Global warming is not frivolous crap. Many other countries around the world are retiring their coal plants, including even China, which until recently had been expanding their installed base.
I do get what you are saying, which is exactly what my post addresses. The lobbyist is saying that even without Obama's actions, coal would be suffering greatly.
Look this is from a mining industry lobying group, i.e. procoal:
Older coal power plants are being retired due to the high cost of meeting environmental regulations being trumpeted by the Obama Administration. But according to McGrath, the Administration's climate change plan bears less blame for coal's demise than economics.
âoeThe Clean Power Plan hasnâ(TM)t even hit [utilities] yet,â McGrath was quoted saying. âoeGas is just dirt cheap, itâ(TM)s that simple. Itâ(TM)s probably unprecedented to see, on a Btu (British thermal unit) basis, to see gas undercut coal. Gas has been taking coalâ(TM)s share away for a while.â
So even the miners agree it has nothing to do with Obama.
Let's face it, you've been fed a lie by republicans and they are using you as a cheap ho to flog it. It's in your power to stop this.
And I'm likewise amazed that after all these years, this is still the case. Heck, most houses don't even have thermopane windows with vacuum or noble gases. Many don't even have double glass windows. Flag as Inappropriate
About ten years back I looked into this. I wanted to buy standard, minimum specifications european windows. Turns out they are available in America, but as special order, since they are way better than what you can pick up at Home Depot off the shelf.
If you are to compare to past performance you must compare like to like. The previous similar event we had was the great recession and we are doing way better than that.
I don't expect you to acknowledge this. It takes a very special type of person to say, gee come to think about it, yeah, about the economy I wasn't right, he's done ok there.
A really important point about economic policy here is that there would a recovery from the recent recession anyway, even if Obama had done nothing. You have to realize that economies naturally fall into recessions and naturally recover from them in turn. The real matter is whether Obama helped or hindered.
Which is why I compared his performance with those of other economies. Really any way you look at it, his economic record is not the problem. Of course I don't expect partisan hacks to admit to this, but the facts speak for themselves. There might have been a lot of problems with Obama's performance, but the economy is not on of them.
p.s. most of the coal plant problems are due to cheap gas. seriously look it up.
I might not agree with the rest of what you said, but at least one ca subjectively argue about it. economics on the other hand has numbers behind it and the USA has objectively don great, be it in terms of economic GDP growth, employment expansion, deficit reduction and as compared to most other developed nations.
Have a look at low governance places, past or present. Say the Middle Ages after the collapse of the Roman empire or any present small government country, usually known as the third world, and compare them to large government countries usually known as the first world.
Libertarians show neither reason nor facts. There isn't a single place in the world where libertarianism is working.
The law of diminishing marginal returns says that the first few costumers (or in this case investors) assign a much higher value to the first batch of product than subsequent ones, both individually and as a group. Say the first batch of customers for an antibiotic are fighting life threatening infections and hence they value the drug at a $40 a pill. The next batch of customers is simply fighting and ear infection and thus assign a value of $1 a pill.
Ditto with shares in the company. The first batch of investors are gong-ho on the business proposition, so they readily pay $50 million for 5%. But if you were to go public the next 5% batch of shares would go for say $45 million and the next one after that for $40 million. The last batch would sell for as little as $10 million for a total valuation of around $500 million.
How, exactly, is that different from the the last century? Come to think of it, when exactly did scientists make more than non-scientist celebrities?
Actually, The Economist had an article on this, and while professionals and academics never matched celebrities in salary, they used to have guaranteed paths into the middle class back when this was 15% of the population. Today they still have a guaranteed path into the middle class... which is over 50% of the population. The article pointed out that to keep up with similar professional rankings a top professor should be earning upwards of $1.1 million a year. Presently top professors (outside economics and medicine) make about a third of that.
The seeds go farther back indeed, e.g. Truthiness or Reagan's and Bush Jr. snafus, but Sarah Palin was the first time the culture so openly embraced ignorance in a candidate.
The epitome today is Trump declaring he loves ignorant people (he called the uneducated). Vive l'ignorance!
Not everything is working out at Dropbox, popular cloud storage and sharing service, last valued at $10 billion.
