Do you think the economy will collapse by September 2008?

[archenemyfan]

After the conspiracies of the NWO and all, I did some research and some of it is scary, just like the FEMA camps, and I wanted your opinion...
Do you think the economy will collapse by September 2008 and why?

This is a source I have,http://www.australia.to/story/0,25197,23040466-922,00,00.html
I found it while researching REX 84. I'm not going to get involved in an argument, I want what you think.
As for me-I don't know. I don't pay enough attention to the economy and politics to know all about this.

[MorganaFang]

No. Though I am pessimistic I highly doubt it will collapse. There is no reason why it would. What will happen is things are going to suck for awhile prices. Market is hitting lows but it will pick up again.

[UNODRAGONE]

I wonder about that report on the United States coming from Australia??? Any how, no I don't think it will collapse, don't give much thought into the whole Fema thing or the world ending soon. I have enough to worry about present day true and in front of me then to worry about what ifs. Things always get worse before they get better, the economy will find a niche and eventually stabilize. One thing about Americans, we know how to adapt at change, we may bitch and moan about it, but in the end we keep moving forward.

[archenemyfan]

The thing is a lot of theorists have said that and most of this was probably opinions from others interested in the subject. It is scary reading all of the info and thinking about the evidence but I have seen it, and I still don't know what to believe. Like UNO said, we all have enough to worry about, and I try not to worry about this, but there are times when I think long and hard about this and if it is possible. But UNO, remember the Great Depression? That took about a decade to adjust to, and since I don't know much about it, what finally ended it? Was it the war?

[greggchamberlain]

no.

because i do not think either the North American or global economies are in such weak and tottering shape or have been sliding towards that condition for any prior length of time to result in that kind of catastrophic economic event.

[UNODRAGONE]

The thing is a lot of theorists have said that and most of this was probably opinions from others interested in the subject. It is scary reading all of the info and thinking about the evidence but I have seen it, and I still don't know what to believe. Like UNO said, we all have enough to worry about, and I try not to worry about this, but there are times when I think long and hard about this and if it is possible. But UNO, remember the Great Depression? That took about a decade to adjust to, and since I don't know much about it, what finally ended it? Was it the war?

anything unknown can be scary as hell which is why I get why you think about it and it worries you, me I live by the moment, I can't worry about something that may or may not happen it's just not in me. Although I am learning more and more about American history (being that I was raised in another country) from what I understand about the Great Depression it ended with Federal Government programs which created jobs. Am I right guys???

[RQ]

Um, no. This is a ridiculous thread.

Let's make it into a game.
Everyone will ask a silly question which extrapolates something comparatively small into something catastrophic, and puts a timetable on it.

I'll start.

Do you think humans will colonize Mars by lunchtime next Tuesday?

[LV426]

Do you think Aliens will land and reveal themselves to us at 3:00pm on the 4th of July?

[RQ]

Do you think Aliens will land and reveal themselves to us at 3:00pm on the 4th of July?
YES.

[greggchamberlain]

uh uh, you two...

no cop outs now...

WHICH year?

:D

[archenemyfan]

Aliens will land in 2012.
:D
AND THEY WANT CANDY!

[Fenris_brood]

Aliens will land in 2012.
:D
AND THEY WANT CANDY!

Who wouldn't?

[ThrasherCub]

No, I don't think humans will colonize Mars by lunchtime on Tuesday, but I promise to be contemplating it while I eat.

No, I don't think aliens will land and reveal themselves to us at 3 PM on the 4th of July, but if you wait until later in the evening my city has a free 4th of July show put up my a local Church, and some of their stuff seems pretty fucking alien to me.

No, I don't think the economy will collapse by September. Arch, you and I had the good graces to be born and raised during a pretty good period economically speaking, and there wasn't a lot of very noticeable economic fluctuation during our lives. Given that, of course this looks like the end of the world; it seems like no one can afford anything anymore except slightly less gas than they had actually hoped to buy with the funds alloted, and the price of gold is kind of concerning.

There's no reason to believe this will last forever though or that it will get so bad we'll reach an economic collapse.

Read up on life during the Depression a bit. It'll make you feel better just having expensive gas and a crappy dollar.

[archenemyfan]

But doesn't an economy collapse eventually? That seems kinda logical and right to me... :shrug:

[ThrasherCub]

But doesn't an economy collapse eventually? That seems kinda logical and right to me... :shrug:

Why?

[chriz]

But doesn't an economy collapse eventually? That seems kinda logical and right to me... :shrug:

Every economy can collapse, but a good one usually just transforms.

I don't see us as being in trouble by later this year. I do, however, see issues with entitlement programs crippling us over the course of this century. We're in for some serious changes, either in how our government spends, how much it taxes, or something equally significant.

Either that or we'll hit some kind of breakthrough that will rocket our GDP growth into the double-digits, but you can never predict something like that.

[UNODRAGONE]

Every economy can collapse, but a good one usually just transforms.

I don't see us as being in trouble by later this year. I do, however, see issues with entitlement programs crippling us over the course of this century. We're in for some serious changes, either in how our government spends, how much it taxes, or something equally significant.

Either that or we'll hit some kind of breakthrough that will rocket our GDP growth into the double-digits, but you can never predict something like that.


agree 100% we always have a way of evolving and meeting the times at hand, I am already seeing the bank I work for coming up with stratigies to help people who are struggling with their mortgage to bring the foreclosure rate down. We may go through some hardships, but we always seem to come out of the other side, things always get worse and then tapper off

[chriz]

I'm thinking more about how stuff like Social Security and Medicare is going to bankrupt us unless we reform them.

Here, Ross Perot's site can explain it better (http://perotcharts.com/challenges/).

[UNODRAGONE]

I'm thinking more about how stuff like Social Security and Medicare is going to bankrupt us unless we reform them.

Here, Ross Perot's site can explain it better (http://perotcharts.com/challenges/).


thats probably my only worry right now, I started an IRA a while ago with the anticipation Social Security is not going to be there when this mental midget is old but still these baby boomers are retiring quick and I am just wondering what the hell we are going to do

[MorganaFang]

thats probably my only worry right now, I started an IRA a while ago with the anticipation Social Security is not going to be there when this mental midget is old but still these baby boomers are retiring quick and I am just wondering what the hell we are going to do

Marry a rich old baby boomer. :)

[UNODRAGONE]

Marry a rich old baby boomer. :)


hahaha baby boomers mean more then likely he has kids which is not in this mental midgets list of I wants lol

[ThrasherCub]

hahaha baby boomers mean more then likely he has kids which is not in this mental midgets list of I wants lol

Not to mention that the kids in question would probably be in your age range.

Of course, if you're still interested my dad is a Boomer. We could be siblings!

[UNODRAGONE]

Not to mention that the kids in question would probably be in your age range.

