Actually I think it would be a mistake to blindly trust corporations because I've studied history. I recommend you do so as well; those who ignore history are destined to repeat it. And again you have apparently not studied history. Which is understandable; it's pretty boring. But it can be illuminating. Yes, they could. And they should if they produce deadly pollution. I am sure not even you would be OK with your neighbor starting his charcoal grill with benzene. How do you explain the recent Chinese study that agrees with the idea that increased particulate emissions result in increased mortality? A big conspiracy between the evil EPA and the Chinese government? How do you explain the thousands of deaths during the Great London Smogs and the thousands of illnesses during the Donora Smog of 1948? Again, the study of history can be boring - but can at times be illuminating.
Busted! Ron Paul racist rant caught on tape! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
In this particular instance, if the particulate air pollution is a problem, the EPA cannot deal with the problem. Community action, tort action, and treaties need to deal with the problem. Regulatory agencies are an arm of corporate power. Why do I feel like I am the only one around here that posts sources? It's like having a discussion with a bunch of college kids and their socialized, tele-evangelized programed opinions. Listen, I hear where you are coming from. I agree with very much and understand what you are saying. And to some degree, at the local level, I believe that people should have the right to regulate their lives. But listen, there is no legal power given to the national government, there is no authority granted in the constitution to the federal government to do so many of the things it has done. And it has used them mostly to benefit itself and the international corporate empires of the planet. I was for Reagan, Bush and Clinton. I used to be a "mainstream moderate" or independent in high school and college. I once believed in the same crap you believed. I've done my research. You clearly can't even take the time to read the links I post to prove my arguments, much less post links to prove yours. I think that you have nothing left to say.
I think your sarcasm filter is broken. My point is, the corporate owned press misrepresents his views. To a libertarian, the terms, "racism" is a foreign idea. So when ever he writes or talks, some of his ideas can sound like they are. But no one ever really sits down to just listen to him. . . REALLY LISTEN. Treat everyone as an INDIVIDUAL. What Really Divides Us? by Rep. Ron Paul, MD . . .Yet it is the federal government more than anything else that divides us along race, class, religion, and gender lines. The federal government, through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails in our society. This government "benevolence" crowds out genuine goodwill between men by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. Americans know that factors other than merit in the free market often play a part in the success of some, and this leads to resentment and hostility between us. Still, the left argues that stringent federal laws are needed to combat racism, always implying of course that southern states are full of bigoted rednecks who would oppress minorities if not for the watchful eye of Washington. They ignore, however, the incredible divisiveness created by their collectivist big-government policies. Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individual who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups. Conservatives and libertarians should fight back and challenge the myth that collectivist liberals care more about racism. Modern liberalism, however well intentioned, is a byproduct of the same collectivist thinking that characterizes racism. The continued insistence on group thinking only inflames racial tensions. The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity. In a free market, businesses that discriminate lose customers, goodwill, and valuable employees — while rational businesses flourish by choosing the most qualified employees and selling to all willing buyers. More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct what is essentially a sin of the heart, we should understand that reducing racism requires a shift from group thinking to an emphasis on individualism. *wipes tear from eye* This is a man worthy of being our President. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
No, I did not claim (nor would I ever claim) we can solve all out problems by printing money. What I said is that WE are the one's that create money. We could print money if we needed or even if we just wanted to. There is always "money" to get things that need doing - done. If you recall, I'm pro-competitive monetary systems so that the money with most "value" is where people gravitate towards. Anyway, this was in response to spidergoat's notion that we can't clean up the environment because we don't have the money. There's a reason why the environment isn't be cleaned, but, not having the money is just a symptom of that cause. There's more than enough "money" around to pay JP Morgan payed about $10 BILLION just in incentives and bonuses in 2010. You know, for destroying Americans' lives. Seems like there's plenty of money, one wonders why it's being used to pay Bankster bonuses and not clean the environment. As for those consequences, yes, that's exactly what we need - consequences. It's how we learn. As it stands under the Federal Reserve monetary monopoly and few unelected well connected businessmen, without ANY direct Congressional oversight, exert a massive amount of control our economy - - which one could argue, over us. Anyway, why are you so negative about introducing competition into the monetary system? If you love the USD so much - go ahead and freaken stick with it. Why do you think YOU have the right to make other people use the USD if they'd like to try using something else? We have the technological devices that make it seamlessly possible. AND who knows what new and interesting things may happen?
