THe GW Scan Is Still Alive, Amazingly
in [Drive]
|
Prev: Besides the Revolution, what influence do the French hve in USculture?
Next: Ridiculous Speed Limits
From: Rich Piehl on 5 Jul 2010 21:39 On 7/5/2010 1:32 PM, Larry G wrote: > On Jul 5, 2:05 pm, Rich Piehl<rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...(a)NOSPAMcharter.net> > wrote: >> On 7/5/2010 12:58 PM, Brent wrote: >> >>> On 2010-07-05, Rich Piehl<rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...(a)NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote: >> >>>> Doesn't matter whether you create 10 solar panels or 10 million. For >>>> every green job created you eliminate 2.2 existing jobs. >> >>> The very same can be said of military spending. Why? because it is >>> government allocation of resources. Resources taken from the private >>> sector and consumed in the political sector. The same mechanisms are at >>> work. >> >> But that's the different discussion I mentioned. It has nothing to do >> with green jobs or solar panels produced or jobs lost because of green >> jobs created. >> >> >> >>> Actually military spending is only equal to the destruction of 'green' >>> spending if what is produced is never used. If it is used, then it >>> destroys lives, capital equipment, buildings, etc and so forth >>> increasing the negative economic impact. (also see broken window falacy) >> >> Your statement assumes military spending is only for aggression, which >> isn't true. >> >> By that statement you are saying you want a country with zero military >> spending. none. > > not zero spending and not only for aggression either but there are > choices about how much to spend and what to spend it on - and whether > or not what you spend it on - brings benefits .... Define aggression? Is it aggression to have not had another 9/11 type attack? Is it aggression to have seriously damaged the Al Qaeda network? Is it aggression protection our interests and those of our allies? Perhaps you would have preferred the last 9 years have been a series of attacks on US infrastructure and soft targets?
From: Larry G on 5 Jul 2010 21:44 On Jul 5, 9:34 pm, Rich Piehl <rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...(a)NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote: > On 7/5/2010 1:51 PM, Brent wrote: > > > > > > > On 2010-07-05, Rich Piehl<rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...(a)NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote: > >> On 7/5/2010 12:58 PM, Brent wrote: > >>> On 2010-07-05, Rich Piehl<rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...(a)NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote: > > >>>> Doesn't matter whether you create 10 solar panels or 10 million. For > >>>> every green job created you eliminate 2.2 existing jobs. > > >>> The very same can be said of military spending. Why? because it is > >>> government allocation of resources. Resources taken from the private > >>> sector and consumed in the political sector. The same mechanisms are at > >>> work. > > >> But that's the different discussion I mentioned. It has nothing to do > >> with green jobs or solar panels produced or jobs lost because of green > >> jobs created. > > > Government consumption of our wealth. > > >>> Actually military spending is only equal to the destruction of 'green' > >>> spending if what is produced is never used. If it is used, then it > >>> destroys lives, capital equipment, buildings, etc and so forth > >>> increasing the negative economic impact. (also see broken window falacy) > > >> Your statement assumes military spending is only for aggression, which > >> isn't true. > > > If a factory is bombed into rubble wether the nation it is in attacked > > someone else or was attacked is irrelevant. The factory and its > > productive capacity has been destroyed. > > >> By that statement you are saying you want a country with zero military > >> spending. none. > > > Nice strawman. I stated nothing about what I want. It's a simple fact > > that military spending an economic drain on a society. > > As opposed to the economic drain on our society that occurred after > 9/11, and would occur again if we got another 9/11 type attack? Ar > numerous 9/11 type attacks? except the military cannot stop 9/11 type attacks to start with if the enemy is mobile and not state-sponsored. It's a new kind of guerrilla warfare and we're fighting like the Brits did in the Revolutionary War - trying to go around the world nation- building failed states in a futile effort to turn them into Al Quieda- hating American-style Democracies. We are so stupid about this it would be laughable if it were not for the fact that we hypocritically deficit-fund the war and our young people are literally turned into cannon (IED) fodder. We wen through this very same stupidness in Vietnam and all we are doing now is a thinly-veiled effort to install puppet govts in a part of the world where that strategy has only earned us more and more hostility. The way to beat Al Queida is NOT with the military.... it's dumb.
From: Brent on 5 Jul 2010 21:53 On 2010-07-05, Larry G <gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote: > here's some real world prices of gasoline and last time I check none > of these countries went broke: > > Netherlands Amsterdam $6.48 > Norway Oslo $6.27 > Italy Milan $5.96 > Denmark Copenhagen $5.93 > Belgium Brussels $5.91 > Sweden Stockholm $5.80 > United Kingdom London $5.79 > Germany Frankfurt $5.57 > France Paris $5.54 > Portugal Lisbon $5.35 > Hungary Budapest $4.94 I don't think you would like the standard of living in many of those countries. A standard of living that is what it is thanks to a very high tax rate. The standard of living based on material goods, home size, etc is probably about equal or below to that of the USA's 'poor'.
From: Brent on 5 Jul 2010 21:55 On 2010-07-06, Dave Head <rally2xs(a)att.net> wrote: > You don't get it in this country simply by raising the taxes on > gasoline now. If you do that, you WILL collapse the economy, we won't > have 2 nickles to rub together, and we'll never build several trillion > dollars worth of electrified trackage along with the nuclear power > stations necessary to power it. You can find a trillion plus a year to operate a world wide empire and a couple or more wars.
From: Dave Head on 5 Jul 2010 22:04
On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 01:55:30 +0000 (UTC), Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On 2010-07-06, Dave Head <rally2xs(a)att.net> wrote: > >> You don't get it in this country simply by raising the taxes on >> gasoline now. If you do that, you WILL collapse the economy, we won't >> have 2 nickles to rub together, and we'll never build several trillion >> dollars worth of electrified trackage along with the nuclear power >> stations necessary to power it. > >You can find a trillion plus a year to operate a world wide empire and a >couple or more wars. We didn't "find" it, we borrowed it, and that's just ANOTHER problem with this whole mess... > |