It was a waste of the larger companies money, destroyed 260 people's lives (some had been there 20 years)
If the clients went to the small company because of the employees those employees could have started their own business and they'd have willing clients thus beating the big business.
Apparently it's not enough that they steal our money by inflating it away; they add insult to injury by hitting us with capital gains tax.
Yea, only those who work for a living should pay taxes. Those who are fortunate enough to get capital gains shouldn't pay tax. The same with those who live off of dividends.
Most likely the worst offenders will simply form a new corporation with their ill-gotten gains, hire all their pals, and before you know it they're right back in business doing exactly the same thing.
And where would the clients and investors come from? It's not very likely that those who are intelligent are likely to far for the same tricks. Especially when the those who did not make bad choices were still standing.
All the bailout did was award the bad and punish the good.
When betting on an Apache helicopter and your armed uprising, my money is on the Apache.
I disagree with the GP but I also disagree with this. Despite Kent State, Ruby Ridge, and Waco it would be difficult to get most US military personnel to fire on US citizens. I don't know if you have but I served on the US Army and most of those I knew would have refused to fire on Americans. Even China found out it would be difficult to get Chinese to fire on other Chinese. During the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 the government had to order an army unit from another part of China to Beijing, some local army units refused to fire on protesters and the authorities didn't know who was loyal to whom.
As difficult as it was for the Chinese to get Chinese to fire on other Chinese, it would be considerably harder for American authorities to get Americans to fire on other Americans. I can't see my nephew who's a Marine stationed in Iraq firing on other Americans. Then again if they gave him another $250,000, they gave him that much so he'd reenlist, he might.
a great example of a bad company that was poorly run and didn't "deserve" to survive. How many more people in Detroit, for example, would go out of business when all of GM gets laid off? Is it worth punishing all of those other people in an already-bad economy to "set an example" of GM? Is it worth punishing all of those other people in an already-bad economy to "set an example" of GM?
You're assuming all of GM's employees would be laid off. If it had been forced to declare and file for bankruptcy others could have picked up the pieces, reorganized, and gave what buyers were willing to pay for. It has not been shown not bailing out GM would have harmed a lot more people. Nor has it been shown the bailout will help more. All it's done is show that if you screw up the government will bail you out, if you're big enough.
Now where is my bailout? Heck I won't even ask for as much money as the large corporations are, all I'll ask for is $500,000.
Libertarian no-tax, no-fed-money "ideal" is progressive taxation.
And where are these no taxes libertarians? The Libertarian Party only calls for the repeal of the income tax and oppose employers acting like tax collectors.
It's an existing mechanism for inhibiting John Galt from excessive, unwarranted greed, and it can be used to redistribute wealth in a directed fashion.
Yea we need a reverse Midas, everything touched turns to shit. Reward mediocrity and punish merit. Yea wasn't that tried during the 20th century? I think it was called communism. Where are all the communist countries now? They don't exist.
For example, to fund a health care system that provides health care for all
You mean one that rations health care? Fact is is there is no free market in medicine and health care which is what is needed.
No, those 2% were made bigger. If they couldn't fall them they certainly can't now. Meanwhile others are still losing their homes. If there was to be a bailout, which I don't agree was needed, then there could have been at least two conditions on the money. One was that those going through foreclosure be helped to stay in their homes and two the banks, and AIG, be broken up. Instead the banks used the money to buy each other making them bigger.
With the bailout bad banks were rewarded and good banks punished.
Yeah, I remember when I first learned to use google. Listen, you're going to have to actually learn to read books to get the truth rather than from dipshits on the internet.
I have read books. I only have a fraction of the books and magazines I've bought but I still have 100 plus books and hundreds more magazines. These books and magazines range from culture to economics to science and technology. I bought Adam Smith's "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations" which I gave to my younger sister as well as "Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution" which is on my bookshelf right behind me. I subscribe to "Reason" magazine and regularly read the "Economist". Besides reading I've also learned from my family. One of my sister's a Certified Public Accountant who runs her own accounting business. Her husband is a Certified Financial Planner who has run his run business as well as worked as a daytrader.
