Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Yes, we have an obligation to leave. For example we have "infidel" military bases strewn all over the place, especially in Saudi Arabia. Hint: Mecca and Medina are there. So, wouldn't it be cool if Saudi Arabia built a military base at the Vatican?

Oh geez, you're trotting out those magic unicorns that shit golden bricks again. The Arab World has a right to determine for themselves what they want. Every time we meddle over there, we screw stuff up. Let's face it, the US is a bull in a china shop. Btw, we did exactly the same nonsense in Latin America and screwed those folks over as well.

Just leaving would be better than what we've been doing, I agree.

Well, we have no idea who the hell to ship stuff to even if there are "moderates". It is a Sunni/Shia feud because it ain't just Syria, it's all over just like a pox. If we don't want to catch the pox, then leave.

I don't think Americans can catch the Sunni-Shia pox! No, but yes it's all over the Middle East, but so are people, especially young people, rising up for freedom, and I don't like ignoring them and not helping them.

Funny how reality does that sometimes.

It's not reality; it's oversimplifying the facts.

Yes and yes. Israel can turn anyplace it wants into an ashtray if so desired.

Good; except again, oversimplifying. I agree with diplomacy. That's what we're doing with Iran, in hopes of staving off Israel's turning it into an ashtray.

Uh, word, "blowback". Meddling causes blowback.

Sometimes, not meddling can cause blowback too. Allowing Hitler to grab countries was not altogether a good policy.

Nope. You help group A, you'll piss off groups [B-Z].

That's OK, we can't please the jihadis anyway.

Well at least cloth is real. Pixie dust and magic unicorns are fictions.

Creating fictions is not pragmatic. That's what you do if you ignore the Arab Spring uprising in Syria.

Ask and ye shall receive.

Well, they got their wish for a clusterfuck. But so did we when we had our Revolution and Civil War. Sometimes the price of freedom is to defeat the oppressor.

Which would they prefer
a. IS (was ISIS), but they renamed themselves
b. Assad

c. a new democracy

Cute. Assad and ISIS can split the shit we ship over. Nice move.

If we supply them the moderate rebels will win, and THEY will split the shit that Iran and Sunni bigshots shipped over. Yes, it would be a nice move.

Nope, try Green

Red supports the corporate capitalist agenda.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2...over-iraq.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ohn-Kerry.html

OK, what the hell is Iran supposed to think about that stuff?



He has a long history.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/john-ker...tnam-to-syria/

LOSER. I'm old enough to remember that stuff. Sorry Eric. Fucking hypocrite he is.

a. Kerry is better than any Sec of State America could hope to have.

b. America has a lot to learn.

Now you got that right. Kerry is a haircut looking for a brain, confirmed.

Kerry understands the situation. "We are open to any constructive process here that would minimize the violence."

Help places like Detroit first. We have enough problems right here to address. Time to shut the empire down.

I can't disagree. However, we waste a lot of money on arms and defense anyway. It doesn't look like it's going to shut down anytime soon. So military and arms spending will happen. I think supporting good causes with arms is a better way to spend some of it, than invading countries for no reason and piling up arms we never use.

I like the idea of taking our marbles home before we lose them all.

Things aren't that simple in life. If we take our marbles and go home, we have no cards to play.

Not in this case.

This case has already been proven. We did nothing; Al Qaeda and ISIS came in to fill the vaccuum we left, and take advantage of the chaos resulting from Assad's massacre and destruction continuing longer than it otherwise would have.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Just leaving would be better than what we've been doing, I agree.

Why of course. Let's be real. The US is the world's largest debtor nation which is run, arguable by plutocrats. That's pretty much the definition of a banana republic. I really don't trust any banana republic to act in a rational manner. We have our own mini Detroits here. They look like Detroit with burnt down houses and rampant meth use to boot. I-35 is the meth highway where all of that Mexican crystal comes from.

I don't think Americans can catch the Sunni-Shia pox!

Correct. We apparently caught banana republic pox from Central/South America. Although places like Chile and Costa Rico seem to have recovered.

No, but yes it's all over the Middle East, but so are people, especially young people, rising up for freedom, and I don't like ignoring them and not helping them.

I prefer "charity begins at home". I fail to see how a nation that's messed up like ours can "help" anyone. The best things to do are.
1. Shut down all military bases there and in Europe. We can't afford stuff like that anymore.
2. Stop using assorted countries as our "oil cows", which we just milk.

It's not reality; it's oversimplifying the facts.

How so? Since we're defacto broke and our infrastructure makes Bulgaria's look like the paragon of modern infrastructure. It's a matter of priorities. With limited resources, fix all of the broken stuff here. That is sufficient.

Good; except again, oversimplifying. I agree with diplomacy. That's what we're doing with Iran, in hopes of staving off Israel's turning it into an ashtray.

Really? I rather doubt they care to listen to a nation that slapped a bunch of sanctions on them.

Sometimes, not meddling can cause blowback too. Allowing Hitler to grab countries was not altogether a good policy.

1. The Hitler analogy isn't really good in this case. We can make the whole world an ashtray or we can use those neutron bombs and sterilize it.
2. Let's look at what wonderful stuff we've done.
a. Iraq. We toppled Saddam and made a failed nation.
b. We toppled Qaddafi and turned Libya into a failed nation.
c. We droned stuff in Pakistan and turn that into a failed nation.
d. We messed around in Afghanistan, knocked off the Taliban which is one tribe. Some other tribe took over. We left and the Taliban came back. Afghanistan's terrain messes with outsiders.
e. We toppled some government in Iran in the 1950's and gave the Iranians a bad case of resentment.
f. We via the CIA, screwed over a shitpot of countries in Central/South America.

With a record like that, it's no wonder we ain't popular.

That's OK, we can't please the jihadis anyway.

True.

Creating fictions is not pragmatic. That's what you do if you ignore the Arab Spring uprising in Syria.

Syria is a fiction. It's just a polygon the French and English drew.
1. We see the polygon.
2. The people who live in said polygon don't want it.
3. The only way to keep the polygon is to have a ham fisted ruler.

Well, they got their wish for a clusterfuck. But so did we when we had our Revolution and Civil War. Sometimes the price of freedom is to defeat the oppressor.

Both of those happened on US soil.

c. a new democracy

d. Something based on Islam.

