DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Cynthia on April 20, 2008, 01:07:36 AM
-
I am proud to be a Catholic today. The wisdom of our Pope rings such truth. God bless him.
His words are prophetic, indeed.
"As he praised the spread of democracy and respect for human rights, the pope cautioned about the dangers people face in the modern world.
"I am thinking of those affected by drug and substance abuse, homelessness and poverty, racism, violence and degradation -- especially of girls and women," the pope said.
And he decried "new injustices," including environmental problems.
The Earth "groans under the weight of consumerist greed and irresponsible exploitation," he said."
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/19/pope.sat/index.html
-
He seems like a nice guy .
But what is "Consumerist Greed"?
What is the alternative to it?
-
He seems like a nice guy .
But what is "Consumerist Greed"?
What is the alternative to it?
I suppose it would be consumerist share and share alike?;)
-
And what does that mean?
-
Consumerism is what makes the US economy go around.
One buys things which one does not need, with money one has not yet earned, to impress people he does not know.
For example, "Joe" buys a Hummer 3 on a 60 month payment plan to impress the rest of the people he shares the freeway with every morning.
The opposite might be for him to buy a used Corolla with the money he actually has in his account with no thoughts about what the rest of the commuters might think.
From the Pope's point of view, then if God were to warm the cockles of Joes' heart sufficiently, Joe might donate to a Mission where his money might save a Zambian kid's soul as well as educate him and feed him a proper breakfast.
As it is, Joe is not donating anything because of the Hummer and gasoline payments.
-
Consumerism is what makes the US economy go around.
One buys things which one does not need, with money one has not yey earned, to impress people he does not know.
American Heritage Dictionary:
Consumerism: The movement seeking to protect and inform consumers by requiring such practices as honest packaging and advertising, product guarantees, and improved safety standards.
Barron's Marketing Dictionary:
Consumerism: Public concern over the rights of consumers, the quality of consumer goods, and the honesty of advertising.
Britannica:
Consumerism: Movement or policies aimed at regulating the products, services, methods, and standards of manufacturers, sellers, and advertisers in the interests of the buyer. Such regulation may be institutional, statutory, or embodied in a voluntary code accepted by a particular industry, or it may result more indirectly from the influence of consumer organizations.
Houghton Mifflin Economics Dictionary:
Consumerism: A movement in the United States that seeks to protect consumers against shoddy or improperly labeled products.
Your example does not seem to fall under any of those definitions.
-
D'oh
-
And what does that mean?
It is an alternative point to "Consumer GREED". ;)
-
What would you be suggesting then? Inhibit the dream of bettering one's self. Mandating a certain level of failure. Legislating involuntary donations?
-
Your example does not seem to fall under any of those definitions.
Nonetheless, I do not think the Pope is against people complaining when their VCR dies after two weeks, or bitching when their paint poisons their kids, or perhaps fussing when a bottle of soda blows up in their face. The Pope appears to be speaking about acquisitiveness, and my guess is that being a German speaker as well as a speaker of Italian, he is speaking about the consumer society, which has as its goal consumption for consumption's sake.
I do not think that the Pope thinks that consumers demanding more reliable and safer products is a bad thing. Do you?
The habit of drinking bottled water from some exotic place, such as Fiji or Iceland, packaged in an expensive and disposible and rarely recycled bottle, where the bottle has to be shipped empty to Fiji and returned filled to the US and then discarded in a landfill for the next seventeen centuries might be a good example of this. Every step of getting the bottle of water from underneath Fiji to the consumer is arguably quite wasteful, and drinking tap water is probably no more harmful than drinking Fiji water.
I do not know whether Iceland water is bottled in Iceland-made bottles, but I do not think that either Iceland nor Fiji has the petroleum from which those clear water bottles are made. Perhaps Fijians make their own bottles.
But when an American in Omaha opts to drink bottled water from Fiji or Iceland, energy and expense is involved that is not involved when he simply sips Omaha tap water. Even if the water were distilled in Omaha, there would be less expense.
Perhaps if the petrochemicals used to make these bottles were dedicated to making fertilizer for use in Haiti, people in Haiti would not go hungry.
Since the 1980's, Haiti has been importing most of its basic staple, rice, from the US, since it cost more at that time to grow it in the Artibonite Valley in Haiti than it did to ship it from Louisiana. Of course, importing rice means that fewer Haitians are employed in the rice-growing industry.
-
What would you be suggesting then? Inhibit the dream of bettering one's self. Mandating a certain level of failure. Legislating involuntary donations?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does one need to buy an SUV to take Becky-Sue to ballet class to "better one's self"?
It seems to me that the Pope is simply asking that each individual consider the decisions he makes in choosing his lifestyle with regard to the greater good of world society as well as the environment, and that he voluntarily try to make decisions so as to benefit both himself and others more.
The world definitely grows enough food to feed everyone. There are many starving people because the food is poorly distributed due to economic forces. For example, if people eat the soybeans or corn, many more are fed than if the soybeans and corn are fed to cattle, and the cattle are eaten instead.
I would think that the Pope would think it to be an improvement if no one starved, even if someone had to do without Kobe beef or supersizing their quarter pounders.
I don't think the Pope is advocating forcing Sirs at rifle point to forgo his rich diet. I do not even know is Sirs enjoys a rich diet.
-
What would you be suggesting then? Inhibit the dream of bettering one's self. Mandating a certain level of failure. Legislating involuntary donations?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does one need to buy an SUV to take Becky-Sue to ballet class to "better one's self"?
That's if one is buying the BS that an SUV is being bought simply to get everyine to look at them. 98% of the folks I know who own an SUV buy them to more safely take Becky-Sue to ballet class. So much more, that they're willing to pay for the extra gas it guzzles. Buying safer things is consistent with bettering one's self.
No one is mandating that Xo or Cynthia buy an SUV at gun point. Simply allow the continued freedom for others to chose so, based on their needs, and not what others decide they need. That way we can more appropriately ignore the garbage that buying an SUV is merely for attention getting
-
It seems to me that the Pope is simply asking that each individual consider the decisions he makes in choosing his lifestyle with regard to the greater good of world society as well as the environment, and that he voluntarily try to make decisions so as to benefit both himself and others more.
Xavier....the essence of the Pope's message! The essence of what benefits ALL.
Summarizing the truth. Thank you, XO.
-
That way we can more appropriately ignore the garbage that buying an SUV is merely for attention getting
=============================================
Kindly observe that I was not talking about buying just any old SUV, but that rather expensive modified pickup truck called the H3.
Perhaps people do feel these are safer, but they are wrong. Pretty much any old Volvo wagon would be safer, as well as any number of crossovers. People DO buy Hummers, Expeditions and such because they wish to impress/terrorize their fellow drivers.
They are not safer, in any case. Pretty much every vehicle I have seen upside down on I-95 has been an SUV or a pickup truck. Fools who THINK they are safe often ignore proper tire pressure and they flip when they throw a tread. Also, they have a much higher center of gravity, and flip when one tries to maneuver them as they might a car.
And I was not saying that they should be forced to buy something else, or forced to buy anything. With gas at $4.00+ a gallon, I am pretty sure that the larger of these behemoths will soon vanish.
I was simply trying to explain what the Pope meant my "greedy consumerism". Hummers are pretty much "greedy consumerism" on wheels.
-
I was simply trying to explain what the Pope meant my "greedy consumerism". Hummers are pretty much "greedy consumerism" on wheels.
If the Pope agrees with your assessment , then he is making a mistake.
Good service to consumers is good service to the people , I know of no better alternative to consumerism that has any possibility of working as well or as long.
-
That way we can more appropriately ignore the garbage that buying an SUV is merely for attention getting
=============================================
Kindly observe that I was not talking about buying just any old SUV, but that rather expensive modified pickup truck called the H3.
Ahh, so besides Cheney, your other irrational obsession is with the H3. Duely noted
Perhaps people do feel these are safer, but they are wrong.
Ummm, no, bigger car, more weight, more safety in the event of a collision, unless of course its with a big rig. Not rocket science here
-
That way we can more appropriately ignore the garbage that buying an SUV is merely for attention getting
=============================================
Kindly observe that I was not talking about buying just any old SUV, but that rather expensive modified pickup truck called the H3.
