Why? The only reason we need to continually "grow the economy" is because the population is growing. If we had a stable population, we could have a stable economy and relax a bit.
No, the reason is to support the global banking cartels of the elites and government financing that it supports (and which in turn supports the banks.) Deflation is the absolute scourge of the banker, as the entire basis of their wealth and control is inflation. And now that currency (including the US dollar, used as the international reserve currency) is nothing but fiat money, the importance of having economic growth and inflation is even more pronounced. When cheap labor starts becoming scarce, it will spell real trouble for the international elites.
So what you are saying is our government should follow North Korea by oppressing it's citizens and taking away their rights; because that would just make life simply grand like how the North Koreans are living right now.
Well, if you support civilian disarmament, then you should follow the leader in civilian disarmament. Pretty obvious when you think about it. Call it "oppression" if you want to, but that just sounds like hyperbole. Have to do what's right for the country and the global community. If you let Americans have all those guns around, how will they ever join the new world order?
I don't think anyone gets why North Korea is actually an ideal choice for the UN Disarmament chair. Check out the website and you'll get a clue. Sure, there's lip-service from the council on WMDs and nuclear weapons, but the major effort right now is toward disarming the civilians of every country. And in that regard, North Korea is an excellent example of how thoroughly it can be done, and a perfect choice to lead the effort in teaching other countries to do the same.
Despite Eric Holder's efforts with ATF's "Gunrunner" and "Fast and Furious" programs seemed to have backfired, and the disarmament media effort in North America will be significantly curtailed due to the inept handling of that false flag effort. A country like North Korea - probably the world leader in successful disarmament of its citizens, is the perfect choice for restarting the international effort, and assisting the United States in making better progress in that regard.
And yet, compared to W/republicans, I would have to say that Obama has been peaceful. Heck, we are on the verge of being out of Iraq and even Afghanistan is winding down. So, yeah.
BZZZZT! Try paying attention, instead of filtering media information for just the information that fits your hopes / ideology. Like the New York Times headline, which announced "Obama Orders Rapid Withdrawal of Troops". What they call "rapid" is somewhere around 10% withdrawal in 6 months, and another 20% of current levels a year later. This "rapid" withdrawal would mean that, 3 years from now, there will only be DOUBLE the number of troops left in Afghanistan than there were when he first took office.
That kind of plan, a new war in Libya, and all the saber-rattling from State Department head Lucifer Clinton about Syria and Yemen is not any closer to "peaceful" than anything that went on during the Bush administration. In fact, Obama isn't different than Bush enough to matter, and I would go even furtherand say he's not just a continuation of Bush-the-warmonger-statist-police-state-tyrant, he's more like Bush-on-steroids.
But good luck convincing yourself that "change is coming".
Good news! Now if they could just rip out all those Evolution dependencies, maybe I could install a functional Gnome desktop without all the Evolution crap that I never use.
Note that they are also lumping in ethanol, which has already been shown to require more fossil fuel to produce that it can replace (or close to it, depending on the way it's calculated. And ethanol is 10% of all the fuel in all the cars, and is heavily supported by subsidies, so it's not only inefficient, but can't even pay for itself.
that would be costs after interest, this is costs before. Although with interest at ~1% for bonds the difference might be quite small for the short term.
Besides, a lot of the infrastructure involved (for example hydro electric) was built some time ago, as was the nuclear, but nuclear is being phased out gradually (whether part of a broader strategy or not), whereas renewables aren't.
That's it. I'm completely fed up with hearing about this stupid new whizz-bang service, dammit! Please stop posting and blogging and writing articles about this crap.
Right, the problem is that they don't understand the solar cycle.
Maybe they do understand it, but they haven't dumbed down the population enough to be able to convince them that a NWO can actually enable them to manipulate the sun's output. But, convincing them that their NWO can manipulate the planet's climate, well, that seems to be working.
So no, opening the refrigerator does not make any significant impact in energy consumption.
(not sure why you switched to talking about a freezer)
Well I wasn't so much trying to make a point that it was, only that the GP's rationale that somehow a STB could use more power than a refrigerator didn't hold water.
I really don't think your hypothetical is very realistic, nor is the hyperbole about "OMG!! More power than you REFRIGERATOR!!" anything more than typical media hype designed to drum up some outrage toward cable companies, instead of it being directed at the state energy commission, which can only respond to increasing demand by trying to get people to use less (don't start).
