Letters to the Editor
walter_map
Published Letters: 1438 Editor's Choice: 20
-
It gets worse the more you look at it.
[Read the article: Stocks fall on bad job news]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Just wait until it comes out that the Bush administration has been faking economic news. Then the equity markets will really tank, and there goes the economy.
Just one example:
Note that the Institute of Supply Management's most recent index had fallen below 50% - indicating a contraction in manufacturing.
On the other hand, the federal durable goods numbers showed a very substantial increase.
These two contradict each other. Who ya gonna believe?
The Bushites weaseled the CIA into faking 'evidence' to 'justify' the conquest of Iraq, so just think of how much easier it would be to intimidate the federal button counters.
And just why wouldn't they? Faking economic statistics would make it appear that Bush's economic policies aren't so bad after all, but would make it seem that those policies are doing some good.
Which isn't even remotely possible.
When the big decline comes, things aren't just going to be ugly. They're going to be weird ugly.
-
Proximity Warning
[Read the article: The bipartisan consensus on U.S. military spending]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]When I come across a rational person on this forum that asks me to defend my positions and will consider them duly, I will happily do so.
Which is just another way of saying you're never going to state your positions on the lying pretext that (in your opinion) there are no rational persons posting here.
That's evasive even by neocon chickenhawk 'standards', which could hardly be considered 'standards' at all.
The fact is, you can't defend your positions because they're indefensible. And you know it.
You do, however, demonstrate that all bullies are, at bottom, cowards.
-
Proximity Warning
[Read the article: The bipartisan consensus on U.S. military spending]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]When I come across a rational person on this forum that asks me to defend my positions and will consider them duly, I will happily do so.
Translation: "I'll state my positions if you promise to agree with me - in advance."
Cowardice becomes you, neocon.
-
Associative Individualist
[Read the article: The bipartisan consensus on U.S. military spending]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]ProWar
Have you shared with us, by the way, why you're not actually there, sharing the heavy lifting with Willy Peter?
You know how it is.
Somebody's got to stay behind and count the loot.
-
Oversupply?
[Read the article: Pop goes the solar bubble?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Oh, puh-leeze.
Ball, in his ersatz economic analysis, has completely avoided the economic principle of substitution, in this case, the replacement of high-cost suppliers - nuclear power and gas-fired plants - with low-cost suppliers, based on solar power.
Supply may exceed demand somewhat for some time, but the supply and demand curves will adjust, as they always do.
Balance will be restored.
Peace shall reign again.
Faith in free market forces will prevail, and bloom as they never have before.
Although perhaps at a somewhat lower price point.
Of course, so far as nuclear power and gas-fired plants are concerned, any supply from solar power is going to be 'oversupply'. That's likely what Ball is talking about. He's shilling for entrenched industry interests.
Ball should get a job for which he may be more qualified. No telling what that might be. Bush might have an opening for a PR guy with his qualities.
-
Tyler_Mason
[Read the article: Pop goes the solar bubble?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Firstly, solar has not reached parity with fossil fuels. As such, it is being propped up by a few sources. One is government subsidies, another is the hopes and dreams of environmentalists.
So long as we're discussing 'parity', you should also discuss how fossil fuels are subsidized by the government and how large costs - like pollution - are almost fully externalized.
To make a correctly parametrized economic comparison, you must discount the subsidies, the externalized costs, and the economies of scale. Do that, and solar power wins conclusively, even ignoring the likelihood of future improvements in solar technologies.
Since we're at Peak Oil and fossil fuels supply must decrease, and since solar has not yet fully exploited the economies of scale which are expected to be realizable in due course, the economic advantages of solar over fossil fuels must necessarily increase in the future. This realization may be the single largest driver of current investment trends in solar.
These analyses have already been done by Goldman Sachs but the public is not privy to them. They have also done similar analyses for wind power, which is why they're one of the biggest - if not the biggest - investor in wind-based energy.
-
Tyler_Mason
[Read the article: Pop goes the solar bubble?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I haven't failed to notice that Ball did not avail himself of your arguments, but instead felt compelled to resort to arguments which are patently invalid.
Ball smells like a shill for Big Oil, and he's shilling because they're scared, and they're scared because they've done the same analysis others have, and have come to the same conclusions: they're on their way to decline, and solar's eventual ascendancy is probable.