My family started in the low income bracket, my dad retired as an enlisted airman in the US Air Force. And while my mom raised 3 children she worked her way through a technical school to become a lab tech in a hospital. All three of us children worked our way at least partially through college. My older sister's now a nurse. And not only does my younger sister run her own business she's also a property owner. Among others she owns the apartment building I live in. Now I haven't gotten a Bachelor's degree never mind the PhD I wanted. But that was because of an accident I had while in college. Due to an injury and disability I survived my college degree plans were put on hold. And now I don't know when, or if, I'll be able to start taking classes again. I am hoping though that I can get back to college where I plan to study international business and economics.
On the surface he of course does not support these things but his progeny tell a completely different story.
Yea and all Germans were responsible for Hitler.
I suppose you've never heard of Glass-Steagall?
I know about the Glass-Steagall Act, which created the FDIC and some banking regulations.
Your knowledge of history is extremely superficial. It's what comes from learning everything from wikipedia and google searches.
Your knowledge of me is what is extremely superficial. And on that note I'm ending this.
If you could make an easy living simply trading stock, everyone would do it.
This is just as probable as if you could make an easy living simply as an engineer, everyone would do it. Or substitute some other action verb and maybe an adverb.
Some box says 'buy' because prices rise a millionth of a click; then a million shares are bought, driving the price up further. Other traders who follow the really fast quant traders follow suit, and then you have a price bubble.
And a competitor's box says "short sell"" the stock when prices go up.
Online trading is quite simply a good way to get eaten for lunch. All it's done is supply more suckers who have NO business in the stock market their opportunity to get bankrupted.
Online trading's a good way for those who shouldn't be trading to get eaten but not those who know how to trade. And part of know how is knowing when to get out or not trade. I have a brother-in-law who day traded but he stepped away when the markets became erratic. As for being in the stockmarkets, everybody belongs in them. There is this thing called personal responsibility and it's each persons' responsibility to save and invest money while working so they can afford to retire.
In the US trading done by an automated computer program is illegal
You'd better tell the SEC that and have them arrest all of the day traders who setup computers to automatically trade. Heck, you'd better have them arrest brokers too. It's possible to sign up with an online broker and do this. ETrade allows you to "pre-program your entry and exit strategies". With a number of different brokers it's possible to set limit orders, where stocks at buy or sold when the stock reaches a set price. If as a trader I believe X Inc's stock price will bottom out at one price, Y, I can place a limit order to buy the stock at Y. Then if I believe it will top out at Y+2 I can set another limit, this one to sell, at Y+2.
No, I haven't done it myself but my brother-in-law's a Certified Financial Planner, CFP, who has worked as a daytrader.
I got into programming probably because the programs on the Apple 2+ system disk had visible source code.
I got into computers period due to sitting in front of a trash, er TRS 80, as well as a dumb terminal connected to a mainframe downtown. I, we, didn't have access to system code. I saw how I could get a computer to do things by writing a few lines of code which is what got me interested in programming. When I started the only source code I saw was code I wrote. I then started sharing code with others.
So it's not helping programmers I mean, it's helping people by giving them the tools to become programmers if they want.
I don't know about MS Windows PCs but Macs come with tools for programmers. Xcode which comes with every Mac. Using it people can write programs in C, C++, Fortran, Objective-C, Objective-C++, Java, AppleScript, Python and Ruby. Apple has the Apple Developer Connection, that's free to join, with programming tools. If you don't want to use Xcode you can use GCC, GNU Compiler Collection. Personally I haven't used either one yet, I use Eclipse.
And yes, closing the source is a choice. It's a choice I want you to NOT have... when writing something derived from my code. Or, I want you to pay me for that choice. I see no reason why I should do anything for free for someone who isn't willing to pass the favor on.
That is your choice, and if a programmer does not want to close their source then they can use the GPL. But if a programmer does not want to close the source then they can not use to GPL. At least not unless they have the right to all of the code and they don't mind if the software is forked. I want the choice to close my source, so when I do I can use the BSD whereas when I don't I can use either license.
