BF2S Forums US cult of greed is now a global environmental threat

Diesel_dyk wrote:

The article smells of jealousy... and you can't spell jealousy without lousy.

OMG how can you drive an SUV with a 7.3l diesel engine http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/aut … 990002.jpg because we have wide roads and modern freeways in cities that were mostly built in the last 100 years. Do we consume a lot? yes absolutely. But we also produce a lot and you can not take advantage of all the farming and resources without the expenditure of vasts amount of energy. Fact is that the US is a beacon showing the rest of the world just how high the standard of living a human being can enjoy.

To the developing world, yes.  To the already developed world...  not so much.  There are countries like Norway that enjoy a quality of life higher than ours on average.  Canada is another, although that's somewhat dependent on whether you live in a big city or in the middle of nowhere.

Now, it is true that we generally have more disposable income per capita than almost all the world, but that ignores how much more we have to pay for things like healthcare.

You can buy a huge SUV and still afford the gas in most states, because our fuel taxes are relatively low in most cases.  However, if you ever have to get a major surgery, you're going to pay out the ass for it here, unless you have good insurance.

Diesel_dyk wrote:

And the rest of the world appears to want what the US enjoys, go figure. So even if the US curtailed its "culture of greed," that's not going to change the world's desire to raise their standard of living and increase their consumption.  Perhaps the US should secret away its standard of living, and stop shipping medicine to the third world and offer food laced with contraceptive to deflect population growth... At what point do you stop in the efforts to save the world? Because let's face it, people everywhere what a better life, they are not following the US example because its an image thing.

True, China is clearly following our example.  Of course, curtailing our consumption will naturally occur here anyway, because as resources grow more scarce, prices will rise, and we won't be able to buy as much as before.

Diesel_dyk wrote:

The day that the US is reduced to argiculture with a stick is the day the new dark age begins. I guess then this article will be the smartest thing in the world and then they can pat themselves on the back for a job well done.

That depends on how quickly it occurs.  Already, a slow shift of economic power is moving towards Asia.  Eventually, our status as an economic superpower will dissipate, and we'll be on equal terms with Europe, China, and possibly Brazil.

It's doubtful we'll be reduced to an agrarian society, but life here is going to be much less decadent by the end of the current century.

Diesel_dyk wrote:

BTW a 7.3l diesel SUV is a little over kill but it does get 18mpg (US gallon) which is alsmost 22 mpg imperial. So mot unreasonable compared to a V8 sports car or porsche 911. And more practical.

With time, we'll have better hybrid SUVs and hybrid work vehicles.  "Light" hybrids are the way to go in the short run.

People can't predict what's going to happen next year with the economy, but they think they can predict what is going to happen a hundred years from now. Madness I tell ya.

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

People can't predict what's going to happen next year with the economy, but they think they can predict what is going to happen a hundred years from now. Madness I tell ya.

I'm not saying I agree particularly with the author, but macroeconomic models are often more accurate than you'd think.

For example, it's not hard to predict what happens to the value of things like arable land and clean drinking water when your planet doubles in population.

I guess the irony of the author's perspective is that he doesn't seem to realize that we will naturally consume less over time because of the growing scarcity of resources.  This culture of greed and decadence will simply be reined in by market principles themselves.

The economy is anything but predictable. I saw a post of everything that was supposed to happen over the last year by so called economic experts. Laughable. I predict nearly no one getting it right this year.. again. If it were predictable, if people truly knew what was over the next hill then this economic slump wouldn't have been this severe. But they didn't.. although they did make money selling the idea of predictability to anyone gullible enough to believe their words.

Kmarion wrote:

The economy is anything but predictable. I saw a post of everything that was supposed to happen over the last year by so called economic experts. Laughable. I predict nearly no one getting it right this year.. again. If it were predictable, if people truly knew what was over the next hill then this economic slump wouldn't have been this severe. But they didn't.. although they did make money selling the idea of predictability to anyone gullible enough to believe their words.

