Obamanomics 101
Shuurai
by Fred Barnes
Back in February, President Obama met with a group of CEOs in the
White House, seeking their support for his economic stimulus package.
One of his chief targets was Jim Owens, the head of Caterpillar in
Peoria, Illinois. The day after the session in Washington, the
president flew to Peoria to speak at the Caterpillar factory and took
Owens and newly elected Republican representative Aaron Schock, the
youngest member of Congress at 28, with him.
Aboard Air Force One, Obama chatted amiably with Owens and Schock.
Owens showed Obama two pages of a PowerPoint presentation. The first
gave the details of China's stimulus, devoted mostly to
infrastructure. The second was Obama's stimulus (drafted by
congressional Democrats), with far less money going to building and
repairing roads, bridges, and other projects. That was the problem,
Owens told Obama: too little for infrastructure and thus too little to
engage companies like Caterpillar, which had just furloughed 20,000
workers.
When Obama delivered his speech in Peoria, he either hadn't understood
what Owens told him or simply refused to accept it. The stimulus
package, he said, would be "a major step forward on our path to
economic recovery. And I'm not the only one who thinks so." Owens, the
president said, had told him that "if Congress passes our plan, this
company will be able to rehire some of the folks who were just laid
off."
This was not only untrue, but proved to be embarrassing for Obama.
After the speech, Owens talked to reporters at the foot of the podium.
No, he wouldn't be bringing back any workers. (Later, Caterpillar
announced that 2,500 of the layoffs would be permanent.) Owens and
Schock flew back to Washington on Air Force One. This time, Obama
ignored them. There was a chill. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and
adviser David Axelrod walked past Owens and Schock repeatedly to speak
to the press pool in the rear of the plane. They didn't stop to chat
either.
I bring up Obama's Peoria adventure because it bears on the Jobs
Summit for which he has summoned business leaders to the White House
on December 3. In February, the president and Owens were not on the
same wavelength. That's likely to be the case with Obama and the
business community at the summit as well--unless Obama has changed his
economic tune significantly. There's no reason to believe he has. Nor
have congressional Democrats.
Obama has his own theory of our current economic situation. His "first
job," he told Chuck Todd of NBC News, was to stave off another "Great
Depression," save government jobs (police, firefighters, teachers),
and "make sure certain sectors of the economy were supported," such as
"construction and infrastructure." "We've gotten that job done," he
said.
"Our next job is to make sure we can accelerate the job growth," he
said. " So what we're seeing now is businesses are starting to
invest again, they are starting to be profitable again, but they
haven't started hiring again."
What's the matter with these business guys? The suggestion here is
they ought to be hiring. But they're "sitting on the sidelines," the
president told Major Garrett of Fox News. He regards them as not-very-
conscientious objectors, avoiding the struggle to revive the economy
and put people back to work. They're not doing their part, their duty.
Stronger words from Obama may follow. During the Depression, President
Roosevelt demonized business and the wealthy ("economic royalists")
and raised their taxes. When they declined to invest and stir economic
growth, he accused them of staging a "capital strike." The Obama
equivalent, if it comes to that, would be a "hiring strike."
We haven't gotten there yet. But Obama has made clear in his 10-month
presidency that he has minimal respect for business or the profit
motive. Ambitious, talented young people should work for nonprofits.
Last summer, he criticized doctors who gouged by insisting on
expensive tonsillectomies to cure simple sore throats. They reflected
a "business mentality," he said.
And what the president doesn't understand--or, to be more charitable,
refuses to acknowledge--about free markets, the economy, and
competition could fill a book, or at least an Obama speech. The
economic growth he sees was produced, in part, by cash-for-clunkers
and the first-time homebuyers tax credit. It foreshadowed an unusually
weak recovery. And the profits came largely from cost-cutting, not a
flood of new revenue.
Obama told Garrett that spending cuts or tax increases would
jeopardize the recovery. But what do businesses, small and large, see
staring them in the face? Tax increases--President Obama's tax
increases. He backs an increase in tax rates on income, dividends, and
capital gains that will go into effect in 2011. Obama-care, should it
pass, is loaded with tax hikes. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wants a
Value Added Tax.
The president is looking at "tax provisions" to spur hiring, but he's
done that before. Last winter, he spoke fondly of a two-year tax
credit to boost small business hiring, but congressional Democrats
declined to put it in the stimulus. Instead, they produced a measure
that bailed out profligate state and local governments and rewarded
liberal interest groups.
That stimulus has failed to stimulate, and the administration's claims
of jobs it has supposedly created or saved have been discredited and
become a national scandal. Obama's excuse: Calculating a jobs number
is an "inexact science."
Small, targeted tax cuts like the one aimed at small business won't do
much for hiring. "This is an anti-risk-taking climate," says
Republican representative Paul Ryan. "You have to give them
[businesses and investors] incentives to lower the price of risk."
Ryan recommends cutting the business income tax to 25 percent from 35
percent, eliminating the tax on capital gains for two years, and
providing a 100 percent tax writeoff for equipment, plant
construction, and other expenses the first year. Hiring would follow.
Presidents from Calvin Coolidge to John Kennedy to Ronald Reagan to
George Bush understood that strong incentives are necessary to trigger
rapid growth and hiring. Strong incentives, plus more investment in
infrastructure, would no doubt have won the endorsement of Jim Owens
of Caterpillar. He didn't get them from Obama, and my guess is he
never will.
Fred Barnes is executive editor of THE WEEKLY STANDARD.
trav...@aol.com
Fred Barnes is a partisan dumbshit.
