The three main goals of libertarianism

[RKMBrown]

RE: RKMBrown's statement about "what the hell does it matter how the CEO gets paid"..

I left out the most important (and what should be obvious) reason why the difference between salary and stock options matters..

Salary does directly compete for cash flow with employee salary and benefits. STOCK ownership transfers do not.. The bulk of CEO compensation pkg is simply a method for distributing a reasonable ownership share in the ventures that the person is knocking him/herself out for. Doesn't compete with employee compensation at all.

Uhmm. Most companies with stock option plans provide them to employees not just execs. Companies buy and sell shares in part to manipulate share prices. Execs with stock options typically lay off employees and bank the profit by buying shares with corporate profit. Then they sell their options at the higher price. Note when they lay off the employees they are forced to convert their options at the current lower price.

 

[PaulS1950]

When I left the employ of a company that provided stock options I got to keep the stocks and have let them grow. Cisco is a good company to own stocks in.

 

[flacaltenn]

RE: RKMBrown's statement about "what the hell does it matter how the CEO gets paid"..

I left out the most important (and what should be obvious) reason why the difference between salary and stock options matters..

Salary does directly compete for cash flow with employee salary and benefits. STOCK ownership transfers do not.. The bulk of CEO compensation pkg is simply a method for distributing a reasonable ownership share in the ventures that the person is knocking him/herself out for. Doesn't compete with employee compensation at all.

Uhmm. Most companies with stock option plans provide them to employees not just execs. Companies buy and sell shares in part to manipulate share prices. Execs with stock options typically lay off employees and bank the profit by buying shares with corporate profit. Then they sell their options at the higher price. Note when they lay off the employees they are forced to convert their options at the current lower price.

Too complicated to make that spin stick.. Execs have to "lay off employees" and then somehow dip into corporate profits to buy their options??? Nawww.. The majority of CEO comp is simply a rightful transfer of a block of ownership in the company..

The only nasty effect of this is if you can't RETAIN CEOs or make serially bad hiring decisions. THEN -- you start to use up a large portion of the corporately held stock.

Yes key employees also get options. I used to paper the walls of my office with all the WORTHLESS 1000s of shares of Silicon Valley start-up stock that I worked for. Sometimes in lieu of full payment or salary. Only takes a couple GOOD parties (like that CISCO comment above) to make it all better..

 

[RKMBrown]

RE: RKMBrown's statement about "what the hell does it matter how the CEO gets paid"..

I left out the most important (and what should be obvious) reason why the difference between salary and stock options matters..

Salary does directly compete for cash flow with employee salary and benefits. STOCK ownership transfers do not.. The bulk of CEO compensation pkg is simply a method for distributing a reasonable ownership share in the ventures that the person is knocking him/herself out for. Doesn't compete with employee compensation at all.

Uhmm. Most companies with stock option plans provide them to employees not just execs. Companies buy and sell shares in part to manipulate share prices. Execs with stock options typically lay off employees and bank the profit by buying shares with corporate profit. Then they sell their options at the higher price. Note when they lay off the employees they are forced to convert their options at the current lower price.

Too complicated to make that spin stick.. Execs have to "lay off employees" and then somehow dip into corporate profits to buy their options??? Nawww.. The majority of CEO comp is simply a rightful transfer of a block of ownership in the company..

The only nasty effect of this is if you can't RETAIN CEOs or make serially bad hiring decisions. THEN -- you start to use up a large portion of the corporately held stock.

Yes key employees also get options. I used to paper the walls of my office with all the WORTHLESS 1000s of shares of Silicon Valley start-up stock that I worked for. Sometimes in lieu of full payment or salary. Only takes a couple GOOD parties (like that CISCO comment above) to make it all better..

So you've never heard of off-shoring? Moving our jobs to Asia, hello?

Corporate Executives make their riches by getting their options when the stock is low and then getting the stock high in a short period of time. The stock being high in the future is not interesting to them. They need it high for very short period of time only. The shorter the better. It's called short term gains. Why? Because when that quick spike happens and they can retire after no more than a year or two in the company. If the executive gets a 2year plan, you'll see a huge spike at the two year mark.

Making the stock go up in a short period of time these days is typically done by selling off assets, cutting benefits, and laying off expensive American employees, moving the work to Asia, and using corporate cash to buy back shares.

Spin? Complicated? ROFL There's no spin, its the facts. Been there, seen it happen many many times up close and personal. Most of the fortune 500 execs are doing this.

