Lack of UK Political thread

[SpaceCDT]

Capitalism is being hampered at every turn, more like.

do fuck off

What an utterly ridiculous point unchecked capitalism has quite clearly be shown be a giant fail.

Really? Western countries have the highest standard of living, so how exactly has capitalism been clearly shown to be a giant fail?

 

[Prolescum]

do fuck off

What an utterly ridiculous point unchecked capitalism has quite clearly be shown be a giant fail.

Really? Western countries have the highest standard of living, so how exactly has capitalism been clearly shown to be a giant fail?

Like being comfortable is the greatest achievement man can have... That's no benchmark.

There is a high standard of living in the west, but at the expense of practically everyone (and everything) else. Yeah, that's obviously a win, especially in the long term... It's not like greed foments envy and helps perpetuate the cycle of abusing resources to obtain more resources or anything.
Capitalism has doomed our species to ever decreasing supplies of commodities we are now indentured by, obviously a win; consumer-driven economics are prone to the vagaries and whims of proto-despots and bolster actual ones, all for what? A bit of ephemeral power over a few others? Some reflected envy? That's obviously a win :roll:

Capitalism is being hampered at every turn, more like.

As it should be. Greed for its own sake is one of humanity's worst traits. Sentience engendered benevolence (which it still does), but has been usurped by the avarice of a few and forgotten by swathes of the purposely ill-informed. Capitalists are the modern equivalent of monarchy, sitting on their provisional thrones, taken by force but recorded as emancipation, in castles made of sand, barking orders at its lackeys whilst pretending they're giving freedom.

Capitalism has been, and will continually be shown as the pernicious, ultimately useless waste it is until it fucks off for good, just like the church, the monarchies, nationalism, communism or any other collection of bastards who fool people to retain their hegemony no matter the cost.

So there. :lol:

 

[Andiferous]

Since everyone's doggie-piling British folk, I'd just like jump in to add that only those* who have perfected the royal wave should be allowed into government.

*those in the royal we sense, of course.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Really? Western countries have the highest standard of living, so how exactly has capitalism been clearly shown to be a giant fail?

Like being comfortable is the greatest achievement man can have... That's no benchmark.

There is a high standard of living in the west, but at the expense of practically everyone (and everything) else. Yeah, that's obviously a win, especially in the long term... It's not like greed foments envy and helps perpetuate the cycle of abusing resources to obtain more resources or anything.
Capitalism has doomed our species to ever decreasing supplies of commodities we are now indentured by, obviously a win; consumer-driven economics are prone to the vagaries and whims of proto-despots and bolster actual ones, all for what? A bit of ephemeral power over a few others? Some reflected envy? That's obviously a win :roll:

Which is, of course, why capitalist societies have the fewest commodities, the poorest people, the most despots... no, wait, that's the exact opposite of the real situation.

Capitalism is being hampered at every turn, more like.

As it should be. Greed for its own sake is one of humanity's worst traits. Sentience engendered benevolence (which it still does), but has been usurped by the avarice of a few and forgotten by swathes of the purposely ill-informed. Capitalists are the modern equivalent of monarchy, sitting on their provisional thrones, taken by force but recorded as emancipation, in castles made of sand, barking orders at its lackeys whilst pretending they're giving freedom.

Capitalism has been, and will continually be shown as the pernicious, ultimately useless waste it is until it fucks off for good, just like the church, the monarchies, nationalism, communism or any other collection of bastards who fool people to retain their hegemony no matter the cost.

So there. :lol:

Your argument rests on two false assumptions; that capitalism prevents benevolence, and that the end results are not benevolent. The first is simply and obviously false. If you want proof, US citizens give more to charity as a percentage of GDP.

http://www.cafonline.org/pdf/International%20%20Giving%20highlights.pdf

The second is false as well. The least well off economically in the US still has far more resources available to them then the average person in the rest of the world.

http://scienceblog.com/16130/carbon-footprint-of-different-lifestyles-including-homeless/

Got something besides heated rhetoric?

 

[Prolescum]

Like being comfortable is the greatest achievement man can have... That's no benchmark.