Of course, if you're still interested my dad is a Boomer. We could be siblings!


wouldn't I be your mother in law then????

[MorganaFang]

wouldn't I be your mother in law then????

I love this, if the economy does collapse let's all go redneck and be eachothers mothers/sisters/uncles.

[archenemyfan]

TC the reason why is because of a theory-everything falls one time or another. Well, I don't know who said it, but it seems pretty conclusive to me.

[MorganaFang]

TC the reason why is because of a theory-everything falls one time or another. Well, I don't know who said it, but it seems pretty conclusive to me.

Technically most civilizations do not fall, they change drastically into something else. Drastically being over a few years as opposed to a few months. Greeks, Romans, Celts, etc. etc. Have been engulfed by most of western culture today, adapted and changed.

[archenemyfan]

Well, what if it was planned? Something distracting the public's attention to something else, while the big picture is the real collapse of the economy? Like if 9-11 was or is a distraction to the NWO [which I have no clue why the government would do that or I'm dreaming.] The NWO is hard to believe because it's hard to believe it. It's like a holocaust but now they're supposedly going to execute everyone in the US and all the rich will run the world. Look it up-FEMA deals with it, and most of congress and the public do not know.

[Sazabi]

I think you're confusing the computer game "deus ex" with "reality"

[ThrasherCub]

wouldn't I be your mother in law then????

You know what? That was at the end of a long day after only 2 hours of sleep. You're lucky I figured out that you'd be related to me at all!

PS, this thread now appears to be about conspiracies (and the occasional inter-generational marriage)

[MorganaFang]

Well, what if it was planned? Something distracting the public's attention to something else, while the big picture is the real collapse of the economy?
Over 400 hundred years to develop our current economy suppose to be brought down in matter of days while no one is paying attention? Impossible. You must have very little faith in your fellow man.



Like if 9-11 was or is a distraction to the NWO [which I have no clue why the government would do that or I'm dreaming.] The NWO is hard to believe because it's hard to believe it. It's like a holocaust but now they're supposedly going to execute everyone in the US and all the rich will run the world. Look it up-FEMA deals with it, and most of congress and the public do not know.

Um Why should I look it up when you are trying to prove a point. Go forth, boyo, and cite your source!

[Gilenea]

Heard on the news today that the numbers are up after months of being in a decline, and we are now officially in an era of progress again.

Thought you'd wanna know, Arch.

Gil

[Vendetta]

Heard on the news today that the numbers are up after months of being in a decline, and we are now officially in an era of progress again.
What numbers?

[chriz]

Heard on the news today that the numbers are up after months of being in a decline, and we are now officially in an era of progress again.

If by numbers you mean GDP, that's been up consistently quarter after quarter for years. Yes, some people (*cough*Vendetta) will likely pull out some obscure and never-until-now-used definition of "recession" that somehow shows that despite no decrease in GDP, we've been in one ever since, I dunno, Bush took office and will end, oh, I dunno, the day Obama's sworn in.

[archenemyfan]

After reading your reply, I think Bush is a total idiot.

[archenemyfan]

Over 400 hundred years to develop our current economy suppose to be brought down in matter of days while no one is paying attention? Impossible. You must have very little faith in your fellow man.




Um Why should I look it up when you are trying to prove a point. Go forth, boyo, and cite your source!

First off, everything about the government when its shrouded in secrecy is all conspiracy theories. Some of them are indeed really frightening, and some of them are stupid. My fellow man? Are you talking about Bush or someone I'm related to? 'Cause I'm not gay... lol

Well, it's an example, but I was trying to describe it because I know I confused you...I'm wordy.


PS sorry for the double post. :shrug:

[BoxedCat]

After the conspiracies of the NWO and all, I did some research and some of it is scary, just like the FEMA camps, and I wanted your opinion...
Do you think the economy will collapse by September 2008 and why?

This is a source I have,http://www.australia.to/story/0,25197,23040466-922,00,00.html
I found it while researching REX 84. I'm not going to get involved in an argument, I want what you think.
As for me-I don't know. I don't pay enough attention to the economy and politics to know all about this.

I'm only going to reply to this in that it supports what I have posited in previous threads.

Archenemy, you originally pose a question as a thread starter, with what is either a preconceived notion or an inability to accept what others are arguing in counterpoint to your original question.

As such, I quote:

As for me-I don't know. I don't pay enough attention to the economy and politics to know all about this.

At this point, you're open to all ideas. Wonderful.

The thing is a lot of theorists have said that and most of this was probably opinions from others interested in the subject. It is scary reading all of the info and thinking about the evidence but I have seen it, and I still don't know what to believe. Like UNO said, we all have enough to worry about, and I try not to worry about this, but there are times when I think long and hard about this and if it is possible. But UNO, remember the Great Depression? That took about a decade to adjust to, and since I don't know much about it, what finally ended it? Was it the war?

Provide evidence of these theorists you're supporting as your argument to what already sounds like avoiding an idea someone already provided to you.

In addition, take it upon yourself to learn the history of the United States, it's readily available, even on the intarweb. Then you won't have to ask such ass-ended questions.

But doesn't an economy collapse eventually? That seems kinda logical and right to me... :shrug:

Again with the preconceived notion. It seems you had made up your mind before you even asked the initial question. Take the time to explain why it's logical and right to you, based on your research into economics, and if you're right, good for you. Otherwise, there's naught to do but learn from what others might say.

TC the reason why is because of a theory-everything falls one time or another. Well, I don't know who said it, but it seems pretty conclusive to me.

Beating a dead horse here, but it seems you've made up your mind. How much economics have you studied?

Well, what if it was planned? Something distracting the public's attention to something else, while the big picture is the real collapse of the economy? Like if 9-11 was or is a distraction to the NWO [which I have no clue why the government would do that or I'm dreaming.] The NWO is hard to believe because it's hard to believe it. It's like a holocaust but now they're supposedly going to execute everyone in the US and all the rich will run the world. Look it up-FEMA deals with it, and most of congress and the public do not know.

Do provide us with the official (and you know what that means) details, since no one has heard of it and you have. You're arguing theoretical constructs at this point to support your preconceived notion.

After reading your reply, I think Bush is a total idiot.

Took you this long, did it?

First off, everything about the government when its shrouded in secrecy is all conspiracy theories. Some of them are indeed really frightening, and some of them are stupid. My fellow man? Are you talking about Bush or someone I'm related to? 'Cause I'm not gay... lol

Well, it's an example, but I was trying to describe it because I know I confused you...I'm wordy.

I would argue that you've diverted the topic from your original question. Which obviously was not a question at all, but an attempt at fishing for answers that were contrary to your preconceived ideas, in that you could refute in what you thought was an intelligent way, the responses. How's that for wordy?

How about you do some thinking and research about what it is you want to provide counterpoint to, before you make a new thread.

