From: Beam Me Up Scotty on
On 7/23/2010 10:16 PM, Larry G wrote:
> 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?

Sure.... help by cutting the Government regulations and hoops that
government requires energy companies to jump through.
From: Dave Head on
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 19:09:16 -0700 (PDT), Larry G
<gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>> Go ahead, ignore the fact they they're poor... compared to us.
>
>they are not "poor" compared to the rest of the world - right?

Screw the rest of the world - I'm only interested in NOT falling to
their particular level of poverty.

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

Or it seems longer, since the time passes more slowly when your
options don't include anything expensive.
From: Dave Head on
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 19:16:57 -0700 (PDT), Larry G
<gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote:

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

Nope.

We should make American industry richer by nuking the income taxes.
From: Dave Head on
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 19:12:05 -0700 (PDT), Larry G
<gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>they already essentially don't tax them

US corporate income tax is 35%, the state taxes take about another
4.5% on average, and that makes them 2nd highest in the world only a
few tenths of a percent behind Japan. When the Bush tax cuts expire
the 1st of next year, the 35% goes to 39%, and we will be the highest.
That's when the real depression will set in.

>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.

I'd just as soon take a risk as doing without nukes. We _can't_ do
without nukes in the long run. Just take some risk and have done with
it. Build the D things.
From: Matthew Russotto on
In article <d044b9fa-77a9-4edf-aa9f-5064ad7096f4(a)e5g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Larry G <gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>On Jul 22, 6:55=A0pm, russo...(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto)
>wrote:
>> In article <042dde65-48d4-40d3-a86c-5a32964e6...(a)c10g2000yqi.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> Larry G =A0<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.googlegro=
>ups=3D
>> >.com>,
>> >> Larry G <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >On Jul 20, 8:26=3D3DA0pm, russo...(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russo=
>tto)
>> >> >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

Does not follow.

> and don't need big Army's to "protect" their oil supplies, eh?

ROTFL. They don't need big armies to protect their oil supply because
they've got OUR big army to do it for them.

--
The problem with socialism is there's always
someone with less ability and more need.