Peter Schiff called it right, and he wasn't alone either.  People laughed at him, but in the end, he was the one laughing.

I'm not saying the majority view of economists is always right, but it's not always wrong either.

Yes, the economy is hard to predict over a short period of time, but there are basic observations and assumptions that can be made for longer periods of time.  The weather is much the same.

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

The economy is anything but predictable. I saw a post of everything that was supposed to happen over the last year by so called economic experts. Laughable. I predict nearly no one getting it right this year.. again. If it were predictable, if people truly knew what was over the next hill then this economic slump wouldn't have been this severe. But they didn't.. although they did make money selling the idea of predictability to anyone gullible enough to believe their words.

Peter Schiff called it right, and he wasn't alone either.  People laughed at him, but in the end, he was the one laughing.

I'm not saying the majority view of economists is always right, but it's not always wrong either.

Yes, the economy is hard to predict over a short period of time, but there are basic observations and assumptions that can be made for longer periods of time.  The weather is much the same.

Yes, you can't project what will occur on a given day of the week fifty years from now but you can give a relatively accurate description of the economic environment that the day sits in.

Btw, if I lived in CT, I'd vote for him

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-01-13 17:52:10)

Diesel_dyk wrote:

Dude, who do you think has developed all those medicines, technology, argicultural techiques that has raised the standard of living for the entire world. Excess consumption is an expression of that success. Being fat is sign of a successful society. The US isn't failing, though there are many who are jealous of the standard of living here.

There is no doubt that the US is a beacon to the rest of the world....

No-ones saying the US should abandon all the trappings of wealth. but your economy is failing, you have thousands/millions in poverty etc etc (see my previous post which points you managed to ignore). the US has NOT developed fuckin everything of any value, and it's (typical?) American close-mindedness and big-headedness (is that a word? I dunno) that makes you say it is so. In some respects the US HAS BEEN a beacon to the world, but get a grip - over the past few decades your star has been falling to be replaced by other countries who represent typicall american ideal like freedom, justice and so on far better than you guys do now. Thing isd, you are an Americna and live in the US so you don't know how you're seen by other coutnries. not as a beacon of hope but as seomthing to avoid.

A lot of the yanks on this forum are very arrogant. Being fat isn't a symbol of success - it's a sign of being unhealthy and not taking much exercise. Why do you think so many poor people are fat? Cos they eat fuckin MCDonalds shit. Seriously, you have to expand your way of thinking.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Yes, you can't project what will occur on a given day of the week fifty years from now but you can give a relatively accurate description of the economic environment that the day sits in.

Btw, if I lived in CT, I'd vote for him

Same here...  I would definitely vote for him if he ran against Lieberman.  At this point, though, Schiff is probably better off still running for Chris Dodd's seat in the Senate.

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-01-13 21:15:24)

FEOS wrote:

Great. You provided the link. Which showed exactly zero evidence of any research that I described. Clearly you either 1) didn't read what I posted or 2) didn't comprehend what I wrote regarding my issues with the "article". Perhaps you should go back and re-read. Slowly.

As to addressing the content of the "article"...G@lt did a great job of that. And you had pretty much fuckall in response to the content of his response. He ripped the "article" to shreds from a logic and reason perspective, not from a "I'm an average American and it doesn't apply to me, so it clearly doesn't apply to anyone in America" perspective.

It's a shit piece of work from someone who needs remedial journalistic training. Unfortunately, you seem to feel the need to defend their work for some reason so you are bearing the brunt of the criticism of their work and are taking it personally for some reason when the criticism isn't directed at you, but at the content of the article you posted.

well you asked for the link, so whatever dude!

It's your opinion it's a shit piece of work, fair enough. I'm only defending the article to the point of saying the newspaper article was a fair, unbiased and accurate report of the THINKTANK'S report. it was just a report about a report...ah fuck it you're not understanding what I'm saying (or, apparently, the point of a newspaper report) so there's no point is there. Galt didn't 'rip it to shreds' (LOL thats a good one by the way!) He did expose his crappy knowledge of spelling though. You might disagree with the thinktank's report, that's another matter.

