Why should Americans Sacrifice?

During the primaries all Americans heard; was liberals spewing about how Americans need to make sacrifices, Americans need to be ashamed for consuming so much. While in fact Americans are the biggest producers in the history of mankind. That being said, here is a small article about Dubai, and their attempts to control the environment by creating the first refrigerated beach.


My question is where is Barry Obama, Al Gore, Barney Fife, crazy Pelozi, and their platform of Americans sacrificing, and Global Warming?


Here is the link:

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008...ated-beach.php

Maybe I'm the only one, but I'm not seeing the connection between the Democratic Party and what's going on in Dubai.
In my opinion Dubai is becoming an architectural joke with all these outlandish skyscraper designs coming up in the next 10 years. They're going to become the Las Vegas of the Middle East, and I think consume themselves to death. But that's just my opinion. I'm willing to be wrong.

My question to you Kailen is why shouldn't Americans sacrifice?
What bugged me a lot during the Presidential Race was how much lip service alternative energies got (clean coal is a ridiculous myth), but next to zero discussion regarding cutting back consumption.
The truth is, Americans are viewed as gluttonous, with a rampant culture of entitlement. I want it, therefor I have to have it. Being able to afford it is mere semantics. This example has its exceptions, however it has direct links to the credit industry and automotive industry's current problems.

Compared to the out-going administration of zero accountability, and who's idea of sacrifice is giving up a game of golf; I think the average Joe six-pack, Joe the Plumber or whoever was the popular image in the election will get by just fine with a little less.
This isn't a party issue, however I do wonder why you heard very few Republicans talk about conservation as well.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kestra
clean coal is a ridiculous myth

---

No, it's not. Clean coal has a lot of potential, and there are a lot of researchers working on this. In fact, it would probably be easier for them to secure research funding if it wasn't for the constant stream of misinformation (such as your statement) creating negative public opinion of the technology. Your kind of attitude will cause clean coal to become the energy pariah of the early 21st century, just like nuclear was during the 80s and 90s. Do you have any idea how much damage was done to the nuclear industry because of that negative public sentiment? Environmentally, we'd be in much better shape if people hadn't had an irrational hatred of nuclear power, and I suspect the same will be true of clean coal.

Western society generally - this is more than just the United States of America - is geared towards using energy. There are a few things that can be done to reduce this, but ultimately, we're not going to change away from that any time soon. Rather than seeking to make people use less energy, it's far more cost and effort efficient to research cheaper/cleaner ways to provide it. Of course, the greenies are never satisfied (hydroelectricity disrupts river flow, nuclear fission is deadly, solar is... I can't remember what, wind disrupts the skyline, wave/tidal disrupts the water...), so it's a matter of finding what's going to make the least people scream. Personally, I'd like to see more microgeneration - tiny wind or solar generation units that you can stick on your house to reduce your electric bill. I believe someone developed a system that would fit into a window and basically function the same way as tinting it, but it generates a little electricity... ideal for those massive great glass-sided buildings that comprise most of our cities. Base load generation should be provided by the biggest possible plants, to take advantage of economies of scale.

There's one other form of energy that few people have ever considered. Human energy. Sounds crazy? Think again!

1) Coal power plants are basically huge turbines that convert hot steam from boilers into electricity. Parliaments around the world generate large quantities of hot air every session - a turbine for Australia's federal parliament would probably power all of Canberra.

2) Criminals could be sentenced to hard labour, even if only a short period per day. Imagine if we arrest every greenie who complains about other power sources and make him pedal a modified bicycle!

3) Humans give off a lot of heat. All we need to do is put them into little pods, connect things up to their brains and senses to create them a nice virtual reality world, lay out racks upon racks of them in a sort of, well, matrix, and harvest the power...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Snrrub
No, it's not. Clean coal has a lot of potential, and there are a lot of researchers working on this. In fact, it would probably be easier for them to secure research funding if it wasn't for the constant stream of misinformation (such as your statement) creating negative public opinion of the technology. Your kind of attitude will cause clean coal to become the energy pariah of the early 21st century, just like nuclear was during the 80s and 90s. Do you have any idea how much damage was done to the nuclear industry because of that negative public sentiment? Environmentally, we'd be in much better shape if people hadn't had an irrational hatred of nuclear power, and I suspect the same will be true of clean coal.

---

As I understand it, coal is never going to be _completely_ clean, and these technologies are actually "cleanER" coal. Not to say that it's useless, but there is some truth in the statement that coal will never be completely clean.

The particulate matter from coal burning is a huge annoyance, and probably that's most of what people think of when they think of coal as being a "messy" source of energy. Almost any combustion is going to produce some CO2 (unless we burn pure hydrogen, which basically is viable only as a form of energy storage (think of how commercial hydrogen gas has to be produced)); if we just accept that fact and eliminate the unburned particles, we'll have better efficiency AND cleaner plants. That's good enough for me, to be honest. I'm a long way from being convinced that human-caused CO2 emissions are actually warming this planet any, but it's obvious that proximity to a coal plant means repainting your house every time it turns black. Bring on the clean coal!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rosuav
As I understand it, coal is never going to be _completely_ clean, and these technologies are actually "cleanER" coal.

---

By your definition, nothing can be called clean, and should always be referred to "cleaner" than something else.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rosuav
Not to say that it's useless, but there is some truth in the statement that coal will never be completely clean.

---

See above.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rosuav
Almost any combustion is going to produce some CO2

---

Sure, but the CO2 can then react exothermically to produce carbonates, i.e. calcium carbonate - which is not a pollutant, and is in fact a soil nutrient and the highest quality form of calcium supplement for humans.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rosuav
I'm a long way from being convinced that human-caused CO2 emissions are actually warming this planet

---

Clearly not, considering that the proper interpretation of the relevant evidence contextually requires a multi-billion year earth, which would conflict with your nonsense young-earth/creationist beliefs.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Snrrub
By your definition, nothing can be called clean, and should always be referred to "cleaner" than something else.

---

It is clean if it produces no pollutants. The burning of pure hydrogen is completely clean. Unfprtunately, that is (at the moment) practical only for specific situations where that sort of energy source is needed.

Quote:

---

Sure, but the CO2 can then react exothermically to produce carbonates, i.e. calcium carbonate - which is not a pollutant, and is in fact a soil nutrient and the highest quality form of calcium supplement for humans.

---

Not sure what your point is here. Are you saying that CO2 emissions are not a bad thing? Your tone is that you're disagreeing with me but your content is nearly the same as I was saying.

