1/17/2006

sinceslicedbread - what a waste
Filed under: Business, Economics, General, I quit reading when..., Politics, Technology — nobrainer @ 11:32 am

Months ago AndyI posted about SinceSlicedBread. The goal of the website was to collect ideas and enable voting to determine the next great idea since sliced bread. Says AndyI:

I have never seen so may socialist/communist/just plain silly ideas. Go on and get a laugh at what some people write.

Well they’ve gotten down to the 7 finalists and they are supremely laughable, right along the lines Andy mentioned. Remember my post about the Missouri legislator who wanted to ban the sale of cold beer? Well the ideas are pretty much that bad.

In jest, I suggested a law to mandate conservation. We clearly use electricity we don’t need all the time: tvs, computers, christmas lights, etc. It would be simple to destroy, outlaw, and penalize to accomplish this goal. Little did I know that my joke was operating at just about the same wavelength of the people taking it seriously.

What’s the summary of the top 7 ideas? In no particular order:
1. universal health care (it should be a right) — I ask how much is a right and how much is just extra..
2. education reform (tax the rich and give to the poor)
3. save social security by taxing the rich more
4. tie minimum wage to inflation
5. Create “Civil Works Corps”
6. outlaw job-based health care, mandate “national healtcare insurance”, pay it with a sales tax
7. Sustainable Resource Industries (taxing the bejeezus out of anything that doesn’t make tree huggers happy. where globalized “labor, production, and ideas” — also known as letting other countries use their minds and assets to compete, which is bad — has “marginalized [our] quality of life”)

Actually, let me just block quote #7:

Globalization of labor, production, and ideas and an industrial economy based on subsidized fossil fuels have set the stage for economic and social instability, continued outsourcing of jobs, and marginalized quality of life. We can create a new economy based on environmentally benign industries and energy.

Impose a “resource tax” on pollution, development, and fossil fuel to pay for development of renewable energy and environmental restoration. Promoting sustainable localized energy industries (solar, wind, hydro, tidal, biofuels) will provide reliable, clean homegrown energy, exportable technologies, and bring energy jobs home. Funding widespread environmental restoration will expand existing industries (farming, recreation, tourism, and commercial fisheries) that are dependent on ecological services and will foster research, design and technology industries.

Working families will benefit from a stable economy and millions of new economy jobs. These solutions are inherently local – they create decentralized resources and require skilled local labor, forever. They pay for themselves and provide capital for entrepreneurs to develop industries and exportable technologies. And they foster community and collaboration essential to surviving in a global economy.

See what I’m saying? This is the same kind of tripe you get from 5th graders.

There are so many more worthy critiques. I’d like to know how you go about “widespread environmental restoration” while expanding farming. And doesn’t tourism usually have a negative effect on nature? I could seriously go on and on about this post all day. (”Hey, if you want me to take a dump in a box and mark it guaranteed, I will. I got spare time.”*)

My summary is thus: if we just tax ourselves enough, then the government will have enough money to give us all huge checks and we’ll be rich.

I love that logic. I think I’m going to open my own business. I’ll be a rope lengthener. “Got a rope that’s too short? Bring it to Ol’ Nobrainer. Using advanced technology I’ll remove useless material at the bottom of your rope and tie it to the top where it’s really needed! My work is guaranteed!”

And here’s the shit that I just don’t understand. No, wait, I completely understand and I hate all the motherfuckers who do it. The Democrats and liberals are generally painted as the all-knowing, uber-intelligentsia with a vast, unceasing ability to think, articulate, and govern wisely. Nearly everyone else is some uneducated hick by default. So what does the left come up with? They address nearly every issue at face value without thought or insight into the deeper causes of the problem or the future ramifications of their fixes. Usually this means moving money from the rich to the poor. Robin Hoodism is the cure of all ills it seems — better than Nyquil and ‘Tussin combined. (Remember though, I generally hate all the politicians not just lefties and Democrats, but I repeat myself.)

Damnit, I went off on another rant today. My apologies.

collapse Wha Says:

Here’s my idea. All those misplaced Katrina/Rita folks that have no place to live and are becoming a burden on the private/for profit businesses they are clogging up, you have heard of them. Let’s build them tent cities and supply it fully with living needs and building supplies and anything they need to…Voila! Be employed and rebuild their cities and homes. Oh wow, what a concept. I know it’s very socialist. No problem. Turn it over to private companies, let them build the cities and privately employ the people accordingly. Suspend some of this EEOC crap and give first dibs on jobs to former residents then the general public. Last time I checked having your living expenses paid for goes a long way to covering that cash you may be lacking in your regular paycheck. Bitching about tent cities? If our soldiers in the Middle East can hack it, a bunch of people living off the gov’t and providing a much less crucial service can definitely survive without problem.

 
collapse Thomas Gwyn Says:

The top 7 things, more or less (minus 3, social security is a joke no matter which way you put it), just described Sweden. given the 70% income tax, there is a national health care plan, education waivers until the fourth year of college, etc, and the largest amount of nuclear power per capita. Just mention the “N” word around the America today and you get booed. Just give your selfish mindset about 100 more years and then we will run ourselves out of resources and then blow ourselves up while grasping at the last chunk of coal. What the planet needs now is a drastic decrease in population. People can’t even die in war or disease nowadays. Given our “shocking” death toll in Iraq, We still haven’t matched the bloodiest *day* of WW2, not even close. I’m having one kid. I suggest that everyone else on the planet do the same. Given deaths before pubescent age will seriously outweigh multiple gestations, the world would more than half its current population. Twice as many resources= resources spent twice as slowly, even less with adjusting for technological advancement. Anthropologists have proven that early hunter-gatherers had to spend no more than 2 hours per day of actual labor to get the resources they needed. Guess that’s why the population’s so flipping high; they had too much time on their hands.

In short, these “5th grade” ideas work in practice. maybe you need to go back a few grades?

collapse nobrainer Says:

I honestly don’t know where to start.

Sweden isn’t the United States. Saying that a program that works there will work here is at best maybe correct.

Canada’s health system has been working wonderfully in practice, too.

Nuclear power, which I have no problem with, is probably not acknowledged as being “environmentally benign.” Even then, using proved reserve data, the energy to be derived from uranium is equivalent to 42 billion metric tonnes of hard coal. That is only about 6% of proven hard coal reserves. The OECD nations use about 2.2 billion metic tonnes of hard coal per year. Even considering all of the estimated uranium resources, we only get to about 38%. This can probably be stretched a number of ways, but a rough estimate says that our proved reserves of uranium save OECD nations about 20 years of coal.

“What the planet needs now is a drastic decrease in population.” Yes, it seems that the old policies have become too damn good to, get this, keep people alive! Our greedy lifestyle has worked so well that child mortality has decreased significantly while life expectancy continues to climb! So we need even “better” health care so that we can finally start reducing populations? (Truth is government health care would probably be worse, causing increased mortality rates.)

So you’ll have only one kid? Why not zero? One seems kind of selfish if you ask me, especially when “drastic” decreases are needed. I’m amazed you have even let yourself and those around you live this long.

Your one-kid and done model, which would eventually lead to lower populations, would take decades to cut populations by half by itself. That’s not at all drastic. And if you’re working on a 100 year energy supply model, you’re not gaining much ground. One could further argue that technological advance is highly correlated with population. Ergo smaller populations advance more slowly. Even then, better technology doesn’t lead to net energy use reductions. It will lead to less energy used per activity, but that savings is dwarfed by the increase in number of activities.