Mikee

Members
  • Content Count

    1,958
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Mikee


  1. http://www.hoover.org/research/carly-fiorina-future-united-states

    "

    Carly Fiorina: Well, it was a whole process of living life and going to work. So, the reason I mentioned I started as a secretary, when I landed at AT&T, which by the way, my very first job after I got my MBA was here in Washington DC, at AT&T. It's where I met my husband, who's here tonight, 36 years ago. I didn't have any plan to be a CEO. I was just grateful to have a job, and hoping that I didn't blow that job. But, everywhere I went, I found problems that had been left unresolved, and everywhere I went, I found people who actually knew how to solve the problem, but they had never been asked. What I discovered over, and over, and over again is that everybody has more potential than they realize, including myself, but everybody I run across in my life has more potential than they realize, and people can solve the problems that impact them. Yes, they need resources, and they need a helping hand sometimes, and they need tools, and they need support, and they need leadership, but actually, people are best able to solve the problems that impact them because they understand them. I also learned, as I rose in the big bureaucratic institutions, that if you concentrate decision-making, and money, and power in too few hands for too long, that power will be abused, and the money will be wasted, and the decisions will not be as effective as the decisions that people who understand the problem best would have made. Now, when you think about what I just said, everyone has potential, every person has value, regardless of their circumstances, people are best able, best equipped to solve problems locally, and if you concentrate power, you're abusing power, those are conservative principles. Those are constitutional principles. I think I became a conservative when I realized, "Guess what? Those principles work better. They are the principles that I have used throughout my career, and throughout my life."

    Michael Franc: It's almost the exact opposite of a progressive philosophy.

    Carly Fiorina: It is the exact opposite.

    "


  2. 17 minutes ago, Samson Corwell said:

    No, every law is an imposition of value on those who disagree with it. Just as the current system is an imposition on libertarians, a libertarian system would be an imposition on non-libertarians who would find their views excluded from the public sphere.

    This reads almost like the definition of moral relativism.


  3. A synopsis of JMK:  https://www.maynardkeynes.org/

    The bugaboo is his economics: "... when national economies suffer a downturn, governments should borrow and spend money to boost economic activity. Part of the proceeds of the resulting economic growth should then be used to repay the debt. "

    But I understand from my past readings of Austrian economists who actually corresponded with Keynes that he had misgivings or didn't stand by this characterization of his ideas later in his life.  But of course, to the left, he became the bible in reference to government interference in the economy.

    Keynes the Speculator is precious:  " “markets can remain irrational far longer than you or I can remain solvent.” "


  4. Greg is completely consistent in describing what he thinks are the narratives that drive peoples perspectives and opinions and why he chooses a different point of view.  His perspective is different but consistent and interesting for that reason.  William's attempt to characterize Greg as "bigot" is laughable as is William's  "I call out what I consider his gross cognitive errors and ugly statements." regarding Bob "not demeaning",  I presume because they are personal slurs therefore politically correct?  So, it's okay to show contempt for others as long as it's personal?  If so, I think Greg complies with the "keep it personal rule" perhaps better than WIlliam does.


  5. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-10/senate-quietly-passes-countering-disinformation-and-propaganda-act

    Why does this scare the crap out of me?  A corrupt government regulating "truth"?  What could go wrong? 

    About all of the mocking the left for "doubling down" after losing the election, they were way overconfident but with good reason.  They plan to remedy their mistake, don't underestimate their ability to deal a knockout blow on the Trump administration, I.E. Block all of his appointments, block his executive privilege, block his reversal of Obama's legacy, and even impeach him.


  6. 1 hour ago, merjet said:

    Mikee, how exactly does what you wrote relate to anything I wrote?

    You lack imagination.  Years ago I remodeled my house.  I pulled a permit as an "owner-builder" which was my right.  In turns out the city building permit manager was not comfortable with "owner-builders" and I got hit with a number of nonsense rulings by his inspectors.  Evidently my city extorts contractors fees as well as permit fees (the builders have to pay the city a percentage of what they charge their customers).   I went down and talked to him and negotiated a compromise on several items and eventually got my projects signed off at additional expense.  Am I a crony capitalist for trying to talk sense into some asshole behind a desk at the city offices?  If my project was a 20 million dollar project instead of a mere 20 thousand would that make a difference?


