My understanding is that most people who support a carbon tax believe that the revenues should be spread equally to each taxpayer at the federal level, and that the money received by the tax would be remain independent from other taxs. Rich people tend to consume more carbon than poor people, so unless your friends use much more energy than the average American of their income level, they will come out ahead with a carbon tax. That's the beauty of it.
A fine idea, but you lack my cynicism when it comes to the government. I don't like the idea of wealth redistribution, nor do I trust the government to give up money once they get it. For example, the New York State Thruway was set up as a toll road initially with the stated intention of removing those tolls once the NYS government recuperated the costs of building it; to pay off the construction bonds and their interest. That's great, but the bonds were all paid back over 15 years ago, and the tolls have gone up several times since then. Now they say the money is for maintenance, but they get Federal Highway funds for that. Of course, where to the Federal Highway funds come from; the gasoline and diesel taxes. So, not only are high energy users currently being taxed for their higher energy usage, but the wealth is already being redistributed in the form of those Federal Highway funds. In the meantime, the NYS government won't live up to their agreement, and by extension, I doubt this new "carbon tax" would be either.
I should also point out that I don't believe that GW is caused by human activity. I do; however, think that burning fossil fuels is a bad idea thanks to all the other things that come out of a tail pipe/smoke stack when you burn them. By that rationale, natural gas is better than oil, which is better than coal. Nuclear, well, it's kind of in the middle in my mind.
Your basic argument is that the best idea is to lower human energy consumption. I'm completely against that. I think the best way to clean the environment is to increase affluence of all people. Then they can afford things like the Clean Air Act that we have and China desperately needs!
Without the need of a carbon tax, Congress could simply increase CAFE to get that increase in fuel economy. That would have the same end, and probably increase the cost of vehicles, having the effect you want without raising taxes.
Your idea of more rails wouldn't work. Amtrack is run by the government and it's crap. Even the Acela trains have problems, and even with the hassle of flying these days, it's still cheaper to fly. The US is simply too spread out to be effective. Our suburbs, in the North East and it's only worse in the rest of the country, are too spread out for them to be effective. They work in densely populated areas for that reason, but most of the country is not. The cost of the infrastructure, materials and energy and maintenance, let alone construction would out weigh the savings of people driving less. The better option would be more efficient cars and better energy sources. Personally, I'm betting on those algae to bio-diesel and algae to hydrocarbons that several folks I keep reading about are working on. For the record, I agree that money and subsidies spent on ethanol is a waste, and I am against that as well. As for solar energy, I did make simple solar panels in college, and as I've read recently, the ones made in the last few years generate more power than was required to make them when used in areas with average to above average numbers of clear days; to include resource gathering; mining, etc. Wind, as I understand, has already passed that threshold as well, which is why I pay extra to buy all my electricity from wind. Still, although I in effect pay this carbon tax you speak of, it's my choice. I can afford it, and I choose to do it in support of the technology. My big problem is FORCING people to do it, when at least in NYS, they all have the opportunity to do it now.
It's amazing the number of people who replied to the quotes who seem like they didn't get the reference. I'm a big Kubrick fan, so I got it right away. However, I don't find it that bad, as I've tried to get my wife to watch it many times to no avail. For some reason, if I mention any movie made before 1990, then I get some weird look.
You're right of course, I just think that, judging by the comments in general on/., that most folks would enjoy that movie; and most of the rest of Kubrick's work as much as you and I clearly do! For the record, I feel your pain. I haven't been able to get my girlfriend to watch it either.
On the other side, to respond to your first point, it's a little frightening to me that your original post got modded insightful, when it was so clearly a farce. Then again, when I was in the AF during the 2000 changeover, I worked with several competent, and otherwise normal, civilian engineers who honestly believed really bad things were going to happen with the Y2k bug. One guy whom I like very much went so far as to stock up food, gasoline, etc, because he felt things were all going to fail for a few months!
besides, most of the people who will be paying the tax will be the ones least able to afford it; at least here in the northeast US. I have friends whose parents are moving from their house of 25 years, because of the property taxes. Another energy tax(carbon tax), above the already high energy prices, and yes I know federal,state, and local taxes are a huge part of that, would exacerbate an already significant problem.
