94 replies to this topic

[rwac]

niner, on 27 December 2011 - 05:21 AM, said:

That's the sort of boogieman they always raise, but how realistic is it?  Not very, imho.   There's a market for electric power, and there are other plants that compete for business.  If you took out some marginal coal plants, how do we know that gas turbines wouldn't take up some of the slack?  What if rates go up a penny a kwh?  If we have a much larger drop in health care costs, the macro effect is positive, even if a few people notice their electric bills went up a few bucks.   What about those people who notice that their dad died from particulate-aggravated CVD?  Either way, letting the plants continue to pollute or cleaning them up, there are winners and losers.  I would argue that when you clean them up, the losses are small and the wins are big, and letting them continue to pollute produces the opposite effect.  Scrubbers aren't free but neither is health care, and as it turns out, the health care is a hell of a lot more expensive than the scrubbers.

The problem is that nat gas plants are overall more expensive that coal, the electricity rates are higher.
http://en.wikipedia....fferent_sources
The numbers suggest that it's going to be atleast a 10% increase in electricity rates.

Thing is, people accept some amount of downside to things, as long as it has relatively low likelihood. People take the miracle that is the US economy for granted, and keep increasing the restrictions over time. They will eventually kill the goose and wonder why it happened.

Anyway, do you have a link to a study that measures mortality due to coal?

[maxwatt]

There has been a breakthrough in solar electric panels, using quantum dots to boost the efficiency by at least an order of magnitude,as reported in a recent issue of Nature.   If or when successfully transitioned from  the lab to commercial applications, it is game over for coal.  Even with more conventional solar cells, the cost of new plants is close to par between coal and solar or wind; the configuration of the grid is a bigger obstacle to implementing wind than is the economics of plant construction.  If we had a rational and pragmatic government, we would have a crash-priority program to implement renewable power sources. The free market is but a feedback mechanism, though a very efficient one, but it is piss-poor at setting priorities, and is effectively gamed by the political influence of money.  This is why industrial-consumer society is headed off a cliff at break-neck speed.

As for the original topic, Obama as a brand is an incredibly ingenious distraction.   This center-right circa 1975 Republican by ideology front gives the left no option, driven to support him by the sheer lunacy of the opposition zoo show.

Ron Paul though is the only Republican candidate with any integrity, even though his beliefs are in an unworkable system, for any society more sophisticated than the stone-age.  For an example of a libertarian society I nominate the tribal groups in the highlands of New Guinea.  These people have been considered by anthropologists to be among the most intelligent ever studied, which has been attributed to generations of incessant warfare having eliminated genes for stupidity.  (Racist anthropologists make a similar claim about Europeans.)

If there is anyone my remarks have not offended, please speak up and I will try to remedy the oversight.

[david ellis]

Solar(1) can beat coal hands down.   Solar priced out 4.6 cents a kilowatt.(2) Coal prices out at 5.6 cents.(3)   Not only that the solar plant runs on gas at night.   Power day and night. We all have to recalibrate our expectations.   No external costs in these numbers.  


Wikipedia.org - Solar Energy Generating Systems-   354 MW solar system (1&2)

(1) "The installation uses parabolic trough solar thermal technology along with natural gas to generate electricity. 90% of the electricity is produced by the sunlight. Natural gas is only used when the solar power is insufficient to meet the demand from Southern California Edison, the distributor of power in southern California."

(2) "As an example of cost, in 2002, one of the 30 MW Kramer Junction sites required $90 million to construct, and its operation and maintenance cost is about $3 million per year (4.6 cents per kilowatt hour)."^[3]  

(3) www.worldcoal.org - $56 Mwh

Edited by david ellis, 27 December 2011 - 04:35 PM.

[david ellis]

rwac, on 26 December 2011 - 08:00 PM, said:

Also, I'm kinda confused about you calling neo-liberalism (aka corporatism) as libertarian.

I think it is kind of a mash-up too.  (Using "Libertarian" to mean  neo-liberalism)  

Thanks for using the word corporatism.   I have been confused by it before.  So I looked for a good definition and found this.

Corporatism refers to a form of collectivism that views the whole as being greater than the sum of its individual parts, and gives priority to group rights over individual rights.  

Which begs the question - what does "collectivism" mean?

