From: Larry G on
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?
From: Dave Head on
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 11:13:10 -0700 (PDT), Larry G
<gross.larry(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.
From: Dave Head on
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 11:10:10 -0700 (PDT), Larry G
<gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>On Jul 22, 6:55�pm, russo...(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto)
>wrote:
>> In article <042dde65-48d4-40d3-a86c-5a32964e6...(a)c10g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
>> Larry G �<gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Jul 21, 10:13pm, 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=3DA0pm, 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 when we lived
>> >in smaller houses closer to work - and were not near as
>> >obese ....though we did smoke more.
>>
>> Excuse me if I don't want to go back 30 or 40 years in terms of
>> standard of living.
>>
>> >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.
>>
>> The sainted Europeans (and Japan) import a greater percentage of their
>> energy from the Middle East than we do.
>
>and they are much better able to weather restrictions in the middle
>east and don't need big Army's to "protect" their oil supplies, eh?

No, our Army is doing it for them.
From: Dave Head on
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 11:17:25 -0700 (PDT), Larry G
<gross.larry(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.
From: Dave Head 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?

Only if you want the gov't to go bankrupt.

No, they shouldn't, they should simply not tax them.