Ahh, so besides Cheney, your other irrational obsession is with the H3. Duely noted
Perhaps people do feel these are safer, but they are wrong.
Ummm, no, bigger car, more weight, more safety in the event of a collision, unless of course its with a big rig. Not rocket science here
Waste? Ok, parking for the Hb would be more of a bitch than NOT..... the "other guy" gets swiftly killed in a collision!!
Rocket scientists could certainly invent a better and more safe vehicle. ....why support the gas hog in a time when we need more pork for the buck?
Not a bit of rocket science here?...You're right.
Only Rockets need apply. BIGGER is better, sirs?
What?
WHy?
-
Only Rockets need apply. BIGGER is better, sirs? WHy?
More protection in the event of a collision. Again, not rocket science. Its likley one of the main reasons I see 90% of SUV drivers I've seen as being women. Something probably along the silly notion of wanting to better protect their children, while lugging all the kids' stuff around. Hard to get the same level of protection & practicality in a yugo
-
Only Rockets need apply. BIGGER is better, sirs? WHy?
More protection in the event of a collision. Again, not rocket science. Its likley one of the main reasons I see 90% of SUV drivers I've seen as being women. Something probably along the silly notion of wanting to better protect their children, while lugging all the kids' stuff around. Hard to get the same level of protection & practicality in a yugo
Ok, are you saying that women either drive a hummer or a yugo?
What a ridiculous argument.
Don't bring women drivers into your argument along "with family"....a cop out.
The point is that the H" is a gas hog. Building bigger with the intent to increase so much that is so very BAD FOR OTHERS i.e. pollution, waste, the human lung, etc................not to mention a massive threat to the green friendly way of commuting.
Wisdom is the key here. Think in terms of the long RUN...not in terms of the greed, Sirs.
You are narrow in your scope of thought when it comes to many subjects.
Bigger is NOT better, necessarilly.
I would have thought you to be more aware of such things -living in Calif.
-
Only Rockets need apply. BIGGER is better, sirs? WHy?
More protection in the event of a collision. Again, not rocket science. Its likley one of the main reasons I see 90% of SUV drivers I've seen as being women. Something probably along the silly notion of wanting to better protect their children, while lugging all the kids' stuff around. Hard to get the same level of protection & practicality in a yugo
Ok, are you saying that women either drive a hummer or a yugo? What a ridiculous argument.
Especially since I'm not making it
Don't bring women drivers into your argument along "with family"....a cop out.
LOL....yea....right.....mothers probably wanting to protect their children is such a cop out ::)
The point is that the H" is a gas hog. Building bigger with the intent to increase so much that is so very BAD FOR OTHERS i.e. pollution, waste, the human lung, etc................not to mention a massive threat to the green friendly way of commuting.
Umm, ok, so you have an obsessive beef with those that want the freedom to buy it as well. Gotcha. I guess we can put Cynthia down with Xo, for advocating a modified version of freedom.....freedom to chose things that only they believe is ok for someone else to chose.
Wisdom is the key here. Think in terms of the long RUN...not in terms of the greed, Sirs.
Personally, I'll stick with Freedom, if you don't mind
-
The entire issue here was what the Pope meant by "greedy consumerism" and how the Earth would be better off if people would think about the harm or benefit that their possible purchases might do to other before they VOLUNTARILY made their choices.
It is not possible to buy a Yugo because the damned things were poorly built, not very safe, and of course, the factory was bombed to smithereens, so comparing Yugos to H3's is is just stupid.
The military Hummer is perhaps an ideal vehicle for the Army, as it will carry many soldiers, it has a durable and relatively economical Diesel engine, and a durable body.
The H3 is a cheapo modified pickup truck that has been uglified to resemble the H1, but it has none of the durability or economical aspects of the H1. The price has been jacked up several thousands of dollars to appease fools that believe that paying more actually always must result in a better product.
Any Volvo wagon would be far safer. Basically, the idea is to appeal to silly fools who believe that ugly and menacing vehicles are actually safe. Consumers Union is a far better source of safety info than the size or ugly factor. The Ford Expedition was rather ugly, enormous, and prone to roll if the tire pressures were too low.
The entire SUV craze began as a marketing ploy by Detroit companies who felt that selling heavier trucks to people who previously bought cars (because trucks did not have such strict cafe or safety standards) could be sold these things at a greater profit than actually developing safer and more economical vehicles as the Japanese and Europeans were selling. There was no clamor for people to make Suburbans more carlike: rather, they did extensive marketing research to determine what could be sold to specific market segments. It is rather like the food industry using more and more hydrogenated transfats and corn sweeteners and advertising these on kiddie TV. The profit went up, but the consumer was deliberately deceived.
A common billboard ad shows a mighty Road Ranger somewhere in the tidal flats between the French coast and Mont-Saint-Michel with the word "Adventure". In reality, the real adventure would be in being swept away when the tide came in (it is an SUV, not a submarine) or explaining to the Gendarmes why and how the moron of a driver attempted to drive it there.
In the places where one can drive on an exposed tidal sand flat, any vehicle will suffice.
It is pretty obvious that not a single North American buyer of this Range Rover will ever actually drive the fool thing to the coast of Europe. It is an unrealistic an ad as one depicting a happy family dining on a rtoasyted bundle of Camel Filter cigarettes for Thanksgiving dinner.
People can buy any Goddamned abortion they wish, at least up to a point. I would be opposed to including propylene glycol in toothpaste
or incorporating sharp, pointy objects on the bumpers or Ben Hur rotating knives on the wheels of vehicles. This is not about people being forced to buy this or that. It is about people being fools.
If women are most of the SUV buyers, one needs to remember that women nearly always know less about cars than men, and will trade in a car that has a failing battery or electric component because they are convinced that it is a 'bad car'. Car salesmen LOVE women, as they can stick them for around $1,000 more on every sale of a $20K vehicle. Some buy cars as though they were fashion accessories
No, I am not saying that women are all stupid about cars. But they are, on average, more ignorant about men. Most could not tell you whether their vehicle has 4, 5, 6, or 8 cylinders, disc or drum brakes, or should use synthetic or petro oil. Or what pressure should be in the tires, how to put air in them, or how to use a simple tire gauge.
But it is nonetheless stupid for most people to buy 4WD SUVs for city commutes. The H3 is just the most obvious of the SUVs marketed for dolts. Probably the older Kia Sportages are more unsafe: I have seen more of them upside down on the side of the road and signs of being rolled in U-Pick junkyards.
By the way, that's how to determine how long cars really last: check the odometers of unwrecked cars in the junkyards. No one rolls an odometer FORWARD. JD Powers surveys only follow the repairs done for one year past the purchase date. That is the survey that the auto companies always quote, and it is basically bogus, unless you are a fool that trades in a new car every single year.
Again, I was referring to the Pope's plea for people to make wise voluntary decisions. I also add that I have a perfect right to suggest that fools that buy behemoth guzzlers for astronomical prices in the light of soaring fuel prices are, in fact, fools.
-
Only Rockets need apply. BIGGER is better, sirs? WHy?
More protection in the event of a collision. Again, not rocket science. Its likley one of the main reasons I see 90% of SUV drivers I've seen as being women. Something probably along the silly notion of wanting to better protect their children, while lugging all the kids' stuff around. Hard to get the same level of protection & practicality in a yugo
Ok, are you saying that women either drive a hummer or a yugo? What a ridiculous argument.
Especially since I'm not making it
Don't bring women drivers into your argument along "with family"....a cop out.
LOL....yea....right.....mothers probably wanting to protect their children is such a cop out ::)
The point is that the H" is a gas hog. Building bigger with the intent to increase so much that is so very BAD FOR OTHERS i.e. pollution, waste, the human lung, etc................not to mention a massive threat to the green friendly way of commuting.
Umm, ok, so you have an obsessive beef with those that want the freedom to buy it as well. Gotcha. I guess we can put Cynthia down with Xo, for advocating a modified version of freedom.....freedom to chose things that only they believe is ok for someone else to chose.
Wisdom is the key here. Think in terms of the long RUN...not in terms of the greed, Sirs.
Personally, I'll stick with Freedom, if you don't mind
You sure do know how to JUMP to conclusions that make no sense to the original point..counter point.
"Especially since I'm not making it"
previous post....
"Hard to get the same level of protection & practicality in a yugo ."
