Principia Discordia

Principia Discordia => Aneristic Illusions => Topic started by: POFP on March 06, 2016, 08:33:37 PM

Title: Lazy Armchair Enthusiast Making Proposals For Change ITT
Post by: POFP on March 06, 2016, 08:33:37 PM
So, this is where I pretend to know fuck-all about how the world works, politically, economically, socially, sexually, bisexually, gaysexually, pansexually, plantsexually, but more specifically, geoplate-sexually (Attraction to the cleavage created by tectonic plates shifting under and around each other  :fap:). There is a somewhat low possibility that I might end up coming to a coherent and reasonable conclusion on a topic here, or maybe even there. So I figured this painful release of built-up cognitive sludge might be somewhat useful to someone at some point. In-fact, if this can turn into a collage of solutions to current problems, I will update this post with due credit. Maybe, if we get enough detail and agreement, we can all pretend like the system works like it's supposed to and send a less casual copy to our local representatives. I feel active and humanistic right now, and maybe getting my ideas ripped apart by YOU ideological piranhas, will give me some sense of fulfillment. Also, if you have anything relevant to add to any of the subjects I mention, please do so without censorship or remorse.

Let's talk about some shit that appears generally obvious to any modern intellectual, first. These things have probably been talked about and re-asserted on this forum for quite awhile, so we'll keep them brief:

The War on Drugs is bullshit. Redirecting the funding aimed at criminalizing drug use toward a system that treats addiction to these drugs would drastically increase the quality of life for most of the least fortunate members of our society. The bottom part of the country would be MUCH better off without an addiction pandemic. And let's not pretend that the amount of funds that the War on Drugs requires couldn't fund such a support system. Also, this idea has been demonstrated before, and is only deniable by the most ignorant right-wingers. I'm also going to take a totally blind shot in the dark and argue that you could probably decrease income taxes on everyone if you taxed the shit out of drugs. That last statement was derived from a baseless, shallow idea that popped into my head while writing this. If it's somewhat valid, I'll let someone else do the math to back it up. I don't think I have the attention span for that right now.

(Currently doing this at work. Will add more when I have time. Feel free to fuck shit up in the mean-time.)

EDIT 1:

Environmental Progress: I hate that the American Left assumes that because Liberal Socialist countries are the ones making strides in environmental issues and sustainability, that Socialism is required to make those strides. The left also likes to ignore that different people of different demographics speak different languages. They claim "Well, because this issue is important and morally superior, then that means we can use legislation to force companies to make unprofitable, or drastic changes to their business strategies and production systems to solve this issue."

All the left has to realize, is that the conservative right and the rich all speak one language: Money (Well, and sometimes Jesus.)

To completely change or create a system that's important to the economy in the private sector, it takes Creative Innovation on a massive scale, and it takes a profitable business model that is mostly new. For example, Denmark's trash and recycling system, as far as I know, is based on each household separating their own trash and taking it to their respective dumps/recycling facilities. This contrasts most of America's private trash systems, where most of it is just picked up in the company vehicles and sent to facilities to be separated there, or thrown into the dump with very little processing. I believe Denmark also charges nothing for recyclables that are given to the facilities, but charge a fee for trash that's not recyclable. From a business stand-point, having the separation done at home, and charging fees for trash is a much more profitable business model. That system eliminates a massive cost at the facility for general separation. AND you still get to charge people for trash. Denmark's system is government mandated, whereas a brilliant innovation of that basic system in America can create an EXTREMELY PROFITABLE and GREEN company.

I'm not an environmentalist, but if I wanted to make more money out of a company of mine, I would be working towards independence and sustainability, given that the technology is there. But most rich people have an old way of thinking when it comes to business models because they are still in the ME ME ME ME ME mindset. So, new, universally beneficial systems are hard to build support for in a corporate environment. Countries like Denmark have the business model, even though they aren't making money off of it. But that's simply because they don't have the BRILLIANT innovation that America has always been known for producing in other markets. It just takes a market baron - a genius to produce an original way of dealing with a cost aspect of the market. A simple invention can remove almost all cost from an entire level of the system, which will undoubtedly change the mind of a conservative rich person.

Instead of trying to change the way our economy works, why not take advantage of the economy and the simplicity of its cornerstone's (The wealthy corporations) way of thinking? Want to introduce more red tape and regulatory legislation? How about you invent a new, cheap way to break down certain types of trash or transport it instead? Or maybe come up with a valid, cost-efficient form of sustainable energy? Take these conservative rich bastards' hands, and walk them across the street to the GREEN side. They need a helping hand, not to be forced at gun-point. The government doesn't have to take responsibility for everything involving progress. America has lost its faith in the private sector, and I believe that is why we have the conflict we see in politics today.
Title: Re: Lazy Armchair Enthusiast Making Proposals For Change ITT
Post by: Pergamos on March 07, 2016, 04:03:05 AM
The war on drugs has several important purposes.  It keeps the prisons full, and is a huge part of local police funding (with seizures) It also ensures that the big players don't have to deal with small scale competition and keeps the price of drugs high enough to be extremely lucrative.  If we are going to do away with it we need to find another way to fund the cops, and figure out how to appease or deal with the private prison corps and the drug supplying cartels. 
Title: Re: Lazy Armchair Enthusiast Making Proposals For Change ITT
Post by: POFP on March 19, 2016, 04:58:30 PM
Quote from: Pergamos on March 07, 2016, 04:03:05 AM
The war on drugs has several important purposes.  It keeps the prisons full, and is a huge part of local police funding (with seizures) It also ensures that the big players don't have to deal with small scale competition and keeps the price of drugs high enough to be extremely lucrative.  If we are going to do away with it we need to find another way to fund the cops, and figure out how to appease or deal with the private prison corps and the drug supplying cartels.