There is a high standard of living in the west, but at the expense of practically everyone (and everything) else. Yeah, that's obviously a win, especially in the long term... It's not like greed foments envy and helps perpetuate the cycle of abusing resources to obtain more resources or anything.
Capitalism has doomed our species to ever decreasing supplies of commodities we are now indentured by, obviously a win; consumer-driven economics are prone to the vagaries and whims of proto-despots and bolster actual ones, all for what? A bit of ephemeral power over a few others? Some reflected envy? That's obviously a win :roll:

Which is, of course, why capitalist societies have the fewest commodities, the poorest people, the most despots... no, wait, that's the exact opposite of the real situation.

Eh? I don't think I said what you think I've said.

Let me break it down into vignettes.

Capitalism has doomed our species to ever decreasing supplies of commodities we are now indentured by

This means that in my view, the capitalist system we are currently using is addicted to unsustainable resources and we are at the beck and call of those who control them. Of course, I'm putting it in simple terms so's even a yokel can understand what I'm trying to convey. But now I'm having to simplify it further for you. The work of a prole is never done...

You could concentrate your efforts on showing me where and why this is wrong if you like.

consumer-driven economics are prone to the vagaries and whims of proto-despots and bolster actual ones

The proto-despots are the *coughs* ahem, kings of industry or whatever fanciful term they give themselves these days. I see your sense of humour and I'll raise you a fish.

I hope this clears up your misunderstanding. I won't get my hopes up though, I'm such a terrible communicator.

As it should be. Greed for its own sake is one of humanity's worst traits. Sentience engendered benevolence (which it still does), but has been usurped by the avarice of a few and forgotten by swathes of the purposely ill-informed. Capitalists are the modern equivalent of monarchy, sitting on their provisional thrones, taken by force but recorded as emancipation, in castles made of sand, barking orders at its lackeys whilst pretending they're giving freedom.

Capitalism has been, and will continually be shown as the pernicious, ultimately useless waste it is until it fucks off for good, just like the church, the monarchies, nationalism, communism or any other collection of bastards who fool people to retain their hegemony no matter the cost.

So there.

Your argument rests on two false assumptions

No it doesn't. However, your argument rests on two false assumptions, that you are correct and that I am wrong.

That is not how this game is played, RTFM.

that capitalism prevents benevolence

No, that's what's we call here in ye olde Englande a big pile of steaming bollocks on a platter. With mustard.

I posted nothing of the sort. I said benevolence has been usurped by avarice. You can have a look, I've quoted it in this post.

and that the end results are not benevolent.

I didn't say that either, and I agree it could be argued both ways. Just like when the faithful argue that religion is a force for good in the world*, the same arguments, "yes, they've done bad things but they do great things too, like charity..." always crop up. Interesting, that.

*see the Tony Blair/Christopher Hitchens debate for a now classic (and relatively coherent) example.

The first is simply and obviously false.

If we apply your strawman of my position, sure. Absolutely.

What bumwash this reading lark is, eh...

If you want proof, US citizens give more to charity as a percentage of GDP.

[link]

Oh, charity... That's alright, then. Raping the planet wither and thither almost beyond its ability to reproduce is acceptable if you're giving to charity. :lol:

In all seriousness, I don't really need to address this point at all, but for the sake of being charitable, are all charitable Americans capitalists? Are you sure there's not a teensy bit of conflation in there, eh?

We (the royal type) like that, second only to hyperbole in my book. Which, I'll admit, is tailored specifically to my sense of the dramatic, so you can ignore that sentence if you wish. That last one also, along with this seemingly pointless but irrevocably cute one.

The second is false as well.

What a conundrum we have

As is you The least well off economically in the US still has far more resources available to them then the average person in the rest of the world.

[link]

Got something besides heated rhetoric?

Yeah, balls of steel.

Also, a really canny knack for making a great slaw.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

This means that in my view, the capitalist system we are currently using is addicted to unsustainable resources and we are at the beck and call of those who control them. Of course, I'm putting it in simple terms so's even a yokel can understand what I'm trying to convey. But now I'm having to simplify it further for you. The work of a prole is never done...

You could concentrate your efforts on showing me where and why this is wrong if you like.

Ridiculous. Name three resources that are less available or more expensive then they were a hundred years ago.

This is based on the false premise of fixed resources. Resources are not fixed, they vary based on their cost. There are less horses in cities now; does that mean we have a critical transportation shortage? Does a lack of whale oil refining mean homes are dark at night?