[Gilenea]

Heard on the news today that the numbers are up after months of being in a decline, and we are now officially in an era of progress again.

Thought you'd wanna know, Arch.

Gil

So you know, that was a complete destroyer of your entire point. The economy can and will go up and down.

I don't know why you thanked me.

Gil

[MorganaFang]

First off, everything about the government when its shrouded in secrecy is all conspiracy theories.

Hate to burst your bubble but the government is not really shrouded in secrecy. People know that there is corruption in our government and there is always means to find out what the corruption may be if it is not completely obvious already. Most people are pretty comfortable with the status quo or feel unable to do anything (yo).

My fellow man? Are you talking about Bush or someone I'm related to? 'Cause I'm not gay... lol

Oh man your school and parents have failed you miserably on educating you. Fellow man is an expression for the people you habit the world with, both genders.

The thing you are not getting that goes beyond politics and hyper paranoid bullshit is people have it built in their instincts to survive. I'm dubious that a mass majority of people who decended from revolutionaries and immigrants would give up so easily to a small minority of people.

Well, it's an example, but I was trying to describe it because I know I confused you...I'm wordy.


Did not confuse me, you said it as if it were a true statement you believed in. I took it as such.

You fucked up by not saying anything about an example. Seriously, work harder. No one here is going to read your mind.

[Vendetta]

If by numbers you mean GDP, that's been up consistently quarter after quarter for years. Yes, some people (*cough*Vendetta) will likely pull out some obscure and never-until-now-used definition of "recession" that somehow shows that despite no decrease in GDP, we've been in one ever since, I dunno, Bush took office and will end, oh, I dunno, the day Obama's sworn in.
Hey Chris, I wasn't aware you were an economist. The NBER, which is the US Bureau of Economic Research, determines whether we are in a recession or not. And I've got news for you, they don't solely rely on GDP (which would be stupid to do anyway.)

Also, the President of the NBER, Martin Feldstein (a Harvard University economist) said in March that "I believe the U.S. economy is now in recession." (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ag0t9NpkLkz0&refer=home)

Also, from the NBER's website:

"Most of the recessions identified by our procedures do consist of two or more quarters of declining real GDP, but not all of them. Our procedure differs from the two-quarter rule in a number of ways. First, we consider the depth as well as the duration of the decline in economic activity. Recall that our definition includes the phrase, 'a significant decline in economic activity.' Second, we use a broader array of indicators than just real GDP. One reason for this is that the GDP data are subject to considerable revision. Third, we use monthly indicators to arrive at a monthly chronology."

[blueeyes]

To be clear, the NBER is a private, non-profit institute. It's old enough and popular enough for people to pay attention, but its beliefs are just beliefs. It's not the United States anything.

The definition the NBER uses is for recession is "a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production and wholesale-retail sales."

You'll notice that the man said "believe". Declaring a recession by the NBER's metric rather than the traditional GDP rule is a literal art form, and tends to say as much about the speaker's viewpoint as anything else. Given that he's been snubbed by Republicans since Reagan promptly ignored his deficit hawk advice, and has addition reason to dislike Bush after the man was passed over for a political appointment, I can't really blame him. But both retail sales and GDP have been increasing, albeit slower than normal, and while real income is rather difficult to prove one way or the other, it doesn't appear to be decreasing significantly from the reports I can find. Unemployment is up, and that seems to be the most relevant matter, but it's more of interest to the NBER's definition process than to established workers -- nearly all of the increase in unemployment comes from people coming into the job market from graduation. He also stated, to Congress, that he expected economic growth by the second half of the year (http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?sto ry_id=11016296).

[Vendetta]

To be clear, the NBER is a private, non-profit institute. It's old enough and popular enough for people to pay attention, but its beliefs are just beliefs. It's not the United States anything.
Uhh it's opinions are used by the administrations of the US though. I fail to see how this somehow discredits their work or findings.

He also stated, to Congress, that he expected economic growth by the second half of the year (http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?sto ry_id=11016296).
Wow, do you juts LIKE giving me ammunition (for your guns!) or what?! From that SAME article you linked:

"The official judges of American downturns—a group of academics at the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)"

"Contrary to popular belief, recession does not require two consecutive quarters of falling output."

"Others are more pessimistic. In its latest World Economic Outlook, published on April 9th, the IMF slashed its forecasts for America's economy both this year and next. It now expects GDP to shrink in every quarter of this year. By the fourth quarter the economy will be 0.7% smaller than a year before. (Only three months ago the fund expected a rise of 0.9%.) Nor does the IMF expect 2009 to be much better: GDP will grow, but at well below its trend rate."

Also, I don't see anywhere in that article where Feldstein says we will recover in the later half of the year. Only Bernanke says that to Congress.

What I don't understand is how some of you seem to have a Emperor's Clothes attitude to towards our economy. I mean what's the point? I'm not laying the blame at the feet of the administration, as a lot of what's causing the recession was outside of their control or unforseable by most (at least not without heavy regulation or a crystal ball.) I mean look, I wish the economy was better too, and that unemployment wasn't at a whopping 5.1% and that salaries weren't falling (or at least freezing.) But I think walking around with blinders on is far, far worse than admitting that there's a problem, and working to solve it.

[archenemyfan]

The reason why I started this was because I really wanted to know what you thought of it and if something like the NWO will happen. But it's scary, all the shit that I've researched is so glued in my mind that I can't get rid of it. That's why I'm paranoid about this MorganaFang, and I wanted your assurance because you're smarter than me, well, all of you are, I'll admit. And i'm a teenager going through life, still learning and that. If you think it's an excuse, it's not. I want to thank you for all the shit you gave me cause it has paid off, enduring other shit besides this. But, as for the economy collapsing....What Gil told me was just awhile ago, the whole numbers going up and all, but that's now? How can you be so sure it's not going to happen in September or late August?

BoxedCat- I don't study economics, I study music and werewolves.
:)

[greggchamberlain]

Quote:
Originally Posted by UNODRAGONE
hahaha baby boomers mean more then likely he has kids which is not in this mental midgets list of I wants lol

Not to mention that the kids in question would probably be in your age range.

Of course, if you're still interested my dad is a Boomer. We could be siblings!

* * *

that would be cruel and unusual punishment and i think that either the U.N. or the Geneva Convention has an opinion about that sort of thing.

:D

[RQ]

You people are totally ruining my game.

Haters.

[UNODRAGONE]

Quote:
Originally Posted by UNODRAGONE
hahaha baby boomers mean more then likely he has kids which is not in this mental midgets list of I wants lol

Not to mention that the kids in question would probably be in your age range.

Of course, if you're still interested my dad is a Boomer. We could be siblings!

* * *

that would be cruel and unusual punishment and i think that either the U.N. or the Geneva Convention has an opinion about that sort of thing.

