Fight the gas prices

[Munkay]

It is great for growing stuff in the garden, but I do wonder if I could be doing more with it. See, I can't bring my self to eat the goats.

Trade em! If you can't bear to eat them, I'm sure someone else would be glad. You'll probably have better luck saving up for a solar panel and getting energy that way than on the goat pellets.

I never thought I'd advise someone to sell goats for solar panels :lol:

Cheers,

Munk

[eppie]

You can start now. Try cutting your energy consumption by half. Try to use 1/2 your current electricity, 1/2 your current heating bill and 1/2 your current fossil fuels in your autos. Let me know how you do.

A Mr. Gore, on the other hand is a fear mongering hypocrite.

I don't like this reasoning.It is just like saying that e.g. a socialist can not have a nice house without being a hypocrite.

Anyway, apart from flying (mainly work related) I have a very low energy consuming lifestyle. I use almost no energy for heating my house and go to most places by bike or public transport. I can give you a longer list, but the point I already made some time ago is that a lot of energy saving can be done by doing small things that don't even change your lifestyle by a single bit, the only direct visible consequence is a lower electricity bill.

There are 100s of things a man can do but most people will only do them if energy becomes too expensive.

[Hammerskjold]

What I found strange about your reply was the caveats of current EVs, which to me seemed strange since that was why I put up the 'peak lithium' scenario link in the first place. But if it's not your intent to take it out of context, and it was simply an honest mistake in tone, then no harm no foul. So with that out of the way.


Maybe it's a matter of semantics, but I personally don't count hybrids in the same lot as electric vehicles. I count them as exactly as their name implies, a hybrid system. When I say EVs I usually mean something that uses electricity as their only source of propulsion (barring slave Munkays in a giant wheel generating electricity. That should probably be more appropriately called an Munkay Powered Vehicle.)

Burning dirty fuels in order to get that electricity ie: coal plants is of course an important aspect, but I think the main hurdle is still the car itself right now, ie: does it work, how well does it work, how well does it work in my part of the world, manufacturing methods \ technologies that will make this affordable etc.




Actually I disagree with Kandrathe's cruel(er) ways. If it was under my Empire, -no- Munkays would be forced to run in a wheel, giant sized or otherwise. The richer Munkays can go to a nicely furnished energy generation gymnasium, but they will have to pay a premium for the membership. Much like an exclusive gym\spa.

The Munkays with lesser financial means however, can go to a more spartan but still clean and safe energenerator facilities, but here is where my empire truly shows it's kindness and foresight.

These Munkays don't need to pay to run the wheel, they instead will get paid in both cash (of which I calls Hammersmolians) and food for the energy they generate. (Partially subsidized by the first mentioned rich Munkay gym\spas)

To combat any sort of societal disruption and malcontents with too much time and nothing better to do, the wheel running Munkays will not be regarded as an entry\low level job with no respect. Advertorials will be everywhere and almost constant trumpeting these Munkays who literally powers the energy needs of my empire. (Those who still actively seeks to harm and defy this edict will simply be put into the sugar mines. Let their bitterness turn into sweetness which fuels my empire.)

The exclusive gym\spas will also get advertising to match, it will be the premiere place to get fit, look good, be pampered, even to socialize. The rich and priviliged will be running both literally and figuratively to join the club.

So to sum up.

1) Build empire.

2) Get Munkays and Munkay powered facilities.

3) Profit!

[kandrathe]

I don't like this reasoning.It is just like saying that e.g. a socialist can not have a nice house without being a hypocrite.

No. American progressive politicians are socialist hypocrites because they espouse a program of social justice and redistribution of wealth that excludes the American aristocracy to which they are members. A neat trick, but as we discussed earlier, taxes have no basis on wealth. You need to have income in order to pay income taxes.

So, then Mr. Gore is a hypocrite in a 2nd way. He clamors for YOU to limit your consumption, but has no intention to contain his own excessive lifestyle. What is unbelievable to me is that Gore, like Moore, gets world accolades and awards for a deceptive and false propaganda film while personally exemplifying the excess he supposedly stands against. That my friend is hypocrisy, much like the drunken preacher calling for temperance.

