.



    I would say that you are right on topic.
    Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4772
    657. paratomic
    9:10 PM GMT on November 21, 2011
    There're a couple ways to increase the standard of living and to effectively have a safety net:

    1) Enforce it through government
    .. This is where you tax your people or force them to fund a safety net for the poorest and unemployed.
    2) Improve your technology and planning
    .. This is where the COST of living goes down in response to things like better policy, better understanding of behavior and better technology. Even our poorest and most desperate people are still better off than many of our ancestors, whom had to work hard for the bare minimum of what we now enjoy today.

    I prefer option (2). But we have to be careful that we don't invest too much in technology and planning. For example, if my new heating system saves the company $400/month then I must decide whether to reinvest that in further research/development, my employees (their wages), my income (my pocket) and so on. If I ignore my employees, their wages will go down as the efficiency of the business goes up. The predictable result is the employees will either protest or they'll just simply be layed off as efficiency improvements make them obsolete. If I put that money in my own pocket, I risk losing efficiency and/or angering my employees. The question is what ratio should go into technology and planning?

    So how do we improve our technology and planning?

    Well, we need an economy and government that can facilitate these things.

    The role of government is to protect the commons (the people, principally) and to pool the wisdom of its citizens into usable form for this purpose. This ensures that we can live on our planet and use its resources without breaching the rights of others. As we all know, we share atoms and air and water and the space around us in a dynamic chaos of equilibrium. Nothing we do is in isolation and everything, one way or another, impacts the lives of others. This is why our government, composed of the people, must preside over it (lawfully). Only by having everyone together in a peaceable assembly can we grasp at the combined wisdom and strike a balance for freedom and fairness, acceptable to all.

    The role of economy is to move services and goods effectively here and there so that the society can function. If I have a skill or a talent then I need a method to market it. If I want a skill or a talent then I need a method to get access to it. And so on. All of these energies are spinning everywhere and roads and highways must be there to guide them.

    How the government and economy combine with each other is probably something way above my head. But one thing is sure: if you don't win the people's hearts and minds, then it's game over and you won't get better technology or planning.

    These ramblings are subject to my own unique ignorance. Forgive me.

    PS: I know this isn't entirely on-topic, but many members have brought up topics that're related to this. And in a small way, my post does relate to this whole AGW thing because government is a big factor in it. For example, AGW is government thing because it deals with the commons. We all share this climate, see? Climate is part of the commons. The actions of people impact the climate, as is argued. And the climate impacts people. So the government does what it has always done: attempts to protect the commons (to protect the people), assuming that those who have assembled can agree.
    Member Since: September 17, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 182
    656. Some1Has2BtheRookie
    8:54 PM GMT on November 21, 2011
    Quoting Xandra:
    Rich nations 'give up' on new climate treaty until 2020

    Governments of the world's richest countries have given up on forging a new treaty on climate change to take effect this decade, with potentially disastrous consequences for the environment through global warming.

    Ahead of critical talks starting next week, most of the world's leading economies now privately admit that no new global climate agreement will be reached before 2016 at the earliest, and that even if it were negotiated by then, they would stipulate it could not come into force until 2020.

    Postponing an operational agreement until 2020 would be fatal to hopes of avoiding catastrophic climate change, according to scientists, economists and green campaigners.

    Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency (IEA), and one of the world's foremost authorities on climate economics, told the Guardian:
    "If we do not have an international agreement whose effect is put in place by 2017, then the door to [holding temperatures below 2C] will be closed forever."


    Detta är inte goda nyheter. Som ordspråket säger, "game over!".
    Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4772
    655. Xandra
    8:48 PM GMT on November 21, 2011
    Rich nations 'give up' on new climate treaty until 2020

    Governments of the world's richest countries have given up on forging a new treaty on climate change to take effect this decade, with potentially disastrous consequences for the environment through global warming.

    Ahead of critical talks starting next week, most of the world's leading economies now privately admit that no new global climate agreement will be reached before 2016 at the earliest, and that even if it were negotiated by then, they would stipulate it could not come into force until 2020.

    Postponing an operational agreement until 2020 would be fatal to hopes of avoiding catastrophic climate change, according to scientists, economists and green campaigners.

    Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency (IEA), and one of the world's foremost authorities on climate economics, told the Guardian:
    "If we do not have an international agreement whose effect is put in place by 2017, then the door to [holding temperatures below 2C] will be closed forever."
    Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
    654. Some1Has2BtheRookie
    8:35 PM GMT on November 21, 2011
    Quoting theshepherd:


    Obviously my answer to your question escaped you.
    Maybe, I was a bit too assuming.

    Capitalism in today's society cannot exist without corporations. Lawyers make your idea naive and unrealistic.

    You still haven't answered my question. You choose to deflect with Sophism.

    If you knew what you were talking about, you could answer in one sentence.

    My question is no more subjective than yours.
    Careful with those three syllable words, they can trip you up.

    BTW...Miss Manners is a Liberal hack.



    Yes. Three syllable words do have their tripping points - Subjective - "However, the manner in which the senses and the mind are used depends upon the individual using them. It is this variable, necessarily individual process that we refer to as "subjective"."

    Since there is no definitive answer to your question (left to interpretation), then yes, it is subjective.

    Does Capitalism desire or need corporations in order to survive? The definitive answer is, NO. You may be able to show how some companies may prefer to operate under corporations but, NO. Capitalism never has and never will need corporations in order for Capitalism to survive. I have, in fact, shown you examples of how corporations can stifle Capitalism.
    Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4772
    653. overwash12
    4:50 PM GMT on November 21, 2011
    Is this still the climate change blog? We are getting nowhere with this argument,but I guess we are not with climate change either,so carry on!LOL
    Member Since: June 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1497
    652. Some1Has2BtheRookie
    2:50 PM GMT on November 21, 2011
    Quoting theshepherd:


    Obviously my answer to your question escaped you.
    Maybe, I was a bit too assuming.

    Capitalism in today's society cannot exist without corporations. Lawyers make your idea naive and unrealistic.

    You still haven't answered my question. You choose to deflect with Sophism.

    If you knew what you were talking about, you could answer in one sentence.

    My question is no more subjective than yours.
    Careful with those three syllable words, they can trip you up.

    BTW...Miss Manners is a Liberal hack.



    Your question could be answered in several different ways and using a single sentence to do so and still satisfy the question. Which specific answer you are looking for does escape me, for I have no idea as to which answer you would want to hear. No matter which answer I could give you, it would be quite easy for you to say, "Yes, but ...." or, "that is not the answer I was looking for". Any answer I could give would have the same chance of being both correct and incorrect at the same time. ASK a real question that only has one answer.

    My question, on the other hand, has a straight forward answer and there is only one correct answer. Even though you suggest that the answer for the past does not apply today. Yes, it does still apply today. Corporations do more to stifle innovation and new companies than any civil liberties union could possibly do. You are worried about lawsuits? Try to market a new product and there are corporations that have purchased 1,000s of vaguely worded patents and will sue you out of existence for patent infringements. When we allow corporations to patent the human genome then we have killed any innovation beyond what that corporation will innovate OR innovation will come at a much higher price when companies must purchase patent rights from these corporations. Corporations also will make a modest adjustment to their existing patents and have their patent rights extended. Modest adjustments that have nothing to do with the performance of the product. Pharmaceutical corporations do this on a regular basis to keep the generic drugs off the market and to extend their patent rights on a drug where the patent was about to expire. Corporations will be the downfall of Capitalism, not its savior! Yes! Capitalism would survive just fine without corporations. Yes!, is the ONLY correct answer to my question.

