Debt Rattle November 6 2018
- This topic has 2 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Pablo Picasso Group of dancers. Olga Kokhlova is lying in the foreground 1919 • What Happened To Stocks After Every Midterm Election Since Worl
[See the full post at: Debt Rattle November 6 2018]The Picasso is wonderful.
Olga Kokhlova is beautiful…
The general outlook is ugly, twisted, and expected…
The outlook from the Hermitage is positive and somewhat hopeful…
We are aware…When we don’t have the popular or political consensus to pursue AGW, 21 children plan to hold the whole nation, population, possibly the world hostage to their demands? How will that work?
Granted, we probably need a standing for the future, so that the present generation doesn’t burn and destroy everything in a coke-addled death-party, as Boomers already have, and Jefferson himself suggested this about indebting future generations. However, their alternative both has no legal standing, and is arguably equally bad, halting all progress and change everywhere, forever, because it *might* be less-good for an indeterminate future we know little about.
Clearly, they would have argued against the mining of coal, the institution of steam engines, the taking of hard laborers off the land, the cutting of any trees, and the clearing of any swamps. That is to say, they would have kept us in the High Middle Ages forever. Landing in America, we would be required to live in wigwams and bark huts in a fine, pristine environment, not to cut any more trees than the existing natives. Because #SavetheEarth.
…Which is fine if you want that sort of thing, I’m not arguing against it, I’m just pointing out that such an outlook has consequences. The first of which is the death of 300 Million Americans, as without nuclear, coal, and now even hydro, the population will most probably drop to pre-contact levels. There are many who advocate for this popular view, however, regardless of what the court may decide, I feel certain the people will resist such an action quite strongly, and be more than happy to burn down the court, the government, and those 21 children to defend themselves, and not bat an eye doing it.
And if you’re not going to defend “the children”, which is a generic, amorphous concept that cannot be defined, and whose harm, having not yet happened, cannot be determined, then really you’re just deciding *how much* emphasis we should place on the present vs the future, which is an argument for the social sphere, as hashed out in politics.
What if for 10ppm more, we can achieve free energy and go to the stars? Their lawsuit would be *preventing* their happier future and condemning their generation to endless despair. …I don’t believe that is the case, but neither do I know. …And neither do they, the court, or anyone.
You can’t sue on the basis of a crime that *might* happen, but hasn’t. You can’t go to jail for a crime you didn’t commit. You can’t sue for a loss you never had. Otherwise, I’ll be happy to sue for all those trading losses I’m going to have, and for all the new frauds Well Fargo hasn’t invented yet.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.