We convert the local police system into one dedicated to safety, instead of aggressive enforcement. Doing so in the poorest parts of the country will get rid of one of the major influential factors in poverty: Violence.

The cops where I used to live drove around in blacked out cars so as to be hidden. All of their systems were designed to be discreet and stealthy, and all their systems are updated on a monthly basis with the top of the line shit. That is not what cops are supposed to be. Especially when the city they are in has absolutely no violence or negligence, or any law breaking at all, for that matter. Where I am now, the cops are in white cars with some red and blue lights on by default, demonstrating that they are there for you to reach out to if you need help. The cops in my old tiny ass town need to have their funding cut, and the ones where I live now need their funding raised. Redistribute the funding and you can solve a lot of problems.

We're not trying to have a prison state, here. The statement about the prisons made me wonder if you were just being sarcastic or playing Devil's Advocate. But I'll address it anyways:
The private prison corps can suck my cock.

As for the Drug Cartels, we simply do what the CIA has most likely been doing for decades: We facilitate deals and trade-routes with markets that are unaffected by legalization, which would most likely be outside of the US, or we put a bullet in the head of every drug cartel player and stop fucking with that shit. There are more profitable markets out there for the CIA to milk money out of.
Title: Re: Lazy Armchair Enthusiast Making Proposals For Change ITT
Post by: Salty on March 19, 2016, 07:22:26 PM
Nuke the earth, problems solved.
Title: Re: Lazy Armchair Enthusiast Making Proposals For Change ITT
Post by: POFP on March 19, 2016, 07:26:19 PM
Quote from: Alty on March 19, 2016, 07:22:26 PM
Nuke the earth, problems solved.

BUT BUT BUT WHAT ABOUT THE POOR AND THE ANIMALS AND THE CHILDREN AND THE TREES AND THE FISH AND THE POLAR BEARS AND THE POOR?
Title: Re: Lazy Armchair Enthusiast Making Proposals For Change ITT
Post by: Salty on March 19, 2016, 07:34:34 PM
Quote from: Fernando Poo on March 19, 2016, 07:26:19 PM
Quote from: Alty on March 19, 2016, 07:22:26 PM
Nuke the earth, problems solved.

BUT BUT BUT WHAT ABOUT THE POOR AND THE ANIMALS AND THE CHILDREN AND THE TREES AND THE FISH AND THE POLAR BEARS AND THE POOR?

The whom?

You mean these piles of radiated bones?
Title: Re: Lazy Armchair Enthusiast Making Proposals For Change ITT
Post by: POFP on March 19, 2016, 07:41:00 PM
Quote from: Alty on March 19, 2016, 07:34:34 PM
Quote from: Fernando Poo on March 19, 2016, 07:26:19 PM
Quote from: Alty on March 19, 2016, 07:22:26 PM
Nuke the earth, problems solved.

BUT BUT BUT WHAT ABOUT THE POOR AND THE ANIMALS AND THE CHILDREN AND THE TREES AND THE FISH AND THE POLAR BEARS AND THE POOR?

The whom?

You mean these piles of radiated bones?

Riiiiiiiight, radiated bones aren't people, just like fetuses and zygotes aren't babies. YOU'RE A SICK MAN. SICK I TELL YOU!  :argh!:
Title: Re: Lazy Armchair Enthusiast Making Proposals For Change ITT
Post by: Pergamos on March 21, 2016, 06:15:16 AM
Interesting that you say "fuck the prison corps" but not "fuck the drug cartels"  I am not a fan of either, but both are powerful, and finding a way to deal with them is reuired if we are going to make real changes.
Title: Re: Lazy Armchair Enthusiast Making Proposals For Change ITT
Post by: POFP on April 24, 2016, 11:52:19 PM
JesusFuckDamn!™ Is this how low I sank in the last couple months? My writing lacks any amount of direction or sophistication, and is exhausting. And it's all try-hardy and icky.

Now that I'm getting my brain back, I'm going to start not shitposting.

Quote from: Pergamos on March 21, 2016, 06:15:16 AM
Interesting that you say "fuck the prison corps" but not "fuck the drug cartels"  I am not a fan of either, but both are powerful, and finding a way to deal with them is reuired if we are going to make real changes.


Yeah, the notification for this post went away after I saw it awhile ago, and I forgot to respond. Soz.

