Slashdot Mirror

When dollars are created at the rate of a few billion per day, why anyone is surprised that they get diluted?

Yes, that would explain the record high inflation we've had since the start of the recession:

https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?graph_id=50467&category_id=0

Err, wait. OK, but surely exchange rates went off a cliff? Um, OK, I'm not turning up much there either....

Can you open a small business and sell goods to China?

Googling.... From http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-dg06132007.html, "In 2003, the most recent year for figures, a total 16,874 U.S. SMEs exported to China." Too lazy to find something more up-to-date.

And if you want to help exports, you could worrying about the dollar being to *low* against foreign currencies....

taxes are high

Compared to other countries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP

Historical revenues for US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Revenue_and_Expense_to_GDP_Chart_1993_-_2008.png

"Predictably, the mixed economies which have tried to balance known approaches tend to be the happiest. "

Since 50% of happiness is inherited, one has to be cautious about causality.

It might be that happier populations prefer more socialism (or can stand it, anyway).

However you may also want to look at happiness versus economic freedom, where research shows a positive relationship between national levels of happiness and economic freedom. GDP per capita also exerts a strong positive influence on happiness.

I think the USSR-US alliance during WW2 worked out pretty well for the western world and the eastern block alike. If it had carried over into the post-war period maybe we would've had some perestroika and glasnost much sooner after Stalin kicked the bucket. But they're very different things, real alliances instead of power brokering and base manipulation through the funneling of funds to factions.

Here's some more on the money funneled to the Taliban (from "How Washington Funded the Taliban") :

"Yet the Bush administration did more than praise the Taliban's proclaimed ban of opium cultivation. In mid-May, 2001, Secretary of State Colin Powell announced a $43 million grant to Afghanistan in addition to the humanitarian aid the United States had long been providing to agencies assisting Afghan refugees. [...] That $43 million grant needs to be placed in context. Afghanistan's estimated gross domestic product was a mere $2 billion. The equivalent financial impact on the U.S. economy would have required an infusion of $215 billion. In other words, $43 million was very serious money to Afghanistan's theocratic master"

Let me introduce you to the world of hyper inflation.

Minting new money just devalues that which you already have. Do too much of it - and two trillion is quite comfortably on the side of 'too much' - and your currency becomes worthless. Which means all those imports you buy with dollars - not least shittons of OIL (which would in short-order switch to euros) - become way more expensive. The US is utterly dependent upon cheap imports, and the chinese being willing to provide them by keeping its own currency low and keeping hundreds of millions of chinese in work.

Inflating your way out of debt problems might sound attractive, but the ultimate cost is far worse in the long run.

The table at the bottom of this article shows that as of April 1995, CBO projections were that deficits would stay roughly flat through 1998... not going up much, but not going down either. This was after the 1993 tax hike (assuming that's what you're referring to).

The article itself has a particular point of view that I won't defend (though if you do read it, read far enough to see that the author does not spare Republicans from criticism), but I see no reason to doubt the figures in that table.

I'm afraid that with today's setup, there's always a link.. And the authorities aren't really concerned if they get the right guy either

July 12, 1998 - TX

Six police from Houston's anti-gang task raid the home of Pedro Oregon Navarro. Officers storm his bedroom, where Navarro awakes, startled and frightened, and reaches for his gun. Police open fire and shoot Navarro twelve times, killing him. His gun was never fired. Police found no drugs or evidence of drug use or sale in Navarro's home.

Police obtained Navarro's address after pulling over a car of three men, one of whom they arrested for public intoxication. Already on probation, the suspect offered a "tip" on a nearby drug dealer in exchange for his release. Police agreed to the bargain, and obtained Navarro's address from the suspect.

The officers who shot Navarro were fired. Only one was charged. A jury took about an hour to acquit him of misdemeanor criminal trespass. In August of 2005, two of them applied for reinstatement, adding that they'd hoped to be 'vindicated' of the Navarro shooting.

Sources:

Tim Lynch, "Another Drug War Casualty," Cato Daily Commentary, Cato Institute, November 30, 1998.

Steve Brewer, "Officer Cleared in Oregon Case," Houston Chronicle, March 26, 1999.

"2 ex-officers hoping to be 'vindicated'; Pair fired after Oregon shooting seek reinstatement," Houston Chronicle, August 25, 2005, p. B4.

After reading further, it looks like the tripling happened before obama took office, so I retract that statement. Obama can't wash his hands, since he voted for the expensive budget items beforehand as a senator, but the stimulus was not as large a portion as I thought. I'm assuming the stimulus $787 billion was for the life of the program, so that it's contribution that year was less. Otherwise, I don't see how they can reconcile their numbers.

