Jump to content

Armacing

Members+
  • Content Count

    451
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Armacing

  1. Well it's good you're open to the idea! Why not vote libertarian next time and let's see what happens? I hope nobody loses their house, I'm just looking for the incentive for people to take responsibility for their investments, and for those who are harmed by corporate activities to receive just compensation. Of course there will be some people who do suffer loss, but the hope is that would be minimized by the market's own ability to price risk into assets. In addition to just compensation for injured parties, I theorize we would also see increased economic dynamism by moving away
  2. Ever heard of the Azolla Event? That's one species theorized to be responsible for all of the recent ice ages. And I suppose living under an authoritarian green regime is not "very painful" for the poorest members of society who are bound to bear the cost reducing carbon emissions? Just like you're ignoring the death and suffering caused by the proposed solutions to the "climate problem". That's what I'm trying to do by arguing against the global-warming philosophy. This is a human-induced political catastrophe that has the potential to unnecessarily raise the cost of
  3. Humans can keep emitting CO2 right up to the point where the run out of things to burn, then it will become unsustainable. Until that time it is completely sustainable and the earth has the capacity to deal with that CO2 in the same way it always has. The composition of the atmosphere has been greatly affected by the lifeforms on the earth's surface over the eons and humans are no exception that phenomenon. Let's say you're right and humans manage to emit enough CO2 so that the environmental effects are deleterious to human life - would that not become a negative feedback loop for human lif
  4. The examples would be the thousands of cases where industries release the "EPA approved amount" of a material into the environment and those living in the communities around the emissions source have no legal recourse due to the safe harbor of the regulation. How about the example of W.R. Grace mentioned in this article ? That company still exists today as a publicly traded company (although I think they are in the process of a leveraged buy-out because I own some shares of it and I got a proxy statement recently). They were able to avoid a big chunk of their asbestos pollution liability th
  5. How would you define "excess"? As recently as 50 Million years ago CO2 levels were 2.5 times what they are today, but if you listen to some hysterical pseudo-science people in the media today they say such a level of CO2 would be catastrophic. Yet, the fossil record tells us the environment was doing just fine 50 million years ago with plenty of life. If you go back further like 400 million years ago CO2 levels were 5 times what they are today, and the fossil record tells us the earth was teaming with life - and new life forms were expanding and evolving rapidly on land (rapidly over geolog
  6. So you must not be that worried about Carbon Dioxide then, right? Because if you fail to speak up about the largest source of Carbon Dioxide because you have limited influence, then to me it is obvious you don't really see a threat in CO2. To me it just looks like you're promoting your political/economic agenda. If you really thought the fate of the world hinged on limiting CO2 emissions, then you would be coming up with ways to stop China even without their cooperation - for the sake of the world (from your perspective).
  7. High wages for hospital staff are going to be necessary if we want to attract more people to that demanding/difficult/dangerous profession.
  8. With a new façade and crown Snodgrass could be awesome. I often think of this building when I look at Snodgrass and contemplate its potential.
  9. It works like this: You buy land and your property line extends to the middle of the river where it meets another property owner. That means you own river-front land and all of the benefits that come with it, namely: flowing water along one side of your property. As an owner of river-front property you have the ability to enjoy that water: swim it it, draw from it for agriculture, fish in it, etc. But the person downstream has the same rights, so anything you do that prevents them from enjoying their use of the river causes a dispute to arise. That dispute will be settled in court on a
  10. Yes, I agree with you: The first iteration of this project was better. But I'm still hoping these guys get together with the Cumulus guys and coordinate their designs so that superficially they appear to be a random collection of towers but when viewed from City Lights they form a hand giving the middle finger.
  11. For Korean I would recommend "Korea House" on Charlotte Pike. Pretty authentic if you ask the Koreans running the place. I have been going there for years and I still think it's the best Korean food in town. There are probably 5 or more other Korean restaurants around town, and a few more in Clarksville because of the military influence. Years ago we used to have "Rumba" on West End (not sure if that's how they spelled it). There were several Indonesian items on the menu, but it was really more of a fusion restaurant. Sadly it went out of business. Now we have "Sunda" in the gul