As you insert the YUGO in the argument, I take that as a comparison of the two vehicles. Ummm, thus the "making of an argument between the two vehicles".
"LOL....yea....right.....mothers probably wanting to protect their children is such a cop out "
Once again, sirs, witht all due respect, dear.... you twist the statement in your favor. I never said THAT. Mothers are guilty of wanting to protect their children??!!
"Umm, ok, so you have an obsessive beef with those that want the freedom to buy it as well. Gotcha.
I guess we can put Cynthia down with Xo, for advocating a modified version of freedom.....freedom to chose things that only they believe is ok for someone else to chose."
Ok, that is YOUR argument? WE? How many toads do you carry in your pocket there Sirs....(here come the judge)....Look out Cynthia...BT approaching. ha!
Obsessive BEEF? Ok what?
hmmm, your willingness to jump to such a conclusion here, does not hold enough water to fill a TBs, Sirs.
"Personally, I'll stick with Freedom, if you don't mind."
Another leap from Frog Sirs.
What?
And I don't want freedom for this nation?.....freedom from raping the land and air we breathe?
Give me a break.
Hey, Sirs, I have a question for you about PT for a friend of mine who suffers back probs.
Side bar....hey Gary, I have a good friend who lives in Utah. He has back problems. He's 60. I thought I would pick your brain about how to help the guy out with his pain. We are "online" friends. So, I told him about Feldenckrais? SP?
What do you know about that?
Cyn
-
I hardly knew that the pope spoke on the subject of big cars , let alone the wrongness and ugllyness of the H3.
But that he spoke also of rocket science and Yugos also?
Clearly I am not paying enough attention.
-
Well, in this heady time of rotten environmental progress, anything is possible,Plane. ;)
-
Well, in this heady time of rotten environmental progress, anything is possible,Plane. ;)
What environmental problem is bugging you?
-
Where do I begin?
Where do I begin, Plane?
To begin......where have all the frogs gone.
More later.
;)
-
Consensus is gathering , .....
polutant challenges make frogs more vunerable to oppurtunistic infections...
most commonly farm runoff, but anything that weakens the frogs opens their normally impressive immune system to the fungal and parasitic infections that a healthy frog can fight off.
Parasite (Ribeiroia ondatrae) infection linked to amphibian malformations in the western United States. Ecological Monographs 72:151-168.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Building upon earlier laboratory experiments demonstrating that trematode parasites can induce deformities in developing frogs, this remarkable and ambitious field survey establishes conclusively that parasites are a major contributor to frog deformities in the American west. The research team, led by Pieter Johnson, found a strong geographic association between the abundance of Ribeiroia ondatrae, a trematode parasite, and the frequency of deformities in a series of amphibian species, including the western toad Bufo boreas, the Pacific treefrog Hyla regilla and the long-toed salamander Ambystoma macrodactylum. Their research also revealed no relationship between the concentrations of a large number of pesticides measured in pond water and the frequency of deformities.
As noted below, these results do not absolve contamination of a role in amphibian deformities, but they certainly demonstrate the importance of parasites in the American west.
What did they do? Johnson et al. surveyed amphibian deformities, parasite abundance, chemical characteristics and a host of other parameters (including presence of fish, cattle, snails, surrounding land use, wetland origen) in aquatic habitats in California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Montana. Their chemical measurements involved determining the concentrations of 52 different pesticides (and nine metabolites), plus pH, levels of nitrate and orthophosphate. At each site they collected 3-6 specimens of each amphibian present; these specimens were later dissected and examined for parasite infections.
They then carried out a series of statistical analyses looking for associations between observed incidence of amphibian deformities and the many environmental parameters they measured.
What did they find? Johnson et al. inspected 12,369 individuals representing 11 species of amphibians and reported deformities in 9 of the species examined. The frequency of abnormalities in sites varied from 0 to nearly 90% of animals examined. Deformities included a diversity of limb anomalies (including missing limbs and digits, extra limbs and digits) and, less frequently, missing eyes, jaw malformations and other abnormalities.
Three findings stand out.
First, they observed a very strong association between the abundance of Ribeiroia and amphibian deformities. This association is demonstrated in the following two graphs:
The frequency of amphibian malformations in relation to the presence or absence of Ribeiroia. In sites where Ribeiroia is absent, deformities were observed in fewer than 5% of animals surveyed.
http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/NEWSCIENCE/wildlife/frogs/2002-0501johnsonetal.htm
The following is a list of the most common frog diseases and their treatments. This is not a complete list, just what you will most likely encounter. As always, you should consult your institution?s Veterinary staff if you have concerns with your particular colony. Your best defense against disease in your colony is to be a very careful observer.
http://www.xlaevis.com/diseases.html
Frog-deforming infections caused by tiny parasites are increasing
because of North American farms' nutrient-rich watershed, a new study
shows.
The excess nitrogen and phosphorus found in farm runoff causes more
algae to grow, which increases snail populations that host microscopic
parasites called trematodes, said Pieter Johnson, a water scientist at
the University of Colorado in Boulder.
"This is the first study to show that nutrient enrichment drives the
abundance of these parasites, increasing levels of amphibian infection
and subsequent malformations," said Johnson.
http://lists.dep.state.fl.us/pipermail/pharmwaste/2007-September/001365.html
This is the frog terminator: Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis, a fungus decimating complete populations of frogs and other amphibian species worldwide. The fungus kills off the frogs by clogging their skin and essentially asphyxiating them. By now it spread from Central America to Australia, Japan, Europe and the US. Researchers have been looking helplessly at this frog slayer how adding to habitat loss, climate change, contamination and exp........
http://news.softpedia.com/newsTag/frog+
http://www.issg.org/database/species/ecology.asp?fr=1&si=123
-
I am proud to be a Catholic today. The wisdom of our Pope rings such truth. God bless him.
His words are prophetic, indeed.
In what way are his words prophetic?
"As he praised the spread of democracy and respect for human rights, the pope cautioned about the dangers people face in the modern world.
"I am thinking of those affected by drug and substance abuse, homelessness and poverty, racism, violence and degradation -- especially of girls and women," the pope said.
I suppose these are dangers in the modern world, but they are also dangers that have been around a very long time.
And he decried "new injustices," including environmental problems.
The Earth "groans under the weight of consumerist greed and irresponsible exploitation," he said."
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/19/pope.sat/index.html
Consumerist greed and irresponsible exploitation. As I understand it, those places where "consumerist greed" is highest are also the places doing the most about environmental problems and irresponsible exploitation.
And I am left wondering if by "consumerist greed" the Pope means the folks who have loans and mortgages that are in default and now want the government to do something to bail them out. Because that indeed just might be prophetic.
-
I am proud to be a Catholic today. The wisdom of our Pope rings such truth. God bless him.
His words are prophetic, indeed.
In what way are his words prophetic?
"As he praised the spread of democracy and respect for human rights, the pope cautioned about the dangers people face in the modern world.
"I am thinking of those affected by drug and substance abuse, homelessness and poverty, racism, violence and degradation -- especially of girls and women," the pope said.
I suppose these are dangers in the modern world, but they are also dangers that have been around a very long time.
And he decried "new injustices," including environmental problems.
The Earth "groans under the weight of consumerist greed and irresponsible exploitation," he said."
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/19/pope.sat/index.html
Consumerist greed and irresponsible exploitation. As I understand it, those places where "consumerist greed" is highest are also the places doing the most about environmental problems and irresponsible exploitation.
And I am left wondering if by "consumerist greed" the Pope means the folks who have loans and mortgages that are in default and now want the government to do something to bail them out. Because that indeed just might be prophetic.
Prophetic in the fact that our environment needs to be addressed. When we see such a rip off of the land beneath our very noses, and feet....I say, anyone who acknowledges that "burn"....speaks truth.
"I suppose these are dangers in the modern world, but they are also dangers that have been around a very long time."
And there have been those who believe in Jesus as a savior with room for many who want salvation for a long time, as well.
-
Prophetic in the fact that our environment needs to be addressed. When we see such a rip off of the land beneath our very noses, and feet....I say, anyone who acknowledges that "burn"....speaks truth.
Acknowledging a truth is not the same as prophecy.
"I suppose these are dangers in the modern world, but they are also dangers that have been around a very long time."
