The U.N. ,Democrats, and their plan for America

No idea what you want me to understand from the posted statistics .. and why should I answer some random nonsense question that relates not to the discussion -

further - you build a big strawman as I never stated I was against any Biden package - which makes your post completely unintelligible nonsense.

 

I want you to understand that letting the pandemic rip with no lock-down of the economy costs lives. (In the US, the partial lock-downs in different states is ineffective, because the highly contagious virus easily skips through any state borders that are not strictly sealed...)

Therefore the issue is: how can the government support the idled workers that are not part of the essential workforce (food and utilities) during the necessary enforced lock-down of the economy

See above.

I didn't say you WERE against a Biden rescue passage; I want to know how big you think it should be, plus how to fund it.

Hence the relation to the OP "Dems. UN and their plans for America"; your answer to the above questions will illustrate your grasp of the issues raised by a global pandemic.

 

Never said otherwise mate.

 

You noted Michael Moore is "considered to be on the Right" by some, on the covid death toll issue, and you drew some conclusion from that observation.

Yet you are reluctant to reveal your OWN stance eg, nature, size and funding of a covid rescue package,.... are you concealing a neoliberal stance?:

neoliberal (definition)
adjective: favouring policies that promote free-market capitalism, deregulation, and reduction in government spending

(Note: I like to examine and understand the basis of political and economic allegiance).

BTW I cannot gain access to the thread 'Biden adviser assures Australia that America has its back'.

I mention that here just to test why that might be the case.

I said in that post that the pentagon is as evil as any institution that wants to maintain global hegemony. My thesis (in that thread) was 'authoritarian' China*, which we believers in 'democracy' are supposed to or are expected to loathe and fear, is more successful in reducing poverty AND creating wealth than the neoliberal West in which a level of poverty remains entrenched.

I explained the commitment to neoliberalism by both sides of politics in 2 party democracies devolves from the fact that money is power, despite the fact the money is created "ex nihilo" whether created by currency issuing governments or in private banks as in our Western neoliberal system.

* the chinese governement has greater than 90% satisfaction among mainland Chinese, according to a recent Harvard poll.

I also contended neoliberalism is the economic branch of an obsolete philosophy of classical liberalism with its 'sovereignty of the individual' meme...obsolete because our modern world is economically and ecologically intimately interconnected.

eg climate change - which iirc you reject as fantasy (why would you do that...) and the present pandemic...

 

I have brought up MM in the past but this was in relation to climate - not in relation to Covid. The idea that I conceal my position is demonstrably false made up silliness. You have clicked like on many of my posts which state my position clearly.

Classical Liberalism / Republicanism (which are the same) - would describe my leanings in part - but this is way simplistic - and "apologies" but I doubt you know what this is.

I favor a free market economy - but this does not exist in pure form - and ours certainly is not one. There has to be some regulations to keep monopolies and anti competitive practices in check. Ours is regulated but does not do this.

I favor adhering to the founding principles - something you don't mention .. obviously lower taxes are better - and reducing defense spending would please me - as would universal health care (as this is a right but also because it would cost half)

I have the best arguments against the anti aborts - and the best arguments against Trump.

Claiming I have rejected climate change as fantasy is pure falsehood on your part - I am a subject matter expert on environmental issues - having personally cleaned up hydrocarbon contaminated sites using innovative technologies that I have personally developed /introduced such as bioremediation.

I agree completely with your pentagon comments - difference being that I have posted gazillinos of examples in this forum on why this is true.

Covid is what it is - a particularly bad flue - there are differing perspectives on how to deal with this pandemic - just because I may not agree completely with your perspective - does not turn me in to some rabid conspiracy theorist in covid denial.

You have build a rather large straw man in my name.

 

I know what an apology is, and will offer it if I'm wrong.

Lower taxes are better, but not sufficient:

Why the Fed Needs Public Banks | WEB OF DEBT BLOG (ellenbrown.com)

" The only monies the central bank can create and spend are “bank reserves,” and these circulate only between banks. The central bank is not allowed to spend money directly into the economy or to lend it to local businesses. It is not even allowed to lend it directly to Congress. Rather, it must go through the private banking system."

Sounds like only private sector vested interests are being served there....that's why I want to find out more about China's banking system (which neoliberal economists have been predicting for years will collapse under massive debt).

