[PeterCrackhead]

Re: 5 Reasons why Freehold pools have no lifeguards

You did not specify that. "We" could mean anything; if an Icelander said "We elected Guðni Jóhannesson," I would not assume they meant to include me. Similarly when a communist uses the W word, it's of narrow significance.

* No it isn't. That's the minimum wage. The average price of wage-labour is called (wait for it) the average wage.

Apart from the idiocy of the content (for example under such conditions however would they sell anything in order to increase their capital?) and a typically gross misunderstanding of basic economics, the "we" there does not include me. In fact it includes very few humans.

Actually, Marx is correct. I guess economic history isn’t your bag he is refuting Thomas Robert Malthus’ conception of what minimum wage is for wage labor. Malthus a minister in the Church of England created the Malthus Trap where as food production and wages grew so did population thus creating an equilibrium between growth of the population and the levels food production that maintain poverty. This of course as you would agree with conclusion was created by God to maintain stability in the population and teach people to live a virtuous life.

Marx, denied that claim and instead argued that Malthus’ trap was instead a function of wage labor exploitation in the capitalist economy. Furthermore it also benefited the capitalist to keep is his/her employees at this subsistence living level so they couldn’t afford to step out of line. People just barely holding on to an existence tend to not for Fight their oppressors.

[Johny Joe Hold]

Re: 5 Reasons why Freehold pools have no lifeguards

Actually, Marx is correct. I guess economic history isn’t your bag he is refuting Thomas Robert Malthus’ conception of what minimum wage is for wage labor. Malthus a minister in the Church of England created the Malthus Trap where as food production and wages grew so did population thus creating an equilibrium between growth of the population and the levels food production that maintain poverty. This of course as you would agree with conclusion was created by God to maintain stability in the population and teach people to live a virtuous life.
Marx, denied that claim and instead argued that Malthus’ trap was instead a function of wage labor exploitation in the capitalist economy. Furthermore it also benefited the capitalist to keep is his/her employees at this subsistence living level so they couldn’t afford to step out of line. People just barely holding on to an existence tend to not for Fight their oppressors.

Yes, Malthus was a minister. But neither Malthus nor Marx were quoting the Bible. You are wasting our expensive space here by telling tales from non Biblical sources.

[Jeb Stuart Thurmond]

Re: 5 Reasons why Freehold pools have no lifeguards

Malthus a minister in the Church of England

Of course an Anglican would get things wrong. Doesn't mean that anyone who debunks him is automatically right about everything.

created the Malthus Trap where as food production and wages grew so did population thus creating an equilibrium between growth of the population and the levels food production that maintain poverty.

He didn't create this condition, he merely described it. An accurate description of life before the productivity growth of the industrial revolution - in particular in the anarchist stone age, when infanticide was the best solution to the Malthus Trap their anarchist systems were capable of organizing (Malthus suggested delayed marriage).

Marx, denied that claim and instead argued that Malthus’ trap was instead a function of wage labor exploitation in the capitalist economy.

Which means that all Capitalist countries would be in a Malthusian state right now. Yet for decades the only peacetime famines we've seen are in communist North Korea.

Furthermore it also benefited the capitalist to keep is his/her employees at this subsistence living level so they couldn’t afford to step out of line.

Micheal Jordan is a physical laborer with earnings of $1,850,000,000. Granted it's skilled labor: he's really good at playing basketball, and pretending to like products in commercials. But if Marx were correct, he would be "at this subsistence living level".

(He's technically a capitalist because he owns one car dealership and a restaurant or two, but he didn't get his billion dollars from that).

If Air Jordan isn't typically proletariat enough, here's some other "subsistence wages" for you:

Elevator Installer and Repairer
Median annual salary: $78,890

Electrical and Electronics Repairers, Powerhouse, Substation and Relay
Median annual salary: $78,410

Commercial Pilot
Median annual salary: $78,740

Air Traffic Controller
Median annual salary: $124,540

His argument is a straw man.

A straw man is an unrealistic caricature - if I accused Communists of polluting because they thought pollution smells good, that would be a strawman. Instead I simply pointed out that communists are huge polluters, and you've failed to answer that. Just like you failed to answer when I pointed out the stone-age anarchists drove so many species to extinction.

Are you accusing me of changing the subject? You, who answers everything with a whataboutism, are all about staying on topic now? So did you come to this thread to talk about lifeguards, or what?

Anyway, I can always just move this to a new thread where we debate the communist record on the environment, and then we're back on topic, or maybe the topic is back on us.

[MitzaLizalor]

Re: Are leftists good for the environment? Let's look at the evidence.

