From: Brent on
On 2010-07-05, Larry G <gross.larry(a)> wrote:
> On Jul 5, 1:54�pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)> wrote:
>> On 2010-07-05, Larry G <> wrote:
>> > only if you live in your own little world. It's called guns and butter
>> > in econ 101....
>> > do we spend money on body armor or solar panels?
>> That would be guns or butter. Guns and butter is the use of welfare and
>> other payments to the population so they don't get too upset about the
>> warfare gravy train.
> well no... not necessarily - "butter" can be an interstate highway or
> a university or an air traffic controller or an FBI agent.

'other payments'

From: Dave Head on
On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 12:59:55 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch(a)>

>As long as oil and gas and coal are relatively cheap the economy will
>not change. We are destroying the future of this country and you are
>proud of that.

See, that's your approach - wreck the economy with $7 a gallon gas,
and you think that somehow, somewhere, the magic battery will pop up
to save us. No it won't. We'll all just lose our jobs, exist in
poverty, maybe even starve to death - some most surely will. We have
to MAINTAIN the oil economy, keep things cheap enough to have the
resources enough to invent the magic battery, or possible come up with
another solution. But pauperizing everyone in the country with $7 a
gallon gas, or more, is just a bad idea that will lead to generalized

>>And once we electrify transportation, we're STILL going to need oil
>>for petrochemicals in plastics, fertilizer, medicines, etc. We'll
>>STILL need a lot, just not near as much as we did. We may be able to
>>produce all our needs right here in the USA, especially considering
>>the 3X Saudi oil reserve in shale oil out west.
>We do need such things. If you knew anything about the climate or the
>carbon cycle, you would realize that we could easily use them for things
>like plastic if we didn't waste so much in energy.

If it was easy, they'd already be doing it. Nobody wants to do these
things with oil because its already expensive. But anything else is
MORE expensive. If it wasn't, we'd be using it.

>No one, other than the AGW deniers, are being idiots.

The AGW proponents are being the idiots. When shown ways to lower the
earths temperature cheaply, they run from it, want to suppress it.
What they're all about is creating an artificial need to spend obscene
amounts of money to cure a problem that is not.
From: Brent on
On 2010-07-05, Rich Piehl <rpiehl5REMOVETHISFOR(a)> wrote:
> On 7/5/2010 12:58 PM, Brent wrote:
>> On 2010-07-05, Rich Piehl<rpiehl5REMOVETHISFOR(a)> 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.

From: Dave Head on
On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 13:10:25 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch(a)>

>>They most certainly are. The estimates for reducing CO2 by a targeted
>>amount that would NOT fix the problem were $50 trillion for that time
>>(a year or 2 ago, when I read it) up to 2050.
>Since you repeatedly failed to substantiate that number, I have no
>reason to accept it at all, but I do point out that massive investments
>in energy efficiency will provide huge long-term savings, something you
>cheerfully ignore.

You can't just throw money at it. You have to know HOW to throw the
money or it will just be wasted. Finding out how to build the magic
battery would be one way. A ridiculously / hideously expensive
infrastructure project to carry cars on electric railcars that you
could just drive onto would be another. We have to keep cars and
trucks from using so much petroleum, and electrification is how to do
it. But we don't know how to do it now. We have to learn.

>If you aren't being paid by Koch or some of the other polluters, you are
>a fool for doing their work for free.

>Please read "Thank you for Smoking", Christopher Buckley's very good
>takedown of the fake science scammers who are protecting corporate
>interests no matter how bad it is for this country.

You simply assume that anyone that doesn't get in goosestep with the
extremist bunch that are out to wreck the US economy are evil. Sure,
they may be supporting corporate interests, but some things
corporations are doing are in the best interested of the country.
Making cheap oil products is one of them. Anybody that is NOT looking
fo a way to make them CHEAPER is working against the best interested
of the American people.
From: John Lansford on
Dave Head <rally2xs(a)> wrote:

>On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 07:59:10 -0700 (PDT), Larry G
><gross.larry(a)> wrote:
>>doesn't removing pollution create jobs to produce the pollution
>>removal equipment?
>In Korea, China, etc. Its heavy industry, and we don't do that here
>any more. We just have to pay the extra money for the higher
>electricity prices that result from the pollution equipment that is
>unnecessarily stringent, and in large part dreamed up by enemies of
>this country to damage it ecomomically.

So you're in favor of eliminating those pollution controls, and a
return to, say, 1960-level heavy industry in the US?

Or are you too young to realize what level of pollution the US was
experiencing at that time? I'm not; I remember driving to Chattanooga
in the mid-60's and wondering why the air was yellow and was hard to
breathe. Is that what you'd like a return to? Because China isn't
nearly as interested in clean air as we are.

>We've solved most of the pollution problems we had about 20 years ago.
>Almost everything since has been an attack on our capitalistic way of
>life by the leftists anti-capitalists using the environmental movement
>as a weapon.

To what point, in your opinion?

John Lansford, PE
John's Shop of Wood