O'bamma is clueless. He is in love with himself being President.
Also, fuck the holy trinity of Policeman, Firefighters, and Teachers.
We constantly hear how we must pass megabillions spending just to save
them. We spend too much on all.
Trav
Herbert Cannon
Its a slow day in a little West Texas town.
The sun is beating down, and the streets are deserted. Times are tough,
everybody is in debt, and everybody lives on credit.
On this particular day a rich tourist from
back east is driving through
town.
He stops at the motel and lays a $100 bill on
the desk saying he wants to
inspect the rooms upstairs in order to pick
one to spend the night.
As soon as the man walks upstairs, the owner
grabs the bill and runs next
door to pay his debt to the butcher.
The butcher takes the $100 and runs down the
street to retire his debt to
the pig farmer.
The pig farmer takes the $100 and heads off to
pay his bill at the supplier
of feed and fuel.
The guy at the Farmer's Co-op takes the $100
and runs to pay his debt to
the local prostitute, who has also been
facing hard times and has had to offer her
"services" on credit.
The hooker rushes to the hotel and pays off
her room bill with the hotel
owner.
The hotel proprietor then places the $100 back
on the counter so the rich
traveler will not suspect anything.
At that moment the traveler comes down the
stairs, picks up the $100 bill,
states that the rooms are not satisfactory,
pockets the money, and leaves
town.
No one produced anything.
No one earned anything.
However, the whole town is now out of debt
and looks to the future with a
lot more optimism.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how the
United States Government is
conducting business today.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.
hal
<trav...@aol.com> wrote:
>Also, fuck the holy trinity of Policeman, Firefighters, and Teachers.
>We constantly hear how we must pass megabillions spending just to save
>them. We spend too much on all.
I say fuck them all. Shut down everything. Fire departments, police,
schools, hospitals, banks, all businesses, all goverment, everything.
Shut everything down and go home. Cancel all money. It's worthless.
Throw open all the stores and every man for himself, grab what you can
and go home and hole up. Master reset, so to speak. Cancel
everything and start over again from scratch. Destroy everything
along the way. Only the strong survive. Natural selection will
return to the planet. The only things you will have to get you
through the reset and the rebuild is what you have now and what you
can grab in the next few days. After that it's up to your ability to
kill and take what you need from everyone else. Whatta ya say? You
ready? Somebody hit the hard reset button. Let's rock and roll baby.
>
>Trav
trav...@aol.com
> schools, hospitals, banks, all businesses, all goverment, everything.
> Shut everything down and go home. Cancel all money. It's worthless.
> Throw open all the stores and every man for himself, grab what you can
> and go home and hole up. Master reset, so to speak. Cancel
> everything and start over again from scratch. Destroy everything
> along the way. Only the strong survive. Natural selection will
> return to the planet. The only things you will have to get you
People like you will die though. So yes, I agree.
> through the reset and the rebuild is what you have now and what you
> can grab in the next few days. After that it's up to your ability to
> kill and take what you need from everyone else. Whatta ya say? You
> ready? Somebody hit the hard reset button. Let's rock and roll baby.
You're an idiot.
Trav
hal
<trav...@aol.com> wrote:
>> I say fuck them all. =A0Shut down everything. =A0Fire departments, police=
>,
>> schools, hospitals, banks, all businesses, all goverment, everything.
>> Shut everything down and go home. =A0Cancel all money. =A0It's worthless.
>> Throw open all the stores and every man for himself, grab what you can
>> and go home and hole up. =A0Master reset, so to speak. =A0Cancel
>> everything and start over again from scratch. =A0Destroy everything
>> along the way. =A0Only the strong survive. =A0Natural selection will
>> return to the planet. =A0The only things you will have to get you
>
>People like you will die though. So yes, I agree.
>
>> through the reset and the rebuild is what you have now and what you
>> can grab in the next few days. =A0After that it's up to your ability to
>> kill and take what you need from everyone else. =A0Whatta ya say? =A0You
>> ready? =A0Somebody hit the hard reset button. =A0Let's rock and roll baby=
>.
>
>You're an idiot.
No you are, because you keep putting everything in our society down
but never once offer a better alternate. You hope for destruction of
the system but you have no clue what that means. You wouldn't last a
week in a post crash society. You think you're tough and superior but
you aren't. You'ld either be murdered or starving in a matter of
days. Sometimes I think a good flush is what we need. Get rid of the
turds like you.
>
>Trav
Herbert Cannon
>>You're an idiot.
>
> No you are, because you keep putting everything in our society down
> but never once offer a better alternate.
And you do?
You hope for destruction of
> the system but you have no clue what that means.
No that is your bag.
You wouldn't last a
> week in a post crash society.
Oh I give him more than a week.
You think you're tough and superior but
> you aren't.
Because you say so?
You'ld either be murdered or starving in a matter of
> days.
Murdered by whom? Takes three weeks to starve. Even my little pantry could
feed me for more than that. Not to mention the ERs.
Sometimes I think a good flush is what we need.
Go on and committ suicide.
Get rid of the
> turds like you.
And you.
trav...@aol.com
> but never once offer a better alternate. You hope for destruction of
I REPEATEDLY offer better alternatives, but YOU and the rest of your
faggot liberal cuckold shit do not want to hear them. I say we
sterilize you and everyone like you. That we give the nation BACK to
the productive and intelligent and banish motherfuckers like you to
serf status. That's what you want anyway, to service your superiors.
I say get rid of the criminal demographic, get rid of the idiots, get
rid of the sickos and parasites and leeches. And all the people like
you.
