First, there's huge areas that are *already* covered with manmade constructions, and which I don't see any reason to believe would be ecologically worse with solar-cells. Such as for example every roof in the world.
Second, the land-area needed is rather modest. There's no need to put it all in one place. (and indeed many reasons not to)
The net-effect of human development actually tends to be a lot *less* shadow. A forest has much *more* shadow than a field, a road or a city.
It was quite some time ago. Today, a solar-cell produces 4-17 times as much energy over its useful lifespan as is spent manufacturing and installing it. That's decent, and the number is climbing steadily. It's time to let that old worn-out argument against solar die.
At a large enough distance, all things are the same. Which removes distinctions which in real life are useful.
For example, the phrase "renewable energy-source" actually has meaning. True, one can claim that *no* energy-source is renewable -- because entropy will always increase, and for example solar-power is nuclear, and infact the sun is going to run out of fuel at some point.
Or you could argue the oposite; that pretty much all energy-sources are renewable; oil coal and gas come from organic matter afterall, so given a long enough time, there's no reason why they shouldn't renew.
But this is just playing word-games. You've told nobody anything new with this. We're talking here and now and on human timescales.
Oil won't renew -- in the next 10, 100 or 1000 years. So for practical purposes it's non-renewable.
The sun won't run out of hydrogen the next 10, 100 or 1000 years, and furthermore it doesn't run out any faster if we install solar-cells. So for all practical purposes, the sun is a constant source of energy.
True, if you had enough solar-power to cover the entire grid, and surplus in addition to that, then producing hydrogen for vehicles would be fine.
Aslong as you're doing less than covering grid-use though, you're better of with a storage-mechanism that wastes less, such as pumping water to a magazine higher up.
You can store substantial amounts of power. If your magazine is 400 meter higher than the powerplant, then each additional cubic-meter of water up there contains 1Kwh. Thus, for example, the Veltdalslake (western Norway) with a size of about 12km^2 and 25 meters of regulation, at 1100m can store on the order of 900 million Kwh -- which counts as a substantial battery in my book.:-)
100% anything is unlikely. A combination of multiple sources of energy will always be required. Luckily, many renewable energy-sources compliment eachother excellently.
Hydropower for example, is a perfect match for wind or solar.
Where wind or solar can only produce when there's wind or sun, have no inherent possibility of storing the energy, and *must* produce (or waste the energy) even if production outstrips demand, hydropower is precisely the oposite:
Production is limited by rainfall, but given a magazine you don't need to produce *when* it's raining, you can store the energy until needed.
You can even use such a powerplant as a giant battery, by using cheap surplus power at off-peak times for actively *pumping* water up to the magazine. (efficiency of storage is on the order of 75%)
So;
Too little power from non-variable sources (nuclear, sun, wind, tide): produce the lacking power by drawing water from your magazines.
Just rigth amount of power from non-variable sources: stop the hydro powerplant.
Too "much" power from non-variable sources: store the enery by using the hydroplant as a pump.
Sure. That's actually another *advantage* of solar.
It's a lot more practical to scatter a large numer of smaller solar-plants around than it is to do the same with nuclear, oil or coal-powered plants.
If you do this, for example, by installing them on the roofs of homes you get 2 extra benefits:
It makes the house less hot. If 40% of the sun is converted to electricity, then that's 40% which is *not* converted to heat. Decreases the demand for AC.
It produces the most power precisely on the days when the demands on the grid is at its peak. (assuming warm/sunny areas) Which, is optimal if your goal is reducing the strain on the grid.
You are *seriously* of the opinion that any family that wants to have children should be under *obligation* to have a minimum of two cars, or else they're guilty of not prioritizing the children enough ?
Here's some news for you: Children do not run on petrol. There are stuff more important to a child than spending the maximum possible time in a car.
For example, we paid extra to live close to childcare, school, work. Which means we have an extra hour every day for spending with the kids, compared to those who live in suburbia half an hours drive from work. It also means the children have more time for play, schoolwork, sports whatever rather than spending the same time strapped-in in a car. If you seriously think the latter is the better choice, then I guess that's your problem.
Education is another example, I consider it much more important than having 2 cars. Oh, and your "USA-is-all-I-know" bias is showing, I live in Norway -- education (all levels) is free. At the most popular universities where there's more applicants than places, who gets in is determined by which student has the best grades, not who has the richest daddy.
So, money ain't what's needed to give my children a good education. Learning is. And guess what, the extra hour every day just *may* be more beneficial for learning than a second car would be, don't you think ?
I think only an American could ever consider that not having *two* cars is indicative of a family which does not prioritize children. If you honestly think "more cars" is what children these days need the most, then I can only pity you.
Today, on my way to work, I walked by a musician playing a rather excellent interpretation of an old Dire Straits song. I didn't compensate him for providing this art in any way, unless you count a smile as compensation. I don't have a bad conscience either.
