A bunch of stuff. But I don't see how one cancels out the other. There was a financial crisis to solve, and a recession that followed. Maybe you can state your point clearly. — Tzeentch

The financial crisis of 2009 was a direct result of inappropriate laissez-faire policies. I guess that's why I believe everyone should understand how dire the situation actually was.

:up:

I think I know quite a bit. — Tzeentch

Who was Timothy Geithner, and what did he do to save the global economy from crashing?

It responded to a major recession. Recession is a general slow down of the economy — Tzeentch

You don't appear to know anything about what happened in 2009. You should read about it. Every American should understand what happened.

It did increase the money supply. For years the supply has increased, in fact. — Xtrix

Well, yes, the Fed allows the money supply to go up over time. I meant that TARP didn't make a significant impact, and it wasn't intended to.

Actually, yes. The fact that the financial sector was the primary target is irrelevant. The entire global economy was on the brink of depression then -- it was on the brink of depression during COVID, as well. The Fed has a few tools to fight recessions. All of the tools used thus far has increased the money supply, and has done so for years. — Xtrix

Right. So what you can do is point out that the government, specifically since the 1930s, responds to contraction by easing the money supply, creating make-work projects, and instituting price fixing for farmers.

The pandemic response was unprecedented in scale, though. The intention was to keep the lockdown from wiping out part of the infrastructure of the US economy.

Also, I don't recall anyone saying anything about inflation at that time. The whole world was like a deer in headlights.

The 700 billion loaned to banks was eventually paid back in full.
— Tate

So what? — Xtrix

So it didn't inflate the money supply.

The pandemic response was specifically meant to stimulate the economy, where the Great Recession payouts were meant to shore up confidence and unfreeze credit.
— Tate

Both were meant to stimulate the economy. — Xtrix

Actually, no. The point of payouts in 2009 was to keep the global economy from collapsing by increasing confidence in the banking system.

The difference is the Fed was then responding (correctly) to an economic recession. — Tzeentch

Not exactly. It was responding to catastrophe in the financial sector. Since that sector has become central to the US economy, the government had no choice but to respond.

The Fed was printing plenty of money in 2009 too. No inflation. — Xtrix

The 700 billion loaned to banks was eventually paid back in full. It's just a very different situation. The pandemic response was specifically meant to stimulate the economy, where the Great Recession payouts were meant to shore up confidence and unfreeze credit.

But you're right that there are multiple causes of inflation, one being the sluggishness of the Fed to respond before inflation had set into the American psyche.

First it was nuclear documents, now it’s a document describing a foreign government’s military defenses — NOS4A2

same thing?

Sure. I'm just more optimistic. I guess because we do have a tendency to be mind-blowing when we want to be. :grin:

I can't read the whole article, only the abstract, but it does seem to be going for more or less the same conclusion as I have been earlier, namely that it works but isn't efficient/is to costly, which makes it doubtful that it could be scaled up. — ChatteringMonkey

Sorry about that. The body and conclusions aren't pessimistic. They admit it's going to be a challenge and conclude that multiple technologies are a better than a single solution.

I’m agreeing with you that the ego's vantage point won't allow one to say that model and world are one. — Joshs

Oh. :up:

We agree more than we differ. — Banno

What does it mean to agree? What is the object of agreement? A sentence?

Not the way I read it. — Joshs

It looks like you're going beyond phenomenology to system building.

Cool. That ego's vantage point won't allow you to say that model and world are one, will it?

Scientific consensus seem to be that it's really hard to get greenhouse gasses out of the atmosphere, and that it's also hard to see inventions or innovations that would do it. — ChatteringMonkey

Check out this article. It's a review of several potential approaches.

Contrary to Davidson, there are many conceptual schemes-models , not because of a presumed split between language and empirical world as he claims conceptual relativists believe , but because the inseparability of model and world means that there are as many empirical worlds as there are models. — Joshs

But how do we know any of this? What's our vantage point? Why not be satisfied with phenomenology?

Nuclear is electricity-production — ChatteringMonkey

Yes, I know. I just meant that switching to electric cars won't limit CO2 emissions until we have a replacement for coal and gas power plants.

We have scrubbers already as prototypes, but they seem woefully inefficient energy-wise, and therefor hardly scalable... which makes sense if you consider that greenhouses gasses, while high enough to raise temperature, are still very small concentrations in the air. — ChatteringMonkey

Forests scrub the atmosphere every summer. I think we can come up with something. Or at least it's too early to give up.

think it could go any way still. Apathy, or even open conflict because of higher stressed relations and scarcity, are all definite possibilities... but so is cooperation, for instance if the need is truly high. In WWII the US and the USSR commies were besties and fighting side by side to defeat the fascists... go figure. — ChatteringMonkey

You're saying a global catastrophe could be the solution to global conflict. Could be.

electrification of everything, is what is needed, — ChatteringMonkey

I think nuclear is the higher priority, though. Electricity is mostly generated by coal or gas.

