IT salaries in India and USA contrasted

By Nic
Aug 31, 2003
Topic Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Nic

    Nic TechSpot Paladin Topic Starter Posts: 1,928

    You're doing it again and misunderstanding the whole issue. Nowhere does anyone mention that the automobile is the sole/main contributer to pollution/greenhouse gases in the USA. The automobile is used as one example because it is one that we all know about and can easily relate to. And it isn't false to focus on US automobiles as an example, as even you can't deny the fact that american automobiles have been, and in many cases still are, the least efficient automobiles anywhere. This type of disregard for efficiences permeates other US industries also, as it is the result of a state of mind that puts money and convienience before more important issues, such as the environment. Now you can't possibly be saying that the attitude (ineffieciency) the US has towards automobiles, only applies to automobiles, as no one is going to believe that.

    How can you say that when those very nations that have benefitted ARE willing to do something about the environment, and they also criticise themselves for not doing enough.

    We all want comforts, but we also don't mind giving up many comforts in return for better environment. The US most of all can afford to do this. We Europeans produce less pollution than the US, and we're not exactly underproductive. Basically, what you are saying (if I am reading this correctly) is that its ok for the US to be greedy, to lead the world at any cost, and to do anything in pursuit of wealth, and you say that others only point the finger simply because they aren't able to keep up and are jealous. You couldn't be further from the truth, if that is really what you are saying.

    Pollution generated by the US does not confine itself to the US, but affects us all. Much like non-smokers sharing a room with those that do smoke. No one has a right to pollute the lungs of others and bring upon them the consequences of doing so. We live together on this tiny planet, and as such we all need to do our share. If not smoking (analogy) is not an option, then smoking in moderation is the next best thing. You can't have one person choosing to smoke as much as they like, when others are trying to cut back, now can you? You can't have one smoker telling everyone else that because they have more cigarettes than you, because they manufacture the cigarettes that many of you smoke, then they can afford to smoke as much as they like, even though no one else wants to breath in your smoke, for health reasons, which has nothing to do with not having enough cigarettes to go around. Those that have chosen to reduce their cigarette production, in exchange for better health, but lower income, don't like it when others don't play along. That's understandable wouldn't you say?

    At last, agreement of sorts. As mentioned, it is only one example, and one which shows a disregard for efficient use of resources that plagues american society. This attitude doesn't just apply to automobiles, though I do realise that things are changing, slowly.

    There is no dishonesty here, and that is why the word 'seen' was used. America has an image problem, and I was merely pointing that out, and giving reasons why this image problem exists. There is no smoke without fire.

    No one ever said that merchantile greed was endemic to the US. Merchantile greed is in fact something that most humans suffer from. The problem with the US is that it does not control this greed, and take some responsibility, in its relentless pursuit of wealth, whatever the cost. Enron was a pretty good example.

    One day all our fuel resources will be gone, so why speed that process along with inefficient use of what we have left.

    Again, no one said anything about not using your automobile, and indeed the world needs to change with regard to using personal automobiles. We need better public transport systems so that single persons do not have to travel using a single automobile, thus wasting natural resources unnecessarily. More efficient automobiles is one step in the right direction, and america is not known for its efficient combustion engines and small vehicles.
  2. Phantasm66

    Phantasm66 Newcomer, in training Posts: 6,504

    Equilibrium IS what a lot of social, political, etc ideas are about.

    And trust me, I have a degree in all of that crap for some reason.

    The "price mechanism" into which modern day economics puts a lot of stock, and is the essense of free market economics in the microeconomic sense, relies very much on the notion of seeking and finding equilibrium, and that this is a pretty much natural process.

    Such economic ideas have also seeded the roots of a lot of modern political thought, particularly Conservatism, which is very linked to capitalism, is very much into the price mechanism. Communism tries to artificially set prices for things according to other calculations, but capitalism proposes that you in a sense "do nothing", sit back and watch prices, demand and supply, etc just sort themselves all out magically.

