On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 8:53:22 PM UTC-7, Owen Hartnett wrote:
> On 2023-06-20 20:01:19 +0000, Frank Berger said:
>
> > On 6/20/2023 12:08 PM, Owen Hartnett wrote:
> >> On 2023-06-20 14:36:10 +0000, Frank Berger said:
> >>
> >>> On 6/20/2023 6:25 AM, Andy Evans wrote:y
> >>>> When it comes to action on climate change, what we need is some device
> >>>> that will affect the rich ten times more than the poor. Maybe then we'd
> >>>> see some progress. Right now and into the forseeable future it's the
> >>>> other way around.
> >>>
> >>> No idea what you mean by device. Being relatively safe from the
> >>> extremes of weather is one of the perks of being rich. You buy safety
> >>> (also security sytems, body guards, etc.) just as you buy stuff. If
> >>> there were no rich people, everyone would be poor.
> >>
> >> Yes, but a lot of the stuff that rich people have bought has been
> >> oceanfront real estate, which means that sea level rise, and resulting
> >> high water damage, will most likely affect them more than the
> >> less-rich. You can't really buy your way out of a hurricane.
> >>
> >> -Owen
> >>
> >
> > It's the rich who move society isn't it?

(2023 Y. upload):

"Matthew Desmond: The Privileged are Complicit in America’s Poverty Crisis | Amanpour and Company"

On Wednesday, 21 June 2023 at 06:28:59 UTC+1, gggg gggg wrote:

> "Matthew Desmond: The Privileged are Complicit in America’s Poverty Crisis | Amanpour and Company"

As our resident economist says "Being relatively safe from the extremes of weather is one of the perks of being rich. You buy safety (also security sytems, body guards, etc.) just as you buy stuff......."

Just as you buy gas guzzling cars, houses with swimming pools in places where there are water shortages, aeroplane flights which burn up fossil fuels, gourmet food which has to be transported by sea in containers, and all the rest of it. And you probably vote Republican to make sure nobody takes your precious perks away.

"While the poor people sleepin' with the shade on the light...
While the poor people sleepin', all the stars come out at night...."
- Steely Dan.

I know some rich people that lead admirable lives - doctors who regularly support charities, pop musicians who are active in good enterprises. There are exceptions. But put them in government and they rarely prioritise raising the status of the poorest, and the gap just gets wider and wider and wider.

On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 10:28:59 PM UTC-7, gggg gggg wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 8:53:22 PM UTC-7, Owen Hartnett wrote:
> > On 2023-06-20 20:01:19 +0000, Frank Berger said:
> >
> > > On 6/20/2023 12:08 PM, Owen Hartnett wrote:
> > >> On 2023-06-20 14:36:10 +0000, Frank Berger said:
> > >>
> > >>> On 6/20/2023 6:25 AM, Andy Evans wrote:y
> > >>>> When it comes to action on climate change, what we need is some device
> > >>>> that will affect the rich ten times more than the poor. Maybe then we'd
> > >>>> see some progress. Right now and into the forseeable future it's the
> > >>>> other way around.
> > >>>
> > >>> No idea what you mean by device. Being relatively safe from the
> > >>> extremes of weather is one of the perks of being rich. You buy safety
> > >>> (also security sytems, body guards, etc.) just as you buy stuff. If
> > >>> there were no rich people, everyone would be poor.
> > >>
> > >> Yes, but a lot of the stuff that rich people have bought has been
> > >> oceanfront real estate, which means that sea level rise, and resulting
> > >> high water damage, will most likely affect them more than the
> > >> less-rich. You can't really buy your way out of a hurricane.
> > >>
> > >> -Owen
> > >>
> > >
> > > It's the rich who move society isn't it?
> (2023 Y. upload):
>
> "Matthew Desmond: The Privileged are Complicit in America’s Poverty Crisis | Amanpour and Company"

- ...The encroachments of the rich are more destructive to the constitution than those of the people. (Aristotle)

(2023 Yahoo news item):

"Nearly 75% of home purchases in a Bay Area city were made by LLCs or trusts. It's a trend among the wealthy."

According to the 2022 article "How Blade Runner Made Metropolis‘ Sci-Fi Vision Immortal":

- [The 1927 movie "Metropolis"] is about the need for captains of industry to see their workers as people and not regard their labor as disposable in the push for technological progress.