> the system but you have no clue what that means. You wouldn't last a
> week in a post crash society. You think you're tough and superior but
LOL. A post-crash society? Where, like Argentina? I'd be just
fucking fine.
> you aren't. You'ld either be murdered or starving in a matter of
> days. Sometimes I think a good flush is what we need. Get rid of the
> turds like you.
I would live long enough to kill you.
Trav
hal
<trav...@aol.com> wrote:
>> No you are, because you keep putting everything in our society down
>> but never once offer a better alternate. =A0You hope for destruction of
>
>I REPEATEDLY offer better alternatives, but YOU and the rest of your
>faggot liberal cuckold shit do not want to hear them. I say we
>sterilize you and everyone like you. That we give the nation BACK to
>the productive and intelligent and banish motherfuckers like you to
>serf status. That's what you want anyway, to service your superiors.
>
>I say get rid of the criminal demographic, get rid of the idiots, get
>rid of the sickos and parasites and leeches. And all the people like
>you.
like I said, you have no alternative.
>
>> the system but you have no clue what that means. =A0You wouldn't last a
>> week in a post crash society. =A0You think you're tough and superior but
>
>LOL. A post-crash society? Where, like Argentina? I'd be just
>fucking fine.
No you won't.
>
>> you aren't. =A0You'ld either be murdered or starving in a matter of
>> days. =A0Sometimes I think a good flush is what we need. =A0Get rid of th=
>e
>> turds like you. =A0
>
>I would live long enough to kill you.
You won't live long enough to get out of the DC metro area.
>
>Trav
Mike
wrote:
> I REPEATEDLY offer better alternatives, but YOU and the rest of your
> Trav
Trav,
Thoughts on Larouche, apologies if you've already given them.
Don't sugar coat your opinion like you normally do either. :)
-Mike K.
trav...@aol.com
there is no alternative that includes the convincing and buyin of
morons like you. NONE.
That's because you ARE the problem. Got it yet?
The people who we would need to depend on for accession to the
solution ARE the fucking problem we are trying to solve!
> No you won't.
LOL. You base this on what? The madmax in Argentina? ROTFL.
> You won't live long enough to get out of the DC metro area.
In a zombie apocalypse? Maybe not. But in any real kind of economic
collapse I'll be long gone before the White Army seizes and
nationalizes your pathetic life's work in the Name of the Party.
Trav
trav...@aol.com
Ladouche? Fuck, man, I pay no attention to anybody other than myself;
thought you knew that already. You tell me something he says and I'll
give commentary but I ain't goin looking for stuff.
More and more I get pissed off because you and the rest of the RMA
rabble have borne witness to the fact that mainstream writers are more
and more starting to say what I said a year or more ago, sometimes
nearly verbatim. I should have gotten PAID for this wisdom.
Sometimes it is as if they are CRIBBING my shit. I go on zerohedge
and post a comment and ppl are like WOW. Meanwhile around here I just
get comments about my mom. I need dough, bitchez. PAY THIS HAND.
Trav
hal
<trav...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Nov 23, 11:32=A0am, Mike <mkornecki2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 22, 8:56=A0pm, "travis...@aol.cominyrface" <travis...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I REPEATEDLY offer better alternatives, but YOU and the rest of your
>> > Trav
>>
>> Trav,
>>
>> Thoughts on Larouche, apologies if you've already given them.
>>
>> Don't sugar coat your opinion like you normally do either. :)
>>
>> -Mike K.
>
>Ladouche? Fuck, man, I pay no attention to anybody other than myself;
Therein lies your problem.
>thought you knew that already. You tell me something he says and I'll
>give commentary but I ain't goin looking for stuff.
>
>More and more I get pissed off because you and the rest of the RMA
>rabble have borne witness to the fact that mainstream writers are more
>and more starting to say what I said a year or more ago, sometimes
>nearly verbatim. I should have gotten PAID for this wisdom.
I foresaw all this 30 years ago. You need an address to send the
check?
>
>Sometimes it is as if they are CRIBBING my shit. I go on zerohedge
>and post a comment and ppl are like WOW. Meanwhile around here I just
>get comments about my mom. I need dough, bitchez. PAY THIS HAND.
You're a legend in your own mind. Only your mind, but a legend
nonetheless.
>
>Trav
Mike
wrote:
> > Don't sugar coat your opinion like you normally do either. :)
>
> > -Mike K.
>
> Ladouche? Fuck, man, I pay no attention to anybody other than myself;
> thought you knew that already. You tell me something he says and I'll
> give commentary but I ain't goin looking for stuff.
Well to be honest, I was hoping to save myself the research time.
One of his pavement peddlers has been talking to me. I don't pay much
heed to the economic stuff, but the guys comments on nuclear power,
and a rapid rail infrastructure got my interest.
> More and more I get pissed off because you and the rest of the RMA
> rabble have borne witness to the fact that mainstream writers are more
I generally don't say shit about economic stuff.
> and more starting to say what I said a year or more ago, sometimes
> nearly verbatim. I should have gotten PAID for this wisdom.
You've got to figure out a more lucrative method of dispersal, than
posting on RMA.
> and post a comment and ppl are like WOW. Meanwhile around here I just
> get comments about my mom. I need dough, bitchez. PAY THIS HAND.
>
> Trav
Waiting on you to run for office.
-Mike K.
trav...@aol.com
LOL...me too!
> One of his pavement peddlers has been talking to me. I don't pay much
> heed to the economic stuff, but the guys comments on nuclear power,
> and a rapid rail infrastructure got my interest.