    In another sense, our placing of too much faith in the power of equilibrium is probably the greatest failing of our time: that we should just get on with our capitalist lives, that we should ignore problems because they will eventually go away, that its safe to ignore pollution and so forth if we are still making money right now, etc.
  3. Nic

    Nic TechSpot Paladin Topic Starter Posts: 1,928

    If that was indeed the case, then why is it that the government, and industry, is constantly talking about *growth*, and stimulating even more growth. I think that its not equilibrium that is really what they are in search of, but *stability*, which they seem to believe is possible to combine with constant *growth*. There's a flaw in that notion, somewhere. Maybe they'll discover it one day. :) [hint: stability = no increase, growth = increase]

    Stability can be artifically maintained by external stimuli, which is what the government tries to do with our economy (and ultimately fails), whereas equilibrium is a natural, sustainable balance that that does not require artificial stimuli in order to maintain balance.
  4. Phantasm66

    Phantasm66 Newcomer, in training Posts: 6,504

    Growth and equilibrium are two different economic concepts, that are not necessarily in conflict with one another.

    Growth AND inflation are taken to be naturally occuring consequences (in their proper proportions) to a natural state of equilibrium.

    Growth can come from equilibrium. So can inflation. They are not necessarily opposing forces, although the semantics might be confusing.

    If, by stability, you are talking about an absense of booms and slumps, then capitalism has a little of that. It would like more of it, but it never seems to happen for very long. Some economists would argue that a lack of stability in the economy is just the economy naturally adjusting to changes (like advancements in technology, or changes in demand) and finding new equilibrium.

    Leaving things up to natural forces is what a lot of capitalism is about. Its called a "free-market economy." Interfering with them is what happens more in left wing economic and political regimes like communism, and is what happened in the former USSR and what ultimately led to the downfall of communism in that area of the world, at least in part. Under communist regimes, prices are often fixed by economic offices that do research and try to best determine the best price for goods.

    There is SOME level of government intervention in our economy - there always is SOME - but I would put forward the notion that capitalist systems try to avoid that as much as they feel that can get away with. Thusly, a lot of influence over the economy is decided in the stock markets rather than in the political debating chamber. Not all, though. There's always some political involvement, for reasons we could go on all day about. But to a left wing regime, the idea of a stock market is unthinkable. And yet in our systems, they play a great part in our lives, whether we know it or not.
  5. Nic

    Nic TechSpot Paladin Topic Starter Posts: 1,928

    Hey, you got it spot on. That's exactly what I was on about. We just need better controls to manage our capitalist ways.

    I fully agree. I think we are on the same wavelength here. :)
  6. Phantasm66

    Phantasm66 Newcomer, in training Posts: 6,504

    OK, if you are saying that we need to put a tighter hold on the powerful forces of the free-market and of capitalism, then are you advocating some form of socialism, or even communism??
  7. Nic

    Nic TechSpot Paladin Topic Starter Posts: 1,928

    I'm not a politicaly minded person, I don't find politics interesting, and I don't like to label things. I also don't have all the answers, but letting capitalism run unchecked is the root cause of all our economic problems. Personally, I don't feel that economic wealth is fairly distributed, and I don't feel that children should inherit the wealth of their parents. Bill Gates has more wealth than he knows what to do with, and we should all start with a clean slate.

    Now I wouldn't advocate communism, as without a means to improve our lot, and be rewarded for doing so, there would be no incentive to work hard, to be inventive, and to improve the processes by which we earn our living. We would have no sense of achievement when we succeed, no drive to achieve, or pleasure in our successes.

    A lot more thought needs to go into exactly how we tackle this, and it wouldn't be right for one person, such as myself, to try and force my views on others. We all need to realise that there is a problem, then we all need to work together to find a solution that is an agreable compromise for us all. Then we need to monitor the effects of any changes and adapt as required to keep things progressing in a suitable manner.

