In article . net,
Maxprop wrote:

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article . net,
Maxprop wrote:

Not silly, but a good point, actually. You can be competitive in energy
or
you can have extreme environmental restrictions. You can't have both.
So
is there a compromise somewhere in the middle?


I disagree with both of you. You can be both environmentally sensitive
(ie reduce pollution) and be competitive in energy. But you have to
take some risks. I think nuclear power stations are the only feasible
solution, given current technology.

If you'll re-read my post, I think you'll see that that is what I was
implying. Neither extreme is feasible or desirable, but somewhere in the
middle exists a workable solution. There is stiff opposition to nuke power,
but it is probably the most effective, cleanest, most environmentally-safe
alternative to fossil fuels today. Given that same technology to which you
refer, I don't think there's much risk involved.

What people - not meaning you - keep forgetting is the cost of the
technology we have *now*. Thousands killed annually in coal mining.
Productive agricultural land trashed. Acid rain. Air pollution.
Radioactive releases (radon). Because we've been doing it for over 100
years, it's ok. By current hypocritical standards, you'd never be
allowed to build a coal fired power plant.

All tech is risky. It always can be improved. Matter of cost-benefit
analysis.

Jon seems a typical Californian. He wants the power for 21C life but
doesn't want to generate it, and *still* wants to complain about
environmental degradation.

Californians want other states to pollute themselves while producing power
for Californians. But don't even think of hydroelectric plans, windmill
farms (they kill the birdies), or nuke plants in CA, nossir.

Let them freeze in the dark. Or broil in the sun. I've never been keen
on people wanting all the benefits while shoving off the costs
elsewhere.

BTW, I agree with Bob Cranz. The Russian heavy lift chemical rockets
are a lot cheaper and on a tonnes lifted to orbit basis a more cost
effective solution than the Space Shuttle. Sure there are failures but
as long as it's cheaper to pay for the failures than the shuttle, so
what? Gotta look at the end result.

But as I pointed out in another post, the Soyuz program simply cannot do
many of the things that the shuttle program can. The expansion of the ISS
is virtually at a standstill while the shuttle program regroups. Some of
the larger parts simply cannot be taken aloft by Soyuz. There is a price to
be paid for utility.

I don't think the shuttle program will regroup. Not in any meaningful
sense. Indeed, from a long distance, I think it should be killed off
and replaced with a Mk 2 version. Call it an engineering prototype
that's reached its limit of usefulness. Don't keep ****ing money down
that rathole. FWIW I think space is a vitally important strategic
activity so it's not that I think the intention is a waste of money,
just the engineering.

But, that's about it. Not my problem if you can't produce stuff I want
to buy and it's got zilch to do with country of origin. Most
manufactured stuff is imported to Australia so I have no axe to grind
one way or the other. I just call it as I see it.

And I agree with most of your points, while taking issue with a few. The US
isn't the leader in producing goods, especially low-tech ones, that we used
to be. And we won't be ever again. But what concerns me most is that we'll
lose the advantage in the areas in which we are dominant unless we begin to
realize that the global competition is not waiting around for us to move.

Yeah, agreed. It's not even necessarily a 1st World vs 3rd World cost
issue, as people like Joe think. High cost European stuff sells pretty
well on its design and ergonomics right next to cheap stuff. High
quality & higher pricing can sell well. Alternatively high tech
automated factories producing stuff that is reliable and cheap is going
to work too. Anything in the middle is going to go to places where the
labour is cheaper.

Actually I'm not anti-US at all. Sometimes exasperated, sometimes
admiring, sometimes anti a particular bit of policy/stupidity, but not
anti-US. I lived over there for a while and I fit in right fine in AZ.
As a NM friend of mine said, tho, I'd rather be drowned in **** than
live in LA. Probably applies to New York, Chicago etc as well. I just
don't like big cities.

I'm offended. Take it back. LA is LA, and it's like no other place on the
globe. Chicago is a garden spot by comparison, gorgeously situated on Lake
Michigan and offering cultural and ethnic benefits not seen anywhere else,
and NYC is a cultural center beyond reproach. LA is a cesspool with
primitive lifeforms incubating in every nook and cranny of the place.

OK, I retract until I see first hand.

Ah well, we're gonna make a lot of money exporting LNG to whoever has
the money to pay for it, and before long we'll make a lot of money
exporting uranium too. We already make lots from exporting coal and
iron ore. Energy & resource poor, we're not. Pity we can't manage to
build efficient manufacturing but hey, as long as we can afford to pay
for our imports......

So can we.

So far, because foreign govts buy your bonds......

I'm not sure where you got the idea we were running out of
money, but we aren't.