    Since you say that Miss Manners is a Liberal hack, perhaps you would benefit by becoming more a of Liberal hack yourself. At least when it comes to showing some manners.
    Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4772
    651. Patrap
    2:22 PM GMT on November 21, 2011
    650. Patrap
    2:20 PM GMT on November 21, 2011
    The sheep must have slipped past the Leader, seems.


    ACK!!!!!


    Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 428 Comments: 129841
    649. Neapolitan
    2:07 PM GMT on November 21, 2011
    Quoting theshepherd:
    Capitalism in today's society cannot exist without corporations. Lawyers make your idea naive and unrealistic.

    Bull. Every Burmese farmer selling his milk door-to-door; every woman peddling handmade beads in a Ghana market; every Inuit fisherman carrying his catch to the village; all the men, women, and children worldwide who make a living by direct-selling the goods he or she produces--none of these need a corporation, none want one, and each be worse off under one. Thinking otherwise? Now that's naive.

    I often wonder whether those who promote corporatism ever consider that the worker unions they so revile fear were created as a necessary response to the all-ruining hand of corporatism. And I wonder whether that bothers them.
    Quoting theshepherd:
    Miss Manners is a Liberal hack.


    Obviously; thoughtfulness, grace, and propriety appear to be almost entirely nonexistent on the other side.
    Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13800
    648. theshepherd
    12:14 PM GMT on November 21, 2011
    Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


    Your question is completely subjective in nature. You can list the chronological order of events of every instance of interactions between every corporation and the ACLU. Anyone would be able to view this data and form their own conclusions as to how the ACLU transformed American corporations. Even if you tried to evaluate how the ACLU transformed one single American corporation you would still be still using subjective reasoning to come to your conclusion.

    Now, do you wish to ask a real question? Real, in the sense that multiple answers would not satisfy the same question.


    Obviously my answer to your question escaped you.
    Maybe, I was a bit too assuming.

    Capitalism in today's society cannot exist without corporations. Lawyers make your idea naive and unrealistic.

    You still haven't answered my question. You choose to deflect with Sophism.

    If you knew what you were talking about, you could answer in one sentence.

    My question is no more subjective than yours.
    Careful with those three syllable words, they can trip you up.

    BTW...Miss Manners is a Liberal hack.

    Member Since: September 11, 2008 Posts: 9 Comments: 10165
    647. yonzabam
    10:42 AM GMT on November 21, 2011
    From the BBC website:


    Geese, ducks and swans that spend winter in wetlands of Northern Europe are changing their migration patterns as temperatures rise, say scientists.

    Researchers in Finland found some waterfowl delayed migrations by up to a month compared with 30 years ago.

    The Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust (WWT) says that numbers of some very familiar species are decreasing in the UK, as many birds do not fly as far.

    The study is published in the Journal of Ornithology.

    Lead researcher Aleksi Lehikoinen from the University of Helsinki examined three decades' worth of data from Hanko Bird Observatory in southern Finland.


    The tufted duck showed the largest change in its migration, delaying by more than a month Since 1979, volunteers there have been undertaking daily bird counts, to build up a "migration census". This revealed which species were flying south from Finland and when.

    The three-decade census revealed that "some species had been delaying their migration dates by as much as one month", Dr Lehikoinen told BBC Nature.

    Six species out of the 15 they counted set off significantly later; these included some traditional UK winter visitors, such as the greylag goose and the tufted duck.

    Dr Lehikoinen and his colleagues say this shows just how rapidly waterfowl respond to the changing climate.

    "One thing that's been found in other studies as well as ours is the temperature of the water has been increasing even more rapidly than the air temperature," the scientist said. "This means there's more food available for these species [further north]."

    Shrinking flocks

    For the UK, there may be far fewer of our annual avian visitors in evidence in the winter.

    Dr Geoff Hilton, head of species research for the WWT explained: "In this country, we're at the end of the flyway for birds coming down from Scandinavia, Russia and Siberia."

    "We're almost the last stop, so some species aren't coming at all. They'll just stay further up the flyway."

    Dr Hilton, who was not involved in this study, said it provided a snapshot that chimed with changes he and his colleagues had witnessed at the trust's largest wetlands reserve in Slimbridge, Gloucestershire.

    He used the example of white-fronted geese, which have declined by about 75% in the UK in the last decade alone.

    "At Slimbridge 30 years ago, we typically got 6,000 birds in the winter peak; now it's typically 500," said Dr Hilton.

    These shrinking flocks, Dr Hilton explained, could have knock-on effects on the wetland habitat.

    "These are quite big changes ecologically," he told BBC Nature. "If you suddenly lose thousands of geese from a wetland, there are bound to be big effects on that wetland."

    Member Since: July 20, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 3012
    646. greentortuloni
    8:57 AM GMT on November 21, 2011
    Quoting martinitony:
    Totorloni, you are losing it and are beginning to sound like James Taggart.


    That's funny. I thought the reference was Atlas shrugged but then I thought, naw, that would mean he actually read. So I looked it up to be sure (I haven't read Atlas shrugged since high school) and yup, it was Ayn Rand.

    I don't understand how you equate my posts with something taggert would have said, but it's been years since I read the book. Care to explain?

    If you do explain (but explain seriously, mind, without cliches and wihtout attempts to win a few emotional points) I'm happy to debate Ayn Rand with you and philosophy with you.

    Without looking up Ayn Rand though, because it has been years, wasn't it in the Fountainhead that the architect destroyed all the buildings because the owners changed thier mind and added 'ugly' balconies to them? I may have forgotten the point but isn't that a rather liberal point of view?

    Now's your chance to step up to the plate. Debate or remain forever damm'd as a faint heart and cliche-ist.
    Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
    645. Some1Has2BtheRookie
    12:26 AM GMT on November 21, 2011
    Quoting theshepherd:
    I'm actually proud of myself.

    I've gone at least a week without calling anyone an idiot or a fool.


    +10

    Good to hear that your sessions with Miss Manners are having a positive effect. ;-)
    Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4772
    644. Some1Has2BtheRookie
    12:24 AM GMT on November 21, 2011
    Quoting theshepherd:


    Defection?

    The question is yours, Sir.

    I answered yours, you answer mine.


    Your question is completely subjective in nature. You can list the chronological order of events of every instance of interactions between every corporation and the ACLU. Anyone would be able to view this data and form their own conclusions as to how the ACLU transformed American corporations. Even if you tried to evaluate how the ACLU transformed one single American corporation you would still be still using subjective reasoning to come to your conclusion.

    Now, do you wish to ask a real question? Real, in the sense that multiple answers would not satisfy the same question.
    Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4772
    643. theshepherd
    12:14 AM GMT on November 21, 2011
    I'm actually proud of myself.

    I've gone at least a week without calling anyone an idiot or a fool.
    Member Since: September 11, 2008 Posts: 9 Comments: 10165
    642. theshepherd
    11:39 PM GMT on November 20, 2011
    Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


    I did not Google anything in my response to you, nor did I attempt to do so. I replied to you based on my knowledge of the ACLU.

