Slashdot Mirror

A better statistic, Germany (which is the best performer in Europe, everyone else is considerably worse):

https://www.destatis.de/DE/Pre...

This is only the past 10 years, because I'm lazy and this was fast to find. Note that the line goes up and down. If you pick a few years carefully, you can easily find both an increase and a decrease by several % somewhere within this period.

If you would look at the same line for Spain or Greece or Italy, I'm sure there would be a much more bleak picture.

If you want to read the official government numbers, here is are links: Number for end of 2016: https://www.destatis.de/DE/Pre...

Some numbers (not as comprehensive as for 2016) for 2017: https://www.destatis.de/DE/Pre...

And yes, it is exactly like you said, for 100 people on the street, there are "suddenly" (as in "over ~2 years") 3 more - what do you think why school gyms had to be recruited as shelters for the refugees for months?

And how else could a previously rather irrelevant and small political party, the AfD, become the largest opposition party, with basically only the refugee topic being on their agenda?

Just because you do not want to see consequences of migration does not mean they are not there.

If you want to read the official government numbers, here is are links: Number for end of 2016: https://www.destatis.de/DE/Pre...

Some numbers (not as comprehensive as for 2016) for 2017: https://www.destatis.de/DE/Pre...

And yes, it is exactly like you said, for 100 people on the street, there are "suddenly" (as in "over ~2 years") 3 more - what do you think why school gyms had to be recruited as shelters for the refugees for months?

And how else could a previously rather irrelevant and small political party, the AfD, become the largest opposition party, with basically only the refugee topic being on their agenda?

Just because you do not want to see consequences of migration does not mean they are not there.

Duh. You forgot to mention that the total net amount of power production in 2011 was also quite a bit smaller.
Besides, that doesn't mean there are more coal power plants now than there have been in 2011, it just means that several old inefficient power plants were replaced with a smaller amount of more efficient power plants that produce more power from less coal.
Moreover, look at the government numbers:
https://www.destatis.de/DE/Zah...

You clearly see that the amount of actually produced (not the total installed capacity) electric power from both lignite and black coal goes down, not up, every single year, and not just in absolute numbers, but also as the percentage of total power production. The only fossil power source that actually goes up is natural gas, because it is used by peaking power plants that have to be used more often than in the past.

As to your list, here is some explanation
Datteln block 4: a more efficient replacement for 3 old blocks.
Stade: planning stage, no permit yet.
BoAplus Niederaussen: planning finished, no permit yet and the chances that it happens are pretty slim.
That is it, only three planned power plants, of which only one is actually a new power plant, not just a new block for an existing one, and only one of these three has an actual permit. Three is a very low amount of "several", and given that only one is allowed to be built, it is not even that.

You seem to forget that France as well as the UK are nuclear powers. France already invited Germany several times to join its nuclear shield, but the anti-nuclear sentiments in Germany are too strong.

In terms of security the ground troops are more relevant.

Also Russia is mostly about business these days. Attacking your best NG customers is a bad business strategy (Ukraine on the other hand never paid the bills on time or at market price).

The trade with the US is obviously a big deal, but you don't have to be to closely allied to get free trade, and China nowadays is almost as important a trade partner as are the US.

So I think a case can be made that intelligence these days is the most important aspect.

I doubt you find many german areas where commuting by bus is common.

About half of the rides on German public transport are by bus:

https://www.destatis.de/DE/Pre...

Railway is cheaper because it is cheaper, energy wise etc. As I pointed out several times now: the subsidizes are extremely low in relation to the effect (billions of passenger kilometers per year).

Even according to the UK government, railway passenger subsidies are around $ 0.10 per kilometer, https://www.gov.uk/government/...

Germany is under EU investigation over its massive subsidies for rail service (in addition to postal and energy). Germany's rail system also enjoyed a government-granted monopoly for a century.

Energy savings from rail are modest because trains are often not filled to capacity.

Here is an excellent summary of the history, financing, and cost of transportation:

http://www.downsizinggovernmen...

Also keep in mind: the number is per capita not per student/pupil so the amount of money for a student/pupil in the USA is even lower as the ratio between adults and youngs is bigger.

No, sorry, not true: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us...

The United States spent more than $11,000 per elementary student in 2010 and more than $12,000 per high school student. When researchers factored in the cost for programs after high school education such as college or vocational training, the United States spent $15,171 on each young person in the system — more than any other nation covered in the report.

we have summer right now

Article is from April 8, 2014 and says "fifth consecutive monthly decline in March", so the decline has in fact started over the winter. My guess is you didn't really read it, did you?

day ahead demand for GAS IS DAMN LOW! (No one is heating, e.g.)

