Posts by Bart Janssen
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Behind Baltimore, in reply to Katharine Moody,
officers receive performance
One of the strongest arguments against running public services as businesses, particularly services that have specific social aims that have nothing to do with money.
-
Envirologue: Too Big to Fail – Why…, in reply to william blake,
If you would like to review and critique the 2,500 scientists who worked on it, I would be interested in your analysis.
Please note: finding typos and trivial errors does not constitute a proper review
-
Envirologue: Too Big to Fail – Why…, in reply to Stamper Stamp,
I am just pointing out that carrying out more investigation means the science is not settled.
Actually what you are doing - and not as subtly as you believe - is trying to deflect people from ACTING on established science by arguing that more research could be done.
It is a cheap fatuous delay tactic and worthy of our contempt.
-
Envirologue: Too Big to Fail – Why…, in reply to BenWilson,
We could be trapped in a neoliberal local maximum
I don't think there is any evidence to suggest we are at any kind of optima.
While the analogy is interesting as a thought experiment I don't think it is particularly helpful in our local political environment.
-
Envirologue: Too Big to Fail – Why…, in reply to Amanda Wreckonwith,
The power of marketing
First against the wall ...
-
Envirologue: Too Big to Fail – Why…, in reply to BenWilson,
is every solution piecemeal?
I guess that probably does characterise my attitude now.
I'd argue that there are several socially responsible, free market democracies to look at for ideas, particularly in western Europe. None of them are perfect but the best ones make no claim to being prefect.
One feature is that in most of the best countries the government is a compromise of ideologies rather than a single dominant one. This appears to force the governments to discuss and reach the best compromise rather than slamming through the latest ideological fix.
For me the best approach would be to look around the world and see what seems to work, talk it over with multiple informed groups, and try out policies that might work. If they don't work then stop them and try something else.
In each case doing what works is more valuable than doing what fits some theory or ideology.
Slamming some ideology as being to blame for everything seems pointless to me and likely only to prevent conversation. Even the worst of ideologues can have some good ideas.
-
Envirologue: Too Big to Fail – Why…, in reply to BenWilson,
I thought Dave made an interesting point in claiming that the powerbrokers of neoliberalism were not themselves denying climate change. They just don’t care.
These guys (mostly middle aged white guys) are not actually stupid nor are they the kind of folks like stamper who only accept data that fits their preconceptions.
So yeah from what I've seen they accept the science and the data.
But they also think that doing business is more important and that "the market" will sort it out, even if that involves a lot of poor people dying, that is simply "the market" working as intended.
What I am describing is of course a psychopath.
-
Envirologue: Too Big to Fail – Why…, in reply to Dave Hansford,
And that’s worked a treat for the last 30 years, hasn’t it?
I'm sorry show me an election in the last thirty years where people actually voted for our environment as a central issue.
New Zealand elections are traditionally decided on the basis of which crowd sounds like they will give the individual voter more money. It is the most simplistic and venal motivation and it has been targeted by the two major parties consistently. And it has worked because the conversations have always been about what's best for the individual personally now.
Asking the public to vote on the basis of what's best for the country long term is something none of the political parties have been brave enough to do since forever.
It has nothing to do with a particular ideology and talking to the public about ideology is a quick way to get them to catch up on sleep.
And yet a hell of a lot of folks are actually willing to talk about long term goals for themselves and for NZ. Talk about that and you might have a chance. Rant about neoliberal conspiracies and they will walk away and vote for nice Mr Key.
-
Envirologue: Too Big to Fail – Why…, in reply to Amanda Wreckonwith,
Was the Clark government equally responsible for this neoliberal road we are travelling down?
Yup. But not quite as bad as the Nats. Under Clark, Labour allowed treasury to make many of the key decisions about policy with pretty bad consequences.
But they also introduce working for families and balanced the budget well enough to put money away for the future - so not perfect but not as bad as this current corrupt bunch.
-
Envirologue: Too Big to Fail – Why…, in reply to Stamper Stamp,
To quote
Why don't you quote the 97% of scientists (99% of scientists in the field, ie climatologists) who think such statements are probably corrupt and certainly bollocks.
But no, you will continue to only read and quote those sources who match you preconceived (and factually wrong) ideas.