I also stopped for a moment to enjoy the "meteor" a large copper-coloured artificial meteor that a lokal artist made, and that's been all over the local press lately because of controversies relating to where to put the damn thing. I didn't compensate the creator for my enjoyment of his art.
I also read a newspaper-article online. With Adblocker on. Without feeling in the *least* guilty about it.
Are you suggesting these actions are somehow morally wrong ? Which ethical rule did I break ?
Yes. Short-term setbacks occur, as you say, "all the time".
There's been quite a few of those, and odds are those will continue to occur in the future.
But here's the thing, it's *still* mostly a question of 3 steps forward, 1 backward kind of thing.
USA is more wealthy today than it was 100 years ago *despite* the US economy having tanked several times in those years. There was the severe depression in the 30ies, there where world-war-2, there where the dot-com-bust. And there's some indication you guys may be entering another recession at this very moment. (though the jury is still out on the latter)
Still -- you've progressed a lot more than you've recessed.
The same is true for the world as a whole, only more so, because with a diversified portofolio, during a recession some economies are harder hit than others, so geographic diversification serves to smoothen the dumps.
I certainly see no reason whatsoever for believing that USA, or the world as a whole, will be poorer 20, 50 or 100 years from now than we are today.
Mr. Lombardi, an itallian immigrant, had opened the first pizza shop in New York City in 1905. In 2005 the shop celebrated a century of being in business by selling pies for the original price: $0.05.
That's just inflation. What's the equivalent price today ? $5 ? If so, that means the dollar has had an average of 4.7% inflation over the last century.
So, any "investment" would have to do better than that, or it'd have been a loss. Gold, for example, has *not* done better than that, the value of gold has gone up with aproximately 3.5% pro year in average over the last century. So, holding gold for the last 100 years would've actually netted you a 65% loss.
But the commodity and metal-market is fundamentally not productive.
You buy 100 barrels of oil today, and then at some point in the future you can *sell* 100 barrels of oil. Actually, you can sell sligthly less than 100 barrels of oil, because *storage* of oil is not free.
You could *transport* the oil, which would be productive (if demand was higher on the destination than on the departure), but then you are in the shipping-business and not in the commodity-market.
Over time, nearly all commodities have lost value. A barrel of oil, an ounce of gold, a kilo of silver, a ton of iron, a ton of coal, they're ALL worth significantly less average work-hours today then they where a century ago. Which is a nessecary consequence of increasing wealth.
Short-term, trough a collapse, when wealth is *decreasing* holding commodities will give you a profit. But long-term, where wealth tends to increase, you'll get a loss. (work for a *month* in 1905 and buy gold. Store it up until today. Discover that the value of that gold is today only the equivalent of 1 *week* of work, if that, which is a sucky investment.
In short, investing in something with constant value is only a good idea if you expect people to get, on the average, poorer.
I'd like to spend money so that the family can have a larger house. Currently we've got 3 bedrooms, I can see that getting cramped in a few years when we've got 3 teenagers and 2 adults living in it...
We like to spend money *experiencing* things. We prioritize vacations -- also because my wife is from Germany and we want the children to actually get to know their grandparents -- what a concept !
We like, and prioritze, eating out, concerts, gadgets, activities with the kids, and providing economic security (which for us means among other things paying back our mortgage really a *lot* quicker than we'd have to, who knows when rainy days come?)
We have no use for 2 cars whatsoever. Our *sole* benefit would be saving a bit of petrol -- by taking the smaller car on rides where it's sufficient and reserving the large car for only those occasions where the size is needed. (such as when the entire family comes along)
School is literally 200meters away. (600 feet for you imperialists)
If school *was* far away there'd be a school-bus.
My work is 1km away -- which means 15 minutes on foot, or 4 minutes on bike.
We have no need for 2 cars whatsoever. The only "advantage" would be avoiding driving around with the large car on those occasions where a small car would have sufficed. (which is most of the time)
The last 2 kids are twins. You can't always plan everything out ahead. The *plan* was to have a second kid. Not to have second and third at once.
But then again, that's life for you.
I guess I exxagerated -- I could infact afford 2 cars (or 5), what I meant was that a second car would cost more than it would've been worth to me.
And I also question if 2 cars would be more environmentally friendly than 1 sligthly larger. There's a tendency to drive more when you've got more cars, and there's also the energy and material-consumption associated with producing the car.
I even visited Kønigstein -- with 20% NDP-support or whatever, and had nothing but pleasant experiences. Odd that, they're not supposed to be very "foreigner-friendly". In reality it makes a difference what kind of a foreigner you are I guess. It's my distinct impression that even when the NPD talks about getting rid of the problematic foreigners, they don't mean university-educated Norwegians married to german girls. They'd likely react differently (more negatively) to polish, russian, turkish or african people. The only reaction I ever got to being Norwegian was variants of "What the f**k are you doing in a region with only problems and high unemployment when back in Norway everyone is rich and unemplyment is at 1.9% ?"