What is wrong with legalization of marijuana? That is a political opinion. In fact, the Kato institute supports legalization. See http://www.cato.org/drug-war

Before the tsunami, the CEO of Exelon ( a leading nuclear power plant operator in the United States)
stated that nuclear power was not competitive with natural gas, let alone coal.

Exelon CEO John Rowe recently told the press that natural gas would have to cost more than $9 per million BTUs before nuclear power plants could compete — about double its current price and far north of the $5.3 per million BTU price over the next 5 to 10 years that forecasters predict for the future.

Investors are reluctant to finance nuclear power, it is not only only-competitive but one accident can totally destroy the value of the generating plant.

How about an interactive map?

This also has the "chilling effect" of cutting into the 2nd Amendment. Why? Because if you're woken in the middle of the night by armed intruders, now you can no longer grab your weapon and defend yourself. Now you allegedly are supposed to keep your weapon away, and then first try figure out (an impossible task ultimately, in all scenarios) "is it the police or SWAT or a gang of robbers", and keep your weapon stored away just in case it's the police and they fire on you as soon as they see the weapon.

You're also just dirt-lucky if they don't fire on you for the hell of it - many of these raids have resulted in the deaths of innocents now. And look for it to grow exponentially now that the 4th Amendment has well and truly been destroyed .. expect this map to have many more new markers in the coming years:

http://www.cato.org/raidmap/

Thing is, as a home owner you are within your right right to use force to defend against a violent intrusion. To suggest that somebody stirred from their sleep should now first check if maybe it's the cops before defending their family, is unreasonable, as the robbers already would have the upper hand ... it basically renders your right to self-defense moot. It attacks both the 4th and 2nd amendments in one go.

These invasions are volatile situations and inherently put lives at risk and WILL result in innocent deaths.

Finally what is particularly shocking is the premises on which they're invading homes. You would think these invasions would be reserved for the most serious of cases, where lives are at stake, live kidnappings or hostage scenarios. But no, it's usually "narcotics" - so basically what is so critical that they simply need to invade homes and shoot innocent people like your and my families, is to prevent some people getting high.

I'm afraid that at this rate this administration will oversea a dismantling of the entire bill of rights.

It's already become beyond ridiculous, with infringements like the TSA police-state-style system that starts to put USA on par with Soviet Russia, Communist China and Cuba and North Korea. Then there are other absurd infringements on liberty like it becoming increasingly illegal to grow your own food.

> Lying on his family room floor with assault weapons trained on him...
> Law enforcement officials say the case is a cautionary tale. Their advice: Password-protect your wireless router.

I have some advice for law enforcement. Don't treat someone suspected of a non-violent crime as an excuse to play with all the new weapons you just got budget for. Things go wrong. People end up dead. Read http://reason.com/archives/2007/07/02/our-militarized-police-departm or http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6476 or Google for "Paramilitary raids", "militarized police".

So, here is what we hear from the proponents of government run socialized medicine:

I would like to second what you said. I'm currently in Venezuela, and the health care here is way better than what I had available when I lived in the US. First of all, it's really cheap, the doctors are top of the line, and maybe the only thing you can complain here is that when they actually see somebody here with insurance they really squeeze them dry, but you still get your medical attention. If you don't have insurance you can still pay the bills since they have a different rate so to speak.

And here is the reality:

Healthcare suffers in Venezuela

Palacios, Venezuela's largest public maternity hospital and once the nation's beacon of neonatal care, has fallen on hard times. Half of the anesthesiologists and pediatricians on staff two years ago have quit. Basic equipment such as respirators, ultrasound monitors and incubators are either broken or scarce. Six of 12 birth rooms have been shut.

On one day last month, five newborns were crowded into one incubator, said Dr. Jesus Mendez Quijada, a psychiatrist and Palacios staff member who is a past president of the Venezuelan Medical Federation.

The deaths of the six infants "were not a case of bad luck, but the consequence of an accumulation of circumstances that have created this alarming situation," Mendez said.

He and others say the problems at Concepcion Palacios are symptoms of a variety of ills that have beset the public healthcare system under leftist firebrand President Hugo Chavez. Cases of malaria nearly doubled between 1998, the year before Chavez took office, and 2007. Incidents of dengue fever more than doubled over the same period.

