Not entirely true. For a start it is an advantage to anyone with a mortgage on their house
Only if the mortgage is enormous, *and* purchases of goods & services is extremely minimal. Otherwise, the increased cost of goods & services outweighs any savings on the mortgage.
Like, if you're a Slashdotter who has a large mortgage, yet still lives in his mom's basement.
The continuous drop in value means that, if you have a large amount of cash, you have a very strong motivation to either spend it on what you need or invest it in the economy somehow in order to preserve its value.
Even with "Quantitative Easing", inflation has been holding steady
I guess the fact that they changed the way the official inflation numbers are calculated precisely to hide the true inflation rate escaped your notice?
shows lack econ understanding.
Yes, your post demonstrates that in spades. Either that, or extreme partisanship.
I think your analysis is overly simplistic. It's true that inflation reduces the values of our savings and wages, but it also reduces the value of the debt we owe to others. That's how the country avoids paying off previously accrued debt: by inflating it into irrelevance.
I have no credit so it doesn't help me. But it's not true that inflation is only a loss for people who hold dollars, if they also owe.
The problem here is that it only really works out to the advantage those holding absurdly-large and unrealistic (for the overwhelming majority of private citizens) amounts/ratios of debt to income in order to make up for the increases in the prices of everything else they purchase like food, energy, goods, and services. This does not work to the advantage of the vast majority of citizens.
Actually, the problem is that it's likely he *did* take college economics. The bullshit Progressive/Keynesian fairy tales they teach the kids in schools and colleges these days is ridiculous, especially when it comes to economics. The last thing they want is for anyone to actually understand how they and future generations are being screwed.
A common misconception. Since money isn't tied to anything physical, there is no reason that more of it need lower the value. The current value is already arbitrary. I will also point out that there are far more dollars in databases than we have currency, so we should be able to print quite a bit more without losing any real value at all; we would only be introducing a physical aspect to money that already exists.
I'm sorry, but you're completely wrong. This is disinformation. It never ceases to amaze me how few people have any idea how money actually works. Of course, the government is happy to encourage and promote this lack of understanding and misinformation, as it works to their advantage in effectively stealing wealth from everyone with very few even understanding why they're effectively poorer.
Money is a representation of value, either in services/labor or in goods, regardless of whether the money is tied to something like gold or not, as gold is also a representation of value in goods or services/labor.
Back in the old West, a $20 gold coin would buy you one of the finest suits made. Today, that same amount of gold still buys a fine suit. It's only the amount in dollars that's changed. The comparative actual values have not changed. Back in the 1940s when dimes had a specific amount of silver, a gallon of gas cost two dimes, today those same dimes (with that amount of silver) still buys a gallon of gas. The relative values haven't changed, just the amount of money to equal that relatively static value has increased.
Printing more money dilutes the value of the money, effectively robbing everyone of the value they exchanged either in goods or services/labor for the money they hold. This is why gold prices have rocketed recently. Gold has not gained in value, rather, the dollar used to buy it has lost value.
The Fed engaging in "quantitative easing" (printing/creating more money from thin air) has caused the value of the money to drop dramatically, thus requiring more money to purchase the same value in goods and services/labor. This effectively robs everyone holding that currency of the value of the goods or services/labor they exchanged for that money.
It's theft on a really grand scale with everyone holding US dollars as the victims.
Every time the Fed does another "quantitative easing", your salary/pay is effectively cut.
The idea of unmanned law enforcement sounds great until you realize that everybody being under constant surveillance is not a very American way of life, at least not in the past. Freedom-while-being-watched-to-make-sure-you-do-the-right-thing-and-punish-you-if-you-don't is not true freedom.
-----
ED-209: "Please put down your weapon. You have 20 seconds to comply."
[Alarmed, Kinney quickly tosses the gun away. ED-209 steps forward and growls menacingly.]
It really started with Progressive POTUS Woodrow Wilson, when the SCOTUS caved in to his threat to expand the number of SC justices and pack it with "his people" if they dared to find Wilson's "New Deal" unconstitutional (which it was and is).
Oops, my bad. That should have been FDR, not Wilson (although Wilson has his own claims to unconstitutional infamy aplenty).
They have failed us more so than the other branches of government. They should protect us from unreasonable laws, judgements and crimes. But they are now a rubber stamp for abuse.
The SCOTUS lost all credibility and it's spine after Progressive POTUS Franklin Delanore Roosevelt (FDR) threatened to increase the number of justices that sit on the court and pack the court with "his people" with the "Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937" when the SCOTUS ruled many provisions of the "New Deal" unconstitutional during his first term, and the SCOTUS caved to the threat and allowed the New Deal provisions to go forward during his second term.