As you completely misunderstood that the article isn't about summer, this remark is entirely off base.

As we have to much power all the time

The article also talks about price drops across Europe, not just Germany and the sections I was referring to in my quote specifically address natural gas trading at the Dutch TTF, where many European countries trade, not just Germany. Moreover, the article opens with "The Platts Continental Power Index* (CONTI) fell 8.4% in March to €35.06 per megawatt hour (/MWh) ".

I realize I could have been a bit more explicit in saying that I think a significant part of the cheap power prices across Europe is due to cheap natural gas.

we don't need gas turbines, but use pumped storages right now

As usual with your statements, reality tends to disagree.

Germanies share of power produced by gas is at the 1% edge

Damn, do I really have to fact check everything you say? Even this is trivially shown to be false. In fact, you are wrong by an order of magnitude (it's actually 10.6%).

It is amazing with what steely-eyed conviction you can be so wrong, yet feel so superior.

You are mixing up cause and effect because you draw uninformed conclusions from facts you don't understand.

And that coming from somebody who didn't read or understand the first sentence of the article under debate: "continental Europe recorded a fifth consecutive monthly decline in March ". Oh the irony is so sweet.

Hint: I work/worked in that area.

And yet you can't read a graph or table or even do the most rudimentary fact-checking of what you say?

Most people in Germany do not have their own house, but live in rented apartments.

Most Germans live in rented accommodation, but most live in houses. 43% own houses they live in. Some live in houses they rent (the stat you pretend doesn't exist). So most Germans live in houses. Yes, most don't own their own houses, but they live in places with the possibility or installing any kind of power generator.
https://www.destatis.de/DE/Pub...

When your numbers are wrong, how can we believe the rest of it?

The problem for Germany is that they import 2/3 of their electricity

Of their energy, yes. Of their electricity, no.
In fact, Germany is a net electricity exporter.

Last year, the surplus was 22,8 TWh(German)

You have been referring to "importing energy" before, but now you're talking about electricity. Germany exported more electricity in 2012 than they imported. And I have a source for that:

https://www.destatis.de/EN/PressServices/Press/pr/2013/04/PE13_125_51.html

Where is your source?

Actually ... I did some research on this just to confirm that the USA is the #1 as far as first world countries go (I thought that maybe Australia, Canada or New Zealand might be contenders, too). But instead, I found this:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_are_und_pro-environment-areas-under-protection

Nationmaster is fairly accurate as far as I know.

The per-capita statistic is fairly interesting, too:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_are_und_pro_percap-areas-under-protection-per-capita

Pretty much all of them. Unless your going to claim a normal gas released by the act of humans breathing is something toxic, but look at who puts the most effort in it?

Um ... carbon dioxide ? That's fairly toxic. Concentrations above 7% in the inhaled air will kill in a matter of minutes. That's very easy to verify and even less disputed than it being a greenhouse gas.

The US has given Europe money to help clean their shit up in the past.

For example ... ?

Yep, you have different numbers then I do. Maybe a cite would be worth it.

Here, for example:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lab_une-labor-unemployment

That these numbers aren't pulled out of someone's ass can be cross-checked:

http://www.bls.gov/cps/home.htm

http://www.destatis.de/jetspeed/portal/cms/Sites/destatis/Internet/DE/Content/Statistiken/Zeitreihen/WirtschaftAktuell/Arbeitsmarkt/Content75/arb422a,templateId=renderPrint.psml

And most of that gain seems to be attributed to a negetive population growth.

I would contest that. The people who die aren't in the unemployment statistics anymore. In fact, the number of people who do have a job has increased:

http://www.destatis.de/jetspeed/portal/cms/Sites/destatis/Internet/DE/Content/Statistiken/Arbeitsmarkt/Erwerbstaetige/Tabellen/Content50/InlaenderInlandskonzept,templateId=renderPrint.psml

They have done this by wrecking their economy and not growing as a population.

I hardly consider the economy over here wrecked. And about the growing thing, well, what's the government supposed to do about that ? Give people money for reproducing ? They're doing exactly that, and it's not working. And they can't exactly force people to have kids.

Ask yourself why the supposed answers that are going to fix the Problem seem to be more about giving money to poor countries then fixing the problem.