I don't know enough about the drug cartel, or its systems of control, to come up with a way to tear it down.
Gonna go do some research.
Title: Re: Lazy Armchair Enthusiast Making Proposals For Change ITT
Post by: Cramulus on April 26, 2016, 03:15:55 PM
Quote from: Fernando Poo on March 06, 2016, 08:33:37 PM
Environmental Progress:

In summary, it sounds like you're saying (and please correct me if I'm missing it - I don't want to put words in your mouth) that we just need big corporations to come up with innovative ways to go green which are cheaper than the traditional ways. And that we shouldn't be coercing corporations into "going green", we need them to do it on their own.

I mean, yeah, that all sounds good, but how do you do it?

Personally, I don't think there is a way to get everybody to cooperate when there are such big benefits to defecting. I think you need regulations.

The non-libertarian FAQ (http://raikoth.net/libertarian.html#coordination_problems) has a great example of why you'll never see that altruistic, cooperative behavior emerge out of mutual self-interest:

QuoteCoordination problems are cases in which everyone agrees that a certain action would be best, but the free market cannot coordinate them into taking that action.

As a thought experiment, let's consider aquaculture (fish farming) in a lake. Imagine a lake with a thousand identical fish farms owned by a thousand competing companies. Each fish farm earns a profit of $1000/month. For a while, all is well.

But each fish farm produces waste, which fouls the water in the lake. Let's say each fish farm produces enough pollution to lower productivity in the lake by $1/month.

A thousand fish farms produce enough waste to lower productivity by $1000/month, meaning none of the fish farms are making any money. Capitalism to the rescue: someone invents a complex filtering system that removes waste products. It costs $300/month to operate. All fish farms voluntarily install it, the pollution ends, and the fish farms are now making a profit of $700/month - still a respectable sum.

But one farmer (let's call him Steve) gets tired of spending the money to operate his filter. Now one fish farm worth of waste is polluting the lake, lowering productivity by $1. Steve earns $999 profit, and everyone else earns $699 profit.

Everyone else sees Steve is much more profitable than they are, because he's not spending the maintenance costs on his filter. They disconnect their filters too.

Once four hundred people disconnect their filters, Steve is earning $600/month - less than he would be if he and everyone else had kept their filters on! And the poor virtuous filter users are only making $300. Steve goes around to everyone, saying "Wait! We all need to make a voluntary pact to use filters! Otherwise, everyone's productivity goes down."

Everyone agrees with him, and they all sign the Filter Pact, except one person who is sort of a jerk. Let's call him Mike. Now everyone is back using filters again, except Mike. Mike earns $999/month, and everyone else earns $699/month. Slowly, people start thinking they too should be getting big bucks like Mike, and disconnect their filter for $300 extra profit...

A self-interested person never has any incentive to use a filter. A self-interested person has some incentive to sign a pact to make everyone use a filter, but in many cases has a stronger incentive to wait for everyone else to sign such a pact but opt out himself. This can lead to an undesirable equilibrium in which no one will sign such a pact.

The most profitable solution to this problem is for Steve to declare himself King of the Lake and threaten to initiate force against anyone who doesn't use a filter. This regulatory solution leads to greater total productivity for the thousand fish farms than a free market could.

The classic libertarian solution to this problem is to try to find a way to privatize the shared resource (in this case, the lake). I intentionally chose aquaculture for this example because privatization doesn't work. Even after the entire lake has been divided into parcels and sold to private landowners (waterowners?) the problem remains, since waste will spread from one parcel to another regardless of property boundaries.
Title: Re: Lazy Armchair Enthusiast Making Proposals For Change ITT
Post by: Freeky on April 26, 2016, 06:24:14 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on April 26, 2016, 03:15:55 PM
Quote from: Fernando Poo on March 06, 2016, 08:33:37 PM
Environmental Progress:

In summary, it sounds like you're saying (and please correct me if I'm missing it - I don't want to put words in your mouth) that we just need big corporations to come up with innovative ways to go green which are cheaper than the traditional ways. And that we shouldn't be coercing corporations into "going green", we need them to do it on their own.

I mean, yeah, that all sounds good, but how do you do it?

Personally, I don't think there is a way to get everybody to cooperate when there are such big benefits to defecting. I think you need regulations.

The non-libertarian FAQ (http://raikoth.net/libertarian.html#coordination_problems) has a great example of why you'll never see that altruistic, cooperative behavior emerge out of mutual self-interest:

QuoteCoordination problems are cases in which everyone agrees that a certain action would be best, but the free market cannot coordinate them into taking that action.

As a thought experiment, let's consider aquaculture (fish farming) in a lake. Imagine a lake with a thousand identical fish farms owned by a thousand competing companies. Each fish farm earns a profit of $1000/month. For a while, all is well.

But each fish farm produces waste, which fouls the water in the lake. Let's say each fish farm produces enough pollution to lower productivity in the lake by $1/month.

