Is Income Inequality Really a Problem?

[Gregg]

What I do not understand is why they don't build refineries in South Dakota instead of building a pipe line across 7 or 8 states. The possibility for spills seem large for a pipeline running something like 1000 miles and the cost to maintain it let alone build it can not be less than building new refineries.

As Alan said, they do have a refinery in the works in SD, but you still have to transport the refined fuels to where the users are. Pipelines are a FAR more efficient way of doing that than tanker trucks or train cars and far safer, too. As far as leaks and spills from the pipeline; TransCanada was planning to encase the entire line in concrete through Nebraska. I'm not sure if that was planned for the entire length or just through NE as an olive branch to the opposition.

[rosebud]

Well, since yours is the first post in this thread to mention liberals, I'm assuming you've shoved yourself into the fray.

By the way, income redistribution is not a liberal trait, but rather a progressive one. To my chagrin, progressives have, IMHO, stolen and debased the term liberal from it's roots in libertarianism. A classic liberal believes in equality, the rule of law, the security of private property, the freedom to make individual contracts and limited government.

Progressives have ruined the term.

Yes, just another way progressives have ruined everything! They stole the word "liberal!"

Hey man, things change! Words change over time! That's life. Get over it already.

[rosebud]

I wouldn't phrase it quite like that, no.

There are a couple of billionaires down the street from me. They have 3-4 cars each, and nice yachts, and a couple of airplanes. Their impact on non-renewable resources and energy use is pretty large. But, I look around at the 4000 non-billionaires around here, and most of them have 1-2 cars made of 4000+ pounds of steel and aluminum, TVs, cell phones, eat fruit shipped thousands of miles, etc. etc.

I'm not going to blame "the highest echelons", but it sure looks to me like the First World is burning through energy and resources at an incredible rate. I suppose if you call "The First World" the mega-consumers or the "highest echelons", I'd go along with you :-) We could take all the billionaires, centi-millionaires, and heck, everyone with a net worth more than $1 million out behind the barn tomorrow, and it wouldn't make much difference in our overall consumption.

And the rest of the planet wants to consume and produce like we do.

With current and predicted population levels, and current and near-term technologies, that's not going to work.

Unfortunately, true. Collapse was a very instructive book, one that stayed in my mind long after I finished it.

[Alan]

.....Hey man, things change! Words change over time! That's life. Get over it already.

It's sort of like defining millionaires and billionaires (for taxation purposes) as anyone making over $200,000. Words are just words, definitions just get in the way of a favored meaning.

[bae]

Words are just words, definitions just get in the way of a favored meaning.

'I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't — till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. 'They've a temper, some of them — particularly verbs: they're the proudest — adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs — however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!'

'Would you tell me please,' said Alice, 'what that means?'

'Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. 'I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life.'

'That's a great deal to make one word mean,' Alice said in a thoughtful tone.

'When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'I always pay it extra.'

'Oh!' said Alice. She was too much puzzled to make any other remark.

'Ah, you should see 'em come round me of a Saturday night,' Humpty Dumpty went on, wagging his head gravely from side to side, 'for to get their wages, you know.'

(Alice didn't venture to ask what he paid them with; and so you see I can't tell you.)

'You seem very clever at explaining words, Sir,' said Alice. 'Would you kindly tell me the meaning of the poem called "Jabberwocky"?'

[Alan]

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'

Exactly!

[rosebud]

Exactly!

No, the question is, what is the dictionary definition. On that point, I win, Alan.

But hey, if you want to call yourself a liberal, good luck with that.

[Alan]

No, the question is, what is the dictionary definition. On that point, I win, Alan.

Really? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classic_liberal

If I had referenced classic liberalism's progeny, social liberals, you'd be right, but I didn't. And since my comment was many posts back, I'll copy it for you in order to provide clarity.

A classic liberal believes in equality, the rule of law, the security of private property, the freedom to make individual contracts and limited government.

Ya see, that's why definitions matter.

[Rogar]

Sorry to sidetrack the political label discussion back the the sidetrack of the XL Pipeline....

But to set the record straight, part of the opposition was indeed the risk of a pipeline spill or other local damage. There is also a significant opposition based on a projected increase in greenhouse gasses. Spokesmen included well know environmental writer, Bill McKibben, and former head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, James Hansen, who is one of the country's leading climatologists. The tar sands involve the extraction of exceptionally dirty crude using huge amounts of water and heat, which when eventually burned would add a large new source of greenhouse gasses. To quote Hansen, “Essentially, it’s game over for the planet.”

As I understand it, Canada has proposed to pipe the crude to a coastal port and ship it to China if we don't approve some form of the XL pipeline, so the green house gas portion of the arguement is probably mute.

[Zoebird]

mute should be moot, but that's just for clarification, not to be snarky.

i have no specific opinion on the pipeline, except that oil companies do a lot of very stupid things is seems. lots more errors that they seem not to account for or plan for on the outset.

i'm interesting in peak-oil issues. nz feels that it's getting kinda close, but i don't know what we're going to do with our cars, then. people take really, really good care of cars here, and don't usually pack on the milage that americans do, so cars last. without oil, a lot of people would be . . . not able to go very far.