You have your head stuck so far up your own ass I'm not sure if it's possible to shout loud enough for you to hear this, but you are a fucking asshole. America has shitty welfare to begin with - most of the people on it are "working poor" - they work, but don't earn enough to make ends meet. Government is basically subsidizing shitty corporate culture that doesn't pay enough for people to live on.
The one who needs a serious attitude adjustment is you.
One meme that won't go away is the concept that there are people spending their entire lives on welfare. Most, and maybe all welfare programs today are very limited both in time and money. But the memes are the same from the 70's.
It is an uncomfortable part of life, that despite what we are told, all of us cannot be anything we want to be. There is a whole subset of humans who are not capable of more skilled or intellectual activities.
So what do we do with these less fortunate or less ambitious people? Eugenics is pretty distasteful as well as a big moral problem. Joe Libertarian might not like it when the tests show little Johnny is subnormal in intelligence and drive, so her has to be taken away and recycled, even though he makes a convincing argument of "adapt or die" for other people's children. All a matter of perspective.
It isn't a question of do we make people at the bottom of the employment ladder wealthy. Being able to survive without Government handouts is not being wealthy.
It isn't a question of the jobs at the bottom of the employment ladder being jobs for high school kids. I haven't seen a person under 30 at any McDonald's I've been in for years.
A very uncomfortable fact that those people are trying to make a living off those jobs because they don't have any other jobs they can do. Maybe they were working in that factory down the road that closed. Now they are at McD's or WalMart.
So we've been having a big shift in jobs that 20 years ago were considered Workplace entry level are now "careers". And the kicker is that the companies hiring these folks have managed to work out that the taxpayer funds a large part of these folk's living expenses - and people who might otherwise claim they are capitalists or Libertarian seem to be just fine with this!
In a real pay as you go world, anyone working full time at a legal job would make enough to pay the rent and put food on the table without government handouts. And anyone having a problem with that is living in a weird fantasy world where they can hold 2 opposing viewpoints at the same time.
WalMart has competitors. If it pays much more than the competition, it will lose money. If it pays much less than the competition, it will lose employees. WalMart's advantages of efficient systems and tough negotiations with suppliers are not enough to allow them to successfully pretend that nobody else is competing with them.
So what you are saying is that competition demands lowering wages to stay competitive, so we race to the bottom of figuring out a way to pay people nothing at all, or as close to it as possible.
So these companies will be hauling in the cash lake crazy from all of the money they'll make when no one can afford to buy anything because the ultimate goal is to lower the wages to the point where 100 percent of the pay is devoted to survival eating.
It's unskilled labor, fuck 'em they can die and the company will save 100 percent of their salary then.
Your argument reduces to that you would support WalMart paying nothing, and my tax dollars paying for the employees entire living. That would indeed be competitive and a great advantage for WalMart and any other retail outfit. Then the people living off my tax dollars will spend wht they have at WallMart, and......PROFIT!
Walmart pays poorly because the jobs it hires people for are mostly unskilled labor. Training consists of "take this, put it there". The alternative to "subsidizing Walmart" is that they get nothing from Walmart and everything from the government. Which is cheaper?
Now just between you and me, there is money to be made at Walmart. And like it or not, the higher paid positions are not exactly rocket science either.
As for your interesting "what the market will bear" remark, it should be cheaper in the end to have WalMart pay a wage that allows it's employees to survive without government assistance. That's simple efficiency. You can't have it both ways of wanting government subsidies because cheap, while banging a free market drum.
Raising the minimum wage is just shifting the burden of welfare funding from the public to Walmart, which will have to raise prices to compensate.
What the holy baby jeebuz in a pup tent? If a person is working and getting paid, and living off it - it isn't welfare.
And dear Coward, if Walmart can't pay a wage that allows it's employees to not have to take money from the government, perhaps it is using a flawed business model, and should do what the market does to failed business models. Puts them out of business.
As their entire business model is "sell stuff cheap to poor people", you are risking killing one of the most successful businesses ever in order to achieve your social goals. And, at the end, who gets screwed? The poor who shop at Walmart.