Collectivism is any philosophic, political, religious, economic, or social outlook that emphasizes the interdependence of every human being. Collectivism is a basic cultural element that exists as the reverse of individualism in human nature (in the same way high context culture exists as the reverse of low context culture), and stresses the priority of group goals over individual goals and the importance of cohesion within social groups.

And for me, another question - What does "high/low context" mean?
"It refers to a culture's tendency to use high context messages over low context messages in routine communication. This choice of communication styles translates into a culture that will cater to in-groups, an in-group being a group that has similar experiences and expectations, from which inferences are drawn. In a high context culture, many things are left unsaid, letting the culture explain. Words and word choice become very important in higher context communication, since a few words can communicate a complex message very effectively to an in-group (but less effectively outside that group), while in a lower context culture, the communicator needs to be much more explicit and the value of a single word is less important."


definitions were found on wikipeda.org - "collectivism" and "high context culture"

Thanks again rwac, I have learned some  useful words today.   Plus, I am finding out that politics is a usually a "high context message".   It explains a lot about why the right and left have trouble understanding each other. We are definitely different cultures both enamored of using high context messages.  

[niner]

rwac, on 27 December 2011 - 07:51 AM, said:

The problem is that nat gas plants are overall more expensive that coal, the electricity rates are higher.
http://en.wikipedia....fferent_sources
The numbers suggest that it's going to be atleast a 10% increase in electricity rates.

Thing is, people accept some amount of downside to things, as long as it has relatively low likelihood. People take the miracle that is the US economy for granted, and keep increasing the restrictions over time. They will eventually kill the goose and wonder why it happened.

Anyway, do you have a link to a study that measures mortality due to coal?

This is a pretty good look at the full costs of coal: http://solar.gwu.edu...20of%20coal.pdf

It's pretty ugly.  It really looks like we'd be money ahead if we shut down the coal plants and subsidized the hell out of whatever we think should replace them.

[rwac]

maxwatt, on 27 December 2011 - 03:31 PM, said:

There has been a breakthrough in solar electric panels, using quantum dots to boost the efficiency by at least an order of magnitude,as reported in a recent issue of Nature.   If or when successfully transitioned from  the lab to commercial applications, it is game over for coal.

Well, there's always hype about the next big thing. Let's have this discussion when the quantum dots hit the market. It's fair to fund research, but it is not a good idea to subsidize energy sources, or tax the competition. I think you are flat out wrong about the parity between solar and say coal.

The US 100 years ago was much more libertarian with comparatively few problems.

david ellis, on 27 December 2011 - 04:34 PM, said:

Solar(1) can beat coal hands down.   Solar priced out 4.6 cents a kilowatt.(2) Coal prices out at 5.6 cents.(3)   Not only that the solar plant runs on gas at night.   Power day and night. We all have to recalibrate our expectations.   No external costs in these numbers.  

I believe coal is more like $0.04/kwh. I could not find the info on worldcoal. http://nuclearfissio...wind-and-solar/
Also, your number is for possibly the best location in the country. Try to copy the plant elsewhere and the efficiency will go down.

Also, isn't the plant subsidized? Thus the cost will come out of CA taxpayers pockets.

Edited by rwac, 28 December 2011 - 05:32 AM.

[maxwatt]

The cost to generate electricity from coal may be as low as 4 cents a kilowatt, but niner was trying to point out that the costs of medical treatment of diseases caused by the combustion by-products make the true cost much higher.  An analogous situation:  for years General Electric dumped PCBs into the Hudson River, which devastated an entire fishing industry, poisoned mother's breast milk and which remains in the river sediment today, to the extent that one is advised to eat no more than one fish from the river per month, and none at all if pregnant or nursing.  Should GE pay for the cleanup?  Their lawyers say  "no", of course.  But is forcing them to clean up their mess an impingement of private liberty, or if it is, is their transgression a  greater impingement on the rights of others?

As for solar, even now the cost is very near parity to coal even without subsidy.  Perhaps the real reason solar is marginalized is that it is decentralized, so vested economic interests cannot so easily profit from it?  Or is that too paranoid for you?  And back to the quantum dots, why shouldn't there be a public investment in the technology, which will be repaid many times over???

Even now, the Koch spin machine is cursing General Electric, a major investor in solar and wind technology, for threatening to upset dirty energy monopoly.

[rwac]

maxwatt, on 28 December 2011 - 01:01 PM, said:

As for solar, even now the cost is very near parity to coal even without subsidy.

