Discussion:
Hey Fossil Fools, given the current financial crisis we are in things really are as bad as ecology protesters claim.
(too old to reply)
Immortalist
2009-06-28 20:49:06 UTC
Permalink
URGENT action is required. Is it possible to attack these problems in
a non partisan way and assign equal blame to all involved parties and
interests?

The world must move to clean, renewable, and affordable energy in the
next 30 years. Is it possible to reach this goal?

If the U.S. solves only its own energy problem, but the world does
not, then everyone still loses. Pollution knows no borders and a
sinking ship takes down everyone on board. That is why all countries
must do what they can to affect a global transition to all-renewable,
clean energy by 2040. That means a coordinated global effort with
global scope. That means leadership from the United States, Europe,
China, India, and Japan. That means diligent commitment from average
citizens around the world, and corporate and national leaders.

Beyond Fossil Fools: The Roadmap to
Energy Independence by 2040
by Joe Shuster
http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Fossil-Fools-Roadmap-Independence/dp/1592982352

http://www.fossilfoolsdayofaction.org/
George
2009-06-28 21:05:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Immortalist
URGENT action is required. Is it possible to attack these problems in
a non partisan way and assign equal blame to all involved parties and
interests?
The world must move to clean, renewable, and affordable energy in the
next 30 years. Is it possible to reach this goal?
why?
Post by Immortalist
If the U.S. solves only its own energy problem, but the world does
not, then everyone still loses. Pollution knows no borders and a
sinking ship takes down everyone on board. That is why all countries
must do what they can to affect a global transition to all-renewable,
clean energy by 2040. That means a coordinated global effort with
global scope. That means leadership from the United States, Europe,
China, India, and Japan. That means diligent commitment from average
citizens around the world, and corporate and national leaders.
Beyond Fossil Fools: The Roadmap to
Energy Independence by 2040
by Joe Shuster
http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Fossil-Fools-Roadmap-Independence/dp/1592982352
http://www.fossilfoolsdayofaction.org/
Immortalist
2009-06-28 21:19:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Immortalist
URGENT action is required. Is it possible to attack these problems in
a non partisan way and assign equal blame to all involved parties and
interests?
The world must move to clean, renewable, and affordable energy in the
next 30 years. Is it possible to reach this goal?
why?
Maybe to satisfy our new need, installed by W.Bush, to panic and over
react? This way once we gets everyone scared then we can force
anything down their throats our interest groups desire.

Just jokin'. That is a good question; just why would we want to try
and produce a cleaner environment?
George
2009-06-28 21:21:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Immortalist
Post by Immortalist
URGENT action is required. Is it possible to attack these problems in
a non partisan way and assign equal blame to all involved parties and
interests?
The world must move to clean, renewable, and affordable energy in the
next 30 years. Is it possible to reach this goal?
why?
Maybe to satisfy our new need, installed by W.Bush, to panic and over
react? This way once we gets everyone scared then we can force
anything down their throats our interest groups desire.
Just jokin'. That is a good question; just why would we want to try
and produce a cleaner environment?
making batteries is not clean. then they die in 3 years and more have
to be made. how is that clean?
Immortalist
2009-06-28 21:29:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Immortalist
Post by Immortalist
URGENT action is required. Is it possible to attack these problems in
a non partisan way and assign equal blame to all involved parties and
interests?
The world must move to clean, renewable, and affordable energy in the
next 30 years. Is it possible to reach this goal?
why?
Maybe to satisfy our new need, installed by W.Bush, to panic and over
react? This way once we gets everyone scared then we can force
anything down their throats our interest groups desire.
Just jokin'. That is a good question; just why would we want to try
and produce a cleaner environment?
making batteries is not clean.  then they die in 3 years and more have
to be made.  how is that clean?
Where do batteries come in? Are you saying that "if batteries are one
of the alternatives, are not they just as bad in some respects"? I
didn't mention no batteries man.
tooly
2009-06-30 04:13:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Immortalist
URGENT action is required. Is it possible to attack these problems in
a non partisan way and assign equal blame to all involved parties and
interests?
The world must move to clean, renewable, and affordable energy in the
next 30 years. Is it possible to reach this goal?
why?
Post by Immortalist
Maybe to satisfy our new need, installed by W.Bush, to panic and over
react? This way once we gets everyone scared then we can force
anything down their throats our interest groups desire.
Just jokin'. That is a good question; just why would we want to try
and produce a cleaner environment?
No...that's not the question. Obviously all people would want a cleaner
environment...emaculately spotless if it were possible. The question is why
should we destroy our global economiy relegating us back to horse and
buggies and candlelight [sic]? It had better be one hellva good reason and
VERY provable. True...CO2 rises...but just how much is due to fossil fuel
burning? I doubt China is going to forego all them coal burning electric
plants in the works...which means if the USA accepts the yoke and takes the
economic nose dive, they are just folding their hand in a dicey world poker
game of political intrigue. The game is getting very complex.
Les Cargill
2009-06-30 05:45:30 UTC
Permalink
tooly wrote:
<snip>
Post by tooly
Post by Immortalist
Just jokin'. That is a good question; just why would we want to try
and produce a cleaner environment?
No...that's not the question. Obviously all people would want a cleaner
environment...emaculately spotless if it were possible.
No, not obvious. It's a recent development. Prior to the
'60s, nobody* cared. You've been programmed into it.

*a few did, but not many. Maybe dozens.
Post by tooly
The question is why
should we destroy our global economiy relegating us back to horse and
buggies and candlelight [sic]? It had better be one hellva good reason and
VERY provable.
It's not. It's certainly no falsifiable hypothesis.
Post by tooly
True...CO2 rises...but just how much is due to fossil fuel
burning? I doubt China is going to forego all them coal burning electric
plants in the works...which means if the USA accepts the yoke and takes the
economic nose dive, they are just folding their hand in a dicey world poker
game of political intrigue. The game is getting very complex.
Indeed. Waxman-Markley places us in a near-term risk against a
long-term risk. But even W-M is long enough in timeline to
be scrapped when it doesn't work out.

--
Les Cargill
Fran
2009-06-30 06:40:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Immortalist
URGENT action is required. Is it possible to attack these problems in
a non partisan way and assign equal blame to all involved parties and
interests?
The world must move to clean, renewable, and affordable energy in the
next 30 years. Is it possible to reach this goal?
why?
Post by Immortalist
Maybe to satisfy our new need, installed by W.Bush, to panic and over
react? This way once we gets everyone scared then we can force
anything down their throats our interest groups desire.
Just jokin'. That is a good question; just why would we want to try
and produce a cleaner environment?
No...that's not the question.  Obviously all people would want a cleaner
environment...emaculately spotless if it were possible.  
You'd think so wouldn't you, but although few will admit it it, in
practice not a few think dumping industrial effluent into the
environment is acceptable, and complain only when it bothers them
personally. Cognitive dissonance rules. The fact that coal mining,
transport and combustion shortens and damages lives in the here and
now is something few consider, possibly because most people think of
electricity as something invisible that comes out of a power point.
The question is why
should we destroy our global economy relegating us back to horse and
buggies and candlelight [sic]?  
Strawman (var: False dilemma). I'm yet to hear any significant
environmentalist argue for a return to horse and buggy or resort to
candles for general lighting. Instead, it is argued that we should
make better use of resources such as wind, nuclear, geothermal,
natural gas, wave, solar thermal, PV, waste biomass etc and aim for
more thermally efficient housing, more sustainable agriculture,
protection and augmentation of forests, reductions in the usage of
private motor vehicles in favour of mass transit, the conversion of
commuter vehicles to electricity and 2nd generation biofuels etc.
It had better be one hellva good reason and
VERY provable.  True...CO2 rises...but just how much is due to fossil fuel
burning?
According to the Carbon 12 isotope readings, quite a bit.
 I doubt China is going to forego all them coal burning electric
plants in the works...which means if the USA accepts the yoke and takes the
economic nose dive, they are just folding their hand in a dicey world poker
game of political intrigue.  
Not really. We live in an interdependent world. If any major player
falters, everyone else staggers as well. The Chinese hold large
quantities of US bonds. Trying to offload them would cost them big
time and they absolutely do want US demand to continue. So if America
goes green and if there is a world wide carbon trading regime, this
will serve China AND America. It's worth noting too that although
China is continuing to build lots of coal-fired capacity it is
estimated that by 2020, 20% of its energy will come from renewables
like hydro and wind. A whole other trnache will come from nuclear. Why
they'd do that if it wasn't feasible is anyone's guess. It's not as if
they have to answer to their own population. They think it will be a
good thing, plainly.

Could they/should they do more? Of course. If the US can show that
renewables are even more feasible, then China and India may get with
the program. That's why the US must lead on this rather than trail.

Fran
tooly
2009-06-30 14:07:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by tooly
The question is why
should we destroy our global economy relegating us back to horse and
buggies and candlelight [sic]?
Post by Fran
Strawman (var: False dilemma). I'm yet to hear any significant
environmentalist argue for a return to horse and buggy or resort to
candles for general lighting. Instead, it is argued that we should
make better use of resources such as wind, nuclear, geothermal,
natural gas, wave, solar thermal, PV, waste biomass etc and aim for
more thermally efficient housing, more sustainable agriculture,
protection and augmentation of forests, reductions in the usage of
private motor vehicles in favour of mass transit, the conversion of
commuter vehicles to electricity and 2nd generation biofuels etc.
You know, my own sense of all these is they still add up only to 'band-aid'
remedies. Costs don't justify their large scale usage or there are other
problems...and none of these can really substitute to drive our autos which
is the real sustainer of our present standard of living [maybe solar to some
degree, but marginal, and still cost prohibitive]. If we go through with
this 'greening', I think what we'll see is large scale impoverishment of the
masses, with a ruling elite class that 'lives the good life' while wallowing
in their 'pat-on-the-back' "save the planet" crusades. Kinda like what is
taking place already, hehe The rest of us will be living in energy efficient
'it takes a village' ghettos, ha. . For instance, I've read that cap and
trade will double and maybe even triple our electric bill. Under green
dictates, I think we are going to artificially drive up the price of
gasoline[oil] so as to spur alternative energy development. Right? We
already saw just what $4 a gallon does to us...not good. Seems to me we
are talking about a transition in way of living for the common person that
is staggering; and overnight? I wonder if many are really prepared for what
is coming that will probably hit us like a brick wall.

To add to all this, they are throwing around the number 'trillion' so easily
in DC these days, that we forget what's already being spent on stimulus,
bailouts, and the socialization of the USA. Quite a few of us are already
battening down the hatches for some sort of financial tsnami that will hit
from all this spending, where the dollar will most likely fall out under
mass indebtedness and inflation. And now they are talking about installing
government run health care insurance to boot? Oh fine...but who the hell is
going to pay for all this!? I mean, just how much disposable income do the
politicians think we have out here in no-man's land? LIfe is ALREADY a
struggle for most of us.

Ask for the moon, but always lay it on the taxpayer to pay for it. Will all
this 'stuff' remain politically viable once the bills start to come in? I
would not want to be young in today's world.
Michael Coburn
2009-06-30 19:25:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by tooly
And now they are talking
about installing government run health care insurance to boot? Oh
fine...but who the hell is going to pay for all this!? I mean, just how
much disposable income do the politicians think we have out here in
no-man's land? LIfe is ALREADY a struggle for most of us.
Ask for the moon, but always lay it on the taxpayer to pay for it. Will
all this 'stuff' remain politically viable once the bills start to come
in? I would not want to be young in today's world.
1. All production is done by the able bodied and agile and smart
producers of the economy between the ages of 20 and 65. Old coots and
young people are not really part of the work force. The young are
learning and the old are simply not agile enough to do what needs to be
done. The old trying to work will just clog up the system and the young
people will have to "work around them" making the work that must be done
more difficult. You can look at it as the old coots need to retire so
there are better job opportunities for the young.

2. The fact that only the productive can produce is not the result of
any "desire" on the part of any or all of us that it be so. It simply
_IS_. And the objective of our productive lives is to insure that the
very young are educated and developed so that they will be able to be
productive in their turn. If they are not then we shall die a much
swifter death as we proceed into out non productive years. We "invest"
in the young but we "save" by paying to care for the old. Our FICA taxes
are a savings account in the sense that we know that the younger can and
will do likewise. We "invest" in the young and in the technological
innovation and real capital development that will allow the developed
young to provide for the entire society with LESS LABOR than that which
we have paid. We will be the recipients of this investing and saving
when we are coots. We hope it will be enough.

So when you ask who will pay the answer is obvious: The productive will
pay because they are the only segment that can pay. And if the
productive cannot keep the whole society intact (and this is NOT the
current or projected state of affairs according to anyone other than the
batshit conservatives) then the society as a whole will erode. Every
society is absolutely dependent on the productive segment between 20 and
65 years of age.

The issue of health care is the same issue as social security. There is
no real difference. Old people require more health care than the younger
people and all sentient creatures understand this. So the intelligent
productive people __**SAVE**__ for the health care they know they will
need at a later time. A single payer health system funded by a flat
medicare tax is a proper primary vehicle to this end. There are
adjustments to this system such as excise taxes on fatty foods and
tobacco and other known health risks. There are also excise taxes that
work as consumption taxes. The augmenting consumption taxes are
immanently fair if we think about the welfare bums that have no income to
tax and who will receive medical care anyway.

All people will get old. So on a whole life basis we all have the same
medical costs.

Reality is what needs to be addressed.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
Rod Speed
2009-06-30 20:13:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by tooly
And now they are talking
about installing government run health care insurance to boot? Oh
fine...but who the hell is going to pay for all this!? I mean, just
how much disposable income do the politicians think we have out here
in no-man's land? LIfe is ALREADY a struggle for most of us.
Ask for the moon, but always lay it on the taxpayer to pay for it.
Will all this 'stuff' remain politically viable once the bills start
to come in? I would not want to be young in today's world.
1. All production is done by the able bodied and agile and smart
producers of the economy between the ages of 20 and 65.
Dont need to be agile now that so much work is done sitting down now.
Post by Michael Coburn
Old coots and young people are not really part of the
work force. The young are learning and the old are
simply not agile enough to do what needs to be done.
That last is mindlessly silly.
Post by Michael Coburn
The old trying to work will just clog up the system and the young people will
have to "work around them" making the work that must be done more difficult.
Even sillier.
Post by Michael Coburn
You can look at it as the old coots need to retire
so there are better job opportunities for the young.
Not when we saw the unemployment rate bottom at
4.x% with an immense legal and illegal immigration rate.
Post by Michael Coburn
2. The fact that only the productive can produce is not the result of
any "desire" on the part of any or all of us that it be so. It simply _IS_.
Depends entirely on what you call productive.
Post by Michael Coburn
And the objective of our productive lives is to insure that the very
young are educated and developed so that they will be able to be
productive in their turn. If they are not then we shall die a much
swifter death as we proceed into out non productive years. We
"invest" in the young but we "save" by paying to care for the old.
Our FICA taxes are a savings account in the sense that we know that
the younger can and will do likewise. We "invest" in the young and in
the technological innovation and real capital development that will
allow the developed young to provide for the entire society with LESS
LABOR than that which we have paid. We will be the recipients of
this investing and saving when we are coots. We hope it will be enough.
So when you ask who will pay the answer is obvious: The productive
will pay because they are the only segment that can pay.
Even sillier. There is lots of not very productive work
that gets paid quite well and so can pay their taxes.
Post by Michael Coburn
And if the productive cannot keep the whole society intact (and this
is NOT the current or projected state of affairs according to anyone
other than the batshit conservatives) then the society as a whole
will erode. Every society is absolutely dependent on the productive
segment between 20 and 65 years of age.
Thats just plain wrong with those who make
adequate provision for their own time past working.
Post by Michael Coburn
The issue of health care is the same issue as social security.
Nope.
Post by Michael Coburn
There is no real difference.
Wrong. Plenty dont need anything from the state.
Post by Michael Coburn
Old people require more health care than the younger people
Thats arguable, most obviously with those who choose to pull the plug when they
end up with significant health problems that they arent interested in dealing with.
Post by Michael Coburn
and all sentient creatures understand this. So the intelligent
productive people __**SAVE**__ for the health care they
know they will need at a later time.
Not all of them need any.
Post by Michael Coburn
A single payer health system funded by a flat
medicare tax is a proper primary vehicle to this end.
Single payer isnt the only way to do that. The Japs do it by controlling
the prices that the health care system can charge instead.