Deregulated? More like changed regulations not dropped them. Mortgage companies were encouraged to loan to under qualified people. That is to make bigger loans than borrowers were qualified to borrow. Regulations barring redlining were taken too far. As was the Community Reinvestment Act, which was meant to reduce redlining. Yes the Community Reinvestment Act was passed and became law in 1977 but it was changed in 1989, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1999, 2005, 2007, and 2008. Two of the mortgage companies that had high mortgage defaults were Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, and they were created by the federal government.
supported brutal dictators, and overturned governments because of Friedmanism
None of which is true. No matter how many tymes it's told a lie is still a lie. Friedman opposed dictators and coups against democratically elected governments. He believed economic freedom would lead to political freedom but he did not support dictatorships. "Defaming Milton Friedman" disputes the efforts to discredit Milton Friedman. One such effort, which you allude to here, is his supposed support for Augusto Pinochet the army general who lead the coup against Chilean president Salvador Allende. Friedman never advised Pinochet or accepted money from the regime. Yes he went to Chile, where after he was invited by a private foundation he gave public lectures. He was offered two honorary degrees from Chilean universities which he turned down.
Perhaps Friedman himself would have taken it farther but to deny his influence in modern America is exceptionally naive.
No, what is naive, or passing the blame, is accusing Friedman of the problems caused by governments as well as the overthrow of a democratically elected government. If you want to blame someone for these blame politicians and the US intelligence system. It was Nixon and Kissinger along with the CIA who supported Pinochet. Ford and again Kissinger then supported Indonesian President Suharto's invasion of the independent country of East Timor. Approximately 200,000 East Timorese, one third of the population, was massacred afterwards. Neither had anything to do with Milton Friedman, the only thing that mattered was that those being supported was anti-communist.
Milton Friedman on the other hand did support the opening of the bamboo curtain, China. That was the one thing he had in common with Nixon and Ford. He thought a freer economy would lead to freer politics as well.
The democrats have totally bought into Friedmanism just like the republicans. Welcome to America. Clinton was as free market as any republican president has been.
No they didn't. Neither Democrats nor Republicans come close to Milton Friedman in standing for a free market. Both advocate and want government interference in the economy and markets.
Same here. I don't know if I've ever been in an earthquake but I've been in severe thunderstorms and had close encounters with hurricanes. Growing up in Florida friends of mine and I had this saying, it was easy to tell a true Floridian from a transplant, when a hurricane comes along the Floridian says it's tyme to batten the hatches whereas the transplant panics, throws up his arms in the air, and screams "Let's get out of here."
That is from 2006 when the then president, Bush, waged a war against science. I also noticed it says "nuclear energy produces significantly less CO2 compared to the normal fossil fuels" and says in the graph that wind emits 10 grams of CO2 per KWh and nuclear only emits 7. There is nothing there about solar.
Three hundred and eighty three pages? My eye's be killing me after 10 pages. I did go through the chapter on solar and the paragraphs themselves focus on solar in Great Britain. Figure 6.16 only lists 2 locations in GB for average sunshine, W/m^2, the greater of the 2 is London with 109. New York City and the rainy city of Seattle, WA, on the other hand each show 147. LA, CA, shows 225. The chapter on wind says that though it doesn't provide enough energy to power the UK it can provide some and provide it economically. However SciAm's article "A Grand Solar Plan" says that by 2050 solar power can provide 69% of the US's electrical needs. And the study Global potential for wind-generated electricity published by the National Academy if Sciences of the USA says wind can provide "40 times current worldwide consumption of electricity, >5 times total global use of energy in all forms."
You know why solar and wind don't get as much total? because they're no hopers. They get money to placate people who know fuck all about generating power for the grid but want a symbol of how very green their power is.
Only those who know nothing about solar and wind support it? Those who live Off the grid know nothing? They're only source of electricity is alternatives sources but they know nothing? John Doerr, appointed a member of Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board knows little? As venture capitalist and partner of Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield, and Byers he has invested billions in alternative energy but he knows nothing? Vinod Khosla, cofounder of Sun and another venture capitalist also knows little?
Did you even read my post?wind+solar cannot be used for more than 20% of the grid
Did you read the science links I provided saying solar can provide 69% of the electricity of the USA by 2050 and that wind could provide 400% of the world's energy?
Add in some kind of smart grid and you might, might just push that up to 30% and that's at an insane cost.
According to the article "Lifeline for Renewable Power" by Tech Review currently because the grid is now failing it costs businesses $80 billion dollars a year, so the grid needs to be rebuilt and made smart period. Even with more nuclear power plants that's true. But you're only using it against solar and wind, which is hypocritical.
