Unemployment almost 10% nationally

[Q9]

Quote:
Not necessarily - if it will turn a profit, you can bet your bottom dollar that private companies will find a way to do it, and do it well. WITHOUT subsidies. Transcontinental Railroad - got subsidies, and ended up being ineffecient and poorly built. It also went bankrupt. Meanwhile... James Hill, Great Northern railroad. Also transcontinental, was the only such railroad to recieve no subsidies, was affordable, well-built, had superior working conditions (yes, it is possible to improve the conditions of railroad construction), was not circuitous, and ended up out-competing its subsidized competitors.

Private companies WILL find a way to make something cheaper - usually, this is through effeciency. Y'know, the only nuke reactor I've heard of that ever actually killed people was government run...

Actually, Chernobyl was the only reactor to ever harm people.

Government run: -1
Completely private: 0

We ought to give the second one a try.

 

[mom'sfolly]

India is one of the few large democracies in Asia, with a big population and generally pro-American outlook. This pro-American outlook has been damaged by our military support of Pakistan, an over $2 billion aid package. We are supporting Pakistan because we fear the Taliban gaining power in that country. Pakistan regards India as its biggest threat, and the Indians are reasonably concerned with the US aid to Pakistan. It is not in our best interest for this region to further destabilize, and we really do need India as an ally in the region. Hence the presidents visit.

On the $200 million per day thing. It is sad that a journalist would repeat this sensationalism, and its even sadder that people are willing to believe it. It fits with their world view so they don't even question the validity of the statement.

 

[knjinnm]

mom'sfolly :

On the $200 million per day thing. It is sad that a journalist would repeat this sensationalism, and its even sadder that people are willing to believe it. It fits with their world view so they don't even question the validity of the statement.

What main stream journalist repeated the story?​

 

[Dunkopf]

Quote:
What main stream journalist repeated the story?

Just the usual suspects. Rush, Beck and Fox.

 

[ivan3]

Q9 wrote:

Dunkopf wrote:
Nuclear reactors cost a few billion each to build. The only way to do it is with government subsidies. That would be a good solution to the energy problems though. Unfortunately big oil has their arm up the backside of most politicians. When you throw in a POTUS that's a big oil man then it sets us back quite a ways.

Not necessarily - if it will turn a profit, you can bet your bottom dollar that private companies will find a way to do it, and do it well. WITHOUT subsidies. Transcontinental Railroad - got subsidies, and ended up being ineffecient and poorly built. It also went bankrupt. Meanwhile... James Hill, Great Northern railroad. Also transcontinental, was the only such railroad to recieve no subsidies, was affordable, well-built, had superior working conditions (yes, it is possible to improve the conditions of railroad construction), was not circuitous, and ended up out-competing its subsidized competitors.

Private companies WILL find a way to make something cheaper - usually, this is through effeciency. Y'know, the only nuke reactor I've heard of that ever actually killed people was government run... Actually, Chernobyl was the only reactor to ever harm people.​

What section of the Transcontinental are you addressing? I assume you're referencing the Crédit Mobilier scandal that involved both the `insiders' at Union Pacific and their `owned' congressmen. It pretty much wiped out common shareholders in UP and sucked a cool 20mill. from the government. The `vision thing' was sound (the U.S. wanted it built `go west, young man!' but the railroaders thought there was too much risk - not enough profit running the railroad once it was built). It wasn't the `subsidy' (covering the risk), it was the lack of oversight that always leads to this sort of thing. That said, UNP (Union Pacific) closed at $91.22 on Friday and the `posterity' of all the immigrants that rode those rails can't complain.

The reason Unit Number two (reactor), down the road, at Reform, Missouri isn't being built is because Ameren and and State can't agree on how much rate payers should be charged (during construction - hedging risk). The government should be covering this risk (eventual completion will provide the St. Louis area with more juice over many decades - this will result in more government revenues because private business will be hiring).

I agree, if energy producers were charged (taxed) on the basis of relative risk assessments (both safety and national security factored in), nuclear would be profitable out of the box with little government intervention. I would think that if we were to build out `all green' domestic energy, then we could tack on tariffs on anything manufactured in another nation using less than `green' (carbon neutral) energy (and feel morally superior about it). With excess electric capacity we'd be able to pursue both electric/hydrogen vehicles/high speed mag lev trains and large scale production of synthetic fuels, ala, Los Alamos' Green Freedom project: http://www.lanl.gov/news/newsbulletin/pdf/Green_Freedom_Overview.pdf

Gen four reactor plans (near-beer): https://inlportal.inl.gov/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=1361&parentname=CommunityPage&parentid=9&mode=2

Better (write your congress critters): http://energyfromthorium.com/2010/01/03/doe-inls-lack-of-ambition-for-the-21st-century/

The government is there to provide a direction (national energy policy for instance) and make sure NO private Business. can take a detour into `morally hazardous' territory (that which throttles the goose from which the golden eggs emerge). On the one hand this writer makes Tom Paine look like a staid school marm (individual liberty), on the other, when considering those who dip their muzzles into `moral hazard' he's right there with Joe Stalin, i.e., send the offenders on a short walk down a hall in the basement of the Lubyanka with a Tarkarov at the base of the skull...

We should be thinking big, retreat, or reinforcing failure (as Sen. Bachus seems to be doing at present) is not an option (imho).

Oh, if anyone is interested in where a portion of the 200 million dollars of our money went out of freddie/fannie for lobbying (no questions about that total) to merely line the pockets of politicians: http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie.html

ed:sp. as usual​

 

[I have WHAT in my yard?]

Ivan! How dare you muddy this argument with facts!

And people flip over Fannie and Freddie being in such bad shape and they are, in horrible shape, but like the Fed they started out as public entities and were made mostly private (may have been Bush I but may have been Clinton)

It was determined that the best way to "run" them would be to privatize the actual business (let private baks make the loans) while keeping marginal oversight and all of the risk, public. Well, what would you do if some one said, "Hey go to vegas on my dime you get to keep all the winnings and if it goes bad I lose all the money."

So, besides the whole mortgage piece most people overlook the other piece.

It made a huge amount more of money available for student loans. Banks gave out loans to students attending dubious school, but they also gave out loans for any and everyone who wanted to attend college. This was great for the colleges. Business was booming and they could rack up the tuition rates. Since they were all having to vastly overhaul their communications systems and build more dorms it seemed like the obvious next step. It saved alot of colleges. But, like all good bubbles do - it got completely out of hand. It many ways it hasn't really burst yet. As more and more graduate and cannot get jobs and discover they cannot support the massive debt it'll will start rolling. Like the mortgages (or worse if you realize they're duping teenagers) most students are so grateful to get whatever money they need to go to college they don't think through - and usually are never told - what the accumulated monthly payment for all of that debt will look like. So they start out life debt slaves holding paper that doesn't mean what it used to.

 

[Organics North]

I have nothing to add to the intelligent posts being made...

Just saying thanks... a good education, and food for thought indeed..

ON

 

[deerman]

Quote:
Nice can see who didn't take ANY of their money too.

 

[Duramaxgirl]

Quote:
Awwww man that hurts! Ya can't lump us all in one big pile! I'm a republican and my kids are happy and healthy... oh and I give my poor grandparents a dozen eggs every week!

 

[deerman]

Quote:
Awwww man that hurts! Ya can't lump us all in one big pile! I'm a republican and my kids are happy and healthy... oh and I give my poor grandparents a dozen eggs every week!

Don't feel bad because republicans aren't Robin Hoods stealing from those have to give to those with hands out.