And there have been those who believe in Jesus as a savior with room for many who want salvation for a long time, as well.
I agree, but I confess I'm not sure what that has to do with my comment.
-
"And I am left wondering if by "consumerist greed" the Pope means the folks who have loans and mortgages that are in default and now want the government to do something to bail them out. Because that indeed just might be prophetic."
Could be true. I doubt it, but who knows?
I am not the Pope.
Don't know what he meant, really....or directly. ;)
Frankly, there is a river of folk who believe that consumer greed means "BUY BUY BUY" when WANT WANT WANT is the only priority. The Pope, being the Pope could have had in mind that the world doesn't give enough to the "other fella" in terms of compassion. Instead one buys up everything that one does not really need, strikes the chord of the day.
Mother Theresa lived on very little and wasted nothing....living a more fulfilling life than most, in the eyes of Holy Folk.
So, who knows what the Pope meant by that statement?
Wonder on, though dear Prince.
Consumer greed....we are all guilty of that one.
-
Frankly, there is a river of folk who believe that consumer greed means "BUY BUY BUY" when WANT WANT WANT is the only priority.
I'm sure there are folks who believe that. And perhaps that is what those people mean when they mention "consumerist greed". But that belief seems like a rather low opinion of other people.
The Pope, being the Pope could have had in mind that the world doesn't give enough to the "other fella" in terms of compassion.
You mean like assuming that other people are greedy and base merely because they have an SUV or buy DVD players?
Instead one buys up everything that one does not really need, strikes the chord of the day.
"God, I thank You that I am not like other men--extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even SUV drivers."
Mother Theresa lived on very little and wasted nothing....living a more fulfilling life than most, in the eyes of Holy Folk.
You advocate poverty as a better way to live then?
Wonder on, though dear Prince.
Consumer greed....we are all guilty of that one.
Are we? I am unconvinced.
-
To some degree, everyone is 'guilty' of consumer greed. We all want and buy things we do not actually NEED. None of us here NEED a computer, though it would be more difficult for me to get by on the ancient Windows 2000 thing that the University provides me with.
I see excessive consumer greed as buying things that are excessively detrimental to the environment. If I keep my aged Diesel car, that is in some way less detrimental than putting a new gas guzzler on the road, since I use biodiesel, which is renewable, in my old cars. If I buy a new car and sell my old ones, both run pretty well and are very durable, so someone would be driving them for a while, but somewhere down the chain, someone will junk another car, and that could add to pollution of the environment more than the status quo.
Buying used things is less detrimental, because it does not cause more use of fertilizer to grow more cotton or to grow or mine other resources.
I don't think Mother Theresa is anyone I choose to emulate, but maybe she did have a lighter footprint on the environment than many people do. Her main contribution to pollution was probably flying about to raise money and accept awards, but I don;t know how much of this she actually did.
-
"And I am left wondering if by "consumerist greed" the Pope means the folks who have loans and mortgages that are in default and now want the government to do something to bail them out. Because that indeed just might be prophetic."
Could be true. I doubt it, but who knows?
I am not the Pope.
Don't know what he meant, really....or directly. ;)
Frankly, there is a river of folk who believe that consumer greed means "BUY BUY BUY" when WANT WANT WANT is the only priority. The Pope, being the Pope could have had in mind that the world doesn't give enough to the "other fella" in terms of compassion. Instead one buys up everything that one does not really need, strikes the chord of the day.
Mother Theresa lived on very little and wasted nothing....living a more fulfilling life than most, in the eyes of Holy Folk.
So, who knows what the Pope meant by that statement?
Wonder on, though dear Prince.
Consumer greed....we are all guilty of that one.
Well if "consumerist greed and irresponsible exploitation," means anything that one wants it to mean , then I want it to mean Chinese manufacturers who scrimp on paint cost by using toxic cheap paint on toys and antifreese to sweeten pet food , thereby shocking and repelling their customer base.
That is what I want it to mean.
-
To some degree, everyone is 'guilty' of consumer greed. We all want and buy things we do not actually NEED.
So buying something not absolutely necessary for survival is always and without exception necessarily greed?
-
To some degree, everyone is 'guilty' of consumer greed. We all want and buy things we do not actually NEED. None of us here NEED a computer, though it would be more difficult for me to get by on the ancient Windows 2000 thing that the University provides me with.
I see excessive consumer greed as buying things that are excessively detrimental to the environment. If I keep my aged Diesel car, that is in some way less detrimental than putting a new gas guzzler on the road, since I use biodiesel, which is renewable, in my old cars. If I buy a new car and sell my old ones, both run pretty well and are very durable, so someone would be driving them for a while, but somewhere down the chain, someone will junk another car, and that could add to pollution of the environment more than the status quo.
Buying used things is less detrimental, because it does not cause more use of fertilizer to grow more cotton or to grow or mine other resources.
I don't think Mother Theresa is anyone I choose to emulate, but maybe she did have a lighter footprint on the environment than many people do. Her main contribution to pollution was probably flying about to raise money and accept awards, but I don;t know how much of this she actually did.
I do believe that you've hit a point, XO.
UP, you probably do have some sort of consumer greed packed away somewhere in your life. One greed leads to another and before you know it, the greed seems like the norm in terms of "stuff".
The Pope's statement is what was at question here for me. So, I bring in Mother Theresa's choices-albeit extreme to most of us---uh...no, almost all of us. And sure there are consumer greed examples which tip the balance in the other direction, but overall we have all chosen to ride that wagon in some way or another. Unless you are a monk in a Monastery somewhere, sure.
You have to admit, UP, that we continue to buy what we feel we "need", when perhaps we just want becuase it is too hard to do without.....we would have make major changes in life (changes that were the norm just 25 years ago). Like buying a newspaper, talking on the landline, walking to the neighborhood store instead of driving 10 miles to the WalMart super center for our need for it ALL!
People dont' need a television set, or a cell phone, or a microwave oven, or even an extra vehicle----not to mention a computer or two. Not really. But most of us live with such "norms".
When will this world put on the brakes in terms of "stuff" that makes natural living almost impossible?
Perhaps never. That's the way of the consumer driven world in which we live.
Perhpas the Pope's statement was general overall, and indeed one person's greed is another person's norm. So where do we draw the line? We don't. This is America. Land of PLENTY FOR ALL ....YET, CHILDREN ARE NOT READING AS MUCH AT HOME AS THEY SHOULD !!
hmmmm, wonder if the Pope was referring to the consumer greed of the TV, VIDEO, and GAMEBOY which is currently ripping off the child's mind in this nation. Ya think?
Of course, then there's the lifestyle changes that are slowing creeping up. If I owned a horse, I would ride it to work. I saw that on CnN this am.
Not a bad idea. ;)
-
To some degree, everyone is 'guilty' of consumer greed. We all want and buy things we do not actually NEED.
So buying something not absolutely necessary for survival is always and without exception necessarily greed?
My question to you is, what makes that "item" so necessary? WANTING More of the same is just wanting MUCH MORE of the same---- and that leads to greed.
Wanting and needing have somehow crossed wires. Greed is the hidden spark within that bad connection.
SLippery Slope greed is....a very slippery slope.
The more we have the more we want.
-
So buying something not absolutely necessary for survival is always and without exception necessarily greed?
My question to you is, what makes that "item" so necessary? WANTING More of the same is just wanting MUCH MORE of the same---- and that leads to greed.
Wanting and needing have somehow crossed wires. Greed is the hidden spark within that bad connection.
SLippery Slope greed is....a very slippery slope.
The more we have the more we want.
So... you are then in fact saying that buying something not absolutely necessary for survival is always and without exception necessarily greed? You seem to be.
-
When will this world put on the brakes in terms of "stuff" that makes natural living almost impossible?
Perhaps never. That's the way of the consumer driven world in which we live.
No one is stopping you from joining the Amish or the Mennonites. Personally, I like the consumer driven world and wish it were a little more consumer driven.
Perhpas the Pope's statement was general overall, and indeed one person's greed is another person's norm. So where do we draw the line? We don't.
Is that what you want? Someone to draw the line, to determine for you what and how much you should be allowed to own?
Ya think?
At least once a day. Thanks for asking.
-
When will this world put on the brakes in terms of "stuff" that makes natural living almost impossible?