With a cost of $10 per night for a hospital with a 4 bed ward and $90
for a private room, you dont even need to save for a normal hospital visit.
Post by Michael Coburn
There are adjustments to this system such as excise taxes
on fatty foods and tobacco and other known health risks.
Stupid approach with food.
Post by Michael Coburn
There are also excise taxes that work as consumption taxes.
No thanks. I dont see why I should have to pay taxes on stuff
like single malt whiskey because it isnt that easy to do yourself.
Post by Michael Coburn
The augmenting consumption taxes are immanently fair if we think about the welfare
bums that have no income to tax and who will receive medical care anyway.
Pointless taxing those whose entire income is welfare, stupid.
Post by Michael Coburn
All people will get old.
But not all choose to bother with the medical system when they do get old.
Post by Michael Coburn
So on a whole life basis we all have the same medical costs.
Like hell we do. Most obviously with those who arent obscenely obese
and who choose not to bother with doctors for the common cold etc.
Post by Michael Coburn
Reality is what needs to be addressed.
You wouldnt know what reality was if it bit you on your lard arse.
daestrom
2009-07-01 00:00:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by tooly
And now they are talking
about installing government run health care insurance to boot? Oh
fine...but who the hell is going to pay for all this!? I mean, just how
much disposable income do the politicians think we have out here in
no-man's land? LIfe is ALREADY a struggle for most of us.
Ask for the moon, but always lay it on the taxpayer to pay for it. Will
all this 'stuff' remain politically viable once the bills start to come
in? I would not want to be young in today's world.
1. All production is done by the able bodied and agile and smart
producers of the economy between the ages of 20 and 65. Old coots and
young people are not really part of the work force. The young are
learning and the old are simply not agile enough to do what needs to be
done. The old trying to work will just clog up the system and the young
people will have to "work around them" making the work that must be done
more difficult. You can look at it as the old coots need to retire so
there are better job opportunities for the young.
It'll be interesting to see what your opinion is when you're about 60.
Yes, some 'old coots' don't take the time to adapt to changes in the
world, just like some people have rather closed minds. But I've worked
with folks that are in their 70's and they seem to be contributing quite
nicely. Hope I'm as good as some of those 'old coots' when I get there.

But of course you would rather I didn't work, you want us 'old coots' to
vegetate in the sun somewhere. Bah...

daestrom
Michael Coburn
2009-07-01 00:34:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by daestrom
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by tooly
And now they are talking
about installing government run health care insurance to boot? Oh
fine...but who the hell is going to pay for all this!? I mean, just
how much disposable income do the politicians think we have out here
in no-man's land? LIfe is ALREADY a struggle for most of us.
Ask for the moon, but always lay it on the taxpayer to pay for it.
Will all this 'stuff' remain politically viable once the bills start
to come in? I would not want to be young in today's world.
1. All production is done by the able bodied and agile and smart
producers of the economy between the ages of 20 and 65. Old coots and
young people are not really part of the work force. The young are
learning and the old are simply not agile enough to do what needs to be
done. The old trying to work will just clog up the system and the
young people will have to "work around them" making the work that must
be done more difficult. You can look at it as the old coots need to
retire so there are better job opportunities for the young.
It'll be interesting to see what your opinion is when you're about 60.
That was 4 years ago and it hasn't changed.
Post by daestrom
Yes, some 'old coots' don't take the time to adapt to changes in the
world, just like some people have rather closed minds. But I've worked
with folks that are in their 70's and they seem to be contributing quite
nicely. Hope I'm as good as some of those 'old coots' when I get there.
Some folks can do as you say but so what?
Post by daestrom
But of course you would rather I didn't work, you want us 'old coots' to
vegetate in the sun somewhere. Bah...
daestrom
Yes. You should move out of the way. The unemployment rate at 9.x% is
too high. I stopped by the local Flying J a couple of weeks ago to check
out the trucking stuff. They do not need me competing for the available
jobs. Believe me.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
daestrom
2009-07-02 00:19:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by daestrom
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by tooly
And now they are talking
about installing government run health care insurance to boot? Oh
fine...but who the hell is going to pay for all this!? I mean, just
how much disposable income do the politicians think we have out here
in no-man's land? LIfe is ALREADY a struggle for most of us.
Ask for the moon, but always lay it on the taxpayer to pay for it.
Will all this 'stuff' remain politically viable once the bills start
to come in? I would not want to be young in today's world.
1. All production is done by the able bodied and agile and smart
producers of the economy between the ages of 20 and 65. Old coots and
young people are not really part of the work force. The young are
learning and the old are simply not agile enough to do what needs to be
done. The old trying to work will just clog up the system and the
young people will have to "work around them" making the work that must
be done more difficult. You can look at it as the old coots need to
retire so there are better job opportunities for the young.
It'll be interesting to see what your opinion is when you're about 60.
That was 4 years ago and it hasn't changed.
Post by daestrom
Yes, some 'old coots' don't take the time to adapt to changes in the
world, just like some people have rather closed minds. But I've worked
with folks that are in their 70's and they seem to be contributing quite
nicely. Hope I'm as good as some of those 'old coots' when I get there.
Some folks can do as you say but so what?
Post by daestrom
But of course you would rather I didn't work, you want us 'old coots' to
vegetate in the sun somewhere. Bah...
daestrom
Yes. You should move out of the way. The unemployment rate at 9.x% is
too high. I stopped by the local Flying J a couple of weeks ago to check
out the trucking stuff. They do not need me competing for the available
jobs. Believe me.
Your whole idea is based on the idea that there is only so much
work/labor to go around, and it should be doled out to 'the most
deserving' like it's some sort of natural resource.

That same thinking is why some are against modernization/automation. If
the machine does the work and puts two people out of a job, then that's
a bad thing? Hell, with that idea let's ban all robots, electric motors
and other 'labor-saving' devices. That would certainly put more people
to work.

But the number and types of jobs is not a static thing that is to be
doled out, it is a dynamic, 'living' thing that can be grown or shrunk.
And the people just have to adapt.

Changing careers isn't that traumatic, people that do the same work for
30 years and get upset when the buggy-whip factory closes and puts them
out of work, have no-one to blame but themselves. Like evolution in
nature, adapt or die.

If one can't find work in the profession they've been in for the past 20
years, they should ask themselves what have they been doing over that
time to diversify and learn new skills. If they do the same job day
after day and aren't doing anything to grow / improve, sooner or later
they will be obsolete. Just like the buggy whip they've been making.

It sounds harsh and isn't 'PC', but it's better than some 'mandatory
retirement' that you're talking about. More people, with more
diverse/flexible skills means an economy that is more robust that can
adapt to crisis.

daestrom
Michael Coburn
2009-07-02 01:41:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by daestrom
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by daestrom
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by tooly
And now they are talking
about installing government run health care insurance to boot? Oh
fine...but who the hell is going to pay for all this!? I mean, just
how much disposable income do the politicians think we have out here
in no-man's land? LIfe is ALREADY a struggle for most of us.
Ask for the moon, but always lay it on the taxpayer to pay for it.
Will all this 'stuff' remain politically viable once the bills start
to come in? I would not want to be young in today's world.
1. All production is done by the able bodied and agile and smart
producers of the economy between the ages of 20 and 65. Old coots
and young people are not really part of the work force. The young
are learning and the old are simply not agile enough to do what needs
to be done. The old trying to work will just clog up the system and
the young people will have to "work around them" making the work that
must be done more difficult. You can look at it as the old coots
need to retire so there are better job opportunities for the young.
It'll be interesting to see what your opinion is when you're about 60.
That was 4 years ago and it hasn't changed.
Post by daestrom
Yes, some 'old coots' don't take the time to adapt to changes in the
world, just like some people have rather closed minds. But I've
worked with folks that are in their 70's and they seem to be
contributing quite nicely. Hope I'm as good as some of those 'old
coots' when I get there.
Some folks can do as you say but so what?
Post by daestrom
But of course you would rather I didn't work, you want us 'old coots'
to vegetate in the sun somewhere. Bah...
daestrom
Yes. You should move out of the way. The unemployment rate at 9.x% is
too high. I stopped by the local Flying J a couple of weeks ago to
check out the trucking stuff. They do not need me competing for the
available jobs. Believe me.
Your whole idea is based on the idea that there is only so much
work/labor to go around, and it should be doled out to 'the most
deserving' like it's some sort of natural resource.
You are partially correct. There is only so much actual work that needs
to be done. Working more than that is simply stupid. You like digging a
hole and filling it up just to have jobs?
Post by daestrom
That same thinking is why some are against modernization/automation. If
the machine does the work and puts two people out of a job, then that's
a bad thing? Hell, with that idea let's ban all robots, electric motors
and other 'labor-saving' devices. That would certainly put more people
to work.
There is a better way. It is to cut the work week and spread the actual
need for labor among more people. That is actually what technological
innovation, real capital development, and division and specialization are
supposed to do. These advances are supposed to create more stuff AND
more leisure. The distribution of the gains from all of this has been
flowing to the top to more of a degree than is necessary to incentivize
the developments.
Post by daestrom
But the number and types of jobs is not a static thing that is to be
doled out, it is a dynamic, 'living' thing that can be grown or shrunk.
And the people just have to adapt.
True!!!! But the system has to adapt so the people can adapt.
Post by daestrom
Changing careers isn't that traumatic, people that do the same work for
30 years and get upset when the buggy-whip factory closes and puts them
out of work, have no-one to blame but themselves. Like evolution in
nature, adapt or die.
I have no problem with that sort of thing at all. But the current system
does not actually allow it, let alone promote it. The demand for more
and more stuff simply isn't there. The demand for more leisure IS.
Post by daestrom
If one can't find work in the profession they've been in for the past 20
years, they should ask themselves what have they been doing over that
time to diversify and learn new skills.
Not really. They should be asking themselves what they want to do next
and what they are capable of doing. And government should not work
against them to terminate their careers by bringing in cheap foreign
labor.
Post by daestrom
If they do the same job day
after day and aren't doing anything to grow / improve, sooner or later
they will be obsolete. Just like the buggy whip they've been making.
I wonder rightards will ever change their one size fits all idiotic rant.
Post by daestrom
It sounds harsh and isn't 'PC', but it's better than some 'mandatory
retirement' that you're talking about.
Never mentioned mandatory retirement or mandatory anything else at an
individual level. You are a rightard. You lie, and then you lie, and
then you lie some more in defense of your preconceived fundamentalism.
Post by daestrom
More people, with more
diverse/flexible skills means an economy that is more robust that can
adapt to crisis.
Of course it does. But that doesn't have a damned thing to do with what
I have said.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
Adam
2009-07-03 03:57:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by daestrom
Your whole idea is based on the idea that there is only so much
work/labor to go around, and it should be doled out to 'the most
deserving' like it's some sort of natural resource.
You are partially correct. There is only so much actual work that needs
to be done. Working more than that is simply stupid. You like digging a
hole and filling it up just to have jobs?
There are billions of people in the world. Is the water quality for
everyone the same as yours? How about their diet? Or their dwelling?

When you can point to a world where there are no unmet needs, a
proclamation from your internet-connected, electrically powered
computer that "There is only so much actual work that needs to be
done" may seem more credible.

--
Adam
Les Cargill
2009-07-03 04:17:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by daestrom
Your whole idea is based on the idea that there is only so much
work/labor to go around, and it should be doled out to 'the most
deserving' like it's some sort of natural resource.
You are partially correct. There is only so much actual work that needs
to be done. Working more than that is simply stupid. You like digging a
hole and filling it up just to have jobs?
There are billions of people in the world. Is the water quality for
everyone the same as yours? How about their diet? Or their dwelling?
When you can point to a world where there are no unmet needs, a
proclamation from your internet-connected, electrically powered
computer that "There is only so much actual work that needs to be
done" may seem more credible.
--
Adam
Excellent point. But why - exactly - is it that people have
substandard diet, poor water and violence? It's usually not
because there's too much work to be done.

Here is a graph of per capita income since the Bronze Age:

http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/conor_clarke/2009/07/paul_krugman_is_the_new_thomas_malthus.php

What we've found is that when those who benefit from the upswing part
of the Great Divergence try to spread that around.... it's harder
than it looks. But it's certainly been done. There's no reason
to think that it won't propagate well given enough time.

We live better not because of hard work per se, but because we
benefit from historical accidents. That is one whale of a lot
of data *against* Malthus, I think.

There is a movie, "The Last King of Scotland" with makes
much less abstract what living in a violent lawless region
must be like. It is, of course, a movie, but it makes
vivid how that must work. Do we fix that? If so,
how?

Those are bear traps of questions. Dangerous stuff.