Poorly paid doctors regularly demonstrate at hospitals from Puerto La Cruz in the northeast to Maracay in the industrial heartland, demanding back pay and protesting the lack of equipment and supplies. Others are leaving in droves for Spain, Australia or the Middle East, where they make 10 times the $600 monthly average salary they earn in public hospitals.

More: WikiLeaks Embassy Cables Reveal Venezuela's Health-Care System Collapsing

And the UK?

US surgery safer than under NHS

By Thair Shaikh 12:00AM BST 07 Sep 2003
Patients who have major operations on the National Health Service are four times more likely to die than Americans undergoing such surgery, according to a new study.

The difference in mortality rates was blamed on long NHS waiting lists, a shortage of specialists and competition for intensive care beds.

The joint study, carried out by University College London and a team from Columbia University in New York, found that patients in Britain who were most at risk of complications after major surgery were not being seen by specialists and were not reaching intensive care units in time to save them.

Thousands of NHS operations cancelled because of blunders as complaints about standard of treatment rise

10 Surprising Facts about American Health Care

The Grass Is Not Always Greener - A Look at National Health Care Systems Around the World

However, a closer look at countries with national health care systems shows that those countries have serious problems of their own, including rising costs, rationing of care, lack of access to modern medical technology, and poor health outc

I want to live in a society that ensures everyone will be taken care of when they are sick or injured, especially those most vulnerable like children or the poor. That seems like my idea of a just, fair society. The trick, of course, is finding the most affordable way to do this, and who knows if we are anywhere near that ideal yet.

I like that idea too. We actually pretty much had a system like that before Medicaid/Medicare was started in the 60's. One problem with socialized medicine is it sometimes turns out that the Government may decide that you aren't worthy to receive that care, so that doesn't really fit your definition. Here's a nice little bit of myth-busting about socialized medicine for you.

You want citations?

Read any of Radley Balko's reporting on the War on Drugs (the "Studies" section of that page is a good place to start).

Reason Magazine has a number of articles on how asset forfeiture laws let cops seize things from innocent people and keep them (or auction the things to buy new toys), and how little traction the victims of the seizures get from the legal system.

If you would like more general examples, read this book.

The Bell System was a monopoly created largely by government under the theory of "natural monopoly".

If AT&T Wireless is stifling innovation, someone is going to have to explain where my AWESOME iPhone 4 came from. Because, it is an AWESOME, LIFE CHANGING device.

The Myth of Natural Monopoly p.56-57
Unnatural Monopoly: Critical Moments In The Development Of The Bell System Monopoly

Let me get that for you. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5167

The UN hasn't bombed their own people either.

You wish. The UN has comitted dozens of genocides. Certainly they've knowingly done things like having their armies commit genocide on citizens of UN member states. Doesn't that count as bombing your own people ?

http://www.cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb-034.html
http://www.realityzone.com/katanga1.html
(but do not - for a moment - think the UN malice, incompetence and greed is limited to these 2 incidents. I just thought to give an example from the beginning of the UN and a recent example)

These are just a few pointers. Let's also not forget that Qadhafi is the chairman of the UN human rights council (yes, he's "suspended pending investigation").

Which of them deserves to 'own' such an important international technology?

Nobody deserves that, obviously. So why tamper with the situation :
1) UN is a LOT less free than the US. The DMCA is tame compared to the European equivalent, and is a bastion of anarchism compared to Middle eastern or African versions of these laws. The situation WILL NOT improve
2) the US has built the internet. Of course they have some measure of control (though I seriously doubt the US has the power to shutdown the internet world-wide. No, not even the DNS system. Explain, for example, how the US could get the k root server to go down. You know, without bombing half of Europe and Asia's capitals)

Let's not forget too easily that the UN's idea of social justice has, on multiple occasions, involved comitting ethnic and religious genocide.

Tens of thousands of people were probably killed by the quake and the resulting tsunami.

Unfortunately this is likely too true.

But anti-nuke activists will consider this the worse tragedy and use it at every chance to fight against the building of more modern and much, much safer designs.

Show a safe design that can withstand what happened in Japan? Fact is is that Nuclear Power is Hooked on Subsidies. And notice that that is not a page on an environmental but on a free market website, and the original article was printed by the business magazine Forbes. Also notice what the writer says about nuclear power in other nations: "How do France (and India, China and Russia) build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don't. Governmental officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors."

Falcon

This entirely about Australian airport authorities and the article does not mention the TSA. This whole setup is designed to expedite searching suspected drug mules and, in fairness, could get some of them to a hospital before drugs they've swallowed kill them.