    Life is not fair. Are you able to answer your own question concerning the ACLU and corporations. No Googling!


    Defection?

    The question is yours, Sir.

    I answered yours, you answer mine.
    Member Since: September 11, 2008 Posts: 9 Comments: 10165
    641. misanthrope
    11:11 PM GMT on November 20, 2011
    Quoting theshepherd:


    You should have elected to remain silent.

    I picked one I knew you could not Google.
    "How has the ACLU transformed the American Corporation from infancy to adulthood?"

    Life just ain't fair, eh?


    BTW...What does the ACLU suing a rancher and the Fed Gov't over a cow with grazing rights stepping on a gopher hole have to do with workers rights?



    The American Corporation came into existence long before the ACLU so your question is just more nonsense. I'd tell you to stick to things about which you know but that don't leave you much.

    Maybe you should try some Google before you post another comment.

    As an aside, since when have cows been granted grazing rights?





    Member Since: February 17, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 547
    640. Some1Has2BtheRookie
    11:09 PM GMT on November 20, 2011
    Quoting theshepherd:
    yup

    Google, google, google...tic...tic...tic


    I went out to get me something to eat. You do make many assumptions, do you not?
    Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4772
    639. Some1Has2BtheRookie
    11:04 PM GMT on November 20, 2011
    Quoting theshepherd:


    BTW...if you're going to quote me...don't cherry pick.


    Excuse my for being so dense. My post contained the entire post of yours that I was responding to. The only thing I quoted was your question to me, in its entirety. How, may I ask, is this "cherry picking"?
    Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4772
    638. Some1Has2BtheRookie
    11:00 PM GMT on November 20, 2011
    Quoting theshepherd:


    You should have elected to remain silent.

    I picked one I knew you could not Google.
    "How has the ACLU transformed the American Corporation from infancy to adulthood?"

    Life just ain't fair, eh?



    I did not Google anything in my response to you, nor did I attempt to do so. I replied to you based on my knowledge of the ACLU.

    Life is not fair. Are you able to answer your own question concerning the ACLU and corporations. No Googling!
    Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4772
    637. theshepherd
    10:42 PM GMT on November 20, 2011
    618. 1911maker



    Uh?
    Yo dude...there's this thingy called "intent".

    Google that one.
    Member Since: September 11, 2008 Posts: 9 Comments: 10165
    636. theshepherd
    10:39 PM GMT on November 20, 2011
    yup

    Google, google, google...tic...tic...tic
    Member Since: September 11, 2008 Posts: 9 Comments: 10165
    635. theshepherd
    10:19 PM GMT on November 20, 2011
    Quoting theshepherd:


    I suppose you are referring to your question, "Can Capitalism exist without corporations?"

    Capitalism has been in existence ever since some obscure prolific flint arrow head maker managed to gain an overwhelming surplus of goods, including wives, by trading his product for others....No, to answer your question, he did not need a corporation.

    There were no lawyers to come after his fortune because someone's teenaged son tried to rob him and he beat that sorry individual into the dirt...as well he should have.

    Now answer my question:

    "How has the ACLU transformed the American Corporation from infancy to adulthood?"


    Maybe as you ponder the question, you may come to the same conclusion I have.

    "We're not talking about trading arrow heads for buffalo hides anymore, we're talking about surviving in today's society."

    If I were to have my own construction company, would I incorporate?

    Yes Sir, I would.

    Have individuals incorporated to take advantage of loop holes?

    Yes Sir, they have.

    Wanna throw the baby out with the bath water?


    Why on earth I am speaking to a self-proclaimed socialist on capitalism is beyond me.

    So, as you sit there in your energy wasteful house trailer, built by a corporation, pondering that thirsty lizard waiting for drops of condensation from your energy wasteful air conditioning system, built by a corporation, and typing on your keyboard, built by a corporation, supplied with electricity, enabled by corporations, why don't you consider moving to China or Russia where your preferred form of government has "prospered" for ages?

    In conclusion, your question simply required thought.

    Ever heard the expression, "Put your mind in gear before you step on the gas?"







    BTW...if you're going to quote me...don't cherry pick.
    Member Since: September 11, 2008 Posts: 9 Comments: 10165
    634. theshepherd
    10:13 PM GMT on November 20, 2011
    Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


    You did answer my question, even though you used the barter system to describe this. Just a difference in "capital" and how it is acquired is all. Trading vs working for. Capitalism can and has survived quite well without corporations.

    "How has the ACLU transformed the American Corporation from infancy to adulthood?" Hmmm, since we are talking about corporations I am not certain how your concerns are more focused on civil liberties as opposed to workers' rights. The ACLU is a civil liberties union that seeks to assure that all are treated fairly and equally. They do not deal specifically with corporations. Do you suggest that corporations are the biggest offender of civil liberties? ... You seek protection from having to treat all of your employees equally and fairly? ... While I do not agree with all that ACLU has done or attempted to do, I do firmly believe in their motives. As far as I can see, the ACLU is the only entity concerned with all of us and our civil liberties. You feel you need protection from this?


    You should have elected to remain silent.

    I picked one I knew you could not Google.
    "How has the ACLU transformed the American Corporation from infancy to adulthood?"

    Life just ain't fair, eh?


    BTW...What does the ACLU suing a rancher and the Fed Gov't over a cow with grazing rights stepping on a gopher hole have to do with workers rights?

    Member Since: September 11, 2008 Posts: 9 Comments: 10165
    633. Some1Has2BtheRookie
    9:57 PM GMT on November 20, 2011
    Quoting theshepherd:


    I suppose you are referring to your question, "Can Capitalism exist without corporations?"

    Capitalism has been in existence ever since some obscure prolific flint arrow head maker managed to gain an overwhelming surplus of goods, including wives, by trading his product for others....No, to answer your question, he did not need a corporation.

    There were no lawyers to come after his fortune because someone's teenaged son tried to rob him and he beat that sorry individual into the dirt...as well he should have.

    Now answer my question:

    "How has the ACLU transformed the American Corporation from infancy to adulthood?"


    Maybe as you ponder the question, you may come to the same conclusion I have.

    "We're not talking about trading arrow heads for buffalo hides anymore, we're talking about surviving in today's society."

    If I were to have my own construction company, would I incorporate?

    Yes Sir, I would.

    Have individuals incorporated to take advantage of loop holes?

    Yes Sir, they have.

    Wanna throw the baby out with the bath water?




    You did answer my question, even though you used the barter system to describe this. Just a difference in "capital" and how it is acquired is all. Trading vs working for. Capitalism can and has survived quite well without corporations.

    "How has the ACLU transformed the American Corporation from infancy to adulthood?" Hmmm, since we are talking about corporations I am not certain how your concerns are more focused on civil liberties as opposed to workers' rights. The ACLU is a civil liberties union that seeks to assure that all are treated fairly and equally. They do not deal specifically with corporations. Do you suggest that corporations are the biggest offender of civil liberties? ... You seek protection from having to treat all of your employees equally and fairly? ... While I do not agree with all that ACLU has done or attempted to do, I do firmly believe in their motives. As far as I can see, the ACLU is the only entity concerned with all of us and our civil liberties. You feel you need protection from this?
    Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4772
    632. theshepherd
    9:34 PM GMT on November 20, 2011
    Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


    Well, theshepherd, I find your words much more elegant than the words of martinitony. Perhaps you will be able to answer my question posed to martinitony? What part of my statement is incorrect, in post# 603, and why? I feel certain that you will be able to give a more eloquent answer than martinitony but, will you actually be able to answer the question?