Germans have a large "power-distance" that is, they expect and show a lot of respect for authorities, more than I appreciate, I'm more of the school that says authority should *always* be questioned and doubted. But once you get over that, I can honestly say that I didn't have more than 3 negative experiences in more than 4 years of living in one of the socially problematic regions of Germany, and 2 of those where with salesmen which suck everywhere you go anyway. (the third was with east-german bureaucrats)
It gets amusing though, sometimes, the cultural clash. I tend to use "du" for everyone -- bank-director and chefarzt inclusive, atleast unless I make a deliberate effort. On the other hand I don't like people to bow-and-scrape for me either, so when I (for example) taugth Norwegisch for the "Volkshochschule" in Cottbus, I told everyone the first evening that this was a Norwegian-class, so we're going to do it the Norwegian way and I'm gonna be simply "Eivind". Which lead to me getting emails with questions and so on headed with: "Sehr geehrter Herr Eivind !"
You're rigth, there's less and less demand for simple manual labour. Much of it can be done even cheaper by the chinese, or in some cases by machines. (which it requires skills and education to operate) That's nothing new, the proportion of the workforce that is in simple manual labour has been steadily declining for decades. In germany the education-system still hasn't quite catched up to this fact though. It's not *actually* a good idea to go in a "Lehre" as "textilarbeiter" as a 17-year-old from Cottbus today. That is nearly a *guarantee* that you'll be unemployed in the near future.
You're wrong. Plain and simple. There are precisely 2 conditions for membership in Norways (or Swedens, or Denmarks, or Icelands or...) healthcare-programs:
The person is staying legally in the country in question.
The stay is (planned or actual) longer than a year.
That's it. The second point just means tourists and other visitors aren't included. (and need travel-insurance or coverage from their home-country)
Your medical condition plays no role whatsoever. You still need a reason to legally stay in the country (ass immigration is limited here, like in the USA) such reasons could for example be:
You're from the EU and have gotten a job-offer here. (or have other means of financing your stay)
You're married to somebody who lives here.
You're a close relative of somebody who lives here.
You've got needed skills.
You're a fugitive, or the humanitarian situation makes it impossible for you to live back home.
By *none* of these do your health play a role at all -- that is completely a non-topic.
Where I live, Norway, capital-gains (such as those from operating a business with a profit) are taxed with a flat-rate tax at 28%.
This is significantly *less* than you pay if you earn a lot of money working, so infact, the rich pay a significantly *lower* tax-rate than does the poor and middle-class.
Personally, I'd favour an equal tax-rate for equal income -- regardless of the source of income. A person *working* and making $100K/year should, in my opinion, pay exactly the same taxes as a person earning $100K/year off interest or investments or whatever.
The problem was that the wifes health-insurance was also covering spouses with an income under $X. And taking on more independent work would've meant getting above $X, in which case the wifes insurance would no longer cover him, so he'd need his own. Which would cost more than he'd gained.
It's the same by *law* in Germany: You are *always* covered trough your spouse if you earn under 400 (about $550)/month, but earn even a single euro over, and you need your own insurance.
Which means that work in the $550 - $750 bracket basically does not exist -- because there's no incentive to taking it.
It's possible such a situation is rare in USA, and only common in Germany, if so then that means your system is less stupid than the german one on this account.
Because everyone has that choice all of the time....
Listen, the US system is great for the priviledged elite. The rich, well-educated ones that can easily at any time pick-and-choose between employers.
It does however royally suck for an ever-increasing part of your population.
The problematic policy-in-question for my friend was that the wifes employer had a policy of paying for healthcare-insurance for the entire family for workers where the partner earned less than $X, and only half the family if the spouse earned more than $X. The logic being, if both are working, both should have independent health-insurance.
It was just an example. (allthough unless my friends are strange, a fairly common one)
I can do that too. Infact I can go to any doctor or any hospital in all of Norway.
I fail to see, if there's too few doctors/hospitals why it's more fair to give treatment to the richest/best-insured instead of to those with the largest need for treatment, but I guess that depends on if you yourself is rich and/or well-insured.
Besides, this wasn't my point. My point was, your system in many situation *discourages* working. Can you spell "welfare-trap" ? It's stupid to have a system where someone works for say $300 more/month and ends up getting *less*, because this takes away peoples motivation to actually find a job (that kind of job anyway)
There are other ways of discouraging overuse without letting the patient pay the entire procedure.
For example, in Norway, you pay a small part of the treatment yourself (with an upper limit pro year to avoid bankrupting someone who gets a serious disease) if you go to the Emergency-Room, you pay a higher part yourself. It's not really expensive, something like $30 for most people. But enough to discourage going for no reason. (not that I think people would do that anyway, it's not my idea of fun)
Yeah, if you're unable to pay, you still get treated. So by your logic, the welfare-people should be going significantly more often to the doctors (since for them it's "free), same for very rich people (since for them too it's efficiently "free") neither of these two effects show up in reality.