If we supply them the moderate rebels will win, and THEY will split the shit that Iran and Sunni bigshots shipped over. Yes, it would be a nice move.

IS actually got their hardware from Iraqi forces. The Iraqi military got that stuff from us.
#ISBRINGBACKOURHARDWARE

Red supports the corporate capitalist agenda.

I think blue supports bloated bureaucracies and platinum pensions.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/san-dieg...-pension-cuts/


Although, I'm starting to see a glimmer of hope for California now after Toyota bailed. Even in Ericland folks are catching on. This is a good thing.
A pox on corporatists and pension stuffers. Oklahoma's schools also suffer from the blight of too many administrators. So much deadweight to chop to get the per pupil $ to go up.

a. Kerry is better than any Sec of State America could hope to have.

Uh, no. I get extremely bad vibes.
Video required.

b. America has a lot to learn.

Yes indeed. Some of it's nursery school. "keep your hands to yourself." and "don't take someone else's stuff".

Kerry understands the situation. "We are open to any constructive process here that would minimize the violence."

And this.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...1?feedType=RSS

Originally Posted by Reuters

In his op-ed, Kerry chided Iran by saying its "public optimism about the potential outcome of these negotiations has not been matched, to date, by the positions they have articulated behind closed doors."

That's messed up.

I can't disagree. However, we waste a lot of money on arms and defense anyway. It doesn't look like it's going to shut down anytime soon. So military and arms spending will happen. I think supporting good causes with arms is a better way to spend some of it, than invading countries for no reason and piling up arms we never use.

Yes, we waste a lot of money and brainpower on the MIC. Now, if it does continue, which yeah, agree it will based on how empires do stuff, that will be one of several things that will lead to the US collapsing itself. "Supporting good causes" is of course nothing but invading via proxy.

Things aren't that simple in life. If we take our marbles and go home, we have no cards to play.

No, Kenny Rogers is the go to guy here.

Originally Posted by The Gambler

On a warm summer's evenin' on a train bound for nowhere
I met up with the gambler, we were both too tired to sleep
So we took turns a starin' out the window at the darkness
'Til boredom overtook us and he began to speak
He said, "Son, I've made a life, out of readin' people's faces
And knowin' what their cards were by the way they held their eyes
So if you don't mind my sayin', I can see you're out of aces
For a taste of your whiskey I'll give you some advice"
So I handed him my bottle and he drank down my last swallow
Then he bummed a cigarette and asked me for a light
And the night got deathly quiet and his face lost all expression
Said, "If you're gonna play the game, boy, you gotta learn to play it right"
You got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em
Know when to walk away and know when to run
You never count your money when you're sittin' at the table
There'll be time enough for countin' when the dealing's done
Every gambler knows that the secret to survivin'
Is knowin' what to throw away and knowing what to keep
'Cause every hand's a winner and every hand's a loser
And the best that you can hope for is to die in your sleep
And when he finished speakin', he turned back towards the window
Crushed out his cigarette and faded off to sleep
And somewhere in the darkness the gambler, he broke even
But in his final words I found an ace that I could keep
You got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em
Know when to walk away and know when to run
You never count your money when you're sittin' at the table
There'll be time enough for countin' when the dealing's done
You got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em
Know when to walk away and know when to run
You never count your money when you're sittin' at the table
There'll be time enough for countin' when the dealing's done
You got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em
Know when to walk away and know when to run
You never count your money when you're sittin' at the table
There'll be time enough for countin' when the dealing's done

This case has already been proven. We did nothing; Al Qaeda and ISIS came in to fill the vaccuum we left, and take advantage of the chaos resulting from Assad's massacre and destruction continuing longer than it otherwise would have.

So, now from where did the vacuum originate again?

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

I fail to see how a nation that's messed up like ours can "help" anyone. The best things to do are.
1. Shut down all military bases there and in Europe. We can't afford stuff like that anymore.
2. Stop using assorted countries as our "oil cows", which we just milk.

Of course I agree with #2. I'd like to agree with #1, but I think the USA has to participate in world affairs and have cards in the game. I'm sure we could shut down some bases though.

How so? Since we're defacto broke and our infrastructure makes Bulgaria's look like the paragon of modern infrastructure. It's a matter of priorities. With limited resources, fix all of the broken stuff here. That is sufficient.

We need at least to guard against terrorism here at home with inspection of airplanes, etc. something which a few posters here object to. But the alternative to that is more military activity abroad against the terrorists.

Really? I rather doubt they care to listen to a nation that slapped a bunch of sanctions on them.

Iran is listening, to the extent that it wants a deal to remove those sanctions.

1. The Hitler analogy isn't really good in this case. We can make the whole world an ashtray or we can use those neutron bombs and sterilize it.

The Hitler analogy refers to what happens when we never "meddle." Bad actors take over. It's just like what happens with plutocrats here at home. Some law and order is necessary, and the USA has to do its part.

2. Let's look at what wonderful stuff we've done.
a. Iraq. We toppled Saddam and made a failed nation.
b. We toppled Qaddafi and turned Libya into a failed nation.
c. We droned stuff in Pakistan and turn that into a failed nation.
d. We messed around in Afghanistan, knocked off the Taliban which is one tribe. Some other tribe took over. We left and the Taliban came back. Afghanistan's terrain messes with outsiders.
e. We toppled some government in Iran in the 1950's and gave the Iranians a bad case of resentment.
f. We via the CIA, screwed over a shitpot of countries in Central/South America.

With a record like that, it's no wonder we ain't popular.

We seem to have some level of popularity despite all that. But I think we need to use diplomacy more, and invasions and attacks not at all. But support for those seeking their freedom seems to me a laudable goal. But it also means follow-up support as well.

Syria is a fiction. It's just a polygon the French and English drew.
1. We see the polygon.
2. The people who live in said polygon don't want it.
3. The only way to keep the polygon is to have a ham fisted ruler.

I don't care about the polygon; I care about the people. The people don't want their tyrant. I don't care whether the nation stays together or falls apart. The simple and complete fact is that the people there cannot be ruled by Assad ever again. The only solution is the ouster of him and his henchmen.

Both of those happened on US soil.

No, whose soil it was, was at issue. And in the first case, a foreign power helped the rebels.

The people of Syria want freedom, and rose up in peaceful demonstrations. Assad murdered them and destroyed their country. They wanted freedom on their soil. The price they are paying is a clusterfuck. We could have made it less of one. We didn't.

d. Something based on Islam.

c is not necessarily incompatible with d. But the people who rose up made it abundantly clear that they want c.