Actually, you are. You're in debt. It's getting bigger not smaller.

http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_m...ionalDebt.html

Has some really interesting graphs.

We have proportionately more resources than you guys
do, and we get paid handsomely for them. And despite being toppled from the
pinnacle of the world's manufacturing heap, we still mfr. a great number of
goods and technology. We're far from hurting. Despite being burdened by a
consumptive war, we are still in very good shape. You've overgeneralized
out situation, and failed to realize that we're far from in trouble. Yet.

Agree. But you're heading into trouble and have been for a while. I
don't make the mistake of assuming that a trend will continue, but the
first step to changing one is the realisation that there is a problem.

I don't look at your GDP, really. I look at your terms of trade. Reflex
for me as we're a middle sized place with a lot of raw materials and
have developed an export focus, with a floating exchange rate. Your net
foreign debt is still growing.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/ENG407A.html

An interesting read, in hindsight, because things haven't crashed -
yet. However, living beyond ones means sooner or later ends.

I'm out of here for a few days so carry on the argument without me. Got
a ship arriving back after a 10 week research cruise, people to greet,
gear to fix, money to spend................

PDW

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..

What people - not meaning you - keep forgetting is the cost of the
technology we have *now*. Thousands killed annually in coal mining.
Productive agricultural land trashed. Acid rain. Air pollution.
Radioactive releases (radon). Because we've been doing it for over 100
years, it's ok. By current hypocritical standards, you'd never be
allowed to build a coal fired power plant.

Americans as a rule tend to overreact. Three Mile Island was an example.
No one died from that accident, AFAIK, but it is still touted as the primary
reason to scratch nukes as a power source. Funny, but no one mentions
Chernobyl, which was far, far worse. But the technology in that reactor is
one which we've never embraced, and never will.

All tech is risky. It always can be improved. Matter of cost-benefit
analysis.

It may become a matter of turning on the lights or not.

Let them freeze in the dark. Or broil in the sun. I've never been keen
on people wanting all the benefits while shoving off the costs
elsewhere.

Californians believe they are special.


I don't think the shuttle program will regroup. Not in any meaningful
sense. Indeed, from a long distance, I think it should be killed off
and replaced with a Mk 2 version. Call it an engineering prototype
that's reached its limit of usefulness. Don't keep ****ing money down
that rathole. FWIW I think space is a vitally important strategic
activity so it's not that I think the intention is a waste of money,
just the engineering.

I agree on all points. The Mk2 shuttle is apparently in the works, but the
real benefits of the spacecraft seem to get nixed regularly in favor of
cheaper, but older and inferior technology. An example: a heat shielding
material was developed some years ago that would make the sort of accident
that killed Columbia almost impossible. It was a solid (not tiled) hard
surface of very durable, continuous material. But it was expensive, and
some felt the Mk2 shuttle would never come to fruition, so the heat
shielding material research was scrapped. If the Mk2 shuttle is to become a
reality, it will have to utilize a self-launch capability, wherein it can
take off from a runway with scramjets, and then convert to some type of
thrusters usable in space. Complex, but as you imply the weak link of the
shuttle program in its current iteration is the launch mode with the huge
external tank and all the plumbing. It's costly, inefficient, and
hazardous.


I'm offended. Take it back. LA is LA, and it's like no other place on
the
globe. Chicago is a garden spot by comparison, gorgeously situated on
Lake
Michigan and offering cultural and ethnic benefits not seen anywhere
else,
and NYC is a cultural center beyond reproach. LA is a cesspool with
primitive lifeforms incubating in every nook and cranny of the place.

OK, I retract until I see first hand.

It would be a grievous error to judge American cities by LA. We have some
losers, but LA leads the pack by a wide margin. Some of our cities are
gorgeous and amazingly efficient. San Francisco, for example, is a rather
European-looking city with more aesthetic visual stimulation than the brain
can accommodate in anything under a week's visit. Denver, despite its
****ty air quality, has some fine points, and an impressive mountain range
to its western side. Seattle is also beautiful, if frequently cloudy and
wet. San Diego is among the prettiest cities anywhere, and the weather is
near perfect. I love Chicago, but I'm prejudiced--I live an hour and
one-half from it. Miami is another cesspool--avoid it.

Actually, you are. You're in debt. It's getting bigger not smaller.

Our government is in debt. Most of the private sector does quite well,
thanks, but that's probably because it is constantly changing and adapting.
Some segments of the private sector are hurting, such as the US auto
industry. Labor rates are too high, and American auto companies haven't
quite got it figured out yet that people want reasonably-priced,
economically-operated automobiles, but they want them to be reliable,
dependable, and worth something when it comes time to resell. Toyota has
that one figured out about as well as anyone.

