Re: Why Its Pointless To Argue With Global Warming Believers

In article <W8SdndIIc85CMh7ZnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
GreyCloud <mist@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

ZnU wrote:

In article <j4Sdnau4Lsfb3x7ZRVn-qg@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
GreyCloud <mist@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


ZnU wrote:


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.


No, it has to do with the USD decline over time.


The above figures above are in constant-dollars. They take inflation
based on the consumer price index into account. IOW, what you see above
is a real average increase in consumer buying power.

No reply?

People look at money in the wrong perspective. Take Gold... when you
view it as a constant, then the USD is in steep decline.


This is almost entirely meaningless. First, you can't meaningfully
compare with gold prices prior 1971, because the price of gold was
effectively set by government fiat prior to that.

Around 1972, Nixon took the US off the gold standard.
That left the USD to float. To bolster that USD, Nixon used oil as a prop.
The USD is now supported only by blind trust in paper that has no
backing whatsoever.

The USD is supported by the economy of the United States, which is a
much more reasonable thing on which to base the value of a currency than
some random commodity.

And if you were going to pick a commodity on which to base the value of
a currency, gold would be a pretty silly choice anyway. Let's be
serious. Gold is a useful industrial metal in a few applications, but
most of its value is derived from the fact that people like shiny
objects.

Second, gold is now cheaper than it was in the early '80s.

Manipulated by gold market traders and held down deliberately.

Why would gold market traders want to hold down the price of gold?

Third, the price of gold is dependent largely on the supply of gold. If
e.g. the US economy grows faster in real terms than the gold supply, one
would expect gold prices to go up -- this doesn't demonstrate the USD is
in decline, it just demonstrates there are more dollars chasing after a
smaller amount of one specific item.

Which means that gold is stable and the USD is in decline.

There's nothing magical about gold that makes its value some kind of
objective standard against which to measure the value of everything
else. It's just another commodity, the value of which (since the
government stopped defining its value by fiat) floats in response to
supply and demand.

As I pointed out, according to the consumer price index -- which uses a
much larger set of commodities, and one that's designed to represent the
poor of stuff on which consumers spend money -- people are making more
money now than they were 30 years ago.

[snip]

--
"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. ... but I can afford a new iMac because the price has dropped since the 70s. ... it has to do with the USD decline over time. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Why Its Pointless To Argue With Global Warming Believers
    ... I have already demonstrated that the price of gold fluctuates relative to the price of other goods. ... Inflation adjustments are made based on the consumer price index, which means that the value in this column directly represents a quantity of CPI goods and services. ... IOW, all of the 'float' in the USD itself has been removed, and what you're seeing what quantity of consumer goods you can buy with a ton of gold. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Why Its Pointless To Argue With Global Warming Believers
    ... I have already demonstrated that the price of gold fluctuates relative to the price of other goods. ... Inflation adjustments are made based on the consumer price index, which means that the value in this column directly represents a quantity of CPI goods and services. ... IOW, all of the 'float' in the USD itself has been removed, and what you're seeing what quantity of consumer goods you can buy with a ton of gold. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Why Its Pointless To Argue With Global Warming Believers
    ... GreyCloud wrote: ... I could only afford a new car. ... new iMac because the price has dropped since the 70s. ... compare with gold prices prior 1971, because the price of gold was ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Why Its Pointless To Argue With Global Warming Believers
    ... GreyCloud wrote: ... but I can afford a new iMac because the price has dropped since the 70s. ... it has to do with the USD decline over time. ... First, you can't meaningfully compare with gold prices prior 1971, because the price of gold was effectively set by government fiat prior to that. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)