It obviously touched a nerve though. but why?

Published: June 6, 1987

FEOS wrote:

It's a shit piece of work from someone who needs remedial journalistic training.

Its just an article on a report, why not calm down and try addressing the report itself and not the journalism?

lowing wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Well rui thinks the US is doing it because of all the oil in Haiti ya know. There's oil there right?

Everyone just likes to blame the US without looking at the themselves.

I think it's good they're helping the Haitians. Why? I dunno. Maybe Obama really IS a nice guy?!

Yes because the US has never been the leader in global relief efforts BEFORE Obama got into office.

Bush gave a shitload to Indonesia and neighbors during the tsunami.

ruisleipa wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Great. You provided the link. Which showed exactly zero evidence of any research that I described. Clearly you either 1) didn't read what I posted or 2) didn't comprehend what I wrote regarding my issues with the "article". Perhaps you should go back and re-read. Slowly.

As to addressing the content of the "article"...G@lt did a great job of that. And you had pretty much fuckall in response to the content of his response. He ripped the "article" to shreds from a logic and reason perspective, not from a "I'm an average American and it doesn't apply to me, so it clearly doesn't apply to anyone in America" perspective.

It's a shit piece of work from someone who needs remedial journalistic training. Unfortunately, you seem to feel the need to defend their work for some reason so you are bearing the brunt of the criticism of their work and are taking it personally for some reason when the criticism isn't directed at you, but at the content of the article you posted.

well you asked for the link, so whatever dude!

I did ask for a link and you provided it. Unfortunately, there was nothing additional there. Not your fault, nor did I imply that it was. Again, no need to take criticism of the article personally. Unless you wrote it? Got a nome de plume you want to share with us?

ruisleipa wrote:

It's your opinion it's a shit piece of work, fair enough. I'm only defending the article to the point of saying the newspaper article was a fair, unbiased and accurate report of the THINKTANK'S report. it was just a report about a report...ah fuck it you're not understanding what I'm saying (or, apparently, the point of a newspaper report) so there's no point is there. Galt didn't 'rip it to shreds' (LOL thats a good one by the way!) He did expose his crappy knowledge of spelling though. You might disagree with the thinktank's report, that's another matter.

And again, you've completely missed the point and content of what I've now said at least twice regarding the content of the "report".

The article was anything but unbiased. Look at the language used to describe the "report". The "reporter" clearly was intellectually in lockstep with the "researchers" from the "thinktank" and was giving them free press, rather than doing what a journalist should have done, which was take the report, research it, get views of others, and present both sides--along with facts supporting both sides that the journalist independently verified.

G@lt ripped the content of the "reporter's" presentation of the "thinktank's" findings to shreds quite easily. They were logically flawed in many ways, overlooking simple things in order to force the data to their desired end state. At least according to the Guardian's crackerjack reporting. Hardly solid scientific method to validate their flawed (as shown by others here) hypothesis.

To say that disagreeing with the report is "another matter" is ridiculous! Isn't that what this thread is about? You post an article whose content, style and agenda all suck balls in their own unique way and then when those ways are pointed out you tell us that those discussions are "another matter"? Seriously?

As to spelling: You've spent more time worrying about that now than G@lt did.

ruisleipa wrote:

It obviously touched a nerve though. but why?

The only nerve that appears to have been touched is yours. You're the one who has taken some kind of personal affront to criticism of the article posted. It's a shit article of a flawed study. Unless you either wrote the article or performed the study, I honestly don't see why you are spending an ounce of energy defending it other than perhaps you feel the need to support anything at all that takes a shot at the US, no matter whether it is correct or not.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

It's a shit piece of work from someone who needs remedial journalistic training.

Its just an article on a report, why not calm down and try addressing the report itself and not the journalism?

Because (as I already said) that was done quite well.

And I'm quite calm, thank you.

And how can we address the report when we don't have the report to address? All we have is what is "reported" in the "article" and that has already been addressed quite well.