why thank you for the elegant reply. I see no real argument here, I guess. But I am unaware of any controversy surrounding the thesis that surplus labor from industrialization drove migration and resettlement. The emerging class of capitalists crushed labor moves in this era. Wages were low, Chinese, ex-slaves, veterans, the Irish were all played off one another to drive down wages. Wages went down, poverty increased, working conditions deteriorated, breadlines grew, How do you come by these observations without surplus labor?
I think its clear that my comments were solely focused on the EU/US and that conversations in general on this website are US-centric. And the basis of this thread implies the progress of capitalist systems; hence essentially confining the history to the times and places I have considered. Where the during this previous period was subject to similar labor pressures as those that will occur if robotics and software create a large excess of labor. One of the major features for the US and EU during that time is that cheap settlement was a partial relief to 10s of millions of immigrants and migrants who would have otherwise exacerbated the surplus labor caused by industrialization during the era. That land filled up, just as you contend occurred previously in history, hence my support of the GP's statement. Now apparently, you've taken to argue with me because I haven't considered the Roman army, who apparently were able to give out 20acre/man to hundreds of thousands of soldiers because land was expensive and unavailable.
Indentured servitude was largely a practice of colonial times (pre-US); slavery was greatly preferred by 1800. Some people, particularly, immigrants still entered into similar contracts abroad to cover the cost of their migration. I think his point stands. Prior to the 20th century land was cheap or often free. Homestead acts secured this, but the federal government effectively recognized squatters for decades before then. No land? Go further west. One could effectively stake out of claim for free (subject to first bidding rights, when the time came, if ever) and support oneself (farm,mine,hunt) up through the late 19th century. And 10s of millions of people did that and it was the only relief valve on labor during gilded age. Without that respite the gilded age would have been even worse for the lower classes due to the sudden and large surplus of labor caused by industrialization. In contrast there is no relief should we enter to major labor surplus today. We see evidence of this already.
Using an aggressive setback on a programmable thermosat can save substantially a bit. A $200 programmable thermostat is a more costly than usual; thats typically the price point for a learning thermostat (which attempt to be programmable thermostats for lazy people, but aren't as good).
For example I set back from 68 to 50 during the night when I sleep and during the day when I am working. For "average" outdoor temperature of lets say 30F, I slashed heating bill by 48% durring that setback. Since I am working and sleeping 75% of the day. Total savings are 36%. Utilities are cheap here, I pay ~$700 to heat and cool my place. So I don't save much (though, incidentally, enough to pay off a very cheap programmable thermostat in less than a heating season) Some people are spending $3000-$4000 to heat and cool moderately sized houses. Few weeks = 3 to 5 * 3000/52 = $173 to $288 in heating costs. Slashing that by 30% gives you at least $18-24/week savings.
And this guy could easily have an extra ordinary situation such that he is measuring payback in weeks instead of months. e.g., in a heating climate he could have an St. Paul 1890 5900 sq ft house with an oil boiler from the same era, or in cooling climate Yuma AZ, a 1994 AC with uninstalled duct work running through the 160F attic. Yeah, in both situations they could substantially and cost effectively reduce operational costs using other methods, but this is the type of crap that permeates american construction.
Yes. The debate is ongoing since at least canals and railroads from 1830s, and the only common theme is that again and again the federal government is there to do big new things and the private money is not (at least without help from our friend:) !). The golden gate bridge is not of the scale of the federal highway system, but my recollection is that it was funded by some shady relationship involving government bonds and bankers. Over the last 200 years, private enterprise has simply shown they are not willing to accept the risk of these projects.
And that is fine. Maybe we should have "built America" over centuries instead of years or decades. I don't really have a strong opinion about that, I do know that most people, including private capital greatly prefer the latter. However what I really cannot tolerate is the commonly held fairy tale that capitalists can do more, better, and faster when unencumbered by the government. Somehow, they will take more risk and spend more money for the same gain? It makes no sense.
