|
The Politics Thread
|
| niconico |
Posted on 12-03-2008 18:42
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4102
Joined: 09-07-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Well please do so, I'm all ears 
In fact I've just, a few weeks back, turned in an exam paper on Global Warming and while working on this I grew very sceptic towards global warming, not just because of the how small an increase we have experienced so far, but also because of the uncountable number of very different theories and scenarios on how the pundits reckon global warming affects the earth. There's even a group of Russian scientists who have found out that as a result of global warming we will experience a new Ice Age in 2060.
|
| |
|
|
| issoisso |
Posted on 12-03-2008 18:42
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 22918
Joined: 08-02-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
CrueTrue wrote:
I admit that this is all speculation
And that is the key bit. They come up with a theory. When events start to disprove the theory, they come up with a new on. over and over and over again.
It's not just global warming that's like that.
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
|
| |
|
|
| Crommy |
Posted on 12-03-2008 18:54
|
World Champion
Posts: 10018
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
I think humans are having a hand in global warming - I don't deny it's a natural thing, it's happened many times with world temperatures rising and falling - what I believe is that humans are accelerating the process, as these changes (1 degree for example) normally occur far more slowly than a century. So what we are doing is accelerating the process.
But what people forget is that we are the first species who actually have the power to do something about it.
|
| |
|
|
| Crommy |
Posted on 12-03-2008 19:02
|
World Champion
Posts: 10018
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
CrueTrue wrote:
Yes, we have even had an Ice Age. Nothing new in that. What's new is that this time, it's proven that it's caused by our pollution, our greenhouse gases. Another difference from back then and now is that we're living in a society which can't handle these kind of enviromental changes.
Take the West's (G8 + Europe basically) current attitude, and you're 100% correct. If you look at the EU's agricultural policy, when we get a surplus, the EU takes it out of the market to maintain prices - you'd then think it would be ideal to give it to Africa.But no.
For us to be able to deal with global warming on a worldwide scale, then capitalism needs to change.
So basically, I'm agreeing with you 
|
| |
|
|
| issoisso |
Posted on 12-03-2008 19:08
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 22918
Joined: 08-02-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Crommy wrote:
If you look at the EU's agricultural policy, when we get a surplus, the EU takes it out of the market to maintain prices - you'd then think it would be ideal to give it to Africa.
Here's an even worse one: The EU set maximum production quotes. A country cannot go past them.
France and Germany's quotes in agriculture and fishing far surpass those countries' needs while every other country has a maximum limit below what it needs to maintain itself.
Explain that one without using the words "lobby" or "interest"
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
|
| |
|
|
| p3druh |
Posted on 12-03-2008 19:49
|
Small Tour Specialist
Posts: 2667
Joined: 28-09-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
issoisso wrote:
Crommy wrote:
If you look at the EU's agricultural policy, when we get a surplus, the EU takes it out of the market to maintain prices - you'd then think it would be ideal to give it to Africa.
Here's an even worse one: The EU set maximum production quotes. A country cannot go past them.
France and Germany's quotes in agriculture and fishing far surpass those countries' needs while every other country has a maximum limit below what it needs to maintain itself.
Explain that one without using the words "lobby" or "interest"
I think I can explain since I am a business student...
When a country generates a surplus it has to get ride of it because the price of storaging that said surplus is too high... Therefor they sell it... Out of this two things can happen:
a)(and the minor problem) They sell the surplus to a 3rd world country because they are the only ones willing to buy it... But since they have no money they will have a debt with the other country... And the EU are against this because it is an Economical fact that a 100€(f.e.) debt today becomes way higher in a few months and this would stop the growth of any 3rd world country... Not to mention the producters in the first country that will have a very low profit and won't be able to produce in the next year what they need to stay in the market...
b )(and way more serious) They give it to a 3rd world country... In the market, this will generate a substancial fall in the prices of the products that were given away, and as a result, many producters will loose money and will become bankrupt, which will make the country go into an economical recession and the country will no longer be able to help that 3rd world country... Basicly, helping the country out now will come back to hurt them in the future and they will be worst than when all this started...
And btw, the quotes set by the EU are set like this:
Imagine that the whole EU needs X litres of milk... You think the quote would be X/27(number of countries on the EU)... But no... It isn't...
