"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
Han wrote:


As far as the deficit spending is concerned, the alternative was to let
everyone, from big banks to small people declare bankruptcy and get
another
Big Depression, or deficit spending. So far, I think, most of us have
gotten the best of it. Punishing the banks would be a good thing going
forward, as well as retroactively, but, again, that is my opinion,
FWIW!!

I might buy that if there had been more than just 3 or 4 years of
non-deficit spending since the time of Nixon. The only time there was an
extended surplus, it was because the economy was so breathtakingly
overheated because of cheap money and growing money supply that money
came in even quicker than both parties could put it out.

I might accept that view if there had not been the creation of an entire new
sector of the economy based on personal computers during the time everyone
was (wrongly) giving *all* the credit to Reagan's tax cuts. PC related
stuff was being made and sold at prodigious rates. There was a bottomless
demand for programmers and support specialists. The problem came afterward,
when (as you've noted previously) people started to budget based on the
super-good times always being super-good. No one thought the party could or
would ever end.

The housing bubble, on the other hand, created no new real estate, it just
horribly overvalued the existing supply. The wealth created by the PC
revolution was real. The alleged wealth created by an overheated real
estate market feeding into a voracious securitization machine that put too
much distance between borrower and lender was *not* real. It was a spec
bubble. One that various government policies of both Bush and Obama is
keeping alive far longer than is good for the country. The real estate
market needs to coalesce before people feel comfortable selling their houses
to move elsewhere for better job opportunities.

Also, a big reason that this was so bad was because EVERYBODY from
the corporations to individuals and even (finally) the gov was broke.

It takes a lot to break all three groups. People walking away with $1B in
"profit" when no wealth was created was an awfully good start on making
everyone *outside* of Wall St. suffer for their sins. Instead of creating a
bigger pie for everyone the way the PC revolution did, they just took larger
and larges slices for themselves.

Using taxpayer money to gift AIG employees with outrageous bonuses should
have been the last straw. They whined and bitched, too, forgetting quite
quickly that they would have been OUT OF WORK without government help.
That's gratitude for you.

--
Bobby G.

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:


I might buy that if there had been more than just 3 or 4 years of
non-deficit spending since the time of Nixon. The only time there was an
extended surplus, it was because the economy was so breathtakingly
overheated because of cheap money and growing money supply that money
came in even quicker than both parties could put it out.

I might accept that view if there had not been the creation of an entire new
sector of the economy based on personal computers during the time everyone
was (wrongly) giving *all* the credit to Reagan's tax cuts. PC related
stuff was being made and sold at prodigious rates. There was a bottomless
demand for programmers and support specialists. The problem came afterward,
when (as you've noted previously) people started to budget based on the
super-good times always being super-good. No one thought the party could or
would ever end.
We are not that far apart since I attribute that what I have called
the Greenspan/Gates expansion. The first G as a proxy for the long time
of really low interest rates and the other G as proxy for the great
leaps in productivity brought about by the computer. I don't think it
was as much related directly to PC sales and service and programming
(although it helped) as it was to the record changes in productivity.
That are still on going. If you look at manufacturing, for instance, we
haven't lost any manufacturing capacity, we lost manufacturing JOBS.
Why? Extended period (that still continues) where mfg productivity rose
at twice the rate of the rest of the economny.


The housing bubble, on the other hand, created no new real estate, it just
horribly overvalued the existing supply. The wealth created by the PC
revolution was real. The alleged wealth created by an overheated real
estate market feeding into a voracious securitization machine that put too
much distance between borrower and lender was *not* real. It was a spec
bubble. One that various government policies of both Bush and Obama is
keeping alive far longer than is good for the country. The real estate
market needs to coalesce before people feel comfortable selling their houses
to move elsewhere for better job opportunities.
And that took around 30 years and numerous administrations to do its
worst. As I mentioned in another thread, I was Ft. Lauderdale a few
years ago and the REALTORS were complaining that there was too much
business and they wished things would settle down and take a breath.
When you have a money-hungry bunch like the Realtors saying it is too
overheated, you know you have a problem (g).


Using taxpayer money to gift AIG employees with outrageous bonuses should
have been the last straw. They whined and bitched, too, forgetting quite
quickly that they would have been OUT OF WORK without government help.
That's gratitude for you.

Nah that's what happens when you get an entitlement. Which is another
reason the bonuses aren't going away. (Another indication of why
Congresses shouldn't put in their nose where they don't understand the
consequences.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

On Apr 25, 8:01*pm, "Robert Green" wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message

m...





In article ,
*Han wrote:

As far as the deficit spending is concerned, the alternative was to let
everyone, from big banks to small people declare bankruptcy and get
another
Big Depression, or deficit spending. *So far, I think, most of us have
gotten the best of it. *Punishing the banks would be a good thing going
forward, as well as retroactively, but, again, that is my opinion,
FWIW!!

I might buy that if there had been more than just 3 or 4 years of
non-deficit spending since the time of Nixon. The only time there was an
extended surplus, it was because the economy was so breathtakingly
overheated because of cheap money and growing money supply that money
came in even quicker than both parties could put it out.

I might accept that view if there had not been the creation of an entire new
sector of the economy based on personal computers during the time everyone
was (wrongly) giving *all* the credit to Reagan's tax cuts. *PC related
stuff was being made and sold at prodigious rates. *There was a bottomless
demand for programmers and support specialists. *The problem came afterward,
when (as you've noted previously) people started to budget based on the
super-good times always being super-good. *No one thought the party could or
would ever end.

LOL. So it was the PC that remade the US economy? You ever thing
that
just maybe it was the reduction in tax rates from 70% to 35% that
ENABLED
a lot of that to really take off? You think all those entrepeneurs
that made it
happen would have behaved the same way if they new 90% of what they
generated was going to the govt? You think it would have been just
as
easy to raise venture capital with to fund those high tech companies
if
Reagan had not lowered tax rates? And how do you explain that the
miracle happened here, and not in say western Europe?



The housing bubble, on the other hand, created no new real estate, it just
horribly overvalued the existing supply.

That's totally false. No new houses were built? Where do you live?



*The wealth created by the PC
revolution was real. *

It was? All of it? I seem to recall that the boom
ended in a tech crash in 2000
that saw a tremendous amount of wealth on paper disappear as well
as many of the darling internet, computer, biotech firms run by
20 year olds.





The alleged wealth created by an overheated real
estate market feeding into a voracious securitization machine that put too
much distance between borrower and lender was *not* real. *It was a spec
bubble.

You mean just like the high tech stock bubble of the later 90s?


*One that various government policies of both Bush and Obama is
keeping alive far longer than is good for the country. * The real estate
market needs to coalesce before people feel comfortable selling their houses
to move elsewhere for better job opportunities.

Meaning what, exactly? Obama should repeal the deductibility of
mortgage interest and taxes? With the real estate market already
a disaster that is just starting to come back?



