tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5637791353982298419.comments2010-02-26T12:06:49.828-05:00New Clear SkiesScott J.http://www.blogger.com/profile/14319290885061075526noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5637791353982298419.post-33025029771908307022010-02-26T12:06:49.828-05:002010-02-26T12:06:49.828-05:00I am certainly no expert on environmental engineer...I am certainly no expert on environmental engineering, nor would I claim to be. As I said, there are a number of flaws with the design. The point I was making is contained in the rest of my article: that capitalism and environmentalism can coexist. While the PurGen project has a number of serious issues, at least SCS Energy is attempting a realistic energy alternative. Most other proposals for alternative energy are quite unfeasible (especially wind farms), as they generate very little profit and are just as energy-inefficient as the PurGen proposal.<br /><br />If you know of any environmentally-friendly energy alternatives in the works that are more economically viable, PLEASE post them here. I am curious, being a student, and would love to learn more!Scott J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14319290885061075526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5637791353982298419.post-91061623309677088612010-02-26T09:31:31.310-05:002010-02-26T09:31:31.310-05:00The PurGen One coal plant proposed for Linden. N.J...The PurGen One coal plant proposed for Linden. N.J. will invest $6 billion but will only create 150 full-time jobs. http://goo.gl/srCe The economic viability of the project depends upon producing 1.3 million tons of urea fertilizer each year -- but the global ecosystem is already massively damaged by such fertilizer. http://goo.gl/8iwK<br />The Linden region -- including Staten Island, N.Y., just a stone's thrown downwind -- already fails to meet federal air quality standards for fine particles (soot) and for ground-level ozone. To this unhealthy mix, PurGen One will add another 4 million pounds of air pollution each year, according to their application for a New Jersey air permit. http://goo.gl/dmDa There may not a conflict between capitalism and a healthy environment, but the PurGen One proposal does not provide any evidence to bolster such a claim.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17705223439795953611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5637791353982298419.post-75524791005834436692009-11-09T11:53:24.908-05:002009-11-09T11:53:24.908-05:00Hi there,
I have been looking over your blog and w...Hi there,<br />I have been looking over your blog and was curious if you would like to use content from our site as well for your blog. I am with the Daily Reckoning, a free newsletter focusing on the economy, commodities, global and national issues from a libertarian and contrarian viewpoint. Please visit our site http://dailyreckoning.com and let me know if you would be interested in re-using our content. Best Regards<br />Meghan Rose<br />mrose@agorafinancial.comUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04122453400497624070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5637791353982298419.post-89369091492899371092009-10-18T19:48:51.199-04:002009-10-18T19:48:51.199-04:00That's very true. Sadly, though, the media i...That's very true. Sadly, though, the media is lumping in legitimate arguments against the Fed's policies with the more baseless conspiracy theories. It's tough without a major news outlet that's willing to give someone other than Ron Paul an interview.<br /><br />Good footnote! We learn something new every day.Scott J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14319290885061075526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5637791353982298419.post-68040037723625042782009-10-18T19:27:59.082-04:002009-10-18T19:27:59.082-04:00An interesting historical footnote. The Federalis...An interesting historical footnote. The Federalists took their name because they understood Americans' suspicion of centralized authority, and they wanted to get on the right side of the PR war. (The term "Federalist" was focus-grouped, as it were). The opposition was termed "Anti-Federalist" as a consequence, although their position was more legitimately "federalist" according to the dictionary definition than that of the Hamiltonians. <br /><br />During the Constitutional Convention, the supporters of the Constitution were considered the big-government crowd. Today, the federal government has so overstepped its authority that those of us who just want the Feds to adhere to the rules of the game outlined in the Constitution are considered the small-government crowd. My, how times change.