    I suppose you are referring to your question, "Can Capitalism exist without corporations?"

    Capitalism has been in existence ever since some obscure prolific flint arrow head maker managed to gain an overwhelming surplus of goods, including wives, by trading his product for others....No, to answer your question, he did not need a corporation.

    There were no lawyers to come after his fortune because someone's teenaged son tried to rob him and he beat that sorry individual into the dirt...as well he should have.

    Now answer my question:

    "How has the ACLU transformed the American Corporation from infancy to adulthood?"


    Maybe as you ponder the question, you may come to the same conclusion I have.

    "We're not talking about trading arrow heads for buffalo hides anymore, we're talking about surviving in today's society."

    If I were to have my own construction company, would I incorporate?

    Yes Sir, I would.

    Have individuals incorporated to take advantage of loop holes?

    Yes Sir, they have.

    Wanna throw the baby out with the bath water?


    Why on earth I am speaking to a self-proclaimed socialist on capitalism is beyond me.

    So, as you sit there in your energy wasteful house trailer, built by a corporation, pondering that thirsty lizard waiting for drops of condensation from your energy wasteful air conditioning system, built by a corporation, and typing on your keyboard, built by a corporation, supplied with electricity, enabled by corporations, why don't you consider moving to China or Russia where your preferred form of government has "prospered" for ages?

    In conclusion, your question simply required thought.

    Ever heard the expression, "Put your mind in gear before you step on the gas?"





    Member Since: September 11, 2008 Posts: 9 Comments: 10165
    631. Some1Has2BtheRookie
    9:31 PM GMT on November 20, 2011
    Quoting martinitony:


    I don't really know the motives of Roosevelt and others involved with Social Security, but I think that Social Security would long ago have fallen on bad times if not for the baby boom generation and the low birthrate of the depression. You do realize that the baby boomers have made it very possible for the "greatest generation" to retire comfortably, there being so many of us to contribute and so few of them. we also paid them great rates of interest while we developed our careers and our businesses.

    What I do know about Social Security is that they didn't plan on a huge baby boom generation in 1933 and that the promises made to my generation are going to be difficult for these much younger generations to honor. Is it a Ponzi scheme. It classifies as a yes from the economics of it, but since it is not fraudulent, we all know it can't work without major adjustments including the breaking of the promises, I suppose technically it isn't.

    Regarding your argument about those who can't take care of themselves and whether or not I care or don't care, the world is a far better place since the advent of capitalist democracy. Do you prefer feudalism? Do you prefer communism? Do you even know the difference between communism and socialism? Fascism? Nazi? Do communists and nazis take better care of their citizens than democratic capitalists? I think not because their form of governing leaves less for all.

    It is puzzling to me why any logical person would prefer more government to less government. Doesn't less mean greater freedom and more mean less freedom? We all know that some government is necessary the moment two or more humans decide to cohabit the same area, Government could be as simple as my neighbor and I agreeing not let our dogs poop in each other's yard. So, why would anyone want more government than is absolutely necessary?

    This is not a debate that can be won by either side. You know what they say, a leopard can't change its spots.



    Very well written and with so many truths.

    Social Security was set up as a supplement to any other form of retirement you may have planned. When Social Security was set up it was intended to help those that reached retirement age to have some income even when the Great Depression did allow for enough people earn enough for their own retirement. Social Security was never intended to be "the" retirement plan.

    Social Security requires more money being paid in as to being paid out to remain solvent. Is this not also true of Capitalism? Do not the same rules apply as to requiring a population growth for this plan to continue to grow, in accumulated dollars, as well? ... In theory, what happens to Capitalism when the markets have become saturated and there are no new customers to be gained. Do we market to the Venusian in order to maintain growth? Everything has an apparent breaking point. Social Security and Capitalism are not exempt from this.

    I am a firm believer in Capitalism, as opposed to any other form of an economic scheme. I have often stated that Capitalism is the greatest economic scheme that has ever been devised. I stand by my conviction in this. This, however, should not imply that Capitalism is infallible. We both know that this is not the case and history has demonstrated this many times. Capitalism presents its biggest problems whenever we try to leave it untethered and allow it to do as it will. Any adult, left to their own devices, will eventually do harm in their actions. There does not have to be intent to do so. Without any guidance, we all are prone to stray beyond our intended path.

    While I most certainly prefer a democracy or, in our case, a republic there is no evidence that Capitalism will fail under any other form of government. Capitalism seems to thrive under Communism and even Socialism. You need to look no further than China to see an example of this. The reality of the situation is that democracy has the potential to stifle Capitalism because we allow our citizens to have a voice. China can, and does, silence any voices raised against how Capitalism is being used. The reality is that Capitalism runs under a bigger risk when the people have a voice in how it is applied. ... Just a little food for thought.

    Excellent post based on the debate, martinitony.
    Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4772
    630. martinitony
    9:08 PM GMT on November 20, 2011
    Totorloni, you are losing it and are beginning to sound like James Taggart.
    Member Since: July 29, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 970
    629. Some1Has2BtheRookie
    8:33 PM GMT on November 20, 2011
    Quoting martinitony:


    I don't think I have it backwards, but if you thought I was trying to compare myself to Einstein, I apologize. I hope I am not that arrogant.


    No, sir. (OH Lord! Now I have made another assumption of you based solely upon my, as yet, unproven theory that you write like man. Have I made another improper assumption of you?)You have not presented yourself as being arrogant. You have a strong belief, based on your knowledge, and you are defending your belief. This is not arrogance. Arrogance would be applied when you expect everyone to believe as you do and to disregard their own knowledge. We, sir, are merely having a great debate. A true debate. There is no arrogance in that.
    Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4772
    628. Neapolitan
    8:20 PM GMT on November 20, 2011
    Quoting martinitony:



    I would like to give you some useful advice because I assume your moniker says something about your age. When you are in a meeting where the discussion goes into areas you don't know much about, try to keep quiet and just listen. Opening your mouth will most likely display your ignorance.

    Here is an example of the above advice. Here is a word I have never used on this board, feedback. Oh I have some idea of what it means, but I have never learned about it in any class I was in nor do I feel comfortable discussing it with those climatologists and atmospheric physicists who might be experts on the topic. I would come off as sounding foolish and ignorant if I did discuss it and anything else I had to say might be discounted.

    So, I try to stick to numbers, statistics and more general topics. I am trained in accounting , business , economics and math. My dealings in business, real estate , stock market etc. have led me into areas such as environment, wetlands, zoning and other business and government relations.

    I could tell you that the Earth appears to be warming, but also tell you that it has been warming for a long time and that during much of that warming man was not pumping significant amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Therefore, I conclude that there is no proof that man is the cause of the warming or that the Earth is going to continue warming.

    To me, what is at stake is not mankind's survival, but the nature of that survival. If you are a socialist, you want the government to control virtually all aspects of mens' lives. And if you are a Marxist, it really doesn't matter how socialism is achieved whether by lies or violence, the end justifies the means.