Quote:

---

Clearly not, considering that the proper interpretation of the relevant evidence contextually requires a multi-billion year earth, which would conflict with your nonsense young-earth/creationist beliefs.

---

Let's assume, for the moment, that the earth is over 1E9 years old. According to that model, if I understand it correctly, there was a huge amount of volcanic activity in the planet's infancy, heaps of lava flow, etc, and then things cooled down - figuratively and literally. The overall temperature of the planet and its atmosphere _dropped_. Humans have been on earth for, far as I can understand from quick googling, somewhere between 1E5 and 1E6 years, depending on your definition of "human". Okay. Western civilisation and the concerning levels of carbon dioxide production basically date from the Industrial Revolution, which was about two hundred years ago - that's 2E2. Accurate records of temperature have only been kept for the past century or two.

So what do we know for sure about global temperatures prior to the Industrial Revolution? Very little about precise degrees, but (for instance) there was once an Ice Age, so we _know_ the temperature's climbed since then. I don't have all the scientific stats at my fingertips, but I'm pretty sure there've been times when the temperature has been way higher than it now is. (Maybe I'm wrong on that one. No idea.)

If you plot the temperature of the earth as it swings around from apogee to perigee, you'll note some significant changes in temperature. Even more obvious is the periodic change, as measured on any given point on the planet's surface, as the planet rotates about its axis, resulting in periodic changes to the incoming radiation levels.

And just how much has the planet warmed over the time for which we have statistics? It's less than one degree, with fluctuations that take it to just over a degree. There's way too much fluctuation to be able to do anything finer than multi-year averages, and they have moved so little that it's hard to base anything on it. Can it really extrapolate out? Will there be some other cycle that has effect on the temperature? (For instance, does the sun pump out more energy for a hundred years, then slacken for a hundred, then brighten, etc?) Extrapolating from 150 years to 1,000,000,000 years is patently ridiculous, and I don't think anyone will try to say that since earth has grown 1 degree warmer in 200 years, that this means it's grown 600 degrees warmer in 120,000 years - as any physicist worth his salt will prove to you. (I was going to say 500 degrees, but it's kinda vaguely possible that earth might have warmed by 500 deg F.)

To truly ascertain what the planet's temperature is doing, we're going to need to watch it for quite a bit longer. But even if it is correct, and 1 degree every 200 years is right... are you going to notice a 5 deg difference across a millennium? Polar ice caps melting and such will still make less difference than tides, waves, rain, etc cause in fluctuation. Global warming is still a phenomenon that can be measured but not noticed.

Pwned.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rosuav
Not sure what your point is here. Are you saying that CO2 emissions are not a bad thing? Your tone is that you're disagreeing with me but your content is nearly the same as I was saying.

---

What I'm saying is that the purpose of clean coal technology is to eliminate combustion pollutants released to the environment when burning coal. One of the methods to eliminate CO2 emissions in clean coal plants is to use a secondary process in plant that converts all of the CO2 into calcium carbonate (as well as carbonates of other minerals). The carbonates are the end product of the power plant - not carbon dioxide. Calcium carbonate is also not a pollutant, i.e. clean coal.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rosuav
Let's assume, for the moment, that the earth is over 1E9 years old.

---

No assumption is necessary, merely understanding.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rosuav
Accurate records of temperature have only been kept for the past century or two.

---

This is not particularly relevant. There is a multitude of ways to determine past earth temperatures and climates by studying sedimentary layers, fossils, geological formations, chemical composition of ice, size of growth rings on trees, and so on.

We can also tell a great deal without any temperature measurements at all. For example, knowing simply the optical properties of carbon dioxide, we know that it behaves as a greenhouse gas. If you look at two identical celestial objects (which are subject to identical incident radiation), the object with more carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases) will be the warmer. Without any carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the earth would be approximately 200 degrees colder than it is now. Thus we can say definitively that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes a heating affect that will lead to a temperature increase if everything else is constant. The task we have left is to determine how much of a temperature increase will result, and whether or not inherent ecological feedbacks counteract the greenhouse heating, or accelerate it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rosuav
If you plot the temperature of the earth as it swings around from apogee to perigee, you'll note some significant changes in temperature.

---

In any case, this is also not particularly relevant. The temperature of the earth alone is not enough to determine weather CO2 levels have an effect on temperature. In other words, the heating property of CO2 can be canceled out by an unrelated cooling affect. This is why real scientists use more than just raw temperature data when making their analysis. They look at a broad range of evidence in an attempt to determine the individual contributions to global climate from many different sources.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rosuav
Even more obvious is the periodic change, as measured on any given point on the planet's surface, as the planet rotates about its axis, resulting in periodic changes to the incoming radiation levels.

---

This at best can account for regional temperature changes, as the total amount of incident radiation on the earth is a function only of the earth's cross sectional area and its distance from the sun - not its rotation or axial orientation.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Pae
Pwned.

---

Good contribution. Why don't you make yourself useful and get me a coffee, or something.

Hi. This is me jumping in here just to ask for less condescension and more useful ideas. There's really no need for the former, as it doesn't solve any problems but does, at times, make me want to throw a shoe at my monitor.

Thanks!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Snrrub
What I'm saying is that the purpose of clean coal technology is to eliminate combustion pollutants released to the environment when burning coal. One of the methods to eliminate CO2 emissions in clean coal plants is to use a secondary process in plant that converts all of the CO2 into calcium carbonate (as well as carbonates of other minerals). The carbonates are the end product of the power plant - not carbon dioxide. Calcium carbonate is also not a pollutant, i.e. clean coal.

---

There are other things done to coal to make it burn more cleanly, too (eg an oxygen-rich environment, which improves efficiency AND reduces particulate matter in the exhaust). However, if the key to the process is a secondary reaction that makes something different out of the CO2, then I'd say it needs a different name. "Clean coal" is too pithy to throw away, though.

Quote:

---

No assumption is necessary, merely understanding.

...

This is not particularly relevant. There is a multitude of ways to determine past earth temperatures and climates by studying sedimentary layers, fossils, geological formations, chemical composition of ice, size of growth rings on trees, and so on.

---

The past is not the realm of science. The present is. Some of these things can give some evidence that the temperature was likely to have been higher or lower, and occasionally you'll even get something that is fairly clear evidence of some particular range of temperatures, but you do not get "On Dec 19th, 1734, the temperature at was 10 degrees Celsius". (Location is irrelevant because you'll usually find the evidence in the same place that it's referring to.)

Quote:

---

... Without any carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the earth would be approximately 200 degrees colder than it is now. Thus we can say definitively that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes a heating affect that will lead to a temperature increase if everything else is constant.