    Now I realise that this is exactly what governments try to do, but they try and manipulate a system by feeding it stimuli, then leaving the system to sort itself out. What they really need to do is to apply proper controls, so that the boom & bust cycles of capitalism are held within tighter limits. That usually requires some limiting device of some sort to prevent overshoots, and to control any changes so that they occur slowly. This might be what eventually happens anyway, but we are certainly taking a long time getting there, and in the meantime, we all have to suffer the consequences.
  8. Phantasm66

    Phantasm66 Newcomer, in training Posts: 6,504

    What I seem to be getting from your post is that you think there is problems in both right wing and left wing economic philosphies, and that you are not sure where in the political spectrum you are, is that it?
  9. Nic

    Nic TechSpot Paladin Topic Starter Posts: 1,928

    Possibly. I don't know anything about a spectrum, though Clive Sinclair might. :D

    Maybe the reason why the economy is so difficult to control is due the fact that there are too many external influences (individual nations) that impose there own means of control, but constantly fail, because each of us has an effect on the other, and neither has control over the whole situation. Thus, the boom & bust cycles will likely continue. What we need is one government for the whole world. :)

    Edit: And to our american friends, I realise that the figures for pollution, showing the US in pole position, may not be entirely fair. I don't think beef cattle flatulence should be taken into account when producing figures, and to be fair we don't actually know what proportion, if any, of those pollution figures are produced by beef cattle. The UK has many farm animals that produce flatulence, yet our pollution levels are less than half that produced by the US. Regardless, something need to be done to improve the situation, and simply ignoring the problem won't make it go away.
  10. Roderick

    Roderick Newcomer, in training Posts: 28

    I do understand the issues very well, but I understand the continuing deception of the issue even better. By your own admission that the auto is the most easily identified and related to, the continuing focus on it tends to misleads the receivers of your message that the auto, specificly American autos are the bane of the environment. You don't have to aver that the auto is the sole/main source of pollutants, but there's a thing called "lying by omission", or in this case, by minimizing the effect other sources, you've knowingly or not, passing on the message that American autos are the source. Tell a lie often enough, and it'll psychologically becomes the truth. I've watched enough ITV back in the 80s to remember whenever the US is the focus, our automobiles are the most convenient targets of opportunity. Your logic is flawed in that you've falsely translated cheap gas=inefficient autos=inefficient industries. In a highly competitive market such as the US, inefficiency cost money, and your more efficient competitor will own you. Chrysler had to be bail out by our government, that's politics, and that's another issue altogether. The point is that it took a foreign car maker to force ours to become more efficient.

    I've already shown that from an engineering standpoint, the internal combustion engine/hydrocarbon fuel combination can be improved, but not to blame, since it's only a part of an industry call automotive, of which the falsely maligned SUV is a small segment of the auto industry, which is dominated by much more fuel efficient sedans, which consumes much less petroleum products (in the form of gasoline) than even the cosmetic industry. The explosion of the IT sector make even more demands on the world's resources of oil. Whenever media images of geysers spewing out crude around a drill bit, what comes after that ? Surprise...The car...Or more specifically, the American SUV. Put yourself in the PR seat, would the message of fuel inefficiency played as well if you try to use lipstick, face cream, prams, hard drives, or keyboards ? As to your last sentence, the reason no one is going to believe that we do have highly efficient segments of our industries is because they've been inundated with crude oil=American cars for so long that it'll be next to impossible to change their minds, especially when the deception is continuing.
    Explain why Australia, one of the world's top coal producer, if not the top, refuses to sign the Kyoto Treaty, especially when she was one of the original signatories. What is it about the Treaty's demands that made industrialized nations such as Sweden and Australia that have benefitted from trade and commerce with US changed their minds ? What is it about the Treaty that made Canada's Alberta "environment" minister Lorne Taylor made public verbal mutinied against his federal government ? Is it because the Treaty, in details, started to cut into the dinner plates and leisure times of the decadent West ?
    No, that isn't what I'm saying...My point have always been the intellectual, linguistic, and statistical deceptions pop anti-American environmental critics have always opportunistically used in their tirades. Lip service criticism have occasionally been levied against equally polluting superpowers such as the Soviets or China just to give the appearance of impartiality, but when it comes to US ? No efforts or lies are sufficient. Our automobile industry, as you've admitted, are the most visible, hence the easiest to demonize. Nevermind that while there are no gas guzzling SUVs in the Ukraine or Moskva proper, those places are just as polluted as among the worst of ours. Underproductive means you've produced less than what is estimated of your potential taken into considerations your READILY AVAILABLE resources. That means your North Seas oil fields shouldn't be unfairly held against you, as underseas oil exploration is exceptionally risky and speculative. Trade and commerce dies if there isn't a top consumer that everyone knows will buy. From the turn of the century, we've been that top consumer, as we've been trying to develop a still unknown continent. Once we've done spread out, we started to build up. Post war Japan and Germany could've done it without our market, but it would've take them much longer, same could be said for Europe.