Nope, and I quote "T. Rowe Price marked down its holdings in Dropbox by 51% in the fourth quarter of 2015". This places a valuation of $4.9 billion, down from $10 billion. Fidelity and Black Rock had similar mark downs for their holdings of Dropbox.
This has become a trend in American life: the culture of stupid.
Started with Sarah Palin, who couldn't even name a newspaper she read and people readily accepted that, and it carries on today, with Trump spouting platitudes and messages of hate (many self-contradictory) that wouldn't stand a few seconds of rational though. But he says them with the right anger tone and that's all it matters.
Next time it will be us geeks&nerds being detained because we are editing some code on our laptops.
A lot of manufacturing is not aided at all by 3D printing..... 3D printing is useful in our industry for some fixtures, prototypes and the odd bit of tooling but it's a wildly inefficient way to make... any sizeable quantity of the parts.
Exactly, mass producing is so much more efficient that 3D printing is mostly bound to one offs, which are, by volume, somewhere between 0.01 and 0.001% of manufactured parts.
By value, one offs tend to be a bit higher, so we are talking about a ceiling of around 1% in dollar value.
Like her husband, she can't seem to do anything without breaking some type of law.
Except that in 25 years of accusations not one has stuck. At some point a rational person has to start wondering if there is anything there there. Or you can continue parroting partisan talking points that as I said, haven't panned out in 25 years.
Slashdot Mirror
Global warming is not frivolous crap. Many other countries around the world are retiring their coal plants, including even China, which until recently had been expanding their installed base.
I do get what you are saying, which is exactly what my post addresses. The lobbyist is saying that even without Obama's actions, coal would be suffering greatly.
Look this is from a mining industry lobying group, i.e. procoal:
Older coal power plants are being retired due to the high cost of meeting environmental regulations being trumpeted by the Obama Administration. But according to McGrath, the Administration's climate change plan bears less blame for coal's demise than economics.
âoeThe Clean Power Plan hasnâ(TM)t even hit [utilities] yet,â McGrath was quoted saying. âoeGas is just dirt cheap, itâ(TM)s that simple. Itâ(TM)s probably unprecedented to see, on a Btu (British thermal unit) basis, to see gas undercut coal. Gas has been taking coalâ(TM)s share away for a while.â
So even the miners agree it has nothing to do with Obama.
Let's face it, you've been fed a lie by republicans and they are using you as a cheap ho to flog it. It's in your power to stop this.
You still miss how natural gas has been made cheaper than coal.
Fracking. Next question?
And I'm likewise amazed that after all these years, this is still the case. Heck, most houses don't even have thermopane windows with vacuum or noble gases. Many don't even have double glass windows.
Flag as Inappropriate
About ten years back I looked into this. I wanted to buy standard, minimum specifications european windows. Turns out they are available in America, but as special order, since they are way better than what you can pick up at Home Depot off the shelf.
If you are to compare to past performance you must compare like to like. The previous similar event we had was the great recession and we are doing way better than that.
I don't expect you to acknowledge this. It takes a very special type of person to say, gee come to think about it, yeah, about the economy I wasn't right, he's done ok there.
A really important point about economic policy here is that there would a recovery from the recent recession anyway, even if Obama had done nothing. You have to realize that economies naturally fall into recessions and naturally recover from them in turn. The real matter is whether Obama helped or hindered.
Which is why I compared his performance with those of other economies. Really any way you look at it, his economic record is not the problem. Of course I don't expect partisan hacks to admit to this, but the facts speak for themselves. There might have been a lot of problems with Obama's performance, but the economy is not on of them.
p.s. most of the coal plant problems are due to cheap gas. seriously look it up.
terrible economic policy,
Sorry, but you lost there.
I might not agree with the rest of what you said, but at least one ca subjectively argue about it. economics on the other hand has numbers behind it and the USA has objectively don great, be it in terms of economic GDP growth, employment expansion, deficit reduction and as compared to most other developed nations.
That is, if you care about the facts.
Have a look at low governance places, past or present. Say the Middle Ages after the collapse of the Roman empire or any present small government country, usually known as the third world, and compare them to large government countries usually known as the first world.