 

[RKMBrown]

When I left the employ of a company that provided stock options I got to keep the stocks and have let them grow. Cisco is a good company to own stocks in.

Grats. Did you leave voluntarily or was it a mass layoff?

 

[flacaltenn]

Uhmm. Most companies with stock option plans provide them to employees not just execs. Companies buy and sell shares in part to manipulate share prices. Execs with stock options typically lay off employees and bank the profit by buying shares with corporate profit. Then they sell their options at the higher price. Note when they lay off the employees they are forced to convert their options at the current lower price.

Too complicated to make that spin stick.. Execs have to "lay off employees" and then somehow dip into corporate profits to buy their options??? Nawww.. The majority of CEO comp is simply a rightful transfer of a block of ownership in the company..

The only nasty effect of this is if you can't RETAIN CEOs or make serially bad hiring decisions. THEN -- you start to use up a large portion of the corporately held stock.

Yes key employees also get options. I used to paper the walls of my office with all the WORTHLESS 1000s of shares of Silicon Valley start-up stock that I worked for. Sometimes in lieu of full payment or salary. Only takes a couple GOOD parties (like that CISCO comment above) to make it all better..

So you've never heard of off-shoring? Moving our jobs to Asia, hello?

Corporate Executives make their riches by getting their options when the stock is low and then getting the stock high in a short period of time. The stock being high in the future is not interesting to them. They need it high for very short period of time only. The shorter the better. It's called short term gains. Why? Because when that quick spike happens and they can retire after no more than a year or two in the company. If the executive gets a 2year plan, you'll see a huge spike at the two year mark.

Making the stock go up in a short period of time these days is typically done by selling off assets, cutting benefits, and laying off expensive American employees, moving the work to Asia, and using corporate cash to buy back shares.

Spin? Complicated? ROFL There's no spin, its the facts. Been there, seen it happen many many times up close and personal. Most of the fortune 500 execs are doing this.

See.. Now thats a whole 'nother issue aint it? Turns out that "cheap labor" is just a passing fad. Even the Chinese know it is. That's why there are massive investments in 21st Century manufacturing processes that will largely improve quality and reduce costs.

Instead of whining about moving into a new Age of Manufacturing, all that cash the corporations are sitting on SHOULD be going into INTELLECTUAL property and R&D to COMPETE in the new Advance Global Market.. But the climate in this country is anything but right to MAKE SUCH INVESTMENTS..

Why just yesterday -- the Prez was threatening to turn off the lights in this country by outlawing 50% of our generating capacity and replacing that with Hope and Change.
THAT -- is not conducive to investments in new technology...

 

[RKMBrown]

Too complicated to make that spin stick.. Execs have to "lay off employees" and then somehow dip into corporate profits to buy their options??? Nawww.. The majority of CEO comp is simply a rightful transfer of a block of ownership in the company..

The only nasty effect of this is if you can't RETAIN CEOs or make serially bad hiring decisions. THEN -- you start to use up a large portion of the corporately held stock.

Yes key employees also get options. I used to paper the walls of my office with all the WORTHLESS 1000s of shares of Silicon Valley start-up stock that I worked for. Sometimes in lieu of full payment or salary. Only takes a couple GOOD parties (like that CISCO comment above) to make it all better..

So you've never heard of off-shoring? Moving our jobs to Asia, hello?

Corporate Executives make their riches by getting their options when the stock is low and then getting the stock high in a short period of time. The stock being high in the future is not interesting to them. They need it high for very short period of time only. The shorter the better. It's called short term gains. Why? Because when that quick spike happens and they can retire after no more than a year or two in the company. If the executive gets a 2year plan, you'll see a huge spike at the two year mark.

Making the stock go up in a short period of time these days is typically done by selling off assets, cutting benefits, and laying off expensive American employees, moving the work to Asia, and using corporate cash to buy back shares.

Spin? Complicated? ROFL There's no spin, its the facts. Been there, seen it happen many many times up close and personal. Most of the fortune 500 execs are doing this.

See.. Now thats a whole 'nother issue aint it? Turns out that "cheap labor" is just a passing fad. Even the Chinese know it is. That's why there are massive investments in 21st Century manufacturing processes that will largely improve quality and reduce costs.

Instead of whining about moving into a new Age of Manufacturing, all that cash the corporations are sitting on SHOULD be going into INTELLECTUAL property and R&D to COMPETE in the new Advance Global Market.. But the climate in this country is anything but right to MAKE SUCH INVESTMENTS..

