Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
sd_matt
Participant[quote=EconProf]Prop 23 clearly seeks to limit the damage done by Proposition 32, which drastically raises the % of power we get from uneconomic, expensive renewable sources. Proposition 32 is a job killer. It is the best way to destroy California short of bombing it. All energy costs would skyrocket, electricity rates will especially bump up, one estimate puts gasoline prices over $9 per gallon.
Proposition 23 would hold off Prop32 until the state’s unemployment rate fell under 5 1/2%.
If you think our current 12% plus unemployment rate is not high enough, vote against Prop. 23.[/quote]BGIG. I’m all for any program that rewards whoever invents cheap green energy. The quickest way to get everyone green is to have the technology that everyone is lining up to buy.
This is the point I was trying to make with the “Should Google go nuclear?” video. I don’t know whether or not Polywell will work…or FRC or Focus Fusion for that matter. The good thing about these ideas is that they first start off with the question “Will this idea make electricity cheaper”?Fusion is not a bad idea, but ITER (Tokamak reactor) is a bad idea. It will never be cost competitive…just like crystalline Solar PV.
Once again irony…most of us here are supposedly far right of you…yet we have a better understanding of just how alternative energy needs to be implemented.
Maybe I’m wrong about AB32. So show me what it is that AB32 does that rewards the person that invents cost-competitive green energy.
Of course BGIG, I’m assuming you are something more that a troll or schill.
ParticipantYou might like this. Look up “Should Google go Nuclear” on YouTube. Physics aside Dr. Bussard discusses the politics that help prevent energy breakthroughs. It’s not merely a left or right problem….then again you might really hate this video.
ParticipantYou might like this. Look up “Should Google go Nuclear” on YouTube. Physics aside Dr. Bussard discusses the politics that help prevent energy breakthroughs. It’s not merely a left or right problem….then again you might really hate this video.
ParticipantYou might like this. Look up “Should Google go Nuclear” on YouTube. Physics aside Dr. Bussard discusses the politics that help prevent energy breakthroughs. It’s not merely a left or right problem….then again you might really hate this video.
ParticipantYou might like this. Look up “Should Google go Nuclear” on YouTube. Physics aside Dr. Bussard discusses the politics that help prevent energy breakthroughs. It’s not merely a left or right problem….then again you might really hate this video.
ParticipantYou might like this. Look up “Should Google go Nuclear” on YouTube. Physics aside Dr. Bussard discusses the politics that help prevent energy breakthroughs. It’s not merely a left or right problem….then again you might really hate this video.
Participant[quote=permabear][quote=CA renter]Interesting…I also heard that one of the biggest banks has gotten some sort of authorization to hold inventory off the market for five years. They aren’t even going to rent them out, apparently. They are going to board them up and maintain them for five years. [/quote]
It would not surprise me based on history. In the Great Depression 1.0, people were actually paid to knock down homes in order to rid communities of dilapidated properties inhabited by squatters. Plus, it helped reduce inventory.
The modern equivalent that banks are now undertaking is to make homes unavailable – vacant – basically the same thing, assuming the banks can carry the costs. In the Great Depression 1.0, banks went out of business, which rendered that approach moot.[/quote]At first thought I don’t anticipate properties being knocked down in large numbers in SD.
Unrelated; The other thing my realtor told me is that the reason the banks are withholding inventory is to try to bully Congress into giving more cash handouts.
Since the banks seem to be able to survive while holding massive amounts of non-performing assets I guess the bailout did indeed pay for the first and second wave of foreclosures. Or am I talking too soon?
Participant[quote=permabear][quote=CA renter]Interesting…I also heard that one of the biggest banks has gotten some sort of authorization to hold inventory off the market for five years. They aren’t even going to rent them out, apparently. They are going to board them up and maintain them for five years. [/quote]
It would not surprise me based on history. In the Great Depression 1.0, people were actually paid to knock down homes in order to rid communities of dilapidated properties inhabited by squatters. Plus, it helped reduce inventory.
The modern equivalent that banks are now undertaking is to make homes unavailable – vacant – basically the same thing, assuming the banks can carry the costs. In the Great Depression 1.0, banks went out of business, which rendered that approach moot.[/quote]At first thought I don’t anticipate properties being knocked down in large numbers in SD.
Unrelated; The other thing my realtor told me is that the reason the banks are withholding inventory is to try to bully Congress into giving more cash handouts.