The real story here is that we wouldn't be hearing about this if it weren't for the war on drugs.

Better idea - decriminalise all drugs for:

1. getting rid of the last fence in racism -
    http://www.cato.org/dailypodcast/podcast-archive.php?podcast_id=1315

2. Save money, clear out jails, and help people trapped in addition - as they did in Portugal -
    http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=5887

Better idea - decriminalise all drugs for:

1. getting rid of the last fence in racism -
    http://www.cato.org/dailypodcast/podcast-archive.php?podcast_id=1315

2. Save money, clear out jails, and help people trapped in addition - as they did in Portugal -
    http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=5887

I guess my point was to tackle the things that we had the technology for and the capability today,

Where is this nuclear technology?

France successfully powers the country on Nuclear power very economically

"How do France (and India, China and Russia) build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don't. Governmental officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors."

though their reactors are generally much more modern designs that waste far less fuel

Citation needed. Here's some of my own:

Finland's Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant, designed and being built by the French Government owned AREVA was supposed to be compleated last year, 2009, but is not scheduled to be done before 2012 3 years behind schedule. And because of cost overruns "there is a real risk now that the utility will default". In Finland, Nuclear Renaissance Runs Into Trouble.

"Cost overruns and delays have jeopardized the fate of nuclear plants around the world." Study warns of steep cost overruns at new reactors. Is it time to press reset on nuclear?: "Cost overruns, delays in building reactors are sapping a nuclear revival".

"Boiling The Frog: Nuclear Optimism Hides True Costs Till It's Too Late".

And those are just some of the links I have in my bookmarks.

What I think people fail to realize is that we don't have to solve all our problems in a day

But isn't that exactly what proponents of nuclear power are advocating today? "Build more nuclear power plants, we'll fix the problems later." It's either that or they ignore the problems and say they don't exist.

Falcon

1: It's simply not economic. If it was there wouldn't be the need for subsidies or mandates to include it in fuel.

If the lack of subsidies determines economics then oil is not economical either. Fact is is there is no energy source used on a commercial scale in the US that does not receive government subsidies.

2: It's really stupid to burn food, which is what is happening here.

Sugarcane is a food we can do without. And switchgrass is not a food for humans.

3: It isn't that environmentally clean or carbon neutral when the entire process is considered.

Not many energy source meet those requirements. And some sources, coal, nuclear power, and oil get to pass on their costs to others.

Falcon

I would think that any person pushing to eliminate our need for foreign oil or oil in general and actually expecting some level of success would have done a tiny bit of research.

Oil billionaire T Boone Pickens did the research for his Pickens Plan. Of course some accuse him of using the plan to hide his plan to steal water.

We could reduce our need on oil by a massive amount with nuclear power

Yea, and create more problems. Nuclear power is not profitable, it is hooked on subsidies.

On the other hand, there's A Solar Grand Plan: "By 2050 solar power could end U.S. dependence on foreign oil and slash greenhouse gas emissions". There's also Wind: "The United States has enough wind resources to generate electricity for every home and business in the nation."

To tell the truth there is not one energy source operating on large enough scale to power the US that does not get subsidies. Even oil gets subsidies.

Falcon

I would think that any person pushing to eliminate our need for foreign oil or oil in general and actually expecting some level of success would have done a tiny bit of research.

Oil billionaire T Boone Pickens did the research for his Pickens Plan. Of course some accuse him of using the plan to hide his plan to steal water.

We could reduce our need on oil by a massive amount with nuclear power

Yea, and create more problems. Nuclear power is not profitable, it is hooked on subsidies.

On the other hand, there's A Solar Grand Plan: "By 2050 solar power could end U.S. dependence on foreign oil and slash greenhouse gas emissions". There's also Wind: "The United States has enough wind resources to generate electricity for every home and business in the nation."

To tell the truth there is not one energy source operating on large enough scale to power the US that does not get subsidies. Even oil gets subsidies.

Falcon

Almost: In American political discourse, only unpopular subsidies, especially those that present some risk of giving money to poor people(some of the brown persuasion, even!), are referred to as "welfare".

Not even! Where I come from subsidies are called corporate welfare. Archer Daniels Midland is A Case Study In Corporate Welfare.

Falcon

Almost: In American political discourse, only unpopular subsidies, especially those that present some risk of giving money to poor people(some of the brown persuasion, even!), are referred to as "welfare".

Not even! Where I come from subsidies are called corporate welfare. Archer Daniels Midland is A Case Study In Corporate Welfare.