* * Also, a big reason that this was so bad was because EVERYBODY from
the corporations to individuals and even (finally) the gov was broke.

It takes a lot to break all three groups. *People walking away with $1B in
"profit" when no wealth was created was an awfully good start on making
everyone *outside* of Wall St. suffer for their sins. *Instead of creating a
bigger pie for everyone the way the PC revolution did, they just took larger
and larges slices for themselves.

Again, I don't know where you live, but here in NJ there are lots of
homes
that were built in the last decade. Those houses are still standing
there,
so it's hard to argue that nothing real was generated.





Using taxpayer money to gift AIG employees with outrageous bonuses should
have been the last straw. *They whined and bitched, too, forgetting quite
quickly that they would have been OUT OF WORK without government help.
That's gratitude for you.

--

The money has been paid back. If you insisted on punishing them,
then they
should have been allowed to fail and go under. To give them govt
loans and
then tell them that they can't compensate their employees would have
been
incredibly stupid. The best employees would have left, leaving a
failing
enterprise, unable to repay the loans.



Bobby G.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:


I might buy that if there had been more than just 3 or 4 years of
non-deficit spending since the time of Nixon. The only time there was
an
extended surplus, it was because the economy was so breathtakingly
overheated because of cheap money and growing money supply that money
came in even quicker than both parties could put it out.

I might accept that view if there had not been the creation of an entire
new
sector of the economy based on personal computers during the time
everyone
was (wrongly) giving *all* the credit to Reagan's tax cuts. PC related
stuff was being made and sold at prodigious rates. There was a
bottomless
demand for programmers and support specialists. The problem came
afterward,
when (as you've noted previously) people started to budget based on the
super-good times always being super-good. No one thought the party
could or
would ever end.

We are not that far apart since I attribute that what I have called
the Greenspan/Gates expansion. The first G as a proxy for the long time
of really low interest rates and the other G as proxy for the great
leaps in productivity brought about by the computer. I don't think it
was as much related directly to PC sales and service and programming
(although it helped) as it was to the record changes in productivity.
That are still on going. If you look at manufacturing, for instance, we
haven't lost any manufacturing capacity, we lost manufacturing JOBS.
Why? Extended period (that still continues) where mfg productivity rose
at twice the rate of the rest of the economny.

We both agree that the causes of the great expansion are complex. I've seen
the productivity increases first-hand. One of my first computer gigs (when
disks were measured in kilobytes) was to put five people out of work by
building a dBase system that could produce the reports they did using adding
machines, job tickets and ledger books. I made very good money doing it
because the company knew what it would save in labor costs. My experience
was repeated across the nation and both programmers and HW sellers made
money as PCs enabled small businesses to tame the horrible paperwork burdens
of running a small/medium business.

But embedded within the profits for me, Bill Gates and Michael Dell as well
as the enhanced productivity (mostly!) of the businesses that computerized,
there was a hidden cost: people were losing their jobs. Many of them were
mind-numbingly menial, but they paid the bills. Tokyo Power is using humans
to clean up Fukushima, not robots. Apparently the robots are not well
suited for the task and are too valuable to risk. So there will always be
jobs for humans, just not very good ones.

It's easy to fall into the trap of believing "it's all the fault of people
that don't think like I do." As we've noted before, some of the biggest
money problems we have were heartily bi-partisan. I don't know how we
change a reactive government to a proactive one or even if that's possible.

The housing bubble, on the other hand, created no new real estate, it
just
horribly overvalued the existing supply. The wealth created by the PC
revolution was real. The alleged wealth created by an overheated real
estate market feeding into a voracious securitization machine that put
too
much distance between borrower and lender was *not* real. It was a spec
bubble. One that various government policies of both Bush and Obama is
keeping alive far longer than is good for the country. The real estate
market needs to coalesce before people feel comfortable selling their
houses
to move elsewhere for better job opportunities.

And that took around 30 years and numerous administrations to do its
worst. As I mentioned in another thread, I was Ft. Lauderdale a few
years ago and the REALTORS were complaining that there was too much
business and they wished things would settle down and take a breath.
When you have a money-hungry bunch like the Realtors saying it is too
overheated, you know you have a problem (g).

It's just amazing how many indicators there were in hindsight that the
bubble was so massive. Again, it was a stream of causes all flowing into
one raging river. Easy money, securitization, warm body mortgages, "Flip
This House" TV shows promising quick riches and dozens of other pressures
pushing prices up into the stratosphere where many of them are still stuck.
Now add to that the government actually helping prolong the mess under the
mistaken assumption you can somehow keep people in houses they never would
have been able to afford in any long term sense.

It's why I bristle when someone suggests "It's all because of the CRA" or
somesuch cause. It took a lot of our best people an enormous amount of time
and effort to cause a real estate crash of that magnitude. China's facing a
similar run-up. It will be interesting to see if their form of governance
does any better at "correcting" the basic nature of human beings.

Using taxpayer money to gift AIG employees with outrageous bonuses
should
have been the last straw. They whined and bitched, too, forgetting
quite
quickly that they would have been OUT OF WORK without government help.
That's gratitude for you.

Nah that's what happens when you get an entitlement. Which is another
reason the bonuses aren't going away.

Or to use a great line from _The Usual Suspects:_ "Sure you saved my life
last week, but what have you done for me lately?" Only serious
restructuring of Medicare, SS and the military/intel complex is going to
bring the budget back in line. Talk about your entitlement/third rails.
Zap! Everybody wants to get to heaven but nobody wants to die.

Congresses shouldn't put in their nose where they don't understand the
consequences.

What are you, an anarchist? (-" How could Congress operate if they
understood the long-term consequences of their actions?

--
Bobby G.

Robert Green wrote:

Congresses shouldn't put in their nose where they don't understand
the consequences.

What are you, an anarchist? (-" How could Congress operate if they
understood the long-term consequences of their actions?

Members of Congress can't be expected to be experts at everything
(anything?). That's what lobbyists are for - to explain the consequences of
proposed legislation. Most of the time they get it right - but sometimes
they overlook the unintended consequences, much to our cost.

Point is, who would you want deciding on the rail tariff for hydrogenated
yak-fat, a member of congress or someone who has spent many years steeped
armpit-deep in yak fat?

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:



But embedded within the profits for me, Bill Gates and Michael Dell as well
as the enhanced productivity (mostly!) of the businesses that computerized,
there was a hidden cost: people were losing their jobs. Many of them were
mind-numbingly menial, but they paid the bills. Tokyo Power is using humans
to clean up Fukushima, not robots. Apparently the robots are not well
suited for the task and are too valuable to risk. So there will always be
jobs for humans, just not very good ones.
But it has always been thus. The Industrial Revolution did exactly
the same thing. There is continual change. I mean you don't subsidize
buggy whip makers any more to keep people working do you? One of the
US's problems is that we hit the great bulge in productivity improvement
at exactly the time we had hoards of people to employ (baby boomers).
Jobs go down, people looking for jobs go up, and pay descends. Add to
that an educational system (from K forward) that still hasn't adapted to
the new reality, and societal changes that in many areas tend to actual
work against the changes, and then the general screwing around with
things in the Congress and Legislature, and we have what we have.


