anarchimedes

I provided links to the USDA report and it's findings. I provided the link to Lomborgs tweet and in it the referenced links to the findings. In it, he addresses the 10% reduction in emissions argument and show that it is cherry picking the available data. That to me has an element of alarmism in it.

"He has a history of being wrong" - if he does, I have not seen it. and I am open to changing my mind if there is evidence to the contrary - which I have asked you in good faith to provide.

Would you kindly provide evidence to the contrary and not just to what Bjorn has done but also the USDA?

And no, it is nothing like Fisher's contrarianism to the smoking issue. Both links acknowledged that the current global diet has an impact on CI, but tries to find the most likely size of the effect.

I ask because the science and evidence behind this stuff is complicated, and much of what is being said has a huge element of alarmism. I don't doubt that our current diets have impacts on CI, but I would like to see thoughtful analysis determining the effects. I'm sincerely asking this in good faith

Could you kindly expound on how the incentive example I described would be like a command economy? And how would that be different from the capital gains tax rates we have now ( in the sense the government providing an incentive for investment)?

With regards to: >We can't count on noblesse oblige to do it, and involving the state is how we involve democracy in the process.

I believe it's the democratic part that bothers me - as, and excuse me if this is a poor analogy, like 3 wolves an one sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

I don't want you to think that I am ignorant of the fact that we do need some level of economic leveling for a well functioning society. My concern is how to best achieve that while preserving an individual liberty.

Again, appreciate the response.

Thank you for the response - sincerely. I supposed it is unconventional.

I'm still struck by a few ideas. The first is that economic leveling needs to be done by force through the state. The second being that any new program needs to be funded by the wealthy - also by force of the state.

I would think using incentives would be the better approach? For example, let corporations repatriate overseas cash with a lower penalty and use that money to fund green R&D

Why should they pay more? I haven't seen data otherwise, and I would be happy to admit that I am wrong, but what additional use of public goods and services that are funded by taxes do people making $10M+ use more than other people at the rate described?

If their use of public goods and services are greater that people making less money, is that use at a rate that would justify taking 70% of their income? Sincerely curious....

(C'mon downvotes!) I thought the idea of paying your "fair share" was in relation to the services provided by the taxes paid. I can take an extreme example that I've tried to steel man to hold up this point: Bill Gates.

Does Bill Gates the man use more taxpayer provided military/healthcare/infrastructure.. than anyone else? Of those things that he does use more of, if he taxed by the volume of those services used (example: water/sewer) and therefore paying his fair share?

What difference does it make if her was born to rich parents? How does that make it right to make him pay more money?

I am asking respectfully and I sincerely hope that you do not take this as an attack.

edit: spelling

This is awesome! Does anyone know if this update will effect the sqldf package in R?

Thank you for the feedback.