--
Les Cargill
Michael Coburn
2009-07-03 06:05:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by daestrom
Your whole idea is based on the idea that there is only so much
work/labor to go around, and it should be doled out to 'the most
deserving' like it's some sort of natural resource.
You are partially correct. There is only so much actual work that
needs to be done. Working more than that is simply stupid. You like
digging a hole and filling it up just to have jobs?
There are billions of people in the world. Is the water quality for
everyone the same as yours? How about their diet? Or their dwelling?
When you can point to a world where there are no unmet needs, a
proclamation from your internet-connected, electrically powered
computer that "There is only so much actual work that needs to be done"
may seem more credible.
--
Adam
Excellent point. But why - exactly - is it that people have substandard
diet, poor water and violence?
It is typically because they have too many babies.
It's usually not because there's too much
work to be done.
It is because there is insufficient access to natural resources.
http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/conor_clarke/2009/07/
paul_krugman_is_the_new_thomas_malthus.php
What we've found is that when those who benefit from the upswing part of
the Great Divergence try to spread that around.... it's harder than it
looks. But it's certainly been done. There's no reason to think that it
won't propagate well given enough time.
We live better not because of hard work per se, but because we benefit
from historical accidents. That is one whale of a lot of data *against*
Malthus, I think.
There is a movie, "The Last King of Scotland" with makes much less
abstract what living in a violent lawless region must be like. It is, of
course, a movie, but it makes vivid how that must work. Do we fix that?
If so, how?
Those are bear traps of questions. Dangerous stuff.
Malthus was quite correct.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
Les Cargill
2009-07-03 07:17:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Adam
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by daestrom
Your whole idea is based on the idea that there is only so much
work/labor to go around, and it should be doled out to 'the most
deserving' like it's some sort of natural resource.
You are partially correct. There is only so much actual work that
needs to be done. Working more than that is simply stupid. You like
digging a hole and filling it up just to have jobs?
There are billions of people in the world. Is the water quality for
everyone the same as yours? How about their diet? Or their dwelling?
When you can point to a world where there are no unmet needs, a
proclamation from your internet-connected, electrically powered
computer that "There is only so much actual work that needs to be done"
may seem more credible.
--
Adam
Excellent point. But why - exactly - is it that people have substandard
diet, poor water and violence?
It is typically because they have too many babies.
It's usually not because there's too much
work to be done.
It is because there is insufficient access to natural resources.
It is because of the absence of rule of law.
Post by Michael Coburn
http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/conor_clarke/2009/07/
paul_krugman_is_the_new_thomas_malthus.php
What we've found is that when those who benefit from the upswing part of
the Great Divergence try to spread that around.... it's harder than it
looks. But it's certainly been done. There's no reason to think that it
won't propagate well given enough time.
We live better not because of hard work per se, but because we benefit
from historical accidents. That is one whale of a lot of data *against*
Malthus, I think.
There is a movie, "The Last King of Scotland" with makes much less
abstract what living in a violent lawless region must be like. It is, of
course, a movie, but it makes vivid how that must work. Do we fix that?
If so, how?
Those are bear traps of questions. Dangerous stuff.
Malthus was quite correct.
See the graph. Malthus was wrong, at least when humans can get out of
their own way.


--
Les Cargill
Michael Coburn
2009-07-03 14:26:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Les Cargill
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Les Cargill
Post by Adam
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by daestrom
Your whole idea is based on the idea that there is only so much
work/labor to go around, and it should be doled out to 'the most
deserving' like it's some sort of natural resource.
You are partially correct. There is only so much actual work that
needs to be done. Working more than that is simply stupid. You
like digging a hole and filling it up just to have jobs?
There are billions of people in the world. Is the water quality for
everyone the same as yours? How about their diet? Or their dwelling?
When you can point to a world where there are no unmet needs, a
proclamation from your internet-connected, electrically powered
computer that "There is only so much actual work that needs to be
done" may seem more credible.
--
Adam
Excellent point. But why - exactly - is it that people have
substandard diet, poor water and violence?
It is typically because they have too many babies.
Post by Les Cargill
It's usually not because there's too much work to be done.
It is because there is insufficient access to natural resources.
It is because of the absence of rule of law.
It is because of a lot of things, but the most constant and predominant
factor is the high ratio of humans to natural resource. While there is
much that can be done to better manage the available resources, the labor
necessary to thrive is increased by the lack of and competition for the
fixed resources. Rent is a result of population in all cases and it must
be paid. The work is being CREATED by the growth.
Post by Les Cargill
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Les Cargill
http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/conor_clarke/2009/07/
paul_krugman_is_the_new_thomas_malthus.php
Post by Les Cargill
What we've found is that when those who benefit from the upswing part
of the Great Divergence try to spread that around.... it's harder than
it looks. But it's certainly been done. There's no reason to think
that it won't propagate well given enough time.
We live better not because of hard work per se, but because we benefit
from historical accidents. That is one whale of a lot of data
*against* Malthus, I think.
There is a movie, "The Last King of Scotland" with makes much less
abstract what living in a violent lawless region must be like. It is,
of course, a movie, but it makes vivid how that must work. Do we fix
that? If so, how?
Those are bear traps of questions. Dangerous stuff.
Malthus was quite correct.
See the graph. Malthus was wrong, at least when humans can get out of
their own way.
Malthus was inevitably right. Or maybe he wasn't. I have never actually
read Malthus and I am depending on hearsay. But the natural resources of
this world are limited and there will inevitably be a point at which the
human population overwhelms the technology and organization that can be
brought to bear. The discovery of the "new world" gave us huge relief
from this problem. There are no more terrestrial "new worlds" to be had.

Yet I see hope in thorium reactors. Nuclear power is not so limited by
nature. Thorium reactors cannot be employed to develop weapons grade
fissile materials and the wastes are much more easily managed. When I
was young I often pondered what the world would be like if energy were
free. In such a world Malthus would be thwarted again.

The point that you appreciated earlier is actually invalid. I am not
going to work twice as much in order to "care for" the people who have
procreated like roaches. I have my own religious views about this and
they are not actually subject to change without more effort than anyone
would be likely to devote to the project. What I will do is work more
such that a socialized effort to create a thorium based global society
will progress. That "SOCIALIZED" part is not to be taken lightly. I am
of the opinion that this should be a joint effort by all of the developed
nations on the planet to arrest both climate deterioration and poverty
through the development of inexpensive, safe, and abundant energy.

This is not the same thing as working extra hours in pursuit of more lip
gloss or seeking to maximize private wealth through patented research.
The benefits derived from such a tax based effort are indirect but
enormous. The "tax" to be paid in support of the effort is almost
trivial.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
t***@earthlink.net
2009-07-03 15:25:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Les Cargill
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Les Cargill
Post by Adam
Post by daestrom
Your whole idea is based on the idea that there is only so much
work/labor to go around, and it should be doled out to 'the most
deserving' like it's some sort of natural resource.
You are partially correct.  There is only so much actual work that
needs to be done.  Working more than that is simply stupid.  You
like digging a hole and filling it up just to have jobs?
There are billions of people in the world. Is the water quality for
everyone the same as yours? How about their diet? Or their dwelling?
When you can point to a world where there are no unmet needs, a
proclamation from your internet-connected, electrically powered
computer that "There is only so much actual work that needs to be
done" may seem more credible.
--
Adam
Excellent point. But why - exactly - is it that people have
substandard diet, poor water and violence?
It is typically because they have too many babies.
Post by Les Cargill
It's usually not because there's too much work to be done.
It is because there is insufficient access to natural resources.
It is because of the absence of rule of law.
It is because of a lot of things, but the most constant and predominant
factor is the high ratio of humans to natural resource.  While there is
much that can be done to better manage the available resources, the labor
necessary to thrive is increased by the lack of and competition for the
fixed resources.  Rent is a result of population in all cases and it must
be paid. The work is being CREATED by the growth.
Post by Les Cargill
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Les Cargill
http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/conor_clarke/2009/07/
paul_krugman_is_the_new_thomas_malthus.php
Post by Les Cargill
What we've found is that when those who benefit from the upswing part
of the Great Divergence try to spread that around.... it's harder than
it looks. But it's certainly been done. There's no reason to think
that it won't propagate well given enough time.
We live better not because of hard work per se, but because we benefit
from historical accidents. That is one whale of a lot of data
*against* Malthus, I think.
There is a movie, "The Last King of Scotland" with makes much less
abstract what living in a violent lawless region must be like. It is,
of course, a movie, but it makes vivid how that must work. Do we fix
that? If so, how?
Those are bear traps of questions. Dangerous stuff.
Malthus was quite correct.
See the graph. Malthus was wrong, at least when humans can get out of
their own way.
Malthus was inevitably right.  Or maybe he wasn't.  I have never actually
read Malthus and I am depending on hearsay.  But the natural resources of
this world are limited and there will inevitably be a point at which the
human population overwhelms the technology and organization that can be
brought to bear.  The discovery of the "new world" gave us huge relief
from this problem.  There are no more terrestrial "new worlds" to be had.
Yet I see hope in thorium reactors.  Nuclear power is not so limited by
nature.  Thorium reactors cannot be employed to develop weapons grade
fissile materials and the wastes are much more easily managed.  When I
was young I often pondered what the world would be like if energy were
free. In such a world Malthus would be thwarted again.
Instead of a thorium economy, how about a latex economy? There is,
beyond a point reached long ago, no *benefit* to population growth. So
why are you seeking ways to enable it? If there were a stable world
population of 300 million humans, we could burn high-sulfur coal and
all drive Hummers, and there would be no problem. We wouldn't adopt
those practices in reality because they would be silly in that
scenario, but we could go a very long time even if we did.

You point out that (excess) work is created by scarcity, but we should
also recognize that per capita *consumption* is likewise driven
higher. Reduce and stabilize the population, and the rational
solutions/practices will follow just by economics.

-tg
Post by Michael Coburn
The point that you appreciated earlier is actually invalid.  I am not
going to work twice as much in order to "care for" the people who have
procreated like roaches.  I have my own religious views about this and
they are not actually subject to change without more effort than anyone
would be likely to devote to the project. What I will do is work more
such that a socialized effort to create a thorium based global society
will progress. That "SOCIALIZED" part is not to be taken lightly.  I am
of the opinion that this should be a joint effort by all of the developed
nations on the planet to arrest both climate deterioration and poverty
through the development of inexpensive, safe, and abundant energy.
This is not the same thing as working extra hours in pursuit of more lip
gloss or seeking to maximize private wealth through patented research.  
The benefits derived from such a tax based effort are indirect but
enormous.  The "tax" to be paid in support of the effort is almost
trivial.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
Adam
2009-07-03 17:00:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Les Cargill
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Les Cargill
Post by Adam
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by daestrom
Your whole idea is based on the idea that there is only so much
work/labor to go around, and it should be doled out to 'the most
deserving' like it's some sort of natural resource.
You are partially correct. There is only so much actual work that
needs to be done. Working more than that is simply stupid. You
like digging a hole and filling it up just to have jobs?
There are billions of people in the world. Is the water quality for
everyone the same as yours? How about their diet? Or their dwelling?
When you can point to a world where there are no unmet needs, a
proclamation from your internet-connected, electrically powered
computer that "There is only so much actual work that needs to be
done" may seem more credible.
--
Adam
Excellent point. But why - exactly - is it that people have
substandard diet, poor water and violence?
It is typically because they have too many babies.
Post by Les Cargill
It's usually not because there's too much work to be done.
It is because there is insufficient access to natural resources.
It is because of the absence of rule of law.
It is because of a lot of things, but the most constant and predominant
factor is the high ratio of humans to natural resource. While there is
much that can be done to better manage the available resources, the labor
necessary to thrive is increased by the lack of and competition for the
fixed resources. Rent is a result of population in all cases and it must
be paid. The work is being CREATED by the growth.
So the amount of "actual work that needs to be done" isn't a constant
after all.

Is there an "actual amount of work that needs to be done" at a given
level of population?

Please define "done".

When will the task in this animation be done?
http://yugop.com/ver3/stuff/03/fla.html

Is it "done" every second? Why is it important to me now what "done"
looked like ten seconds ago? Is it "done" when I close the animation?

Pick a movie. Did it end the right way in all respects by your
standards? No loose ends that might have been tied? No inconsistencies
that might have been resolved? But they had a budget; that movie is in
the can and "done".

Even if the world population were one tenth its present level and
there could be agreement on an exhaustive list of tasks comprising all
the "actual work that needs to be done", there wouldn't be agreement
on what "done" means for every task.

There is not, nor will there be in this world, a shortage of "actual
work that needs to be done".

--
Adam
t***@earthlink.net
2009-07-03 17:44:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Les Cargill
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Les Cargill
Post by Adam
Post by daestrom
Your whole idea is based on the idea that there is only so much
work/labor to go around, and it should be doled out to 'the most
deserving' like it's some sort of natural resource.
You are partially correct.  There is only so much actual work that
needs to be done.  Working more than that is simply stupid.  You
like digging a hole and filling it up just to have jobs?
There are billions of people in the world. Is the water quality for
everyone the same as yours? How about their diet? Or their dwelling?
When you can point to a world where there are no unmet needs, a
proclamation from your internet-connected, electrically powered
computer that "There is only so much actual work that needs to be
done" may seem more credible.
--
Adam
Excellent point. But why - exactly - is it that people have
substandard diet, poor water and violence?
It is typically because they have too many babies.
Post by Les Cargill
It's usually not because there's too much work to be done.
It is because there is insufficient access to natural resources.
It is because of the absence of rule of law.
It is because of a lot of things, but the most constant and predominant
factor is the high ratio of humans to natural resource.  While there is
much that can be done to better manage the available resources, the labor
necessary to thrive is increased by the lack of and competition for the
fixed resources.  Rent is a result of population in all cases and it must
be paid. The work is being CREATED by the growth.
So the amount of "actual work that needs to be done" isn't a constant
after all.
Is there an "actual amount of work that needs to be done" at a given
level of population?
Please define "done".
When will the task in this animation be done?http://yugop.com/ver3/stuff/03/fla.html
Is it "done" every second? Why is it important to me now what "done"
looked like ten seconds ago? Is it "done" when I close the animation?
Pick a movie. Did it end the right way in all respects by your
standards? No loose ends that might have been tied? No inconsistencies
that might have been resolved? But they had a budget; that movie is in
the can and "done".
Even if the world population were one tenth its present level and
there could be agreement on an exhaustive list of tasks comprising all
the "actual work that needs to be done", there wouldn't be agreement
on what "done" means for every task.
There is not, nor will there be in this world, a shortage of "actual
work that needs to be done".
But we agree on this all the time---that's what markets do. We can
observe what choice people make now, and then ask what would be
required to achieve the same goal under different conditions.

For example, to provide x kilowatt-hours of lighting per capita when
there are 600 million people requires less work per capita than when
there are 6 billion. That's obvious, since some energy sources and
delivery systems are more labor-intensive than others, and the least
efficient ones would be discarded in the former case.

Other obvious examples involve marginal farmland and transportation
costs.

-tg
Post by Adam
--
Adam
Michael Coburn
2009-07-03 19:23:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Les Cargill
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Les Cargill
Post by Adam
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by daestrom
Your whole idea is based on the idea that there is only so much
work/labor to go around, and it should be doled out to 'the most
deserving' like it's some sort of natural resource.
You are partially correct. There is only so much actual work that
needs to be done. Working more than that is simply stupid. You
like digging a hole and filling it up just to have jobs?
There are billions of people in the world. Is the water quality for
everyone the same as yours? How about their diet? Or their dwelling?
When you can point to a world where there are no unmet needs, a
proclamation from your internet-connected, electrically powered
computer that "There is only so much actual work that needs to be
done" may seem more credible.
--
Adam
Excellent point. But why - exactly - is it that people have
substandard diet, poor water and violence?
It is typically because they have too many babies.
Post by Les Cargill
It's usually not because there's too much work to be done.
It is because there is insufficient access to natural resources.
It is because of the absence of rule of law.
It is because of a lot of things, but the most constant and predominant
factor is the high ratio of humans to natural resource. While there is
much that can be done to better manage the available resources, the
labor necessary to thrive is increased by the lack of and competition
for the fixed resources. Rent is a result of population in all cases
and it must be paid. The work is being CREATED by the growth.
So the amount of "actual work that needs to be done" isn't a constant
after all.
Is there an "actual amount of work that needs to be done" at a given
level of population?
Please define "done".
When will the task in this animation be done?
http://yugop.com/ver3/stuff/03/fla.html
Is it "done" every second? Why is it important to me now what "done"
looked like ten seconds ago? Is it "done" when I close the animation?
All the work is NEVER done. Why would anyone ever think such a thing?
Post by Adam
Pick a movie. Did it end the right way in all respects by your
standards? No loose ends that might have been tied? No inconsistencies
that might have been resolved? But they had a budget; that movie is in
the can and "done".
What the hell are you loooooooooooooooonig about?
Post by Adam
Even if the world population were one tenth its present level and there
could be agreement on an exhaustive list of tasks comprising all the
"actual work that needs to be done", there wouldn't be agreement on what
"done" means for every task.
That is just plain stupid.
Post by Adam
There is not, nor will there be in this world, a shortage of "actual
work that needs to be done".
Your claim is simply wrong.