The one place you might have a point is oil; but an increase in the efficiency of devices combined with alternate sources of power will probably mean that oil will eventually be phased out as an energy source, as horses and whale oil have been.

The proto-despots are the *coughs* ahem, kings of industry or whatever fanciful term they give themselves these days. I see your sense of humour and I'll raise you a fish.

I hope this clears up your misunderstanding. I won't get my hopes up though, I'm such a terrible communicator.

Well, you said it.

This is all premised on a dim view of humanity as people who are easily duped into purchasing things they don't need. This is probably down to a deficiency in your theory of mind; you don't see the value in what other people purchase, so you assume there is none. People buy things because they value them and want them, not because they're somehow tricked into it.

Your argument rests on two false assumptions

No it doesn't.

It really does.

Oh, charity... That's alright, then. Raping the planet wither and thither almost beyond its ability to reproduce is acceptable if you're giving to charity.

You want to back that statement up with something? Biomass has steadily increased in capitalist countries and steadily decreased in non-capitalist countries. Generally, ecological damage is increased on commonly-owned or state-owned properties more then privately owned properties.

 

[Prolescum]

Name three resources that are less available or more expensive then they were a hundred years ago.

Oil, water, honey. Easy peasy, that pork made me queasy.

This is based on the false premise of fixed resources.

You like calling things false don't you, Arthur? It's not a magic word that automatically makes you right when you use it.

Resources are not fixed, they vary based on their cost.

The cost varies based upon availability of resources. I can put these words together coherently too, you know.

There are less horses in cities now; does that mean we have a critical transportation shortage? Does a lack of whale oil refining mean homes are dark at night?

Fewer horses dude, fewer.

The one place you might have a point is oil

Surely not just one place... I'm certain I make points in amongst the guff all the time.

but an increase in the efficiency of devices

America has a comically inconsistent history when it comes to implementing efficiency, but speaking about the whole planet, that's just an excuse to do sweet fanny adams. We'll be fighting over the remnants of the world's oil long before reliance upon it diminishes to an effective degree.

combined with alternate sources of power will probably mean that oil will eventually be phased out as an energy source, as horses and whale oil have been.

All those alternative sources that'll be of practical use before we start seriously running out of oil or clean, fresh water? Dude, you crack me up. And I'll bet you say lefties wander around with their head in the clouds. Perhaps you've had too much blue-sky...

The proto-despots are the *coughs* ahem, kings of industry or whatever fanciful term they give themselves these days. I see your sense of humour and I'll raise you a fish.

I hope this clears up your misunderstanding. I won't get my hopes up though, I'm such a terrible communicator.

Well, you said it.

Only to make you feel a little better about your earlier fuck up; I'm willing to take the blame for others sometimes, but not indefinitely.

This is all premised on a dim view of humanity as people who are easily duped into purchasing things they don't need.

No it isn't, it's about sustainability. It is your (false) assumption that I'm an idiot that's causing you to think that's what's behind this argument. I'm not against trade.

At this point, I really don't expect you to understand, the nuances of politics is obviously not your strongest suit. Perhaps Mirandansa's UFO stuff is better suited to your... abilities. Anyway, isn't this meant to be a British politics discussion thread?

This is probably down to a deficiency in your theory of mind

Fuken hippy ;D

you don't see the value in what other people purchase, so you assume there is none.

I hope by the time you get to this bit you've cottoned on... :lol: The assumptions in this conversation have been yours, Arthur.

People buy things because they value them and want them, not because they're somehow tricked into it.

Dude, sit back and take a deep breath. You can keep your He-man and your G.I. Joe action figures, I promise not to take them while you're not looking and redistribute them to the poor. :lol:

Your argument rests on two false assumptions


No it doesn't.

It really does.

It really doesn't, and I've already explained this. In case you've forgotten what you've actually said, we're talking about the bit where I showed the two false assumptions I'm supposed to be using, which according to you were that capitalism prevents benevolence and that the end results are not benevolent, were utter Bombay bottom. Why are you maintaining that they are the premises of my argument when the evidence which contradicts you is just a scroll-up away?

Oh, charity... That's alright, then. Raping the planet wither and thither almost beyond its ability to reproduce is acceptable if you're giving to charity.


You want to back that statement up with something?