I think blue supports bloated bureaucracies and platinum pensions.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/san-dieg...-pension-cuts/

Including this San Jose voter.

Blue supports bureaucracy; it does not have to be bloated or inefficient. Blue makes it efficient; Red applies a meatax, and cuts in the wrong places; or it does not cut even though it claims to cut.

That's messed up.

Iran nuc negotiations are proceeding, and have a good chance of success.

Yes, we waste a lot of money and brainpower on the MIC. Now, if it does continue, which yeah, agree it will based on how empires do stuff, that will be one of several things that will lead to the US collapsing itself. "Supporting good causes" is of course nothing but invading via proxy.

We are paying the price of Empire, no doubt; but helping the Syrian rebels is not invading by proxy, because the Syrians are not invading.

No, Kenny Rogers is the go to guy here.

You have to play your cards sometimes in order to win. You can't always just fold em and run.

So, now from where did the vacuum originate again?

Again: we failed to support the Syrians, who were being murdered by their dictator. Iran and Russia came in to support Assad's murders. Since we left a vaccuum on the other side, jihadist fighters filled it.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

"Charity begins at home" indeed. Unforetunately, I have to agree that the USA is too screwed up to help anybody else. Really, the country needs a long convalescence.

I'm afraid we need more than a convalescence. We need a revolution, or something on that order.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I'm afraid we need more than a convalescence. We need a revolution, or something on that order.

...which still falls under "getting our own house in order". I.e., the US cannot exactly run any effective agenda (however well-intended you'd like it to be) in the Middle East while undergoing "revolution", can it. It would be quite indisposed.

As Rags says, we do need to get our own house in order--whether that takes the form of "convalescence" (a good breather to assess and take steps toward "healing" our problems) or revolution, it still means we can't afford to keep fiddling about in others' "houses" which we don't really understand much about anyway, at the expense of our own health.

Originally Posted by Alioth68

...which still falls under "getting our own house in order". I.e., the US cannot exactly run any effective agenda (however well-intended you'd like it to be) in the Middle East while undergoing "revolution", can it. It would be quite indisposed.

As Rags says, we do need to get our own house in order--whether that takes the form of "convalescence" (a good breather to assess and take steps toward "healing" our problems) or revolution, it still means we can't afford to keep fiddling about in others' "houses" which we don't really understand much about anyway, at the expense of our own health.

Yes; on the other hand, what I am saying is not much fiddling around. Don't confuse what Rags is saying I am advocating, with what I actually am advocating. We are still the greatest military power in the world, and whether we like it or not, that's not going to change anytime soon. So we have international responsibilities, which we can, and should, fulfill, even if we have troubles at home. Our nation, like most others, has to focus on its own problems, but a nation like ours can and has to attend to foreign affairs too; always. Our diplomacy is important. We can help those who ask for our help, to prevent mass murder and genocide; and to help people recover from disaster (man-made, or natural, or man-made/natural). There is some regret when we don't (as in the case of Rwanda).

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...d-must-go.html

There’s a battle raging inside the Obama administration about whether the United States ought to push away from its goal of toppling Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad and into a de facto alliance with the Damascus regime to fight ISIS and other Sunni extremists in the region...

...the American government has been in a limited partnership with the Assad regime for almost a year. The U.S., Russian, and Syrian governments made a deal last September to destroy Assad’s stockpile of chemical weapons—and relied on Damascus to account for and transport those weapons, in effect legitimizing his claim to continued power...

-Of course, it seems the Ba'athists didn't quite get rid of all of them anyway.

The Syrian Air Force has conducted strikes inside Iraq. But the Syrian Arab Army avoids attacking ISIS held areas in Syria—where the group’s headquarters and larger bases are—and rarely fights ISIS at all inside its own country. ISIS sells the regime oil directly from fields it controls in northern Syria. ISIS and the regime reportedly coordinate their attacks on the Free Syrian Army...

-That's odd...

“The events in Iraq have had serious consequences for Syria and the Free Syrian Army,” McCain said. “What ISIS is picking up in Iraq they are bringing back into Syria and using directly against the FSA. The FSA was losing some people because of their failure to get the kind of assistance they need. Some of their fighters are moving over to ISIS because ISIS is winning.”

-Why would a "moderate" ever move over to ISIS?

Ford said that the war on ISIS in Iraq, no matter who is fighting it, might not be all bad for the Syrian rebels because it could result in damaging ISIS over time...

-What I've been trying to explain to Eric.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

... Red supports the corporate capitalist agenda...

-Actually, libertarians and most conservatives support the free market, which runs contrary to the interests of crony "capitalists," who get their support from progressives (e.g., Solyndra).

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-Actually, libertarians and most conservatives support the free market, which runs contrary to the interests of crony "capitalists," who get their support from progressives (e.g., Solyndra).

The "free market" IS "corporate capitalism;" there is no other free market. Libertarians and conservatives support corporate capitalism all the way.

Solyndra was a wise investment in alternative energy. Many such investments are paying off. Sometimes supporting new industries is in the national interest. That was the original "conservatism" of Hamilton. But you can't see this because you are a global warming denier, in the face of all evidence.

I will not read or respond to anything posted in red ink.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The "free market" IS "corporate capitalism;" there is no other free market. Libertarians and conservatives support corporate capitalism all the way...

-Where do you get this? It's "progressives" who like to hand out tax dollars to reward those who do their bidding and to tax and regulate businesses to punish those who do not, and you know it. By definition, THAT is NOT the free market in action. Letting companies control their own destinies, but not handing out taxpayer goodies IS the definition of the free market.

Another illustration:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/libera...rticle/2550610

In the current battle over the Export-Import Bank, Democratic politicians and liberal journalists have dropped their populist pretenses and openly embraced the corporate-federal collusion that Ex-Im embodies...

For some, it's largely partisanship or disdain for the Tea Partiers who want Ex-Im dead. For others, it's that increasing government's role in the economy takes precedence over railing against Big Business. And for a shrewd few, it's about raising money from K Street and Wall Street...

It's an amazing turn when millionaire Republican congressmen who received corporate welfare are now heroes of the liberal New York Times...

[not really...]