---

(some emphasis added) If earth were 200 degrees colder (I don't see any evidence of this; apparently the moon's temperature, without any atmosphere at all, fluctuates between 100 and -150 C, which is not 200 degrees colder than Earth, which has more than just carbon dioxide - there's clouds of water up there, and ozone, and other affecting bodies), this would not be a good thing for life. So personally, I'm glad that there is some. But then there's the big assumption there. If everything else is constant, which of course it'll never completely be. Does an increase in CO2 result in a decrease in O3 (owing to the reduced amount of O2 and consequent reduced production of O3)? Are there limits on the effects of some of these variables? A lot of things can be tested under pure conditions, but in a complex situation, they start giving diminishing returns. Would the increased temperature, supposing it actually got a long way above current temperatures, accelerate certain chemical reactions (which we know heat is quite capable of doing) and perhaps counterbalance the CO2 in some way?

Quote:

---

The task we have left is to determine how much of a temperature increase will result, and whether or not inherent ecological feedbacks counteract the greenhouse heating, or accelerate it.

---

Right. And it's about as easy as predicting the stock market - and for the self-same reason: too many variables. Data! Need more data!

Quote:

---

In any case, this (temperature change in annual cycles) is also not particularly relevant. The temperature of the earth alone is not enough to determine weather CO2 levels have an effect on temperature. In other words, the heating property of CO2 can be canceled out by an unrelated cooling affect. This is why real scientists use more than just raw temperature data when making their analysis. They look at a broad range of evidence in an attempt to determine the individual contributions to global climate from many different sources.

---

Then why is it only ever the temperature data that gets published? It's always scaled such that it looks like, oh horror, the world's getting significantly warmer... but there's very little difference, and for all we know, there's some not-yet-understood factor that's changing the sun's radiation and the CO2 change is actually having no effect whatsoever.

Quote:

---

This (temperature change in daily cycles) at best can account for regional temperature changes, as the total amount of incident radiation on the earth is a function only of the earth's cross sectional area and its distance from the sun - not its rotation or axial orientation.

---

Except that certain parts of the earth's surface are better able to absorb heat, while others are better able to reflect it. If you get yourself a couple of balls, cover one of them with foil and the other with black paint, and put them in sunshine, one of them is going to be hotter... and if you get one ball and put half and half, then it will obviously depend which side of the ball is facing the sun. So it can result in overall temperature changes; but mainly, it's just adding complications to the measurement process. How do you get an average temperature for the entire earth? Obviously you measure as many points as you can, and take the mean. But do you measure at noon at all points, or do you measure at the same UTC at all points? Do you get the year's average by clocking each point throughout the hours of the day as well as throughout the seasons? What if one or two of your measurement points were plagued by cloud cover for most of the time? And there's plenty more perils to threaten the experiment. The data will be extremely noisy even if you do get ideal results.

So, apart from claiming that my statements are irrelevant and asking people to get you coffee, got anything to actually add to the discussion?

The originally posted question has yet to be addressed. Why should Americans sacrifice? Shouldn't the nations that have the most sacrifice more? Sacrifice means different things to different people.
A common image of sacrifice is the soldier, who sacrifices his life, and quite often the security of his family for a cause. But many Americans insist on driving gas guzzling SUVs 3 blocks to work, which plays a part in reliance on foreign oil, and the problems that this comes with.

One of the basic problems with sacrifice comes with many people's inability to link cause and effect. The debate about global warming goes on and on, with both sides more interested in being right, instead of actually doing something about a "what if" scenario. Maybe Florida will end up underwater and it WON'T be due to global warming. So what? Does that mean no action plan should be put in place?
People pay off mortgage payments with credit cards. One credit card becomes used up, so they apply for a 2nd and a 3rd. Eventually the creditors come calling, often seizing their assets, leaving them to foolishly ask "how could this happen?".
They didn't sacrifice their borrowing lifestyle because the dogs weren't threatening at their front door till the last minute. Only once their lifestyle was directly threatened were they willing to sacrifice poor decision making for hard but necessary ones.

Despite such atrocities as 911, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Americans were told to keep on shopping; keep on spending! No sacrifices were asked of ordinary citizens. 70 years ago after Pearl Harbor, the American people were asked to sacrifice for the war in Europe and Asia. Lifestyles were rationed and luxuries were sacrificed.
Comparatively, most of us today don't really know the true meaning of sacrifice.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kestra
Despite such atrocities as 911, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Americans were told to keep on shopping; keep on spending! No sacrifices were asked of ordinary citizens. 70 years ago after Pearl Harbor, the American people were asked to sacrifice for the war in Europe and Asia. Lifestyles were rationed and luxuries were sacrificed.

---

There's a psychological element to this. In World War II, the main thrust of the war was conquest of land, destruction of industry, etc. Propaganda was used, but battles were won and lost by the force of the military.

Things are different with terrorists. In classic soldiering, a suicide attack is, at best, a heroic way to help your comrades - you kill off some of the enemy or destroy some manufacturing plant, in the expectation that your countrymen will be able to make use of your sacrifice. Now, a suicide attack is a battle in itself. Everyone involved in the attack dies, and yet they won. What have they won? They've made people afraid of them. That's what terrorism means. You don't kill, you instill fear.

What happened post-9/11? For one, airline security was ramped up to ridiculous levels. It's a trend that's continuing; there's evidence that you can blow up a plane with what looks like water, so now you're only allowed to carry 100mL of anything. This, I believe, is a major victory for the terrorists. They have forced innocent people to go through big hassles to do ordinary tasks. The same is true of many other areas of our lives.

Of course, the concept is not new. During the Battle of Britain, many bomb-damaged shops famously put up notices saying "Business As Usual", fighting back against the threat of despair and fear that would have led to the shutdown of civilian work. The same thing is happening today, but the response is different.

I'm not saying that security is a bad thing. But if you have to cease all productive work in order to be safe from terrorists, isn't that completely equivalent to an attacking nation bombing all industry out of operation? Ultimately, the purpose of security is to let people do things in safety. Excessive security is as bad an idea in the physical world as it is in the electronic... how would you like it if you had to be iris-scanned, fingerprinted, DNA tested, and asked for a password, just to send one email? Ridiculous, yet not far beyond the realm of possibility.

So, should Americans sacrifice? Yes and no. Yes, I think there is good reason for people to start thinking in terms of reducing their oil usage, especially in times of (potential or actual) crisis. On the other hand, there's no reason to sacrifice lifestyle just because someone out there is fighting a war. When it's a war of attrition, or when there are shortages of things, that's when you cut back. At the moment, there's real risk of a shortage of oil; but to my knowledge, there's no crucial shortage of food, clothing, computers, or other vitals. Keep on using them, and don't let yourself be destroyed from the inside.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rosuav
The past is not the realm of science. The present is.