It's easy to fall into the trap of believing "it's all the fault of people
that don't think like I do." As we've noted before, some of the biggest
money problems we have were heartily bi-partisan. I don't know how we
change a reactive government to a proactive one or even if that's possible.
Since many of the "heartily bipartisan" measures added to the mess
by screwing around with things they don't understand, I am not sure I
really WANT a proactive government.



And that took around 30 years and numerous administrations to do its
worst. As I mentioned in another thread, I was Ft. Lauderdale a few
years ago and the REALTORS were complaining that there was too much
business and they wished things would settle down and take a breath.
When you have a money-hungry bunch like the Realtors saying it is too
overheated, you know you have a problem (g).

It's just amazing how many indicators there were in hindsight that the
bubble was so massive. Again, it was a stream of causes all flowing into
one raging river. Easy money, securitization, warm body mortgages, "Flip
This House" TV shows promising quick riches and dozens of other pressures
pushing prices up into the stratosphere where many of them are still stuck.
Now add to that the government actually helping prolong the mess under the
mistaken assumption you can somehow keep people in houses they never would
have been able to afford in any long term sense.

Heck it wasn't in hindsight be any means. Our FL realtors, when you
have places in FL, NV and elsewhere selling for $400,000 when the
trailer and "Coming Soon" sign are the only things on the site, going
for $500,000 when ground is broken and $750,000 upon completion the
signs are there. Add to that, it not unusual to see people buying 4-5
condos in the same project and the seeds of destruction are obvious.
As with most bubbles, the idea that all trees grow to the sky
becomes the overriding concept and people get greedy. This followed
pretty much the same path as every bubble from tulips forward.
I was saved by using Tobias' Managing Your Money back in the
day. One of the upgrades came with the book Extraordinary Popular
Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, written by British journalist
Charles Mackay. Should be required reading from 5th grade forward every
couple years or when renewing any remotely finance-related license
(grin).

It's why I bristle when someone suggests "It's all because of the CRA" or
somesuch cause. It took a lot of our best people an enormous amount of time
and effort to cause a real estate crash of that magnitude. China's facing a
similar run-up. It will be interesting to see if their form of governance
does any better at "correcting" the basic nature of human beings.
I think it might, more related to the fact that we are still living
with it. Let the memories fade, let the Chinese Experts get enough
research behind them so they can say they Know How to Avoid The Pitfalls
*THIS* time and they will get their turn.

Congresses shouldn't put in their nose where they don't understand the
consequences.

What are you, an anarchist? (-" How could Congress operate if they
understood the long-term consequences of their actions?

Hell I'd settle for understanding the inevitable consequences of their
action.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

There is a quote I heard "when otherwise smart people do
stupid things, there is often a hidden agenda". Maybe some
in Congress don't want US prosperity and employment?

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...


Congresses shouldn't put in their nose where they don't
understand the
consequences.

What are you, an anarchist? (-" How could Congress
operate if they
understood the long-term consequences of their actions?

Hell I'd settle for understanding the inevitable
consequences of their
action.

As long as we don't let in the cheap Chinese yak fat, and
collapse the domsetic yak fat market.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

Members of Congress can't be expected to be experts at
everything
(anything?). That's what lobbyists are for - to explain the
consequences of
proposed legislation. Most of the time they get it right -
but sometimes
they overlook the unintended consequences, much to our cost.

Point is, who would you want deciding on the rail tariff for
hydrogenated
yak-fat, a member of congress or someone who has spent many
years steeped
armpit-deep in yak fat?

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:



But embedded within the profits for me, Bill Gates and Michael Dell as
well
as the enhanced productivity (mostly!) of the businesses that
computerized,
there was a hidden cost: people were losing their jobs. Many of them
were
mind-numbingly menial, but they paid the bills. Tokyo Power is using
humans
to clean up Fukushima, not robots. Apparently the robots are not well
suited for the task and are too valuable to risk. So there will always
be
jobs for humans, just not very good ones.

But it has always been thus. The Industrial Revolution did exactly
the same thing. There is continual change. I mean you don't subsidize
buggy whip makers any more to keep people working do you? One of the
US's problems is that we hit the great bulge in productivity improvement
at exactly the time we had hoards of people to employ (baby boomers).
Jobs go down, people looking for jobs go up, and pay descends. Add to
that an educational system (from K forward) that still hasn't adapted to
the new reality, and societal changes that in many areas tend to actual
work against the changes, and then the general screwing around with
things in the Congress and Legislature, and we have what we have.

It would be nice to find a better way to move forward. Unemployment
payments should never go to someone who's not still getting up every day and
going *somewhere* - whether it's job retraining, job searching or
public/community service work. Study after study shows just staying home
and cashing unemployment checks after losing your job is damaging in a
number of ways. The government has a strong vested interest in having as
many people as possible working and off unemployment.


It's easy to fall into the trap of believing "it's all the fault of
people
that don't think like I do." As we've noted before, some of the biggest
money problems we have were heartily bi-partisan. I don't know how we
change a reactive government to a proactive one or even if that's
possible.

Since many of the "heartily bipartisan" measures added to the mess
by screwing around with things they don't understand, I am not sure I
really WANT a proactive government.

I sort of agree but with the government being like a huge supertanker a
small course correction early on is a lot easier to accomplish than a sudden
turn to avert a crisis. We're facing a number of long term problems. I
think Malthus had the right idea at the wrong time and that we may never be
able to support the 20 or 50 billion people that our world might eventually
hold. The simple math of that equation (resources divided by people) means
that our standard of living is going to keep falling as countries like
India, China and Brazil experience a rise in prosperity. That has the
potential to create some serious social chaos. I lived through the Watts
and DC riots and can only imagine what true privation will bring. That's
not so far off, either, because so many people depend on food stamps and
other handouts to survive. If (or perhaps when) we reach the point where
there's just no more money to pay those benefits, those riots will make
Watts look like a block party. I don't believe our representatives believe
things will ever get that bad, which is why I think they will. )-:

And that took around 30 years and numerous administrations to do
its
worst. As I mentioned in another thread, I was Ft. Lauderdale a few
years ago and the REALTORS were complaining that there was too much
business and they wished things would settle down and take a breath.
When you have a money-hungry bunch like the Realtors saying it is too
overheated, you know you have a problem (g).

It's just amazing how many indicators there were in hindsight that the
bubble was so massive. Again, it was a stream of causes all flowing
into
one raging river. Easy money, securitization, warm body mortgages,
"Flip
This House" TV shows promising quick riches and dozens of other
pressures
pushing prices up into the stratosphere where many of them are still
stuck.
Now add to that the government actually helping prolong the mess under
the
mistaken assumption you can somehow keep people in houses they never
would
have been able to afford in any long term sense.