Now I would support an incentive that encouraged these alternative, cleaner, lower carbon, whatever, fuels; say lowering the energy taxes that already exist on them to encourage the usage. That would be a fine incentive that would have the same effect.
From the summary: Dawn will be the first science mission powered by electric ion propulsion
No, a quick Wikipedia check says otherwise: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster#Missions . For example, Deep Space 1 used electric ion thrusters. you're tripping over intent. DS1 was a mission solely to test the engine as a viable propulsive technology for future missions. This mission is the first for a real science mission.
I wonder if that's true for the JSA and ESA missions that other/.ers have mentioned? Just a guess on that...
The concept it akin to the early Apollo missions for example; as we all know Apollo 11 was the first to use the LM for what it was intended, it was tested several times before that on other missions.
By the way, in case you're wondering about the analogy here, I've been watching the Science Channel replay of HBO's From the Earth to the Moon.
the fuel tank having a nasty tendency to shed foam
The reason for this is the redesign of the fuel tank's foam. Initially, it was designed with chlorofluorocarbons in it; nasty thing if you're a fan of the ozone layer; the old foam had no issues falling off. In my opinion, this tank should have been grandfathered in past the treaty banning the use of CFCs, because it's not like there's either a lot of shuttle launches or is there a lot of CFC in it compared to the bazzillions of air conditioners in use in the US. I mean, we got an exception for the CFCs we use as an herbicide or something like that, so why not a few dozen or so shuttle fuel tanks to cover the life of the program? For the record, I fully support the ban, but obviously think the shuttle should have been exempted. After all, it was already planned to be retired when the ban went into effect in 1990.
Ironically, I see nothing wrong with the risk to human life in this. All the astronauts are aware of it, and take the risk willingly. I tried to become one as well while I was in the AF, but alas didn't make the cut. There's nothing wrong with taking high risks for high reward, but then maybe you agree with that, but your point is that the space station, particularly in it's currently and planned scaled down form, is not worth it. That, I agree with. Going back to the moon; however, is a different story.
I will download music. I stopped and tried to go the legal route, and as far as I can tell they want to siphon off every dollar I have that way. This is no different. The faulty business models must be crushed - do your part. Download stuff. I'm getting close to where you are. I'm still a yahoo customer, but it's so damn frustrating. One thing that drives me nuts is that you can only get certain versions of some songs; i.e. not always the version I want. I want to buy it, be honest, and pay for my content, but they aren't giving me a way to get what I want. I don't have the patience to pay multiple sources.
I had a standard 2000 Honda civic, and got the same results. I found that weekly checking of my tire pressure, and regular maintenance; tune-ups, tire rotation, etc; kept those numbers up for the 5 years I owned it. I averaged 37-38 highway; between Ohio and NYC, and around 32-35 town/city; NYC and Ohio.
For the record, I sold it a year after moving to Manhattan, where I don't need it.
Yes those rates are on the rise, but mainly because we don't do the things we need to do to contain them. We did have a malaria problem here, and we did successfully deal with it. Make it warmer, and make the mosquitos more common and active, and all we have to do is employ those same techniques we did about a century ago, and our new old problem will be solved again. We don't drain ponds, spray DDT, or anything else like that around here too often, but we probably will as it gets hotter. A few summers ago, one of those viruses, the West Nile Virus, hit Long Island (the western edge of said island is 2 parts of NYC) broke out, and we employed some of those techniques. The result was containment, pretty good containment anyway, of the virus, and there haven't been people getting sick. So, my response to your WHO point is, yes, here's more evidence of that happening, and more evidence of a rich place dealing with it using techniques developed a century ago. My argument both supports your point in that it is and will continue happening, and my point that we can and will deal with it. I kind of agree and disagree with you, if you take my meaning.
Yeah -- and quite honestly, I'd rather get the flu than dengue fever [wikipedia.org], yellow fever [wikipedia.org], viral encephalitis [wikipedia.org], malaria [wikipedia.org], and a whole host of other tropical diseases.
