Not logged in [Login - Register]
 Sciencemadness Discussion Board » Non-chemistry » Detritus » Exploitation of the global economy, the coming collapse Select A Forum Fundamentals   » Chemistry in General   » Organic Chemistry   » Reagents and Apparatus Acquisition   » Beginnings   » Miscellaneous Special topics   » Technochemistry   » Energetic Materials   » Biochemistry   » Radiochemistry   » Computational Models and Techniques   » Prepublication   » References Non-chemistry   » Forum Matters   » Legal and Societal Issues   » Whimsy   » Detritus   » The Moderators' Lounge

Pages:  1  ..  28    30    32  ..  44
Author: Subject: Exploitation of the global economy, the coming collapse
Rosco Bodine
International Hazard

Posts: 5707
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Online

Mood: analytical

[Edited on 30-3-2012 by Rosco Bodine]
froot
National Hazard

Posts: 327
Registered: 23-10-2003
Location: South Africa
Member Is Offline

Mood: refluxed

Well one of us doesn't give a dam if this topic gets binned.

We salute the improvement of the human genome by honoring those who remove themselves from it.
Of necessity, this honor is generally bestowed posthumously. - www.darwinawards.com
Rosco Bodine
International Hazard

Posts: 5707
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Online

Mood: analytical

Hopefully the thread stays open and is not handed like a trophy to a troll as yet another successfully sabotaged topic. That is what a trolls strategy is after all, to derail any legitimate discussions which aren't serving well to obfuscate what are genuine issues, and may be shedding light on things not wished to be illuminated by an inconvenient thing like the facts. I have concluded what I thought were pertinent contributions to the discussion anyway, and have other business which requires my attention. So you fellows franklyn, DerAlte, 497, ect. may take it from here.
Goorlap
Harmless

Posts: 29
Registered: 15-11-2011
Member Is Offline

mods shouldn't overreact. Closing the thread is unnecessary imo

Life is short. Enjoy it
EatsKewls
holmes1880 (banned)

Posts: 126
Registered: 29-2-2012
Member Is Offline

It seems that both Rosco and I belong to the Whimsy. I asked Polvo access to that, so as not to sidetrack any pure economic discussion in this thread. I can also not discuss economics without getting into politics, which eventually leads into culture, religion, and demographics. I firmly believe that any economy can work as long as the population is made up of able-minded individuals. This is not the case in this country and this what has been killing us slowly but surely. I think to change the economy you have to change the people.

P.S. Vegetarianism is very much like atheism. It took me 21 years to realize that I should not consume red or white meat and the benefits that come from it both to me and the environment. It's called thinking independently and being an individual.

woelen

Posts: 5493
Registered: 20-8-2005
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline

Mood: interested

 Quote: Originally posted by EatsKewls P.S. Vegetarianism is very much like atheism. It took me 21 years to realize that I should not consume red or white meat and the benefits that come from it both to me and the environment. It's called thinking independently and being an individual.
All people are individuals and many people are thinking independently and I see no correlation with vegetarianism and atheism.

 Quote: I firmly believe that any economy can work as long as the population is made up of able-minded individuals.
Most of the population is able-minded and this group of people includes atheists, christians, muslims, vegetarians, non-vegetarians and many other types of people.

Please stop putting yourself above others with this kind of crapola. People who need this kind of words in my opinion are less-capable of contributing to a good discussion and usually end up in flaming and derailing discussions to useless gibberish. I must say that your post history does not make me feel happy and your prognosis as a capable debater is bleak, very bleak.

[Edited on 30-3-12 by woelen]

The art of wondering makes life worth living...
Want to wonder? Look at http://www.oelen.net/science
EatsKewls
holmes1880 (banned)

Posts: 126
Registered: 29-2-2012
Member Is Offline

Quote: Originally posted by woelen
 Quote: Originally posted by EatsKewls P.S. Vegetarianism is very much like atheism. It took me 21 years to realize that I should not consume red or white meat and the benefits that come from it both to me and the environment. It's called thinking independently and being an individual.
All people are individuals and many people are thinking independently and I see no correlation with vegetarianism and atheism.

