Man Based Global Warming....

Nuclear is not economically reliable or viable. It costs too much to build and manage and no one on wall street wants to pony up the dough, despite great government support.

Plus, and this is most important:

Amory Lovins: Expanding Nuclear Power Makes Climate Change Worse

 

Only one of the ideas being kicked around is how to use fusion to negate waste from fission. Have you no faith in the inventiveness and adaptability of mankind?
Nuclear Fusion-Fission Hybrid Could Destroy Nuclear Waste and Contribute to Carbon-Free Energy Future | The University of Texas at Austin

And France derives over 75% of its electricity from nuclear RIGHT NOW! So?
French Nuclear Power: WNA

The political nuts are the ones who prevent us from using the energy at hand.

 

I have lot's of faith in the ability of people to innovate and create and push technology. I have little faith in peoples ability to control human foibles. We have spent the better part of the last decade worried that some nut will crash a plane into a building causing ~3000 deaths. What makes you think we could keep this s**t save for thousands of years from every nut case zealot in the centuries to come.

Just because France generates 75% of it's electricity from Nuke,,, they still haven't solve the LONG term waste storage problem. Just becasue you can bury it in the earth doesn't secure it for the required time.

If fusion comes to fruition, perhaps it will prove to be a boon,,, until then I put my bets on conservation, solar and wind!

I am not willing to risk my great-great (ad infinitums) grandchildren's future for the sake of cheap energy for myself. That is (IMHO) the height of selfishness.

Icarus

 

Are you willing to bankrupt your 'great-greats' future by supporting the energy and health policies that will come down the road from the present administration? In less than four months Obama has been able to put in place the heretofore unbelievable prospect of a bunkrupt U.S.A. The furher he goes with his programs, the worse it will get.

 

As opposed to what you and GWB are (were) offering,,, YES! At the very least the current administration can put to cogent thoughts together in a row,,,AND the money they are spending, (big bank bailout not withstanding) they are spending in ways that will have some value in the future,, unlike the $billion/month we have seen go up in smoke in Iraq!

You right wing whacko's have pretty short memories. Look at the deficit numbers under republican administrations and then under democratic ones. Can you say budget surplus and Bill Clinton in the same breath without your head exploding?

No,, the current president and administration are having to spend way too much money, way too much time, and way too many resources fixing the last eight years.

I applaud the right wings vision on how to return to power. The more they suggest that Cheney/Palin/Huckaby et al are in the control of the right wing fringe,,, I smile,, and realize how out of touch they really are.

Icarus

 

No - I'm saying that unimpeded - the private sector is more likely to direct dollars to productive uses than is government. The private sector is held to a profit motive, which means in large measure dollars have to be allocated wisely in order to generate and acceptable rate of return for investors.

Which do you think will be run more efficiently - a bank that has to survive on its own merits or one that has the luxury of using TARP money to shore up its balance sheet?

Or look at Ford - they have thus far not received federal bailout dollars but as the only domestic auto manufacturer that is currently financially viable, they are going to be disadvantaged in the marketplace by GM & Chrysler with their federal subsidies. Who do you think would spend $ more wisely - Ford or GM?

So why not cut the US corporate tax rate (which is already second highest in the developed world) to encourage companies invest and produce jobs here in the US? Guarantee an elimination of corporate taxes for any company that invests in plant, equipment and productive capacity here in the US in the next 24 months -- this would be vastly more stimulative than government directed money which will be squandered on thousands of dubious projects that will not increase our national productive capacity one bit.

As for your statement that republicans "will squeeze the life out of government" - unfortunately, recent history provides no evidence to support this. From 2000 - 2006 with republicans in firm control of all 3 branches of government, growth of government was higher than ever. Now look at the debt levels. And Obama is only magnifying the problem.

The problem is both parties are "squeezing the life out of our economy", not "squeezing the life out of government".

Perhaps if republicans had constrained the growth of government (and related debt levels) over the past decade we would not be facing the problems we currently have. Or arguably, the problems would be much smaller. I will not give republicans any more of a pass here than I will the current bunch of democrats running things (though again, the dems are looking to be much worse by several orders of magnitude).

That, icarus, is the reality.