A thousand fish farms produce enough waste to lower productivity by $1000/month, meaning none of the fish farms are making any money. Capitalism to the rescue: someone invents a complex filtering system that removes waste products. It costs $300/month to operate. All fish farms voluntarily install it, the pollution ends, and the fish farms are now making a profit of $700/month - still a respectable sum.

But one farmer (let's call him Steve) gets tired of spending the money to operate his filter. Now one fish farm worth of waste is polluting the lake, lowering productivity by $1. Steve earns $999 profit, and everyone else earns $699 profit.

Everyone else sees Steve is much more profitable than they are, because he's not spending the maintenance costs on his filter. They disconnect their filters too.

Once four hundred people disconnect their filters, Steve is earning $600/month - less than he would be if he and everyone else had kept their filters on! And the poor virtuous filter users are only making $300. Steve goes around to everyone, saying "Wait! We all need to make a voluntary pact to use filters! Otherwise, everyone's productivity goes down."

Everyone agrees with him, and they all sign the Filter Pact, except one person who is sort of a jerk. Let's call him Mike. Now everyone is back using filters again, except Mike. Mike earns $999/month, and everyone else earns $699/month. Slowly, people start thinking they too should be getting big bucks like Mike, and disconnect their filter for $300 extra profit...

A self-interested person never has any incentive to use a filter. A self-interested person has some incentive to sign a pact to make everyone use a filter, but in many cases has a stronger incentive to wait for everyone else to sign such a pact but opt out himself. This can lead to an undesirable equilibrium in which no one will sign such a pact.

The most profitable solution to this problem is for Steve to declare himself King of the Lake and threaten to initiate force against anyone who doesn't use a filter. This regulatory solution leads to greater total productivity for the thousand fish farms than a free market could.

The classic libertarian solution to this problem is to try to find a way to privatize the shared resource (in this case, the lake). I intentionally chose aquaculture for this example because privatization doesn't work. Even after the entire lake has been divided into parcels and sold to private landowners (waterowners?) the problem remains, since waste will spread from one parcel to another regardless of property boundaries.

That's a pretty nifty breakdown, actually. 
Title: Re: Lazy Armchair Enthusiast Making Proposals For Change ITT
Post by: Cain on April 26, 2016, 06:33:32 PM
QuoteThe most profitable solution to this problem is for Steve to declare himself King of the Lake and threaten to initiate force against anyone who doesn't use a filter.

AKA the Dork Enlightenment/non-democratic libertarian solution to everything.
Title: Re: Lazy Armchair Enthusiast Making Proposals For Change ITT
Post by: Pergamos on April 26, 2016, 10:38:21 PM
The most profitable solution is for everyone to initiate force against anyone who doesn't use a filter.  Force in this case being freeing all his fish and trashing his farm.  This is classic tragedy of the commons, the "libertarian" solution is for each pond to be owned by only one person and where an arrangement to sell out cannot be arranged to divide the pond with walls impenetrable to waste, Elinor Ostrom has some rather better ideas about community management of resources.  Theres a  decent site on her work on the topic here.

http://www.onthecommons.org/magazine/elinor-ostroms-8-principles-managing-commmons (http://www.onthecommons.org/magazine/elinor-ostroms-8-principles-managing-commmons)

Incidentally, she started her work dealing with water.
Title: Re: Lazy Armchair Enthusiast Making Proposals For Change ITT
Post by: minuspace on April 26, 2016, 11:08:40 PM
[edit; Pergamos beat me to it] Reminds me of that chap Lloyd, and his Tragedy of the Commons, where IIRC the rational self-interest of users acts independently of others, thereby depleting common resources.  This assumes, however, that rational self-interest must be at odds with ethical reasoning.

Could it be possible for a free agent to reason that their capacity to act independently is inextricably interrelated to the free agency of others? Can my rational self-interest be extensive enough to include the effect it has on others?

In the end, there is absolutely nothing rational about entirely depleting a common resource, because reason cannot defend an action that undermines the conditions required by it in the first place:
fishing all the fish != fishing.

A little neo-Kantian idealism practically never hurt no one.

(I replaced not having a filter with overfishing, I hope that still works;)
Title: Re: Lazy Armchair Enthusiast Making Proposals For Change ITT
Post by: LMNO on April 27, 2016, 12:24:44 AM
I think the word people are looking for here is "compassion".


But the scope of that word is too much for some monkeys to bear.
Title: Re: Lazy Armchair Enthusiast Making Proposals For Change ITT
Post by: minuspace on April 27, 2016, 02:53:48 AM
Quote from: LMNO on April 27, 2016, 12:24:44 AM
I think the word people are looking for here is "compassion".


But the scope of that word is too much for some monkeys to bear.
Compassion is a word we invented to give weak monkeys false hope.
Title: Re: Lazy Armchair Enthusiast Making Proposals For Change ITT
Post by: LMNO on April 27, 2016, 03:33:17 AM
You're adorable.
Title: Re: Lazy Armchair Enthusiast Making Proposals For Change ITT
Post by: minuspace on April 27, 2016, 05:55:55 AM
Sometimes, being wrong's the most endearing thing about primates ;)
Title: Re: Lazy Armchair Enthusiast Making Proposals For Change ITT
Post by: Cramulus on April 27, 2016, 06:41:51 PM
Quote from: LuciferX on April 26, 2016, 11:08:40 PM
Could it be possible for a free agent to reason that their capacity to act independently is inextricably interrelated to the free agency of others? Can my rational self-interest be extensive enough to include the effect it has on others?