---

Tell that to an astronomer, or an archaeologist, or an evolutionary biologist, or a... nevermind, you're just completely wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rosuav
Some of these things can give some evidence that the temperature was likely to have been higher or lower, and occasionally you'll even get something that is fairly clear evidence of some particular range of temperatures, but you do not get "On Dec 19th, 1734, the temperature at was 10 degrees Celsius".

---

Correct, but knowing the exact temperature isn't necessary, because there are other ways we can determine what past climates were like (such as the examples in my previous post like the chemical composition of arctic ice and geological formations).

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rosuav
(some emphasis added) If earth were 200 degrees colder (I don't see any evidence of this; apparently the moon's temperature, without any atmosphere at all, fluctuates between 100 and -150 C, which is not 200 degrees colder than Earth,

---

Well, the peak temperature of the moon actually varies between -233C and +123C during the night/day (according to NASA), the average of which is certainly much less than typical earth temperatures, but I'm not sure how comparable the two objects are considering their different chemical compositions. The 200 degree figure that I heard was for a body identical to earth but without the CO2.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rosuav
Does an increase in CO2 result in a decrease in O3 (owing to the reduced amount of O2 and consequent reduced production of O3)? Are there limits on the effects of some of these variables?

---

Yes, these are the sorts of feedbacks that need to be studied, as well as organic responses (perhaps, say, the increased CO2 leading to more plant life such that the steady state CO2 levels are more or less constant).

edit: And by the way, these things have been studied, by literally thousands of scientists who know much more about it than you or I. Care to guess what their consensus is?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rosuav
Then why is it only ever the temperature data that gets published?

---

In the reading that I've done on the subject, temperature usually is not what is published. Temperatures are probably more frequently published by the anti-global warming crowd, followed by shallow analysis while simultaneously ignoring other climatological evidence and perhaps citing a few Bible passages.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rosuav
Except that certain parts of the earth's surface are better able to absorb heat, while others are better able to reflect it. If you get yourself a couple of balls, cover one of them with foil and the other with black paint, and put them in sunshine, one of them is going to be hotter...

---

I'm glad you brought up this analogy. You were able to assert that one ball would be hotter than the other without needing to look at a ton of measured data simply by knowing the properties of the two balls. We also know things about CO2. We know that it is transparent to most incoming solar radiation, but it also absorbs IR radiation (which is what the earth radiates). In other words, it prevents the Earth from radiating a lot of thermal energy - leading to a rise in steady state temperature. Adopting your analogy, CO2 sort of acts like black paint.

Anyways, I don't really want to derail this thread any further by debating global warming. If you want to continue this part of the discussion, feel free to start a new thread, and I'll rejoin the debate there.

It seems that many have miss the purpose of this thread. The topic of this thread is why must America Sacrifice?


It has been recorded and stated that America has been the most productive nation in the history of mankind. Kestra argued the point that the country that makes makes the most should share sacrifice the most.


The welfare system as it is sets up now. Castrates the American worker, and conditions them to expect something without working for it. There is no incentive to better themselves because they are getting rewarded for not doing anything at all.

Those who get out and produce in the nation should be rewarded for their hard-work in society. A government, or any social entity that truly believes it is okay to STEAL the fruits of others labors are modern day crooks. If you are living in NY you are experience a heavy dose of this with Governor Patterson. Pretty soon New York citizens will be getting hit with a tax just to breathe.

The bottom line is when you start taking the incentive for people to produce, and going to this economic fairness for all crap. It's really going down a dangerous path of big government enslaving the people. And destroying the economic principles that has made America so great.

Anyone who says America doesn't already VOLUNTARILY make sacrifices is uninformed of the world scale. Who is usually the first country to bail other countries out when they are being invaded by Communist Tyrants? Who is the first country to offer food and supplies by the Aircraft carriers when a Tsunami hits? Who is the first Country that other countries turn to for aid in the War on drugs?


American is a great nation. Have we made some mistakes? Yes. Are we a perfect model? No, but by golly our Bill of Rights. Our freedom to express ourselves, and the chance at wealth is second to none. Only in America can you be born, or come into a country with nothing, and with a great deal of hard-work, a healthy does of luck, and a rock gut stomach of fortitude. Can you champion your dreams.


On the flip side of the coin. You'll have some liberal tree hugging, Toyota Prius driving liberal who doesn't understand economics 101. Proclaiming that the Earth is warming on some half cook science in liberal Academia.

We saw what ethanol did to the price of food around the world? We saw what government subsidization does for business and a economy. There is no true clean energy. Everything has a bi-product. For Instance, the natural state of the Earth is high CO2....Oxygen is a harsh gas, that begins tarnishing its environment. That being said, Oil, and Coal are the only sources that are economically efficient at present time. At which point and time another source comes up to be more efficient, I bet you will see many industries change over by the boat loads.


Anyhow that's enough for now...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rosuav
There's a psychological element to this. In World War II, the main thrust of the war was conquest of land, destruction of industry, etc. Propaganda was used, but battles were won and lost by the force of the military.

---

Wrong WW2 was used to stimulate the World Economy. Regardless of what pretty picture might be painted by textbooks.

Quote:

---

Only in America can you be born, or come into a country with nothing, and with a great deal of hard-work, a healthy does of luck, and a rock gut stomach of fortitude. Can you champion your dreams.

---

While I agree with a lot of what you say in different topics, I've got to disagree with this. People do this all over the world, every day, in every country, by whatever means they can.

In America it certainly can be done, which is great, but saying that it's the only country in which this is possible is actually very wrong!

Just pointing it out, not trying to flame.

Hey hey hey, we Aussies take offense at this!! :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kailen
Anyone who says America doesn't already VOLUNTARILY make sacrifices is uninformed of the world scale. Who is usually the first country to bail other countries out when they are being invaded by Communist Tyrants? Who is the first country to offer food and supplies by the Aircraft carriers when a Tsunami hits? Who is the first Country that other countries turn to for aid in the War on drugs?

... Only in America can you be born, or come into a country with nothing, and with a great deal of hard-work, a healthy does of luck, and a rock gut stomach of fortitude. Can you champion your dreams.

---

Australia's always up there, giving aid. In Australia, you can get here with nothing, invent something, and become wealthy. America doesn't have everything!