The amount that needs to be done is the amount necessary to produce and
distribute the goods needed for a reasonable quality of life with an
additional increment to be used for _real_ capital development and
education. This varies among sovereignties.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
Adam
2009-07-04 04:48:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Adam
So the amount of "actual work that needs to be done" isn't a constant
after all.
Is there an "actual amount of work that needs to be done" at a given
level of population?
Please define "done".
When will the task in this animation be done?
http://yugop.com/ver3/stuff/03/fla.html
Is it "done" every second? Why is it important to me now what "done"
looked like ten seconds ago? Is it "done" when I close the animation?
All the work is NEVER done. Why would anyone ever think such a thing?
The discussion was about the amount of "actual work that needs to be
done".

I didn't introduce the word "done".

Let's say you hire someone to paint a wall. Do you never want them to
reach the point where they are done?

Suppose they say the work is done when the wall is all the same color
and the paint is dry. You find the newly applied paint to have deep
brush marks. Is the work "done" by your standards?
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Adam
Even if the world population were one tenth its present level and there
could be agreement on an exhaustive list of tasks comprising all the
"actual work that needs to be done", there wouldn't be agreement on what
"done" means for every task.
That is just plain stupid.
Because ...?
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Adam
There is not, nor will there be in this world, a shortage of "actual
work that needs to be done".
Your claim is simply wrong.
The amount that needs to be done is the amount necessary to produce and
distribute the goods needed for a reasonable quality of life with an
additional increment to be used for _real_ capital development and
education.
Who decides what a "reasonable quality of life" is?

For whom is the reasonable quality of life "needed"?

Are some animals "more equal than others"?
http://www.george-orwell.org/Animal_Farm/9.html
Post by Michael Coburn
This varies among sovereignties.
Because ...?

Les Cargill made an excellent point earlier in this thread:
"We live better not because of hard work per se, but because we
benefit from historical accidents."

Not to discount the rewards of hard work, but some work exceedingly
hard without comparable rewards.


I maintain that there is not, nor will there be in this world, a
shortage of "actual work that needs to be done".

Unemployment coexisting with and contributing to unmet basic needs
bespeaks mismanagement and/or lack of creativity.

--
Adam
Michael Coburn
2009-07-04 15:54:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Adam
So the amount of "actual work that needs to be done" isn't a constant
after all.
Is there an "actual amount of work that needs to be done" at a given
level of population?
Please define "done".
When will the task in this animation be done?
http://yugop.com/ver3/stuff/03/fla.html
Is it "done" every second? Why is it important to me now what "done"
looked like ten seconds ago? Is it "done" when I close the animation?
All the work is NEVER done. Why would anyone ever think such a thing?
The discussion was about the amount of "actual work that needs to be
done".
I didn't introduce the word "done".
I will not participate in this strawman stupidity. Get lost
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
Adam
2009-07-04 18:11:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Adam
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Adam
So the amount of "actual work that needs to be done" isn't a constant
after all.
Is there an "actual amount of work that needs to be done" at a given
level of population?
Please define "done".
When will the task in this animation be done?
http://yugop.com/ver3/stuff/03/fla.html
Is it "done" every second? Why is it important to me now what "done"
looked like ten seconds ago? Is it "done" when I close the animation?
All the work is NEVER done. Why would anyone ever think such a thing?
The discussion was about the amount of "actual work that needs to be
done".
I didn't introduce the word "done".
I will not participate in this strawman stupidity. Get lost
What strawman?

Your assertion that "There is only so much actual work that needs to
be done" was systematically dismembered. Likewise the attempt to limit
it to a parochial context.

Refraining from further discussion with you and getting lost are not
synonymous.

--
Adam
Dean Hoffman
2009-07-04 21:24:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Adam
Post by daestrom
Your whole idea is based on the idea that there is only so much
work/labor to go around, and it should be doled out to 'the most
deserving' like it's some sort of natural resource.
You are partially correct.  There is only so much actual work that
needs to be done.  Working more than that is simply stupid.  You like
digging a hole and filling it up just to have jobs?
There are billions of people in the world. Is the water quality for
everyone the same as yours? How about their diet? Or their dwelling?
When you can point to a world where there are no unmet needs, a
proclamation from your internet-connected, electrically powered
computer that "There is only so much actual work that needs to be done"
may seem more credible.
--
Adam
Excellent point. But why - exactly - is it that people have substandard
diet, poor water and violence?
It is typically because they have too many babies.
It's usually not because there's too much
work to be done.
It is because there is insufficient access to natural resources.
But what about Zimbabwe and the former Soviet Union? Zimbabwe
could export ag products at one time.
The Soviets had problems getting food on the table. Wouldn't that
point more toward government interference?
Post by Michael Coburn
http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/conor_clarke/2009/07/
paul_krugman_is_the_new_thomas_malthus.php
What we've found is that when those who benefit from the upswing part of
the Great Divergence try to spread that around.... it's harder than it
looks. But it's certainly been done. There's no reason to think that it
won't propagate well given enough time.
We live better not because of hard work per se, but because we benefit
from historical accidents. That is one whale of a lot of data *against*
Malthus, I think.
There is a movie, "The Last King of Scotland" with makes much less
abstract what living in a violent lawless region must be like. It is, of
course, a movie, but it makes vivid how that must work. Do we fix that?
If so, how?
Those are bear traps of questions. Dangerous stuff.
Malthus was quite correct.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
Michael Coburn
2009-07-04 22:27:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dean Hoffman
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Les Cargill
Post by Adam
Post by daestrom
Your whole idea is based on the idea that there is only so much
work/labor to go around, and it should be doled out to 'the most
deserving' like it's some sort of natural resource.
You are partially correct.  There is only so much actual work that
needs to be done.  Working more than that is simply stupid.  You
like digging a hole and filling it up just to have jobs?
There are billions of people in the world. Is the water quality for
everyone the same as yours? How about their diet? Or their dwelling?
When you can point to a world where there are no unmet needs, a
proclamation from your internet-connected, electrically powered
computer that "There is only so much actual work that needs to be
done" may seem more credible.
--
Adam
Excellent point. But why - exactly - is it that people have
substandard diet, poor water and violence?
It is typically because they have too many babies.
Post by Les Cargill
It's usually not because there's too much work to be done.
It is because there is insufficient access to natural resources.
But what about Zimbabwe and the former Soviet Union? Zimbabwe
could export ag products at one time. The Soviets had problems getting
food on the table. Wouldn't that point more toward government
interference?
The USA is not ether of those sovereignties.
Post by Dean Hoffman
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by Les Cargill
http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/conor_clarke/2009/07/
paul_krugman_is_the_new_thomas_malthus.php
Post by Les Cargill
What we've found is that when those who benefit from the upswing part
of the Great Divergence try to spread that around.... it's harder
than it looks. But it's certainly been done. There's no reason to
think that it won't propagate well given enough time.
We live better not because of hard work per se, but because we
benefit from historical accidents. That is one whale of a lot of data
*against* Malthus, I think.
There is a movie, "The Last King of Scotland" with makes much less
abstract what living in a violent lawless region must be like. It is,
of course, a movie, but it makes vivid how that must work. Do we fix
that? If so, how?
Those are bear traps of questions. Dangerous stuff.
Malthus was quite correct.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
Fred
2009-06-30 21:00:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by tooly
The question is why
should we destroy our global economy relegating us back to horse and
buggies and candlelight [sic]?
Post by Fran
Strawman (var: False dilemma). I'm yet to hear any significant
environmentalist argue for a return to horse and buggy or resort to
candles for general lighting. Instead, it is argued that we should
make better use of resources such as wind, nuclear, geothermal,
natural gas, wave, solar thermal, PV, waste biomass etc and aim for
more thermally efficient housing, more sustainable agriculture,
protection and augmentation of forests, reductions in the usage of
private motor vehicles in favour of mass transit, the conversion of
commuter vehicles to electricity and 2nd generation biofuels etc.
You know, my own sense of all these is they still add up only to 'band-aid' remedies.
That's not true of nuclear.
Costs don't justify their large scale usage or there are other problems...
That's not true of nuclear either.
and none of these can really substitute to drive our autos which is the real sustainer of our present standard of
living
Nuclear can if we stop wasting natural gas heating houses, heat the houses
with electricity from nuclear and use the natural gas in cars instead.
[maybe solar to some degree, but marginal, and still cost prohibitive].
Yep, it's only viable where there is no grid.
If we go through with this 'greening', I think what we'll see is large scale impoverishment of the masses, with a
ruling elite class that 'lives the good life' while wallowing in their 'pat-on-the-back' "save the planet" crusades.
There is no 'ruling elite class' anymore.

And if we do see large scale impoverishment of the masses
they will give the crusaders the bums rush at the ballot box
even more comprehensively than they have just given the
repugs the bums rush at the ballot box for completely
imploding the entire world financial system, again.
Kinda like what is taking place already, hehe
Nothing like it, actualy.
The rest of us will be living in energy efficient 'it takes a village' ghettos, ha. .
Nope, we'll never give up on our cities now.
For instance, I've read that cap and trade will double and maybe even triple our electric bill.
That is just the usual lie.
Under green dictates, I think we are going to artificially drive up the price of gasoline[oil] so as to spur
alternative energy development. Right?
Nope, no one who matters is proposing that.
We already saw just what $4 a gallon does to us...not good.
Not the end of civilisation as we know it tho.

Western europe has had gasoline prices like that for a long time now.
Seems to me we are talking about a transition in way of living for the common person that is staggering; and
overnight?
Nope, we didn't see that with $4 gasoline.

We didn't even see many give up on their SUVs and tarted up trucks.
I wonder if many are really prepared for what is
coming that will probably hit us like a brick wall.
No it wont.
To add to all this, they are throwing around the number 'trillion' so
easily in DC these days, that we forget what's already being spent on stimulus, bailouts, and the socialization of the
USA.
Sure, but the same thing was said about the great depression bailout and WW2.

It worked out fine anyway.
Quite a few of us are already battening down the hatches for some sort of financial tsnami that will hit from all this
spending, where the dollar will most likely fall out under mass indebtedness and inflation.
That wont happen, essentially because the rest of the first world is doing the same thing.
And now they are talking about installing government run health care
insurance to boot? Oh fine...but who the hell is going to pay for all this!?
The current health insurance system basically.
I mean, just how much disposable income do the politicians think we have out here in no-man's land? LIfe is ALREADY a
struggle for most of us.
No it isnt.
Ask for the moon, but always lay it on the taxpayer to pay for it. Will all this 'stuff' remain politically viable
once the bills start to come in?
If it isnt, the current crew will get the bums rush at the ballot box once the voter have
forgotten who just completely imploded the entire world's financial system, again.
I would not want to be young in today's world.
Plenty said that during the great depression too.
tooly
2009-07-01 03:06:36 UTC
Permalink
I don't want to get into a tennis match debate on who or what caused this
financial crisis...but I can't just allow you to blame it on conservativism
without at least speaking up. NO, republicans per se, did not cause this
financial crisis. I've seen several analysis, and they all center on
political pressure from liberal government entities that these subprime
loans be handed out for social advocacy to minority ownership of homes.
That was the epicenter...though some subsequent practices aggravated the
situation.

Fine...the leftists on this NG will violently disagree blaming republicans
for all evil in the world. Already noted...again, no need for a tennis
match here with a long volley when everyone already has their mind made up.
The party in power always gets the credit or the blame whatever the
case...so leftists here should enjoy their gloat while it lasts. It won't
last, for the simple reason liberalism counters good economic health with
high taxes [anti busines and jobs creation] and wild spending [outrageous
deficits and inflationary]. And Whoa!!!...Commissar Obama is one helluva
Liberal.
Les Cargill
2009-07-01 03:42:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by tooly
I don't want to get into a tennis match debate on who or what caused this
financial crisis...but I can't just allow you to blame it on conservativism
without at least speaking up. NO, republicans per se, did not cause this
financial crisis. I've seen several analysis, and they all center on
political pressure from liberal government entities that these subprime
loans be handed out for social advocacy to minority ownership of homes.
That was the epicenter...though some subsequent practices aggravated the
situation.
I don't think you can blame liberals, either.

Markets are like that. We try to BS 'em, and they are all
like totally "no way, dude." :)

Homeownership is a conservative value that's been coopted as a
liberal value ( ala Montgomery GI Bill ). So it's highly bipartisan.
Apple pie and motherhood. *Centrist*, I think.

So bipartisan that it got way out of control.

That's like the voice of doom. Something both sides can agree on. And
something when both sides needed a bubble.
Post by tooly
Fine...the leftists on this NG will violently disagree blaming republicans
for all evil in the world.
People have to do something to entertain themselves.

I'd rather blame actual Neocons for the Russian Superman Myth or
something more substantial. But Neocons had a story, and it had its uses
for a while.

The Republicans had an almost 30 year unbroken string of success. They
informed the Clinton Administration both directly ( by virtue of
inheritance ) and indirectly ( with the Gingrich Congress). That's a
pretty good run, almost unprecedented in American history. It
hummed like a power plant.

And then it stopped.
Post by tooly
Already noted...again, no need for a tennis
match here with a long volley when everyone already has their mind made up.
The party in power always gets the credit or the blame whatever the
case...so leftists here should enjoy their gloat while it lasts.
Are there any real leftists ... left? What we now have is real estate
ladies who ran out of real estate to sell. They're overwhelmingly
bourgeoisie. This is like kabuki theater, only all the characters
are women.
Post by tooly
It won't
last, for the simple reason liberalism counters good economic health with
high taxes [anti busines and jobs creation] and wild spending [outrageous
deficits and inflationary]. And Whoa!!!...Commissar Obama is one helluva
Liberal.
He's actually what I would consider a machine-city pol, the type we had
before TR. Granted a very mild strain ( and incredibly well educated) ,
but the sort that harkens back 100 years in Democrat politics.

He speaks *rhetoric*, real rhetoric, the sort that real statesmen
spoke. After 30 years of ... nothing ( in the front row ), people
are hungry for that again.

It's not policy, but it's a start. But he's more a Cicero than
a Julius Ceaser. And he's got one hell of a burn rate.