Heck it wasn't in hindsight be any means. Our FL realtors, when you
have places in FL, NV and elsewhere selling for $400,000 when the
trailer and "Coming Soon" sign are the only things on the site, going
for $500,000 when ground is broken and $750,000 upon completion the
signs are there. Add to that, it not unusual to see people buying 4-5
condos in the same project and the seeds of destruction are obvious.

I think I've mentioned how once while driving in the Californian desert I
saw a burned out shack on cinder blocks miles away from humanity. On the
side, in black spray paint were scrawled the words: "Fixer Upper - $200K.
Underneath in red paint was the word "Sold!" So, yes, some of the signs of
the madness were quite obvious but quite honestly it just seemed that it was
the way of the world. Real estate prices were always going to go up because
God had stopped making land a while back. It turns out that RE demand is
more flexible than people thought, as is now evidenced by battalions of kids
in their 20's and 30's moving back in with mom and dad.

As with most bubbles, the idea that all trees grow to the sky
becomes the overriding concept and people get greedy. This followed
pretty much the same path as every bubble from tulips forward.
I was saved by using Tobias' Managing Your Money back in the
day. One of the upgrades came with the book Extraordinary Popular
Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, written by British journalist
Charles Mackay. Should be required reading from 5th grade forward every
couple years or when renewing any remotely finance-related license
(grin).

I'll look for it. I don't know when I first learned of the "tulip bubble"
hundreds of years ago in Holland, but the story makes clear that speculation
and frenzy go hand in hand. I think my first real experience with runaway
demand was bugging my poor folks to get me a Polaroid Swinger ("Get the
Swinger, Polaroid Swinger, it's more than a camera, it's almost alive, it's
only nineteen dollars and ninety five, swing it up, take the shot . . .").
They scoured the universe and ended up paying more than list price for the
one they found for me. The things parents do for their kids.

It's why I bristle when someone suggests "It's all because of the CRA"
or
somesuch cause. It took a lot of our best people an enormous amount of
time
and effort to cause a real estate crash of that magnitude. China's
facing a
similar run-up. It will be interesting to see if their form of
governance
does any better at "correcting" the basic nature of human beings.

I think it might, more related to the fact that we are still living
with it. Let the memories fade, let the Chinese Experts get enough
research behind them so they can say they Know How to Avoid The Pitfalls
*THIS* time and they will get their turn.

Ho, ho, ho - are they ever going to get their turn in the barrel. As much
as they appear to control their population, the current "Arab Spring" shows
that when it's time for revolution, it's like a really bad case of diarrhea.
Ain't no stopping it. What I am most curious about is how organized labor
will evolve in China. There will come a time when they will face union
trouble and I doubt they will handle it appropriately. They're already well
along in the "farms to city" movement that we experienced nearly 100 years
ago. Interesting times await us all. India is not far behind and has been
particularly successful in eating our IT lunch. Outsourcing is so
well-known that there's an eponymous TV sitcom.


Congresses shouldn't put in their nose where they don't understand the
consequences.

What are you, an anarchist? (-" How could Congress operate if they
understood the long-term consequences of their actions?

Hell I'd settle for understanding the inevitable consequences of their
action.

My experience with the modeling of possible post-nuke scenarios tells me
that it's probably impossible to understand the totality of the
consequences, especially in the US. Things morph so quickly that the
further out you look, the more wildly inaccurate your projections will be.
Short of a time machine to actually go forward and look (reminds me of a
great Simpson's episode with raining donuts) something will always appear
that throws a monkey wrench in the predictions.

What the country needs is a new industry to create a new economic niche that
depends on brains not cheap labor. Something that can generate good jobs,
too. Google worked for a while, but I think its impact, along with Ebay and
Amazon, is largely "in place" and not likely to produce a surge. Which
could produce a bubble. Which means spec bubbles will live as long as
capitalism does.

I had hoped solar energy was that industry that would fuel lots of new
growth, but apparently not. The worst part about focusing on high speed rail
was a) it was already done and b) we are not a train nation. In solar, we
could have at least funded labs to find better materials and given jobs to
researchers. This gets back to the issue of long term forecasts. One
things for sure, solar is getting less efficient in one vector, and the
longer we delay the worse it gets. The sky is getting slightly darker year
by year. It's not very much but it's measurable. If I were forced to give
*someone* billions of dollars to jazz the economy:

1) Banks
2) Federal workforce
3) Various bailouts
4) Solar energy research

I would choose #4. The big problem now is actual v. theoretical efficiency
but chasing that goal is not as glam as putting a man on the moon or cloning
a dog. The sunlight that falls on an average lot is impressive. Right now
we harness a tiny percent of that radiation which means there's lot of room
for improvement. The Germans are solaring up like crazy and they survived
the Great Recession better than most. To paraphrase yet another movie "I'll
have what they're having."

--
Bobby G.

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:




Ho, ho, ho - are they ever going to get their turn in the barrel. As much
as they appear to control their population, the current "Arab Spring" shows
that when it's time for revolution, it's like a really bad case of diarrhea.
Ain't no stopping it. What I am most curious about is how organized labor
will evolve in China. There will come a time when they will face union
trouble and I doubt they will handle it appropriately. They're already well
along in the "farms to city" movement that we experienced nearly 100 years
ago. Interesting times await us all. India is not far behind and has been
particularly successful in eating our IT lunch. Outsourcing is so
well-known that there's an eponymous TV sitcom.
China also is looking at a Demographic bubble that is going to make
our own with the baby boomers look like a minor hiccup. The one child
policy has two rather interesting things to look at. One, is that the
worker to retiree ratio is going to be even worse than in the US. So,
there is going to be quite a bit of intergenerational concerns. Two, the
one child policy has resulted in a disparity in the male/female ratio.
I, for one, wouldn't want to try to govern a citizenship made up largely
of extremely horny young men (grin).
Another thing that people seem to gloss over is the fact that the
civilian powers have used the economic boom to pay off the honchoes of
the PLA. A fairly large part of the economy is owned by the People's
Liberation Army. This alone adds a rather interesting twist to your
discussion on the organized labor movement. The other will be what is
the reaction of the PLA if their income falls during an inevitable
recession.

My experience with the modeling of possible post-nuke scenarios tells me
that it's probably impossible to understand the totality of the
consequences, especially in the US. Things morph so quickly that the
further out you look, the more wildly inaccurate your projections will be.
Short of a time machine to actually go forward and look (reminds me of a
great Simpson's episode with raining donuts) something will always appear
that throws a monkey wrench in the predictions.
YOu see the same thing with the econ models that are used by the
government when doing any kind of research. They did not foresee the
surpluses during Clinton and then even after the surpluses had peaked
the models used for budgeting were calling for surpluses as far as the
eye could see.