Seriously though... yeah. Western society, for all its problems, does still allow people to make a goer of things. At the moment. The problem is that voters want (and therefore politicians give, because it'll win them votes) more and more government-funded services. There was a time when even the roads were not funded by the gummint - everyone was responsible for the road in front of his house. Dirt roads everywhere, unless you were driving past a brickmaker's home, in which case you got the benefit of all his broken and crushed rubbish. Now, I don't think we should go back to that; it's way better overall for people to pay rates to the council and the council contract someone to build the entire road system to a common standard. But people are demanding so much. Government health service... okay. Government schools... okay (although I think they primarily function as daycare centers these days). Government childcare? Definitely going a bit far now. Public funds bailing out a bank when they make stupid decisions? Abusive.

Unfortunately, every time the government gives you money, you go "Hey, this is good, I'll vote for you". Or to be more accurate, in the runup to an election they all say "I'll give you money like this and like this and like this", and you pick who to vote for on the basis of that. We, the voters, have trained our politicians to tax us heavily and give us stuff. Every time you cast your vote according to who is going to give you the most goodies, you vote for the ultimate destruction of the entire system.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kailen
American is a great nation. Have we made some mistakes? Yes. Are we a perfect model? No, but by golly our Bill of Rights. Our freedom to express ourselves, and the chance at wealth is second to none.

---

This is not true. For example, the UK, Sweden, Poland, Germany, Finland and Canada are just some of the countries that gave women the right to vote before the USA did. A host of countries also banned slavery while it was still thriving in the United States. The United States has a record of lagging behind much of the western world in granting rights to its citizens, and this is continuing now regarding gay marriage and drug use.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kailen
Only in America can you be born, or come into a country with nothing, and with a great deal of hard-work, a healthy does of luck, and a rock gut stomach of fortitude. Can you champion your dreams.

---

As previously pointed out, this is also not true as it is achievable in many other countries as well. I'd say that it's easier to become upper-middle class (and wealthier) in the US compared to other western countries. However, achieving middle class status is probably easier in a country like Norway, that provides free university education to everyone. On the flip side, only in America can a middle class individual become financially ruined because of an unlucky medical condition.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kailen
Proclaiming that the Earth is warming on some half cook science in liberal Academia.

---

Half cook science that you probably don't understand. "Liberal" academia, as you put it, is responsible for an overwhelming majority of the scientific and engineering advancements humans now enjoy. It's funny how when one of these discoveries is something that people like, it's welcomed with open arms, but when it's something that people don't like, the scientists are suddenly considered incompetent, or involved in a worldwide conspiracy to make your life worse. You know, when "liberal academia" first started publishing that smoking leads to lung cancer, they were attacked as being part of a liberal conspiracy to ruin the lives of tobacco farmers. Thanks for continuing the tradition.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kailen
We saw what ethanol did to the price of food around the world?

---

The cost of food was driven up because of a general increase in commodity prices that were unrelated to ethanol. The cost of oil, fertilizers and steel all drove up the cost of food. Ethanol didn't really have anything to do with it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kailen
That being said, Oil, and Coal are the only sources that are economically efficient at present time.

---

Nuclear energy is cheaper than oil.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kailen
At which point and time another source comes up to be more efficient, I bet you will see many industries change over by the boat loads.

---

Except that nuclear power plants require such a huge capital investment that it's extremely difficult to secure enough private funding to build them without the help of BIG OVERNMENT :eek

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Snrrub

Nuclear energy is cheaper than oil.


Except that nuclear power plants require such a huge capital investment that it's extremely difficult to secure enough private funding to build them without the help of BIG OVERNMENT :eek

---

In addition, people protest the ever-living crap out of nuclear plants due to the propaganda machine. Nuclear is our best option currently since the "heat pollution" that was nuclear plant's biggest pollutant has been drastically reduced from 20 years ago.

Private funding isn't so much the problem as the government being buried in lobbyist as usual.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Snrrub
This is not true. For example, the UK, Sweden, Poland, Germany, Finland and Canada are just some of the countries that gave women the right to vote before the USA did. A host of countries also banned slavery while it was still thriving in the United States. The United States has a record of lagging behind much of the western world in granting rights to its citizens, and this is continuing now regarding gay marriage and drug use.

---

America is also only 200 years old compared to the 1000+ year old ages of some of these countries that built themselves up on mass murder, slavery, extremely poor treatment of women, and ridiculously poor living conditions. Of course, we excuse them because it happened more than 200 years ago.

While I agree that many of the US's laws are incredibly antiquated and need to be changed, simply saying that "The rest of the world did it" is not good enough. The evolution has to happen from within, and perception needs to be changed from within not from outside of the country.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Snrrub

As previously pointed out, this is also not true as it is achievable in many other countries as well. I'd say that it's easier to become upper-middle class (and wealthier) in the US compared to other western countries. However, achieving middle class status is probably easier in a country like Norway, that provides free university education to everyone. On the flip side, only in America can a middle class individual become financially ruined because of an unlucky medical condition.

---

The world isn't just comprised of America, Australia, and Europe. In comparison to the majority of the countries in the world, it is MUCH, MUCH easier to move between the rungs of the socio-economic ranks that exist in the country or from going to being really poor in one country to doing well in the US. Immigrants understand this very well.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Snrrub

Half cook science that you probably don't understand. "Liberal" academia, as you put it, is responsible for an overwhelming majority of the scientific and engineering advancements humans now enjoy. It's funny how when one of these discoveries is something that people like, it's welcomed with open arms, but when it's something that people don't like, the scientists are suddenly considered incompetent, or involved in a worldwide conspiracy to make your life worse. You know, when "liberal academia" first started publishing that smoking leads to lung cancer, they were attacked as being part of a liberal conspiracy to ruin the lives of tobacco farmers. Thanks for continuing the tradition.

---

Yeah, this completely boggles me. It's quite easy to observe that SOMETHING is changing our weather in the last 20-30 years. Climate change is happening quite rapidly for it to be so noticeable in one lifetime. Now, it might be true that it's NOT caused by global warming, but we don't know that. In addition, we may not have time to figure it out completely. Does it hurt to just be more careful with the planet we happen to inhabit? In basic science fiction games and books, one of the most common themes that you see is advances in recycling, cleaner living, and less pollutants in general. It's something we all dream about, and we need to contribute to technologies to get us there. I don't think the long-term solution is going to be "use less" or any of these stupid welfare programs where you "pay off" your energy consumption. It needs to get there by dedicated research into better technologies, but this is a topic that deserves its own thread.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Snrrub

The cost of food was driven up because of a general increase in commodity prices that were unrelated to ethanol. The cost of oil, fertilizers and steel all drove up the cost of food. Ethanol didn't really have anything to do with it.