Falcon

Every time corn went in the tank, the miles per gallon plummeted.

Of course, gas has a high energy density, 45 megajoules per kilogram (MJ/kg). Ethanol's energy density is about 25 MJ/kg.

Doing the math on the way home, we discovered that even dollars per mile were way, way up on ethanol gas.

Again of course. Petroleum is cheap, that is unless the lives lost and pollution is added. Heck oil is subsidized beyond deaths and pollution.

I used to love ethanol and went out of my way to find a station with a blend.

Does knowing oil is subsidized too make you feel better?

Falcon

You pay (currently) about 13% less at the pump for E85 [e85prices.com] but you get 35% less mileage:

When subsidies are added E85 is more expensive.

you've made a fools bargain.

What was made was Corporatism which is what Benito Mussolini said Fascism should appropriately be called.

E85 has never been cost effective at the pump IN SPITE of the massive subsidies and tax breaks.

By the same token oil would be more expensive if it wasn't subsidized. Oil subsidized? Yes, oil is subsidized in the US.

Falcon

and a distraction from policy measures that could actually solve the problem (and other pernicious problems at the same time): reducing sugar and ethanol import tariffs drastically.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil#Comparison_with_the_United_States
http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/sc019
http://sugarcaneblog.com/2010/03/22/washington-post-editorial-on-u-s-sugar-policy/
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=12623

It is possible that Haiti and other impoverished nations could develop into self-sustaining economies by adopting some of Brazil's agricultural methods while providing a robust, diverse supply of fuel. And with corn's inefficiency versus sugar ethanol, it would go back to its proper market of food, reducing onerous cost burdens imposed on Mexico and Latin America for corn meal, a staple food.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10057/MainText.4.1.shtml

The increase in the amount of corn used to produce ethanol has exerted upward pressure on corn prices, boosted the demand for cropland, and raised the price of animal feed. Those effects, in turn, have lifted the prices of many farm commodities (for example, soybeans, meat, poultry, and dairy products) and, consequently, the retail price of food. The rise in food prices has affected not only the costs to individual consumers but also spending for the federal government’s food assistance programs.

http://www.econ.ucsb.edu/~tedb/Courses/Ec1F07/tortillas.htm

"The price of oil is driving up the price of corn (because of increased ethanol production), which is driving up the price of tortillas," said Peter Navarro, a business professor at UC Irvine. "You push on one thing and another thing moves," added Navarro, the author of "If It's Raining in Brazil, Buy Starbucks."

He said the U.S. ethanol stampede could be thought of "as a regressive tax on Mexico, because it raises the price of a basic commodity. In economics, we call these general equilibrium effects. Something happens in one market and it ripples through other markets."

I'm proud to live in a country that takes due process very seriously

Really? I don't know about Britain but you can't mean the US. I already mentioned a US admin support for the Indonesian invasion of a sovereign nation, East Timor, in which 200,000 were massacred. CIA supported General Pinochet's overthrow of the democratically elected government of Chile, as well as his repressive rule. How about Reagan's support of The Contras, Cocaine, and Covert Operations. Operation Northwoods was a proposal for the CIA to commit acts of terror against US citizens in the US and blame Cuba for them. COINTELPRO was a group of actions taken by the FBI against political groups to discredit and disrupt them. The CIA's Family Jewels: "Agency Violated Charter for 25 Years, Wiretapped Journalists and Dissidents". Cubana Flight 455 was a Cuban airliner brought down by terrorists, Cubans who the CIA paid as agents. The Libertarian, Individual Liberties, and Free Markets Institute CATO has the report Does U.S. Intervention Overseas Breed Terrorism? The Historical Record it answers in the affirmative.

And let's not forget what the US has done to American Indians. Even though the Cherokee had treaty rights in the Carolinas and Georgia, President Andrew Jackson ordered the military he commanded to force the Cherokee to march on the Trail of Tears to Oklahoma after gold was found. The US broke one treaty after another signed with the Sioux, forcing them unto smaller and smaller reservations. There was the Forced sterilization of Native American Indian women through the 1970's.

If I dig some more I can find a lot more I bet. So don't go saying the US "runs a pretty tight ship".

Falcon

The Miller Test precedent covers something completely different.

It had nothing to do with Federal law or the expansion of Federal authority. To the contrary, it allowed local communities to govern themselves - which is exactly as it should be. That is, control should flow from the people upward, not the other way around.

The Fed's attempt to regulate "obscenity", the Communications Decency Act, was declared unconstitutional within a year of passage, and the SCOTUS let that ruling stand, invalidating the Fed's attempt to control speech from the top down, consistent with Constitutional protections.