    Lead the world at any cost ? Read up on your history. The US was isolationistic prior to both WWs. WW2 started in 1939, we didn't enter it until late 1941. Greedy ? Read up on your history again. How many European powers were in Asia ? China belonged to the British and who else ? Indochina belonged to France. Much of the Pacific islands were under German control. Why does Brazil speaks Portuguese ? Did the British and the Continentals were in that part of the world out of altruistic motives ? What and how did the British earned the the phrase "The sun never set on the British Empire" ? Convenient memory lapse, wouldn't you say ?
    Bad analogy. Smoking is a choice. If I don't smoke, that doesn't mean I'm going to die sooner than those who do. Progress is even less of a choice than smoking. If a society don't progress, it stagnate and eventually dies. If I don't smoke, I can outrun those who do. If my country don't develope as the rest of the world. We run the very real risk of being conquered and my culture erased. Japan's modernization drive has less to do with her militaristic leadership than with the observance of other imperial powers, such as the British, controlling vast territories bordering on her doorstep, and eventually come to the very real conclusion that if Japan doesn't "smoke", Japan will die. The Chinese were at that time a fragmented society, they didn't "smoke", they ended up under British rule. Trade, commerce, and progress are "must haves".
    So you're willing to go along with the image without substance...Another image problem for the US that I really like is that how US led embargo against Iraq is starving the people. Nevermind how in 2001 the World Food Program fed 77 million people around the world for under 2 billions dollars, yet Saddam can't fed 23 million Iraqis for over 2 billions, the cost of his palaces. Numbers don't lie, but it's easier to deal in images.
    Just as you've falsely used the SUV, now you brought up Enron. Nevermind for example the state of Minnesota received more than 250mil from in state corporate philanthropy. According to SocialFund.com more than $2 trillions are invested in socially responsible investments, and you brought up Enron.
    All economic theories inevitably ties in with social and political ones. "Natural" equilibrium (and being a pragmatist I'm extremely uncomfortable with that concept) isn't possible with the naturally uneven distribution of natural resources. Unless with extensive investment resulting in early losses, a desert can't become an agricultural resource soon enough. Sometimes you have no choice but to continually take losses on certain aspects of your economy out of national security necessity, for example. In this case, how "natural" is it in terms of free market capitalism ? The best the US, the UK, the EU, or Asia, can make is local equilibrium in their immediate economy. The gripe with India is that their cheap labor is threatening the local economic stability. Fair gripes enough. We got Mexico. But it's incongruous to condemn capitalism in toto, in the name of social/economic justice, while asking for governmental controls to preserve capitalism in parts.
  11. Nic

    Nic TechSpot Paladin Topic Starter Posts: 1,928

    Ok, lets forget automobiles. How about refrigerators then? Are american refrigerators any more efficient than european or japanese ones? Exactly.