Perhaps never. That's the way of the consumer driven world in which we live.
No one is stopping you from joining the Amish or the Mennonites. Personally, I like the consumer driven world and wish it were a little more consumer driven.
Perhpas the Pope's statement was general overall, and indeed one person's greed is another person's norm. So where do we draw the line? We don't.
Is that what you want? Someone to draw the line, to determine for you what and how much you should be allowed to own?
Ya think?
At least once a day. Thanks for asking.
At least once a day. Thanks for asking.
;D---
Personally, I like the consumer driven world and wish it were a little more consumer driven
Well, Prince, imo, there is a danger in the more the consumer driven the better. Gluttony is where THAT attitude is headed.
Landfills, waste, pollution.....water is precious in this world and we use so much of that resource alone to feed the greed.
How much can we take.....poor frogs.
They not only die out.....they are boiled out.
You've heard that story.....
Put a frog in a pot of water which is slowly boiling and before he knows it at the point of BOIL..when it's too late- HE'S DEAD.
Put a frog in a pot of water which has already reached its boiling point, and HE will jump right out...saving his little froggie life!
We are slowly being convinced that WE NEED STUFF in this world. . . get ready to see the panic in about 50-100 years +.....that is if we continue on this wasteful consumer driven (without responsibility) road.
-
So buying something not absolutely necessary for survival is always and without exception necessarily greed?
My question to you is, what makes that "item" so necessary? WANTING More of the same is just wanting MUCH MORE of the same---- and that leads to greed.
Wanting and needing have somehow crossed wires. Greed is the hidden spark within that bad connection.
SLippery Slope greed is....a very slippery slope.
The more we have the more we want.
So... you are then in fact saying that buying something not absolutely necessary for survival is always and without exception necessarily greed? You seem to be.
I am saying that it is a slippery slope. Greed is waiting at the bottom of that slope for us to fall into a place where we've lost touch with what was necessary to survive and what was just plain bottom out dollar.....lust for more.
-
Well, Prince, imo, there is a danger in the more the consumer driven the better.
Of course there is. There is a danger in most things. But as Jefferson said, "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."
Gluttony is where THAT attitude is headed.
Landfills, waste, pollution.....water is precious in this world and we use so much of that resource alone to feed the greed.
Is it? Landfills are not necessarily bad. But without this "consumerist greed", we might very well lack the technologies that allow us to find new ways to cut our water consumption. And I should also note that it is "consumerist greed" that makes finding new ways to cut our water consumption profitable.
We are slowly being convinced that WE NEED STUFF in this world. . . get ready to see the panic in about 50-100 years +.....that is if we continue on this wasteful consumer driven (without responsibility) road.
You mean kinda like how 50 years ago we were all going to be starving by now because of the population explosion?
Consumers are the ones driving the demand for things like hydrogen cars and wind farms and environmentally friendly production methods, et cetera. So seems to me, consumer driven is not the horrible tragedy some folks make it out to be.
-
Does the market have wisdom?
Or need it?
-
Does the market have wisdom?
Or need it?
==========================
Of course it has none, and of course, wisdom is needed.
Were it not for the inane SUV craze, gas prices would be more reasonable, because there would be more available. All that needed to happen was to declare the same cafe standards for cars as for light trucks.
Left entirely up to the market, there are panics, crises, recessions and depressions on a cyclical basis. There were none during the Clinton years because actions were taken to keep the economy on an even keel.
Tax policy is related to market fluctuations, as are many other things, like the Fed's discount rate and such.
-
Does the market have wisdom?
Or need it?
==========================
Of course it has none, and of course, wisdom is needed.
Were it not for the inane SUV craze, gas prices would be more reasonable, because there would be more available. All that needed to happen was to declare the same cafe standards for cars as for light trucks.
Left entirely up to the market, there are panics, crises, recessions and depressions on a cyclical basis. There were none during the Clinton years because actions were taken to keep the economy on an even keel.
Tax policy is related to market fluctuations, as are many other things, like the Fed's discount rate and such.
Who in particular has more wisdom ,in reguards price and value , than the auction house? or the stock market ? or free markets in general?
-
None of us here NEED a computer, though it would be more difficult for me to get by on the ancient Windows 2000 thing that the University provides me with.
It's required for my job. So, yes, I NEED a computer.
-
Does the market have wisdom?
Or need it?
In answer to your first question, no, the market does not have wisdom in the manner that, say, a person has wisdom. The market is an abstract, a concept. It is not a place or an entity. It is a name for the decentralized order of the actions of people, usually economic actions. In answer to your second question, the answer is also no.
-
From a strictly theoretical point Prince, I'd submit that accumulating goods beyond the necessary could be considered greed. I like my comforts as well as the next guy, but I think that I can see what the Pope is saying.
By no means do I advocate legislating this, or requiring people to purchase only necessities. As a guideline to follow in someone's personal life, I think that it merits some consideration, at least as far as reducing consumption, but that is each and every person's personal choice and decision.
-
Were it not for the inane SUV craze, gas prices would be more reasonable, because there would be more available.
As best I can tell this is not at all true. Gas prices might be marginally lower, but the popularity of SUV is not what has driven up the price of gasoline.
Left entirely up to the market, there are panics, crises, recessions and depressions on a cyclical basis.
Actually, left entirely to the market, there are cycles of economic growth and recession (not panics and crises), but this is not a bad thing as some people might claim. It would in fact be quite healthy, not entirely unlike the natural ups and downs of the stock market, with a net growth result. And most recessions would be relatively short. Part of the problem, and what generally is the root cause of panics and crises is that the government meddles with the market in attempt to impose wisdom, most of which is actually foolish and unnecessary.
There were none during the Clinton years because actions were taken to keep the economy on an even keel.
That may be the best joke you've told here in some time, Xavier.
-
From a strictly theoretical point Prince, I'd submit that accumulating goods beyond the necessary could be considered greed. I like my comforts as well as the next guy, but I think that I can see what the Pope is saying.
Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying there is not greed in our society, or that most folks could not stand to reduce their consumption of goods and services. What I have a problem with is people who have computers and possible multiple vehicles, and probably more than one television, and something besides generic brand bare necessities stocked in their pantries complaining about "consumer greed". What I have a problem with is the assumption that most people only buy an SUV or fancy clothes or computer games because of greed or lust.
And I say all this not as a criticism of you, Fatman. Your comment was good, and for the most part I think I agree with you. I'm just using your comment as a springboard to explain my own position more fully.
Yes, some people are excessively focused on having things. But in my own obviously selfish and lustful opinion, I don't do myself favors by thinking of my neighbors (and I don't just mean the people who live next door) as greedy people who cannot control their baser impulses. Not everyone, and I would guess this is true for most people, who buys an SUV is doing so to just to say they have an SUV. There are other considerations. Not that long ago, as I recall, there was a poll that asked people who bought hybrid cars why they bought the particular one they, um, bought. If not a majority then a large percentage of Toyota Prius owners, as I recall, said they bought a Prius because it is only offered as a hybrid, and so therefore makes a statement to other people about the owner being concerned about the environment. Supposedly all those folks who have an SUV to impress the neighbors are guilty of consumer greed, but I don't see anyone here accusing Prius owners of consumer greed.
I don't say consumer greed does not exist. But I question whether it is something with which we should be trying to paint our society. Ours is a wealthy society, by and large, and frankly, I find that to be a good thing. Most people in this country are not stuck as farmers or in some social/economic caste where they must work all their lives. Most people are able to pursue happiness and to provide for their families and give to the poor and needy. I, in my obvious selfishness and greed, happen to think this is good and would like to see this spread to more of our society and to other nations. So I suppose I find some offense when people talk as if this is something inherently bad about our society, as if we are all somehow a nation of greedy, selfish people who only desire to accumulate things for ourselves. Yes, some people are like that, but I guess I am too optimistic to believe that most people are like that.
-
"Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying there is not greed in our society, or that most folks could not stand to reduce their consumption of goods and services. What I have a problem with is people who have computers and possible multiple vehicles, and probably more than one television, and something besides generic brand bare necessities stocked in their pantries complaining about "consumer greed". What I have a problem with is the assumption that most people only buy an SUV or fancy clothes or computer games because of greed or lust."
I believe that is what the Pope was trying to say, at the end of the day.