No. You can figure it out if you concentrate.

Biomass has steadily increased in capitalist countries and steadily decreased in non-capitalist countries.

Eh? Is this a self-deprecating joke about the amount of shit you're allowing to pop out of you this week?

Generally, ecological damage is increased on commonly-owned or state-owned properties more then privately owned properties.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I new it woz the guvmint wot did it!

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Oil, water, honey. Easy peasy, that pork made me queasy.

No, no, and maybe. These aren't demonstrations of current shortages, these are predictions of future shortages. You didn't even make any comparisons to a hundred years ago. Care to try again?

Resources are not fixed, they vary based on their cost.

The cost varies based upon availability of resources. I can put these words together coherently too, you know.

I believe you're thinking of price, which is different then cost. The availability of resources is dependent on cost; the demand for resources is dependent on price, which is a function of cost.

There are less horses in cities now; does that mean we have a critical transportation shortage? Does a lack of whale oil refining mean homes are dark at night?

Fewer horses dude, fewer.

Excuse me. My point remains; a reduction in the use of one resource in no way means disaster.

The one place you might have a point is oil

Surely not just one place... I'm certain I make points in amongst the guff all the time.

You're not as clever as you think yourself to be.

America has a comically inconsistent history when it comes to implementing efficiency, but speaking about the whole planet, that's just an excuse to do sweet fanny adams. We'll be fighting over the remnants of the world's oil long before reliance upon it diminishes to an effective degree.

That's not how economies work. As oil becomes more expensive, people will start relying on other, less expensive energy sources. Total power consumption might be reduced if these other sources don't produce as much energy, but there's more then enough to maintain critical infrastructure.

All those alternative sources that'll be of practical use before we start seriously running out of oil or clean, fresh water? Dude, you crack me up. And I'll bet you say lefties wander around with their head in the clouds. Perhaps you've had too much blue-sky...

Argument from incredulity.

No it isn't, it's about sustainability. It is your (false) assumption that I'm an idiot that's causing you to think that's what's behind this argument. I'm not against trade.

At this point, I really don't expect you to understand, the nuances of politics is obviously not your strongest suit. Perhaps Mirandansa's UFO stuff is better suited to your... abilities. Anyway, isn't this meant to be a British politics discussion thread?

I didn't start the derail, but I can't stay quiet when people say ridiculous things. Like sustainability, which again is dependent on the idea of fixed resources.

you don't see the value in what other people purchase, so you assume there is none.

I hope by the time you get to this bit you've cottoned on... :lol: The assumptions in this conversation have been yours, Arthur.

Eh, perhaps true, but when most of your post consists of wild speculation and veiled insults I have to use some method to try to cut through to your meaning.

Dude, sit back and take a deep breath. You can keep your He-man and your G.I. Joe action figures, I promise not to take them while you're not looking and redistribute them to the poor. :lol:

... This came right out of nowhere. They're made from eeevil unsustainable plastic, you know.

Oh, charity... That's alright, then. Raping the planet wither and thither almost beyond its ability to reproduce is acceptable if you're giving to charity.


You want to back that statement up with something?

No. You can figure it out if you concentrate.

I can figure it out easy enough. You're making a common anti-capitalist allegation that you can't actually demonstrate to be true.

Biomass has steadily increased in capitalist countries and steadily decreased in non-capitalist countries.

Eh? Is this a self-deprecating joke about the amount of shit you're allowing to pop out of you this week?

Well, if you include agricultural. Forested land has held pretty steady. Yeah, I'll withdraw this one for lack of clear evidence.

Generally, ecological damage is increased on commonly-owned or state-owned properties more then privately owned properties.

I new it woz the guvmint wot did it!

Can you demonstrate me wrong?

A comprehensive review of the concept of peak oil is here:

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4100

 

[PAB]

Arthur in relation to consumerism , i refer you to the documentary Century of the Self which gives a nice glimpse at the social processes and changes that have happened in recent capitalist societies ( USA UK) , insight into the psychology of relations of people in capitalist economies.

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-century-of-the-self/

@Prolescum

have you read much Marx?
im reading him at the moment, the rationality and logical approach is quite sexy

 

[Prolescum]

Oil, water, honey. Easy peasy, that pork made me queasy.

