the right religion

[Guy Threepwood]

Again, it wasn't science, so much as self-serving interest. Stalin wouldn't have emphasized science over religion if it didn't help him quell competing loyalties.

as above, that's the trouble, 'science' and 'self serving interest' stick to each other like glue

 

[Nietzsche]

Well that's the problem with science, it's a label politicians can stick on any idea they like, especially when they employ the scientists.

That's not science's problem. That's politician's problems. The world we live in now is much more globalized, it's far more difficult to 'buy' scientists. If it worked as well as it used to, there would not be a climate change debate. It wouldn't be mentioned at all. But they can't, and the information regarding long-term consequences of our actions is out there, despite the best efforts of politicians and companies.

 

[Salek Atesh]

as above, that's the trouble, 'science' and 'self serving interest' stick to each other like glue

To be fair religion and self-serving interest stick to each other quite well. As does politics and self-serving interest. As does tyranny and self-serving interest. As does freedom and self-serving interest. As does regulation and self-serving interest. As does deregulation and self-serving interest.

That's the thing about the self-serving who are obsessed with power and money. They'll stick themselves to any cause at all as long as it furthers themselves in some way.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

That's not science's problem. That's politician's problems. The world we live in now is much more globalized, it's far more difficult to 'buy' scientists. If it worked as well as it used to, there would not be a climate change debate. It wouldn't be mentioned at all. But they can't, and the information regarding long-term consequences of our actions is out there, despite the best efforts of politicians and companies.

the word 'science' is usually a red flag to me

Russian farmers never used the word 'science', they just used the method- generations of repeatable experiments, measurements & observations to achieve a desired productive result

Stalin did the exact opposite

He cobbled together a purely academic opinion- called a 'scientific consensus' to support his political ideology, so now by definition, anybody who defied his political will was also a denier of science. who wants to be that?

of course that could never happen today!?

 

[metis]

The Soviet and Chinese leaders pretty much only worshipped themselves, and what they created was mostly a bastardization of Marxism whereas they used that as a pretense to attain and consolidate power. It had little to do with real Marxist ideology and science had pretty much nothing to do with their abuse of power.

On one of the recent threads, I mentioned that I want to start a new thread on this general theme sometime next week, and I think I may entitle it "Neo-Marxism". Stay tuned for future attractions.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

To be fair religion and self-serving interest stick to each other quite well. As does politics and self-serving interest. As does tyranny and self-serving interest. As does freedom and self-serving interest. As does regulation and self-serving interest. As does deregulation and self-serving interest.

That's the thing about the self-serving who are obsessed with power and money. They'll stick themselves to any cause at all as long as it furthers themselves in some way.

that's why acknowledging personal faith is so important

 

[Nietzsche]

the word 'science' is usually a red flag to me

Russian farmers never used the word 'science', they just used the method- generations of repeatable experiments, measurements & observations to achieve a desired productive result

Stalin did the exact opposite

He cobbled together a purely academic opinion- called a 'scientific consensus' to support his political ideology, so now by definition, anybody who defied his political will was also a denier of science. who wants to be that?

of course that could never happen today!?

No, it couldn't. Not in the first world, where information is readily available for anyone to find. You trip over more knowledge in an hour than 99% of people in the 1930s would have learned in their entire life-times.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No, it couldn't. Not in the first world, where information is readily available for anyone to find. You trip over more knowledge in an hour than 99% of people in the 1930s would have learned in their entire life-times.

exactly, Thank God Stalin did not have more money, media, and computer simulations/animations to convince people with


you can also readily learn more about ufo's, canals on Mars, Astrology, Climastrology, Gliese the earthlike planet and the Higgs Boson, more info = more reliability?!

[science] such wholesale returns of conjecture from such a trifling investment of fact (Mark Twain)

 

[Salek Atesh]

No, it couldn't. Not in the first world, where information is readily available for anyone to find. You trip over more knowledge in an hour than 99% of people in the 1930s would have learned in their entire life-times.

Well. It DOES happen today. Guybrush isn't right to paint science as intrinsically tied to selfish interests, but it can and does happen, even in the modern era.

Take corn ethanol. Due to lobbying from big farming everyone became convinced that it is good for the environment. Now there are laws mandating that 10% of all gas must be ethanol. For the good of the environment!! In reality, it consumes more than a gallon of oil to produce a gallon of corn ethanol, making using corn ethanol worse than gas. But, even though studies have shown this, it hasn't become common knowledge, hasn't been paid attention to, and we are still trashing the environment with corn ethanol as fuel, because big agriculture paid for some science to say corn ethanol was good. Despite how terrible corn ethanol is, being more expensive and worse for the environment than oil, bad science has ensured we continue to use it.

But again, just because some science is bad, doesn't mean its intrinsically tied to bad intentions like Guybrush asserts. If greedy ******** find a way to make science profit for them, they'll use it. If they can get some other justification to profit them, they'll use that instead.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Well. It DOES happen today. Guybrush isn't right to paint science as intrinsically tied to selfish interests, but it can and does happen, even in the modern era.

Take corn ethanol. Due to lobbying from big farming everyone became convinced that it is good for the environment. Now there are laws mandating that 10% of all gas must be ethanol. For the good of the environment!! In reality, it consumes more than a gallon of oil to produce a gallon of corn ethanol, making using corn ethanol worse than gas. But, even though studies have shown this, it hasn't become common knowledge, hasn't been paid attention to, and we are still trashing the environment with corn ethanol as fuel, because big agriculture paid for some science to say corn ethanol was good. Despite how terrible corn ethanol is, being more expensive and worse for the environment than oil, bad science has ensured we continue to use it.