[Jarulf]

PS. Having reread my post, I apologize for lumping you into the group of 'one size fits all'.

But I do fit all sizes.... wait, that is note the same now is it? Oh well.;)

[eppie]

No. American progressive politicians are socialist hypocrites because they espouse a program of social justice and redistribution of wealth that excludes the American aristocracy to which they are members. A neat trick, but as we discussed earlier, taxes have no basis on wealth. You need to have income in order to pay income taxes.

So, then Mr. Gore is a hypocrite in a 2nd way. He clamors for YOU to limit your consumption, but has no intention to contain his own excessive lifestyle. What is unbelievable to me is that Gore, like Moore, gets world accolades and awards for a deceptive and false propaganda film while personally exemplifying the excess he supposedly stands against. That my friend is hypocrisy, much like the drunken preacher calling for temperance.

But if some unknown american made this movie and put it on you tube would it get the same amount of attention? True or false, the movie led to loads of measures against global warming.
Indeed he might be hypocrytical but better then somebody with the same lifestyle that didnot make such a movie.

I have a nice salary and education, for which I will be very likely always in the higher economic classes in our country. Does this mean that if I vote for a party that wants to raise taxes for higher icomes I'm a hypocryte?

Your stances on hypocrisy is very nice but even more of a utopic dream than a good working communist state. So theoretically you are right, but practically it doesn't make too much sense.


ps I don't think the use of alcohol is the biggest problem that we have with priests and other clergy.:(

[Munkay]

But if some unknown american made this movie and put it on you tube would it get the same amount of attention? True or false, the movie led to loads of measures against global warming.
Indeed he might be hypocrytical but better then somebody with the same lifestyle that didnot make such a movie.

So the ends justifies the means, neh? I think we're opening a can of worms here. Is it alright to lie (including being a hypocrite) if its for the better good. I'm not saying you're wrong, nor am I saying you're right. Merely throwing up a big warning sign saying "highly debatable ethics question alert!". You're not going to get one simple answer here.

I have a nice salary and education, for which I will be very likely always in the higher economic classes in our country. Does this mean that if I vote for a party that wants to raise taxes for higher icomes I'm a hypocryte?

Your example doesn't line up eppie. Al Gore isn't espousing something that is bad for him (and better for all) and then following it. The closer (but still not perfect) example would be to campaign publicly for higher taxes on the upper class, and then outright refusing to pay taxes yourself.

Even so, the question you raised is not whether or not Al Gore is a hypocrite (genuinely, there's little wiggle room for argument there). It's whether being a hypocrite if its for the betterment of everyone else justifies the action. And that's a fair question - though as I said earlier, one that is highly debatable.

Cheers,

Munk

[eppie]

You're not going to get one simple answer here.
Cheers,

Munk

I was not hoping for one. :D

No I know exactly what you mean. I just don't find, Al Gore being a hypocrite, an argument in a discussion about climate change and fuel cosumption.
I find it a very good point when you have a one on one discussion with Al personally. I would also tell him to use less energy himself.
Hypocrisy is widespread, and very annoying, but that is it.

ps. were you not supposed to be in a giant threadmill generating energy?

[Munkay]

ps. were you not supposed to be in a giant threadmill generating energy?

Actually, I'm on a country wide tour speaking to the fellow munkays. After losing the election a few years back, I have a lot of clout. They listen. A wheel for me? Somebodies gotta enjoy the fruits of the other munk's labor, neh?

:whistling:

Cheers,

Munk

[Munkay]

Let's say you are like the average Italian who uses 6000 kWh/year. Pick an efficiency number... For fun lets choose the theoretical achievable 40% (the inverse = 2.5).

According to this article 40% is achievable.

Your average Italian will need to come up with $70,000 for the initial system, then invest more time and money each year for operation and maintenance. Now, will this system last 10 years ($600+M&O/month)? 20 years ($300+M&O/month)? And what was the energy consumed in making your system?

But it does very little to answer these questions. I still agree solar power isn't the answer people tout it to be. But I thought I'd link the article anyways.