No, no, and maybe. These aren't demonstrations of current shortages, these are predictions of future shortages. You didn't even make any comparisons to a hundred years ago. Care to try again?

Ahem...

Name three resources that are less available or more expensive then they were a hundred years ago.

I answered your challenge.

Resources are not fixed, they vary based on their cost.


The cost varies based upon availability of resources. I can put these words together coherently too, you know.

I believe you're thinking of price, which is different then cost. The availability of resources is dependent on cost; the demand for resources is dependent on price, which is a function of cost.

I believe I was taking the piss. I shall try to make it clearer in future even though it's much funnier reading your responses when I don't.

There are less horses in cities now; does that mean we have a critical transportation shortage? Does a lack of whale oil refining mean homes are dark at night?


Fewer horses dude, fewer.

Excuse me. My point remains; a reduction in the use of one resource in no way means disaster.

You're so parochial
Only one resource is limited and only one place suffers a deficit of the resource, of course.

Surely not just one place... I'm certain I make points in amongst the guff all the time.

You're not as clever as you think yourself to be.

But I make up for it with an appealing walk and a rather handsome set of fingers.

America has a comically inconsistent history when it comes to implementing efficiency, but speaking about the whole planet, that's just an excuse to do sweet fanny adams. We'll be fighting over the remnants of the world's oil long before reliance upon it diminishes to an effective degree.

That's not how economies work. As oil becomes more expensive, people will start relying on other, less expensive energy sources. Total power consumption might be reduced if these other sources don't produce as much energy, but there's more then enough to maintain critical infrastructure.

Not taking all eventualities into account, are you Arthur...

All those alternative sources that'll be of practical use before we start seriously running out of oil or clean, fresh water? Dude, you crack me up. And I'll bet you say lefties wander around with their head in the clouds. Perhaps you've had too much blue-sky...

Argument from incredulity.

I'll admit that all those clean coal power stations currently in operation are doing some good and that photovoltaic fuel cells are taking care of Africa's energy needs. Yep, you can have that one.

No it isn't, it's about sustainability. It is your (false) assumption that I'm an idiot that's causing you to think that's what's behind this argument. I'm not against trade.

At this point, I really don't expect you to understand, the nuances of politics is obviously not your strongest suit. Perhaps Mirandansa's UFO stuff is better suited to your... abilities. Anyway, isn't this meant to be a British politics discussion thread?

I didn't start the derail, but I can't stay quiet when people say ridiculous things. Like sustainability, which again is dependent on the idea of fixed resources.

It's dependent upon the idea that our species requires more than personal gain.

you don't see the value in what other people purchase, so you assume there is none.


I hope by the time you get to this bit you've cottoned on... The assumptions in this conversation have been yours, Arthur.

Eh, perhaps true, but when most of your post consists of wild speculation and veiled insults I have to use some method to try to cut through to your meaning.

My insults aren't veiled. If you're having difficulty following, may I suggest coffee?

Dude, sit back and take a deep breath. You can keep your He-man and your G.I. Joe action figures, I promise not to take them while you're not looking and redistribute them to the poor.

... This came right out of nowhere. They're made from eeevil unsustainable plastic, you know.

There was a point to it, although I suspect, like many things noted in this thread, it's gone right over your head. Feel free to review my posts.

Oh, charity... That's alright, then. Raping the planet wither and thither almost beyond its ability to reproduce is acceptable if you're giving to charity.

You want to back that statement up with something?

No. You can figure it out if you concentrate.

I can figure it out easy enough. You're making a common anti-capitalist allegation that you can't actually demonstrate to be true.

lol wrong. Try again.

Biomass has steadily increased in capitalist countries and steadily decreased in non-capitalist countries.

Eh? Is this a self-deprecating joke about the amount of shit you're allowing to pop out of you this week?

Well, if you include agricultural. Forested land has held pretty steady. Yeah, I'll withdraw this one for lack of clear evidence.

And I get accused of speculating...

Can you demonstrate me wrong?

Can you demonstrate that I am wrong. There you go :lol:

I'll remind you of one of the many things you ignored earlier:

However, your argument rests on two false assumptions, that you are correct and that I am wrong.

That is not how this game is played, RTFM.

Meditate on it for a while.

