Originally Posted by Titus Pullo

Fail.

I can't tell

Originally Posted by Patters

PF13, as the article you quoted about the limitations of solar and wind energy states, "There is no technology for storing commercial quantities of electricity. Until something is developed – which seems unlikely – wind and solar can serve only as intermittent, unpredictable resources."

Clearly, this is something that is being heavily explored from two angles -- better batteries and more efficient products. As we make strides in both of those areas, our need for energy could actually decrease, making nonthreatening, nonpolluting solutions more realistic. Your Malthusian thinking with regard to this issue sort seems to run against your thinking on other issue. In another thread you accused someone of Malthusian thinking because they questioned how big the oil reserves are; you seem to be questioning the possibility of technological developments making solar and wind power more viable when in fact there have been enormous technical developments in terms of efficiency and significant ones in terms of energy storage.

Originally Posted by patsfan13

Batteries require rare earth minerals, the quantities required for thing other than batteries for portable electronics aren't available also there is the problem of disposing of all those highly toxic batteries. The disposal problem isn't being adequately addressed as it is with the batteries we consume now.

Originally Posted by patsfan13

The disposal problem isn't being adequately addressed as it is with the batteries we consume now.

Originally Posted by chicowalker

What is the "true cost" of oil?

Originally Posted by patsfan13

China Solar Makers Face ‘Suicidal’ Prices on Excess Output - Businessweek





Commentary on the State of the Chinese Solar Industry which was being touted here in the US as the Green Economy of the future. Some here have consistently said that this is not a viable source of large scale industries government subsidies notwithstanding.

New England Patriots Forums - PatsFans.com Patriots Fan Messageboard

Originally Posted by PatriotsReign

"Made in China" is becoming less and less of an option to US corporations. Wages in China have climbed dramatically over the past 5 years and it's no longer much of an advantage to have products made there.

This is actually worth celebrating in America! As 3rd world countries advance rapidly, so does the cost to have products made there. I've heard that some companies have even shifted manufacturing back to America rather than have them made in China.

We benefit from China's losses, so that's a good thing.

Originally Posted by wistahpatsfan

It's good only if the US wages go up as well. Even if all things were made in the US and everyone was employed, there would still be nothing to buy. There needs to be a sea change in American corporate and financial cultures to the model we had in the 1950's and 60's...without the institutional flaws that have already been identified. The redistribution of American wealth needs to be reversed to a more equitable flow from the top down, or better yet, the upward flow needs to be diverted to the middle class...how's that?

Originally Posted by wistahpatsfan

Even if all things were made in the US and everyone was employed, there would still be nothing to buy.

Originally Posted by wistahpatsfan

There needs to be a sea change in American corporate and financial cultures to the model we had in the 1950's and 60's...without the institutional flaws that have already been identified.

Originally Posted by PatriotsReign

I don't know wistah...you threw a bunch of unrelated thoughts into one post, so I can't make any sense of it.

I did?

Right now, we shouldn't be concerned with wages so much as increasing employment. First things first....
It's about keeping pace and doing more than one thing at a time. Without a concurrent increase in wages while people are going back to work, the goods we manufacture would not be affordable to most people. You need buyers. Why not wage increases?

Why would there be nothing to buy?
I meant no one to buy.


What specific mechanisms are you referring to that existed in the 50's and 60's? Back then, the US had a self-sustaining economy in a world where companies rarely competed on a world-wide level. In other words, we mainly bought our own stuff and if Europe tanked, it didn't affect us much.

For instance, a much higher upper income tax margin assuming we're keeping the current revenue mechanisma in place (which I disagree with). Also, more constraints on the financials and banks. No insurance companies should be able to make loans or sell mutual funds. Banks should not own mortgage brokers. There were fewer comflicts of interest and overlapping roles as there are today.

What we're talking about is a shift in the China-US social comparisons. With a more level playing field, things change more in the direction of our advantage. We weren't just buying our own stuff then. We certainly did more of it, but the post-war world was opened up regarding trade. Europe was in no danger of "tanking" as they were already climbing out of complete devastation from two WW's. There was nowhere to go but up.

I'm fine with some re-distribution of wealth as long as it doesn't include "Giving money to people for doing nothing"

Non-sequitor. I thought we were talking about creating jobs?

Originally Posted by patsfan13

What is 'saving' them money are taxpayers subsidies. The true cost is hidden by the government subsidies...