Libertarians show neither reason nor facts. There isn't a single place in the world where libertarianism is working.
You never heard of a downround kid? Look it up. They are fairly common nowadays, particularly with unicorns.
More importantly I was talking about if all the shares were to b made available at once.
The law of diminishing marginal returns says that the first few costumers (or in this case investors) assign a much higher value to the first batch of product than subsequent ones, both individually and as a group. Say the first batch of customers for an antibiotic are fighting life threatening infections and hence they value the drug at a $40 a pill. The next batch of customers is simply fighting and ear infection and thus assign a value of $1 a pill.
Ditto with shares in the company. The first batch of investors are gong-ho on the business proposition, so they readily pay $50 million for 5%. But if you were to go public the next 5% batch of shares would go for say $45 million and the next one after that for $40 million. The last batch would sell for as little as $10 million for a total valuation of around $500 million.
How, exactly, is that different from the the last century? Come to think of it, when exactly did scientists make more than non-scientist celebrities?
Actually, The Economist had an article on this, and while professionals and academics never matched celebrities in salary, they used to have guaranteed paths into the middle class back when this was 15% of the population. Today they still have a guaranteed path into the middle class... which is over 50% of the population. The article pointed out that to keep up with similar professional rankings a top professor should be earning upwards of $1.1 million a year. Presently top professors (outside economics and medicine) make about a third of that.
The seeds go farther back indeed, e.g. Truthiness or Reagan's and Bush Jr. snafus, but Sarah Palin was the first time the culture so openly embraced ignorance in a candidate.
The epitome today is Trump declaring he loves ignorant people (he called the uneducated). Vive l'ignorance!
Not everything is working out at Dropbox, popular cloud storage and sharing service, last valued at $10 billion.
Nope, and I quote "T. Rowe Price marked down its holdings in Dropbox by 51% in the fourth quarter of 2015". This places a valuation of $4.9 billion, down from $10 billion. Fidelity and Black Rock had similar mark downs for their holdings of Dropbox.
"Asking immigrants their religion" News flash, that is already the law
That's not what he said. He said denying entry to all muslims.
And no, nowhere in the law it says that Mexico has to pay for a wall.
So you are wrong in two counts. I.e. you are also ignorant of what exactly he said, which is exactly my point. Ignorance has become a trend.
This has become a trend in American life: the culture of stupid.
Started with Sarah Palin, who couldn't even name a newspaper she read and people readily accepted that, and it carries on today, with Trump spouting platitudes and messages of hate (many self-contradictory) that wouldn't stand a few seconds of rational though. But he says them with the right anger tone and that's all it matters.
Next time it will be us geeks&nerds being detained because we are editing some code on our laptops.
Say no to hate, say no to ignorance.
A lot of manufacturing is not aided at all by 3D printing. .... 3D printing is useful in our industry for some fixtures, prototypes and the odd bit of tooling but it's a wildly inefficient way to make ... any sizeable quantity of the parts.
Exactly, mass producing is so much more efficient that 3D printing is mostly bound to one offs, which are, by volume, somewhere between 0.01 and 0.001% of manufactured parts.
By value, one offs tend to be a bit higher, so we are talking about a ceiling of around 1% in dollar value.
And God help you, if you are female or a minority, you are even more golden.
I call BS. Women in government are close to 50%. It would be hard to prove gender discrimination in those cases.
Not for managers or highly specialized workers such as these. Not by a mile.
She didn't serve a full term as a senator
False, she was elected in 2000 and reelected in 2006.
You are confusing Hillary with Sarah Palin, who didn't serve a full term as governor, which is why you refused to vote for Palin, right?
Unless there is some political agent trying to pin accusations on you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Even Kenneth Starr determined it was a suicide. So all your "shot in the back of the head" theory is goobledy gook.
Either that or there is a politically motivated group who is out to get you.
Like her husband, she can't seem to do anything without breaking some type of law.
Except that in 25 years of accusations not one has stuck. At some point a rational person has to start wondering if there is anything there there. Or you can continue parroting partisan talking points that as I said, haven't panned out in 25 years.
Actually Obama has issued the lowest number of executive orders per year of office since William McKinley in 1901.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...