I'm pretty sure the other things you mentioned are true, but this part is partially untrue. It's not that these diseases won't follow the warmth, I'm sure they will, but that they won't be a problem when they get here. Granted, I'm talking about rich places like the USA, but here's the thing. The US has already dealt with and defeated malaria on our soil. Malaria used to be a scourge here effecting our Southern states; basically Florida to Texas on the south, and up to Pennsylvania and New Jersey in the north. We beat it in the early 1900s, but most people, at least in the US, don't remember that. The only reason I know about it is from an interesting History Channel show that discussed how we beat it here.
So, while many of these problems will be bad, the mosquito vectored ones probably will not. Good news I'd say, because I think GW is happening, and that we won't be able to stop it!
except US only accounts for ~25% of chinese exports. losing 1/4 of it's output isn't going to bankrupt state-owned-enterprises True, but it will hurt. They are artificially keeping the Yuan devalued for a reason. Take away 25% of the customers from almost any business, and they will have trouble staying in business. Check my numbers www.census.gov shows that last year China exported 287,772,800,000 dollars worth of goods to the US. That's a lot to lose.
It's not unheard of for a factory to radically change WHAT it makes. If you don't find customers for one product, you make something else. Factories have intrinsic value. Like shovels and hammers, and other tools, only magnified.
Now if you want to assert that there won't be any market for Barbie dolls, and what else can you make with the same equipment... There you've got me. You'd be able to make practically anything that only depended on plastic molds and coloring, and that's too wide a spectrum to guess. If you could add wiring and small electric motors (Do Barbies have that kind of thing this year?) you could do even more. Everything from doorbells (well, not the chimes, themselves) to miniature rockets. (Note that I did NOT say "model".) Very true, but my main point is simply that without the US as a customer, that China would have difficulty finding someone else to sell products to in the volume that would make up for what the US consumes; whatever product that may be.
The difference is that, after the dollar took a nosedive, China still has its factories and the US still have... well... beats me.
Yes they have all those factories. What is the use of a factory when no one buys the product? Ask someone who used to work for the US auto industry. If there is no one buying the product, then the factory does not run. China needs the US more than we need them. We can always get by on less stuff. I don't need that 42inch big screen tv and all the little trimmings. I could read more books, or god forbid, go outside and hike, run, bike, etc. The US can build things, and still makes a lot of things. China needs us because all of those people in those factories need jobs.
How about a little thought experiment to prove my point.
If that went away, lets say China did something simple like, stopped said we won't sell jack to the US, and we're offloading all of our Dollar assets, then of course, the dollar would be worth nothing. So then, it's cheaper to make things in the US and sell them to everyone else. This, by the way, is part of the reason Chinese goods are so cheap to begin with. Some estimates have the Chinese currency, Yuan I think it's called, at 40+% undervalued; meaning there's a 40+% discount on anything produced in China sold elsewhere. Anyway, now the US has that advantage, and we have 300 million rich consumers; rich by Chinese standards. China does not. Sure, the average American would not have all those cheap goods from China to buy, but I don't think I'm going out on a limb in saying that there would be plenty of entrepreneurs in the US, and let's face it everywhere else, looking to fill the void. Sure, we'd not be able to buy as many goods, but our money would not evaporate. I would still have bought a TV last year, even if it was not the pretty 42inch LCD; something smaller, and probably less cool, but costing the same would have been what I bought. So, America would be fine. We'd just be buying few, albeit more expensive things. Besides, what do you think would happen in places like India, Vietnam, and Mexico? They would nearly drop dead from joy! It's already cheaper to make some things in those countries than in China for certain industries. With the devalued dollar, it wouldn't be as good, but there would still be able to sell us stuff.
China, on the other hand, would have lost it's major trading partner. They are already trying to sell to their own people, so they would not be able to make up the slack. This is especially so when they just lost their biggest customer; a lot of Chinese would be out of work. Communist or not, hungry = angry, and angry riots. The Chinese would have a world of problems on their hands.
Who would be hurt the worst? Europe. Why? Their currencies are expensive, and now you have the dollar being even cheaper. Our goods would be flooding that market, and China would be trying to hit it as well. With unemployment already roughly double what it is in the US, they'd have a heck of a rough time.