Yeah, it's simple: don't conflate the self and the ego.

The true self is bigger than that little old thing.
Title: Re: Lazy Armchair Enthusiast Making Proposals For Change ITT
Post by: minuspace on April 27, 2016, 07:29:48 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on April 27, 2016, 06:41:51 PM
Quote from: LuciferX on April 26, 2016, 11:08:40 PM
Could it be possible for a free agent to reason that their capacity to act independently is inextricably interrelated to the free agency of others? Can my rational self-interest be extensive enough to include the effect it has on others?

Yeah, it's simple: don't conflate the self and the ego.

The true self is bigger than that little old thing.

Perhaps, I just can't see it, because my ego is so HUGE.
Title: Re: Lazy Armchair Enthusiast Making Proposals For Change ITT
Post by: Cramulus on April 27, 2016, 08:02:23 PM
We are not islands - we're barely even individuals.

You are also your lover, you are your whole family, your community, your species. When something gets hurt, the hurt doesn't stay isolated, it affects the system.

The exact spot where you end and I begin is like an optical illusion - its not actually there, but context clues make it appear to be. When somebody close to you dies, a part of you died too.

This is what the libertarian ideology misses. It presents the self as a castle surrounded by high walls - not a dynamic, sprawling city. Not a net of jewels that reflect each other.



http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/88/wcw-rose-obsolete.html
Title: Re: Lazy Armchair Enthusiast Making Proposals For Change ITT
Post by: minuspace on April 27, 2016, 10:14:04 PM
Yea, I don't even (really) know what a libertarian is/means, but I do find myself (more than I'd wish to admit) falling for the "rugged individualist" full Marlborough flavor of self-reliance/determination.  At least it can serve as indicator for when my ego pretends to take the reigns...
Quote from: Cramulus on April 27, 2016, 08:02:23 PM

...

The exact spot where you end and I begin is like an optical illusion - its not actually there, but context clues make it appear to be. When somebody close to you dies, a part of you died too.

This is what the libertarian ideology misses. It presents the self as a castle surrounded by high walls - not a dynamic, sprawling city. Not a net of jewels that reflect each other.



http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/88/wcw-rose-obsolete.html
And yet that unity remains accommodating enough to include within itself not just futile and false distinctions, but an actual difference that concerns me.  There is not unity only in opposition to difference; there is also unity "inside" the difference.  My monkey exists as the fictitious interface of that illusory boundary, struggling perpetually for a sign of relief that instead undermines itself.
Title: Re: Lazy Armchair Enthusiast Making Proposals For Change ITT
Post by: POFP on April 30, 2016, 04:01:37 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on April 26, 2016, 03:15:55 PM
Quote from: Fernando Poo on March 06, 2016, 08:33:37 PM
Environmental Progress:

In summary, it sounds like you're saying (and please correct me if I'm missing it - I don't want to put words in your mouth) that we just need big corporations to come up with innovative ways to go green which are cheaper than the traditional ways. And that we shouldn't be coercing corporations into "going green", we need them to do it on their own.

I mean, yeah, that all sounds good, but how do you do it?

Personally, I don't think there is a way to get everybody to cooperate when there are such big benefits to defecting. I think you need regulations.

The non-libertarian FAQ (http://raikoth.net/libertarian.html#coordination_problems) has a great example of why you'll never see that altruistic, cooperative behavior emerge out of mutual self-interest:

Quote[Removed for brevity, but still read-through]


There was a time where that was the direction I would come from. Total cooperation of people in a free society. Ah, my teen years - Much like infant diapers, in that they were innocent, but full of shit.

While I do lean right of center, I don't fall for the libertarian pipe-dream.

My meaning was to explain the process by which you didn't have to rely on any cooperation of anyone other than, say, some close friends/business partners. I was describing what was possible with the hard work of just a few people in the Freedum™ of the American economy.

Let me explain by first outlining my issues with government regulation:

I think we can all agree that when our gubmint decides to take up management and regulation of something (Usually something lobbied for), it tends to be wasteful, inefficient, and over-bearing. Endless Red Tape that makes things hard for the right companies, as well as the wrong companies. Not only that, but when regulations and laws are defined, they tend to stick around, long after they are necessary. They could write a law requiring cooling of gorblefuts to certain temperatures during production. But after a few months of R&D, they are able to eliminate the cooling process with the advent of toodlesnoots. But the way the law works, if those gorblefuts aren't at the regulatory low temperature during production, then you get fined, or worse. Regulations become outdated and arbitrary when the market and innovation moves on.

