Are ebikers saving the planet?

[bode]

This though is the cost of choosing to live in a society with a system of governance, trading laws, financial sector, police force etc. to cocoon us in relative safety, and yet still allow us the freedom to earn a living in the first place. As well as the ability to spend that income on mainly imported e-bikes etc. The Markets could not exist without a state infrastructure, and it is this that the treasury collects taxes to support. Private enterprise will not,and can not provide all that a society needs to survive, as it would end up with a case of a lot of self interest, and little enlightenment. You only have to look at the banks' current/past behavior, and lack of any acceptance of responsibility, to see what deregulation actualy means.

Absolutely!

 

[prState]

Absolutely. As a negative approach, how about no regulation of the market. People keep saying the market failed with the banks. It didn't. The banks made short term and risky decisions, the market worked perfectly by putting them put of business as a result of those decisions. The market worked, it's just that we didn't like the results.

So the state stepped in and rescued them from the results of their bad decisions. Now, the taxpayer has the debts and one way and another the banks still get their bonuses and the shareholders their rewards.

Therer is only one message and lesson here. Get into banking.

"Get into banking" Hah, that probably is the lesson!

My biggest problem with too much deregulation -- as it seems (at least over in the U.S.), is not that it doesn't fail as the free marketers insist is the natural order to keep things in balance, but that it can (and has) failed massively pulling a whole bunch of people down a 1000 foot hole with it, to which it is difficult to crawl back out. This is like keeping the population immunitized from disease by letting plagues take their natural course and kill off a few million people. Yes, it works, I can't argue with that. But I don't prefer these wild swings of balance. Just keep things nudging left and right like balancing a bicycle!. You don't want to ride weaving wildly across the road back and forth, leaving as much to the natural order as possible by not steering much. Well, at least not me. A large vehicle will soon end my troubles following that course!

 

[Straylight]

Quite, laws and society's other rules exist to provide a baseline for standards of human conduct, it'd be lovely to think that we could exist without them, but sadly the number of people who fall foul of them proves otherwise. When the consequences of the actions of the few (in this case bankers) can adversely affect the many (in this case the global population), then it's simple common sense to say that they require more oversight not less. Anyone who says otherwise is either so comfortably off as to be insulated against these adverse effects (and so is out of touch with mainstream society), or has some seriously vested interests in short term gain, or perhaps has some lurking paranoia with regard to authority. Just a personal oppinion .

Gosh this thread's getting a lot of hits .

 

[flecc]

Quite, laws and society's other rules exist to provide a baseline for standards of human conduct

Unfortunately it's impossible for laws and rules to be effective though.

If the laws and their enforcement are set at levels that catch almost all the guilty, many innocent people get ensnared and can even be wrongly convicted.

If they are set at levels that avoid the wrongful trapping of the innocent, many guilty people go free.

Of the two the second is preferable in my opinion, better that many guilty people go free rather than one innocent person be punished.
.

 

[Mussels]

Absolutely. As a negative approach, how about no regulation of the market. People keep saying the market failed with the banks. It didn't. The banks made short term and risky decisions, the market worked perfectly by putting them put of business as a result of those decisions. The market worked, it's just that we didn't like the results.

So the state stepped in and rescued them from the results of their bad decisions. Now, the taxpayer has the debts and one way and another the banks still get their bonuses and the shareholders their rewards.

Therer is only one message and lesson here. Get into banking.

Banking is not that great I assure you, I work with guys who drive flash motors and live in huge houses but I don't want their jobs. I was introduced to one very successful department as 'the desk of broken marriages'. I don't envy them.
The banks lent out too much money because the banking rules were changed by governments. Those new rules meant everyone was well off for a few years as there was suddenly lots more money going round, nobody moaned then and Brown took all the credit for it.
I quoted this post in particular as it mentions shareholders getting their rewards, the shareholders as owners of a failed company have got next to nothing and rightly so.
The banks are now going to raise bankers salaries instead of giving the performance related pay, they will still get lots of money without as much incentive to make a profit.

 

[Tiberius]

Unfortunately it's impossible for laws and rules to be effective though.

If the laws and their enforcement are set at levels that catch almost all the guilty, many innocent people get ensnared and can even be wrongly convicted.

If they are set at levels that avoid the wrongful trapping of the innocent, many guilty people go free.

Of the two the second is preferable in my opinion, better that many guilty people go free rather than one innocent person be punished.
.

Quite right. If only the people arguing for absolute positions - we must protect society from this evil at all costs - would understand.

The damage to society from wrongful convictions and harassment of the innocent is far greater than the damage from letting a few bad uns escape.

When an innocent person is persecuted, he, and his friends and family, become permanent enemies of the state. When a guilty person escapes punishment, he tends to keep quiet.

Nick

Sorry, I'll get my batman suit and get back on the bridge.

 

[lemmy]

I was introduced to one very successful department as 'the desk of broken marriages'. I don't envy them.

No-one is forcing them to do the job, surely?

 

[Mussels]

No-one is forcing them to do the job, surely?

Military aside nobody is forced to do a job, my point was that the jealousy from so many people isn't justified.

 

[z0mb13e]

Quite right. If only the people arguing for absolute positions - we must protect society from this evil at all costs - would understand.

The damage to society from wrongful convictions and harassment of the innocent is far greater than the damage from letting a few bad uns escape.

