SmilezRoyale Has some Questions

[SmilezRoyale]

These are a serious of questions that i have tried to word so that they must be answered in a very concise manner. Alot of it is 'Can an argument be proven / disproven' In order to make your point, you MUST use sources. Word of mouth or "It's true because i said so" is inappropriate and idiotic. There is no rule of law for popular argument. Once a source is given, you can post quotations from the document which supports your claim, and if the document is considerably long [4 or more pages in length] i would appreciate if you could indicate more precisely where the actual information concerning the statement you are trying to prove is given. For example, in a 20 pages PDF file, indicate that page 9 contains the specific detail verifying your claim.

The validity of a source can be attacked by providing knowledge as to where and how the information was gathered or whether or not there was any motive for an agenda in the collection of said data.

Sources like Heritage foundation or the Center for American Progress or Moveon.org do not count as reliable sources because they are a think tank, not a research organization.

And finally, you can answer any one or all of the questions. [Aka, answering all of them is not necessary]

1) It seems that the stem cell debate argument could be easily ended if an equally or more effective alternative to embryonic stem cells. So, is there, or is there not, Proof positive evidence that Stem cell research can be conducted with alternatives from embryos [Such as Artificial technologies or the various kinds of bone marrow stem cells or umbilical chord stem cells] [Basically, are they more or less effective will prove / disprove the argument]

2) Exactly how effective are Solar and Wind Power [efficiency wise] Compared to Nuclear power and are there any countries in the world that use them as their primary [Largest Percentile, Separate or combined] energy source without [or with VERY little involvement [less than 10%]] nuclear power.

3) There are individuals who can argue that government subsidies [or Welfare checks] Cause more failed businesses [or impoverished peoples] than if the government did not intervene into peoples lives. Can this be proven / disproven? If so please explain how. Please indicate whether or not you are talking about subsidies for businesses or welfare checks for impoverished Americans.

4) Barack Obama has proposed 1000$ relief checks for middle / lower class families for energy costs [either per year or one single installment] By using a windfall tax from oil companies. There are some people who argue that this would not work. Can this be proven / disproven? [See Below side questions before saying anything]

B) If you want to argue that a windfall tax could be avoided by the oil companies or revenue could be restored by simply increasing prices on oil, couldn't that argument be refuted by simply saying that the government could force the companies to pay taxes and/or ensure they do not raise the price of oil any further? If this counter argument can be proven / disproven please explain how.

C) There are some people who argue that crippling oil companies would also hurt families with stocks invested in oil. Naturally, the smartest decision is to try and relief as many people as possible, since you're not trying to favor those who are of lower / upper / middle class in terms of relief. Can this argument be proven / disproven by showing that there are more / less people with stocks invested in oil than those who are suffering considerable from high gas prices? Is there any proof that shows that more people would suffer from the impact on stocks from government regulations on oil prices than the people who would be relieved from the regulations oil companies. [If you have an argument that regulations on oil companies does not relieve people who are suffering from high gas prices that DOES NOT include arguments posted above, then please include it here, if not, simply redirect attention to the argument that was made.]

5) I have heard arguments that A) Government Tax Revenues are more accurately determined not by tax rates but by GDP [or was it GNP? I'm not sure] And B) that GDP is highest when taxes are low. In order for this argument to be correct, both the statements A and B must be correct. If either or both of them can be disproven then the argument is invalid, Can this argument as a whole therefore, be proven or disproven

[n64kid]

I'll pick and choose what I want to answer and how I want to answer them. If there are no links provided, and my arguments don't follow logic and common sense enough to not have a link, please respond. All information I provide has been gathered from reading and studying over the years and none comes directly from my ass.

1) It seems that the stem cell debate argument could be easily ended if an equally or more effective alternative to embryonic stem cells. So, is there, or is there not, Proof positive evidence that Stem cell research can be conducted with alternatives from embryos [Such as Artificial technologies or the various kinds of bone marrow stem cells or umbilical chord stem cells] [Basically, are they more or less effective will prove / disprove the argument]

Amniotic stem cells are being used and tested and is theoretically believed to be only slightly less promising than embryonic stem cells. Considering no living or would be living person is sacrificed, I see little problems to using it besides the possibility of "playing god".