--
Les Cargill
daestrom
2009-07-02 00:32:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Les Cargill
Post by tooly
I don't want to get into a tennis match debate on who or what caused
this financial crisis...but I can't just allow you to blame it on
conservativism without at least speaking up. NO, republicans per se,
did not cause this financial crisis. I've seen several analysis, and
they all center on political pressure from liberal government entities
that these subprime loans be handed out for social advocacy to
minority ownership of homes. That was the epicenter...though some
subsequent practices aggravated the situation.
I don't think you can blame liberals, either.
Markets are like that. We try to BS 'em, and they are all
like totally "no way, dude." :)
Homeownership is a conservative value that's been coopted as a
liberal value ( ala Montgomery GI Bill ). So it's highly bipartisan.
Apple pie and motherhood. *Centrist*, I think.
So bipartisan that it got way out of control.
That's like the voice of doom. Something both sides can agree on. And
something when both sides needed a bubble.
Post by tooly
Fine...the leftists on this NG will violently disagree blaming
republicans for all evil in the world.
People have to do something to entertain themselves.
I'd rather blame actual Neocons for the Russian Superman Myth or
something more substantial. But Neocons had a story, and it had its uses
for a while.
The Republicans had an almost 30 year unbroken string of success. They
informed the Clinton Administration both directly ( by virtue of
inheritance ) and indirectly ( with the Gingrich Congress). That's a
pretty good run, almost unprecedented in American history. It
hummed like a power plant.
And then it stopped.
Post by tooly
Already noted...again, no need for a tennis match here with a long
volley when everyone already has their mind made up. The party in
power always gets the credit or the blame whatever the case...so
leftists here should enjoy their gloat while it lasts.
Are there any real leftists ... left? What we now have is real estate
ladies who ran out of real estate to sell. They're overwhelmingly
bourgeoisie. This is like kabuki theater, only all the characters
are women.
Post by tooly
It won't last, for the simple reason liberalism counters good economic
health with high taxes [anti busines and jobs creation] and wild
spending [outrageous deficits and inflationary]. And
Whoa!!!...Commissar Obama is one helluva Liberal.
He's actually what I would consider a machine-city pol, the type we had
before TR. Granted a very mild strain ( and incredibly well educated) ,
but the sort that harkens back 100 years in Democrat politics.
He speaks *rhetoric*, real rhetoric, the sort that real statesmen
spoke. After 30 years of ... nothing ( in the front row ), people
are hungry for that again.
Ah, like the 'Great Communicator' (RR). Some might view it as
'leadership', to stand up for one's principles and find common ground.
But we'll see. At least he isn't 'wrapping himself in the flag' in
hyperbole nationalism.

One of the points I've noted for some time is that the 'current
administration' is always blamed or takes all the credit. I guess it's
just human nature.

ISTR that WC took credit for some of the economic improvements in the
90's that could be traced to policy decisions of GB. And I'm sure there
are many more examples (LBJ got blamed for much of the race riots on his
watch, even though he did more for civil rights than just about any
other pres.)

Apparently most of Americans don't understand social and economic
'inertia'. That many policy decisions take years to actually have their
intended (and unintended) consequences. By then, another 'current
administration' is in office.

daestrom
Les Cargill
2009-07-02 01:14:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by daestrom
Post by Les Cargill
Post by tooly
I don't want to get into a tennis match debate on who or what caused
this financial crisis...but I can't just allow you to blame it on
conservativism without at least speaking up. NO, republicans per se,
did not cause this financial crisis. I've seen several analysis, and
they all center on political pressure from liberal government
entities that these subprime loans be handed out for social advocacy
to minority ownership of homes. That was the epicenter...though some
subsequent practices aggravated the situation.
I don't think you can blame liberals, either.
Markets are like that. We try to BS 'em, and they are all
like totally "no way, dude." :)
Homeownership is a conservative value that's been coopted as a
liberal value ( ala Montgomery GI Bill ). So it's highly bipartisan.
Apple pie and motherhood. *Centrist*, I think.
So bipartisan that it got way out of control.
That's like the voice of doom. Something both sides can agree on. And
something when both sides needed a bubble.
Post by tooly
Fine...the leftists on this NG will violently disagree blaming
republicans for all evil in the world.
People have to do something to entertain themselves.
I'd rather blame actual Neocons for the Russian Superman Myth or
something more substantial. But Neocons had a story, and it had its
uses for a while.
The Republicans had an almost 30 year unbroken string of success. They
informed the Clinton Administration both directly ( by virtue of
inheritance ) and indirectly ( with the Gingrich Congress). That's a
pretty good run, almost unprecedented in American history. It
hummed like a power plant.
And then it stopped.
Post by tooly
Already noted...again, no need for a tennis match here with a long
volley when everyone already has their mind made up. The party in
power always gets the credit or the blame whatever the case...so
leftists here should enjoy their gloat while it lasts.
Are there any real leftists ... left? What we now have is real estate
ladies who ran out of real estate to sell. They're overwhelmingly
bourgeoisie. This is like kabuki theater, only all the characters
are women.
Post by tooly
It won't last, for the simple reason liberalism counters good
economic health with high taxes [anti busines and jobs creation] and
wild spending [outrageous deficits and inflationary]. And
Whoa!!!...Commissar Obama is one helluva Liberal.
He's actually what I would consider a machine-city pol, the type we had
before TR. Granted a very mild strain ( and incredibly well educated)
, but the sort that harkens back 100 years in Democrat politics.
He speaks *rhetoric*, real rhetoric, the sort that real statesmen
spoke. After 30 years of ... nothing ( in the front row ), people
are hungry for that again.
Ah, like the 'Great Communicator' (RR).
Like that, but differently. Bluntly, he sells well to
younger voters.
Post by daestrom
Some might view it as
'leadership', to stand up for one's principles and find common ground.
But we'll see. At least he isn't 'wrapping himself in the flag' in
hyperbole nationalism.
The problem he has is that communitarian rhetoric only goes
so far. Most of Obama's solutions have a strong
bureaucratic tinge, which will increase government power
without necessarily a great deal of improvement of people's
situation.

But it appears that Bernanke's leadership at least has seen
us through at least the initial phase of the economic crisis.
Hopefully, it's the only phase, but never say never.
Post by daestrom
One of the points I've noted for some time is that the 'current
administration' is always blamed or takes all the credit. I guess it's
just human nature.
And it's usually wrong.
Post by daestrom
ISTR that WC took credit for some of the economic improvements in the
90's that could be traced to policy decisions of GB.
Or RR. Likewise, GWB didn't deviate all that much
from the base layer of policies of Clinton, at least
until 9/11 and beyond.
Post by daestrom
And I'm sure there
are many more examples (LBJ got blamed for much of the race riots on his
watch, even though he did more for civil rights than just about any
other pres.)
Absolutely.
Post by daestrom
Apparently most of Americans don't understand social and economic
'inertia'. That many policy decisions take years to actually have their
intended (and unintended) consequences. By then, another 'current
administration' is in office.
daestrom
--
Les Cargill
Michael Coburn
2009-07-01 03:44:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by tooly
I don't want to get into a tennis match debate on who or what caused
this financial crisis...but I can't just allow you to blame it on
conservativism without at least speaking up. NO, republicans per se,
did not cause this financial crisis. I've seen several analysis, and
they all center on political pressure from liberal government entities
that these subprime loans be handed out for social advocacy to minority
ownership of homes. That was the epicenter...though some subsequent
practices aggravated the situation.
You will continue to spread the lies from the Reich. The Republicans
controlled every bit of the government as the bubble was inflating, the
whole time the bubble was inflating. And every rightarded "analysis" you
see will tell you the same thing: Barney Frank, and Maxine Waters
(neither of which had enough clout in the Republican House of
Representatives to even blow their own noses) forced the Republicans to
do what George Bush directed HUD and the Congress to do regarding the
increase of minority home ownership. And you, of course, will sign right
up to spread the filth.
Post by tooly
Fine...the leftists on this NG will violently disagree blaming
republicans for all evil in the world.
You @#)#%@^$#*&@^ right I will, because they are the perpetrators of this
pile of crap.
Post by tooly
Already noted...again, no need
for a tennis match here with a long volley when everyone already has
their mind made up.
You obviously have no mind and no scruples.
Post by tooly
The party in power always gets the credit or the
blame whatever the case...so leftists here should enjoy their gloat
while it lasts.
The party in TOTAL control damned well gets and damned well deserves the
blame.
Post by tooly
It won't last, for the simple reason liberalism
counters good economic health with high taxes [anti busines and jobs
creation] and wild spending [outrageous deficits and inflationary]. And
Whoa!!!...Commissar Obama is one helluva Liberal.
I certainly hope that it will last until the grown ups are able to clean
up the disaster created by the sick perverted lying pigs of the
Republican party. And your reference to the disaster that you lying pigs
have wrought as "good economic health" brands you as a liar you are.
Nobody can possibly be that stupid.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
Les Cargill
2009-07-01 03:59:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by tooly
I don't want to get into a tennis match debate on who or what caused
this financial crisis...but I can't just allow you to blame it on
conservativism without at least speaking up. NO, republicans per se,
did not cause this financial crisis. I've seen several analysis, and
they all center on political pressure from liberal government entities
that these subprime loans be handed out for social advocacy to minority
ownership of homes. That was the epicenter...though some subsequent
practices aggravated the situation.
You will continue to spread the lies from the Reich. The Republicans
controlled every bit of the government as the bubble was inflating, the
whole time the bubble was inflating. And every rightarded "analysis" you
see will tell you the same thing: Barney Frank, and Maxine Waters
(neither of which had enough clout in the Republican House of
Representatives to even blow their own noses) forced the Republicans to
do what George Bush directed HUD and the Congress to do regarding the
increase of minority home ownership. And you, of course, will sign right
up to spread the filth.
But this is a perfect storm, Micheal. It's Progressive ( more
people own property ) and Conservative ( people own property)
all in the same stroke.
Post by Michael Coburn
Post by tooly
Fine...the leftists on this NG will violently disagree blaming
republicans for all evil in the world.
pile of crap.
The Republicans found a parade and got in front of it.

<snip>
Post by Michael Coburn
I certainly hope that it will last until the grown ups
We still have those?
Post by Michael Coburn
are able to clean
up the disaster created by the sick perverted lying pigs of the
Republican party.
*Sigh*.
Post by Michael Coburn
And your reference to the disaster that you lying pigs
have wrought as "good economic health" brands you as a liar you are.
Nobody can possibly be that stupid.
Maybe this is a stupid argument? Just a thought.

--
Les Cargill
Fred
2009-07-01 04:41:02 UTC
Permalink
I don't want to get into a tennis match debate on who or what caused this financial crisis...but I can't just allow
you to blame it on conservativism without at least speaking up. NO, republicans per se, did not cause this financial
crisis.
Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
I've seen several analysis, and they all center on political pressure from liberal government entities that these
subprime loans be handed out for social advocacy to minority ownership of homes.
The problem with that line is that there were never enough CRA
loans to completely implode the entire world financial system.

The worst they could have done is increase the costs of the non
CRA loans if they had defaulted at a higher rate than normal.
In fact they didnt even default at a higher rate than prime loans.
That was the epicenter...
Nope, the housing bubble and securitization were.
though some subsequent practices aggravated the situation.
That cant produce the complete implosion of the entire
world financial system, for the second time now.
Fine...the leftists on this NG will violently disagree blaming
republicans for all evil in the world. Already noted...again, no need for a tennis match here with a long volley when
everyone already has their mind made up. The party in power always gets the credit or the blame whatever the case...
And in this particular case the blame is well founded.

Not one of the australian or canadian retail banks imploded
spectacularly or even needed to be bailed out by govt.
so leftists here should enjoy their gloat while it lasts. It won't last, for the simple reason liberalism counters
good economic health with high taxes
That didnt happen with Slick or Obama.
[anti busines and jobs creation] and wild spending [outrageous deficits
Those were in fact a feature of Raygun and the shrub.
and inflationary].
We are in fact currently seeing deflation.
And Whoa!!!...Commissar Obama is one helluva Liberal.
And there you go doing precisely what you claim leftists do.
miles
2009-07-01 04:56:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred
I don't want to get into a tennis match debate on who or what caused this financial crisis...but I can't just allow
you to blame it on conservativism without at least speaking up. NO, republicans per se, did not cause this financial
crisis.
Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
Both sides aren't exactly clean! The mess we're in is the effects of
decades of poor policies emanating from both parties. Theres many
arguments that can show hard blame to either side. Take your pick if
you must but I see both to blame.

My view is that Government on both sides is to blame for a mess. Thats
why I feel Government is NOT the solution...they are the problem.
Michael Coburn
2009-07-01 15:36:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by miles
Post by Fred
Post by tooly
I don't want to get into a tennis match debate on who or what caused
this financial crisis...but I can't just allow you to blame it on
conservativism without at least speaking up. NO, republicans per se,
did not cause this financial crisis.
Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
Both sides aren't exactly clean! The mess we're in is the effects of
decades of poor policies emanating from both parties. Theres many
arguments that can show hard blame to either side. Take your pick if
you must but I see both to blame.
My view is that Government on both sides is to blame for a mess. Thats
why I feel Government is NOT the solution...they are the problem.
There is little hope for those who have such a religious affliction. In
spite of all evidence, they cling to a religious position that is simply
incorrect. The removal of government controls and imposition of large
cuts in capital gains taxes results in wild eyed bubbling of asset
prices. It has happened actually 3 times. The Republicans did the deed
in every case and they continue to claim that "free markets" are the
solution even in the face of reality to the contrary.

But the quote -- "government is the problem" -- is sort of like "family
values" or "change" in that it is so imprecise as to be unassailable.
The reality is that the people have lost control of their government and
this is the root of the problem. A government under the control of
forces that ab-use government power for corporate and personal gain is
certainly a problem.

http://GreaterVoice.org/show
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
Fran
2009-07-01 07:33:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by tooly
Post by tooly
The question is why
should we destroy our global economy relegating us back to horse and
buggies and candlelight [sic]?
Post by Fran
Strawman (var: False dilemma). I'm yet to hear any significant
environmentalist argue for a return to horse and buggy or resort to
candles for general lighting. Instead, it is argued that we should
make better use of resources such as wind, nuclear, geothermal,
natural gas, wave, solar thermal, PV, waste biomass etc and aim for
more thermally efficient housing, more sustainable agriculture,
protection and augmentation of forests, reductions in the usage of
private motor vehicles in favour of mass transit, the conversion of
commuter vehicles to electricity and 2nd generation biofuels etc.
You know, my own sense of all these is they still add up only to 'band-aid'
remedies.  
Then you have one of two options:

1. Propose something that isn't a bandaid remedy
2. Accept that bandaid remedies are as good as it gets
Post by tooly
Costs don't justify their large scale usage or there are other
problems...and none of these can really substitute to drive our autos which
is the real sustainer of our present standard of living
Nonsense. While the capacity to move large amounts of essential goods
such as perishable food, medicines, building materials water etc in
good condition in a timely and cost-effective way is important, the
fact that people can spend 10-15 hours a week crawling along feeder
roads to and from the big cities is really not much of a contributor
to standard of living.
Post by tooly
[maybe solar to some
degree, but marginal, and still cost prohibitive].  If we go through with
this 'greening', I think what we'll see is large scale impoverishment of the
masses, with a ruling elite class that 'lives the good life' while wallowing
in their 'pat-on-the-back' "save the planet" crusades.
Nope. I don't see that at all. Indeed, it should be "the masses" who
benefit most from this through cleaner air, cleaner water, more
efficient transport systems, more energy-efficient homes, less
dependence on oil as a commodity, improved home life, longer and
healthier lives and so forth. Let's not forget who make up most of the
footsoldiers in America's energy wars either