When an innocent person is persecuted, he, and his friends and family, become permanent enemies of the state. When a guilty person escapes punishment, he tends to keep quiet.

Nick

Sorry, I'll get my batman suit and get back on the bridge.

Unfortunately we are facing an ever increasing amount of state control that makes the risk of the innocent being seen as guilty ever more likely.

Think of the 'voluntary' ID card scheme, compulsory CRB checks (that include baseless opinion called soft evidence), 3 strikes rule for internet access (guilty by accusation, no right to trial), eborders scheme requiring passenger details ahead of time. Terrorist legislation used to control protesters, photographers and innocent bystanders or to spy on tax payers by their own council. And not forgetting the National DNA database where retention is set at 6 years for those arrested and not convicted. Also extradition to the US without the need to provide evidence and often for something which is legal here but not in the US.

We are in an age were innocence is irrelevant.

Got a spare Batman suit?

 

[flecc]

Unfortunately we are facing an ever increasing amount of state control that makes the risk of the innocent being seen as guilty ever more likely.

Think of the 'voluntary' ID card scheme, compulsory CRB checks (that include baseless opinion called soft evidence), 3 strikes rule for internet access (guilty by accusation, no right to trial), eborders scheme requiring passenger details ahead of time. Terrorist legislation used to control protesters, photographers and innocent bystanders or to spy on tax payers by their own council. And not forgetting the National DNA database where retention is set at 6 years for those arrested and not convicted. Also extradition to the US without the need to provide evidence and often for something which is legal here but not in the US.

We are in an age were innocence is irrelevant.

Got a spare Batman suit?

All so true.

There is one benefit though, it makes me glad that I'm 73 and not 3 years old. I feel sorry for the young of today and the future they face.
.

 

[lemmy]

Military aside nobody is forced to do a job, my point was that the jealousy from so many people isn't justified.

The jealousy comes from the fact that (in general) bankers are wildly overpaid for their levels of skill.

They give their 'products' fancy names but when you examine them, they are nothing that any barrow boy wouldn't understand. They are opaque, not complex.

As an example, Lord Archer's son went straight into the city on a salary of £250,000. No good degree, no training - just friends in the city. Try that in journalism, engineering or any other normal job.

I don't object to high pay as such, though I don't see why anyone needs a bonus to do the job they are paid for. For example, my brother earns around £250,000 per annum from a technology business he founded and runs. If he earns a million, he's entitled to it. The business wouldn't exist without him.

I just don't see how bankers have got themselves into a position where perfectly ordinary people with perfectly ordinary abilities earn extra-ordinary money.

 

[z0mb13e]

All so true.

There is one benefit though, it makes me glad that I'm 73 and not 3 years old. I feel sorry for the young of today and the future they face.
.

It's not a nice prospect for anyone, young or old. But the majority just don't seem worried and firmly belive the 'nothing to hide, nothing to fear' line.

As if the environmental considerations aren't enough to have to deal with.

It could be a bleak future.

 

[flecc]

I just don't see how bankers have got themselves into a position where perfectly ordinary people with perfectly ordinary abilities earn extra-ordinary money.

Perk of the job?

Mechanics don't buy nuts and bolts for themselves and office workers generally don't have to buy paper clips etc for their own use, their perk being the access to the stationery they work with.

And bankers work with money!
.

 

[Tiberius]

... the 'nothing to hide, nothing to fear' line.

Ah yes, when ID cards, etc were being discussed, we used to hear that all the time from ministers.

But they've gone a bit quiet on that argument after the expenses scandal.

Nick

 

[prState]

I agree you can go too far. But in both directions of over-control and under rather than just one way.

Giving someone power to do something without checks and balances is no good whether investment bankers or government.

Without law you can take on thugs by yourself -- with too much, the law officer may be clubbing you on the head for little reason.

 

[Northern Irelander]

You may have seen this, one of the climate change directors and his theories have been discredited.

He also has an invested interest in a company (TERI) which promotes green products, hmmmmmm no bias there

Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | UK News :: The new climate change scandal

 

[john]

That human activity is changing the climate has been clearly established and accepted by the scientific community.

The exact consequences of that change is not certain, but this fact is no excuse for inaction.

 

[Mussels]

Quite an eye opener, especially as they dismissed the Indian government for suggesting they were wrong. I wonder how much more corruption there is ?

 

[flecc]

The permanent problem with science funding is the way that scientists cling onto research programs even when not justified, since the alternative is unemployment.

Climate research related to global warming is a current favourite since governments are increasingly inclined to give to it, so we see much clutching at straws to both create programs and keep existing ones going.

Even if global warming as a threat does exist, no present or proposed actions on the small man made effect have any hope of changing it's course to any useful and effective degree.

However, I have taken the positive decision to do something, that's wait and see.
.

 

[HarryB]

That human activity is changing the climate has been clearly established and accepted by the scientific community.

The exact consequences of that change is not certain, but this fact is no excuse for inaction.

Man changes the climate the moment he/she clears a forest to plant a crop - something we have been doing for many thousands of years. What action are you suggesting? Reducing fossil fuel usage? Reduction in oil use will happen naturally due to lack of supply and high price. Gas the same. None of this will make any significance difference to global temperatures. There is plenty of things to worry about if you want - try over population - feeding and watering billions more people. Try thinking about the consequences of oil running out or being so expensive it cripples the economies of the world. Is our government working on this? I doubt it as it is too busy trying to scare us silly with exaggerated stories about global warming.