Why just yesterday -- the Prez was threatening to turn off the lights in this country by outlawing 50% of our generating capacity and replacing that with Hope and Change.
THAT -- is not conducive to investments in new technology...

Ayup!

The corporations execs. are running out of town with the owner's assets at the expense of the owners, and worker bees.

The left side of our government is running some corporations out of town to crush our economy while also picking a few left friendly organizations and billionaires to fund. The purpose being to destroy the left's opposition to power/control/money. The Right side of our government is siding with their favorite executives/corporations to run the left out of town for allowing their friends unfettered access to profit and also to secure positions and assets when they retire from office.

Both sides of our government are utterly corrupt. There are few members of congress who appear to not be corrupted by one of these power groups.

 

[Bfgrn]

Too complicated to make that spin stick.. Execs have to "lay off employees" and then somehow dip into corporate profits to buy their options??? Nawww.. The majority of CEO comp is simply a rightful transfer of a block of ownership in the company..

The only nasty effect of this is if you can't RETAIN CEOs or make serially bad hiring decisions. THEN -- you start to use up a large portion of the corporately held stock.

Yes key employees also get options. I used to paper the walls of my office with all the WORTHLESS 1000s of shares of Silicon Valley start-up stock that I worked for. Sometimes in lieu of full payment or salary. Only takes a couple GOOD parties (like that CISCO comment above) to make it all better..

So you've never heard of off-shoring? Moving our jobs to Asia, hello?

Corporate Executives make their riches by getting their options when the stock is low and then getting the stock high in a short period of time. The stock being high in the future is not interesting to them. They need it high for very short period of time only. The shorter the better. It's called short term gains. Why? Because when that quick spike happens and they can retire after no more than a year or two in the company. If the executive gets a 2year plan, you'll see a huge spike at the two year mark.

Making the stock go up in a short period of time these days is typically done by selling off assets, cutting benefits, and laying off expensive American employees, moving the work to Asia, and using corporate cash to buy back shares.

Spin? Complicated? ROFL There's no spin, its the facts. Been there, seen it happen many many times up close and personal. Most of the fortune 500 execs are doing this.

See.. Now thats a whole 'nother issue aint it? Turns out that "cheap labor" is just a passing fad. Even the Chinese know it is. That's why there are massive investments in 21st Century manufacturing processes that will largely improve quality and reduce costs.

Instead of whining about moving into a new Age of Manufacturing, all that cash the corporations are sitting on SHOULD be going into INTELLECTUAL property and R&D to COMPETE in the new Advance Global Market.. But the climate in this country is anything but right to MAKE SUCH INVESTMENTS..

Why just yesterday -- the Prez was threatening to turn off the lights in this country by outlawing 50% of our generating capacity and replacing that with Hope and Change.
THAT -- is not conducive to investments in new technology...

Well it sure as hell isn't liberals or environmentalists who are stopping Obama from 'moving into a new Age of Manufacturing'. The possibilities that a 21st century smart power grid could unlock is HUGE. The dialog in this country has become so regressive. The major polluters who benefit from dirty fuel OWN the Republican party and a good portion of the Democratic party. Global warming/climate change is irrelevant, the question is who will be the green technology leader in this century. Right now China is eating our lunch.


15 April 2011
Green China? You'd better believe it

A recent report by the Pew Charitable Trusts shows that China was the world’s number one investor in green energy in 2010.

With a total investment of $54.4 billion, China was well ahead of second-ranked Germany ($41.2 billion) and the US in third place with $34 billion invested, not to mention Australia with $3.3 billion and ranked 12th.

In terms of installed capacity, China’s wind power sector alone doubled every year between 2005 and 2009. According to the latest statistics from the Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC), China added 18.9 GW of new wind power capacity in 2010, thus overtaking the US with the most installed wind power capacity in the world.

China’s parliament, the National People’s Congress (NPC), recently considered a 'New Energy Industry Development Strategy’ which is to be adopted as a major policy document by the State Council (some changes are expected due to the Fukushima nuclear plant disaster).

According to this proposed development strategy, during 2011-2020, China will invest about $800 billion in seven green energy areas, namely, wind, solar, nuclear, bio-energy, hydro, coal cleaning and smart power grid.