Cheers,

Munk

[--Pete]

Hi,

This is not in reply to any one person or post, but rather some general observations on the whole topic.

It seems to me that many have adopted the idea that rejecting modern technology because it consumes energy is the solution to some vague 'problem'. The only 'problem' that that course is a solution to is 'progress', which I, at least, do not consider a problem. The whole advance in the standard of living of humanity has revolved around consuming energy other than one's own muscular output. From animals and slaves in antiquity, to motors and engines early last century and electronic devices more recently, the more that one can havevdone for him, the more freedom that he has to do what he wants. And the freedom to spend the one resource which cannot be renewed or substituted, the time allotted to our individual life, is perhaps the best measure of 'standard of living'.

Of course, the wealthy have always had the advantage of being able to afford more energy, whether it consisted of thousands of people to build their pyramids or a personal jet to avoide that two hour wait at the gate. The fairness of the wealth advantage is a good topic for debate, perhaps. As is the question of whether life is, or even should be, fair. However, in terms of overall progress and of overall energy consumpion, discussions centering on wealth are red herrings. The imbalance is always there, but it is the mean that bears consideration.

Now it seems to me that the real questions are two: first, how does one get the maximum standard of living at the minimum material and energy cost, and second, what do we do when a material or resource runs out. I'll admit to bias, but I think the answer to both questions is the same: research. As much as the naysayers and Chicken Little's ignore it, the effects of research are very much around us. Appliances do more and better with less. Comparison of washers, driers, dishwashers, refrigirators, etc., over the years show a constantly decreasing consumption of resources for a fixed result. Forty-five years ago, there was one easily available car in the USA that got 30 mpg. That was the VW, with its 32 hp engine, no fuel gauge, and spartan interior. I know, I drove one nearly a quarter of a million miles. Now there are a number of automobiles that beat the old VW in gas milage, performance, and creature comforts -- all at once. That, in my opinion, is progress.

On the other side of the coin is the reduction in natural resources. Much of this is a matter of perception. For instance, people want wood siding on their homes because wood siding is traditional in their region. This in spite of the fact that good wood siding is getting scarce, and hence expensive, and that there are man made materials that are much better. Better in that they cost less initially, require less maintenance, are better insulators, and last longer. The question of whether they look as good is, of course, a matter of taste and thus moot. Many other examples can be given, such as silk clothing and down insulation. Those that worry excessively that some resource will run out are showing little faith in the ability of the researchers to find or create an alternative in spite of nearly a century of evidence to the contrary.

So, while I'm not arguing that there are no concerns, I am saying that the concerns are being addressed. People are, and have been, considering, developing, and testing solutions to all the problems discussed in this thread for quite some time now. Technological solutions for many of these concerns, especially the energy issue, exist. They are not greatly implemented because the vast bulk of the population are blithering idiots (the history of nuclear power in the USA is prima facia evidence of this). They are too ignorant to understand the issues, too lazy to study them, and too impatient to accept any solution the doesn't work overnight. They get the question wrong, then accept a simple, easy to understand, wrong solution. Evidence of this runs throughout the thread, mostly supplied by the usual suspects.

People get what they deserve, and the roaches *will* inherit the earth if people don't get smarter.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Hi,

This is not in reply to any one person or post, but rather some general observations on the whole topic.

...

So, while I'm not arguing that there are no concerns, I am saying that the concerns are being addressed. People are, and have been, considering, developing, and testing solutions to all the problems discussed in this thread for quite some time now. Technological solutions for many of these concerns, especially the energy issue, exist. They are not greatly implemented because the vast bulk of the population are blithering idiots (the history of nuclear power in the USA is prima facia evidence of this). They are too ignorant to understand the issues, too lazy to study them, and too impatient to accept any solution the doesn't work overnight. They get the question wrong, then accept a simple, easy to understand, wrong solution. Evidence of this runs throughout the thread, mostly supplied by the usual suspects.

People get what they deserve, and the roaches *will* inherit the earth if people don't get smarter.

--Pete

You've captured my thoughts as well. Ask 1000 people which is more dangerous, 100 lbs of U238 or a 100 lbs of coal ash. :) Yes, it's a trick question.