So how about cutting to the chase and tell us the disadvantages of your system,
It's basically ordered by what the government thinks important, as opposed to being ordered by who is most willing to pay.
Which is a disadvantage for you if you're one of those people who are able to and willing to pay for something the government considers unimportant.
Quite possibly your trophy wife won't *get* the breast-implants this week, even though she's willing to pay for it. Aunt Tillie who lives on welfare needs a hip-implant, and the government gives her priority, despite you being able to and willing to pay more.
If you consider that a disadvantage or not is a quesiton of your political leanings.
You know, one of those where it's recognized that decent healthcare for everyone is a good thing.
It's quite silly, the way you do it in USA. It prevents people from acting rationally, to the detriment of all. (it's the same in *parts* of Europe, you guys aren't alone about it.)
For example, a friend of mine (living in the USA) is currently at home (watching his baby) while the mother works. He works a little evenings and earns a little extra for the family, but little enough that he was still health-insured trough his wife.
Then he got offered a larger position. He had to turn it down. It'd have put him above the limit where he'd need his own health-insurance, so in the end he'd have ended up working *more* and getting *less*, which is nonsense.
Everyone is a loser in this scenario:
The family doesn't get the extra income.
The employer doesn't get the extra work done. (atleast not by the person that was his first choice)
The insurance-industry covers both today, paid for by his wifes employer, the two of them wouldn't actually be *more* sick if he worked more.
The state (and thus indirectly all projects that benefit from tax-money) don't get the extra tax-money thay he'd have paid if he worked and earned more.
Stupid. Very stupid.
It should pay to work. Putting someone in a situation where they get *less* for working *more* just serves as an insurance that these people won't, infact, work more.
There's similar mechanisms in welfare-programs too, where you earn $100 more and get $150 less from welfare. The effects are similar. (it'd have been different if you'd earned $100 more and as a consequence gotten $50 less from welfare, that'd have been fine)
Re:stock markets are for screwing 'the masses'
on
Investing in Open Source?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Earthboxes are good (assuming you can sensibly use the output), precious metals are bad.
The reason is simple: Money represent opportunity. Opportunity to do something you couldn't do without. Stuff you do is, on average, productive. (if it wasn't humanity would be better off doing nothing, which is obvioulsy not the case).
Earthboxes produce something. Food. Pretty flowers. Spices. Whatever you want. They *contribute* to the wealth of humanity.
Precious metals sitting in a box or in a safe, however, don't produce anything. A single ounce of gold placed in a safe today will still be a single ounce of gold a decade or a century from now.
A earthbox (or any other productive thing) will in a decade produce stuff worth many times its initial cost.
Precious metals are only a positive investment if you believe humanity in sum will be poorer by the time you need the money than we are now. Not a good bet, honestly.
If you're convinced that we'll see global meltdown, go for it. But honestly, the odds are against the doomsday-scenarios by a very large margin.
Even the biggest crashes and disasters we've experienced (such as the 3oies depression or WW-2) didn't change the general trend. Humanity was better off in 1940 than in 1929 -- despite the depression. And better of in 1960 than in 1940 - despite WW2.
So, if you're convinced the next crash is near (I'm not, but I agree it'll happen), buy stuff of lasting value -- but stuff that is *useful* in the meantime, not stuff that is simply stored in a safe.
Storing gold in a safe is essentially a bet that doing *nothing* productive will give a better return than doing ones best to do something that *is* productive. And that is not a good bet.
Furthermore the amount of gold *grows* over time, more is found and dug out all the time, only small amounts of gold are lost or consumed. Land is a much better option; they don't make any more of that, and it can be *used* without the value sinking. You can *rent* out land, not many are all that interested in *renting* cold. (why would they want to?)
Land has *one* drawback: if you believe in total collapse of government, then the "ownership" of land can be completely worthless, you can't take your land with you if you have to flee the country, for example. (would be tricky with gold too, but atleast you could try) Hiding land is also not really doable.
Because of various fees, you cannot sensibly invest much less than say $1000-$2000 in a single stock. If you want to invest abroad, especially outside of west-europe/north-america the fees tend to be higher, I looked into it, and for me, for example, I found no cost-effective way of investing less than about $5000 in a single south-american stock.
This poses a problem if you want good geographic spread, and don't have a fortune to invest. 5-10 stocks in different sectors tend to be enough to have a high chance of following the index, more or less.
Buying 5-10 different stocks from Norway is trivial. It's easy, and the fees are low. Total cost $10K - $15K (on the norwegian stock-exchange stock is sold in "lots" that each cost $1k-$2k, smaller investments are possible, but it costs extra and is not cost-effective)
So far fine. But then let's say I'd want to diversify into western europe. I could get another 5-10 stocks from say Germany, UK and Russia. Here trouble starts. Russia is not easily accessible in a cost-effective way for small sums. Germany and UK is, but the fixed-fees are higher than for Norway. I'm figuring, I'd need $50K or more to reasonably cover Europe, even then it'd have to be "pick 2-3 stock-exchanges, ignore the rest"
So, I use mutual funds for covering those areas and exchanges where I'm not heavily enough invested that *can* spread alone.