Anyway that deals with my concerns re 'concealment'; and indeed a government take over of the economy to allow everyone to stay home during the pandemic would be very costly under the present Fed arrangements noted above. (My chief disappointment with this virus is it wasn't deadly enough to force everyone to stay home (except food and utility workers); if it was it would have finally destroyed the vested-interest-serving neoliberal monetary orthodoxy noted above (ie the public sector not allowed to create and spend money independently of private banks).

OK

"Hydrocarbon contaminated sites" are not 'carbon emissions', nor are they the polluted air in high traffic density urban areas.
But I won't argue about AGW, I just want free electricity, now technically feasible around the globe, funded by the BIS (who can create the necessary funds 'ex nihilo'... which you probably haven't considered - it certainly violates neoliberal orthodoxy).

and ours is certainly a minority view; some people think "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" precludes a communal solution to problems, ie communal solutions violate some principle of 'sovereignty of the individual'. .

It's not only a bad flu, it is also extremely contagious., which is why governments are forced into lock-downs to prevent the entire population catching the virus. In comparison, the flu is only ever caught by a small minority of the population in any season.

Hopefully dealt with now.

 

Good to recognize one's flaws - and the rest is a long convo - ending with .. were screwed glued and tatooed.

Dude/Dudess - you stated flat out that I was a climate denier - letting you know some of what I do for a living - was a polite way of saying you are way off base.. which you then double down on above.

Where did I suggest HC contaminated sites were "Carbon Emissions" .. or any of the other things you mention. The point is that I can run circles around you in a convo about "carbon emissions" -

and while Carbon Emissions are important - and you had the slightest clue what you were talking about - you would realize that CO2 is not the only environmental issue we are facing on the planet .. and in circles like the ones I walk - it is arguably not even the number 1 issue.
Ocean Pollution being one of the other contenders - and pollution in general .. which .. being an expert in the use of innovative technology to remediate contaminated sites .. I have some knowledge about these pollutants ... what they are - do - and so on .. and a wee bit of Academic Credential - half a lifetime of experience and research - this and other fields relating to environmental pollution.

We all want free energy - the reality is that we will need to go nuke to replace using fossil fuels for energy - anytime soon. Read something the other day suggesting that if we were able to get to mostly electric cars and such by 2050 - 2/3rds of our energy would still come from fossil fuels.

Now that is disturbing - and I hope that the prognostication is completely incorrect .. but I don't have much hope of that - and have some agreement of that assessment based on some of my own calculations .. so while perhaps not bang on .. not that far off. 2030 is a pipe dream.. head shakingly so.

What is more disturbing - is that by 2050 - at the rate we are messing with the Ocean - in combination with continued population growth and industrialization .. we are going to be screwed in that way - long before sea levels rise .. .. not to say CO2 warming is not important .. and in fact the ice sheets seem to be melting quicker - at an alarming rate ... something I have been tracking for years..

The point here is that there is an even greater danger - and it is one we are doing very little about.


and ours is certainly a minority view; some people think "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" precludes a communal solution to problems, ie communal solutions violate some principle of 'sovereignty of the individual'. .

Most flue's are extremely contagious. The worry was that this particular flue was much nastier than the other flues - viruses - diseases. Like if Ebola was really contageous/ airborn.

In any case - this did not turn out to be as Lethal as was initially thought it might be - we just did not know .. and lethality was higher in the beginning - or appeared higher.

Entire populations do not get a flue virus. 5-20% will catch the flue every year - a really big range and I think we can safely say that Covid is not at the low end.. but say 20% - Notice that it is normal for one or a few in a household to get a flue - and the others not. Just because you are exposed .. does not mean you will get Covid..

There are a bunch of people I know who have gotten this .. is hot and heavy where I am right now .. The daughter of one of our close friends got it - but her BF who sleeps in the same bed didn't - tested negative .

In any case - If there is going to be a lockdown .. we should lock down hard - a "Half Lockdown" is pointless.

 

No. "the rest" is extremely important, the guts of the matter. ("It's the economy, stupid"!)

How is money created? Answer 'ex nihilo'. The problem is vested interests in our western neoliberal economies insist money can only be created in private banks.

Why? Because money IS power, which vested interests by definition are determined to wield on behalf of their own advantage, not the community as a whole.

Pass

Nonsense. Half the world's surface is always covered in sunshine, and the wind is always blowing somewhere. Sufficient pumped hydro sites have been identified for renewable storage, to permanently run the globe on sun/wind. We can achieve the transition by 2050*. (And battery technology is improving apace, while nuclear might be a small contributor in some places).
* provided we ditch freemarket ideology, and have the BIS fund the entire transition. Starting today....

