Which part of I grew up and spent half my life in Europe did you find too hard to understand?
I didn't previously spot that.
Your problem is the same problem of most Europeans: you have been so indoctrinated from birth that you don't even know what liberalism is.
No, I am an independent thinker, not indoctrinated. Although I expect you will tell me that I am too indoctrinated to know that I am indoctrinated. How do you know (or have the arrogance to believe) that you are not indoctrinated?
You are so confused that you actually think that the "New Liberalism" of the UK or the "ordoliberalism" of Germany are liberal political ideologies
I am not sure what this 'new liberalism' is, as I am referring to the old and continuing liberalism.
And even if these parties were actually "liberal", they have become less and less important relative to conservatives and socialists.
Who said anything about the liberal tradition being tied to current parties?
The question isn't whether I have lived in Europe (far too long, sadly), the real question is whether you have ever managed to get over your European arrogance and ignorance and looked beyond the border of your decaying continent.
Therefore your statement that "European nations have largely the same ability to "print money" as the USA." is bullshit, since by your own description, most European nations do not, in fact, have that ability, nor do they have the freedom to borrow like the US does.
You didn't specify the ability to indivdually do so
Working for the good of humanity isn't going to get you tenure or a directorship.
Yet I know a number of people whose main drive is that, and who have achieved what you say they cannot. You have a particularly narrow view of motivations.
Maybe it is something that is not entirely money related (mental illness, being able to pass the marshmallow test, substance abuse, education for example).
In the case of the people I referenced, education would be the only potential issue, but mostly just not having money was the issue.
No. It's not relevant to your argument, though. The Greek crisis was about controlling the debt of one small part of the EU, not the ability of the ECB to support overall reflationary policies, which it did.
No, European nations cannot print money because the Euro is outside their control.
For one thing, several European nations, even within the EU, do not use the Euro, and it is the central bank, the ECB, which can create additional liquidity in Euros, and EU nations have an influence over it. It's much the same as indivdual states in the USA and the Federal Reserve.
"lots of researchers fool themselves and others into believing that they work for the good of humanity, but in reality, they are largely selfish".
Ah, so if they believe it they are fools? That sounds akin to a True Scotsman fallacy. Certainly, it seems to be an assertion on your part, not one that seems to match my personal experience. This is not to say that researchers are purely altruistic, but many are aware that they could make more money working for a bank, but most do not do this. I know only a couple that have done so, and this is despite knowing some really quite brilliant people with excellent mathematical modelling and statistical skills who are outstanding in their fields.
You are saying that there are some states in the USA which are mostly left wing? Can you enumerate them
What is different about the US is that it has a strong liberal center that keeps the leftists and the theocrats in check, something is pretty much entirely missing in Europe.
Europe is overall centrist, (mostly centre right, with the occasional centre-left government, e.g under Hollande). There is pretty much no tendency to theocracy, so to its strong social democratic tendency, and liberalism. The element that does seem to be rising is the harder right. You don't seem to know much about European politics
Plenty of poor people do, but they still are not buying them.
Poor people often have issues with paying bills and have one or more utilities cut off at any given time. If you have electricity, water, and natural gas, then natural gas is the one people tend to give up on first, as you can still heat things in a cheap (or even thrown away) microwave. It's hard to cook turnips into anything you'd want to eat in a microwave.
In terms of storage of soybeans, it's difficult in poor housing with infestations, or damp and mould, to store them.
These are real problems that I have gleaned from people I know who lived poor in the USA. It doesn't affect all people who are poor, but certainly the poorest.
I know a number of people that have been poor in the USA, and cost of fresh food is indeed an issue when some people struggle to just have enough calories on $2 a day, which is not a figure I made up. In that context, whilst buying lettuce is possible, long term you would starve. This reduces demand for veg. Not all poor people have cooking facilities for turnips, or capital, transport and safe storage for those soybeans.
Estimates can be poor, even with unchanging requirements, as the requirements may not be understood, effort required not understood, or something just turns out to be more difficult.
I live in a country with socialised medicine and, contrary to your assertion, government tries to control costs. Costs tend to rise because people are getting older, on average, and vote for it.
Your view of the motivations of researchers is also bizzarely one dimensional.
That assumes that the interests of all rural states are the same, that rural states are less populous, and that states are either rural, or not. The USA has small non-rural states, and no state that is entirely rural. California is, for example, one of the larger argricultural producers, as well as having large urban areas. I'm not saying it is a bad system, but that your example is poor.
It's unlikely that enough forests could be planted, year-on-year, to make enough difference, or without running out of space in a couple of decades. So massive move towards renewables would have to be concurrent
Slashdot Mirror
No, you know a number of people who say that that is their motivation; it's good for the career. Some of them may even believe it.
Who are you to suppose you know everyone's motivation?
Which part of I grew up and spent half my life in Europe did you find too hard to understand?
I didn't previously spot that.
Your problem is the same problem of most Europeans: you have been so indoctrinated from birth that you don't even know what liberalism is.
No, I am an independent thinker, not indoctrinated. Although I expect you will tell me that I am too indoctrinated to know that I am indoctrinated. How do you know (or have the arrogance to believe) that you are not indoctrinated?
