Tagged: commodity, commodity currency, economic, economy, fiat, fiat currency, fiat money, gold, gold standard, Government, governments, oil
This topic contains 285 replies, has 29 voices, and was last updated by 
LEO THE WISE 1 year, 8 months ago.
- AuthorPosts
Beer has given up. Getting closer to zipping it theronius.
Meh. I kind of lost interest after you didn’t get my joke.
"I am is reportedly the shortest sentence in the English language. Could it be that I do is the longest sentence?" - George Carlin
I was looking for beer’s quote about a gold standard doing nothing to improve the system.
couldn’t find it/ got tired looking. but here’s my response.
Of course it would improve the system. Any limit to currency creation would also put a limit on the degree of economic fantasy they can create to manipulate society and people.
Except…we had debt while we were on the gold standard, and a run on the banks to convert dollars to gold collapsed banks and helped kick off the great depression, so clearly even the gold standard wouldn’t magically have kept us debt free, be free of any of its own problems, or somehow magically balance our budget if we adopted it tomorrow.
Plus the value of gold is down about 40% since 2011. It peaked around 1,880 an ounce and is currently less than 1,100 and ounce. Kinda funny you think its the ultimate tool against inflation and whatnot when it can’t even hold a stable price. Gold is simply a commodity no less prone to speculation and manipulation than oil or a fiat currency.
Yes, we had debt. And other government policies, such as tariffs, played a greater role in the Depression than anything.
When major governments keep large gold reserves, and are all on the gold standard, and there aren’t major wars (that’s a lot of conditions!), gold price is pretty stable — e.g. the 1800’s. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/charting-price-gold-all-way-back-1265 — after all, when you peg a fixed exchange rate of currency to gold that will have a stabilizing effect.
I agree about gold being no better or worse necessarily, than other commodities, but I still think it’s less prone to manipulation than fiat currency, which isn’t backed by anything. It’s easier to have confidence in a dollar backed by farmland, oil, gold, or silver, than by politicians’ words.
Survivor writes: Would you put FDR in the libertarian camp?
Let’s see… 3 term dictator … Supreme court packer…. inventor of more government programs than you can shake a stick at. ‘Brain Trust’ = Trust US, not yourself. Came up with the social insecurity ponzi scheme. Maybe the UN-libertarian? Or just the worst president in US History. This will get me roasted on here, but it’s my opinion.
Survivor writes: And of course, we are just speaking in generalities. Generally libertarians are fine with fiat currency, as you are.
I completely disagree. I haven’t been active in the US Libertarian Party (LP) in about a decade. But let’s think about this for a minute. When David Nolan founded the LP in the US, he did it right after Nixon announced wage and price controls… And from the beginning it was against getting us off the gold standard. https://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/40th-anniversary-of-nixon-speech-that-led-to-libertarian-party Nothing has changed, and I’ve never met a Libertarian who didn’t want to end the Federal Reserve and go back to some sort of gold/silver/commodity standard. Indeed, it’s usually high up on their agenda. And I’ve probably met a couple hundred party members! If you ever go to a convention, there’s always an ‘abolish the Fed’ speech.
Yeah… I don’t see where Survivor is getting all of this “libertarian” mythology he keeps spouting out. It’s really weird. Also, how did he go from me mentioning Theodore Roosevelt and the right of the people to rule, straight to Franklin Roosevelt? They may have shared the same last name, but they were very different presidents. All that aside, I appreciate his contribution about the war on family farms, and the corporate take over by big ag/biotech. I think that contribution is one of the most informative and meaningful ones by him yet. Cheers, Survivor.
