Daniel Turner: California's latest descent into liberal madness – Berkeley bans natural gas

[laylalex 7,262]

6 hours ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

Where in Pasadena did you live if you don't mind me asking??? I lived on S. Parkwood Ave about 50 yards North of Colorado Blvd. 

 

I will write more about everything else in a bit.

Ahhhh, I know exactly where you mean!!! I used to go to the Lucky Baldwin's near there sometimes, though I prefer the one on Raymond (the one on Colorado just doesn't have the same dark, pub-like vibe, which I like). Love the fish and chips there, and we used to go to the one on Raymond to watch soccer/football matches. And I used to buy presents at Game Empire for one of my friends who was really into RPGs.  

 

My first apartment after I moved out of my parents' home (after I graduated) was on Raymond near Orange Grove. When my ex moved over here, we bought a house in Madison Heights, which was a HUGE step up for me from that little place on Raymond. We were on Oakland between California and Glenarm. One of my best friends still lives in South Pas, on Grevelia near the Bristol Farms. 

[Dashinka 23,382]

3 hours ago, laylalex said:

Well, I think it does make it clearer, but I have to disagree, and I think we can agree to disagree without being disagreeable.  I am no economist, and though I consider myself a capitalist (I have benefited my entire life from living in a capitalist society, I am totally aware of that), I don't think that a "pure" form of capitalism (which I think is what you're talking about, have been talking about) is really workable in real life. I mean, the reality is that humans are really messy and imperfect, and it's humans running the market. So I just think it's unrealistic to think that the marketplace is perfect, or will always reward the most efficient or most cost-effective organizations out there. And I also think it's unrealistic to think that the market is going to have a solution for every need, so there are always going to have to be charities and non-profits to plug these holes. Please bear with me -- been a long day here, and I haven't thought much about economics since college! 

 

Um, really? I don't think you read what *I* wrote. I am not taking ANY money from him. And he is very supportive of me taking control of my own life. He knows my story very well, knows my ex very well and what he put me through, and supports me in my goal to reestablish myself. Also, you think he has his own issues just because he has an ex-wife and a daughter to support? Wow. I think I read above that you resent giving your ex-wife support she is entitled to just because she writes poetry! Sorry, I just read what I wrote there and it sounds a little rude, but it's how I feel. If I weren't so tired, maybe I'd be able to express it better.

The US does not have a pure form of capitalism, and the marketplace is not perfect.  That being said, thinking that government bodies are better suited to make decisions for us is also wrong (not implying you are in that camp).  Getting back to the original topic of this thread, the city government of Berkley decided to remove a choice from the market for whatever reason which smacks of socialism/communism.  Electricity may be cheaper in that neck of the woods, but the market is perfectly capable of making that decision.  As to making this decision based on environmental factors, that is dubious at best, but that is a discussion that can come in another thread.

 

The thing that concerns me is that we have one party where there are 20+ candidates that are all one-upping each other with socialist positions/policies/programs, and a titular head of the Democrat Party (The Squad) is openly advocating a change to the US economy to socialism with government control of economic capital (Green New Deal).  Now if the dream of the Democrats of one-party rule ever comes to fruition, then Communism will soon follow.  My wife lived through a socialist economy ruled by a single party were all were equal except some were more equal and it was not fun according to her.  I don't like the direction one of our two major parties is taking, but to each their own.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

19 hours ago, Boris Farage said:

Don't go looking for insult where obviously none was intended. Had I been speaking of Britain in similar context, I would have mentioned her past connections to slavery if it were appropriate to the discussion. But as you well know, I was speaking of a very specific period (revolutionary America) in a very specific region (America). It would have been ridiculous of me to digress into a completely different nation's past whilst speaking of the American founding fathers and their high ideals of freedom except as pertains to a specific subset of their populace.

Pray tell,  how was I seeking insult?

[laylalex 7,262]

6 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

The US does not have a pure form of capitalism, and the marketplace is not perfect.  That being said, thinking that government bodies are better suited to make decisions for us is also wrong (not implying you are in that camp).  Getting back to the original topic of this thread, the city government of Berkley decided to remove a choice from the market for whatever reason which smacks of socialism/communism.  Electricity may be cheaper in that neck of the woods, but the market is perfectly capable of making that decision.  As to making this decision based on environmental factors, that is dubious at best, but that is a discussion that can come in another thread.

 

The thing that concerns me is that we have one party where there are 20+ candidates that are all one-upping each other with socialist positions/policies/programs, and a titular head of the Democrat Party (The Squad) is openly advocating a change to the US economy to socialism with government control of economic capital (Green New Deal).  Now if the dream of the Democrats of one-party rule ever comes to fruition, then Communism will soon follow.  My wife lived through a socialist economy ruled by a single party were all were equal except some were more equal and it was not fun according to her.  I don't like the direction one of our two major parties is taking, but to each their own.