Geothermal is fantastic for the few places where there's magma near the surface
I agree geothermal is not usable everywhere, no energy source even nuclear power is good everywhere. That's why I want a mix of different energy sources used. Biofuels can be used for fuel for things like aircrafts. The US Department of Defense is working to create biodiesel for jets.
I have a chip on my shoulder do I? And you don't? If I have one, it's because big businesses get government subsidies. And government is bigger than the limits put on it by the Constitution of the USA. Yes, I'm one of those people who still believe the Constitution still means something, even if it's not followed. After my dad retired from the military I followed an older sister in joining the US Army to protect it. Another sister's son is a Marine stationed in Iraq.
Wind and solar are proven.
Then where are they? If wind and solar are as cheap as you say (and your friends say), then where are they?
Notice I said "proven" not cheaper. Many people have solar panels installed on their roofs. Solar farms are operating in Spain with more being planned and built. In the US there is more than 52 terawatts of wind capacity installed. And more capacity can be added readily. During the rolling blackouts in CA years ago there were wind farms that sat idle when they could have contributed 240 megawatts a day. Why were they idle? Because the powerlines to carry the power were not installed. Those lines would have been needed whether for wind or nuclear power.
As of March 9, 2009, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission had received applications for permission to construct 26 new nuclear power reactors with applications for another 7 expected.
Ah I see you left out an important part of that article, "In recent years,there has been a renewed interest in nuclear power in the US. This has been facilitated in part by the federal government with the Nuclear Power 2010 Program, which coordinates efforts for building new nuclear power plants, and the Energy Policy Act which makes provisions for nuclear and oil industries."
Let's investigate more:
"The "Nuclear Power 2010 Program" was unveiled by the U.S. Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham on February 14, 2002"
"The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Pub.L. 109-58) is a bill passed by the United States Congress on July 29, 2005"
The president then was Bush and he's a big supporter of nuclear power but wasn't one for alternative energy sources. Bush excluded alternative energy, citizen's, and consumer groups from his Energy Task Force but Enron and big oil were invited.
OH! You asked for citation regarding the "Megaton to Megawatts" program. (though I don't understand why you are so snappy)
No, I didn't ask for citation of the Megaton to Megawatts program, I don't recall having heard of it before. I did ask for citation "that the majority of Uranium for Commercial Nuclear Power now comes from deactivated Nuclear Warheads", cut and paste is wonderful.
You believe in the theories of nuclear power
I'm afraid you don't understand the difference between theory and fact.
Generation IV reactors only work in theory, there are none operating and supplying power to the grid now. Meanwhile current plants are having problems.
Thanks, someone had posted a link above. While the outside video doesn't look like much, maybe because of scale, the one inside does.
What I find real amazing is that a big enough table was made that was capable of having a building that big built on it then have the table shaken like that. It reminds me of the aircraft catapults on carriers.
I don't recall the "in-" prefix means "lots" so I checked my dictionaries, I have 4, as well as OneLook. With OneLook I checked the first 10 links to the definition and not one gave "lots" as a definition. Now "in" as in into and "towards" was given as well as other definitions but not "lots". Can you give an example of it used that way?
in-flamable is just the english word every native english speaker should use for "not flamable", your logic only makes sense if you are not an native english speaker.
That's what I said, and I am a native English speaker.
I read an article along this line earlier this year. Wooden buildings have a better survival rate on the Indian subcontinent, in India and Pakistan than stone buildings. Whereas wood ones can last centuries stone ones don't last as long.
Slashdot Mirror
It was a waste of the larger companies money, destroyed 260 people's lives (some had been there 20 years)
If the clients went to the small company because of the employees those employees could have started their own business and they'd have willing clients thus beating the big business.
Falcon
Apparently it's not enough that they steal our money by inflating it away; they add insult to injury by hitting us with capital gains tax.
Yea, only those who work for a living should pay taxes. Those who are fortunate enough to get capital gains shouldn't pay tax. The same with those who live off of dividends.
Falcon
Most likely the worst offenders will simply form a new corporation with their ill-gotten gains, hire all their pals, and before you know it they're right back in business doing exactly the same thing.
And where would the clients and investors come from? It's not very likely that those who are intelligent are likely to far for the same tricks. Especially when the those who did not make bad choices were still standing.