On Wednesday, 21 June 2023 at 07:53:34 UTC+1, gggg gggg wrote:
> > "Matthew Desmond: The Privileged are Complicit in America’s Poverty Crisis | Amanpour and Company"
> - ...The encroachments of the rich are more destructive to the constitution than those of the people. (Aristotle)

The whole point of taxes is that they fund health systems, education, transport and all the public parts of an economy that the population in general depend on.

Poor people pay their taxes because they have no option. Rich people have the option to pay accountants to divert their money away from public works into offshore accounts or simply cook the books in what's called "tax avoidance" rather than "tax evasion". And they then pay lawyers to clean up any problems.

And the media loves these people - we can't get enough of rich lists, pictures of the rich and famous, endless programmes and journalism about their lifestyles, wardrobes, luxury goods, diets, holidays and all the rest of it. Because money feeds off money and generates money which feeds off money....... and so on.

On Wednesday, June 21, 2023 at 1:45:45 AM UTC-7, Andy Evans wrote:
> On Wednesday, 21 June 2023 at 07:53:34 UTC+1, gggg gggg wrote:
> > > "Matthew Desmond: The Privileged are Complicit in America’s Poverty Crisis | Amanpour and Company"
> > - ...The encroachments of the rich are more destructive to the constitution than those of the people. (Aristotle)
> The whole point of taxes is that they fund health systems, education, transport and all the public parts of an economy that the population in general depend on.
>
> Poor people pay their taxes because they have no option. Rich people have the option to pay accountants to divert their money away from public works into offshore accounts or simply cook the books in what's called "tax avoidance" rather than "tax evasion". And they then pay lawyers to clean up any problems...

https://groups.google.com/u/1/g/misc.consumers.frugal-living/c/Ax5XYrcC_JM/m/b2xL-0tyAAAJ

On 6/20/2023 10:29 PM, raymond....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, 21 June 2023 at 09:48:41 UTC+10, Frank Berger wrote:
>> On 6/20/2023 7:35 PM, raymond....gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 21 June 2023 at 00:36:26 UTC+10, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>> On 6/20/2023 6:25 AM, Andy Evans wrote:y
>>>>> When it comes to action on climate change, what we need is some device that will affect the rich ten times more than the poor. Maybe then we'd see some progress. Right now and into the forseeable future it's the other way around.
>>>> No idea what you mean by device. Being relatively safe from the extremes of weather is one of the perks of being rich. You buy safety (also security sytems, body guards, etc.) just as you buy stuff. If there were no rich people, everyone would be poor.
>>>
>>> If there were no rich people a decent and caring society would have ensured nobody was poor, but well enough off and reasonably contented.
>>>
>>> Ray Hall, Tare
>> Mind boggling wrong and naive. I can't even believe an intelligent human being could believe that. Possibly the stupidest statement I have ever read. I could go on.
>
> So could I. Mostly about your total stupidity. As for my statement, it is absolutely correct, but in your view, as if one couldn't have guessed, quite obviously wrong. What else could one expect from an economist.
>
> Ray Hall, Taree

In case you missed it, my point was that in the circumstances you propose a "decent and caring society" would never arise. I understand the statement is literally correct, but pointless.

On 6/20/2023 10:30 PM, raymond....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, 21 June 2023 at 11:13:33 UTC+10, Frank Berger wrote:
>> On 6/20/2023 8:08 PM, Andy Evans wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 21 June 2023 at 00:48:41 UTC+1, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>>> If there were no rich people a decent and caring society would have ensured nobody was poor, but well enough off and reasonably contented.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ray Hall, Tare
>>>> Mind boggling wrong and naive. I can't even believe an intelligent human being could believe that. Possibly the stupidest statement I have ever read. I could go on.>>>
>>>
>>> Ray is a big hearted guy who cares about people. He inhabits a different cosmos from the one you exist in. It's no surprise you don't understand him.
>> What do you or Ray think would happen if you 1000 people on an island, all with equal wealth (supplies, weapons, tools, etc). Would they work together harmoniously and form an early Israeli-style commune and live happily ever ever?
>
> Why not?
>
> Ray Hall, Taree

A. It isn't human nature.
B. if it did happen, it wouldn't last.
C. When has it ever happened and lasted more than a short time?
D. To last it would require coercion by the strong and/or evil over the rest.

This is one of the most fundamental differences between the Left and the Right. The Left seems to thing they can manipulate human nature to further their ends, and the Right doesn't think that is possible, like it or not.

