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