:D

:confused: I would love TC as my real sis :(

[greggchamberlain]

sorry...my mistake...confused TC with PT...

and i APOLOGIZE to ThrasherCub for that one!

waits at a safe distance from Ground Zero for Pickle Tickler's reaction :D

[BoxedCat]

The reason why I started this was because I really wanted to know what you thought of it and if something like the NWO will happen. But it's scary, all the shit that I've researched is so glued in my mind that I can't get rid of it. That's why I'm paranoid about this MorganaFang, and I wanted your assurance because you're smarter than me, well, all of you are, I'll admit. And i'm a teenager going through life, still learning and that. If you think it's an excuse, it's not. I want to thank you for all the shit you gave me cause it has paid off, enduring other shit besides this. But, as for the economy collapsing....What Gil told me was just awhile ago, the whole numbers going up and all, but that's now? How can you be so sure it's not going to happen in September or late August?

And yet again, you put forth the SAME question in your original post title that really, without cited economic sources that you yourself have looked into, you expect people to answer, which will in turn be counterpointed by what you've already preconceived in your own mind.

Welcome to the revolving circus, folks.

As an addendum, it might be noted that you reference "all the shit I've researched", which is noticeably absent in your particular arguments.

The rest is just excuse after excuse for doing what I've already quite well pointed out.

BoxedCat- I don't study economics, I study music and werewolves.
:)


You might want to learn this phrase: "Welcome to McDonald's, may I take your order?"

[Sazabi]

As an addendum, it might be noted that you reference "all the shit I've researched", which is noticeably absent in your particular arguments.


Excuse me, he's a researcher of WEREWOLVES and MUSIC. He knows his shit and doesn't need to waste his time with stupid-shit-for-fags like citations.

[Galliard]

Personally, those numbers from the websites given, they don't scare me very much. After all, they're not even a full percentile. Meaning, in my eyes at least, that things are still more or less stable. When they start jumping to fifteen or twenty percent, then I'll worry.

And Arch, you really should be stockpiling your food for WWIII! You know it's going to happen once the stock market crashes! Make sure you get something that can refine your water, like a wood stove with coffee filters to catch all the radioactive impurities!

I'm sorry, but I had to. It wasn't intended to hurt your feelings Arch, but if you want to talk conspiracies, find a different forum, or start a thread "Conspiracies galore!" That way, people are forewarned that you're actually talking about things that are a) unprovable or b) "really exist but people don't want to talk about it."

[Vendetta]

Personally, those numbers from the websites given, they don't scare me very much. After all, they're not even a full percentile. Meaning, in my eyes at least, that things are still more or less stable. When they start jumping to fifteen or twenty percent, then I'll worry.
You know there are not just two extremes like stability and full-fledged economic collapse, right? There's a full spectrum of economic grey area, a lot of which can spell bad-news. And even fractions of a percentage point can make a big difference, especially in stock markets or when you're talking about hundreds of billions of dollars.

[archenemyfan]

Personally, those numbers from the websites given, they don't scare me very much. After all, they're not even a full percentile. Meaning, in my eyes at least, that things are still more or less stable. When they start jumping to fifteen or twenty percent, then I'll worry.

And Arch, you really should be stockpiling your food for WWIII! You know it's going to happen once the stock market crashes! Make sure you get something that can refine your water, like a wood stove with coffee filters to catch all the radioactive impurities!

I'm sorry, but I had to. It wasn't intended to hurt your feelings Arch, but if you want to talk conspiracies, find a different forum, or start a thread "Conspiracies galore!" That way, people are forewarned that you're actually talking about things that are a) unprovable or b) "really exist but people don't want to talk about it."

Well, the thing is I don't even know if it IS a conspiracy! How about this: http://youtube.com/watch?v=0P-hvPJPTi4

And this: http://youtube.com/watch?v=RpXh7DCptaQ&feature=related

And here's the blueprint of it all; REX 84, and if you look closely, it was finalized in 2005! I have it on my computer!
http://www.history.army.mil/books/DAHSUM/1984/ch02.htm

That's only a couple pages, but there's 37 pages total to the document.
I just want to know...did you open your eyes?

[Vendetta]

Well, the thing is I don't even know if it IS a conspiracy! How about this: http://youtube.com/watch?v=0P-hvPJPTi4

And this: http://youtube.com/watch?v=RpXh7DCptaQ&feature=related\
First off Arch, WTF does this have to do with the economy? TRY and keep your ADD in check. Also, none of those videos you posted relate to ANY conspiracies.

And here's the blueprint of it all; REX 84, and if you look closely, it was finalized in 2005! I have it on my computer!
http://www.history.army.mil/books/DAHSUM/1984/ch02.htm

That's only a couple pages, but there's 37 pages total to the document.
I just want to know...did you open your eyes?
Only long enough to yawn. Dude, finalized in 2005?!? Those are historical military guides from 1984! Hence the www.HISTORY.army.mil .

Look, I thought it was cool to look into the occult and wild conspiracies when I was your age too. The difference is, I didn't go around BELIEVING every damn thing. Use your head, and do some damn research.

[blueeyes]

To be clear, the United States military has plans for responding to a simultaneous attack by Canada and the United Kingdom. Plans. Not one. Many, depending on what and where was hit, and the political response.

It's rather obviously not going to happen any time soon, but that's what these people do. It's even the unofficial motto of a few groups (http://www.michaeltotten.co m/archives/2008/01/a-plan-to-kill.php), phrased up to and including "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everyone you meet"!

That doesn't mean the Marine crossing the street wants to kill everyone he meets. It's a matter of policy. It's what a lot of people are trained and paid to do.

And, generally speaking, it's not a bad thing. The war in the Pacific during World War II actually followed these sorta plans pretty far in. It's not exactly expensive to create them -- the more outlandish ones are typically slapped together as thought experiments during classes -- or keep them. The government still can't find its backside with an atlas with these damned things; the situations where they don't have preparations and plans tend to be even worse.

This isn't even the oddest readiness exercise I've seen, in all honesty.

[chriz]

Hey Chris, I wasn't aware you were an economist. The NBER, which is the US Bureau of Economic Research, determines whether we are in a recession or not. And I've got news for you, they don't solely rely on GDP (which would be stupid to do anyway.)

Also, the President of the NBER, Martin Feldstein (a Harvard University economist) said in March that "I believe the U.S. economy is now in recession." (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ag0t9NpkLkz0&refer=home)

Also, from the NBER's website:

"Most of the recessions identified by our procedures do consist of two or more quarters of declining real GDP, but not all of them. Our procedure differs from the two-quarter rule in a number of ways. First, we consider the depth as well as the duration of the decline in economic activity. Recall that our definition includes the phrase, 'a significant decline in economic activity.' Second, we use a broader array of indicators than just real GDP. One reason for this is that the GDP data are subject to considerable revision. Third, we use monthly indicators to arrive at a monthly chronology."