If you don't like the way your own local community governs its public environs, it's very easy to get involved and make changes. Lots of other communities around, too, that don't try to dictate "decency" to each other.

Bravo sir. There was a time in our Republic's history that the State Department and War Department were required to explain their actions and budget to the people and the several states. The people elected the Representatives and the states, jealous of their right to govern, elected Senators.

But today we have a Department of Defense and direct election of Senators. No one serves the interests of the local governments, but instead all elected officials have exclusively the short term interests of their constituents in mind. There is no concern for preserving the long term interests of the Republic, but rather voting the people demand bread and circuses. (Long term unemployment benefits?)

The impotent fury, bordering on paroxysm, of the United States' response to the released cables is astounding and concerning. It has become evident that in the 21st century, the people serve the government.

You make an interesting point about the voting of bread and circuses by our government.

Here is what de Toqueville said would be the end of our republic:

"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."

. It's a fitting description of what is going on with increasing frequency and scope in our government for a long time. The Romans also fell into the same trap.

Here's a very interesting read on what the Romans did: http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cjv14n2-7.html

It sure looks as if the admiral succeeded, at least as far as the stovepipes separating State Department and the Pentagon are concerned.

Unless I'm much mistaken. this latest batch of raw data also comes straight off SIPRnet ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIPRNet just like the Iraq and Afghanistan data), which offers a convenient one-stop shopping opportunity for all things data that is militarily and diplomatically sensitive, up to and including that classified as " secret".

Of course there is the huge advantage of wide and instantaneous dissemination. On the other hand, perhaps disseminating all this data to about 3 million people throughout the US government has some drawbacks too. You know, just to take a totally off-the-wall scenario, if someone loads a couple of years of text data onto a USB stick or a CD and walks out of the building. I wonder how security analysts evaluated that possibility.

Does anyone know of any other large organizations that use such single-point-of-vulnerability systems for sensitive data?

Of course it's easy to second-guess whoever OK'ed this setup, but perhaps now is the time to reconsider its design (e.g. end-to-end encryption so that operators can't read the traffic so easily, and access logging in the sense that you keep a log of who then decrypts what).

Regarding the AT&T "monopoly", I suggest reading UNNATURAL MONOPOLY: CRITICAL MOMENTS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE BELL SYSTEM MONOPOLY.

Numerous federal and state officials began arguing quite openly that the telephone industry would function most efficiently if unified as one system. Legislators began referring to competition in the same terms as Vail--"duplicative," "destructive," and "wasteful." A Senate Commerce Committee hearing in 1921 stated that "telephoning is a natural monopoly." And a House of Representative committee report noted, "There is nothing to be gained by local competition in the telephone business" (quoted in Loeb 1978: 14). A Michigan Public Utilities Commission report (1921: 315) from that same year also illustrates this prevailing sentiment, "Competition resulted in duplication of investment. . . . The policy of the state was to eliminate this by eliminating as far as possible, duplication." Many state regulatory agencies began refusing requests by telephone companies to construct new lines in areas already served by another carrier and continued to encourage monopoly swapping and consolidation in the name of "efficient service" (Lavey 1987: 184-85). Kellogg, Thorne, and Huber (1992: 17)

AT&T's monopoly happened because of government action.

"There is a direct correlation between welfare net and crime" [citation needed]. To the best of my knowledge, the relationship is unclear. You could have cited a harvard study, but it does not correct for the single parent family connection that the Cato link specifically mentioned. It's really fun to note that in support of the conclusion that greater income inequality causes bad outcomes, that article relies on citation 10, which defines income inequality as bad.

To equate a Liberal Brainwashing with being Liberal is a stretch. There are many of us who are able to weather the experience with some level of grace.

To equate increased welfare with decreased crime is as far as I can tell just not a realistic assertion. This is especially if you are talking about clasic no strings attached welfare.

Forcing Welfare Receipients To Work Decreases Crime - Danish
http://ideas.repec.org/p/qed/wpaper/1236.html

Welfare Promotes Single Parent Families Which Promots Crime - USA
http://www.heritage.org/research/testimony/the-effects-of-welfare-reform
http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-wc67.html

Previous studies have pointed to the gene being related to impulsivity, a lack of thinking though the consequence of your actions. I think you have a much better chance of finding the roots of modern liberalism there...

No, neither government nor the nuclear power industry wants full transparency. No matter who is running the government they don't want the public to know. And the industry is Hooked on Subsidies.