There's nothing new about the Left favoring corporate welfare in general, and Ex-Im in particular. Even under President George W. Bush, many more Republicans than Democrats opposed Ex-Im renewal in Congress: 50 House Republicans voted against Ex-Im in 2002, compared to only 26 Democrats.

What’s new is that there is a strong anti-corporatist streak on the Right and even within the upper reaches of the GOP.
When both parties were thoroughly corporatist, Democrats could sprinkle a few tax hikes into their policy stew of subsidies and mandates and claim the populist mantle—and the media would believe them.

Now, with the GOP opposing (some) corporate welfare, the Democrats’ corporatism is laid bare...

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

...Many such investments are paying off....

-The track record in Spain and Germany for support of so-called green energy is that of a boondoggle.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Solyndra was a wise investment in alternative energy....

-Obviously, it wasn't. Wise investments pay off. Unwise ones do not. We have the track record from Europe.

BTW, Eric, if green energy is so great, why don't you invest, say, 25% of your savings and investments in a green company?

Let's us know how you're doing in 5 years.

And no crony capitalism!

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-Where do you get this? It's "progressives" who like to hand out tax dollars to reward those who do their bidding and to tax and regulate businesses to punish those who do not, and you know it. By definition, THAT is NOT the free market in action. Letting companies control their own destinies, but not handing out taxpayer goodies IS the definition of the free market.

The "bidding" of the "progressives" is the national interest. The bidding of reactionaries is the interests of a few greedy corporations. No, neither is the free market in action. But the free market is a utopian myth; it does not exist except as a slogan used to deceive. Letting companies control our destinies is certainly not free. Reactionaries need to pay their taxes without the constant complaint that this infringes their freedom. It is the "free market" that infringes our freedom.

-The track record in Spain and Germany for support of so-called green energy is that of a boondoggle.

Their track record is great, and getting greater. From 20-70% of German energy now comes from solar energy. It is booming, and doing best in nations and states that support and promote it.

BTW, Eric, if green energy is so great, why don't you invest, say, 25% of your savings and investments in a green company?

Let's us know how you're doing in 5 years.

And no crony capitalism!

OK, I'll let you know.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-Where do you get this? It's "progressives" who like to hand out tax dollars to reward those who do their bidding and to tax and regulate businesses to punish those who do not, and you know it. By definition, THAT is NOT the free market in action. Letting companies control their own destinies, but not handing out taxpayer goodies IS the definition of the free market.

Yeah, we tried that over a long period of time, and it finally dawned on us that this was not a viable choice in the industrial age ... to say nothing of the post-industrial age. Small, ineffective governement still has the abilty to tax and create laws. If all power is in private hands, private hands will own the government, as they did all the way through the 19th century up through the crash in '29.

I would hope that extreme wealth for a small number, comfort for a few more and grinding poverty for the rest can be relegated to the dustbin of history, but follks like you seen anxious to keep that model alive. Maybe we really do need to divide the country, and let each philosphy give it a go it a separate region. No fault, no foul and no excuses.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Yeah. We'll fly in on magic unicorns and sprinkle pixie dust and democracy will flower all over the MidEast. Dream on.

R62, you will *never* be able to reason with Eric - he is entirely delusional about the future. He has this vision that the Real Americans who support the 2nd Amendment (most Americans, not the
fake numbers shown by the dishonest polls that only poll liberals in the NE) will be defeated and that the govt will take their guns away and that we will all live in a liberal utopia. He thinks the
crisis is about liberals winning out and imposing their socialism on the nation. As you can see, he must be on something.

Don't try to convince him. He seems incapable of comprehending 1. Human Nature, 2.Human nature CANNOT be changed by us and 3. Human nature doesn't change on its own except at
evolutionary pace, which is slightly faster (only slightly) than geological time.

I gave up on him a long time ago. Poor thing will be so disappointed in the real outcome of the 4th T.

Please do keep posting, however.

Originally Posted by takascar2

R62, you will *never* be able to reason with Eric - he is entirely delusional about the future. He has this vision that the Real Americans who support the 2nd Amendment (most Americans, not the fake numbers shown by the dishonest polls that only poll liberals in the NE) will be defeated and that the govt will take their guns away and that we will all live in a liberal utopia. He thinks the
crisis is about liberals winning out and imposing their socialism on the nation. As you can see, he must be on something.

Don't try to convince him. He seems incapable of comprehending 1. Human Nature, 2.Human nature CANNOT be changed by us and 3. Human nature doesn't change on its own except at
evolutionary pace, which is slightly faster (only slightly) than geological time.

I gave up on him a long time ago. Poor thing will be so disappointed in the real outcome of the 4th T.

Please do keep posting, however.

I thought you were a bit better than that, Mr. Takascar.

The real Americans, yes, are those who want to repeal the 2nd Amendment (I have as much claim to say who real Americans are as you do, so there).

I have never said I expect the government to take people's guns away, at least not in this 4T, and at least not unless they break the law or don't comply with regulations. But, you evidently don't read my posts, so you wouldn't know this.

I do expect hotheads (like yourself) to worry that liberals will take their guns away, and that this may help lead to terrorism or a mini civil war.

Calling what I support "socialism" indicates you are caught up in Tea Party delusional rhetoric. I would have expected better from you.

But yes, the Crisis is about the divide in our nation, and liberals always win the 4T. Why would anyone expect any other outcome, then? I mean, based on the track record?

Your evolution theory is false. Darwinian evolution and materialism cannot explain "human nature." Change is speeding up. The ark of justice is still long, though, but it bends toward justice.

I understand disappointment. But you don't understand 4Ts at all. Read the book, dude.

Data shows that Germany’s clean energy production has reached new heights

Germany’s Fraunhofer Institute has released data concerning the country’s use of renewable energy during the first half of the year. Six months of favorable weather and the accelerating production of solar and wind energy has had a major impact on Germany’s energy structure. The data shows that, for the first time ever, renewable sources accounted for a larger portion of energy production than coal. Clean energy is expected to see more adoption and implementation throughout Germany in the coming years.

31% of country’s energy production during the first half of 2014 came from renewable sources
According to the Fraunhofer Institute, renewable energy accounted for 31% of Germany’s energy production in the first half of 2014. Non-hydropower sources accounted for 27% of the country’s energy during that period. Wind and solar power made up the majority of renewable power produced throughout the country. Solar energy, in particular, has seen major growth over the past several months. New energy projects have reached completion and have begun generating electrical power, feeding this energy into the country’s energy grid. Solar power grew by 28% during the first half of this year, with wind power growing by 19%.