    Very few men are likely to die if it takes another hundred years to recognize what you all here believe, that man is the cause. Oh yes, there would be disruption and hardship. But, I am certain that millions would die and live lives of poverty because of the actions that the Al Gore's of the world would foist upon us. Economic hardship kills. Listen to that and believe it because it is true. Choose warmth or choose food. Choose transportation or medication. Choose a roof or homelessness. Poverty kills and that is what we will have more of here very soon. Your president has made that choice for so many.

    Already, hundreds of thousands no longer work in the Gulf. Now a pipeline will head to the Pacific so that Chinese dictators can maintain their power. Billions of dollars have been wasted through crony capitalism on this administrations supporters instead of that money being used to help the truly needy in our country. Watch what government intrusion into every aspect of our lives brings you. I often see this phrase used on Yahoo sock boards, "Watch and learn."

    One last thing. Capitalism is not a Ponzi scheme.

    cap·i·tal·ism
       [kap-i-tl-iz-uhm] Show IPA
    noun
    an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.


    so·cial·ism
       [soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA
    noun
    1.
    a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.


    A Ponzi Scheme is a fraudulent investing scam that promises high rates of return at little risk to investors. The scheme generates returns for older investors by acquiring new investors. This scam actually yields the promised returns to earlier investors, as long as there are more new investors.

    Funny how you could substitute the description of a Ponzi scheme for a description of Social Security, isn't it?



    I find it interesting that you advise Some1Has2BtheRookie to "keep quiet and just listen" lest he "display [his] ignorance", but then you do the exact same thing.

    "I could tell you that the Earth appears to be warming, but also tell you that it has been warming for a long time and that during much of that warming man was not pumping significant amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Therefore, I conclude that there is no proof that man is the cause of the warming or that the Earth is going to continue warming"

    That's an illogical conclusion. If in the past I was obese from eating Big Macs for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, but now I also eat Whoppers for between-meal snacks, would it be wise to conclude that Whoppers don't cause obesity?

    "To me, what is at stake is not mankind's survival, but the nature of that survival. If you are a socialist, you want the government to control virtually all aspects of mens' lives. And if you are a Marxist, it really doesn't matter how socialism is achieved whether by lies or violence, the end justifies the means"

    In reality, those who work toward a corporatist state are no different than die-hard socialists: they want an entity bigger than themselves to provide for all their needs. We've got a corporatist majority in the Supreme Court; we've got one in the House, and those aren't working very well. Those who fantasize about corporatism in all three branches of government are every bit as delusional and wrong-headed as those who'd have us return to a Soviet-style socialism; neither paradigm has worked, nor ever will.

    "Very few men are likely to die if it takes another hundred years to recognize what you all here believe, that man is the cause. Oh yes, there would be disruption and hardship. But, I am certain that millions would die and live lives of poverty because of the actions that the Al Gore's of the world would foist upon us. Economic hardship kills. Listen to that and believe it because it is true. Choose warmth or choose food. Choose transportation or medication. Choose a roof or homelessness. Poverty kills and that is what we will have more of here very soon. Your president has made that choice for so many. "

    Unfortunately, you seem to be ignoring entirely the numerous studies that clearly indicate doing nothing to mitigate climate change now is going to cost us many times what doing something now would. The only way that wouldn't matter to someone is if they were sociopathically selfish and lacked vision--though there certainly seems to be a lot of that going around. Know what I mean?

    And, yes, capitalism as currently practiced in this country is, indeed, the equivalent of a Ponzi scheme: those at the top of the pyramid rake in billions by convincing those hopeful types gathered at the bottom of the pyramid that they, too, can get to the top through hard work alone. What they don't tell those lower down is, the entire scheme is rigged in favor of those already at the top; there ain't no room for anyone else. And that's because we're not welcome, nor ever will be
    Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13800
    627. martinitony
    8:16 PM GMT on November 20, 2011
    Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


    You applied a great many words to not answer my question. I will say that you did so with some degree of elegance. ..... Are you certain that you are not a politician? Since you did reply with some degree of elegance, I will quickly defend you against anyone that would try to claim that you are really Rick Perry.

    Social Security may, indeed, turn into a ponzi scheme. Social Security was not set up as a ponzi scheme. (Capitalism cannot realistically make this claim.) Social security also never offered exaggerated claims of returns vs investment. Social Security is not now a ponzi scheme. Social Security has been fully funded by both the employee and the employer and, even today, operates at a surplus. The BIGGEST reason that Social Security faces any possibility of default is because Congress has seen fit to use these funds as a part of the general funds. This is not something that has recently began. This is something that has happened almost as soon as Social Security was set up. Another reason is that Social Security funds have also been spent in areas that it was never designed to be used for, all under the Social Security baner. Again, Congress, through the years, have changed its original intended use. Should you need some evidence that I am not a socialist then I offer to you that the employee should be the sole contributor to their Social Security account. The employer should not be required to make any contributions towards their employees' Social Security accounts.

    I must also state that I am not a sociopath that believes that everything has to be about me and to Hell with everyone else. So, in this sense, you may correctly state that I show socialistic tendencies. Now, let me see if I am able to make a correct assumption about you. Your interests lies in creating wealth for yourself and have no concerns if anyone else is also able to do so for themselves. This, to you, is their problem and you have no concerns over this. Would this be a correct assumption for me to make regarding you? Please, show some honesty in your response. Unless, of course, you truly are a politician.


    I don't really know the motives of Roosevelt and others involved with Social Security, but I think that Social Security would long ago have fallen on bad times if not for the baby boom generation and the low birthrate of the depression. You do realize that the baby boomers have made it very possible for the "greatest generation" to retire comfortably, there being so many of us to contribute and so few of them. we also paid them great rates of interest while we developed our careers and our businesses.

    What I do know about Social Security is that they didn't plan on a huge baby boom generation in 1933 and that the promises made to my generation are going to be difficult for these much younger generations to honor. Is it a Ponzi scheme. It classifies as a yes from the economics of it, but since it is not fraudulent, we all know it can't work without major adjustments including the breaking of the promises, I suppose technically it isn't.

    Regarding your argument about those who can't take care of themselves and whether or not I care or don't care, the world is a far better place since the advent of capitalist democracy. Do you prefer feudalism? Do you prefer communism? Do you even know the difference between communism and socialism? Fascism? Nazi? Do communists and nazis take better care of their citizens than democratic capitalists? I think not because their form of governing leaves less for all.

    It is puzzling to me why any logical person would prefer more government to less government. Doesn't less mean greater freedom and more mean less freedom? We all know that some government is necessary the moment two or more humans decide to cohabit the same area, Government could be as simple as my neighbor and I agreeing not let our dogs poop in each other's yard. So, why would anyone want more government than is absolutely necessary?

    This is not a debate that can be won by either side. You know what they say, a leopard can't change its spots.

    Member Since: July 29, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 970
    626. greentortuloni
    8:13 PM GMT on November 20, 2011
    Quoting martinitony:



    I would like to give you some useful advice because I assume your moniker says something about your age. When you are in a meeting where the discussion goes into areas you don't know much about, try to keep quiet and just listen. Opening your mouth will most likely display your ignorance.

    Here is an example of the above advice. Here is a word I have never used on this board, feedback. Oh I have some idea of what it means, but I have never learned about it in any class I was in nor do I feel comfortable discussing it with those climatologists and atmospheric physicists who might be experts on the topic. I would come off as sounding foolish and ignorant if I did discuss it and anything else I had to say might be discounted.