So that the "rich" countries realize that Earths atmosphere is not their personal dumping ground ? Because once it costs money to do so, they might get off their asses and start working on long-term solutions ?

But after you do, then ask yourself why, if this is a global problem and it is so bad that we need to force every country to work on fixing it even though only 37 or so of the 158 countries signed on to the Kyoto protocol have emissions limits imposed on them while it is being toughed as the FIX for Global warming, but seriously, ask yourself this important question and tell me wh

Actually ... I did some research on this just to confirm that the USA is the #1 as far as first world countries go (I thought that maybe Australia, Canada or New Zealand might be contenders, too). But instead, I found this:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_are_und_pro-environment-areas-under-protection

Nationmaster is fairly accurate as far as I know.

The per-capita statistic is fairly interesting, too:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_are_und_pro_percap-areas-under-protection-per-capita

Pretty much all of them. Unless your going to claim a normal gas released by the act of humans breathing is something toxic, but look at who puts the most effort in it?

Um ... carbon dioxide ? That's fairly toxic. Concentrations above 7% in the inhaled air will kill in a matter of minutes. That's very easy to verify and even less disputed than it being a greenhouse gas.

The US has given Europe money to help clean their shit up in the past.

For example ... ?

Yep, you have different numbers then I do. Maybe a cite would be worth it.

Here, for example:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lab_une-labor-unemployment

That these numbers aren't pulled out of someone's ass can be cross-checked:

http://www.bls.gov/cps/home.htm

http://www.destatis.de/jetspeed/portal/cms/Sites/destatis/Internet/DE/Content/Statistiken/Zeitreihen/WirtschaftAktuell/Arbeitsmarkt/Content75/arb422a,templateId=renderPrint.psml

And most of that gain seems to be attributed to a negetive population growth.

I would contest that. The people who die aren't in the unemployment statistics anymore. In fact, the number of people who do have a job has increased:

http://www.destatis.de/jetspeed/portal/cms/Sites/destatis/Internet/DE/Content/Statistiken/Arbeitsmarkt/Erwerbstaetige/Tabellen/Content50/InlaenderInlandskonzept,templateId=renderPrint.psml

They have done this by wrecking their economy and not growing as a population.

I hardly consider the economy over here wrecked. And about the growing thing, well, what's the government supposed to do about that ? Give people money for reproducing ? They're doing exactly that, and it's not working. And they can't exactly force people to have kids.

Ask yourself why the supposed answers that are going to fix the Problem seem to be more about giving money to poor countries then fixing the problem.

So that the "rich" countries realize that Earths atmosphere is not their personal dumping ground ? Because once it costs money to do so, they might get off their asses and start working on long-term solutions ?

But after you do, then ask yourself why, if this is a global problem and it is so bad that we need to force every country to work on fixing it even though only 37 or so of the 158 countries signed on to the Kyoto protocol have emissions limits imposed on them while it is being toughed as the FIX for Global warming, but seriously, ask yourself this important question and tell me wh

Here's some links, unfortunately, they're in German:

http://www.destatis.de/jetspeed/portal/cms/Sites/destatis/Internet/DE/Content/Statistiken/Verkehr/Verkehrsunfaelle/Tabellen/Content75/UnfaelleVerunglueckte,templateId=renderPrint.psml http://www.focus.de/auto/autoaktuell/unfallstatistik_aid_54847.html

Basically, only 12% of the fatal accidents in Germany happen on the Autobahn, where in turn most of the kilometers are driven.

virtually everyone I talk to these days is complaining about the decline in salaries

I don't know much about the German economy (I have a friend that moved there a few years ago, but he doesn't talk much about the economy), but the US economy is actually doing quite well. We had a recession (technically, it wasn't even a recession according to the definition, but it's generally recognized as a recession). Now the recession is over and we are recovering (not that it was very bad anyway).

To me, the problems in the German economy signify the superiority of a market economy, but I am an economic conservative. In the U.S., salaries tend to increase for a given individual as that person ages and gains experience. Income tends to increase with increased hours of work. Also, unemployment in the U.S. is low compared with countries like Germany and France (http://www.destatis.de/indicators/e/arb210ae.htm indicates Germany has double-digit inflation regularly, while 6% in the US is considered high). Even public salaries are often determined by the marketplace. Sowell (the author I recommended) does a good job of explaining why the market economy produces better results. Again, I'm an economic conservative (and so is Sowell), so you should consider these statements critically.