Agree. But you're heading into trouble and have been for a while. I
don't make the mistake of assuming that a trend will continue, but the
first step to changing one is the realisation that there is a problem.

We'd be well-advised not to look to our illustrious government for the
solutions to that problem.


I don't look at your GDP, really. I look at your terms of trade. Reflex
for me as we're a middle sized place with a lot of raw materials and
have developed an export focus, with a floating exchange rate. Your net
foreign debt is still growing.

It is indeed. And that is troubling to most Americans.

An interesting read, in hindsight, because things haven't crashed -
yet. However, living beyond ones means sooner or later ends.

I'm out of here for a few days so carry on the argument without me. Got
a ship arriving back after a 10 week research cruise, people to greet,
gear to fix, money to spend................

I think we've flogged this dead horse sufficiently. Ciao.

Max

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...
I love Chicago, but I'm prejudiced--I live an hour and
one-half from it.

Ever been on 'the loop; during rush hour?



Labor rates are too high, and American auto companies
haven't
quite got it figured out yet that people want
reasonably-priced,
economically-operated automobiles,


Is that why half the cars on the road are big SUVs?
Have you niticed the car ads touting the 'bigger is better'
?



S

"Scotty" wrote in message
...

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...
I love Chicago, but I'm prejudiced--I live an hour and
one-half from it.

Ever been on 'the loop; during rush hour?



Labor rates are too high, and American auto companies
haven't
quite got it figured out yet that people want
reasonably-priced,
economically-operated automobiles,


Is that why half the cars on the road are big SUVs?

And when gasoline prices start knocking on $3, everyone with them panics and
tries to trade for a Prius, but no one is interested in taking them.

Have you niticed the car ads touting the 'bigger is better'

Is that why Ford dropped the Excursion from their lineup?

Max

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Scotty" wrote in message
...

"Maxprop" wrote in message

nk.net...
I love Chicago, but I'm prejudiced--I live an hour
and
one-half from it.

Ever been on 'the loop; during rush hour?



Labor rates are too high, and American auto companies
haven't
quite got it figured out yet that people want
reasonably-priced,
economically-operated automobiles,


Is that why half the cars on the road are big SUVs?

And when gasoline prices start knocking on $3, everyone
with them panics and
tries to trade for a Prius, but no one is interested in
taking them.

Have you niticed the car ads touting the 'bigger is
better'

Is that why Ford dropped the Excursion from their lineup?


Yes, it wasn't BIG enough.

Scotty

"Scotty" wrote in message
...

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Scotty" wrote in message
...

"Maxprop" wrote in message

nk.net...
I love Chicago, but I'm prejudiced--I live an hour
and
one-half from it.

Ever been on 'the loop; during rush hour?



Labor rates are too high, and American auto companies
haven't
quite got it figured out yet that people want
reasonably-priced,
economically-operated automobiles,


Is that why half the cars on the road are big SUVs?

And when gasoline prices start knocking on $3, everyone
with them panics and
tries to trade for a Prius, but no one is interested in
taking them.

Have you niticed the car ads touting the 'bigger is
better'

Is that why Ford dropped the Excursion from their lineup?


Yes, it wasn't BIG enough.

Whatever happened to that monstrosity that International was going to build?
It was built on their biggest panel truck chassis and looked like a small
semi-tractor with a pickup bed. My son-in-law and I watched nubile young
females crawl up into the cab of that thing at the Chicago Auto Show for
about ten minutes. What a babe magnet, despite being four times the size of
a Ford Excursion.

Max

"Maxprop" wrote

Is that why Ford dropped the Excursion from their
lineup?


Yes, it wasn't BIG enough.

Whatever happened to that monstrosity that International
was going to build?
It was built on their biggest panel truck chassis and
looked like a small
semi-tractor with a pickup bed. My son-in-law and I
watched nubile young
females crawl up into the cab of that thing at the Chicago
Auto Show for
about ten minutes. What a babe magnet, despite being four
times the size of
a Ford Excursion.


yeah, big trucks are babe magnets all right.

When I was younger, whatever I drove was a babe magnet.

Scotty

"Peter Wiley" wrote

What people - not meaning you - keep forgetting is the
cost of the
technology we have *now*. Thousands killed annually in
coal mining.
Productive agricultural land trashed. Acid rain. Air
pollution.
Radioactive releases (radon). Because we've been doing it
for over 100
years, it's ok. By current hypocritical standards, you'd
never be
allowed to build a coal fired power plant.

All tech is risky. It always can be improved. Matter of
cost-benefit
analysis.


Can wipe out entire towns, also.

http://www.shulersnet.com/coalcracker/fire.htm

Scotty