Not only CAN it deal with such problems, it has. Some examples: The EPA sets National Ambient Air Quality Standards that regulate the levels of PM in the air. When an area is in violation they can (and have) required polluters to install BACT particulate reduction systems - scubbers and other particulate reduction systems. The EPA's 1990 Acid Rain program has reduced annual emissions of sulfur dioxide from 17.3 to 9.3 tons, nitrous oxidefrom 7.6 to 5 million tons, and mercury from 52 to 42 tons. They are currently trying to implement a new standard for pollution from oil refineries. And the very same industries that you claim they are a part of are suing them. ============= EPA delays carbon limits on oil refineries By Timothy Gardner WASHINGTON | Mon Nov 21, 2011 3:20pm EST (Reuters) - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, struggling with an ambitious agenda on clean air regulations, said it will delay proposing the country's first-ever greenhouse gas limits on oil refineries. The delay is the latest setback for the agency's new raft of clean air rules on everything from smog to mercury pollution that are heavily opposed by industry. ================= So history (and current events) would be against your claim there. Those can work as well. Historically they did not. So are commercial treaties and astroturf community efforts. Nothing's perfect. But the proof is in the pudding, and the EPA has significantly reduced pollution in the US - and "community action" has not. "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." That means the US can provide for the welfare of its citizens. "The Congress shall have Power To . . . provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" That means Congress has the power to provide for the general welfare of the people of the United States. Then why do so many of them hate the EPA and fight them tooth and nail? Good for you! Now it looks like you have some new crap. So have I. I have indeed read your links, and find them woefully lacking; more political zealotry than anything. I particularly enjoyed this one: "But by charging that the market was the cause of pollution, socialists make a polluted accusation." Clever grammar but unsupported. Mises then says "But if one wants to blame those responsible, one must not blame the factory owners who --driven by selfishness, of course, and not by 'altruism'--did all they could to eradicate the evils." To demonstrate how wrong that is I could list events that demonstrated the greed and negligence of factory owners, but since you seem averse to research I will give you a few quotes directly. ==================== The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire in New York City on March 25, 1911, was the deadliest industrial disaster in the history of the city of New York and resulted in the fourth highest loss of life from an industrial accident in U.S. history. It was also the second deadliest disaster in New York City – after the burning of the General Slocum on June 15, 1904 – until the destruction of the World Trade Center 90 years later. The fire caused the deaths of 146 garment workers, who died from the fire, smoke inhalation, or falling to their deaths. Most of the victims were recent Jewish and Italian immigrant women aged sixteen to twenty-three; the oldest victim was 48, the youngest were two fourteen-year-old girls. Because the managers had locked the doors to the stairwells and exits, many of the workers who could not escape the burning building jumped from the eighth, ninth, and tenth floors to the streets below. The fire led to legislation requiring improved factory safety standards and helped spur the growth of the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, which fought for better working conditions for sweatshop workers. =================== Think those factory owners "did all they could to eradicate the evils?" ================== The 1948 Donora smog was a historic air inversion resulting in a wall of smog that killed 20 people and sickened 7,000 more in Donora, Pennsylvania, a mill town on the Monongahela River, 24 miles (39 km) southeast of Pittsburgh. . . . The smog first rolled into Donora on October 27, 1948. By the following day it was causing coughing and other signs of respiratory distress for many residents of the community in the Monongahela River valley. . . . It was not until Sunday morning the 31st of October, that a meeting occurred between the operators of the plants, and the town officials. Burgess Chambon requested the plants temporarily cease operations. The superintendent of the plants, L.J. Westhaver, said the plants already began to shut down operation at around 6am that morning. ====================== So those factory operators ran their plant for four days after people starting getting sick and dying. In retrospect, it was not the evil government coming in and regulating those fine upstanding companies who were doing all they could to protect the lives of their workers. In almost every case regulation began because they proved they could not regulate themselves. Want to see what it looks like when companies can set their own standards today? Visit Dongguan or Shenzhen. Want to see what it looks like when companies are constrained by that evil EPA? Visit Denver. That's one of the reasons that no one's going to believe you about the EPA increasing pollution in collusion with industry. They can see the truth with their own eyes.
Nice post. I see you have worked hard on your post. I see we have a radical difference of opinion. I respect your right to have a different opinion, do you respect my right to have a different opinion?
Absolutely. And let me add that I think libertarianism is a good idea overall, and I hope we do get a libertarian in the white house someday. I don't think it works as a "pure" ideology (nothing does) but it could contribute something significant to the mix of political systems that we have here in this country.