For me, this means Norway:stock. Nordic-countries:stock. Germany,UK:Stock. USA:Stock. All other parts of the world:funds. I go for index-funds with low provisions, I'm not *interested* in paying for the crack-consumption of some "I can beat the market" whiz-broker that, in the end, on the average, doesn't end up beating the market. Good spread. Low fees. Those are my *only* 2 criteria.
I generally buy-and-hold. I'd only drop a stock either if I needed the money (did drop some when buying a house this summer) OR when the company does something terminally stupid that I either can judge better than the market, or that makes it impossible ethically for me to hold the company. I shorted SCO at $18, for example, which is speculaction, which I normally don't do. However, in this particular case I was 100% convinced that they where full of crap and suing IBM would lead to bankruptcy. I cached in when they passed $5 on the way down, today they're at $2 (but the short would've expired anyway)
My time-horizon is long. It's unlikely I'm gonna need the cash before the kids need to get established and/or I don't feel like working anymore. This means 20-30 year horizon. I don't *care* what the stock did this week. I care how it's gonna do this *decade*.
Slashdot Mirror
First, there's huge areas that are *already* covered with manmade constructions, and which I don't see any reason to believe would be ecologically worse with solar-cells. Such as for example every roof in the world.
Second, the land-area needed is rather modest. There's no need to put it all in one place. (and indeed many reasons not to)
The net-effect of human development actually tends to be a lot *less* shadow. A forest has much *more* shadow than a field, a road or a city.
It was quite some time ago. Today, a solar-cell produces 4-17 times as much energy over its useful lifespan as is spent manufacturing and installing it. That's decent, and the number is climbing steadily. It's time to let that old worn-out argument against solar die.
At a large enough distance, all things are the same. Which removes distinctions which in real life are useful.
For example, the phrase "renewable energy-source" actually has meaning. True, one can claim that *no* energy-source is renewable -- because entropy will always increase, and for example solar-power is nuclear, and infact the sun is going to run out of fuel at some point.
Or you could argue the oposite; that pretty much all energy-sources are renewable; oil coal and gas come from organic matter afterall, so given a long enough time, there's no reason why they shouldn't renew.
But this is just playing word-games. You've told nobody anything new with this. We're talking here and now and on human timescales.
Oil won't renew -- in the next 10, 100 or 1000 years. So for practical purposes it's non-renewable.
The sun won't run out of hydrogen the next 10, 100 or 1000 years, and furthermore it doesn't run out any faster if we install solar-cells. So for all practical purposes, the sun is a constant source of energy.
Aslong as you're doing less than covering grid-use though, you're better of with a storage-mechanism that wastes less, such as pumping water to a magazine higher up.
You can store substantial amounts of power. If your magazine is 400 meter higher than the powerplant, then each additional cubic-meter of water up there contains 1Kwh. Thus, for example, the Veltdalslake (western Norway) with a size of about 12km^2 and 25 meters of regulation, at 1100m can store on the order of 900 million Kwh -- which counts as a substantial battery in my book. :-)
Hydropower for example, is a perfect match for wind or solar.
Where wind or solar can only produce when there's wind or sun, have no inherent possibility of storing the energy, and *must* produce (or waste the energy) even if production outstrips demand, hydropower is precisely the oposite:
So;
It's a lot more practical to scatter a large numer of smaller solar-plants around than it is to do the same with nuclear, oil or coal-powered plants.
If you do this, for example, by installing them on the roofs of homes you get 2 extra benefits:
You are *seriously* of the opinion that any family that wants to have children should be under *obligation* to have a minimum of two cars, or else they're guilty of not prioritizing the children enough ?
Here's some news for you: Children do not run on petrol. There are stuff more important to a child than spending the maximum possible time in a car.
For example, we paid extra to live close to childcare, school, work. Which means we have an extra hour every day for spending with the kids, compared to those who live in suburbia half an hours drive from work. It also means the children have more time for play, schoolwork, sports whatever rather than spending the same time strapped-in in a car. If you seriously think the latter is the better choice, then I guess that's your problem.
Education is another example, I consider it much more important than having 2 cars. Oh, and your "USA-is-all-I-know" bias is showing, I live in Norway -- education (all levels) is free. At the most popular universities where there's more applicants than places, who gets in is determined by which student has the best grades, not who has the richest daddy.
So, money ain't what's needed to give my children a good education. Learning is. And guess what, the extra hour every day just *may* be more beneficial for learning than a second car would be, don't you think ?
I think only an American could ever consider that not having *two* cars is indicative of a family which does not prioritize children. If you honestly think "more cars" is what children these days need the most, then I can only pity you.