2) Exactly how effective are Solar and Wind Power [efficiency wise] Compared to Nuclear power and are there any countries in the world that use them as their primary [Largest Percentile, Separate or combined] energy source without [or with VERY little involvement [less than 10%]] nuclear power.

I believe Denmark leads the way with alternative energy with 20% of the country being fueled by wind power.

As far as efficiency a 100MW nuclear power plant produces 877 GigaWattHours annually at full capacity. (100MW x 24hours x 365 1/4)

A 100MW wind farm has the same capacity, HOWEVER, wind farms only reach about 30% of their potential because even in high performing windy areas, a windmill will only generate power 30% of the time.

As far as land goes, given the same energy output, a wind farm can take up 60-100 times more space than a nuclear power plant.

*As a side note, one of my personal "how to solve the energy crisis plans" is to complement a nuclear power plant with an algae farm. More on this is you want a more detailed response.

3) There are individuals who can argue that government subsidies [or Welfare checks] Cause more failed businesses [or impoverished peoples] than if the government did not intervene into peoples lives. Can this be proven / disproven? If so please explain how. Please indicate whether or not you are talking about subsidies for businesses or welfare checks for impoverished Americans.

If you're talking about workers compensation you'd have to look at the books. Employees can take advantage of workers comp and drain funds in excess of what the employer puts aside which could lead to a lot of failing businesses, especially in recessionary periods. This would lead to lay offs and high unemployment, naturally.

If you're talking about taxes that fund poor people because they're poor, you're talking about tax redistribution which the past shows helps close the income gap, yet has a negative effect on GDP growth.

4) Barack Obama has proposed 1000$ relief checks for middle / lower class families for energy costs [either per year or one single installment] By using a windfall tax from oil companies. There are some people who argue that this would not work. Can this be proven / disproven? [See Below side questions before saying anything]

Obama will say anything to make himself popular. Everyone on wall street says he will not follow up on this and laugh at anyone who thinks he will.

B) If you want to argue that a windfall tax could be avoided by the oil companies or revenue could be restored by simply increasing prices on oil, couldn't that argument be refuted by simply saying that the government could force the companies to pay taxes and/or ensure they do not raise the price of oil any further? If this counter argument can be proven / disproven please explain how.

Why tax companies, who provide the largest amount of jobs in America, just to give free money to the middle class? The overall effects just mean higher prices for everyone and tougher competition overseas so it's a lose-lose plan that gets too much democratic support. Companies need their profits, and if Obama wants to take their money without seeing higher prices, then the company struggles and the stockholders, which are mostly middle and upper-middle class suffer.

C) There are some people who argue that crippling oil companies would also hurt families with stocks invested in oil. Naturally, the smartest decision is to try and relief as many people as possible, since you're not trying to favor those who are of lower / upper / middle class in terms of relief. Can this argument be proven / disproven by showing that there are more / less people with stocks invested in oil than those who are suffering considerable from high gas prices? Is there any proof that shows that more people would suffer from the impact on stocks from government regulations on oil prices than the people who would be relieved from the regulations oil companies. [If you have an argument that regulations on oil companies does not relieve people who are suffering from high gas prices that DOES NOT include arguments posted above, then please include it here, if not, simply redirect attention to the argument that was made.]

The solution is to stop people driving the price of oil by buying oil contracts just to hold them (buying commodity futures), not to harm people who own oil company stock.

5) I have heard arguments that A) Government Tax Revenues are more accurately determined not by tax rates but by GDP [or was it GNP? I'm not sure] And B) that GDP is highest when taxes are low. In order for this argument to be correct, both the statements A and B must be correct. If either or both of them can be disproven then the argument is invalid, Can this argument as a whole therefore, be proven or disproven

http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/b g2001.cfm
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12112446 0502305693.html?mod=todays_us_opinion

Basically no matter what the tax rate has been, the percentage of taxes to GDP has roughly been 19.5%. The best way to increase tax revenue is to increase GDP which is ironically lowering the tax rate.

http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/w m327.cfm
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/washin gton/09econ.html

All this talk about projected deficits yet it's never as big as we think it will be.

If you need more detail about anything, don't hesitate to ask.