Correct: we are doing very little about poverty eradication. Note: eliminate poverty, and women automatically have fewer babies....

But again, the free market ideology is part of the problem; the cost of pollution is not recognised by profit seekers. Meanwhile China is determined to achieve a clean green economy by 2060 which it will do, given the capacity of China to manage private sector activity, including funding a 100% waste recycling industry.

The first sentence there in not correct, for the simple reason governments never feel the need to contain the spread of ordinary flu. Now certainly covid did not turn out to be as lethal as we first thought, but it IS extremely contagious, so even with a lethality rate not much higher than common flu, covid is now killing 3000 people a day in the US. (CDC fears 400,000 dead by March; an annual count 5 times worse than the worst flu season on record).

Addressed above. Likely 5 times as many covid dead in the year to March, than for the worst flu season on record.

Exactly. Impossible to achieve in the 'sovereignty of the individual' fantasy-driven US. Not to mention the sham "damage to the economy" that MS economists are falsely claiming.

In fact the air in Los Angeles and New Delhi etc during the initial total lock-down in April was cleaner than it has been for decades...and national governments could have maintained that lock-down for a full year at no cost to anyone....(I hope I still don't have to explain this point to you now .....money creation "ex nihilo"... get it?)

 

Your comments do not address any of the issues with other than hot air - repetition of some fantasy that you hope might be true. ..

Current market ideology is definitely the problem but you shoot your above argument in the foot. Think - If China will not get there till 2060 - how on earth are we going to get there by 2050 ?

Your dreaming.


The first sentence there in not correct, for the simple reason governments never feel the need to contain the spread of ordinary flu. Now certainly covid did not turn out to be as lethal as we first thought, but it IS extremely contagious, so even with a lethality rate not much higher than common flu, covid is now killing 3000 people a day in the US. (CDC fears 400,000 dead by March; an annual count 5 times worse than the worst flu season on record).

We may well get there by the end.

 

So you are denying there is sufficient engineering capacity and available materials to build the pumped-hydro storage necessary to support intermittent solar/wind?

Australia's Pumped Hydro Prospects "Destroy" Wind And Solar Arguments (solarquotes.com.au)

"Research out of ANU indicates pumped hydro storage projects already on the board are “more than enough to back up the grid”.
The more than 20 Pumped Storage Hydropower (PSH) projects currently being assessed or built in five states would accelerate the nation’s transition to an electricity generation system free of fossil fuels".

Australia is mostly a flat desert, so no doubt hydro storage is potentially available around the world.

Biden now says we will, by 2050; and presumably he is not even thinking about the impediment of current market ideology - which we both agree is THE problem - in this matter. Meanwhile China has a more difficult task, since they are still a developing country with a huge population.

 

I have never denied what you claim. You are way out in left field - making up nonsensical gibberish - and attributing it to me.

 

You said: "Current market ideology is definitely the problem but you shoot your above argument in the foot. Think - If China will not get there till 2060 - how on earth are we going to get there by 2050 ?"

I already told you, by building the necessary infrastructure (especially pumped hydro renewable storage) - beginning tomorrow. Stop wasting time which we may not have. China has to manage a much larger task, which it nevertheless will do.

 

1) You are suggesting that pumped hydro will solve everything - but have not given any backup for this claim
2) how does this related to my China comment ? If 1 is true - why is not China doing this ?
3) why is China's task much larger - and how does this effect the timeline - given they can mobilize resources much quicker.

 

[link)
1. Huge Global Study Just Smashed One of The Last Major Arguments Against Renewables (sciencealert.com)

"We just got some massive news in the ongoing drive to switch to renewable energy: scientists have identified 530,000 sites worldwide suitable for pumped-hydro energy storage, capable of storing more than enough energy to power the entire planet".

2. China has been flat out eradicating poverty for the 1 billion people not yet in the middle class (finally achieved this year) including remaining upgrading of housing and basic infrastructure (roads, internet) in poor rural regions, so it can't do everything at once.

3. Addressed above. Sufficient pumped hydro storage (as identified in the study noted above) obviously requires management of vast resources and engineering capability. China will need 4 times as much as the US. Even so, China has already installed the world's largest renewable capacity.

"IEA: one-quarter of global power is renewables
China continues to be the world's largest producer of renewable power from wind as well as solar photovoltaics, according to the International Energy Agency's Key World Energy Statistics report, released today.Aug 27, 2020"

 

None of what you are say in the first part makes any sense .... first off - storing energy and producing energy are different things - albeit connected. Here you claim unlimited storage - but have yet to provide unlimited power.