"The Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937[1] (frequently called the "court-packing plan")[2] was a legislative initiative proposed by U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt to add more justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. Roosevelt's purpose was to obtain favorable rulings regarding New Deal legislation that had been previously ruled unconstitutional.[3] The central and most controversial provision of the bill would have granted the President power to appoint an additional Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court, up to a maximum of six, for every sitting member over the age of 70 years and 6 months.
During Roosevelt's first term,[4] the Supreme Court had struck down several New Deal measures intended to bolster economic recovery during the Great Depression, leading to charges from New Deal supporters that a narrow majority of the court was obstructionist and political. Since the U.S. Constitution does not mandate any specific size of the Supreme Court, Roosevelt sought to counter this entrenched opposition to his political agenda by expanding the number of justices in order to create a pro-New Deal majority on the bench."
Since then, Federal government scope & power has steadily increased practically unchecked to the point we have things like this and the Kelo decision.
Rule of law will only remain supreme when the wealthy all decide to relinquish their stranglehold on power. Good luck on that ever happening.
That's why the US central government (Federal) was intended from the beginning to be minimal and weak, so that the wealthy & powerful have extremely little central government power/control there to corrupt in the first place.
History shows that powerful central governments are corrupt, and the more powerful, the more corrupt. That's just human nature at work, and why all forms of Collectivism (Socialism, Communism, Fascism, and Crony-Capitalism aka Fascism-Lite), which require a strong command-and-control central government to function, always become corrupt and eventually collapse.
If there's no Dept. of Education and it's accompanying power and control, there's no way to corrupt it. The same with other areas of expanded Federal power that didn't exist ~60-80 years ago or more, and which much if not most of that expansion is not permitted constitutionally.
It really started with Progressive POTUS Woodrow Wilson, when the SCOTUS caved in to his threat to expand the number of SC justices and pack it with "his people" if they dared to find Wilson's "New Deal" unconstitutional (which it was and is).
Apparently, condensing your thoughts into a single sentence is "Insightful," whereas actually spelling the problem out is "Troll..."
Either that, or one of your foes had some mod points to burn.
I've got some that have marked themselves as "Freaks" but I have no "Foes". I don't hate anyone. But you're probably right in the general sense.
My primary/. sin is that I have strong opinions and beliefs based on facts and history that don't fit the/. group-think, and that sticks in many of the Progressive/Liberal poster's craws. They're oh-so-very-tolerant & open-minded...as long as you only post things that agree with their views & opinions. Heaven forbid they actually debate and defend their positions in an intellectually-honest manner rather than simply mod-hammer what they disagree with.
now on Slashdot all I read is: rapist rapist rapist, instead of: if you go out with him, DON'T go to bed with him, he's an arrogant asshole and a player!
So, "don't hate the player, hate the US State Dept."?:P
[Not Sure Which Is Worse} The government's constant attempts to end-run the Constitution, or the fact that American citizens are helping them.
This.
That's the problem right there. If it wasn't for that, Bradley Manning would have had nothing to leak, and no reason to leak it.
The fools who cheer-lead the government effort to cover it's blatant violation of, and disregard for, the Constitution and the Rule of Law are allowing emotions and emotion-based propaganda to do their thinking for them.
They don't seem to understand or even care that this way lies a US authoritarian police state.
The US government has already gone so far towards a police state that I'm surprised the US hasn't sent in SEAL teams to kill Assange and destroy the Wikileaks facilities and caused Manning to have an "accident" while in custody.
Heck, that may all still happen.
It's sad when otherwise patriotic US citizens who love their country and freedom start to truly believe that some nation or terrorist group nuking the entirety of Washington D.C. and the surrounding area into a very deep, smoking, miles-wide, radioactive crater would be the best thing to happen to the country in almost a century.
By the way, I just wanted to say that although we may disagree, I very much respect that you've carried on an intellectually honest, respectful, and intelligent discussion here. I find it sad that/. has seen fewer and fewer posters who are capable of that level of maturity and intelligence. This is how our leaders should be behaving, instead of like bratty, arrogant, and sociopathic 2-year-olds.
And yet most Americans drive less than 35 miles a day
That's an average. Long distance driving in the US has seen an upsurge lately, due in part to the TSA grope-a-thons and high airfares compared to dwindling jobs and salaries.
There is always some excuse as to why renewables won't be viable for another 10 or 20 years, except that it is always 10 or 20 years away because a lack of investment slows improvements to the technology to a crawl.
I do believe that more investment in other forms of energy, especially nuclear, is needed. Here we can at least mostly agree.