[SmilezRoyale]

I'll wait to see if someone else wants to debate you, but if you could, please elaborate on that third bullet, because i don't really understand what you meant. [3)]

[n64kid]

At 8/14/08 07:25 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: I'll wait to see if someone else wants to debate you, but if you could, please elaborate on that third bullet, because i don't really understand what you meant. [3)]

I'm not sure what you mean either. Can you specify the type of welfare

There are individuals who can argue that government subsidies [or Welfare checks] Cause more failed businesses [or impoverished peoples] than if the government did not intervene into peoples lives. Can this be proven / disproven? If so please explain how. Please indicate whether or not you are talking about subsidies for businesses or welfare checks for impoverished Americans.

I'm not sure how giving government subsidies to the businesses harm them unless you meant something different. So I'm going to need an elaboration on what type of subsidies, and who you say people claim to be negatively impacted.

[SmilezRoyale]

I really can't elaborate... It's really more a matter of in terms of welfare, the war on poverty, government aid to remove povert, win or fail?

And as for subsidies, subsidies to help buisnesses. Does it make them stronger or create more weak buisneseses.

[Al6200]

At 8/14/08 05:12 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

I'll try to use your criteria although there are a few points where I used independent calculations to get my result.

The validity of a source can be attacked by providing knowledge as to where and how the information was gathered or whether or not there was any motive for an agenda in the collection of said data.

Yeah. I'll do my best.

2) Exactly how effective are Solar and Wind Power [efficiency wise] Compared to Nuclear power and are there any countries in the world that use them as their primary [Largest Percentile, Separate or combined] energy source without [or with VERY little involvement [less than 10%]] nuclear power.

Much less effective than nuclear power.

http://al6200.newgrounds.com/news/post/6 1846

In citations 8 and 10 I show that nuclear is 254 times more efficient than solar and 916 times more efficient than wind power (that's a little bit unfair to wind since you can put things in between the turbines).

France gets 78% of its power from nuclear.

http://www.industrie.gouv.fr/energie/sta tisti/pdf/elec-analyse-stat.pdf (In French, but the table at the bottom is pretty easy to read anyway)

Germany seems to be at about 15% from wind but my calculations might be off (Frankly I don't feel like converting MW years to kw Hours)s.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_wi n_ene_ins-energy-wind-installation

C) There are some people who argue that crippling oil companies would also hurt families with stocks invested in oil. Naturally, the smartest decision is to try and relief as many people as possible, since you're not trying to favor those who are of lower / upper / middle class in terms of relief. Can this argument be proven / disproven by showing that there are more / less people with stocks invested in oil than those who are suffering considerable from high gas prices? Is there any proof that shows that more people would suffer from the impact on stocks from government regulations on oil prices than the people who would be relieved from the regulations oil companies. [If you have an argument that regulations on oil companies does not relieve people who are suffering from high gas prices that DOES NOT include arguments posted above, then please include it here, if not, simply redirect attention to the argument that was made.]

Middle class people tend to buy mutual funds so they'd lose out less than wealthy investors. That's all I can really say about that particular question.

[n64kid]

At 8/14/08 07:45 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: I really can't elaborate... It's really more a matter of in terms of welfare, the war on poverty, government aid to remove povert, win or fail?

And as for subsidies, subsidies to help buisnesses. Does it make them stronger or create more weak buisneseses.

Ah thanks for the clarification. I can go into anecdotal evidence with reasoning with an economic sense on the war on poverty and provide real world examples of subsidies to businesses that have both helped and hurt them in the short and long term.

Welfare is the goal of narrowing the income gap (i.e. rich gives the poor some money) which sprouts from economic inequality. As wiki states:

"In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth, and the top 1% controlled 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth."

Most people feel bad that 40% of America makes up 1% of the nations 72 trillion dollar wealth (72 trillion is after a 6 trillion dollar loss due to the housing bubble bursting. My source WSJ online requires subscription) and some think the rich should give the poor free money through an inefficient medium known as the government. So by this, someone making a million dollars a year might pay 30,000 dollars, or 3% of their wage to go towards welfare.

Now the government will control that money, hire people to find qualified poor people, use up the million dollar mans taxes, and the poor people end up with only a percentage of the taxes paid. Now because the taxes are virtually being wasted, we have to assume that the rich man could better invest that 30,000/year in capital, and his wealth, as well as GDP, will expand and a higher rate. A simplified calculation of GDP=Consumption+Investments+Government Spending+Exports-Imports
Then we must assume that a higher investment amount will lead to higher growth, as compared to an increase in government spending. It's just how it works, hence why the private sector runs itself far more smoothly than sectors with government regulation.