FYI, I actually have 50.4% of economy from said sectors from BEA data (mining, ag, exports, durable mfg, transport, utility, government, defence,...). This ignores that these sectors, particularly energy, transportation, and telecom, grease the gears of the entire service economy. Again demonstrating just how valuable mega infrastructure can be.
In response to your link, I'm aware of that fiasco, and many others, as bad worse, that span the history of corrupt government/private partnerships. It is a very tricky subject. How do you evaluate it when really good* things come from terribly unfair and corrupt processes? I am not interested in silly absolute ideological answers to that question, which is basically the only form of conversation one finds on this issue.
*Most people do believe that rapid expansion of the economy and enhanced access to goods, services, & resources, is a good thing. I am of mixed opinion on that as well.
We're competing with other nations that will fund advanced infrastructure and new industries. We will lose economic battles to those countries, and fail, stagnate, stutter, use whatever word you like for fall short of potential or "not do well"
Hmm. ASPS on Mono modules are on the order of 0.75 $/W to distributors, leaving BOS and installation at 37 cents. That seems possible if you did it yourself and had no inter connection, meter, or electrician fees. But that price cannot be right based on the details you have provided. Are you neglecting ITC rebate? That would give you $1.6, or about the cheapest rate utilities putting up MW projects now...
yet, solar's output can be tailed very conveniently to peak loads that would otherwise be served by peaking plants, which by virtue of their operation (low capacity factor) are 2-4X more expensive than regular generation, and, as it turns out 15%CF solar. That's before we throw all our natural gas on boats and sell it overseas for a 300% profit.
Following on, the support of these projects and industries "trickled down" to effectively create the industrial might of the US including continental trade in agriculture, forestry husbandry, steal, coal, oil, concrete, etc. It also exploded the economy at an impossible pace compared to that which would have been pursued by otherwise risk averse capital investors. We know because they passed the opportunities and wrote as much.
Collectively these industries are well over 50% of GDP. Over time most of the private beneficiaries (capitalists) of the defining infrastructure projects (railroads, electrification, nuclear power, and federal highway system) were not possible direct support of the federal government. I'm open to hear any accomplishments of free market capitalists that are equivalent in scale to those projects started, funded, backstopped, guaranteed by the federal government.
Sorry that your ideology is offended, but its true. Railroads, highway systems, aerospace, telecom, defense, nuclear power and directly and indirectly via all these avenues, energy. All major industries kick started by massive federal government. All systems still dominated by direct government subsidies and by virtue as the largest paying customer.
This is not a high performance custom frame. It is a steel tubed tank in the shape of a chair that has little in common with any famously designed road bike. There is no design expertise that will allow a single seat post adjustment to accommodate widely varying human anatomies. There is however probably a rigorously developed computer algorithm that can churn out a design that is nominally acceptable for a large range of body types. Furthermore, the new citibike looks to have an identical frame as the previous bikes, probably because its still the same bike, produced by the same company. Serotta added a hole in the seat, new gears, and a EU kickstand...
What hysteria? Assuming the US-centric position, no one here is doing anything about it, unless you count all the hot air. What poor short term choices have we made?
As for China, they could single handily neuter any attempt at AGW mitigation, but instead they are doing the opposite. Their emissions growth has shrunk dramatically, they are reducing coal use faster than anyone expected (from a peak 2 years ago), they are installing more wind and solar than anyone one earth while supplying 80% of wind and solar to everyone on earth. Also its kind of a dick move to outsource all your heavy industry to a county and then give them shit about their emissions.
A few years ago a tea party politician in Colorado opined that bike sharing programs were part of a liberal U.N. conspiracy. Like a real conspiracy orchaistrated by some shadowy cabal.
It has nothing to do with Musk. But fighting the assault of ideologues and hypocrites who benefit greatly from government subsidies while advocating against them for others. Government subsidies built America. They will build future America or the future America will falter. Deal with it.