I believe that electricity solar is 5x the cost of coal. You're probably wrong. Even accounting for the pollution, i doubt it's near parity.

Quote

Even now, the Koch spin machine is cursing General Electric, a major investor in solar and wind technology, for threatening to upset dirty energy monopoly.

No doubt GE wants subsidies and regulatory help for its investments.

[rwac]

david ellis, on 27 December 2011 - 07:27 PM, said:

Thanks for using the word corporatism.   I have been confused by it before.  So I looked for a good definition and found this.

I think it's interesting that when a policy is disliked, it's automatically associated with the "opposition". People on the left blame "neo-liberalism" associated with capitalism, and the right blames "corporatism" associated with collectivism.

[david ellis]

rwac, on 28 December 2011 - 04:52 PM, said:

  People on the left blame "neo-liberalism" associated with capitalism,

You don't know who I am.  I love capitalism, I don't think capitalism is the problem.   I just think neo-liberalism is stupid economics.  For a good example of how stupid it is,  neo-liberals think that deficits will always cause inflation.   Guess what?  They don't cause always cause inflation.   Japan has run huge deficits for decades - no inflation problems.   In Deficit ridden America, guess what the latest news is?  Inflation has slowed to .8%/per year. Why little to no inflation despite neo-liberal expectations?   Because the basic price setting factors are supply and demand.   Because neo-liberalism emphasizes "supply" their economics gives the wrong answer. Despite having lots of money, plenty of workers, plenty of manufacturing capacity we are in a depression.   What's the problem?   Lack of demand.   Fix that problem and our economy will roll again.   When deficits are cut, demand is reduced some more, reducing taxable income, thus increasing the deficits.   It is a death spiral.

I really hated the intimation that lefties are commies in your comment.   I want to use this thread to close the circle.   Communism, fascism, anarchism are dead ends when taken to the extreme.   Neo-liberalism is not an exception.   All four are ideological constructs.   There is no empirical evidence behind any of them.  All of them allow a minority to savage the majority.   It is no mystery why the Koch brothers are among those pushing this ideology.  

rwac, on 28 December 2011 - 04:52 PM, said:

I think it's interesting that when a policy is disliked, it's automatically associated with the "opposition". People on the left blame "neo-liberalism" associated with capitalism, and the right blames "corporatism" associated with collectivism.

I thought it was interesting how non-political "collectivism" and "corporatism" are.

For instance, "collectivism" behavior can be found on both the left and right. When the right finally picks a presidential candidate, the right will "collectively" get behind their man and support him.   They do that because they believe in "corporatism", a form of collectivism that views the whole as being greater than the sum of its individual parts, giving priority to group rights.

david ellis said:

Corporatism refers to a form of collectivism that views the whole as being greater than the sum of its individual parts, and gives priority to group rights over individual rights.

Which begs the question - what does "collectivism" mean?

Collectivism is any philosophic, political, religious, economic, or social outlook that emphasizes the interdependence of every human being. Collectivism is a basic cultural element that exists as the reverse of individualism in human nature (in the same way high context culture exists as the reverse of low context culture), and stresses the priority of group goals over individual goals and the importance of cohesion within social groups.

[maxwatt]

"Corporatism" has taken on another meaning in political discourse than the definition being used here.  Among "progressives", who are avowedly anti-neo-liberal, it is used to mean a corporate state, run by and for the benefits of corporations, their bottom lines and their owners and management.  This is essentially what the United States has come to over the last half century, if you accept this narrative.  But I find this definition to be indistinguishable from facism (state socialism.)

[maxwatt]

A Plan to Power 100 Percent of the Planet with Renewables

Wind, water and solar technologies can provide 100 percent of the world's energy, eliminating all fossil fuels. Here's howBy Mark Z. Jacobson and Mark A. Delucchi  

• Supplies of wind and solar energy on accessible land dwarf the energy consumed by people around the globe.
  
• The authors’ plan calls for 3.8 million large wind turbines, 90,000 solar plants, and numerous geothermal, tidal and rooftop photovoltaic installations worldwide.
  
• The cost of generating and transmitting power would be less than the projected cost per kilowatt-hour for fossil-fuel and nuclear power.
  
• Shortages of a few specialty materials, along with lack of political will, loom as the greatest obstacles.