Low demand for electricity during the holidays has contributed to the larger role that renewable energy has played in Germany. Favorable weather has brought relatively strong winds and abundant sunshine to the country as well, allowing its solar and wind farms to produce significant amounts of electrical power.
Germany continues to set a positive example in the energy sector.

Germany is currently considered a leader in both solar and wind energy. The country is home to several ambitious energy projects that are expected to reach completion and begin producing electrical power within the coming year. These renewable energy projects will have a further impact on the country’s changing energy structure, allowing Germany to create more distance between itself and fossil-fuels. Germany has plans to produce no less than 80% of its electrical power from renewable sources by 2050.

http://www.hydrogenfuelnews.com/germ...ction/8518668/

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Just leaving would be better than what we've been doing, I agree.

It's been a while and I'll be indisposed again soon. So...It's the best option , period. There is no way anyone in the US can sort out assorted variants of Islam, tribal ties, and how all that stuff interconnects. Anyone, say like Mr. haircut without a brain Kerry ought to know better.

I don't think Americans can catch the Sunni-Shia pox! No, but yes it's all over the Middle East, but so are people, especially young people, rising up for freedom, and I don't like ignoring them and not helping them.

1. 9/11 was a case of Sunni pox.2. Uh, ISIS is composed of young people, so what?

It's not reality; it's oversimplifying the facts.

Reality? Eric used the word, "reality". Pfffffffffffffffffffff~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~t.In Ericland , electrons travel at the speed of light!

Good; except again, oversimplifying. I agree with diplomacy. That's what we're doing with Iran, in hopes of staving off Israel's turning it into an ashtray.

So what if Israel does that? The fallout will go to Russia so let Putin deal with it.

Sometimes, not meddling can cause blowback too. Allowing Hitler to grab countries was not altogether a good policy.

We've had lots of blowback from the Mideast though. That means stop doing stupid stuff. Now, on the violence in central/south America, there is something we can do. Stop the inane war on drugs so the drug cartels will stop terrorizing folks down there. That is our fault.

That's OK, we can't please the jihadis anyway.

Oh, but they're those young people you keep prattling about. Here's what I think we can do. I remember we had our own jihadis bad in the 1960's. Let's ask the SLA and the Weather Underground about that stuff. Better yet, let's haul their sorry asses to the front lines. Serves those fuckers right. Mr. Ayers, please go over to the Mideast and die 'cause you bombed shit over here.

Creating fictions is not pragmatic. That's what you do if you ignore the Arab Spring uprising in Syria.

* dodo award for Eric. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Saftleven_dodo.jpg[chrome browser's stupid. Won't let me stick in images.] I came up with the above alternative. Deal with it. Maybe Mr. Ayers can teach those children well on how to make bombs. You can't deny that one Eric. I'm old enough to have lots of dirt on Boomers.

Well, they got their wish for a clusterfuck. But so did we when we had our Revolution and Civil War. Sometimes the price of freedom is to defeat the oppressor.

Yes. Have the Weather Underground go bomb the NSA office. It's in Utah. Perhaps Patty Hearst can be of assistance. The NSA is our own oppressor, right?

c. a new democracy

Not over there.

If we supply them the moderate rebels will win, and THEY will split the shit that Iran and Sunni bigshots shipped over

ISIS kicked their ass in Syria.

. Yes, it would be a nice move.Red supports the corporate capitalist agenda.a. Kerry is better than any Sec of State America could hope to have.b. America has a lot to learn.Kerry understands the situation. "We are open to any constructive process here that would minimize the violence."I can't disagree. However, we waste a lot of money on arms and defense anyway. It doesn't look like it's going to shut down anytime soon. So military and arms spending will happen.

So that means I ought to add to my RVICE IRA and buy Boeing and Martin Marietta then, correct? Now if I did that, then I'd be buying congress by proxy some more [just like my Exxon-Mobile] stock. Perhaps some stock in our "men in black" Blackrock would be a nice addon as well. I'd have a sub portfolio of MIC stocks to go with the tacky stuff like booze and nicotine stocks. Last I heard, some goody 2 shoes were dumping Exxon Mobile because they feel offended. BARGAIN time for Rags.

I think supporting good causes with arms is a better way to spend some of it, than invading countries for no reason and piling up arms we never use.Things aren't that simple in life.

Oh, OK, but again, let's draft our home grown experts that I fondly remember from the 1970's. Also as per above using the MIC for "good" can work for me as long as I get my swag.

If we take our marbles and go home, we have no cards to play.This case has already been proven. We did nothing; Al Qaeda and ISIS came in to fill the vaccuum we left, and take advantage of the chaos resulting from Assad's massacre and destruction continuing longer than it otherwise would have.

Nope, we meddled in Iraq and turned it into a failed state via de-Baathification. That caused a non functional police/military.Assad's stuff is a reaction to opposition. Despots just do that stuff.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The "bidding" of the "progressives" is the national interest. The bidding of reactionaries is the interests of a few greedy corporations...

-Ahistorical rubbish. The Free market is simply the free exchange of goods and services. It allows everyone the shot without being propped up or punished by the government. Progressives use government to prop up inefficient and corrupt businesses as long as they do the progressives work (the so-called "national interest"). The NIRA was a case in point. The best businesses hated it, but some ossifying big businesses loved it. Solyndra being exhibit one. In most cases, the punish the best businesses simply for being the best.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Data shows that Germany’s clean energy production has reached new heights...

-Huh. They talk about it being used, but I missed the part where they talk about it being economical.

The value of the materials, labor, and capital but into a Trabant was worth more than the finished product. Yet it was all over the roads of the DDR. Did that make it a success?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

...I would hope that extreme wealth for a small number, comfort for a few more and grinding poverty for the rest can be relegated to the dustbin of history...

-Economic mobility was greater when we weren't hampered by progressive policies. The New Deal and it's aftermath coincides with the death of economic mobility. As I've already pointed out, all those things (including income inequality ) that you lament are actually see their most extreme manifestations wherever and whenever progressive policies are in force.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

...we meddled in Iraq and turned it into a failed state via de-Baathification. That caused a non functional police/military.Assad's stuff is a reaction to opposition. Despots just do that stuff.