I'm inclined to not like them because my cable internet service (Time Warner -> Comcast) is more expensive and slower than when deployed here 16 years ago. Of course I have the option to spend more than $40/mo on packaged garbage or higher tiered internet, but the idea that the internet has scaled up 1000x during this time and I have the same janky service is hilarious.
To be fair, I discount inflation and it would be the same price if I was also a cable TV subscriber. Comcast brought that requirement when they did the monopoly swap with Time Warner that gave them my service area.
spend all the money you would spend on a gshp well on thicker insulation, better windows, and intelligent shading. Its more cost effective and won't break. gshps are a lazy and expensive approach to heating and cooling. Use your capital to eliminate the loads in the first place. Then use a significantly cheaper and smaller ashp if necessary. Even in climates with 8000 to 9000 HDD, properly air sealed R30 walls (inc glazing) will drop your design heat load to 1 ton or less of heat pump. ground sinks are ridiculous at that low size.
But capital markets love vaporware and this kind of ludicrous access to the capital markets is propelling Tesla at a rate equivalent or in excess of the r&d pace that the stodgy old auto mfgs can pursue. It has a kind of perverted logic too it in a highly speculative sense.
I think most German appliances have fully digital controls, especially EU-style convection ovens. I've already articulated the benefits to society of connected, intelligent energy intensive appliances. You've just ignored those benefits due to some kind of personal grudge.
Our energy grid is growing increasingly complex and unpredictable, "stupid" devices have obvious drawbacks for grid management, demand response, electricity markets, etc. Paired with distributed storage and generation, coordinating electrical usage can dramatically reduce the generation, transmission, and distribution costs during times of peak demand and minimum demand. We'll eventually have market-based pricing that will take all this into account... and you'll pay money and others will save. I support your choice, why don't you support mine?
Slashdot Mirror
why thank you for the elegant reply. I see no real argument here, I guess. But I am unaware of any controversy surrounding the thesis that surplus labor from industrialization drove migration and resettlement. The emerging class of capitalists crushed labor moves in this era. Wages were low, Chinese, ex-slaves, veterans, the Irish were all played off one another to drive down wages. Wages went down, poverty increased, working conditions deteriorated, breadlines grew, How do you come by these observations without surplus labor?
I think its clear that my comments were solely focused on the EU/US and that conversations in general on this website are US-centric. And the basis of this thread implies the progress of capitalist systems; hence essentially confining the history to the times and places I have considered. Where the during this previous period was subject to similar labor pressures as those that will occur if robotics and software create a large excess of labor. One of the major features for the US and EU during that time is that cheap settlement was a partial relief to 10s of millions of immigrants and migrants who would have otherwise exacerbated the surplus labor caused by industrialization during the era. That land filled up, just as you contend occurred previously in history, hence my support of the GP's statement. Now apparently, you've taken to argue with me because I haven't considered the Roman army, who apparently were able to give out 20acre/man to hundreds of thousands of soldiers because land was expensive and unavailable.
Indentured servitude was largely a practice of colonial times (pre-US); slavery was greatly preferred by 1800. Some people, particularly, immigrants still entered into similar contracts abroad to cover the cost of their migration. I think his point stands. Prior to the 20th century land was cheap or often free. Homestead acts secured this, but the federal government effectively recognized squatters for decades before then. No land? Go further west. One could effectively stake out of claim for free (subject to first bidding rights, when the time came, if ever) and support oneself (farm,mine,hunt) up through the late 19th century. And 10s of millions of people did that and it was the only relief valve on labor during gilded age. Without that respite the gilded age would have been even worse for the lower classes due to the sudden and large surplus of labor caused by industrialization. In contrast there is no relief should we enter to major labor surplus today. We see evidence of this already.
Using an aggressive setback on a programmable thermosat can save substantially a bit. A $200 programmable thermostat is a more costly than usual; thats typically the price point for a learning thermostat (which attempt to be programmable thermostats for lazy people, but aren't as good).
