Re: Why Its Pointless To Argue With Global Warming Believers

In article <58mdnbGPYuuK_R_ZnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
GreyCloud <mist@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

George Graves wrote:

In article <jJWdnc-6spVmShzZRVn-jg@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
GreyCloud <mist@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


George Graves wrote:


In article <1hgd742.1je89e3xn3v7kN%Lars.Traeger@xxxxxxxx>,
Lars.Traeger@xxxxxxxx (Lars Träger) wrote:



George Graves <gmgraves@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



Less people = less pollutants. That doesn't make any sense?

USA = less people, China = less polution.

Things make less sense when the USA is involved.


What makes you think that I'm excluding the USA? We need to trim our
population back to about 150 million (about half) just like the rest of
the world.


As long as kids keep hopping into bed, the population will continue to
rise.


Kids hopping into bed together is not so much the problem as are the
puritanical sexual mores which keep these kids from freely obtaining
contraceptives or being able to have free access to abortions when
"accidents" happen.


The only remaining question will be when will the system collapse
on itself?


Its entropic. The quality of life deteriorates a little each year and
people don't tend to notice it so much. Some even delude themselves that
increasing population and eroding life quality and freedoms is a GOOD
thing.


I know. It is what denial is made of.
I remember in the 70s that I could afford a new house, a new car, and
buy an Apple and still have money left over for investments.
In the late 80s, I could only afford a new car.
Now I can't afford a new car, let alone a used one... but I can afford a
new iMac because the price has dropped since the 70s.
When I plot my purchasing power from the 70s to now, it is just a line
going downhill. I don't know what will happen or what it will look like
at the bottom.

Housing is more expensive, but practically everything else is cheaper
than it was in the '70s. It doesn't always feel that way, because in
some cases the only goods available are of much, much higher quality
than they were in the '70s. With cars, for instance, a '70s-quality car
could be built of an absurdly low price, but it wouldn't be legal to
sell as a new car, because of modern-day emissions and safety standards,
and if it were, not many people would buy one.

Something similar has happened with health care. We could provide 1970s
health care at pretty cheap prices. But not many people want 1970s
health care, so the market isn't set up for it.

Another factor that makes people feel poorer is that there's just a lot
more stuff to buy these days. Subtract everything that didn't exist in
the 1970s from your expenses (Internet access, most of the 150-300 TV
channels you probably get, your iPod, your DVD player, your cell phone,
etc.) and see how much money you'd save.

And, of course, the gains in income since the 1970s have not been
equitably distributed. Here's a neat little chart I put together a while
back:

Household incomes in 2001 dollars[1]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Household    Lowest    Second    Third    Fourth    Highest   Top 5
Rank         Fifth     Fifth     Fifth    Fifth     Fifth     Percent
1975          8,798    20,891    34,181   49,637    86,443    127,421
2001         10,136    25,468    42,629   66,839    145,970   260,464
Change:      +15.2%    +21.9%    +24.7%   +34.6%    +68.8%    +104.4%
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/h03.html

This has more to do with Republicans than with population increases.

--
"Those who enter the country illegally violate the law."
-- George W. Bush in Tucson, Ariz., Nov. 28, 2005
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Why Its Pointless To Argue With Global Warming Believers
    ... GreyCloud wrote: ... I remember in the 70s that I could afford a new house, a new car, and buy an Apple and still have money left over for investments. ... We could provide 1970s health care at pretty cheap prices. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Goodbye GM - a brilliant article
    ... For people in rural areas not served by the train lines, ... Provide tax incentives for those who travel by hybrid car or bus or ... Once we can no longer afford to buy Japanese ... If you have made the trip by car, you know that in the inland ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Goodbye GM - a brilliant article
    ... For people in rural areas not served by the train lines, ... riders taxpayers have to pay another 7 dollars so this can keep ... Once we can no longer afford to buy Japanese ... If you have made the trip by car, you know that in the inland ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Goodbye GM - a brilliant article
    ... For people in rural areas not served by the train lines, ... Provide tax incentives for those who travel by hybrid car or bus or ... Once we can no longer afford to buy Japanese ... If you have made the trip by car, you know that in the inland ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Goodbye GM - a brilliant article
    ... Initiate a program to put light rail mass transit lines in all ... For people in rural areas not served by the train lines, ... Provide tax incentives for those who travel by hybrid car or bus ... Once we can no longer afford to buy Japanese ...
    (soc.retirement)