All the bailout did was award the bad and punish the good.
Falcon
When betting on an Apache helicopter and your armed uprising, my money is on the Apache.
I disagree with the GP but I also disagree with this. Despite Kent State, Ruby Ridge, and Waco it would be difficult to get most US military personnel to fire on US citizens. I don't know if you have but I served on the US Army and most of those I knew would have refused to fire on Americans. Even China found out it would be difficult to get Chinese to fire on other Chinese. During the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 the government had to order an army unit from another part of China to Beijing, some local army units refused to fire on protesters and the authorities didn't know who was loyal to whom.
As difficult as it was for the Chinese to get Chinese to fire on other Chinese, it would be considerably harder for American authorities to get Americans to fire on other Americans. I can't see my nephew who's a Marine stationed in Iraq firing on other Americans. Then again if they gave him another $250,000, they gave him that much so he'd reenlist, he might.
Falcon
He's an extreme capitalist who pretty much believes that the ends justify the means
Where does this come from?
Finally, you're obviously a young guy so good luck to you on getting into school, just don't go studying econ at the University of Chicago...
No I'm not. I wish what I know now I knew when I was young. If I could I'd roll back tyme at least 12 years but preferably 30 plus.
just don't go studying econ at the University of Chicago...
I'd rather study under Milton Friedman than others, especially John Maynard Keynes. If not Friedman then perhaps Friedrich Hayek or Ludwig von Mises.
Falcon
a great example of a bad company that was poorly run and didn't "deserve" to survive. How many more people in Detroit, for example, would go out of business when all of GM gets laid off? Is it worth punishing all of those other people in an already-bad economy to "set an example" of GM? Is it worth punishing all of those other people in an already-bad economy to "set an example" of GM?
You're assuming all of GM's employees would be laid off. If it had been forced to declare and file for bankruptcy others could have picked up the pieces, reorganized, and gave what buyers were willing to pay for. It has not been shown not bailing out GM would have harmed a lot more people. Nor has it been shown the bailout will help more. All it's done is show that if you screw up the government will bail you out, if you're big enough.
Now where is my bailout? Heck I won't even ask for as much money as the large corporations are, all I'll ask for is $500,000.
Falcon
Libertarian no-tax, no-fed-money "ideal" is progressive taxation.
And where are these no taxes libertarians? The Libertarian Party only calls for the repeal of the income tax and oppose employers acting like tax collectors.
It's an existing mechanism for inhibiting John Galt from excessive, unwarranted greed, and it can be used to redistribute wealth in a directed fashion.
Yea we need a reverse Midas, everything touched turns to shit. Reward mediocrity and punish merit. Yea wasn't that tried during the 20th century? I think it was called communism. Where are all the communist countries now? They don't exist.
For example, to fund a health care system that provides health care for all
You mean one that rations health care? Fact is is there is no free market in medicine and health care which is what is needed.
Falcon
and you drown the 98% with the upper 2%'s greed.
No, those 2% were made bigger. If they couldn't fall them they certainly can't now. Meanwhile others are still losing their homes. If there was to be a bailout, which I don't agree was needed, then there could have been at least two conditions on the money. One was that those going through foreclosure be helped to stay in their homes and two the banks, and AIG, be broken up. Instead the banks used the money to buy each other making them bigger.
With the bailout bad banks were rewarded and good banks punished.
Falcon
Yeah, I remember when I first learned to use google. Listen, you're going to have to actually learn to read books to get the truth rather than from dipshits on the internet.
I have read books. I only have a fraction of the books and magazines I've bought but I still have 100 plus books and hundreds more magazines. These books and magazines range from culture to economics to science and technology. I bought Adam Smith's "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations" which I gave to my younger sister as well as "Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution" which is on my bookshelf right behind me. I subscribe to "Reason" magazine and regularly read the "Economist". Besides reading I've also learned from my family. One of my sister's a Certified Public Accountant who runs her own accounting business. Her husband is a Certified Financial Planner who has run his run business as well as worked as a daytrader.