    As for Australia, well Australia has only a fraction of the population of the US, so even if it is a big per capita contributer, its effect is not that large. Once America has joined the anti-pollution bandwagon, I'm sure you'll find that we'll all be taking a pop at Australia, then China and Russia also.

    As for history, well we are dealing with the present, not living in the past, and it is in the present that we face the major issues of environmental pollution.

    And smoking is a good analogy. Its true that smoking is a choice, and if you smoke you can choose to smoke low tar cigarettes, just as the US can choose to manufacture higher efficiency appliances, and use more efficient manufacturing methods.

    Finally, this thread didn't start out being a pop anti-american thread, and I don't want to continue down that route. I'm sure you've heard the saying "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink". I think that pretty much sums up this thread.
     
  12. Nic

    Nic TechSpot Paladin Topic Starter Posts: 1,928

    Oh, and one last thing: The moon is made of cheese. That's why its full of holes. I guess you'll find that out when man does eventually land there :=).
  13. BrownPaper

    BrownPaper Newcomer, in training Posts: 467

    LOL! :D i do not think we should get started on the whole moon conspiracy theory. this thread is already pretty darn long. :p
  14. SNGX1275

    SNGX1275 TS Forces Special Posts: 12,489   +292

    There is a thread on the moon conspiricy somewhere, so if people want to beat that dead horse use the search feature.
  15. Nic

    Nic TechSpot Paladin Topic Starter Posts: 1,928

    Maybe we should take a vote on that particular conspiracy theory. I wouldn't say for definite that man didn't land on the moon, but the bundle of evidence seems to favour that notion. Anyways, I'll stop there as I don't really feel like beating another dead horse. One was quite enough :=).
  16. Roderick

    Roderick Newcomer, in training Posts: 28

    I think I've made my point enough, which is that the gripes against capitalism and its largest practicioner and advocate, the US, has been consistently intellectually deceitful. The readers can just simply go to work the next morning, be it via mass transit or his/her own vehicle, take a look around the progress made or hasn't yet made by his/her own society, and consider the price/cost of such progress against the benefits gained.
  17. Nic

    Nic TechSpot Paladin Topic Starter Posts: 1,928

    Intellectually deceitful? I think not, and nothing you have said supports that argument. I don't think you can say that the UK is backwards compared to the US, yet we generate less than half the pollutants.
  18. Roderick

    Roderick Newcomer, in training Posts: 28

    I've never said the UK, the EU, or major Asian nations such as Japan or S Korea are "backward". The closest I've come to use the word is in comparison between pre-20th century Jpn vs the West. That's really backward, despite political correctness. You generate less NOW because you're smaller and are no longer globally dominant as pre-20th century. Back then, with your East India Trading company as the vanguard of your mercantile army, you've made impressive progress in the world at its expense. There are positive as well as negative influences in your dominance. Your Winston Churchill symbollically handed the global sceptre of power to US after WW2. Isn't it the desire of the teacher to have the pupil surpass him/her in terms of accomplishments ? We have and still are your best pupil. :grinthumb

    But seriously, I've said plenty in support of my arguments. Those who don't drive, and there are plenty worldwide, uses other form of petroleum products just as much as do who do drive. Yes, you can make the argument that those who do drive make ADDITIONAL contributions to the overall amount of pollutants, but then you'll still have to account for the FACT that despite there were more people than cars in East Berlin when it existed, why was that city one of the most polluted in the world ? Prosperous West Berlin has more cars, but much cleaner overall. To continue with your smoking analogy, if cars are cigs, then West Berliners should've died stricken with lung cancers, saving the communists tons of money. This is the intellectual deceit I'm talking about, the focus on only one form/source of pollutant as indicative of an entire society's character.

  19. Nic

    Nic TechSpot Paladin Topic Starter Posts: 1,928

    It's only deceitful if it's inaccurate, which is not the case here. Also, you are arguing about different subject matter that no one here is discussing. We were discussing per capita pollution and comparing the US to other developed nations. The US generates hugely more than many others and refuses to do anything to improve the situation.