However, there also has to be a realization that alternatives will only succeed in the long term if the costs are comparable to other forms of energy and can accomplish the same tasks. And no, simply taxing/regulating current energy sources to make alternatives cost-viable will not work, it will only create a black market with the accompanying violence, wasted enforcement money, and higher prison populations just like the war on drugs and alcohol prohibition did. There has to be real investment and work done to make alternatives at least roughly equal in cost, suitability, and efficiency. That's where I think the most investment should go, as that's really the key to making alternatives really succeed.
Government should not be subsidizing anything except raw research, either for alternative energy or for petroleum, as it always ends with the government choosing unwisely which corporations or projects to subsidize, either because of corruption or incompetence. History shows that government has a horrible track record in this area, especially with regard to unintended consequences, often causing the reverse of the desired outcome while wasting enormous sums of the taxpayer's money.
As it happens the technology has reached the stage where we can make a major shift towards it, but we still need to push hard to make that happen.
It's not at the point where it can survive without heavy government subsidies, and at a time when the US is approaching economic collapse.
Energy cost isn't just about money. The money is simply a valuation of it's efficiency. More efficient, lower cost and less efficient, more cost. Subsidies just attempt to mask the lack of efficiency, but that doesn't affect the lack of efficiency when the energy is used. That's why government attempts to manipulate energy prices is not a good thing, it just puts lipstick on a pig.
You misunderstand. You are saying that it would give an economic boost, which means more tax paid to the government, more jobs for individuals and general prosperity for the areas involved. You are billing it as some kind of stimulus package. My point is that it will only stimulate the bank accounts of some already very rich people and companies. Rewnewables make a much better economic case.
By that logic, all business and even Capitalism itself only enriches the already-wealthy, when history plainly shows that to be hogwash. Capitalism, though not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, has still lifted more people out of poverty and allowed them to become wealthy themselves, and thus more free, than any other system in human history.
One of the main reasons the US became a superpower is plentiful energy at relatively low costs, allowing heavy and advanced industrialization and competitive prices on the world market for American goods, as well as strong strategic military capabilities. Until they install recharging stations in every possible hostile battlefield for electric humvees, that's still important.
I don't know about the US where driving a really shitty car seems to be the national preference, but in Europe the trend over the last decade has been very much towards efficiency and reducing emissions.
The problem here is that the entire US, spanning the entire width of the whole N. American continent, has been structured over the last ~100 years with cars as the main transportation mode. Driving long distances (thousands of miles one way) is not conducive to people buying the type of small, light, fuel-efficient cars found in the UK and Europe where driving distances are much less.
There is another reason your idea is flawed. You are implying that oil profits will feed into the government and trickle down to consumers.
I don't know where you got that from. I didn't say anything about oil profits going to consumers. Why should they? Did they take the risks and drill and pump the oil? Domestic drilling will lower energy prices and stimulate economic growth & jobs.
The environmentalists are missing out on a chance to claim partial credit for an improved economy, putting them and their agenda into a much more favorable light in the public's eyes, as well as forcing that same public to not ignore the damage done by the petroleum industry, and therefor the public will put much more pressure on the government and industry to accelerate development & deployment of real, practical alternatives.
In the US, there is a large political shift coming this and the next few election cycles that will see the current more-Left lose nearly all political power, and the more-Right gain control of pretty much the entire US government. The expansion of domestic drilling and energy production *is* going to happen.
The environmentalists can either ride the trend and shape it to their and their agenda's advantage and come out smelling like a rose with many of their goals accomplished, or they can spit into the wind every step of the way and get trampled into the dust by people desperate for jobs and the ability to support their families.
It's your monkey, you guys can spank it any way you please. I'm just letting you know what's going to happen and how you could come out ahead. Some people, unfortunately, are simply too invested in and focused on their ideological "purity" to acknowledge practical realities and work within them.
Preventing people in the US from experiencing the negative externalities from petroleum exploration and drilling by forcing it overseas and offshore is actually counterproductive if the goal is to get more people active in putting pressure on the government and the industry to both clean up and develop alternatives.
That statement is ridiculous. One of the major driving forces for alternative energy sources is the high cost of oil. If you start opening up new oil fields it is only going to push the cost down, or at least slow the rise. That is counter-productive if your goal is to get away from oil, and of course every litre of extra oil you take out of the ground eventually goes into the atmosphere as CO2 as well.
Allowing more oil production will definitely not accelerate the adoption of alternatives, it will just make it easier for people to carry on burning petrol in their cars. Rather than setting up new oil wells perhaps these people will money to invest in energy should consider looking at the alternatives.
Well, for being such a "ridiculous" idea, I don't see where the current policies have gotten us much farther after some ~40-plus years. The Chevy Volt? Please. How many have they sold, again? As a matter of fact, it's looking like the "drill baby drill" crowd is going to win the next set of elections.
With the likelihood of the political landscape looking like an expansion of domestic oil/gas exploration and drilling is in the very near future regardless, tossing this strategy out seems to be cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.