For example I set back from 68 to 50 during the night when I sleep and during the day when I am working. For "average" outdoor temperature of lets say 30F, I slashed heating bill by 48% durring that setback. Since I am working and sleeping 75% of the day. Total savings are 36%. Utilities are cheap here, I pay ~$700 to heat and cool my place. So I don't save much (though, incidentally, enough to pay off a very cheap programmable thermostat in less than a heating season) Some people are spending $3000-$4000 to heat and cool moderately sized houses. Few weeks = 3 to 5 * 3000/52 = $173 to $288 in heating costs. Slashing that by 30% gives you at least $18-24/week savings.
And this guy could easily have an extra ordinary situation such that he is measuring payback in weeks instead of months. e.g., in a heating climate he could have an St. Paul 1890 5900 sq ft house with an oil boiler from the same era, or in cooling climate Yuma AZ, a 1994 AC with uninstalled duct work running through the 160F attic. Yeah, in both situations they could substantially and cost effectively reduce operational costs using other methods, but this is the type of crap that permeates american construction.
Regulations? where did they come up
Yes. The debate is ongoing since at least canals and railroads from 1830s, and the only common theme is that again and again the federal government is there to do big new things and the private money is not (at least without help from our friend :) !). The golden gate bridge is not of the scale of the federal highway system, but my recollection is that it was funded by some shady relationship involving government bonds and bankers. Over the last 200 years, private enterprise has simply shown they are not willing to accept the risk of these projects.
...). This ignores that these sectors, particularly energy, transportation, and telecom, grease the gears of the entire service economy. Again demonstrating just how valuable mega infrastructure can be.
And that is fine. Maybe we should have "built America" over centuries instead of years or decades. I don't really have a strong opinion about that, I do know that most people, including private capital greatly prefer the latter. However what I really cannot tolerate is the commonly held fairy tale that capitalists can do more, better, and faster when unencumbered by the government. Somehow, they will take more risk and spend more money for the same gain? It makes no sense. FYI, I actually have 50.4% of economy from said sectors from BEA data (mining, ag, exports, durable mfg, transport, utility, government, defence,
In response to your link, I'm aware of that fiasco, and many others, as bad worse, that span the history of corrupt government/private partnerships. It is a very tricky subject. How do you evaluate it when really good* things come from terribly unfair and corrupt processes? I am not interested in silly absolute ideological answers to that question, which is basically the only form of conversation one finds on this issue.
*Most people do believe that rapid expansion of the economy and enhanced access to goods, services, & resources, is a good thing. I am of mixed opinion on that as well.
We're competing with other nations that will fund advanced infrastructure and new industries. We will lose economic battles to those countries, and fail, stagnate, stutter, use whatever word you like for fall short of potential or "not do well"
Hmm. ASPS on Mono modules are on the order of 0.75 $/W to distributors, leaving BOS and installation at 37 cents. That seems possible if you did it yourself and had no inter connection, meter, or electrician fees. But that price cannot be right based on the details you have provided. Are you neglecting ITC rebate? That would give you $1.6, or about the cheapest rate utilities putting up MW projects now...
Do you feel threatened by a growing solar energy industry?
yet, solar's output can be tailed very conveniently to peak loads that would otherwise be served by peaking plants, which by virtue of their operation (low capacity factor) are 2-4X more expensive than regular generation, and, as it turns out 15%CF solar. That's before we throw all our natural gas on boats and sell it overseas for a 300% profit.
Following on, the support of these projects and industries "trickled down" to effectively create the industrial might of the US including continental trade in agriculture, forestry husbandry, steal, coal, oil, concrete, etc. It also exploded the economy at an impossible pace compared to that which would have been pursued by otherwise risk averse capital investors. We know because they passed the opportunities and wrote as much.
and I fcked it up again, anyway, hope you have the point
sorry "... have openly declared projects were not possible direct support ..."