My family started in the low income bracket, my dad retired as an enlisted airman in the US Air Force. And while my mom raised 3 children she worked her way through a technical school to become a lab tech in a hospital. All three of us children worked our way at least partially through college. My older sister's now a nurse. And not only does my younger sister run her own business she's also a property owner. Among others she owns the apartment building I live in. Now I haven't gotten a Bachelor's degree never mind the PhD I wanted. But that was because of an accident I had while in college. Due to an injury and disability I survived my college degree plans were put on hold. And now I don't know when, or if, I'll be able to start taking classes again. I am hoping though that I can get back to college where I plan to study international business and economics.
On the surface he of course does not support these things but his progeny tell a completely different story.
Yea and all Germans were responsible for Hitler.
I suppose you've never heard of Glass-Steagall?
I know about the Glass-Steagall Act, which created the FDIC and some banking regulations.
Your knowledge of history is extremely superficial. It's what comes from learning everything from wikipedia and google searches.
Your knowledge of me is what is extremely superficial. And on that note I'm ending this.
Falcon
Sure you can, you can cheat almost anybody.
If you could make an easy living simply trading stock, everyone would do it.
This is just as probable as if you could make an easy living simply as an engineer, everyone would do it. Or substitute some other action verb and maybe an adverb.
Falcon
Some box says 'buy' because prices rise a millionth of a click; then a million shares are bought, driving the price up further. Other traders who follow the really fast quant traders follow suit, and then you have a price bubble.
And a competitor's box says "short sell"" the stock when prices go up.
Falcon
Online trading is quite simply a good way to get eaten for lunch. All it's done is supply more suckers who have NO business in the stock market their opportunity to get bankrupted.
Online trading's a good way for those who shouldn't be trading to get eaten but not those who know how to trade. And part of know how is knowing when to get out or not trade. I have a brother-in-law who day traded but he stepped away when the markets became erratic. As for being in the stockmarkets, everybody belongs in them. There is this thing called personal responsibility and it's each persons' responsibility to save and invest money while working so they can afford to retire.
Falcon
In the US trading done by an automated computer program is illegal
You'd better tell the SEC that and have them arrest all of the day traders who setup computers to automatically trade. Heck, you'd better have them arrest brokers too. It's possible to sign up with an online broker and do this. ETrade allows you to "pre-program your entry and exit strategies". With a number of different brokers it's possible to set limit orders, where stocks at buy or sold when the stock reaches a set price. If as a trader I believe X Inc's stock price will bottom out at one price, Y, I can place a limit order to buy the stock at Y. Then if I believe it will top out at Y+2 I can set another limit, this one to sell, at Y+2.
No, I haven't done it myself but my brother-in-law's a Certified Financial Planner, CFP, who has worked as a daytrader.
Falcon
I got into programming probably because the programs on the Apple 2+ system disk had visible source code.
I got into computers period due to sitting in front of a trash, er TRS 80, as well as a dumb terminal connected to a mainframe downtown. I, we, didn't have access to system code. I saw how I could get a computer to do things by writing a few lines of code which is what got me interested in programming. When I started the only source code I saw was code I wrote. I then started sharing code with others.
So it's not helping programmers I mean, it's helping people by giving them the tools to become programmers if they want.
I don't know about MS Windows PCs but Macs come with tools for programmers. Xcode which comes with every Mac. Using it people can write programs in C, C++, Fortran, Objective-C, Objective-C++, Java, AppleScript, Python and Ruby. Apple has the Apple Developer Connection, that's free to join, with programming tools. If you don't want to use Xcode you can use GCC, GNU Compiler Collection. Personally I haven't used either one yet, I use Eclipse.
And yes, closing the source is a choice. It's a choice I want you to NOT have... when writing something derived from my code. Or, I want you to pay me for that choice. I see no reason why I should do anything for free for someone who isn't willing to pass the favor on.
That is your choice, and if a programmer does not want to close their source then they can use the GPL. But if a programmer does not want to close the source then they can not use to GPL. At least not unless they have the right to all of the code and they don't mind if the software is forked. I want the choice to close my source, so when I do I can use the BSD whereas when I don't I can use either license.