Sounds awesome. Make everyone poor as possible so they can shop at Walmart.
You sound like the psychopath. My statement is "A lot of minimum wage people would love to get 60 hours a week of work." Thats it. Now go make me a latte.
Side note. Always - but always, be nice to the person who is preparing your food and drink.
I guess it depends on your view of how an economy works.
I canna say how it works in Scotland, but here in the states if you are working a minimum wage job, a whole world of government subsidized services are opened to you.
It's an interesting conundrum, as the largest employer in the US would claim that raising the minimum wage is a socialist or at least anti-capitalist action, while fully knowing that it allows their workforce to be subsidized by the taxpayers. Purposeful socialism under the guise of capitalism.
And here's the interesting part of that whole scenario. As we travel down this road, unless we start killing those at the bottom rung, the old threat of automating the job loses it's power, because since they are already on the dole from the start, it might make more sense to just stop working altogether. Brought to us by the people whose words say one thing, and actions, another.
I hope you're not trying to imply that fake news doesn't exist, anyone with eyes and a modest ability to think critically has seen blatantly false stories being passed off as gospel.
Its just deflection and misdirection. A time honored technique.
"What about this Video of your candidate screwing a chicken?"
"Well what about all of the persimmon workers who were cost their jobs by martians coming to earth for abortions?"
Obviously there are major differences such as battery and motors. Teslas are supposedly very mechanically reliable from an automotive aspect. The faults in the X are mostly to do with the doors, trim and other teething troubles.
As well, I'm not terribly inclined to put too much stock into bad Consumer Reports reviews. I've bought more than one vehicle they didn't like, and the weren't anything like the CR hatchet job promised they would be. They've always been a little too nitpicky and sometimes the reviewer's personal likes comes into play. Minor things like trim are eaily corrected.
Lots of combustion vehicles have these faults too or even more serious issues. My Hyundai diesel's clutch pretty much exploded one day - it was repaired under warranty but apparently it was a common fault in that model.
But this is Slashdot, you know. I remember when a Tesla caught fire, and the EV deniers had an confirmation bias orgasm, pointing and saying "See? SEE?" forgetting that Petrofueled vehicls were a lot more flammable. All cars have issues on occasion, and unlike Ford, who did everything it could to avoid admitting that it's Pinto car was a fiery death trap, Tesla fixed the issue as soon as they knew of it.
If there is anything dumber than risking your life to save a few bucks on Black Thursday/Friday, its buying something using a mobile device. 6 months from now, look for a story about all the mobile users who had their CC accounts compromised.
You seem to think I'm "angry". Nothing could be further from the truth.
Perhaps. I read people very well, and you write like a person who is enraged when anyone disagrees with you. I'm not the only one who notices it either, as others have claimed the same. I'm not even bothering to reply to your other statements, because I'm most pleased to ignore them in hopes of pissing you off even more.
Pepe'
The problem is that if we have a simple market only solution, eventually we just trade money back and forth, and end up victims of countries where technology advances because they fund it.
Who was it that landed people on the moon and returned them safely to Earth first? I don't think it was the USSR or communist China.
That was done by small businesses operating out of basements and the entire projects was dreamed up and designed by Ayn Rand. Seriously, if you think that we got to the moon by private enterprise only, you are more deluded than you think everyone else is.
In the capitalism world, profit is the driver, and without profit, nothing happens. Are you asserting that th eindistries that built the components would have done so if they weren't cost plus? Let's chat about the software that got us to the moon, and the corporation that developed that software. Then perhaps we can chat on the corporate profit center that put all the stuff together, tested and launched the candles.
What was teh corporation that designed and researched and developed the first Atomic weapons? All performed by corporations - How much profit did they make? What company was oppenheimer CEO of? Who managed and built the Clinton Engineer works in Tennessee? Hint - it was the university of Chicago.
Because my dear BlueStrat, your needless but intense anger just prompts you to have a digital view of things, and everyone who has the slightest bit of disagreement with you is somehow a communist. Whereas a person might reasonably understand that the government might have a place in developing technology, you determine that they are somehow wanting to install a proletariat of the workers and install a collectivist system. Because we're not.