Like I said...

[chriz]

Sorry, but I went back and read one of your other replies.

I mean look, I wish the economy was better too, and that unemployment wasn't at a whopping 5.1% and that salaries weren't falling (or at least freezing.)

Whopping 5.1%?

Whopping? WTF? You can't possibly be that economically illiterate.

http://www.csus.edu/indiv/j/jensena/sfp/us/US_UR_50.jpg

[Vendetta]

Sorry, but I went back and read one of your other replies.



Whopping 5.1%?

Whopping? WTF? You can't possibly be that economically illiterate.

http://www.csus.edu/indiv/j/jensena/sfp/us/US_UR_50.jpg
Uhh dude, I'M not the one that thinks that's high, the BLS does. Also, according to the DoL's June numbers, it's up to 5.5%, and we've had job losses now for the past 6 months in a row.

Also, maybe if you looked, you'd see that the BLS themselves (http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet? request_action=wh&graph_name=LN_cpsbre f3) indicate that unemployment went up during the last recession.
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/graphics/lns14000000_92014_12 15147956659.gif

Again, I ask you, why do you keep insisting that the emperor has clothes?

[chriz]

Uhh dude, I'M not the one that thinks that's high, the BLS does. Also, according to the DoL's June numbers, it's up to 5.5%, and we've had job losses now for the past 6 months in a row.

OH NOES! 5.5%! (Which will get adjusted down; the current quarter's unemployment is usually overstated and brought down the following quarter when more data becomes available.)

Also, maybe if you looked, you'd see that the BLS themselves indicate that unemployment went up during the last recession.

So since unemployment goes up (or can go up) during recessions, any increase in unemployment equals a recession? Otherwise, what's your point?

Again, I ask you, why do you keep insisting that the emperor has clothes?

I'm keeping an eye on the economy, but as with the current administration, the war in Iraq, and global warming, I don't see any reason to run around like an alarmist idiot. The only issue I see are entitlement programs that could cause real problems in the coming decades, but there are a few solutions to that. It's just a matter of choosing some and sticking to them.

The emperor's well dressed, he's just spending a little more than he can afford right now.

[Galliard]

I just want to know...did you open your eyes?


Yes, and I shut them again because my head hurt. :p

[BoxedCat]

Well, the thing is I don't even know if it IS a conspiracy!

How about this: http://youtube.com/watch?v=0P-hvPJPTi4

And this: http://youtube.com/watch?v=RpXh7DCptaQ&feature=related

Do you realize how dated these videos are? And do they support your original question that this thread is supposed to be about? Do you know who the man in question in your second video link is?

And here's the blueprint of it all; REX 84, and if you look closely, it was finalized in 2005! I have it on my computer!
http://www.history.army.mil/books/DAHSUM/1984/ch02.htm

If this were so groundbreaking in terms of a government conspiracy, don't you think your door would have been knocked down hours ago? On the flip side, if we don't hear from you, I'll both mourn and rejoice the fact.

That's only a couple pages, but there's 37 pages total to the document.
I just want to know...did you open your eyes?

To what, memories of watching Thundercats?

[Galliard]

To what, memories of watching Thundercats?

NO, of My Little Ponies! Fear the Ponies!

[archenemyfan]

What the hell is Thundercats? If it was on cartoon network or something, I probably never heard of it.

[Galliard]

What the hell is Thundercats? If it was on cartoon network or something, I probably never heard of it.

Yeah, considering your age, you might not have watched it, but it was a popular cartoon in the 80's. It was on the cartoon network for awhile. I wonder if they still show it on Boomerang?

[DarkWolf]

Yeah, considering your age, you might not have watched it, but it was a popular cartoon in the 80's. It was on the cartoon network for awhile. I wonder if they still show it on Boomerang?
Off-topic: I used to love that show. Surprise of all surprises. Snarf (a.k.a. Oswald, if memory serves) was awesome.

On topic: No (response to title question).

[BoxedCat]

What the hell is Thundercats? If it was on cartoon network or something, I probably never heard of it.

http://img68.imageshack.us/img68/5996/25896310551dac59640d kc6.jpg

http://media.ebaumsworld.co m/picture/kamikazeklown/thundercats.jpg

Yeah, considering your age, you might not have watched it, but it was a popular cartoon in the 80's. It was on the cartoon network for awhile. I wonder if they still show it on Boomerang?

That would be right about the time the particular video he provided was made...hence my particular cultural reference.

Toonami showed it for a while, and from what I read, there's a live action movie in the works.

Off-topic: I used to love that show. Surprise of all surprises. Snarf (a.k.a. Oswald, if memory serves) was awesome.

Yeah, but he was a little bitch. As such, I suggest we call AEF "Snarf" from now on. For example....

Snaaaarrfff, what the hell is Thundercats, snarf? If it was on cartoon network or something, snarf, I probably never heard of it. Snaaaarfff

[Sazabi]

Am I the only one who grew up when thundercats was airing and still thought that shit was gay as fuck as a 5-year old? I don't think I managed to sit through a single episode without getting ADHD and finding something better to watch

[LV426]

Shut up Saz, you're just jealous because your sword didn't grow when called upon.

[BoxedCat]

Am I the only one who grew up when thundercats was airing and still thought that shit was gay as fuck as a 5-year old? I don't think I managed to sit through a single episode without getting ADHD and finding something better to watch

Unfortunately, this and Transformers were the height of entertainment until Bruce Timm figured out how to do Batman appropriately.

[Galliard]

There was also G- Force and Gundam...

[Lysander]

5.1% is very close to statistical unemployment, you know, that bunch of people who will always be unemployed no matter what?

The biggest economic concern is fuel prices. There is a building pressue to drill for domestic oil, which would severely help todays economic woes. While starting to drill tomorrow may not bring any fuel to the market for a couple years, it will ease prices by shoring up concerns about future supplies, and if they dont drill and bring more oil to market, the prices will be that much higher and our 'recession' will last that much longer.

I know this is anecdotal, but I live in a modest neighborhood, average house size is probably 2900sq ft. And either most of my neighbors had a rich relative die, or their jobs are really paying still, as they are adding in-ground pools, nice porches, new driveways, landscaping etc.

[archenemyfan]

Wait. I remember the symbol..but that's about it.

Gas prices sucks! But we did find 3.90 in Trafalgar yesterday. In vegas, where i usually am, it's at least 4.30 as of now. it was a little less when I was there.

[MorganaFang]

The biggest economic concern is fuel prices. There is a building pressue to drill for domestic oil, which would severely help todays economic woes. While starting to drill tomorrow may not bring any fuel to the market for a couple years, it will ease prices by shoring up concerns about future supplies, and if they dont drill and bring more oil to market, the prices will be that much higher and our 'recession' will last that much longer.

