Greenspan simply put said that is nonsense we can just print more money.
I say Hyper inflation will be the result.

I think a debt default (through inflation or worse) is inevitable at this point. This debt will never be repaid. I mean, how could it be. We cant even keep our economy going without borrowing each year

That's funny...

To quote Thomas Jefferson: "A government powerful enough to give you everything you want is powerful enough to take everything you have."

I usually start by agreeing with Global Warming.
I said "My God... The Great Lakes were formed by Glaciers, which were CLEARLY melted by GLOBAL Warming!"...

And yet, there were NO SUVs...

Do you find that strange? We had ICE down to OHIO, Glaciers in OHIO.

What did those Cavemen Do???
Is that proof they ate too much red Meat?

"But there is no chance that the energy needs of the global economies can be met..."

But that is because most of these elitists also support massive global depopulation. They want a world with only a few million humans not the billions there are now.

To me, "sustainable" means that it generates benefits equal to or greater than the costs needed to fund them. That's the whole problem with many of the government-run social programs - they haven't ever been sustainable. The only way they would be sustainable is if the government collected from those individuals every bit of what was pumped into them in the first place. Then it would at least be a loan.

It is no surprise to me that the cost of government welfare is roughly analogous to our total national debt.

Like continuing to amount unsustainable debt, that is filed under, someone else’s problem, later.

I totally agree. No one has exposed the unsustainability of collectivist policies. Another element you might bring up are the unexpected side effects of collectivism in that the more socialism offers to take care of us, the less we take care of ourselves. Eventually we just sit around more and waiting for handouts. THATS unsustainable

Maurice F. Strong (April 29, 1929 – November 27, 2015) was a Canadian entrepreneur, environmentalist, and proponent of United Nations involvement in world affairs.

Quotes Edit

Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake, the use of fossil fuels, electrical appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing - are not sustainable.
Maurice Strong, opening speech at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit[specific citation needed] But this quotation is not in the version posted on Mr. Strong's site. http://www.mauricestrong.net/index.ph...
If we don't change, our species will not survive... Frankly, we may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse.
Maurice Strong, September 1, 1997 edition of National Review magazine
What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? The group's conclusion is 'no'. The rich countries won't do it. They won't change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?

The two key words are "if we" in "They're "sustainable" if we want to send a big chunk of our earnings to the gov't.

I (as opposed to we) don't want to do so. Collective vs. individual ... all over again.

Indeed, the producers are becoming weary of carrying their load on this forum.

In short, capitalism "delivers the goods". I don't know if "sustainable" is the right word for it because creative destruction is a huge part of it, which is part of how it delivers the goods.

Large deficits are unsustainable, but it seems like we deny reality and will only deal with them when they turn into a mini-crisis. It's exactly the same with large greenhouse gas emissions are unsustainable: we will pay the costs when they present rather than dealing with it now. People want the benefits now. Even if the costs of the repercussions are greater than the benefit, it's someone else who will be paying those future costs.

I think about whether those gov't spending programs are "sustainable:" a massive gov't healthcare program, free grade school, free college, a massive military industrial complex with bases around the world, keeping a huge chunk of the population imprisoned or under supervision of the criminal justice system for non-violent drug offense. They're "sustainable" if we want to send a big chunk of our earnings to the gov't.

Aside from the environmentalism we seem to be past that point now even on this forum. People used to read Atlas Shrugged, become enthusiastic with many questions, and want to learn as much as they could. Very, very few have done that on this forum.

We will not be able to sway "the true believers" in environmentalism, but if we don't sway "the currently mesmerized but still capable of understanding a reasoned argument", then soon we will be past the critical tipping point. Arguably we are past that now.

We've been watching this for decades. Viro worship of 'nature', untouched by man, as an intrinsic value superseding human values and rights on principle is a religion.

Very well said, particularly the "primitivist standard" and "You'll do it somehow, Mr. Rearden" parts. I recommended the above for "Best of" status.

The environmentalist push for sustainability is a demand for a return to the primitive. Even just stating that would be an effective argument against the regressives, but that presumes that they will listen to reason - a bad presumption.

The left uses 'sustainability' as a primitivist standard. Their notion of eco sustainability means sacrificing human interests to 'sustain', i.e., preserve, some natural area in its natural state.

For example a 'sustainable' forest to them means to not cut more than a minimal amount of trees, without regard to replanting or natural regeneration for future use: If it changes noticeably from static equilibrium, they don't like it. And never mind that an inefficient minimal-use forestry operation is not economically 'sustainable' in a market -- sacrifice to the preservationism is not to be regarded primarily as a "resource" at all.

The closest they get to sustainability in economics is the same statis. Drilling for fossil fuels is "unsustainable" because eventually it will run out, and never mind that new technologies are developed (including for extraction of previously unusable resources). Some of them insist that "sustainable development" is inherently impossible.

Using the term "unsustainable" related to their own economic or social policy has for decades made no dent on the left. How many times has it been pointed out that the national debt, or the expenditures for Social Security, are literally not sustainable? They don't care. The collectivist false moral ideal always takes priority. How will it be paid for? "You'll do it somehow Mr. Rearden" -- including taxing "The Rich", imagined to be several times more than they have to take. It's their version of 'new technology': more government force imagined to be the panacea. Even if their collectivism were 'sustainable' there vision of static tribalism would be unjustified.

Yes. It's much easier to give away the entire culture when one isn't paying (or one doesn't realize that they must pay eventually - sometime after the next election.)
TANSTAAFL

+1

You obviously enjoyed that.

Everyone in the world must be forced to work on the giant dome, right now, to stop the sky from falling! I’m morally superior, and don’t care about facts! Those get in the way of my moral superiority.
/s

(sarcasm on)
We must stop the world from ending and all you care about is how to pay for it?
(sarcasm off)

I hope you can wake people up to the fraud of these fools.

No different than cement and asphalt ridden cities will usually be a bit warmer...but that is still not a long term global weather pattern.

Laughing...tell the leftest that the mountains are not man made!...hahahahahahaaaa
Tired of getting blamed for everything...

Seems that the actions or inactions of the epa has created some of the worst environmental damage than mankind ever did by himself.
Note: I consider the ruling factions of the epa and peta as non human.

Actually the environment does affect climate, at least locally. For instance, my parents and I have studied the effect of major interstates in Florida (I-75 and I-95) on the amount of rain. If it rains on one side of the interstate, there is a surprisingly high probability that it won't rain on the other side of the interstate. Look at the amount of rainfall on different sides of mountains as well. To the west of the Sierra Nevadas, you have a fertile plain whereas on the east side, you have a desert.

With regard to the excesses of the EPA, however, no one would agree with you more. I have to deal with aperiodic EPA inspections of my labs. The idea that labels on vials might fall off, making the contents "unknown", scares the heck out of me.