Forget scrubbers, concentrations of greenhouse gasses in the air are to small to make it worth it to actively pull them out. — ChatteringMonkey

Really? Is there research on that? Just curious.

Times are definitely a changing. — ChatteringMonkey

Yes, but it doesn't seem to be in the direction of global cooperation. And democratic governments are generally screwed. Apathy takes over.

We use models all the time. Physicists regularly compare models, so it doesn't seem to be superfluous.

But roughly, I'd use something like Davidson's argument in On the very idea... to show that there cannot be multiple models; and hence that the notion of a model is superfluous. But that might be where you are going... — Banno

There's no model? Or just one model? Which is it?

I asked for a feasible plan to stop global warming. Of course I will spread better information if I have it. — Yohan

Feasible in what sense? If every nation converts to nuclear power and we start building large scale scrubbers, we could at least reverse some of the changes we've already contributed.

Is that feasible for our generation? No.

Do we need an account of how disagreement is possible? — Srap Tasmaner

One of the issues is the object of agreement. Propositions work for that role, but some reject the existence of such things.

I think their only recourse is something like behaviorism. Agreements are nothing more than a certain kind of behavior.

Well, you could stop spreading disinformation. — Olivier5

He hasn't.

Jesus

I win? Does that mean you will take your ball and go home? — Fooloso4

Pretty much

What an asshole. Fine. You win.

Am I a defeatist to think trying to stop global warming, at least as average working class folk, is a pipe dream? — Yohan

It doesn't look like our generation has the ability to work together. Future generations might, though.

Sharing a wrong opinion is an abuse of free speech? — Yohan

It's not.

So getting your popcorn ready for the binge watching of blood on the streets? — ssu

I think we're probably too lazy for that.

One way to give meaning to life is to condemn some aspects of the present and claim that something better is coming.

This is Christian eschatology. It's Marxism. It's any kind of progressivism. The painful parts of the present gain meaning in that they're part of a bridge to a better world.

For me, the Holocaust is an all purpose symbol of the pain of life. I think one of the advantages of a divine source of purpose is that even if you don't understand why God would allow the Holocaust, through faith, you trust that there's a reason.

When we try to prop it up in our own, we don't have that luxury. The question is: does the Over-human work on any level to help with this?

You claimed he sympathized with neo-Nazis and accepted the endorsement of the KKK. — NOS4A2

True. Are you trying to gaslight me?

Moving on, the tone becomes strikingly biblical sounding:

*Zarathustra, however, looked at the people and wondered. Then he spake thus:

"Man is a rope stretched between the animal and the Superman—a rope over an abyss.

"A dangerous crossing, a dangerous wayfaring, a dangerous looking-back, a dangerous trembling and halting.

"What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not a goal: ​what is lovable in man is that he is an over-going and a down-going.

"I love those that know not how to live except as down-goers, for they are the over-goers."

What is the dangerous crossing?

He can definitely talk out of both sides of his mouth.

Quote him. — NOS4A2

He accepted the endorsement of the KKK. Don't need any quotes.

It’s called being led by propaganda. You yourself admitted you believe Trump sympathized with neo-Nazis. — NOS4A2

Didn't he?

And you’d be wrong. But no one’s going to stop you going through life like that. In fact, it’s encouraged. — NOS4A2

It's called being rational.

He's right, though. These days if a person claims to be a Republican, I just assume they sympathize with neo-Nazis as Trump did.

@Michael

You just need to stipulate what you want the terms to mean. There's too much controversy surrounding it to assume your audience will know what you mean.

"What might a fact be? Three popular views about the nature of facts can be distinguished:

"A fact is just a true truth-bearer,
A fact is just an obtaining state of affairs,
A fact is just a sui generis type of entity in which objects exemplify properties or stand in relations.
In order to understand these claims and the relations between them it is necessary to appeal to some accounts of truth, truth-bearers, states of affairs, obtaining, objects, properties, relations and exemplification. Propositions are a popular candidate for the role of what is true or false. One view of propositions has it that these are composed exclusively of concepts, individual concepts (for example, the concept associated with the proper name “Sam”), general concepts (the concept expressed by the predicates “is sad” and “est triste”) and formal concepts (for example, the concept expressed by “or”). Concepts so understood are things we can understand. Properties and relations, we may then say, are not concepts, for they are not the sort of thing we understand. Properties are exemplified by objects and objects fall under concepts. Similarly, objects stand in relations but fall under relational concepts.". -SEP article on facts

The article goes into the meaning of "obtains" which is also controversial.