I had the same discussion with one! He didn't want to accept what I
had to say. He claimed that nuclear power could save us and that the
future could be sustained, the growth. He didn't accept Peak Oil. It
was odd that someone advocating a particularly grand proposal was so
clueless about reality. A lot of people can only bring themselves to
accept portions of reality. Most accept none of it. But it's going
to smack them in the face anyhow.
Nuclear power, lightwater reactors, is a joke. It's a total joke, low
EROI, full of waste and underperformance. Kunstler is right that the
national conversation revolves around how do we keep THIS going. And
the problem is THIS. The way of doing things is flawed. I mean, for
fuck's sake, Hal still exists.
> You've got to figure out a more lucrative method of dispersal, than
> posting on RMA.
Yes, yes...I see your point.
> Waiting on you to run for office.
>
> -Mike K.
With the media the way it is, all they have to do is find one time I
used the N word and it's over. In fact, I was humming rap lyrics back
when I used to listen to Snoop Dogg and this jew in the office I used
to work at reported me for racist and sexist utterances. People like
this come out of the woodwork when you run for anything.
Trav
Greendistantstar
>> Well to be honest, I was hoping to save myself the research time.
>
> LOL...me too!
>
>> One of his pavement peddlers has been talking to me. I don't pay much
>> heed to the economic stuff, but the guys comments on nuclear power,
>> and a rapid rail infrastructure got my interest.
>
> I had the same discussion with one! He didn't want to accept what I
> had to say. He claimed that nuclear power could save us and that the
> future could be sustained, the growth. He didn't accept Peak Oil. It
> was odd that someone advocating a particularly grand proposal was so
> clueless about reality. A lot of people can only bring themselves to
> accept portions of reality. Most accept none of it. But it's going
> to smack them in the face anyhow.
>
> Nuclear power, lightwater reactors, is a joke. It's a total joke, low
> EROI, full of waste and underperformance. Kunstler is right that the
> national conversation revolves around how do we keep THIS going. And
> the problem is THIS. The way of doing things is flawed. I mean, for
> fuck's sake, Hal still exists.
This article will make you laugh; I gagged at this.....
"That means total production depends more on the price, rather than the quantity, of oil. As
investors we can therefore think about oil as an unlimited resource with a variable price."
http://www.smh.com.au/business/why-peak-oil-doesnt-matter-20091117-ijqy.html
See how easy it is to create an unlimited resource?
FFS.....
GDS
"Let's roll!"
Herbert Cannon
.
Sometimes it is as if they are CRIBBING my shit.
Even Nostradamus.
Herbert Cannon
before the White Army seizes and
> nationalizes your pathetic life's work in the Name of the Party.
That was the Red Army.
Herbert Cannon
>>More and more I get pissed off because you and the rest of the RMA
>>rabble have borne witness to the fact that mainstream writers are more
>>and more starting to say what I said a year or more ago, sometimes
>>nearly verbatim. I should have gotten PAID for this wisdom.
>
> I foresaw all this 30 years ago. You need an address to send the
> check?
Horse shit. I have been hearing about the coming collapse before either you
two namby pampys were born.
Mike
wrote:
> > Well to be honest, I was hoping to save myself the research time.
>
> LOL...me too!
>
> > One of his pavement peddlers has been talking to me. I don't pay much
> > heed to the economic stuff, but the guys comments on nuclear power,
> > and a rapid rail infrastructure got my interest.
>
> I had the same discussion with one! He didn't want to accept what I
> had to say. He claimed that nuclear power could save us and that the
> future could be sustained, the growth.
I'd like the number of nuclear power reactors to increase to something
above the current abysmally low level. As it is now, nuclear power is
being ignored.
The Larouche dude was telling me that Larouche's plan involved using
the empty production facilities of Michigan to produce materials for
infrastructure. The rapid rail system and nuclear power being the two
things that I remember. Creating jobs while actually making something
tangible.
-Mike K.
hal
thing with you though, you still don't understand why.
Shuurai
> The Larouche dude was telling me that Larouche's plan involved using
> the empty production facilities of Michigan to produce materials for
> infrastructure. The rapid rail system and nuclear power being the two
> things that I remember. Creating jobs while actually making something
> tangible.
They have the right general idea, but they severely underestimate the
scale and they don't really understand the work involved. You can't
just build a bunch of nuclear plants (much less solar, wind, etc) and
plug them in and expect everything to work itself out in the end.
The real gains are going to come from the demand side. We need to
dramatically reduce consumption. And there are things that can be
done. For example, tax breaks and subsidies for insulation for homes
and small businesses could make a major dent in our long-term usage.
Heating and cooling are some of the biggest power draws, and better
insulation cuts that down considerably. More efficient appliances is
another big one; most major appliances continue to draw power even
when off. Much more than you might think - averages around 10% of
overall usage, and can be even higher if you have a lot of high-end
entertainment stuff, or if you have a lot of older appliances.
The grid itself is a large part of the problem. Nearly half of the
power that is generated gets lost to resistance. Obviously that is
always going to be a problem, but there are gains to be made by
putting up better lines, better switches, and so forth.
The point being, we waste a LOT of power in the western world; America
in particular. It's a lot easier and cheaper to reduce waste than it
is to increase supply; and it ends up being cheaper for consumers in
the long run.
hal
<shuu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>The grid itself is a large part of the problem. Nearly half of the
>power that is generated gets lost to resistance.
Um, what? What planet? You got a cite for that? You should know
better by now to not talk out yer ass when it comes to electricity.