[rwac]

1. It has never been done before even small scale, it is purely theoretical so far.

2. Wind Power is not risk free. The influence of large-scale wind power on global climate

[maxwatt]

Nothing in Jacobson and Delucchi's proposal is unproven technology, and the pieces have been all done on a smaller scale.
And note the part I bolded in the abstract below.e only reason we lack the will is the ongoing propaganda to hide the consequences of continuing to enrich the carbon barons.

It is feasible and economical; th

Quote

The influence of large-scale wind power on global climate

Abstract

Large-scale use of wind power can alter local and global climate by extracting kinetic energy and altering turbulent transport in the atmospheric boundary layer. We report climate-model simulations that address the possible climatic impacts of wind power at regional to global scales by using two general circulation models and several parameterizations of the interaction of wind turbines with the boundary layer. We find that very large amounts of wind power can produce nonnegligible climatic change at continental scales. Although large-scale effects are observed, wind power has a negligible effect on global-mean surface temperature, and it would deliver enormous global benefits by reducing emissions of CO₂ and air pollutants. Our results may enable a comparison between the climate impacts due to wind power and the reduction in climatic impacts achieved by the substitution of wind for fossil fuels.

[niner]

rwac, on 28 December 2011 - 04:50 PM, said:

maxwatt, on 28 December 2011 - 01:01 PM, said:

As for solar, even now the cost is very near parity to coal even without subsidy.

I believe that electricity solar is 5x the cost of coal. You're probably wrong. Even accounting for the pollution, i doubt it's near parity.

Epstein et al. give these estimates for the externalities associated with coal:

Quote

Our best estimate for the externalities
related to coal is $345.3 billion (range: $175.2 bn to
$523.3 bn). On a per-kWh basis this is 17.84¢/kWh,
ranging from 9.42 ¢/kWh to 26.89 ¢/kWh.

The ranges represent their low and high estimates.  If the cost of coal-generated electricity is $0.04/kwh, then corrected for the best estimate of externalities it becomes $0.22/kwh.  If solar electric is 5X the cost of coal, then it would be slightly cheaper than the true cost of coal.  This doesn't take into account whatever externalities exist with solar, nor does it take into account improvements due to the rapidly evolving technology of solar and economies of scale were it to be massively deployed.

Coal plants vary widely in their externalities due to the level of pollution control at the plant, the quality of the coal being burned, and the number of people who live in the near downwind area.  It would make the most economic sense to target for closure only the worst plants in the near term.

[rwac]

niner, on 29 December 2011 - 04:12 AM, said:

Epstein et al. give these estimates for the externalities associated with coal:

Quote

Our best estimate for the externalities
related to coal is $345.3 billion (range: $175.2 bn to
$523.3 bn). On a per-kWh basis this is 17.84¢/kWh,
ranging from 9.42 ¢/kWh to 26.89 ¢/kWh.

That includes Carbon Capture, and assumes that AGW exists and is a serious problem. This is by no means certain.

[david ellis]

maxwatt, on 28 December 2011 - 11:02 PM, said:

"Corporatism" has taken on another meaning in political discourse than the definition being used here.  Among "progressives", who are avowedly anti-neo-liberal, it is used to mean a corporate state, run by and for the benefits of corporations, their bottom lines and their owners and management.  This is essentially what the United States has come to over the last half century, if you accept this narrative.  But I find this definition to be indistinguishable from facism (state socialism.)

I liked very much the general non-political definitions that I found of "corporatism" and "collectivism".   They describe human behavior and provide  "bones" to describe how and why people do what they do.

It is disheartening to see "corporatism" used to describe something that isn't human. Blaming corporations misses they mark.   Corporations can't go to jail.   They suffer no shame.   Until  I know better, I will suspect conspiracy, and name them the oligarchs.

Yes, a combination of state power and the economic power of corporations has the maximum amount of control, there is little wiggle room left. And the fascists do go after that little wiggle room.   Churches, Boy Scouts, army, police, all are used to exert maximum control.  That combination is fascism.

[niner]

rwac, on 29 December 2011 - 04:20 AM, said:

niner, on 29 December 2011 - 04:12 AM, said:

Epstein et al. give these estimates for the externalities associated with coal:

Quote

Our best estimate for the externalities
related to coal is $345.3 billion (range: $175.2 bn to
$523.3 bn). On a per-kWh basis this is 17.84¢/kWh,
ranging from 9.42 ¢/kWh to 26.89 ¢/kWh.

That includes Carbon Capture, and assumes that AGW exists and is a serious problem. This is by no means certain.

