From: Beam Me Up Scotty on

> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 11:17:52 -0700 (PDT), Larry G
> <gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jul 22, 9:59 pm, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 04:26:06 -0700 (PDT), Larry G
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Jul 21, 10:17 pm, russo...(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto)
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> In article <22879a1c-b4c1-4d4e-816b-eaad9492e...(a)j8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>> Larry G <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> On Jul 20, 9:07=A0pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2010-07-20, Larry G <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> I'd say that you need an agency like the EPA to make the tradeoffs
>>>>>>>> between what is necessary for society and for business and what is
>>>>>>>> safe enough.. or pollutable enough for society.
>>>
>>>>>>> No single person or small group can possibly have enough information to
>>>>>>> do that properly even if they were pure of heart and absolutely perfect
>>>>>>> in their thinking. That means even if you can elminate all the problems
>>>>>>> of politics and corruption, have qualified people with no self interest,
>>>>>>> it still wouldn't work, because no small group can manage a society of
>>>>>>> 300 million people without causing all sorts of problems.
>>>
>>>>>> and your alternative?
>>>
>>>>> Decentralize decisionmaking.
>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> The problem with socialism is there's always
>>>>> someone with less ability and more need.
>>>
>>>> that's the opposite of how Nukes get built in other countries though.
>>>
>>> THe problem with socialism is that eventually, you run out of other
>>> people's money. And, of course, Europe is running out of that money.
>>> Greece, Spain, a whale of a lot of them are in trouble, and are
>>> probably going down. The Euro is said to be toast within a year.
>>> Socialism is a systemic monster that is going to consume them,
>>> economically. And after it does, people here that want to have the
>>> gov't doing absolutely everything will STILL not see it.
>>
>> so.. should govts help finance NUKES?
>

Since when has the government supposed to be the venture capitalists?
From: Larry G on
On Jul 23, 4:05 pm, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 11:13:10 -0700 (PDT), Larry G
>
>
>
>
>
> <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jul 22, 9:48 pm, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 04:13:07 -0700 (PDT), Larry G
>
> >> <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> We don't have the same infrastructure, we don't have the same size
> >> >> country, etc. etc.  Just because they can do it with X BTUs overall
> >> >> doesn't mean WE can do it with the same BTUs.
>
> >> >doesn't mean we can't either.
>
> >> Does.  Our fuel goes up a truck's diesel smokestack, when they roll
> >> 100's of miles on 1 gallon of fuel per 1000 lbs of cargo, on rails.
>
> >> >the bottom line is that we are 30th in the world on life expectancy so
> >> >the idea that their energy use contributes to a "subsistence"
> >> >lifestyle is ...  well.. it's foolish.
>
> >> Sedentary lifestyes, lack of walking to places 'cuz of our suburban
> >> layouts, smoking, fatty food preference, etc. etc.  Its the lifestyle
> >> people choose, that's all.
>
> >> >Most folks who live in most modern industrialized countries - live
> >> >well .. maybe not as "well" as the US but how could is "well" when the
> >> >US is dead last in life expectancy of industrialized countries?
>
> >> People are relatively poor compared to us.  Once again, French doctors
> >> - that's doctors who have to study about a decade to do that job just
> >> like American doctors - net about $55K/yr on average.  Read it:
>
> >>http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_28/b4042070.htm
>
> >>   _I_ net just about that much with 4 yrs of computer college work.
> >> Geeezzz... I mean, a DOCTOR makes $55K clear.  C'mon... overall,
> >> they're poor.
>
> >> >It sure can't be because we suffer in the heat and cold, eh?
>
> >> Nope, but they might.  Or maybe they all run around the house in heavy
> >> sweaters and long johns, and dial the heat down to 55, and just "get
> >> used to it."  Dunno. But... we make a lot more $$$$ than they do, so
> >> far, and that's 'cuz of capitalism, and 'cuz their socialism is
> >> bleeding them dry.
>
> >"  Its the lifestyle
> >people choose, that's all. "
>
> >but you're saying the others are worse off cuz they use 1/2 the energy
>
> Go ahead, ignore the fact they they're poor... compared to us.

they are not "poor" compared to the rest of the world - right?

they are healthier.. have cars, appliances, cell phones, TV,
computers, heating and air conditioning, plumbing, etc. and they
live longer.

From: Larry G on
On Jul 23, 4:07 pm, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 11:17:25 -0700 (PDT), Larry G
>
>
>
>
>
> <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jul 22, 9:57 pm, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 04:22:52 -0700 (PDT), Larry G
>
> >> <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Jul 21, 10:13 pm, russo...(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto)
> >> >wrote:
> >> >> In article <951f0b5f-1d8e-44c9-a57f-142f4053a...(a)g35g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> >> >> Larry G  <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >On Jul 20, 8:26=A0pm, russo...(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto)
> >> >> >wrote:
>
> >> >> >All of the industrialized countries use less than what we do and have
> >> >> >comparable standards of living -
>
> >> >> They have comparable standards of living, but they come up on the
> >> >> short end of the comparison.  Reducing energy usage has costs, and
> >> >> reducing it drastically has high costs.  The big one is less living
> >> >> space; smaller and fewer cars (with all that implies) probably comes
> >> >> next, though the mere availability of HVAC is likely in there.
> >> >> --
>
> >> >it's not that drastic of a difference in many respects. They live a
> >> >life not that different than we did 30 or 40 years ago
>
> >> Yeah, 40 years ago I wasn't living with air conditioning.  That
> >> sucked.  It'd suck twice as bad today, 'cuz I'm a bit farther south.
>
> >> >when we lived
> >> >in smaller houses closer to work -
>
> >> Closer to work?  Yeah, thank zoning, a communist idea that has greatly
> >> harmed us.
>
> >> And smaller houses are no fun.  There's no room to store anything,
> >> you're continually discarding things you realize that you should have
> >> kept, and need sometime later.  
>
> >> >and were not near as
> >> >obese ....though we did smoke more.
>
> >> Television was just getting a good hold on people, but there were no
> >> video games.  People still did athletic things in order to "play",
> >> rather than sitting in front of a computer.
>
> >> >we live a much more extravagant life these days -
>
> >> There's a loaded word - "extravagant."  Implies we don't deserve it.
> >> It imlies and attitude.
>
> >> >precisely because we
> >> >have kept energy costs low but this does not come without a cost ...
> >> >we pay for low energy costs in many ways that affect us - that does
> >> >not have the same effect on those who use less.
> >> >The most apparent is how much oil we have to import and because we use
> >> >so much - we cannot afford for the middle east to be taken away as a
> >> >source.
>
> >> Well... we could, if the envirowackos would get out of the way and we
> >> could drill all the oil we have, and otherwise harvest it from things
> >> like the oil shale out west.  Sure, we can't get the oil shale without
> >> a lotta gyrations in the recovery.  OK, fine, but right now, the
> >> envirowackos (in the EPA) actually prohibit people from TRYING to
> >> perfect processes to overcome that.
>
> >bull hockey.. more "build your own version of how the world works"
> >BLATHER
>
> One liners will get you nowhere.  Either repond point by point or
> forget it.