No, the loss is more like around 7% give or take a few depending on
grid components.
Kinda like 8 hours to spin down a generator, eh moron?
Sheesh, you'ld think you'ld learn.
Herbert Cannon
>>> I foresaw all this 30 years ago. You need an address to send the
>>> check?
>>
>>Horse shit. I have been hearing about the coming collapse before either
>>you
>>two namby pampys were born.
>>
>>
> thing with you though, you still don't understand why.
Because we are inhabited with too many morons like you.
Shuurai
> >The grid itself is a large part of the problem. Nearly half of the
> >power that is generated gets lost to resistance.
>
> Um, what? What planet? You got a cite for that? You should know
> better by now to not talk out yer ass when it comes to electricity.
>
> No, the loss is more like around 7% give or take a few depending on
> grid components.
Your problem is that you are trying to use Wikipedia in place of an
education.
Seven percent is the amount of loss due to the transmission wires
themselves; you also have to factor in conversion loss, mostly in the
form of heat generated at the source, at the transformations,
switching, and so forth. The overall loss is just under half.
hal
<shuu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >The grid itself is a large part of the problem. =A0Nearly half of the
>> >power that is generated gets lost to resistance.
>>
>> Um, what? =A0What planet? =A0You got a cite for that? =A0You should know
>> better by now to not talk out yer ass when it comes to electricity.
>>
>> No, the loss is more like around 7% give or take a few depending on
>> grid components. =A0
>
>Your problem is that you are trying to use Wikipedia in place of an
>education.
>
>Seven percent is the amount of loss due to the transmission wires
>themselves; you also have to factor in conversion loss, mostly in the
>form of heat generated at the source, at the transformations,
>switching, and so forth. The overall loss is just under half.
Horseshit. Cite. 50% overall wattage loss is insane. Everything
would be smoking hot.
Mike
> They have the right general idea, but they severely underestimate the
> scale and they don't really understand the work involved. You can't
> just build a bunch of nuclear plants (much less solar, wind, etc) and
> plug them in and expect everything to work itself out in the end.
I'd like to see those manufacturing plants making *something*. Much
better if it is something that is going to stay in this country and
improve it.
-Mike K.
Mike
> Horseshit. Cite. 50% overall wattage loss is insane.
Carnot would disagree.
-Mike K.
trav...@aol.com
The time for all of this was in the 90s when there was an oil supply
glut and a strong dollar.
Squirrels do not stockpile once the snow starts falling. They either
have their shit together during the time of abundance (when the nuts
fall to the ground) or else they fucking starve come springtime.
Trav
trav...@aol.com
> scale and they don't really understand the work involved. You can't
> just build a bunch of nuclear plants (much less solar, wind, etc) and
> plug them in and expect everything to work itself out in the end.
They also don't understand that nuclear doesn't solve the growth
problem.
Replacing lost oil supply is a two-fold problem because we cannot
replace just supply, we must replace supply growth in order for our
"way of life" to continue.
> The real gains are going to come from the demand side. We need to
> dramatically reduce consumption. And there are things that can be
> done. For example, tax breaks and subsidies for insulation for homes
> and small businesses could make a major dent in our long-term usage.
> Heating and cooling are some of the biggest power draws, and better
> insulation cuts that down considerably. More efficient appliances is
> another big one; most major appliances continue to draw power even
> when off. Much more than you might think - averages around 10% of
> overall usage, and can be even higher if you have a lot of high-end
> entertainment stuff, or if you have a lot of older appliances.
Efficiency is subject to laws of diminishing returns. At some point
supply must grow. In the meantime, though, we could sure as shit use
distributed power production.
> The grid itself is a large part of the problem. Nearly half of the
> power that is generated gets lost to resistance. Obviously that is
> always going to be a problem, but there are gains to be made by
> putting up better lines, better switches, and so forth.
JFC, hot water heaters are great but a HUGE energy waste.
> The point being, we waste a LOT of power in the western world; America
> in particular. It's a lot easier and cheaper to reduce waste than it
> is to increase supply; and it ends up being cheaper for consumers in
> the long run.
We waste incredible amounts of power.
I mean, was it not *I* who cited the GDP/unit energy for various
countries? The US was average, Europe 2x as good, Japan 4x as good,
in terms of accruing more GDP for delta energy. China was atrocious.
Or was it Japan 8x and EU 4x? Shit I can't recall. Musta been 2x and
4x.
Trav
Mike
wrote:
> > -Mike K.
>
> The time for all of this was in the 90s when there was an oil supply
> glut and a strong dollar.
Well of course, there were many of us who did propose building more
nuclear power plants back in the 90's. I certainly did.
As for the current situation, would the squirrels starve any faster if
they built a transcontinental rapid rail system?
-Mike K.
hal
<mkorne...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Nov 24, 3:35=A0pm, hal wrote:
>
>> Horseshit. Cite. 50% overall wattage loss is insane.
>
>Carnot would disagree.
the heat engine guy? Do tell...
>
>-Mike K.
ha4h...@kent.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me
The govamint can do its part by setting prices. It's a good first step
no? Grrrrr!!!
Mike
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:04:04 -0800 (PST), Mike
> the heat engine guy? Do tell...
What exactly are we arguing here? I maintain that energy conversion/
transmission process is around 50% for power plants, with the
exception of hydro power.
But anyway, what do you think of Larouche's infrastructure investment
plan?
-Mike K.
trav...@aol.com
> nuclear power plants back in the 90's. I certainly did.
>
> As for the current situation, would the squirrels starve any faster if
> they built a transcontinental rapid rail system?