Because France and Germany have a lot more natural resources to achieve a higher level of production so the EU sets the quote (X+Y)/27 so that those two countries can compensate the lower production levels of another EU country... But the EU have to make sure that France and Germany's levels of production don't become too high in order to maintain an iquality within the EU and too make sure that other countries don't just "sit around" and let the big ones do the work...
Anything you don't understand?
|
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 19-09-2024 22:17
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| Crommy |
Posted on 12-03-2008 20:32
|
World Champion
Posts: 10018
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
When I'm talking about giving it to an LEDC, I'm not talking about producers selling directly to the. As you said, this will make prices fall, simple supply and demand analysis. I'm saying the EU buys it (guaranteed prices), buying up the surplus, at a price which means the price is set at a predefined total as the rest of the market then goes to a "correct" price equilibrium.
So then, the EU has this surplus. Which they do pretty much nothing with. It won't affect the price in the EU, and the LEDC's need it desperately - but they don't get it
|
| |
|
|
| issoisso |
Posted on 12-03-2008 20:40
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 22918
Joined: 08-02-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
p3druh wrote:
issoisso wrote:
Crommy wrote:
If you look at the EU's agricultural policy, when we get a surplus, the EU takes it out of the market to maintain prices - you'd then think it would be ideal to give it to Africa.
Here's an even worse one: The EU set maximum production quotes. A country cannot go past them.
France and Germany's quotes in agriculture and fishing far surpass those countries' needs while every other country has a maximum limit below what it needs to maintain itself.
Explain that one without using the words "lobby" or "interest"
I think I can explain since I am a business student...
When a country generates a surplus it has to get ride of it because the price of storaging that said surplus is too high... Therefor they sell it... Out of this two things can happen:
a)(and the minor problem) They sell the surplus to a 3rd world country because they are the only ones willing to buy it... But since they have no money they will have a debt with the other country... And the EU are against this because it is an Economical fact that a 100€(f.e.) debt today becomes way higher in a few months and this would stop the growth of any 3rd world country... Not to mention the producters in the first country that will have a very low profit and won't be able to produce in the next year what they need to stay in the market...
b )(and way more serious) They give it to a 3rd world country... In the market, this will generate a substancial fall in the prices of the products that were given away, and as a result, many producters will loose money and will become bankrupt, which will make the country go into an economical recession and the country will no longer be able to help that 3rd world country... Basicly, helping the country out now will come back to hurt them in the future and they will be worst than when all this started...
And btw, the quotes set by the EU are set like this:
Imagine that the whole EU needs X litres of milk... You think the quote would be X/27(number of countries on the EU)... But no... It isn't...
Because France and Germany have a lot more natural resources to achieve a higher level of production so the EU sets the quote (X+Y)/27 so that those two countries can compensate the lower production levels of another EU country... But the EU have to make sure that France and Germany's levels of production don't become too high in order to maintain an iquality within the EU and too make sure that other countries don't just "sit around" and let the big ones do the work...
Anything you don't understand?
I understand, thanks, but my point is that A lot of countries have limits set that are far below what they can produce, which leads to farmers being paid to burn crops and fishermen living in poverty because they're not allowed to sell enough fish to survive
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
|
| |
|
|
| Aquarius |
Posted on 13-03-2008 08:53
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5220
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
https://upload.wik...2-Temp.png (warning : big image)
Compared evolution of CO2 rejected in the atmosphere and of the average temperature on earth.
There have always been cycles of warming and cooling of the earth temperature, but when those cycles took about 10 000 years to occur, since the Industrial Revolution they'll be much, much shorter and frequent.
Edited by Aquarius on 13-03-2008 08:54
|
| |
|
|
| diouf |
Posted on 16-03-2008 18:20
|
Under 23
Posts: 62
Joined: 03-02-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
I don't doubt that global warming is a fact. You can look on the tempereatures measured back in time. I do doubt that humans have so big an impact.
F.ex Co2 leads temperature graph. If you zoom in on that then many times it is temperatures that leads Co2 by more than a hundrede years. Al Gore accidently forgot to mention that. Probably ain't a coincidence he shows the graph in a 400.000 year scale. temp leads CO2 can be explained by the oceans ability to obtain gases. That abillity is much better in cold water, which means that cold water obtains much co2, and therefore less co2 in athomsphere.