Also, if the economy doesn't improve, there won't be money enough to invest in alternative energy projects like there has been up to now. Why not leverage what's going to happen anyway, to the long-term advantage of alternative energy development? Like I stated earlier, the environmentalists could come out looking like global heroes if they'd take a longer-term view.
Besides, are you OK with exporting all the negative externalities to the countries of poor brown people just to satisfy your inflexible political/ideological views? That doesn't seem right either.
People are going to keep burning petrol in their cars regardless of costs. They'll just do what they've always done, grumble at politicians to lower costs. It's only when it starts costing people in terms of real damage to their own environment, instead of the environment of poor brown people a half-world away, that real change will occur.
Over 4 decades of doing it your way hasn't gotten us very far. If it had, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Maybe it's time to try something different, eh, Ahab? Is that whale worth it?
Generally speaking, what Vermonters tend to want is for things to be done right, not stupidly. We would rather be frugal than cheap. IOW, we would rather insulate our houses properly and heat them with wood if they aren't insulated properly, than import fossil fuels. And that is what we do. Our plan for the future is to be more efficient in our use of energy, rather than to come up with new ways to extract more fossil fuel. To generate energy using local resources like hydro, wind and methane digestion rather than using coal and nuclear.
It's always sad to see people from out of state talking about us as if we were reactionary and backwardsâ"in my experience, Vermonters are some of the most realistically and practically forward-thinking people in the nation.
What makes you think I was criticizing Vermonters in particular? I did not refer to Vermonters in any specific way in my post that you replied to. Some Vermonters may be part of the groups I discussed, but no more than Californians, Alaskans, Michiganders, Floridians, or residents/natives of any other US state or region are.
The basis of the ideology behind individual freedom is "Flamebait"?
Really mods?
Dislike =/= Flamebait (or Troll or Offtopic or Overrated).
But then, I guess I shouldn't expect too much from those who don't value their own or others' freedom, and prefer to silence opinions, individuals, and groups they disagree with rather than debate them honestly.
How did the methane get into the drinking water supply? Magic? Perhaps you think God willed it to be there?
The same way it's gotten there since drinking water wells have been common. It's been common practice to vent water wells in certain areas because of methane for over a hundred years. Methane seeping into water wells is nothing new.
Oh, and by the way, you're a condescending fuckwit.
The last refuge of those without an argument or the ability to communicate it. And you probably wonder why nobody ever buys you a pint at the pub.
It seems it would be a double-win for the environmentalists, as those policies would not only accelerate alternative energy development and deployment, and would also keep more of the nation's wealth that was sent to the Middle East and elsewhere stimulating the US economy and creating jobs and opportunity here for everyone.
Well that's the problem, it doesn't work that way. If the money was handed out according to some overall policy by the government it might, but what we actually have are lots of competing players with many different customers. Worse still the guys drilling for oil and gas would rather carry on doing that so make an effort to prevent renewables eating into their market, slowing the switch over of energy sources to a crawl.
That is why there is so much pressure on governments to force the issue.
You're missing my point. Entirely. I'm talking about the environmentalists and what policies they push.
Plus, if the petroleum industry was given the green-light to drill/explore domestically, they'd jump at the chance. This is not rocket surgery. They've been prevented from doing just that by government regulations and laws that came about because of the environmental movement. Preventing people in the US from experiencing the negative externalities from petroleum exploration and drilling by forcing it overseas and offshore is actually counterproductive if the goal is to get more people active in putting pressure on the government and the industry to both clean up and develop alternatives.
If the environmentalists would push for more drilling/exploration domestically and less petroleum coming from imports, that would force the US population to deal with the negatives instead of being able to ignore them and continue their usage undisturbed.
This increase in the amount of negatives the US petroleum-consuming public experiences first-hand would accelerate the public pressure for alternatives while simultaneously keeping more wealth in the domestic economy. The environmentalists would then be heroes instead of zeroes, as they would have made a large contribution to US economic recovery while winning over the "drill, baby, drill!" crowd and have even more clout to pressure government and industry to develop & deploy practical alternatives. Pushing all the mess out of sight by pushing it offshore and to foreign lands makes continuing as-is easy.
This seems fairly obvious to anyone who does a bit of critical thinking. I'm sure it must be obvious to those in the environmental movement, as I don't think they're all stupid. This leaves the quandary of why they would seem to work against their own stated goals. Maybe the stated goals aren't the actual goals. Only if their actual goal was to simply damage the US and push it towards collapse would their actions match their goals.
Only if by "disciplined" you meant something along the lines of 100 very brisk strokes of a cane to their naked body in the public square while being nationally televised, ending with a distinctive hot-iron brand to the middle of the criminal's forehead along with a lifelong ban on holding any public job or political office ever again.
