How did the "Robber barons" help America if capitalism always works better?
http://mises.org/daily/2317 Market entrepreneurship is a hallmark of genuine capitalism, whereas political entrepreneurship is not. Liberals, as usual, are unable to see the vast differences. They erroneously lump the 2 together. In some cases, of course, the entrepreneurs commonly labeled "robber barons" did indeed profit by exploiting American customers, but these were not market entrepreneurs. For example, Leland Stanford, a former governor and US senator from California, used his political connections to have the state pass laws prohibiting competition for his Central Pacific railroad. Rockefeller for instance devised means of eliminating much of the incredible waste that had plagued the oil industry. His chemists figured out how to produce such oil byproducts as lubricating oil, gasoline, paraffin wax, Vaseline, paint, varnish, and about three hundred other substances. In each instance he profited by eliminating waste. One of Rockefeller's harshest critics was journalist Ida Tarbell, whose brother was the treasurer of the Pure Oil Company, which could not compete with Standard Oil's low prices. She published a series of hypercritical articles in McClure's magazine in 1902 and 1903, which were turned into a book entitled The History of the Standard Oil Company, a classic of anti-business propaganda. The fact Standard oil was so efficient allowed them to have lower prices. The lower prices forced it's competitors to retaliate the only way they could: Government anti-trust legislation. They assumed Standard oil and companies like it, were able to reduce prices due to a war chest of profits. However, this wasn't true at all. Common sense tells us with lower prices, they couldn't possibly have enough of a war chest to force competition out of business. In the 1930's the American Petroleum Institute (an industry trade association) lobbied for various regulatory schemes to restrict competition and prop up prices; it did not even pretend to be in favor of capitalism or free enterprise. The institute even endorsed the use of National Guard troops to enforce state government production quotas in Texas and Oklahoma in the early l930s. To economists, "predatory pricing" is theoretical nonsense and has no empirical validity. SO ... This begs the question; who were the real robber barons? Government or capitalists?
Are we finding out that climate change predictions were too conservative?
No.No climate prediction (of the many, many that have been made) has been shown to be too conservative. That’s why none of the other answers actually provide a prediction which has subsequently been shown to be too conservative.Some, at least, have proven to be too “alarmist”. For example, the IPCC has reduced its estimates for climate sensitivity to CO2, and for sea level rises. (Indeed, the rate of sea level rise has been constant at about 1 foot per century for the last 40 years).What have become less conservative are predictions for the future. There appears to be a dynamic occurring where new predictions are more alarmist than previous predictions. This is presumably related to making the predictions more newsworthy.Mike Barnard’s answer gives an excellent example of a prediction becoming less conservative, predictions of sea level rise. Its worth bearing in mind that the rate of sea level rise is substantially less than previously predicted (as it has been constant when it was predicted to increase) and in fact has been downgraded by the IPCC, even while some people are claiming that it will in the future rise even more than previously predicted. So the predictions are certainly becoming more alarmist, but of the many, many predictions made by climate “scientists” in the past, none have proved to be too conservative.
Americans seem exceptionally passionate about the topic of global warming (global climate change). Why?
QIn general, the US has developed a weak political system that tends to force folks to take one side or another. The continued influence of Dennis Hastert is very unfortunate in that respect.Hastert Rule - WikipediaAmericans live in a bubble created by corporate media and corporate influenced academe. Even our law makers often have little access to information other than what their corporate masters provide for them.When it becomes obvious there is a problem with the corporate bubble, that is big news. The storms in the US are getting too big to ignore. The numbers of climate related refugees(Syria is an example) is getting too big to ignore.The US also has undergone a huge transformation the last 100–120 years. Until 1900, about 60% of Americans were of British extraction. Most of the rest were of German, Scandinavian, French, Irish or Dutch descent. Today only about 18% of Americans are of British descent.Immigration has become a tense issue. Climate change is likely to make that even more of an issue. The US is one of the few places in the world where immigrants from a wide variety of areas can come with some chance of functioning reasonably.Right now the refugee population is 60 million. That could easily increase to over 200 Million by 2060. The first choice destination of many of those folks would be the USThe US simply does not have a real national consensus on how to deal with immigration going forward. There are huge divisions on that point.More thoughtful Americans realize the US is a major factor in climate chance and this is something that will affect US trade relations and stature in the world and the economic arrangements upon which the modern US economy has been based. There is however a lot of pushback on dealing with a problem of that scope.The US also has substantial areas that could be significantly affected by even minor sea level rises: Florida is one prime example: however the areas most likely impacted are rather different politically than many other parts of the US.
Bombing of Dresden by the RAF worse than Germany bombing London?
The Blitz lasted from 7 September 1940 - 10 May 1941; at one point, London was bombed for 76 consecutive nights. About 22,000 Londoners were killed. The Dresden raids (RAF and USAAF) took place between 13 and 15 February 1945. The lowest estimate of deaths ranges from 24,000-40,000. Higher estimates go up to as many as 250,000. So, from the point of view of damage done,the bombing of Dresden was far worse.Further, as Dresden was packed with refugees at the time of the raids, and was in the path of the advancing Soviet Army (which occupied the city soon after),it could be said that the raid on Dresden was disproportionate,even unnecessary.The Blitz of London was carried out earlier in the war, when the final result of the conflict was far from being decided.This was not the case on the dates of the Dresden raids.