Ironically, this whole thing will right itself in time anyway. As China becomes more affluent, costs will rise there, even as they create their own market with that billion plus population. That's a lot of new consumers for all of use to sell things to. Money is not a finite. Wealth breeds more wealth. That's the core philosophy of capitalism, and the economies of the world have proven that it's true.
yeah, but what about the uneven barriers on the outside of the road. Granted, the article was talking about the median, but what about the uneven ones near like Ho-Ho-Hus? Those are certainly going to create turbulence and destroy the pretty slip-stream. On the median, I agree, but if used on the other side, like on most of the roads in northern Jersey; route 4, 17, etc... you've got all those towns that have the uneven side barriers to help control sound. I've seen similar ones down in the Tampa Florida area recently while visiting family.
Yes, you'll pay less in electricity bills, but the energy that isn't being converted into light is converted into heat. So getting rid of incandescents could increase your heating bill.
In the US, where AC is in the vast majority of homes and businesses, the vast majority of the population lives in places where they use it for more than 6 months a year. Figure a few months a wash, since the little extra heat wouldn't matter too much, nor would the lack thereof matter too much, and you get like 3-4 months tops where it would provide some help. Then, you have to figure efficiencies. Is a lightbulb the best way to warm your house in the first place? Would it be more efficient to run that oil or natural gas furnace, again this is what most American homes use, and use less electricity anyway. I have no numbers to back that up, but my hunch is that it's better to use less electricity for heating, even if I'm certain that the net over the year is savings when removing the incandescents.
So am I surprised by your pessimism. For every bad thing you can show, I can show a good one. Ironically, I consider your very comments a positive. The more people like you bring up these evils here, reminding those of us like myself who tend to focus on the good things, the more we can all do something about them. Prohibition became an amendment and was repealed. So can any other stupid law. So, keep being negative loudly, and we'll fix it.
Well, all I can say is that I hope your wife gets better soon.
And hopefully to make you laugh, I'll quibble over one thing you wrote; about the money being based off of debt. It's still a gamble because we believe that the government will be able to pay off that debt; if we didn't then it wouldn't be worth anything. Again, betting that they will be able to pay off that debt, is a risk, taking said risk, a gamble, even if it's a very safe risk.
The core of my argument is that taking a risk, any risk no matter how minor, is a gamble. Admittedly, that core may be rotten, but as Obi Wan told Luke, "Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view." I always like to bring the Trilogy into my arguments. (sarsasm) It really adds weight to them. (/sarcasm)
Everybody loves to gamble.
Ehm, you really shouldn't generalize like that. I for one do not like to gamble and actually never do. My sister has said to be that when she hears me saying "I bet that...", she never bets with me because I only say that when I'm 100% sure that I'm going to win. There is truth in that. I think gambling is a total and utter waste of money and is not fun at all.
I hope you're trying to be funny. If you aren't, then you need to lighten up a bit.
If I may wax a bit philosophically for a minute, it's hard to live life without gambling a bit. Driving is a gamble, and you bet with your life. Even if you are the best driver in the world, that won't always protect you. Both my parents were injured in separate accidents when they were stopped at a stop sign. Eating out at a restaurant is a gamble too; a percentage, and I'm not sure how large or small it is, you could get food poisoning. I did once eating at a fast food place, bad enough that I ended up in the hospital, even though my girlfriend whose meal was in the same order did not get sick. Swimming in the ocean; well a few people each year get hurt from waves, sharks, jellies, etc. That too is a gamble. So, in the narrow sense of going to Vegas, you're right everyone doesn't gamble, but in the larger sense that any risk you take; even buying a mutual fund or a bond; hell even a FDIC insured savings account is still betting that both the bank and the US Government will be able to back your money... even paper money itself.. it's only backed by a promise... ain't no gold backing it any more... regardless of how many tons of gold are in 'ol Fort Knox... it don't come close to covering all they print!
Anyway, thanks for the excuse to take that leap of fancy. I hope you enjoyed reading it as much as I did writing it.
Somehow the American dream (if I understood it correctly as a European) to "make it" by hard work and perseverance has been replaced by "get rich quick". I might have misunderstood though.
Everybody loves to gamble. That is true everywhere. Lotteries are simply the Mafia's old numbers gig, that the states made legal because the Mob showed them how rich they could get with it. All the day-trading is gambling without having to travel to a casino or buy a lottery ticket, and the average Joe who does it usually bring more cash to that table than at a casino. I'm 30 also, and pretty much stick to index funds for most of my savings, but I too gamble with about 5-10 percent in stuff that I think could spark. It's fun, and that's the allure.