    So, I try to stick to numbers, statistics and more general topics. I am trained in accounting , business , economics and math. My dealings in business, real estate , stock market etc. have led me into areas such as environment, wetlands, zoning and other business and government relations.

    I could tell you that the Earth appears to be warming, but also tell you that it has been warming for a long time and that during much of that warming man was not pumping significant amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Therefore, I conclude that there is no proof that man is the cause of the warming or that the Earth is going to continue warming.

    To me, what is at stake is not mankind's survival, but the nature of that survival. If you are a socialist, you want the government to control virtually all aspects of mens' lives. And if you are a Marxist, it really doesn't matter how socialism is achieved whether by lies or violence, the end justifies the means.

    Very few men are likely to die if it takes another hundred years to recognize what you all here believe, that man is the cause. Oh yes, there would be disruption and hardship. But, I am certain that millions would die and live lives of poverty because of the actions that the Al Gore's of the world would foist upon us. Economic hardship kills. Listen to that and believe it because it is true. Choose warmth or choose food. Choose transportation or medication. Choose a roof or homelessness. Poverty kills and that is what we will have more of here very soon. Your president has made that choice for so many.

    Already, hundreds of thousands no longer work in the Gulf. Now a pipeline will head to the Pacific so that Chinese dictators can maintain their power. Billions of dollars have been wasted through crony capitalism on this administrations supporters instead of that money being used to help the truly needy in our country. Watch what government intrusion into every aspect of our lives brings you. I often see this phrase used on Yahoo sock boards, "Watch and learn."

    One last thing. Capitalism is not a Ponzi scheme.

    capitalism
    %u2002 %u2002[kap-i-tl-iz-uhm] Show IPA
    noun
    an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.


    socialism
    %u2002 %u2002[soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA
    noun
    1.
    a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.


    A Ponzi Scheme is a fraudulent investing scam that promises high rates of return at little risk to investors. The scheme generates returns for older investors by acquiring new investors. This scam actually yields the promised returns to earlier investors, as long as there are more new investors.

    Funny how you could substitute the description of a Ponzi scheme for a description of Social Security, isn't it?




    You are insane. You know nothing about the various systems from ones you don't mention to the ones you do.

    Billions on crony capitalism in THIS administration? Get real. Every administration but especially Bush. Haliburton much? Look at every single congressman for examples.

    If you think you can blame the loss of jobs on Obama, you are simply an idiot. The debt is mostly Bush but jobs are much more about chenging technological bases and increasing technology in general. Pretty much the only thing the US has left is technology and the 'new' conservatives would rather have us pray than teach science.

    You are a great example of advocating idiocy over science with your explanation of global warming. Keep calling anyone with views different from yourself a communist or socialist and all you do is label yourself as a ignorant rightwing idiot.
    Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
    625. greentortuloni
    8:04 PM GMT on November 20, 2011
    Quoting martinitony:


    First, it is as difficult for me to explain economics to you as it would be for Einstein to explain relativity to a person who never took math or physics. But, I will try with one simple example of the folly of your statements regarding stock of companies.

    Suppose someone sold stock in a gold mining endeavor for $1,000. He uses the $1,000 to buy picks and shovels and a map. Day 1 there is $1,000 in a combination of picks and shovels and some cash left over. He has stock certificates in the hands of the owners for $1,000. So at the end of day 1 he might be able to sell his assets, maps, cash , picks and shovels for $1,000. I think we can agree on that.
    Day 2, he buys a small piece of land with his cash and dig and discover gold vein worth $1,000,000. Now tell me what my stock certificates are now worth and why.

    You and others like you believe that wealth comes via luck and won't even acknowledge the effort of our gold miner to go out and get capital and assemble the assets needed to mine and then dig for the gold. Oh, I forgot to tell you that he broke an ankle and ended up with callouses on his hands and didn't get to take his kid to the first day of kindergarten. Perhaps after he discovers the gold you think he should share it with you. I think not.
    People like you and the majority here make me sick.

    Now substitute the gold mine with Model Ts or Apple computers or Wonder Bread.

    Everything in your post was incorrect. Everything.


    Not quite the true analogy.

    to make it true, add in the fact that the mercury from the gold causes birth defects from the next generations, the tailings from the mine destroy the fishing, etc. etc.

    What happens next? Mr conservative goes to congress and buys a few conservative senators who pass laws saying that people with birth defects should not be able to sue because they are liberals.

    IF someone is able to take a risk and make money, no one begrudges them the money. When they do not have the talent to make money cleanly without consuming public assests like a clean environment, public funds (a LOT of conservative companies) or hurting innocent people, they should be put in jail.

    That rarley happens. All of us 'liberals' (which actually I am not), just want a honest society, not hand outs.

    Look up the financial record of most Tea party candidates. Look up the moral hypocrisy of most of the 'new' conservatives. Then talk.
    Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
    624. martinitony
    7:46 PM GMT on November 20, 2011
    Quoting AlwaysThinkin:


    I think you have it backwards.


    I don't think I have it backwards, but if you thought I was trying to compare myself to Einstein, I apologize. I hope I am not that arrogant.
    Member Since: July 29, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 970
    623. Some1Has2BtheRookie
    7:29 PM GMT on November 20, 2011
    Quoting martinitony:



    I would like to give you some useful advice because I assume your moniker says something about your age. When you are in a meeting where the discussion goes into areas you don't know much about, try to keep quiet and just listen. Opening your mouth will most likely display your ignorance.

    Here is an example of the above advice. Here is a word I have never used on this board, feedback. Oh I have some idea of what it means, but I have never learned about it in any class I was in nor do I feel comfortable discussing it with those climatologists and atmospheric physicists who might be experts on the topic. I would come off as sounding foolish and ignorant if I did discuss it and anything else I had to say might be discounted.

    So, I try to stick to numbers, statistics and more general topics. I am trained in accounting , business , economics and math. My dealings in business, real estate , stock market etc. have led me into areas such as environment, wetlands, zoning and other business and government relations.

    I could tell you that the Earth appears to be warming, but also tell you that it has been warming for a long time and that during much of that warming man was not pumping significant amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Therefore, I conclude that there is no proof that man is the cause of the warming or that the Earth is going to continue warming.

    To me, what is at stake is not mankind's survival, but the nature of that survival. If you are a socialist, you want the government to control virtually all aspects of mens' lives. And if you are a Marxist, it really doesn't matter how socialism is achieved whether by lies or violence, the end justifies the means.

    Very few men are likely to die if it takes another hundred years to recognize what you all here believe, that man is the cause. Oh yes, there would be disruption and hardship. But, I am certain that millions would die and live lives of poverty because of the actions that the Al Gore's of the world would foist upon us. Economic hardship kills. Listen to that and believe it because it is true. Choose warmth or choose food. Choose transportation or medication. Choose a roof or homelessness. Poverty kills and that is what we will have more of here very soon. Your president has made that choice for so many.

    Already, hundreds of thousands no longer work in the Gulf. Now a pipeline will head to the Pacific so that Chinese dictators can maintain their power. Billions of dollars have been wasted through crony capitalism on this administrations supporters instead of that money being used to help the truly needy in our country. Watch what government intrusion into every aspect of our lives brings you. I often see this phrase used on Yahoo sock boards, "Watch and learn."