I had hoped solar energy was that industry that would fuel lots of new
growth, but apparently not. The worst part about focusing on high speed rail
was a) it was already done and b) we are not a train nation. In solar, we
could have at least funded labs to find better materials and given jobs to
researchers. This gets back to the issue of long term forecasts. One
things for sure, solar is getting less efficient in one vector, and the
longer we delay the worse it gets. The sky is getting slightly darker year
by year. It's not very much but it's measurable.
Solar energy is largely pie in the sky and probably always will be.
Even at much higher efficiencies, it will not be useful except as a
adjunct to the coal, NG, or nuke fired base plants. The physics, even at
100% efficiency which ain't gonna happen, won't support it for more than
a tens or so of a percent.


I would choose #4. The big problem now is actual v. theoretical efficiency
but chasing that goal is not as glam as putting a man on the moon or cloning
a dog. The sunlight that falls on an average lot is impressive. Right now
we harness a tiny percent of that radiation which means there's lot of room
for improvement. The Germans are solaring up like crazy and they survived
the Great Recession better than most. To paraphrase yet another movie "I'll
have what they're having."

I have a different definition of impressive than you do, I guess
(grin). But even at insanely high efficiencies, you still run into night
and cloudy days and how to keep the efficiencies high as the sun moves
around the sky in the various seasons.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
"Robert Green" wrote:

Ho, ho, ho - are they ever going to get their turn in the barrel. As
much
as they appear to control their population, the current "Arab Spring"
shows
that when it's time for revolution, it's like a really bad case of
diarrhea.
Ain't no stopping it. What I am most curious about is how organized
labor
will evolve in China. There will come a time when they will face union
trouble and I doubt they will handle it appropriately. They're already
well
along in the "farms to city" movement that we experienced nearly 100
years
ago. Interesting times await us all. India is not far behind and has
been
particularly successful in eating our IT lunch. Outsourcing is so
well-known that there's an eponymous TV sitcom.

China also is looking at a Demographic bubble that is going to make
our own with the baby boomers look like a minor hiccup. The one child
policy has two rather interesting things to look at. One, is that the
worker to retiree ratio is going to be even worse than in the US. So,
there is going to be quite a bit of intergenerational concerns. Two, the
one child policy has resulted in a disparity in the male/female ratio.
I, for one, wouldn't want to try to govern a citizenship made up largely
of extremely horny young men (grin).

Horniness seems to be a strong factor in their real estate market. Chinese
women don't consider a man "marriageable" unless he has a nice apartment or
home. At some point I expect there will the kind of social trouble the
authorities won't be able to control. We get glimpses of the unrest
simmering below the surface from time to time, though, before the government
locks them down. Those types of societies reach flash points rather
quickly. I can't prove it, but as Firesign Theater once said "when you put
on the nose, it grows." Chinese capitalism is on an inevitable collision
course with their socialist governing structure. I believe once you have
TVs, internet, PC's, cars and all the other benefits of capitalism, your
mind and attitudes slowly change from those sanctioned by the PLA to those
more in line with Donald Trump.

Another thing that people seem to gloss over is the fact that the
civilian powers have used the economic boom to pay off the honchoes of
the PLA. A fairly large part of the economy is owned by the People's
Liberation Army. This alone adds a rather interesting twist to your
discussion on the organized labor movement. The other will be what is
the reaction of the PLA if their income falls during an inevitable
recession.

A capitalistic underclass with a socialistic ruling class. It's almost the
reverse of the US "checks and balances" government. It's unbalanced to
begin with and should start shaking like a flywheel with a broken bearing.
I think it will happen in this decade, and maybe even very soon. I just
read an article on their acquisition, through typically sneaky means, of
ski-jump jets and their launchers, from Russian through the Ukraine. It's
like Buffalo Bill putting on the skin of his victim. They are re-animating
the serious threat that the USSR once was/might have been by buying their
SotA mil HW and tweaking it. By all account, they are damn good tweakers,
too.

I have to admit I cringed when Boehner said today (about abortion) "we will
not spend taxpayer money on the taking of human life." That makes it clear
he believes only American lives have value because we're spending a lot of
taxpayer moolah to kill mostly goatherders and farmers. The Pentagon is
fighting video game wars now, and is loving the opportunity to fine-tune its
drone and remote action capabilities. We're at a number of very dangerous
junctures. Pakistan is going to turn on us in a big way, and soon.

My experience with the modeling of possible post-nuke scenarios tells me
that it's probably impossible to understand the totality of the
consequences, especially in the US. Things morph so quickly that the
further out you look, the more wildly inaccurate your projections will
be.
Short of a time machine to actually go forward and look (reminds me of a
great Simpson's episode with raining donuts) something will always
appear
that throws a monkey wrench in the predictions.

YOu see the same thing with the econ models that are used by the
government when doing any kind of research. They did not foresee the
surpluses during Clinton and then even after the surpluses had peaked
the models used for budgeting were calling for surpluses as far as the
eye could see.

One of my more highly paid skills was the ability to examine models and
study designs and find the gaping holes in them, or so said my boss. My
wife is more succinct: "You find fault in everything."

Mostly, the holes were related to bad assumptions. As you've noted, it's
almost a given that forecasters and modelers will embed subconscious bias
into their designs (all trees grow . . .). AIG modelers threw out the Great
Depression as too much of an outlier. The fact that they did not want to
even THINK the market could crash that hard again made it easier for them to
rationalize out the part they didn't like.

Modelers who base their assumptions on five of the most unusual years in
economic history are bound to get into trouble. They clearly were biased
towards endless revenue because subconsciously, they know they're building
the model to justify more spending. It's really a vicious cycle and the
more letters our modelers had after their names, the more it seems they
would defend fairly obviously biased assumptions to the death.

One really contentious item concerned how lethally irradiated soldiers and
workers would react to knowing they had been poisoned with only days to
live. You couldn't do any real-world testing to see how people would react.
(Well, I am sure we could assemble a test team from AHR.) g

You could do social preference analysis with group after group, but the
answers were all over the map with people breaking into two clear camps:
the resigners and the revengers. It was not until Chernobyl that any
real-world data entered that process, even obliquely. Eventually, it was
decided that soldiers would mostly be revengers and civilians a mix of
revengers and resigners.

I had hoped solar energy was that industry that would fuel lots of new
growth, but apparently not. The worst part about focusing on high speed
rail
was a) it was already done and b) we are not a train nation. In solar,
we
could have at least funded labs to find better materials and given jobs
to
researchers. This gets back to the issue of long term forecasts. One
things for sure, solar is getting less efficient in one vector, and the
longer we delay the worse it gets. The sky is getting slightly darker
year
by year. It's not very much but it's measurable.

Solar energy is largely pie in the sky and probably always will be.