Today, on my way to work, I walked by a musician playing a rather excellent interpretation of an old Dire Straits song. I didn't compensate him for providing this art in any way, unless you count a smile as compensation. I don't have a bad conscience either.
I also stopped for a moment to enjoy the "meteor" a large copper-coloured artificial meteor that a lokal artist made, and that's been all over the local press lately because of controversies relating to where to put the damn thing. I didn't compensate the creator for my enjoyment of his art.
I also read a newspaper-article online. With Adblocker on. Without feeling in the *least* guilty about it.
Are you suggesting these actions are somehow morally wrong ? Which ethical rule did I break ?
There's been quite a few of those, and odds are those will continue to occur in the future.
But here's the thing, it's *still* mostly a question of 3 steps forward, 1 backward kind of thing.
USA is more wealthy today than it was 100 years ago *despite* the US economy having tanked several times in those years. There was the severe depression in the 30ies, there where world-war-2, there where the dot-com-bust. And there's some indication you guys may be entering another recession at this very moment. (though the jury is still out on the latter)
Still -- you've progressed a lot more than you've recessed.
The same is true for the world as a whole, only more so, because with a diversified portofolio, during a recession some economies are harder hit than others, so geographic diversification serves to smoothen the dumps.
I certainly see no reason whatsoever for believing that USA, or the world as a whole, will be poorer 20, 50 or 100 years from now than we are today.
That's just inflation. What's the equivalent price today ? $5 ? If so, that means the dollar has had an average of 4.7% inflation over the last century.
So, any "investment" would have to do better than that, or it'd have been a loss. Gold, for example, has *not* done better than that, the value of gold has gone up with aproximately 3.5% pro year in average over the last century. So, holding gold for the last 100 years would've actually netted you a 65% loss.
You buy 100 barrels of oil today, and then at some point in the future you can *sell* 100 barrels of oil. Actually, you can sell sligthly less than 100 barrels of oil, because *storage* of oil is not free.
You could *transport* the oil, which would be productive (if demand was higher on the destination than on the departure), but then you are in the shipping-business and not in the commodity-market.
Over time, nearly all commodities have lost value. A barrel of oil, an ounce of gold, a kilo of silver, a ton of iron, a ton of coal, they're ALL worth significantly less average work-hours today then they where a century ago. Which is a nessecary consequence of increasing wealth.
Short-term, trough a collapse, when wealth is *decreasing* holding commodities will give you a profit. But long-term, where wealth tends to increase, you'll get a loss. (work for a *month* in 1905 and buy gold. Store it up until today. Discover that the value of that gold is today only the equivalent of 1 *week* of work, if that, which is a sucky investment.
In short, investing in something with constant value is only a good idea if you expect people to get, on the average, poorer.
I'd like to spend money so that the family can have a larger house. Currently we've got 3 bedrooms, I can see that getting cramped in a few years when we've got 3 teenagers and 2 adults living in it...
We like to spend money *experiencing* things. We prioritize vacations -- also because my wife is from Germany and we want the children to actually get to know their grandparents -- what a concept !
We like, and prioritze, eating out, concerts, gadgets, activities with the kids, and providing economic security (which for us means among other things paying back our mortgage really a *lot* quicker than we'd have to, who knows when rainy days come?)
We have no use for 2 cars whatsoever. Our *sole* benefit would be saving a bit of petrol -- by taking the smaller car on rides where it's sufficient and reserving the large car for only those occasions where the size is needed. (such as when the entire family comes along)
If school *was* far away there'd be a school-bus.
My work is 1km away -- which means 15 minutes on foot, or 4 minutes on bike.
We have no need for 2 cars whatsoever. The only "advantage" would be avoiding driving around with the large car on those occasions where a small car would have sufficed. (which is most of the time)
But then again, that's life for you.
I guess I exxagerated -- I could infact afford 2 cars (or 5), what I meant was that a second car would cost more than it would've been worth to me.
And I also question if 2 cars would be more environmentally friendly than 1 sligthly larger. There's a tendency to drive more when you've got more cars, and there's also the energy and material-consumption associated with producing the car.
I even visited Kønigstein -- with 20% NDP-support or whatever, and had nothing but pleasant experiences. Odd that, they're not supposed to be very "foreigner-friendly". In reality it makes a difference what kind of a foreigner you are I guess. It's my distinct impression that even when the NPD talks about getting rid of the problematic foreigners, they don't mean university-educated Norwegians married to german girls. They'd likely react differently (more negatively) to polish, russian, turkish or african people. The only reaction I ever got to being Norwegian was variants of "What the f**k are you doing in a region with only problems and high unemployment when back in Norway everyone is rich and unemplyment is at 1.9% ?"