>
> -Mike K.
Capital for such a project? I mean, sure if we cut the military and
pull the fuck out of the places we get the oil from that we'd need to
build such a project.
And we need a trade war with China...now. Chinka Unicom is actually
instructing their retail places to not sell the iPhone, rather sell
the IP ripoff HiPhone clone that these motherfuckers STOLE the
technology for. Is Bama gonna do anything about it, or he gonna bow?
Now I read how China might want to buy GM or to prepare for such a
thing. Fuck that. China does not permit anywhere near the same
market openness that we do. Waiting around for them to reorient their
markets and respect IP, jfc, they are selling bootlegged Windows7
there for freaking $5 and the shit is now showing up on eBay. It's
high time that this crap was brought to a stop; we cannot subsidize
the entire world's kleptocracies.
Trav
Shuurai
> > On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:04:04 -0800 (PST), Mike
> > the heat engine guy? Do tell...
>
> What exactly are we arguing here? I maintain that energy conversion/
> transmission process is around 50% for power plants, with the
> exception of hydro power.
To be fair, there are plenty of folks in the industry who will swear
by the 7% number that Hal mentioned, which represents the pure
transmission loss, because it sounds good. However, those of us who
are interested in actually improving the system tend to include the
conversion losses, because unless someone invents high temperature
superconductors over the next few years that can be mass-produced,
conversion is the only place where significant improvement will be
possible.
Mike
wrote:
> > As for the current situation, would the squirrels starve any faster if
> > they built a transcontinental rapid rail system?
>
> > -Mike K.
>
> Capital for such a project? I mean, sure if we cut the military and
> pull the fuck out of the places we get the oil from that we'd need to
> build such a project.
The Larouche dude was talking to me through my car window, while I was
waiting for a construction guy to switch his sign from "stop" to
"slow", so I wasn't paying a huge amount of attention. I think he was
saying that they would gain the capital by, err... going back to the
gold standard and using banks that promised to do something or
other :)
-Mike K.
trav...@aol.com
> waiting for a construction guy to switch his sign from "stop" to
> "slow", so I wasn't paying a huge amount of attention. I think he was
> saying that they would gain the capital by, err... going back to the
> gold standard and using banks that promised to do something or
> other :)
>
> -Mike K.
Ladouche guys are a bit unrealistic. I mean I heard the same spiel
from them and they were true believers(tm) in their approach.
I mean if we can employ people for free to work to build nuke plants,
sure, but lightwater reactors are a deadend. Really, we need a top-to-
bottom approach from an administration focused on the US's future, not
fucking Afghanistan and bowing to foreign royalty figureheads. There
is so much that could be done on a fraction of the money wasted on
these futile wars which are being fought to try to maintain a legacy
imperial and growth mindset that is totally fucking absurd and self-
destructive.
Trav
Jerry B. Altzman
> And we need a trade war with China...now. Chinka Unicom is actually
> instructing their retail places to not sell the iPhone, rather sell
> the IP ripoff HiPhone clone that these motherfuckers STOLE the
> technology for. Is Bama gonna do anything about it, or he gonna bow?
He'll show them! He'll pay back the $800 billion in *clunkers*.
> Now I read how China might want to buy GM or to prepare for such a
> thing. Fuck that. China does not permit anywhere near the same
> market openness that we do. Waiting around for them to reorient their
> markets and respect IP, jfc, they are selling bootlegged Windows7
> there for freaking $5 and the shit is now showing up on eBay. It's
> high time that this crap was brought to a stop; we cannot subsidize
> the entire world's kleptocracies.
Huawei routers FTW. Just ask Cisco.
> Trav
//jbaltz
--
jerry b. altzman jba...@altzman.com www.jbaltz.com
thank you for contributing to the heat death of the universe.
hal
<shuu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:04:04 -0800 (PST), Mike
>> > the heat engine guy? =A0Do tell...
>>
>> What exactly are we arguing here? I maintain that energy conversion/
>> transmission process is around 50% for power plants, with the
>> exception of hydro power.
>
>To be fair, there are plenty of folks in the industry who will swear
>by the 7% number that Hal mentioned, which represents the pure
>transmission loss, because it sounds good. However, those of us who
>are interested in actually improving the system tend to include the
>conversion losses, because unless someone invents high temperature
>superconductors over the next few years that can be mass-produced,
>conversion is the only place where significant improvement will be
>possible.
There may be an overall inefficiency loss of 50% of your energy over
the entire system, from the heat plant generation to the end user
load, but that's not what you said. You said 50% of your wattage was
lost in resistance in your lines and that's way, way, off, and
physically impossible without everything running smoking hot all the
time. 7% is typically an accepted industry standard for line loss.
Far more efficient and effective savings, rather than replacing
components and lines everywhere, is plain and simple conservation and
more energy efficient products. But those are evil liberal
principles. Green stuff, ya know, ick.
Fraser Johnston
<trav...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:13a90269-807c-453a...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> And we need a trade war with China...now. Chinka Unicom is actually
> instructing their retail places to not sell the iPhone, rather sell
> the IP ripoff HiPhone clone that these motherfuckers STOLE the
> technology for. Is Bama gonna do anything about it, or he gonna bow?
>
> Now I read how China might want to buy GM or to prepare for such a
> thing. Fuck that. China does not permit anywhere near the same
> market openness that we do. Waiting around for them to reorient their
> markets and respect IP, jfc, they are selling bootlegged Windows7
> there for freaking $5 and the shit is now showing up on eBay. It's
> high time that this crap was brought to a stop; we cannot subsidize
> the entire world's kleptocracies.
You'll find this an interesting read.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/edmundconway/100002310/what-the-ipod-tells-us-about-britains-economic-future/
Fraser
trav...@aol.com
> <travis...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> Fraser
Britain is a national hedge fund living off the legacy of the Empire
and the BOE's bubble paper games that spanned over 300 years, as
encapsulated in The City. These included wealth extraction from your
colony, India, as well as ours, though we obviously got tired of their
games a lot sooner.
Intellectual property is only valuable IFF other nations aren't
permitted to fucking steal it, like chinka does. Every HiPhone is
profit for Chinkese suppliers and China Unicom is the reason why
iPhone sales signups have been slow despite its being the hottest
handset on the planet.
Same story with Windoze7, CDMA patents that QCOM invented, etc. The
list goes on and on. They just steal shit. They will produce the
iPhone on their own factory lines with everyone else's stuff and then
sell THOSE without the apple logo or maybe even with it, so blatant is
their theft.
So, YES, apple makes big profit off every iPhone sold...how much do
you think they make off of every HiPhone?
Trav
Shuurai
> There may be an overall inefficiency loss of 50% of your energy over
> the entire system, from the heat plant generation to the end user
> load, but that's not what you said. You said 50% of your wattage was
> lost in resistance in your lines and that's way, way, off, and
> physically impossible without everything running smoking hot all the
> time.
I meant to say that 50% was lost due to resistance and conversion loss
and forgot to add the latter to my original statement. If nothing
else, I guess I've given you something to dwell upon for the next
couple of years in lieu of an actual argument - consider it an early
Christmas gift.
> 7% is typically an accepted industry standard for line loss.
Yes, I know.
> Far more efficient and effective savings, rather than replacing
> components and lines everywhere, is plain and simple conservation and
> more energy efficient products.
Wow... that sounds an awful lot like what I said. It's a good thing
we had you here to paraphrase it.
> But those are evil liberal principles. Green stuff, ya know, ick.
The problem is that when it comes to actually DOING something to help
people modernize their homes for example, the liberals tend to give
the same answers as the conservatives. Why isn't the government
helping people actually DO what needs to be done? Better insulation
for homes, updated appliances, updated wiring; all of this stuff tends
to be out of reach financially for the folks who could actually
benefit.
The money our government throws at shit like ethanol for example -
which does absolutely nothing to help the situation - could instead be
used to modernize the homes of lower to middle income families and
would actually show a return within the first couple of years.
trav...@aol.com
How much energy would it take to manufacture these items?
Efficiency is a conundrum because it does not and never has led to
decreases in energy usage in the aggregate; it merely makes MORE
energy available for other things, which then ALSO get done.
Growth, remember the growth!
> The money our government throws at shit like ethanol for example -
> which does absolutely nothing to help the situation - could instead be
> used to modernize the homes of lower to middle income families and
> would actually show a return within the first couple of years.
It's all just wasted energy; who cares what it goes towards?
Trav
Shuurai
> > The problem is that when it comes to actually DOING something to help
> > people modernize their homes for example, the liberals tend to give
> > the same answers as the conservatives. Why isn't the government
> > helping people actually DO what needs to be done? Better insulation
> > for homes, updated appliances, updated wiring; all of this stuff tends
> > to be out of reach financially for the folks who could actually
> > benefit.
>
> How much energy would it take to manufacture these items?
Depends on the item. Insulation offers a fairly high rate of return;
you save a lot more over the long run than you used in making it.
Proper insulation can save you around 25-30% energy requirements per
year.
> Efficiency is a conundrum because it does not and never has led to
> decreases in energy usage in the aggregate; it merely makes MORE
> energy available for other things, which then ALSO get done.
In the next couple of years we're going to hit a wall, and we're
actually going to NEED that additional energy available just to keep
the shit we have now running. We are coming dangerously close to the
limit of energy we can generate and distribute.
> Growth, remember the growth!
So your suggestion is what? Do absolutely nothing?
> > The money our government throws at shit like ethanol for example -
> > which does absolutely nothing to help the situation - could instead be
> > used to modernize the homes of lower to middle income families and
> > would actually show a return within the first couple of years.
>
> It's all just wasted energy; who cares what it goes towards?
The folks who's lights go out, for starters.
YumYumPandaburger
wrote:
> I REPEATEDLY offer better alternatives, but YOU and the rest of your
> faggot liberal cuckold shit do not want to hear them. I say we
> sterilize you and everyone like you. That we give the nation BACK to
> the productive and intelligent and banish motherfuckers like you to
> serf status. That's what you want anyway, to service your superiors.
>
> I say get rid of the criminal demographic, get rid of the idiots, get
> rid of the sickos and parasites and leeches. And all the people like
> you.
So let's get rid of the deseased sickos who leech on respected
laywers.
Let's them round up, and don't forget the handicapped and mentally
challenged, who contribute nothing to society.
Also everyone with aids can go to, in the longer run they won't
contribute much either.
Maybe we should include the gays, as they are more likely to get aids
in the first place. I
'm not sure if there are gipsies in the US, but if there are count'em
in as well.
Soon there will be room available in Guantanamo, you could put'em
there. I heard the Guantanamo showers are mighty fine.
> I would live long enough to kill you.
OK.
trav...@aol.com
> you save a lot more over the long run than you used in making it.
> Proper insulation can save you around 25-30% energy requirements per
> year.
Yes, but manufacturing tons of new hybrid cars is probably a net
loser.
It's like how the more fuel efficient cars get driven more miles.