The upper middle class and above will also benefit, just not as much
because their lives are pretty good already and they aren't at as much
risk as poor people.
Post by tooly
Kinda like what is
taking place already, hehe The rest of us will be living in energy efficient
'it takes a village' ghettos, ha. .  For instance, I've read that cap and
trade will double and maybe even triple our electric bill.  
Totally bogus. There's no reliable modelling to support that.
Post by tooly
Under green
dictates, I think we are going to artificially drive up the price of
gasoline[oil] so as to spur alternative energy development. Right?  
It's not 'artificial'. Oil is massively subsidised at the moment
because there is no charge on oil for dumping oil harvest, transport
and combustion waste or for stationing troops in the middle east.
Post by tooly
We
already saw just what $4 a gallon does to us...not good.   Seems to me we
are talking about a transition in way of living for the common person that
is staggering; and overnight?  I wonder if many are really prepared for what
is coming that will probably hit us like a brick wall.
It was time in the 1970s to make this transition. Big Auto and Big Oil
resisted. Now the chickens are coming home to roost.
Post by tooly
To add to all this, they are throwing around the number 'trillion' so easily
in DC these days, that we forget what's already being spent on stimulus,
bailouts, and the socialization of the USA.
Rational people, presented a choice between a problem in the here and
now and one in the future, choose delay, all else being equal. In the
future, we may be in a good position to retire debt, but if we
fetishize debt avoidance now, we will inflict a much larger harm than
anything contemplated under cap and trade -- and those costs will
delay the day when the debt can be retired AND harm real people in the
here and now.
Post by tooly
 Quite a few of us are already
battening down the hatches for some sort of financial tsnami that will hit
from all this spending, where the dollar will most likely fall out under
mass indebtedness and inflation.
If there's massive inflation, the debt will be wiped out, but that's
not going to happen. Nobody holding US dollars can afford to have that
happen to the US dollar
Post by tooly
 And now they are talking about installing
government run health care insurance to boot?  Oh fine...but who the hell is
going to pay for all this!?
Err ... the users of health care?
Post by tooly
 I mean, just how much disposable income do the
politicians think we have out here in no-man's land?  LIfe is ALREADY a
struggle for most of us.
You are paying for it one way or another already. The US has one of
the most expensive health care systems in the world, largely because
it is privatised.
Post by tooly
Ask for the moon, but always lay it on the taxpayer to pay for it.  Will all
this 'stuff' remain politically viable once the bills start to come in?  I
would not want to be young in today's world.
Nor I because I doubt the world will be in great shape 50 years from
now, given the reluctance to bite the bullet and begin seriuously
tidying up the mess built up over the last 50 years of policy madness.

Fran
Rod Speed
2009-06-30 20:44:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fran
Post by Immortalist
URGENT action is required. Is it possible to attack these problems
in a non partisan way and assign equal blame to all involved
parties and interests?
The world must move to clean, renewable, and affordable energy in
the next 30 years. Is it possible to reach this goal?
why?
Post by Immortalist
Maybe to satisfy our new need, installed by W.Bush, to panic and
over react? This way once we gets everyone scared then we can force
anything down their throats our interest groups desire.
Just jokin'. That is a good question; just why would we want to try
and produce a cleaner environment?
No...that's not the question. Obviously all people would want a
cleaner environment...emaculately spotless if it were possible.
You'd think so wouldn't you, but although few will admit it it, in
practice not a few think dumping industrial effluent into the
environment is acceptable, and complain only when it bothers them
personally. Cognitive dissonance rules. The fact that coal mining,
transport and combustion shortens and damages lives in the here and
now is something few consider, possibly because most people think of
electricity as something invisible that comes out of a power point.
The question is why
should we destroy our global economy relegating us back to horse and
buggies and candlelight [sic]?
Strawman (var: False dilemma). I'm yet to hear any significant
environmentalist argue for a return to horse and buggy or resort to
candles for general lighting. Instead, it is argued that we should
make better use of resources such as wind, nuclear, geothermal,
natural gas, wave, solar thermal, PV, waste biomass etc and aim for
more thermally efficient housing, more sustainable agriculture,
protection and augmentation of forests, reductions in the usage of
private motor vehicles in favour of mass transit, the conversion of
commuter vehicles to electricity and 2nd generation biofuels etc.
It had better be one hellva good reason and
VERY provable. True...CO2 rises...but just how much is due to fossil
fuel burning?
According to the Carbon 12 isotope readings, quite a bit.
I doubt China is going to forego all them coal burning electric
plants in the works...which means if the USA accepts the yoke and
takes the economic nose dive, they are just folding their hand in a
dicey world poker game of political intrigue.
Not really. We live in an interdependent world. If any
major player falters, everyone else staggers as well.
Nope, Japan 'staggered' with their 'lost decade' and that had no effect on everyone.
Post by Fran
The Chinese hold large quantities of US bonds. Trying to offload them would
cost them big time and they absolutely do want US demand to continue.
Yes.
Post by Fran
So if America goes green and if there is a world wide
carbon trading regime, this will serve China AND America.
No it wouldnt if that produces a significant drop in american capacity to buy
what china produces and cripples the american economy in the process.

Thats the LAST thing that china wants with the american economy tanking significantly anyway.
Post by Fran
It's worth noting too that although China is continuing to build
lots of coal-fired capacity it is estimated that by 2020, 20%
of its energy will come from renewables like hydro and wind.
Dont believe it will in fact be anything like that with wind, just hydro.
Post by Fran
A whole other trnache will come from nuclear.
Yes.
Post by Fran
Why they'd do that if it wasn't feasible is anyone's guess.
They arent doing it with wind, just claiming that.
Post by Fran
It's not as if they have to answer to their own population.
They think it will be a good thing, plainly.
Yes, but the percentage of wind is trivial.
Post by Fran
Could they/should they do more? Of course. If the US
can show that renewables are even more feasible,
Not even possible.
Post by Fran
then China and India may get with the program.
Nope, they arent that stupid.
Post by Fran
That's why the US must lead on this rather than trail.
Mindlessly silly. Neither china or india gives a flying red fuck what the US does
except that they dont want to see the economy crippled by that sort of thing.
Rod Speed
2009-06-28 21:21:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Immortalist
URGENT action is required.
Nope.
Post by Immortalist
Is it possible to attack these problems in a non partisan way
and assign equal blame to all involved parties and interests?
Corse not.
Post by Immortalist
The world must move to clean, renewable, and affordable energy in the next 30 years.
Fools like you have been claiming that for more than 100 years.
Post by Immortalist
Is it possible to reach this goal?
Yep.
Post by Immortalist
If the U.S. solves only its own energy problem,
but the world does not, then everyone still loses.
Wrong. The US obviously doesnt lose.
Post by Immortalist
Pollution knows no borders
Mindlessly silly. Fuck all of that moves across most borders.
Post by Immortalist
and a sinking ship takes down everyone on board.
Taint a ship, fuckwit.
Post by Immortalist
That is why all countries must do what they can to affect
a global transition to all-renewable, clean energy by 2040.
Not even possible.
Post by Immortalist
That means a coordinated global effort with global scope.
Mindless waffle.
Post by Immortalist
That means leadership from the United States, Europe, China, India, and Japan.
More mindless waffle.
Post by Immortalist
That means diligent commitment from average citizens
around the world, and corporate and national leaders.
More mindless waffle.
Post by Immortalist
Beyond Fossil Fools: The Roadmap to Energy Independence by 2040
by Joe Shuster
http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Fossil-Fools-Roadmap-Independence/dp/1592982352
Thats not a roadmap, thats just another utterly mindless steaming turd.

You can tell the difference from the smell.
Post by Immortalist
http://www.fossilfoolsdayofaction.org/
Just another utterly mindless steaming turd.
Immortalista
2009-06-28 22:06:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Immortalist
URGENT action is required.
Nope.
Post by Immortalist
Is it possible to attack these problems in a non  partisan way
and assign equal blame to all involved parties and interests?
Corse not.
Post by Immortalist
The world must move to clean, renewable, and affordable energy in the next 30 years.
Fools like you have been claiming that for more than 100 years.
Post by Immortalist
Is it possible to reach this goal?
Yep.
Post by Immortalist
If the U.S. solves only its own energy problem,
but the world does not, then everyone still loses.
Wrong. The US obviously doesnt lose.
Post by Immortalist
Pollution knows no borders
Mindlessly silly. Fuck all of that moves across most borders.
Post by Immortalist
and a sinking ship takes down everyone on board.
Taint a ship, fuckwit.
Post by Immortalist
That is why all countries must do what they can to affect
a global transition to all-renewable, clean energy by 2040.
Not even possible.
Post by Immortalist
That means a coordinated global effort with global scope.
Mindless waffle.
Post by Immortalist
That means leadership from the United States, Europe, China, India, and Japan.
More mindless waffle.
Post by Immortalist
That means diligent commitment from average citizens
around the world, and corporate and national leaders.
More mindless waffle.
Post by Immortalist
Beyond Fossil Fools: The Roadmap to Energy Independence by 2040
by Joe Shuster
http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Fossil-Fools-Roadmap-Independence/dp/159...
Thats not a roadmap, thats just another utterly mindless steaming turd.
You can tell the difference from the smell.
Post by Immortalist
http://www.fossilfoolsdayofaction.org/
Just another utterly mindless steaming turd.
Well Mr. [pro] (Nuclear) Rod Speed, here are some points made in that
book scanned just for you;

Only nuclear energy can provide enough clean, reliable energy to
accommodate the earth's growing population and development needs.
Absolutely no other power source can do it. No other source, other
choice.

NO OTHER SOURCE: THE NUCLEAR ENERGY POWERHOUSE

Only nuclear energy delivered by modern fast neutron reactors can
rescue the world from energy disaster - simple as that. Only fast
neutron reactors can generate the necessary nuclear energy cleanly,
reliably, and affordably. Light-water reactors can't do it.

Light-water reactors, the ones mostly in operation today throughout
the world, will not solve our problems because they are unsustainable
They use less than 1 percent of the energy available in the uranium
fuel. This wasteful practice of using only 1 percent of the fuel, then
sending the rest to a. mountain for disposal, will cause the world to
run out of uranium in 50-100 years, and to run out of places to store
the "spent fuel." Thus, the world faces the unavoidable, long-term
need for fast neutron reactors and safer recycling of spent fuel.

Nuclear energy from fast neutron reactors (also known as integral fast
reactors) is essentially eternal and environmentally sound. Nuclear
energy from these reactors is eternal because it can power the world s
needs for more than 100,000 years or, as one scientist put it, until
the sun engulfs the earth. Nuclear energy from fast neutron reactors
ia also environmentally sound, because these power plants produce far
less of the dangerous nuclear wastes produced by light-water reactors,
and the waste is less toxic. The waste (spent fuel) remains toxic for
only 300-500 years rather than for more than 10,000 years. Also, the
proposed Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), when consummated,
guarantees safer, more responsible use of nuclear energy by all
partner nations.

The requirements are clear: The United States and the world need a lot
of fast neutron reactors. (I offer details below about fast neutron
reactors and the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, and I quantify
this point with costs and a timetable in Chapter Sixteen.) There are
issues to be sure, as there are issues with all energy sources, but
all issues surrounding nuclear energy are manageable. There are also
trade-offs among energy sources, but for the next 100 years nuclear
energy generated by fast neutron reactors provides the best balance by
far. I'm sure of it, as are lots of premier scientists.

Many former opponents of nuclear energy have become wholehearted
advocates. Even some environmentalists are embracing nuclear power.
Environmental sage James Lovelock sparked a debate in England in 2006
when he published an impassioned defense of nuclear energy - on
environmental grounds. "I am a Green," he wrote, "and I entreat my
friends in the movement to drop their wrongheaded objection to nuclear
energy." His argument: Splitting atoms is the only way to generate
huge quantities of electricity without producing the volumes of global-
warming gases emitted by plants fired by coal or natural gas.

Even in the United States nuclear power is growing in respectability.
According to Nicholas Varchaver in Fortune magazine, "the bipartisan
National Commission on Energy Policy included it nuclear power] in a
December [2004] proposal to 'end the energy talemate.'" Columbia
University's Earth Institute considers nuclear energy an option in its
State of the Planet assessment. And Richard Smalley, a Nobel Prize-
winning chemist at Rice University who has been delving into energy
issues, echoes Lovelock: "We ought to, and probably will, start
building nuclear power plants again."

The United States and the world better get started. We don't have much
time. We will stand at the edge of an imminent disaster if we don't
get moving. Given the rapid depletion of fossil fuels and the rapid
accumulations of pollutants, it will be too late for a smooth
transition to alternative energy sources if we don't immediately
launch a massive, national and international nuclear-energy program.
Any plan short of immediate, aggressive action will put the economies
of the world in a tailspin.

The world still needs and must continue to build light-water reactors
until fast neutron reactors are ready, which I hope will be very soon.
Russian submarines are powered by fast neutron reactors. Electricity-
producing, fast-neutron-reactor plants include the Superphe-nix, the
Fermi, and the Monju; however, these are not of the most recently
proposed design.

Scientists have demonstrated the efficacy of the process that couples
an advanced fast neutron reactor with the appropriate recycling of the
spent fuel - fuel otherwise destined for Yucca Mountain, Nevada.
Scientists in several countries, including the United States, want to
pilot the entire process before proceeding to final, optimum plant
design. Others don't believe a pilot plant is necessary; they think we
can move directly to commercial plant design. Why argue? Let's build
the pilot plant now so the very stuff you worry about can be used to
fuel fast neutron reactors rather than fill Yucca Mountain.

Any "debate" about whether nuclear power will be used to generate a
major portion of the world's electricity is really over. Distracting
nuisances who vigorously criticize nuclear energy - notably the Union
of Concerned Scientists and Helen Caldicott - are too late. There are
already 441 reactors operating in the world - and more on the way -
and 103 operating in the United States. The storage of spent fuel is
manageable. Proliferation is manageable. The combination of fast
neutron reactors and the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership - in one
fell swoop - minimizes today's problems of spent-fuel storage and
proliferation. What are we waiting for? What's left to debate? Nuclear
energy from fast neutron reactors takes care of every energy issue
facing the world today - depletion of oil, pollution from fossil
fuels, and even the prospect of global warming from greenhouse gases.

NO OTHER CHOICE, NO OTHER OPTION

I acknowledge that solar, wind, and hydrogen energy may contribute
more significantly to the world's total energy mix in the distant
future, but I would not bet much on the prospects. None of the
promising energy research that I know of is going to yield results
that are timely or sufficiently robust to rescue the world from its
present energy problems. Nuclear energy must be the backbone of any
viable future energy system. Period. I invite your disagreement, but
don't bother me unless you quantify your comments and offer a
realistic timeline. Wind and sun can never provide baseload energy,
because the sun doesn't shine all the time and the wind blows
intermittently. Each source needs a back up since, by definition, a
baseload source must operate continuously. Wind
energy and solar energy, because they are intermittent, can be only
partial substitutes for nuclear, hydro, or fossil-fuel power plants.
Solar and wind power can reduce total toxic emissions if they are
backed up by fossil-fuel power plants. However, if nuclear plants
provide the back-up, then the wind and solar energy are redundant and
unnecessary, because nuclear energy is cheaper and cleaner. Wind and
solar energy could contribute electricity during high-demand, peak
periods - that is, for peakloads - and for some site-specific
applications.

