So I know I'm opening myself up to tons of criticism, but I went to hear Al Gore speak a while ago. I understand that he's got a significant personal financial interest in getting us less dependent on oil, but he had great points. The question remains: we have waterfalls that will not dry up, the sun that (oh so predictably) rises & sets each day...tons of alternative energy sources. Take the environmental issues out of the equation. How friggin awesome would our country be if we just stopped buying oil like we do?? We could just stick it to all these other countries exploiting our wealth and say no thank you. Environmentalism aside, if we were self-sustaining, we wouldn't have to be the ones being exploited. No demand = cheap for everyone. Yay capitalism!
Apparently other countries aren't banking on that...China's stockpiling barrels of oil to use themselves or sell at a ridiculous profit to us later.
So apparently I'm joining the hippie movement.
I'm with you Asher.
Thanks Jarrett! I don't own a car so I haven't put much thought into why in the world gas is $4 a gallon. Thanks for the info.
Re: Never-ending waterfalls, the sun rising & setting, etc:
The problem with all our renewable energy sources (from a purely financial standpoint) is that even with oil at $127/barrel, it's still more expensive to harvest energy from the sun and the waterfalls.
Oil may be hard to get, but it's fantastically dense in energy. Our current methods of generating renewable energy are not very efficient, so we don't get much bang for our buck.
Also, it doesn't matter how much energy we generate from the sun and from waterfalls if we don't have cars that will run on that energy. All the good cars run on gas, and you can't turn waterfalls into gas.
My guess is that all-electric vehicles will make big gains in the next 10 years.
I'm curious:
Does anyone out there in Internetland seriously believe that Al Gore's global warming campaign is all just a scheme to make Al some money?
So if we can get to the point of all-electric vehicles, then you know the automotive industry stands to make major bankroll in switching everyone over. It makes sense that they would be willing to put some money into figuring out how to make the renewable energy a reality. It just gets political when they're so closely tied to the oil industry.
I'm convinced that global warming is a reality (look at satellite photos of Earth's largest mass of ice shrinking by the day). But I know that if renewable energy caught on, the name Gore could work it's way up there toward Carnegie, Rockefeller & Astor, so he's opened himself up to some legitimate doubting. Kind of a stinky lesson in investing your money in what you believe in, huh?
A scheme? No. But I did watch something on some public TV program where some scientists charted our earth's atmosphere for who knows how many years and they pointed out that global warming has been around before and that the global warming always came first & then the earth's atmospheric make-up changed as if the warming was the culprit (and this all before our modern, technological age). It was kind of too scientific for me but it did make me wonder who to believe. In any case I want to be responsible to the earth God gave us and I do think it's part of the original intent of God for us to do it well. After all it declares the glory & wonder of God!
I think communism is the answer.
Haha. I'm kind of making fun of Scott, but mostly making fun of myself because I'm too dumb to really participate here.
Except to say that I definitely think electric cars are going to get popular. I see them in Minneapolis on a weekly basis and we are having "green expos" all the time with them being advertised. I want one.
Hooray for Minneapolis and all the hippies that live here!
I'm not sure if I'm following the argument on doubting Al Gore... I'm afraid I'm maybe just misunderstanding and therefore maybe not responding appropriately, but are you saying that his motives are open to "legitimate doubting" because he might turn out to have been right, and therefore famous for having been right? 
Yeah, I'm not sure what you're asking either Jarrett. I think that most people today do think that global warming is a reality but I'm not sure what you're asking about Gore.
And we've been seeing those little "smart cars" in Chicago. I would travel around the city in one but get on the Edens? I don't know. I think an SUV could flatten one like a pancake!
I also think Hummer's should be outlawed & SUV's should pay a luxury tax like alcohol & cigarettes. I mean does anyone really NEED those gas guzzlers?
I heard a legislator talking about tax credits for people who take public transportation. Since that is what I do I think it's an outstanding idea but what about the suburbanites & people who live out in the boonies who do not have good access to the CTA & Metra? Don't know if that will work.