No, drilling oil would not "severely help" anything other than eliviating some our dependency on foreign. It will do absolute zero to fuel prices, even oil companies own up to this.

edit: for the record there really is not an oil shortage, there is plenty of oil still

[Galliard]

I am all for walking or taking the bus. Don't like oil prices? I take the bus for a dollar and thirty cents, and it gets me most anywhere I want to go. Yeah, it's inconvenient in some manners, like the timing for it (it takes three hours to get from one end of Omaha to the other)but hey, if you want a cheap way to travel your city...

And as for the walking: I live two and a half miles from work. It's a 45 minute walk, and I can already tell that I'm losing some weight by walking every day. So, if you really want to save money, because OH NOES we're in a recession, then try that. Also, if you find you can't take the bus, there's carpooling. There are probably websites for your local area for people who go to the same area as you for employment.

[chriz]

The biggest economic concern is fuel prices. There is a building pressue to drill for domestic oil, which would severely help todays economic woes. While starting to drill tomorrow may not bring any fuel to the market for a couple years, it will ease prices by shoring up concerns about future supplies, and if they dont drill and bring more oil to market, the prices will be that much higher and our 'recession' will last that much longer.

Fuel prices are an issue, but they're solvable. We resist domestic drilling but I think we'll only continue to do so for a short time. Once it sinks in that OPEC isn't going to increase production, people will want their cheap gas again. The environmentalists have been humored because foreign oil has, until recently, been so cheap.

No, drilling oil would not "severely help" anything other than eliviating some our dependency on foreign. It will do absolute zero to fuel prices, even oil companies own up to this.

There's some truth here. When oil prices started going up, demand increased right along with it. However, the national demand is starting to drop off, which means we in the US are hitting about the maximum we'll pay for it. It'll probably continue to climb for a bit, but at a slower pace.

However, the price is a function of supply vs. demand. The reason oil prices went up in these past few years is because global demand increased, with India and China ramping up their consumption. Supply couldn't keep up, and so the price rose. If we in the US started supplying our own oil, and there's more than enough to meet the demand, then prices should go back down. Maybe not back to the 95¢ per gallon days of 10 years ago, but to some degree.

edit: for the record there really is not an oil shortage, there is plenty of oil still

Correct in the sense that we believe there's plenty of oil in the ground to be had. But the supply line is being squeezed. We need to open up more lines of supply.

[blueeyes]

It's not just how much is being retrieved from the ground. There are literal boatloads of oil sitting around that just can't be refined because few facilities designed for high-sulfur crudes exist. Moving on that field is probably necessary as well.

[Lysander]

No, drilling oil would not "severely help" anything other than eliviating some our dependency on foreign. It will do absolute zero to fuel prices, even oil companies own up to this.

I dont understand how you.. came to that conclusion, honestly. Do you understand supply and demand economics AT ALL?

Simple version: Prices are high for fear of future supply concerns. The supply is slowly decreasing while demand is rapidly increasing. Prices go up. Drilling for more oil adds millions of barrels per day into the supply. Supplies increase to meet demand, prices go down.

[MorganaFang]

I dont understand how you.. came to that conclusion, honestly. Do you understand supply and demand economics AT ALL?

I do.

I came to that conclusion because I got over my normally liberalist "I hate the oil companies wah wah wah" and actually took the time to listen to what they were saying. The spike in prices does indeed have to do with increase in demand however, because the demand is so high any new drilling will do little to dent the price. It won't go any higher, but you will probably never in your lifetime see it at the prices it use to be ever again. Seriously do not kid yourself. Sure we can start drilling more here in the states but that will only assure us that our supplies are still high. There is still cost of construction, labor, etc etc... That will probably impact prices as well.

Cannot all be poof everything appears, and everything is cheap again. There are a lot of other factors that affect supply and demand.

[blueeyes]

Most of the increased demand is from outside of the United States (so it's possible if not a good idea to require the stuff to be sold to only select markets, with the limited demand that implies), and a large degree is increasingly unsustainable -- China and India's population density, for example, makes that sort of power use problematic, and thankfully makes other forms of power generation and travel a bit easier and cheaper. China's already hoping to put 5-10% of their population on nuclear power by 2030, and already runs a boatload of geothermal power. There's been pressure to create a working compressed air vehicle, as well.

China has coal, but it doesn't have much low-sulfur oil, and importing the stuff is slowing their economic development, and the smoke from the high-sulfur diesel that they do use has been screwing their big cities over. 3-7% of the GDP is a lot of cash to be tossing away, especially for a country that size.

[chriz]

The spike in prices does indeed have to do with increase in demand however, because the demand is so high any new drilling will do little to dent the price. It won't go any higher, but you will probably never in your lifetime see it at the prices it use to be ever again. Seriously do not kid yourself. Sure we can start drilling more here in the states but that will only assure us that our supplies are still high. There is still cost of construction, labor, etc etc... That will probably impact prices as well.

My little Morgy's all growed up! *sniff*

One thing that could happen indirectly is that these high gas prices might (and I think will) spur replacement sources and technologies (such as nuke plants and battery-driven cars). If this happens, then the demand for oil will plummet, and the price accordingly.

Still won't be "poof everything's cheap again," but it's probably the quickest route to seeing cheap gas. Granted, in such a situation none of us would really have a reason to buy gas any more, so...

[Lysander]

Seriously do not kid yourself. Sure we can start drilling more here in the states but that will only assure us that our supplies are still high. There is still cost of construction, labor, etc etc... That will probably impact prices as well.

If our supplies are high then the price will go down. There is also the fear of supply shortages that causes prices to go up in the futures market. Even if its for supply security it will lower prices. Demand will ONLY go up, and the prices will too, as high as the market will bear. Why are you against drilling for oil? It runs the world economy and getting more of it will only help increase economic growth.

[MorganaFang]

If our supplies are high then the price will go down.

Except for the fact that the oil does not magically manifest itself into the market. Well with the exception of trading on pure speculation.
Takes resources (costs money), tools (costs money), man power (costs money), and a whole lot of bureaucratic nonsense which you better believe is going to cost money. All the money that that takes is going to come from a few sources, taxes and oil prices.

There is also the fear of supply shortages that causes prices to go up in the futures market.
Even without drilling there is not really a risk of running out of oil within our lifespan. However your grand children might want to get themselves ready to work in Alaska.


Even if its for supply security it will lower prices. Demand will ONLY go up, and the prices will too, as high as the market will bear.
See now this is the great thing about the stock market, it pretty much runs on the possiblity of higher demands for a product in the future. Even if it IS pure speculation like with oil companies right now. The greater the amount of oil means a solidified dependency on oil which will continue to mean a greater demand. The oil companies then continue to justifiably keep the prices of their supplies moderate to high. Big business wants to keep big money, and in our capitalist society they are plenty entitled.