Oh, please note that that link is to a free market institute webpage not an anti-nuclear power group.

Falcon

They need government guarantees that they won't be regulated or litigated out of existence after they commit their capital.

What do loan guaranties have to do with that? Or is it an attempt to distort facts? And the fact is the nuclear power industry is Hooked on Subsidies. "How do France (and India, China and Russia) build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don't. Governmental officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors."

Falcon

A major cost of nuclear reactors is the bickering of the NIMBYs.

Pure Bullshit. With no local opposition the Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant in Finland is 3 years behind schedule and $2.4 billion over-budget. Why do people keep repeating falsehoods? Lies repeated enough becomes true?

Wikipedia has a page on the economics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_new_nuclear_power_plants

So does the Free Markets CATO Institute, Hooked on Subsidies:
"How do France (and India, China and Russia) build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don't. Governmental officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors."

Falcon

So do those who support nuclear power. The nuclear power industry is Hooked on Subsidies. Notice that link is to CATO, an Individual Liberty and Free Market institute and the article was originally printed in "Forbes" magazine.

Falcon

Indeed, other countries have been able to build quickly.

Really? If that's what you really think you haven't seen many reports about construction delays. Try this one: Hooked on Subsidies:
"Investors are also wary of nuclear plants because of the construction delays and cost over-runs that have historically plagued the industry. For instance, the Areva/Siemens nuclear power plant being built for TVO in Finland-the first nuclear power plant to be built in a relatively free energy market in decades-once scheduled to be operational within 54 months, is now two years behind schedule and 60% over budget. Nor have these construction delays had anything to do with regulatory obstruction or organized public opposition."

"The General Electric ABWR was the first third generation power plant approved. The first two ABWR's were commissioned in Japan in 1996 and 1997. These took just over 3 years to construct and were completed on budget. Their construction costs were around $2000 per KW. Two additional ABWR's are being constructed in Taiwan. However these have faced unexpected delays and are now at least 2 years behind schedule."

"CEZ Declines for Second Day as Czech Utility Delays Nuclear Investment
"The company postponed the selection of suppliers for two additional reactors at Temelin until 2011, supervisory board member Eduard Janota said today. Construction may be delayed by as much as several years, Hospodarske Noviny newspaper reported, citing a CEZ employee it did not name. CEZ will also reduce investments in Bulgaria, Romania and Poland, the newspaper said."

Those were in the Czech Republic, Finland, and Taiwan not the US, so US environmental regulations can't be blamed. People say how France gets a lot of energy from nuclear power, yet it was the French company Areva which is majority owned by the French government, that was building Finland's Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant.

Falcon

A bit unfair to make the bank liable for the NRC's and PUC's decisions.

What's unfair is forcing everyone to pay so nuclear energy will make a profit. It's also unfair to make others pay for pollution and other external costs.

Oh, and that's not just nuclear power but fossil fuels, and all the other sources that get subsidies. In absolute amounts coal gets the most in subsidies. It also gets to pass on external costs such as green house gas emissions. Fact is is through the 1990s and 2000s until Obama came to office coal, nuclear power, and oil all got billions of dollars a year in subsidies, as did corn based biofuels whereas all other alternative energy sources had to share maybe one billion dollars a year. Chevron agrees to lobby with Sierra Club to end coal subsidies. Markey: "My Climate Bill 'Has Huge Subsidies For Clean Coal! Huge!'" Oil Subsidies in the Dock.

Falcon

Licensing costs are too expensive to justify anything but the 1600 MWe behemoths using standard fuel cycles with proven technology.

Citation needed.

Here's my own, The average non-fuel O&M cost for a nuclear power plant in 2009 was 1.46 cents / kWh. That includes licensing. Or this:

Issue #1: The New Licensing Process [ppt]

• The Mythology: The old licensing process was a major factor in the collapse of nuclear power in the U.S.
• It has now been repaired by changes in law and regulatory policy, paving the way for the renaissance.

As if that's not enough here are some more links:

1. Hooked on Subsidies...
   "How do France (and India, China and Russia) build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don't. Governmental officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors."
2. Is it time to press reset on nuclear?
   "Cost overruns, delays in building reactors are sapping a nuclear revival"
3. Study warns of cost overruns at proposed reactors - MarketWatch
4. Cost Overruns at Finland Reactor Hold Lessons
5. Boiling The Frog: Nuclear Optimism Hides True Costs Till It's Too Late
   "The Frog Jumps: The Ontario Story. Last week the Ontario government put plans to build 2 new next-generation reactors on hold, after it received bids "more than three times higher than what the Province expected to pay", according to a story in the Toronto Star. The only "compliant" bid -- one where the supplier would be sufficiently at risk if costs exceeded the amount quoted -- was reportedly a $26 billion quote from Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd, equal to roughly $10,800 per kW."
6. Nuclear construction delays in Finland's Olkiluoto 3
7. Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant

The summary's hyperbole is completely opposite to reality. The reason the energy companies aren't building so much these days is because electricity demand has dramatically decreased compared to 3 years ago.