Another funny thing. In the sixties and seventies the temperatures fell- quite a lot actually. In 1975 some scientists feared an new ice age # and nobody can't denie that we led out a lot of CO2 in the war and post-war period.
a good thing to remember is that if the scientists say that global warming is naturally, then a lot of scientistjobs will be dumped. It is remarkeble that all other theories on global warming have a so hard time getting attention. F.X. Henrik Svensmark.
#https://www.resiliencetv.fr/uploads/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf
Edited by diouf on 16-03-2008 18:24
|
| |
|
|
| Guido Mukk |
Posted on 16-03-2008 18:28
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 15830
Joined: 08-02-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Tibet..nr.1 political issue at the moment. China who looked like more and more normal democratic country..showing us what he realy was and still are. (Those fools even blocked youtube in China)
Olympic games in Peking...if normal states like to show what they think about current situation..lets boycott those games.
|
| |
|
|
| CrueTrue |
Posted on 16-03-2008 18:51
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 29989
Joined: 20-10-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
Guido Mukk wrote:
Tibet..nr.1 political issue at the moment. China who looked like more and more normal democratic country..showing us what he realy was and still are. (Those fools even blocked youtube in China)
Olympic games in Peking...if normal states like to show what they think about current situation..lets boycott those games.
"Who looked like more and more normal democratic country"? When?  |
| |
|
|
| Crommy |
Posted on 16-03-2008 19:34
|
World Champion
Posts: 10018
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
CrueTrue wrote:
Guido Mukk wrote:
Tibet..nr.1 political issue at the moment. China who looked like more and more normal democratic country..showing us what he realy was and still are. (Those fools even blocked youtube in China)
Olympic games in Peking...if normal states like to show what they think about current situation..lets boycott those games.
"Who looked like more and more normal democratic country"? When?
They have slowly been handing out more freedom - not huge amounts, but for China, it's been quite a lot - I can't think of any specifics, it's been lots of small concessions, nothing huge
@ Global warming - not many people know that the plant that does the most to combat global warming (i.e. releasing lots of oxygen) is algae - which is why destruction of marine eco-systems is so important
|
| |
|
|
| Tom canning |
Posted on 16-03-2008 20:05
|
Free Agent
Posts: 120
Joined: 09-03-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
i hate brown |
| |
|
|
| Crommy |
Posted on 16-03-2008 20:07
|
World Champion
Posts: 10018
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
Well that's just fantastic - care to explain why?
|
| |
|
|
| Guido Mukk |
Posted on 16-03-2008 21:16
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 15830
Joined: 08-02-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
CrueTrue wrote:
Guido Mukk wrote:
Tibet..nr.1 political issue at the moment. China who looked like more and more normal democratic country..showing us what he realy was and still are. (Those fools even blocked youtube in China)
Olympic games in Peking...if normal states like to show what they think about current situation..lets boycott those games.
"Who looked like more and more normal democratic country"? When?
Hey compare China in 60-90..and now. You can find lot of differences..they was forced to start business and political comunication with "west" to survive after soviet union crash...but seems like old habits die hard. |
| |
|
|
| Tom canning |
Posted on 16-03-2008 21:33
|
Free Agent
Posts: 120
Joined: 09-03-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
he's an idiot makes rubbish decisions |
| |
|
|
| Crommy |
Posted on 16-03-2008 22:25
|
World Champion
Posts: 10018
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
Not really.
I'm not exactly a Brown supporter, but name a specific example of a rubbish decision he has made.
|
| |
|
|
| Deadpool |
Posted on 16-03-2008 22:27
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7357
Joined: 06-10-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
On the other side of the pond...
Kinky Friedman for PresidentB)
(if anyone gets that, please post it, I want to keep a tally) |
| |
|
|
| dave92 |
Posted on 16-03-2008 22:38
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 2946
Joined: 21-04-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Deadpool wrote:
On the other side of the pond...
Kinky Friedman for PresidentB)
(if anyone gets that, please post it, I want to keep a tally )
didnt he run for governor in Texas?
edit: yep, checked Wikipedia
Edited by dave92 on 16-03-2008 22:40
|
| |
|