You are so confused that you actually think that the "New Liberalism" of the UK or the "ordoliberalism" of Germany are liberal political ideologies
I am not sure what this 'new liberalism' is, as I am referring to the old and continuing liberalism.
And even if these parties were actually "liberal", they have become less and less important relative to conservatives and socialists.
Who said anything about the liberal tradition being tied to current parties?
The question isn't whether I have lived in Europe (far too long, sadly), the real question is whether you have ever managed to get over your European arrogance and ignorance and looked beyond the border of your decaying continent.
I am not at all arrogant.
Therefore your statement that "European nations have largely the same ability to "print money" as the USA." is bullshit, since by your own description, most European nations do not, in fact, have that ability, nor do they have the freedom to borrow like the US does.
You didn't specify the ability to indivdually do so
Working for the good of humanity isn't going to get you tenure or a directorship.
Yet I know a number of people whose main drive is that, and who have achieved what you say they cannot. You have a particularly narrow view of motivations.
Liberalism essentially doesn't exist in Europe.
Have you ever lived in Europe?
Maybe it is something that is not entirely money related (mental illness, being able to pass the marshmallow test, substance abuse, education for example).
In the case of the people I referenced, education would be the only potential issue, but mostly just not having money was the issue.
Did you sleep through the Greek debt crisis?
No. It's not relevant to your argument, though. The Greek crisis was about controlling the debt of one small part of the EU, not the ability of the ECB to support overall reflationary policies, which it did.
No, European nations cannot print money because the Euro is outside their control.
For one thing, several European nations, even within the EU, do not use the Euro, and it is the central bank, the ECB, which can create additional liquidity in Euros, and EU nations have an influence over it. It's much the same as indivdual states in the USA and the Federal Reserve.
"lots of researchers fool themselves and others into believing that they work for the good of humanity, but in reality, they are largely selfish".
Ah, so if they believe it they are fools? That sounds akin to a True Scotsman fallacy. Certainly, it seems to be an assertion on your part, not one that seems to match my personal experience. This is not to say that researchers are purely altruistic, but many are aware that they could make more money working for a bank, but most do not do this. I know only a couple that have done so, and this is despite knowing some really quite brilliant people with excellent mathematical modelling and statistical skills who are outstanding in their fields.
A common misconception.
You are saying that there are some states in the USA which are mostly left wing? Can you enumerate them
What is different about the US is that it has a strong liberal center that keeps the leftists and the theocrats in check, something is pretty much entirely missing in Europe.
Europe is overall centrist, (mostly centre right, with the occasional centre-left government, e.g under Hollande). There is pretty much no tendency to theocracy, so to its strong social democratic tendency, and liberalism. The element that does seem to be rising is the harder right. You don't seem to know much about European politics
Plenty of poor people do, but they still are not buying them.
Poor people often have issues with paying bills and have one or more utilities cut off at any given time. If you have electricity, water, and natural gas, then natural gas is the one people tend to give up on first, as you can still heat things in a cheap (or even thrown away) microwave. It's hard to cook turnips into anything you'd want to eat in a microwave.
In terms of storage of soybeans, it's difficult in poor housing with infestations, or damp and mould, to store them.
These are real problems that I have gleaned from people I know who lived poor in the USA. It doesn't affect all people who are poor, but certainly the poorest.
I know a number of people that have been poor in the USA, and cost of fresh food is indeed an issue when some people struggle to just have enough calories on $2 a day, which is not a figure I made up. In that context, whilst buying lettuce is possible, long term you would starve. This reduces demand for veg. Not all poor people have cooking facilities for turnips, or capital, transport and safe storage for those soybeans.
Nuclear is not classed as renewable. It is not fossil fuel either.
The ones with low taste are optimised for shelf life.
Estimates can be poor, even with unchanging requirements, as the requirements may not be understood, effort required not understood, or something just turns out to be more difficult.
Even in the UK, with a bit more technology, solar water heating is very possible. My father nearly installed it on my house in 1980.
European nations have largely the same ability to "print money" as the USA. I work in a research organisation. I have worked as a researcher.
There aren't any left-wing states in the USA.
I live in a country with socialised medicine and, contrary to your assertion, government tries to control costs. Costs tend to rise because people are getting older, on average, and vote for it. Your view of the motivations of researchers is also bizzarely one dimensional.
California has a very large agricultural output, so its farmers are under represented in the Senate.
That assumes that the interests of all rural states are the same, that rural states are less populous, and that states are either rural, or not. The USA has small non-rural states, and no state that is entirely rural. California is, for example, one of the larger argricultural producers, as well as having large urban areas. I'm not saying it is a bad system, but that your example is poor.
Government agencies spend significant effort determining theirs costs and reporting on them to Congress and, to some extent, the public.
You seem convinced that the left is some homogenous group. It's not. Neither is the right homogenous.
It's unlikely that enough forests could be planted, year-on-year, to make enough difference, or without running out of space in a couple of decades. So massive move towards renewables would have to be concurrent
My understanding of passive solar is building design to maximise solar gain within it when warmth is desired
Solar thermal for domestic hot water should have been mentioned.
No, they are a naturally expressive programming paradigm to and in expressing the problem, which acknowledges the cost of programming effort.
Based on, not based off.
I was saddened when it was no longer free. I was tempted to use it on the desktop.