Why are you against drilling for oil?

Now I am pretty sure you are not reading what I have posted.

Never said I was against it never said I was not. All I basically said was it is wrong to say that more drilling is going to bring down the price of oil.

I can see benefits to demostic drilling. It opens up more jobs and as I said before, it relieves us of our need for foreign oil. The latter bringing some hope to ending also some of the turmoil in the middle east.

I also see the cons which is primarily environmental. The continued dependency on a non reusuable or renewable source of fuel is also an issue. Eventually, no amount of drilling is going to matter so what then?

It is also 2008, where are my damn hover cars that run on water!!!

I know the world primarily runs on oil right now. I'm sure you've noticed this but oil prices are directly affecting each our lives right now in a profound way. For a good number of people it goes beyond even transportation. So it's good to stay plenty educated on the matter.

That is why I have taken such an interest lately in trying to put my biases aside and really research what all options can be.

[chriz]

If our supplies are high then the price will go down. There is also the fear of supply shortages that causes prices to go up in the futures market. Even if its for supply security it will lower prices. Demand will ONLY go up, and the prices will too, as high as the market will bear. Why are you against drilling for oil? It runs the world economy and getting more of it will only help increase economic growth.

I think you're invoking a straw man argument there in your question about Morgy being against domestic drilling. Saying drilling won't drop the price of oil isn't the same as being opposed to the drilling itself.

Oil has gone up at least partly because of a recent surge in demand (largely China). That demand isn't going away, and will probably only increase more over the next few decades. That alone will continue to drive oil prices up, at least until the market can no longer bear them (which we may be seeing now, it's too soon to tell).

So opening new lines of supply will, at best, freeze prices where they are. Most likely it will only serve to slow the rate of increase, and that it will do pretty slowly as the new oil will take time to come online. And it will cost money in new rigs and infrastructure -- those costs will have to be incorporated into the oil's price, which will also diminish its impact on rising prices.

In the long run, yes, new supplies of oil will work to bring prices down. China and India are growing into industrial nations pretty rapidly, but that rate of growth will slow eventually. But we're talking about decades here.

The only thing I can see that will bring oil down is to move some of the demand off onto other forms of energy. The simplest thing is home heating. Electric heat already exists, so we just need to veer in that direction. Electric cars appear to be on the horizon, so there's that. I'm not sure we can have electric plane engines, so for now air travel will probably still have to run on oil-based fuels, but if the other demands for oil are reduced or eliminated, that might be enough to halt the increase in oil prices.

So, the next question is, how do you get your electricity? Can't use oil, since that's the element we're trying to eliminate. We can burn coal for a long time. It's dirty as all get out, but there are ways to deal with that. We can go nuclear -- which I think is the best option -- but we have a lot of social aversion to overcome. We can go solar, but that's still in its infancy, and now it's looking like some environmental groups are trying to prohibit the large-scale collectors we'd need to get a viable solar economy going. We can try wind, but Ted Kennedy keeps vetoing it, and I'm not sure it'll meet our needs. Obviously, we can try a number of these.

We have plenty of potential solutions to the energy problem.

[RQ]

I heart BoxedCat.

[Vendetta]

Am I the only one who grew up when thundercats was airing and still thought that shit was gay as fuck as a 5-year old? I don't think I managed to sit through a single episode without getting ADHD and finding something better to watch
Gay?! Did you MISS Cheetara?!

I'm sorry, you may now continue with your TSIF discussion.

[BoxedCat]

I heart BoxedCat.

I heart me, too.

Gay?! Did you MISS Cheetara?!

http://www.cosplaykitten.co m/reference/PreCheetara2.jpg

I'll take two.

[Galliard]

What some people forget is that oil is not only used in cars and homes.
Want plastic? You need oil. Your computers wouldn't exist without it. Certain kinds of rubber require it, and by products, such as petroleum jelly also come from it. It helps run almost all machinery, and is used in different medicines, from what I've heard. Oil is used in so many applications, and these also have an impact on the earth.

[chriz]

What some people forget is that oil is not only used in cars and homes.
Want plastic? You need oil. Your computers wouldn't exist without it. Certain kinds of rubber require it, and by products, such as petroleum jelly also come from it. It helps run almost all machinery, and is used in different medicines, from what I've heard. Oil is used in so many applications, and these also have an impact on the earth.

But by far its biggest use is as a fuel. We can recycle plastic, at least once.

[Hitodama]

What some people forget is that oil is not only used in cars and homes.
Want plastic? You need oil. Your computers wouldn't exist without it. Certain kinds of rubber require it, and by products, such as petroleum jelly also come from it. It helps run almost all machinery, and is used in different medicines, from what I've heard. Oil is used in so many applications, and these also have an impact on the earth.

So what you're saying is that people who refuse to take it in the ass roughly are depleting resources and destroying the world?

And since I can't think of anything serious to add in the debate, I'll throw in something some what relevant.

Soylent black: "We knew Jacobson well, his life was long and prosperous, but all things must come to an end, we now commit Jacobson's remains to our fuel needs."

Picture a future where dead matter, refuse, and excrement are taken to massive compaction facilities. Simply speaking, these factories simulate the natural process of carbon being compacted and pressured over thousands and millions of years, the factories however take little over a month to create enough fuel to keep a city running comfortably.

----

Am I saying that I'd approve of such a method? No, no I'm not. Besides, the moral problems, combined with the fact that the burning of fuel releases harmful toxins into the air and not to mention the health hazards associated with transporting decaying remains across the country.

In short, we need another energy source asides from oil and nuclear energy.

[chriz]

In short, we need another energy source asides from oil and nuclear energy.

What's the real problem with nuclear power? Don't use Chernobyl or Three Mile Island as examples. The former was a case of the USSR no longer paying attention to the quality of the facility (that is, it had nothing to do with it being a nuke plant). The latter caused no hazardous damage at all, and in fact the safety systems worked perfectly.

[Galliard]

We have a nuclear power plant less than fifty miles from us in Fort Calhoun. It apparently works quite well, but Omaha still uses freaking coal. :mad:


My only question would be the validity of having cars and the like run on nuclear energy, unless it was the an electric car, and those are still somewhat impractical.

I know that there are fully electric cars in existence, but I don't know of anyone who just has $100,000 lying around, and that' what many of them cost. :/

[Hitodama]

What's the real problem with nuclear power? Don't use Chernobyl or Three Mile Island as examples. The former was a case of the USSR no longer paying attention to the quality of the facility (that is, it had nothing to do with it being a nuke plant). The latter caused no hazardous damage at all, and in fact the safety systems worked perfectly.

Don't worry, I wasn't going to use those examples.

Here's my problem...

Who in the flying fuck thinks it's a good idea to split an atom? Who?! It's like snapping a lego brick in half! Well shit, what are ya gonna do with it now?! Atoms are the basic building block of everything in the universe! (As far as we know, anyways.)