China’s green energy is expected to generate 290 GW power (wind 52 per cent, nuclear 24 per cent, bio-energy 10 per cent, solar and others 7 per cent each) in 2020. This would be equivalent to 17 per cent of China’s total generation capacity and 15 per cent of the country’s total energy consumption.

more

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So you've never heard of off-shoring? Moving our jobs to Asia, hello?

Corporate Executives make their riches by getting their options when the stock is low and then getting the stock high in a short period of time. The stock being high in the future is not interesting to them. They need it high for very short period of time only. The shorter the better. It's called short term gains. Why? Because when that quick spike happens and they can retire after no more than a year or two in the company. If the executive gets a 2year plan, you'll see a huge spike at the two year mark.

Making the stock go up in a short period of time these days is typically done by selling off assets, cutting benefits, and laying off expensive American employees, moving the work to Asia, and using corporate cash to buy back shares.

Spin? Complicated? ROFL There's no spin, its the facts. Been there, seen it happen many many times up close and personal. Most of the fortune 500 execs are doing this.

See.. Now thats a whole 'nother issue aint it? Turns out that "cheap labor" is just a passing fad. Even the Chinese know it is. That's why there are massive investments in 21st Century manufacturing processes that will largely improve quality and reduce costs.

Instead of whining about moving into a new Age of Manufacturing, all that cash the corporations are sitting on SHOULD be going into INTELLECTUAL property and R&D to COMPETE in the new Advance Global Market.. But the climate in this country is anything but right to MAKE SUCH INVESTMENTS..

Why just yesterday -- the Prez was threatening to turn off the lights in this country by outlawing 50% of our generating capacity and replacing that with Hope and Change.
THAT -- is not conducive to investments in new technology...

Well it sure as hell isn't liberals or environmentalists who are stopping Obama from 'moving into a new Age of Manufacturing'. The possibilities that a 21st century smart power grid could unlock is HUGE. The dialog in this country has become so regressive. The major polluters who benefit from dirty fuel OWN the Republican party and a good portion of the Democratic party. Global warming/climate change is irrelevant, the question is who will be the green technology leader in this century. Right now China is eating our lunch.


15 April 2011
Green China? You'd better believe it

A recent report by the Pew Charitable Trusts shows that China was the world’s number one investor in green energy in 2010.

With a total investment of $54.4 billion, China was well ahead of second-ranked Germany ($41.2 billion) and the US in third place with $34 billion invested, not to mention Australia with $3.3 billion and ranked 12th.

In terms of installed capacity, China’s wind power sector alone doubled every year between 2005 and 2009. According to the latest statistics from the Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC), China added 18.9 GW of new wind power capacity in 2010, thus overtaking the US with the most installed wind power capacity in the world.

China’s parliament, the National People’s Congress (NPC), recently considered a 'New Energy Industry Development Strategy’ which is to be adopted as a major policy document by the State Council (some changes are expected due to the Fukushima nuclear plant disaster).

According to this proposed development strategy, during 2011-2020, China will invest about $800 billion in seven green energy areas, namely, wind, solar, nuclear, bio-energy, hydro, coal cleaning and smart power grid.

China’s green energy is expected to generate 290 GW power (wind 52 per cent, nuclear 24 per cent, bio-energy 10 per cent, solar and others 7 per cent each) in 2020. This would be equivalent to 17 per cent of China’s total generation capacity and 15 per cent of the country’s total energy consumption.

more

It isn't environmentalists or liberals who want to stop the Keystone pipeline, new refineries, building new manufacturing plants in California, or building new hydroelectric plants? Is that really your position?

 

[Bfgrn]

See.. Now thats a whole 'nother issue aint it? Turns out that "cheap labor" is just a passing fad. Even the Chinese know it is. That's why there are massive investments in 21st Century manufacturing processes that will largely improve quality and reduce costs.

Instead of whining about moving into a new Age of Manufacturing, all that cash the corporations are sitting on SHOULD be going into INTELLECTUAL property and R&D to COMPETE in the new Advance Global Market.. But the climate in this country is anything but right to MAKE SUCH INVESTMENTS..

Why just yesterday -- the Prez was threatening to turn off the lights in this country by outlawing 50% of our generating capacity and replacing that with Hope and Change.
THAT -- is not conducive to investments in new technology...