Well f~~~ straight off then! :^)
Happy new year, man,
"I am is reportedly the shortest sentence in the English language. Could it be that I do is the longest sentence?" - George Carlin
Happy New Year, Theronius! Thanks for checking up on us jabberers 😉
As for you, Survivor, I’m not going to address your “libertarian” issues anymore because quite frankly sir, and with all due respect, they make absolutely no sense. They should definitely make even less sense after the several cases I made comparing libertarian to authoritarian structures of society, but I guess your mind is made up regardless of any facts presented to you. Otherwise, I respect your point of view and good intentions. Good evening, sir
Survivor: Correct, WWII didn’t end the Depression. The freeing up of human capital away from wartime production and fighting, ended the Depression. War cannot end depression. Depression is a contraction in the economy. War mis-directs resources to goods and services the consumer otherwise has no use for; post-war, a warship is useless in a peacetime economy. FDR prolonged the Depression by his economic interventions.
If the principle of price parity were valid, then we should prop up any sector that is failing — domestic steel, Aluminum, etc. Indeed, the government should just set wages and prices, right Comrade Survivor? And allocate capital, too. This way, there will be no recessions, or depressions.
That has not worked so well in those countries that tried it — the Soviet Union, and China before market reforms.
I do agree about the export policy preventing foreign countries becoming self-sufficient in agriculture.
Also bear in mind, when prices of farm products were raised artificially, it meant everyone ELSE who needed them to eat, paid MORE. FDR had cause and effect reversed. Low prices didn’t CAUSE the Depression, the Depression caused low prices. Fixing it with artificially inflated prices/artificial shortages, was doomed to fail, and it did fail. And we’ve been stuck with agricultural subsidies ever since, even though it was supposed to be an ’emergency’ measure. I say, get rid of the entire Federal Department of Agriculture, and all its programs, over several years.. I call this program the ‘New Economic Freedom Deal’.
Ask yourself which is more efficient: If I have a surplus of farm commodities
a.) paying farmers NOT to grow on the land, and having them stay on it. Money for this will come from printing fiat dollars, or increasing taxes during a depression. Think about the effect either of these two will have.
OR
b.) Allow excess farms to fail and commodity prices to go up under market forces; farmers find other work that contributes to GDP. This is understandably, a painful economic re-alignment.
With option (b), we have fewer farmers producing more per farm, since we’re not, say, paying two farmers to produce at 50% capacity to create artificial shortages. We do not have the tax cost. The otherwise idled or partially idled farmers, are now freed to work in other sectors. It it not inevitable that option (b) results in increased economic growth?
FDR was, by far, the WORST President. He dealt a terrible blow to freedom and individualism. The third term, was a demonstration of his egomania.
First, Happy New Year to all!
“Creative destruction is the engine of capitalism” — LOL. Well tardations.
yeah it destroys lives, nations, societies. Awesome.
And in this context capitalism does not mean trade, it means fascism based on fiat currency totalitarianism.
To me, ‘creative destruction’ is the re-allocation of resources when businesses fail. Kodak is no longer making film. Its management didn’t jump onboard the digital revolution soon enough, despite inventing the core technology of the CCD. It’s unfortunate for the employees, but now the resources (labor + capital) are directed towards other business endeavors, except those that remain in Imaging.
The alternative is a centrally managed system where government assigns jobs. That is what I meant when I said ‘creative destruction’. This ‘creative destruction’ creates rewards for success, punishment for failure, and fosters a dynamic culture of innovation with constant improvements in efficiency.
Multiple competitors drive improvements in quality, and cost reductions.
Unfortunately, it also produces occasional painful economic dislocation — downsizing, closures of businesses, etc.
Eat a whores rancid meat slit.
Hahaha! Nice.
"I am is reportedly the shortest sentence in the English language. Could it be that I do is the longest sentence?" - George Carlin
As for the world’s economic stage, that is relevant as well, because if the owner of a business can move to China because they have less regulation and cheaper labor, it forces the work force in other countries to compete for lower and lower pay.
Who’s doing the forcing? people have to eat fool. nature is doing the forcing.
Let’s take China. The laborer migrates from a rural farm to the city — where they can make MORE not less.