Because in a real world, not everything can be performed using the profit motive as the driver. Oopsies - sorry I didn't give a trigger alert. I spent my career working with technological issues that were government funded - therefore subsidized - and when we had the technology worked out, it was released to industry, who then built what we were working on, and made the needed profit. If we hadn't done the research, it wouldn't have been done at all. There is no question, as the profit in the work didn't exist in a world where profits must be increased constantly.
So grow up a little bit. It's a good thing to be profit and market driven. But your inherent anger is not good for a person, and will trap you and keep you from reaching your full potential.
I call bullshit. We could put in HVDC transmission lines (Max distance around 3500km or 83% of the width of the contiguous United States) running from east to west and north to south.
Yup - its bullshit. Seems to be a lot of those turbines going up along the Allegheny front these days. The technology is advancing nicely as well. It is indeed always windy somewhere, and it's getting pretty hard to argue with success.
Solar? Not such a good idea here, it rains all the time. Might be a good idea in Eastern Oregon.
Oddly enough, solar pops up in some strange places, like Alaska. Obviously you don't get it in the winter, but it allows them to cut way down on the amount of diesel fuel they need. So they store that during the summer when it's easy to get, and survival during the winter is more assured.
Pretty sure Trump promised West Virginia coal miners their jobs back, meaning he's promising to bring coal consumption back to it's historical peak levels, despite the lack of demand.
The best thing they can do is find other work because coal mining as a way of life is over.
It is kind of a communist "They owe me a living" argument they use, when reduced to it's essence. My entire life, I changed what I did as the demand for what I was doing changed. My original education was in analog electronics and art (yes art). But as times changed, I changed what I was doing. I didn't demand that the electronics industry remain in the 1970's, or that we refuse to switch from chemical based photography to digital, that non-linear editing be banned, or that as computers came ascendant that I wasn't going to be involved in them. So that's how the photographer/artist became at last assay, a executive level IT assistance guy who was unbullshittable.
So they can either adapt and move on, or they can dream about the glory days of the 1940's. And become useful idiots when someone cynically promises to put them back to work in the only field they demand to be employed in.
Under Trump coal use will not grow, it just will stop shrinking for a while until renewables get more cost effective.
If Trump isn't going to grow coal use, then how does he plan on getting those 40,000 unemployed coal miners back to their jobs mining coal? It was one of his most-used campaign promises. He even repeated the exact number of jobs he was going to get back over and over.
My guess is he'll issue a fiat that all of the automation will have to disappear, and they'll go back to picks and shovels and dinky cars pulled by miniature donkeys, like they did it when gawd still loved us.
All sarcasm aside, it's pretty impressive to see what a few people can do. What used to take thousands of men to do in 25 years, and then left to rot, is now accomplished by a small team of men in a couple of years, and re-seeded, and they are gone.
The coal industry is as likely to return to the days of what Il Don promises as farming is to the days of horse drawn plow.
Still not taken off the glasses with the reversing lenses yet, I see...
Oh, so you know all about what my beliefs are by...what?...a crystal ball? Tea leaves? WaPo/HuffPo and the MSM? Your gender-studies professor?
You just tell us a lot about what your beliefs are from that post, Bluestrat. No need for our precious snowflake self esteem coach to tell us. But do go on.
Find a safe space and a comfort-dog, cupcake.
If that's anything like a corn dog, sign me up!
*I* don't want to have government involved in picking winners and losers in the private sector. That *is* fascism. Just because the US government and the useful-idiots try to put a smiley-face on it and call it by other names doesn't change what it is.
Yes - you do know the definition of fascism. The problem is that if we have a simple market only solution, eventually we just trade money back and forth, and end up victims of countries where technology advances because they fund it.
Another point is that while it is easy to rail against the renewable industry and their presumed abuse of subsidies, you don't see a whole lot of chagrin about the subsidies for Oil and gas.
And to put a rather finer point on it, one of the largest "renewable" subsidies goes to corn based ethanol, which many of us consider not only wasteful, but counter productive.