I think worse than the "vast bulk of the population are blithering idiots" are the silent intelligencia who know better, but choose to remain mute for political expediency and/or perhaps to keep their grant machine flowing. All we need is more human ingenuity to find solutions, market forces to exploit those that work, fewer lazy brains taking the crap they are fed without question, and schools that teach people HOW to think rather than WHAT to think.

Frankly, I'm more concerned about the effect that fascist imbecile Chavez will have on the price of oil.

[Doc]

You've captured my thoughts as well. Ask 1000 people which is more dangerous, 100 lbs of U238 or a 100 lbs of coal ash. :) Yes, it's a trick question.

I think worse than the "vast bulk of the population are blithering idiots" are the silent intelligencia who know better, but choose to remain mute for political expediency and/or perhaps to keep their grant machine flowing. All we need is more human ingenuity to find solutions, market forces to exploit those that work, fewer lazy brains taking the crap they are fed without question, and schools that teach people HOW to think rather than WHAT to think.

Frankly, I'm more concerned about the effect that fascist imbecile Chavez will have on the price of oil.

To be fair... Chavez is a socialist. I am still on the fence about slapping him with a facist tag. He's also done some good things, still maintains a rather good working democratic process for local issues that people can solve for themselves, and he was voted into power by his own people.

I am not a fan of his however. But I do admire some of his work.

[--Pete]

Hi,

[url=http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter11.html]

Thanks for the link. I used to have that material in hard copy, loaned it out and never got it back. Didn't realize it was available on-line. It should be required reading for everyone.

I think worse than the "vast bulk of the population are blithering idiots" are the silent intelligencia who know better, but choose to remain mute

Right. Like I could walk into CBS, ABC, etc. and ask for and get a show like Nova. Like I could *force* the Survivor watching mindless wonders to change the channel to something educational. And like somehow the single neuron net challenged are going to understand.

Those that could best explain it are too busy doing it. And, frankly, few of them have the talent, the charisma, the stage presence of a Sagan to enable them to communicate with an audience.

No, the fault lies, in my opinion, with the media. The beautiful stupid are a poor choice for informing the nation of anything more important than a lost dog that finds its way home. But as long as news is lumped with entertainment, for that long will it be worthless.

And, too, a large part of the fault lies with democracy, ". . . a form of government where opinions are counted and not weighed." How to address the issue that most voters are not sufficiently educated in modern technology to make rational decisions is not easy. All the valid means of ensuring that only fact based opinions are included in the vote lead to charges of elitism. Which means that in most cases the prejudice based ignorant opinions will win.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

To be fair... Chavez is a socialist. I am still on the fence about slapping him with a fascist tag. He's also done some good things, still maintains a rather good working democratic process for local issues that people can solve for themselves, and he was voted into power by his own people.

I am not a fan of his however. But I do admire some of his work.

I've decided. Here is what his Ex-mistress, Herma Marksman, is saying here or here.

Here are a few things to ponder. He was swept into power within a democratic process on the heals of a very unpopular regime appealing to peoples passion rather than reason, similar to that other infamous fascist dictator. After he won election he took steps to pack the court with his appointees, consolidate the party system to a single party state, and has outlawed opposition parties, as well as removing the term limit for his own office. And it worked, in the last election, the opposition boycotted the election and the Carter Institute providing international oversight shamefully branded it fair and open.

He consolidated and is investing heavily in military power citing a "great enemy" and national pride attempting to build a 2 million man army, 2nd only to China in size. He is nationalizing industry and is seizing property without regard to laws or justice for the people who owned it in the name of redistribution of wealth (similar to Mugabe in Zimbabwe). Internationally he has been seeking to form an anti-western coalition with other dictators like Castro, and Kim Jong-il, and enemies of the west like Ahmadi-Nejad. Now he is suppressing opposition in the media and freedom of speech.

The world is funneling oil revenue directly into his coffers, which for now he is using to try to create the Saudi style socialist utopia but given the trends I'm seeing might easily be redirected into a more hostile direction. And, like Saudi Arabia, if the price of a barrel of oil now falls below $50 now they reduce production to hold the price higher. This type of oil held hostage is what hurt us in the 1970's and what urged us to reduce our reliance on foreign oil supplied by OPEC. We are much more dependent on foreign oil now than we were in the 1970's. Less on the middle eastern sources, but more dependent on Mexico and Venezuela.