Well it sure as hell isn't liberals or environmentalists who are stopping Obama from 'moving into a new Age of Manufacturing'. The possibilities that a 21st century smart power grid could unlock is HUGE. The dialog in this country has become so regressive. The major polluters who benefit from dirty fuel OWN the Republican party and a good portion of the Democratic party. Global warming/climate change is irrelevant, the question is who will be the green technology leader in this century. Right now China is eating our lunch.


15 April 2011
Green China? You'd better believe it

A recent report by the Pew Charitable Trusts shows that China was the world’s number one investor in green energy in 2010.

With a total investment of $54.4 billion, China was well ahead of second-ranked Germany ($41.2 billion) and the US in third place with $34 billion invested, not to mention Australia with $3.3 billion and ranked 12th.

In terms of installed capacity, China’s wind power sector alone doubled every year between 2005 and 2009. According to the latest statistics from the Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC), China added 18.9 GW of new wind power capacity in 2010, thus overtaking the US with the most installed wind power capacity in the world.

China’s parliament, the National People’s Congress (NPC), recently considered a 'New Energy Industry Development Strategy’ which is to be adopted as a major policy document by the State Council (some changes are expected due to the Fukushima nuclear plant disaster).

According to this proposed development strategy, during 2011-2020, China will invest about $800 billion in seven green energy areas, namely, wind, solar, nuclear, bio-energy, hydro, coal cleaning and smart power grid.

China’s green energy is expected to generate 290 GW power (wind 52 per cent, nuclear 24 per cent, bio-energy 10 per cent, solar and others 7 per cent each) in 2020. This would be equivalent to 17 per cent of China’s total generation capacity and 15 per cent of the country’s total energy consumption.

more

It isn't environmentalists or liberals who want to stop the Keystone pipeline, new refineries, building new manufacturing plants in California, or building new hydroelectric plants? Is that really your position?

The Keystone pipeline is a LOSER except for oil cartels. Hydro electric is a winner. You will need to expand on 'refineries' and 'manufacturing'...Refining what? Manufacturing what?

 

[ABikerSailor]

See.. Now thats a whole 'nother issue aint it? Turns out that "cheap labor" is just a passing fad. Even the Chinese know it is. That's why there are massive investments in 21st Century manufacturing processes that will largely improve quality and reduce costs.

Instead of whining about moving into a new Age of Manufacturing, all that cash the corporations are sitting on SHOULD be going into INTELLECTUAL property and R&D to COMPETE in the new Advance Global Market.. But the climate in this country is anything but right to MAKE SUCH INVESTMENTS..

Why just yesterday -- the Prez was threatening to turn off the lights in this country by outlawing 50% of our generating capacity and replacing that with Hope and Change.
THAT -- is not conducive to investments in new technology...

Well it sure as hell isn't liberals or environmentalists who are stopping Obama from 'moving into a new Age of Manufacturing'. The possibilities that a 21st century smart power grid could unlock is HUGE. The dialog in this country has become so regressive. The major polluters who benefit from dirty fuel OWN the Republican party and a good portion of the Democratic party. Global warming/climate change is irrelevant, the question is who will be the green technology leader in this century. Right now China is eating our lunch.


15 April 2011
Green China? You'd better believe it

A recent report by the Pew Charitable Trusts shows that China was the world’s number one investor in green energy in 2010.

With a total investment of $54.4 billion, China was well ahead of second-ranked Germany ($41.2 billion) and the US in third place with $34 billion invested, not to mention Australia with $3.3 billion and ranked 12th.

In terms of installed capacity, China’s wind power sector alone doubled every year between 2005 and 2009. According to the latest statistics from the Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC), China added 18.9 GW of new wind power capacity in 2010, thus overtaking the US with the most installed wind power capacity in the world.

China’s parliament, the National People’s Congress (NPC), recently considered a 'New Energy Industry Development Strategy’ which is to be adopted as a major policy document by the State Council (some changes are expected due to the Fukushima nuclear plant disaster).

According to this proposed development strategy, during 2011-2020, China will invest about $800 billion in seven green energy areas, namely, wind, solar, nuclear, bio-energy, hydro, coal cleaning and smart power grid.

China’s green energy is expected to generate 290 GW power (wind 52 per cent, nuclear 24 per cent, bio-energy 10 per cent, solar and others 7 per cent each) in 2020. This would be equivalent to 17 per cent of China’s total generation capacity and 15 per cent of the country’s total energy consumption.

more

It isn't environmentalists or liberals who want to stop the Keystone pipeline, new refineries, building new manufacturing plants in California, or building new hydroelectric plants? Is that really your position?