Now, I'm not saying bad companies shouldn't be fined or strong-armed at all for not meeting certain basic standards. But Environmental Protection is young, and can still be innovated and enforced by the market. Green business is more profitable, fundamentally, regardless of what lazy older companies would tell you. All I'm saying is that gubmint regulation isn't the only answer. I'd much prefer Corporate Espeeuhnoj™, or market strong-arming, or even partial monopolization over endless Red Tape.

I mean, you could look at the OP as a business proposal or partnership offer. How would you like to work up into an existing company, or create a new one, and make it transition to energy independence and Green practices? And once we've done that, we use our profits to expose the inferiority of the non-green system. I mean, let's go FULL TRANSPARENCY on their asses. We advertise our Green success everywhere, and drill it into the populace's head.

WE paid x for our solar panels and windmills and YOU pay 1/3x EVERY MONTH for NATURAL GAS. After 3 MONTHS, we're BEATING YOUR ASS with EFFICIENCY.

I mean, we could probably change the world if we advertised on one of the most popular sites on the internet: Pornhub

:lulz: << This sMaRT Son of a BItch is
                       GETING RICH
                   running companies
                  ON GREEN ENERGY
                   and basically
                YOUR FUCKING STUPID

I call it Profit With Compassion™

In all seriousness, demonstration and pressure exertion of just a few companies can change the market. You can use the profits of a company to set up gradual energy source conversion programs that you can GIVE OR SELL to other companies. Not because it was financially profitable for you to do so, but because it was beneficial to society. And it's not just YOU. It's US. WE can do this.

I, personally, am AWFUL at trying to get things done on my own. But if I have other people working with me to get things done, then I get an absurd drive to succeed. I fucking hate talking about theory. That's all you can do as a kid. But I'm not just a kid anymore. I have the ability to make a change, and so do you. Let's brainstorm some profitable investment and business methods that will get us funds to organize this. If we lack information, we look it up. We share our information. We discuss it. If you've already got connections, tell me what I need to know, and give me some time to catch up.

I want to show people that Profit With Compassion™ is possible. I wanna change modern business standards by example, not by force. Instead of arguing about economic theory, why don't we throw some bar stools?
Title: Re: Lazy Armchair Enthusiast Making Proposals For Change ITT
Post by: Cramulus on May 02, 2016, 04:02:11 PM
Quote from: Fernando Poo on April 30, 2016, 04:01:37 PM
I think we can all agree that when our gubmint decides to take up management and regulation of something (Usually something lobbied for), it tends to be wasteful, inefficient, and over-bearing. Endless Red Tape that makes things hard for the right companies, as well as the wrong companies. Not only that, but when regulations and laws are defined, they tend to stick around, long after they are necessary. They could write a law requiring cooling of gorblefuts to certain temperatures during production. But after a few months of R&D, they are able to eliminate the cooling process with the advent of toodlesnoots. But the way the law works, if those gorblefuts aren't at the regulatory low temperature during production, then you get fined, or worse. Regulations become outdated and arbitrary when the market and innovation moves on.

This happens, yeah, but not all the time. There are a lot of regulations which everybody follows and they work great.

Sometimes you do need to de-regulate things after the market has moved on - but I don't think that's an argument against regulation in the first place. For example - car emissions... maybe we won't need carbon emission regulations when all cars are electric, but we have to cross that bridge then.

In the meantime, I cannot imagine why a car company would produce a car with 'clean emissions' in the absence of a regulation saying they have to do so. A car with dirty emissions would be much cheaper and sell better. Your average consumer doesn't mind driving a car that creates a little bit of pollution if it saves them a few thousand bucks.


QuoteGreen business is more profitable, fundamentally, regardless of what lazy older companies would tell you. All I'm saying is that gubmint regulation isn't the only answer. I'd much prefer Corporate Espeeuhnoj™, or market strong-arming, or even partial monopolization over endless Red Tape.

What makes you conclude green business is fundamentally more profitable? Filters, waste management, recycling.. these things are expensive!

Quote
I want to show people that Profit With Compassion™ is possible. I wanna change modern business standards by example, not by force. Instead of arguing about economic theory, why don't we throw some bar stools?

From where I'm sitting - green business is more expensive. People who produce things the "clean" way are operating at a disadvantage and will be beaten by competitors who are ridin' dirty. Even if all businesses agreed to "go green", any given business could get ahead of their competition if they defect from the plan.

I think that's the central thing that keeps the market from being green already. We consumers are not so into the green movement that we're willing to pay out out the ass just to be environmentally responsible.
Title: Re: Lazy Armchair Enthusiast Making Proposals For Change ITT
Post by: POFP on May 02, 2016, 06:50:21 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on May 02, 2016, 04:02:11 PM
Quote from: Fernando Poo on April 30, 2016, 04:01:37 PM
I think we can all agree that when our gubmint decides to take up management and regulation of something (Usually something lobbied for), it tends to be wasteful, inefficient, and over-bearing. Endless Red Tape that makes things hard for the right companies, as well as the wrong companies. Not only that, but when regulations and laws are defined, they tend to stick around, long after they are necessary. They could write a law requiring cooling of gorblefuts to certain temperatures during production. But after a few months of R&D, they are able to eliminate the cooling process with the advent of toodlesnoots. But the way the law works, if those gorblefuts aren't at the regulatory low temperature during production, then you get fined, or worse. Regulations become outdated and arbitrary when the market and innovation moves on.