---

Actually, you'd be surprised at how much we use crude oil for. Most plastics are made using crude oil. Almost all packaging uses crude oil in some way. (Now, the overpacking of almost all food materials in the Western World is something else we can discuss, but again, that's probably better for another thread.) Oil is very much tied to the price of everything going up whether it's because of shipping, packaging, processing, or sheer "I wanna raise prices, too!"

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dalaena
Actually, you'd be surprised at how much we use crude oil for. Most plastics are made using crude oil. Almost all packaging uses crude oil in some way. (Now, the overpacking of almost all food materials in the Western World is something else we can discuss, but again, that's probably better for another thread.) Oil is very much tied to the price of everything going up whether it's because of shipping, packaging, processing, or sheer "I wanna raise prices, too!"

---

I usually don't like to post replies like this - but you corrected Snrrub when he said exactly the same thing. He wrote that oil (which would include crude oil), steel and fertilizers got more expensive, hence the increased prices.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kailen
During the primaries all Americans heard; was liberals spewing about how Americans need to make sacrifices, Americans need to be ashamed for consuming so much.

---

Back to the original point. Seriously, Americans DO need to make sacrifices. As does the rest of the world admittedly. I'll throw my country Canada into the mix as well.

See now you go on to make points about how America does so many good things in the world, protection, international aid, etc..

Which I agree with! Seriously, I do really appreciate the US for the good they do (it's why I sing the American national anthem and know it fully when I go to sporting events).

But I would most definitely agree that Americans DO need to make sacrifices. Like it or not Americans are leaders in so much, and for the world to begin to shift for a more sustainable future - I do think the Americans should lead the way in that.

Lead and the world will follow, and as much as I'd like us lumberjacks to lead - I have to admit we're little more than the Eagle's sidekick (a damn cool kickass sidekick that gets hot chicks, but still a sidekick).

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Snrrub
This is not true. For example, the UK, Sweden, Poland, Germany, Finland and Canada are just some of the countries that gave women the right to vote before the USA did. A host of countries also banned slavery while it was still thriving in the United States. The United States has a record of lagging behind much of the western world in granting rights to its citizens, and this is continuing now regarding gay marriage and drug use.

---

I think Dal covered this pretty well. I won't bore anyone any further.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Snrrub

As previously pointed out, this is also not true as it is achievable in many other countries as well. I'd say that it's easier to become upper-middle class (and wealthier) in the US compared to other western countries. However, achieving middle class status is probably easier in a country like Norway, that provides free university education to everyone. On the flip side, only in America can a middle class individual become financially ruined because of an unlucky medical condition.

---

Well I think a couple of things need to be addressed with this. First off the traditional concept of class in America originally based itself upon level of education. Class has morphed over the decades to equate to pay. Alright, this is where its gonna get tricky. I'm gonna attempt to open your eyes up to a few misconceptions. First, as you stated and indicated in your previous response. When one obtains middle class, or upper middle class as you stated. One obtains wealth. This is the furthest thing from the truth.

In fact one can be upper middle class, or even in the upper class and not be wealthy. While some one who by present standards living lower class, can actually be wealthy. How could this be you might ask? The folks in the upper middle class, and upper class are making bundles of money; way more then the simple money that the person in the lower class is making?

If I make $100,000 dollars a year and I have the vast majority, lets say $90,000 tied up into bills, living expenses and non-appreciating assets that leave me with only $10,000 at the end of the year. Versus the lower class individual who only makes $30,000 and only has a grand total of $10,000 of living expenses and operating cost. The lower class person would be the wealthier individual even though they are living in a lower class.

In America the Average household income is just around $35,000 dollars. So if you are making more then this, you are earning better then 50% of other Americans. How we spend that money is a different story. This is America though. People are free to blow their money, or save their money as they feel. People change classes everyday in America.

Now you also talked about Norway being able to provide Norway providing free University to all of its citizens. This is a misleading statement. First, the entire country of Norway has the same amount of population as the Metro Houston area (4.6 million). Secondly, Norway imposes hefty taxes upon its citizens and corporations. The top income tax rate is 47.8%, and a corporate rate tax of 28%. Lastly, k-12 education is an entitlement. Anything past High school is a privilege not an entitlement, that most liberal socialist believe.

http://www.heritage.org/Index/country.cfm?id=Norway

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Snrrub

Half cook science that you probably don't understand.

---

You know what they say when people start to Assume things right? You make an Ass out of U and ME. You really do not know what I understand; as I do not know what you understand.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Snrrub

"Liberal" academia, as you put it, is responsible for an overwhelming majority of the scientific and engineering advancements humans now enjoy.

---

Actually, the military started the majority of the scientific and engineering advancements. Only in the past three decades, coupled with deregulation has "Liberal" academia built steam, and received monies from the government for their research and studies.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Snrrub

It's funny how when one of these discoveries is something that people like, it's welcomed with open arms, but when it's something that people don't like, the scientists are suddenly considered incompetent, or involved in a worldwide conspiracy to make your life worse.

---

There is still no uniform, concrete evidence to what the root cause is. Solar activity can directly impact the temperature of the earth more then any man made process. The amount of solar spots on the sun increases the temperatures on earth greatly, and when solar activity is low the temperatures on earth drop, i.e the little ice age.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Snrrub

The cost of food was driven up because of a general increase in commodity prices that were unrelated to ethanol. The cost of oil, fertilizers and steel all drove up the cost of food. Ethanol didn't really have anything to do with it.

---

Wong! The cost of food across the world was driven up when the American government began subsidizing the ethanol refineries, and corn farmers. So you increased the demand on corn. Which corn is used as a base in almost all food products for humans, and used as feed for beef, poultry, and swine.

In America we spend only 12% of our incomes on food. The jump wasn't to bad for us. Unfortunately, in some countries families spend more then 50% of their income on food. This created such a demand that many countries who normal would export their excess corn and rice supplies had to stop to help subsidize and feed their own.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Snrrub

Nuclear energy is cheaper than oil.

Except that nuclear power plants require such a huge capital investment that it's extremely difficult to secure enough private funding to build them without the help of BIG OVERNMENT :eek

---

Another myth, There is plenty of capital secured to build nuclear power plants. Unfortunately, you have the green tree huggin liberals holding up their "NOT in MY BACKYARD SIGN".

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Pae
Back to the original point. Seriously, Americans DO need to make sacrifices. As does the rest of the world admittedly. I'll throw my country Canada into the mix as well.