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5637791353982298419.post-38835672425298169552009-08-31T00:04:15.035-04:002009-08-31T00:04:15.035-04:00I never thought about it that way, lol, very true!...I never thought about it that way, lol, very true!!Scott J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14319290885061075526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5637791353982298419.post-16118632755733568662009-08-30T21:01:20.413-04:002009-08-30T21:01:20.413-04:00Isn't capitalism amazing? It even has room to...Isn't capitalism amazing? It even has room to cater to the anti-market market, and it can make a socialist college dropout like Michael Moore a fabulously wealthy man. All he has to do is provide a good or service that people want, and for which they are willing to enter into a voluntary exchange to consume. He's quite the capitalist when you think about it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5637791353982298419.post-61992275711382333882009-08-27T01:35:23.479-04:002009-08-27T01:35:23.479-04:00This article was mostly based on the suggestion th...This article was mostly based on the suggestion that Washington can still be salvaged. However, in time, what you've said may very well prove true: that Washington will become the Titanic, and we'll have to bail accordingly. And I agree that Washington's interests often outweigh the citizenry.<br /><br />If they reach a point where they are demonstrating outright authoritarianism, then honestly, I would have no problem with local secession. Things actually get done in localized governments because people often have direct contact with their representatives. I have never met Jon Corzine, or Menendez/Lautenberg (and I wouldn't want to!). I have, however, met my town mayor and most of the county reps. I'm not sure if you are involved in local politics, but it is 1,000 times more effective than trying to get a Senator or a Governor to listen to anyone but his constituents.<br /><br />My only concern would be that such a declaration by local governments would likely be met by Fed violence...But hey. We succeeded on January 14, 1784. We can certainly do it again.Scott J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14319290885061075526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5637791353982298419.post-49345634147151469772009-08-27T00:37:24.468-04:002009-08-27T00:37:24.468-04:00Thanks for the thoughtful rebuttal to my column! ...Thanks for the thoughtful rebuttal to my column! My response is very similar to irrationalrationality's -- there are systemic problems with centralized democracy that I am convinced cannot be overcome via the voting process. I don't see that we can dismantle the Washington mess even if a strong majority of citizens became libertarian. The incentives in Washington are more powerful than the desires of the voters.<br /><br />That said, there is no denying that the Ron Paul campaign brought all kinds of new people over to liberty, which is of immense value. <br /><br />Personally, I see it as a progression. There's the mixed-up, mostly unaware, certainly uniformed state that most of us are in when we graduate from the government schools. Via communication with each other and careful thought, the smartest, most open-minded people come to realize that free markets provide superior outcomes to all others, and try to vote for it. It's my hope that, over time, those people will come around to my way of thinking, namely that the way to free ourselves from Washington is to separate ourselves from it. This can be done with local nullification (ie - as of right now, in our community, these Washington rules no longer apply), or with local secession (ie - as of right now, in our community, Washington has no authority at all).Stewart Brownehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09360526132222651919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5637791353982298419.post-5953346040363730472009-08-24T01:55:35.972-04:002009-08-24T01:55:35.972-04:00I agree completely!
What we need is some kind of...I agree completely!<br /><br /> What we need is some kind of fire lit under our asses to get young-adult and middle-aged citizens more interested in civics. The health care debate has had a particularly huge impact on bloggers and young political writers (like myself, I suppose), and some of that interest has begun to radiate to those folks' peers/friends/family, so that's a start.Scott J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14319290885061075526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5637791353982298419.post-88283623097186503222009-08-24T01:29:05.547-04:002009-08-24T01:29:05.547-04:00Good points Scott, but you neglect a crucial point...Good points Scott, but you neglect a crucial point: the voter is a (mostly) rational individual. You only make arguments for voting in terms of the benefits to the collective. <br /><br />Public choice theory has a lot to say about individual voters. The benefits of a "good" vote are spread amongst everyone in the country and the liklihood of one vote influencing the election are infintesimal. The opportunity costs of a "good" vote are substantial and concentrated on the individual.<br /><br />So while it would be awesome if everyone started to realize that the diverse benefits are worth the concentrated costs, economists have been stumped by that problem for centuries.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com