This happens, yeah, but not all the time. There are a lot of regulations which everybody follows and they work great.

Sometimes you do need to de-regulate things after the market has moved on - but I don't think that's an argument against regulation in the first place. For example - car emissions... maybe we won't need carbon emission regulations when all cars are electric, but we have to cross that bridge then.

In the meantime, I cannot imagine why a car company would produce a car with 'clean emissions' in the absence of a regulation saying they have to do so. A car with dirty emissions would be much cheaper and sell better. Your average consumer doesn't mind driving a car that creates a little bit of pollution if it saves them a few thousand bucks.


QuoteGreen business is more profitable, fundamentally, regardless of what lazy older companies would tell you. All I'm saying is that gubmint regulation isn't the only answer. I'd much prefer Corporate Espeeuhnoj™, or market strong-arming, or even partial monopolization over endless Red Tape.

What makes you conclude green business is fundamentally more profitable? Filters, waste management, recycling.. these things are expensive!

Quote
I want to show people that Profit With Compassion™ is possible. I wanna change modern business standards by example, not by force. Instead of arguing about economic theory, why don't we throw some bar stools?

From where I'm sitting - green business is more expensive. People who produce things the "clean" way are operating at a disadvantage and will be beaten by competitors who are ridin' dirty. Even if all businesses agreed to "go green", any given business could get ahead of their competition if they defect from the plan.

I think that's the central thing that keeps the market from being green already. We consumers are not so into the green movement that we're willing to pay out out the ass just to be environmentally responsible.

Oh, I agree. Some regulation is good. I was unclear in my wording, implying that all regulation is bad. But I think sometimes we jump to the conclusion that regulation is the only answer, when it isn't.

Also, I guess I generalized and said "Green" when what I specifically meant was "(Self)Sustainable energy," which happens to be Green. I mainly was talking about Sustainability in the OP as well. Simple switcheroo of terminology on my part. Mebad.

However, I would like to say one thing before we continue: While all things, Green or Sustainable are fundamentally cheaper, I would say that our current technology is not at the point at which it is cheaper, yet. R&D is still required to switch the system over, and my argument is based on the assumption that we have that technology. Which we soon will.

But onto Sustainable Energy Business: If a company can run on its own power systems that are self-sustained, then the up-front cost is the only thing that's high. After a year or two, it's all paid for itself.

In regards to systems dealing with Carbon emission reduction (Not what I was originally talking about in OP, but understandable topic transition because of my change in wording before), I bring up my point in the OP regarding invention and innovation. Assuming we had the technology to switch to alternatives for transportation that didn't produce carbon emissions, people would still hold back. Especially the big old corporations that grew up with carbon emissions. My argument is that once we've innovated and found a new way to run transportation and other things without much carbon emissions, then we need to avoid Red Tape enforcement for as long as possible. Or at least just stick with incentivizing Green business while we work towards market pressuring.

To clarify my obviously disjointed arguments, there are two parts to this ENVIRONMENTALISM plan:

1.) Innovate Green Technology
2.) Force companies to make changes while avoiding long-term regulation as much as possible.

I want to work on both aspects of this. Where do we get started?
Title: Re: Lazy Armchair Enthusiast Making Proposals For Change ITT
Post by: Cramulus on May 02, 2016, 08:03:04 PM
Without red tape, why would a company change to a more expensive production process?

How do you "force" a company to make a change without applying a regulation?

I don't think that consumer demand is a strong enough force to change things on its own.


The process of getting one kilogram of beef onto my plate produces as much carbon emission as driving 63 miles. Fruit and nuts have a much, much smaller carbon footprint. I know this, but I still prefer hamburgers and steak to all the salad in the world.
Title: Re: Lazy Armchair Enthusiast Making Proposals For Change ITT
Post by: Freeky on May 03, 2016, 07:45:12 AM
I read a thing about Interface, Inc. (http://www.interfaceglobal.com/) a while back.  Back in '96, they started moving away from petroleum based new products, and started going with recycling, making their carpet systems modular, and a whole lot of other shit I don't remember so well.  Their profits went through the roof, since they recycled all the carpeting they recovered when they installed by turning it all into some other product they sell, but I forget by how much.  The initial investment WAS a large one, though.
Title: Re: Lazy Armchair Enthusiast Making Proposals For Change ITT
Post by: Cain on May 03, 2016, 11:11:37 AM
Quote from: Choppas an' Sluggas on May 03, 2016, 07:45:12 AM
I read a thing about Interface, Inc. (http://www.interfaceglobal.com/) a while back.  Back in '96, they started moving away from petroleum based new products, and started going with recycling, making their carpet systems modular, and a whole lot of other shit I don't remember so well.  Their profits went through the roof, since they recycled all the carpeting they recovered when they installed by turning it all into some other product they sell, but I forget by how much.  The initial investment WAS a large one, though.