So if the poverished persons still get money, how could they be harmed? Simple. Valuation of currency. A strong economy usually, but not all the time goes hand in hand with a strong currency. Because of money being funneled to the poor instead of being reinvested halts growth, which in turn leads to higher unemployment of poor people, and a weak dollar which makes them relatively poorer to citizens abroad. Our 9.5 trillion dollar debt in largely due to FICA and other welfare programs, and not military spending, which helps provide productive jobs and improve technology. So in part, the worst of our spending which is harming the rich, middle class, and poor is in fact welfare.

I notice that I was going all over the board with that one and as always, if you find a glitch or if I skipped a step that you arent familiar with, I'll be happy to reiterate.

On to corporate subsidies, this link might provide some insight of how subsidies might give one business a disproportionate edge, making a compepitor struggle due to a price they cannot match.

Subsidies, as with GM in the auto industry has given GM a lack of competitive drive. They, like Ford, design cars that are easy to build instead of coming up with cutting edge concepts. They've had little reason to stay a fore-runner in the industry, and government subsidies in their plant spending along with NAFTA gave them a perceived comfort zone which wouldn't stay for long. Despite tariffs, GM is losing market share in the US, and cannot compete with foreign auto-makers. I've only heard one person blame subsidies, a lot of people blame NAFTA, but I put the full blame on the company for sucking so much. They didn't give us an incentive to compete is no excuse in a globalized economy such as America to cut back on R&D and not use the best plant technologies to reduce labor costs while producing sharp products.
Here is some rant that covers the jist of what I've said

Anyways, government subsidies bailed out Chrysler which saved thousands of jobs as well as America's auto industry.
More here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler#Go vernment_loan_guarantees
http://www.heritage.org/research/Energya ndEnvironment/bg276.cfm

So in conclusion, welfare is a waste of money and opprotunity while subsidies can harm or hurt businesses. Harm because one could have an unfair edge in the market, driving competitors out of business, or deter investment. And help, as they offer more options to the business, but the business must organize and adapt to maintain competitiveness in their market to succeed.

[Slizor]

As always econmic reasoning fails to reasonably support its premises (or even identify them.)

My source WSJ online requires subscription) and some think the rich should give the poor free money through an inefficient medium known as the government. So by this, someone making a million dollars a year might pay 30,000 dollars, or 3% of their wage to go towards welfare.

I'm sorry, I missed the bit where there were the comparative statistics for the efficiency of government (/different government systems) compared with the efficiency of business. Seems to me like you just assumed, based on your ideological stance, that government is comparatively inefficient.

Now the government will control that money, hire people to find qualified poor people, use up the million dollar mans taxes, and the poor people end up with only a percentage of the taxes paid.

Fuzzy wording. Only a percentage of taxes paid? Like 100%? Also, in hiring civil servants the government is creating jobs and stimulating the economy.

Now because the taxes are virtually being wasted

Huge jump in logic there. You're made it seem that $3,000 has become $3 without actually using any stats or logic.

we have to assume that the rich man could better invest that 30,000/year in capital, and his wealth, as well as GDP, will expand and a higher rate. A simplified calculation of GDP=Consumption+Investments+Government Spending+Exports-Imports
Then we must assume that a higher investment amount will lead to higher growth, as compared to an increase in government spending. It's just how it works, hence why the private sector runs itself far more smoothly than sectors with government regulation.

That's circular reasoning. You started with the belief that government is inefficient and business is efficient then said "It's just how it works" and then come to the conclusion that government is inefficient and business is efficient.

I thought this thread was about proof, not about ideology.

[morefngdbs]

At 8/15/08 06:08 AM, Slizor wrote: I thought this thread was about proof, not about ideology.

;;;;
No, I believe its just a way for us to do his homework for him.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 8/15/08 08:01 AM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 8/15/08 06:08 AM, Slizor wrote: I thought this thread was about proof, not about ideology.

;;;;
No, I believe its just a way for us to do his homework for him.

Please be joking. Because reading that just made me want to bite your head off... [idk why]

Ok calming down...... Riiighht..... now.

Either way. I have my own bias. I'll be selective about information. And furthermore it's nice to see how far the knowledge of this community extends.