Germans have a large "power-distance" that is, they expect and show a lot of respect for authorities, more than I appreciate, I'm more of the school that says authority should *always* be questioned and doubted. But once you get over that, I can honestly say that I didn't have more than 3 negative experiences in more than 4 years of living in one of the socially problematic regions of Germany, and 2 of those where with salesmen which suck everywhere you go anyway. (the third was with east-german bureaucrats)
It gets amusing though, sometimes, the cultural clash. I tend to use "du" for everyone -- bank-director and chefarzt inclusive, atleast unless I make a deliberate effort. On the other hand I don't like people to bow-and-scrape for me either, so when I (for example) taugth Norwegisch for the "Volkshochschule" in Cottbus, I told everyone the first evening that this was a Norwegian-class, so we're going to do it the Norwegian way and I'm gonna be simply "Eivind". Which lead to me getting emails with questions and so on headed with: "Sehr geehrter Herr Eivind !"
You're rigth, there's less and less demand for simple manual labour. Much of it can be done even cheaper by the chinese, or in some cases by machines. (which it requires skills and education to operate) That's nothing new, the proportion of the workforce that is in simple manual labour has been steadily declining for decades. In germany the education-system still hasn't quite catched up to this fact though. It's not *actually* a good idea to go in a "Lehre" as "textilarbeiter" as a 17-year-old from Cottbus today. That is nearly a *guarantee* that you'll be unemployed in the near future.
You're wrong. Plain and simple. There are precisely 2 conditions for membership in Norways (or Swedens, or Denmarks, or Icelands or...) healthcare-programs:
That's it. The second point just means tourists and other visitors aren't included. (and need travel-insurance or coverage from their home-country)
Your medical condition plays no role whatsoever. You still need a reason to legally stay in the country (ass immigration is limited here, like in the USA) such reasons could for example be:
By *none* of these do your health play a role at all -- that is completely a non-topic.
Where I live, Norway, capital-gains (such as those from operating a business with a profit) are taxed with a flat-rate tax at 28%.
This is significantly *less* than you pay if you earn a lot of money working, so infact, the rich pay a significantly *lower* tax-rate than does the poor and middle-class.
Personally, I'd favour an equal tax-rate for equal income -- regardless of the source of income. A person *working* and making $100K/year should, in my opinion, pay exactly the same taxes as a person earning $100K/year off interest or investments or whatever.
The problem was that the wifes health-insurance was also covering spouses with an income under $X. And taking on more independent work would've meant getting above $X, in which case the wifes insurance would no longer cover him, so he'd need his own. Which would cost more than he'd gained.
It's the same by *law* in Germany: You are *always* covered trough your spouse if you earn under 400 (about $550)/month, but earn even a single euro over, and you need your own insurance.
Which means that work in the $550 - $750 bracket basically does not exist -- because there's no incentive to taking it.
It's possible such a situation is rare in USA, and only common in Germany, if so then that means your system is less stupid than the german one on this account.
Listen, the US system is great for the priviledged elite. The rich, well-educated ones that can easily at any time pick-and-choose between employers.
It does however royally suck for an ever-increasing part of your population.
The problematic policy-in-question for my friend was that the wifes employer had a policy of paying for healthcare-insurance for the entire family for workers where the partner earned less than $X, and only half the family if the spouse earned more than $X. The logic being, if both are working, both should have independent health-insurance.
It was just an example. (allthough unless my friends are strange, a fairly common one)
I fail to see, if there's too few doctors/hospitals why it's more fair to give treatment to the richest/best-insured instead of to those with the largest need for treatment, but I guess that depends on if you yourself is rich and/or well-insured.
Besides, this wasn't my point. My point was, your system in many situation *discourages* working. Can you spell "welfare-trap" ? It's stupid to have a system where someone works for say $300 more/month and ends up getting *less*, because this takes away peoples motivation to actually find a job (that kind of job anyway)
There are other ways of discouraging overuse without letting the patient pay the entire procedure.
For example, in Norway, you pay a small part of the treatment yourself (with an upper limit pro year to avoid bankrupting someone who gets a serious disease) if you go to the Emergency-Room, you pay a higher part yourself. It's not really expensive, something like $30 for most people. But enough to discourage going for no reason. (not that I think people would do that anyway, it's not my idea of fun)
Yeah, if you're unable to pay, you still get treated. So by your logic, the welfare-people should be going significantly more often to the doctors (since for them it's "free), same for very rich people (since for them too it's efficiently "free") neither of these two effects show up in reality.
It's basically ordered by what the government thinks important, as opposed to being ordered by who is most willing to pay.
Which is a disadvantage for you if you're one of those people who are able to and willing to pay for something the government considers unimportant.
Quite possibly your trophy wife won't *get* the breast-implants this week, even though she's willing to pay for it. Aunt Tillie who lives on welfare needs a hip-implant, and the government gives her priority, despite you being able to and willing to pay more.
If you consider that a disadvantage or not is a quesiton of your political leanings.
You know, one of those where it's recognized that decent healthcare for everyone is a good thing.
It's quite silly, the way you do it in USA. It prevents people from acting rationally, to the detriment of all. (it's the same in *parts* of Europe, you guys aren't alone about it.)