My dear sir, do you read your own links? The last one is based on a study funded by the EPA that proves regulation on domestic emissions of mercury led directly to improvements to the lake, in spite of increased emissions worldwide. --- "We documented a 20 percent decline in sediment mercury deposition from peak values around 1985. This decline was concurrent with a 48 percent decline in mercury emissions from sources in the Great Lakes region and a 17 percent increase in global emissions, clearly illustrating the benefit of controlling domestic emissions. It is likely that additional national and regional air emission controls would result in further declines in mercury contamination of the Great Lakes region as well as other areas of the U.S. and Canada." ...says Charles Driscoll, Ph.D., University Professor of Environmental Systems Engineering at Syracuse University and co-principal investigator on the project [source] --- But couldn't we just leave the problem to private, free market solutions? Let's read what the professional lobbyist for Texas power companies has to say about new EPA regulations on mercury.
I'm not sure about other people, but my position is that the State should be in charge of it's own environmental regulations. Not a corporation. Should GM regulate it's own pollution? No. The State of Michigan should. And actually it does. We could reduce the role of the Federal EPA and shift more of these responsibility locally, the State, and when possible, locally. I have the feeling a lot of people would be happy to do away with States altogether.
I watched the movie "Contagion" last evening. I could not help but notice the similarities between the character, Alan Krumwiede (a free lance internet journalist) and Ron Paul. Krumwiede became rich selling placebo and misinformation (i.e. lies) to his devotees.
Agreed. I don't know what the solution to pollution is, but it certainly isn't an Administrative agency at the federal level far removed from the people that we have no control over that affects everyone's lives. It's dictatorial and authoritarian. It goes against the non-aggression principle. Why can't the municipalities where GM wishes to set up factories? Or perhaps why can't Unions demand that it be put into their work contracts. The finer details can be worked out later, the simple fact of the mater is about ethics, and about forcing people to do something at the barrel of a gun. Do we use violence to force our children? Or do we punish them if they do wrong? Freedom is about the freedom to make choices. Restitution is to be paid for bad choices. If I tell my son he has the right to his own views, but he does not have the right to act on his own views, that would make me a hypocrite and a tyrant. If I told my daughter she can choose to marry whomever she wishes, but I will decide whom she actually marries, this is an illusion of freedom and makes me the progenitor of evil. The statist in a supposedly liberal democracy will tell the libertarian or anarchist they are free to believe what ever they want, but they sure as hell better not act upon those views. Governments have the monopoly on the use of force, and they have the monopoly on the use of policy to achieve their goals. Rather than let the market place of ideas solve our problems, they will force people to do it the Federal governments way, and all those who refuse will be destroyed. All those examples you cited were isolated, and were, like I quoted from my source earlier, due to lack of capital investment, and in fact, due to government regulation. In earlier eras, the government was very anti-union in those instances. When the government and corporations unite to prevent the formations of unions, this is one of the primary private market place watch dogs for the rights and environment of the people. Same thing as when Canada, Mexico, or any other country decides not to regulate emissions. But this is not necessary. It's clear that you have not been reading my posts. It just isn't in the best interests of industry not watch their emissions. In a truly free society, people will gravitate toward energy sources that are the cleanest and cheapest. Currently, the government is suppressing cleaner energy technologies just so the EPA, cap and trade, global warming, and all this other false paradigm crap can grown and fester.
I suppose that is why the government lost all that money on a solar energy company. I fear I've been reading your posts all too well my friend. The cleanest energy sources aren't the cheapest, and people will sacrifice their future health for prosperity in the present. The federal government does it's job when it looks out for the general welfare of the people.