Falcon
we've deregulated
Deregulated? More like changed regulations not dropped them. Mortgage companies were encouraged to loan to under qualified people. That is to make bigger loans than borrowers were qualified to borrow. Regulations barring redlining were taken too far. As was the Community Reinvestment Act, which was meant to reduce redlining. Yes the Community Reinvestment Act was passed and became law in 1977 but it was changed in 1989, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1999, 2005, 2007, and 2008. Two of the mortgage companies that had high mortgage defaults were Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, and they were created by the federal government.
supported brutal dictators, and overturned governments because of Friedmanism
None of which is true. No matter how many tymes it's told a lie is still a lie. Friedman opposed dictators and coups against democratically elected governments. He believed economic freedom would lead to political freedom but he did not support dictatorships. "Defaming Milton Friedman" disputes the efforts to discredit Milton Friedman. One such effort, which you allude to here, is his supposed support for Augusto Pinochet the army general who lead the coup against Chilean president Salvador Allende. Friedman never advised Pinochet or accepted money from the regime. Yes he went to Chile, where after he was invited by a private foundation he gave public lectures. He was offered two honorary degrees from Chilean universities which he turned down.
Perhaps Friedman himself would have taken it farther but to deny his influence in modern America is exceptionally naive.
No, what is naive, or passing the blame, is accusing Friedman of the problems caused by governments as well as the overthrow of a democratically elected government. If you want to blame someone for these blame politicians and the US intelligence system. It was Nixon and Kissinger along with the CIA who supported Pinochet. Ford and again Kissinger then supported Indonesian President Suharto's invasion of the independent country of East Timor. Approximately 200,000 East Timorese, one third of the population, was massacred afterwards. Neither had anything to do with Milton Friedman, the only thing that mattered was that those being supported was anti-communist.
Milton Friedman on the other hand did support the opening of the bamboo curtain, China. That was the one thing he had in common with Nixon and Ford. He thought a freer economy would lead to freer politics as well.
Falcon
The democrats have totally bought into Friedmanism just like the republicans. Welcome to America. Clinton was as free market as any republican president has been.
No they didn't. Neither Democrats nor Republicans come close to Milton Friedman in standing for a free market. Both advocate and want government interference in the economy and markets.
Falcon
Aaah :) That's more like it.
I'd still like to experience it though.
Same here. I don't know if I've ever been in an earthquake but I've been in severe thunderstorms and had close encounters with hurricanes. Growing up in Florida friends of mine and I had this saying, it was easy to tell a true Floridian from a transplant, when a hurricane comes along the Floridian says it's tyme to batten the hatches whereas the transplant panics, throws up his arms in the air, and screams "Let's get out of here."
Falcon
Government-2006 energy review
http://www.carbon-info.org/carbonnews_100.htm
That is from 2006 when the then president, Bush, waged a war against science. I also noticed it says "nuclear energy produces significantly less CO2 compared to the normal fossil fuels" and says in the graph that wind emits 10 grams of CO2 per KWh and nuclear only emits 7. There is nothing there about solar.
Also I take it you couldn't re arsed reading this when I linked to it earlier.
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/sustainable/book/tex/cft.pdf
Three hundred and eighty three pages? My eye's be killing me after 10 pages. I did go through the chapter on solar and the paragraphs themselves focus on solar in Great Britain. Figure 6.16 only lists 2 locations in GB for average sunshine, W/m^2, the greater of the 2 is London with 109. New York City and the rainy city of Seattle, WA, on the other hand each show 147. LA, CA, shows 225. The chapter on wind says that though it doesn't provide enough energy to power the UK it can provide some and provide it economically. However SciAm's article "A Grand Solar Plan" says that by 2050 solar power can provide 69% of the US's electrical needs. And the study Global potential for wind-generated electricity published by the National Academy if Sciences of the USA says wind can provide "40 times current worldwide consumption of electricity, >5 times total global use of energy in all forms."
You know why solar and wind don't get as much total? because they're no hopers. They get money to placate people who know fuck all about generating power for the grid but want a symbol of how very green their power is.
Only those who know nothing about solar and wind support it? Those who live Off the grid know nothing? They're only source of electricity is alternatives sources but they know nothing? John Doerr, appointed a member of Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board knows little? As venture capitalist and partner of Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield, and Byers he has invested billions in alternative energy but he knows nothing? Vinod Khosla, cofounder of Sun and another venture capitalist also knows little?
Did you even read my post?wind+solar cannot be used for more than 20% of the grid
Did you read the science links I provided saying solar can provide 69% of the electricity of the USA by 2050 and that wind could provide 400% of the world's energy?
