And that country’s/government motto was…

“We’re all in it together!”

How surreal.

As long as our creditors have faith in the ability of the US Govn’t to pay its debts the current system is sustainable. If that ever changes you become Argentina.

Here’s a quote from Wikipedia that indicates that the US Govt pays back the Federal Reserve by “selling” it debt.

…the debt can also be monetized by which the U.S. Government sells the debt to the Federal Reserve. Monetized debt expands the money supply because these government securities become bank reserves held by the Federal Reserve that, under the system of Fractional Reserve Banking, are treated as an asset that the bank can then lend against.

Regarding whether the Federal Reserve is fiduciary–it seems to me that if it is fiduciary then the money it issues would be fiat, right? Fiduciary would mean that the money was only backed by reputation, not gold or any other asset–I could be wrong though, I’m not used to using the word in that context.

To summarize (for the sake of me clearing it up in my own mind):

The US Govt borrows money from the Fed that the Fed creates with no backing–it’s printed and created on demand. The US Govt is now in debt to the Fed and pays back the debt plus interest owed to the Fed by selling debt owed to the US Govt by the public/other countries etc. to the Fed upon which the Fed can then collect.

Does that sound right to you?

Thanks for the comment, nice to see someone actually reads this

Is that to suggest that we can’t attack many problems at once?

To some degree, yes! There are limited financial resources in the world. Ideally we could get everyone to focus on 15 different problems at once, but I think history (and the present) indicates otherwise–people have limited resources, a limted attention span and focus.

But I would suggest that climate experts views be given a special weighting over a botanist and even more so over an economist or a plummer.

Yeah. I agree. It’s not Lomborg who has the degree in Botany, it’s Raven, the guy who says “…he’s not an environmental scientist and he doesn’t understand the fields that he’s talking about so in that case…” How can someone be so hypocritical?

Lomborg is a fringe figure, and important you appreciate the arguments against his conclusions.

Interesting that you’ve seen fit to relegate him to the fringe. I read the campaign to discredit him on Sourcewatch and found nothing substantial. If later I find something that proves me wrong then fine, I’m wrong, but at this point I see nothing to indicate that.

What Lomborg is saying isn’t that problems such as climate change should be ignored, he’s saying that there is more good that could be done elsewhere.

Is that to suggest that we can’t attack many problems at once? Maybe I’m like you. My wife always complains that men can only do one thing at a time. And what if several of the problems on his list have a common root cause. Is it better to tackle the cause (I’m being a little vague but this principle is important). If he lists climate as “bad projects” then that sounds a lot like he thinks it should be ignored.

Right. Only environmental scientists can contribute to the debate. That’s convenient, especially coming from someone who has a Ph.D. in BOTANY.

Discussion should not exclude concerned citizens anywhere. But I would suggest that climate experts views be given a special weighting over a botanist and even more so over an economist or a plummer. I also hold post-grad qualifications in the biological sciences but wouldn’t like the worlds leaders to make decisions based only on my understandings of the world’s climate. Lets not create a false debate. Debate is now about policy and the effects of global warming but is no longer about the inherent reality or otherwise of man-made global warming. You’ll reach your own conclusions but it is important you understand the Bjorn Lomborg is a fringe figure, and important you appreciate the arguments against his conclusions. The hardest thing in life is to intentionally expose yourself to views that you disagree with, but its also one of the most important.

Bye for now.

The Sourcewatch attempt at discrediting Lomberg is all too typical, it’s exactly what I expected it to be before even reading it. A couple comments on the Sourcewatch article:

“The IPCC produced a range of six equally ranked paths of climate change spanning an increase in carbon dioxide concentrations from doubling in 2100 to well beyond a tripling in the 22nd century. “Lomborg, however, dismisses all but the lowest of the scenarios,” he wrote.

Maybe that’s because if you apply the 6 models to the past and compare it to known data, only the lowest scenario even comes close to predicting what actually occurred.

Dr Peter Raven, President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 2002 said of Lomborg: “…he’s not an environmental scientist and he doesn’t understand the fields that he’s talking about so in that case, if you have a point to make and you want to get to that point, which is: everything’s fine, everybody’s wrong, there is no environmental problem, you just keep making that point. It’s like a school exercise or a debating society, which really doesn’t take into account the facts”.”

Right. Only environmental scientists can contribute to the debate. That’s convenient, especially coming from someone who has a Ph.D. in BOTANY.

Here’s an article on Bjorn Lomborg from Sourcewatch:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bjorn_Lomborg

…because Walter Reed is just an isolated event.

…because reports of Iraq Vets ALREADY homeless are all exagerrated.

…because the fact that the Veteran’s Administration Boss was a GOP Contributor whose previous work was in Real Estate SURELY would not damage the VA’s job.

…because all those Generals testifying in Congress on Army and Reserve Effectiveness (or lack thereof) were lying.

…because the Troops now have adequate body armor after YEARS of complaints (oh wait, they DON’T).

…because the 8 BILLION DOLLARS in US Taxpayer Money that disappeared just wasn’t that much when you think about it.

…because Halliburton deserves the money it gets for giving spoiled food to troops.

businesses … the unethical insatiable monsters they are

The proportion of ethical to unethical businesses in America is a testament to the efficiency of capitalism. The economy is strong. The poorest Americans are among the richest in the world.

abolished the truth in media

I’m not sure how you’d begin to back this up. I suppose you could point to some other more enlightened socialist country with a freer press?

There is no accountability anymore.

Is that why there’s a scandal a month and someone gets fired every month in the Republican administration? I’d say that was accountability. Obviously it’s not the Republicans firing their own but it shows that the system works. This is, incidentally, another example of the difference between the Bush/Reagan administrations as well.

I blame Reagan for this culture of “every man for himself” and “screw the little guy”

I suppose you’d like to force your ethics on everyone in America and decide just how much everyone ‘deserves.’ How much money should the government give me every month if I decide not to work? How much life insurance do I deserve? How much is it my social responsibility to ‘donate’ to the poor? How can we force the rich to be ‘generous.’ I’m sure that’s what the Republicans and Reagan thought when they wake up in the morning–’How can I screw the little guy today?’

As far as Tehran, doing business with Facists in WWII, Project for a New American Century etc. That’s fine. Think what you want, half of it has nothing to do with with the argument about Reagan (which you’ve mostly skirted anyway) and is just your beef with the Republican party as a whole. There are more than enough examples to draw from showing the same type of behavior from the Democrat party.

Then your final generalization:

They have attracted very questionable types to their party. KKK, Neo-nazi’s, fundamentalists, etc.

Um. Which party has a former KKK member in the senate? Oh yeah, the Democrats.