-
I believe that is what the Pope was trying to say, at the end of the day.
Perhaps. Seems to me that "I'm not saying most folks could not stand to reduce their consumption of goods and services" has meaning significantly different than saying that the earth "groans under the weight of consumerist greed and irresponsible exploitation".
-
I believe that is what the Pope was trying to say, at the end of the day.
Perhaps. Seems to me that "I'm not saying most folks could not stand to reduce their consumption of goods and services" has meaning significantly different than saying that the earth "groans under the weight of consumerist greed and irresponsible exploitation".
But, there is potential groaning because of such greed...or waste, UP. You can't see that?
-
Is a phrase like that intentionally vague , Or am I misunderstanding it ?
-
Is a phrase like that intentionally vague , Or am I misunderstanding it ?
LOL....re read it...sounds strange.
Hey, look....I think we are a super sized world, and there is a potential for such waste and ruin, imo.
I believe that people need to be more responsible with the "goodies" we are given. . "WE" Sure, we all have to "groan" in order to help the battle against a ruin of the earth's resources.
Do you brush your teeth while the water is running? Do you turn it off, and then rinse?
Do you wash your dishes using a dishwasher, or scrub those plates with soap, and rinse.....with just enough water to do the job?
Ok, funny as those little examples come across.....there are so many little things we can do in the life that make a huge difference.
We are seeing more of those changes all around us, if we pay attention.
OK....Recycling....sure, it's not a perfect system yet....but surely a better alternative than what we used to see 40 years ago.....throwing the empty soda cans into the river! Minor examples in a world that once was innocent and yet so damn toxic.
There is more we can do to help this world. I believe what UP said is true.
"most folks could stand a reduction in goods and services"
I didn't know that the Pope had all those brands of canned goods in his pantry. He's the one complaining about Consumer Greed, last time I read the article.
-
"I don't say consumer greed does not exist."
I believe it exists, as well, Prince. How do we differ? ???
Yes, some people are like that, but I guess I am too optimistic to believe that most people are like that.
Agree, again.
-
But, there is potential groaning because of such greed...or waste, UP. You can't see that?
Ahem.
Yes, some people are excessively focused on having things. But in my own obviously selfish and lustful opinion, I don't do myself favors by thinking of my neighbors (and I don't just mean the people who live next door) as greedy people who cannot control their baser impulses. Not everyone, and I would guess this is true for most people, who buys an SUV is doing so to just to say they have an SUV. There are other considerations. Not that long ago, as I recall, there was a poll that asked people who bought hybrid cars why they bought the particular one they, um, bought. If not a majority then a large percentage of Toyota Prius owners, as I recall, said they bought a Prius because it is only offered as a hybrid, and so therefore makes a statement to other people about the owner being concerned about the environment. Supposedly all those folks who have an SUV to impress the neighbors are guilty of consumer greed, but I don't see anyone here accusing Prius owners of consumer greed.
I don't say consumer greed does not exist. But I question whether it is something with which we should be trying to paint our society. Ours is a wealthy society, by and large, and frankly, I find that to be a good thing. Most people in this country are not stuck as farmers or in some social/economic caste where they must work all their lives. Most people are able to pursue happiness and to provide for their families and give to the poor and needy. I, in my obvious selfishness and greed, happen to think this is good and would like to see this spread to more of our society and to other nations. So I suppose I find some offense when people talk as if this is something inherently bad about our society, as if we are all somehow a nation of greedy, selfish people who only desire to accumulate things for ourselves. Yes, some people are like that, but I guess I am too optimistic to believe that most people are like that.
-
But, there is potential groaning because of such greed...or waste, UP. You can't see that?
Ahem.
Yes, some people are excessively focused on having things. But in my own obviously selfish and lustful opinion, I don't do myself favors by thinking of my neighbors (and I don't just mean the people who live next door) as greedy people who cannot control their baser impulses. Not everyone, and I would guess this is true for most people, who buys an SUV is doing so to just to say they have an SUV. There are other considerations. Not that long ago, as I recall, there was a poll that asked people who bought hybrid cars why they bought the particular one they, um, bought. If not a majority then a large percentage of Toyota Prius owners, as I recall, said they bought a Prius because it is only offered as a hybrid, and so therefore makes a statement to other people about the owner being concerned about the environment. Supposedly all those folks who have an SUV to impress the neighbors are guilty of consumer greed, but I don't see anyone here accusing Prius owners of consumer greed.
I don't say consumer greed does not exist. But I question whether it is something with which we should be trying to paint our society. Ours is a wealthy society, by and large, and frankly, I find that to be a good thing. Most people in this country are not stuck as farmers or in some social/economic caste where they must work all their lives. Most people are able to pursue happiness and to provide for their families and give to the poor and needy. I, in my obvious selfishness and greed, happen to think this is good and would like to see this spread to more of our society and to other nations. So I suppose I find some offense when people talk as if this is something inherently bad about our society, as if we are all somehow a nation of greedy, selfish people who only desire to accumulate things for ourselves. Yes, some people are like that, but I guess I am too optimistic to believe that most people are like that.
I read this post, dear man.
I agree. ;)
-
I believe it exists, as well, Prince. How do we differ?
Well, you seem to keep claiming that all or most people in our society are guilty of consumer greed. I do not.
Yes, some people are like that, but I guess I am too optimistic to believe that most people are like that.
Agree, again.
Do you? "Consumer greed....we are all guilty of that one."
-
Actually, left entirely to the market, there are cycles of economic growth and recession (not panics and crises), but this is not a bad thing as some people might claim. It would in fact be quite healthy, not entirely unlike the natural ups and downs of the stock market, with a net growth result. And most recessions would be relatively short.
=====================================
This is balderdash, and completely UNTRUE.
The Great Depression was not relatively short. It lasted
all through the 1930's.
The price of gasoline is determined by the rate of consumption. When the rate dropped in the 1980's because of cafe standards, the price dropped. Then the SUV craze was inflicted upon us and it rose. It is supply and demand. The lower the demand, the more the supply and the lower the price.
During the Clinton years, there were very few disruptions to the economy and it was the longest period of sustained growth in history,. You can deny the facts all you wish, but they are still the facts.
-
Actually, left entirely to the market, there are cycles of economic growth and recession (not panics and crises), but this is not a bad thing as some people might claim. It would in fact be quite healthy, not entirely unlike the natural ups and downs of the stock market, with a net growth result. And most recessions would be relatively short.
=====================================
This is balderdash, and completely UNTRUE.
The Great Depression was not relatively short. It lasted
all through the 1930's.
Ha! Very funny. I should think even the most cursory student of the Great Depression would realize that the market was most definitely not left alone during the 1930s. So that is perhaps the worst possible example of something being left entirely to the market. Had it been left entirely to the market and not had first Hoover and then Roosevelt tried to fix it, there is a good chance that the Great Depression in the U.S. would have been over by 1932. Instead Hoover and Roosevelt decided they were going to fix it, and all they did was to cause the depression to drag on for more than a decade. The U.S. did not truly begin to recover from the Great Depression until the early to mid 1940s. In part because of the war, in part because after Roosevelt died his ridiculous economic policies began to be removed.
The price of gasoline is determined by the rate of consumption. When the rate dropped in the 1980's because of cafe standards, the price dropped. Then the SUV craze was inflicted upon us and it rose. It is supply and demand. The lower the demand, the more the supply and the lower the price.
Yes, I'm sure you're (not at all) correct. The cost and supply of oil has a great deal to do with the cost of the price of gasoline, more so than how many SUVs are out there. Though I will say some new refineries would not hurt the price of gasoline any.
During the Clinton years, there were very few disruptions to the economy and it was the longest period of sustained growth in history,.
Economic growth during the 1990's was also something of a bubble that burst somewhere around the very end of Clinton's years as President. The notion that Clinton somehow protected us all from the natural cycle of the market is simply not so. But that is not to say Clinton did bad things for the economy. He did sign NAFTA (which has been overall good, though it does not go far enough to establishing actual free trade, imo), and he largely left the economy alone rather than constantly attempting to "fix" it. Unfortunately, none of the current Democratic canidates for President seem to have learned this lesson.
You can deny the facts all you wish, but they are still the facts.
Heh. Yes, indeed so. Physician, heal thyself.