Hi there! I think I wasn't making myself clear. I wasn't saying that I thought we have a pure form of capitalism in this country or that the marketplace is perfect. I was saying that I thought what Boris (very timely username! ) was talking about was a economy that looked more like pure capitalism as an ideal form than what we currently have in the US, which by my understanding is a mixed economy. (Again, I am no economist.) 

 

I also think it's unfair to say that the Democratic Party is looking for one party rule -- I can't think of any mainstream (or even reallllly far out there lefty) Democrat calling for this, and if you look at the bulk of who makes up the party, well, they're people who think like me. Having a robust debate with people on all sides is good for everyone, especially now when forces from inside and outside of the parties are looking to make us choose sides and corners and whatnot. And I think we've been doing a good job (mostly) in here, in this thread to talk about issues without getting to the point where we're all yelling at each other. Getting challenged on your viewpoints, thinking about *why* it is you think the way you do, is an important part (I think) of getting more informed and more involved. 

 

I guess I wonder why it's important for the market to "decide" what's right for Berkeley when the people of Berkeley are for the idea of going towards electricity. I mean, from what I read in the local papers, there hasn't been an uproar about the choice. Yes, of course there are people here who disagree, but what I'm getting at (probably imperfectly) is why it has to be a market-based decision when it could be a decision made by the people for their own community? Should -- and this is really a genuine question -- the market always be the decisionmaker? Is there no benefit to making choices for communities that are based on those communities' values and visions rather than how much those choices cost? I mean, and maybe this is an offbase comparison, look at the Amish. It doesn't make economic sense to use horses and buggies, or to avoid all the modern conveniences. But their religious beliefs dictate these choices, and the communities support these choices. Shouldn't towns and cities try out of the box thinking as experiments if it is in line with their community values?

[Cyberfx1024 7,978]

11 hours ago, laylalex said:

Ahhhh, I know exactly where you mean!!! I used to go to the Lucky Baldwin's near there sometimes, though I prefer the one on Raymond (the one on Colorado just doesn't have the same dark, pub-like vibe, which I like). Love the fish and chips there, and we used to go to the one on Raymond to watch soccer/football matches. And I used to buy presents at Game Empire for one of my friends who was really into RPGs.  

 

My first apartment after I moved out of my parents' home (after I graduated) was on Raymond near Orange Grove. When my ex moved over here, we bought a house in Madison Heights, which was a HUGE step up for me from that little place on Raymond. We were on Oakland between California and Glenarm. One of my best friends still lives in South Pas, on Grevelia near the Bristol Farms. 

Yeah I used to be able to walk to Lucky's or the 99 cent store. They have added quite a few little shops right there in the last couple years like Panda Express, Chik Fila, Starbucks, Pizza, and a taco place as well. It was really nice being able to walk to numerous different eateries but the COL was tooo high for me. Not to mention the school system in Pasadena Unified is not good for the majority of the schools.

 

This is why I choose to move back to NC from Pasadena even though we loved the area. If I am saying this as a father of 4 and clearing above $100k a year that the COL and taxes are to high then what does that tell you about for people making significantly less than that?

[theresaL 408]

Laylalex, I have read some of your posts on other threads and while I agree with some, I also disagree with others. In this case I must disagree with a few of your assertions. First, the Dem. party is indeed calling for a one-party rule. Not in direct words but indirectly thru their call for the elimination of the Electoral College and instating the popular vote. If such a thing would ever occur it is almost certain the coasts and a few mid-west states will determine the outcome of all future elections based on sheer numbers alone. Thereby eliminating the voices and wishes of the rest of the states.

 

Second, I find it rather ironic that you call for what amounts to "states right" in your last paragraph while supporting a platform that would eliminate just that in federal elections. Third, this country fought a war over states rights pertaining to the slavery issue. Moral issues aside, should the Southern states and communities not have been allowed the same benefit of choice that you support for the citizens of Berkeley especially since the owning of slaves was based on those communities' values and visions?

 

Finally, it may not make economic sense to you, but the Amish do very well financially and their way of life is much more friendly to the environment. They are far more in tune with nature than any arm chair environmentalist (I don't mean you) espousing what the rest of the world needs to do while they exempt themselves and consume mass amounts of natural resources. If you truly believe in freedom of choice then the market will always decide without outside interference.