A comprehensive review of the concept of peak oil is here:

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4100

There are more ifs, maybes, possibles and probables in there than there are in Narnia. Funny thing is, that's exactly the thing you'd tear apart were it from another political perspective.

Comprehensive my arse.

@Prolescum

have you read much Marx?

Yes, I was an active boy. Lampooning is much more fun to me than passively countering typical capitalist dogmatics in political conversations; they have such an unrefined sense of humour. Assuming they have one at all.

So, back to British politics...

We're due Jeremy Hunt's decision on NI's takeover of BskyB. He's in a bit of an awkward position, having had a meeting with James Murdoch without minutes being taken...

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Name three resources that are less available or more expensive then they were a hundred years ago.

I answered your challenge.

No, you didn't. Oil and water are more widely available; I'm betting there weren't gas stations on every block in 1910, and pumping stations move water to a far wider area then they did a century ago. The price of water varies on your location, of course, but actual numbers would be needed to demonstrate any difference between now or a hundred years ago. Your sources were about the future when I asked about the present and the past. A non-response.

You're so parochial
Only one resource is limited and only one place suffers a deficit of the resource, of course.

Nooo... the resource itself loses value and becomes less common as it is replaced.

But I make up for it with an appealing walk and a rather handsome set of fingers.

I've read Oscar Wilde. Oscar Wilde had an insult that I could take personally in one of his famous plays. You're not Oscar Wilde; you're just someone saying random things and then imagining that makes you witty. You're like those idiots who thinks Zen consists of making ridiculous contradictory statements.

That's not how economies work. As oil becomes more expensive, people will start relying on other, less expensive energy sources. Total power consumption might be reduced if these other sources don't produce as much energy, but there's more then enough to maintain critical infrastructure.

Not taking all eventualities into account, are you Arthur...

Only ones I consider probable. Care to take Pascal's wager?

I'll admit that all those clean coal power stations currently in operation are doing some good and that photovoltaic fuel cells are taking care of Africa's energy needs. Yep, you can have that one.

Just extend the pattern.

Like sustainability, which again is dependent on the idea of fixed resources.

It's dependent upon the idea that our species requires more than personal gain.

Doesn't follow. People could still selfishly follow personal gain using only sustainable methods. Feudalism was extremely selfish and built its power on human corpses, as sustainable a resource as any.

My insults aren't veiled. If you're having difficulty following, may I suggest coffee?

Yes, they are. For example, saying to someone "You're a blithering idiot parroting ideas and pretending intellect you don't have" is a direct insult. The previous sentence in its entirety is an example of a veiled insult. See the difference?

A comprehensive review of the concept of peak oil is here:

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4100

There are more ifs, maybes, possibles and probables in there than there are in Narnia. Funny thing is, that's exactly the thing you'd tear apart were it from another political perspective.

Comprehensive my arse.

Which of course means you're just going to disparage it vaguely and not actually give a response or any contradictory evidence. Why bother; no doubt you think it's witty to ignore things that disagree with what your vast intellect has revealed to you.

 

[Jotto999]

Capitalism is being hampered at every turn, more like.

do fuck off

What an utterly ridiculous point unchecked capitalism has quite clearly be shown be a giant fail.

Well I can't speak for the UK, but people mistakenly say that the US has free market capitalism, which it certainly does not. There's a corporatocracy, a plutocracy. Company lobbyists are constantly monkeying around with things. And that sure isn't free market capitalism.

I think it's reasonable to assume that an actual free market system would perform better than whatever we have currently, whether or not some other system may perform better than a free market system.

 

[Prolescum]

Name three resources that are less available or more expensive then they were a hundred years ago.

I answered your challenge.

No, you didn't. Oil and water are more widely available; I'm betting there weren't gas stations on every block in 1910, and pumping stations move water to a far wider area then they did a century ago. The price of water varies on your location, of course, but actual numbers would be needed to demonstrate any difference between now or a hundred years ago. Your sources were about the future when I asked about the present and the past. A non-response.

Fair enough. I didn't really put any effort into it.

Here's a gif with the prices for crude oil since 1869.