I don't think there was any cost allocated to Carbon Capture.  It doesn't really exist in a working plant anyway, does it?  It does allocate $64B out of $345B for costs due to climate change.  If you want to pretend that AGW neither exists nor is a serious problem, there are still $281B in externalities that have to be addressed.  Science has gotten us to where we are today, technologically, so I'm inclined to throw in with the scientists who actually know something about climate and accept that AGW exists and will be a serious problem.

[rwac]

david ellis, on 28 December 2011 - 07:42 PM, said:

I really hated the intimation that lefties are commies in your comment.

I may have overstepped the mark. You would perhaps blame it on unregulated capitalism.

[david ellis]

Here are charts showing the result of our adoption of  extreme neo-liberal economic policies.   The result is huge income inequality. Our oligarchs are now in the same league as Russia and Iran's, grabbing about the same % of national income. In the 1990's the 1% had the largest share of the nation's income.  And in the last 20 years the United States continued to dominate with an ever larger share.

Notice Germany,  The share of the top 1% has barely moved over the last 20 years.  Germany has learned its lesson, nazi extremism was not a good idea.  So they have not jumped on the extreme neo-liberal band wagon.   Their neo-liberalism is called Ordoliberalism.  (Confusingly, for us in the US, they  call themselves neo-liberals too) Ordoliberalism ensures free markets by using government control of markets  (Funny, I remember when we used to do that too).  In Germany labor and capital work together.   As a result, they have a country with low unemployment, high wages, lots of exports with a positive balance of payments.   A shining example of how to do things.   A country very much like we used to be.

In contrast to the United States, Germany plans to spread the pain of higher health costs over the whole economy.  Everybody has to share the burden, service providers face cuts and people face premium increases.   In the neo-liberal extremism mode, the whole load is placed on the payer.   Also, like Japan, Germany's medical system provides great service with low costs.   They don't just stand back and turn the free market system loose, they manage health costs.   The government steps in and makes changes. Their universal health care system started in the 1880's, so their long experience with socialistic medicine might provide examples that we could use.





Here is a graph showing the oligarch's increasing share of national income.

Quote

Here is Vanity Fair's take on Income Equality -
In terms of income equality, America lags behind any country in the old, ossified Europe that President George W. Bush used to deride. Among our closest counterparts are Russia with its oligarchs and Iran. While many of the old centers of inequality in Latin America, such as Brazil, have been striving in recent years, rather successfully, to improve the plight of the poor and reduce gaps in income, America has allowed inequality to grow.
Economists long ago tried to justify the vast inequalities that seemed so troubling in the mid-19th century—inequalities that are but a pale shadow of what we are seeing in America today. The justification they came up with was called “marginal-productivity theory.” In a nutshell, this theory associated higher incomes with higher productivity and a greater contribution to society. It is a theory that has always been cherished by the rich. Evidence for its validity, however, remains thin. The corporate executives who helped bring on the recession of the past three years—whose contribution to our society, and to their own companies, has been massively negative—went on to receive large bonuses. In some cases, companies were so embarrassed about calling such rewards “performance bonuses” that they felt compelled to change the name to “retention bonuses” (even if the only thing being retained was bad performance). Those who have contributed great positive innovations to our society, from the pioneers of genetic understanding to the pioneers of the Information Age, have received a pittance compared with those responsible for the financial innovations that brought our global economy to the brink of ruin.

Edited by david ellis, 30 December 2011 - 06:18 PM.

[Austin Diablo]

Ron Paul: the only candidate who has a consistent, constitutional voting record, whether he be the lone voice in the howling winter winds! The only candidate that is what you see because that's all he's ever been, unlike the fake, deceitful shitbag sellouts competing with him for the nomination. Hey, when not only demoocrats but your own side dismisses & obviously fears you, you must be doing something right!

[prophets]

david ellis, on 30 December 2011 - 06:17 PM, said:

Here are charts showing the result of our adoption of  extreme neo-liberal economic policies.  

The income disparity in the US has nothing to do w/ neo-liberal economic policies or neo-conservative policies.  It has to do w/ the fact that US companies are the most successful on planet earth.  The CEOs of these successful US Companies (in the top 1%) are being paid based on the global profits their businesses are producing.  And the low-level American workers in the same company are tied to local demand in North American markets (mostly).  They get paid for the demand of their product, which isn't really growing much.