    What you are saying is that this situation is due only to the fact that the US drives the economy and pollution goes hand in hand with this. Well sorry to disapoint you, but the US only drives the economy because of it's sheer size, and it pollutes more than others because it doesn't worry about efficiency and focuses more on comfort and productivity using cheap and inefficient processes to produce cheap and inefficient goods.

    What the world is saying is that the US needs to control its emission levels, which it can do by manufacturing more efficient goods, and improving the way in which it manufactures those goods. Creating twice the CO2 emissions of other developed nations is unacceptable, and refusing to do anything about it is simply inexcusable.
  20. Roderick

    Roderick Newcomer, in training Posts: 28

    It's totally accurate that we've more cars than any other country in the world. It's CONTEXTUALLY deceitful in the sense that due to our sheer size in population, even if all our vehicles have fuel efficiencies in the high 30 mpg ranges, we would STILL be the world's greatest producer of automobile related pollutants. So in effect, even if the per capita numbers is lower, compared to the rest of the world, it would STILL be higher. Context matters. You still haven't answered my question : Would it be fair if I used Samoa or Fiji to indict the UK ?
    This makes no sense. Size has little to do with it. If we're an agricultural nation, does that mean, under your logic, that we would still be the world's greatest polluter ? A nation's natural resources, or lack of, dictates its economic policies. In the Farm Belt, agricultural economic policies rule. The East is dominated by manufacturing and finance. Resource rich and available sea coast enabled California to have the 5th largest economy in the world. All of these made up our economic "size", not landmass. All of this made up the "US" and yes, the "US" does drives our economy. Your above paragraph also revealed a lack of understanding BASIC economic principles. In a monoply, a company can afford to be inefficient. But in a highly competitive market, inefficiencies invites corporate death. You've no real proof, other than rhetorics, that overall, our economic system is SYSTEMATICALLY inefficient. Pockets of inefficiencies exists, either regionally or in a specific market, but capitalism demands that inefficient companies be put to death. Part of this demand to be "efficient" is cost, whether in labor or materiel. Why else do you think India is taking away yours and our jobs ?
    The UK is producing twice the pollution of Samoa and Fiji combined. I demand that you quit it...Even if you're on the other side of the world, your secondhand "smoke" has deleterious effects on these islanders as weather patterns will inevitably carry your pollutants to them. You need to reduce your CO2 levels down to theirs, which is almost nil due to their relative industrialized backwardness to yours. Refusing to do anything about it is inexcusable.
  21. Nic

    Nic TechSpot Paladin Topic Starter Posts: 1,928

    :confused: Per capita numbers are higher for the US. Again you are posting irrelevent arguments and trying to move focus away from the real argument of this debate. Per capita pollution was exactly what was being discussed, so why mention anything else? More irrelevence.

    Again *read* my comments, and don't post back comments that have nothing to do with the argument put forward.

    Who on earth mentioned anything about 'economic' efficiency. I was very clearly talking about 'energy' efficiency. Once again you're off topic.

    Yes, and half as much again as the US. While most nations agreed to reduce pollution levels further by signing up to the Kyoto Treaty, the US, a very much bigger polluter, refuses to do anything to improve the world situation. Once again you're trying to shift focus away from the real point of this debate.