Check out the numbers, and check out the sources of the numbers.
Or you can just call other people names - that's the exact equivalent and always wins the argument.
Under Trump coal use will not grow, it just will stop shrinking for a while until renewables get more cost effective. Also coal mining will ramp up again to access cleaner coal, so even the U.S. will be continuing to reduce carbon emissions just as we have been for decades now (unlike many other countries).
Some thoughts.
How is this "stop shrinking for a while" happen? Are we going to force other countries to buy US coal? Force US industries to not use other energy sources? Punish the gas industry somehow by kicking them out of the picture?
The coal jobs that are gone, are gone. Unless we are deploying a communist or fascist (in the true sense) government that is. It will take a communist type planned economy to force them back, one which denies the industry the automation that played a huge part in decimating the employment opportunities of the coal industry. It is pretty impressive to watch a stripmine operation these days. Even moreso when you see them move a mountain with just a few people.
Windpower will decline though because wind power is the most idiotic way to generate power, if you think at all about long term viability.
Give your rationale and your cites, not your yahoo comments level conclusion. You figure the wind is going to go somewhere, reducing the "long term viability of windpower?
Slashdot Mirror
You have your head stuck so far up your own ass I'm not sure if it's possible to shout loud enough for you to hear this, but you are a fucking asshole. America has shitty welfare to begin with - most of the people on it are "working poor" - they work, but don't earn enough to make ends meet. Government is basically subsidizing shitty corporate culture that doesn't pay enough for people to live on.
The one who needs a serious attitude adjustment is you.
One meme that won't go away is the concept that there are people spending their entire lives on welfare. Most, and maybe all welfare programs today are very limited both in time and money. But the memes are the same from the 70's.
It is an uncomfortable part of life, that despite what we are told, all of us cannot be anything we want to be. There is a whole subset of humans who are not capable of more skilled or intellectual activities.
So what do we do with these less fortunate or less ambitious people? Eugenics is pretty distasteful as well as a big moral problem. Joe Libertarian might not like it when the tests show little Johnny is subnormal in intelligence and drive, so her has to be taken away and recycled, even though he makes a convincing argument of "adapt or die" for other people's children. All a matter of perspective.
It isn't a question of do we make people at the bottom of the employment ladder wealthy. Being able to survive without Government handouts is not being wealthy.
It isn't a question of the jobs at the bottom of the employment ladder being jobs for high school kids. I haven't seen a person under 30 at any McDonald's I've been in for years.
A very uncomfortable fact that those people are trying to make a living off those jobs because they don't have any other jobs they can do. Maybe they were working in that factory down the road that closed. Now they are at McD's or WalMart.
So we've been having a big shift in jobs that 20 years ago were considered Workplace entry level are now "careers". And the kicker is that the companies hiring these folks have managed to work out that the taxpayer funds a large part of these folk's living expenses - and people who might otherwise claim they are capitalists or Libertarian seem to be just fine with this!
In a real pay as you go world, anyone working full time at a legal job would make enough to pay the rent and put food on the table without government handouts. And anyone having a problem with that is living in a weird fantasy world where they can hold 2 opposing viewpoints at the same time.
WalMart has competitors. If it pays much more than the competition, it will lose money. If it pays much less than the competition, it will lose employees. WalMart's advantages of efficient systems and tough negotiations with suppliers are not enough to allow them to successfully pretend that nobody else is competing with them.
So what you are saying is that competition demands lowering wages to stay competitive, so we race to the bottom of figuring out a way to pay people nothing at all, or as close to it as possible. So these companies will be hauling in the cash lake crazy from all of the money they'll make when no one can afford to buy anything because the ultimate goal is to lower the wages to the point where 100 percent of the pay is devoted to survival eating.
It's unskilled labor, fuck 'em they can die and the company will save 100 percent of their salary then. Your argument reduces to that you would support WalMart paying nothing, and my tax dollars paying for the employees entire living. That would indeed be competitive and a great advantage for WalMart and any other retail outfit. Then the people living off my tax dollars will spend wht they have at WallMart, and......PROFIT!