 

At a very basic level, corporate and government interests are diametrically opposed. The corporate worldview is to concentrate as much wealth as possible in the fewest hands, in the shortest possible time. The government worldview is to do what's best for as many people as possible over the longest possible time frame. Your opinion of one or the other depends where you are on the spectrum.

 

Tim,

The banks did a fine job of using money efficiently driving the economy over the cliff,, (largely) unimpeded by regulation. The REALITY is,,, in the last generation the rich have gotten richer, the middle class poorer, and the poor forgotten. The concentration of wealth in few and few hands has been appalling.

De-regulation brought the S&L crisis,, Enron, Bernie Madoff,, Bear Sterns and on and on. No,, un fettered capitalism, trickle down economics has proved it worth.

Since this is a environmental forum,,, I don't think that unimpeded capitalism has done much for energy independence, clean air, fuel mileage, safe drinking water and on and on and on.

You sir,,, and your ilk are what is wrong with this country and indeed time will prove you so,,,IMHO.

Icarus

 

Very well stated. I've never seen it put that way, but it is true with regards to a government elected by the people to serve their common interests (versus authoritarian regimes, etc.)

 

And the recent administration(s) in the US,, GWB, GHWB, Reagan,, and yes to some extent the Clinton administration were owned by corporate interests through and through to the detriment of the people.

If you don't believe it,, just look at the concentrations of wealth curves over the last 30 years. Look a little close at the medicare prescription drug bill! Who won on that one,,,not seniors, no, big pharma,,, to the tune of billions!

Name a few more industries,, such as oil,,,or electricity, to trucking to ,,,,,maybe banking?

Icarus

 

George Carlin was only half joking when he quipped that government was the entertainment arm of the military industrial complex. Corporate interests have been very successful at influencing government policy.

 

Icarus - you are not keeping up on current events if you don't understand the role of the government and the Fed in our current problems. Not that corporations are blameless, but the biggest problem I have with corporations is 1) corporate boards who do not hold in check CEOs who rape and pillage corporations for their own benefit and 2) friends in government who do their bidding. Take care of those 2 issues and the problems of corporate America would be largely resolved...

But that still leaves the government problems, and large they are. For instance, who has a bigger Ponzi scheme - Bernie Madoff or the Social Security Adminstration? Who at the end of the day will take more wealth from Americans, Ken Lay or Ben Bernanke/Barack Obama (via highly inflationary policies)? I'm not in anyway defending the criminal actions of Madoff or Lay. But I can tell you the Fed policies (and Obama's) are far worse than anything Corporate America could do even if they wanted to.

So "what time will prove", is that this country has moved down an unsustainably reckless path - one of increased government control, consumption, taxes, and inflation / monetizing of the federal debt. All at the expense of the private sector savings, investment and ultimately consumption (i.e., standard of living).

And Obama is only speeding up the day of reckoning. Mark my words, we are headed for an economic disaster of incredible proportions. The Dallas head of the Fed said the other day that their models show unfunded US government obligations now total $99 TRILLION dollars. That is a government engineered train wreck my friend, not the private sector's doing.

If you think that we are going to be able to maintain those obligations without the government seriously debasing our currency, you are living in fantasy land.

The only way to get back on track is to start becoming the productive country we once were in terms of manufacturing prowess, while reining in unsustainable government spending and debt. Then our wealth will be built on productive capacity, not ephemeral stock market and real estate "wealth" that has been artificially inflated by the Fed or fantasyland borrowing ala Bush II and Obama.

Tell me Icarus, just where do YOU think $99 trillion is going to come from?

 

The Associated Press: Study says businesses can create clean energy jobs

 

Wow, such inflammatory rhetoric.....

The problem for the next while will be deflation not inflation. Deflation is the really nasty threat. Nothing is worse for the economy than that.

You're out on the wrong edge of the issue - as usual...

 

Mr. Bikes,

Social Security is indeed problematic. It is however, due to a political problem rather than an economic one. Social Security has paid off to millions of "investors" over the years. The problem now is the actuarial tables are off. What needs to be adjusted to make the system solvent for a significant number of years is, increase the age of eligibility, increase or eliminate the ceiling of income for paying in. (why should the rich get to stop paying after ~$125,000 when the middle class has to pay on all of it's income?)

The problem has been and continues to be the political will to do so. Couple that with GWB's medicare prescription drug bill and it is no wonder that people have a bad image of government!