[laylalex 7,262]

55 minutes ago, theresaL said:

Laylalex, I have read some of your posts on other threads and while I agree with some, I also disagree with others. In this case I must disagree with a few of your assertions. First, the Dem. party is indeed calling for a one-party rule. Not in direct words but indirectly thru their call for the elimination of the Electoral College and instating the popular vote. If such a thing would ever occur it is almost certain the coasts and a few mid-west states will determine the outcome of all future elections based on sheer numbers alone. Thereby eliminating the voices and wishes of the rest of the states.

 

Second, I find it rather ironic that you call for what amounts to "states right" in your last paragraph while supporting a platform that would eliminate just that in federal elections. Third, this country fought a war over states rights pertaining to the slavery issue. Moral issues aside, should the Southern states and communities not have been allowed the same benefit of choice that you support for the citizens of Berkeley especially since the owning of slaves was based on those communities' values and visions?

 

Finally, it may not make economic sense to you, but the Amish do very well financially and their way of life is much more friendly to the environment. They are far more in tune with nature than any arm chair environmentalist (I don't mean you) espousing what the rest of the world needs to do while they exempt themselves and consume mass amounts of natural resources. If you truly believe in freedom of choice then the market will always decide without outside interference.

They are "indirectly" calling? Is this merely your assumption because some -- not all -- some Democrats have called for the Electoral College to be eliminated? You don't even have to go that far back in time to find the Republicans calling for the same thing! It is a function of who thinks they're getting the worse deal out of the institution. God, even Trump called for it to be eliminated at one point. This is NOT a new point of view that's suddenly so radical and a function of the left. Really. And in any event this isn't something that could be done unilaterally -- there needs to be a Constitutional amendment, from what I understand. Ummmmm, not going to happen. All it is is red meat for both sides, for one side to get riled up in support and one side to get riled up against it. It's a fundraising tactic. 

 

Second, please don't put words in my mouth about what I do and do not support. It's rather rude. Also, just because I think it can be good for localities to have control over building codes (different cities have different needs and different priorities), it does not mean that I support the abolition of the Electoral College. 

 

Next, a city's decision that some -- not all -- of its new residential buildings must use electricity instead of gas is NOT the same as Southern states wanting to preserve slavery. I mean, honestly, I don't mean to be mean, but that's making a comparison that is patently absurd. In my opinion, that's just not a good faith argument. 

 

Lastly, I just do NOT believe that the market always knows best and will decide what's best, and I certainly do not believe in absolute freedom of choice at local, state or federal levels. There are opportunities for collaboration between regulation and the market that can create better solutions. I'm thinking about what happened at the end of the 19th century, when we saw the rise of monopolies. That was the market acting the way that it "thought" best -- to consolidate and consolidate until there were only one or a handful of mammoth players, not always delivering good outcomes for consumers and workers, but delivering great value for the players themselves. We now have antitrust laws to help prevent these restraints on the market. Now I'm not saying that every sector of the economy will always drift towards monopoly, but it is a flaw in capitalism. (And I am a capitalist!) Capitalism without regulation can lead to distorted outcomes that are not always the most efficient.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,330]

Ban Natural gas and force them to use electricity, which more than likely is using gas to to generate the electricity.

 

About 35 gas fired plants in the Cali

 

Liberals would be funny if they were not so dangerous 

[theresaL 408]

2 hours ago, laylalex said:

They are "indirectly" calling? Is this merely your assumption because some -- not all -- some Democrats have called for the Electoral College to be eliminated? You don't even have to go that far back in time to find the Republicans calling for the same thing! It is a function of who thinks they're getting the worse deal out of the institution. God, even Trump called for it to be eliminated at one point. This is NOT a new point of view that's suddenly so radical and a function of the left. Really. And in any event this isn't something that could be done unilaterally -- there needs to be a Constitutional amendment, from what I understand. Ummmmm, not going to happen. All it is is red meat for both sides, for one side to get riled up in support and one side to get riled up against it. It's a fundraising tactic. 

 

Second, please don't put words in my mouth about what I do and do not support. It's rather rude. Also, just because I think it can be good for localities to have control over building codes (different cities have different needs and different priorities), it does not mean that I support the abolition of the Electoral College. 

 

Next, a city's decision that some -- not all -- of its new residential buildings must use electricity instead of gas is NOT the same as Southern states wanting to preserve slavery. I mean, honestly, I don't mean to be mean, but that's making a comparison that is patently absurd. In my opinion, that's just not a good faith argument. 

