Yes Ryan, unless you intend living off the capital alone (no interest etc), then your capital IS productive. Or at least other people will regard it as so and pay interest in order to use it.
Amassing the means to be productive is what makes a society wealthy; investment in things to make other things rather than only for immediate consumption is how to become wealthy. But, productive investment in such things of course. And so far only capitalism as a broad approach has achieved this efficiently because of an effective mechanism for weeding out the bad ideas; freedom to chose plus competition.
I thought DPF was a supporter of emissions trading and a believer in climate change.
[DPF: I am...]
Funny how an atheist manages to find something to believe in…
Were all f*** climate change and the Greens have the high ground
The first two statements illustrate the single most common misunderstanding the theory of anthropogenic climate change: that there is something to “believe in.”
One is not required to “believe in” climate change any more than one is required to “believe in”, for example, evolution. Both are founded upon observed fact.
In fact, to make the comparison even more apt, if one understands that Darwin proposed the theory of evolution by natural selection where evolution is the observed fact and natural selection is the explanation, in the case of climate change, global warming is the observed fact and anthropogenic carbon based emissions is the explanation.
So global warming/climate change is the observed fact. Even our slightly eccentric friend, Don Nicholson, recognises that as a fact.
Now here’s the crunch: by a ration of about 97:1, climate scientists the world over have determined that human induced emissions are the cause of global warming/climate change.
So what you need to decide is this, do you accept the work of the overwhelming majority of our best scientists, or do you choose to go with the bullied, the bribed and the cranks (Chris de Freitas is either one or both of the last two here, I suggest)?
You pays your money and you takes your chances, but there is no need for belief in anything.
Climate change and the work of the scientists are evidence based.
And it is so powerful that denier de Freitas won’t even teach it to his students: it’s so compelling they would laugh him out of the classroom if he persisted with his contrary views!
The third statement simply highlights my point: atheists are defined by their lack of belief, preferring hard evidence.
And the final statement is just probably very, very true, and that’s the party my vote is most probably headed towards for the first time in my life because, on this, they are so very, very on the button.
I think u will find that they are more red than green and that they cling to irrational ideas long past their use by date i.e communism herbalism alt medicine etc etc etc. ie ism and not theory in the scientific sense but as in wild and unproven hypotheses
Shunting SlappySue allowed a change as well They will be more of a threat to the right and may begin to pick up those educated middle class that are doing alright financially yet harbor green ideals
I am beginning to think that Act has totally lost its brand and can c a new party arising after election day that has more emphasis on the pragmatism inherent in Acts founders
Luc, if it’s all so evidence based, why all the propaganda, disinformation and lies that appears on a daily basis about it then ? Fact, the current warming is statistically indistinguishable from past “naturally occurring” warming as long as one treats the data in a statistically valid way. Pity all your “scientists” are adamantly opposed to such treatment, preferring instead simplistic approaches that provide the answers that they want to get. Science is based on evidence and facts, not pre-determined beliefs that distort those facts.
When insults fly the truth does die
“not theory in the scientific sense but as in wild and unproven hypotheses”
I am sure that the Ernest young scientists out there are trying to disprove AGW
till they do I see no reason to go against the current scientific consensus
Luc Hansen He was left his family was left he changed the way he thought by actually looking at the data available not basing his conclusions solely on a political belief system I call that pragmatic