Walmart pays poorly because the jobs it hires people for are mostly unskilled labor. Training consists of "take this, put it there". The alternative to "subsidizing Walmart" is that they get nothing from Walmart and everything from the government. Which is cheaper?
Now just between you and me, there is money to be made at Walmart. And like it or not, the higher paid positions are not exactly rocket science either.
As for your interesting "what the market will bear" remark, it should be cheaper in the end to have WalMart pay a wage that allows it's employees to survive without government assistance. That's simple efficiency. You can't have it both ways of wanting government subsidies because cheap, while banging a free market drum.
Raising the minimum wage is just shifting the burden of welfare funding from the public to Walmart, which will have to raise prices to compensate.
What the holy baby jeebuz in a pup tent? If a person is working and getting paid, and living off it - it isn't welfare.
And dear Coward, if Walmart can't pay a wage that allows it's employees to not have to take money from the government, perhaps it is using a flawed business model, and should do what the market does to failed business models. Puts them out of business.
As their entire business model is "sell stuff cheap to poor people", you are risking killing one of the most successful businesses ever in order to achieve your social goals. And, at the end, who gets screwed? The poor who shop at Walmart.
Sounds awesome. Make everyone poor as possible so they can shop at Walmart.
Careful where you order that. A "Latte" is a wooden beam in Germany. And you just might get it. To the neck.
I'm going to open a coffee shop in Utah. Think I'll call it the "Latte Day Saints."
You sound like the psychopath. My statement is "A lot of minimum wage people would love to get 60 hours a week of work." Thats it. Now go make me a latte.
Side note. Always - but always, be nice to the person who is preparing your food and drink.
It will tend to taste a lot better.
Why should such jobs pay much?
I guess it depends on your view of how an economy works.
I canna say how it works in Scotland, but here in the states if you are working a minimum wage job, a whole world of government subsidized services are opened to you.
It's an interesting conundrum, as the largest employer in the US would claim that raising the minimum wage is a socialist or at least anti-capitalist action, while fully knowing that it allows their workforce to be subsidized by the taxpayers. Purposeful socialism under the guise of capitalism.
And here's the interesting part of that whole scenario. As we travel down this road, unless we start killing those at the bottom rung, the old threat of automating the job loses it's power, because since they are already on the dole from the start, it might make more sense to just stop working altogether. Brought to us by the people whose words say one thing, and actions, another.
I hope you're not trying to imply that fake news doesn't exist, anyone with eyes and a modest ability to think critically has seen blatantly false stories being passed off as gospel.
Its just deflection and misdirection. A time honored technique.
"What about this Video of your candidate screwing a chicken?"
"Well what about all of the persimmon workers who were cost their jobs by martians coming to earth for abortions?"
A good one to start with, is where is the proof that Russia did any of this ?
Russia have been pushing fake news for 50 years now. Where is the proof that they suddenly stopped?
Just be concerned when Trump's enemies start dropping from indigestion problems.
look at all the closed and closing casinos in atlantic city before asking that question again.
What an unironic statement.
Obviously there are major differences such as battery and motors. Teslas are supposedly very mechanically reliable from an automotive aspect. The faults in the X are mostly to do with the doors, trim and other teething troubles.
As well, I'm not terribly inclined to put too much stock into bad Consumer Reports reviews. I've bought more than one vehicle they didn't like, and the weren't anything like the CR hatchet job promised they would be. They've always been a little too nitpicky and sometimes the reviewer's personal likes comes into play. Minor things like trim are eaily corrected.
Lots of combustion vehicles have these faults too or even more serious issues. My Hyundai diesel's clutch pretty much exploded one day - it was repaired under warranty but apparently it was a common fault in that model.
But this is Slashdot, you know. I remember when a Tesla caught fire, and the EV deniers had an confirmation bias orgasm, pointing and saying "See? SEE?" forgetting that Petrofueled vehicls were a lot more flammable. All cars have issues on occasion, and unlike Ford, who did everything it could to avoid admitting that it's Pinto car was a fiery death trap, Tesla fixed the issue as soon as they knew of it.