We've had a reminder how far removed from reality these wretches are with their ersatz economics and scientific somnolence. It's true, when things started blowing up they did flutter an eyelid but the butterfly effect took over and the whole edifice collapsed.

Not wishing to be more broadly critical than is warranted, I'll allow that some of their engineers probably knew the meanings of words in their own jargon. Sure; otherwise how would they get those inane statues of Lenin to stand up? The problem was that people who actually knew how to do things were not the ones deciding how things should be done. Correct understanding of science is a prerequisite for engagement with the environment. Even Nebuchadnezzar knew that. Stalin, not so much.

Daniel 1
1a In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah
1b Came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem
1c And besieged it …
3a And the king spake unto Ashpenaz the master of his eunuchs
3b That he should bring certain of the children of Israel
3c And of the king's seed
3d And of the princes;
4a Children in whom was no blemish, but well favoured
4b And skilful in all wisdom
4c And cunning in knowledge
4d And understanding science
4e And such as had ability in them to stand in the king's palace.

Whatever masquerades as "science" in the minds of leftists has nothing to do with God and very little to do with the environment. The proof of this pudding is very much in the eating: what leftist-developed science project has been less than catastrophic for the environment? I can't think of one.

Take nuclear energy for example. There had been a few illnesses associated with this and one or two accidents that had nothing to do with the science but everything to do with muttonheaded administrators who far from knowing what the words meant probably didn't even know those words existed: from drawing board to meltdown, dumbbells were in charge.

Compared to something like coal, according to their own statistics, the health risks are tiny. How many millions have suffered from the fumes and airborne particles, died in mining catastrophes, been poisoned from town gas? Check it out. The problem of nuclear waste however has been addressed in principle with the advent of fourth generation reactors.

• Advantages sought
  
  1. reducing the amount of time the waste remains radioactive
  2. improving the energy yield for the nuclear fuel
  3. increasing the variety of fuels that can be used to power the reactor
  4. allowing for reactors to use already present nuclear waste in its operations
  • • http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2016/ph241/xue2/

Another (mildly amusing) complaint is that having taken the trouble to build nuclear reactors the silly-billies just use them to run steam engines. One way around that apparently is to increase operating temperatures so that instead of heat—which is used to boil water (or sodium or a lead/bismuth alloy) and run turbines—they'd produce ultra-violet light which could be converted more directly into electricity using the photo-electric effect. I looked this up before posting, something our communists seem loth to do, and imagine what happens is that the reactor gets hotter than red hot and hotter than white hot and turns into a giant blacklight then you set up some heavy duty solar panels (leftists love these things) to collect the UV and generate electricities.

Another benefit of Very High Temperature Reactors 1,000-1,500˚C is that hydrogen can be produced without oil refineries. You don't even need to look anything up! Here's what Stanford has to say:

Benefits of the VHTR

The VHTR offers two advantages to modern day generation III reactor designs. The high temperature of the coolant exiting the reactor core enables high thermal efficiency for electricity generation, and can serve as process heat for hydrogen production.

•..http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2013/ph241/kallman1/

Are leftists good for the environment? The track record is abysmal. Whether it's due to their delusions, or to the obvious absence of joined-up-thinking, or is an inherent aspect of their doctrine—forever appealing to 19th century dilettantism and rejecting trump cards out of hand—who knows? But even allowing that they may identify an environmental issue occasionally and occasionally be correct, to jettison solutions with no consideration (because of their dogma) is to shoot oneself in the foot. With an elephant gun. Absolutely.

Christians are not like that. And it's easy to see why. Not everything pretending to be science actually is science. It's right there in The Bible. Without due consideration, without reflection, how could we tell the difference?

I Timothy 6
20b Avoid profane and vain babblings
20c And oppositions of science falsely so called
21a Which some professing have erred concerning the faith.

[Jeb Stuart Thurmond]

Re: Are leftists good for the environment? Let's look at the evidence.

Lots of tangential squabbling has been moved here.

The problem of nuclear waste however has been addressed in principle with the advent of fourth generation reactors.

When will technology answer X? Well, when we choose technology designed to solve the problem of X.

When CFCs were a problem we didn't ban all fridges, we built better fridges. When leaded gasoline was found to be a problem, we didn't go back to manure piles, we got the lead out of gas (and got a generation of wimps).

When the dust bowl trashed Oklahoma, we didn't decide to go hungry, we learned about land management and made it a priority. When a coal-cloud killed newsworthy numbers of people in London, they didn't decide to ban all heating and get used to shivering. They changed their technology.

People have faced many environmental problems in the past, and the solution has always been new technology. It has never been austerity, or backwardness, or nagging people to be more caring and charitable.