[centre]

[/centre]

Sauce

In the victorian period (1837-1901), the cost of supplying water to a home in tyneside (in the north of England) was between 18 shillings (,£51.35 in today's pounds) and ,£1 10s (,£85.59), whereas today it's around ,£80 a quarter (,£320 a year). It doesn't say whether the Victorian cost is annual or otherwise, but it's unlikely it would be charged monthly or quarterly. The library is closed on a Sunday so I can only use the internet to find stuff. Northumbria water don't have the rates on their website so I asked my flatmate (a Geordie) to ask his mum how much she pays (she lives in Newcastle).

sauce

You're so parochial
Only one resource is limited and only one place suffers a deficit of the resource, of course.

Nooo... the resource itself loses value and becomes less common as it is replaced.

Skipping precariously close to wishful thinking there, son.

But I make up for it with an appealing walk and a rather handsome set of fingers.

I've read Oscar Wilde. Oscar Wilde had an insult that I could take personally in one of his famous plays. You're not Oscar Wilde; you're just someone saying random things and then imagining that makes you witty. You're like those idiots who thinks Zen consists of making ridiculous contradictory statements.

You seem to be under the erroneous impression that I'm taking the piss out of you in the hope of entertaining others. It's probably your mindset, I don't blame you. That you consider Oscar Wilde the apex of wit is pitiable. Still, deficits can be dealt with over time.

That's not how economies work. As oil becomes more expensive, people will start relying on other, less expensive energy sources. Total power consumption might be reduced if these other sources don't produce as much energy, but there's more then enough to maintain critical infrastructure.

Not taking all eventualities into account, are you Arthur...

Only ones I consider probable. Care to take Pascal's wager?

Oh that's alright then. On the off-chance that anyone is reading this, don't worry, Arthur says we'll be alright. Carry on as you were, leave your lights on and your car running; India and China, you guys just continue with what you're doing...

I'll admit that all those clean coal power stations currently in operation are doing some good and that photovoltaic fuel cells are taking care of Africa's energy needs. Yep, you can have that one.

Just extend the pattern.

Face, meet palm.

Like sustainability, which again is dependent on the idea of fixed resources.

It's dependent upon the idea that our species requires more than personal gain.

Doesn't follow. People could still selfishly follow personal gain using only sustainable methods. Feudalism was extremely selfish and built its power on human corpses, as sustainable a resource as any.

Good point, I should've worded that differently.

My insults aren't veiled. If you're having difficulty following, may I suggest coffee?

Yes, they are. For example, saying to someone "You're a blithering idiot parroting ideas and pretending intellect you don't have" is a direct insult. The previous sentence in its entirety is an example of a veiled insult. See the difference?

You mean the If (that is, on the condition that) you're having difficulty following, may I suggest coffee (a well known stimulant)? sentence? You found that insulting? At least there's now evidence as to why it's such an effort to engage you in conversation.

A comprehensive review of the concept of peak oil is here:

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4100

There are more ifs, maybes, possibles and probables in there than there are in Narnia. Funny thing is, that's exactly the thing you'd tear apart were it from another political perspective.

Comprehensive my arse.

Which of course means you're just going to disparage it vaguely and not actually give a response or any contradictory evidence. Why bother; no doubt you think it's witty to ignore things that disagree with what your vast intellect has revealed to you.

No, I understand the meaning of the word witty. I appreciate that you think my intellect is vast, but I assure you, it is average.

It is not a comprehensive review. You could say it is a rebuttal of doomsayers, but comprehensive review of the concept of peak oil it is not, hence it is dismissed for the reason already given.

Anyway, I have a serious debate to attend, so unless you have something beyond you bloody socialists, grr, I will bid you adieu.

 

[Ilikemustard]

This means that in my view, the capitalist system we are currently using is addicted to unsustainable resources and we are at the beck and call of those who control them. Of course, I'm putting it in simple terms so's even a yokel can understand what I'm trying to convey. But now I'm having to simplify it further for you. The work of a prole is never done...

You could concentrate your efforts on showing me where and why this is wrong if you like.

I will concentrate my efforts on showing you why you are economically illiterate.

First, you clearly don't understand the economics behind how prices affect production. Allow me to explain.
When the supply of a resource decreases, its price increases. I'm sure you understand that. So clearly we're not going to reach a point where suddenly our supply of oil is gone instantly, whilst we are still entirely dependent on it. No, that is far from reality. As oil becomes more scarce, its price increases, and thus less people are willing to pay for it, so the demand for it decreases. This is my first point, people will begin to use less oil, by driving less, carpooling, using public transport, etc.