-
Though I will say some new refineries would not hurt the price of gasoline any.
I'm going to use this line as a springboard for my line of thinking Prince, so please don't be offended. I realize that you don't address the point that I'm going to try to make and this is no way an answer to your post, unless by the line above you meant that refinery shutdowns are the fault of environmentalists.
A lot of things that I read point to the reason that refineries are being shut down, is not so much government interference, but to increase the profits of oil companies and refiners.
Myth 1: Oil refineries are not being built in the U.S. because environmental regulations, particularly the Clean Air Act, are so bureaucratic and burdensome that refiners cannot get permits.
Fact: Environmental regulations are not preventing new refineries from being built in the U.S. From 1975 to 2000, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received only one permit request for a new refinery. And in March, EPA approved Arizona Clean Fuels? application for an air permit for a proposed refinery in Arizona. In addition, oil companies are regularly applying for ? and receiving ? permits to modify and expand their existing refineries.[1]
citizen.org article (http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/electricity/Oil_and_Gas/articles.cfm?ID=11829)
An exerpt from Google books, that I'm unable to quote here (http://books.google.com/books?id=HaMhJzayX24C&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&dq=refinery+shutdown+myth&source=web&ots=KvRyK7udjM&sig=Tuvvo926-kck1r765LPNggRdmac&hl=en#PPA51,M1)
Let me tell you what happened when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990.
Panic broke out in the Bush White House ... not because of the loss of crude oil supply, but because in Kuwait lay 8% of U.S. refining capacity. In October President Bush sent an urgent message to all of the governors warning of impending short supplies of propane, particularly in the New England states, because most of the propane there was refined in Kuwait. But the real cause of the panic was the fact that in Saudi Arabia lay another 12% of U.S. refining. Saudi Arabia was believed to be Iraq?s next target..
President Bush acted swiftly and forcefully, as he should have. There had been over 100 oil refineries shut down in the U.S. in the ten years preceding the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. Not a single new refinery had been built in the U.S. in 25 years (and still has not, as far as I know). Everything had moved to the Middle East, in the name of "free trade," of course.
Former ND Governor George "Bud" Sinner (http://www.ag.ndsu.nodak.edu/qbcc/BloomquistLectures/1999sinner.htm)
With this said, and hopefully the point demonstrated, I'd like to see domestic production increased. This means opening ANWR, among other concerns. The Alaskans want ANWR opened, and to me that is a big factor. I'd like to see more independent refiners, who are all but gone now, but the high prices of crude effectively lock out any start up competition. I do believe though, that refineries are not rebuilding because of environmental regulation, but because by artificially suppressing supply and exporting refining capacity the current refiners increase their profits. I don't fall into the Mean Big Oil camp, but I do not support poor energy policies that have stretched back several Presidents now.
-
I do believe though, that refineries are not rebuilding because of environmental regulation, but because by artificially suppressing supply and exporting refining capacity the current refiners increase their profits.
I don't agree. I'm sure that fact about the EPA only getting one request and regulations not preventing new refineries is true. But that doesn't mean that environmental regulations are not dampening interest in building domestic refineries. Permits I am sure are available, but as I understand it, the cost of building new refineries is quite high, in part due to environmental regulations.
Also, there is a NIMBY factor when it comes to getting local permission to build oil refineries. Refineries are big and ugly, and come with the problem of being oil refineries. People don't like having them around. Which is, to put it mildly, ironic for a country of people who like to drive everywhere.
Yes, I'm sure the oil companies are interested in increasing profits, as I would expect any healthy business to be. But frankly, I don't agree they that are seeking to artificially suppress supply. People buy less gasoline the more expensive it becomes. People buy more gasoline the less they have to think about the cost. Low prices are in the oil companies' best interest, and they know this.
-
I believe it exists, as well, Prince. How do we differ?
Well, you seem to keep claiming that all or most people in our society are guilty of consumer greed. I do not.
Yes, some people are like that, but I guess I am too optimistic to believe that most people are like that.
Agree, again.
Do you? "Consumer greed....we are all guilty of that one."
Of course I am somewhat guilty of that one. I do have one tv set. I just recently bought a cell phone, but pay ony 12 dollars a month for 50 minutes a month for emergencies. I have one car that I've kept up to par for over 10 years. I sure as hell try to conserve for the sake of waste on this planet. Those are minor ways, but if I made more money I would shop at the Green stores for food.
You seem to be a bit defensive with me, on this one Prince. ???
I was simply stating that most of the population contributes to some sort of greed. You even argreed to that greed last night.
hmmm, Chill out there. Have a tomato... Pick it from your garden......like I do. ;)
-
I was simply stating that most of the population contributes to some sort of greed. You even argreed to that greed last night.
No, Cynthia, actually, I'm saying that most of the population does not. That some greed exists does not mean most people are guilty of it. That is the main point of what I said last night.
-
I believe it exists, as well, Prince. How do we differ?
Well, you seem to keep claiming that all or most people in our society are guilty of consumer greed. I do not.
Yes, some people are like that, but I guess I am too optimistic to believe that most people are like that.
Agree, again.
Do you? "Consumer greed....we are all guilty of that one."
I think that the word greed is playing the semantics card on this one.
Greed for the economy?
Greed for the nation?
Greed for the environment?
Consumption(Expenditure)?
Greed is an overwhelming desire to have more of something such as money than is actually needed
Gluttony
Voracity
Ravenousness
Insatiability
Self-indulgence
Moderation is the key here. I think the Pope was speaking to that issue, as well.
YEs, I do maintain, based on the definition that
we are all guilty of some sort of greed.
-
I was simply stating that most of the population contributes to some sort of greed. You even argreed to that greed last night.
No, Cynthia, actually, I'm saying that most of the population does not. That some greed exists does not mean most people are guilty of it. That is the main point of what I said last night.
Some.
Yes, some people are like that, but I guess I am too optimistic to believe that most people are like that.
Semantics on the word some/most. hmmmm, ok now we are down to a word.
Is your some = to my most?
How about "a bunch of", "the majority of", a village full", tons of folks"??
Since you are claiming that you are not greedy, then are the pessimists in life subject to being labeled as greedy ;)?
-
Semantics on the word some/most. hmmmm, ok now we are down to a word.
I think the difference is more substantial than that.
Is your some = to my most?
If I thought it were, would I object to you saying "most"?
How about "a bunch of", "the majority of", a village full", tons of folks"??
Do you think those all mean the same thing?
Since you are claiming that you are not greedy, then are the pessimists in life subject to being labeled as greedy ;)?
No.
-
I think the difference is more substantial than that.
Of course! I never said it wasn't more substantial. You've been arguing the point that I am saying "most or all" of the people are guilty of greed.
I was replying to that "argument", UP.
"Well, you seem to keep claiming that all or most people in our society are guilty of consumer greed. I do not."
I have read your argument on substance, but that was not our issue here....
I would like to hear more from people on this issue of greed, environmental waste, etc.
-
Do you think those all mean the same thing?[/i
No, tongue in cheek.
Most of the folks in this world buy what they don't need. That can lead into a slippery slope of greed.
Potential for greed is so inviting that I maintain the term MOST....and if you want to argue that point, then fine.
Some of the people in this world are Mother Theresas, MOST are not.
-
Should you go to any thrift shop, you will see evidence that people buy a huge number things they do not need. 85% of the clothing in any thrift shop is seldom worn women's wear, 15% is men's wear. There are also tons of unread books, unused home appiances and all manner of odd things, perhaps bought as gifts, stored in the back of a closet, and trucked away when someone moves or dies.
If you watch the Home Shopping Network, you will hear hundreds of people call in to order a Steam Genie or some sort of bauble for themselves and a bunch more for sisters, mothers, husbands and such.
Said items appear in yard sales for a tenth the price, still in their original shipping boxes every weekend.
-
Should you go to any thrift shop, you will see evidence that people buy a huge number things they do not need.
This does not mean they all did so out of greed.
-
Greed is an overwhelming desire to have more of something such as money than is actually needed
[...]
YEs, I do maintain, based on the definition that
we are all guilty of some sort of greed.
You maintain we are all guilty of an overwhelming desire to have more of something than is actually needed? You don't think much of your fellow humans, do you? They buy too many things because, say you, they cannot control themselves. Not exactly a flattering opinion.