Advanced batteries isn't really an Electrical Engineering project. It's chemistry and material sciences.
Just so they don't hire anyone from Samsung to do their battery tech.
If there is anything dumber than risking your life to save a few bucks on Black Thursday/Friday, its buying something using a mobile device. 6 months from now, look for a story about all the mobile users who had their CC accounts compromised.
Uganda win them all!
You seem to think I'm "angry". Nothing could be further from the truth.
Perhaps. I read people very well, and you write like a person who is enraged when anyone disagrees with you. I'm not the only one who notices it either, as others have claimed the same. I'm not even bothering to reply to your other statements, because I'm most pleased to ignore them in hopes of pissing you off even more. Pepe'
The problem is that if we have a simple market only solution, eventually we just trade money back and forth, and end up victims of countries where technology advances because they fund it.
Who was it that landed people on the moon and returned them safely to Earth first? I don't think it was the USSR or communist China.
That was done by small businesses operating out of basements and the entire projects was dreamed up and designed by Ayn Rand. Seriously, if you think that we got to the moon by private enterprise only, you are more deluded than you think everyone else is.
In the capitalism world, profit is the driver, and without profit, nothing happens. Are you asserting that th eindistries that built the components would have done so if they weren't cost plus? Let's chat about the software that got us to the moon, and the corporation that developed that software. Then perhaps we can chat on the corporate profit center that put all the stuff together, tested and launched the candles.
What was teh corporation that designed and researched and developed the first Atomic weapons? All performed by corporations - How much profit did they make? What company was oppenheimer CEO of? Who managed and built the Clinton Engineer works in Tennessee? Hint - it was the university of Chicago.
Because my dear BlueStrat, your needless but intense anger just prompts you to have a digital view of things, and everyone who has the slightest bit of disagreement with you is somehow a communist. Whereas a person might reasonably understand that the government might have a place in developing technology, you determine that they are somehow wanting to install a proletariat of the workers and install a collectivist system. Because we're not.
Because in a real world, not everything can be performed using the profit motive as the driver. Oopsies - sorry I didn't give a trigger alert. I spent my career working with technological issues that were government funded - therefore subsidized - and when we had the technology worked out, it was released to industry, who then built what we were working on, and made the needed profit. If we hadn't done the research, it wouldn't have been done at all. There is no question, as the profit in the work didn't exist in a world where profits must be increased constantly.
So grow up a little bit. It's a good thing to be profit and market driven. But your inherent anger is not good for a person, and will trap you and keep you from reaching your full potential.
Alienware 17 (2016)
Core i7 6820HK @ 4.1GHz 32GB DDR4 RAM GeForce GTX 1060 w/6GB GDDR5 VRAM 17" 3840x2160 matte IPS display 500GB SSD 1TB 7200 RPM SATA HDD
Total cost was about $2300.
I understand. Cheaper than a mac by a factor of 100. My bottom level ipad air cost me my entire life's savings,
I call bullshit. We could put in HVDC transmission lines (Max distance around 3500km or 83% of the width of the contiguous United States) running from east to west and north to south.
Yup - its bullshit. Seems to be a lot of those turbines going up along the Allegheny front these days. The technology is advancing nicely as well. It is indeed always windy somewhere, and it's getting pretty hard to argue with success.
Solar? Not such a good idea here, it rains all the time. Might be a good idea in Eastern Oregon.
Oddly enough, solar pops up in some strange places, like Alaska. Obviously you don't get it in the winter, but it allows them to cut way down on the amount of diesel fuel they need. So they store that during the summer when it's easy to get, and survival during the winter is more assured.
Pretty sure Trump promised West Virginia coal miners their jobs back, meaning he's promising to bring coal consumption back to it's historical peak levels, despite the lack of demand.
If he does, it won't be mining coal.
The best thing they can do is find other work because coal mining as a way of life is over.