But again, just because some science is bad, doesn't mean its intrinsically tied to bad intentions like Guybrush asserts. If greedy ******** find a way to make science profit for them, they'll use it. If they can get some other justification to profit them, they'll use that instead.

you're lucky- it's 15% here, and my mower, snow blower, boat engine can testify to how terrible it is.
and they now do not have to disclose the amount

but a local gas station here still advertises 'we sell gas like a Baptist communion, alcohol free'! God bless them!

 

[Salek Atesh]

you're lucky- it's 15% here, and my mower, snow blower, boat engine can testify to how terrible it is.
and they now do not have to disclose the amount

but a local gas station here still advertises 'we sell gas like a Baptist communion, alcohol free'! God bless them!

To be honest, I don't know how big it actually is here. The law says minimum 10%, so it could be any amount really.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

To be honest, I don't know how big it actually is here. The law says minimum 10%, so it could be any amount really.

Are you in the US? if so, the laws vary but there are still quite a lot of ethanol free stations
Ethanol-free gas stations in the U.S. and Canada
definitely worth paying more for, esp now, perhaps the fall in prices will help roll the epa stuff back- if not abolish the entire department
- a class action lawsuit to pay for all my broken equipment might be nice!

OK I'm dreaming now

 

[Cephus]

I would argue that a free-market is good, but with certain limits and regulations and overseeing. There is such a thing as a market becoming so free that a company might become the only game in town. We saw that happen in many mining towns in the US.

A free market only works when it remains free, which cannot happen when anyone, be it an individual or a company, has complete control over the market. That's why we have laws against monopolies, to ensure that it is possible for newcomers to compete with established businesses. Only through that competition can we have a truly free market.

 

[metis]

Competition can be very helpful, but it is not always essential. Sometimes competition can bring out the worst in people and lead to short-cuts that can cause more harm than good.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

A free market only works when it remains free, which cannot happen when anyone, be it an individual or a company, has complete control over the market. That's why we have laws against monopolies, to ensure that it is possible for newcomers to compete with established businesses. Only through that competition can we have a truly free market.

only the government, the biggest monopoly any economy has ever had, can ensure complete control over any market

Who kept GM in power keeping down smaller newcomers? 'too big to fail' means too politically valuable, too many union dollars, too many votes, certainly not too profitable or successful!

Similarly many socialist leaning states with much stiffer laws against monopolies, hence often have only one single monolithic government sanctioned company per industry, which invariably drains instead of creating wealth

 

[metis]

Under the circumstances largely created by our economic structure, there really was no choice but to bail out the banks, AIG, and G.M. Our entire economy was "at the edge of the table", as one economist put it, in February of 2009.

You would think that we would have learned from our mistakes, but to show that we haven't, take a look at what the Republicans in the House slipped into as an amendment that would have the effect in another freefall of having the taxpayer bail out reckless lending again.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Under the circumstances largely created by our economic structure, there really was no choice but to bail out the banks, AIG, and G.M. Our entire economy was "at the edge of the table", as one economist put it, in February of 2009.

You would think that we would have learned from our mistakes, but to show that we haven't, take a look at what the Republicans in the House slipped into as an amendment that would have the effect in another freefall of having the taxpayer bail out reckless lending again.

that's debatable, but the point is the same re. monopolies, maybe they are good things that need government support? is the opposite argument from wot cephus just gave.

The free market would have dumped those bloated monopolies and welcomed smaller newcomers instead, for better or worse- big gov. builds cozy relationships with big monopolies, they can become indistinguishable. Not always, but it's a little more complex than gov. saving us from the evils of monopolies?

 

[metis]

that's debatable, but the point is the same re. monopolies, maybe they are good things that need government support? is the opposite argument from wot cephus just gave.

The free market would have dumped those bloated monopolies and welcomed smaller newcomers instead, for better or worse- big gov. builds cozy relationships with big monopolies, they can become indistinguishable. Not always, but it's a little more complex than gov. saving us from the evils of monopolies?

First of all, it really wasn't that debatable as many economists were worried that we could all too easily have slipped into a greater depression than the Great Depression. Our economy was in a literal freefall.

Secondly, monopolies can easily develop in a free market.

Thirdly, I don't like the government either making monopolies or being one in and of itself.

Fourthly, I believe we should have done what the Brits did, namely temporarily nationalize the offending banks and firms, bust them up, fire those responsible, and then resell them.

Fifthly, I gotta go for now.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

First of all, it really wasn't that debatable as many economists were worried that we could all too easily have slipped into a greater depression than the Great Depression. Our economy was in a literal freefall.

Secondly, monopolies can easily develop in a free market.

Thirdly, I don't like the government either making monopolies or being one in and of itself.

Fourthly, I believe we should have done what the Brits did, namely temporarily nationalize the offending banks and firms, bust them up, fire those responsible, and then resell them.

Fifthly, I gotta go for now.

so it sounds like we'd both be happy if the government hadn't interfered in the first place, using Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac to artificially generate all those bad loans the free market wouldn't have otherwise touched? take care

 

[metis]

so it sounds like we'd both be happy if the government hadn't interfered in the first place, using Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac to artificially generate all those bad loans the free market wouldn't have otherwise touched? take care

Fannie & Freddie were symptomatic of the problem but not the cause. Two huge mistakes were made, one in 1999 when Phil Gramm and some economists convinced Congress and Clinton that banks should be allowed to carry less money at hand, and in 2005 when Congress and Bush made the decision that normally secure holdings, such as pensions and 401-K's should be allowed to be traded in the shadow-banking system.