Collectively these industries are well over 50% of GDP. Over time most of the private beneficiaries (capitalists) of the defining infrastructure projects (railroads, electrification, nuclear power, and federal highway system) were not possible direct support of the federal government. I'm open to hear any accomplishments of free market capitalists that are equivalent in scale to those projects started, funded, backstopped, guaranteed by the federal government.
Sorry that your ideology is offended, but its true. Railroads, highway systems, aerospace, telecom, defense, nuclear power and directly and indirectly via all these avenues, energy. All major industries kick started by massive federal government. All systems still dominated by direct government subsidies and by virtue as the largest paying customer.
This is not a high performance custom frame. It is a steel tubed tank in the shape of a chair that has little in common with any famously designed road bike. There is no design expertise that will allow a single seat post adjustment to accommodate widely varying human anatomies. There is however probably a rigorously developed computer algorithm that can churn out a design that is nominally acceptable for a large range of body types. Furthermore, the new citibike looks to have an identical frame as the previous bikes, probably because its still the same bike, produced by the same company. Serotta added a hole in the seat, new gears, and a EU kickstand...
What hysteria? Assuming the US-centric position, no one here is doing anything about it, unless you count all the hot air. What poor short term choices have we made?
As for China, they could single handily neuter any attempt at AGW mitigation, but instead they are doing the opposite. Their emissions growth has shrunk dramatically, they are reducing coal use faster than anyone expected (from a peak 2 years ago), they are installing more wind and solar than anyone one earth while supplying 80% of wind and solar to everyone on earth. Also its kind of a dick move to outsource all your heavy industry to a county and then give them shit about their emissions.
But the Citibike is one size fits all.
A few years ago a tea party politician in Colorado opined that bike sharing programs were part of a liberal U.N. conspiracy. Like a real conspiracy orchaistrated by some shadowy cabal.
with tape on the pins to unlock our cacheless 300As. fuck yeah.
It has nothing to do with Musk. But fighting the assault of ideologues and hypocrites who benefit greatly from government subsidies while advocating against them for others. Government subsidies built America. They will build future America or the future America will falter. Deal with it.
I'm inclined to not like them because my cable internet service (Time Warner -> Comcast) is more expensive and slower than when deployed here 16 years ago. Of course I have the option to spend more than $40/mo on packaged garbage or higher tiered internet, but the idea that the internet has scaled up 1000x during this time and I have the same janky service is hilarious.
To be fair, I discount inflation and it would be the same price if I was also a cable TV subscriber. Comcast brought that requirement when they did the monopoly swap with Time Warner that gave them my service area.
spend all the money you would spend on a gshp well on thicker insulation, better windows, and intelligent shading. Its more cost effective and won't break. gshps are a lazy and expensive approach to heating and cooling. Use your capital to eliminate the loads in the first place. Then use a significantly cheaper and smaller ashp if necessary. Even in climates with 8000 to 9000 HDD, properly air sealed R30 walls (inc glazing) will drop your design heat load to 1 ton or less of heat pump. ground sinks are ridiculous at that low size.
But capital markets love vaporware and this kind of ludicrous access to the capital markets is propelling Tesla at a rate equivalent or in excess of the r&d pace that the stodgy old auto mfgs can pursue. It has a kind of perverted logic too it in a highly speculative sense.
I think most German appliances have fully digital controls, especially EU-style convection ovens. I've already articulated the benefits to society of connected, intelligent energy intensive appliances. You've just ignored those benefits due to some kind of personal grudge.
... and you'll pay money and others will save. I support your choice, why don't you support mine?
Our energy grid is growing increasingly complex and unpredictable, "stupid" devices have obvious drawbacks for grid management, demand response, electricity markets, etc. Paired with distributed storage and generation, coordinating electrical usage can dramatically reduce the generation, transmission, and distribution costs during times of peak demand and minimum demand. We'll eventually have market-based pricing that will take all this into account