To "A Scientist" but the problems with the market are brought about by
the state. Why would you want the source of the problems to propose solutions?
Do we let criminals determine how law enforcement will be performed? Why let the
people who screwed up the economy decide how to "fix" it?
I could care less about what ever the latest and greatest political agenda item
is. I am a firm believer as a Christian that we own a responsibility to use
this planet that was granted to us with the absolutely most care and diligence
as we can. That we have a responsibility to generations following to leave
them a planet as good or better than we received.This isn't a
liberal/progressive thing, a conservative thing, or a tree hugger thing. This
is a religious stewardship thing. If you believe God created this planet, you
should feel the compulsion to treat it with respect, Just as we strive to
leave our meeting houses clean for the next unit that will use it, we should do
likewise for this planet for the following generations that are to come to raise
I have to agree with Marxist. The same universalist and absolutist thinking that
characterizes approaches inspired by Hayek and/or Keynes is overly simplistic
and inadequate, as the Great Recession of 2008 demonstrated. In
"The Great Transformation", Polanyi recognizes that the nation state and
the market economy are not separate, "natural" entities but are BOTH
artifacts of human invention.As such, both market and state must be
part of the solution to our economic problems: neo-liberalism and state
socialism in a thoughtfully "mixed" economy.
For several days now I have seen plumes of black smoke coming from the Salt Lake
County land fill. My question is this: Is government saying "do as I say,
not as I do"? The same goes to water conservation.
To "marxist" but outside of Somalia you don't have unregulated
markets. So, what is your point? It doesn't apply to nearly all of the
@marxist: "...an unregulated market will destroy man's habitation and
his society."Maybe. But there is no such thing as an
unregulated market. All markets are bounded by laws. Capitalism is
bounded by laws, and there is no guarantee that socialism would result in any
"better" laws. In fact, the historical evidence is directly to the
contrary. Socialist markets are just as "greedy" to feed and clothe
their people as Capitalist markets are. China clearly believes it is
"socialist", yet is by far the worst polluter. So I
don't know what markets you are referring to. Maybe Tajikistan ? :)
To "Joshua Stewart" but studies show that an inland port will improve
the quality of life here.The University of Texas found that an
inland port decreased delivery times, lowered transportation costs, and reduced
CO2 emission through greater efficiency in transportation. On top of all of that
they found that outside the immediate are of the inland port you had fewer
trucks on the road.In addition to all of that, you have the benefit
of MORE jobs in the area for people to work. Where you have more open jobs in a
market with very low unemployment you automatically drive up wages without
Karl Polanyi in his "The Great Transformation" asserts an unregulated
market will destroy man's habitation and his society. I agree. Polanyi
needs to be read.
A Des news editorial quoting Wendell Berry?? **heart eyes emoji*And
referring to climate change as a reality and not a political debate? Even
better. This point is especially poignant: "The real issue is
how much human suffering the world is willing to accept."Unfortunately, it seems, human suffering is something many in politics have an
appetite for, and not just a willingness to accept. I applaud this
paper's (and it's owner's) sincere expression on stewardship as a
part of the broader conversation of our role, governmental-ly and individually,
to addressing the environmental challenges we now face.
The majority of Utahns want industrial and population growth rates stabilized
and quality of life improved. Utah’s leaders continue to focus on the
“Silicon Slopes” and “Inland Port” instead of projects
that will more directly improve the quality of life on the Wasatch Front for
most Utahns. Developing on our rapidly diminishing open space at the Point of
the Mountain and Salt Lake County’s west side will only exacerbate sprawl,
air pollution, and add traffic to existing roads. Utahn’s want to spend
less time in their cars and dropping another 150,000 jobs at the Point of the
Mountain is like throwing gasoline on the fire. The massive inland port area
focuses on adding more trucks and shipping to our already busy highways and
adding an equivalent amount of diesel fumes to our already polluted valley air.
The infrastructure just isn’t currently there to make these locations
environmentally and fiscally prudent. Help families reduce the amount of income
spent on transportation and housing and improve our schools and environment.
Redevelop existing places into smarter, more beautiful, more walkable
Uh, was Lenin even mentioned in the article?
I have always thought that protecting the environment was something that both
devoutly religious people and staunch athiests could agree on:To religious
people, the earth is God's great gift to His people, and should be
protected and cherished. To athiests, the earth is the result of millions
of years of heating and cooling and natural evolution, culminating in a world
that even non-believers might term...miraculous. Regardless of how we
think the earth got here, those of us who breathe its air, drink its water, and
walk its land have an obligation to care for it. Because both the devoutly
religious and confirmed athiests usually have children, and grandchildren, and
this earth will be the only home they will ever know.