Energy consumption PER CAPITA is what defines "wealthy" versus
"poor." Efficiency allows more growth elsewhere.
Until and unless we abandon the growth paradigm, all of these
"investments" are futile.
> In the next couple of years we're going to hit a wall, and we're
> actually going to NEED that additional energy available just to keep
> the shit we have now running. We are coming dangerously close to the
> limit of energy we can generate and distribute.
We already hit a wall. Consumption is down. That is the only way, do
less. The time for steadfastness WRT efficiency etc was a decade ago
or more. We squandered that chance.
> So your suggestion is what? Do absolutely nothing?
Yes. That is the paradox.
> The folks who's lights go out, for starters.
Lights won't go out. There is a usage pyramid and it sits near the
bottom of it.
Trav
trav...@aol.com
> laywers.
Reductio ad absurdum.
> Let's them round up, and don't forget the handicapped and mentally
> challenged, who contribute nothing to society.
A minimal issue compared to the vast criminal population.
> Also everyone with aids can go to, in the longer run they won't
> contribute much either.
They're kinda already on their way out.
> Maybe we should include the gays, as they are more likely to get aids
> in the first place. I
You some kinda homo lover?
> 'm not sure if there are gipsies in the US, but if there are count'em
> in as well.
Here they're called mexicans.
Trav
YumYumPandaburger
wrote:
> > So let's get rid of the deseased sickos who leech on respected
> > laywers.
>
> Reductio ad absurdum.
Cognito ergo sum?
> > Let's them round up, and don't forget the handicapped and mentally
> > challenged, who contribute nothing to society.
>
> A minimal issue compared to the vast criminal population.
They cannot help that they had a bad childhood.
> > Also everyone with aids can go to, in the longer run they won't
> > contribute much either.
>
> They're kinda already on their way out.
Magic is still around.
> > Maybe we should include the gays, as they are more likely to get aids
> > in the first place. I
>
> You some kinda homo lover?
Why? You hitting on me?
Shuurai
> > Depends on the item. Insulation offers a fairly high rate of return;
> > you save a lot more over the long run than you used in making it.
> > Proper insulation can save you around 25-30% energy requirements per
> > year.
>
> Yes, but manufacturing tons of new hybrid cars is probably a net
> loser.
Yes, hybrids are basically a wash; the amount of energy that goes into
building the batteries cancels out the fuel savings. Not to mention
the environmental damage that battery production causes.
> It's like how the more fuel efficient cars get driven more miles.
You gotta go after things that are basically stable; heating and
cooling homes is a big one.
> Energy consumption PER CAPITA is what defines "wealthy" versus
> "poor." Efficiency allows more growth elsewhere.
>
> Until and unless we abandon the growth paradigm, all of these
> "investments" are futile.
We have to do both. We have to become more efficient AND abandon the
growth paradigm. Unfortunately, we won't do the former; and the
latter will be forced upon us.
> > In the next couple of years we're going to hit a wall, and we're
> > actually going to NEED that additional energy available just to keep
> > the shit we have now running. We are coming dangerously close to the
> > limit of energy we can generate and distribute.
>
> We already hit a wall. Consumption is down. That is the only way, do
> less. The time for steadfastness WRT efficiency etc was a decade ago
> or more. We squandered that chance.
We hit A wall, but not THE wall. THE wall is coming in a couple of
years. We are literally at the limit of many of the major
transmission grids already.
> > So your suggestion is what? Do absolutely nothing?
>
> Yes. That is the paradox.
Nah; efficiency gains are the way to go.
> > The folks who's lights go out, for starters.
>
> Lights won't go out. There is a usage pyramid and it sits near the
> bottom of it.
They will go out. The rolling blackouts that happen in California
already are going to be a nationwide phenomenon; only bigger and
longer. Prices are going to rise to the point where basic service is
out of reach for many customers.
trav...@aol.com
I'm not sure the first assertion is correct.
> They cannot help that they had a bad childhood.
Because of criminal parents.
> Magic is still around.
Not without massive amounts of drugs.
> Why? You hitting on me?
You could not do this well.
Trav
Sam the Bam
> Why isn't the government
> helping people actually DO what needs to be done?
The only way they could help is by getting out of the way.
Hold your breath...
> The money our government throws at shit like ethanol for example -
> which does absolutely nothing to help the situation - could instead be
> used to modernize the homes of lower to middle income families and
> would actually show a return within the first couple of years.
Or.... they could return the loot to its rightful owners,
who could spend it as they will.... heh, just kidding....
Sam
trav...@aol.com
> building the batteries cancels out the fuel savings. Not to mention
> the environmental damage that battery production causes.
Most efficiency is a wash.
> You gotta go after things that are basically stable; heating and
> cooling homes is a big one.
I agree...but how much extra energy for concrete homes?
> We have to do both. We have to become more efficient AND abandon the
> growth paradigm. Unfortunately, we won't do the former; and the
> latter will be forced upon us.
Then we're kinda fucked?
> We hit A wall, but not THE wall. THE wall is coming in a couple of
> years. We are literally at the limit of many of the major
> transmission grids already.
Who cares? Energy supply is falling. There's a reason none of the
oil companies invested in new refineries. People may not accept peak
but those whose business oil is have already planned for it.
> Nah; efficiency gains are the way to go.
They won't matter by themselves anymore than they ever have.
> They will go out. The rolling blackouts that happen in California
> already are going to be a nationwide phenomenon; only bigger and
> longer. Prices are going to rise to the point where basic service is
> out of reach for many customers.
Demand will drop then.
Trav