    One last thing. Capitalism is not a Ponzi scheme.

    cap·i·tal·ism
       [kap-i-tl-iz-uhm] Show IPA
    noun
    an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.


    so·cial·ism
       [soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA
    noun
    1.
    a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.


    A Ponzi Scheme is a fraudulent investing scam that promises high rates of return at little risk to investors. The scheme generates returns for older investors by acquiring new investors. This scam actually yields the promised returns to earlier investors, as long as there are more new investors.

    Funny how you could substitute the description of a Ponzi scheme for a description of Social Security, isn't it?




    You applied a great many words to not answer my question. I will say that you did so with some degree of elegance. ..... Are you certain that you are not a politician? Since you did reply with some degree of elegance, I will quickly defend you against anyone that would try to claim that you are really Rick Perry.

    Social Security may, indeed, turn into a ponzi scheme. Social Security was not set up as a ponzi scheme. (Capitalism cannot realistically make this claim.) Social security also never offered exaggerated claims of returns vs investment. Social Security is not now a ponzi scheme. Social Security has been fully funded by both the employee and the employer and, even today, operates at a surplus. The BIGGEST reason that Social Security faces any possibility of default is because Congress has seen fit to use these funds as a part of the general funds. This is not something that has recently began. This is something that has happened almost as soon as Social Security was set up. Another reason is that Social Security funds have also been spent in areas that it was never designed to be used for, all under the Social Security baner. Again, Congress, through the years, have changed its original intended use. Should you need some evidence that I am not a socialist then I offer to you that the employee should be the sole contributor to their Social Security account. The employer should not be required to make any contributions towards their employees' Social Security accounts.

    I must also state that I am not a sociopath that believes that everything has to be about me and to Hell with everyone else. So, in this sense, you may correctly state that I show socialistic tendencies. Now, let me see if I am able to make a correct assumption about you. Your interests lies in creating wealth for yourself and have no concerns if anyone else is also able to do so for themselves. This, to you, is their problem and you have no concerns over this. Would this be a correct assumption for me to make regarding you? Please, show some honesty in your response. Unless, of course, you truly are a politician.
    Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4772
    622. AlwaysThinkin
    7:21 PM GMT on November 20, 2011
    .
    Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 394
    621. AlwaysThinkin
    7:13 PM GMT on November 20, 2011
    Quoting martinitony:


    First, it is as difficult for me to explain economics to you as it would be for Einstein to explain relativity to a person who never took math or physics.


    I think you have it backwards.
    Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 394
    620. 1911maker
    7:05 PM GMT on November 20, 2011
    Link

    Bernard Lawrence "Bernie" Madoff (pronounced /ˈmeɪdɒf/;[3] born April 29, 1938) is a former American stockbroker, entrepreneur, and investor. He is the former non-executive chairman of the NASDAQ stock market, and the admitted operator of a Ponzi scheme that is considered to be the largest financial fraud in U.S. history.[4]

    Poster Child for the modern Ponzi scheme. Interesting that he is trained in economics and Political science.
    Member Since: February 25, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 474
    619. martinitony
    6:52 PM GMT on November 20, 2011
    1911, you are one of those people who believes everything they read, especially if it helps support your convoluted view of reality. Quit posting stupid or we will think you are either an idiot or 12 years old.
    Member Since: July 29, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 970
    618. 1911maker
    6:46 PM GMT on November 20, 2011
    Is the stock market a Ponzi Scheme?

    Yes, the stock market is a ponzi scheme but until the masses come to the same conclusion (which may already be happening) the scheme will be alive and well. I won't worry too much about the market falling apart though -- when the trend turns down, I'll be long gone from the market. (That's what moving averages and other trend identification tools are for.) The folks who believe in 'buy and hold' are the ones who will be in the most trouble, not the (good) traders..
    .
    .
    .
    .For every investor whose holdings 'outperform the market' there will be, of course, at least one loser. But the magic of Ponzi is that it's always the other guy, the next guy the not smart enough guy, who will get burned. You'd be better to play slot machines or buy lottery tickets -- at least the potential payout isn't overstated by 250%.
    .
    .
    .
    .
    Link to full text

    Link
    Member Since: February 25, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 474
    617. 1911maker
    6:24 PM GMT on November 20, 2011
    .......
    in many ways, our current phase of globalization is a second phase, the first being in the 1920s. This is not the first time. Unregulated capitalism beings us to this same place, like it did before. The belief in capitalism is indeed a belief. A faith. Not only are markets not rational, neither are the proponents of the current system.
    .............

    Link

    the link gets you to the complete editorial.
    Member Since: February 25, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 474
    616. martinitony
    6:11 PM GMT on November 20, 2011
    Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


    The "Internet" is nothing more than another source of information. Information is required for anyone to be an "expert" at anything. The "information" I obtained in post# 603 was not through my research. The information I used should be common knowledge but, sadly, is not. Information gained through life experiences is acquired knowledge as opposed to researched knowledge. We have seen examples of a "run on banks" and we are well aware of the effects that has. We have also seen many examples of failed companies and their effects. When you have "lived" them you know the effects. You may wish to research how it happened but, the answer should be obvious. Leverage, for the most part! Capitalism is a ponzi scheme. A very successful and enduring ponzi scheme but, what happens if everyone asked for their money back? Do not get me wrong. Capitalism is, by far, the best economic scheme the world has ever known when it comes down to being able to create a degree of wealth, for the masses. We are, however, now seeing an unsettling disproportion of "wealth". I do not fault anyone that has acquired more "wealth" than others. We will discover that when "wealth" is in the hands of too few people, then "wealth" becomes diluted. Then again, if everyone had the same amount of "wealth" then there is no true "wealth". "Wealth", it seems, is a relative thing.



    I would like to give you some useful advice because I assume your moniker says something about your age. When you are in a meeting where the discussion goes into areas you don't know much about, try to keep quiet and just listen. Opening your mouth will most likely display your ignorance.

    Here is an example of the above advice. Here is a word I have never used on this board, feedback. Oh I have some idea of what it means, but I have never learned about it in any class I was in nor do I feel comfortable discussing it with those climatologists and atmospheric physicists who might be experts on the topic. I would come off as sounding foolish and ignorant if I did discuss it and anything else I had to say might be discounted.

    So, I try to stick to numbers, statistics and more general topics. I am trained in accounting , business , economics and math. My dealings in business, real estate , stock market etc. have led me into areas such as environment, wetlands, zoning and other business and government relations.

    I could tell you that the Earth appears to be warming, but also tell you that it has been warming for a long time and that during much of that warming man was not pumping significant amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Therefore, I conclude that there is no proof that man is the cause of the warming or that the Earth is going to continue warming.

    To me, what is at stake is not mankind's survival, but the nature of that survival. If you are a socialist, you want the government to control virtually all aspects of mens' lives. And if you are a Marxist, it really doesn't matter how socialism is achieved whether by lies or violence, the end justifies the means.

    Very few men are likely to die if it takes another hundred years to recognize what you all here believe, that man is the cause. Oh yes, there would be disruption and hardship. But, I am certain that millions would die and live lives of poverty because of the actions that the Al Gore's of the world would foist upon us. Economic hardship kills. Listen to that and believe it because it is true. Choose warmth or choose food. Choose transportation or medication. Choose a roof or homelessness. Poverty kills and that is what we will have more of here very soon. Your president has made that choice for so many.