How many times do you open your fridge? Me, at least 4 times a day, usually more than than. Just grabbing a beer will take about 5 seconds, more if I have to hunt for it, and getting stuff out for dinner will total probably 3-4 minutes of open-door time. Aside from the start-up to deal with lost cold air, the 2 15-watt light bulbs will be lit up the whole time.
So, yea, if you're gone for vacation a couple of days, your DVR-style, HD, whiz-bang cable box MIGHT use more than your fridge (although I'm still not convinced). The comparison though, is ludicrous. Consider, for example, that the average refrigerator uses 725 watts, not 150 (unless it's one of those tiny dorm refrigerators, I guess).
The rest of your post is a bunch of anti-government, paranoid, pseudo libertarian bullshit.
And your theories of "externalities costs" is completely based on a bunch of anti-free-market, speculative fear-mongering, pseudo socialistic bullshit. So I guess we're even.
No, externalities are those extra costs that don't actually show up in the price you pay. Such as the increased impact on the environment and the increased cost to people's health. Are you trying to say that these costs don't exist and shouldn't be paid by the power utility?
Which is it, me or the power utility? You used both. Oh, wait - corporations pass on all their costs to consumers, so of course it will be me that pays (or simply goes without). But the whole "externalities" meme is bullshit, anyway, because it's always implemented as a tax, which goes to the looters to help... nobody but the looters. So they can pay for more weapons, boots, and cages.
Even the "costs" will be determined by the looters themselves. And it all flows back to the King, and your name may be on the deed (so you can pay your "externalities" and taxes), but only the King will decide what you can do with it, and when, and how, and what cut the King gets when you do.
So, yea, you're blind if you don't see the entire idea as just a way to restore the "Divine Right of Kings."
Frankly, I would love to see some group of lawyers stand in court trying to show "harm" (required for any tort) based on someone releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. I'm sure it would be really interesting.
If it works, maybe those tornado victims in Alabama can find someone in Brazil that killed a butterfly for the damage to their homes and loss of life.
Sure, that's a fine analogy. Say you're in one of the few counties that still allows smoking in jail cells. Say you have severe asthma and the guy in the next cell is smoking. You tell him about the condition and ask him to stop and he tells you to fuck off and that it's legal and he doesn't care if it harms you.
If I were you, I'd keep my mouth shut. That guy has been in here a while you have kind of a sweet-looking ass, you know what I mean?
The problem is, Congressional Republicans are trying to remove any authority for the EPA to do so. Or at the very least, remove any funding for any actions that would (which should be unconstitutional).
Yea that threat is pretty toothless, since the Obama administration and all of his bureaucracies routinely ignore the law and courts these days. All the nuclear power plants are required to spend the money for packing and shipment of their nuclear waste to Yucca Mt., congress voted on the rules and decided that's where it's going, and the courts have all upheld that decision. Nevertheless, the DOE has unilaterally decided not to maintain Yucca or accept any spent fuel there.
The FCC has done the same thing, with congress telling them they did not authorize them to regulate any "neutrality" rules, and the courts telling them they didn't have that authority, but they went ahead with their rules anyway.
Now congress has told Obama that he needs authorization for the use of force in Libya, and all he did was write them a letter that basically said "fuck you I'll do what I want. Besides, you told Bush he could respond to the World Trade Center attacks, so I'm just following that rule."
So congress, the courts, all worthless. Might as well just crown Obama the King and be done with the charade.
They should be winning elections if the people were smart.
Most lifestyles won't be effected by high-tech green changes as much as when oil starts to become harder to find and more people around the world can afford it.
It's actually pretty easy to find these days. Most of it stays where it's found, though, because of all the people saying "You can't drill there" or "Too bad that area is off-limits to development or mining of resources."
Slashdot Mirror
So, where are we going to get the material to build the Dyson Ring?
Assteroids
Why? The only reason we need to continually "grow the economy" is because the population is growing. If we had a stable population, we could have a stable economy and relax a bit.
No, the reason is to support the global banking cartels of the elites and government financing that it supports (and which in turn supports the banks.) Deflation is the absolute scourge of the banker, as the entire basis of their wealth and control is inflation. And now that currency (including the US dollar, used as the international reserve currency) is nothing but fiat money, the importance of having economic growth and inflation is even more pronounced. When cheap labor starts becoming scarce, it will spell real trouble for the international elites.