-THAT is a myth. The Ba'athists were a typical Socialist kleptocracy. They weren't any more efficient than anything that came after. It's sort of like the Reconstruction Myth; the Sunni Arabs in Iraq and ex-Confederates in the South have a lot in common.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-Ahistorical rubbish. The Free market is simply the free exchange of goods and services. It allows everyone the shot without being propped up or punished by the government.

Corporate rule does not allow everyone a shot. Without regulations, the most greedy and ambitious force other businesses out of the market, and control is gained by one or a few colluding companies. That is obvious to anyone who knows history, and you only have to go back to see what happened to our media, what happened to the coffeehouse industry, the video industry, etc. etc. And now they are trying to shut off the internet from all but the richest companies, just the way they already took over cable and jacked up our rates for that. We have no consumer choice in many fields because they are taken over by one or two companies.

Progressives use government to prop up inefficient and corrupt businesses as long as they do the progressives 'work (the so-called "national interest"). The NIRA was a case in point. The best businesses hated it, but some ossifying big businesses loved it. Solyndra being exhibit one. In most cases, the punish the best businesses simply for being the best.

Republicans focus on one company, but the fact is that many alternative industry companies are doing well, and partly because of government support, which is a good thing, because it IS in the national interest. The bailout of GM seemed to work too, But these are not permanent government ownership and operation of these companies.

-Huh. They talk about it being used, but I missed the part where they talk about it being economical.

Bloomberg reported that prices are falling.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-0...ar-energy.html

Here's one from RT:
"Solar energy now costs the same as conventionally generated electricity in Germany, Italy and Spain, a report has revealed. The research has warned, however, that high installation costs are impeding other countries from achieving grid parity.

An analysis by consulting firm Eclareon, carried out on behalf of an international group of sustainable energy interests has revealed the extent to which solar energy has integrated into the energy market. Gone are the days when electricity produced through solar panels cost significantly more that conventionally-generated power, as Italy, Spain and Germany have reached energy parity.

However, the study’s analysts said that poor regulation in Spain could hinder further progress. Madrid recently introduced regulations that make it illegal for people to consume the electricity they produce through their own solar panels.

“In countries such as Italy and Germany, both at grid parity and with proper regulation, PV systems (photovoltaic system) for self-consumption represent a viable, cost-effective, and sustainable power generation alternative,” said David Pérez, partner at Eclareon in charge of the study.

As part of the study, researchers looked at a standard 30 kilowatt solar power system and assessed its “leveled cost of energy” (LCOE). The LCOE accounts for all of the factors that contribute to the overall cost of electricity, such as: installation, maintenance, depreciation and investment.

Eclareon looked at the LCOE of solar energy in Brazil, Chile, France, Germany, Italy, Mexico and Spain. It found that across the board the LCOE had dropped over the last few years, although less dramatically in countries with a well-established solar infrastructure like Italy, Germany and Spain. Progress in Brazil, Chile and Mexico is still impeded by high installation costs.

Germany has blazed the trail for green energy in Europe after deciding to decommission all of its nuclear power plants, following the Fukushima nuclear catastrophe in Japan 2011. Back in 2012 Germany’s solar power plants produced a record 22 gigawatts of power, meeting around 50 percent of the nation’s power quota.

"Never before anywhere has a country produced as much photovoltaic electricity. Germany came close to the 20 gigawatt (GW) mark a few times in recent weeks. But this was the first time we made it over," Norbert Allnoch told Reuters news agency. "


Spain abandoned its socialist government a while back and went right-wing, so that would explain the slow-down in progress there. If you emulate American Republicans, you get nowhere fast.

-Economic mobility was greater when we weren't hampered by progressive policies. The New Deal and it's aftermath coincides with the death of economic mobility. As I've already pointed out, all those things (including income inequality ) that you lament are actually see their most extreme manifestations wherever and whenever progressive policies are in force.

According to every report, economic mobility has been hampered the last 33 years by your Republican Reaganoid policies. After 33 years of free market nonsense, the USA has become less mobile than other developed countries.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us...wer-rungs.html
"“It’s becoming conventional wisdom that the U.S. does not have as much mobility as most other advanced countries,” said Isabel V. Sawhill, an economist at the Brookings Institution. “I don’t think you’ll find too many people who will argue with that.”
"

But Glick will!

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

...Corporate rule does not allow everyone a shot. Without regulations, the most greedy and ambitious force other businesses out of the market, and control is gained by one or a few colluding companies...

1) "Corporate rule" is not the Free Market. In the free market, no run forces anyone else to do anything.

2) Define "greedy" and "ambitious." In what realm of endeavor is someone NOT supposed to do well for themselves?

3) In the free market, the only way one business (greedy, ambitious, or whatever) can drive another one out of business is if it continues to provides better goods and services at a cheaper price while the other business does not improve. And if the winning business wants to continue being the only business, it has to maintain it's standards.

All the examples you whine about were done with the CONNIVANCE of government through overregulation, high taxes, and the like which prevented competition. A current example:

http://www.american.com/archive/2014/july/uber-upstarts-technological-progress-and-its-discontents

The battle between new smartphone-enabled 'transportation network companies' and legacy taxicabs largely mirrors the age-old war over productivity, a war that only ever has one outcome...

Taxicab owners and driver’s unions have furiously fought back against TNCs in cities around the world. Last month in Paris, Madrid, Berlin, and London, cab drivers circled Charles de Gaulle airport, the Paseo de la Castellana, Olympic Stadium, and Trafalgar Square, respectively, in a successful effort to snarl traffic and enrage drivers...

Stateside, state and local governments have cracked down on TNCs using health and safety concerns as a pretext. For instance, in June and July alone...

Fortunately, the various TNCs have weathered, emerging from it stronger. Uber reported an 850 percent increase in signups following the London cabbie stunt; the worldwide publicity sparked by the protests has amplified the ridesharing companies’ own marketing efforts...

Originally Posted by Eric the Green;507745[/COLOR

]...The bailout of GM seemed to work too...

-The only ones it benefited were the UAW and a few middle-upper managers who would have gotten fired by whoever bought the company out. The taxpayer got stuck with the bill.

BTW, isn't it odd that the Obamanation essentially owned the joint and never found out about those switches until they sold it?

And you're quoting RT? Paging Justin and Appolonian!

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

...According to every report, economic mobility has been hampered the last 33 years by your Republican Reaganoid policies...

-Economic mobility was far greater during the supposed era of "Unbridled Capitalism" than in the period when the so-called progressives started to screw things up. The NYT clearly hasn't done their research (imagine that):

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2566845

http://www.nber.org/papers/w11324

The nineteenth and early twentieth century tables (1860-80, 1880-1900, and 1900-20) show approximately the same high degree of mobility, but the twentieth century tables all show considerably less mobility... (p. 11)

The consistency of the results across these data sets and time periods suggests that something fundamental changed in the U.S. economy after the 1900-20 cohort and no later than the 1950/56-1973 cohort and that this change dwarfs any changes in intergenerational mobility since the 1950s... (pp. 11-12)

The U.S. had more relative occupational mobility across generations through the 1900-1920 cohort than either Britain in the second half of the nineteenth century or the U.S. in the second half of the twentieth century... (p. 14)

["Cohort" refers to year of employment, not DOB as per S&H, e.g., the 1998 cohort sample equals 1958-1965 cohorts (p. 11)]

...but I'm sure you'll ignore it, because you didn't read it in HuffPo or an astrological magazine...

Another article:

http://online.wsj.com/articles/this-way-up-mobility-in-america-1405710779?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLE_Video_Third

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

...But Glick will!

-Because I actually know what I'm talking about?

Originally Posted by JDG 66

1) "Corporate rule" is not the Free Market. In the free market, no one forces anyone else to do anything.

But there IS no free market. Allowed by the government to do what it wants, business becomes corporate, and corporate rule prevails in the economy and society.

The power of money and private property is force, backed by the government and the police.

2) Define "greedy" and "ambitious." In what realm of endeavor is someone NOT supposed to do well for themselves?

Most businessmen have no interest in anything but making money. It would be nice if we as a species would evolve so that making money, fear and greed are not factors or goals in themselves. But we are not there yet, so utopian permissive economic schemes fail. The government is still needed to regulate and tax the greed of successful businessmen.

3) In the free market, the only way one business (greedy, ambitious, or whatever) can drive another one out of business is if it continues to provides better goods and services at a cheaper price while the other business does not improve. And if the winning business wants to continue being the only business, it has to maintain it's standards.

You can be successful, but less ambitious to expand by taking over other companies. Taking over other companies should not be allowed, in my opinion. But since we are not there politically yet, then there's no excuse for anyone to think that we have a "free market." We don't. Whether they are the best or not, certain companies swallow up others, and we have a corporate system.

All the examples you whine about were done with the CONNIVANCE of government through overregulation, high taxes, and the like which prevented competition. A current example:

No comment on colored writing.

Regulation enables competition; it does not prevent it. Without regulation, companies get ahead by cheating, robbing, stealing, hurting their customers; without regulation, the greediest companies swallow the others. Without high taxes, you have social immobility. Allowed to do what it wants, our economy has replaced workers with machines without compensation, and sent jobs overseas without compensation. Allowing business to do what it wants is trickle-down economics, and nothing trickles; only tinkles down on us.

-Economic mobility was far greater during the supposed era of "Unbridled Capitalism" than in the period when the so-called progressives started to screw things up. The NYT clearly hasn't done their research (imagine that):

I think they have; NY Times is reputable.

...but I'm sure you'll ignore it, because you didn't read it in HuffPo or an astrological magazine...

I will certainly ignore anything you write in red ink.

And one of those links you made is only to a small introductory excerpt about the 19th century.

Everybody knows that in the 19th century, a few companies grabbed all the wealth, and you had upstairs-downstairs; a class society ruled by robber barons who exploited the people with unsafe conditions, child labor and slave wages. Mobility existed only because the frontier existed for people to go out west and start something-- until it TOO became swallowed up by the industrial corporate society. The result? Great depressions and poverty for most people. ONLY the progressive movement and the New Deal made this system somewhat palatable, and created the first middle class in America in the 1950s.

There are no astrological magazines to read these days. But NY Times articles online are pretty good.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

But there IS no free market. Allowed by the government to do what it wants, business becomes corporate, and corporate rule prevails in the economy and society...

-You've failed to explain how a corporation (or any other private business) somehow forces people to work for it or buy it's goods or services without the government.

Oh! Latest example: Obamacare.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

...The power of money and private property is force, backed by the government and the police...

-No, it's protected by force. The police and courts are to help.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

...Most businessmen have no interest in anything but making money...

-"Making money" is just a simple way of saying "providing goods and services that other people are willing to trade goods and services for."

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

... No comment on colored writing...

-I'll put it in quotes, just for you, Eric:

http://www.nber.org/papers/w11324

The nineteenth and early twentieth century tables (1860-80, 1880-1900, and 1900-20) show approximately the same high degree of mobility, but the twentieth century tables all show considerably less mobility... (p. 11)

The consistency of the results across these data sets and time periods suggests that something fundamental changed in the U.S. economy after the 1900-20 cohort and no later than the 1950/56-1973 cohort and that this change dwarfs any changes in intergenerational mobility since the 1950s... (pp. 11-12)

The U.S. had more relative occupational mobility across generations through the 1900-1920 cohort than either Britain in the second half of the nineteenth century or the U.S. in the second half of the twentieth century... (p. 14)

["Cohort" refers to year of employment, not DOB as per S&H, e.g., the 1998 cohort sample equals 1958-1965 cohorts (p. 11)]

...now you have no excuse. The NYT article doesn't know what it's talking about. The loss of socio-economic mobility began sometime after 1920...

Originally Posted by JDG 66

1) "Corporate rule" is not the Free Market. In the free market, no run forces anyone else to do anything.

Yes, and this mythological state can be achieved in Cloud Cukooland, but is unachievable anywhere else. Power abhors a vacuum, and you are recommending just that.

Originally Posted by JDG 66 ...

2) Define "greedy" and "ambitious." In what realm of endeavor is someone NOT supposed to do well for themselves?

Red herring logic. Doing well is not the same as greed.

Originally Posted by JDG 66 ...

3) In the free market, the only way one business (greedy, ambitious, or whatever) can drive another one out of business is if it continues to provides better goods and services at a cheaper price while the other business does not improve. And if the winning business wants to continue being the only business, it has to maintain it's standards.

Tell that to John D. Rockefeller. The Standard Oil Trust pretty much vitiated that argument a century ago.

Originally Posted by JDG 66 ...

All the examples you whine about were done with the CONNIVANCE of government through overregulation, high taxes, and the like which prevented competition. A current example:

http://www.american.com/archive/2014/july/uber-upstarts-technological-progress-and-its-discontents

The battle between new smartphone-enabled 'transportation network companies' and legacy taxicabs largely mirrors the age-old war over productivity, a war that only ever has one outcome...

Taxicab owners and driver’s unions have furiously fought back against TNCs in cities around the world. Last month in Paris, Madrid, Berlin, and London, cab drivers circled Charles de Gaulle airport, the Paseo de la Castellana, Olympic Stadium, and Trafalgar Square, respectively, in a successful effort to snarl traffic and enrage drivers...

Stateside, state and local governments have cracked down on TNCs using health and safety concerns as a pretext. For instance, in June and July alone...

Fortunately, the various TNCs have weathered, emerging from it stronger. Uber reported an 850 percent increase in signups following the London cabbie stunt; the worldwide publicity sparked by the protests has amplified the ridesharing companies’ own marketing efforts...

So you're arguing that organizations operatng illegally are inherently better because they ignore the rules and just make money. If I come to your house and rob it, am I just being entrepeneurial?

Oh, and an 850% increase from "very few" yields 9.5 times "very few".

Originally Posted by JDG 66 ...

-The only ones it benefited were the UAW and a few middle-upper managers who would have gotten fired by whoever bought the company out. The taxpayer got stuck with the bill.

Originally Posted by JDG 66 ...

BTW, isn't it odd that the Obamanation essentially owned the joint and never found out about those switches until they sold it?

Weak even for you. I'm sorry, but omniscience is not part of the job. And keeping GM in business, as much as I personally dislike their products, was far cheaper than any alternative you might conjure.

Originally Posted by JDG 66 ...

-Economic mobility was far greater during the supposed era of "Unbridled Capitalism" than in the period when the so-called progressives started to screw things up. The NYT clearly hasn't done their research (imagine that):

The nineteenth and early twentieth century tables (1860-80, 1880-1900, and 1900-20) show approximately the same high degree of mobility, but the twentieth century tables all show considerably less mobility... (p. 11)

The consistency of the results across these data sets and time periods suggests that something fundamental changed in the U.S. economy after the 1900-20 cohort and no later than the 1950/56-1973 cohort and that this change dwarfs any changes in intergenerational mobility since the 1950s... (pp. 11-12)

The U.S. had more relative occupational mobility across generations through the 1900-1920 cohort than either Britain in the second half of the nineteenth century or the U.S. in the second half of the twentieth century... (p. 14)

H-m-m-m. Unbridled capitalism was subsidized up the wazoo. The railroads got land grants larger than all the universities. The extractive industries got virtually free access to the minerals under Federal lands (not that this has changed much in the interim), and taxation was primarily import duties, so native industry were both untaxed and shielded from competition. That's only the stuff that came quickly to mind. But feel free to dream on.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-You've failed to explain how a corporation (or any other private business) somehow forces people to work for it or buy it's goods or services

Nature requires people to eat and have shelter.

without the government.

The government does not force people to have a need to eat or find shelter.

Oh! Latest example: Obamacare.

What about it? People DO need health. Government is regulating the greedy, unchecked capitalist insurance companies that make health care unaffordable.

-No, it's protected by force. The police and courts are to help.

No, government creates private property and money. Look at a dollar bill sometime and see who's pictures are on it. Look at a deed and see who authorizes it.

If you want to be looney and go back to barbarian times in your ideas, that's fine, but you'll get no support. Guns and other weapons are also "the use of force," and whoever has the most force wins and becomes the government. Give it up.

-"Making money" is just a simple way of saying "providing goods and services that other people are willing to trade goods and services for."

That's fine; I'm not a socialist. But making money as a goal should not require you to be in the business of buying other companies and taking over markets, and making your money by harming others. But that's what happens in a "free market." If there were no monopolies, and no misconduct, then small business could provide goods and services and the best companies would survive without regulation. This does not happen, so government is needed. Conflicting interests in a community happen anyway, so like you say, courts and police (and bureaucrats) are there to iron them out.

-I'll put it in quotes, just for you, Eric:
....

...now you have no excuse. The NYT article doesn't know what it's talking about. The loss of socio-economic mobility began sometime after 1920...[/FONT]
[/FONT][/FONT][/SIZE]

I have an excuse. You wrote it in red ink.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

... Tell that to John D. Rockefeller. The Standard Oil Trust pretty much vitiatted that argument a century ago...

-Uh, no. The result of the SO monopoly (actually 90% of market share, IIRC) was that prices dropped and stayed low; that was the only way to maintain the monopoly. You proved my point.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

... So you're arguing that organizations operatng illegally are inherently better because they ignore the rules and just make money..

-No. I'm arguing that governments tend to make the efficient illegal for two reasons:

1) Stupidity;

2) Because the powers that be want to prevent competition.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

...If I come to your house and rob it, am I just being entrepeneurial?.

-Bad analogy. People want Uber. The taxi cabs want to use the power of the law to maintain their bogus monopoly.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

...I'm sorry, but omniscience is not part of the job..

-Really? So it's a coincidence?

Does the same rule apply to GM's top executives?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

...H-m-m-m. Unbridled capitalism was subsidized up the wazoo...

-Uh huh. You're seriously claiming that the government interfered in the economy more between the 1850s and the 1910s than they did after WWII? You haven't made that odd claimed that until now.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-Uh huh. You're seriously claiming that the government interfered in the economy more between the 1850s and the 1910s than they did after WWII? You haven't made that odd claimed that until now.

Marx and Lennon is correct; and I quoted the historian Gordon A. Craig of Stanford to that effect on my website:

http://philosopherswheel.com/freemarket.html

Hamilton won. Government subsidy is what enabled the railroads and other infrastructure to be built. It was not the "free market" alone.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Mark and Lennon is correct; and I quoted the historian Gordon A. Craig of Stanford to that effect on my website:

http://philosopherswheel.com/freemarket.html

Hamilton won. Government subsidy is what enabled the railroads and other infrastructure to be built. It was not the "free market" alone.

-Like Mr. Horn, you need to prove that government intervention was greater between the 1850s and 1920 than it was after WWII.

Good Luck!