Since the banks seem to be able to survive while holding massive amounts of non-performing assets I guess the bailout did indeed pay for the first and second wave of foreclosures. Or am I talking too soon?
Participant[quote=permabear][quote=CA renter]Interesting…I also heard that one of the biggest banks has gotten some sort of authorization to hold inventory off the market for five years. They aren’t even going to rent them out, apparently. They are going to board them up and maintain them for five years. [/quote]
It would not surprise me based on history. In the Great Depression 1.0, people were actually paid to knock down homes in order to rid communities of dilapidated properties inhabited by squatters. Plus, it helped reduce inventory.
The modern equivalent that banks are now undertaking is to make homes unavailable – vacant – basically the same thing, assuming the banks can carry the costs. In the Great Depression 1.0, banks went out of business, which rendered that approach moot.[/quote]At first thought I don’t anticipate properties being knocked down in large numbers in SD.
Unrelated; The other thing my realtor told me is that the reason the banks are withholding inventory is to try to bully Congress into giving more cash handouts.
Since the banks seem to be able to survive while holding massive amounts of non-performing assets I guess the bailout did indeed pay for the first and second wave of foreclosures. Or am I talking too soon?
Participant[quote=permabear][quote=CA renter]Interesting…I also heard that one of the biggest banks has gotten some sort of authorization to hold inventory off the market for five years. They aren’t even going to rent them out, apparently. They are going to board them up and maintain them for five years. [/quote]
It would not surprise me based on history. In the Great Depression 1.0, people were actually paid to knock down homes in order to rid communities of dilapidated properties inhabited by squatters. Plus, it helped reduce inventory.
The modern equivalent that banks are now undertaking is to make homes unavailable – vacant – basically the same thing, assuming the banks can carry the costs. In the Great Depression 1.0, banks went out of business, which rendered that approach moot.[/quote]At first thought I don’t anticipate properties being knocked down in large numbers in SD.
Unrelated; The other thing my realtor told me is that the reason the banks are withholding inventory is to try to bully Congress into giving more cash handouts.
Since the banks seem to be able to survive while holding massive amounts of non-performing assets I guess the bailout did indeed pay for the first and second wave of foreclosures. Or am I talking too soon?
Participant[quote=permabear][quote=CA renter]Interesting…I also heard that one of the biggest banks has gotten some sort of authorization to hold inventory off the market for five years. They aren’t even going to rent them out, apparently. They are going to board them up and maintain them for five years. [/quote]
It would not surprise me based on history. In the Great Depression 1.0, people were actually paid to knock down homes in order to rid communities of dilapidated properties inhabited by squatters. Plus, it helped reduce inventory.
The modern equivalent that banks are now undertaking is to make homes unavailable – vacant – basically the same thing, assuming the banks can carry the costs. In the Great Depression 1.0, banks went out of business, which rendered that approach moot.[/quote]At first thought I don’t anticipate properties being knocked down in large numbers in SD.
Unrelated; The other thing my realtor told me is that the reason the banks are withholding inventory is to try to bully Congress into giving more cash handouts.
Since the banks seem to be able to survive while holding massive amounts of non-performing assets I guess the bailout did indeed pay for the first and second wave of foreclosures. Or am I talking too soon?
ParticipantYup. The voters are the real nut jobs here. I mean..how much change have you all noticed in your lives through Dem or Rep controlled govt?
The periodic third party would keep them in check. It would at least be worth a try.
Debating these programs without first enforcing accountability is like arguing the exterior of a skyscraper that’s going to be built on quicksand.
BGIG…it think it would benefit you to re read the previous sentence about five thousand times.
ParticipantYup. The voters are the real nut jobs here. I mean..how much change have you all noticed in your lives through Dem or Rep controlled govt?
The periodic third party would keep them in check. It would at least be worth a try.
Debating these programs without first enforcing accountability is like arguing the exterior of a skyscraper that’s going to be built on quicksand.
BGIG…it think it would benefit you to re read the previous sentence about five thousand times.
ParticipantYup. The voters are the real nut jobs here. I mean..how much change have you all noticed in your lives through Dem or Rep controlled govt?
The periodic third party would keep them in check. It would at least be worth a try.
Debating these programs without first enforcing accountability is like arguing the exterior of a skyscraper that’s going to be built on quicksand.
BGIG…it think it would benefit you to re read the previous sentence about five thousand times.
-
AuthorPosts