If you meant the more typical docking of salary and/or temporary suspension, then, no.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, a true Slashdotter!
And so many doubted their existence!
Strat
I hate how partisan hacks scare the plebs with pseudo-economic crap like this.
Well, stop doing it. Hack.
Strat
Not entirely true. For a start it is an advantage to anyone with a mortgage on their house
Only if the mortgage is enormous, *and* purchases of goods & services is extremely minimal. Otherwise, the increased cost of goods & services outweighs any savings on the mortgage.
Like, if you're a Slashdotter who has a large mortgage, yet still lives in his mom's basement.
The continuous drop in value means that, if you have a large amount of cash, you have a very strong motivation to either spend it on what you need or invest it in the economy somehow in order to preserve its value.
Or, do what many have done: Buy gold/silver.
Strat
You Ron Paul'ers types
Who?
Even with "Quantitative Easing", inflation has been holding steady
I guess the fact that they changed the way the official inflation numbers are calculated precisely to hide the true inflation rate escaped your notice?
shows lack econ understanding.
Yes, your post demonstrates that in spades. Either that, or extreme partisanship.
Strat
Yeah, pretty much.
Strat
I think your analysis is overly simplistic. It's true that inflation reduces the values of our savings and wages, but it also reduces the value of the debt we owe to others. That's how the country avoids paying off previously accrued debt: by inflating it into irrelevance.
I have no credit so it doesn't help me. But it's not true that inflation is only a loss for people who hold dollars, if they also owe.
The problem here is that it only really works out to the advantage those holding absurdly-large and unrealistic (for the overwhelming majority of private citizens) amounts/ratios of debt to income in order to make up for the increases in the prices of everything else they purchase like food, energy, goods, and services. This does not work to the advantage of the vast majority of citizens.
Strat
Wow, you've really skipped economics 101 haven't you...
Actually, the problem is that it's likely he *did* take college economics. The bullshit Progressive/Keynesian fairy tales they teach the kids in schools and colleges these days is ridiculous, especially when it comes to economics. The last thing they want is for anyone to actually understand how they and future generations are being screwed.
Strat
A common misconception. Since money isn't tied to anything physical, there is no reason that more of it need lower the value. The current value is already arbitrary. I will also point out that there are far more dollars in databases than we have currency, so we should be able to print quite a bit more without losing any real value at all; we would only be introducing a physical aspect to money that already exists.
I'm sorry, but you're completely wrong. This is disinformation. It never ceases to amaze me how few people have any idea how money actually works. Of course, the government is happy to encourage and promote this lack of understanding and misinformation, as it works to their advantage in effectively stealing wealth from everyone with very few even understanding why they're effectively poorer.
Money is a representation of value, either in services/labor or in goods, regardless of whether the money is tied to something like gold or not, as gold is also a representation of value in goods or services/labor.
Back in the old West, a $20 gold coin would buy you one of the finest suits made. Today, that same amount of gold still buys a fine suit. It's only the amount in dollars that's changed. The comparative actual values have not changed. Back in the 1940s when dimes had a specific amount of silver, a gallon of gas cost two dimes, today those same dimes (with that amount of silver) still buys a gallon of gas. The relative values haven't changed, just the amount of money to equal that relatively static value has increased.
Printing more money dilutes the value of the money, effectively robbing everyone of the value they exchanged either in goods or services/labor for the money they hold. This is why gold prices have rocketed recently. Gold has not gained in value, rather, the dollar used to buy it has lost value.
The Fed engaging in "quantitative easing" (printing/creating more money from thin air) has caused the value of the money to drop dramatically, thus requiring more money to purchase the same value in goods and services/labor. This effectively robs everyone holding that currency of the value of the goods or services/labor they exchanged for that money.
It's theft on a really grand scale with everyone holding US dollars as the victims.
Every time the Fed does another "quantitative easing", your salary/pay is effectively cut.
Strat
The idea of unmanned law enforcement sounds great until you realize that everybody being under constant surveillance is not a very American way of life, at least not in the past. Freedom-while-being-watched-to-make-sure-you-do-the-right-thing-and-punish-you-if-you-don't is not true freedom.
-----
ED-209: "Please put down your weapon. You have 20 seconds to comply."
[Alarmed, Kinney quickly tosses the gun away. ED-209 steps forward and growls menacingly.]
ED-209: "You now have 15 seconds to comply."
-----
Strat
It really started with Progressive POTUS Woodrow Wilson, when the SCOTUS caved in to his threat to expand the number of SC justices and pack it with "his people" if they dared to find Wilson's "New Deal" unconstitutional (which it was and is).
Oops, my bad. That should have been FDR, not Wilson (although Wilson has his own claims to unconstitutional infamy aplenty).