Thanks for the diligent research. You've proved my point better than I could. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ISSUE BRIEF Why New CO2 Regulations Could Produce Windfall Profits and Unproductive Costs for Consumers The EPA's Utility Men Anticarbon regulations and the corporate rent-seekers who love them Excerpts from the Wall Street Journal article: "[T]here are the utility CEOs cheering on the Obama Administration’s plans to wipe out large portions of U.S. electric power capacity. The Environmental Protection Agency is preparing an unprecedented torrent of air and other regulations that will force as much as a third of U.S. coal-fired power to retire in the coming years. This gambit is meant as an anticarbon backstop now that cap and trade is in the political morgue and it will cause huge reliability problems, but some electric executives claim all this merely follows the law and is nothing to worry about. Eight leading utility CEOs responded recently to one of our editorials with a letter defending the EPA, claiming that the coal retirements are “long overdue” and that the regulations will “yield important economic benefits.” What they didn’t mention is that those benefits will mostly accrue to the businesses they happen to head." And also. . . But don’t take our word for it. Here’s John Rowe, one of the letter’s signatories and the chairman and chief executive of Exelon: “Put simply, we expect some drop in 2012 earnings. But we believe by that time that the trough in our revenues will be nearing its end. This morning, I am going to cover three reasons why we believe that. First, EPA regulations will affect both capacity and energy markets, and will do so sooner than many think,” Mr. Rowe said on Exelon’s second-quarter earnings call in July. This “welter of regulations that are coming to the nation’s coal-fired generation fleet,” he continued, means that “Exelon’s clean generation will grow in value in a relatively short time. We are of course positioning our portfolio to capture that value.” Gotta love the can-do lobbying spirit of that “of course.” The EPA is trying to drive out carbon-heavy coal via activist regulation of traditional air pollutants. This won’t hurt Exelon because its electricity portfolio is mostly nuclear; only about 6% is fossil fuel based. But it’s more than that. As Mr. Rowe explained, these regulations “increase operating costs for the coal-fired generators”—that is, for his competitors—”and ultimately increase the clearing price for energy.” As wholesale prices rise at the margin, Exelon’s revenues rise but its fixed costs don’t, juicing profits. On the earnings call, Mr. Rowe said “the upside to Exelon is unmistakable,” and he even estimated that every $5 increase per megawatt-hour translates into $700 million to $800 million in new annual revenue. The Chicago-based company will also be able to colonize those markets left without adequate capacity as coal plants are mothballed. Exelon spokeswoman Judy Rader says the air regulations won’t be as harsh as we suggest and that coal plants will shut down for other reasons as well, including the inefficiencies of older plants and current low energy prices and demand. In March, Exelon said it is closing four Pennsylvania facilities for these reasons. “Exelon and other clean, forward-thinking utilities will benefit because they have already prepared for EPA action by retiring or investing millions of dollars to clean up their aging and inefficient plants,” she adds. But another way to think about the EPA’s regulatory deluge is as a cap-and-tax consolation prize. A carbon price would have benefited nuclear generators, and we hear Mr. Rowe personally lobbied Members before the House vote on that bill last year. Not that this was anything out of the ordinary. Frank Clark, who runs the Exelon unit Commonwealth Edison in northern Illinois, is one of President Obama’s largest fundraisers. Rahm Emanuel helped broker the $8.2 billion merger that created Exelon in 2000 when he worked at the firm then called Wasserstein Perella. White House aide David Axelrod was once an Exelon consultant. But Exelon is merely the best connected company trying to cash in on the White House-EPA agenda. Take NextEra Energy, whose CEO Lewis Hay also claimed that we “mischaracterized” what’s going on. NextEra, which operates in 26 states, has expanded rapidly in recent years and is now the largest producer of wind and solar power in the U.S. But that’s nothing compared to the EPA windfall he expects. “Even without legislation in Congress, the EPA is marching forward in terms of regulating carbon dioxide. So I think that puts us in a very good position,” said Mr. Hay at a Bank of America Merrill Lynch Investment Conference in September. Right on cue, the EPA is rolling out new carbon “performance standards” next week. “But,” Mr. Hay continued, “they’re regulating so many other things. They have rules and regulations coming out on mercury, NOX, SOX, coal ash. I’m probably missing one or two. . . . It’s not going to be economic to put the scrubbers and all the other things that one has put on to deal with this multitude of new rules and regulations coming down the pike. So, without question, we will have a large number of megawatts of capacity come out of the system over time.” In other words, the EPA’s path of destruction for others is a growth opportunity for him. Regulation always creates winners and losers, and energy businesses always try to game the process instead of allowing markets to shape power supply and demand. But this is an especially outrageous case. The EPA is abusing environmental law to achieve policy goals that the democratic process has rejected, while also engineering a transfer of wealth to certain companies that will be extracted from the 25 states in the Midwest and South that get more than 50% of their electricity from coal. These industry beneficiaries then pretend that this agenda is nothing more than a stroll around Walden Pond, when it’s really about lining their own pockets. As long as they’re on the dole, the EPA’s apologists could at least be more candid about why they’re encouraging the government to expand its control over the wealth-producing parts of the economy. We’ll gladly print the letter.
I wish governments were about looking after people, but I'm not that naive, I study government. The only people that look after people are people. Get rid of as much government as we can so we can do a more equitable and fair job of it.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