It is kind of a communist "They owe me a living" argument they use, when reduced to it's essence. My entire life, I changed what I did as the demand for what I was doing changed. My original education was in analog electronics and art (yes art). But as times changed, I changed what I was doing. I didn't demand that the electronics industry remain in the 1970's, or that we refuse to switch from chemical based photography to digital, that non-linear editing be banned, or that as computers came ascendant that I wasn't going to be involved in them. So that's how the photographer/artist became at last assay, a executive level IT assistance guy who was unbullshittable.
So they can either adapt and move on, or they can dream about the glory days of the 1940's. And become useful idiots when someone cynically promises to put them back to work in the only field they demand to be employed in.
If Trump isn't going to grow coal use, then how does he plan on getting those 40,000 unemployed coal miners back to their jobs mining coal? It was one of his most-used campaign promises. He even repeated the exact number of jobs he was going to get back over and over.
My guess is he'll issue a fiat that all of the automation will have to disappear, and they'll go back to picks and shovels and dinky cars pulled by miniature donkeys, like they did it when gawd still loved us.
All sarcasm aside, it's pretty impressive to see what a few people can do. What used to take thousands of men to do in 25 years, and then left to rot, is now accomplished by a small team of men in a couple of years, and re-seeded, and they are gone.
The coal industry is as likely to return to the days of what Il Don promises as farming is to the days of horse drawn plow.
Coal power generates significant radioactive waste.
Almost all of that is thorium, which does not bioaccumulate, and is nearly harmless in the quantities and concentrations produced in coal ash.
It's great on breakfast cereal as well! Kind of a tingly tart strawberry taste.
Still not taken off the glasses with the reversing lenses yet, I see...
Oh, so you know all about what my beliefs are by...what?...a crystal ball? Tea leaves? WaPo/HuffPo and the MSM? Your gender-studies professor?
You just tell us a lot about what your beliefs are from that post, Bluestrat. No need for our precious snowflake self esteem coach to tell us. But do go on.
Find a safe space and a comfort-dog, cupcake.
If that's anything like a corn dog, sign me up!
*I* don't want to have government involved in picking winners and losers in the private sector. That *is* fascism. Just because the US government and the useful-idiots try to put a smiley-face on it and call it by other names doesn't change what it is.
Yes - you do know the definition of fascism. The problem is that if we have a simple market only solution, eventually we just trade money back and forth, and end up victims of countries where technology advances because they fund it.
Another point is that while it is easy to rail against the renewable industry and their presumed abuse of subsidies, you don't see a whole lot of chagrin about the subsidies for Oil and gas.
And to put a rather finer point on it, one of the largest "renewable" subsidies goes to corn based ethanol, which many of us consider not only wasteful, but counter productive.
Check out the numbers, and check out the sources of the numbers.
Or you can just call other people names - that's the exact equivalent and always wins the argument.
Remove any subsidies that coal gets so as not to distort the cost...
Sure, as soon as renewables have their subsidies, grants, and sweetheart government-backed loan guarantees removed.
Wouldn't want to "distort the cost" now, would we?
Strat
O gheesh, the old subsidies argument. Oil and coal don't want to give up their subsidies either. Look it up.
Under Trump coal use will not grow, it just will stop shrinking for a while until renewables get more cost effective. Also coal mining will ramp up again to access cleaner coal, so even the U.S. will be continuing to reduce carbon emissions just as we have been for decades now (unlike many other countries).
Some thoughts.
How is this "stop shrinking for a while" happen? Are we going to force other countries to buy US coal? Force US industries to not use other energy sources? Punish the gas industry somehow by kicking them out of the picture?
The coal jobs that are gone, are gone. Unless we are deploying a communist or fascist (in the true sense) government that is. It will take a communist type planned economy to force them back, one which denies the industry the automation that played a huge part in decimating the employment opportunities of the coal industry. It is pretty impressive to watch a stripmine operation these days. Even moreso when you see them move a mountain with just a few people.
Windpower will decline though because wind power is the most idiotic way to generate power, if you think at all about long term viability.
Give your rationale and your cites, not your yahoo comments level conclusion. You figure the wind is going to go somewhere, reducing the "long term viability of windpower?