There's more to the story: A growing consensus holds that wind and sun
together will probably not account for more than about 20-40 percent
of total energy production, at least not in this century. So, before
we get too excited or confident about their potential contributions,
let's first see them generate 10 percent of total energy production, a
daunting and ambitious task. Although I encourage it, I won't believe
the 10 percent until I see it.

In the meantime, be wary of breakthrough announcements. A
"breakthrough" is just the first adventurous step on the journey to
commercialization. Such journeys can take decades.
But none of nuclear energy's virtues really matter if nuclear energy
is too dangerous to deploy. Is nuclear energy safe?

- Yes, nuclear energy has been the safest energy source by far over
the last 50 years.
SOLUTIONS

- Yes, nuclear power plants are absolutely safer than previous
generations because of new technologies, new reactor designs, and
better process management.

- Yes, because fast neutron reactors will be safer than reactors built
in the past.

- Yes, since nuclear energy is definitely safer than the continued use
of fossil fuels, which annually kills 2 million people worldwide, 50
thousand in the United States, and gets worse every year.

- Yes, because the spent fuel problem essentially goes away with fast
neutron reactors.

- Yes, because the proposed Global Nuclear Energy Partnership will
establish a fuel- and waste-management process that will greatly
decrease proliferation opportunities and the misuse of nuclear
materials...

...CONCERNS ABOUT NUCLEAR POWER

All energy sources raise some concerns, and nuclear energy is no
exception. Yet let's be clear: Nuclear energy can kill people, but
fossil fuels do kill. That said, the nuclear industry is by far the
safest energy industry in the United States and the world, and indeed
it enjoys the best safety record of all industries.

The nuclear accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl received
widespread publicity. These accidents, discussed in detail below,
largely shaped public attitudes toward nuclear energy. These accidents
notwithstanding, the nuclear industry ably manages safety issues very
well, but biased and often untruthful reporting often distorts public
perceptions. Let's begin to clear up some confusion about these
concerns.

- Radiation. This vague, frightening term needs explanation and
context.

- "China Syndrome" Accidents. This didn't happen at Three Mile
Island. An out-of-control reactor cannot become a bomb. It cannot
happen.

- Proliferation. The fear that 3. terrorist group or a rogue nation
will get a bomb and detonate it, or threaten to, is a legitimate
concern, particularly with all the bombs, highly enriched uranium, and
weapons-grade plutonium lying around the world. The premise of the
Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) is that nations which pledge
to forsake nuclear weapons but want nuclear energy should not be
placed in the position of having to develop their own, indigenous
reprocessing facilities, because such reprocessing could be diverted
to producing weapons. Indeed, I believe that the entire issue of bombs
can and will be effectively managed by the proposed GNEP.

- Disposal of spent fuel and nuclear waste. As one noted nuclear
expert, declared, "The rational way to dispose of unwanted radioactive
stuff is to put it in the silt at the bottom of deep ocean trenches,
but that's too cheap to generate any lobbying pressure to modify the
Law of the Sea Treaty. Thus, we fritter away billions on boondoggles
such as Yucca Mountain." Even so, Yucca Mountain still provides a
workable solution. Further, with recycling and fast neutron reactors,
we only need about 20 percent or less of the disposal space we thought
we would need. Storage time for waste from a fast neutron reactor is
only 300-500 years compared to 10,000 years plus for waste from
today's conventional reactors.

- Uranium supply. This becomes a non-issue with UREX+recycling and
fast neutron reactors.

- Transportation of nuclear materials. Such matters are well under
control and have been for decades.

Let's examine each of these issues... page 181 quick txt scan

Beyond Fossil Fools: The Roadmap to
Energy Independence by 2040
by Joe Shuster
http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Fossil-Fools-Roadmap-Independence/dp/1592982352

Only nuclear energy delivered by modern fast neutron reactors can
rescue the world from energy disaster—simple as that.

Any "debate" about whether nuclear power will be used to generate a
major portion of the world's electricity is really over.

:ombination of fast neutron
ors and the Global Nuclear
jy Partnership—in one
woop—minimizes today's
[ems of spent-fuel storage and

Nuclear energy from fast neutron reactors resolves every energy issue
facing the world today—depletion of oil, pollution from fossil fuels,
and even the prospect of global warming from greenhouse gases.

Except for research on nuclear energy, none of the promising energy
research that I know of is going to yield results that are timely or
sufficiently robust to rescue the world from its present energy
problems.
Rod Speed
2009-06-29 02:07:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Immortalista
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Immortalist
URGENT action is required.
Nope.
Post by Immortalist
Is it possible to attack these problems in a non partisan way
and assign equal blame to all involved parties and interests?
Corse not.
Post by Immortalist
The world must move to clean, renewable, and affordable energy in the next 30 years.
Fools like you have been claiming that for more than 100 years.
Post by Immortalist
Is it possible to reach this goal?
Yep.
Post by Immortalist
If the U.S. solves only its own energy problem,
but the world does not, then everyone still loses.
Wrong. The US obviously doesnt lose.
Post by Immortalist
Pollution knows no borders
Mindlessly silly. Fuck all of that moves across most borders.
Post by Immortalist
and a sinking ship takes down everyone on board.
Taint a ship, fuckwit.
Post by Immortalist
That is why all countries must do what they can to affect
a global transition to all-renewable, clean energy by 2040.
Not even possible.
Post by Immortalist
That means a coordinated global effort with global scope.
Mindless waffle.
Post by Immortalist
That means leadership from the United States, Europe, China, India, and Japan.
More mindless waffle.
Post by Immortalist
That means diligent commitment from average citizens
around the world, and corporate and national leaders.
More mindless waffle.
Post by Immortalist
Beyond Fossil Fools: The Roadmap to Energy Independence by 2040
by Joe Shuster
http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Fossil-Fools-Roadmap-Independence/dp/159...
Thats not a roadmap, thats just another utterly mindless steaming turd.
You can tell the difference from the smell.
Post by Immortalist
http://www.fossilfoolsdayofaction.org/
Just another utterly mindless steaming turd.
Well Mr. [pro] (Nuclear) Rod Speed, here are some
points made in that book scanned just for you;
Irrelevant to that crap you previously quoted.
Post by Immortalista
Only nuclear energy can provide enough clean, reliable energy to
accommodate the earth's growing population and development needs.
Thats just plain wrong. It just happens to be the most
viable source of energy, a different matter entirely.
Post by Immortalista
Absolutely no other power source can do it.
No other source, other choice.
Mindlessly silly.

<reams of even sillier crap flushed where it belongs>
prometheuspan
2009-06-29 08:06:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Immortalista
Only nuclear energy can provide enough clean, reliable energy to
accommodate the earth's growing population and development needs.
Thats just plain wrong. It just happens to be the most
viable source of energy, a different matter entirely.
----------
thats simply wrong and stupid.

the actual facts are that geothermal is cleaner, greener, cheaper, and
can give us yields larger than nuclear at the same size of plant,
that theres enough geothermal within 200 meters of the surface for
4000 times more energy than we use,

and that nuclear is a stupid and pathetic non solution sold by evil
jerks who want energy to stay expensive so that they can keep making
money on it.
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Immortalista
Absolutely no other power source can do it.
No other source, other choice.
--------
bunkum, solar power could do it or wind power, it would just be
phenomenally expensive.

geothermal can solve the problem for under 100 billion.

solar, several trillion, and wind, tens of trillions.

-----------------------------
Energy And Environment Research
From Issues
Jump to: navigation, search

Energy and Environment Research 2
Contents
[hide]

* 1 1. There are many different ways to derive energy.
* 2 9. The pros of oil are that ;
* 3 10. The cons against oil are
* 4 11. Coal.
* 5 12. Oil Shale and Coal Shale.
* 6 13. Biofuels.
* 7 14. Solar Power
* 8 16. Wind Energy.
* 9 17. Tidal Power
* 10 18. Geothermal Power
* 11 19. Hydrogen power;
* 12 20. Hydrolic or Hydro Electric power.
* 13 21. Nuclear power
* 14 22. Zero point energy
* 15 23. Summary of findings.
* 16 References

[edit] 1. There are many different ways to derive energy.

2. Each of these methods has different relationships with the
environment

3. Each of these methods has different costs and different benefits

4. Each of the these methods has different pros and cons.

5. A partial list of methods; oil, coal, shale, wood, gasoline,
Biofuels (a. food crop, b. hemp crop c. algae) Solar, Thermal Solar,
Wind, Tidal, Geothermal, Hydrogen, Hydroelectric, Zero Point, Nuclear.

6. Oils relationships with the environment are

a. Oil is ancient organic material that has undergone geological
processes.

b. Oil is removed from the ground via oil wells. Ie oil is mined from
the Earth.

c. Oil is burned in order to get heat and chemical reaction to create
the energy.

d. Burning it creates smoke. The smoke is toxic. It is multiply toxic
to the ecosystem in multiple ways.

e. Its causing Global Warming.

f. It causes cancer.

g. It causes acid rain

h. Thus it hurts humans personally and the whole ecosystem as whole in
these different ways.

7. oil costs a certain amount of money to obtain from the earth,
depending on how deep it is and at what pressure it is under.

8. oil costs a certain amount of money to refine and process, as well
as to transport.


[edit] 9. The pros of oil are that ;

a. It is accessible with very primitive levels of technology

b. Our current energy infrastructure is based on oil

c. Oil costs less than biofuels or, at least, it used to.

d. Oils over all cost benefit analysis remains do-able from the
perspective of economics alone.


[edit] 10. The cons against oil are

a. Oil is actually very expensive as technology compared to other
forms of energy in which initial

costs render yields not limited by physical quantities.

Solar power stations, Wind, and Geothermal all provide energy options
which

are simply cheaper over the long term.

b. Oil pollutes the ecology as mentioned in its environmental analysis
above.

c. That pollution will cause the extinction of life on earth as we
know it should it continue.

d. We have already reached a tipping point where we have raised the
global temperature so high that the new larger contributor to
greenhouse gasses is the ice that is being melted.

e. Thus we need solutions to reverse global warming, or, our
civilization is doomed.


[edit] 11. Coal.

The specifics change, but Coal, like oil, is an ancient organic
substance exposed to geological processes, must be burned, and thus
contributes to pollution and global warming.
[edit] 12. Oil Shale and Coal Shale.

Similar to oil and coal or extensions of them, shale is harder to mine
and harder to extract oil from. Thus it costs more to process.
[edit] 13. Biofuels.

The difference between biofuels and oil or coal is that biofuels have
not been exposed to geological processes, but rather, similarly
effecting technological processes.

a.Biofuels still have toxic smoke which pollutes and which contributes
to Global Warming.

b. Biofuels trade energy shortage and economic stress for food
shortage and economic stress, thus creating c +d

c. Biofuels create food shortages, hunger, and contribute to global
poverty.

d. Biofuels make food more expensive.


[edit] 14. Solar Power

a. Solar power is derived from the suns light and chemical processes.

b. Solar panels are a permanent fixture which will continue to derive
energy whenever the sun shines.

c. Solar panels have real but comparatively very tiny environmental
costs.

d. Solar panel technology is up to date and evolved, no more research
is actually required.

e. Assorted pundits and candidates and politicians and so forth like
to tell us that they favor more research for solar power.

Thats a secret unsecret way of saying that they don't support
employing it as a real world solution, because solar power has worked
and has been feasible and economically viable for over 20 years.

f. Solar power is derived at a specific rate depending on the size of
the panel, the efficiency of the absorption of the sunlight, and the
amount of sunlight available.

g. Solar power does better at high altitudes because theres less
atmospheric interference. h. Solar Power has very low yields per
physical system cost. In order to run a car on Solar energy, you have
to panel the entire car, and in order to run your house on solar
energy, you would have to panel your entire rooftop and buy energy
saving appliances.

i. Solar power is most attractive and useful in a whole energy
strategy because it is uniquely mobile. Geothermal wells or Wind power
or tidal power (for obvious reasons) won't run a car directly.

j. Solar power could in theory be used to solve the energy crisis
almost by itself, by paneling over a very large surface area. This
surface area has been calculated variously, with low estimates ranging
in 10 by 10 miles, and high estimates ranging upto 200 by 200 miles.

h. The problem with this is that the cost/ benefit analysis shows us
that this would be very expensive when compared to a holistic energy
strategy.

i. Solar power has very low yields when compared to geothermal power.

15. Thermal Solar. Thermal Solar is a variation of Solar power with a
much cheaper cost, a much lower per square foot yield, and operating
at a much simpler technology level.

a. About 100 miles by 100 miles (median estimate) of Thermal solar
paneling could in theory meet our energy needs.

b. Thermal Solar can be done in such a way that it has lower materials
costs and lower materials environmental impact.

c. Thermal solar involves using light to heat a liquid which creates
energy by pushing a turbine when the fluid expands.
[edit] 16. Wind Energy.

a. Wind energy is derived from creating large turbines called wind
mills.

b. Wind mills are generally very large affairs.

c. The larger a windmill is, the more energy it creates relative to
its overall material cost.

d. This means that the cost/ benefit analysis shows that larger
windmills are cheaper.

e. Windmills create medium yields of energy when they are operating.

f. One good large windmill can probably meet the energy needs for
perhaps a dozen homes.

g. The USA could in theory meet all of its energy needs via wind
power, if we invested heavily also in enormous

distribution network infrastructure.

h. The USA is rich in wind energy compared to most places on the
earth.

i. The problem with windmills is downtime when theres no wind.

j. This is significantly less a problem than with solar downtime due
to no sun.

k. Wind and Solar together as a team can capitalize on the two
extremes of climate, and should thus be employed

alternately depending on the location one wishes to provide energy
for.

l. For instance, Solar power is better in New Mexico, Arizona,
California, Texas, And sunny places.

J. And yet Wind power is better in places like New Jersey,
Oregon,...places alongside the Canada Border.

k. The other problem with wind power is that it can create quite an
eye sore to look at.

l. Wind power also can be very devastating to local bird populations.

m. Wind and Solar might be good tandem partners for cities like
Denver, where theres lots of wind and lots of sun,

but not usually at the same time except for when it is.

This allows such a system to generate power in the sunny months with
solar and in the winter months with wind.


[edit] 17. Tidal Power

a. Tidal power is derived much like wind power is, from the movement
of water instead of air.

b. Tidal power is slightly higher in potential yields because water is
denser.

c. Tidal power would have to be done more or less on remote beaches ,
probably in large fenced

areas to protect the systems from animals and animals and humans from
the systems.

d. Tidal power is obviously only viable on the coastlines of oceans or
very large bodies of water such as lakes.

e. Tidal power could in theory meet all of our energy needs.

f. The cost/ benefit analysis for tidal power is a bit murky because
its a mostly unexplored technology.

g. However, proof of concept units do exist and the technology is very
simple.

h. Tidal power has problems due to the corrosive nature of salt water
and erosion.

i. Tidal power is unpopular because it ruins one beach per facility.

j. Most accessible tidal power exists in the energy of waves.

k. Cost/ benefit analysis shows that tidal power can be done out at
sea, but it becomes increasingly more expensive the further out you go
to get the power back to land.

l. Tidal power is probably a good solution for arctic regions which
don't get much sun, and whose wind conditions might on some occasions
be too intense, pulling windmills down.

m. Along with Solar power and Wind power, tidal power provides a third
leg of medium level yield energy for low materials cost in situations
where geothermal power would be too expensive.


