would you place the kyoto protocol on the same level as limiting child labor? hardly.

10/16/2006 10:55:35 PM

if the children dont work they will just fritter away their days playing hoop-and-stick

10/16/2006 10:56:19 PM

Were we talking about strict regulations or Kyoto?

Quote :

"Randy: using examples, prove how strict regulations will improve our way of life here in the US."

Yeah, I was right. We were talking about strict regulations. In fact, Kyoto wasn't mentioned in this thread until you had the need for a change in subject.

[Edited on October 16, 2006 at 11:02 PM. Reason : .]

10/16/2006 11:02:17 PM

kyoto is an example of a modern day strict regulation. more modern-day harmful regulations include:

-minimum wage
-the closed shop (in some states)
-endagered species act (there was a good thread on this awhile back, about what happened down east w/ the woodpeckers)
-labor laws that go beyond the ones youve stated (think about france and their deteriorating society)

[Edited on October 16, 2006 at 11:08 PM. Reason : .]

10/16/2006 11:04:57 PM

do you even know what Kyoto called for? Or are you just spouting off your republican talking points without ever getting educated on that matter.

10/16/2006 11:05:47 PM

Quote :

"an example"

An extreme example, in fact, and you're using it to characterize all regulation.

But this sort of thing is your specialty, afterall.

[Edited on October 16, 2006 at 11:07 PM. Reason : .]

10/16/2006 11:07:05 PM

^^yes, i do, and i know that the US and Australia have teamed up to shoot it down every time b/c of its limits it puts on industry. Do you think the split between the Annex I countries and the others is fair?

10/16/2006 11:10:49 PM

Again, you asked if there were any good strict regulations

10/16/2006 11:12:35 PM

Quote :

"At its heart, Kyoto establishes the following principles: * Kyoto is underwritten by governments and is governed by global legislation enacted under the UN’s aegis * Governments are separated into two general categories: developed countries, referred to as Annex 1 countries (who have accepted GHG emission reduction obligations); and developing countries, referred to as Non-Annex 1 countries (who have no GHG emission reduction obligations) * Any Annex 1 country that fails to meet its Kyoto target will be penalised by having its reduction targets decreased by 30% in the next period. * By 2008-2012, Annex 1 countries have to reduce their GHG emissions by around 5% below their 1990 levels (for many countries, such as the EU member states, this corresponds to some 15% below their expected GHG emissions in 2008). Reduction targets expire in 2013. * Kyoto includes "flexible mechanisms" which allow Annex 1 economies to meet their GHG targets by purchasing GHG emission reductions from elsewhere. These can be bought either from financial exchanges (such as the new EU Emissions Trading Scheme) or from projects which reduce emissions in non-Annex 1 economies under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), or in other Annex-1 countries under the JI. * Only CDM Executive Board-accredited Certified Emission Reductions (CER) can be bought and sold in this manner. Under the aegis of the UN, Kyoto established this Bonn-based Clean Development Mechanism Executive Board to assess and approve projects (“CDM Projects”) in Non-Annex 1 economies prior to awarding CERs. (A similar scheme called “Joint Implementation” or “JI” applies in transitional economies mainly covering the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe). What this means in practice is that Non-Annex 1 economies have no GHG emission restrictions, but when a GHG emission reduction project (a “GHG Project”) is implemented in these countries, that GHG Project will receive Carbon Credits which can be sold to Annex 1 buyers."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_protocol

When I think of STRICT regulations, I think of ones that hinder economic activity while not necessary for heath reasons (child labor, work day limits, ventilated factories).

10/16/2006 11:14:19 PM

So when you think of strict regulations, you think of bad regulations.

I think your problem may be that you're stupid.


HAY BOONEDOCKS, NAME A SINGLE BAD REGULATION THAT'S GOOD!

[Edited on October 16, 2006 at 11:16 PM. Reason : .]

10/16/2006 11:15:44 PM

sarijoul

Quote :

"good thing that article was written 7 1/2 months ago [p.3]."

Most "plans" are formulated in advance. No doubt you were too lost in your thoughts about statistics or some such to grasp the obvious.

[Edited on October 17, 2006 at 12:44 AM. Reason : [ ]]

10/17/2006 12:43:40 AM

the only problem I have with the Kyoto protocol is the freebee that China gets.

is that still the case or am I stupid?

also not restricting big business causes effects just as dire as when government is not restricted by the people. I see restricting big business and government as the people telling both of these forces to not ruin their lives....

10/17/2006 12:46:07 AM

Look, even though I hold a bachelor's degree in business, I'm not trying to be the rah-rah corner for so-called big business. But these entities do far more for our society than they get credit for doing. Let's be fair.

First, big business pays millions in taxes that in turn pay for public goods. Yes, I know, these businesses also avoid paying billions in taxes, too. But if done legally, that's just good accounting.

Second, big business provides jobs--money to individuals. And keep in mind, most who work at big businesses are not wage slaves. In fact, they actually want to work for these entities. Still, it should be noted that the overwhelming majority of US workers are employed by small businesses.

Third, big business donates millions annually to arts, education, health, and environmental causes, to name a few. Yes, they get tax write-offs for these donations, but so what? Many of the recipient organizations would surely cease to exist without the support of big business.

Fourth, big business efficiently and effectively produces all sorts of goods and services for consumers. Hell, we are all communicating here on computers manufactured by various big businesses.

Yes, I know. Some socialist is going to post that our capitalist, consumer-driven system is wrong. Well, that's not the goddamned point. The point is that our current big business sector contributes to our economy and our society in ways that no other entity could. And that contribution is worthy of note.

[Edited on October 17, 2006 at 2:26 AM. Reason : .]

10/17/2006 2:23:47 AM

big business also destroys small business, which is the cornerstone of the economy.

10/17/2006 2:30:41 AM

You are no doubt referring to the Wal-Mart Effect. Yes, big business often provides goods or services more efficiently and effectively than small business--with Wal-Mart, particularly, an economy of scale is a significant factor. But aren't you forgetting the other edge of that sword?

Who do you think supplies Wal-Mart and other big businesses with goods and services? In many cases, it is small businesses. Think about it.

10/17/2006 2:44:17 AM

and what goods and services are they supplying?

10/17/2006 2:54:38 AM

^^^ No, the cornerstone of our economy is the self-interested consumer. It is they which determine what will be paid for in the economy and therefore what will be produced.

There is nothing saintly about small business, it is good for some things and bad at others. We need both to provide everything needed in our modern diverse economy. Without Big Business what could be mass-produced would not be and therefore be prohibitively expensive. Without Small Business what cannot be mass-produced might not be produced at all.

Should the retail market consist of big or small businesses? I suspect it will always be a mix of the two but the proportion is irrelevant.

[Edited on October 17, 2006 at 2:59 AM. Reason : ^]

10/17/2006 2:59:35 AM

^^ That's one of the reasons I asked you to think about it. Do you honestly think that big businesses only purchase goods and services from other big businesses?

10/17/2006 4:00:08 AM

i have no problem with wal-mart and what they provide.

I have a problem with the way they run their business.

10/17/2006 9:43:01 AM