Now, let’s take a real-world example. Textiles. They are no longer produced in the USA to any significant extent compared to, say, 60 years ago. Our clothes are primarily made in Asia. So American seamstresses have lost their jobs. IF they can find other work, we may be better off — our clothes cost less. If the American textile workers don’t find other work, then unemployment shoots up. IF we buy lots of goods from China, and they buy much less from us, we have a huge trade imbalance. That is the problem we are experiencing now, and fiat currency contributes to it by facilitating trade deficits.
Veniversum: My point was, Standard Oil’s market share was actually in decline when their trust was broken.
Ida Tarbell, who brought the Trust to the public’s attention, had rather a vested interest in that Standard Oil was blamed for the failure of her father’s refining operation.
I do think there are some monopolies on natural resources, or at least oligarchies — typically created by governments — that don’t allow firms to compete in their countries. Take oil, for example. Demand is largely inflexible, until a recession hits and it drops. So the Saudis were able to collaborate with other nations in OPEC, to set the prices for decades, from the 7o’s on especially. But eventually, the market disruption of fracking, ruined their oligarchy. And they were not able to just arbitrarily set prices; if they went too high, deep sea exploration would be financed by multinational oil companies, as would coal liquefaction, an energy-intensive process that can also produce gasoline. Now, they’re trying what economists would call ‘predatory pricing’ — well, not exactly — they’re simply producing enough to keep prices low to discourage US fracking whereas predatory is usually below production cost. Ultimately this strategy won’t work so well, as these countries economies depend on oil to finance their governments, so low prices may not be sustainable and revolutions may ensue. And should prices rise, fracking will resume. Since all of these countries must provide for their citizens to keep them from revolting, they must have oil revenue, and thus, at present, aren’t even able to agree on quotas; they must pump enough to meet their obligations.
Veniversum: Well, all I can say is, competition sucks when you’re on the losing end! I know I’ve been there a few times. I’ve worked for firms in economic trouble, where they had to pay me for 4 days work when I did 5, or let people go. I’ve been furloughed until business came in. It can be frustrating that you may lose your job, due to market forces you cannot control. But it also keeps you at the top of your game, competing with colleagues and other firms. I think we sort of have a combination of collaboration and competition; I collaborate with colleagues at the same firm, yet also compete with them for promotions. I compete with other firms. About 150 years ago, there were numerous collaborative groups where people lived together and individuals didn’t use money, e.g. the Oneida society — communes if you will, but without the long hair and pot smoking. Most were religious. Obviously, this form of living is not as popular nowadays. I can see how it would be less stressful, and attractive for some people.
Keeps you at the top of your game… you’re an idiot.
On Competition: Will kids study to the same extent if there are no grades in classes?
If everyone has a job but no performance review, will they perform as well?
Will as many people learn specialized skills to become auto mechanics, doctors, or engineers if there is no incentive to do so? We compete in the job market in a free economy. Even in the USSR, there was competition and the professions requiring special skills, were paid more.
The same holds on the macro scale: If a company has a bloated bureaucracy and doesn’t adapt to technology, they lose. I mentioned Kodak and photographic film, a particularly ironic example, since they invented the core underlying technology of digital photography, the CCD. But the same holds for other industries. This creative destruction of capitalism, results in efficiency, but can be rather brutal when you can’t make the rent due to your company being one of the ‘losers’. So many people suffer unemployment for a while, and have to find new jobs.
Also, at least in the case of Nixon, in 1971, the evidence is he closed the gold window to help his campaign, not in response to some ‘globalist conspiracy’.
Many industries realize economies of scale — purchasing power — ability to negotiate lower rates, share knowledge, etc. But if these industries try to arbitrarily raise prices, they’ll typically face new entrants / competition. This process isn’t perfectly efficient. It’s much easier to start a bistro down the street, then to build an oil refinery which costs millions. So you see fewer competitors in the capital-intensive sectors.