-
I don't agree. I'm sure that fact about the EPA only getting one request and regulations not preventing new refineries is true. But that doesn't mean that environmental regulations are not dampening interest in building domestic refineries. Permits I am sure are available, but as I understand it, the cost of building new refineries is quite high, in part due to environmental regulations.
I think that we're going to have to agree to disagree here. While the higher price of environmental regulation can be applied to new refineries, other industries also face similar regulations. Smelters, sawmills, power plants and the like all face costly environmental regulations in new construction, but there are still new construction of these facilities going on, especially since the mid 1980's. Furthermore, does it make sense to outsource our pollution to nations with less stringent environmental practices? That is essentially what the environmental regulations preventing new refinery construction boils down to. Personally, I don't buy that argument, but if I were too, there would be the outsourced pollution issue to deal with. And lastly, while it is true that some environmental regulations are probably somewhat extreme, sensible regulation is necessary. This regulation not only serves to preserve the environmental interests of the locality of the facility, but also serves to protect the taxpayers for the cleanup costs incurred when a business closes and leaves a polluted area behind. Ever see what the cost estimates are for Superfund sites? Well, that last one wasn't actually last, but the problem with your argument is that it rests on an undocumented assertion, in that it's so hard to get a permit, or to find a locality willing to allow a refinery, or the regulation is too costly. Yet only one was applied for, and it was granted. I find it difficult to believe that if 20 permits were requested, only that one would be granted.
Also, there is a NIMBY factor when it comes to getting local permission to build oil refineries. Refineries are big and ugly, and come with the problem of being oil refineries. People don't like having them around. Which is, to put it mildly, ironic for a country of people who like to drive everywhere.
No doubt this is true for some locales, but I don't believe that it applies to all localities, or even most. There are a lot of dying towns where refineries could locate, with local support. Within 100 miles of my home here, there are three refineries: Shell in Anacortes, Tesoro in Anacortes, and BP/Arco in Cherry Point, north of Bellingham. 95% of the work I do is in those three refineries or is related to them. Refinery work is high paying work, though somewhat dangerous. I find it hard to believe that most locales would reject a refinery that pays excellent wages (especially in the current wage climate of today, when fewer manufacturing positions are giving way to a larger, lower paying retail sector) and may be a mild risk for pollution. Anacortes and Skagit County in general have some of the cleanest air in Washington State.
Yes, I'm sure the oil companies are interested in increasing profits, as I would expect any healthy business to be.
And I agree here Prince, as I said I'm not a member of the Hate Big Oil crowd. I do believe that the reason that they're giving for not building new refineries is a poor one though, it would be more honest (though definitely unpopular) to say that it's not economically feasible, rather than blaming environmental regulation and the related costs for the matter.
But frankly, I don't agree they that are seeking to artificially suppress supply
Then why aren't they (oil companies and refiners) building more refineries, if not here, then elsewhere? Why the buyouts of independent refineries, and the subsequent shutdown of their operations? The whole thing reeks of artificial suppression.
People buy less gasoline the more expensive it becomes.
Not trying to be facetious here Prince, but do you have stats to back this? I recall that gasoline consumption didn't drop at all until the past few months, for the first time in 16 years. And I believe, most of this drop was due to the rise of ethanol, flex fuel, biodiesel, and a declining economy in general. If what you say is true, then when gas went from $1.85 to $2.85, that consumption should have dropped, but I don't remember it doing so. Then again, my recollection may be faulty.
People buy more gasoline the less they have to think about the cost. Low prices are in the oil companies' best interest, and they know this.
Gasoline isn't Cheeto's or the newest plasma TV, it's a necessary commodity, especially in rural areas. I disagree with your argument, people have to buy gasoline no matter what the cost, or else they can't commute to work, farm their fields, or pull that timber down off of the mountain. The increased cost of gasoline may or may not be passed on to the consumer, but someone who commutes 50 miles to work isn't going to ride a bicycle to work, or rely on a bus/mass transit system that isn't there. They may buy a more fuel efficient vehicle, but that's if their economic means allow for it, which isn't always the case. I'd submit that the gasoline purveyors have that person by the balls (if they have them) either way that they go about it.
If low oil prices are in the company's best interests, then why are record profits being posted? By your line of thinking, the higher prices should lead to lower profits, but they don't. By suppressing supply (and as I've stated, I believe artificially so) and the inability/unwillingness of the consumer to lower consumption, it's a perfect economic storm that benefits oil companies. With all of that said, I don't think that the high prices are all the fault of the oil companies, though I think they have a hand in it. A jittery market that reacts by raising oil $25 a barrel if someone throws a rock at an oil tanker is also a large part of the problem, as is the consumer who could reduce consumption reasonably but refuses to.
-
Should you go to any thrift shop, you will see evidence that people buy a huge number things they do not need.
This does not mean they all did so out of greed.
=======================================================
Surely they will not all admit "I bought these orange stilettoes and these Banana Republic Burmese Excursion Gaiters because I am a greedy person", but what other motive s there for buying that which one does not need and never uses?
-
Surely they will not all admit "I bought these orange stilettoes and these Banana Republic Burmese Excursion Gaiters because I am a greedy person", but what other motive s there for buying that which one does not need and never uses?
I am wondering how you know the items were never used. Buying shoes that are then not excessively worn and deciding some time later to sell/give them to a thrift store is hardly proof that the original purchaser bought them out of greed. And wanting something one does not need does not necessarily indicate greed. On the other hand, assuming that clothes ending up in a thrift store is a sign of greed might indicate a desire to judge other people.
-
Should you go to any thrift shop, you will see evidence that people buy a huge number things they do not need.
This does not mean they all did so out of greed.
=======================================================
Surely they will not all admit "I bought these orange stilettoes and these Banana Republic Burmese Excursion Gaiters because I am a greedy person", but what other motive s there for buying that which one does not need and never uses?
Retail stores turn lots of unsold merchandise over to Goodwill and the Salvation Army,
the Salvation Army accepts so many garments that they cannot sell them all here, they rip some up for shoprags and bale lots up for shipment to Africa where the bales are sold to small businessmen to be resold.
This isn't generosity?
-
Well,Prince, like I said.....greed is in the eye of the greedee'.
Selfish.....wanting more because credit cards can take care of buisness?
Whatever...I have little faith in the time in which we live, because someone out there has made it TOO EASY to buy things without consequences.
More later.
Cynthia
-
Donating reusable items to a thrift store seems to be the opposite of greed.
Unless they are doing it for a tax write-off, and even then, that's a defect in the tax code and not necessarily and indictment for greed.
-
Not trying to be facetious here Prince, but do you have stats to back this? I recall that gasoline consumption didn't drop at all until the past few months, for the first time in 16 years.
It hasn't dropped much in the past, but it is taking a long term toll on people's budgets, and people are not going to be driving to the store for one or two things. But gasoline is still consumed so a small decline isn't going to be a big deal. Let me put it this way, I don't think we'll see huge drops in gasoline usage, but we will probably see a gradual decline.
I disagree with your argument, people have to buy gasoline no matter what the cost, or else they can't commute to work, farm their fields, or pull that timber down off of the mountain. The increased cost of gasoline may or may not be passed on to the consumer, but someone who commutes 50 miles to work isn't going to ride a bicycle to work, or rely on a bus/mass transit system that isn't there.
True, but that person might also make fewer trips to the store to buy the now more expensive groceries. But that person and others might also reconsider living 50 miles away from work if gas prices continue as they have. One of my sister's major considerations in looking, not that long ago, for a place to live was to find something not too far from work because she does not want the expense of a long commute. Again, I'm not saying that people will suddenly stop buying gasoline. But people do adapt, and a gradual change in society will be a likely result of higher gas prices.
If low oil prices are in the company's best interests, then why are record profits being posted? By your line of thinking, the higher prices should lead to lower profits, but they don't.
We don't know that they haven't. And that so-called record profit is a record in dollar amount, not in percentage of revenue. I believe the "record" profit was determined to be something around 10%. There are other businesses which operate at a higher profit percentage. For example, look at this from a Reuters article about Netflix (http://tinyurl.com/62e7qp): "The gross profit margin for the first quarter was 31.7 percent, compared to 36.1 percent for the first quarter of 2007 and 33.8 percent for the fourth quarter of 2007."