I have to take exception with that for a number of reasons. First, it's a
bad pun. (-: Our existence is "solar powered" starting from the oxygen we
breathe coming from cyanobacteria in the ocean a long, long time ago that
began making oxygen long before a tree ever existed. Nature makes its way
quite nicely on sunlight and lots of modern aircraft design is based on how
"nature does it."

The claims of "it could never work" remind me of what I heard when
introducing PC networks into businesses run by DEC or AS400's. "They'll
never be fast enough or capable enough to replace midframes and minis." Oh,
but they were. Eventually. I recall so clearly a Bell Lab engineer telling
us the limit of modem speed would never exceed 4800 BPS because POTS
bandwidth was too narrow to ever support more. Of course, that was
disproved totally just a few years later and the bandwidth expanded
dramatically through innovation.

So based on theoretical solar efficiencies, we still have quite a ways to go
when it comes to improving efficiency. Recently there have been substantial
improvements in manufacturing techniques that will serious reduce the cost.

Other efficiencies will assist solar in becoming more useful. Incredibly
powerful new motor magnets, vastly more efficient lighting and new forms of
batteries have made things run by electricity require less and less power.
LED lighting in the home is something that could be powered quite nicely
with existing solar technology. More of these synergies will help lessen
our per capita demand. T

Just like in business, every percentage point helps. The more juice that
comes from solar, the less we need to depend on dirty sources. Solar is
remarkably clean compared to everything else. I think that's a very, very
big point in its favor. We need to take all the other subsidies the Feds
pump out that have outlived their usefulness and divert them to solar
research so we can own the patents and licensing rights - true energy
independence.

Even at much higher efficiencies, it will not be useful except as a
adjunct to the coal, NG, or nuke fired base plants. The physics, even at
100% efficiency which ain't gonna happen, won't support it for more than
a tens or so of a percent.

It's like the joke "I don't have to outrun the bear, just you." I think
that any contribution is important. The benefits of even offloading a
little demand from the grid will compound themselves in time.

Once again, if the Germans are into it full throttle and they were the ones
to come out best from the Great Recession, I think it bears more
investigation. More than something like Obama's pet high speed trains which
involve tremendous subsidies to start, lots of money to maintain and require
a social conversion to a train riding rather than car driving nation. Good
luck with that, Mr. President. It's almost as weak as saying we needed to
invade Afghanistan to deny Al-Qaeda a base. So they packed up and moved to
Waziristan where we can't go without starting a war with Pakistan.

I would choose #4. The big problem now is actual v. theoretical
efficiency
but chasing that goal is not as glam as putting a man on the moon or
cloning
a dog. The sunlight that falls on an average lot is impressive. Right
now
we harness a tiny percent of that radiation which means there's lot of
room
for improvement. The Germans are solaring up like crazy and they
survived
the Great Recession better than most. To paraphrase yet another movie
"I'll
have what they're having."

I have a different definition of impressive than you do, I guess
(grin). But even at insanely high efficiencies, you still run into night
and cloudy days and how to keep the efficiencies high as the sun moves
around the sky in the various seasons.

The thing to keep in mind is that it's not yet a replacement technology, but
an adjunct to the power sources we use now. Lower the demand on coal
plants, even a little, and you're cutting back on emissions. Since demand
peaks in the summer and summer is when solar is most efficient, I see a lot
of "back fill" potential.

Charge up batteries during the day to recharge your electric car overnight.
It's probably going to take solar shingles and shed tops that are of much
higher efficiency than we've got right now. I know the payback curves are
poor, but my electric rate has jumped so much in the last decade that I
believe that building a realistic model g of power use and rate increases,
payback will come much sooner than predicted.

Next house will definitely have solar shingles.

--
Bobby G.

NONE OF YOU PUTS MUCH STOCK IN ANY THIS POST NOR YOUR RESPONSES.
TO CARRY ON LIKE THAT IN A HOME REPAIRS GROUP IS OBNOXIOUS.
WHAT A WASTE OF GOOD DEDICATED BANDWITH...THANK YOU VERY MUCH....NOT.

PATECUM
TGITM

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:



I have to admit I cringed when Boehner said today (about abortion) "we will
not spend taxpayer money on the taking of human life." That makes it clear
he believes only American lives have value because we're spending a lot of
taxpayer moolah to kill mostly goatherders and farmers. The Pentagon is
fighting video game wars now, and is loving the opportunity to fine-tune its
drone and remote action capabilities. We're at a number of very dangerous
junctures. Pakistan is going to turn on us in a big way, and soon.
Since he is also in favor of the death penalty, I don't think it is
only American life. Apparently just fetal life. He is on record being
upset about the one child policy in China and the resulting abortions
until a male is born or forced abortions if someone has a second kid.



Just like in business, every percentage point helps. The more juice that
comes from solar, the less we need to depend on dirty sources. Solar is
remarkably clean compared to everything else. I think that's a very, very
big point in its favor. We need to take all the other subsidies the Feds
pump out that have outlived their usefulness and divert them to solar
research so we can own the patents and licensing rights - true energy
independence.

I am a lot less convinced and sanguine about this. A lot of the
non-cleanliness is out of site. The manufacturing process uses a bunch
of nasty things. Covering areas of land to put the things up. The nasty
things that will be gotten rid of eventually, etc. There is a little of
the idiocy of the electric cars when they say no tailpipe emmisions and
conveniently ignore the extra pollutants that will come from increasing
electricity needs to fuel the things.
I may be too pessimistic, but then too you may be too optimistic.
Of course, tomorrow someone may actually come up with cold fusion and
make both of our arguments moot.


Even at much higher efficiencies, it will not be useful except as a
adjunct to the coal, NG, or nuke fired base plants. The physics, even at
100% efficiency which ain't gonna happen, won't support it for more than
a tens or so of a percent.

It's like the joke "I don't have to outrun the bear, just you." I think
that any contribution is important. The benefits of even offloading a
little demand from the grid will compound themselves in time.
I am not arguing that there will be a contribution. I am not
sure about whether the contribution will be as great as many suggest. I
have no problems with people putting them up, I am not sure why
electrical companies should be mandated to have wind farms, solar
arrays, etc.


Once again, if the Germans are into it full throttle and they were the ones
to come out best from the Great Recession, I think it bears more
investigation. More than something like Obama's pet high speed trains which
involve tremendous subsidies to start, lots of money to maintain and require
a social conversion to a train riding rather than car driving nation. Good
luck with that, Mr. President. It's almost as weak as saying we needed to
invade Afghanistan to deny Al-Qaeda a base. So they packed up and moved to
Waziristan where we can't go without starting a war with Pakistan.
THey were also the ones that played the fewest games with their
banking system. Also, they benefited greatly from the Euro, although
some of those games are going away as they have to subsidize the PIIGs
in order to keep the Euro together. They are staid and all Teutonic and
all and don't get anywhere as near as fascinated by shiny (economic)
objects as we tend to (grin).