Icarus

 

I used to agree with that - that deflation was a major threat. However, I no longer believe that to be the case. First, why is deflation a problem? It is only a problem if you are holding debt. There is nothing inherently wrong with falling prices, particularly when they are driven by gains in productivity. For instance, in consumer electronics we have reaped tremendous benefits from falling prices. Why is this a problem?

Secondly, I also had believed we could have a bout of deflation. But that now appears highly unlikely with the vast sums of money the government is printing. Inflation is the far more likely threat - and it could be nasty.

Living in Canada you Fibb may be lucky in that you might not experience the same level of inflation we will here in the states. Yours is a natural resource economy and as such, inflation will only drive the prices of those resources higher (in dollar terms) and Canada will likely benefit. But I don't want to go too far out on a limb here since my understanding of the Canadian economy and budget issues are cursory at best. But here in the U.S., we are headed for serious trouble.

 

Well, we agree Soc. Sec. is a large problem. But I will have to disagree with you. I'm not sure we have the tools (or political will, as you note) to fix it. And it is going to cause massive economic and social problems - particularly when coupled with all of the other debt issues (public and private).

When Soc. Sec. first got started, there were something like 40 workers for every retiree. Within the next 15-20 years the ratio will be 2:1. There is no amount of monkeying with actuarial tables that is going to solve that problem. Inflating our way out of this is the only logical conclusion.

Yes, Madoff ran a Ponzi scheme and is in jail, where he belongs. But at least he didn't force anybody to participate. Congress on the other hand, can mandate an infinitely larger Ponzi scheme, forcing every American to participate (except of course themselves). Will any of them end up in jail???

Anyway, based on the inflation to come, I seriously suggest you refocus whatever investments you may have. You will need to factor in protection from a falling (perhaps collapsing) dollar -- based on current Fed, adminstration, and congressional programs and policies.

This is not intended to be a political diatribe. Republicans are just as much to blame. If you look at the facts, it is simply an inescapable conclusion that we are headed down a very rough, inflationary road.

Prepare for it. Don't say you haven't been warned.

 

One of the significant problems with deflation is that it drives out all demand in the market. If I can buy it tomorrow at 1/2 price why would I buy it today? The net result is catastrophic economic collapse.

I beg to differ with our SS analysis. Your suggestion that there was a 40/1 worker ratio is close to being right if I remember correctly,,, but the reality was SS was never intended to be a complete funding for peoples retirement. What has happened in recent decades is complicated by a number of factors.

First,, the worker/recipient ratio is less,, but people are living many years longer than in 1933. If you slowly ramp up the age in which you can collect,,, the numbers become easier to fix. Second,, because many other things have been thrown on top of SS without the requisite funding,, we need to have the political will to honestly fund these programs. As a suggestion,,, see my previous post about why we cut off funding over ~$125k?

To suggest that we can't fix it is crazy,,it is only a matter of having the courage to do so.

Third,, since the 1980s we have seen our public and private pension system(s) collapse. Due largely to corporations gaining power over workers, loss of union influence,, deregulation and out right theft,, fewer and few workers have save, secure defined benefit pensions. These have been replaced with (when replaced at all) defined contribution packages,, that rely on the worker to fund it for the most part, AND, subjects the worker to the whims of a equities market that they are ill equipped to understand and manage,,, AND for the most part is stacked against the small investor. Witness the mutual fund management/loads/redemption ad infinitum fees (often hidden,, quite often bettering 50% of total return,,, right into the pockets of the super rich wall street money managers) that soak return out of the small investor, and the real manipulation that goes on and has gone on in an increasingly unregulated market. It has become a great scheme to suck the money out ot working peoples pockets and put it into the super riches all under the guise of "free market capitalism" or "the ownership society" or other good sounding BS line! Can you spell Enron/Global Crossing/World Com?

No, your beloved laissez faire capitalism is not going to save us from economic collapse any more than it is going to save us from the pending (current) environmental one.

The longer folks like you think it other,, the harder it will hit you.

Icarus

 

Or if you're holding assets, which is most people. If the value of your house is steadily declining, you're constantly losing wealth and purchasing power. That's a problem.

 

reportonbusiness.com: globeinvestor.com - Fed's Fisher: Inflation not a risk