Man Based Global Warming....

Republicans/conservatives don't have the first clue as to what "sustainable" means and why it is important. That's why we had the Great Depression and why we are having a Great Recession at the moment.

Actually, with regards to the Great Depression we were already largely out of it before WWII. GDP started growing again in late 1933 up until 1937 (when conservatives pressed for a spending reduction and triggered a nasty recession.) 1937 GDP matched that of the 1929 peak. However, it didn't feel that great to anyone because so many were still out of work.

GDP was surprisingly flat from the time we entered the war until the end of the war (actually declined in 1942 and 1943.)

Republicans/conservatives mistakenly believe they can base their economic assumptions on the post WWII/1950's time frame, when we had no economic competitors and were rebuilding the rest of the world. They are very poor students of history.

There was a time when we were at peace and had a sustainable model where we were paying down debt. Our tax rates were not onerous and we were prospering. It was the mid/late 90's and we were coming to grips with previous decades of deficits.

Reagan gets far too much credit. It was Volcker (Carter appointment) who slew stagflation for Reagan and stablized the economy by giving it its medicine. Volcker and Reagan make an interesting odd couple but their differences were probably complementary for the nation. What Reagan did was a massive govt. spending program (arms race that eventually buried the Soviets.) He also undid some of the excesses of the Democratic era which had a stimulatory effect because of some of the extremely high marginal tax rates at the time.

 

Actually, the arms race didn't defeat the Soviets... expensive oil followed by cheap oil buried them. They were making loads and over extending themselves. In the mid/late 80's when the bottom fell out they were stuffed and remained weak until prices started climbing in the early part of this decade.

 

The bigger question here,,, is why have we devoted 109 PAGES to the two or three morons who lurk here who will never understand until their feet are getting wet! Even then they will blame those that made their boots!

Time to move on!

Icarus

 

That's one of the things I'm still coming to grips with. Understanding history requires understanding the economic events of the time, just not the politics (or maybe in opposition to the politics). Until a few years ago, I thought the Soviet collapse was a political event...but as you pointed out, it was an economic collapse due to a severe loss of income. Good example of where 90% of the political histories of the cause mislead instead of educate.

 

You really can't separate any of this. The arms race was a key part of the package. With cheap oil the Soviets couldn't keep up, it created an imbalance that favored us. As Dad always said, "When your enemy is down, kick him!" The overall discontent with the Soviet model/govt was also exacerbated by the fact that the U.S. pulled out of a deep funk in the 1980's. The bear was gasping and wheezing while we had caught a second wind. That was the time to finish them, and we did.

And of course Aghanistan was a demoralizing mess for the Soviets. There were a lot of things not going well for them.

 

Agreed - he ran up large deficits. But he also slowed the rate of government growth whereas Obama is vastly increasing it while running up the deficit (and debt).

In any case, it is not that the money being pumped into the system won't be stimulative, but there are a couple of problems with it.
1) it is not being spent very efficiently
2) much of it is probably going to hit too late to make a difference during this recession - which it appears likely (though not definitively) that we are now exiting anyway, based on quite a number of economic indicators.

 

Are you trying to suggest that the money spent on WWII on material and manpower was spent efficiently? Or most of the money that was spent on the cold war? Or Vietnam? (Remember the Huey's being dropped off the ship into the S. China sea?!) Get a grip!

Say what you wish about "the new deal" and it's "efficiency" The reality is that much of that money was spent well enough that we still enjoy the benefits today. We scoff at some of the wasteful spending but fail to realize it's historical significance. Just in today's paper there is a review of a book that pulls together wpa writing about food from the 1930's. Probably considered a "waste" by the republicans at the time,, but now is an invaluable historical record of times and places that are important to our history. (Those that fail to understand history in all of it's nuance are subject to making the same mistakes,,, over and over again!)

The bottom line is that republicans to their core don't believe in government and will do everything to squeeze the life out of it. They don't want to pay for anything and that any government aid only goes to the lazy and undeserving,,, unless of course you are a significant corporate share holder,,, then you are too big to fail!

Grow up and see some reality!

Icarus

 

Sorry it's partly my fault. This thread continued because I would occasionally add an article here and there. Like this... :focus:

Global warming of 7C 'could kill billions this century' - Telegraph

(Just another example of how those lying scumbags at MIT and the American Meterological Association are conspiraring against us red-blooded (North) Americans - threatening our freedoms and sending us all towards the hell of international cooperation and collective action... )

And then the deniers would have to say something back...

 

Oops here I go again....

Climate change: The biggest global-health threat of the 21st century

The Lancet and University College London, obviously have been corrupted by aliens from the planet Leftonia.

 

Yup. That's what I meant by overextended. The only thing going for the Soviet economy was it's raw exports, and in particular oil. It was basically a big banana republic. That's why it really surprises me that our gov't didn't do more to make oil obsolete, or at least less critical to our economy. Suggests to me that no one really took the Soviet military threat seriously. Afghanistan showed just how inept the Soviets were. They suffered an insane number of medical casualties in their 10 years there (~469,000). Poor hygiene and medical practices and drug problems ensured their causualties looked far more like the early 19th century than the late 20th.