Strat
They have failed us more so than the other branches of government. They should protect us from unreasonable laws, judgements and crimes. But they are now a rubber stamp for abuse.
The SCOTUS lost all credibility and it's spine after Progressive POTUS Franklin Delanore Roosevelt (FDR) threatened to increase the number of justices that sit on the court and pack the court with "his people" with the "Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937" when the SCOTUS ruled many provisions of the "New Deal" unconstitutional during his first term, and the SCOTUS caved to the threat and allowed the New Deal provisions to go forward during his second term.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937
"The Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937[1] (frequently called the "court-packing plan")[2] was a legislative initiative proposed by U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt to add more justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. Roosevelt's purpose was to obtain favorable rulings regarding New Deal legislation that had been previously ruled unconstitutional.[3] The central and most controversial provision of the bill would have granted the President power to appoint an additional Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court, up to a maximum of six, for every sitting member over the age of 70 years and 6 months.
During Roosevelt's first term,[4] the Supreme Court had struck down several New Deal measures intended to bolster economic recovery during the Great Depression, leading to charges from New Deal supporters that a narrow majority of the court was obstructionist and political. Since the U.S. Constitution does not mandate any specific size of the Supreme Court, Roosevelt sought to counter this entrenched opposition to his political agenda by expanding the number of justices in order to create a pro-New Deal majority on the bench."
Since then, Federal government scope & power has steadily increased practically unchecked to the point we have things like this and the Kelo decision.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London
When it comes to the unconstitutional expansion of Federal government scope & power, don't count on the SCOTUS to save us.
Strat
Rule of law will only remain supreme when the wealthy all decide to relinquish their stranglehold on power. Good luck on that ever happening.
That's why the US central government (Federal) was intended from the beginning to be minimal and weak, so that the wealthy & powerful have extremely little central government power/control there to corrupt in the first place.
History shows that powerful central governments are corrupt, and the more powerful, the more corrupt. That's just human nature at work, and why all forms of Collectivism (Socialism, Communism, Fascism, and Crony-Capitalism aka Fascism-Lite), which require a strong command-and-control central government to function, always become corrupt and eventually collapse.
If there's no Dept. of Education and it's accompanying power and control, there's no way to corrupt it. The same with other areas of expanded Federal power that didn't exist ~60-80 years ago or more, and which much if not most of that expansion is not permitted constitutionally.
It really started with Progressive POTUS Woodrow Wilson, when the SCOTUS caved in to his threat to expand the number of SC justices and pack it with "his people" if they dared to find Wilson's "New Deal" unconstitutional (which it was and is).
Strat
Apparently, condensing your thoughts into a single sentence is "Insightful," whereas actually spelling the problem out is "Troll..."
Either that, or one of your foes had some mod points to burn.
I've got some that have marked themselves as "Freaks" but I have no "Foes". I don't hate anyone. But you're probably right in the general sense.
My primary /. sin is that I have strong opinions and beliefs based on facts and history that don't fit the /. group-think, and that sticks in many of the Progressive/Liberal poster's craws. They're oh-so-very-tolerant & open-minded...as long as you only post things that agree with their views & opinions. Heaven forbid they actually debate and defend their positions in an intellectually-honest manner rather than simply mod-hammer what they disagree with.
Strat
"Troll"...Really, mods?
I guess we have us some real Federal-government-loving people with mod points (or government shills doing damage-control).
Or, maybe they just really got to like and need their government-mandated gropings by the TSA, and are hoping for an upgrade to anal probing.
Strat
now on Slashdot all I read is: rapist rapist rapist, instead of: if you go out with him, DON'T go to bed with him, he's an arrogant asshole and a player!
So, "don't hate the player, hate the US State Dept."? :P
Strat
[Not Sure Which Is Worse} The government's constant attempts to end-run the Constitution, or the fact that American citizens are helping them.
This.
That's the problem right there. If it wasn't for that, Bradley Manning would have had nothing to leak, and no reason to leak it.
The fools who cheer-lead the government effort to cover it's blatant violation of, and disregard for, the Constitution and the Rule of Law are allowing emotions and emotion-based propaganda to do their thinking for them.
They don't seem to understand or even care that this way lies a US authoritarian police state.
The US government has already gone so far towards a police state that I'm surprised the US hasn't sent in SEAL teams to kill Assange and destroy the Wikileaks facilities and caused Manning to have an "accident" while in custody.
Heck, that may all still happen.
It's sad when otherwise patriotic US citizens who love their country and freedom start to truly believe that some nation or terrorist group nuking the entirety of Washington D.C. and the surrounding area into a very deep, smoking, miles-wide, radioactive crater would be the best thing to happen to the country in almost a century.
Sic semper tyrannis.