your points are all the same basic ones... many, I feel are self-
constructed myths that don't match up with the realities...

you apparently get much of your info in sound bites.
From: Larry G on
On Jul 23, 4:08 pm, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 11:17:52 -0700 (PDT), Larry G
>
>
>
>
>
> <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jul 22, 9:59 pm, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 04:26:06 -0700 (PDT), Larry G
>
> >> <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Jul 21, 10:17 pm, russo...(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto)
> >> >wrote:
> >> >> In article <22879a1c-b4c1-4d4e-816b-eaad9492e...(a)j8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> >> >> Larry G  <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >On Jul 20, 9:07=A0pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> On 2010-07-20, Larry G <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> > I'd say that you need an agency like the EPA to make the tradeoffs
> >> >> >> > between what is necessary for society and for business and what is
> >> >> >> > safe enough.. or pollutable enough for society.
>
> >> >> >> No single person or small group can possibly have enough information to
> >> >> >> do that properly even if they were pure of heart and absolutely perfect
> >> >> >> in their thinking. That means even if you can elminate all the problems
> >> >> >> of politics and corruption, have qualified people with no self interest,
> >> >> >> it still wouldn't work, because no small group can manage a society of
> >> >> >> 300 million people without causing all sorts of problems.
>
> >> >> >and your alternative?
>
> >> >> Decentralize decisionmaking.
>
> >> >> --
> >> >> The problem with socialism is there's always
> >> >> someone with less ability and more need.
>
> >> >that's the opposite of how Nukes get built in other countries though.
>
> >> THe problem with socialism is that eventually, you run out of other
> >> people's money.  And, of course, Europe is running out of that money..
> >> Greece, Spain, a whale of a lot of them are in trouble, and are
> >> probably going down.  The Euro is said to be toast within a year.
> >> Socialism is a systemic monster that is going to consume them,
> >> economically.  And after it does, people here that want to have the
> >> gov't doing absolutely everything will STILL not see it.
>
> >so.. should govts help finance NUKES?
>
> Only if you want the gov't to go bankrupt.
>
> No, they shouldn't, they should simply not tax them.

they already essentially don't tax them and they subsidize their
insurance costs by capping their liability at 10 billion... that's the
opposite of taxing them - that's taxing us to give to them - to the
investors.
From: Larry G on
On Jul 23, 4:28 pm, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-
Everyth...(a)Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 11:17:52 -0700 (PDT), Larry G
> > <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Jul 22, 9:59 pm, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 04:26:06 -0700 (PDT), Larry G
>
> >>> <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Jul 21, 10:17 pm, russo...(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto)
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> In article <22879a1c-b4c1-4d4e-816b-eaad9492e...(a)j8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> >>>>> Larry G  <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> On Jul 20, 9:07=A0pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 2010-07-20, Larry G <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> I'd say that you need an agency like the EPA to make the tradeoffs
> >>>>>>>> between what is necessary for society and for business and what is
> >>>>>>>> safe enough.. or pollutable enough for society.
>
> >>>>>>> No single person or small group can possibly have enough information to
> >>>>>>> do that properly even if they were pure of heart and absolutely perfect
> >>>>>>> in their thinking. That means even if you can elminate all the problems
> >>>>>>> of politics and corruption, have qualified people with no self interest,
> >>>>>>> it still wouldn't work, because no small group can manage a society of
> >>>>>>> 300 million people without causing all sorts of problems.
>
> >>>>>> and your alternative?
>
> >>>>> Decentralize decisionmaking.
>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> The problem with socialism is there's always
> >>>>> someone with less ability and more need.
>
> >>>> that's the opposite of how Nukes get built in other countries though..
>
> >>> THe problem with socialism is that eventually, you run out of other
> >>> people's money.  And, of course, Europe is running out of that money.
> >>> Greece, Spain, a whale of a lot of them are in trouble, and are
> >>> probably going down.  The Euro is said to be toast within a year.
> >>> Socialism is a systemic monster that is going to consume them,
> >>> economically.  And after it does, people here that want to have the
> >>> gov't doing absolutely everything will STILL not see it.
>
> >> so.. should govts help finance NUKES?
>
> Since when has the government supposed to be the venture capitalists?

that's my question. The only way NUKES are built is with Govt help on
the capital costs.

That's why other countries build them and we don't - not because of
opponents.

do you think we should do what the other countries do and help the
NUKES get built?