Add in some kind of smart grid and you might, might just push that up to 30% and that's at an insane cost.
According to the article "Lifeline for Renewable Power" by Tech Review currently because the grid is now failing it costs businesses $80 billion dollars a year, so the grid needs to be rebuilt and made smart period. Even with more nuclear power plants that's true. But you're only using it against solar and wind, which is hypocritical.
Geothermal is fantastic for the few places where there's magma near the surface
I agree geothermal is not usable everywhere, no energy source even nuclear power is good everywhere. That's why I want a mix of different energy sources used. Biofuels can be used for fuel for things like aircrafts. The US Department of Defense is working to create biodiesel for jets.
Why do you have such a chip on your shoulder?
I have a chip on my shoulder do I? And you don't? If I have one, it's because big businesses get government subsidies. And government is bigger than the limits put on it by the Constitution of the USA. Yes, I'm one of those people who still believe the Constitution still means something, even if it's not followed. After my dad retired from the military I followed an older sister in joining the US Army to protect it. Another sister's son is a Marine stationed in Iraq.
Wind and solar are proven.
Then where are they? If wind and solar are as cheap as you say (and your friends say), then where are they?
Notice I said "proven" not cheaper. Many people have solar panels installed on their roofs. Solar farms are operating in Spain with more being planned and built. In the US there is more than 52 terawatts of wind capacity installed. And more capacity can be added readily. During the rolling blackouts in CA years ago there were wind farms that sat idle when they could have contributed 240 megawatts a day. Why were they idle? Because the powerlines to carry the power were not installed. Those lines would have been needed whether for wind or nuclear power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_united_states#Resurgence
As of March 9, 2009, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission had received applications for permission to construct 26 new nuclear power reactors with applications for another 7 expected.
Ah I see you left out an important part of that article, "In recent years,there has been a renewed interest in nuclear power in the US. This has been facilitated in part by the federal government with the Nuclear Power 2010 Program, which coordinates efforts for building new nuclear power plants, and the Energy Policy Act which makes provisions for nuclear and oil industries."
Let's investigate more:
The president then was Bush and he's a big supporter of nuclear power but wasn't one for alternative energy sources. Bush excluded alternative energy, citizen's, and consumer groups from his Energy Task Force but Enron and big oil were invited.
OH! You asked for citation regarding the "Megaton to Megawatts" program. (though I don't understand why you are so snappy)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megatons_to_Megawatts_Program
No, I didn't ask for citation of the Megaton to Megawatts program, I don't recall having heard of it before. I did ask for citation "that the majority of Uranium for Commercial Nuclear Power now comes from deactivated Nuclear Warheads", cut and paste is wonderful.
You believe in the theories of nuclear power
I'm afraid you don't understand the difference between theory and fact.
Generation IV reactors only work in theory, there are none operating and supplying power to the grid now. Meanwhile current plants are having problems.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4324941.html
Second video down.
Thanks, someone had posted a link above. While the outside video doesn't look like much, maybe because of scale, the one inside does.
What I find real amazing is that a big enough table was made that was capable of having a building that big built on it then have the table shaken like that. It reminds me of the aircraft catapults on carriers.
Falcon
I don't recall the "in-" prefix means "lots" so I checked my dictionaries, I have 4, as well as OneLook. With OneLook I checked the first 10 links to the definition and not one gave "lots" as a definition. Now "in" as in into and "towards" was given as well as other definitions but not "lots". Can you give an example of it used that way?
I'll feel real stupid after you give one.
Falcon
in-flamable is just the english word every native english speaker should use for "not flamable", your logic only makes sense if you are not an native english speaker.
That's what I said, and I am a native English speaker.
Falcon
And yet no one gets confused about the meaning "inflamation".
Maybe that's because an inflammation, with two "m"s is a swelling and is usually accompanied by heat.
Falcon
I have to admit that I'm a little underwhelmed by the video.
Same here, I didn't think much of the video. However someone posted a link to a video of the inside. I saw that and said that's more like it.
Falcon
Maybe not, but it's interesting anyway.
I read an article along this line earlier this year. Wooden buildings have a better survival rate on the Indian subcontinent, in India and Pakistan than stone buildings. Whereas wood ones can last centuries stone ones don't last as long.
Falcon