From: Michael S. Lorrey (retroman@turbont.net)
Date: Tue Oct 03 2000 - 10:28:06 MDT
Spudboy100@aol.com wrote:
>
> <<Jeez, Spudboy, I just asked a question. We can go on and on if we are trying
> to be embarrassing to one another. For example: --------nah, I refuse to do
> that even even though the material is factual.
> But I stick with my question: was Armand Hammer the guy at Occidental
> that helped Al Gore's daddy so much? I believe that money is still in the
> family.
> Ron h>>
>
> >From what I understand, Gore's father may indeed have been in cahoots with Armand Hammer. I believe Hammer was a Commie Symp as the jargon of the 1950's and 60's went. Or, better yet, a Soviet agent of influence. I like that term-don't know why? Enema, I am more concerned that like the Fords, they have left their Sire's bigotries and fanaticsm in the dust-bin of history (Henrry Baby) and I am concerned that W'ya hasn't. I do like Gore's championing of enviro-cars-because that is a driver of technological change. Why would W'ya and his Oil Chum (currently alive and rich) be tempted to switch to Fuel Cell (methanol or hydrogen) driven autos and power sources for homes? I am betting that Canadian author, Bruce Sterling, is tended toward a more environmentally oriented candidate.
>
> Let us reframe the entire question. How can capitalism be harnessed to drive the things we decide are beneficial and reduce the things we decide are harmful? This is another muddle, I wonder if Anders could get in on this and help us see what growing up in socialism was all about? He seems the most expert there.
Well, its not for you or I to 'decide'. The point of capitalism is that it is
the free market that decides things. If some people think something is a good
thing, and is affordably acheivable usinging current technology, then they will
do it. If not, solution will wait until it is cost effective to resolve.
Refusing to not solve problems until they are cost effectively solvable results
in more pollution, death, disease, and waste of resources than would have
otherwise been the case. Those that advocate the use of government force to
force people to waste resources to fix something that the market does not see as
affordably fixable are causing more environmental damage than otherwise. If you
can't change minds by non-violent means, then your arguments are meritless in
and of themselves.
Government subsidies for a fixed minimum level of environmental performance
actually results in LESS improvement than just market driven performance
improvement. This was something I proved to Amory Lovins' EPRI group back in
1994, but they were not interested in listening to someone saying we didn't need
government subsidies, nor were the building owners associations interested, as
they wanted to externalize their costs onto the taxpayers through these energy
conservation subsidies. As a result, most building owners only obtained a 50-70%
improvement in energy and maintenance efficiency when they could have had 99.5%
improvement if conservation had been market driven rather than statute driven.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:31:22 MST