Standard Oil was losing MARKET SHARE when the Ohio case was decided. A company may have been efficient and profitable in the past, but if it makes mistakes, new entrants can overtake it. Kodak is a perfect example. Smaller companies can often move faster and have less inertia. The bigger companies I’ve worked for, require a s~~~load of paperwork just to PURCHASE something.
Veniversum: My point was, Standard Oil’s market share was actually in decline when their trust was broken.
Ida Tarbell, who brought the Trust to the public’s attention, had rather a vested interest in that Standard Oil was blamed for the failure of her father’s refining operation.
Veniversum: Well, all I can say is, competition sucks when you’re on the losing end! I know I’ve been there a few times. I’ve worked for firms in economic trouble, where they had to pay me for 4 days work when I did 5, or let people go. I’ve been furloughed until business came in. It can be frustrating that you may lose your job, due to market forces you cannot control. But it also keeps you at the top of your game, competing with colleagues and other firms. I think we sort of have a combination of collaboration and competition; I collaborate with colleagues at the same firm, yet also compete with them for promotions. I compete with other firms. About 150 years ago, there were numerous collaborative groups where people lived together and individuals didn’t use money, e.g. the Oneida society — communes if you will, but without the long hair and pot smoking. Most were religious. Obviously, this form of living is not as popular nowadays. I can see how it would be less stressful, and attractive for some people.
That may or may not actually be true. There really is no way for me to verify it. Somehow I doubt that a single “loser” of the competition was to blame for breaking up John D. Rockefeller’s company. There were a variety of people claiming to have been slighted by John D. Rockefeller, and let’s also not pretend that ruthless business men back then didn’t use dirty tactics. Of course they did. As for competition, what makes it unhealthy isn’t the losers. It’s the people who resort to destroying the competition using sabotage, arson, blackmail, assassination, etc **instead of** simply surpassing their competitors through sheer excellence and superiority. It’s this violent portion of the competition, usually held in secret, that makes competition very bad. Psychopaths do not have moral or ethical barriers. They will destroy their opponents without a second thought. There is significantly more harm from that type of behavior than actual benefit. This is why right now, all over the world, some of the most successful businesses are organized crime. Whether the product is legitimate or not is irrelevant, because the manner it is distributed in relies largely on acts of evil. This is why the most successful people in the world are evil, and the least successful people are good, honest working people. I wonder what the civilizations of the world will be like when enough people get the education and self defense knowledge to prevent themselves from being manipulated. If I wanted to really get rich fast, the fastest way for me to do it would be to become a gun man for a business man. This is a sad fact. As for communes, I don’t suppose I would object to living in a commune but truth be told I think I’d prefer to have a log cabin somewhere in solitude where I could be completely independent. I don’t mind socializing, but generally I have lost interest in (I hate actually using this term) “the herd”. I am not interested in religion, so I can’t talk about that. People don’t understand that politics is just theater and deception, so I can’t talk to people about that. I try to talk to people about music, but they don’t care about musicians so I can’t talk to them about that. Sex jokes are no longer funny to me. I’m not interested in violent “action” movies, but I am interested in self defense. Most people aren’t though. I suppose the UFC “kind of” got people interested in self defense but the truth is that most people only enjoy watching and do not wish to obtain the knowledge. Ultimately, the only thing I’m interested in anymore is knowledge, and that makes me a boring companion for the average people. If I could find like minded people to live in a commune with, I think I would be very happy, as well as productive and industrious. I always liked fixing/repairing things. I always enjoyed being a problem solver.
“The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.” -Friedrich Nietzsche
It would be great, and also would be realistic, if everyone would stop pretending that psychopaths don’t exist, and that they don’t use violence and harm as their primary tools for getting what they want. It would be great if society as a whole, would stop pointing at people who call to attention the harm that psychopaths are doing, and calling them “conspiracy theorists”. Harm is the primary tool of the psychopath. Period. End of story. After all, we can evaluate history for what psychopaths have done, and there is nothing now that anyone can say to convince us that reality is not the way that it actually is. We know better. Conspiracy is how they get s~~~ done, and so is deception and manipulation. Turning a blind eye does not change that. You can ignore reality, but you cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.