If a successful American CEO goes and builds plants in Brazil, India, China, and all over the planet to generate more profits, and is then rewarded for it while his low-level American workers plod along at a low level of production and wages, it has nothing to do w/ Washington really.



and btw: Ron Paul is the crazy train.  pls don't believe his nonsense about the federal reserve.  the guy is smoking crack.

[niner]

Hey pro, good to see you around here!  Happy New Year!  Lol at the crazy train.   I have to disagree a bit regarding Washington and the income distribution.  In the past 40 years, our tax code has shifted radically toward benefiting the wealthy over the middle class.  The low and flat taxes on qdivs and ltcg, along with much higher and regressive taxes on wages are the bulk of it, though there are many other factors.  Think how large the deduction for dependents would need to be today in order to have kept up with inflation compared to the 1960's.

[david ellis]

prophets, on 02 January 2012 - 01:03 PM, said:

david ellis, on 30 December 2011 - 06:17 PM, said:

Here are charts showing the result of our adoption of  extreme neo-liberal economic policies.  

The income disparity in the US has nothing to do w/ neo-liberal economic policies or neo-conservative policies.  It has to do w/ the fact that US companies are the most successful on planet earth.  The CEOs of these successful US Companies (in the top 1%) are being paid based on the global profits their businesses are producing.  And the low-level American workers in the same company are tied to local demand in North American markets (mostly).  They get paid for the demand of their product, which isn't really growing much.

If a successful American CEO goes and builds plants in Brazil, India, China, and all over the planet to generate more profits, and is then rewarded for it while his low-level American workers plod along at a low level of production and wages, it has nothing to do w/ Washington really.



and btw: Ron Paul is the crazy train.  pls don't believe his nonsense about the federal reserve.  the guy is smoking crack.

I agree with you about Ron Paul, he is crazy train, undoubtedly he would do damage with the Federal Reserve.  Unfortunately, I think you are crazy train too.  You are fine with high inequality.   It seems fair to you. Half of the United States is poor.  When you add to the 9% unemployed, the part time folks who want full time jobs, the folks who have given up on finding a job, the unemployment rate is 25%, and you think every thing is fine.  I call a depression, an economic emergency.  Archie Bunker used to call it "Tinkle down economics". In the 19th century, where it came from, they called it "horse shit" economics. Because the birds would be fine, there  is plenty of seed in the droppings. No surprise to us on the down side of the tinkle that inequality is high. But for you, the natural order of things.

No regret for you that there is not enough jobs for college graduates.   No regret for you that demand is low and american factories are shut down.   No wonder in you why American CEO's get paid higher multiples than any country. Do they really deserve it?  The rest of the world thinks not, and doesn't pay like we do. Isn't it possible that American CEO's have too much power? What a crazy train thought!

How unpleasant that you blame "low level American workers" for their unemployment. The rest of us are proud of American workers.

Look at Germany and tell me why we should not admire their success.   What is wrong with having full employment? I think the fact that they have full employment and don't have neo-liberal nuts running their country is not a coincidence.

[prophets]

david ellis, on 02 January 2012 - 05:09 PM, said:

You are fine with high inequality.   It seems fair to you. Half of the United States is poor.  When you add to the 9% unemployed, the part time folks who want full time jobs, the folks who have given up on finding a job, the unemployment rate is 25%, and you think every thing is fine.  I call a depression, an economic emergency.  Archie Bunker used to call it "Tinkle down economics". In the 19th century, where it came from, they called it "horse shit" economics. Because the birds would be fine, there  is plenty of seed in the droppings. No surprise to us on the down side of the tinkle that inequality is high. But for you, the natural order of things.

No regret for you that there is not enough jobs for college graduates.   No regret for you that demand is low and american factories are shut down.   No wonder in you why American CEO's get paid higher multiples than any country. Do they really deserve it?  The rest of the world thinks not, and doesn't pay like we do. Isn't it possible that American CEO's have too much power? What a crazy train thought!

How unpleasant that you blame "low level American workers" for their unemployment. The rest of us are proud of American workers.

Look at Germany and tell me why we should not admire their success.   What is wrong with having full employment? I think the fact that they have full employment and don't have neo-liberal nuts running their country is not a coincidence.

I never said I was OK with low wages and unemployment.  To the contrary, I think America is getting royally screwed but the country is doing it to themselves while they scream and yell about big banks/wall st, taxing the rich, and other stupid class warfare stuff courtesy of Obama.