I do agree with O'Reilly on this (yeah I said his name!) that we cannot rely on the democrats or republicans to do much with this. It is up to us as Americans to lower our use of oil. It is our responsibility. We're up to over $4 a gallon here in Chicago and people complain but it doesn't seem to have made a major impact on our lifestyles. We just keep on truckin' as usual.
I'm a little skeptical about Jesus's sincerity. He was clearly taking a gamble that if his teachings caught on, he would become the most important person in human history -- he won that long-shot bet, but I'm not sure we should admire him for it.
Similarly with Martin Luther King, Jr. You know the whole civil rights movement was a scheme to get streets in bad neighborhoods named after him.
Seems like nuclear energy is a good idea. Can we do that? Not for cars, I guess (but maybe...what do I know).
They have nuclear submarines -- why not cars?
Just tying up some loose ends here:
Tara & Sally:
Regarding Al Gore, there is an argument floating around that Gore holds a significant financial stake in one or more green-energy/carbon-reduction companies. So if green energy, carbon credits, and carbon capturing catch on, Gore stands to make a ton of money. The theory goes that Al is only in it for the money. I have no idea what Al Gore's financial positions are, but this theory seems pretty ridiculous to me.
Regarding a luxury tax on SUV's:
Here's an easy way to impose a luxury tax on SUV's: raise the federal gas tax.
Regarding nuclear cars:
Unfortunately, a nuclear reactor weighs approximately one bazillion pounds. (That's my estimate.) Not a problem for a submarine. Somewhat more problematic for a Ford Focus.
The easiest way to build "nuclear cars" would be to build electric cars and then build nuclear power plants to generate the electricity.
Those little electric cars only go 40pmh, so yeah, not so good on the highway.
We own 2 SUVs. I know- pretty embarrassing.
I haven't been on the site for a while, so reading these comments all back to back was quite an experience & it made me want to get together with all of you and have an actual verbal conversation.
I like the raising the gas tax idea. But it would have to be substantial enough that people might actually choose to carpool or reduce driving, and I just don't think politicians would ever raise it high enough to make a difference. All we'll ever do is pay the higher price & gripe about it if the tax isn't high enough.
I like to do my part by only renting the most inexpensive cars ("economy"--one step below compact) so that I reduce our oil dependency. Some call that being cheap, but I say no. It's my way of being a patriot. A dang cheap patriot.
Yeah Leah. I didn't want to bring that up.
Jarrett if we hike the federal gas tax won't that affect other uses of it? For instance, what about the semi's that are delivering our food. Won't the tax affect them? I was being a little silly concerning outlawing Hummers. I know that is crazy but come on! What is the point of those vehicles?!
Just for fun I'd love to see Tom in a car that can only go 40 and where he'd have to accelerate slowly.
It might be a little premature, but I love seeing people wrestle with difficult issues. Also, I agree with Mister Asher about doing it in bodies rather than via la interweb.
Food for thought: 100 mile diet. If everything I consumed came from local sources it would require less oil to get it to me.
A big hike in the gas tax would absoutely affect semis. Food prices would go up. Prices for everything would go up. Almost everything we eat, wear, and consume is produced far away and delivered to our doorsteps by burning oil.
Good point--I hadn't thought of that. Could there be a tax hike for consumers and a tax break for certain businesses (such as trucking)? I bring this up because I know the government makes tax breaks for certain businesses already. Non-profits like where I work are sales tax exempt, which means little inconveniences like ordering all our office supplies in advance, but we save tons of money doing it. Just a thought.
Side note:
Electric vehicles built for performance are catching up with their internal-combustion counterparts.
There's an electric motorcycle out there that will do 0-60 in less than a second.
ZAP and Lotus are working on an all-electric crossover SUV that will have 644 horsepower and do 0-60 in 4.8 seconds.
The Tesla Roadster is an all-electric sports car that will do 0-60 in 3.9 seconds.
For comparison, a brand new Corvette Z06 will do it in 3.7 seconds.
Andy, summer markets work out great but what to eat in the winter in a 100 mile radius?
Also food prices are already so high because of oil that the poorest of the poor are now in even worse condition (Haiti). We feel the effect here in the states but when you see pictures on the news of people in other countries it makes me think a lot more before I complain.
NOTE: During the test drive for that electric motorcycle, the arms of the rider were ripped clean off.
Sally, summer markets are a great route to go. It's especially true for those of us in Chicago (I understand there are quite a few). In terms of winter foods, for those of us who live in this northern climate, there aren't a whole lot of options (if considering a 100 mile diet) unless you have facilities to store root vegetables and are proficient at canning.
My brother told me about this thread, so I had to contribute because I'm pretty passionate about these issues. First of all, way to go, Jarrett! I don't know you, but I like you. The misperceptions about oil and gas right now drive me absolutely insane, and the lies that the left and the media spread about it are egregious. Big bad evil oil companies are almost as bad as the big/bad/evil drug companies! These industries that spend billions and billions of dollars making our lives better, creating industry and jobs, but they're not supposed to make any money or else they're "greedy."
I have a couple of comments, I'll try to spread them out and make them quick so that this isn't one big, long, self-serving post.
1. Regarding global warming. Of course the earth is gettting warmer lately, the question is whether or not it's "disastrous." A few questions must be asked when considering global warming.
a.) Wasn't it "global warming" that stopped the ice age?
b.) There are several places around the world where melting ice is revealing centuries old roads and mountain passes where people used to travel. Did they complain about "global cooling" back then when their roads got frozen over?
c.) What's the "correct" temperature of the earth supposed to be? And how do we know?
2. Yes, it's true that we should be more efficient with our energy. Nuclear energy is MONUMENTALLY efficient and cheap and incredible, but for asanine reasons, people are hesitant. But that said, oil is extraordinarily efficient. People talk about ethanol all the time, but think of what it takes to harvest corn and transport it and turn it into fuel. Plus, we don't have to create oil like we do corn--it's already sitting there waiting for us!
Oil is pumped, transported in pipes ACROSS THE FRIGGIN' OCEAN, turned into the various kinds of energy we use it for, and then we get the gas cheaper per gallon than milk or ice cream, at least until recently. It's miraculous.
The reason it's more expensive now is simply supply and demand. China and India are getting into the game, so everyone wants it, which of course drives the price up.
Back in the 90's, and a few years ago, were people raving about how benevolent and altruistic the oil companies were for keeping the costs so low? Of course not. So why are they complaining now about how evil the oil companies are now that prices are higher? It happens.
One way we could ease the burden is to continue to lower taxes like Bush did, so we'd have more money in our pockets, and to ease taxes on the oil companies, which would allow them to lower prices. But no, Obama just wants to talk about punishing the oil companies for their profits, which, of course, isn't going to do a thing to gas prices and will only cause oil companies to slow down production.
Sally, I love most of your comments, but whenever I hear anyone say something like, "Do people really need that," I get scared. Especially because Obama has been saying similar things (in his recent speech he referenced driving SUV's, eating as much as we want, and keeping our houses at 72 degrees as things as things that shouldn't go unregulated).
The great danger of this observation about "not needing" SUV's is not that it is false. Far from it. It is actually completely true. Most people in the United States don’t choose their vehicles based solely on need. The danger is actually in the implication, which is that since we don’t need them, we (read: The Government) should have the power to limit people’s access to them through regulation. This is one of the great lies of liberalism, and it is a powerful one, that simply because some behavior is a good idea (giving up SUVs), it must make good government to enforce it. A man must not be required to demonstrate his need of an SUV. A man has the right to choose an SUV simply because it suits him.
It is no accident that the country that has, for over two-hundred years, erred on the side of Freedom over Equality, Freedom over Democracy, Freedom over Preferred Behavior... has been the most prosperous nation on earth. It is no accident that the country that preserves the freedom of man to pursue his WANTS, more money than he needs, more possessions than he needs, more entertainment than he needs, etc…, has also created almost every technological breakthrough of the modern age, discovered most every significant cure of the age of medicine, and spread more wealth to the impoverished than any nation in the history of the world.
To follow up on the concept of "need..." If you think about it, most people don't NEED cars. We can walk or ride bicycles or horses anywhere we want to go. Did the people in the 1850's need cars? They didn't think so. Cars were birthed out of the pursuit what was WANTED (the pursuit of happiness), which was eased by the desire for convenience and efficiency.
And when we start talking about luxury taxes for things we think aren't good, where does it stop? Why not tax sugar, or fat, or soda? We don't NEED these things, and most of the time they're bad for us.
Regarding raising gas taxes on consumers...why would we even consider something like that? The higher gas prices are already hurting the economy and squeezing people's wallets. Let the free market do its thing. I own an SUV, and we're talking about getting a more fuel-efficient car because of the higher prices; when it gets to the point where demand outweighs supply, prices get too high, and people make corrections. Why should we give more of our money to the government, aren't they taking enough and spending it inefficiently enough?
And what about the other things we use oil for? We use it to pave roads, fuel our homes, heat our food. Should we increase taxes on all those things as well?
Oil isn't inherently bad; we just get too much of it from foreign countries. Hopefully, environmentalists will stop blocking us from drilling in Alaska and off the Florida and California coasts. And eventually, we'll come up with new sources, such as water, and of course, we could solve all of this by building more nuclear plants.
Geez, I wrote way too much, I'm sorry. I went back and tried to take some of it out, but I couldn't figure out how. Forgive me, I get passionate and preachy sometimes, I didn't mean to be such a jackass. I also happened to have just been talking about all this stuff with some friends, so I spilled it all out. Sorry about that!
I would only support raising the gas tax if the money went directly to increasing public transit options. Otherwise, they'll just use the money to do some bullshit bailout of an investment bank or fight some useless war against a country that couldn't attack us even if it wanted to.
It's amazing how many tired right-wing talking points Dallas managed to squeeze into his 5,000 comments. He must truly be a scholar of pro-corporate propaganda. Shockingly, though, he managed to say absolutely nothing I haven't heard before -- it's like a collage of cliches that he's somehow managed to convince himself add up to a viable worldview.
The whole thing can be boiled down to two points: 1. greed is good, and 2. we should fear people who want to curtail our greed. OMG OMG! Obama wants to raise taxes! It's almost like we have a government that does stuff for us that we somehow need to pay for -- and one would almost think that we need to figure out how to collect that revenue in the most socially-responsible way. But no! We must have freedom -- to buy SUVs! Or else we're one step down the road to totalitarianism!
So... is that an examination of facts in a succinct form of argument or just some ad hominem ranting?
Well, concerning the SUV's and things we really don't "need" I see no reason why we can't talk about those and challenge each other to be more moderate in our choices. If I spend tons of time being entertained by movies, television, People magazine , etc I would hope that Tom or my wonderful sister-in-law/best friend Ann would say something to make me think and evaluate where I am. Just because everyone else is doing it doesn't make it good or right. We need to be challenged in America where we have so many choices and can spend so much time in frivolous pursuits.
And Andy...I don't want to learn how to can. My mom tried to hand that skill down but I guiltlessly declined! That is waaaaay too much work in the heat of summer. But I would like to learn how to make beer. Anyone know where I could find that out? Oops, I know, I don't NEED to drink beer. Dang!
How's this: Dallas's factual claims are false. His worldview is abhorrent to me, and apparently based in fantasy.
Adam, I don't know you. But you seem kinda mean.
Well, I deserved the comment about the "5,000" comments. I do apologize again for how I hijacked the message board.
That said...Adam, you can rant about how everything I said was a cliche or false, but you've said nothing to dispute it. What have I said that's incorrect?
Regarding my worldview, I would venture to guess that you probably don't know what it is. You hear me say, "government should get out of our lives," and it triggers a reflex in you, but you're making the common mistake of confusing political philosophy with spiritual worldview. And Sally, you made a good point that related to this that was a response to something I miscommunicated.
You're absolutely right; we should talk about these issues, we should encourage each other to live better and pursue righteousness. Even though I believe in the decriminalization of drugs/gambling/prostitution/etc., I certainly don't believe they're wise choices, and I would discourage them to those around me. My only point is that when the government gets in the business of moral or social regulation, it ALWAYS makes things worse. And when it steps in to regulate the free market, I'll reduce "always" to "overwhelming majority of the time."
My problem with the idea that government should tax, regulate, or even outlaw (like in the case with trans fats or marijuana) things it deems bad is that government never allows the natural consequences to take place anyway. Liberals say, "Don't eat fat (but if you do we'll call it a disease, blame fast food companies, and we'll pay for your health care)! Don't get drunk (but if you do we'll call it a disease, blame advertising, and we'll pay for your health care)!" And even in the case of over-consumption, which is what we're talking about here, they say, "Don't drive SUV's or consume too much (but if you do we'll blame the oil companies for the prices, the lenders for their greed and fraudulence, and the credit card companies for their unfair practices)!"
You're absolutely right, Adam, the government shouldn't bail out the banks. But they also shouldn't bail out the consumers. The government tends to want to limit both the rewards (tax the wealthy and the corporations more) and the consequences of the free market system (bail out poor decisions), which results in zero accountability, zero motivation, and ultimately...Europe, where the unemployment rate is over twice that of what it is here.
How do we expect people to consume less or make wise financial decisions if there's such a massive safety net? Look at what happened in New York city when Giuliani forced people to earn their government checks and created consequences for bad behavior, compared to Los Angeles (where I live) and Detroit, where everyone is coddled and taken care of. NYC became a different town in 5 years, whereas Detroit and Los Angeles are bankrupt and crime-ridden.
I have a feeling that nothing useful is going to be accomplished here...
Adam's not mean, he just thinks that America and rich people are the bad guys. He doesn't get any more angry at corporate America than we do at Islamo fascists. I can respect the passion and the desire to positively impact the world, I really do, and I have no doubt that Adam's the kind of guy who feels a call to serve and help "the least of these." I share that call and that passion, we just have different ideas on how to do it, and we have different ideas on who our biggest enemies are.
It's always useful to discuss these issues, even if they get passionate or angry. How else do we form and shape our opinions and our worldviews? I come to my positions and my passions from hearing others, or in many cases, being proven wrong.
Ha, Dallas! You just wrote that so that Adam will feel bad about the jerky comments he made toward you. What's that phrase? Killing with kindness?
Little does he know that Adam has no soul.
I have one little tiny comment, since I don't know all that much.
Per the unemployment rate in Europe. I was recently listening to something (I'm guessing on NPR), and it said that unemployment statistics in Europe are calculated based on the actual amount of people not working (i.e. those in jail, and those not actively looking for work), while our unemployment rates are calculated based on those actively looking for work. So comparing unemployment in Europe to unemployment here tends to be an apples to oranges comparison.
Nah, my comments were genuine. And I have no delusions about Adam "feeling bad;" he'll think I should feel bad for hating poor people and Europe so much.
Regarding unemployment rates in Europe. Yes, it is true that a decent chunk of people in the unemployment rate in Europe aren't actively looking for work. Have you seen the stories or the reality shows about some of the families in Europe who literally haven't had a job for two to three generations? It's not necessarily an advertisement for that system of dependence.
Europe's system is better than ours -- ultimately just "capitalism with a human face," but economically incredibly successful. Look at the difference between France and America in 1945, for instance. America was virtually unscathed by the biggest war in history and had tons of excess productive capacity. France, by contrast, was basically levelled. Yet they rebuilt in an amazing way, creating a system that might have a slightly lower growth rate, but has a really high upside in terms of decreased inequality.
We continually game the numbers to make ourselves look a lot better than them -- unemployment is one of the clearest examples. One would think that someone giving up looking for work in despair would be a sign of more serious and deep-seated unemployment problems -- but no, we just remove them from the count and pat ourselves on the back for having such low unemployment. Plus our percentage of people in prison is much, much higher than anywhere in the world. Even Communist China doesn't imprison as many of its citizens! How does that factor into the unemployment stats? (I'm not saying that European countries count their prisoners as "unemployed" -- I don't know.)
Your view of what unfettered capitalism would look like is based in fantasy. First, look at the UK in the 19th century -- life expectancies in industrial towns were around 25. Look at the stunted lives among the child laborers in the Third World. That's capitalism right there. Looks great, right? The Western world has had two centuries to figure out how to get capitalism into something like equilibrium, and that requires state intervention -- in areas where it's first introduced in a laissez-faire way (including its initial introduction in the West, when no one really understood what was happening), it's hugely destructive. "Pure" capitalism is being tried now, and I don't think you want it.
Perhaps you are looking at Europe through a set of rose colored glasses:
"From today's WSJ, an article 'Euro-Zone Economic Growth Slows in Third Quarter,' here is a quote:
'The latest growth data, combined with strong business surveys, still back up the European Central Bank's view that the 12-nation currency area is heading for growth of around 2.5% this year, the region's fastest pace of growth since 2000.'
When Europe has output growth of 2.5% it is the strongest economic performance in 6 years. When the US has output growth of 2.5%, it would be considered below-average performance.
According to a report by the Swedish think tank Timbro called 'EU versus USA:'
'If the European Union were a state in the USA it would belong to the poorest group of states. France, Italy, Great Britain and Germany have lower GDP per capita than all but four of the states in the United States. In fact, GDP per capita is lower in the vast majority of the EU-countries (EU 15) than in most of the individual American states. This puts Europeans at a level of prosperity on par with states such as Arkansas, Mississippi and West Virginia.'"
~Dr. Mark J. Perry professor of economics and finance in the School of Management at the Flint campus of the University of Michigan.~
I said they traded off a slower growth rate for greater equality. What good is the US's higher growth rate doing the majority of us? Wages have been stagnant for a decade, and social mobility is extremely low. Meanwhile, the supposedly desperately poor Europeans manage to have higher life expectancies, better education, etc., etc.
Plus, you know, the US is most likely in recession, despite our awesomeness. One quarter of slow growth in Europe doesn't really prove anything -- no economy is going full-blast all the time.
I'm not sure how examples from third world countries (calling them capitalistic is ludicrous) and the 19th century prove any kind of point about whether Europe's economic system is better than America's. I'm trying to follow Adam's points, but they're based solely in the pursuit of "equality," which is NOT a noble economic goal. It'd be nice, but it's practically impossible. I've been to countries where everyone is "equal." They were called communist countries, and they were debilitating. Zero innovation, very little invention, poor health care, stunted technology. You can't just measure a country's economic success by whether or not its citizens' incomes are close to each other. There's a reason that America has the most and best inventions, creates over half the world's medicines and vaccines, science breakthroughs, and along with Japan, technological breakthroughs. We encourage innovation; socialism stifles it.
You said, "One would think that someone giving up looking for work in despair would be a sign of more serious and deep-seated unemployment problems -- but no, we just remove them from the count and pat ourselves on the back for having such low unemployment." The homeless in America have a miniscule impact on unemployment numbers; go ahead and "add them to the count," we'd still be way ahead of Europe. You know why? Because Europe has more homeless than we do anyway. They also have a huge number of people who don't work because they don't have to; entire families literally do nothing and eat and sleep on the tax payers' dime. It's become an epidemic in England. Is that good?
I would talk about the moral and spiritual decay in Europe and the unbelievable rise in Islamic influence, but that's another thread altogether.
Are comments messed up for anyone else? Haloscan is cruelly depriving me of Dallas's latest insightful message.
What's not capitalist about the third-world countries in question? They are based on commodity production, using waged labor, with the profits going to shareholders. It's the very definition of capitalism!
The comments are screwed up for me too. I've found that you have to actually click the title of the post, then scoll all the way down to see all the comments.
"I said they traded off a slower growth rate for greater equality."
Gotta say I enjoy being relatively wealthy rather than being equally poor. I would stack up the conditions of even the poorest of our poor and the real resources available and mobilized to help them against any other of the worlds poor and their conditions. Not to mention that we are all over the world helping those others as well.
"What good is the US's higher growth rate doing the majority of us? Wages have been stagnant for a decade,"
Still higher than the EU's
"and social mobility is extremely low."
Perhaps we are very happy in our social position. We have great wealth and comfort regardless of social position.
"Meanwhile, the supposedly desperately poor Europeans manage to have higher life expectancies, better education, etc., etc."
Not that much higher on life expectancy (aprox. 3-6 years) Our education system is in trouble (though once again not that far behind EU) as a result of lack of competition. The NEA, the AFT etc fight hard against vouchers, charters, homeschooling and any other option but themselves being in total control. (an it is in trouble ironically due to TOO MUCH competition - from sports, entertainment, personal electronics, video games, film, television, travel, magazines, concerts, the whole explosion of wealth, activity and inventiveness around us.)
"Plus, you know, the US is most likely in recession, despite our awesomeness."
And then you say:
"One quarter of slow growth in Europe doesn't really prove anything -- no economy is going full-blast all the time."
Your last line also applies to our alleged recession.
It is really frustrating to have this conversation with people whose entire idea of Europe comes from right-wing propaganda -- or is apparently made up, as in the case where Dallas falsely claims that Europe has a worse homeless problem than us.
Since the Europe example is apparently not going to work, we could even look at the US from 1945-1973. Then the government had a much firmer hand in the economy, social welfare was more generous, and economic inequality was much less, due in large part to unions. Yet somehow we were still by far the most prosperous economy in the world, even then!
In short, I'm pretty sure that we have a long way to go toward equalizing things before we all become "equally poor." This whole "freedom vs. equality" thing is silly anyway. First, you're saying I'm going for absolute equality, when I've never said that -- I don't even know how you would do that, and in any case, different people have different needs (for instance, it wouldn't be right to give the same amount of medical care to a healthy person and someone born with a chronic condition). Then Tom and Dallas both make it this false dichotomy where equality apparently means absolute economic stagnation. It's a bullshit argument.
From Time Magazine in 2003:
I'll withdraw my statement that homelessness is "worse," although I based it on the following: since the Time article, homelessness in Europe has continued to rise. Also, I regrettably mixed it up with "home ownership," which IS monumentally higher in the U.S., mostly because so many people in EU live in homes owned by the government. But either way, I shouldn't have said Europe's was "worse" without adding the nuance.
Hm...the post erased my "copy/paste." I'll try to retype from the Time article. That sucks.
From Time:
According to FEANTSA, a Brussels-based umbrella body of homeless organizations, at least 3 million Western Europeans are homeless this winter, and 1/5-1/3 of them are members of homeless families. Think homelessness is an American problem? Think again. As a percentage of population, it's as bad in Europe as it is in the U.S., where there are an estimated 2 million homeless, according to Dennis Culhane, a social-policy expert at the University of Pennyslvania. (So I was right, actually--there are more homeless in Europe! )
That Europe's homelessness problem is roughly the same as America's is a shock. After all, Europe sees itself as kinder, gentler, and more socially responsible than the U.S., with an extensive, expensive social safety net that's designed to nurture and protect the most vulnerable sections of the populace. But that might just be the point--it's easier to be homeless in Europe, where even the down-and-out get social-welfare checks.
You can say something is a BS argument, but you offer nothing in return. Have you ever been to any socialist or communist countries? Have you ever looked at the stats of their economic growth or stagnation based on their pursuit of equality? Have you noticed how China is booming right now because of their transfer to a free market, capitalist system?
European homeownership is lower because so many people are freeloading off the government? Has it occurred to you that it might be that more people rent? The US massively subsidizes individual homeownership, which has led to suburban sprawl -- whereas Europe has denser, more sustainable development patterns.
The US homeless problem is qualitatively worse, even if the per capita numbers are similar, because in the US, we just don't give a fuck about the homeless. Even if similar percentages of people in Europe are homeless, they're better provided-for. And if the percentages are similar, doesn't that disprove your apparent belief that better social services somehow "encourage" people to become homeless? Being homeless is undesirable no matter where you live -- it's not like people are eager to drop out of society and live on the streets or in shelters.
Similarly, it is said above that the US schools are struggling because of lack of competition -- even though it's conceded that EU schools are better. Is there this massive competition in schools in Europe that I don't know about? Has France implemented a school-voucher system that has led to entrepreneurial innovation in education? No. So how is it possible for their schools to be better if competition is supposedly the key?
And even under Soviet Communism, there was scientific and technological advancement -- just as AT&T continued to innovate even though it was a monopoly facing no competition whatsoever. It's not like people in the Soviet Union were reduced to a hunter-gatherer existence. People in the Eastern bloc were, by and large, comfortable (except for those shipped off to the Gulags -- but of course the US is hardly innocent when it comes to "shipping people off").
The stats displayed on Wikipedia indicate that it might be difficult to get firm numbers on homelessness in the US -- again, probably because we don't give a flying fuck. The high end of the estimates are above the EU figures in absolute terms.
By the way, the reason that the U.S. led the world from 1945-1973 was that the rest of the world was recovering from being bombed to smithereens and invaded. The reason that Europe is recovering at all and starting to compete with us (although they can't compete that well and for too long because of their microscopic birth rates and increasing Muslim presence) is largely because of us-- first, because we actually saved them from the Germans, and second, because we helped rebuild and stimulate their economies.
Plus, you mention those years with fondness. You're forgetting that it was liberals and hippies and artists and rebels who fought against that "equality" you're talking about, claiming that everyone was a corporate drone and locked in a rigged system. Plus, I don't think blacks liked it too much.
Not sure where you got the idea that I believe that social services "encourage" people to become homeless. The overwhelming majority of people who are homeless are either mentally ill or addicted to substances, and once they become homeless they prefer to stay there (against their better judgement, of course). I actually encounter and deal with the homeless on a regular basis through our church; in Los Angeles, like in Europe, they can get two free meals a day and free shelter with no questions asked.
And if you think that people in the Eastern bloc were "comfortable," you obviously never visited. I visited several communist countries in Europe, and they were miserable, debilitating places. Sure, the doctor I stayed with had shelter, and his food rations kept him from starving on the $200 a month he made as a result of his 8 years of med school, but I believe that people should have the opportunity to do more than "survive."
The poorest people in America are still more well off than 93% of the world's population, and the poor in most countries would kill to be poor in America (perhaps that's why so many come every day). But that's not enough. They should be allowed to THRIVE, and they are in this country, unlike most other countries. There's a difference between equality of results and equality of opportunity. If you want equality of results, the only way to achieve it is to make everyone go as slow as the slowest person--which is communism. I want equality of opportunity, which is what our country provides. And you don't help the slow by slowing the fast.
Regarding how "we" don't care (I'll let you use the classier terms) about the homeless, I assume you're referring to liberals, because conservatives and Christians out-give and out-donate to charities and shelters over liberals and non-churchgoers by every conceivable measure.
Well, we've been with our grandsons in MN (woo-hoo!!) while their parents went to NY so I've reeeeally been out of the loop here. (I am not able to take care of them & blog like their grandpa does.) Great discussion. And I love the last point you just made Dallas concerning giving.
No statistics but just a couple of personal stories:
Dave & I were in Germany about 15? yrs ago. We spoke with a German man who lived in Frankfurt concerning all the graffiti on monuments in the city. He said it all started when the Berlin Wall came down & people from the Eastern bloc and even Islamic countries started entering Germany in droves. They are a good part (at least according to this German) of the homeless in Europe.
Also a friend that is a missionary told me that we have no clue as to what the homeless face in other poorer countries. People starve in other countries. The homeless do not starve here in America. Dave picked up a couple of self proclaimed "hobos" many years ago when they were hitchhiking through Chicago. He brought them home to feed them, wash their clothes, talk to them about Jesus. They were living in CA under an overpass eating thrown out donuts every morning & McDonald's out of their dumpster every night. (I might also add that they had heard the gospel many times over due to spending time in missions.) They said they were happy and had quite the life. They were on their way back home to ME to work in a cannery figuring they should get a job.
Adam, I don't understand your disdain for our government. We live in the best place in the world. Could we improve? Yes. Is more taxes and government the answer? I'm thinking no.
Congratulations, Jarrett. With your comment count in the 60's you have completely eclipsed my piddly mid 20's benchmark.
Commenting by HaloScan