Strat
By the way, I just wanted to say that although we may disagree, I very much respect that you've carried on an intellectually honest, respectful, and intelligent discussion here. I find it sad that /. has seen fewer and fewer posters who are capable of that level of maturity and intelligence. This is how our leaders should be behaving, instead of like bratty, arrogant, and sociopathic 2-year-olds.
Bravo!
Strat
And yet most Americans drive less than 35 miles a day
That's an average. Long distance driving in the US has seen an upsurge lately, due in part to the TSA grope-a-thons and high airfares compared to dwindling jobs and salaries.
There is always some excuse as to why renewables won't be viable for another 10 or 20 years, except that it is always 10 or 20 years away because a lack of investment slows improvements to the technology to a crawl.
I do believe that more investment in other forms of energy, especially nuclear, is needed. Here we can at least mostly agree.
However, there also has to be a realization that alternatives will only succeed in the long term if the costs are comparable to other forms of energy and can accomplish the same tasks. And no, simply taxing/regulating current energy sources to make alternatives cost-viable will not work, it will only create a black market with the accompanying violence, wasted enforcement money, and higher prison populations just like the war on drugs and alcohol prohibition did. There has to be real investment and work done to make alternatives at least roughly equal in cost, suitability, and efficiency. That's where I think the most investment should go, as that's really the key to making alternatives really succeed.
Government should not be subsidizing anything except raw research, either for alternative energy or for petroleum, as it always ends with the government choosing unwisely which corporations or projects to subsidize, either because of corruption or incompetence. History shows that government has a horrible track record in this area, especially with regard to unintended consequences, often causing the reverse of the desired outcome while wasting enormous sums of the taxpayer's money.
As it happens the technology has reached the stage where we can make a major shift towards it, but we still need to push hard to make that happen.
It's not at the point where it can survive without heavy government subsidies, and at a time when the US is approaching economic collapse.
Energy cost isn't just about money. The money is simply a valuation of it's efficiency. More efficient, lower cost and less efficient, more cost. Subsidies just attempt to mask the lack of efficiency, but that doesn't affect the lack of efficiency when the energy is used. That's why government attempts to manipulate energy prices is not a good thing, it just puts lipstick on a pig.
You misunderstand. You are saying that it would give an economic boost, which means more tax paid to the government, more jobs for individuals and general prosperity for the areas involved. You are billing it as some kind of stimulus package. My point is that it will only stimulate the bank accounts of some already very rich people and companies. Rewnewables make a much better economic case.
By that logic, all business and even Capitalism itself only enriches the already-wealthy, when history plainly shows that to be hogwash. Capitalism, though not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, has still lifted more people out of poverty and allowed them to become wealthy themselves, and thus more free, than any other system in human history.
One of the main reasons the US became a superpower is plentiful energy at relatively low costs, allowing heavy and advanced industrialization and competitive prices on the world market for American goods, as well as strong strategic military capabilities. Until they install recharging stations in every possible hostile battlefield for electric humvees, that's still important.
Strat
I don't know about the US where driving a really shitty car seems to be the national preference, but in Europe the trend over the last decade has been very much towards efficiency and reducing emissions.
The problem here is that the entire US, spanning the entire width of the whole N. American continent, has been structured over the last ~100 years with cars as the main transportation mode. Driving long distances (thousands of miles one way) is not conducive to people buying the type of small, light, fuel-efficient cars found in the UK and Europe where driving distances are much less.
There is another reason your idea is flawed. You are implying that oil profits will feed into the government and trickle down to consumers.
I don't know where you got that from. I didn't say anything about oil profits going to consumers. Why should they? Did they take the risks and drill and pump the oil? Domestic drilling will lower energy prices and stimulate economic growth & jobs.
The environmentalists are missing out on a chance to claim partial credit for an improved economy, putting them and their agenda into a much more favorable light in the public's eyes, as well as forcing that same public to not ignore the damage done by the petroleum industry, and therefor the public will put much more pressure on the government and industry to accelerate development & deployment of real, practical alternatives.
In the US, there is a large political shift coming this and the next few election cycles that will see the current more-Left lose nearly all political power, and the more-Right gain control of pretty much the entire US government. The expansion of domestic drilling and energy production *is* going to happen.
The environmentalists can either ride the trend and shape it to their and their agenda's advantage and come out smelling like a rose with many of their goals accomplished, or they can spit into the wind every step of the way and get trampled into the dust by people desperate for jobs and the ability to support their families.
It's your monkey, you guys can spank it any way you please. I'm just letting you know what's going to happen and how you could come out ahead. Some people, unfortunately, are simply too invested in and focused on their ideological "purity" to acknowledge practical realities and work within them.