Still, I too am afraid of people who won't look longer term then 3 weeks or 3 months. Buy and hold is a great idea!
The Wiimote, awesome as it is, is not a magic wand. It does not turn shit into gold, and it's perfectly possible for a game to implement shitty controls for the Wii.
That is so true. I bought Rampage for nostalgic reasons, and I am totally unhappy with it. Wiimote or not, that game sucks.
Slashdot Mirror
Great Dune reference in your sig. Thanks for the laugh.
A fine idea, but you lack my cynicism when it comes to the government. I don't like the idea of wealth redistribution, nor do I trust the government to give up money once they get it. For example, the New York State Thruway was set up as a toll road initially with the stated intention of removing those tolls once the NYS government recuperated the costs of building it; to pay off the construction bonds and their interest. That's great, but the bonds were all paid back over 15 years ago, and the tolls have gone up several times since then. Now they say the money is for maintenance, but they get Federal Highway funds for that. Of course, where to the Federal Highway funds come from; the gasoline and diesel taxes. So, not only are high energy users currently being taxed for their higher energy usage, but the wealth is already being redistributed in the form of those Federal Highway funds. In the meantime, the NYS government won't live up to their agreement, and by extension, I doubt this new "carbon tax" would be either.
I should also point out that I don't believe that GW is caused by human activity. I do; however, think that burning fossil fuels is a bad idea thanks to all the other things that come out of a tail pipe/smoke stack when you burn them. By that rationale, natural gas is better than oil, which is better than coal. Nuclear, well, it's kind of in the middle in my mind.
Your basic argument is that the best idea is to lower human energy consumption. I'm completely against that. I think the best way to clean the environment is to increase affluence of all people. Then they can afford things like the Clean Air Act that we have and China desperately needs!
Without the need of a carbon tax, Congress could simply increase CAFE to get that increase in fuel economy. That would have the same end, and probably increase the cost of vehicles, having the effect you want without raising taxes.
Your idea of more rails wouldn't work. Amtrack is run by the government and it's crap. Even the Acela trains have problems, and even with the hassle of flying these days, it's still cheaper to fly. The US is simply too spread out to be effective. Our suburbs, in the North East and it's only worse in the rest of the country, are too spread out for them to be effective. They work in densely populated areas for that reason, but most of the country is not. The cost of the infrastructure, materials and energy and maintenance, let alone construction would out weigh the savings of people driving less. The better option would be more efficient cars and better energy sources. Personally, I'm betting on those algae to bio-diesel and algae to hydrocarbons that several folks I keep reading about are working on. For the record, I agree that money and subsidies spent on ethanol is a waste, and I am against that as well. As for solar energy, I did make simple solar panels in college, and as I've read recently, the ones made in the last few years generate more power than was required to make them when used in areas with average to above average numbers of clear days; to include resource gathering; mining, etc. Wind, as I understand, has already passed that threshold as well, which is why I pay extra to buy all my electricity from wind. Still, although I in effect pay this carbon tax you speak of, it's my choice. I can afford it, and I choose to do it in support of the technology. My big problem is FORCING people to do it, when at least in NYS, they all have the opportunity to do it now.
On the other side, to respond to your first point, it's a little frightening to me that your original post got modded insightful, when it was so clearly a farce. Then again, when I was in the AF during the 2000 changeover, I worked with several competent, and otherwise normal, civilian engineers who honestly believed really bad things were going to happen with the Y2k bug. One guy whom I like very much went so far as to stock up food, gasoline, etc, because he felt things were all going to fail for a few months!
Oh well, thanks for the laugh!
how is this not modded funny? Am I the only one to get the DR Strangelove reference?!?!?! /.ers... get with it!! It's a classic movie!!!!
I wish i had the mod points for you!
besides, most of the people who will be paying the tax will be the ones least able to afford it; at least here in the northeast US. I have friends whose parents are moving from their house of 25 years, because of the property taxes. Another energy tax(carbon tax), above the already high energy prices, and yes I know federal,state, and local taxes are a huge part of that, would exacerbate an already significant problem.
Now I would support an incentive that encouraged these alternative, cleaner, lower carbon, whatever, fuels; say lowering the energy taxes that already exist on them to encourage the usage. That would be a fine incentive that would have the same effect.