    -------
    If you cannot stick to the main point, then please don't post. I don't see the point in continuing a debate with someone that seems to constantly go off topic by bringing up irrelevent subject matter, and who chooses to ignore any evidence that undermines his case. No one is interested in what happened 50 years ago. We only care about how things are today. The End. :eek:
  22. Nic

    Nic TechSpot Paladin Topic Starter Posts: 1,928

    Roderick,

    Sorry, I'm a little stressed right now and not really meaning to come across as angry (if that's how I am sounding). :)

    You make many good points, but I think we are misunderstanding each other a little, and going off at tangents.
  23. Roderick

    Roderick Newcomer, in training Posts: 28

    Per capita statistics of anything is misleading if it's taken out of context. That's BASIC statistic courses.
    Here's YOUR comments...
    What does size have to do with being the world's greates polluter ? Nothing, or at best minimal. I was merely pointing out your exercise of illogic. If geographic size matters, as you've implied, then primitive nomadic Bedouins in the ME must be even greater polluters than US.
    Very much on topic, probably even more than you. Energy efficiency directly relates to overall economic efficiency. It's naive to deny BASIC economic principles.
    Give me a break on the supposedly nobility of the endorsers of the Kyoto Treaty. If memory serves, out of the original 180 signatories of this treaty, once the details were revealed, barely 100 stayed. What "most" nations are you talking about when even some of its creators are abandoning it ?

    The Kyoto Treaty would create a duo energy price structures on the world market. Under its demand, the 1st world, and that includes the UK/EU, could only reduce its energy consumption by imposing high taxes on energy usage, discouraging consumerism, thereby putting their economies into recessions and even depression. The 2nd price level would be for developing countries under what is called "Joint Implementation", meaning they can collaborate on reduction projects, but...THEY ARE UNDER NO COMPULSION TO DO SO...2 of the world's creators of CO2, China and India, has said they will NOT abide by the treaty. The World Bank has started the "Clean Development Mechanism" which developing nations can participate. Again, there's NO legal compulsion for them to participate in these reduction projects. Whereas there are legal and economic reprisals for those confined to the other higher energy price structure should they fail to meet reduction requirements.

    Do you seriously think that the UK/EU would nobly sacrifice their comforts of home in order that China and India can pollute ? What is really known about this treaty is called "emissions trading" (insert your sex jokes here). The EU has already backed off from the original demands and are now advocating a 50% reduction in its requirement. A clear sign that its leaders are already responding to its constituents of their reluctance to "noble" hardships.

    Much of your criticism of US has been upon a moralistic soapbox with little evidence to back it up in the proper CONTEXT. You brought up Enron as somehow emblematic of standard US business practice. But for every Enron, there exists a thousand Aaron Feuersteins. Do a Google on "Jewish businessman factory Polartec fire Christmas Malden Mills Lawrence Massachusett" and see what happened. You brought up the SUV as emblematic of our decadence, but for every gas guzzling GMC SUV, there runs a thousand little Hondas and Toyotas. The majority of Americans CAN NOT afford these gas guzzlers. By your logic, can I use Rolls Royce to indict you ? You accuse US of wanting to dominate the world at any cost, but dismiss my historical arguments that you were even worse as "No one is interested in what happened 50 years ago". That's weak, bud. Moralism is not temporally expedient as you see fit.

    Yes, we can and have been wasteful at times, but in no way are we, in terms of history, especially your own, different than any other nations serving its own interests. What's happening in this debate is that this is probably one of the few times that someone can meet you point by point with minimum rhetorics, real cogent arguments and with real facts taken into the proper CONTEXT. I'm sure it has been fun for the readers as it has been for me.
  24. Nic

    Nic TechSpot Paladin Topic Starter Posts: 1,928

    Any statistics can be misleading if taken out of context, and that doesn't come from any statistics course.

    No one said anything about 'geographic' size. It is 'population' size I was talking about. That's why I spent all that time pointing out the 'per capita' emission levels. You seem unable to follow a line of argument, and again go off on a tangent and lose the context. All other things being equal, then size (population) obviously matters. In the case of the US, you have both size and excess.