See now you go on to make points about how America does so many good things in the world, protection, international aid, etc..

Which I agree with! Seriously, I do really appreciate the US for the good they do (it's why I sing the American national anthem and know it fully when I go to sporting events).

But I would most definitely agree that Americans DO need to make sacrifices. Like it or not Americans are leaders in so much, and for the world to begin to shift for a more sustainable future - I do think the Americans should lead the way in that.

Lead and the world will follow, and as much as I'd like us lumberjacks to lead - I have to admit we're little more than the Eagle's sidekick (a damn cool kickass sidekick that gets hot chicks, but still a sidekick).

---

We lead the way in cutting back our economic productivity. While the Chi-com steams ahead continues to operate many of their industries without any of the regulations, and environmental standards that America already practices. I don't think so....

This is why America walked away from the table before.

America will and can lead the way, but not without China, Russia, and India following suite.... :eek

Quote:

---

Unfortunately, you have the green tree huggin liberals holding up their "NOT in MY BACKYARD SIGN".

---

I want to build a nuclear plant in your backyard Kailen. I have the money. Deal?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kestra
I want to build a nuclear plant in your backyard Kailen. I have the money. Deal?

---

Too late! I already have one about 30 miles away southeast of the Metro Detroit area...Fermi nuclear facility

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jidoe
I usually don't like to post replies like this - but you corrected Snrrub when he said exactly the same thing. He wrote that oil (which would include crude oil), steel and fertilizers got more expensive, hence the increased prices.

---

Oh! Sorry. I misread the post and flipped ethanol and crude oil. Yes, I agree with Snrrub completely on that point and several of his other points. The fluctuating price of crude oil has had a domino effect on our entire economy because we use it in so many places.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Pae
Back to the original point. Seriously, Americans DO need to make sacrifices. As does the rest of the world admittedly. I'll throw my country Canada into the mix as well.

---

You're right. I think I have a problem with the topic in general. It's not America that needs to really make a sacrifice. It's the world that needs to get together, and instead of pointing fingers and encouraging wealthy nations to pay their way out of emission protocols, get on the same page, focus research, and work on solving the problem instead of spreading it around. Does that make sense? I'm very much against this idea that the best solution is to conserve and "go green" because I think that's a very thin veil of another form of consumerism. It's also unrealistic for many countries and economies in the world. Our solution needs to be via technology so that we can live as we want to live yet do it in a way that is eco-friendly. If that means throwing less hissy fits for a nuclear power plant, then that's what we need to do. (Just a very minor example.)

The sacrifice needs to be made at the highest levels where the government needs to quit padding its own pocketbooks and direct spending towards funding these research opportunities. America needs to quit shelling out the dough to the rest of the world to try and buy respect. It's never worked before. It's probably not going to work for a long time. America does need to be a leader, and in order to do that, it needs to seriously rework a ton of its policies. We need to keep our brain drain of other countries growing and encourage these brains to be working towards solutions to global issues.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Pae

Lead and the world will follow, and as much as I'd like us lumberjacks to lead - I have to admit we're little more than the Eagle's sidekick (a damn cool kickass sidekick that gets hot chicks, but still a sidekick).

---

Don't get me wrong now, my family and I do our parts to try to live in a manner that is Earth-conscious. We recycle, we compost, we let all our beach towels line dry, we walk as much as we can, and we hardly ever go anywhere without 3-4 people piled in the car. We turn off the lights. We try to make sure all our appliances are HE. That's just a small list of things we try to do on a day to day basis, but ultimately, it's not the solution because this solution is not one that can touch the whole world regardless of economic class, country, or where one lives.

Hope that makes sense! (My computer's crashing every 10-15 minutes now, so I have to type everything in a rush. Please excuse any sloppy reading or posting.)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kailen
I think Dal covered this pretty well. I won't bore anyone any further.

---

You incorrectly claimed that the US Bill of Rights and American freedoms are, "second to none", and I gave explicit examples of when that wasn't the case. Either come out and concede the point, or give me a counter argument.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kailen
First, as you stated and indicated in your previous response. When one obtains middle class, or upper middle class as you stated. One obtains wealth. This is the furthest thing from the truth.

---

What the fuck are you talking about?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kailen
In fact one can be upper middle class, or even in the upper class and not be wealthy.

---

This seems like nothing more than semantics to me. What I said is that people in the US can become rich easier than in other nations, but that does not imply that it's impossible in other nations, which is what you initially claimed.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kailen
< snip stuff about Norway >

---

Yes, I know that 'free' university tuition has to be payed for by tax payers. But that doesn't change the fact that a university level education is accessible to everyone, and that with a university education, middle class lifestyles are easily achieved. Hence my conclusion - a middle class lifestyle is easier to achieve in a more socialized country like Norway, than it is in the United States. However, because of the higher tax burden that accompanies social programs, becoming rich is more difficult than in the United States.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kailen
Actually, the military started the majority of the scientific and engineering advancements.

---

Firstly, you're wrong; most scientific and engineering research is unrelated to military projects. Secondly, most military research projects are contracted out to academia via. DARPA grants.

I'll respond to the rest of what you said later.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Snrrub

You incorrectly claimed that the US Bill of Rights and American freedoms are, "second to none", and I gave explicit examples of when that wasn't the case. Either come out and concede the point, or give me a counter argument.



What the fuck are you talking about?



This seems like nothing more than semantics to me. What I said is that people in the US can become rich easier than in other nations, but that does not imply that it's impossible in other nations, which is what you initially claimed.



Yes, I know that 'free' university tuition has to be payed for by tax payers. But that doesn't change the fact that a university level education is accessible to everyone, and that with a university education, middle class lifestyles are easily achieved. Hence my conclusion - a middle class lifestyle is easier to achieve in a more socialized country like Norway, than it is in the United States. However, because of the higher tax burden that accompanies social programs, becoming rich is more difficult than in the United States.



Firstly, you're wrong; most scientific and engineering research is unrelated to military projects. Secondly, most military research projects are contracted out to academia via. DARPA grants.

I'll respond to the rest of what you said later. [/B]

---

Anyhow, If you aren't gonna use the entire context of my sentences. Why should we talk about things? , and if you have to use vulgarity to make your point then why even attempt to make the point in the first place. I'm sorry that you are getting frustrated. That wasn't my intentions.

Here's my simplified understanding of the situation.

Much of the world looks to America for guidance on what to do, America looks at the other superpowers that would probably not follow suit, thereby gaining an advantage over America. America decides not to lead the way, much of the world cries foul on America.