I was also going to list nuclear weapons, but anything short of a better or more destructive weapon would be required to get people from using them.

[Vendetta]

Who in the flying fuck thinks it's a good idea to split an atom? Who?! It's like snapping a lego brick in half! Well shit, what are ya gonna do with it now?! Atoms are the basic building block of everything in the universe! (As far as we know, anyways.)
Except that we've been doing it now for nearly half a century with less accidents and long-term effects than burning fossil fuels.

Also, adressing Chris' point, I actually think nuclear power IS a good way to go (with some caveats) once we can overcome idiotic public opinion influenced for decades by deluded baby-boomers. I'm not so much worried about accidents with the nuclear reactors themselves, but with the long-term storage and safety of the spent uranium.

We currently have accumulated 50,000 metric tons of spent fuel from nuclear reactors, and by EPA standards it takes 10,000 years for decay to render the radioactive materials harmless to public health and safety. Unless we can figure out better storage methods, I'm still not 100% convinced of building nuclear reactors willy-nilly is the way to go.

[greggchamberlain]

where nuclear energy is concerned what i wish the governments and the corporates would do is get together and cooperate on an efficient effective nuclear fusion development project.

the Tokamak system proved that a fusion power reactor is possible.

now what we need is one that is efficient AND economic.

then we have a potential solution to some, if not all, of the nuclear waste storate concerns as we could use spent fissionables and the like...probably even radiation-contaminated materials of all sorts...as fuel for the fusion reactor and in the end have, if needs be, a small quantity of nuclear ash that would at least be easier and more compact to store in an abandoned underground mine unless we chose to ship it out into space and fire it down one of the craters on the dark side of the moon.

[LV426]

where nuclear energy is concerned what i wish the governments and the corporates would do is get together and cooperate on an efficient effective nuclear fusion development project.

the Tokamak system proved that a fusion power reactor is possible.

now what we need is one that is efficient AND economic.

then we have a potential solution to some, if not all, of the nuclear waste storate concerns as we could use spent fissionables and the like...probably even radiation-contaminated materials of all sorts...as fuel for the fusion reactor and in the end have, if needs be, a small quantity of nuclear ash that would at least be easier and more compact to store in an abandoned underground mine unless we chose to ship it out into space and fire it down one of the craters on the dark side of the moon.

I really don't think we should mess with the moon that way.

[Vendetta]

I really don't think we should mess with the moon that way.
Maybe not, but I think in the future, launching it into space might be the way to go.

[blueeyes]

Largely, the political opposition and (mostly related) high costs of building nuclear fission systems. It's physically and economically possible, with even the costs and risks associated with nuclear waste.

But you're looking at several thousand dollars per kilowatt of installation costs, and fairly expensive maintenance. A lot of that's due to political mandates rather than what the science itself requires, but those mandates are highly unlikely to change. Even with popular support, a small group of protestors can cause tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars worth in extra construction time.

There are also some environmentalist concerns, some unfounded (modern nuclear plants can not melt down as a matter of physics) and some well founded (cooling towers are, by necessity, giant heat sources that can raise temperatures for a hundred miles).

So while it'd work, there's very little incentive to move to it, and large gigawatt+ plants are quite risky to develop and build.

There are some good alternatives, but many of them are long shots or have their own downsides. Polywell fusion plants are probably the single best option, being stupidly cheap and relatively viable to build on a small scale, but they're a decade away from final testing to see if they even scale up. While you can get wind and solar photovoltaic at roughly the price of a nuclear plant, they don't quite give those 100% uptime (and in the case of solar pv, rely on some material we don't exactly have reliable access to). Concentrated solar thermal is about ready, but its solution to downtime is to store excess energy in giant pools of molten salt and graphite.

[archenemyfan]

Maybe not, but I think in the future, launching it into space might be the way to go.

Well, what if space starts to pollute and we pollute all the other planets? And finally our shit comes back to get us? I don't think it's a good idea...

[MorganaFang]

Well, what if space starts to pollute and we pollute all the other planets? And finally our shit comes back to get us? I don't think it's a good idea...

No more Futurama for you!

[archenemyfan]

No more Futurama for you!

Futurama's hilarious! :)

[Vendetta]

Well, what if space starts to pollute and we pollute all the other planets? And finally our shit comes back to get us? I don't think it's a good idea...
Launch shit into the sun. And I didn't say launch stuff towards planets, I said space.

Yeah, and what Genna said.

[greggchamberlain]

There are some good alternatives, but many of them are long shots or have their own downsides. Polywell fusion plants are probably the single best option, being stupidly cheap and relatively viable to build on a small scale, but they're a decade away from final testing to see if they even scale up. While you can get wind and solar photovoltaic at roughly the price of a nuclear plant, they don't quite give those 100% uptime (and in the case of solar pv, rely on some material we don't exactly have reliable access to). Concentrated solar thermal is about ready, but its solution to downtime is to store excess energy in giant pools of molten salt and graphite.

do you have some science database website addresses for the "polywell fusion" and "solar thermal" systems you mention?

[blueeyes]

Sorry, most of what I get on the matter comes from publications like Science News.

Bussard's Polywell fusion reactors (http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn. com/archive/2008/06/12/1136887.aspx) are essentially supersized versions of the fusors that you see in college labs for neutron generation, with the mesh grid replaced by electrostatic confinement. Almost all the numbers show even the simpler designs to work for deuterium-tritium (http://link.aip.org/link/?PHPAEN/7/4547/1), and provide pretty vast amounts of output power. In theory, it could work with proton-boron fusion, which roasts anything a tokamak can do, but at the very least it provide a similar-cost alternative to torodial magnetic confinement. The project has gotten attention from the United States Navy, but as noted, it's still in an experimental test stage, and there's been no real energy production demonstrated yet. It'll be a good decade before it can be tested for proton-boron reactions, nevermind getting a full grasp of the actual costs, but it's very promising.

Concentrated Solar Thermal is already used in a good number of limited applications (see PS10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PS10_solar_power_tow er), SEGS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Energy_Generat ing_Systems)), but with the successes of Solar I and Solar II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Two) experiments and the upcoming Solar Tres plant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Tres). It's not much more in terms of bang for the buck compared to nuclear or solar photovoltaic power, but it is insultingly simple -- there are few more proven technologies than mirrors and turbine AC generators. You're looking at roughly 3,000-5,000 per kilowatt, and 7-15 cents per kilowatt-hour, so it's not going to beat other renewable sources by much, but it's hard to mess up, reliable, and doesn't require any specialized rare metals. It's been promising enough that a couple gigawatt-sized ones have been planned.

[chriz]

I really don't think we should mess with the moon that way.

Whatever could possibly go wrong? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DF9nDJZrdA)