For example, a friend of mine (living in the USA) is currently at home (watching his baby) while the mother works. He works a little evenings and earns a little extra for the family, but little enough that he was still health-insured trough his wife.
Then he got offered a larger position. He had to turn it down. It'd have put him above the limit where he'd need his own health-insurance, so in the end he'd have ended up working *more* and getting *less*, which is nonsense.
Everyone is a loser in this scenario:
Stupid. Very stupid.
It should pay to work. Putting someone in a situation where they get *less* for working *more* just serves as an insurance that these people won't, infact, work more.
There's similar mechanisms in welfare-programs too, where you earn $100 more and get $150 less from welfare. The effects are similar. (it'd have been different if you'd earned $100 more and as a consequence gotten $50 less from welfare, that'd have been fine)
The reason is simple: Money represent opportunity. Opportunity to do something you couldn't do without. Stuff you do is, on average, productive. (if it wasn't humanity would be better off doing nothing, which is obvioulsy not the case).
Earthboxes produce something. Food. Pretty flowers. Spices. Whatever you want. They *contribute* to the wealth of humanity.
Precious metals sitting in a box or in a safe, however, don't produce anything. A single ounce of gold placed in a safe today will still be a single ounce of gold a decade or a century from now.
A earthbox (or any other productive thing) will in a decade produce stuff worth many times its initial cost.
Precious metals are only a positive investment if you believe humanity in sum will be poorer by the time you need the money than we are now. Not a good bet, honestly.
If you're convinced that we'll see global meltdown, go for it. But honestly, the odds are against the doomsday-scenarios by a very large margin.
Even the biggest crashes and disasters we've experienced (such as the 3oies depression or WW-2) didn't change the general trend. Humanity was better off in 1940 than in 1929 -- despite the depression. And better of in 1960 than in 1940 - despite WW2.
So, if you're convinced the next crash is near (I'm not, but I agree it'll happen), buy stuff of lasting value -- but stuff that is *useful* in the meantime, not stuff that is simply stored in a safe.
Storing gold in a safe is essentially a bet that doing *nothing* productive will give a better return than doing ones best to do something that *is* productive. And that is not a good bet.
Furthermore the amount of gold *grows* over time, more is found and dug out all the time, only small amounts of gold are lost or consumed. Land is a much better option; they don't make any more of that, and it can be *used* without the value sinking. You can *rent* out land, not many are all that interested in *renting* cold. (why would they want to?)
Land has *one* drawback: if you believe in total collapse of government, then the "ownership" of land can be completely worthless, you can't take your land with you if you have to flee the country, for example. (would be tricky with gold too, but atleast you could try) Hiding land is also not really doable.
Because of various fees, you cannot sensibly invest much less than say $1000-$2000 in a single stock. If you want to invest abroad, especially outside of west-europe/north-america the fees tend to be higher, I looked into it, and for me, for example, I found no cost-effective way of investing less than about $5000 in a single south-american stock.
This poses a problem if you want good geographic spread, and don't have a fortune to invest. 5-10 stocks in different sectors tend to be enough to have a high chance of following the index, more or less.
Buying 5-10 different stocks from Norway is trivial. It's easy, and the fees are low. Total cost $10K - $15K (on the norwegian stock-exchange stock is sold in "lots" that each cost $1k-$2k, smaller investments are possible, but it costs extra and is not cost-effective)
So far fine. But then let's say I'd want to diversify into western europe. I could get another 5-10 stocks from say Germany, UK and Russia. Here trouble starts. Russia is not easily accessible in a cost-effective way for small sums. Germany and UK is, but the fixed-fees are higher than for Norway. I'm figuring, I'd need $50K or more to reasonably cover Europe, even then it'd have to be "pick 2-3 stock-exchanges, ignore the rest"
So, I use mutual funds for covering those areas and exchanges where I'm not heavily enough invested that *can* spread alone.
For me, this means Norway:stock. Nordic-countries:stock. Germany,UK:Stock. USA:Stock. All other parts of the world:funds. I go for index-funds with low provisions, I'm not *interested* in paying for the crack-consumption of some "I can beat the market" whiz-broker that, in the end, on the average, doesn't end up beating the market. Good spread. Low fees. Those are my *only* 2 criteria.
I generally buy-and-hold. I'd only drop a stock either if I needed the money (did drop some when buying a house this summer) OR when the company does something terminally stupid that I either can judge better than the market, or that makes it impossible ethically for me to hold the company. I shorted SCO at $18, for example, which is speculaction, which I normally don't do. However, in this particular case I was 100% convinced that they where full of crap and suing IBM would lead to bankruptcy. I cached in when they passed $5 on the way down, today they're at $2 (but the short would've expired anyway)
My time-horizon is long. It's unlikely I'm gonna need the cash before the kids need to get established and/or I don't feel like working anymore. This means 20-30 year horizon. I don't *care* what the stock did this week. I care how it's gonna do this *decade*.