    On topic? You sure this time? Ok, they are related. Maybe if you made your point in common language rather than using political jargon/terminology, then things would be clearer. Not all of us here can understand what you are saying. I already made clear that I have no interest in politics and therefore don't always follow your thread of conversation. If you are going to use jargon then you might at least try and make things clearer as having to use google to try and decipher your contributions does not help anyone. Fact is you can still increase productivity, and thus wealth, even with inefficient processes. It all comes down to the cost of energy verses that amount of profit achieved by production of goods. That is what I was getting at. It costs money to improve production processes and produce more energy efficient goods. That is something that the consumer is not interested in, and is something America seems unwilling to change (though things are improving as more foreign goods enter the country). This seems to be something you agree with, and you are essentially putting forward the case that you see no reason to change, as you are quite happy with all your comforts and economic wealth. That is one reason why America is so disliked by other nations, that are willing to change and take a stance in support of the environment. If one of the largest and most affluent nations in the world refuses to reduce its excesses, then what hope is there for the rest of us?

    100 out of 180 is most is it not? If America had signed then many others would have felt pressured to do likewise. Besides I only used that as an example. The real issue is reducing pollution not the details in the Koyoto Treaty, or which nations agree/disagree with various aspects of that treaty. The US is producing much more emissions than other nations, so saying that you want to keep things as they are, because you like your comforts is not helpful. You can still have your comforts while cutting your pollution output, which is way above the norm for an industrialised nation, and which due to the size (population, so you don't get confused again) of the US has a large impact on our planets environment. Ok, there will be a cost involved, but that goes with the territory. We all need to make sacrifices, though you obviously prefer your comforts more than care for the environment.

    Yes you can, except that I have a small car and use public transport for nearly all my travel, using my own vehicle for times when public transport is either not available, or not suitable. Nice bit about Aaron Feuerstein, as I never heard of him before. There should be more people like him.

    So you say that the SUV is not to blame for Americas high 'per capita' CO2 emissions, and that Enron has nothing to do with pollution emissions either. Well, they were simply culprits to the cause. You seem to believe that lots of little things can't possibly add up, so becoming concerned with them is a waste of effort. Why bother to switch off the light in an empty room if it's contribution is insignificant?

    Maybe you would like to list exactly what you see as the cause of America's high 'per capita' emissions levels. Maybe you would also like to propose what you see as a solution to this issue? Seeing as you seem so certain as to what isn't the cause, then maybe you can tell us what is? In any case it requires action.

    A lot has changed in the last 50 years. Russia is no longer a threat. The Berlin wall came down. European nations live in relative harmony with each other and work together to solve economic and world problems. China is even softening in its stance with the west and much inward investment has followed. You cannot continue to live in the past, as then we can have no future. I, like many, wasn't around 50 years ago, so how does what happened then have any relevence to what is happening now? People have changed and attitudes have changed. There are new issues to deal with and new problems to solve. The world is changing, and what happened 50 years ago should not affect decisions made today, otherwise how can there be progress?

    I think you mean 'CAN and ARE wasteful', wouldn't you say? You are essentially implying that you see no need to change because things, as you see it, are no different to what they were in the past. That's a pretty poor argument and pity the world if there are more like you around. We might as well nuke ourselves now and spare everyone the agony of slow self-anialation.

    Thanks for the complement. I think your *real* arguments are all in your head. You make some interesting statements, but they are often not in CONTEXT as you claim. Maybe you have your own 'context' somewhere in you head, and set in stone. You are often off topic and misleading, because you avoid the real issue, and choose instead to pick on small irrelevent details which you embelish with terminology and history, in an attempt to disguise you own ineptness at putting forth valid arguments. I can't see us ever agreeing on anything here. You already have your mindset fixed in stone and no number of facts or argument will change that. Your kind is already obsolete. :)
  25. Phantasm66

    Phantasm66 Newcomer, in training Posts: 6,504

    maybe you two would like to go get a room ;) ?!

    then you can really be alone.

    But seriously...
    You guys will never solve all of the worlds problems. You can argue about it for ever (if you think that that's fun, fair enough) but you will never iron out the source of these problems truly.

    And getting personal about it certainly won't help. Shame on you! ;)
Topic Status:
Not open for further replies.


Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...


Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.