 

Lastly, I just do NOT believe that the market always knows best and will decide what's best, and I certainly do not believe in absolute freedom of choice at local, state or federal levels. There are opportunities for collaboration between regulation and the market that can create better solutions. I'm thinking about what happened at the end of the 19th century, when we saw the rise of monopolies. That was the market acting the way that it "thought" best -- to consolidate and consolidate until there were only one or a handful of mammoth players, not always delivering good outcomes for consumers and workers, but delivering great value for the players themselves. We now have antitrust laws to help prevent these restraints on the market. Now I'm not saying that every sector of the economy will always drift towards monopoly, but it is a flaw in capitalism. (And I am a capitalist!) Capitalism without regulation can lead to distorted outcomes that are not always the most efficient.

On the contrary, it is a good faith argument in the broader scope because if you argue it is one cities' right to self rule then you must argue for all to have the same equal rights to self rule as framed in the Constitution. This I believe is the position of most Civil Libertarians. To do otherwise is just blatant arrogance and elitist. Good for me but not for thee.

 

Of course it won't be done unilaterally not as long as there are checks and balances meaning not one major political party controls all. But, do you honestly think for one minute that should the Democrats win both houses of Congress and the Presidency that the first thing they will do is not start dismantling the Constitution??? Starting with the Electoral College, 2nd amendment and Supreme Court. Of course it won't be framed that way it will be spun in a very semantically positive way. I'm not assuming anything. I'm basing my opinion on actual statements made by Dem. leaders current and thankfully former office holders. I believe some of the current media darlings have openly called for the abolition of the Electoral College.

 

I absolutely agree with you about monopolies and the need for government intervention and no I don't think that is government overreach. However, over regulation is far more dangerous to a capitalist based economy. Much like the 19th century monopolies you refer to, the current big tech, communication, and media giants are in desperate need of over-sight and the application of antitrust regulations. It will be interesting to see the outcome of the DOJ's  antitrust investigation into Google, Amazon, et.al. 

[Dashinka 23,382]

18 hours ago, laylalex said:

Hi there! I think I wasn't making myself clear. I wasn't saying that I thought we have a pure form of capitalism in this country or that the marketplace is perfect. I was saying that I thought what Boris (very timely username! ) was talking about was a economy that looked more like pure capitalism as an ideal form than what we currently have in the US, which by my understanding is a mixed economy. (Again, I am no economist.) 

 

I also think it's unfair to say that the Democratic Party is looking for one party rule -- I can't think of any mainstream (or even reallllly far out there lefty) Democrat calling for this, and if you look at the bulk of who makes up the party, well, they're people who think like me. Having a robust debate with people on all sides is good for everyone, especially now when forces from inside and outside of the parties are looking to make us choose sides and corners and whatnot. And I think we've been doing a good job (mostly) in here, in this thread to talk about issues without getting to the point where we're all yelling at each other. Getting challenged on your viewpoints, thinking about *why* it is you think the way you do, is an important part (I think) of getting more informed and more involved. 

 

I guess I wonder why it's important for the market to "decide" what's right for Berkeley when the people of Berkeley are for the idea of going towards electricity. I mean, from what I read in the local papers, there hasn't been an uproar about the choice. Yes, of course there are people here who disagree, but what I'm getting at (probably imperfectly) is why it has to be a market-based decision when it could be a decision made by the people for their own community? Should -- and this is really a genuine question -- the market always be the decisionmaker? Is there no benefit to making choices for communities that are based on those communities' values and visions rather than how much those choices cost? I mean, and maybe this is an offbase comparison, look at the Amish. It doesn't make economic sense to use horses and buggies, or to avoid all the modern conveniences. But their religious beliefs dictate these choices, and the communities support these choices. Shouldn't towns and cities try out of the box thinking as experiments if it is in line with their community values?

You don't?  Which party has leaders/representatives calling for abolishing the Electoral College, and the Senate?  I do agree, as I have said before, that the real people that make up the US electorate do not always blindly follow these political leaders which is one of the big reasons President Trump was elected.  My problem is what the leadership of the Democrat party is doing, and from what I am seeing, it is a major far left socialism push.  You may not agree with me, or refuse to acknowledge it, but it is there.  JFK would be sad at how far left his party has gone.

 

As to Berkley, as I asked before, is everyone there for this idea?  (you did not answer that question before, so I will try again).  Even if there is one person there against this government action, they should be heard, so I imagine there will be some lawsuits (heck, Trump cannot utter a word without the ACLU running to a federal court).  But I suppose those leaders in Berkeley duly elected know better than the hoi polloi.  I know you do not agree with markets making rational decision but that is still better than doing it based on politics.  When decisions are based on political ideation, it will only lead to alienation.  Note: to my knowledge this action in Berkley was not the results of a referendum, but rather political leaders doing political things.  If this is incorrect please inform me.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/senate-dems-introduce-constitutional-amendment-abolish-electoral-college-n989656

 

https://www.vox.com/2018/12/4/18125539/john-dingell-abolish-senate

[Boris Farage 353]

19 hours ago, theresaL said:

Laylalex, I have read some of your posts on other threads and while I agree with some, I also disagree with others.

I mean this in the best possible way: Laylalex means well, and her personality certainly is endearing. I suspect, however, she is a bit overindulged. Her outlook on life shows a naivete that is charming but unrealistic. Again, I mean this in the best possible sense. It's a nice to world she lives in, but unfortunate that it's a fiction.

 

19 hours ago, theresaL said:

Third, this country fought a war over states rights pertaining to the slavery issue. Moral issues aside, should the Southern states and communities not have been allowed the same benefit of choice that you support for the citizens of Berkeley especially since the owning of slaves was based on those communities' values and visions?

Once again, it's a prime example of why the market should decide. Consider your example of slavery. Had the market decided in colonial America (or, to ALFKAD's point, colonial Britain), the question of slavery would have been put to the market rather than the bayonet. The question posed would be: do the goods produced by an essentially free labour force offset the moral outrage by consumers in the North? Would Southern produced goods labeled as "slavery free" do better or worse in the Northern markets? And even then, slavery would fail either sooner or later, because automation would eventually do slavery in. No shots fired, no divided country, and the ingenuity of man to find a better slave would win out.

 

19 hours ago, theresaL said:

Finally, it may not make economic sense to you, but the Amish do very well financially and their way of life is much more friendly to the environment. They are far more in tune with nature than any arm chair environmentalist (I don't mean you) espousing what the rest of the world needs to do while they exempt themselves and consume mass amounts of natural resources. If you truly believe in freedom of choice then the market will always decide without outside interference.

My own views on the Amish and other Luddites is less forgiving. The Amish make poor use of their resources compared to what modern farming methods would provide. One can still be "in tune with nature" and run efficient agricultural operations with modern machinery and infrastructure. The horse and buggy had its day, and now it's a menace on the roads. Celebrating ignorance is no way of life.

Edited July 25, 2019 by Boris Farage
a word

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

17 minutes ago, Boris Farage said:

I mean this in the best possible way: Laylalex means well, and her personality certainly is endearing. I suspect, however, she is a bit overindulged. Her outlook on life shows a naivete that is charming but unrealistic. Again, I mean this in the best possible sense. It's a nice to world she lives in, but unfortunate that it's a fiction.

 

Once again, it's a prime example of why the market should decide. Consider your example of slavery. Had the market decided in colonial America (or, to ALFKAD's point, colonial Britain), the question of slavery would have been put to the market rather than the bayonet. The question posed would be: do the goods produced by an essentially free labour force offset the moral outrage by consumers in the North? Would Southern produced goods labeled as "slavery free" do better or worse in the Northern markets? And even then, slavery would fail either sooner or later, because automation would eventually do slavery in. No shots fired, no divided country, and the ingenuity of man to find a better slave would win out.

 

My own views on the Amish and other Luddites is less forgiving. The Amish make poor use of their resources compared to what modern farming methods would provide. One can still be "in tune with nature" and run efficient agricultural operations with modern machinery and infrastructure. The horse and buggy had its day, and now it's a menace on the roads. Celebrating ignorance is no way of life.

It has got to be tough living in your ivory tower, too intelligent, too worldly and too insightful to converse with mere humans on an equal level. Your discussions are insulting, your method of delivery is over the top and you are rude and I do mean that in the most positive way.

[Boris Farage 353]

2 minutes ago, Randyandyuni said:

It has got to be tough living in your ivory tower, too intelligent, too worldly and too insightful to converse with mere humans on an equal level. Your discussions are insulting, your method of delivery is over the top and you are rude and I do mean that in the most positive way.

I'm so sorry "Randyanduni" (does she really not capitalize her given name?) I didn't mean for our productive conversation to get in the way of your personal attacks. Please do let us know when you've finished hurling your insults so we can all begin conversing like adults again.

 

When you can't attack the message, attack the messenger I suppose.

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

9 minutes ago, Boris Farage said:

I'm so sorry "Randyanduni" (does she really not capitalize her given name?) I didn't mean for our productive conversation to get in the way of your personal attacks. Please do let us know when you've finished hurling your insults so we can all begin conversing like adults again.

 

When you can't attack the message, attack the messenger I suppose.

I thought so,  can throw but not catch, you exude arrogance but appear thin-skinned, tough combination

[Ban Hammer 12,885]

cease the bickering.