On 6/21/23 9:35 AM, Frank Berger wrote:

> In case you missed it, my point was that in the circumstances you
> propose a "decent and caring society" would never arise.  I understand
> the statement is literally correct, but pointless.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/may/09/the-real-lord-of-the-flies-what-happened-when-six-boys-were-shipwrecked-for-15-months

On 6/20/2023 11:53 PM, Owen Hartnett wrote:
> On 2023-06-20 20:01:19 +0000, Frank Berger said:
>
>> On 6/20/2023 12:08 PM, Owen Hartnett wrote:
>>> On 2023-06-20 14:36:10 +0000, Frank Berger said:
>>>
>>>> On 6/20/2023 6:25 AM, Andy Evans wrote:y
>>>>> When it comes to action on climate change, what we need is some device that will affect the rich ten times more than the poor. Maybe then we'd see some progress. Right now and into the forseeable future it's the other way around.
>>>>
>>>> No idea what you mean by device.  Being relatively safe from the extremes of weather is one of the perks of being rich.  You buy safety (also security sytems, body guards, etc.) just as you buy stuff.  If there were no rich people, everyone would be poor.
>>>
>>> Yes, but a lot of the stuff that rich people have bought has been oceanfront real estate, which means that sea level rise, and resulting high water damage, will most likely affect them more than the less-rich. You can't really buy your way out of a hurricane.
>>>
>>> -Owen
>>>
>>
>> It's the rich who move society isn't it?
>
> Do they really?  Rich people seem more like headless nincompoops to me. They seem to not know what to do with themselves.  Society is moved more by the media, performers and the latest hot thing.  Those are the people who carry the flags.  Rich people hide behind the curtains lest someone ask them for some money.
>
>>  If they have so much to lose, why aren't they, as a group, climate activists.  Possible answer:  As a percentage of their total wealth perhaps the beach-front property is not a huge factor.  Or they have convinced themselves the disaster will not come. I don't know.  Andy does, though, and will tell us, no doubt.
>
> Well there certainly is a group of beach-front owners to which is a huge factor.  But how they got their wealth plays a factor, some worked for it, some just inherited it from Daddy.
>
> -Owen
>
>

Investment and innovation are responsible for economic growth which is necessary for a rising standard of living. Nincompoops don't do that. When I used the term "rich" I didn't mean the ultra rich necessarily. I understand that this comes with externalities like pollution, but IMO the free market is more likely to solve that problem that government.

On 6/21/2023 2:32 AM, Andy Evans wrote:
> On Wednesday, 21 June 2023 at 06:28:59 UTC+1, gggg gggg wrote:
>
>> "Matthew Desmond: The Privileged are Complicit in America’s Poverty Crisis | Amanpour and Company"
>
> As our resident economist says "Being relatively safe from the extremes of weather is one of the perks of being rich. You buy safety (also security sytems, body guards, etc.) just as you buy stuff......."
>
> Just as you buy gas guzzling cars, houses with swimming pools in places where there are water shortages, aeroplane flights which burn up fossil fuels, gourmet food which has to be transported by sea in containers, and all the rest of it. And you probably vote Republican to make sure nobody takes your precious perks away.
>
> "While the poor people sleepin' with the shade on the light...
> While the poor people sleepin', all the stars come out at night...."
> - Steely Dan.
>
> I know some rich people that lead admirable lives - doctors who regularly support charities, pop musicians who are active in good enterprises. There are exceptions. But put them in government and they rarely prioritise raising the status of the poorest, and the gap just gets wider and wider and wider.
>

Wait. If government can solve these problems, who can? King Andy?

On 6/21/2023 10:44 AM, mINE109 wrote:
> On 6/21/23 9:35 AM, Frank Berger wrote:
>
>> In case you missed it, my point was that in the circumstances you propose a "decent and caring society" would never arise.  I understand the statement is literally correct, but pointless.
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/may/09/the-real-lord-of-the-flies-what-happened-when-six-boys-were-shipwrecked-for-15-months

Of course.

On Wednesday, 21 June 2023 at 15:50:35 UTC+1, Frank Berger wrote:
> Investment and innovation are responsible for economic growth which is necessary for a rising standard of living. Nincompoops don't do that. When I used the term "rich" I didn't mean the ultra rich necessarily. I understand that this comes with externalities like pollution, but IMO the free market is more likely to solve that problem that government.>>

Typical old-school economics. It's all growth and "the free market solves the problems"...... Blah, blah, blah.