"One of these things is not like the other, one of these things, don't belong, if one of these things is not like the other, can you figure it out before I finish this song?" - Sesame Street.

Keystone Pipeline..................heavy oil that will not float on top of the water if the pipe breaks, but rather sit on the bottom of the stream.

New refineries? Really? Still working with fossil fuels.

Manufacturing plants in CA? What are they making, and what are they powered on?

New hydroelectric plants? Cool.....................either use water or wind, but both can provide power without screwing up the environment.

And......................there's gonna always be water running down the mountain (hydroelectric) and there's always gonna be wind (windmills).

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well it sure as hell isn't liberals or environmentalists who are stopping Obama from 'moving into a new Age of Manufacturing'. The possibilities that a 21st century smart power grid could unlock is HUGE. The dialog in this country has become so regressive. The major polluters who benefit from dirty fuel OWN the Republican party and a good portion of the Democratic party. Global warming/climate change is irrelevant, the question is who will be the green technology leader in this century. Right now China is eating our lunch.


15 April 2011
Green China? You'd better believe it

A recent report by the Pew Charitable Trusts shows that China was the world’s number one investor in green energy in 2010.

With a total investment of $54.4 billion, China was well ahead of second-ranked Germany ($41.2 billion) and the US in third place with $34 billion invested, not to mention Australia with $3.3 billion and ranked 12th.

In terms of installed capacity, China’s wind power sector alone doubled every year between 2005 and 2009. According to the latest statistics from the Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC), China added 18.9 GW of new wind power capacity in 2010, thus overtaking the US with the most installed wind power capacity in the world.

China’s parliament, the National People’s Congress (NPC), recently considered a 'New Energy Industry Development Strategy’ which is to be adopted as a major policy document by the State Council (some changes are expected due to the Fukushima nuclear plant disaster).

According to this proposed development strategy, during 2011-2020, China will invest about $800 billion in seven green energy areas, namely, wind, solar, nuclear, bio-energy, hydro, coal cleaning and smart power grid.

China’s green energy is expected to generate 290 GW power (wind 52 per cent, nuclear 24 per cent, bio-energy 10 per cent, solar and others 7 per cent each) in 2020. This would be equivalent to 17 per cent of China’s total generation capacity and 15 per cent of the country’s total energy consumption.

more

It isn't environmentalists or liberals who want to stop the Keystone pipeline, new refineries, building new manufacturing plants in California, or building new hydroelectric plants? Is that really your position?

"One of these things is not like the other, one of these things, don't belong, if one of these things is not like the other, can you figure it out before I finish this song?" - Sesame Street.

Keystone Pipeline..................heavy oil that will not float on top of the water if the pipe breaks, but rather sit on the bottom of the stream.

New refineries? Really? Still working with fossil fuels.

Manufacturing plants in CA? What are they making, and what are they powered on?

New hydroelectric plants? Cool.....................either use water or wind, but both can provide power without screwing up the environment.

And......................there's gonna always be water running down the mountain (hydroelectric) and there's always gonna be wind (windmills).

You really should stop lying.

 

[ABikerSailor]

It isn't environmentalists or liberals who want to stop the Keystone pipeline, new refineries, building new manufacturing plants in California, or building new hydroelectric plants? Is that really your position?

"One of these things is not like the other, one of these things, don't belong, if one of these things is not like the other, can you figure it out before I finish this song?" - Sesame Street.

Keystone Pipeline..................heavy oil that will not float on top of the water if the pipe breaks, but rather sit on the bottom of the stream.

New refineries? Really? Still working with fossil fuels.

Manufacturing plants in CA? What are they making, and what are they powered on?

New hydroelectric plants? Cool.....................either use water or wind, but both can provide power without screwing up the environment.

And......................there's gonna always be water running down the mountain (hydroelectric) and there's always gonna be wind (windmills).

You really should stop lying.

Okay...............I'll stop lying. What point was I lying about?

And...................if I was lying about something, I expect you to provide a link to show that I'd lied.

Otherwise...........................**** off................I'm gonna continue with the truth.

 

[P@triot]

15 April 2011
Green China? You'd better believe it

A recent report by the Pew Charitable Trusts shows that China was the world’s number one investor in green energy in 2010.

With a total investment of $54.4 billion, China was well ahead of second-ranked Germany ($41.2 billion) and the US in third place with $34 billion invested, not to mention Australia with $3.3 billion and ranked 12th.

