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 23:28 On 7/5/2010 8:44 PM, Larry G wrote: > 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. > Stop them, no. Reduce the possibility - yes. Destroy the Al Qaeda infrastructure - yes. Capture or kill the leaders - yes. Disrupt their command and control structure - yes. I don't consider that stupid.
From: Brent on 5 Jul 2010 23:42 On 2010-07-06, Larry G <gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 5, 9:53�pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On 2010-07-05, Larry G <gross.la...(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'. > well.. everyone in those countries has health care. Um, government provided/controlled health care is nothing more than the control freaks manipulating/shaping society here or there. > They have a longer life expectancy and less infant deaths, That's a question of diet and taking care of themselves. Plus foods in europe aren't as poisoned with things like HFCS and various chemicals (thanks to the FDA, tax laws, etc) and GMO is essentially banned. Why? Because the people didn't rely on an FDA like government entity. They rejected them in the market. > they usually have shorter work weeks and longer vacations... The reason France has shorter work weeks is so that more people would be employed. Or that's the logic behind it. Trying to limit what any one person can do productivity wise so others can get jobs. Now the US is backwards in that it culturally demands a 40+ hour work week (and often little vacation) regardless of a person's productivity. It's a slowest-ship-in-the-fleet approach where people are measured by time present instead of their output that is destructive for both workers and the economy but good for those who aren't very productive. > almost no gun deaths... The US would have far fewer too if certain things were attended to. Like the war on some drugs. > they don't starve to death or freeze to death either. Neither do americans. Both have underclasses of people who for whatever reason choose to live on the streets. The rest is the difference in climate. > I think it is us that is living above our means as recent events are > showing. Which is irrelevant because it is possible to live far under one's means in the USA and still have more than a european working the same job could have.
From: Larry G on 6 Jul 2010 05:58 On Jul 5, 11:28 pm, Rich Piehl <rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...(a)NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote: > On 7/5/2010 8:44 PM, Larry G wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > Stop them, no. Reduce the possibility - yes. Destroy the Al Qaeda > infrastructure - yes. Capture or kill the leaders - yes. Disrupt their > command and control structure - yes. > > I don't consider that stupid. Rich - the CIA says there are "at most", 100 Al Queida in a country the size of Texas that has not had a central govt in hundreds of years and has a literacy rate of 24%. You have the right strategy " Capture or kill the leaders - yes. Disrupt their > command and control structure " but it has to happen on a world-wide basis and the military is the wrong tool ... the military is a chainsaw when what is needed is Stilettos - that go after them wherever they go. We cannot beat Al Queida by trying to nation-build failed states. All we do is kill ourselves financially and use our young for cannon fodder.
From: Larry G on 6 Jul 2010 06:02 On Jul 5, 11:42 pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On 2010-07-06, Larry G <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 5, 9:53 pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On 2010-07-05, Larry G <gross.la...(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'. > > well.. everyone in those countries has health care. > > Um, government provided/controlled health care is nothing more than the > control freaks manipulating/shaping society here or there. > > > They have a longer life expectancy and less infant deaths, > > That's a question of diet and taking care of themselves. Plus foods in > europe aren't as poisoned with things like HFCS and various chemicals > (thanks to the FDA, tax laws, etc) and GMO is essentially banned. Why? > Because the people didn't rely on an FDA like government entity. They > rejected them in the market. > > > they usually have shorter work weeks and longer vacations... > > The reason France has shorter work weeks is so that more people would be > employed. Or that's the logic behind it. Trying to limit what any one > person can do productivity wise so others can get jobs. > > Now the US is backwards in that it culturally demands a 40+ hour work > week (and often little vacation) regardless of a person's productivity. > It's a slowest-ship-in-the-fleet approach where people are measured > by time present instead of their output that is destructive for both > workers and the economy but good for those who aren't very productive. > > > almost no gun deaths... > > The US would have far fewer too if certain things were attended to. Like > the war on some drugs. > > > they don't starve to death or freeze to death either. > > Neither do americans. Both have underclasses of people who for whatever > reason choose to live on the streets. The rest is the difference in > climate. > > > I think it is us that is living above our means as recent events are > > showing. > > Which is irrelevant because it is possible to live far under one's means > in the USA and still have more than a european working the same job > could have. They don't do badly in comparisons at all and all your "explanations" don't change those facts. They are among the most happiest and healthiest populations on Earth compared to most other nations... and they are better off because they are not the wanton prolifigate consumers of energy that we are.
From: Rich Piehl on 6 Jul 2010 09:04
On 7/6/2010 4:58 AM, Larry G wrote: > On Jul 5, 11:28 pm, Rich Piehl > <rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...(a)NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote: >> On 7/5/2010 8:44 PM, Larry G wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> 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. >> >> Stop them, no. Reduce the possibility - yes. Destroy the Al Qaeda >> infrastructure - yes. Capture or kill the leaders - yes. Disrupt their >> command and control structure - yes. >> >> I don't consider that stupid. > > Rich - the CIA says there are "at most", 100 Al Queida in a country > the size of Texas that has not had a central govt in hundreds of years > and has a literacy rate of 24%. Cite the CIA fact please. > > You have the right strategy " Capture or kill the leaders - yes. > Disrupt their >> command and control structure " but it has to happen on a world-wide basis and the military is the wrong tool ... the military is a chainsaw when what is needed is Stilettos - that go after them wherever they go. > > We cannot beat Al Queida by trying to nation-build failed states. All > we do is kill ourselves financially and use our young for cannon > fodder. So you would rather we do nothing and have Al Qaeda come here and use the whole population for cannon fodder? Cute metaphor but it didn't work prior to 9/11. The threat of Al Qaeda wasn't taken seriously for the decade prior to 9/11, and what did it get us? Obama campaigned for President talking like you. He gets to office and sees the scope of the problem and guess what...the rhetoric and cute metaphors go out the window. Do you think that was by accident? |