Prev: Besides the Revolution, what influence do the French hve in USculture?
Next: Ridiculous Speed Limits
From: Larry G on 23 Jul 2010 14:17 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 23 Jul 2010 16:05 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 23 Jul 2010 16:06 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 23 Jul 2010 16:07 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 23 Jul 2010 16:08
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. |