Nowhere is there any timeline or anything saying we will get there faster than China - which is "hoping" for 2060. You are saying we can get there by 2050 - faster than China - but nowhere is there any support for this claim. Do you not think China has considered pumped hydro storage capacity ? -- and if so .. why are they not saying 2040 instead of 2060.

Your claim of 2050 for the US has no support.

2) If China was to consume at the same rate as the first world - world resource production would have to double .. and with it the byproducts of that consumption = CO2 and Ocean Pollution.

In 2 there is a fatally flawed idea - common to many environmentalists who do not consider the big picture - and that is you are relying on industrialization .. Industrialization is the biggest environmental threat we face .. bigger than CO2 - bigger than Ocean Pollution.

 

So having shown the ability to provide more than enough storage exists, I now have to show the ability to generate enough solar/wind exists. Well it does. An area of about 100 miles by 100 miles in a desert in the US is sufficient to supply the entire US's energy requirements (google it yourself).

To the last point: Biden is saying it. But here's the point: if indeed human civilisation depended on elimination of CO2 emissions by even 2040 (which I don't think is correct but that is irrelevant) , we could do it. There are no resource, technical or economic barriers. I have proved that above...having addressed BOTH sufficient production AND sufficient storage.

That's just our junk consumer society. The quicker all nations ditch it the better.

Building dams and solar farms is not industrialization. In fact if we eliminated the junk consumer culture, so many resources and so much industrial capacity would be released we could go green AND reduce industrialization.

Worth it for free energy, plus a better world.

 

First off .. you have not shown the ability to provide storage - all you have done was make a claim - and you have not shown this claim to be true by providing a link - information by which your claim can be assessed.

Second - it is your claim - if you think we can be off fossil in the US by 2050 - it is up to you to show where this energy is going to come from.

Pie in the sky dreaming does not cut it.

 

What part of this don't you understand:

" scientists have identified 530,000 sites worldwide suitable for pumped-hydro energy storage, capable of storing more than enough energy to power the entire planet".

"The sites identified would rely mainly on solar photovoltaic (PV) and wind power to pump water uphill when the renewables are plentiful"

Don't let vested interests - and orthodox free market economists - get in the way. They are the real barriers.

 

It is your lack of understanding that is at the forefront here. I understand what you have claimed .. You have claimed that that the storage problem has been solved. followed by an unlinked appeal to authority (forgive me if you posted previously) .

Now previously you had not provided where the energy is coming from - but now you have wind - solar, which is good.

I agree that wind and solar could theoretically provide enough power - if we had the storage capacity.

I do not disagree that pumped hydro storage is a means of storing energy. What I do not see is any figures or data on how feasible or doable this technology is .. .some kind of assessment of this technology by which one might be able to determine if this is a realistic solution or not.

but in any case - the above does not address my question - which is how we get there prior to the Chinese who have claimed 2060 - in 2050 using this solution.

and if this solution is so good - how come the Chinese are not going down this path ?

 

Yes I did supply that link in post #264, under the word 'link' (unfortunately the link did not appear as the usual www. type, but it is a link). Notes from the research study:

"Only a small fraction of the 530,000 potential sites we've identified would be needed to support a 100 percent renewable global electricity system," says one of the researchers involved in the survey, Matthew Stocks from the Australian National University (ANU)".

As for China, presumably the above ANU quote includes China (ie sufficient potential pumped hydro capacity exists in China also).

But like I said, China is still faced with a massive upgrade to basic infrastructure (apart from green infrastructure) like transport and internet to its vast rural regions.

Nevertheless the CPC see a green transition completed by 2060.

But the real reason why NO country is fully on board right now with getting on with the job, is resistance from vested interests in the fossil fuel industry, and the associated problem of massive asset right-downs/stranded assets that will create massive disruptions to the globe's financial arrangements ( pension funds, insurance companies etc)

And the real reason for that - we already agree - is the current private banking arrangements associated with free markets.

In fact the required transition to energy globalisation - the mother of all nationalizations (in the old economic sense of the word) - represents a huge change in thinking re global co-operation

 

I do agree about vested interests not wanting to move off of fossil fuels - and there are ton's of things we should be doing but are not because of catering to those interests.

What I don't see is how this solution of yours can work -- not that it can't work - just do not have enough information - I will perhaps take a look at your link