  12. See, that's where you go wrong. As a plaintiff in a free market, I don't have to wait to get cancer and prove your chemicals caused it. All I have to do is prove you put chemicals into my section of the river (because - remember - in a free market environment the property line extends out into the river) without my permission. That means if I detect chemicals in my section of the river and they came from you, then you owe me damages because you polluted my water. And every single person downstream will be part of that class action lawsuit, adding up to millions in damages. In the rare ca
  13. The reason the problem is not getting fixed is not the market - it's the government. We need to end the concept of Limited Liability for shareholders entirely. The very idea that someone could be part-owner in a corporation and not be fully liable for the actions of that corporation is contrary to the idea of capitalism and free market. If every shareholder is personally responsible for the actions of a corporation up to the full extent of their personal assets, then you will see a lot more risk-avoidance by corporations when it comes to environmental damage. But as things stand now - ther
  14. Yeah, but they're choosing to live downtown, so that's still a choice. But you do bring up a good point about zoning forcing the inclusion of parking - - that zoning (and all zoning) should be removed so builders can build exactly what buyers/renters want to live in and want to pay for.
  15. I really hope this happens along with the addition to Indigo next door and the Federal Reserve hotel across the street, and the Radisson around the corner at 4th & union. Taken together all of those developments would be a significant increase in density for the Union Street neighborhood. Hopefully one day that leads to high-rise developments on the surface parking at 3rd & Church and even 2nd & Church. We need unlimited height restrictions at those two intersections!
  16. It really doesn't matter what they are doing in China to create all that pollution. Pollution is pollution and the environment is negatively effected regardless of pro- or anti- globalization political talking points. Take a look at harmful pollution in any category and China is at the top of the list. Environmentalists expect US-based and Europe-based manufacturers to build the products we need with minimal environmental impact. So what's the difference with China? Not only is it fair to point the finger at China, it is essential to point the finger at China and keep the focus ther
  17. I doubt there is an organize effort to hide China's impact. I think it has more to do with editorial narrative where if the story is about a coal plant in Illinois (hypothetically speaking), the journalist decides to not bring up China because that would detract from the focus on the given coal plant in the story, and in fact lessen the significance of the coal plant in the mind of the reader. If a journalist is trying to tell a compelling story about a coal plant, after all, they need to hype up the importance of that coal plant to keep the reader engaged. But when the journalist brin
  18. You're probably right about that. So it's up to us to spread the message if the media won't.
  19. Having trouble reconciling these two statements.... So within the past couple years you've gone from 90% of christmas shopping on Amazon to totally boycotting them due to their size? Looks like Amazon has sales around $250B, whereas Costco has sales of $150B and Target is around $77B. I'm guessing your cut-off threshold for when you stop shopping at a particular store is around $200B, right? Just curious what it is about the delta between $150B and $250B that causes you to flip from loyal customer to staunch critic? Always good to learn about the motivations of consumers in
  20. Notice how they mention that 8% figure for global emissions related to steel production, but they fail to call out which countries are responsible for that. I'd be willing to bet that Swedish mill was one of the cleanest mills before they switched away from coal. The media takes every opportunity to say that every aberrant weather phenomenon is caused by global warming, but they consistently fail to call out China's disproportional share of global emissions. Why??
  21. Fair enough, that is your right as a consumer to shop where you want for any reason. So who do you use for your online shopping now since you hate fighting the crowds?
  22. Just curious, why don't you buy from Amazon?
  23. Antitrust violations are not real violations. That is a made-up "crime" that was cooked up by a bunch of corporate fat-cats who are unhappy about being out-competed in the free market, so they look for a way to use lawyers, lobbyists, and pliable politicians to un-do the choices made by consumers in the market. If you support anti-trust laws, then you support putting the ambitions of companies ahead of the will of the consumer/public at large.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.