Strat
Well, for being such a "ridiculous" idea, I don't see where the current policies have gotten us much farther after some ~40-plus years. The Chevy Volt? Please. How many have they sold, again? As a matter of fact, it's looking like the "drill baby drill" crowd is going to win the next set of elections.
With the likelihood of the political landscape looking like an expansion of domestic oil/gas exploration and drilling is in the very near future regardless, tossing this strategy out seems to be cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.
Also, if the economy doesn't improve, there won't be money enough to invest in alternative energy projects like there has been up to now. Why not leverage what's going to happen anyway, to the long-term advantage of alternative energy development? Like I stated earlier, the environmentalists could come out looking like global heroes if they'd take a longer-term view.
Besides, are you OK with exporting all the negative externalities to the countries of poor brown people just to satisfy your inflexible political/ideological views? That doesn't seem right either.
People are going to keep burning petrol in their cars regardless of costs. They'll just do what they've always done, grumble at politicians to lower costs. It's only when it starts costing people in terms of real damage to their own environment, instead of the environment of poor brown people a half-world away, that real change will occur.
Over 4 decades of doing it your way hasn't gotten us very far. If it had, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Maybe it's time to try something different, eh, Ahab? Is that whale worth it?
Strat
Generally speaking, what Vermonters tend to want is for things to be done right, not stupidly. We would rather be frugal than cheap. IOW, we would rather insulate our houses properly and heat them with wood if they aren't insulated properly, than import fossil fuels. And that is what we do. Our plan for the future is to be more efficient in our use of energy, rather than to come up with new ways to extract more fossil fuel. To generate energy using local resources like hydro, wind and methane digestion rather than using coal and nuclear.
It's always sad to see people from out of state talking about us as if we were reactionary and backwardsâ"in my experience, Vermonters are some of the most realistically and practically forward-thinking people in the nation.
What makes you think I was criticizing Vermonters in particular? I did not refer to Vermonters in any specific way in my post that you replied to. Some Vermonters may be part of the groups I discussed, but no more than Californians, Alaskans, Michiganders, Floridians, or residents/natives of any other US state or region are.
Puzzled, I am, yes? No? Yes!
Strat
The basis of the ideology behind individual freedom is "Flamebait"?
Really mods?
Dislike =/= Flamebait (or Troll or Offtopic or Overrated).
But then, I guess I shouldn't expect too much from those who don't value their own or others' freedom, and prefer to silence opinions, individuals, and groups they disagree with rather than debate them honestly.
Strat
How did the methane get into the drinking water supply? Magic? Perhaps you think God willed it to be there?
The same way it's gotten there since drinking water wells have been common. It's been common practice to vent water wells in certain areas because of methane for over a hundred years. Methane seeping into water wells is nothing new.
Oh, and by the way, you're a condescending fuckwit.
The last refuge of those without an argument or the ability to communicate it. And you probably wonder why nobody ever buys you a pint at the pub.
Strat
You're missing my point. Entirely. I'm talking about the environmentalists and what policies they push.
Plus, if the petroleum industry was given the green-light to drill/explore domestically, they'd jump at the chance. This is not rocket surgery. They've been prevented from doing just that by government regulations and laws that came about because of the environmental movement. Preventing people in the US from experiencing the negative externalities from petroleum exploration and drilling by forcing it overseas and offshore is actually counterproductive if the goal is to get more people active in putting pressure on the government and the industry to both clean up and develop alternatives.
If the environmentalists would push for more drilling/exploration domestically and less petroleum coming from imports, that would force the US population to deal with the negatives instead of being able to ignore them and continue their usage undisturbed.
This increase in the amount of negatives the US petroleum-consuming public experiences first-hand would accelerate the public pressure for alternatives while simultaneously keeping more wealth in the domestic economy. The environmentalists would then be heroes instead of zeroes, as they would have made a large contribution to US economic recovery while winning over the "drill, baby, drill!" crowd and have even more clout to pressure government and industry to develop & deploy practical alternatives. Pushing all the mess out of sight by pushing it offshore and to foreign lands makes continuing as-is easy.
This seems fairly obvious to anyone who does a bit of critical thinking. I'm sure it must be obvious to those in the environmental movement, as I don't think they're all stupid. This leaves the quandary of why they would seem to work against their own stated goals. Maybe the stated goals aren't the actual goals. Only if their actual goal was to simply damage the US and push it towards collapse would their actions match their goals.
Strat
You mean like staff being disciplined?
Only if by "disciplined" you meant something along the lines of 100 very brisk strokes of a cane to their naked body in the public square while being nationally televised, ending with a distinctive hot-iron brand to the middle of the criminal's forehead along with a lifelong ban on holding any public job or political office ever again.
If you meant the more typical docking of salary and/or temporary suspension, then, no.
I hope that clears things up for you. :)
Strat