How will anyone compete with the combination of robotics and Artificial Intelligence?
Do you see how your idea about the neverending benefits of competition is flawed?
We’ll have the Rise of the Robots, you know, Skynet, the Terminator movie, haha.
Seriously, I’ve worked for years as an Automation Engineer in the petrochemical industry — it’s no longer my primary focus, but I’m still quite involved in it. So I programmed the systems to open and close valves in sequence, turn pumps and motors on and off, monitor conditions and alarm on high temperature/pressure/etc, and basically, reduce the number of employees required to safely operate a petrochemical plant. So what impact does this actually have? Well, the employees that remains often can sit in a temperature controlled control room rather than facing the weather to go out and turn equipment on and off. Thus, they’re further away physically from the danger zone (fires and explosions, are part of the job in my industry), so safety is improved, and there are also fewer people at the plant at any given time, who might be injured in an accident.
On an individual level, learning PLC’c (programmable logic controllers) and DCS’s (distributed control systems) is obviously, a good career choice, very lucrative, but whether I gain personally or not, someone else would be doing this work for these industries. Everyone is replaceable in the Corporate hive. Some just cost more than others.
From a ‘big picture’ perspective, this automation, has had a similar impact that the so-called ‘dehumanizing’ assembly line had when it supplanted hand crafted products. Prices drop since companies can produce goods cheaper with more automation. It also allowed for interchangeable parts. Not sure why it’s termed ‘dehumanizing’ since now we can buy clothing for peanuts instead of having only 2 or 3 pairs of shirts and pants… And the peasants in China go to the cities for this work, just as we did in America. No conspiracy to ‘force’ anybody there — they went for a better life.
In my case, automation made our companies more competitive with foreign companies, so rather than domestic plants closing completely, they at least employed some Americans. The employees that work in the petrochemical industry are typically very well paid, hourly staff included, because they have to understand the process, interact with the computers, and do shift work. Serious human errors, literally can and will, cause fires, explosions, or chemical releases endangering the public and staff. I’ve investigated many.
But it was the same in previous eras — Romans used waterwheels 2,000 years ago for milling grain and dewatering mines. ‘Horse’ power was initially, exactly that — horses providing shaft power. All of these machines reduced and replaced labor. Getting back to the point, these innovations lowered the COST of producing goods and services. Thus, we can all afford to eat a lot of meat. We can afford to live in homes heated by natural gas instead of having to cut fire wood and continuously replenish the furnace of our one-room shacks that had continuous drafts (compare to our well-insulated homes or apartments). Rather than starvation, we are plagued with obesity — the problem of plenty — of excess. We’re living better than we were a century or two ago on many metrics. Automation results in increased production. But no doubt, it can also displace workers in a given industry, especially if it’s rapid.
As for robotics, it’s still primarily used for assembly lines — fixed robots. A GE FANUC is a very expensive machine to maintain and program. AI is barely used in my industry. The Japanese have improved robotics, but what it would take, for a robot to be effective at a petrochemical plant, as, say, a maintenance worker? No way with today’s technology! It would need dexterity. It would have to be able to collaborate, understand safety considerations, move around in tight quarters, and could not operate on a simple ‘fixed’ program like a FANUC that paints or assembles automobile doors or subcomponents. I don’t know what the future holds, but so far I’m not seeing ANY of this, and bear in mind I work in a very capital-intensive industry, they aren’t afraid to spend money to improve efficiency. I see a self-driving car coming very soon (more limited by regulators than technology); I don’t see a robot repairing my car in my lifetime, but I could be wrong.