And that can sometimes be a really hard sell to the board and investors who are often looking for quick returns.

I mean, the company I work for right now practically runs on "quarterly profits uber alles" model...and it is running them into the ground.  I've made several proposals which would involve significant up front costs but would pay for themselves over time in addition to other benefits...all of which have been turned down.
Title: Re: Lazy Armchair Enthusiast Making Proposals For Change ITT
Post by: Freeky on May 03, 2016, 04:17:23 PM
Yeah, that's the problem with most people investing in a company, or the company itself.  It's a lot of scum that rule the world.
Title: Re: Lazy Armchair Enthusiast Making Proposals For Change ITT
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on May 03, 2016, 06:08:55 PM
Quote from: Choppas an' Sluggas on May 03, 2016, 04:17:23 PM
Yeah, that's the problem with most people investing in a company, or the company itself.  It's a lot of scum that rule the world.

Or just "we all want to see BIG returns on our 401K".
Title: Re: Lazy Armchair Enthusiast Making Proposals For Change ITT
Post by: Freeky on May 03, 2016, 09:51:15 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 03, 2016, 06:08:55 PM
Quote from: Choppas an' Sluggas on May 03, 2016, 04:17:23 PM
Yeah, that's the problem with most people investing in a company, or the company itself.  It's a lot of scum that rule the world.

Or just "we all want to see BIG returns on our 401K".

Right?  Fuck people.
Title: Re: Lazy Armchair Enthusiast Making Proposals For Change ITT
Post by: Pergamos on May 04, 2016, 12:46:42 AM
A quick government fix for the quarterly profits uber alles approach is an increase in corporate taxes.  High taxes on net profits makes investments much more attractive, since that money isnt being taxed and also leads to more profit in the long term.
Title: Re: Lazy Armchair Enthusiast Making Proposals For Change ITT
Post by: POFP on May 07, 2016, 05:14:05 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on May 02, 2016, 08:03:04 PM
Without red tape, why would a company change to a more expensive production process?

How do you "force" a company to make a change without applying a regulation?

I don't think that consumer demand is a strong enough force to change things on its own.


The process of getting one kilogram of beef onto my plate produces as much carbon emission as driving 63 miles. Fruit and nuts have a much, much smaller carbon footprint. I know this, but I still prefer hamburgers and steak to all the salad in the world.

Lazy Armchair Enthusiast becomes Active (Slightly less lazy) Armchair Enthusiast ITT:

Many would argue (as they have, above) that the Green Solution tends to only be more expensive in the short term.

You force a company (Companies) to make a change by making it desirable, financially. Or, you render their current methods obsolete.

To make a change financially desirable, it would usually take strategic and tactful introduction by someone in corporate who already knows a lot about the new system and the current system. If someone introduces it who does have a lot of power but doesn't know much about either system, it will be rejected by those in charge, or the change will be less efficient and financially undesirable.

Both, rendering the current method of production obsolete and making the change financially desirable, are made simpler by large strides in innovation. Many would argue that the Green technology just isn't cheap or efficient enough yet to upgrade our country's (Or any country's) entire infrastructure. But if the technology had private AND public R&D involving more creative minds than are currently involved, then we might see some infrastructure-worthy Green-tech.

This thread was supposed to provide topics of productive discussion while keeping in mind the limited influence of the individual on the workings of big things. But the influence of many can be pretty large. I would rather not just rely on people in the private sector to do the right thing. I would rather influence those decisions myself, with the help of others. As soon as my life becomes a bit more stable (Probably in August or September.), I'm going to hit the books and get acquainted with all things business and Green, and I plan on obtaining the influence I desire to make a change. But it can't be done alone.

My question is (In the spirit of an armchair enthusiast, hence the thread name), do you (Or anyone else) want to collaborate and work towards a Greener future without lobbying for regulation?


There's societal profit hidden in private Green-tech market support. The problem is, there is no private Green-tech market support. So let's go build some.
Title: Re: Lazy Armchair Enthusiast Making Proposals For Change ITT
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on May 23, 2016, 03:01:13 PM
We're fast approaching grid parity with wind and solar and storage is set to take off shortly, too. Germany famously ran for a whole day on 90% renewables. It got so bad that negative tariffs ran briefly - the energy providers were paying people to use the power. Portugal (although hardly a comparable industrial nation) went four days on 100% renewable.

It'll get to a point soon where price per watt is significantly less than the fossil fuel alternative. At that point the argument is moot. Market forces will take over when human self preservation failed miserably. Any business that insists on paying over the odds for power will very quickly cease to be a business. Of course it'll be too late. It's already too late. Failing some scientific solution to the problem, most indicators are imminent biosphere collapse.

Preservationists are just as bad. Why the fuck even try to preserve a system that evidently can't deal with 7billion-odd myopic apes, shitting up the walls of the domicile? A far more sensible option would be to engineer something that works better. Myopic apes, however, aren't predisposed to thinking big-picture like that.

The good news is that the big picture is the same, whether people want to look at it or not and the big picture strongly suggests that there won't be people for much longer. Problem is self-correcting.