The thing to keep in mind is that it's not yet a replacement technology, but
an adjunct to the power sources we use now. Lower the demand on coal
plants, even a little, and you're cutting back on emissions. Since demand
peaks in the summer and summer is when solar is most efficient, I see a lot
of "back fill" potential.

But they are being touted as such and Great Job Engines. Interesting
study out of Spain, that in interests of full disclosure I am tracking
down to see for myself, indicates that for every clean energy job, you
lost two jobs. If that pans out as being remotely true, that puts a spin
on things.

Charge up batteries during the day to recharge your electric car overnight.
It's probably going to take solar shingles and shed tops that are of much
higher efficiency than we've got right now. I know the payback curves are
poor, but my electric rate has jumped so much in the last decade that I
believe that building a realistic model g of power use and rate increases,
payback will come much sooner than predicted.
ANother problem I have with the cleanliness of the energy,
batteries are VERY nasty things. You have to have large technology leaps
more or less simultaneously in two completely different areas (solar
panels and batteries) before it can be any more than an interesting play
thing for those with an interest.



Next house will definitely have solar shingles.

--
Bobby G.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

On Apr 28, 6:36*am, "Robert Green" wrote:
I have to admit I cringed when Boehner said today (about abortion) "we will
not spend taxpayer money on the taking of human life." *That makes it clear
he believes only American lives have value because we're spending a lot of
taxpayer moolah to kill mostly goatherders and farmers. *

An amazing non-sequitor.



The Pentagon is
fighting video game wars now, and is loving the opportunity to fine-tune its
drone and remote action capabilities.

What's your problem with predator drones taking out terrorists?
You libs just don't like the US miliatry, no matter what they do
or don't do.


*We're at a number of very dangerous
junctures. *Pakistan is going to turn on us in a big way, and soon.

Pakistan has been playing both sides of the fence for a long time.
If they want to turn on us, so be it. Then we'll just deal with them
for what they are.





I had hoped solar energy was that industry that would fuel lots of new
growth, but apparently not. The worst part about focusing on high speed
rail
was a) it was already done and b) we are not a train nation. *In solar,
we
could have at least funded labs to find better materials and given jobs
to
researchers. *This gets back to the issue of long term forecasts. *One
things for sure, solar is getting less efficient in one vector, and the
longer we delay the worse it gets. *The sky is getting slightly darker
year
by year. *It's not very much but it's measurable.
* * *Solar energy is largely pie in the sky and probably always will be.

I have to take exception with that for a number of reasons. First, it's a
bad pun. *(-: *Our existence is "solar powered" starting from the oxygen we
breathe coming from cyanobacteria in the ocean a long, long time ago that
began making oxygen long before a tree ever existed. *Nature makes its way
quite nicely on sunlight and lots of modern aircraft design is based on how
"nature does it."

Which has nothing to do with Kurt's point.



The claims of "it could never work" remind me of what I heard when
introducing PC networks into businesses run by DEC or AS400's. *"They'll
never be fast enough or capable enough to replace midframes and minis." *Oh,
but they were. *Eventually. *I recall so clearly a Bell Lab engineer telling
us the limit of modem speed would never exceed 4800 BPS because POTS
bandwidth was too narrow to ever support more. *Of course, that was
disproved totally just a few years later and the bandwidth expanded
dramatically through innovation.

So based on theoretical solar efficiencies, we still have quite a ways to go
when it comes to improving efficiency. *Recently there have been substantial
improvements in manufacturing techniques that will serious reduce the cost.

Liberals appear to specialize in non sequitors like moldy
cheese under the refrigerator.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


wrote in message
...
On Apr 28, 6:36 am, "Robert Green"
wrote:
I have to admit I cringed when Boehner said today (about
abortion) "we will
not spend taxpayer money on the taking of human life."
That makes it clear
he believes only American lives have value because we're
spending a lot of
taxpayer moolah to kill mostly goatherders and farmers.

An amazing non-sequitor.

On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 07:20:02 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Apr 28, 6:36*am, "Robert Green" wrote:
I have to admit I cringed when Boehner said today (about abortion) "we will
not spend taxpayer money on the taking of human life." *That makes it clear
he believes only American lives have value because we're spending a lot of
taxpayer moolah to kill mostly goatherders and farmers. *

An amazing non-sequitor.



The Pentagon is
fighting video game wars now, and is loving the opportunity to fine-tune its
drone and remote action capabilities.

What's your problem with predator drones taking out terrorists?
You libs just don't like the US miliatry, no matter what they do
or don't do.


*We're at a number of very dangerous
junctures. *Pakistan is going to turn on us in a big way, and soon.

Pakistan has been playing both sides of the fence for a long time.
If they want to turn on us, so be it. Then we'll just deal with them
for what they are.





I had hoped solar energy was that industry that would fuel lots of new
growth, but apparently not. The worst part about focusing on high speed
rail
was a) it was already done and b) we are not a train nation. *In solar,
we
could have at least funded labs to find better materials and given jobs
to
researchers. *This gets back to the issue of long term forecasts. *One
things for sure, solar is getting less efficient in one vector, and the
longer we delay the worse it gets. *The sky is getting slightly darker
year
by year. *It's not very much but it's measurable.
* * *Solar energy is largely pie in the sky and probably always will be.

I have to take exception with that for a number of reasons. First, it's a
bad pun. *(-: *Our existence is "solar powered" starting from the oxygen we
breathe coming from cyanobacteria in the ocean a long, long time ago that
began making oxygen long before a tree ever existed. *Nature makes its way
quite nicely on sunlight and lots of modern aircraft design is based on how
"nature does it."

Which has nothing to do with Kurt's point.



The claims of "it could never work" remind me of what I heard when
introducing PC networks into businesses run by DEC or AS400's. *"They'll
never be fast enough or capable enough to replace midframes and minis." *Oh,
but they were. *Eventually. *I recall so clearly a Bell Lab engineer telling
us the limit of modem speed would never exceed 4800 BPS because POTS
bandwidth was too narrow to ever support more. *Of course, that was
disproved totally just a few years later and the bandwidth expanded
dramatically through innovation.

So based on theoretical solar efficiencies, we still have quite a ways to go
when it comes to improving efficiency. *Recently there have been substantial
improvements in manufacturing techniques that will serious reduce the cost.

The probem is, there is only so far you can go in efficiency and
cost. And
there is only so much energy that falls on a given area from the sun.
One
new nuclear power plant is equal to 50 square miles of solar panels.
Let's
say we double efficiancy of PV panels, which would make them totally
efficient. Now you still need 25 square miles.

....and one day like yesterday and $billion$, gone. It's going to be a mess
restoring power to much of Alabama as it is. If all that are was "energy
independent", it would take decades to repair.