I think if we had robots this sophisticated it would be a game changer. Standard of living would shoot up, because robots would cost next to nothing, in my opinion. Robots this sophisticated would be able to invent and advance technology, and allow colonization of the solar system. I would suspect there would be fighting over land and natural resources and some sort of scheme would be implemented to limit how many resources each individual was entitled to — robots could provide us all kitchens with granite countertops and redo them every year, but there is only so much raw material for all-you-can-eat almost zero labor cost consumer goods. Robots would be weaponized, just as we have drones now.
Since robots could self-replicate they would cost almost nothing. And if they were conscious, they might replace us (sci-fi, I know)!
We’re always lamenting about why can’t men stick together. It’s because of the indifference to the human suffering of others personified by the rigid idiocy of Ideologues like frankone.
Strange comment. I don’t ‘stick together’ with someone just because they share my gender, race, ethnicity, irreligion, or language. Indifferent to suffering? I ‘stick together’ with people who have a strong work ethic, and have values. I have a s~~~load more respect for a woman that works, than a man that collects disability checks. That said, for instance, I’ve seen a lot more women leeches than men.
You don’t know anything about what I do or don’t give to charity. Furthermore, the very ACT of working in a free market, reduces human suffering. How? It produces goods and services. I consume goods and services creating jobs for others.
The left loves to portray [Andrew] Carnegie as evil, but look at all the libraries he built and other good works.
I wanted to respond to a couple points of this.
People are being conditioned to believe that the only way to save the planet is if mankind surrenders their individuality in favor of the collective while allowing government to determine what is best for us. The proof for this is found in the words of U.N. climate chief, Christina Figueres, when she said that “global communism is the only solution to global warming.”
Actually, it is only when countries become WEALTHY that pollution control equipment is outfitted on coal-fired power plants. I’m talking about scrubbers to hold down SOx emissions, of course — REAL pollution. So the opposite of what Ms. Figueres said is true.
I don’t view carbon dioxide as a serious issue, so I guess you’d classify me as a ‘global warming denier’.
To suppress all scientific development except for those deemed beneficial by the Illuminati. Especially targeted is nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Particularly hated are the fusion experiments currently being scorned and ridiculed by the Illuminati and its jackals of the press.
First, fusion is difficult. The Soviets, the US, and others, have tried to make it work (be self-sustaining) for decades. There’s no conspiracy against it. If anything, it’s received TOO MUCH public funding (boondoggles, e.g. National Ignition Facility at a cost of $3.5 billion. As for cutting off boondoggle public funding, NIF was finished in 2010, so we’re still wasting the dough…). Not all government waste is on entitlements; we waste it on ‘science’ projects as well. If the private sector thought it would be viable, it would invest the money to develop the technology, just as it did for industrial burners, engines, generators, jet engines, microchips, etc. This is the technological reality. Instead, it’s a make-work project for Universities. Total politics. Just like coal liquefaction ‘projects’ (hint: we already know how to do it, it works, but s energy and capital intensive). Kind of like the Space Shuttle program to put men into low earth orbit. Scientifically useless, compared to planetary probes, and much more expensive too.
Also consider public funding actually discourages private sector funding in any endeavor.
As for fission power, it is impaired by mass media hysteria — and thus, we’ll likely see only 4 new plants by 2020 — ask the general public, ‘how many people died at 3 mile island?’. Only a small fraction of the US population, will answer zero. If you want more nuclear plants the regulatory environment needs to change and the public would need educated.
21. To take control of education in America with the intent and purpose of utterly and completely destroying it. By 1993, the full force effect of this policy is becoming apparent, and will be even more destructive as primary and secondary schools begin to teach “Outcome Based Education” (OBE).
Education ‘fads’ have existed my entire lifetime. It’s hard to have challenging standards and tech vocational skills, especially when parents don’t care. Privatization is the answer for accountability. I see no worldwide conspiracy here; we’re dumbing down the youth quite well with our locally-controlled school boards in the US of A.