You talk about "innovation" but you clearly are nowhere near understanding the meaning of the word. Innovation in the years to come will mean a radically different approach to regulating climate change. The nincompoops are the economists who just can't see that a wholly new design is going to be needed. They only drag down the progress and set the clock back, and the clock is ticking too fast to tolerate that.

There are people working on new economic models, but some of the bodies are far from convincing, judging from their sponsors...

https://newclimateeconomy.net/content/about

https://newclimateeconomy.report/

You can see that the above is still rooted in old thinking, but just changing the label on the bottle:

"We are significantly under-estimating the benefits of cleaner, climate-smart growth. Bold climate action could deliver at least US$26 trillion in economic benefits through to 2030, compared with business-as-usual...."

Simple account of what's happening:

1. Global emissions are not falling - they are rising. Fact
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-global-co2-emissions-from-fossil-fuels-hit-record-high-in-2022/

2. The mainstream economic models all stress "the benefits of changing to a green economy" - multiple studies, all of which predict better health etc etc.... Typical excerpt from all these studies goes as follows:

"The researchers found that achieving the UK’s net zero target would provide added benefits to the UK beyond avoided climate impacts that would be equivalent to an increase of 3.3 per cent in GDP. They would also provide a further boost of 2.8 per cent to the UK’s economy by stimulating investment in green industries and infrastructure."

3. If the model is so positive, then a "free market" would surely be well on its way by now to cutting emissions

4. This is not happening

5. The model is clearly wrong.

Op woensdag 21 juni 2023 om 16:43:27 UTC+2 schreef Frank Berger:

>
> This is one of the most fundamental differences between the Left and the Right. The Left seems to thing they can manipulate human nature to further their ends, and the Right doesn't think that is possible, like it or not.

Who said that you have no clue about humor?
This is hilarious!

On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 11:53:34 PM UTC-7, gggg gggg wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 10:28:59 PM UTC-7, gggg gggg wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 8:53:22 PM UTC-7, Owen Hartnett wrote:
> > > On 2023-06-20 20:01:19 +0000, Frank Berger said:
> > >
> > > > On 6/20/2023 12:08 PM, Owen Hartnett wrote:
> > > >> On 2023-06-20 14:36:10 +0000, Frank Berger said:
> > > >>
> > > >>> On 6/20/2023 6:25 AM, Andy Evans wrote:y
> > > >>>> When it comes to action on climate change, what we need is some device
> > > >>>> that will affect the rich ten times more than the poor. Maybe then we'd
> > > >>>> see some progress. Right now and into the forseeable future it's the
> > > >>>> other way around.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> No idea what you mean by device. Being relatively safe from the
> > > >>> extremes of weather is one of the perks of being rich. You buy safety
> > > >>> (also security sytems, body guards, etc.) just as you buy stuff. If
> > > >>> there were no rich people, everyone would be poor.
> > > >>
> > > >> Yes, but a lot of the stuff that rich people have bought has been
> > > >> oceanfront real estate, which means that sea level rise, and resulting
> > > >> high water damage, will most likely affect them more than the
> > > >> less-rich. You can't really buy your way out of a hurricane.
> > > >>
> > > >> -Owen
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > It's the rich who move society isn't it?
> > (2023 Y. upload):
> >
> > "Matthew Desmond: The Privileged are Complicit in America’s Poverty Crisis | Amanpour and Company"
> - ...The encroachments of the rich are more destructive to the constitution than those of the people. (Aristotle)
>
> (2023 Yahoo news item):
>
> "Nearly 75% of home purchases in a Bay Area city were made by LLCs or trusts. It's a trend among the wealthy."
>
> According to the 2022 article "How Blade Runner Made Metropolis‘ Sci-Fi Vision Immortal":
>
> - [The 1927 movie "Metropolis"] is about the need for captains of industry to see their workers as people and not regard their labor as disposable in the push for technological progress.

"Excessive wealth is speeding us towards climatic disaster" (June 2023 article):

https://www.downtoearth.org.in/blog/climate-change/excessive-wealth-is-speeding-us-towards-climatic-disaster-90137

On Wednesday, 21 June 2023 at 19:30:45 UTC+1, gggg gggg wrote:
> "Excessive wealth is speeding us towards climatic disaster" (June 2023 article):
>
> https://www.downtoearth.org.in/blog/climate-change/excessive-wealth-is-speeding-us-towards-climatic-disaster-90137

Thanks for that - all too true.