Please stop putting yourself above others with this kind of crapola. People who need this kind of words in my opinion are less-capable of contributing to a good discussion and usually end up in flaming and derailing discussions to useless gibberish. I must say that your post history does not make me feel happy and your prognosis as a capable debater is bleak, very bleak.

Let me guess, you like your stake medium rare and you practice Bible reading? I know you think I suck because I'm "ridiculing" things you enjoy.

And no, not all people are individuals and not most people are thinking independently. Heard of peer pressure, family influence, conforming, and group thinking? Those things are rampant through conservative pockets of this country (well, peer pressure is ubiquitous).

franklyn
International Hazard

Posts: 2924
Registered: 30-5-2006
Location: Da Big Apple
Member Is Offline

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2012/03/15/goldman-isn...

Good article , see the cartoon here also near the bottom ( click on it to enlarge )

.
woelen

Posts: 5493
Registered: 20-8-2005
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline

Mood: interested

 Quote: Originally posted by EatsKewls Let me guess, you like your stake medium rare and you practice Bible reading? I know you think I suck because I'm "ridiculing" things you enjoy. And no, not all people are individuals and not most people are thinking independently. Heard of peer pressure, family influence, conforming, and group thinking? Those things are rampant through conservative pockets of this country (well, peer pressure is ubiquitous).
You see? Again he puts himself above others. Yes, I enjoy my stake and I even sometimes read my bible
So, all meat-eating people and all people who read the bible are ridiculous people who cannot think independently. Hey, EatsKewls even denies evolution, people have evolved to have meat as part of their diet and that is something no one can deny

But let's get serious "my lad", it is really time that things change and that you grow up and first do some thinking before pouring out your noise all over the place in the forums.

The art of wondering makes life worth living...
Want to wonder? Look at http://www.oelen.net/science
DerAlte
International Hazard

Posts: 779
Registered: 14-5-2007
Location: Erehwon
Member Is Offline

Mood: Disgusted

Roubini: Euro Must Come Down to Dollar’s Level:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/46901354

Rates Should Rise in 2013; No More Easing: Fed’s Lacker.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/46902811

A bit of political commentary is allowable:
Silver Lining for Obama If Health-Care Law Is Rejected?
http://www.cnbc.com/id/46901372

Der Alte
Rosco Bodine
International Hazard

Posts: 5707
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Online

Mood: analytical

@DerAlte with regards to that last link, I would observe this:
EatsKewls
holmes1880 (banned)

Posts: 126
Registered: 29-2-2012
Member Is Offline

@ Rosco,

Every conservative seems to hate the Obamacare. Ok. What about car insurance that everyone must purchase or the IRS. How the hell did IRS come about- a big fat money stealing thugs who come and take your money. I have no issue with IRS taxing corporations that make billions, especially like BP, but thugging and bankrupting its citizens is just pure tyranny and must be fought. Where were the tea partiers then?

I would be in favor of PPACA(Obamacare) and mandated car insurance IF IRS was dissolved. Who's with me!!!

Rosco Bodine
International Hazard

Posts: 5707
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Online

Mood: analytical

It is theoretically possible that "universal health care" could be accomplished in some way that is not necessarily unconstitutional in the mechanism by which it operates. It isn't the concept of universal health care per se that is objectionable to "compassionate conservatives". What is at issue is medicine being socialized and controlled and operated by government. It is the all encompassing effective takeover of what has been a private health care industry which is most troubling about "Obamacare" which attempts to swat a fly with a sledgehammer when a flyswatter would do nicely. There is more than one way to skin a cat, whether the problem is universal healthcare or other problems. There are practical and intelligent ways of dealing with problems that make sense and can work and there are harebrained schemes which have no chance of working . The blowback is not about denials that there are real problems which need to be addressed. The blowback is about unintelligent and unworkable nonsolutions being sold as a bill of goods and then jammed down the throats of people who know there is a better way of solving the same problems. The problem we see is with "experts" whose greatest expertise is in proposing solutions which are doomed to fail and then trying to force acceptance of what has no chance of working, instead of looking carefully at sensible proposals for what could work but wasn't their idea. It is the old "not invented here bias" and that has been the ego problem for the liberals who think incorrectly they have the answers for everything .....instead of saying, hey we all have this particular problem to solve, so what can reasonably be done, let's consider all the sensible options, choose a best plan to proceed and then get gung ho about getting 'er done. Bipartisan plans generally have an aspect of being less unpleasant and being more fair as well as tending to encounter way fewer legal challenges. And it isn't like conservatives are saying everything that Obamacare wanted to accomplish is "wrong" or should not be done, it is structured wrong and administered wrong, and not financed in a way that is legal. So it isn't the principle of universal health care itself that is being the matter in controversy, but the unfair and unworkable manner in which such a program would be implemented. A similar problem exists for other business where in principle there is not irreconcilable controversy, but with regards to the "ways and means" for getting such things done there definitely are real issues which have to be resolved. You are familiar with that saying "back to the drawing board". Sometimes that happens when the model is attempted to be built and for what looked good on paper it may turn out it that in practice it just doesn't quite work that way, so the plan needs revision. The idea that such sweeping legislation could circumvent usual committee process and get pushed through warts and all, and withstand later scrutiny was just plain wrong.
DerAlte
International Hazard

Posts: 779
Registered: 14-5-2007
Location: Erehwon
Member Is Offline

Mood: Disgusted

First, @ franklyn: liked your second URL; ain’t that the truth, as they say! A whole industry built on hot air and horseshit.

In Re Rosco, post #1:

Old pal, if only you would separate your stream-of-consciousness into paragraphs containing a single idea, we might be able to understand what you are trying to say.
 Quote: Surely if a no holds barred honest debate is wished to be silenced it generally occurs when the conservative discourse seems to be getting the upper hand over the radical discourse.

You are confusing the meaning of conservative=moderate with its current political meaning, and radical=politically left. Radical in fact means fundamental, at the root of, from Lat. Radix.
 Quote: In this thread where economics is really the core topic it was unavoidable that politics would become part of the discussion

I think we’d all agree on that.
 Quote: I think it is possible for a secular person to be honest and have good character and even to be conservative and pragmatic, but that is not the trend.

The opposite may be equally true of a self-professed follower of religion; also, the first part of your statement is conditional (‘I think’) and the second (‘but…trend’) an indicative statement of (unprovable) ‘fact’. No such ‘trends’ exist; both secular and religious people are both honest and dishonest, of good and bad character; and conservatism and pragmatism are neither confined to either population. In fact you say this yourself: I added the bold part
 Quote: However it definitely is bigoted and it is dishonest and hateful to pass judgement on an entire class of people such as Christians or any others as being stupid and brainwashed or to conclude that this is necessarily the base for the Republican party or any other political party.

I’ll ignore that whole section on vegans as a non sequitur interjection.

 Quote: It is the same story for secular humanist bigots who are insulting and condescending to all persons of faith, because in the mind of the bigot they believe they are superior for being what they are and they believe they are "more evolved".

Here we go agin, as Ron Reagan used to say. This smacks of the bigot calling the bigot bigoted.
 Quote: If an honest person looks at the complex archictecture of a cathedral it would be reasonable an honest person would honestly conclude that such structures were not designed and built by imbeciles.

Honestly3? They were built by what would today be called engineers/architects and very skilled guild craftsmen. They were built for a rich establishment loosely called the church. They are symbolic of man’s religious aspirations but also his long tradition of native creative energy. This follows a very long tradition from the very earliest days of Egypt (pyramids, etc.) through Indian, Chinese, Greek temples; the Roman amphitheatres; triumphal arches, aqueducts etc.

{Note: Rosco knows of my enthusiasm for cathedrals and old buildings of any sort. He also knows that I consider them as monuments to man’s ingenuity rather than to their original purpose – cf forts, castles}.
 Quote: That ascension is only possible by choice. No birdbrained bigot will be pushed from the nest where they are secure in their illusions and their rantings guided by dishonesty and prejudices, rather than being guided by conscience and by love. There is an intelligent design in this. The church has been around for a long time and has outlived many empires.

… secure in their illusions and their rantings …
No comment. Be secure.

Re Obamacare:
 Quote: Obamacare was basically laughed out of the Supreme Court because it is unconstitutional on its face.

Agreed. Had it been a tax it would have been a different matter. There might have been something to argue about.
 Quote: … the U.S. will be saying farewell to fairy tale health and energy policy and will be getting back to business that works and doing things in ways that actually do work instead of pouring trillions down the drain on unworkable and even unlawful schemes

… and I’ll drink to that too.

Untold billions are wasted in bureaucracy in the health care system as it is. The only people that really matter are the patient, the doctor(s) and the hospitals for patient care. All of these are being systematically screwed by the system.
The hospitals have to provide emergency care for those unable to pay the doctors so they screw any fee paying patient to avoid bankruptcy; the insurance companies covering the fortunate screw the hospitals and doctors for whatever they can to maximize profits. The lawyers prey on doctors and hospitals and cause their insurance rates to increase to ridiculous levels and so cause the incidence of too many very profitable but unnecessary tests. And many hospitals are for profit, too, even the religious based.
Add the government to the bunch of leeches and see what happens. The IRS is the only Government agency that regularly turns a profit (I did my taxes this week). But I have no idea of a rational solution. The health system has spiraled out of control: it has to explode or implode some time.

@ woelen, re EK: well put! I see his signature line has already improved. Is there hope?

Regards,
Der Alte
Rosco Bodine
International Hazard

Posts: 5707
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Online

Mood: analytical

 Quote: Originally posted by DerAlte First, @ franklyn: liked your second URL; ain’t that the truth, as they say! A whole industry built on hot air and horseshit.

Heartily I second that, and Calvin and Hobbes is on our reading level.
 Quote: In Re Rosco, post #1: Old pal, if only you would separate your stream-of-consciousness into paragraphs containing a single idea, we might be able to understand what you are trying to say.

Brothers Grim stories for children #53 There is found more to understand. The jealous evil queen (Camilla?) wears disguises and penetrates the seven dwarf secret service protection of Snow White, finally doing the deed with a poison apple. But alas Snow White is miraculously resurrected for a royal wedding, and becomes the new queen and undoubtedly the fairest in the land. The old evil queen gets her comeuppance in being fitted with a pair of red hot iron shoes in which she dances until she dies. Black and white enough. Couldn't resist. Long live Snow White er uh... I mean long live Kate My wife got the DVD of the wedding, which I fell asleep watching for reason of my belly full of fire roasted pork and potatoes. The Lancaster blood in me was pleased, magnificent spectacle. Jolly good show and all that, inspiring really. The little girls dream, and the little boys too,....never too old .....never obsolete.
Quote:

 Quote: Surely if a no holds barred honest debate is wished to be silenced it generally occurs when the conservative discourse seems to be getting the upper hand over the radical discourse.

You are confusing the meaning of conservative=moderate with its current political meaning, and radical=politically left. Radical in fact means fundamental, at the root of, from Lat. Radix.

I'm not confused at all. I know the current political center is a stylishly moving target ...I am simply not moving with it. It doesn't get any more conservative than thousands of years of tradition.
Quote:

 Quote: In this thread where economics is really the core topic it was unavoidable that politics would become part of the discussion

I think we’d all agree on that.

Then humor should be allowed, otherwise politics will unhealthily elevate all our blood pressure. Here's a bit of humor with a slightly british accent just for you old friend
Quote:

 Quote: I think it is possible for a secular person to be honest and have good character and even to be conservative and pragmatic, but that is not the trend.

The opposite may be equally true of a self-professed follower of religion; also, the first part of your statement is conditional (‘I think’) and the second (‘but…trend’) an indicative statement of (unprovable) ‘fact’. No such ‘trends’ exist;
Sure general trends do exist, they just aren't necessarily definitive as 100% of the matter for those subjects in the group
Quote:
both secular and religious people are both honest and dishonest, of good and bad character; and conservatism and pragmatism are neither confined to either population. In fact you say this yourself: I added the bold part
 Quote: However it definitely is bigoted and it is dishonest and hateful to pass judgement on an entire class of people such as Christians or any others as being stupid and brainwashed or to conclude that this is necessarily the base for the Republican party or any other political party.
You make the deliberately qualified generalization extend further than I reached with it, and it isn't an open ended proposition there. It follows a logarithnic decay effect there instead of being a never ending bright line. Even a laser stays coherent only so far and diverges a bit along the way. Generalization can be too broad and the qualified generalization loses coherency at a distance where overreaching comes into play.
 Quote: I’ll ignore that whole section on vegans as a non sequitur interjection.

But it wasn't a non sequitur. It was an added example of the sort of perversion of Pascals wager being applicable to every conceivable "identifying philosophy" which anyone may latch onto as being "the answer"(antichrist or false messiah) in their own mind, and then that becomes the standard by which they judge others. The excess involved can become nutty to the extreme .....which is my definition of "radical" the latin root notwithstanding. Perhaps extremist zealot would work better there as synonymous with radical. It's the new fundamentalism and it isn't the old fundamentalism. Newspeak may blur the distinction or try ....that's how it works.
Quote:

 Quote: It is the same story for secular humanist bigots who are insulting and condescending to all persons of faith, because in the mind of the bigot they believe they are superior for being what they are and they believe they are "more evolved".

Here we go agin, as Ron Reagan used to say. This smacks of the bigot calling the bigot bigoted.

"Well, there you go again" is actually that Reagan quote.
And perhaps there is analytical equivalency in what you are saying examining the matter as an absolute while missing entirely the important fact that analytical equivalency does not equal moral equivalency. And the best example ever could be found in the popular secular argument which incorrectly attempts to "equate" Christians with Muslims...an argument which falls absolutely flat in the same realm of black and white as the flag of the templars would declare. There absolutely is not a meaningful equivalency because the assertion of academic equivalency involves distortion and falsehood which misses the point entirely. Christians are not tasked with some mission to impose by force conversion and implement some sort of "sharia lite" upon the world. So there is a difference which renders arguments of equivalency moot. The differences are so stark that there is no more equivalency than to say that the government of Saudi Arabia and the government of the United States are equivalent because they are both governments. So the equivalency argument as applies to bigotry can become absurd in making the more distinctive attributes minimized while making the irrelevant common denominator appear to be defining. That is a kind of intellectual dishonesty about equivalency.
Quote:
 Quote: If an honest person looks at the complex archictecture of a cathedral it would be reasonable an honest person would honestly conclude that such structures were not designed and built by imbeciles.

Honestly3? They were built by what would today be called engineers/architects and very skilled guild craftsmen. They were built for a rich establishment loosely called the church. They are symbolic of man’s religious aspirations but also his long tradition of native creative energy. This follows a very long tradition from the very earliest days of Egypt (pyramids, etc.) through Indian, Chinese, Greek temples; the Roman amphitheatres; triumphal arches, aqueducts etc.

Please clarify, do you suggest the church had to outsource the architectural design and labor to secular contractors due to the absence of intellectual resources available within the organization? In my own family are engineers and architects.
In my immediate family was a woman who was an architect who designed churches and directed their construction. She was also a very accomplished piano player and organist who would sit and play the hymns at services held in the building surrounding which she had herself designed and directed the construction. So anyway, I know the church has not had to outsource and contract its work for reason of any deficiency of intellect in its membership. That would be like Northrup Grumman having to outsource canoe construction to a local indian tribe and then having to relocate them to the Norfolk yard as consultants for how to apply birch bark to the hull of the next nuclear aircraft carrier.
 Quote: {Note: Rosco knows of my enthusiasm for cathedrals and old buildings of any sort. He also knows that I consider them as monuments to man’s ingenuity rather than to their original purpose – cf forts, castles}.

Now whatever you may consider to be the monument value for such things, the reality is that utility is the purpose for which such structures were built, so give credit where credit is due. There is even mystery today and marvel at how some of these things were actually accomplished. It is not even certain that some of those structures could even be replicated using modern technology, where lost art has
left us ignorant of ancient methods.
Quote:
 Quote: That ascension is only possible by choice. No birdbrained bigot will be pushed from the nest where they are secure in their illusions and their rantings guided by dishonesty and prejudices, rather than being guided by conscience and by love. There is an intelligent design in this. The church has been around for a long time and has outlived many empires.

… secure in their illusions and their rantings …
No comment. Be secure.

I am secure in the sure knowledge that what you may regard as my own rantings are no rant, a bit peeved perhaps I will grant you...but no rant, just a setting of the record straight on some small but important points.
Quote:

Re Obamacare:
 Quote: Obamacare was basically laughed out of the Supreme Court because it is unconstitutional on its face.

Agreed. Had it been a tax it would have been a different matter. There might have been something to argue about.
Yeah it amazes me that lawyers would not know better. It is like they rigged the thing to fail and thereby
become a "well we tried" (but those evil republicans had their way and smashed it on a technicality) which is just plain deception. Lawyers absolutely know what kind of stuff can't go into a law but they play politics with legislation anyway, knowing it will get struck down when challenged.
What were they thinking, that unfunded mandates would not be challenged....it is unbelievable they would do this, and purely waste so much time on something wired to self-destruct as if they somehow didn't know in advance what would happen.
Quote:
 Quote: … the U.S. will be saying farewell to fairy tale health and energy policy and will be getting back to business that works and doing things in ways that actually do work instead of pouring trillions down the drain on unworkable and even unlawful schemes

… and I’ll drink to that too.

Here, here....cheers.....twice just to make sure
 Quote: Untold billions are wasted in bureaucracy in the health care system as it is. The only people that really matter are the patient, the doctor(s) and the hospitals for patient care. All of these are being systematically screwed by the system. The hospitals have to provide emergency care for those unable to pay the doctors so they screw any fee paying patient to avoid bankruptcy; the insurance companies covering the fortunate screw the hospitals and doctors for whatever they can to maximize profits. The lawyers prey on doctors and hospitals and cause their insurance rates to increase to ridiculous levels and so cause the incidence of too many very profitable but unnecessary tests. And many hospitals are for profit, too, even the religious based. Add the government to the bunch of leeches and see what happens. The IRS is the only Government agency that regularly turns a profit (I did my taxes this week). But I have no idea of a rational solution. The health system has spiraled out of control: it has to explode or implode some time. Regards, Der Alte

Getting insurance commissioners out of bed with the insurance companies and making the companies justify their actuarial calculations against laws prohibiting usury would be a good place to start reform of the enitre insurance industry.....not just health care insurance. Somebody hasn't been keeping them honest, and that somebody has profited from the connivery and collusion involved.

DerAlte
International Hazard

Posts: 779
Registered: 14-5-2007
Location: Erehwon
Member Is Offline

Mood: Disgusted

Rosco wrote:
 Quote: Then humor should be allowed, otherwise politics will unhealthily elevate all our blood pressure.

Humor is absolutely implicit in every political speech I have seen recently. I laugh at them all the time! Right, left and center!

For blood pressure, take two beers.

For the rest: There is no new thing under the sun, as the preacher said wearily in Eccl.

Der Alte
franklyn
International Hazard

Posts: 2924
Registered: 30-5-2006
Location: Da Big Apple
Member Is Offline

Car insurance is compulsory in many states. Those where it isn't
usually subsidize underwriting of costs with a gas tax at the pump.
Is this constitutional or does it fall under states rights ? Obama care
just takes the premise to the next higher level. Compared to other
developed nations , the U.S. seems more like a third world country
when it comes to medical management.
http://townhall.com/columnists/andrewtallman/2009/11/17/is_o...
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/03/20123297382...

See => http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_auto_insurance
Public Policy Considerations
The compulsory insurance debate

.
AndersHoveland
Hazard to Other Members, due to repeated speculation and posting of untested highly dangerous procedures!

Posts: 1986
Registered: 2-3-2011
Member Is Offline

But the problem with the compulsory health insurance scheme in the USA is that the government will be forcing the insurance companies to lose money by accepting unhealthy people at limited rates. That is why they want the insurance to be cumpulsory. So everyone else will be forced to buy insurance that is burdened down by the poor and sick. It is all just another wealth-transfer scheme in disguise.

By
1. Forcing all the insurance companies to take care of the unhealthy and limiting how much they can charge,
2. Forcing all the healthy individuals to buy insurance,
Healthy people are being forced to pay for the unhealthy

Why not just raise taxes, then have the government help pay a portion of the healthcare? This would be the most open and direct policy.

I think people should only buy an insurance policy with a high deductable. One should only need insurance to guard against potential (but unlikely) medical costs that one would not be able to afford. It seems illogical to buy insurance to pay for something that one can easily pay directly for themselves.

 Quote: Originally posted by franklyn Car insurance is compulsory in many states.

The difference with car insurance is that someone does not absolutely have to buy the insurance if they really do not want to. There is almost always a bond alternative option, where an individual can put 50000 USD in an account with the state, to be used for potential liability. And at least there is the option of not driving. Indeed, there are some Americans that manage to live their entire lives without a car.

So what other options would there be for those that are completely opposed to be forced to buy health insurance? Will they be offered a health bond option?

What about those attempting to be entirely self-sufficient in a remote rural area? Is it fair to increase the tax burden on them?

[Edited on 1-4-2012 by AndersHoveland]
EatsKewls
holmes1880 (banned)

Posts: 126
Registered: 29-2-2012
Member Is Offline

Just to shift a discussion back to energy, just read an interesting article on CNN about a coal plant in Georgia. I bet those good salt-of-the-earth people who lived around that plant for some time would support a bit of green energy.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/31/us/georgia-coal-power/index.ht...

The thing is the biggest polluter in the U.S. We need more stories like these to get people to realize that starting a heavy development in green energy and subsidies is a must. There could be enormous amount of jobs created in that sector and our national trade balance would finally shift to positive, since we'd stop buying up the raghead's oil.

A nuclear power plant would be "greener" than those smoking coal pipes. No meltdown scenario is assumed....

ADDENDUM: and the irony is those good people who became sick, I guarantee you, most likely were against EPA regulation and green energy. Get the government out of my life! Sure, but then enjoy private market poisoning your air, water, and food. Free market is prone to corruption, crime, and ignorance- the scrap metal from Chernobyl, several tons has been melted down to make water pipes and sold to Russia's water plants and such. That metal was very radioactive and remained very radioactive. The lengths people will go to make a buck.

Same documentary had a funny joke translated from Ukranian/Russian:

 Quote: A guy is selling potato and has a sign up above: "Potato From Chernobyl". Some other guy walks by and asks him, "Pal, how do you plan to sell such potato if you're telling everyone it's from Chernobyl....who would buy it from you?" And the guy says, "Oh, people buy it, some buy it for their wife, others for their mother in law"

[Edited on 1-4-2012 by EatsKewls]

Rosco Bodine
International Hazard

Posts: 5707
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Online

Mood: analytical

So sad ....a rainy night in Georgia,
It seems like it's rainin' all over the world.....
(and it just could be)

Maybe joining the Nuclear fraternity wouldn't be such a bad thing ......
Here .....be still for a second and let me pin you.....
Now see....that's better already .....everything is going to be alright

EatsKewls
holmes1880 (banned)

Posts: 126
Registered: 29-2-2012
Member Is Offline

You can be pragmatic all you want(aka short-sighted, aka selfish), but if bad things happen you get this:

Georgia isn't the most beautiful state, but I'd hate to see it turn into Chernobyl area. Nuclear power plants are a short term solution and a gamble. You need something much more sustainable.

[Edited on 1-4-2012 by EatsKewls]

Rosco Bodine
International Hazard

Posts: 5707
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Online

Mood: analytical

Nuclear is the only proven alternative energy technology as a practical solution that is sustainable, and a lot less of a gamble financially than unproven alternatives. If you want to "invest" trillions on longshot fanatical green energy schemes, then speculate with what is your own money you can comfortably afford to risk, not by risking the money of others whose consent is not given. Pissing away money fruitlessly on impractical utopian schemes is what is not sustainable.
EatsKewls
holmes1880 (banned)

Posts: 126
Registered: 29-2-2012
Member Is Offline

 Quote: not by risking the money of others whose consent is not given. Pissing away money fruitlessly on impractical utopian schemes is what is not sustainable.

You hypocrite, you. What about the wars that you supported that pissed away between 4 to 6 trillion dollars! You think I gave my consent to go to this piece of crap scheme of a war????????

4 to 6 trillion dollars!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!$$$How much did Solindra lose...500 million? At least the money was lost here! The irony was that you worked for U.S. military so you got a small piece of the pie, so you just quieted down about it, because you don't bite the hand that feeds you. Solyndra lost$500 million. Afghanistan and Iraq lost us at LEAST 8000 TIMES MORE. So keep your hypocrisy to yourself about pissing away money.

[Edited on 2-4-2012 by EatsKewls]

497
International Hazard

Posts: 778
Registered: 6-10-2007
Member Is Offline

Mood: HSbF6

 Quote: According to David Norman, former CEO of Credit Suisse Asset Management, UK investors pay 8 billion pounds a year in hidden fees to financial advisors, capturing upwards of one-third of all investor returns.

A word to the wise: NEUROFEEDBACK

http://citizenworks.org/corp/dg/s2r1.pdf
http://www.newscientist.com/mobile/article/mg21228354.500-re...

"To expose a 15 Trillion dollar ripoff of the American people by the stockholders of the 1000 largest corporations over the last 100 years will be a tall order of business."
Buckminster Fuller

"No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it."
Albert Einstein
watson.fawkes
International Hazard

Posts: 2793
Registered: 16-8-2008
Member Is Offline

From Forbes 2012 March 29: "Exelon's 'Nuclear Guy': No New Nukes". Here's the first few paragraphs:
 Quote: Nuclear power is no longer an economically viable source of new energy in the United States, the freshly-retired CEO of Exelon, America’s largest producer of nuclear power, said in Chicago Thursday. And it won’t become economically viable, he said, for the forseeable future. “Let me state unequivocably that I’ve never met a nuclear plant I didn’t like,” said John Rowe, who retired 17 days ago as chairman and CEO of Exelon Corporation, which operates 22 nuclear power plants, more than any other utility in the United States. “Having said that, let me also state unequivocably that new ones don’t make any sense right now.”
The short reason is that fracking has made natural gas cheap enough to force nuclear out of investment viability. So much for reduced CO2 emissions. Wait for the carbon justification narrative to shift in accordance with where the money is to be made.
 Quote: “I’m the nuclear guy,” Rowe said. “And you won’t get better results with nuclear. It just isn’t economic, and it’s not economic within a foreseeable time frame.”
Pages:  1  ..  28    30    32  ..  44

 Sciencemadness Discussion Board » Non-chemistry » Detritus » Exploitation of the global economy, the coming collapse Select A Forum Fundamentals   » Chemistry in General   » Organic Chemistry   » Reagents and Apparatus Acquisition   » Beginnings   » Miscellaneous Special topics   » Technochemistry   » Energetic Materials   » Biochemistry   » Radiochemistry   » Computational Models and Techniques   » Prepublication   » References Non-chemistry   » Forum Matters   » Legal and Societal Issues   » Whimsy   » Detritus   » The Moderators' Lounge