Its ironic the UN
Seriously, I’ve worked for years as an Automation Engineer in the petrochemical industry — it’s no longer my primary focus, but I’m still quite involved in it. So I programmed the systems to open and close valves in sequence, turn pumps and motors on and off, monitor conditions and alarm on high temperature/pressure/etc, and basically, reduce the number of employees required to safely operate a petrochemical plant. So what impact does this actually have? Well, the employees that remains often can sit in a temperature controlled control room rather than facing the weather to go out and turn equipment on and off. Thus, they’re further away physically from the danger zone (fires and explosions, are part of the job in my industry), so safety is improved, and there are also fewer people at the plant at any given time, who might be injured in an accident.
Hey cool…I’m one of those plant operators that gets to spend a lot of my day sitting in a heated/air conditioned office because of that equipment. I can say this…the equipment you talk about…it certainly is nice to have but it will never replace people on the job no matter how good it gets. The simple reason why is these plants are designed on having redundant safety features. Maybe you have a valve with an air operator and a motor operator…what do you do if you lose air and power? Simple…someone goes and takes local manual control. Even if we theoretically had a robot that could get to and operate any valve in the plant that was smart enough to maneuver around common obstacles, like scaffolding, and was smart enough to find alternate paths in the even of a catastrophic failure of some sort that maybe damaged piping and walls, these robots still wouldn’t replace humans, they would just become an additional safety layer.
As for robotics, it’s still primarily used for assembly lines — fixed robots. A GE FANUC is a very expensive machine to maintain and program. AI is barely used in my industry. The Japanese have improved robotics, but what it would take, for a robot to be effective at a petrochemical plant, as, say, a maintenance worker? No way with today’s technology! It would need dexterity. It would have to be able to collaborate, understand safety considerations, move around in tight quarters, and could not operate on a simple ‘fixed’ program like a FANUC that paints or assembles automobile doors or subcomponents. I don’t know what the future holds, but so far I’m not seeing ANY of this, and bear in mind I work in a very capital-intensive industry, they aren’t afraid to spend money to improve efficiency. I see a self-driving car coming very soon (more limited by regulators than technology); I don’t see a robot repairing my car in my lifetime, but I could be wrong.
I agree man…I’m sure we’ll see more use of robots in our life time for performing basic and repetitive tasks, but the point that we’ll be seeing self aware, self thinking robots capable of learning and understanding and not just being coded to respond to certain things in a certain way isn’t going to happen until long after I’m dead, so I’m not going to worry about it. The human race will be colonizing other galaxies before we see true AI and not just binary code and a random number generator putting on a good show responding to pre-set conditions.
As for fission power, it is impaired by mass media hysteria — and thus, we’ll likely see only 4 new plants by 2020 — ask the general public, ‘how many people died at 3 mile island?’. Only a small fraction of the US population, will answer zero. If you want more nuclear plants the regulatory environment needs to change and the public would need educated.
Yup…I work at a nuke. I just laugh as the government throws so many hurdles in the way of building new nukes and makes it such a ridiculously expensive process…meanwhile the NRC is granting license extensions for plants built in the 70s and 80s to continue to operate for another 20 years. You’d think they’d want to decommission these vintage plants and get some of the newer, safer, more efficient plants online…instead they are just c~~~ blocking the nuclear industry left and right and attacking the coal industry…but its just natural gas that has been picking up the slack.
Even after almost a solid decade of heavy government subsidies….
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3
Solar is a whopping 0.4% of our electrical production and wind 4.4% lol. If the government subsidized nukes for the last decade like they subsidized solar/wind rather than stepping in its way, we’d probably be at about 20% production from fossil fuels right now instead of 67%…and we probably wouldn’t get much lower than that considering fossil fuel plants are the best for throttling as grid requirements change. Oh well…let’s let the liberals continue to bitch about greenhouse gasses and climate change while they’ve been the ones c~~~ blocking the best solution available. I find it especially funny every time a windmill farm is proposed somewhere they don’t want it and they protest that as well…NOT IN MY BACKYARD. Well s~~~, considering the land space solar and wind requires…its going to have to be in all of our backyards if you don’t want nuke or fossil fuels lol.