How close am I?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Snrrub

You incorrectly claimed that the US Bill of Rights and American freedoms are, "second to none", and I gave explicit examples of when that wasn't the case. Either come out and concede the point, or give me a counter argument.

---

Second to none doesn't mean "better than everyone else." It means "not worse than anyone else". The original Bill of Rights doesn't actually state anything about slavery or women's rights or anything like that. It doesn't even address the issue. It was only later expanded to explicitly include those issues later on when it was recognized as a social problem or an incredible social mistake.

Seriously, very few Western countries can take the high horse on the issues of slavery, women's rights, or child labor. All the great European nations were built upon systems that included slavery, indentured servitude, war, and religion, much like America. The stuff that the Westerns nations did to exploit the Asian and Arabic countries are disturbing, countless, and extreme human rights violations in today's society. They were all built on the blood, sweat, and tears of people weaker or in more vulnerable positions than the nobility or the ruling class. By the time Europe got around to getting rid of slavery, there was no more need for it. Europe had progressed far into industrialization and had moved pretty far out of agriculture. America was built on agriculture where slaves were an extremely valuable commodity for the cheap labor as well as the extreme number of slaves needed to maintain these huge spreads of land. Slavery was starting to make its way out when the cotton gin was developed because you needed far less slaves to get the same amount of work done. So, please don't mistake that Europe and the rest of the world got rid of slaves and the feudal system for anything other than economic reasons. That was the real reason before any human rights situations came to be.

When America was able to move more towards industry as its revenue stream and less from agriculture, then it was easy to "get rid" of slavery. The reason there was a civil war is that about a third (population-wise, half of the land mass) of the nation was still dependent on agriculture. The Civil War crippled the South because the South had not yet been able to make that transition from agriculture to industry, and the effects were incredibly long term. Even now, the some of the poorest states in the US are the ones that are mostly agriculture, even with all our machinery and aid.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Snrrub

Yes, I know that 'free' university tuition has to be payed for by tax payers. But that doesn't change the fact that a university level education is accessible to everyone, and that with a university education, middle class lifestyles are easily achieved. Hence my conclusion - a middle class lifestyle is easier to achieve in a more socialized country like Norway, than it is in the United States. However, because of the higher tax burden that accompanies social programs, becoming rich is more difficult than in the United States.

---

That's implying that a university education isn't obtainable in the US by anyone. It really is. The amount of grants, scholarships, and student loans (funded by the government) is quite staggering. It's not all state funded, but the problem isn't that it's not available. The problem is getting it out to kids how to go through the process of obtaining it and teaching parents that going to college is a great thing for their kids. In any country, you have people who don't know or understand the value of education. You have people who don't know what's available to them. You have kids you simply can't reach.

Can you show me a citation that it's easier to be middle class in socialized countries than in the US? I'm very curious as to how you came up with that. None of the statistic I've read agree with that, but countries define their poverty line differently. In addition, I've never lived in a socialized country or have ready access to one.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Snrrub

Firstly, you're wrong; most scientific and engineering research is unrelated to military projects. Secondly, most military research projects are contracted out to academia via. DARPA grants.

---

Yeah, I don't know the ratio for this, and I think it's kind of irrelevant to the whole discussion. Tons of projects get spun off the military, and tons of stuff is funded by private companies. One of the big concerns these days is the amount of projects being funded and given to academia. Academia was the last bastion against private interests groups and big corps, and with the funding and such, the lines are getting blurred. (Again, an interesting topic for a different thread!)

Snrrub, every time I have read comparative studies, the USA tends to have the highest income mobility. That means it is actually easier to "move up" in the USA than anywhere else.

Here is a recent article I read on the subject:

Movin' On Up

Quote:

---

The Treasury study examined a huge sample of 96,700 income tax returns from 1996 and 2005 for Americans over the age of 25. The study tracks what happened to these tax filers over this 10-year period. One of the notable, and reassuring, findings is that nearly 58% of filers who were in the poorest income group in 1996 had moved into a higher income category by 2005. Nearly 25% jumped into the middle or upper-middle income groups, and 5.3% made it all the way to the highest quintile.

---

And I find this particularly interesting:

Quote:

---

Those who start at the bottom but hold full-time jobs nonetheless enjoyed steady income gains. The Treasury study found that those tax filers who were in the poorest income quintile in 1996 saw a near doubling of their incomes (90.5%) over the subsequent decade. Those in the highest quintile, on the other hand, saw only modest income gains (10%). The nearby table tells the story, which is that the poorer an individual or household was in 1996 the greater the percentage income gain after 10 years.

---

And what about the rich folk?

Quote:

---

Only one income group experienced an absolute decline in real income--the richest 1% in 1996. Those households lost 25.8% of their income. Moreover, more than half (57.4%) of the richest 1% in 1996 had dropped to a lower income group by 2005. Some of these people might have been "rich" merely for one year, or perhaps for several, as they hit their peak earning years or had some capital gains windfall. Others may simply have not been able to keep up with new entrepreneurs and wealth creators.

The key point is that the study shows that income mobility in the U.S. works down as well as up--another sign that opportunity and merit continue to drive American success, not accidents of birth. The "rich" are not the same people over time.

---

How does this study compare to similar studies from the past?

Quote:

---

"The basic finding of this analysis," says the Treasury report, "is that relative income mobility is approximately the same in the last 10 years as it was in the previous decade."

---

While it is nice that socialist countries provide free education, all those taxes, rules, and regulations are barriers to people who want to make something of themselves. They make it a lot harder to start a business. Small business is the engine of the American economy, and it is the key reason it is easier to "move on up to the big time" here than it is anywhere else in the world.

And as Dalaena already noted, our system of grants and student loans is extremely robust in the USA. Anyone who wants to get a college education can get one now - or at least money is not the stumbling block.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kestra
What bugged me a lot during the Presidential Race was how much lip service alternative energies got (clean coal is a ridiculous myth), but next to zero discussion regarding cutting back consumption.

---

I don't think it's a ridiculous myth at all. We have updated plants that are in accordance to the government regulations in fact they are better than what the government regulates. They all vary based on the coal that is being used. It's like the dirt in my backyard is the same as the dirt in your backyard and bascially that is what coal is. Each power plant has to determine what coal they will use and how it will be burned to get the most out of it. So I'm not sure what you are thinking about when it comes to clean coal. Coal is not clean in itself but how it is burned and how they capture the emissions from it so it is not going into our air is what they mean by clean coal. All the environmental contraptions they use to ensure that the emissions are clean is what makes it clean coal. So why would we cut back on consumption?