I've been scouring Google for any economic model that will actually REDUCE emissions. All I get is page after page after page of economists claiming that growth and a green market economy are perfectly compatible and that we will all soon "see the benefits of a renewable energy on growth and our economy". Well, obviously it isn't happening. So looking to economists to solve the problem clearly isn't going to crack it. So far I haven't come across any model that looks like it is actually working, because nothing is working to actually reduce emissions. I'll keep looking but it really looks like I'm directing my search in the wrong direction.

The only aspect of economics so far that seems to me in any way in the ball park is steady state economics:

"The world's mounting ecological problems have brought about a widening interest in the concept of a steady-state economy. Critics of the steady-state economy usually object to it by arguing that resource decoupling, technological development, and the operation of market mechanisms are capable of overcoming resource scarcity, pollution, or population overshoot. Proponents of the steady-state economy, on the other hand, maintain that these objections remain insubstantial and mistaken — and that the need for a steady-state economy is becoming more compelling every day"

The problem is "Today, steady state economy is not implemented officially by any state"..... So much for that. The search goes on......

In article <21728c41-7fe7-423e-85d6-c3d7d775a777n@googlegroups.com>,
Andy Evans <performanceandmedia@gmail.com> wrote:
>I've been scouring Google for any economic model that will actually
>REDUCE emissions.

So, uh, did you notice that a fellow poster on RMCR recently released
a book on this topic?

https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/alligators-in-the-arctic-and-how-to-avoid-them/6F0151C6E25F416E0F47E1E7FD82E12A

I know this, because he mentioned it here on the group.

It'd probably be a more practical read than bickering with the
bickering specialists here....

On 6/21/2023 12:51 PM, Andy Evans wrote:
> Simple account of what's happening:
>
> 1. Global emissions are not falling - they are rising. Fact
> https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-global-co2-emissions-from-fossil-fuels-hit-record-high-in-2022/
>
> 2. The mainstream economic models all stress "the benefits of changing to a green economy" - multiple studies, all of which predict better health etc etc.... Typical excerpt from all these studies goes as follows:
>

How do these studies propose "changing to a green economy" will occur? Can you cite a couple of papers?

> "The researchers found that achieving the UK’s net zero target would provide added benefits to the UK beyond avoided climate impacts that would be equivalent to an increase of 3.3 per cent in GDP. They would also provide a further boost of 2.8 per cent to the UK’s economy by stimulating investment in green industries and infrastructure."
>

What is their forecast, say, over the first 5 or 10 years of mandated zero emissions?

> 3. If the model is so positive, then a "free market" would surely be well on its way by now to cutting emissions
>

Why? Producers will cut emissions only of their is a global incentive to do so. Government mandates is the obvious method. The free market can theoretically solve such problems. The most obvious method would be scientific innovation. Such as better solar cells, better batteries, solar energy captured in space and beamed to earth (there is research going in this). Whether any of this will actually solve problem before the worst effect of warming occurs, I have no idea. If not, innovation can help ameliorate those effects, as said before. Sea walls and whatnot.

> 4. This is not happening
>
> 5. The model is clearly wrong.

I think you have misunderstood the model, but until I see something, I don't know.

On 6/21/2023 2:55 PM, Andy Evans wrote:
> On Wednesday, 21 June 2023 at 19:30:45 UTC+1, gggg gggg wrote:
>> "Excessive wealth is speeding us towards climatic disaster" (June 2023 article):
>>
>> https://www.downtoearth.org.in/blog/climate-change/excessive-wealth-is-speeding-us-towards-climatic-disaster-90137
>
> Thanks for that - all too true.
>
> I've been scouring Google for any economic model that will actually REDUCE emissions. All I get is page after page after page of economists claiming that growth and a green market economy are perfectly compatible and that we will all soon "see the benefits of a renewable energy on growth and our economy". Well, obviously it isn't happening. So looking to economists to solve the problem clearly isn't going to crack it. So far I haven't come across any model that looks like it is actually working, because nothing is working to actually reduce emissions. I'll keep looking but it really looks like I'm directing my search in the wrong direction.
>
> The only aspect of economics so far that seems to me in any way in the ball park is steady state economics:
>
> "The world's mounting ecological problems have brought about a widening interest in the concept of a steady-state economy. Critics of the steady-state economy usually object to it by arguing that resource decoupling, technological development, and the operation of market mechanisms are capable of overcoming resource scarcity, pollution, or population overshoot. Proponents of the steady-state economy, on the other hand, maintain that these objections remain insubstantial and mistaken — and that the need for a steady-state economy is becoming more compelling every day"
>
> The problem is "Today, steady state economy is not implemented officially by any state"..... So much for that. The search goes on......
>
>

Does a "steady state" economy require population control?