 

I agree about the banana republic aspect of what the Soviets were doing. Remember that Afghanistan started at the end of Carter's term and it gave us serious heartburn until the latter part of the 1980's when it became apparent that it was a Vietnam experience for Russia. Conscript armies have problems when the a nation is no longer behind the war effort.

The 1970's had been pretty heard on the U.S. psyche. Vietnam had been a major blow on many levels, then there was Watergate and the Arab Oil Embargo. The decade ended with the hostage crisis/an inept rescue attempt and stagflation. Capping this was the Soviets power grab in Afghanistan. It was not apparent at the time how big of a mistake this would prove to be for the USSR.

We were still taking the Soviets very seriously in the late 1980's. I was working construction during the summers on an Alaskan island USN installation surrounded by Russian boomers, while my dad was working in the anti-submarine warfare center.

 

Here's an oldie but a goodie.... but those that listened to Gwynn Dyer's Climate Wars already heard about the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Naval_Analyses"]Center for Naval Analysis[/ame]'s report from 2007:

EDIT: It appears you can't get to the link directly but if you click on this link of google results it's the first link in the list - then it loads fine.

Google results path to NYT article

The CNA's own website is down but it is supposed to be at cna.org. Try it in a few days.

 

Conscript armies are rubbish. That's why all the fear about the draft being reinstated is a load of cobblers. The Army doesn't want conscripts. The ROI is poor and you get a massive influx of people who don't want to be there. We have had enough discipline problems with an all volunteer force. The Army learned that lesson in Vietnam and they have done well to not forget it.

 

The real lesson,, as yet unlearned IMHO is that Armies of all sorts will fight and die, and enlist for a cause they believe in! The fact of the matter is that there have been few causes that people have been willing to die for of late! You can argue the merits of WW II but both sides, to a great extent believed in their cause.

Can't be said for Vietnam, or the Russian adventure in Afghanistan, or our current follies. Works for a while with a few,,"be scared,, be very scared!" until people realize the shadows we are chasing.

Icarus

 

Agreed for the most part. There are a few exceptions (as in Israel and some WWII conscript armies) but for the exception to work requires a strongly motivated populace rather than a coerced populace. Conscription falls apart when the populace being conscripted has no interest in the conflict, as in Vietnam and Afghanistan. During the American Civil War some unwilling conscript regiments surrendered or defected or mutineed en masse while others simply fled the field at the first opportunity. (Several CSA conscript regiments did the former, while USA conscripts tended to do the latter. Suspect CSA conscript regiments were sometimes placed in earthworks in front of elite veterans who warned the conscripts that the vets would fire on them if they ran.)

The draft reinstatement posturing seems more to scare the chickenhawks (Bush/Cheney-like "senator's sons" and their supporters) than anything else. The U.S. armed forces want nothing to do with it for the reasons you cited.

 

From a senior scientist at NASA:

Limitations on Anthropogenic Global Warming the Air Vent

Preparing for the possibility of an impending ice age along with the possible consequences of a reduction in Earth’s magnetic field are real concerns. Concern with relatively small effects of possible anthropogenic caused global warming is a misplaced distraction, and will probably lead to the public losing confidence in scientists, and could weaken the support needed when real problems occur.

Decreasing availability of oil and anthropogenic pollution (not greenhouse gasses) are real issues. Acid rain, smog, and dirty water sources do need to be fixed. The problems associated with high fuel prices, and dependence on sources of energy from possibly less than friendly foreign countries are critical. While we can’t solve the problems with a single magic bullet, more nuclear power plants, along with wind and Solar power, could fill much of the gap. There are solutions, but first we have to identify the correct problems.

 

Coming from a anti vietnam draft person,,, I personally believe that if we had a conscript army, we would be way less willing to commit our sons and daughters to folly! The 18 year olds may not get it, but their parents sure would!

Icarus

 

I think you could do better with most conservatives and chickenhawks simply by presenting them upfront with the tax bill for whatever venture they want to undertake. They don't give a rat's nice person about their kids or grandkids (based on their record over the past 8 years), but they get their panties in a wad about their own taxes. So make them pay up front.

Much of the folly in Iraq and Afghanistan came from the lying Cheney/Bush/Rumsfeld triumvirate selling a war on the cheap then trying to mask it's cost. They kept it off budget and borrowed instead. This weakened our armed forces and prevented them from having sufficient force and gear at critical junctures when they needed it.

 

We have an almost infinite energy supply. Long before fossil fuels are exhausted mankind can be enjoying the benefits of fusion:

Energy Availability Is Almost Infinite Watts Up With That?

So, let's use fission until we get there.

By the way, all the money that 'cap and trade' is supposed to 'save' could easily be invested into nuclear power, but that doesn't fit the political aims of our new socialist masters. People are wasting time talking about the purported lies of Bush and Cheney while their country is being stolen from under them. Fools.

 

You show me how you can mine uranium, turn it into nuclear fuel, run a reactor, process and store the hazardous waste all without accident for the multiple thousands of years it will take to become safe and I will get on board. Until then I'll err on the side of being anti-nuclear power thank you.

Even if you think that do all this,, do you really think you can keep waste safe from all kinds of political/religious nut bars for the same amount of time. We can't keep track of anything longer than a hundred years or so,, do you really think we can keep it secure for thousands???? If so I have a bridge to sell you.