We'll be fighting over the remnants of the world's oil long before reliance upon it diminishes to an effective degree

No, that's silly. If there was so little oil left in the world that we had to fight over it, it would mean the price of oil would be astronomically high, making it an unprofitable resource. People don't pay for unprofitable resources.
Fighting requires resources. Therefore you must sell oil at the cost of extraction, plus the cost of fighting for it, plus the profit margin. The market would be dead. Your argument makes zero sense.

So does this mean we must stop using cars, or anything that requires oil as a fuel source? Most certainly not, the demand for a fuel source still exists. As the price of oil exceeds one of the alternative fuel sources (vegetable oil, for example), that market will open up as demand for the alternative fuel source increases.

All those alternative sources that'll be of practical use before we start seriously running out of oil

Yeah, all those alternative sources that are currently unprofitable to implement as a major fuel source at this current time. Unless you want to convince everyone to put up with increased price of transportation as well as increased prices of anything else that requires oil to produce. If you can do that, then a market will exist for those alternative fuel sources, and more people will begin investing in that area of the market. Otherwise it just can't be done without subsidization. And subsidization leads to not only inefficiency, but higher taxes, so you are paying for it anyway. Not only that, but name me one good reason why we must implement an alternative fuel source right now. If you say global warming I will laugh at you.

Moving on, the efficiency of the alternative fuel source's production will increase as well. As efficiency increases, supply increases, and prices drop. Which leads me to this:

America has a comically inconsistent history when it comes to implementing efficiency

What are you talking about? Name me an example of inefficiency that is a result of free market capitalism and not corporatism or socialism.
Efficiency in production is most definitely caused by capitalism and here's why. If you can produce something more cheaply than your competitors, then you can sell for less than they can, and steal all their profits. So there is an incentive (created by the prospect of profits and losses) to find ways to produce goods more efficiently.


Your flamboyant use of literature as a substitute for substance might do you well here, Prolescum. The position you're arguing from is impossible to defend. And you're going to have an even harder time doing it if you don't understand economics.

 

[Ilikemustard]

have you read much Marx?
im reading him at the moment, the rationality and logical approach is quite sexy

Oh god.

 

[Aught3]

Not that I particularly want to wade into this discussion, but I would like to ask for a brief clarification or explanation -

name me one good reason why we must implement an alternative fuel source right now. If you say global warming I will laugh at you.

Why would global warming not be a good reason to shift away from fossil fuels? Economically or otherwise.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Not that I particularly want to wade into this discussion, but I would like to ask for a brief clarification or explanation -

name me one good reason why we must implement an alternative fuel source right now. If you say global warming I will laugh at you.

Why would global warming not be a good reason to shift away from fossil fuels? Economically or otherwise.

Here you go, direct results at about 6:30:



Short answer - more expensive then it's worth.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Why would global warming not be a good reason to shift away from fossil fuels? Economically or otherwise.

It would be a good idea economically as well, at least in a sane country with a rational economic system. It creates jobs, stimulates the economy, improves the environment which has social and economic benefits... there's no good reason not to shift away from fossil fuels, except for those millionaires and billionaires who would suffer short-term losses during the transition. Millionaires and billionaires maintaining and expanding their obscene fortunes comes before any other consideration according to some people.

 

[Aught3]

Short answer - more expensive then it's worth.

I don't disagree, really. Even by COP15 in Copenhagen I was already of the opinion that it was too late to do anything effective about climate change. I thought maybe that urgency would develop into some kind of substantial agreement but, of course, it didn't. Still, I'm not entirely convinced that fighting diseases in the developing world is actually an opportunity cost of switching to renewable energy - it seems that neither is being pursued with a great deal of vigour.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Short answer - more expensive then it's worth.

I don't disagree, really. Even by COP15 in Copenhagen I was already of the opinion that it was too late to do anything effective about climate change. I thought maybe that urgency would develop into some kind of substantial agreement but, of course, it didn't. Still, I'm not entirely convinced that fighting diseases in the developing world is actually an opportunity cost of switching to renewable energy - it seems that neither is being pursued with a great deal of vigour.

That's not quite what the video said. Even considered on its own climate change isn't worth spending money on.