You in the US are already in the situation where many "normal folk" have to work several shit-jobs just to be able to earn the minimum needed to eat and not sleep under a bridge.

I live in San Diego, one side of the busiest border crossing in the world. It's also one of the areas where around 1M immigrants per year enter this country illegally and without education or skills (of course that's the entire border, not just San Diego). These people come here, and for the most part are productive citizens. They often work many hours, not just to support themselves but also relatives south of the border. I am sure that you can find examples of people who work hard and have a tough time in America. But generally speaking, people who are hard working, motivated, and ambitious are able to support themselves and often have money left over, even if they have no skills or education. Generally the poor in America are considered obese, rather than malnourished. We are far from perfect around here, but I think that from an economic perspective, the US provides opportunity for nearly everyone. If that were not true, there would not be so many successful immigrants from Mexico. And there are a LOT of successful immigrants from Mexico who own property and live comfortably (again, even with no education or skills coming in here).

I believe that it's the working class who works most, 60 hours per week aren't uncommon

If you show me a man in the U.S. who has worked 60 hours per week for 30 years, I will show you a wealthy man. I'm sure you can find exceptions, but generally, in the US, if you work a lot of hours, you make a lot of money.

Even if the real inflation rate in the US is 10% (most international estimates hover around 15%), it's pretty massive.

Can you provide a source? If that were true, banks would not lend money in the U.S. at the rates that they do. Mortgages are much lower rates than 10%, and clearly a bank would lose if the inflation exceeded the interest they made. Real inflation in the U.S. is a couple percent by any reasonable estimate. At a rate of 10%, $1.00 in 1900 would be the same as about $14,000 in 2000, which is rediculous.

I frankly don't understand why the rest of the world still relies on the USD while your government prints as much as it sees fit while there's a HUGE and growing trade deficit.

Like everything else, people choose among the options they have. USD and EUR both have problems, but they are both used because they are better than th

Last night when corresponding with a German friend online I found out she only makes 600 euros a month in an office building.

According to US military, some European countries spend nearly the same amount of GDP on defense as the USA. On the average, EU would have to spend additional 2.5% of GDP on defense, to match the USA. Now, according to Goethe Institut, EU spent on average in 1999 around 28% of GDP on welfare. Moving 2.5% from welfare to defense would be a noticeable, but not drastic policy shift.

Since the US data is fairly old, I just checked those numbers, here's what I got for Germany: defense spending for 2001 (still fairly outdated, I know) was at 23 billion Euros, overall government spending in that year was at 960 billion. Of those, a whopping 513 billion were paid for social security, however all other departments spent amounts in the same order of magnitude as defense, e.g. 22 billion for infrastructure and 30 billion for law enforcement.
The GDP in 2002 was at 2,108 billion. So defense spending was at 1.09% of the GDP. The US spends more then thrice that amount. And while a 2% increase might not seem large compared to the amount paid for social security, it is when you keep in mind that this is nearly as much as the budget of infrastructure and law enforcement combined. So yes, this is an extremely drastic policy shift.

All numbers are from the sites of the Statistische Bundesamt (German federal bureau of statistics), specifically here and here. Note that I might have gotten something terribly wrong, I'm not really good at this. ;)

According to US military, some European countries spend nearly the same amount of GDP on defense as the USA. On the average, EU would have to spend additional 2.5% of GDP on defense, to match the USA. Now, according to Goethe Institut, EU spent on average in 1999 around 28% of GDP on welfare. Moving 2.5% from welfare to defense would be a noticeable, but not drastic policy shift.

Since the US data is fairly old, I just checked those numbers, here's what I got for Germany: defense spending for 2001 (still fairly outdated, I know) was at 23 billion Euros, overall government spending in that year was at 960 billion. Of those, a whopping 513 billion were paid for social security, however all other departments spent amounts in the same order of magnitude as defense, e.g. 22 billion for infrastructure and 30 billion for law enforcement.
The GDP in 2002 was at 2,108 billion. So defense spending was at 1.09% of the GDP. The US spends more then thrice that amount. And while a 2% increase might not seem large compared to the amount paid for social security, it is when you keep in mind that this is nearly as much as the budget of infrastructure and law enforcement combined. So yes, this is an extremely drastic policy shift.

All numbers are from the sites of the Statistische Bundesamt (German federal bureau of statistics), specifically here and here. Note that I might have gotten something terribly wrong, I'm not really good at this. ;)