    Already, hundreds of thousands no longer work in the Gulf. Now a pipeline will head to the Pacific so that Chinese dictators can maintain their power. Billions of dollars have been wasted through crony capitalism on this administrations supporters instead of that money being used to help the truly needy in our country. Watch what government intrusion into every aspect of our lives brings you. I often see this phrase used on Yahoo sock boards, "Watch and learn."

    One last thing. Capitalism is not a Ponzi scheme.

    cap·i·tal·ism
       [kap-i-tl-iz-uhm] Show IPA
    noun
    an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.


    so·cial·ism
       [soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA
    noun
    1.
    a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.


    A Ponzi Scheme is a fraudulent investing scam that promises high rates of return at little risk to investors. The scheme generates returns for older investors by acquiring new investors. This scam actually yields the promised returns to earlier investors, as long as there are more new investors.

    Funny how you could substitute the description of a Ponzi scheme for a description of Social Security, isn't it?


    Member Since: July 29, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 970
    615. Some1Has2BtheRookie
    5:14 PM GMT on November 20, 2011
    Quoting PurpleDrank:
    You know what makes everyone an expert?

    the internet



    The "Internet" is nothing more than another source of information. Information is required for anyone to be an "expert" at anything. The "information" I obtained in post# 603 was not through my research. The information I used should be common knowledge but, sadly, is not. Information gained through life experiences is acquired knowledge as opposed to researched knowledge. We have seen examples of a "run on banks" and we are well aware of the effects that has. We have also seen many examples of failed companies and their effects. When you have "lived" them you know the effects. You may wish to research how it happened but, the answer should be obvious. Leverage, for the most part! Capitalism is a ponzi scheme. A very successful and enduring ponzi scheme but, what happens if everyone asked for their money back? Do not get me wrong. Capitalism is, by far, the best economic scheme the world has ever known when it comes down to being able to create a degree of wealth, for the masses. We are, however, now seeing an unsettling disproportion of "wealth". I do not fault anyone that has acquired more "wealth" than others. We will discover that when "wealth" is in the hands of too few people, then "wealth" becomes diluted. Then again, if everyone had the same amount of "wealth" then there is no true "wealth". "Wealth", it seems, is a relative thing.
    Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4772
    614. PurpleDrank
    4:42 PM GMT on November 20, 2011
    You know what makes everyone an expert?

    the internet

    Member Since: August 17, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 730
    613. Some1Has2BtheRookie
    4:14 PM GMT on November 20, 2011
    Quoting theshepherd:


    The difference between you and this gathering of self-proclaimed climate and economy experts frequenting this blog is Education vs Google.

    Many on here are becoming more and more adept at paraphrasing the writings of others found in factoids and representing their postings as a wealth of their own knowledge and deep understandings.

    That is why sometimes "the sound of silence is thundering" as they scramble to research a response.

    Therefore, to wit, and ergo, you face an endless harangue of Liberal Sophism, self-aggrandizement and mental onanism to enter into any debate here.

    Let's put it to the test:

    "How has the ACLU transformed the American Corporation from infancy to adulthood?"




    Well, theshepherd, I find your words much more elegant than the words of martinitony. Perhaps you will be able to answer my question posed to martinitony? What part of my statement is incorrect, in post# 603, and why? I feel certain that you will be able to give a more eloquent answer than martinitony but, will you actually be able to answer the question?
    Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4772
    612. Some1Has2BtheRookie
    4:07 PM GMT on November 20, 2011
    Quoting martinitony:


    First, it is as difficult for me to explain economics to you as it would be for Einstein to explain relativity to a person who never took math or physics. But, I will try with one simple example of the folly of your statements regarding stock of companies.

    Suppose someone sold stock in a gold mining endeavor for $1,000. He uses the $1,000 to buy picks and shovels and a map. Day 1 there is $1,000 in a combination of picks and shovels and some cash left over. He has stock certificates in the hands of the owners for $1,000. So at the end of day 1 he might be able to sell his assets, maps, cash , picks and shovels for $1,000. I think we can agree on that.
    Day 2, he buys a small piece of land with his cash and dig and discover gold vein worth $1,000,000. Now tell me what my stock certificates are now worth and why.

    You and others like you believe that wealth comes via luck and won't even acknowledge the effort of our gold miner to go out and get capital and assemble the assets needed to mine and then dig for the gold. Oh, I forgot to tell you that he broke an ankle and ended up with callouses on his hands and didn't get to take his kid to the first day of kindergarten. Perhaps after he discovers the gold you think he should share it with you. I think not.
    People like you and the majority here make me sick.

    Now substitute the gold mine with Model Ts or Apple computers or Wonder Bread.

    Everything in your post was incorrect. Everything.


    Well, Einstein, I never asked you to explain the theory of economics to me. I asked you to point out what was incorrect in my statement and why do you believe it is incorrect.

    The gold stock is worth what you can sell it for. Period! Should the company fail and is liquidated then you will possibly get a share of the left overs. The common stock holders may not receive anything at all because the preferred stock holders will be paid first. The creditors/vendors are paid before any of the share holders are paid. Now, if the company has over leveraged its position then even the creditors/vendors may have to settle for less than they contributed. (There are many historical examples of this. This is the reality.) The same applies to owning physical gold. The gold you buy is worth what someone is willing to pay you for it. People "play" the market every day. Today's market shows every sign of being manipulated. You will see stocks fall one day and then go back up for the very reason that it stated it went down the day before.

    Take the Greece debt crisis. Please! I have watched the markets make big falls with the Greek debt being the reason given. Two days later the market will make a marked rise and it is stated that the Greek debt will not bring down the Euro. The next day the markets fall again because it is feared that the Greek debt will have a domino effect on other European countries. Then, for some reason, the markets will rise again. During this entire process of the markets falling and rising over the Greek debt, nothing has really changed concerning the Greek debt. Greece still owes far more than it will probably ever be able to pay. This has not changed. This has always been the case. Yet, the markets would make a significant rise and fall over the same Greek debt crisis.

    You do an adequate job of explaining the theory of "Basic Economics 101". Now, Einstein, answer this for the class. What percentage of our deposited money will we be reasonable able to expect should we all decide to pull our money from all of the banks today? 100%? 50%? 25%? 10$ 3%. For the class, please explain your answer. Now, if you will, the same question concerning the stock markets. I, as I image others, will be waiting your response with bated breath.
    Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4772
    611. overwash12
    3:50 PM GMT on November 20, 2011
    Bundle up!
    Member Since: June 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1497
    610. overwash12
    3:42 PM GMT on November 20, 2011
    Record cold in Fairbanks ,Alaska! Just a matter of time before it comes down to the lower 48.
    Member Since: June 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1497
    609. Patrap
    1:57 PM GMT on November 20, 2011
    RUSH with his Gulfstream Flying Machine




    .."those magnificent Buffoons and there Flying Exhaust Machines, dey go uppity Up-up and then down dee-dee down, to da Golf Course"
    Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 428 Comments: 129841
    608. Patrap
    1:51 PM GMT on November 20, 2011
    My WU shares are thriving.
    Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 428 Comments: 129841

    Viewing: 658 - 608

    Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14Blog Index

    Top of Page

    About RickyRood

    I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.

    Local Weather

    Mostly Cloudy
    43 °F
    Mostly Cloudy

    RickyRood's Recent Photos

    Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
    Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
    Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
    Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.