[eppie]

I've decided. Here is what his Ex-mistress, Herma Marksman, is saying here or here.

Here are a few things to ponder. He was swept into power within a democratic process on the heals of a very unpopular regime appealing to peoples passion rather than reason, similar to that other infamous fascist dictator. After he won election he took steps to pack the court with his appointees, consolidate the party system to a single party state, and has outlawed opposition parties, as well as removing the term limit for his own office. And it worked, in the last election, the opposition boycotted the election and the Carter Institute providing international oversight shamefully branded it fair and open.

He consolidated and is investing heavily in military power citing a "great enemy" and national pride attempting to build a 2 million man army, 2nd only to China in size. He is nationalizing industry and is seizing property without regard to laws or justice for the people who owned it in the name of redistribution of wealth (similar to Mugabe in Zimbabwe). Internationally he has been seeking to form an anti-western coalition with other dictators like Castro, and Kim Jong-il, and enemies of the west like Ahmadi-Nejad. Now he is suppressing opposition in the media and freedom of speech.

The world is funneling oil revenue directly into his coffers, which for now he is using to try to create the Saudi style socialist utopia but given the trends I'm seeing might easily be redirected into a more hostile direction. And, like Saudi Arabia, if the price of a barrel of oil now falls below $50 now they reduce production to hold the price higher. This type of oil held hostage is what hurt us in the 1970's and what urged us to reduce our reliance on foreign oil supplied by OPEC. We are much more dependent on foreign oil now than we were in the 1970's. Less on the middle eastern sources, but more dependent on Mexico and Venezuela.

Wow what a bunch of American propaganda inspired crap!

Just because the guy doesn't want to have anything to do with the US (and is right to want so).

Funny thing is that many foreign investors and big companies (also American) that are in Venezuela are really happy with him.

And of course the people are happy with Castro and Chavez, their fascist American supported predecessors were 10 times as dictatorial, and 10 times as cruel. Of course not everything they do is perfect but it is a blessing for south America that the fascist/catholic/american supported dictators have one by one left the scene.


And the anti-American sentiment (if any) is only a reaction on the anti-not-right-wing- sentiment of the US government.

[kandrathe]

Wow what a bunch of American propaganda inspired crap!

Just because the guy doesn't want to have anything to do with the US (and is right to want so).

Funny thing is that many foreign investors and big companies (also American) that are in Venezuela are really happy with him.

And of course the people are happy with Castro and Chavez, their fascist American supported predecessors were 10 times as dictatorial, and 10 times as cruel. Of course not everything they do is perfect but it is a blessing for south America that the fascist/catholic/american supported dictators have one by one left the scene.
And the anti-American sentiment (if any) is only a reaction on the anti-not-right-wing- sentiment of the US government.

Both those links were to UK reports. Herma Marksman is a Venezuelan.

How about Human Rights Watch International?

BBC -- Venezuela steps up land seizures

The question is not "Does he have a right to be against the US and the West?" The question is "Is he a dictator and a fascist?" Hitler too was a socialist when he rose to power in the German Workers Party. Benito Mussolini was a socialist who transformed from "Fasci d'azione rivoluzionaria internazionalista" into "Fasci Italiani di Combattimento".

Herma Marksman has claimed that Hugo Chavez also has abandoned the socialist cause of helping the people and instead wields his power as do other fascist dictators.

But, rather than call me names and try to discredit my post as "propaganda", why not point to where I'm wrong. I fail to see where anything I pointed out was not factual. Help me out here eppie.

P.S. In my research of your unsupported claim -- "Funny thing is that many foreign investors and big companies (also American) that are in Venezuela are really happy with him. " I found that the Wall Street Journal ranks Venezuela 144 of 157 (28 of 29 in the Americas with Cuba 29th) in their index of Economic Freedom. Cuba and North Korea rank 156 and 157 of 157 ranked. I sure wouldn't invest in a place where my capital could be nationalized without notice by the whims of its leader.