9 out of 10 copies of MS Windows in China are pirated.  The vast majority of movies made in Hollywood and sold on the streets of China are pirated.  Patented drugs that were designed by American companies are routinely copied and produced by Indian/Chinese manufacturers who flout IP laws.

If America doesn't care about being paid for all the intellectual property it created over the last hundred years, no wonder the country runs a trade deficit and is going broke.  If the attitude of Americans is that it's OK to let China just wholesale loot all the IP of American companies (companies that the OWS seem to mostly hate because they are "the man"), then there will be less jobs.

If Microsoft doesn't get paid for the things they create, then they won't hire as many people.  Those people won't buy cars or eat out at restaurants, and so on.

To be sure, there is huge pressure on the lower education spectrum of the American population because they now have to  compete for some of the same jobs with China/India.  And this will continue, but it's not the whole story and taxes to "redistribute" incomes between different groups really isn't the answer.

And to quickly respond:

1.  American CEOs don't really have that much power.
2.  Germany is not a model that is comparable to the US.  They are basically coasting along with the benefit of a lower currency value (Euro) because their neighbor states (Greece, etc.) are a disaster.  If they were sitting as their own currency again, they would not have the same trade benefit, same employment rate, and instead would have a higher currency value and their goods would cost more.  It's like me saying we should only look at Texas in the US and ignore any states like Michigan.  it's not reality.
3.  Inequality will remain high.  Tax rates are low around the world.  If you tax people, they will just leave.  The CEO of transocean left the US and moved to Switzerland for a reason.  Taxes.  People are mobile.  High value workers can perform their job anywhere.

[maxwatt]

Jim Hightower, Op-Ed: “Horse dooties. The massive redistribution of America's wealth from the many to the few is happening because the rich and their political puppets have rigged the system. Years of subsidized offshoring and downsizing, gutting labor rights, monkeywrenching the tax code, legalizing financial finagling, dismantling social programs, increasing the political dominance of corporate cash — these and other self-serving acts of the moneyed powers have created the conveyor belt that's moving our wealth from the grassroots to the penthouses.”

[rwac]

maxwatt, on 02 January 2012 - 09:43 PM, said:

Jim Hightower, Op-Ed: “Horse dooties. The massive redistribution of America's wealth from the many to the few is happening because the rich and their political puppets have rigged the system. Years of subsidized offshoring and downsizing, gutting labor rights, monkeywrenching the tax code, legalizing financial finagling, dismantling social programs, increasing the political dominance of corporate cash — these and other self-serving acts of the moneyed powers have created the conveyor belt that's moving our wealth from the grassroots to the penthouses.”

I agree with you 100% on the problems, but likely disagree with you on the solutions.

[maxwatt]

rwac, on 02 January 2012 - 10:49 PM, said:

maxwatt, on 02 January 2012 - 09:43 PM, said:

Jim Hightower, Op-Ed: “Horse dooties. The massive redistribution of America's wealth from the many to the few is happening because the rich and their political puppets have rigged the system. Years of subsidized offshoring and downsizing, gutting labor rights, monkeywrenching the tax code, legalizing financial finagling, dismantling social programs, increasing the political dominance of corporate cash — these and other self-serving acts of the moneyed powers have created the conveyor belt that's moving our wealth from the grassroots to the penthouses.”

I agree with you 100% on the problems, but likely disagree with you on the solutions.

What do you suggest as a solution other than reversing the above mentioned causes, which first require removing removing the baleful influence of money on our elected legislators and executive?   (and judges.).

[rwac]

maxwatt, on 03 January 2012 - 04:36 AM, said:

What do you suggest as a solution other than reversing the above mentioned causes, which first require removing removing the baleful influence of money on our elected legislators and executive?   (and judges.).

Reduce the power of the government to hand out goodies, and the motivation for giving money to the legislators will automatically decrease.

[maxwatt]

But without government power to reign in the monied corporate interests, they will take over the coercive powers formerly held by the state as a vehicle for the general citizenry.  Yes, government power is bad, and needs to be held in check.  But unbridled colrporate power, and the power of wealth is not the way to limit infringement on our freedoms.  It will only guarantee it.  Either way we lose and the power and freedom of all but the wealthiest of citizwens is severly curtailed, trammeled and abolished.

Edited by maxwatt, 03 January 2012 - 05:26 AM.