In terms of installed capacity, China’s wind power sector alone doubled every year between 2005 and 2009. According to the latest statistics from the Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC), China added 18.9 GW of new wind power capacity in 2010, thus overtaking the US with the most installed wind power capacity in the world.

China’s parliament, the National People’s Congress (NPC), recently considered a 'New Energy Industry Development Strategy’ which is to be adopted as a major policy document by the State Council (some changes are expected due to the Fukushima nuclear plant disaster).

According to this proposed development strategy, during 2011-2020, China will invest about $800 billion in seven green energy areas, namely, wind, solar, nuclear, bio-energy, hydro, coal cleaning and smart power grid.

China’s green energy is expected to generate 290 GW power (wind 52 per cent, nuclear 24 per cent, bio-energy 10 per cent, solar and others 7 per cent each) in 2020. This would be equivalent to 17 per cent of China’s total generation capacity and 15 per cent of the country’s total energy consumption.

more

It never stops being comical that Dumbocrats keep pointing to communist China as the gold standard for everything they want and everything they believe.

It really speaks volumes about their ideology. Screaming "look what China is doing, why aren't we more like oppressive communist China?" around the clock just further proves the party has been completely hijacked by communists, marxists, and socialists.

 

[Oddball]

It isn't environmentalists or liberals who want to stop the Keystone pipeline, new refineries, building new manufacturing plants in California, or building new hydroelectric plants? Is that really your position?

"One of these things is not like the other, one of these things, don't belong, if one of these things is not like the other, can you figure it out before I finish this song?" - Sesame Street.

Keystone Pipeline..................heavy oil that will not float on top of the water if the pipe breaks, but rather sit on the bottom of the stream.

New refineries? Really? Still working with fossil fuels.

Manufacturing plants in CA? What are they making, and what are they powered on?

New hydroelectric plants? Cool.....................either use water or wind, but both can provide power without screwing up the environment.

And......................there's gonna always be water running down the mountain (hydroelectric) and there's always gonna be wind (windmills).

You really should stop lying.

You've discounted the possibility that he really is stupid enough to believe what he says.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"One of these things is not like the other, one of these things, don't belong, if one of these things is not like the other, can you figure it out before I finish this song?" - Sesame Street.

Keystone Pipeline..................heavy oil that will not float on top of the water if the pipe breaks, but rather sit on the bottom of the stream.

New refineries? Really? Still working with fossil fuels.

Manufacturing plants in CA? What are they making, and what are they powered on?

New hydroelectric plants? Cool.....................either use water or wind, but both can provide power without screwing up the environment.

And......................there's gonna always be water running down the mountain (hydroelectric) and there's always gonna be wind (windmills).

You really should stop lying.

Okay...............I'll stop lying. What point was I lying about?

And...................if I was lying about something, I expect you to provide a link to show that I'd lied.

Otherwise...........................**** off................I'm gonna continue with the truth.

What were you lying about?

Those stupid pictures you think show what gets sent through pipelines is to damned thick to transport that way. Anyone who has enough brains to drink a milkshake knows that, which leads me to wonder how stupid you can possibly be.

What is wrong with fossil fuels? Without fossil fuels we wouldn't have civilization.

Hydroelectric is more destructive to the environment than any other form of energy. Every single dam that gets built destroys a local ecosystem, and the environmentalists are working to eliminate all the ones that currently exist.

The US is the only industriaalized country to exceed the Kyoto protocols, despite the fact that we didn't ratify the treaty, and the government did nowhere near enough to accomplish the goals. What happened was that the free market discovered that using natural gas was a lot less expensive, and even better for the environment, than all the wind and solar power stations you could possibly build.

Now that I explained what you were lying about I expect you to not keep your word. Feel free to prove me wrong.

 

[JWBooth]

It never stops being comical that Dumbocrats keep pointing to communist China as the gold standard for everything they want and everything they believe.

It really speaks volumes about their ideology. Screaming "look what China is doing, why aren't we more like oppressive communist China?" around the clock just further proves the party has been completely hijacked by communists, marxists, and socialists.

Problem is, those Chinese Communists are headed in the right direction, though with obvious stumbles and detours, towards greater personal and economic freedoms. Meanwhile the west, with the US leading the way, is headed in the opposite direction.

 

[Edgetho]

It never stops being comical that Dumbocrats keep pointing to communist China as the gold standard for everything they want and everything they believe.