Other efficiencies will assist solar in becoming more useful. *Incredibly
powerful new motor magnets, vastly more efficient lighting and new forms of
batteries have made things run by electricity require less and less power.
LED lighting in the home is something that could be powered quite nicely
with existing solar technology. *More of these synergies will help lessen
our per capita demand. *

All of that has nothing whatever to do with solar. It's just reducing
energy
demand, without regard to where the energy comes from.





Just like in business, every percentage point helps. *The more juice that
comes from solar, the less we need to depend on dirty sources. *Solar is
remarkably clean compared to everything else. *I think that's a very, very
big point in its favor. *We need to take all the other subsidies the Feds
pump out that have outlived their usefulness and divert them to solar
research so we can own the patents and licensing rights - true energy
independence.

Going back to your previous example, was it govt subsidies that took
us from the 4800 baud modem to 56K modems? Or from modems
to broadband? No, it was free markets.





Even at much higher efficiencies, it will not be useful except as a
adjunct to the coal, NG, or nuke fired base plants. The physics, even at
100% efficiency which ain't gonna happen, won't support it for more than
a tens or so of a percent.

It's like the joke "I don't have to outrun the bear, just you." *I think
that any contribution is important. *The benefits of even offloading a
little demand from the grid will compound themselves in time.

Exactly how does it compound itself in time?




Once again, if the Germans are into it full throttle and they were the ones
to come out best from the Great Recession, I think it bears more
investigation.

The Germans eat a lot of sauerkraut compared to the USA. Following
your logic, that bears investigation as an economic driving force too.




More than something like Obama's pet high speed trains which
involve tremendous subsidies to start, lots of money to maintain and require
a social conversion to a train riding rather than car driving nation. *Good
luck with that, Mr. President. *It's almost
...



That's the only part that makes any sense.

On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 13:51:10 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

Liberals appear to specialize in non sequitors like moldy
cheese under the refrigerator.

They call it "moral equivalence".

On Apr 28, 4:14*am, The Ghost in The Machine
wrote:
NONE OF YOU PUTS MUCH STOCK IN ANY THIS POST NOR YOUR *RESPONSES.
TO CARRY ON LIKE THAT IN A HOME REPAIRS GROUP IS OBNOXIOUS.
WHAT A WASTE OF GOOD DEDICATED BANDWITH...THANK YOU VERY MUCH....NOT.

PATECUM
TGITM

Ghost, sweetie, please -- not all CAPS. Tx

HB

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:



I have to admit I cringed when Boehner said today (about abortion) "we
will
not spend taxpayer money on the taking of human life." That makes it
clear
he believes only American lives have value because we're spending a lot
of
taxpayer moolah to kill mostly goatherders and farmers. The Pentagon is
fighting video game wars now, and is loving the opportunity to fine-tune
its
drone and remote action capabilities. We're at a number of very
dangerous
junctures. Pakistan is going to turn on us in a big way, and soon.

Since he is also in favor of the death penalty, I don't think it is
only American life. Apparently just fetal life. He is on record being
upset about the one child policy in China and the resulting abortions
until a male is born or forced abortions if someone has a second kid.

Boehner's attitude can be summed up in one sentence: "Republicans, we care
about your life until you are born."

Just like in business, every percentage point helps. The more juice
that
comes from solar, the less we need to depend on dirty sources. Solar is
remarkably clean compared to everything else. I think that's a very,
very
big point in its favor. We need to take all the other subsidies the
Feds
pump out that have outlived their usefulness and divert them to solar
research so we can own the patents and licensing rights - true energy
independence.

I am a lot less convinced and sanguine about this. A lot of the
non-cleanliness is out of site.

Off-site or outta site or what? (-:

The manufacturing process uses a bunch
of nasty things. Covering areas of land to put the things up. The nasty
things that will be gotten rid of eventually, etc. There is a little of
the idiocy of the electric cars when they say no tailpipe emmisions and
conveniently ignore the extra pollutants that will come from increasing
electricity needs to fuel the things.

Yes, I've always worried that things wouldn't work out as they should.
Solar powering *most* cars is achievable because most people work during the
and have short commutes and they can either charge up in the work parking
lot or have intermediate batteries charging at home. Work parking lots
should have solar roofs - think tax credits - that I hate but see the use
for!).

Solar powering a house, not so readily achievable, I think because of
refrigerators, heat and cooling needs.

I may be too pessimistic, but then too you may be too optimistic.

The market so far seems to agree with you - solar investments on Wall St.
haven't done well
Of course, tomorrow someone may actually come up with cold fusion and
make both of our arguments moot.


Even at much higher efficiencies, it will not be useful except as a
adjunct to the coal, NG, or nuke fired base plants. The physics, even
at
100% efficiency which ain't gonna happen, won't support it for more
than
a tens or so of a percent.

It's like the joke "I don't have to outrun the bear, just you." I think
that any contribution is important. The benefits of even offloading a
little demand from the grid will compound themselves in time.
I am not arguing that there will be a contribution. I am not
sure about whether the contribution will be as great as many suggest. I
have no problems with people putting them up, I am not sure why
electrical companies should be mandated to have wind farms, solar
arrays, etc.


Once again, if the Germans are into it full throttle and they were the
ones
to come out best from the Great Recession, I think it bears more
investigation. More than something like Obama's pet high speed trains
which
involve tremendous subsidies to start, lots of money to maintain and
require
a social conversion to a train riding rather than car driving nation.
Good
luck with that, Mr. President. It's almost as weak as saying we needed
to
invade Afghanistan to deny Al-Qaeda a base. So they packed up and moved
to
Waziristan where we can't go without starting a war with Pakistan.
THey were also the ones that played the fewest games with their
banking system. Also, they benefited greatly from the Euro, although
some of those games are going away as they have to subsidize the PIIGs
in order to keep the Euro together. They are staid and all Teutonic and
all and don't get anywhere as near as fascinated by shiny (economic)
objects as we tend to (grin).


The thing to keep in mind is that it's not yet a replacement technology,
but
an adjunct to the power sources we use now. Lower the demand on coal
plants, even a little, and you're cutting back on emissions. Since
demand
peaks in the summer and summer is when solar is most efficient, I see a
lot
of "back fill" potential.

But they are being touted as such and Great Job Engines. Interesting
study out of Spain, that in interests of full disclosure I am tracking
down to see for myself, indicates that for every clean energy job, you
lost two jobs. If that pans out as being remotely true, that puts a spin
on things.

Charge up batteries during the day to recharge your electric car
overnight.
It's probably going to take solar shingles and shed tops that are of
much
higher efficiency than we've got right now. I know the payback curves
are
poor, but my electric rate has jumped so much in the last decade that I
believe that building a realistic model g of power use and rate
increases,
payback will come much sooner than predicted.
ANother problem I have with the cleanliness of the energy,
batteries are VERY nasty things. You have to have large technology leaps
more or less simultaneously in two completely different areas (solar
panels and batteries) before it can be any more than an interesting play
thing for those with an interest.



Next house will definitely have solar shingles.

--
Bobby G.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is
to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke