Big companies get what they want from both parties:
- no anti-trust action
- no shareholders rights
- increased regulation to swamp small companies in paperwork and staff
- low corporate tax rates to increase profits so that higher bonuses can
be paid to executives
- anti-union laws (right to work - for less) so that the middle class
does not eat up too much of the corporate profits and reduce bonuses (01)
On 10/08/2011 12:05 AM, doug foxvog wrote:
> On Tue, August 9, 2011 16:38, Rich Cooper said:
>> I agree that forced and exclusive regulation is
>> SOMETIMES necessary, but I prefer the way the ISO
>> 9000 and ISO 9001 standards committee operates,
>> where companies that claim to practice their
>> standards are audited by ISO-accredited auditors,
>> and given a certification only if their practices
>> pass the audit. Buyers can then purchase from
>> accredited companies or not, depending on their
>> needs and predilections.
>> But chemicals in food or in food packages that can
>> be scientifically shown to harm people should
>> certainly be prohibited by law or regulation
>> though, since they do violence to individuals who
>> don't suspect anything is wrong, as you pointed
>> out. But most regulations and regulatory bodies
>> are not (IMHO) best forced upon the public without
>> alternatives. The ISO 9K pattern is one I would
>> prefer for products and services that are not
>> inherently dangerous.
>> There are other cases of damaging products and
>> services which should also be prohibited, but
>> knowing where to draw the line needs a closer
>> Have you seen the recent NASA study
> This is not a NASA study, but a paper by a long-term climate change
> denier, Dr. Roy Spencer at the University of Alabama, who works with NASA
> and is also a creationist. He says he became
> "convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better
> scientific basis than the theory of evolution".
> He is on the board of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of
> Creation, "a conservative Christian public policy group that promotes a
> free-market approach to care for the environment".
> It appears to me that he has a religio-political agenda.
>> that says global warming alarmism is not justified,
> The article does not mention "global warming alarmism" at all.
> Given your description, i'm wondering if you read it. The article does
> not say that anthropogenic global warming is not occurring. It does state
> that various feedback mechanisms are complicated to model and that current
> climate models do not accurately model such feedback.
>> and that the earth is emitting heat into space,
> The Earth always does this.
>> and also
>> adapting to higher levels of CO2 by emitting more
>> heat and pushing the gas higher in the atmosphere?
> Isn't this part of the standard models?
> I note that this is a political website, not a scientific one. The actual
> article is at http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf
> Dr. Spencer's credibility is debunked in
> Actually, if you go to the actual article
> you find that he starts with an equation which assumes that the
> heat capacity of the oceans is unchanged -- i.e., that negative
> feedback balances any heat input. He states that a variation of
> the equation would be necessary for the heat content of "the
> system" to change with time:
> "Cp dΔT/dt = S(t) + N(t)−λΔT (1)
> Equation (1) states that time-varying sources of non-radiative
> forcing S and radiative forcing N cause a climate system with bulk
> heat capacity Cp to undergo a temperature change with time away
> from its equilibrium state (dΔT/dt), but with a net radiative feedback
> ‘restoring force’ (−λΔT) acting to stabilize the system.
> ... the heat
> capacity Cp in Equation (1) is assumed to represent the oceanic mixed
> layer. (Note that if Cp is put inside the time differential term, the
> equation then becomes one for changes in the heat content of the
> system with time."
> Given an incorrect analysis of what the article says, the conclusions
> drawn from this analysis (in the next paragraph) have no support.
>> That indicates that the UN committee of global
>> warming alarmists are just pursuing a political
>> agenda, especially with the administration and the
>> UN promoting cap and tax in the US, and other 1st
>> world countries, at US and 1st world expense,
>> while redistributing the funds to 3rd world
>> governments (not 3rd world citizens).
> This is a very curious proposition to be included in a scientific
> paper (unless the topic is political science).
>> I am in favor of helping 3rd world citizens, ...
> The point of trying to limit CO2 emissions is not to
> help 3rd world citizens, but to avert a catastrophe.
> Of course, some of the most affected countries are
> poor, but the Kyoto Protocol and other measures were
> designed for everyone, not as wealth redistribution
>> For another example, the Obama administration's
>> intended policies of prohibiting drilling of oil
>> and coal resources, even if research has shown
>> ways to clean up the coal,
> Sulphur can be cleaned out of the coal exhaust, but
> CO2 can not be. "Clean coal" is an oxymoron, which
> Obama evidently is willing to waste limited govt. money
> on because it is corporate welfare.
>> is economically
>> counterproductive. It has hurt the economy,
>> killed (by some estimates) five million jobs in
>> the industry,
> Where do such ridiculous estimates come from? Five million is about
> the number of jobs that have been lost in the recession. The increase
> in jobless since Obama took office is less than five million.
> Obama added temporary
> restrictions on deep ocean drilling while BP was spewing tremendous
> amounts of crude oil directly into the Gulf of Mexico, but there
> never have been millions of Americans working on deep ocean drilling.
>> and diverted our focus from what it
>> takes to get energy independence at reasonable
> Funding for wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, and wave generation
> of energy coupled with co-generation, efficiency improvement, and
> reduction of excessive use of energy could safely put us on the
> way to energy independence.
>> Yet NASA's evidence shows that its not a problem.
> Climate disruption is probably the largest danger to our society.
> It will cost the economy tens of trillions of dollars.
>> Its just another way to use regulation
>> to crowd out the small oil producers and refiners,
>> and raise the cost of entry.
> Do you actually believe that the Democrats want to eliminate
> small businesses?
>> That is one example
>> where stated remedies, like the new gas mileage
>> the Obama admin has forced on all of us by
> The Bush Administration hurt US auto manufacturers as well
> the atmosphere by stalling gas mileage increase requirements.
> Low gas mileage vehicles require the US to import more fuel,
> hurting our balance of trade, and end up costing consumers
> more because their vehicles burn more gasoline.
>> with no alternative for those who knew
>> the GW alarmists were up to no good with no good evidence.
> Do you believe that the vast majority of climate researchers
> around the world are involved in a massive conspiracy to
> produce false science for some evil purpose?
>> There are only a few huge auto companies
>> which dominate the market for good reason -
> because small producers were bought out by larger ones.
>> political pressure and donations that
>> suck funds from taxpayers struggling to make ends
>> Watch alternative news, such as Al Jazeera, Russia
>> Today, and other country opinions of US actions to
>> get the countervailing view as opposed to just the
>> mainstream media which stays politically correct.
>> The other side of the story is very informative if
>> you are interested in the topics they discuss.
>> One viewpoint is nearly guaranteed to be wrong in
>> certain ways, and only by stepping outside of the
>> prevailing views will you get a balanced
>> understanding. Even Fox Business Channel, which
>> focuses almost solely on financial issues,
>> provides a countervailing view to CNN, for
>> These compelling regulatory bodies are usually
>> populated with people from huge companies in the
>> industry being regulated.
> Certainly when pro-corporate, anti-consumer, presidents
> appoint board members. We need strong laws banning
> revolving door employment between regulatory bodies and
> the companies regulated.
> -- doug f
>> Guess what? The huge
>> companies become huger and the smaller companies
>> with better products and services disappear.
>> Rich Cooper
>> Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
>> 9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
>> Behalf Of John F. Sowa
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 12:32 PM
>> To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] intangibles (was RE:
>> Why mostclassificationsare fuzzy)
>> On 8/9/2011 11:50 AM, Rich Cooper wrote:
>>> Just how much does each of us value safety,
>> honest advertising,
>>> cleanliness, and other honest and fair
>> I would rate those things extremely high. Most
>> people are willing
>> to pay extra for safe, sound, and effective food,
>> drugs, restaurants,
>> hotels, homes, cars, and appliances. But there is
>> no way to ensure
>> safety without standards and inspections. And
>> there is no way to
>> ensure that the information people get is reliable
>> without laws that
>> prosecute false claims and counterfeit labels.
>> If you want to see what happens without effective
>> gov't regulation,
>> just look at what happened with the food and water
>> system in China.
>> People there are terrified that they can't trust
>> their food and
>> water supply. Look at the disastrous levels of
>> casualties caused
>> by earthquakes and mine disasters in areas with no
>> building codes.
>> The Chinese gov't has imposed some drastic capital
>> for managers responsible for food that killed
>> people. But I'd
>> much rather have standards and inspections in
>> advance than harsh
>> penalties for the people who killed me.
>> You can call that the "nanny state", but I call it
>> common sense.
>>> I disagree with one-size-fits-all regulation.
>> The European Union has prohibited BPA as a plastic
>> softener for
>> food containers and children's toys, and
>> California is trying
>> to do the same. But the US still allows BPA. The
>> Chinese produce
>> plastic with and without BPA. The cost difference
>> is minimal, but
>> many manufacturers will shave pennies. So they
>> produce both kinds,
>> and they ship the BPA versions to the US.
>> I am all in favor of freedom, especially for
>> myself. But if
>> there is no regulation, the contaminated stuff
>> dominates the market.
>> Worst of all, the people who produce the
>> contaminated stuff don't
>> want any regulations that would force them to
>> disclose what's
>> in their product.
>> That is not freedom for me. That's freedom for
>> the people who
>> produce the contaminated goods. I have no choice.
>> Message Archives:
>> Config Subscr:
>> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
>> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>> To join:
>> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>> Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
>> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
>> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>> To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
> doug foxvog doug@xxxxxxxxxx http://ProgressiveAustin.org
> "I speak as an American to the leaders of my own nation. The great
> initiative in this war is ours. The initiative to stop it must be ours."
> - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (04)