[edit] 18. Geothermal Power

a. Geothermal power is energy derived from the heat of the earth.

b. that heat is on average several miles beneath the surface.

c. However, there is a lot of variance in how deep that heat is, and
every state has regions where that heat is within a few hundred meters
of the surface.

d. Geothermal power like wind power becomes cheaper per materials cost
the larger the plant is.

e. Geothermal power has very high potential yields, and is in fact
competitive with nuclear power in terms of sheer yield.

f. Geothermal power plants could in theory be built with higher energy
yields than nuclear power plants. However, this is not advised or
advisable, due to potential tectonic stresses such high energy plants
could create.

g. In the range around 100th or even 1 tenth the yield energy of a
nuclear power station, geothermal power stations could be built which
would have virtually no impact on tectonic stresses.

h. Tectonic stress is an important variable. Frequently geothermal
power is most accessible along fault lines. However, these should be
ignored for caldera like situations where the system is not
contributing or in danger due to tectonic stresses.

i. There are many different ways of configuring a geothermal power
station, and only one which this author supports. This is called
double circuit closed system geothermal power.

j. Double circuit simply means that the water drops on one circuit and
the steam comes up on the other.

k. Closed circuit means that no water is ever lost in the system,
because even the heating element chamber is a well engineered
container

L. Geothermal power can in theory meet all of our energy needs

M. Of the resources available to us, it does this with the cheapest
over all cost, the smallest possible ecological footprint, and the
highest level of permanency.

N. Geothermal power is not a good solution in situations where a small
amount of power is needed for small communities or remote estates. It
has a high material cost and start up cost to drill the well.

O. Geothermal power is theoretically available almost everywhere on
the surface of the earth.

P. Current oil wells now go as deep as 7, 8, 9 miles deep.

Q. Enough Geothermal power is accessible within 200 meters depth to
meet all of our energy needs.

R. Where larger power sources are wanted in places where that heat is
deeper, it is still true that geothermal heat in most places is not
deeper than 4 miles.

S. In some rare situations where the crust is thick, geothermal power
might be as deep as 20 miles.

Don't drill there, import the energy from 150 miles away somewhere.
[edit] 19. Hydrogen power;

a. Hydrogen power is an up and coming technology which we can expect
to see having good strong applications 20 or 30 years from now.

b. Hydrogen power is very promising, but currently, its still mostly a
way to store energy, not create it.

c. The two main exceptions to this are using corrosive rare earth
metals to get reactions, and using phased electrical energy to short
out the binding force.

d. The problem with the former is that the rare earth metal is itself
a form of fuel, and that creating it, and "burning" it with water both
create toxic substances as side effects.

e. The problem with the latter is containment of the field and what
happens when organic matter is exposed to high energy bursts of
electricity.

f. To the knowledge of this author, water based solutions which
continue to use a combustion engine are frauds.

g. When Hydrogen becomes a used technology, it will probably be for
very large equipment and uses, such as trains, planes, and large boats


[edit] 20. Hydrolic or Hydro Electric power.

a. This energy is created by damming a river and using falling water
to drive a turbine.

b. This is incredibly damaging to the ecology.

c. Yields are fairly high per materials cost, but, still, hydro
electric materials costs are comparable to geothermal power, which
doesn't destroy an entire ecosystem per power plant.

d. Hydro electric power does not exist in anywhere near sufficient
quantities to meet all of our energy needs.

e. This author finds hydro-electric power to be a bad idea all the way
around, not even as useful as nuclear power.


[edit] 21. Nuclear power

a. Nuclear power (currently) is derived from using rare earth metals
in reactions which turn some fraction of those fuels directly into
energy.

b. The radioactive fuels must be mined, and this results currently in
the deaths (and serious health problems) of many Miners.

c. Nuclear power currently creates hyper toxic and radio active
wastes, which cost money to tend and babysit, and which in an accident
of ignorance 10 thousand years from now could wipe out an entire
continents worth of our descendants.

d. Nuclear power is in many senses still a futuristic technology with
much promise and much potential.

e. Thus nuclear power should be studied and refined in the laboratory.

f. The focus of such studies should be in finding ways to use non
radioactive fuels,

finding ways to create dissipating forms of radiation only, and
finding ways to eliminate the problem of wastes. g. Nuclear power is
very high yield, but it has exorbitant costs, especially over the long
term.

h. Compared to Geothermal power, nuclear power is extremely expensive,
gets more expensive instead of less expensive over time, is extremely
dangerous, and perhaps most importantly, sooner or later we will run
out of nuclear fuels, and still be forced to move on to geothermal
power.

i. Nuclear power will be most useful for purposes of exploring our
solar system and our galaxy.

j. There is no good reason to use nuclear power for domestic use
considering the other much better alternatives.


[edit] 22. Zero point energy

a. Zero point energy is derived from quantum phase state fluctuations
where energy is created in contradiction to the "laws" of conservation
of mass and energy.

b. Zero point energy is a futuristic technology which may become
realistic within the next 100 years. c. Final stage proof of concept
zero point energy research should be conducted at least as distant
from the earth as the oort cloud, due to the unforseeable nature of
potential dangers.

d. In theory, zero point energy could create a self sustaining quantum
phase reaction which could create nearly unlimited energy in spaces
literally too small to be seen by the naked eye.

e. Early stage research into zero point energy is the entire field of
quantum mechanics, specifically Singularities, branes, and quantum
holographics.


[edit] 23. Summary of findings.

a. Geothermal, Solar, Wind, Tidal, and Hydrogen Technologies together
provide a clear and easy path towards green and sustainable energy.

b. Geothermal energy specifically is the solution which a realistic
green energy infrastructure should be rooted in.

c. It is reasonable to project a total holistic solution in which 80
percent of our energy comes from geothermal, 10 percent from Solar, 5
percent from Wind, and 5 percent from Tidal.

d. It is also worth mentioning that electric cars are a current and
viable technology.

e. This is all of it simply a sumary of known and provable science
fact. The only reason why most people don't know all of this is that
oil companies and rich evil jerks have spent billions of dollars to
flood the public with propaganda and misinformation.

f. The other strategy of the evil empire jerks is to promote energy
resources such as biofuels or nuclear power which create a situation
of extreme expense so that they can continue to exploit our need for
energy in order to make money. A Geothermally based energy
infrastructure would provide extremely cheap energy (especially over
the long term) and this would be the death of the energy industry.
[edit] References

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_renewable_energy_topics_by_country

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Sustainable_development

http://geothermal.marin.org/pwrheat.html

http://www.geo-energy.org/

http://egs.egi.utah.edu/

http://geocen.iyte.edu.tr/english/indexEnglish.htm

http://terresacree.org/geothermieprofondeanglais.htm

http://www.newsunfiltered.com/archives/2005/09/expanding_geoth.html

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/energy-fuels/dn11010-us-urged-to-boost-its-geothermal-power-capacity.html

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/01/geothermal_powe.php

All geothermal power options are not equal. Dry rock for instance is a
lot more hazardous. The ideal would simply create a closed circuit
with a pooling area at the bottom, and this would not cause problems
like this place did because the water would not be going out into the
surrounding rock.

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/geothermal-energy-and-its-advantages.html

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/17819/Geothermal-Power-Generation-The-sleeping-giant

http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/LivingWith/PlusSide/geothermal.html

http://www.nuclearpowerprocon.org/pop/geothermal.htm

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/apr/03-the-great-forgotten-clean-energy-source

http://www.planetpuna.com/geothermal/geothermal%20critique.htm this is
just to be fair. It should be noted that this is all about one plant
thats operating too close to the magma and not using double closed
circuit.

http://www.fotosearch.com/photos-images/geothermal-power-station.html

http://www.ecofriend.org/entry/geothermal-power-plants-an-expensive-way-to-generate-clean-electricity/

http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2007/04/jefferson_teste.html

http://www.gordonmoyes.com/2007/01/10/crossbench-comment-better-than-nuclear/

http://www.answers.com/topic/geothermal-power?cat=technology

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/altarock-breaks-new-ground-with-geothermal-power-918.html

http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/17236/

http://solveclimate.com/blog/20080227/geothermal-cheap-abundant-cheap

http://www.altenergystocks.com/archives/2007/10/geothermal_the_other_base_load_power.html

http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2008/05/engineered-geothermal-power.html

http://seekingalpha.com/article/76811-geothermal-energy-sources-101

http://www.smu.edu/geothermal/2004NAMap/2004NAmap.htm

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/geomap.html

Loading Image...

Loading Image...

Loading Image...

Loading Image...

Loading Image...

Loading Image...&imgrefurl=http://www.utpb.edu/ceed/renewableenergy/texas.htm&h=977&w=974&sz=876&hl=en&start=20&um=1&tbnid=pSChvCFQN38TsM:&tbnh=149&tbnw=149&prev=/images%3Fq%3DGeothermal%2BMap%2Bof%2BNorth%2BAmerica%26start%3D18%26ndsp%3D18%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN

New Tectonic Source of Geothermal Energy?

volcan42.jpg Geochemists from the Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory and Arizona State University have discovered a new tool for
identifying potential geothermal energy resources. The discovery came
from comparing helium isotopes in samples gathered from wells,
springs, and vents across the northern Basin and Range of western
North America. High helium ratios are common in volcanic regions. When
the investigators found high ratios in places far from volcanism, they
knew that hot fluids must be permeating Earth's inner layers by other
means. The samples collected on the surface gave the researchers a
window into the structure of the rocks far below, with no need to
drill.

"A good geothermal energy source has three basic requirements: a high
thermal gradient—which means accessible hot rock—plus a rechargeable
reservoir fluid, usually water, and finally, deep permeable pathways
for the fluid to circulate through the hot rock," says Mack Kennedy.
"We believe we have found a way to map and quantify zones of
permeability deep in the lower crust that result not from volcanic
activity but from tectonic activity, the movement of pieces of the
Earth's crust."

Geothermal is considered by many to be the best renewable energy
source besides solar. Accessible geothermal energy in the United
States, excluding Alaska and Hawaii, is estimated at 90 quadrillion
kilowatt-hours, 3,000 times more than the country's total annual
energy consumption. Determining helium ratios from surface
measurements is a practical way to locate promising sources.

Julia Whitty is Mother Jones' environmental correspondent. You can
read from her new book, The Fragile Edge, and other writings, here.
Rod Speed
2009-06-29 08:46:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by prometheuspan
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Immortalista
Only nuclear energy can provide enough clean, reliable energy to
accommodate the earth's growing population and development needs.
Thats just plain wrong. It just happens to be the most
viable source of energy, a different matter entirely.
thats simply wrong and stupid.
We'll see...
Post by prometheuspan
the actual facts are that geothermal is cleaner, greener, cheaper,
Pity about how far most of it is from where the energy is needed.
Post by prometheuspan
and can give us yields larger than nuclear at the same size of plant,
Pig ignorant lie.
Post by prometheuspan
that theres enough geothermal within 200 meters of
the surface for 4000 times more energy than we use,
Another lie.
Post by prometheuspan
and that nuclear is a stupid and pathetic non solution
sold by evil jerks who want energy to stay expensive
so that they can keep making money on it.
Wota stunningly rational line of argument you have there, child.

<reams of lies flushed where they belong>
Michael Coburn
2009-06-28 21:32:10 UTC
Permalink
URGENT action is required. Is it possible to attack these problems in a
non partisan way and assign equal blame to all involved parties and
interests?
No, it isn't. Blame needs to be assigned as it is and then we can move
along. Kissing and making nice with Republicans destroys any hope at all
for the future of what is left of my country.
The world must move to clean, renewable, and affordable energy in the
next 30 years. Is it possible to reach this goal?
We cannot force China to not burn coal. All we can do is tax the hell
out of anything they send to us and/or print up lots of money with which
to redeem all those T-Bills the Chinese are holding.
If the U.S. solves only its own energy problem, but the world does not,
then everyone still loses.
Depends on how the US solves the problem, or more clearly, how the
problem is solved. If the promise of thorium nuclear can be fulfilled
then the problem is essentially solved for everyone. The technology does
not make nuclear bombs and does not create long lived nuclear wastes.

But the rentiers of the wold want their pound of flesh for their oil and
coal and they will do whatever it takes to retain that economic rent. We
do not have thorium nuclear because it is not a fascist tool.
Pollution knows no borders and a sinking ship
takes down everyone on board. That is why all countries must do what
they can to affect a global transition to all-renewable, clean energy by
2040.
The United States ab-uses or causes the ab-use of fossil fuels do to its
piggy consumption. Conservation in the US means a huge drop in the use
of fossil fuels everywhere.
That means a coordinated global effort with global scope. That
means leadership from the United States, Europe, China, India, and
Japan. That means diligent commitment from average citizens around the
world, and corporate and national leaders.
All join hands and sing Kumbaya! We need import tariffs and a big fat
tax on gasoline properly redistributed. The rest of the world will do
what they do, but they will have a lot less reason to burn fossil fuels
making stuff for us.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
Neolibertarian
2009-06-28 22:41:41 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by Immortalist
URGENT action is required. Is it possible to attack these problems in
a non partisan way and assign equal blame to all involved parties and
interests?
The world must move to clean, renewable, and affordable energy in the
next 30 years. Is it possible to reach this goal?
If the U.S. solves only its own energy problem, but the world does
not, then everyone still loses. Pollution knows no borders and a
sinking ship takes down everyone on board. That is why all countries
must do what they can to affect a global transition to all-renewable,
clean energy by 2040. That means a coordinated global effort with
global scope. That means leadership from the United States, Europe,
China, India, and Japan. That means diligent commitment from average
citizens around the world, and corporate and national leaders.
Pst.

No government has ever solved an "energy crisis."

Government, by its very nature, can't produce one single joule of
useable energy.

It didn't discover how to use oil or coal. It didn't develop the
internal combustion engine or the turbine.

It WAS involved in the engineering of nuclear power, but government
then, as now, was merely a superfluous player which slowed or halted
progress more than it supported it.

The answer isn't the government. You can't create a new source of
"renewable" energy by passing a law.

Maybe you're just trying to illustrate the ludicrous prejudices of the
illiterate citizens...something like King Canute?
--
Neolibertarian

"Global Warming: It ain't the heat, it's the stupidity."
hal
2009-06-29 14:52:21 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 13:49:06 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
Post by Immortalist
URGENT action is required. Is it possible to attack these problems in
a non partisan way and assign equal blame to all involved parties and
interests?
The world must move to clean, renewable, and affordable energy in the
next 30 years. Is it possible to reach this goal?
no
Post by Immortalist
If the U.S. solves only its own energy problem, but the world does
not, then everyone still loses. Pollution knows no borders and a
sinking ship takes down everyone on board. That is why all countries
must do what they can to affect a global transition to all-renewable,
clean energy by 2040. That means a coordinated global effort with
global scope. That means leadership from the United States, Europe,
China, India, and Japan. That means diligent commitment from average
citizens around the world, and corporate and national leaders.
Beyond Fossil Fools: The Roadmap to
Energy Independence by 2040
by Joe Shuster
http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Fossil-Fools-Roadmap-Independence/dp/1592982352
http://www.fossilfoolsdayofaction.org/
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...