  7. Merlin,

    Let me get this straight. You're being mugged in a alley and the mugger says "Give me your money", if you say "No" you're a moral and honest man.  (Especially if you later support the mugger for mayor.)  If you willingly hand over your wallet and say "this is all I got"  but don't mention the cash you have in your money belt you are a liar and a collaborator and no better than the crook?  And if you come back later with the cops to clean up the alley you're a hypocrite?


  8. 1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

    Thanks, Mike, for taking the time. 

    Is there anyone on what you call "my side" whose opinions (or scientific work) you respect? As you know, I spent several weeks following and reporting on the APS statement -- and was especially interested in the Workshop cited back a few pages (which link I will insert). In that workshop were six well-known scientists (in the broad field of climatology): Isaac Held, John Christy, Richard Lindzen, Judith Curry, Ben Santer and William Collins. It was a fascinating and not-too technical discussion between the six. You might be interested in the presentation by Collins, which begins on page 17.  He is one of the people in the world who constructs climate models. His interactions with the 'other side' are civil, even friendly, especially between him and Curry. 

    In another post I laid out what I foresee that will change my opinions about Anthropogenic Global Warming, by reference to the Arctic. In your mental models of the issue, is there something that will tend to convince you to alter or update/change your opinions?  The more general question would be, is discussion worthwhile for you, on this issue, on this topic? Or are you done with 'my side'?

     

    Years ago I researched a number of sources like this one:  http://rocketscientistsjournal.com/

    I like Alex Epstein http://industrialprogress.com/about/

    I believe the danger of ending human progress by establishing centralized government control over every human action and destroying the market system is infinitely more likely and harmful to human thriving than a degree or two of warming.  I think it is unlikely the earth will warm faster than human ingenuity is capable of compensating for it as long as people are free to innovate and have the power sources and technology to work with.  At any rate I'm convinced the predictions are bunk and driven by the self interest of the academics to prattle on about it.  Recognition, grant money, self righteous preening, the admiration of their peers etc.  No matter how much they rattle on and give the impression of certainty I don't think certainty is there to be had.  So given their political ends and self interest I believe they are doing no less than lying.  I believe if you claim to be certain of something and you are not that is a form of lying.  And I think people do it all the time.


  9. Bob, I agree.  Global warming is real.  So is Global cooling.  You can measure it, you can't predict it with any accuracy and CO2 is not the major player, the Sun is.  There are unknown variables and unknown feedback mechanisms.  I also think you'd have to model dozens of interacting systems moving and changing constantly in unpredictable ways, truely chaotic.  What is predictable is the effect on human progress and thriving a completely command driven world wide socialist political system would produce.  A ten thousand year dark ages.  Imagine a world president Clinton or Bush number 250.  Or Kim Jong-il #1000...

    So much for my dream of a trillion human highly advanced scientific community living in the Oort cloud for a million years...


  10. 1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

    And ... ?  

    I mean, I don't know your views on the interview. I don't know if you watched/listened to it. I did by turning up the speed and turning on the captions. 

    "I don't know if you watched/listened to it."- Of course I watched it.

    "I don't know your views on the interview." -  I agree completely with the premise:

    ***GLOBAL WARMING DEBUNKED***

    Of course, I've thought it was bunk for many years.  I think somewhere around 27 minutes they talk about the belief in global warming being "tribal",  I agree.  Practically anyone I've had a conversation with about it talks about other peoples views..."999 million scientists can't be wrong"...etc, no personal thought or even reasoned speculation about any of the so called theories and "models" the "predictions" are based on.

    Based on my experience with computer modeling:  I've used computer programs to simulate the behavior of complex electronics circuit designs for perhaps 30 years.  They get better and better, mainly because many multi billion dollar companies in desperate competition with each other are racing to get products to the market and circuit simulators speed up the process dramatically.  But they still produce errors, you have to actually build the product and test it to know if it will work to specifications.  And testing the prototypes always reveals a fault which requires design changes.  Then you have pilot runs which are tested and usually more tweaks to the design.  Then a beta release, more feedback and more tweaks.  And a circuit board is a very constrained environment, all of the physics of each device is well known.  Many of the components have upwards of 50 variables in their models. The simulations don't tell you exactly what building a real product will tell you about your design.  You can still have nightmares like just happened to Samsung and their Galaxy 7 release.  Making a computer simulation of 100 years of climate on the earth and pretending you can make real predictions I think is nonsense on stilts.  Most academics suffer from the same malady as politicians, they've never had a real job.  There are very notable exceptions, some of whom I've met.  But I doubt those individuals are on your side of this issue.