Here is an interesting link to compare Chavez with predecessors in terms of helping the people. http://infovenezuela.org/statistics.htm

[eppie]

Both those links were to UK reports. Herma Marksman is a Venezuelan.

How about Human Rights Watch International?

BBC -- Venezuela steps up land seizures

Human rights watch has comments even on the Netherlands....

Like I said Chavez does questionable things....but I can't see much problems with this land seizure thing.

The question is not "Does he have a right to be against the US and the West?"

I think he is not against the west. He is rightly against mainly the US policy against development countries. And If I might say so, it is time that somebody like him steps up. His decision to quit the membership of the world bank is a very interesting one. It might just be a beginning of the real development of poor countries. I know, he can do these things because of the oil.....but than again this is what Saudi Arabia is doing as well.

The question is "Is he a dictator and a fascist?"

The answer is 100 % NO

Hitler too was a socialist when he rose to power in the German Workers Party. Benito Mussolini was a socialist who transformed from "Fasci d'azione rivoluzionaria internazionalista" into "Fasci Italiani di Combattimento".

They were no socialist.They were leaders of countries which still today have a very strong togetherness feeling. To call them socialists as well as to compare Chavez with them is absolutely despicable.
I see that in Italy also the thinking very lightly about the war period is very common. Much different in Holland which was more a victim country.
Don't confuse socialism with national socialism by the way, the name is somewhat similar but they are completely different things. I guess that if hitler would have called his party the `let's kill all the jews party' he would not be so popular.

Herma Marksman has claimed that Hugo Chavez also has abandoned the socialist cause of helping the people and instead wields his power as do other fascist dictators.

But, rather than call me names and try to discredit my post as "propaganda", why not point to where I'm wrong. I fail to see where anything I pointed out was not factual. Help me out here eppie.

I don't want to call your names. I respect you too much as a discussion partner. I just got a bit annoyed by the way in the US people are constantly badmouthing Cuba and now Venezuela....treating them like enemies that are on the brink of attacking the US. I just don't expect those kind of things from an intelligent person like you.

[kandrathe]

Human rights watch has comments even on the Netherlands....

Right. But did you read them? They are all positive things.

Like I said Chavez does questionable things....but I can't see much problems with this land seizure thing.

I believe that the right to own property is a fundamental human right.

The answer is 100 % NO
They were no socialist. They were leaders of countries which still today have a very strong togetherness feeling. To call them socialists as well as to compare Chavez with them is absolutely despicable. I see that in Italy also the thinking very lightly about the war period is very common. Much different in Holland which was more a victim country. Don't confuse socialism with national socialism by the way, the name is somewhat similar but they are completely different things. I guess that if hitler would have called his party the `let's kill all the jews party' he would not be so popular.

I don't mean fascist in the sense it is usually taken as a slur. I mean think about the definition; "Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and other societal interests subordinate to the needs of the state, and seeks to forge a type of national unity, usually based on ethnic, cultural, or racial attributes. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, authoritarianism, militarism, corporatism, collectivism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, and opposition to economic and political liberalism." Nationalizing the oil and mining industries, and telling the central bank where they can and cannot invest money seems like fascism to me.

I don't want to call you names. I respect you too much as a discussion partner. I just got a bit annoyed by the way in the US people are constantly badmouthing Cuba and now Venezuela....treating them like enemies that are on the brink of attacking the US. I just don't expect those kind of things from an intelligent person like you.

I am an American patriot so I freely admit I am biased against what I perceive to be threats. In this case, I'm not afraid anytime soon of Cuban, Venezuelan and Iranian armies marching on Washington. However, Chavez is in a position to do harm to the US economy, and therefore also the world economy. I just hope the Venezuelans get fed up with him and keep the problem a Venezuelan one so that the world is not forced to deal with him.

[Swiss Mercenary]

However, Chavez is in a position to do harm to the US economy

Hey, Kan, how's our softwood lumber money coming along in paying off your national debt?:whistling:

Gotta hope the world isn't forced to deal (pun intended) with the USITC, eh?