It really speaks volumes about their ideology. Screaming "look what China is doing, why aren't we more like oppressive communist China?" around the clock just further proves the party has been completely hijacked by communists, marxists, and socialists.

Problem is, those Chinese Communists are headed in the right direction, though with obvious stumbles and detours, towards greater personal and economic freedoms. Meanwhile the west, with the US leading the way, is headed in the opposite direction.

China's one, single political party is communist in title only.

Irrelevant. Their economy is a Technocracy.

So was Nazi Germany's. And the Soviet Union's. Problem with the Soviet Union was, they kept letting stupid political theories ruin everything for them.

We've never seen a Technocracy work for any length of time. Nazi Germany's was truly remarkable. Incredibly efficient, productive and innovative.

Of course, they had the benefit of tens of thousands of slave laborers but I'm not sure that attribute has ever been honestly examined.

I'm not sure anything about Nazi Germany has ever been honestly examined.

China will be. China's successes and failures will be examined and if their Technocracy works, expect it to take hold here.

Which is what dimocraps want, anyway. A top-down Technocracy. With them in charge, naturally.

But I predict China runs into problems. They've been an Export Economy for quite some time now. Their people have worked hard to build their economy and now, they'd like to start enjoying some of it.

In the future, China may become more like us in that their biggest Market will be themselves.

I think China becomes more like us then we become like them.

When it comes down to it, 'Technocracy' is just another word for Dictatorship under the guise of the kind Shepherd guiding the flock.

Which is what dimocraps are all about.

With them in charge, of course.

 

[dblack]

It never stops being comical that Dumbocrats keep pointing to communist China as the gold standard for everything they want and everything they believe.

It really speaks volumes about their ideology. Screaming "look what China is doing, why aren't we more like oppressive communist China?" around the clock just further proves the party has been completely hijacked by communists, marxists, and socialists.

Problem is, those Chinese Communists are headed in the right direction, though with obvious stumbles and detours, towards greater personal and economic freedoms. Meanwhile the west, with the US leading the way, is headed in the opposite direction.

Hmmm ... I can't claim to have any expert knowledge on China, but my impression is that they're headed toward the same endpoint we are - albeit from the other 'side' of things. Both of our nations seem to be indulging a kind of government/corporate "partnership" that is in no way a 'free' market.

 

[editec]

It never stops being comical that Dumbocrats keep pointing to communist China as the gold standard for everything they want and everything they believe.

It really speaks volumes about their ideology. Screaming "look what China is doing, why aren't we more like oppressive communist China?" around the clock just further proves the party has been completely hijacked by communists, marxists, and socialists.

Problem is, those Chinese Communists are headed in the right direction, though with obvious stumbles and detours, towards greater personal and economic freedoms. Meanwhile the west, with the US leading the way, is headed in the opposite direction.

China's one, single political is communist in title only.

Irrelevant. Their economy is a Technocracy.

So was Nazi Germany's. And the Soviet Union's. Problem with the Soviet Union was, they kept letting stupid political theories ruin everything for them.

We've never seen a Technocracy work for any length of time. Nazi Germany's was truly remarkable. Incredibly efficient, productive and innovative.

Of course, they had the benefit of tens of thousands of slave laborers but I'm not sure that attribute has ever been honestly examined.

I'm not sure anything about Nazi Germany has ever been honestly examined.

China will be. China's successes and failures will be examined and if their Technocracy works, expect it to take hold here.

Which is what dimocraps want, anyway. A top-down Technocracy. With them in charge, naturally.

But I predict China runs into problems. They've been an Export Economy for quite some time now. Their people have worked hard to build their economy and now, they'd like to start enjoying some of it.

In the future, China may become more like us in that their biggest Market will be themselves.

I think China becomes more like us then we become like them.

When it comes down to it, 'Technocracy' is just another word for Dictatorship under the guise of the kind Shepherd guiding the flock.

Which is what dimocraps are all about.

With them in charge, of course.

Do you have even a remote idea of how Hitler took a bankrupted nation and remilitarized it such that it became the master of Europe?

Remember now the previous government was FLAT BROKE, so where did the money come from to fund FASCIST GERMANY's revitalization?


When you understand how THAT happened?

You are going to learn something TRULY mindblowing, lad.

Look it up...Edge..educate yourself.

Understanding how Germany came back after WWI will change your world outlook entirely.

It will teach your something about ECONOMICS that nobody is teaching you or me in school.