While the title is right, the reason why is not. The only reason energy companies aren't building nuclear power plants is because they can't get government subsidies to build them. The Nuclear Power Industry is Hooked on Subsidies:

"How do France (and India, China and Russia) build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don't. Governmental officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors."

Falcon

The fact is, that within the continental USA, because we are electrified, the ONLY places that Solar pays for itself is on extreme rural areas

The fact is is solar may be more competitive if it received as much in subsidies as conventional energy gets. Coal receive billions of dollars in subsidies. Add in external costs, such as co2 and mercury emissions, and coal will cost more. Require nuclear power to buy it's own insurance, get rid of the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act, and make companies pay their own disposal costs and nuclear power will cost more too.

Between 2002 and 2008 coal received around $17 billion in subsidies. Obama's 2011 budget proposal even cuts coal subsidies $2.3 billion over the next decade. But it's hard to see exactly how much subsidies are, as State coal subsidies and US subsidies of oil and coal more than double the subsidies of renewable energy says, it's hard to add up all the subsidies because while some are purely handouts on taxpayer dollars others are deductions on taxes owed. And nuclear power would not exist without subsidies, it is Hooked on Subsidies:

"How do France (and India, China and Russia) build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don't. Governmental officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors."

Falcon

There's also a great deal of DISagreement about the US Depression.

Ever year more and more economists are saying the government stimulus (by Hoover first, then FDR) did nothing to pull us out, actually made it worse, and the depression never really ended until the early 1950s, when government spending was CUT and industries were free to spend money on innovation rather than IRS taxes. They also point to the rest of the world which suffered a shock, but did not use government stimulus, and quickly recovered by 1933 or 34.

Link to hundreds of college/university professors:
http://www.cato.org/special/stimulus09/alternate_version.html

It is all just a matter of being dependent on other countries natural reserves vs. funding it with tax money.

Bullshit!!! Coal gets more federal subsidies than any other energy source in the US. That is unless the cost of war is included, in which case it's petroleum. Nuclear power is second, unless farm subsidies for corn, which is a bad feedstock, based ethanol is included. Each receives multiples of billions of US dollars in taxpayer money. Yet until Obama became president all alternative source, except the fore mentioned corn based ethanol, had to share about $1 Billion. Rep Edward Markey brags "My Climate Bill 'Has Huge Subsidies For Clean Coal! Huge!'" In it he lists some of the subsidies various energy sources get. And Chevron CEO Dave O'Reilly agrees to lobby with Sierra Club to end coal subsidies. The article originally published in Reason: Free Minds and Free Markets" then published online by CATO Institute: Individual Liberty, Free Markets, and Peace titled "Nuclear Energy: Risky Business" starts with "Nuclear energy is to the Right what solar energy is to the Left: Religious devotion in practice, a wonderful technology in theory, but an economic white elephant in fact (some crossovers on both sides notwithstanding)." Another CATO article, Hooked on Subsidies, first published in "Forbes" says how the Nuclear Power industry is as the title says, "hooked on subsidies". Even in countries where nuclear power is big, China, France, India, and Russia it's state actors or the government and not the market that decides what gets built. In brief the US Department of Energy answers the question How much does the Federal Government spend on energy-specific subsidies and support? By fiscal year 2007 all forms of renewable energy got $4.9 billion in subsides, $3 billion of that for ethanol. All other sources had to share the other $1.9 billion. Now how much did coal get? Refined coal got about $2.4 billion and with another $854 million on other coal. And nuclear power got $1.267 billion.

You say you're in Germany. The article Spain slashes solar energy subsidies laments that Berlin decided to continue to use nuclear power. And that Madrid slashed solar subsidies. Another says the same in Germany, Germany to cut subsidies for solar energy .

Personally I'd rather see all energy subsidies eliminated. ALL!!! Let a freer market decide winners and losers not government. What governments can do is make sure the markets are kept open as long as they can compeat, and they pay all their costs including external costs.

Falcon