So what you are saying is our government should follow North Korea by oppressing it's citizens and taking away their rights; because that would just make life simply grand like how the North Koreans are living right now.
Well, if you support civilian disarmament, then you should follow the leader in civilian disarmament. Pretty obvious when you think about it. Call it "oppression" if you want to, but that just sounds like hyperbole. Have to do what's right for the country and the global community. If you let Americans have all those guns around, how will they ever join the new world order?
I don't think anyone gets why North Korea is actually an ideal choice for the UN Disarmament chair. Check out the website and you'll get a clue. Sure, there's lip-service from the council on WMDs and nuclear weapons, but the major effort right now is toward disarming the civilians of every country. And in that regard, North Korea is an excellent example of how thoroughly it can be done, and a perfect choice to lead the effort in teaching other countries to do the same.
Despite Eric Holder's efforts with ATF's "Gunrunner" and "Fast and Furious" programs seemed to have backfired, and the disarmament media effort in North America will be significantly curtailed due to the inept handling of that false flag effort. A country like North Korea - probably the world leader in successful disarmament of its citizens, is the perfect choice for restarting the international effort, and assisting the United States in making better progress in that regard.
And yet, compared to W/republicans, I would have to say that Obama has been peaceful. Heck, we are on the verge of being out of Iraq and even Afghanistan is winding down. So, yeah.
BZZZZT! Try paying attention, instead of filtering media information for just the information that fits your hopes / ideology. Like the New York Times headline, which announced "Obama Orders Rapid Withdrawal of Troops". What they call "rapid" is somewhere around 10% withdrawal in 6 months, and another 20% of current levels a year later. This "rapid" withdrawal would mean that, 3 years from now, there will only be DOUBLE the number of troops left in Afghanistan than there were when he first took office.
That kind of plan, a new war in Libya, and all the saber-rattling from State Department head Lucifer Clinton about Syria and Yemen is not any closer to "peaceful" than anything that went on during the Bush administration. In fact, Obama isn't different than Bush enough to matter, and I would go even furtherand say he's not just a continuation of Bush-the-warmonger-statist-police-state-tyrant, he's more like Bush-on-steroids.
But good luck convincing yourself that "change is coming".
What the hell is "light rape"?
I was confused by that, too. Maybe it involves the use of one of those "flesh light" toys? Perhaps a stolen one?
Good news! Now if they could just rip out all those Evolution dependencies, maybe I could install a functional Gnome desktop without all the Evolution crap that I never use.
Note that they are also lumping in ethanol, which has already been shown to require more fossil fuel to produce that it can replace (or close to it, depending on the way it's calculated. And ethanol is 10% of all the fuel in all the cars, and is heavily supported by subsidies, so it's not only inefficient, but can't even pay for itself.
that would be costs after interest, this is costs before. Although with interest at ~1% for bonds the difference might be quite small for the short term.
Besides, a lot of the infrastructure involved (for example hydro electric) was built some time ago, as was the nuclear, but nuclear is being phased out gradually (whether part of a broader strategy or not), whereas renewables aren't.
Well, it's certainly part of SOMEBODY's strategy.
Hmph - Okay, I have to admit, you got me. I was even digging through my spam and log files and everything. [sigh]
That's it. I'm completely fed up with hearing about this stupid new whizz-bang service, dammit! Please stop posting and blogging and writing articles about this crap.
until you send me an invite
Right, the problem is that they don't understand the solar cycle.
Maybe they do understand it, but they haven't dumbed down the population enough to be able to convince them that a NWO can actually enable them to manipulate the sun's output. But, convincing them that their NWO can manipulate the planet's climate, well, that seems to be working.
Well done, sir! You have described the situation perfectly.
Unfortunately, you will be eventually modded down mercilessly, for your use of the word "Socialism" as if it were a bad thing.
Come on, man. Don't step on the hyperbole!
So no, opening the refrigerator does not make any significant impact in energy consumption.
(not sure why you switched to talking about a freezer)
Well I wasn't so much trying to make a point that it was, only that the GP's rationale that somehow a STB could use more power than a refrigerator didn't hold water.
I really don't think your hypothetical is very realistic, nor is the hyperbole about "OMG!! More power than you REFRIGERATOR!!" anything more than typical media hype designed to drum up some outrage toward cable companies, instead of it being directed at the state energy commission, which can only respond to increasing demand by trying to get people to use less (don't start).
How many times do you open your fridge? Me, at least 4 times a day, usually more than than. Just grabbing a beer will take about 5 seconds, more if I have to hunt for it, and getting stuff out for dinner will total probably 3-4 minutes of open-door time. Aside from the start-up to deal with lost cold air, the 2 15-watt light bulbs will be lit up the whole time.
So, yea, if you're gone for vacation a couple of days, your DVR-style, HD, whiz-bang cable box MIGHT use more than your fridge (although I'm still not convinced). The comparison though, is ludicrous. Consider, for example, that the average refrigerator uses 725 watts, not 150 (unless it's one of those tiny dorm refrigerators, I guess).
It would never work. You can take the river water out of New York, but you just can't get the New York out of the river.
Ahh, so now we get to the crux of your position: The environment is "anti-free market". Good to know.
Ugliest straw man I've seen in a long time. I'm a real environmentalist. Take your socialist ideas wrapped in fake environmentalism and go away.
The rest of your post is a bunch of anti-government, paranoid, pseudo libertarian bullshit.
And your theories of "externalities costs" is completely based on a bunch of anti-free-market, speculative fear-mongering, pseudo socialistic bullshit. So I guess we're even.
No, externalities are those extra costs that don't actually show up in the price you pay. Such as the increased impact on the environment and the increased cost to people's health. Are you trying to say that these costs don't exist and shouldn't be paid by the power utility?
Which is it, me or the power utility? You used both. Oh, wait - corporations pass on all their costs to consumers, so of course it will be me that pays (or simply goes without). But the whole "externalities" meme is bullshit, anyway, because it's always implemented as a tax, which goes to the looters to help ... nobody but the looters. So they can pay for more weapons, boots, and cages.
Even the "costs" will be determined by the looters themselves. And it all flows back to the King, and your name may be on the deed (so you can pay your "externalities" and taxes), but only the King will decide what you can do with it, and when, and how, and what cut the King gets when you do.
So, yea, you're blind if you don't see the entire idea as just a way to restore the "Divine Right of Kings."
Frankly, I would love to see some group of lawyers stand in court trying to show "harm" (required for any tort) based on someone releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. I'm sure it would be really interesting.
If it works, maybe those tornado victims in Alabama can find someone in Brazil that killed a butterfly for the damage to their homes and loss of life.
Sure, that's a fine analogy. Say you're in one of the few counties that still allows smoking in jail cells. Say you have severe asthma and the guy in the next cell is smoking. You tell him about the condition and ask him to stop and he tells you to fuck off and that it's legal and he doesn't care if it harms you.
If I were you, I'd keep my mouth shut. That guy has been in here a while you have kind of a sweet-looking ass, you know what I mean?
The problem is, Congressional Republicans are trying to remove any authority for the EPA to do so. Or at the very least, remove any funding for any actions that would (which should be unconstitutional).
Yea that threat is pretty toothless, since the Obama administration and all of his bureaucracies routinely ignore the law and courts these days. All the nuclear power plants are required to spend the money for packing and shipment of their nuclear waste to Yucca Mt., congress voted on the rules and decided that's where it's going, and the courts have all upheld that decision. Nevertheless, the DOE has unilaterally decided not to maintain Yucca or accept any spent fuel there.
The FCC has done the same thing, with congress telling them they did not authorize them to regulate any "neutrality" rules, and the courts telling them they didn't have that authority, but they went ahead with their rules anyway.
Now congress has told Obama that he needs authorization for the use of force in Libya, and all he did was write them a letter that basically said "fuck you I'll do what I want. Besides, you told Bush he could respond to the World Trade Center attacks, so I'm just following that rule."
So congress, the courts, all worthless. Might as well just crown Obama the King and be done with the charade.
They should be winning elections if the people were smart.
Most lifestyles won't be effected by high-tech green changes as much as when oil starts to become harder to find and more people around the world can afford it.
It's actually pretty easy to find these days. Most of it stays where it's found, though, because of all the people saying "You can't drill there" or "Too bad that area is off-limits to development or mining of resources."
No doubt. The EPA is a joke.
I don't know about that. I think the Employment Prevention Agency has been having a pretty significant impact lately.