No, a quick Wikipedia check says otherwise: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster#Mission
I wonder if that's true for the JSA and ESA missions that other
The concept it akin to the early Apollo missions for example; as we all know Apollo 11 was the first to use the LM for what it was intended, it was tested several times before that on other missions.
By the way, in case you're wondering about the analogy here, I've been watching the Science Channel replay of HBO's From the Earth to the Moon.
The reason for this is the redesign of the fuel tank's foam. Initially, it was designed with chlorofluorocarbons in it; nasty thing if you're a fan of the ozone layer; the old foam had no issues falling off. In my opinion, this tank should have been grandfathered in past the treaty banning the use of CFCs, because it's not like there's either a lot of shuttle launches or is there a lot of CFC in it compared to the bazzillions of air conditioners in use in the US. I mean, we got an exception for the CFCs we use as an herbicide or something like that, so why not a few dozen or so shuttle fuel tanks to cover the life of the program? For the record, I fully support the ban, but obviously think the shuttle should have been exempted. After all, it was already planned to be retired when the ban went into effect in 1990.
Ironically, I see nothing wrong with the risk to human life in this. All the astronauts are aware of it, and take the risk willingly. I tried to become one as well while I was in the AF, but alas didn't make the cut. There's nothing wrong with taking high risks for high reward, but then maybe you agree with that, but your point is that the space station, particularly in it's currently and planned scaled down form, is not worth it. That, I agree with. Going back to the moon; however, is a different story.
That's how we identify tourists in New York.... so do the pickpockets...
I had a standard 2000 Honda civic, and got the same results. I found that weekly checking of my tire pressure, and regular maintenance; tune-ups, tire rotation, etc; kept those numbers up for the 5 years I owned it. I averaged 37-38 highway; between Ohio and NYC, and around 32-35 town/city; NYC and Ohio.
For the record, I sold it a year after moving to Manhattan, where I don't need it.
Yes those rates are on the rise, but mainly because we don't do the things we need to do to contain them. We did have a malaria problem here, and we did successfully deal with it. Make it warmer, and make the mosquitos more common and active, and all we have to do is employ those same techniques we did about a century ago, and our new old problem will be solved again. We don't drain ponds, spray DDT, or anything else like that around here too often, but we probably will as it gets hotter. A few summers ago, one of those viruses, the West Nile Virus, hit Long Island (the western edge of said island is 2 parts of NYC) broke out, and we employed some of those techniques. The result was containment, pretty good containment anyway, of the virus, and there haven't been people getting sick. So, my response to your WHO point is, yes, here's more evidence of that happening, and more evidence of a rich place dealing with it using techniques developed a century ago. My argument both supports your point in that it is and will continue happening, and my point that we can and will deal with it. I kind of agree and disagree with you, if you take my meaning.
So, while many of these problems will be bad, the mosquito vectored ones probably will not. Good news I'd say, because I think GW is happening, and that we won't be able to stop it!
Now if you want to assert that there won't be any market for Barbie dolls, and what else can you make with the same equipment... There you've got me. You'd be able to make practically anything that only depended on plastic molds and coloring, and that's too wide a spectrum to guess. If you could add wiring and small electric motors (Do Barbies have that kind of thing this year?) you could do even more. Everything from doorbells (well, not the chimes, themselves) to miniature rockets. (Note that I did NOT say "model".)
Very true, but my main point is simply that without the US as a customer, that China would have difficulty finding someone else to sell products to in the volume that would make up for what the US consumes; whatever product that may be.
How about a little thought experiment to prove my point.