On Wednesday, 21 June 2023 at 20:16:59 UTC+1, Frank Berger wrote:
> > The problem is "Today, steady state economy is not implemented officially by any state"..... So much for that. The search goes on......
> >
> >> Does a "steady state" economy require population control?

Do you know the answer to that? You must have come across Daly.

On Wednesday, 21 June 2023 at 20:14:36 UTC+1, Frank Berger wrote:

> > 5. The model is clearly wrong.
> I think you have misunderstood the model, but until I see something, I don't know.

It's evening and my head hurts. I'll look at it again when I'm fresher.

On Wednesday, June 21, 2023 at 11:55:18 AM UTC-7, Andy Evans wrote:
> On Wednesday, 21 June 2023 at 19:30:45 UTC+1, gggg gggg wrote:
> > "Excessive wealth is speeding us towards climatic disaster" (June 2023 article):
> >
> > https://www.downtoearth.org.in/blog/climate-change/excessive-wealth-is-speeding-us-towards-climatic-disaster-90137
> Thanks for that - all too true.
>
> I've been scouring Google for any economic model that will actually REDUCE emissions...

- Human beings will be happier - not when they cure cancer or get to Mars or eliminate racial prejudice or flush Lake Erie but when they find ways to inhabit primitive communities again. That's my utopia.

Kurt Vonnegut

On 6/21/2023 3:25 PM, Andy Evans wrote:
> On Wednesday, 21 June 2023 at 20:16:59 UTC+1, Frank Berger wrote:
>>> The problem is "Today, steady state economy is not implemented officially by any state"..... So much for that. The search goes on......
>>>
>>>> Does a "steady state" economy require population control?
>
> Do you know the answer to that? You must have come across Daly.

No. I asked a simple question.

On Thursday, 22 June 2023 at 00:43:27 UTC+10, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 6/20/2023 10:30 PM, raymond....gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 21 June 2023 at 11:13:33 UTC+10, Frank Berger wrote:
> >> On 6/20/2023 8:08 PM, Andy Evans wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, 21 June 2023 at 00:48:41 UTC+1, Frank Berger wrote:
> >>>>> If there were no rich people a decent and caring society would have ensured nobody was poor, but well enough off and reasonably contented.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Ray Hall, Tare
> >>>> Mind boggling wrong and naive. I can't even believe an intelligent human being could believe that. Possibly the stupidest statement I have ever read. I could go on.>>>
> >>>
> >>> Ray is a big hearted guy who cares about people. He inhabits a different cosmos from the one you exist in. It's no surprise you don't understand him.
> >> What do you or Ray think would happen if you 1000 people on an island, all with equal wealth (supplies, weapons, tools, etc). Would they work together harmoniously and form an early Israeli-style commune and live happily ever ever?
> >
> > Why not?
> >
> > Ray Hall, Taree
> A. It isn't human nature.
> B. if it did happen, it wouldn't last.
> C. When has it ever happened and lasted more than a short time?
> D. To last it would require coercion by the strong and/or evil over the rest.
>
> This is one of the most fundamental differences between the Left and the Right. The Left seems to thing they can manipulate human nature to further their ends, and the Right doesn't think that is possible, like it or not.

'MORE for the individual is better then less' is the only utopia the Right see. Any nuance and consideration of QUALITY of life for ALL is far too esoteric for economic models and the Right. Greed rules. Evolution is manipulation whether one likes it or not, and steering the direction is a worthy cause. And healthier too.

Ray Hall, Taree

On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 3:45:20 PM UTC-7,wrote:
> https://www.cbsnews.com/news/shanghai-hottest-may-day-100-years/

"Ocean heat is off the charts...":

https://news.yahoo.com/ocean-heat-off-charts-heres-123001846.html