As for fission power, it is impaired by mass media hysteria — and thus, we’ll likely see only 4 new plants by 2020 — ask the general public, ‘how many people died at 3 mile island?’. Only a small fraction of the US population, will answer zero. If you want more nuclear plants the regulatory environment needs to change and the public would need educated.
Yup…I work at a nuke. I just laugh as the government throws so many hurdles in the way of building new nukes and makes it such a ridiculously expensive process…meanwhile the NRC is granting license extensions for plants built in the 70s and 80s to continue to operate for another 20 years. You’d think they’d want to decommission these vintage plants and get some of the newer, safer, more efficient plants online…instead they are just c~~~ blocking the nuclear industry left and right and attacking the coal industry…but its just natural gas that has been picking up the slack.
Even after almost a solid decade of heavy government subsidies….
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3
Solar is a whopping 0.4% of our electrical production and wind 4.4% lol. If the government subsidized nukes for the last decade like they subsidized solar/wind rather than stepping in its way, we’d probably be at about 20% production from fossil fuels right now instead of 67%…and we probably wouldn’t get much lower than that considering fossil fuel plants are the best for throttling as grid requirements change. Oh well…let’s let the liberals continue to bitch about greenhouse gasses and climate change while they’ve been the ones c~~~ blocking the best solution available. I find it especially funny every time a windmill farm is proposed somewhere they don’t want it and they protest that as well…NOT IN MY BACKYARD. Well s~~~, considering the land space solar and wind requires…its going to have to be in all of our backyards if you don’t want nuke or fossil fuels lol.
They do the same in Canada. They’ve pretty much managed to eliminate all the coal plants in Ontario.
The greenies constantly try to interfere with the nuclear power business too. One of their most recent moves was an attempt to halt the refurbishment of a major nuclear plant. Fortunately it appears to be going ahead anyways.
Solar is a whopping 0.4% of our electrical production and wind 4.4% lol. If the government subsidized nukes for the last decade like they subsidized solar/wind rather than stepping in its way, we’d probably be at about 20% production from fossil fuels right now instead of 67%…and we probably wouldn’t get much lower than that considering fossil fuel plants are the best for throttling as grid requirements change. Oh well…let’s let the liberals continue to bitch about greenhouse gasses and climate change while they’ve been the ones c~~~ blocking the best solution available. I find it especially funny every time a windmill farm is proposed somewhere they don’t want it and they protest that as well…NOT IN MY BACKYARD. Well s~~~, considering the land space solar and wind requires…its going to have to be in all of our backyards if you don’t want nuke or fossil fuels lol.
That’s an excellent point, Beer, and this is just another indicator that climate change and “carbon footprints” aren’t the real agenda. If it were really a scientific problem, they could seek a scientific solution instead of a political “solution”. After all, taxes don’t actually decrease the amount of carbon in the atmosphere at all. What it is really about is replacing the economic, political, ecological, sociological, and cultural/scientific functions of war, as outlined in “The Report from Iron Mountain”.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_ironmountain07.htm
- AuthorPosts
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
921526
921524
919244
916783
915526
915524
915354
915129
914037
909862
908811
908810
908500
908465
908464
908300
907963
907895
907477
902002
901301
901106
901105
901104
901024
901017
900393
900392
900391
900390
899038
898980
896844
896798
896797
895983
895850
895848
893740
893036
891671
891670
891336
891017
890865
889894
889741
889058
888157
887960
887768
886321
886306
885519
884948
883951
881340
881339
880491
878671
878351
877678