If that went away, lets say China did something simple like, stopped said we won't sell jack to the US, and we're offloading all of our Dollar assets, then of course, the dollar would be worth nothing. So then, it's cheaper to make things in the US and sell them to everyone else. This, by the way, is part of the reason Chinese goods are so cheap to begin with. Some estimates have the Chinese currency, Yuan I think it's called, at 40+% undervalued; meaning there's a 40+% discount on anything produced in China sold elsewhere. Anyway, now the US has that advantage, and we have 300 million rich consumers; rich by Chinese standards. China does not. Sure, the average American would not have all those cheap goods from China to buy, but I don't think I'm going out on a limb in saying that there would be plenty of entrepreneurs in the US, and let's face it everywhere else, looking to fill the void. Sure, we'd not be able to buy as many goods, but our money would not evaporate. I would still have bought a TV last year, even if it was not the pretty 42inch LCD; something smaller, and probably less cool, but costing the same would have been what I bought. So, America would be fine. We'd just be buying few, albeit more expensive things. Besides, what do you think would happen in places like India, Vietnam, and Mexico? They would nearly drop dead from joy! It's already cheaper to make some things in those countries than in China for certain industries. With the devalued dollar, it wouldn't be as good, but there would still be able to sell us stuff.
China, on the other hand, would have lost it's major trading partner. They are already trying to sell to their own people, so they would not be able to make up the slack. This is especially so when they just lost their biggest customer; a lot of Chinese would be out of work. Communist or not, hungry = angry, and angry riots. The Chinese would have a world of problems on their hands.
Who would be hurt the worst? Europe. Why? Their currencies are expensive, and now you have the dollar being even cheaper. Our goods would be flooding that market, and China would be trying to hit it as well. With unemployment already roughly double what it is in the US, they'd have a heck of a rough time.
Ironically, this whole thing will right itself in time anyway. As China becomes more affluent, costs will rise there, even as they create their own market with that billion plus population. That's a lot of new consumers for all of use to sell things to. Money is not a finite. Wealth breeds more wealth. That's the core philosophy of capitalism, and the economies of the world have proven that it's true.
that one made me laugh out loud! thanks for that!
yeah, but what about the uneven barriers on the outside of the road. Granted, the article was talking about the median, but what about the uneven ones near like Ho-Ho-Hus? Those are certainly going to create turbulence and destroy the pretty slip-stream. On the median, I agree, but if used on the other side, like on most of the roads in northern Jersey; route 4, 17, etc... you've got all those towns that have the uneven side barriers to help control sound. I've seen similar ones down in the Tampa Florida area recently while visiting family.
yeah, but can you imagine the lawsuits? Oh that power sheet is spreading EMFs and they are making me sick!
just so you realize I'm not making this up...
One link about the Bees
I know, but can't seem to find, one or two about some lady who walks around with a metal mesh on her head to protect her!
i wish i was making that up
Well, all I can say is that I hope your wife gets better soon.
And hopefully to make you laugh, I'll quibble over one thing you wrote; about the money being based off of debt. It's still a gamble because we believe that the government will be able to pay off that debt; if we didn't then it wouldn't be worth anything. Again, betting that they will be able to pay off that debt, is a risk, taking said risk, a gamble, even if it's a very safe risk.
The core of my argument is that taking a risk, any risk no matter how minor, is a gamble. Admittedly, that core may be rotten, but as Obi Wan told Luke, "Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view." I always like to bring the Trilogy into my arguments. (sarsasm) It really adds weight to them. (/sarcasm)
If I may wax a bit philosophically for a minute, it's hard to live life without gambling a bit. Driving is a gamble, and you bet with your life. Even if you are the best driver in the world, that won't always protect you. Both my parents were injured in separate accidents when they were stopped at a stop sign. Eating out at a restaurant is a gamble too; a percentage, and I'm not sure how large or small it is, you could get food poisoning. I did once eating at a fast food place, bad enough that I ended up in the hospital, even though my girlfriend whose meal was in the same order did not get sick. Swimming in the ocean; well a few people each year get hurt from waves, sharks, jellies, etc. That too is a gamble. So, in the narrow sense of going to Vegas, you're right everyone doesn't gamble, but in the larger sense that any risk you take; even buying a mutual fund or a bond; hell even a FDIC insured savings account is still betting that both the bank and the US Government will be able to back your money... even paper money itself.. it's only backed by a promise... ain't no gold backing it any more... regardless of how many tons of gold are in 'ol Fort Knox... it don't come close to covering all they print!
Anyway, thanks for the excuse to take that leap of fancy. I hope you enjoyed reading it as much as I did writing it.
Still, I too am afraid of people who won't look longer term then 3 weeks or 3 months. Buy and hold is a great idea!
my 2 cents
yeah, and you kids get off the grass too!
:)
sorry couldn't help myself...